Common Sense and The New World Order
Copyright 1995 by Richard K. Moore
August 8, 1995
As published in New Dawn, September-October 1995
Acknowledgement: extensive editing assistance was
provided by Butler Crittenden
Faced with widespread declines in the quality of life, the global breakdown
of traditional social and economic systems, chronic poverty and warfare,
and widespread government corruption, few would disagree that we live in
times that call for significant reforms and for a unifying vision that can
lead us to a better future. In desperation, more and more people are
turning to simplistic solutions -- fundamentalist faiths, bizarre cults,
racist xenophobia, and myopic pseudo-philosophies.
Those who retain a respect for democratic pluralism are dismayed by these
lemming-like rushes over cultish cliffs, seeing them as divisive and
unproductive of any real solutions. But there is one brand of
fundamentalism, seldom identified as such, which may be ultimately the most
dangerous. Unlike the others, this one is promulgated by the mass media,
government leaders, and self-appointed experts of all stripes -- but like
the other fundamentalist mythologies, it does not stand up to any kind of
real scrutiny. I'm speaking of the "unregulated free market", or as it has
been called for more than a century, laissez-faire economics.
The term "laissez-faire" is never used by today's proponents, because that
would invite looking at the embarrassing historical record. Instead
"market reform" is sold as if it was a bold new idea. Not a new idea at
all, it has been tried sufficiently (for example, 19th Century America and
much of today's Third World) for its unsavory consequences to become
apparent. Rather than a libertarian utopia, it brings economic waste,
curtailment of individual freedom, corruption, and a managed society --
with robber-baron monopolies at the helm.
"Laissez faire" should not be confused with "free enterprise". The ability
of buyers and sellers to negotiate prices, for producers to follow their
own judgement about market potentials, and for the give-and-take of the
marketplace to drive the dynamics of an economy -- these "free-enterprise"
mechanisms have proven themselves to be productive and beneficial to
society. But these mechanisms work best under _appropriate_ government
regulation: to maintain "level playing fields", to avoid monopolies, and to
avoid excessive exploitation of workers, consumers, and the environment.
"Laissez faire" refers to the elimination of such proper restraints --
turning full control over to monopoly-trending corporate players.
Neo-laissez-faire proponents phrase "reform" in terms typical of
fundamentalist mythologies -- complete with a revisionist history,
caricatures of alternate approaches, and rose-tinted visions of its own
efficacy. Even as "reform" leads directly and visibly to unemployment,
homelessness, crime, and a general deterioration of the quality of life,
its proponents try to lay the blame at other doorsteps, and call for still
more "reform" as the path to salvation.
Laissez faire is dangerous enough when unleashed at a national level. But
today, there is a far more ominous threat. Those whose interests are
served by unrestrained "free trade" -- the large transnational corporations
-- are not satisfied with their current successes in dominating the
economies of individual nations. Happy as they are with the record-setting
profits they have gained from their Reagan/Thatcher successes, and their
domination of the Third World (courtesy of military-dictatorship proxies),
the transnationals want more, and they want it quicker. Emboldened by
their seemingly unassailable ascendency, they are seeking to "lock in"
their dominance by a grand strategy increasingly known as the "New World
Order".
* * *
The New World Order (NWO) has several inter-linked agendas: military,
political, economic, social, ideological, and propagandistic. Its ideology
-- and economics -- is the mythologized "free market". Disastrous as this
agenda is for all but a tiny elite, it does indeed provide alluring profits
to a shrinking number of highly concentrated corporate conglomerates.
The social agenda of the NWO can be summarized as "no more entitlements".
In the First World this translates into dismantled social programs,
undermining of labor and safety laws, and a general disregard for
maintaining a healthy environment or the quality of life. This
dismantlement has been facilitated by media propaganda, and accomplished by
demagogic government leaders, exemplified by the likes of Ronald Reagan,
Margaret Thatcher, Bob Dole, John Major, and Newt Gingrich. The role of
such demagogs is to sabotage government from within -- assuring that it
fails -- and then proclaiming deregulation and privatization as the "only
possible solutions" to the problems they themselves have created or
aggravated.
Similar "solutions" are imposed on the Third World, but instead of relying
solely on domination of the political process in each individual nation,
the policies are imposed on each from outside, by conditions set by the
international financial community.
This raises the political agenda. The political regime being installed to
command the Orderly New World is frighteningly simple: it includes no
political parties, no constitution, no declaration of human rights, no
balance of powers, no effective redress of grievances, and no elections (in
fact no kind of popular representation). Instead the nations of the world
are to be controlled by faceless commissions of technocrats, appointed
(directly or indirectly) by transnational executives, and dedicated to
serving their corporate interests.
