Today on Blogcritics
Home » The New World Order, Part I

The New World Order, Part I

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

We’re living in unprecedented times. The meltdown of the markets (or “the slow burn,” as some call it) has become a fact of life, and there is no indication the process is abating. The same with unemployment. A half a million layoffs every month is no longer an anomaly but something we’ve come to expect, like writing off a bad debt on the balance sheet, except that the write-off is a permanent one, an accounting gimmick to be employed until further notice.

Governments the world over are doing all they can to stop the avalanche and restore a sense of confidence in a system that until now had all the makings of bringing prosperity not just to the West, but the rest of the world. A stimulus package approaching a trillion dollars, the salary caps imposed on executive pay for companies asking for a bailout (and more corporate restrictions certain to come), the appeal to buy American and only American – all these are measures, desperate measures to bring the world economy back on track and reinstate a sense of order and yes, of hopefulness. Hopefulness that all is not lost, that we can still recover from this downward spiral which seems to have gripped us and rendered us impotent and helpless; that good times are still ahead.

Will it work? No one knows. It’s futile to argue about the efficacy of this program or that. Much of the dispute, anyway, over such matters as bailouts or  executive pay, has strong sentimental undertones. Understandably, there are many who don’t want to see America become a second-rate country; naturally, they’re clinging to the past.  In those rare instances when economic sense prevails, it’s no longer reliable: the past can no longer guide us or help us understand the unfolding events. The entire spectacle reminds me of a sinking Titanic while the passengers squabble over which compartment should be saved first.

I'd say that saving the ship is a more cogent idea. So let us ask: What are the structural deficiencies which seem to underlie our present condition so as to make the entire system fall apart at the seams? And here, the first thing I can think of is the concept of the corporation.

Not surprisingly, the literature of political science or political philosophy is pretty silent on the matter. Until recently, the relationship between the corporation and the state was, by and large, non-problematic. Even prior to the advent of corporations, in pre-industrial times, as far back, in fact, as you care to look, the world of business and commerce was never in conflict with, but always augmented, the interests of the state. The monarchs, from Queen Isabella to Elizabeth the Great, have been known to support and sponsor all manner of commercial and business enterprises. The mercantile era represents, perhaps, the pinnacle of that policy whereby the trading companies -– The East India Trading Company, most notably -– were virtually the arm of the British Empire bent on colonization and conquest. What the Portuguese or the Spaniards tried to accomplish by way of missions, the Dutch, the French, and the British did by means of trading outposts, trading agencies and trading companies.

The Industrial Revolution, though an important catalyst in the mushrooming of business ventures in the West, hasn’t altered the basic relationship of cooperation between business and national interests.  Corporate interests may not have been as responsive to the needs of the state as they were during the mercantile era, but were by no means opposed to them. In the worst case scenario, a number of key industries, such as the railroads or the utilities, could always be nationalized; and sometimes were.

By and large, the relationship between the business community and the state was one of peaceful coexistence. If anything, it was always the state which held the upper hand, always capable of bringing the world of industry to its knees. The rise of the Third Reich, which brought about the subordination of the major industries (Krupp, I. G. Farben) to the will of the state, or the Soviet experiment, which resulted in the thoroughgoing socialization of all economic endeavors under the auspices of the Five Year Plan, are the obvious examples of the state’s supremacy over the world of business, but these are rather extreme examples. A slap on the wrist, anti-trust legislation, even nationalization –- not to mention taxation, issuing incentives, or regulatory agencies (such as the FCC or the SEC), were the usual methods of ensuring compliance, and for the most part, they worked. And so it was until the eighties.

Indeed, even into the late seventies, such terms as “good corporate citizen” or “good will”  were part of the vernacular, a rather common currency, and understandably so. It was still considered in the corporations’ best interests to identify their goals with the well-being of the citizens and the nation: hence the PR. It all changed, and drastically, with the advent of the era of deregulation, mergers & acquisitions, and the birth of the global conglomerate. The rest is history.

I’m not going to discuss the issue of corporate morality or whether some such notion is applicable to an entity like the modern corporation. It’s a touchy question, one which is only liable to stir the mind and divert the discussion away from cool reasoning by infecting it with passions. For better or worse, corporations have the legal status of persons, although the relevant ways in which they might differ from true-life persons is a subject which, in my opinion, has not received adequate attention.  I shall focus instead on some of the detrimental effects of the global conglomerate; detrimental from the standpoint of the state and the best interests of its citizens. (It goes without saying that the forthcoming analysis presupposes the existence and the desirability of nation-states. It also presupposes long-term benefits, such as “spreading prosperity around,” of the capitalist system set aright. Take away either of these conditions and the entire argument is rendered null and void.)

