Wrong With the New World Order?
no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
days I get quite a bit of email, some of it from readers of my columns
here on LewRockwell.com. Judging from the vast majority of
the responses, it is gratifying to know that however politically
correct the dominant culture gets, there is intelligent life
on the Internet. I try to answer whatever is sent my way personally.
I don’t always succeed. A few of my articles have elicited as many
as 60 emails in less than 24 hours, and for one or two, the number
went well over a hundred. When this happens, demands on my time
don’t permit me to reply to everyone; I’m a "one man operation"
here, and nothing else would get done. I sincerely regret this,
but I do read everything sent to me. Eventually.
of those unanswered waifs concerned an
article I wrote a few months back on Carroll Quigley’s detailed
documentation of the rise of what some of us have been calling the
New World Order: a diabolical triad of global government, global
economics (masquerading under such labels as "free trade"), and
global, ecumenical religion (which would be resolutely hostile to
Christianity). This article was one that received a flood of email.
I answered what I could, but at some point had to give up. Received
long after this point was a brief missive with two questions: "What’s
wrong with the New World Order?" And then: "Don’t you think it will
make the world a better place for the majority of people on the
the one hand, these questions are refreshingly direct. On the other,
they are scary. After the past ten years researching political correctness
and turning up abundant evidence of increasing control of global
politics, financial resources and information by a superelite with
no loyalty to anything except money and power, I receive a well-meaning
query from someone who not only senses no danger but wonders if
such control might not be a good thing. There are no doubt
others who believe that if we could just set aside all the differences
represented by such things as national boundaries and regional loyalties,
it really would issue in global peace and prosperity.
left the email to sit in a subdirectory. Where, after all, do I
begin? But the questions ring with fundamental concerns of those
sort that don’t often get raised, and are almost never raised in
the dominant media today. Asked in good faith, the questions are
worth taking up and answering, if only because few others will do
it. I do so here.
the best place to begin is by reviewing the nature of government.
Is government a "good thing," a "bad thing,"
or somewhere in between? To answer this question, many writers refer
to the oft-quoted statement by George Washington, our first President:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Washington, of course, was an entirely different breed from the
kind of opportunist that tends to inhabit the land of politics today.
He had a healthy sense that government was indeed a danger to freedom.
And why not? After all, he’d just played a central role in the war
of secession from the British Empire, which at the time was out-of-control
centralized government at its greatest height. Government has been
properly characterized by libertarian writers as having a legal
monopoly on the use of force to achieve its ends. The Framers of
our Constitutional republic realized this, and took steps to limit
government’s growth. This was what the U.S. Constitution was all
about. It had its critics who favored a still more limited,
weaker central government: history has mislabeled them the "anti-federalists."
goes without saying that this is not the vision of government presented
in today’s "public schools." As products of government,
they are places where students are brainwashed into near-worship
of government. Students "learn" that government is fundamentally
benevolent, if only the "right people" can get elected
(the "right people," of course, are always purveyors of
centralization ready to loot the wallets of productive, independent
is George Washington’s the vision of government presented in today’s
dominant media, populated with graduates of those "public schools"
and today’s J-schools. The leading editorialists and other writers
at the New York Times and the Washington Post including
many so-called conservatives debate the best ways the government
ought to spend the money it has looted from taxpayers, and what
agendas it ought to pursue. They do not debate whether it should
loot the taxpayers’ hard-earned money at all, or pursue any agendas
not specifically authorized by the Constitution (and there are very,
atrocities such as what happened at Waco are systematically whitewashed,
including by some so-called conservatives. Evidence of the worst
criminal atrocities by our so-called leaders is carefully buried,
with the full cooperation of the media (example: Vince Foster, whom
I have never believed committed suicide). The American public isn’t
even aware of much of this. After eight years of watching Bill Clinton’s
very public adventures in criminality, however, very little shocks
us anymore. Hardly anyone in the political mainstream blinked when
the Clinton Regime cooperated closely with a communist dictator
to send a little boy back to a life of socialist deprogramming.
After this, the only two contenders for the presidency to have had
any chance at being elected did not discuss the relationship between
the federal government and the Constitution. They did not debate
whether our government should join other governments, internationally,
to bomb little countries that never threatened our legitimate interests
back into the Stone Age. What they debated was prescription drugs
for senior citizens and other trivialities.
the government-serving schools and media serve up a steady stream
of distractions in the form of mindless entertainment and sports
events. One can hardly turn around without encountering a reference
to Survivor or Temptation Island, the two worst television
shows of our time. The economy is micromanaged in such a way as
to serve up mostly meaningless "busywork." One of the
dirty little secrets of the so-called economic boom of the 1990s
was the number of low-paying cubicle-dweller jobs created here at
home versus the number of good paying manufacturing jobs
that went to Mexico or overseas following NAFTA and GATT this is
global economics, which has little to do with genuine free markets
and everything to do with enabling the superelites to line their
pockets at ordinary Americans’ expense. Between the steady stream
of entertainment and the new-economy "busywork" jobs,
many who are not too distracted to think about anything important
are mentally too exhausted.
of course. Were all this to come under sustained public scrutiny,
it might dawn on a sufficient number of members of the public that
our government is not fundamentally different from any other empire
that has ever existed. The government and, increasingly, huge corporations,
have a vested interest in keeping the sheeple in line, and the dominant
media is more than willing to cooperate. If anyone notices what
the elites are up to, they are answered in the way Dorothy was in
that charming classic The Wizard of Oz. Only, our "man
behind the curtain" is considerably more powerful and dangerous
than the kindly old Wizard.
