Part 1 of 3 (Part 2 here)
There has been much discussion about the New World Order and related topics lately. Some might dismiss the possibility entirely, considering it all to be idle talk. Others will investigate and get nowhere, chasing down endless rabbit holes. There will be those who are fearful of investigating, afraid of what disturbing knowledge they might find and the burden that knowing it could bring. Although it’s a difficult subject, I’ll do what I can to bring clarity.
There is an ideological conflict which has been underway for a long time now. Nationalism is opposed by internationalism, better known these days as globalism. This isn’t exactly the same thing as the familiar Right-Left political dichotomy, but it matches in certain ways. To put it in more general terms, this is a conflict between national sovereignty and world government.
What is globalism?
Globalism is the idea of blurring the borders and eventually erasing them. Meanwhile, national sovereignty is to be eroded and political power will be centralized into transnational Non-Governmental Organizations and global institutions such as the United Nations. The resulting one-world government is intended to have a monopoly on military power. Everyone will be answerable to a world court.
The major selling point of globalism is as an alternative to imperialism. This idea provided impetus for the League of Nations after the catastrophic destruction of the First World War, and for the United Nations after the Second. Looking at it another way, though, globalism is imperialism writ large.
As of late, globalists generally agree that gradualism is one method to achieve their goals. There have been a number of proposals to organize countries into a handful of geopolitical blocs. To some extent, this already has been underway though defensive alliances (NATO, for example), free trade zones (NAFTA), mass migration, international agreements, transnational superstructures (the European Union), and common currencies (the euro). This is just the beginning of what have been some very ambitious proposals. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a long-term presidential adviser and co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, described the process:
This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.
The desired end goal of globalism is the New World Order, which is a utopia from their perspective. Putting it as briefly as possible, this is the one-world government that Zbiggy and like-minded “swamp creatures” envisioned. Many powerful political figures are working toward this. A few offbeat religious and metaphysical currents such as Theosophy and Thelema have shown some enthusiasm for the New World Order project, after their own Age of Aquarius fashion.
The greatest impetus for it by far comes from extremely wealthy businessmen, however. These aren’t exactly the One Percenters that have figured into much national conversation. The billionaires tend to be the high rollers in all this; more like the 0.001%ers. Unscrupulous individuals among them form the exploiter class. Traditional political theory states that government and businesses are eternally in opposition to each other. On the other hand, in the upper echelons of globalist circles, the boundary blurs between big government and big business. In short, this is why the government doesn’t work the way you learned in your civics class.
There have been a number of important political and cultural figures who have spoken quite openly in favor of the New World Order, using exactly those words. It’s hardly a “conspiracy theory” when the globalists are telling us exactly what they want. Some of their effrontery is staggering. For an early example rating high on the chutzpah meter, the bankster scion James Warburg told the Senate in 1950:
We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.
He was selling the idea of building up the United Nations as the world’s ultimate military overlords. This was an enhanced version of the Bernard Baruch Plan, based on the 1946 Acheson-Lilienthal Report. This earlier proposal was for the United States to hand over all its atomic weapons to an international agency. The new Warburg scheme included conventional weapons, too. Trying to talk Congress into letting the corrupt UN cookie-pushers become the world police . . . great idea there, kiddo!
There was notable enthusiasm for internationalist pipe dreams during the post-war years. For another example, in 1952 the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government had a brainstorm: let’s divvy up the planet into military occupation regions, grouped into eight geographic zones subordinate to a World Director. (Much like their imperialist predecessors, globalists have an odd penchant for drawing arbitrary lines on maps with nary a thought for their inhabitants’ wishes.) One would think this goofy globaloney might be something cooked up in a basement by teenage armchair secretary-generals who played too much Risk after their Esperanto lessons. However, one of their members was Cord Meyer, a top CIA spook; he was a very tricky character, to say the least, but that’s another subject.
According to this bizarre scheme, the former United States would police vast territories abroad. (Lately, that’s been quite a thankless task!) Meanwhile, Venezuelan and Colombian troops would patrol Yankee-land, the Russians would occupy Dixie, the Upper Midwest would be under Belgian martial law, and the Irish would oversee the Pacific coast — ach, begorrah! Alaska and Canada would be ruled by an odd troika of German, Russian, and Mongolian troops. The Mongolians alone would occupy Mexico, which at least would’ve led to some interesting Turanian-Hispanic fusion cuisine.
Here’s one telling blurb from the memoirs of David “Mr. New World Order” Rockefeller, who openly boasted about being a globalist conspirator:
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe that we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will.
If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
All this hubris seems pretty far out, but it’s nothing compared to recent times. Their operational security has slipped remarkably over the years. It’s like some of the globalists stopped caring who finds out what they’re up to anymore.
So these are just a few of the things they’ve confessed. What about the rest? Aside from the bad connotations ascribed to the term “conspiracy,” it simply means an event planned in secret among multiple people. (Technically, arranging a surprise party counts as one.) These things happen; lots of events in history began as conspiracies. For starters, was Julius Caesar challenged to a duel and then died in a fair fight? Several famous secret plots appear in American history from the sneak attack on Jamestown in 1622 all the way to the “fortifying democracy” election-tampering in 2020. It would therefore be pretty naïve to believe that globalists never make secret plans.
Furthermore, as I put it in Deplorable Diatribes:
More to the point, the existence of powerful families and interests during history is pretty well-known too. Looking at it another way, none of the following are unprecedented:
- People forming groups (legitimate or otherwise) to promote common interests;
- Dishonest characters keeping unsavory activities secret; and
- Influencing politicians and officials through large campaign contributions or outright bribery.
When blue collar criminals do those things, it’s an organized crime syndicate. When that’s done by the wealthy and powerful, it’s a garden-variety cabal. This isn’t too hard to comprehend. Understandably, they’re not very forthcoming about these activities.
All that said, it’s true there are people who peddle some pretty far-out stuff about these subjects. They’re not helping.
If we get a world government, who will make the rules?
Recently, there’s been curiously little discussion of who is supposed to call the shots in the New World Order. However, we can extrapolate quite a bit if we consider how things are done nowadays. Presently, trends favor centralization. For some examples:
- Half-a-dozen media conglomerates own 90% of the US’s media outlets (typically owned by people of the same ethno-religious background), and usually it’s much the same in other countries.
- Two wire services effectively form another information choke point.
- Social media and search engines are concentrated into massive Big Tech corporations that impose their Left Coast values on all of cyberspace.
- Other key industries are often monopolized: agribusiness, food processing, finance, petroleum, etc.
- The stock market is dominated by a handful of institutional investors (most particularly Vanguard and Blackrock) which wield tremendous power.
- With a shrinking middle class and executive pay dramatically on the rise, extremes of wealth are increasing.
- Political power is concentrated in two viable parties in the US. Some other countries have three or four “mainstream” parties. Either way, they may squabble a lot about certain wedge issues, but they never differ in practice when it comes to globalism, because that’s what their major donors expect.
- Several mainstream media figures, big business executives, and top politicians meet in a few secretive and very exclusive globalist clubs.
- Globalists wish to extend their control worldwide by dominating unaccountable international Non-Governmental Organizations, eventually making national sovereignty a dead letter.
One effect of these centralizing trends is to concentrate control into as few hands as possible. Conveniently, the levers of power ultimately end up in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats who answer only to the extremely wealthy. (For example, did you vote for your country’s delegate to the World Trade Organization? I didn’t think so.) In any completely fulfilled New World Order arrangement, you can expect more of the same. Keep in mind that people in power don’t like to give up their power. Those who call the shots today will continue to do so in the future, except that if they get their way, they’ll have virtually unlimited power. Unfortunately, the New World Order types have a track record of being very greedy and manipulative.
This centralization is a threat to liberty and will continue to be so. For one example, it’s become common for the Tech Tyrants to collude with each other to curtail freedom of speech online, illegitimately using their monopoly power to act as ideological enforcers. That’s not as despotic as putting people in prison for speaking their minds — something that certain “free” countries in Europe already do — but it likewise shuts up dissidents.
Things could get worse. If a cashless society emerges (which is a present globalist proposal), then it would be possible to starve critics simply by turning off their bank cards.
Globalists can talk a great game about their enlightened policies. (Of course, the devil is always in the details.) If a future proposal arises to create a democratic world government, don’t believe it. Look at the European Union and how out-of-control the munchkins from Brussels became. Are they well-known for being accountable to the public and for carrying out the will of the people? Now imagine that this bureaucratic leviathan extended over other continents as well.
Even if they had the very best intentions, a worldwide democracy would be extremely unwieldy. Using very round numbers, there are two billion Christians, two billion Muslims, one billion Hindus, half a billion Buddhists, a billion atheists, and a billion of everyone else from Sikhs to Scientologists. There’s not much room for consensus. And that is just the beginning, since there are also many cultural dimensions other than religion. Separate nations exist because people prefer to live among those who are like them, and to be ruled by their own people according to their cultural sensibilities. This facet of human nature is irreconcilable with globalism.
But who is at the top of the pyramid?
There are those who preoccupy themselves with drawing up elaborate org charts showing which group runs what and so forth. That seems a waste of CPU cycles. The assumption is that the exploiter class forms a top-down hierarchy with a Mr. Big heading the whole shebang. Granted, a pyramidal structure is a very typical way to organize things, but in this case, that’s not really how the Deep State works at the highest echelons. Thus, if anyone has ideas about cornering Mr. Big in his underwater volcano fortress and then talking him into reading the Bible (or Atlas Shrugged, or Dianetics, or A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s timeless classic Chant and Be Happy) and making him see the error of his ways, it’s not that simple.