A precursor of these commissions can be seen in the International Monetary
Fund (IMF). As a mechanism of control, the IMF is efficient and highly
leveraged. Instead of intervening in the internal affairs of individual
nations, as with traditional imperialism, a small commission of technocrats
simply run their spreadsheets and announce guidelines. Whole nations are
then forced to find their own way of living within the imposed constraints.
Very tidy, as far as the transnationals are concerned. Very ugly, to the
millions who are forced to somehow survive and rear their families under
these guidelines, or, increasingly, are simply left to starve. It's _not
nice_ to be redundant to the needs of the New World Order and its corporate
masters!
This nightmarish political regime is being expanded to the Second and First
Worlds by means of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area), GATT (General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), the WTO (World Trade Organization), and
other similar agreements and entities. Unlike the IMF, which controls via
the purse strings, these so-called "trade agreements" control via intrusion
into the regulatory power of signatory nations. By exploiting the treaty
mechanism, which has the force of national law, these agreements become
permanent parts of each constitutional system, making it all but impossible
for future governments to choose different regulatory policies. Thus the
transnationals are able to translate temporary political ascendency,
attained at considerable effort and expense, into a permanent stranglehold
over sovereign nations.
These agreements go far beyond the bounds of "trade policy". But by
masquerading as trade agreements, they manage to avoid the deeper policy
debates which are sorely needed. Instead, a few "trade negotiators" from
each country meet in relative secrecy and hammer out terms of "economic
reform", downplaying the far-reaching consequences for sovereignty.
Thus the NWO "reform camel" sneaks its nose into the national tent. The
bulky body of the full NWO reform camel is not limited to imports/exports,
quotas/tariffs -- it pushes its weight into labor laws, safety regulations,
air quality rules, land use practices, social programs, and so on ad
infinitum. The camel itself has no concern for the quality of life, and
the citizenry is expected to adapt to its pitiable life style.
There's one more NWO infiltration scheme which deserves special mention --
Maastricht and the European Union. Just as the IMF masquerades as a
funding source, and GATT as trade reform, so the EU is sold as a "more
competitive Europe" -- and the deception is equally profound. As with the
trade agreements, the debate over Maastricht has been channeled as narrowly
as possible, primarily to the question of "opening of markets". But Europe
has a highly educated public and a strong democratic tradition, and some of
the debate has (fortunately) touched on the real issue at stake --
surrender of national sovereignty to bureaucrats in Brussels.
Unfortunately the Euro Skeptics in the British Parliament, and the
Norwegians -- and others who are demonstrating the ability to think ahead
-- are being drowned out in the mad rush to endorse the pathetic Maastricht
formula.
The reasons for narrowing the debate over Maastricht as much as possible
are obvious: if Maastricht were evaluated for what it actually is -- the
operating framework for a United States of Europe -- it would be found
sorely wanting. It lacks firm guarantees of human rights, a well
thought-out balance of powers, a bicameral legislature, and many other
elements that are necessary to a sound democratic system. It simply
doesn't stand up at all as a serious constitution, and so the true scope of
its ultimate authority is intentionally concealed.
This time the NWO camel has sneaked more than its nose into the tent of an
entire continent. And as usual, the humps of the NWO camel are the same --
control concentrated in appointed technocratic commissions whose primary
goal is to facilitate investment opportunities for the corporate sector.
As part of its deceptive propaganda campaign, there is currently an EU
emphasis on progressive measures, such as extending workers' rights in
nations below the European average. But such concerns are not the inherent
focus of Maastricht, and as Brussels' power becomes more entrenched, its
true colors will come increasingly to the fore. As with all con games, the
bait come first, and the hook goes deep when finally felt.
In this era of instantly available global communications, how have the
world's people permitted themselves to fall blindly down the slippery slope
of this undemocratic neo-feudalism?
This question raises the propagandistic agenda of the New World Order. At
an alarming rate, all global sources of information and entertainment are
being concentrated into a handful of media conglomerates. Television,
newspapers, magazines, and film production are being gobbled up by a few
conglomerates which have full control over their content and distribution.
These conglomerates decide which events are to be deemed "news", how that
"news" is to be interpreted, which story ideas will be developed into
films and TV series, which candidates are to be considered "realistic" in
elections, which legislative proposals are to be praised or ridiculed, and
which mythologies are to be sold to global audiences.
Primary among the myths being sold is "market reform". In a narrow sense,
media conglomerates have an immediate self-interest in this "reform"
ideology. We see this in the recent Hollywood/Chirac debate over the
preservation of domestic European media production. But this by no means
explains the depth of the media's devotion to the "reform" faith.
