“BARACK Obama’s election as US President gives Britain and America a once-in-a-lifetime chance to build a new world order, Gordon Brown will claim tonight.
As America stands at its own dawn of hope, so let that hope be fulfilled through a pact with the wider world to lead and shape the 21st century as the century of a truly global society.”
- Report on his speech 10 Nov 2008.(1)Over the New Year the influential economist magazine published its annual predictions for 2009 and there highlighted on the front page was an article by Henry Kissinger on the 'New World Order'. Turning to the contents page a whole section was headed 'New World Order'. What is going on, why do we hear this phrase - popularised by Hitler - all the time now from influential politicians and in powerful media organs? Everybody knows that this phrase is highlighted a lot by 'conspiracy theorists' - and I don't mean any criticism by that phrase - who state that this is the aim of a kind of global conspiracy, so why then would these commentators use it so much? Is it maybe that these theorists are right, maybe this is in the offing and the powers that be don't mind admitting it?"If progress is made on these enterprises, 2009 will mark the beginning of a new world order."
- Henry Kissinger (2)
Hence it might be useful to look at what is usually meant by this phrase. Some say it has occultic significance, that the powers that be are into Luciferian or Satanic ideology and they have 'religious' aims in mind in that sense, while telling the rest of us that religion is old fashioned and irrelevant.(3) Some say it signifies a takeover like Hitler's in Germany or the Bolsheviks' in Russia, or indeed like martial law and massacres á la Chile and Indonesia in the 70s - which Kissinger was implicated in. But all agree I think that it signifies an attempt to create a global government which would be in the hands of some dictatorial clique. Probably if it was to come about in 2009 it would resemble a kind of global EU where sovereign governments would agree to set up some sort of world council with vast political power. This seems to be the scenario hinted at in an editorial in the Financial Times (4) and by the former vice President of the National Bank of Poland, Dr Krzysztof Rybiński.(5)
But in truth its probably impossible for an outsider to accurately predict the nature or exact timing of any such international development. However there is maybe one aspect of such a step which could be observed. I mean the creation of momentum in the media behind the idea, or the intellectual case, for such a world government. It seems to this observer that one of the crucial aspects behind any major political change is the winning of the intellectual case for such a change, the 'mind' part of what the British Army calls 'winning the hearts and minds.' If you think about the recent Troubles would it be the case that Republicanism lost that battle in the sense that people thought it undemocratic to force a local majority into a united Ireland, and when they lost that battle then the game was up irrespective of what happened with guns and mortars? (6) If you look at the fall of the USSR, is it true that the citizens of the Eastern Bloc just didn't believe in their 'hearts and minds' anymore that they lived in a worker's paradise, and that that failure in the war of ideas meant the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union etc? I know some wouldn't go that far but imho it is very important, if you can capture the imagination and minds of the public by winning the war of ideas you can move quickly towards, or consolidate, a political position.
Anyway the interesting thing here is that you can only win this war by fighting it out in the media, and so if you can detect this trend in public discourse now, as regards the intellectual case for a world government, then maybe you can predict if an attempt to create such a government is around the corner. It seems to me that if you were trying to push for a world government you would be hyping up or creating 7 or so different types of problems, the only solution of which you might say is to have a world government:
1) A Global Economic and Currency Crisis. If you can hype up the global aspect of the depression and say it is caused by weak international banking regulation then the natural corollary is to have a global regulatory framework to deal with a global crisis and to manage global companies and tame global capital flows. This is what they said when they created the EU, claiming that you needed supranational organisations to deal with supranational corporations etc.
Also currencies in particular are natural candidates for global decision making, because you need internationally agreed rules to trade them across borders. So if a global currency crisis was to really blow up - with Zimbabwean style hyper inflation - then the general public might agree on the necessity for a global body 'with teeth' to sort out the global currency arrangements.
2) International Environmental Problems. Clearly an issue like Global Warming, if it was real, could not easily be tackled by national governments acting alone because obviously the air we breathe is no respecter of national boundaries. The same would be true of things like water levels rising in the world's oceans. Therefore as these issues get emphasised it creates an urgency for people to think about the necessity for a world government. If for example global warming was to deteriorate, and looked like being unfixable by national governments coming together via voluntary agreements, then it would provide a great momentum behind the idea of a world government.
3) Terrorism. Notice how we are supposedly in the throes of a 'global' war on terror, necessitating the cooperation of international intelligence agencies and the creation of international security structures.
4) Nuclear Proliferation. Many make the case that the capacity of nuclear weapons to cross borders, and wipe out maybe even the world itself, makes necessary global international structures to interfere in the affairs of independent countries in order to uphold international nuclear non proliferation treaties. This was quite an issue justifying the destruction of Iraq's sovereignty and is raised again in relation to Pakistan and maybe even Israel.
5) Energy Security. Maybe if a world crisis over something like the nonavailability of oil in western countries during a harsh winter was to blow up it would bring home to people how dependent they are on international trade and might again provide an intellectual excuse for a world government.
6) Large Scale Global Migration Flows. also help this idea of a world government. You see if you have nationalistic minded peoples with few immigrants it becomes more of a novelty and imposition to talk about a world government, whereas if you have large amounts of international citizens in all countries it looks more natural to talk about international governance structures. This is especially true if you can encourage interracial marriages because then the family structures will create cross border loyalties. Imagine if you are trying to put the idea of a world government to some person who is a 'true blue' native English person or American etc, and compare that to persuading a person who is ¼ Iranian, ¼ Chinese, ½ Irish or whatever. In a way a world government brings such families together, or would seem to anyway.