Rather than being a top-down command structure, the Deep State is more accurately a cloud model of influencers. Its center of gravity includes the wealthiest of the wealthy, generally limousine liberal CEOs of enormous multinational corporations. They have their particular notions about how they think the world should be run, and believe they know better than anyone else — no matter what the nominal form of government is supposed to be, and whether the public likes it or not. The most important influencers aren’t necessarily the ones the public might expect. Elected officials are often charismatic figures, but tend to be water-carriers. Likewise, sometimes top TV anchormen and major celebrities become members of the big globalist clubs, but that doesn’t mean they’re calling the shots; they have another job to do.
All told, the ruling oligarchy tends to be like-minded, excluding those who don’t share their viewpoint. (For an insider account, the former presidential candidate Gary Hart said that they’re generally within five degrees of the same ideological direction, and that he was cast adrift for steering too far off course.) Despite the tremendous egos involved, it generally operates by consensus, or at least they settle matters out of public view. Transmission belts do exist, observable from their effects. There are indeed notable globalist clubs and some other key institutions. That doesn’t mean the Deep State itself is a formal organization with membership cards and all that, however.
Petr Hampl’s analysis provides some further insights. First, the “in” crowd has rather fuzzy borders, and it’s hard to tell who belongs to the ruling class and who doesn’t. Second, no single individual runs the show, and the “madness of crowds” principle applies.
Unfortunately, all these factors make the Deep State anti-fragile. Bringing it to heel will therefore be a difficult matter. There won’t be an easy fix by finding Mr. Big and convincing him to adjust his attitude.
What are some other common misconceptions about the way the New World Order works?
Although globalists do plan ahead, that doesn’t mean that everything was plotted out from the beginning in elaborate detail, like a centuries-long chess game arranged in advance. In other words, there is no ancient playbook by Adam Weishaupt with entries like:
- 2023: Ramp up our psychological warfare campaign by reviving disco music.
- 2024: Introduce our little green flying saucer buddies at last.
- 2025: Impose martial law in the US. After all this patient waiting, now we’ll get them!
- 2026: Victory! AFTER 250 YEARS, THEY’RE GETTING THE METRIC SYSTEM! YEAH, BABY!
That’s not how it works; it’s impossible to plan centuries ahead in that kind of detail. The globalists are subject to the “fog of war” like anyone else, and have to change plans as circumstances change.
Other than that, not everything is a murky plot. Lots of things do happen in politics that are easily visible, and that’s all there is to it. There are times when the official story is the correct one. If something isn’t passing the sniff test, feel free to investigate, but otherwise there’s no need to multiply causes unnecessarily.
Those who feel the need to come up with alternative explanations for everything are barking up the wrong tree. So are those who link these offbeat narratives together in a Grand Unified Theory to explain why the fall of Constantinople inevitably led to the breakup of the Beatles, or how the Bermuda Triangle caused Jimmy Carter’s hemorrhoids. If you find that you’ve drawn up an org chart linking the Knights Templar to the Girl Scouts, your imagination is getting carried away. That kind of wankery doesn’t help.
What is the Deep State?
Every country has a ruling class. No leader can run an entire country without associates to help and provide support. In a functioning monarchy, there’s a noble peerage from barons to dukes that carries out the King’s will. In a typical banana republic, a few dozens of El Jefe’s very wealthy friends perform this role. In a representative government, the electorate is supposed to be the ruling class, with officials they vote into office serving as their proxies.
A degenerated condition may instead arise in which an oligarchy develops and usurps the role of the electorate as a ruling class, despite the persistence of the nominal representative government. In this case, top business interests affiliated with high-level politicians and bureaucrats get to run things the way they want, despite the people’s will. (In the US, Theodore Roosevelt’s partially successful efforts to curtail monopoly power constituted a temporary setback.) This secret combination is sometimes called the shadow government, The System, or in earlier times, The Establishment. Revilo P. Oliver tended to refer to it as the mephitic DC swamp, which caught on in shorter form.
The Deep State mostly evolved from the WASP Establishment, though it has changed through Zionist entryism. For example, early membership lists of the Council on Foreign Relations did show some Jewish financiers and big businessmen, but overwhelmingly the names were practically as Anglo-Saxon as St. Bede’s chronicle. By now, the WASP fraction has declined considerably, to some degree elbowed out of their own flagship power structure and apparently with little fuss on their part. It serves them right, since they had no regard for their own common people throughout all this.