Media conglomerates have interlocking directorates with -- and in many
cases are owned by -- other non-media conglomerates. The media is a member
in good standing of the corporate community, and its own special role -- as
a team member -- is to align global public opinion with the aims of that
community. Increasingly, this translates into pushing the various agendas
of the New World Order.
It is in connection with the NWO's military agenda that the phrase "New
World Order" gained prominence recently. I refer to President George
Bush's explaining the Gulf "War" as a prototype of how the world is to be
policed under the NWO. The term struck negative chords -- it was used by
the Axis in WWII -- and has not been again re-emphasized. Evidently, Bush
was using rhetoric for which the media had not yet adequately prepared the
population. Fortunately, the slip-up helped reveal the scope of the NWO.
A brief review of the Gulf "War" is instructive of both the military and
the propagandistic agendas.
For at least a decade, the U.S and other Western powers had been trading
heavily with Iraq, selling it all manner of industrial goods, ingredients
for chemical weapons, and the means of conducting modern warfare. Besides
the immediate profits from this trade, it was part of an alleged "tilt"
against Iran in the protracted Iran/Iraq War. Saddam's internal political
practices, though well known, were evidently of little interest, and
received scant emphasis in the media.
With all this assistance, and with U.S warships present in the Gulf
throughout the conflict, Saddam had every reason to consider himself the
designated "proxy" of the Western powers in the region. There were even
pieces floated in the mass media, characterizing Iraq as the new center of
stabilization for this "fundamentalist-Moslem-infested" region. In this
context, Saddam sent a message to the U.S. Secretary of State, declaring
that he wished to act militarily on long-standing territorial claims
against Kuwait, left over from the arbitrary borders set down by the
British in earlier colonial days. Back came the unambiguous response that
Washington considered such disputes as "internal Arab matters". It seems
in retrospect that Saddam was foolish to be duped by such a response, but
after years of support and encouragement of his military ventures, his
credulity is understandable.
So the trap was set, and Saddam marched brashly into it. And what a
well-sprung trap it was! Within hours of the invasion, the full weight of
the global media, and of the formidable diplomatic power of an aroused U.S,
was unleashed against Saddam. Suddenly the West "discovered" that Saddam
was a dictator, had tormented the Kurds, was a military adventurer, and was
in possession of formidable weapons. Since all this information wasn't on
the propaganda agenda during the Iran/Iraq war, it played successfully as a
"revelation" in the media. None of this was news, of course, to the U.S.
government, anymore than was the invasion itself.
What was the purpose of this elaborate set up? It has been analyzed in
terms of managing global oil supplies and limiting the modernization of
Arab states -- points which are surely part of the immediate picture. But
from a more global perspective, the Gulf "War" may be seen as a carefully
orchestrated _precedent_ for the military regime planned for the New World
Order.
The U.S.'s earlier exercises in blitzkrieg -- Grenada and Panama -- were
undertaken unilaterally, as per the imperialist Monroe Doctrine. Those
tests served to prove the effectiveness of the latest military techniques
-- stealth weapons, night warfare, blitzkrieg speed, ultra-high-yield
firepower, etc.
Perhaps more important, the blitzkrieg exercises also tested a new
generation of propaganda techniques: keep the press far away from the
conflict; reveal almost nothing about the operation; deluge the media with
meaningless sound bites and images of high-technology weapons; run a highly
dramatized demonization campaign against "the enemy". All of this conveys
the _impression_ that the conflict is being covered by the press.
Despite providing no real information, these propaganda techniques
succeeded not only in mustering overwhelming public approval for the
illegal invasions, but actually made for highly popular prime-time
entertainment. Such "press coverage" may seem bizarre for a supposedly
democratic nation with a presumed free press, but they aren't unprecedented
as propaganda technology. Exactly the same techniques, and with identical
results, were used by Hitler when he was carrying out his own earlier
blitzkriegs (largely funded by predecessors of the same corporate
community).
Having proven the military and propaganda techniques in its own backyard,
the U.S. orchestrated the Gulf "War" as a means of exporting these
techniques into the context of the rapidly crystallizing New World Order
structures. While all attempts at negotiation were successfully undermined
or blocked by the U.S., the media bombarded the world with an intense and
exaggerated demonization campaign against Saddam. In the end, the
intensive and multi-faceted lobbying forced the U.N. to yield to America's
demand for a free hand.