7) Uniting the world to deal with a threat from aliens. (I'd say some readers have just woke up at this point !lol ) I'm not kidding here, if the powers that be could hype up the question of alien life forms then it might create a sense of solidarity here on earth as we would feel more affinity to other humans if other intelligent life forms existed. Btw I don't myself believe at all in the existence of aliens, we are only talking about hoaxes which seem to be more common now, even in County Meath.(7)
If you listen carefully to what people like Kissinger are saying you can see that maybe they are quietly making this intellectual case without scaring people by talking explicitly about a world government. Here are few more quotations from him:
Furthermore if you were of a conspiratorial nature - and Kissinger certainly is !lol - then you might hype up or create problems in those areas to drive the general public into your arms as they would feel the need for such a world government to solve these problems. For example you might deliberately cause national governments to go bankrupt, in order to bring them into the aegis of the IMF which could be a kind of world Department of Finance for a world government; you could deliberately create a huge monetary expansion to set off hyperinflation which you would then step in to solve via some international conference etc; you could set off a small backpack type nuclear device in some western city which would greatly energise the need for international cooperation on points 3 and 4 above; you could explode a similar device on one of the Antarctic ice shelves, causing it to crash and increase world sea levels so greatly increasing world environmental panic and causing in turn people to rush towards a world body with extensive powers that could force governments to implement powerful carbon emission standards; you could engineer some type of world oil or gas shortage, like what has happened with Russian gas supplies over the last few winters, in order to bring home to people the interconnectedness of the world; and finally you could claim that a message was received by the SETI system from some kind of alien life form which could necessitate the creation of some authoritative world body to reply to such messages. Such anyway are the kind of pawns that you could move around the global chessboard if you were trying to create international public support for a world government.“The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a strategy reinforced by the realisation that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.
The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organisation of the world. The economic world has been globalised. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market. The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend.
In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonised in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world;"
Kissinger in the same article also touched on one other point that I think is interesting:
Maybe then we live in a time when all the leaders of the big states are in agreement to create such a government (certainly Merkel, Putin, Sarkozy, Obama and Brown anyway), and will work in partnership with one another to bring it about. Presumably this also includes the Chinese - old friends of Kissinger's - and the Indians. Hence in order to do this all they need to do is ensnare the smaller countries into the net. This would be by persuasion, using the same type of arguments that they use on the general public, as noted above, or maybe by corruption and bribery etc. Also they might at least threaten to invade some of these countries on some excuse i.e. the larger regional powers taking control of their smaller neighbours. Maybe India, for example, could invade or intimidate its neighbours like Pakistan (definitely this country is slated for invasion and/or civil war) and Bangladesh. China could invade some of their neighbours like Vietnam, North Korea, Mongolia or Taiwan and intimidate the rest. The Russian bear could start growling and smaller countries in their orbit could go the way of Georgia."It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States."
Furthermore what they could do is cooperate in implementing a kind of 'good cop bad cop' routine on these smaller countries. Nations like Poland and the Czech Republic, which might now regret somewhat being in the EU's orbit, might feel threatened by an increasingly aggressive Russia to their East. Hence they can either choose to come under the control of the Russian 'bad cop', or stay in the Western 'good cop', and either way be frogmarched into this world government.
But I admit that last paragraph is pure speculation. As pointed out only the war of ideas question, which has to be played out in the media, can be followed by an outsider and unfortunately might prove the 'conspiracy theorists' correct!
1.Gordon Brown: Our new world | The Sun |News . See also the report on a speech by Brown of 24/1/2009 for more of the same sentiments: Brown sees 'new world order' after crisis - Yahoo! News .
2. Henry Kissinger, "An end of hubris" in "The Economist: The World in 2009" (London, 2008), p.67. For more on Kissinger's views see this article: Henry Kissinger: The world must forge a new order or retreat to chaos - Commentators, Opinion - The Independent , which is the source for the longer Kissinger quote given below.
3. The Cutting Edge Radio Program - Transcript of GOODBYE USA, HELLO NEW WORLD ORDER. . The Hitler reference is from https://secure.gn.apc.org/members/ww...84cfdfcc8d6a2a quoting the Vancouver Sun 21 January 1991.
4. FT.com / Brussels - And now for a world government .
5. A new world order | open Democracy News Analysis .
6. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the point itself, I am only claiming that the mass of the population didn't agree with their case and that that was central to the overall outcome.
7. Politician and pilot spot UFO in Meath - Local & National, News - Belfasttelegraph.co.uk .
8. Henry Kissinger: The world must forge a new order or retreat to chaos - Commentators, Opinion - The Independent . You can compare his comments with people like Gordon Brown:
Gordon Brown as quoted on ITN News:
"If what happens to a bank in one country can within minutes have devastating effects for banks on a different continent, then only a truly international response of policy and governance can be effective."
( 'Global economy at risk without unity' - Yahoo! News UK ). Or even Vladimir Putin:
"Moreover, these nations must pledge to abide by internationally recognised rules of macroeconomic and financial discipline. In our opinion, this demand is not excessive.
At the same time, the global financial system is not the only element in need of reforms. We are facing a much broader range of problems.
This means that a system based on cooperation between several major centres must replace the obsolete unipolar world concept.
We must strengthen the system of global regulators based on international law and a system of multilateral agreements in order to prevent chaos and unpredictability in such a multipolar world. Consequently, it is very important that we reassess the role of leading international organisations and institutions.
I propose we start laying down a new international legal framework for energy security. Implementation of our initiative could play a political role comparable to the treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community. That is to say, consumers and producers would finally be bound into a real single energy partnership based on clear-cut legal foundations."
(Vladimir Putin speaking at Davos recently: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/AM_2009/O...dimirPutin.pdf ). Obviously the European Coal and Steel Community grew into the EU.