Common sense and new world order

Faced with the widespread decline in living standards, the global breakdown of traditional social and economic systems, inescapable poverty and rising tensions in society, occurring against the background of the equally widespread degradation of state power, few would refuse to admit that we live in times when significant reforms and a kind of generalizing view that can lead us a better future. In the meantime, unfortunately, more and more people find a way out in such simple solutions as religious fundamentalism, extravagant cults, racist xenophobia, and myopic pseudo-philosophies.

Those who retain respect for democratic pluralism, are dismayed by such reckless storms of cult peaks, finding them unproductive, not solving problems. But there is a special sort of fundamentalism, rarely recognizable, which is perhaps the most dangerous of all. Unlike others, this fundamentalism is exalted through the media, government circles and through self-proclaimed experts of all stripes - but just like other fundamentalist mythologies, it does not stand up to any serious criticism. I'm talking about the "unregulated free market", or, as it was called for more than a century, "lassefer" -economy ("laisse fair" - French. - unlimited in action, "do what you want" - approx. Transl.).

Today’s proponents never use this term, as this will directly indicate an undesirable connection with famous prophecies. But the "market reforms" are presented as a new cool idea. And the idea is absolutely not new and tested enough (for example, America of the XIX century and most of the Third World today), so that the disgusting consequences of its implementation become obvious. Rather, than liberal utopia, this idea entails economic collapse, cuts in individual freedom, corruption, a tamed society with monopolies of wealthy brigands at the head.

"Lassefer" should not be confused with "free enterprise". The mechanisms of the latter, such as the ability of the buyer and seller to set prices, producers prove their productivity and profitability for society, follow their own understanding of market opportunities, such as managing the dynamics of the economy through market supply and demand. But these mechanisms operate in the best possible way under conditions of appropriate state regulation, which should be expressed in setting the rules of the game and the limits of freedom, in countering monopolism, and in preventing over-exploitation of workers, consumers, and the environment. “Lassefer” also implies the elimination of these completely natural restrictions in order to transfer full control to monopolistically oriented corporate players.

The word "reform", characteristic of supporters of the neo-"Lassefer", is quite typical of fundamentalist mythologies, along with rewriting stories, ridiculing alternative approaches and idealizing one’s own effectiveness. Even when “reforms” lead straight to unemployment, deprivation of citizens, rising crime and a general deterioration in the quality of life, their supporters tend to blame opponents for everything, and in order to save them, they call for aggravating “reforms.”

"Lassefer" is especially dangerous when not tied to the national level. But today there is an even more ominous threat. Those whose interests are limited by unbridled "free trade" - large transnational corporations - are not satisfied with the real power they have over the national economy. Rejoicing at the unprecedented benefits gained from the successes of Reagan and Thatcher’s policies from the rule of the Third World (the property of authorized dictator-militarist regimes), the transnationals want more, and immediately. Encouraged by their seemingly impregnable domination, they are trying to finally establish their power with the help of a global strategy that is becoming more and more famous under the name of the New World Order.


The new world order (NWO) has several closely related aspects: military, political, economic, social, ideological and propaganda. Its ideology - and the economy - is a mythologized "free market". Poor for everyone, with the exception of the tiny elite, it is also useful to her in that it allows you to limit the number of highly concentrated corporate conglomerates.

The social level of NMP can be collectively defined as “custody termination”. In the First World, this is reflected in the dismantling of social programs, the undermining of laws in the field of labor and safety, in total disregard for the creation of a healthy environment or a decent life. Dismantling is assisted by propaganda in the media, and demagogues from government circles, such as Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Bob Dole, John Major and others, produce it. The role of such demagogues is to sabotage the government from the inside, ensuring its collapse, and then proclaiming “reorganization” and "privatization" as the "only possible solutions" to problems created or exacerbated by the demagogues themselves.

Similar “solutions” are imposed on the Third World, with the only difference being that, without relying on control over the political process in each country, politicians put pressure on them from the outside, using the conditions developed by the international financial community.

Here the political level is connected. The political regime established to manage an Orderly New World is frighteningly simple: no political parties, constitutions, declarations of human rights, no balance of power, no complaints and compensation, no elections (in any case, without a hint of representativeness). Instead, the life of nations should be controlled by impersonal commissions of technocrats appointed (directly or indirectly) by transnational representatives, and called upon to respect corporate interests.