What the U.S. did with this blank check was not primarily to expel Iraqi
forces from Kuwait, but to systematically destroy the entire infrastructure
of Iraq. It was not a war, it was a demolition. While 100,000 or more
civilians were being massacred by B52s and cruise missiles, global
television audiences looked at endless reruns of the same "smart bombs"
destroying targets portrayed as "uninhabited" and "military". The bloodbath
was not sanitized; the media coverage was.
Although the operation was primarily an American show, from beginning to
end, it was carefully framed within a U.N. authorization and included token
forces from other "allies", many of whom demanded extensive bribery to
participate. There was thus an "internationalist" veneer over an
American-initiated conflict, motivated by undisclosed goals, apparently
related to NWO management of the Arab world and international oil supplies.
Over the past century, the U.S. has felt free to "intervene" unilaterally
in dozens of countries to support the operations of various corporate
interests. As foreshadowed by the Gulf precedent, the NWO scheme is to
"legitimize" such interventions, by embedding them within an international
framework. That framework won't be the U.N. -- which includes too diverse
a representative base -- instead, it will be framed within organizations
such as NATO, which fit better the technocratic model and are more easily
managed by the NWO elite.
Thus the military agenda of the NWO can be foreseen by simply looking back
at the history of U.S. imperialism in the Third World. Whenever a country
gets too uppity -- pursuing its domestic interests rather than those of
transnational corporate investors -- it can expect to be subdued by
overwhelming military force, preceded by an appropriate media demonization
campaign. Traditional international law -- largely ignored in practice
anyway -- is to be _formally_ replaced by an "internationalized", but elite
controlled, NWO Police Strike Force.
* * *
The key question about the NWO is "What can we do about it?". By "we" I
refer to all who share a concern for the future of humankind, democracy,
and the quality of life. Overwhelming as the NWO lineup appears, it may be
still reversible. The very scope of the NWO initiative and the brashness
with which it is proceeding provide the seeds of a substantial opposing
global coalition.
First, we should be able to appeal to national interests, both governmental
and popular, in the preservation of cultural identity and the right to self
determination. The NWO aims to undermine workers' rights; we should be
able to appeal to labor unions and those aligned with labor issues.
Similarly, there's really no limit to the number of progressive
organizations and concerned citizens -- whose focus is environmental
protection, civil liberties, social programs, and entitlements -- who could
be expected to support a vision of human concerns and democratic sovereign
nations.
In order to launch an effective counter-offensive, we need several
ingredients: an analysis of the situation and the "enemy", a different and
better vision of the future, and a coalition strategy. I've attempted to
sketch the initial threads of the analysis.
The vision, I submit, must center upon a re-dedication to the principles of
democratic government and national sovereignty. Flawed as they are, and in
need of vigilant reform, representative democracies are a much better
starting point than domination by corporate-run commissions. Even if
draconian economic "reform" provided economic benefits, a highly dubious
claim, the political price to be paid is simply unacceptable. Retrenchment
from the phony trade agreements and Maastricht must become a top priority.
But a vision based solely on opposition is doomed to failure. There also
must be a positive element, an alternative picture of how the world is to
evolve. Perhaps the seeds for that can be found in the very coalition that
we need to build.
I submit that the best opportunity for building a potent coalition is to
focus at the national level: gathering into a collaborative effort those
nations which haven't already been fully co-opted by the NWO. This calls
for domestic organizing efforts -- to build constituencies within those
countries -- along with a global organizing initiative to bring such
nations together. Just as the countries supporting the NWO have their own
organizations, such as the G7, the "rest of us" need a new international
forum of our own. Let's call it the "G99". The G99 is not the same as the
U.N. -- already carefully designed to be subverted by the G7-class nations.
_Perhaps_ the G99 can be fashioned from other existing organizations, such
as TOES, "The Other Economic Summit".
The charter of the G99 could be focused around Self Determination,
Cooperative Support, and Principled Action. The principle of national Self
Determination needs to be supported individually and collectively by G99,
providing a united front against NWO encroachments. Cooperative Support
includes G99 relying upon its own resources, including trade -- a
collective self-reliance -- to assure its economic future. To appeal to
the G7 to provide funds and leadership is to succumb to the NWO seduction.
Principled Action means that the G99 needs to lead with loud and clear
public positions on matters of human rights, national sovereignty,
non-intervention, workers rights, and the panoply of environmental issues.
* * *
The NWO's global media monopoly poses a significant barrier to the
organization and evolution of the G99. Special concern must be given to
establishing independent channels of communication to support organizing
activities, and to counteract demonization campaigns by the NWO. Visible
support among citizen groups in the G7 nations would be very beneficial.
Resisting the New World Order will be a formidable undertaking, but
submitting to it is simply unthinkable. We must begin the undertaking now;
we may never get another chance.
|