I shan’t go beyond the much debated but still unresolved issue of outsourcing. Say what you will, but the practice did not generate as many jobs in the home country as it had lost; and given that our education system is in shambles, it’s unlikely it ever will.

It will serve no purpose here to affix blame. You certainly can’t fault the corporation for trying to maximize profit and make good on its obligation to stockholders while attracting potential investors. The state? Perhaps an argument could be made in terms of lowering corporate taxes and issuing tax credits for manufacturing at home, to say nothing of curbing the unions’ stronghold on some of the major industries. The consumer? Yes, perhaps we ought to have been more “patriotic,” in buying American and only American; but then again, how can we blame the consumer for not allowing patriotism, however well or poorly conceived, affect his or her economic decisions? It would seem thus that the entire practice, from the beginning, was a foregone conclusion and that only the most fortuitous set of circumstances could have averted its full-scale development. But as I said, it’s water under the bridge and finger pointing serves no discernible purpose. I’m after the effects.

But what are the effects? The loss of jobs; the lowering of morale, creating the impression that America has become a two-tier society of haves and have-nots, ever-increasing numbers on welfare rolls, and the added costs of providing basic medical services to all. Shall I go on?

One way or another, it all adds up to a bigger government having to provide a safety net for the growing many, the increasingly heavy burden on the steadily shrinking base of  taxpayers, the necessity for borrowing and falling deeper and deeper into debt, and so on and so forth. Say what you will, but it doesn’t bode well for our national interests to be creating a large underclass composed of all those who are increasingly dependent on their government for their subsistence and other needs. Couple these trends with the fact that the global conglomerate has effectively divorced itself from any and all allegiance to the home country, that it can change its headquarters or base of operations at will, that it can function thus with nearly total impunity, and it's obvious we have a problem on our hands. Is it any wonder the government gets bigger and more socialistic in its outreach? Yet the most vehement opponents of these, perhaps less-than-desirable responses fail to see them as the unintended consequences of the process at work. They’ll do anything -– rant, cast the first stone, resort to abusive language and ad hominem attacks -– anything but connect the dots.

It’s only a sketch, but I think the meaning is clear: we’re coming to a peak. Sooner or later, there will be a showdown between national interests and those of the business community, as their goals and objectives continue to grow more disparate by the minute —  to the point of becoming inimical. When that happens, something will have to give.

Let me restate the underlying thesis, lest it’s less than perfectly clear: when it comes to choosing between the power of the corporation and the power of the State, I’ll always choose the latter. There can be only one ultimate authority in a civil society, and that authority must reside in the political realm. Political institutions must trump all other concerns because they’re the ultimate guarantors of any and all legitimate activity, including economic pursuits, within the polity. In fact, only in political institutions, properly cherished and nurtured, can there be any hope of attaining justice in a civil society. If you have any doubts, just ask yourself what it would be like if the global conglomerate were to run the world. Unless you were one of the stockholders, the chances are your future would be very dim indeed.

A while ago, I made an innocent suggestion: “I think what we need [‘what may happen’ would be closer to my intention] is something analogous to Caesar crossing the Rubicon and restoring the reins of power – if that was his intention – to the Senate.  Drastic times call for drastic measures,” I concluded. (See “Iranian Nuclear Threat More Real Than Ever,” comment #259.) Needless to say, I was severely criticized just for entertaining the possibility of confrontation.

Fortunately, I’ve come to another realization since: a possible response on the part of the polity to accommodate the fact of thoroughgoing globalization -– legitimate and less violent than the one I had initially envisioned. Jason J. Campbell’s recent article, “Why There Should Be A Global Minimum Wage,” will serve as the point of departure. Look to the conclusion in Part II.

Powered by

About Roger Nowosielski

  • pablo

    Well Roger, it seems that I am the first one to comment on your article. I find your writing style excellent, and I agree with most of the body of your article. I am sure that both of us would agree that corporations merging with the state is in fact fascism. I also agree with you that authority should reside in the state and not the corporations for just the reasons you said.

