Furthest Right

What is the “New World Order”?

When we look back over this time, most opinions will be seen as over-reactions that emphasized the wrong things, instead of looking at the most likely causes, which would be continuous with past history.

After all, we live after a great schism that split the West, The Enlightenment,™ in which we threw away our Traditional order and replaced it with the idea of a society of equal warm bodies doing the “correct” thing in unison.

Was it the factory that inspired this change, or merely the fear that someone else might have something that we as individuals do not? Humans as herd animals tend to exist in a duality: both depending on the herd, and trying to get the best position possible within it.

We hear a lot about the “New World Order.” The Left calls it neoliberalism and points to its acceptance of capitalism as its flaw; the Right sees it as an attempt at establishing Comintern once again:

The Communist International (Comintern) was established in March 1919 to foment world revolution. Within a few years, communist parties existed in nearly all the countries of Europe and by 1930 in most countries of the world. These generally small, often illegal parties looked to Comintern headquarters in Moscow for support and guidance. After the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) took custody of the organization’s records.

This follows the notion established by Karl Marx of a worldwide proletarian revolution to overthrow the naturally gifted, therefore those who are more likely to be wealthy, healthy, sane, stable, beautiful, and powerful:

The famous final phrase of the Manifesto, “Working Men of All Countries, Unite!”, in the original German is: “Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!” Thus, a more correct translation would be “Proletarians of all countries, Unite!”

“Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!” is a popularisation of the last three sentences, and is not found in any official translation. Since this English translation was approved by Engels, we have kept the original intact.

For centuries, even before Marx, the dream of the Left has been to make the social pot as big as possible. When the world is united, they think, there will be enough wealth to redistribute and everyone gets the same basic standard of living.

However, we see the workplace problem of modern government: those who must work together form coalitions, as European governments are designed to do. While this creates compromise, it also means that the worst of all systems live on.

The New World Order, as explained by the man who coined the term, George H.W. Bush, brought together the American ideal of independence, Soviet notions of equality, capitalism, and the vision of one world order designed by both Comintern and the World Federalism:

Probably our best hope for the future lies in developing the United Nations into a World Federation. The strengthened United Nations should have a legislature with the power to make laws that are binding on individuals, and the ability to arrest and try individual political leaders for violations of these laws.

The world federation should also have the power of taxation, and the military and legal powers necessary to guarantee the human rights of ethnic minorities within nations. In 1945, the victors of World War II gathered in San Francisco to draft the United Nations Charter. The tragic experiences of two world wars, during which the lives of 26 million soldiers and 64 million civilians were lost, had convinced them that security based on national military forces must be replaced by a system of collective security. The first paragraph of the Charter states that the primary purpose of the organization is “to maintain international peace and security, and to that end to take effective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression and other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.”

If you read down far enough, you see that this means world government by civil rights, effectively suppressing dissent by forcing mutual tolerance, much in the same way that pacifism, unions, compromise, and utilitarianism function: force tolerance and remove anyone with higher standards.

This mirrors the idea of Leftism itself: instead of having an order to society, like Tradition, society will be based around the individual — shades of The Enlightenment™ — and all will be tolerated in exchange for their loyalty in maintaining the State.

In this way, we see how quid pro quo (the process of compromise and negotiation) itself makes us converge on a mean. The capitalists tolerate the unions so long as the unions tolerate offshoring, for example, or the unions tolerate the conservatives so long as the conservatives lower tariffs.

As time goes on, all of these groups get their demands met, and so government becomes not something with a purpose, plan, and will, as it would under a monarch, but the result of a committee: deferential to precedent and “optics,” an amalgam of demands from its constituent members, and a force of inertia based on the past and not the future.

This shows us that, under democracy, government is not so much a conscious thing as an unconscious snowball, picking up everything that people will vote for, and combining them into a mythical beast made of spare parts.

Such is the case, when we read it, with George H.W. Bush’s notion of a “New World Order.” He speaks of the amalgamation that America has become, fusing American Independence with French Revolution and Enlightenment™ ideals as well as the recent civil rights struggle and its dependence on the entitlements state.

He announced his idea most clearly in an address to Congress (see also this alternate) on September 11, 1991:

We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order — a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful — and we will be — we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.

Here we have World Federalism again: the idea of a body ruling all other nations in order to eliminate conflict, and use the “rule of law” to keep the strong from beating on the weak.

Bush laid out the basic ideas in his State of the Union address of January 16, 1991:

Events that validate the longstanding goals of American policy, a policy based on a single shining principle: the cause of freedom.

America, not just the nation, but an idea alive in the minds of people everywhere. As this new world takes shape, America stands at the center of a widening circle of freedom, today, tomorrow and into the next century.

Our nation is the enduring dream of every immigrant who ever set foot on these shores, and the millions still struggling to be free. This nation, this idea called America, was and always will be a new world, our new world.

In a segment from the second speech, we can see what Bush wanted the UN to adopt as its order:

The cornerstones of this free society have already been set in place: democracy, competition, opportunity, private investment, stewardship, and, of course, leadership.

To this, Clinton added something he carried over from JFK, our first Irish president: the notion of diversity (then called “multiculturalism,” although previously known as “internationalism,” a term which embraced both open borders and a global system).

If you distill this message to its core, however, what you see is a call for markets and civil rights to triumph over national cultures. The free market jive expresses the idea of uniting the world with the power of capital, using it to achieve the Leftist aims of the United Nations.

As more former colonial states became powerful enough to join the United Nations, it slid even further to the Left from its idealistic founding born of 1930s Marxism, anti-Hitler rhetoric in WW2, and a desire to get national cultures out of the way so that unobstructed commerce could become the norm.

In this way, we see how conservatives become hoodwinked. It is not because they defend the recent past as tradition, but because in order to get anything done in this system, compromises must be made.

That integrates the Leftist ideal into the Right-wing one and throws out any conflicts, much like William F. Buckley did in the 1960s when he replaced race-aware conservatism with its new, mellower format:

The casting out of Robert Welch and the extremist positions of the John Birch Society that he headed proved more difficult and contentious but was necessary, in accordance with Buckley’s design to build an effective, prudential conservative counter-establishment.

Buckley also took a firm stand against anti-Semitism, informing NR writers that the magazine would “not carry on its masthead the name of any person whose name also appears on the masthead of the American Mercury.”

In his articles and editorials, Buckley clearly rejected the politics of Southern racists like Ross Barnett of Mississippi and George Wallace of Alabama, but he also argued that the federal enforcement of integration was worse than the temporary continuation of segregation.

As a result of National Review’s above-the-fray philosophizing and Barry Goldwater’s vote, on constitutional grounds, against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the albatross of racism was hung around the neck of American conservatism and remained there for decades and even to the present.

Once he removed the race-aware wing of conservatives, Buckley tried to use libertarianism to defend against the takeover of American government by the replacement of Constitutional natural rights with legislative and internationalist civil rights, but libertarianism simply accepted this as a cost of doing business.

Thus when we come down to Bush I talking about a “New World Order,” we get an aggregate of American politics: finding commonality in egalitarianism through mis-reading the Declaration of Independence and citing WW2-era propaganda, Bush created a competitor to Communism that looked surprisingly like a Communism-Consumerism hybrid.

That is the New World Order. If it has a cornerstone, it is individualism, or the idea that the individual is the most important part of society, not natural order or time-honored traditions like culture, family, genetics, and faith.

No one but a dying democracy, casting about for legitimacy and finding it in future third world voters but not its own people, could do such a thing. Clinton and later Bush II simply took it to its logical extremes.

Tags: , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn