Mostly in response to kaibo... since he seems to be having a debate against himself here...
Let me start by providing a background on my perspective of global economics behind the possibility for global governance.
Yes, I agree with you that the New World Order "conspiracy", as it has come to be called, is an absolute reality. The Bilderburg group, United Nations, G20 (G8, G2, GX) groups, and other secret/semi-secret societies (freemasons, Illuminati, etc.) all exist and play their individual parts in contributing to a global governing system that is constantly evolving. In order to approach any semblance of realization as to how the system works, a lengthly deconstruction is necessary.
The trick to judging the international political situation at any given moment is, first, to realize what events are taking place and then measure it against a thorough analysis of what the media and government of each individual state has to say bereft of all spin. To see through the twist of truth that governments and national media establishments place on the information released to the public is the key to understanding any global issue. In today's media- and entertainment-driven society, control of information is paramount. Secondly, you must objectively understand the political cultures of each political actor (states, corporations, international governmental organizations (IGOs), non governmental organizations (NGOs), etc), without a subjective judgment of whether that actor is good or evil.
In this world, good and evil are subjective labels placed haphazardly on opinions, persons and groups through the influence of religion. In order to make sense of the international political stage, you must be able to identify where these labels of intent are placed and separate them from the actual intentions behind human action.
In China, the heavily communistic system is in nearly complete control of information. Evidence to this is the 'TTTF' agreement among Western teachers. If you haven't heard of this, it stands for Taiwan, Tiananmen, Tibet and Fanguangdong (sp?) - the taboos of teaching anything in China. On all of these issues the Chinese government strongly controls what information it wants its people to be allowed to understand and process. For a more detailed synopsis of the current situation in Tibet, see The Economist at this link:
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13358182&source=most_commented Tibet is a prime example of a nation-state seeking self autonomy or sovereignty over its territory. Quebec in Canada, the Flemmish nation in Belgium, Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, Chechnya in Russia,... the list goes on. Since the World Wars, sovereignty has been a huge issue as the world undergoes a vast unwinding from the era of colonialism and imperialism. The latter half of the 20th century was a time of nationalistic independence movements across the face of the earth from South America, to Africa, to the Pacific. This era is slowly coming to an end, and the result is that where before the European nations ruled the globe with their vast naval armadas, colonial agendas, and strong grip on global trade, now regional powers are the major players.
The European Union was the preliminary test for the possibility of a credible, functioning regional body. The project is still in progress, but is faring tremendously well. The euro is a major international player in currency markets. Although there is an ongoing debate about the stability of the Union, in reality it would be tremendously difficult for any kind of unwinding to occur short of global war. The economies of the European states are so tightly intertwined that short of complete catastrophe, it makes no sense for any individual state to secede.
Other regional blocks are using the EU as a model. The Union of South African Nations, ASEAN, the African Union, the Arab League, the Pacific Union, and NAFTA are examples of other regional blocks in various stages of economic and political unification. Economic union across a larger geographic area makes tremendous sense; taking advantages of larger economies of scale, solidifying international trade, fostering cultural and political solidarity, and, most importantly, preventing widespread military conflict. The EU shows that the result is almost unanimous prosperity for all parties involved. Granted, some EU economies are struggling as a result of the financial crises, but they are far from failing.
Even if an economy fails, there is a semi-functioning global safety net in place to prevent the collapse of society - the IMF. See Iceland. The entire country was unhealthily over leveraged and after the banks defaulted, the government followed. Nevertheless, through inflationary monetary policy (to help pay off debt) and a little help from the international community and select other countries, the country still exists. It has taken a hard fall from its place as one of the most technologically sophisticated societies on the planet, and was regularly in the top 5 regularly in freedom, transparency, and quality of life rankings. Nevertheless, the world is progressing from colonialism, through imperialism (late 20th century / early 21st century) into global government.
Various IGOs are currently in place and play minor roles in facilitating an international community, but the United States of America, and the Bush administration in particular, has played a dominant role in impeding the progress of global governance and sustaining the era of imperialism. The "War on Terror" was spun by the United States government to be the ultimate counterattack to the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001. An objective analysis of the 9/11 attacks immediately shows that the official story is contrived. Currently I strongly believe that the Bush administration knew that the attacks would happen and turned a blind eye, for a variety of reasons that can be found by searching for "9/11 conspiracy" on Google and digging for facts (Warning: avoid opinions, there are too many).