    I do not necessarily agree with you however in the case of Krups and national socialism (nazis), that krups was subservient to the state, and could easily argue that it was the other way around. Although to the vast number of onlookers at the time Hitler was omniscient, I firmly believe that he himself was also a pawn of powers far greater than he was, with Krups being a priime example. Thyssen Steel also was a major player in the rise of national socialism in Germany, and was part of the secret cabal of Brown Brothers Harriman and Prescott bush through the Union Banking Corporation, and Brown Brothers Harriman in financing this atrocity. An interesting side note is that it was precisely this venture with Prescott Bush at the time that began the Bush fortune, that is doing business with the Nazis, before and during world war 2. Even to the point of having their assets seized (Union Banking Corporation) by the federal government for trading with the enemy. Unfortunately their assets were released soon after the war and thus began the financing of the Bush dynasty.

    I also take small issue with the title of your article sir, as the New World Order is a far vaster enterprise than you elude to in your article, and many people have done vast research on it. The main players in this New World Order are, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Bilderberg Group (of which members of both families attend regularly), the Trilateral Commission, The Pilgrim’s Society, the Club of Rome, Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Chatham House.

    All of the above groups are completely intertwined, and all have globalism as their main agendas, and all have frequently used the phrase The New World Order.

    I find that your article although excellent does not delve into the minutia of who it is actually that is creating this New World Order, which to me is far more interesting and important than the generalities you mention.

    If we are to oppose this movement which is the most powerful movement by the most powerful people on the planet it is important to name names, and attempt to hold them accountable for the orwellian world that they are creating.

  • Christopher Rose

    I disagree with Pablo’s point about the personalities being more important than the generalities.

    Furthermore, I don’t understand why a New World Order would necessarily be a bad thing or that those efforts would be oppressive in nature. Surely it would depend on the implementation?

    Looking around the fractitious planet we live on today, it isn’t hard to come to a view that something different might be called for…

  • pablo


    Your naivete never ceases to amaze me. Take a good look around the world at those that are actually in control of various countries. Most are run by despots, tyrants, blackmailers, and liars. But to have a New World Order run by whom Chris? Where is the guarantee that it will be run my benevolent humans? Even if that were possible which it is not, I would still oppose it, unless the people themselves have fundamental liberty, freedom, and justice, which will never happen under this globalism.

    You have already stated in previous comments that rights are not that important to you (ok I am paraphrasing, however that was the thrust of many of your arguments). You never did really address my other question to you on another thread. Which was WHO decides, and what role if any do you think you should have in deciding who runs the world? After all that is what we are talking about a global government, which could be called super federalism. After all we see what is happening now in our own country, with the states being stripped of almost all power to the omniscient federal government, of whom I personally maintain are criminal.

    In your own personal world view, I ask you do individuals have certain fundamental rights that are not subject to state power? I suspect in your world view Chris no such rights exist, and that all are subject to the will of the oligarchy. If so I find that belief naive at best, and tragic in the extreme.

  • Christopher Rose

    Pablo, your presumption that people who disagree with you are naive never ceases to amaze me!

    You also seem to have a natural talent for not understanding things you read. I said that the nature of a New World Order, which by necessity would replace all of those contemporary “despots, tyrants, blackmailers, and liars” you dislike, would depend on how it was implemented. I could just as easily ask you where is the guarantee that it will be malign?

    Rather than being pessimistic or paranoid about things that may or may not happen, would it not be more productive to work towards making sure that good things do happen?

    Paraphrasing you are, but not accurately. Rights are obviously and fundamentally important, but there are lots of other important principles too.

    As to the issue of who decides, I presume you are expressing some general reservations about decision making processes under such a political arrangement. As I have said to you before but you seem to be forgetting, I think it is crucial that power is devolved down to the lowest possible practical levels, rather than accumulating at the centre. This would remove many of the concerns regarding very large political structures such as a putative New World Order, the USA or the European Union.

    In response to your closing question, yes, of course individuals have certain rights but they also have obligations. There is often no black and white easy answer. For example, it is also true that many times the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

    As you are mistaken in the view you attribute to me, my belief is thus neither naive nor tragic. I am sure such a responsible citizen as you will be withdrawing the remark forthwith.

  • Roger Nowosielski


    Thank you for responding.

    I do agree with you regarding Krupps and Farben companies. They weren’t just innocent bystanders but perhaps one of the main engines behind the Third Reich’s military buildup and Hitler’s power grab. They all shared the same philosophy of the dominant German state. For presentations reasons, however, in so short a space alloted – not to mention my interest in the flow – I decided to underplay the actual relationship even if it meant less than accurate portrayal of facts. (As to the title of the piece, I admit it’s rather unfortunate but still catchy.)

