State of The New World Order in 2016

Financial markets turmoil. Middle East tension. Terrorism and the global war on terror. ISIS. Al-Qaeda. Cyber-attacks. Debt bubbles. Inflation/Deflation. 2016 political cycles. Climate change. Technology and the rise of the machines/artificial intelligence. Globalism and geopolitics. Currency wars. Geo-Engineering. Police state. Global economic slowdown. Oil and commodity collapse.

The New World Order. Where do we stand as 2016 begins?

To what extent is the 19th century “Hegelian Dialectic” (Problem/Reaction/Solution) being employed by the powers that be (whomever they are – current politicians, global elite – Bilderberg, CFR, Club of Rome, etc.)?

There are countless major dilemmas facing the world right now (as only briefly listed above). The most pressing issues, right now of course, being the looming global economy debt bubble/monetary system collapse and the growing Islamic State (IS) threat.

Much like all of the problems listed above, these issues did not pop up organically on their own volition – they’ve been in large part created (whether intentional or not). The U.S. hegemony and power structure that sits atop of it has had a huge role in creating an unsustainable debt-based global economy while simultaneously batting a geopolitical hornets net within the Middle East and Muslim world. For all intents and purposes, the U.S. created and has funded (directly and indirectly) both Al-Qaeda and the IS, while also removing much of the glue that would have otherwise kept the hornets dormant (now looking at removing that last bit of glue with Assad in Syria).

With all of the problems and volatility facing the world right now, is a solution in the works via the “Global Elite” to usher in their infamous “New World Order”? For a better part of the 20th century, this “New World Order” often referred to a global elite leveraging global crises to further push global governance on the world population.

In order to dissect the current state of affairs within the context of the New World Order, we should look at these issues from several different angles:

(1) Realism and Realpolitik

As a realist, we should try to look for (not just look at) purported facts and information, rumors and potential disinformation. What might motivate various parties’ behavior, taking heavily into account human nature (including and particularly its darker sides), the relevant historical contexts and cultural imprints?  In particular, what does not seem to make sense or add up? Looking for implicit logic or rationale, the truth often peeks from behind its veil.  In considering the psycho-history and relational aspects of leaders, statesmen and relevant players, what could possibly be their motivation?  They would include members of fraternal groups, secret societies and cabals that might preside over or aspire to constitute The New World Order, whether national, international or supranational.

The above are roughly the basic elements that make up politics.  The rest are just machinations and smoke-screens for the convenience of governing.  Lastly, in foreign affairs, history has shown us that domestic politics often dictate the behavior of statesmen and leaders.  Therefore, we must consider that as one of the main factors also.

A realist takes so-called conspiracies as a fact of life, and treats them as a matter of course.  The very substance of politics and warfare is the art and/or craft of deception (i.e. Sun Tzu’s Art of War).  So there is no surprise that there are conspiratorial schemes and operations in international affairs.  Often times, we can ironically find ourselves situated between those who swear they know of certain specifics of conspiracy and those who compulsively and instantly deny any and all such suggestions.  Since the premise of a conspiracy is to conceal, deny and confuse, we have seen in recent years the all-too-frequent labeling of “conspiracy theorists” as the lowest life-form in the intellectual food-chain.  They are rigorously snubbed.  But that merely reflects the reality that The New World Order has much it needs to conceal.  At the same time, the conspiracy theorists may not have come close to the truth either.  Complicating matters further, antagonists are fashionably manufacturing bogus theories and floating rumors to discredit any attempt to scrutinize matters too close to the truth.

A realist accepts these conditions in the world we live in.  He tries his best not to easily believe what he is fed, and finds his own angle to distinguish facts from fiction, and develops his own recipe to identify the sources and reasons for the fiction.  Quickly, he accumulates insight and ability to distil knowledge in a relatively dispassionate state of mind.  What he discerns can be quite unconventional, but usually correct in hindsight.

(2) US National Interests and Machiavellian Behavior

With the global debt bubble and potential risk of monetary systemic collapse, it is natural for those in charge of The New World Order to vigilantly guard the viability of the US dollar as de facto global currency.  The stakes are too high to leave matters to nature or chance.  This has been apparent since the introduction of the Euro currency in 1999 and has intensified with the sustained economic rise of China.

As early as 1944, the US bludgeoned Britain into a second-class power via Bretton Woods; in the 1970’s it reneged on the Gold Standard and left the rest of the world with “their” problem; in 1985, it finagled a domineering Japan into currency appreciation with the Plaza Accord and then blew their financial bubble up with a massive shorting of the newly-invented Nikkei index futures.  In short, orchestrating events to preserve the country’s international currency supremacy is neither a debatable nor questionable objective.  The fictional narrative to justify official policy may have evolved over time and consisted of different versions, but the real core is not fully stated, even if understood.

