Trends to a New World Order: Part 1

Transnational Elites and Pernicious Globalization

Old-Thinker News | Jan. 3, 2008

By Daniel Taylor

“Countless people… will hate the new world order… and will die protesting against it… When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents…” – H.G. Wells, The New World Order (1939)

As we enter the new year of 2008, themes of a “global community” and a “unified global approach” are becoming more prevalent.

When keeping an eye on current events and reading various think tank projections regarding the future of the world, a sobering picture begins to emerge. Forecasts are being made of a world in which a sharp divide exists between the elite and the rest of humanity. Advanced technology offers those who can afford it a means of personalized “auto-evolution”. “Pernicious globalization” takes its toll on the world and global elites thrive, leaving the rest of us in the dust. Increasingly open borders, unchecked immigration and trends to world governance cause communal conflict between various groups. The middle class becomes revolutionary as economic hardship hits hard on millions of Americans. Dictators utilize life extension technologies to prolong their reign of terror. A computer simulation offers government agencies and corporations a system to test marketing strategy and psychological operations on a virtual mirror of the real world in real time. “Gen-rich” and “Gen-poor” classes emerge to form a new “biological caste system”.

All of this would make for a thrilling Sci-Fi novel, but these trends come not from science fiction – though science fiction has proven to be a prophetic precursor to these developments -, but from present day realities seen by the U.K. Ministry of Defense, the CIA and other prominent individuals in the fields of technology, science and government.

This short two part report will attempt to answer these questions: What impact has globalization had on us and how will it effect us in the future? How do present day trends in technology, globalization, politics and government relate to the prospect of a New World Order?

The New World Order

A “New World Order” has been heralded by global elites for many years. We are told by these elites that trends to a system of world governance are only natural, that national sovereignty must be eliminated. James Paul Warburg, speaking before the US Senate in 1950, stated that, “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”

Globalization and advances in technology have undoubtedly impacted our lifestyles, world-views, and lives dramatically. A “global outlook” has planted itself in our society, but more so among elites. Zbigniew Brzezinski writes of this global outlook in his 1970 book, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era,

“A global human consciousness is for the first time beginning to manifest itself… we are witnessing the emergence of transnational elites… composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by national traditions…” [1]

The dissemination and injection of globalist ideology into the collective vocabulary and consciousness of society has been a leading goal of such transnational elites. Regional governance in conjunction with regional economic systems inside a world government has also been a long term goal of globalist organizations. In order for these regional systems to operate smoothly and to be generally accepted, think tanks have undertaken projects of social engineering on a massive scale to rid the population of “outdated” ideas of national sovereignty. [2]

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars hosted a conference in 2002 which was dedicated to the development of strategies to overcome such “outdated” ideas. The political, social and economic integration of the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a union similar to the European Union was discussed. America was acknowledged by the conference panelists as being one of the largest obstacles to globalist planning. Expanding the definition of “we”, framing integration in a non threatening manner and a “winner at the polls” were some of the suggested social engineering strategies. A summary of the conference states,

“Further economic, political, and social integration will depend on how citizens of the three countries define their national identities and the degree to which they are willing to cede some of their countries’ sovereignty to a larger entity.” [3]

“Foreign policy… provides three things for a nation’s citizens: sovereignty, security, and identity. Sovereignty dictates that the state’s citizens and government (“we”) decide policy, identity defines “who we are” as a nation, and security protects a nation’s sovereignty and identity. Governments must convince citizens that the regional project is consistent with these three values by expanding the definition of the “we.” [4]

As we enter the new year of 2008, themes of a “global community” and a “unified global approach” are becoming more prevalent. The United Nations has recently begun an initiative to bring more into agreement with the “global consciousness” with a comic book geared towards children. Marvel Comics has teamed up with the UN to create a comic book that will teach children “…the value of international cooperation.” [5] Another example comes from the London based think tank mi2g, which released a statement in late December of 2007 that stated in part,

“One world: The global community of nations is realizing that regardless of the complex global risk we wish to address, we all have to come together. The mantra of a “unified global approach” is becoming essential whether it is countering climate chaos and environmental degradation… advanced technologies — bio, info, nano, robo & AI — … financial systems and systemic risk; or transhumanism and ethics…” [6]

Combating climate change with a “global unified approach” is a concept that Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, is quite familiar with. In an article carried in the Taipei times, Haass writes that sovereignty must become weaker in a globalized world faced with climate change,

“Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change…”

“Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves…” [7]

Climate change “the issue” of 2008

Writing in the Business Spectator, economist Craig James states that climate change is “…expected to be the big issue for 2008, dominating public consciousness…” [8] 2007 saw large amounts of attention on this issue as well, when U.K. Prime minister Gordon Brown called for a “New World Order” to combat climate change. [9]

Impact of globalization and possible future scenarios

Globalization, immigration and integration of countries into larger entities brings with it social and political consequences. The Ministry of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency have produced reports forecasting possible outcomes of globalization and integration. The reports carry a familiar tone between them; advancing technology and globalization causing deep divides between elites and the majority of humanity. The CIA report, “Global Trends 2015”, outlines possible scenarios for pernicious globalization. The report states,

“Scenario Two: Pernicious Globalization Global elites thrive, but the majority of the world’s population fails to benefit from globalization… migration becomes a major source of interstate tension… Internal conflicts increase, fueled by frustrated expectations, inequities, and heightened communal tensions…” [1]