    I do, however, feel I have to correct what may linger as less than perfect understanding of the intent of this piece (second part still to come).
    A couple of points here.

    1) I don’t believe “The New World Order” I’m trying to account here for is going to be similar to any of the accounts already in circulation. To begin with, it may not necessarily come about by “the movers & shakers” but rather by way of a natural response on the part of “the State” to adjust to the undeniable fact of all-pervasive globalism. I view it, therefore, more as an “unintended consequence” (coming about by way of “an invisible hand” if you like) rather than (necessarily) by the instrumentality of a human agency. Not to say, of course, that the “invisible hand” accounts can be credible without humans playing their part – only that the kind of scenario I foresee is one in the course of which the role of the human agency will be limited (more or less) to the action of RESPONSE rather than INSTIGATION.

    2) I do not necessarily endorse such a scenario. I’d rather that – if and when the present crisis were to be resolved – things were to return to their normal state. I believe, however, it may be too late for that, and that America (and the West) as we have known it – with respect at least to those aspects of it that are still worth of preserving – is a thing of the past. I’d hope such NOT to be the case.

    3) The projection and the paradigm I am about to offer (in Part II) IS contingent on the resurgence of the business community – that is to say, on the likelihood that we will get out from the hole we dug for ourselves. If that is not the case, then all bets are off and the paradigm is no longer applicable.


  • Ruvy


    I was going to wait for the next article to comment – it strikes me that what you say here in this article most schoolchildren know – or would, if the schools actually taught anything.

    For reasons of my own, I am more pessimistic about getting business out of the hole it has dug for itself. The hole was dug with the help of corporate giants of the kind that Paul has talked about, and it was dug with the grudging assent and consent of the governments of countries like the United States.

    I would like to note one small point here – a minor on that is not on point to the arguments going on here. German and Russian monarchs were very active in promoting business opportunities for their home nations. Peter the Great (who built St. Petersburg) and a Prussian monarch in the 18th Century come to mind. These orientations changed the way government and business worked in Europe, and in Europe, it was the state which fostered the corporation. In Switzerland, a capitalist nation if there ever was one, the state owned the telegraph lines (go look at the federal constitution adopted in the 1870’s there) and other means that would promote business.

    All this is very different from the American way things have been done, and Americans usually do not comprehend this at all.

  • Roger Nowosielski

    Thanks, Ruvy,

    Yes, I believe it is fundamental; I felt I just needed to get this out of the way before proceeding to part II.

    No question the State was the propagators of business ventures and enterprises – and thanks for bringing up the other examples, they’re eye-opening – but I had to limit myself as to examples for the sake of presenting the general idea. The city-state of Florence under the Medicis is another case in point: the sponsorship of arts and commerce to glorify the ruling families.

    As to the actual relationship between the rise of Nazism and German industrial-military buildup, see my response to Pablo immediately above (the first paragraph).

    And by the way, I do agree with you that the rebound on the part of the corporate world is much more problematic than I am willing to entertain, but that is another, though very important, subject.


  • Ruvy


    You really could have thought up a better title. “New World Order” has very specific connotations that go back all the way to “novo ordo saecularum” (or something like that) found on the American dollar bill. Any article with a title like this is guaranteed to bring out Paul (or me, for that matter) with comments on the nature of what you are really talking about. He and I track on a lot of this stuff. I just don’t feel it necessary to bring it up all the time.

    But there is just no escaping the fact that the CFR and those who founded it were instrumental in a lot of the evil that has caused the world to suffer in the last 110 years or so. Part of that evil was the Depression of 1929, the Panic of 1907 and as we see today, the basic collapse of the business structure that appeared to keep the world prosperous for the last sixty years or so.

    But, I’ll wait for the next article to comment further. My father, may he rest in peace, used to tell me tzeig nisht a naar halbarbeit, Yiddish for “never show a fool a job half-done”.

  • Roger Nowosielski

    Quite right, Ruvy; the title is less than fortunate.

    It looks like the Israeli election results won’t be known for quite some time. I’ve head an interesting discussion last night on Coast-to-Coast AM (with George Noory), and will post the reference on your thread.


  • pablo


    No I will not be retracting my statement, but you being one of the official censors on this site are certainly free to do so, with the emphasis on “free”.

    You say:
    “I could just as easily ask you where is the guarantee that it will be malign?”