The WASP and Zionist components are still distinguishable, but from a distance it all looks alike. The major problem is that the WASPs have been kissing up to the Zionists since the beginning, with hardly any discernable disputes. Some cynics therefore refer to the combined Deep State as the Zionist Occupational Government, or by the ungainly abbreviation ZOG. There are those who have much to say about Zionist misbehavior, though again, in the interests of fairness, they had a lot of help doing so. If they’re to be called out for abuse of power, those who invited the neurotic upstarts into the club and let them at the levers of power deserve criticism, too.
What is the brief history of globalism?
The basic ideas aren’t entirely new. Although Diogenes was the first self-described cosmopolitan, his contemporary Alexander the Great was the world’s first globalist. He had conquered a vast empire, comprising much of the world known to him. He was using some vaguely multicultural measures in an effort to reduce ethnic solidarity and thus lower the chance of independence movements developing. Again, this stuff is imperialism writ large. Since he died young, it didn’t get much further than arranging marriages for some of his officers to local princesses and exporting facets of Greek culture to Asia.
Arguably, the first stirrings of modern globalism began during the Industrial Age. Historically, the imperialist elites in Britain were tightly aligned with America’s emerging Deep State, forming what’s sometimes been known as the Atlanticist bloc, or the Anglo-Saxon powers. Loosely following the insider Carroll Quigley’s sugar-coated account, it began as a sort of Rhodes-Rothschild-Rockefeller axis in furtherance of their business activities. At the time, the interests of the nascent Anglo-American Deep State, which he called the “Round Table,” were in line with their countries. Eventually it became powerful enough to throw its weight around in politics, and ultimately to co-opt governments.
Then, a former history professor named Woodrow Wilson was tapped to become the first globalist President. He dropped some hints with this one:
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
President Wilson’s notable accomplishments were unfortunately the Federal Reserve, income tax, and inserting his proboscis into the First World War, which started the American century of perpetual war. Then he had a brainstorm intended to prevent another war like the one he’d prolonged.
The first modern attempt at world government was the League of Nations. President Wilson couldn’t sell the Senate on it, even though he was a smooth enough talker to snooker Congress into a declaration of war a few years prior. Quite obviously the League of Nations failed at maintaining peace, for one thing because it was hardly an impartial forum. Maybe blowing off Germany’s many attempts at negotiation wasn’t such a hot idea. (Your history teachers didn’t tell you about that, did they?) Since the bumbling cookie-pushers failed to prevent war, the next big idea was to hand them more power.
This led to the creation of the United Nations, our wannabe world government and proverbial lecture hall for Third World dictators. The bright-eyed and bushy-tailed internationalists figured that with this global superstructure in place, we’d rule the world along with our wonderful Soviet buddies. Surely everything would be roses from then on. The Cold War soon threw cold water on that idea, however. Other countries, including much of Europe and the Anglosphere countries abroad, have a like-minded political class and are generally aligned with the Atlanticist bloc. This has partially been embodied in formal superstructures like the NATO alliance and the European Union.
The Cold War ended with mutual subversion, a very strange and historically unprecedented outcome in which both sides got inferior versions of their opponents’ ideology. The Western world got cultural Marxism. The journalists, other Agents of Influence, and general useful idiots who used to suck up to their Soviet pals ended up falling into the orbit of the globalists. Meanwhile, Russia got crapitalism, which would make for an interesting story of its own.
Presently, the Western globalists still have a tight grip on their countries, yet are forever itching for more power. They still have aspirations of using the international institutions that they and their predecessors created to achieve world dominance. They’re not all the way there yet, however. For one thing, Russia isn’t having it. Competing spheres of interest obviously fed into the great misfortune occurring in Ukraine. Russia is ruled by some very nasty kleptocrats, but Vladimir Putin has them on a short leash. China has its own oligarchy. Despite China’s remarkably lousy human rights record, the interests of their ruling class align with the interests of their public. (That’s a remarkable contrast to our exploiter class, which is hostile to the public.) And despite all the kissing up that’s been done over the decades, including sending our factories to China, the Chinese still aren’t interested in playing ball any more than the Russians.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
 That video, as well as the next — Palestra Media’s “The power brokers you never elected” — are quite informative and can clarify a lot of things for newcomers. Unfortunately, the documentary MONOPOLY: Who Owns The World? by Tim Gielen was originally hosted on YouTube but was removed for violating their “community guidelines.” What did he do? He made his points very calmly, and I don’t remember him calling Bruce Jenner a man or something. What’s with the purple-haired eunuchs at YouTube’s censorship department? What kind of brokeback Leftists would shut someone up for criticizing enormous corporations?
Are Qur’an-Burnings Helpful?
The Wave: Fascism Reenacted in a High School
Silicon Valley’s Anti-White Racial Dysgenics Program
Davos, or the Technocrats’ Ball
The $50 Million Conservative Inc. Internet Spat
Yet Another Woke Remake of a Classic
The Populist Moment, Chapter 11, Part 4: “Multitudes” Against the People
Against White Unionism