The predecessor of these commissions can be seen in the person of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). As a control mechanism, it is very effective and is equipped with a mass of appropriate levers. Instead of interfering in the internal affairs of states, as in the case of traditional imperialism, a small commission of technocrats simply sets in motion their interest slip, and then dictates guidelines and principles of behavior. And so all the nations are forced either to find their own way, or to exist in imposed conditions. Very modestly - as transnationals will allow. It is very bad for millions who are forced to somehow survive and adapt their families to strict requirements, or, worse, to condemn themselves to hunger and deprivation. Yes, it is very unpleasant - not to be claimed by the New World Order and its corporate masters!

This nightmarish political regime is spread in the Second and First Worlds through NAFTA (North American Free Trade Zone), GATT (Universal Agreement on Taxes and Trade), WTO (World Trade Organization) and other similar agreements and "creatures". Unlike the IMF, which exercises control through monetary fetters, these so-called “trade agreements” are embedded in the ruling mechanisms of the signatory states. Using a contractual mechanism having the force of law, the agreement becomes an integral part of any constitutional system so that future governments do not have the opportunity to choose other political approaches. So transnationals are able to spread temporary political influence, achieved with considerable effort and cost, for the permanent "strangulation" of sovereign states.

These agreements go far beyond the "trade policy". But disguised as “trade”, they avoid serious political debates, which are in fact badly needed. But instead, several "resellers" from each country meet semi-officially and invent the conditions for "economic reform", thereby laying far-reaching implications for sovereignty.

So, the “camel of reforms” of the New World Order is putting its nose into the state tent. The whole body of this camel is not limited to import-export, tariff-quotas — it weighs on labor laws, security mechanisms, environmental control rules, land use practices, social programs, and so on ad infinitum. The camel does not care about the quality of life, so the citizens themselves are forced to adapt to such a miserable existence.

One more way that the NWO leaks to us deserves a special mention - the Maastricht Treaty and the European Union. Just as the IMF is disguised as a fund, and GATT is under trade reform, so the EU is served under the guise of a "more competitive Europe" - there is an equally sophisticated trick here. As in the case of trade agreements, the controversy over Maastricht was launched along the narrowest possible, verified channel, primarily on the issue of "opening markets". But, fortunately, in Europe there is a highly educated public and powerful democratic traditions, so here some debates have come to a realistic statement of the question of the essence of the treaty: the surrender of national sovereignty to bureaucrats in Brussels. Unfortunately, the European skeptics who demonstrated such a wise prediction in the British Parliament, the Norwegians, and others, were stifled by the crazy pressure in support of the pathetic Maastricht formula.

The narrowing of the Maastricht controversy was as likely as explicable: it is enough to determine what the treaty is essentially - and this is the operational framework for the United States of Europe - to understand the very desirability of such a narrowing. After all, such a treaty requires special guarantees of human rights, a well-thought-out balance of power, bicameral legislative power, and a host of other elements that are mandatory for any nominally democratic system. Maastricht simply does not correspond to the rank of this basic law, and the scope of its main purpose is deliberately ignored.

Currently, the camel of the NWO has squeezed into the continent's tent already on its nose. His humps are the same - the concentration of control at the appointed commissions of technocrats, whose primary goal is to facilitate investment opportunities in the corporate sector. Part of this crafty propaganda campaign is protrusion of progressive measures, such as the empowerment of workers in states below the average European level. But such care is not a characteristic area of ​​interest of Maastricht, and as soon as the Brussels mechanism is sufficiently established in power, its real nature will manifest. It is known that the bait catches the eye, and the hook is hidden until the time, but in the end it finds itself.

But how can people in our era of developed and accessible global communications so easily allow themselves to overturn themselves on the slippery slope of undemocratic neo-feudalism ?!

This question touches on the propaganda level of the New World Order. It is very disturbing that all global media and entertainment are concentrated under the control of a group of media conglomerates. They absorbed television, newspapers, magazines, filmmaking and completely control their content and distribution. They decide what to consider as "news" and how these "news“to interpret which of the historical ideas to form the basis of films and serials, which candidates to recognize as“ elected ”in elections, which legislative initiatives to praise, which ones to ridicule, which mythologies to offer to a global audience.

The priority of such myths is “market reforms”. In the narrow sense, media conglomerates have a vital interest in the "reform" ideology. We see this in the example of the Chirac-Hollywood debate on the status of intra-European media production. But this does not in any way explain the entire depth of media loyalty to the "reform" faith.

Media conglomerates merge - and in many cases recognize this - with enterprises of a different profile. Media is a member of an established, strong corporate community, and its specific role in this capacity is to build global public opinion in accordance with the goals of this community. In addition, this is reflected in other levels of NMP.

So, it was in the military context of the NWP that the concept of the “New World Order” was unexpectedly thrown into use. I mean the explanation by US President George W. Bush of the Gulf War as a prototype of how order in the world will be maintained in the conditions of the NMP. The term hurts the painful strings because it was used by the Nazis in World War II, but it did not receive a new interpretation. Apparently, Bush used rhetoric, for which the media have not yet properly prepared the population. But this bobble helped to fully expose the NMP. Even a cursory review of the Gulf War is very indicative of the understanding of two aspects of the NWP - military and propaganda.

For at least a decade, the United States and other Western powers traded with Iraq to the fullest extent, selling all sorts of manufactured goods, ingredients to the chemical industry. arms, means for conducting modern military operations. In addition to immediate benefits, this trade once again provoked Iran, which is in a state of protracted war with Iraq. At the same time, the well-known style of maintaining Saddam’s domestic policy didn’t particularly bother anyone and received very poor media coverage.

In view of all this assistance, in view of the presence of American warships in the Gulf throughout the conflict, Saddam had every reason to consider himself as an "attorney" of the Western powers in the region. Moreover, the media has already flashed the characteristics of Iraq as a new center of stabilization in a region "teeming with Islamic fundamentalists." In this context, Saddam sends a letter to the US Secretary of State, notifying of his intentions to use military force to resolve lengthy territorial claims against Kuwait and go beyond the boundaries set by Britain in the early colonial period. An unambiguous answer comes: Washington views these controversial issues as "the internal affairs of the Arab states." Now it may seem that Saddam showed recklessness by allowing himself to be fooled by a similar answer, but after so many years of support and encouragement in his risky military enterprises, such his credulity is quite explicable.

So a trap was set, and Saddam boldly stalked into it. But how tricky the trap was! Literally during the first hours of the invasion of Saddam, all the power of the global media and the enormous diplomacy forces of the disgruntled States were lowered. The West suddenly discovered that Saddam was a dictator, that he was oppressing the Kurds, that he was a military adventurer, armed and very dangerous. Since all this information did not feature in the propaganda aspect during the Iran-Iraq war, it successfully played the role of a kind of media “revelation”. Naturally, for the American government, nothing in this campaign, like the invasion itself, was news.

What was the goal of this verified campaign? It was previously analyzed in terms of guiding global oil resources and limiting the modernization of Arab states, which undoubtedly occurred. But from a more global perspective, the Gulf War seems to be a carefully orchestrated precedent of a military regime planned as part of the New World Order.

Grenada and Panama’s early blitzkrieg experiences were undertaken unilaterally, according to the imperialist Monroe Doctrine. Those tests made it possible to test the effectiveness of the latest military technologies — stealth missiles, night warfare, high-speed blitzkrieg, etc.

Perhaps more importantly, blitzkrieg exercises also allowed a new generation of propaganda technologies to be tested: eliminating the press from covering the conflict; complete silence of the operation; filling the information space with meaningless noises and images of high-tech weapons; launching an exalted campaign of demonizing the "enemy". All this conveys an impression designed for conflict by the press.

Despite the lack of real information, these propaganda techniques not only succeeded in creating an extensive public acceptance of the illegal invasion, but they were quite suitable for the main popular show in prime time. Such “media coverage” may look shocking in a country that considers itself democratic and implies freedom of the press, but these propaganda technologies themselves are not unprecedented. Just the same techniques and with the same result used by Hitler, when he made his own early blitzkrieg (largely due to the predecessors of the modern corporate community).

Testing the military and propaganda techniques in their backyard, the States orchestrated the Gulf War as a means of bringing these techniques into the context of the rapidly consolidating structures of the New World Order. While the States successfully destroyed or blocked all approaches to the negotiation process, the media bombarded the world with a tense and exaggerated campaign of demonizing Saddam. And, in the end, intensive and widespread lobbying led the UN to agree with America’s demand to untie her hands.

After receiving a blank check, the States didn’t deal with the displacement of Iraqi troops from Kuwait at all, but with the planned destruction of Iraq’s internal infrastructure. It was not a war, it was destruction. While 100 or more than thousands of civilians ironed B-42 and bombs from the sea, the world’s television audience all watched repetitions of the same “smart bombs” plots that hit targets marked as “uninhabited” and “military”. Blood bath, unlike the media, has not been sanitized.