But can or should the U.S. really pronounce the motives behind these measures as official policy?  On the one hand, for such policy to work, one cannot disclose everything.  On the other hand, astute observers and foreign countries would naturally discern hidden agenda (some calling it conspiracy) in the U.S.’s conduct and look for unsavory maneuvers, potential and actual.  It would be naive for them to think otherwise.  (Of course, some of them may personally choose to be in cahoot with the U.S. or, more correctly, with The New World Order or whatever “universal” brotherhood and other guises it might from time to time morph itself into.  Just remember there are such things as Skulls and Bones, the Apostles, the Bohemians, etc. etc. and many other males and females who would swear allegiance to play roles under blankets.  That is also why Freemasonry and the likes are as much with us as the air we breathe, and denials have to continually be made even as secrets are born and bred every day.)

The currency issue is indeed why many observers today hold the opinion that it is in the national interest of the U.S., facing declining strength and influence, to instigate instability in the rest of the world, specifically Europe, the Middle East and Asia.  It is consistent with that policy, they would argue, that the U.S. behaved the way it did in relation to the serial monetary crises in the Eurozone, and re-ignited a Cold War with the destabilization of Ukraine.  What happened with the Middle East and Arab Spring also aided in achieving that policy, except that the results had far exceeded the “modicum” degree of instability intended and backfiring into other concerns for US overall national interests.  The creation of innuendoes, distortions, manufactured narratives to demonize China in the erstwhile peaceful South China Sea, and her domestic ethnic harmony, is also part and parcel of such policy imperatives.

The danger in such Machiavellian approach is that politicians become accustomed to, and even feel entitled to, undertake any form of behavior, however immoral, by invoking “national interests”.  This generation has been resorting constantly to lying and refusal to bear due responsibility for anything.  In recent years, there is far too much reliance on the perpetration of “dirty tricks” abroad and too much readiness to resort to expediency in pursuit of patently private interests comingled with quasi-national objectives.  It would result in a colossal tragedy for mankind if the conduct of foreign policy is centered round the profitability of private military contractors, the carry interests of Wall Street hedge funds, and other moneyed interests.  It is time to be more circumspect.  The collapse of world order is no joking matter.

Being excessively Machiavellian, a country would risk losing its power and influence as a leader.  It turns off potential friends and hardens enemies.  Just look at the plight of refugees from Syria and North Africa.  “Fxxk the EU”, the US Assistant Secretary Of State Victoria Nuland was caught blurting.  That kind of mentality is both short-sighted and sinister.  That is not how a great nation conducts itself.  What about “Screw China”? “Screw Japan”? “Screw Texas”? “Screw New York”?  What is next in this obsession, the rest of the world must wonder?

(3) Hegelian Dialectic

It appears that U.S. hegemony and Western powers have lost control of any Hegelian structure and discipline in its approach to world affairs for at least the last decade (or more). If anything, there seems to be a lack of consideration of organic process and a relative disregard for attendant consequences. The focus is on the attainment of immediate goal, conceived in terms of simple linear equation and pushing a readily accessible button, often without fully understanding the underlying operating functions and mechanics.  A good recent example of that kind of thinking is the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan without first ensuring stability, then the use of drones to accomplish military goals so that there are “no boots on the ground”.  These actions have consequences — action-reaction, synthesis-antithesis.  But no one seems to care about the responsibility even as the goals are never attained.  That also poses moral issues.  But it is a reality of politics in Western democracies today that everything is done by muddling through, not as any well-conceived process but rather as a game of musical chairs?  Nothing even begins to broach any philosophical level, so how can there be any Hegelian Dialectic?  What you get is Donald Trump.

As for the “global elites” who subscribe to the notion and advancement of “global governance”, the fraternity (conspiratorial or otherwise) undoubtedly still exists today but is less cohesive than say a couple of decades ago.  With the birth of the Euro currency, you could see the dilution of the “clubbiness” of the Bilderberg Group and the Club of Rome.  Instead, we must watch new groups such as the organizers behind the Davos Forum, to discern the existence of any new cross-national fraternal initiative or agenda.  What still somewhat operates as the thinking of the “global elites” is the Washington Consensus of 1997, although it is becoming obsolete in the eyes of many (because of popular resentment to its application in the Asian financial crisis, ultimate failures in Latin America, and persistent doubts and suspicions in Europe).  It is fair to say that the “global elites” today are split as ever before on fundamental strategy with respect to “governing the world”.  Much of that is due to floundering in the war on terrorism, in recurrent triggering of financial crises, and in facing the emergence of major new forces that are not yet totally “in the club”.

The realism of global power distribution is such that the dialogue between the US and China will be vital.  China’s help in securing the Iran nuclear deal, a global agreement in climate change, and the recent constructive input toward the Syrian situation are examples of a positive process.  The Westphalian principles currently adopted and employed by China seem far more reasonable currently to restore peaceful coexistence. While IS is a growing threat to China, there is far less motivation for IS radicals to attack and instigate China.

But to then poke China in the eyes on other matters and practice flagrant double standards on issues important to China’s core interests, are dangerous.  They will not be constructive and can severely backfire.  The US has much to reflect upon and to adapt to, in a reality much different than it has been presuming.  For a start, it needs far better intelligence and knowledge of the outside world it is dealing with.  Ignorance cannot be overcome with “smarts”.

Perhaps back to some Hegelian dialectical thinking would be rehabilitative.


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: