When the phrase “New World Order” is used, it’s often tempting to brush this off as a conspiracy theory. This is, after all, a phrase popular with those whose favourite attire is the tin foil hat. However, any system or consensus by which the dominant powers of the world conduct themselves can be accurately described as a “World Order”, or at least an order of some kind governing a particular territory or territories. The Roman Empire created, for example, a European Order. The Ottoman Empire did much the same for the Middle-East and the Muslim world, and perhaps the most famous of all is the concept of Pax Britannia, the notion of Britain’s dominant position in the globe and its unofficial role of world policeman at the height of her imperial past.
But today, the increasing interconnection of our various societies on Planet Earth mean we can now legitimately talk in terms of a “world order”. Long gone are the days when a Roman and a Native American could live their entire lives without so much as the faintest awareness of the other’s existence. Today, almost every part of our world is connected to another, whether that be through trade, migration, tourism, humanitarian aid or military alliance. Whilst this has opened up numerous positive opportunities for many, it has posed infinitely greater and more fundamental questions to the systems, institutions and accepted consensus that govern us.
This was felt particularly acutely in the immediate aftermath of World War One, or “the War to end all Wars” as it was unfortunately and ultimately incorrectly dubbed. At this point in history, the beginnings of the great technological revolution were felt. Air travel was becoming popularised, television and film were offering previously unheard of perspectives and trade was becoming more free. However, what proved to be the catalyst in ushering in the globalised world in which we find ourselves was not modern technology or neo-liberal economic theory, but good old fashioned war.
The first sign of the globalised world order can be seen in the intervening years of peace between the first and second world wars. Understandably, many of the great politicians and academics of the time were preoccupied with the question of how peace could be preserved and, often more specifically, peace in the “west”. One of the leading theorists in this field was a Jewish-American lawyer from Chicago, named Salmon Levinson. Levinson began the “Outlawry of War” movement in the 1920’s, and soon his endeavours caught the attention of those in power who saw potential in the concept of making warfare illegal.
Prior to 1928, waging war was considered a legitimate foreign policy initiative. The concept of a “just war” – a war that is morally right – was an accepted consensus amongst the most powerful and influential nations of the world at that time, which included warfare as a means to recover unpaid debts, to atone for a legal breach by a foreign power or even to colonise and export civilisation to foreign barbarian lands. Pre-1928, it was also generally accepted that neutral powers were not to display prejudice in their trading relations with warring parties. A breach of this etiquette was considered to be an act of allegiance that would take a nation from neutrality to belligerent status – in more simple terms, economic sanctions by a neutral party were considered as an act of aggression.
This all changed after the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928), or Paris Peace Pact as it is more popularly known. This treaty, drafted by Mr Levinson himself and signed by practically every country on the planet, bound the signatories to renounce warfare as a legitimate foreign policy and essentially declare all war illegal except in the instance of self-defence. Whilst this may seem, on the surface, to be a high-minded and noble objective in itself, the reality is that this treaty was the very first international agreement that was made with a globalist outlook, as opposed to a more nation-focused view. Because this very quickly presented the authors and signatories with a rather fundamental question; how do we enforce the rules we’re agreeing to?
After all, if the sovereign nation state is the highest jurisdiction, how does one enforce the law on a global scale? You may note that the precursor to the United Nations, the League of Nations, was founded some 8 years prior to the Paris Peace Pact, but this organisation sought only to resolve disputes between nations. It did not create or attempt to create worldwide legislation as the 1928 Pact did, thus it did not present the same problems or consequences. It did not need a method for enforcing the law because it had no legal basis, but was instead a voluntary forum for the sovereign nations of the world to come together and discuss their issues.
The Paris Peace Pact thus essentially legalised economic sanctions as a means for discouraging military conflict. Economic warfare, the like of which the USA is currently waging against Russia, Syria, Iran and so many other countries, became the new primary means through which the world order could be enforced. Of course, the signatories of the Pact were remarkably short-sighted, seemingly failing to see how easily the principle of economic warfare could be used and abused; we see the reality of this today, as the economically powerful nations use sanctions to bully economically inferior countries into obedience.
The point of this, however, is not how one country settles disputes with another or the moral virtues of either method, but rather that it set a precedent upon which all future globalist policies were built. It was the wedge in the door of globalisation, if you like, which suddenly created a new type of jurisdiction through which the world was to be governed.
A major breakthrough for those of an internationalist outlook was the Second World War. This may sound odd, given that their premise for this new era of globalisation was the “outlawry” of war, but the Second War enabled the victorious allies to test their precedent in a real life situation. The Nuremberg Trials allowed an “international” court – which was in reality British, American and Jewish – to enforce the law against a national society. Those tried and convicted and ultimately executed were not citizens of the world being tried by citizens of the world, but those pledged exclusively to one state being tried by those of all states and none – in theory. This was symbolic, for it was in effect the nation being tried, judged and sentenced to death by globalism.
Thus, a new order was ushered in with the “international community” at the centre. Institutions like the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and many more were created in earnest. They now hold more power between them than any nation or empire ever has in the history of mankind. They, guided by their American architects’ hand, have come to hold the balance of power in all the world’s disputes, from military to economic matters, right down to the right of a foreigner to wear a religious garment in a European place of work.
The process by which these bodies and institutions came into being and gained so much power was much the same as their military precedent, the Paris Peace Pact. As the nations of the globe attempted to standardise rules and customs in a variety of fields, they soon came up against the same obstacle that those high-minded idealists behind the Kellogg-Briand Treaty did; exactly who is going to enforce these rules, and how are they going to do it?
The “how” aspect of this conundrum is still unresolved. Whilst they could set up these organisations and institutions, give them names, a parliament, a flag and so on, it would prove much more difficult to give them the tangible power do enforce the law. Even more so, given that the peoples of the world are, by very nature, predisposed to a more nation-oriented outlook. This meant that no measures to, say, create a “world army” or something along those lines could have worked in the 20th century, as the opposition to such a measure would have simply proven to great a hurdle. As we can see today with those idealists in Brussels who dream of a pan-European army, even in one continent of similar peoples and cultures there is potentially insurmountable opposition to this.
This is where the Americans’ role comes to the forefront. America has, ever since the Second World War, assumed its self-appointed throne of the world’s policeman, morally arbitrating on behalf of the “international community”. Through economic, military and cultural dominance, they have unquestionably positioned themselves as the leading light and the primary proponent of the “New World Order”. This can be visibly noted too; institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, to name just a few, all have their roots in the power corridors of Washington and New York.
“The New World Order cannot happen without US participation, as we are the most significant single component” – Henry Kissinger, World Affairs Council Press Conference
This dominant role is, however, a stepping stone. The future is undoubtedly a sole governing body for all the world, complete with all the branches that define a government; executive, judicial and legislative. If one accepts this premise then the systematic eradication of national loyalties, both ethnic and cultural, begins to make much more sense. Why would one oppose world unity, if he is indistinguishable in every way from his fellow 7-or-so billion world citizens? Why would anybody take up arms in defence of their country, if their country is identical in every way to every other?
What the future holds for a planet earth that remains on this globalist course is far from the utopia that those who orchestrated the Paris Peace Pact yearned for. In fact, when we look ahead we can see only dystopia. On a planet with scarcely enough food and resources for 2 billion people, how could one ever imagine that 7 billion can live in undisturbed peace and harmony? How can a society be expected to grow and improve, when all that there was to fight for has been cast aside? However, perhaps a more pertinent question is, what else, other than ill-feeling, resentment and hatred, can a society produce when its identities and qualities that made it unique have been systematically drained by the power-hungry, the ultra rich and the undeserving without prior consultation?