Despite the fact that the whole operation was primarily an American show from the beginning to the end, it nevertheless was neatly hidden under the UN mark and provided with the identification marks of the military forces of the "allies", to attract many of which it was necessary to resort to extensive bribery. Such was the "internationalist" facade of this American-initiated conflict, motivated by unresolved goals and apparently related to the management of the NMP by the Arab world and international oil resources.

In the last century, the United States considered itself entitled to intervene in certain countries to support operations associated with different group interests. The precedent of the “Gulf” outlines the scheme of the NMP, according to which such interventions are “legitimized” by embedding them in an international framework. And it will not be the UN, which has a too controversial nature, - an organization like NATO, better suited to the technocratic model and easier to manage for the NWM elite, will take its place.

Thus, the military strategy of the NMP can be foreseen by simply referring to the history of American imperialism in the Third World. As soon as a certain state gains arrogance to pursue its own interests, rather than the interests of corporate transnational investors, one should immediately expect that the state will be curbed by an overwhelming military force anticipated by a corresponding demonization campaign in the media. Habitual international law - in any case, as a rule, ignored in practice - has been formally replaced by the "internationalized", but under the control of the elite, the NMP Shock Police Squad.


The key question about the NMP is “What can we do?”. By the word "we" I mean everyone who shares concerns about the future of humanity, democracy and living arrangements. The unfolding advanced line of the NMP is striking, and how much more can be hidden ... The full-blown picture of the ideas associated with the NWO, the destructive consequences of their implementation - all this gives rise to the beginnings of a new substantial global opposition coalition.

First of all, in order to preserve cultural identity and the right to self-determination, we must be able to appeal to national interests that equally meet the needs of both the state and the people. The NWO seeks to undermine the rights of workers; we must be able to turn to labor unions and equivalent labor unions. The same is true of the huge number of progressive organizations and interested citizens specializing in environmental protection, civil liberties, social programs, and legal control - one can count on their help and assistance in developing a new vision of human needs and independent democratic states.

To organize an effective counter-offensive, we need the following areas: an analysis of the situation and the "enemy", a special and improved vision of the future, a coalition strategy. I am going to outline only the primary components of the analysis.

At the core of the approach, it seems to me, there should be a rehab of the principles of democratic governance and national independence. It is much more profitable to start not with the dominance of corporate-oriented commissions, but with an analysis of representative democracies, perverted in their essence and demanding a thorough transformation. Even if the draconian economy of the "reforms" really brings economic benefits, which is very doubtful, the political price for this is in any case completely unacceptable. The main priority should be the fencing off of labor agreements and Maastricht. But an approach based only on denial is doomed. A positive element, an alternative picture of how the world should develop, is needed. Perhaps the beginning for this will be the very coalition that we need to create.

It seems to me that the main task of creating a potential coalition is to concentrate at the national level: those states that have not yet been completely absorbed by the NWO, should be tried to assemble and unite. This will require organizational efforts and initiatives both within countries — to create a public base, an electorate — and globally — to bring these states together. Just as the supporting NMP states have their own organizations, such as the Seven, the “remaining” need their own international forum. Let's call it "99". This is not the same as the United Nations, in the very organizational structure of which its overthrow is envisaged by the "Seven" class states. It is possible that 99 may be assembled from other existing organizations, such as TOES, The Other Economic Summit.

Charter "99" should be formed on the basis of self-determination, mutual support, principled action. The principle of national self-determination should be supported by "99" individually and collectively, creating a united front against the invasion of the NWO. Mutual Support implies "99" support for own resources, including trade - collective self-reliance - to secure an economic future. To rely on the funds and leadership of the "Seven" means to surrender to the NMP. Principal Action means that 99 must be guided by consistent and consistent positions on the issue of human rights, independence, non-intervention, workers' rights, and environmental integrity.


The global monopoly of the NWO on the media creates a serious barrier to the organization and development of "99". Therefore, special attention should be paid to the establishment of independent communication channels both to support organizational activity and to oppose demonization campaigns by the NMP. The support of certain social groups in the G7 states is also very beneficial.

The confrontation of the NWO is a big deal, but submission is simply unthinkable. We must act now, because we may not have another chance.
Richard C. Moore
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in