Whoever was the ultimate mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, the result was massive American military action in the Middle East. First, the destabilization of Afghanistan, which ultimately served to provide a cover (along with the myth of nuclear weapons) for the removal of Saddam Hussein's government. This served two main purposes: to assure Western control of the Iraqi oil fields and to sustain the dollar as the global reserve currency. If you do a little research you will find that ultimately the Iraqi government, which at first was a de facto U.S. puppet institution, gave all oil field contracts to Western oil companies. Additionally, Saddam Hussein was planning on opening an oil bourse in Iraq - a bourse is a market making institution like the NYSE, which deals only stocks - in which he would trade oil internationally in currencies other than the dollar. Mainly euros and yen. This would effectively end the dollar's hegemony over currency markets.
Following Bretton Woods, the dollar was pegged to gold and became the international reserve currency. The United States pretty much took everybody's gold and said "Look, we won the war, so this is how it's going to be." Nearly all international trade was denominated in dollars. The dollar as a currency enjoyed this unparalleled strength because people knew that if they wanted to convert their paper money into something real, they could go to the US government and demand gold. In 1971, the US closed the gold window. Basically, the Americans were worried that there would be a run on gold and everybody would want to claim their fair share. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough gold to satisfy the amount of dollars in circulation. The Federal Reserve had printed money to sustain the war in Vietnam and there was so much in circulation that if everybody tried to claim their gold, the US government would default.
Enter fiat money - paper money backed by the word of the government. Your money is worth something because the government says so. I could find a long list of quotes by famous scholars, financiers, economists and politicians who all say that a fiat money system is unsustainable, prone to massive volatility, open to corruption, and will inevitably fail. The method the U.S. has used since abandoning the gold peg has been constant deficit spending. For a complete and detailed description of how fiat money works visit
www.chrismartenson.com and watch his powerpoint presentations. Since 1971, the US has financed all of its federal spending by going into debt. If it needs money, it sells treasury bonds. China owns some 1/3 of US treasury bonds, Japan owns a bunch, Saudi Arabia owns a bunch, American citizens own a whole lot, etc. Here's the kicker: the US never intends to repay these debts. Recent actions by the Federal Reserve have served as a definitive confirmation. Instead of allowing its over leveraged and poorly invested banks to fail following the debt and housing bubbles, the US government is giving them money to pay off their debts. In order to fund these "investments", the US is simply going further into debt by selling more treasury bonds and printing more money.
I can go on about the financial crises here, but we were discussing NWO. So... back on track...
By invading Iraq, the Bush administration singlehandedly destroyed the progress that Clinton had made towards fostering international community. Not only did, Bush & Co. destroy the American image of an international role model and leader, but they prevented progress towards the evolution of the global community. The UN was basically sidelined after it, led by France, refused to help the US on what was an unjust war based on a false assumption (nuclear/biological weapons). Following that event, the US stopped paying its dues, hamstringing the UN's already weak effectiveness. The UN became an institution that serves as an international forum and loudspeaker for human rights, that is all. During the recent Israeli incursions into Gaza (January 2009), the UN did nothing at all. A proposal by Libya to release a press statement condemning Israeli aggression was blocked by the US.
NATO, an organization created to counter Soviet aggression during the Cold War, is a terribly outdated institution that exists only as a tool for the U.S. Where before it was a forum for operational coordination between the Western powers, it is now merely a military alliance that the U.S. can use to tap its allies' armed forces in order to augment its own. Realistically, the organization serves no other purpose. At the moment, it is employed to "fix Afghanistan". For a country that is in dire need of diplomats, political direction and political unification, military strength is exactly what is not needed.
The IMF - all I have to say about the IMF is that the weighting system by which member countries have a voice is insultingly disproportional to any measure of influence other than political power. This is unfortunate considering the main benefactors from the existence of the IMF are developing countries, who end up not having any say at all. Sadly, the developed countries who control the purse strings are too stingy to provide amounts of aid that would effectively sustain developing economies and bring them out of poverty. For a peerless analysis of this issue read Jeffrey Sachs' "The End of Poverty" and "Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet".
After the financial crises plays out, it will take another year or two, the United States will no longer be a global power. This is based simply on the fact that the United States economy doesn’t produce anything of value. The US automobile industry, what was once a bastion of strength and American economic power, is a joke. Technology and telecommunications have been almost entirely outsourced. The American legacy abroad is Coca Cola, Walmart and McDonalds. You can’t sustain an economy off of branding, soft drinks, wholesale and fastfood. There has to be some heavy industry. There has to be some agricultural production. The US has run an account deficit (it has imported more than it has exported) for YEARS. This is evidence to its role as a consumer nation. Too bad it’s a consumer nation that has been completely financed by debt. Once those debts are due, and the government defaults, then we will see what happens.
Keep in mind that one sector where the US continues to excel is the defense sector. The US has the largest military in the world, and its defense companies are by far the most advanced. Will the US just allow itself to be relegated to a minor player in the global economy? How the US acts in the next four years will dictate which direction global governance will go and what powers rise to supplant the US as international leaders.
Getting back to the idea of NOW, I think that many forward-thinking politicians are very eager to continue development of global governance. In the ‘90s when the EU came together, we experienced a strong period of globalization and unification. 9/11 served as a sort of backlash against rapid globalization and we are now in a period of strong nationalization. Especially given the financial crises, countries more and more are resorting to protectionist measures to solidify national economies in order to move forward internationally on more stable footing. Like all movements, the idea of global governance has its ebbs and flows. And while high profile elected officials may use the term ‘global governance’, a very positive sounding peaceful phrase, we also have the counterculture that demonizes these political figures and harshly criticizes them for destroying liberties and freedoms.
I got news for you. Those liberties and freedoms aren’t destroyed because of New World Order. They’re destroyed because we allow our governments to pass laws restricting them and we do nothing. The vast majority of individuals on this planet care very little for their own national politics. They say they care, but when it comes down to it, the only thing they do is complain, criticize, and vote. They vote based on their interpretation of the media’s spun stories. In the States it amused me to watch the entire election process this past year. It was entertaining that the media seriously gave McCain a fighting chance, and said he was going to come back, when it was clear that most people thought Palin was a joke and the chances of McCain falling deathly ill and the fate of our country being in the hands of an Alaskan bimbo governess were too high to take the Republican campaign seriously. Maybe even more hilarious: the fact that the media seriously considered McCain a legitimate shot at President after his campaign blunders.
Roughly 60% of the American public voted in the ’08 election. 40% of American DIDN”T VOTE. That’s disgusting. How could you have such disregard for your own government. The majority of Americans don’t understand politics, don’t understand government, and don’t understand democracy. After not voting, the majority of Americans go out with their friends and bitch, whine and moan about how their President his horrible or about how he’s fucking everything up.
With regards to “evil” dominators…etc. etc. … I hesitate to point fingers in such a way so hypocritically. You can’t demonize theocratic influence on governing systems while using theocratic terms like good and evil or right or wrong. I agree with your motive, just not your language, and I urge you to reconsider your words. Not everybody can agree on what is right or wrong or what is good or evil. Culture and society are so different that these ideas change from one person to the next. What we can agree on is what is right for society as a whole. We can agree on ‘peace’, ‘prosperity’, ‘equality’, ‘justice’. We can compromise on what is right or wrong.
One thing that does need to change is criticism. It is commonplace for people to point fingers at others and say “I think you are wrong because of x, y and z.” The term constructive criticism has almost completely lost meaning. And what’s worse, popular culture encourages everyone to have an opinion. When everyone has a different opinion, nothing gets done. Everyone just points fingers at each other, saying why they think everybody else is wrong and why they are right. Nothing gets done. Most internet chat rooms are prime examples. Someone tries to say something intelligent, but then is ripped apart by a bunch of people who can’t read or write, butcher the English language by replacing ‘you’ with ‘u’, inserting numbers into words seemingly at random to replace letters, and ultimately don’t have anything to contribute to a real conversation or debate.
I made a handful of large conceptual leaps in this post, while trying to address all the points I had in mind. I’m a bit tired now, as it is midnight and I need some rest, but let me know what needs clarification.
Hopefully we can have a real debate in this forum.
