The New World Order: Myth and Reality
The idea of a ‘New World Order’ is a favourite of world leaders and conspiracy theorists alike. Both sides agree that the new world order is about global government. The term has been used by world leaders, such as US President George Bush who famously used the phrase in a 1990 speech to congress, to refer to the work of international institutions such as the United Nations and the rule of international law. Since then it has been used by many politicians and world leaders to refer to a new, more cooperative way of organising relations between nation states, in which international institutions mediate between nation states to create more harmonious relationships. Creating a ‘new world order’ in this context means strengthening the power of international institutions to deal with global problems.
Many conspiracy theorists, however, believe that this is only the tip of a very large iceberg which is hidden from view. They believe that a shadowy cabal of global elites are behind a plan to abolish national sovereignty altogether, creating an oppressive global government, through which they can control the world. This global elite, they claim, already control everything from the banks to governments to the UN. Many diabolical plans have been ascribed to this shadowy global elite, and proponents of these conspiracy theories often present an apocalyptic vision of the world. Massive de-population, the imposition of martial law, the destruction of religion, the enslavement of humanity, and the rise to power of the anti-christ have all been connected with the new world order myth.
What really confuses me about these conspiracy theories is that the people they say are planning to take over the world – the bankers, the global corporate elite, the behind-the-scenes groups which wield so much power in many democratic political systems – these people already run the world.
Disinformation: The New World Order = The Old World Order
In many ways the vision of the ‘new world order’ put forward by world leaders such as George Bush is actually the old world order. International institutions such as the United Nations are currently dominated by the western powers of the United States, Europe and their allies. International trade rules and the global financial system overseen by organisations such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank serve to perpetuate the status quo – not to introduce a radical new model of international government. They were all created based on the liberal democratic capitalism of the western powers, and serve to maintain and spread the economic model which allowed the bankers and corporate elite to gain so much power in the first place.
Who Wants a New World Order?
Plenty of people around the planet would like to see a new world order. The people of impoverished and developing countries, who believe that the international trade rules and economic liberalisation imposed by organisations such as the IMF and World Bank unfairly restrain their growth and allow powerful western corporations to exploit their resources, would like to see a new world order. Communist China, which wishes to challenge the global hegemony of America and restrain the interventionist policies (and wars) of the western powers, would like to see a new world order. The people who have benefited the most from the present ‘world order’, I would argue, are not the ones who most want a new world order (NWO).
If I was inclined towards conspiracy theories I would not believe that the people who already run the world are conspiring to take over the world, I would be more inclined to believe that the whole NWO looks very much like disinformation – an attempt to scare people into opposing change. What better way, after all, to neuter the power of your enemies than to make them believe that your enemy is actually their enemy. These people, this shadowy elite who run the world, I would say, have become so adept at manipulation that even their most vehement enemies fight for them.
What Would The Real New World Order Look Like?
The world is changing dramatically, and the ‘world order’ is therefore changing too. The western powers of the United States and Europe are in decline, whilst China and Asia in general are on the rise. Many ‘developing’ countries, such as the BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China, are becoming more wealthy and more powerful than the established ‘developed’ economies of the west.
See: Asia Will Overtake USA and Europe Combined By 2030
Whereas the old international order saw the vast majority of power wielded by western powers, with America as the undisputed global superpower, a new multi-polar world is now emerging, with Asia as its power centre. This new order will indeed see the importance of international organisations increase. The imposition of Western rules and systems will be replaced by negotiated solutions reflecting the needs and desires of a much wider range of countries. Led by countries such as China, which has always opposed western interventionism, this new way is likely to emphasise national sovereignty and non-interference in other country’s affairs.
There is one group who has the most to lose from this change – the corporate and banking elite. As long as each country acts independently it is easy for multi-national companies to play one off against another, hide their operations in tax havens, and generally circumvent national laws. The only way to restrain the power of international companies is through international bodies, international regulations, and international laws. There is a strong argument to suggest that these international organisations are currently ‘in the pocket’ of this corporate and banking elite, and it is certainly true that they are inspired by the largely unrestrained capitalism and economic liberalisation which serves the interests of this elite.
Reform of these institutions, the growth of their power, and the increased influence of developing nations (including communist and socialist nations) within them, all serves to threaten the global dominance of this elite.
Related Articles from Around the Web:
Interesting analysis, there are misconceptions and misunderstandings though … read Anthony Wiles ‘Elite neo-nazi…is RT…’-article over at the Daily Bell. That is an accurate analysis of the agenda of the power elite, in my opinion.
Thanks for the comment and the recomendation. I read the article you mention. Peronsonally they seem to be going on about freedom all the time, whilst the main logic behind the article is based on an assumption that everyone who disagrees with them must be part of a giant conspiracy. They go on about how they have now decided that RT is part of the conspiracy, simply because they disagree with some of the channels editorial decision. Freedom includes the freedom to hold a diversity of opinions.
Also it is a well known law of the internet that as soon as you start comparing people to Hitler you have lost the argument. Which means that The Daily Bell article lost the argument it was trying to make around one third of the way through when they started comparing various different people to Hitler.
OK, I hear you and I agree to some point, but are they really comparing anyone to Hitler? I must have missed that in the article. I read it as they are just talking about the way the national socialists economic model is like a template for all modern Western socialdemocratic economies and that this economic system is the best system for the economic Power Elite coteries to protect their money and their wealth and to forward, some if not all, their political views. I have a hard time waving that off as just plain tin foil hat material.
It´s not hard to see the similarities between Germanys centralistic, national socialistic economy in the 30s and and the economic policies in USA and EU and what that has led us to eventually. I even think Keynes have said something about this >>> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12143-009-9056-7
Yes, I did exaggerate what they actually wrote – they were comparing the economic model to that of the Nazi’s rather than comparing individual people to Hitler. But the feeling I got from the article was that they were making the comparison because they wanted to criticise in an extreme way, rather than because that was where the evidence pointed.
Most governments at most times in history have wanted to centralise as much power as they could, and their wealthy backers want to centralise as much wealth (in their own pockets) as possible. That has nothing to do with the Nazi ideology, its just that old adage – power corrupts.
Also people who go into politics often do so because they think that politicians can change the world. But to even try to solve all the complex problems they need to control everything – so that is what they try to do. Often the public, who don’t want to take responsibility for their own lives, demand it of them. The road to hell is, unfortunately, paved with good intentions.
It would be easier if they were all evil Nazis, but they aren’t – they are mostly just misguided fools and greedy megalomaniacs.
… and I like this: … they seem to be going on about freedom all the time, …
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Looking at the world of today I say we need more of it? Can anyone go on too much about freedom in times like these when the meme in all political messages basically say that there ought to be more of centralistic power?