– imagine every bit of this moved up a scale, from the national
to the international level. Imagine national sovereignty having
been not so much destroyed in name but in fact, rendered meaningless
by a web of regulations, treaties, etc., worked out by global elites
in international conferences barely reported by the media, e.g.,
the proposed International Criminal Court. If government is force
and deception, then international government will be force and deception
on an international scale – and with the capacity for surveillance
and control provided by today’s
technological developments it will have a level of power that
is unprecedented in human history.
agenda, as I explained in my essay,
is hardly new. It has been in motion for decades. Arguably the first
stirrings on behalf of world government date back to near the end
of the 19th century, when Cecil Rhodes, the diamond tycoon, willed
a portion of his fortune to the creation of a secret society motivated
both by the idea that world government would be the key to world
peace and that it could only be accomplished incrementally, in stealth
moves, by well-financed elites operating behind the scenes. The
Rhodes Scholarship program grew out of this effort, as did the rise
of powerful, secretive groups in the U.S. like the Council on Foreign
is scary is that so many Americans seem to have no more grasp of
the danger this represents than they have of the true nature of
our own government. Our national elites in both government and gigantic
corporations are cooperating with the United Nations to help create
"global governance," and even Jesse Helms’ once resolute
opposition has begun to weaken. Those who really believe we can
trust huge corporations or those running them should take note of
the millions that Ted Turner, the Atlanta-based media mogul, has
donated to the UN.
with the World Wide Web, it will hardly do to call this a conspiracy.
It’s only a conspiracy if it is hidden, and this one isn’t. All
one has to do is navigate around on the UN’s own Millennium Assembly
website for abundant
information on where the global-government agenda presently stands.
Of course, the UN tends to overwhelm the casual web-surfer with
information that is presented in a sugar-coated fashion. There is
much there that can make the idea of world government look attractive
to those who do not know any better, such as the talk of universal
"human rights," likely to be used to justify massive transfers of
wealth from the United States (i.e., from working taxpayers) to
the Third World. As I argued in a
different essay recently, highly-paid philosophy professors
in influential, Ivy League universities have already produced pseudo-ethical
defenses of just this.
government is just not a workable proposition. It can lead down
no other road besides tyranny. To those who understand economics,
the reasons are not hard to follow. One of the primary laws of economics
is that wealth does not simply fall out of the sky; it has to be
produced by someone. The argument should be familiar: if those who
produce are allowed (by governments) to keep the fruits of their
labors and trade freely with others, they will produce more, and
genuine prosperity will ensue. If the fruits of their labors are
looted and put in the service of agendas they don’t support, incentives
to produce will diminish, along with prosperity. The government,
being supported by the fruits of legal looting, may proceed with
a sequence of economic quick-fixes, such as avoiding gold-backed
currency with a fixed value like the plague in favor of expanded,
fluid, easy credit to maintain an illusion of prosperity. But eventually
the piper will have to be paid. Just as in physics, you cannot get
something from nothing. In economics, though, you can pretend. For
a time. The pretense is enhanced if draped in pseudo-moral language
about our "obligations to the poor" (for example).
government, again, takes the pretense to a global stage. It promises
that global cooperation (between governments, of course, and megacorporations
such as Wal-Mart) will create prosperity in third world countries mostly
socialist tyrannies. Transfers of wealth will not benefit the impoverished
masses of those countries; it will prop up the tyrannies and enable
them to further enslave their masses. The tyrants may, of course,
may have formed close relationships with the megacorporations as
co-beneficiaries, propagating an illusion of "free markets"
or global "free trade." It is an illusion because it will
be technically illegal for anyone to compete without the explicit
approval of the tyrants, which is unlikely to be given under the
circumstances. (Given the government paperwork, fees, etc., imposed
on those beginning a small business in the U.S., we are further
down that road right here most people think.)
of this, I submit, will leave us with a planet that is a "better
place for the majority of people" on it. If anything, it is
a recipe for what would be the most brutal dictatorship ever. And
the sudden, grinding poverty of a worldwide depression, if the economic
bubble the international financial superelite will have created
just ask what happens to the people who want nothing to do with
the brave new world being proffered here. Would they be allowed
to go their own way and be left alone? Of course not, because dictators
cannot tolerate those who would be independent; the result would
be a mass exodus to whatever parts of the country or world are still
free! The dictators would not take the risk. Given the chance, they
will extend their reach as far as possible. Whether those who want
to be independent in America would find themselves actually hunted
down and murdered is still an open question. It is just as likely
that before it came to that, they would find themselves unable to
earn their livings legally in the "global economy," and
would eventually run afoul the law when they were forced to go underground.
With surveillance technology, they would find very few places to
go. Many independent minded folks with families will undoubtedly
give up and cave in, if they do not want their children to starve!
(But of course, if they have already caved in to the "gun control"
crowd, they will have asked for this!)
trust this answers the questions, for anyone with remaining doubts,
of what is wrong with the New World Order. It would not be good
"for the majority of people on the planet." It would be
a system run by and for a cadre of superelites: that minority of
the world population that finds itself obsessed with power and is
compelled to build empires. The rest of us would be little better
than livestock, no matter our economic status. Do any of us have
the resources to stop this juggernaut? I don’t think we have any
choice but to try. And as encouragement while we are trying, it
might be helpful to remember the fate of all previous efforts to
build the Tower of Babel, including the original.
Yates has a Ph.D. in Philosophy and is the author of
Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (ICS Press,
1994). He is presently compiling selected essays into a single volume
tentatively entitled View From the Gallery and a work on a second
book, The Paradox of Liberty. He also writes for the Edgefield
Journal, and is available for lectures. He lives in Columbia,
© 2001 LewRockwell.com