    How about the last 3000 years of recorded history?
    How about that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? How about the people that for all intents and purposes now (Rockefellers, Rothschilds) and have been for decades, in the case of the Rotschild family centuries, are evil, anti-democratic, oligarchical, and inhumane?

    Your embrace of this brave New World Order I am afraid is extremely naive given the above references, and just plain ignorant.

  • Christopher Rose

    So when I point out to you that certain views you attribute to me are not actually views I hold, you think it is okay not to retract your claim. Now that is interesting.

    As to the last 3,000 years of history, I think it is self-evident that the world is a much better place, although obviously not perfect, today than it was back then, ergo things are getting better, not worse.

    I embrace the notion that a New World Order is not necessarily a bad thing, whilst being aware that it could be. As i have told you at least twice already, it is a matter of implementation. My idea would be that we learn from the experience of the United States, the EU and the UN, all of which could do with fairly deep re-structuring in my view, rather than extend those models to a suffocating degree.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Pablo, for every despotic ruler you can name over the last 3000 years I can give you at least two good ones. All rulers have to get their hands dirty to some extent, but by definition, tyranny is unstable. Tyrants become hated by the people and get replaced. It’s survival of the fittest.

  • Roger Nowosielski

    You are anticipating Part II, Christopher. EU, indeed, even US serve as a crucible to perfect the concept. Life won’t be the same, which is neither here nor there because history marches on despite human desire to resist it. The future need not necessarily be Orwellian.

  • pablo

    Christopher 11

    You mean like when Dave Nalle the political editor of this site openly called me a nazi Chris? Then when called on it and asked for a retraction or an apology by me, said that he would if I showed him the quote? Which I then did, and he came back and never apologized. Like I said Chris you and Dave set the tone, not me, I suggest that you start by showing us what civility in political discourse is, instead of denigration pal, then perhaps I will listen, as it is I find both of you hypocritical in the extreme.

    In the case of Nalles nazi comment to me, I had googled a phrase and it linked to a site with a NY Times article quoted in it, which I used. The actual site which I never even bothered to perouse was a neo-nazi one, however what I was attempting to link to was the NY Times story which was relevant to the discussion at hand. Nalle suddenly makes the leap that because I had oh my god inadvertently visited this site he could now openly call me a nazi. So is that how you set the tone on here Christopher?

    You have been more than uncivil towards me on numerous occasions prior to me ever showing you contempt sir, and I most certainly can find the relevant quotes should you want to see them pal.

  • Christopher Rose

    I’m not talking about what Dave did or didn’t do last year, I’m talking about what you said about me and to me today. It is untrue and I have rejected it but you still won’t man up and admit you were wrong. That tells me far more than your repeated protestations about others ever could.

  • Max Power

    For anyone who supports the New World Order,I hope your ready to share there fate, which includes early trip to the afterlife.

  • Roger Nowosielski

    Read on, Max, rather than jump to conclusions. No one’s supporting it, and I’d rather we could hold on to the old ways. But the chances of that are getting slimmer by the minute.

    Life goes on.

  • Maurice

    Roger – interesting writing style. Just as I was about to click on and read another article you picked up the pace and kept my interest. Certainly the golden nugget for me was:

    …when it comes to choosing between the power of the corporation and the power of the State, I’ll always choose the latter.

    I have asked myself this same question and chose the former. My reason is that corporations motives are pure – they seek money. Governments motives are not so easily divined. Often people are deceived and disappointed by the team they have chosen and elected to rule.

    I have written many comments here about the fragility of corporations. GM is a good example. A few years ago GM was the largest corporation in the world. Now they are dying. Corporations aren’t evil. They are just not as cunning and cruel as government.

  • Roger Nowosielski

    Well, Maurice. Thanks for visiting.

    And I do appreciate the fact you’re being honest as to where you stand. That’s more than fifty percent of a win-win situation – more so than I’m willing to grant to my other colleagues on this site.

    The thing to bear in mind though – and I believe it is critical – that political authority, for better or worse, should supersede all other authority (if and when push comes to shove).

    But I’m certain we’ll be able to discuss this at greater length in times to come (although in Part II I do not provide the theoretical justification).

    Thanks again,


  • pablo

    Coincidence or conspiracy, you decide.

    NWO Conspiracy Bullshit

  • Roger Nowosielski

    Is there anyway I can get the text, Pablo? My Youtube video for some reason is disabled.

  • pablo

    No Roger, this is a video, and well worth seeing, for its entertainment value.