The Futurist magazine discussed this CIA report in depth in the May-June 2001 edition. Summarizing trends regarding national and international governance, the magazine states,

“Established governments are likely to lose some control over their borders as migrants, technology, disease, weapons, financial transactions, and information of all kinds move about the world. Corporations and nonprofit organizations will exert more influence on state affairs. Winners and losers in globalization will emerge…” [2]

The European Union has seen many of the forecasts cited above come to pass. Massive immigration throughout the porous EU borders has caused tension and loss of entry level jobs for native citizens of the United Kingdom. The signing of the EU treaty in Britain by Foreign Secretary David Miliband has heightened these tensions. [3]

In a an article released by the UK Daily Mail, it is reported that, “Half a million fewer Britons are in work following the unprecedented influx of migrants from Eastern Europe…” The Daily Mail report cites the independent House of Commons Library for the statistics. The report also states that, “The British Chamber of Com-merce has already warned that a generation of British children is at risk of going ‘from school straight to welfare’ while migrants fill skills shortages in the economy.” [4]

The United States open borders between Mexico and Canada have allowed millions of illegal immigrants to flow in and out of the country. Violent gangs such as the Latino group MS13 – identified by the FBI as the single most dangerous gang in America – are becoming more prevalent.

Perhaps one of the most concerning forecasts comes from the U.K. Ministry of Defense in a report released in early 2007. The report, “DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036”, foresees the middle classes facing increased economic hardship. In response,

“The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite.” [5]

The report also states,

“Economic globalization and indiscriminate migration may lead to levels of international integration that effectively bring interstate warfare to an end; however, it will also result in communities of interest at every level of society that transcend national boundaries and could resort to the use of violence.” [6]

As economic crises hit home for millions in America and abroad in 2008 and beyond, feelings of anger and resentment are undoubtedly going to spread. Trends expert Gerald Celente predicts that in 2008,

“Failing banks, busted brokerages, toppled corporate giants, bankrupt cities, states in default, foreign creditors cashing out of US securities … whatever the spark, the stage is set for panic in the streets. When the giant firms fall, they’ll crush the man on the street.” [7]

Will the “revolutionary middle class” that poses a threat to social order – bitten by burdens of debt, globalization, and economic hardship – become a reality?

Anti-globalists labeled as terrorists

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and Italian President Giorgio Napolitano have both suggested – both vaguely and unmistakably – that anti-globalists are terrorists. While speaking at a conference hosted by AKbank in Istanbul Turkey on May 31, 2007, just prior to the scheduled Bilderberg meeting, Henry Kissinger gave a speech in which he stated,

“What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system…” [1]

In June of 2007, Italian President Giorgio Napolitano stated during a press conference that it is, “…psychological terrorism to suggest the spectre of a European superstate.” [2]

H.G. Wells’ words echo eerily across time; “Countless people… will hate the new world order… and will die protesting against it…”

Click here for part 2

Citation:

The New World Order

[1] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. Penguin books, 1976

[2] “The “North American Consciousness” and “European Identity”. Old-thinker news. December 22, 2007. <http://oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/the_north_american_consciousness_and_european_integration.htm>

[3] Heard, Emily, Ed. Toward a North American Community? Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. 2002. page 7. Available online at <http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/NACrpt.pdf>

[4] Ibid. page 10.

[5] Brewster, Deborah. “U.N. joining forces with Spider-Man”. Financial Times. December 27, 2007. Available at <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22408081/>

[6] DK Matai. 2008: The Inflexion Year with Positive Outcomes!. December 21, 2007. Available at <http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/211207.php>

[7] Haass, Richard. “State Sovereignty must be altered in globalized era” Taipei Times. February 26, 2007. Available at <http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/02/21/2003294021>

[8] James, Craig. “Economic outlook 2008: climate change will dominate”. Business Spectator. December 31, 2007. Available at <http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Economic-outlook-2008–climate-change-will-dominat-A9VFT?OpenDocument>

[9] “Brown wants a ‘new world order'”. BBC News. January 19, 2007. Available at <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6277747.stm>

Impact of globalization and possible future scenarios

[1] National Intelligence Council/Central Intelligence Agency. “Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts”. page 83. Available at <http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_GIF_global/globaltrend2015.pdf>

[2] “The world in 2015”. The Futurist. May-June 2001. Volume 35, No. 3. page 7.

[3] “Miliband signs Britain away”. The Sun. December 13, 2007. Available at <http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/eu_referendum/article577014.ece>

[4] Slack, James. “500,000 fewer Britons in work following influx of Eastern Europeans”. UK Daily Mail. December 28, 2007.

[5] Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre/Ministry of Defense. “The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036”. January 2007. page 81.

[6] Ibid. page 84.

[7] “Top Trends 2008” Vol. XV, No. 1. The Trends Research Journal. Available at <http://www.trendsjournal.com/journal08.html>

Anti-globalists labeled as terrorists

[1] A video of this speech can be seen at 16:00 into this video

[2] Hartley-Brewer, Julia. “Opponents of EU treaty accused of being ‘terrorists'”. UK Daily Express. June 17, 2007. Available at <http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/10248/Opponents+of+EU+treaty+accused+of+being+’terrorists’>

Leave a Reply