In 1974, Richard N. Gardner wrote a article titled, The Hard Road to the New World Order. The following is a quote from that book:
The “house of world order” will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great “booming, buzzing confusion,” to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.
I haven’t read Gardner’s article but what he wrote is descriptive of the chaos we are now living through. The challenge has been to communicate my analysis of the evolving State of Chaos to show who, how and why our nation-state is being subverted because conversion to a New World Order is by definition, subversion of the Old World Order of which our nation-state is a part.
Old World Order
Since 1648 when a series of treaties were signed that were collectively known as the Peace of Westphalia, the world has been politically organized into nation-states.
“Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of the sovereignty of nation-states on their territory, with no role for external agents in domestic structures.”
Sources (wiki is sufficient for overview):
New World Order
The New World Order (NWO) is a replacement system for Westphalian Sovereignty.
To this writer’s knowledge, there is no name for the New World Order system. Perhaps market sovereignty might work but the best description I’ve found is functional sovereignty. Regardless, it is an administrative system based on the concept of One World with one legal system for the planet with territory broken up into regions (common market unions), managed by specialist managers, supervised by committees and alleged representation for people provided by special interest groups (NGOs) – all organized along functional or market (hub) lines.
The New World Order is being implemented incrementally. From the point of view of a citizen of a nation-state, it is treason on the installment plan. It is revolution and overthrow from the top down executed by insiders to the government itself with the objective being disintegration of the nation-state.
We can hardly expect the nation-state to make itself superfluous, at least not overnight. Rather what we must aim for is really nothing more than caretakers of a bankrupt international machine which will have to be transformed slowly into a new one. The transition will not be dramatic, but a gradual one. People will still cling to national symbols.”
— Henry Morgenthau, CFR, Secretary of the Treasury under FDR, 1945
If your world view is strictly within the context of the United States as a nation-state, sovereign and independent, then you won’t be able to see how the incremental purpose of legislation is contributing to the disintegration. All of the “reform” legislation coming out of the Congress of the United States and all of the programs and regulations coming out of the agencies of government are designed for the conversion from the Old World Order to the New World Order which is why they never make anything better. Things only get worse and will continue to do so until our nation-state collapses.
Conversion to the NWO involves a conversion to a new governing structure. The name for this system is “collaborative governance“.
“Collaborative governance is an emerging form of governance, based on direct democracy, supported by internet technologies (“ICT”). It enables any interested individual to collaborate in the decision-making of a community.
Collaborative governance is not directly comparable to traditional direct democracy, which is usually a majority rule system used on only a few major issues. By comparison, collaborative governance is a consensus system intended to be used on all issues affecting a community, with the implicit understanding that anyone not participating on a particular issue consents to allow others to decide the issue.”
It surprised me to find this methodology of the Information Systems industry being redefined to be a form of government. Within a corporation, IT Systems Analysts meet with the various user groups involved in a system and they get their input on what they do and what they would like the new system to do but in the final analysis, the Systems Analysts decide what they get – which could include a boot out the door if their function is being replaced. Putting the methodology in context in the corporate world, it’s purely a fascist methodology – and necessarily so. The particular context whether inside a corporation or outside dealing with the public under the pretense of participatory “governance”, it remains a fascist methodology for designing or redesigning new systems or processes.
Organizationally, as a governing structure, it can’t work. To the extent that it has worked so far, it is only because the majority of participants don’t understand that they are dupes and their participation is illusory. The decisions they are allowed to make are superficial and unimportant. The meaningful decisions are made by the designers of the plan, program or system and they are unchangeable which makes the entire process of collaboration a fraud.
There is not enough time in the day for a person to participate in every issue area where decisions will be made that affects a person’s life which means that the best a person can do is to focus on one – and maybe two if they are lucky – that is if they are not too busy working and raising a family.
On any given issue, dozens of special interest groups may form around some aspect of policy detail. For example, property rights. What are reasonable property rights in populated areas? Examples of groups that could form: Right to farm, Right of Quiet for noise abatement, Right to Live in a Clean and well-kept area, Right to be a Junk Collector with Trashy Property, Society for the Preservation of the Urban Cockroach. If they are all given equal say in a community, you have set the conditions for “overlapping jurisdictions and no way to adjudicate disputes”.
Authority in a Disintegrating Nation-State
Power abhors a vacuum. The disintegration of the nation-state necessitates the transfer of government power to corporations, trade associations, Specialist Associations and Special Interest Groups – all organized to serve their own interests and not the interests of the citizens as a Westphalian government did. This transfer of power to special interest groups accomplishes the goal of functional sovereignty. In order to mask the fact that the conversion of government is to a fascist system of corporate control, corporations are working through Foundations and their own created and/or funded “grassroots” special interest groups. By way of example, consider the following:
On October 10, 2012, Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase was the guest of a Council on Foreign Relations sponsored event to discuss the Global Economy. Dimon was interviewed by Richard Haass, President of the CFR. I highly recommend listening to the entire program. It is posted in the C-Span archives but if you don’t have time, I clipped a couple of brief segments that are relevant to this discussion.
It should be noted that the reason the Financial Services industry is now overwhelmed with different regulatory “groups” is because they were de-regulated so they could become global financial firms. In the de-regulated environment, they committed massive theft and fraud – which was just fine with people like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein – and still is. In another place in the interview, Jamie Dimon says the Financial Services industry is doing just great financially and he couldn’t be happier with it. But, concerning the regulatory environment, he said, “what we need is collaborative governance”. Quite the joke isn’t it? What they have is collaborative governance which is why 17 different agencies came after them for “making mistakes”. What he really means is that he and his fellow thieves want to write their own regulations and share them with regulators – which is what we had before – setting up for an eternal cycle of incompetence and corruption.
This article was originally published on my old website, www.channelingreality.com in 2012. The links have been updated and minor changes to the text were made to provide continuity for the next segment which will be Redefining Sovereignty.