New World Order

[2046]

First let me state that I am not interested in rightwing populist conspiracy theories about secret societies or a conspiracy being orchestrated by a small group of people to take over the world, or Christian prophecy, or Jews, or aliens, or occultists or whatever.

I want to examine this in a more general sense of what the broad concept of a "new world order" means, and what this concept consists of. Is there a rational basis for this, in any way? It seems I am hearing a lot more about politicians, from President Obama, to Gordon Brown, to the Pope, to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, to Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy (newly elected full-time President of the EU) mention a new world order, actually using those words in recent speeches. If we examine the history of the phrase, it has roots all the way back to Woodrow Wilson's post World War I policies, and was focused on creating worldwide alliances and governing bodies to "make the world safe for democracy."

Perhaps significant is the 1940 HG Wells book called New World Order in which Wells argued in favor of an ideal world without war, in which peace and order would be kept by a global governing body.

In the post WW2 era, the phrase became more nebulous and could mean anything from German reunification to global Communism to a world without nuclear weapons. It has been used by everyone from Soviet leaders, to American presidents, and ideological intellectuals.

I suppose today it is most associated with a vague generalized concept of a fascist or collectivist one-world government which would subject, erode, or eventually preplace the sovereign states that currently exist through enacting global controls, or legislation by organizations like the IMF, UN, NATO, and so on. We all known about the Copenhagen conference which is basically calling for global thermometer governance in the name of climate control to control businesses, we have heard of Hillary Clinton, the Pope, Timothy Geithner, Nicholas Sarkosy, Gordon Brown, and others call for global financial regulations and global currency, here is a video of David Rockefeller at the UN Ambassador's diner calling on one world government for population control,

(eugenics or forced breeding depending on if you are pushing over or under population threats,) religious control, mass surveillance, religious oppression, corporatism, and and array of other social or economic controls are said to be the goal of this new world order.

From my limited reading of Ayn Rand, I know that she was against the United Nations, against international organizations in general, and very much supported federalism and a localized government which checks against the larger levels from local, state, and federal.

I have noticed at the Objectivist-leaning Capitalism Magazine it is mentioned under the FAQ for taxation: Only if one wants to turn government into an engine of the welfare state/new world-order ('one country, with one big leash tied around its neck', with the untouchable bureaucrats of the 'United Nations' holding the leash), do voluntary methods fail to work.

Other than that, I have never heard very many Objectivists talking about the NWO or the many calls for world government.

So what do Objectivists think of this concept? What does "new world order" mean to you? Do you ascribe any significance to it? Is this a threat? What is the proper response to the subject?

[SapereAude]

Well, we are definitely seeing a trend of trying to make all nations alike.

That seems to be the rallying cry of Obama, the democrat majority and the UN.

From healthcare, calling for a VAT, the environmental issues it seems there is an attempt to homogenize.

The very worst thing I can see in this is that in the past there was an option to start a new life in another country if you did not like the policies of your own.

Once this globalization becomes reality there will be no where to go.

[New Buddha]

The term “New World Order” does not describe a specific order. It, at most, indicates a change in the existing order of the day.

Historically there have been several “World Orders”. From Ancient Greece and Rome to the Dark and Middle Ages. From the Renaissance and the Age of Reason (which stared in Britain and founded the U.S.) to the “Collectivist” Age (Marxist/Socialist). However, the one thing all “ages” have in common is Reason vs. Mysticism. Every society or age will, to a degree, be dominated by one or the other. This is not just true in the West but is fundamental to all human societies (and individuals as well).

Currently the change in order is from Marxist/Socialist to “Environmentalist”. However, they are both Collectivist at heart and neither can withstand rational scrutiny. As Rand would say, “they are two sides of the same fraudulent coin”. The "science" behind climate change was dealt a serious blow by the Climategate Emails.

Environmentalism as a New World Order has been in the works for several decades. Should one be concerned? Yes. But I personally believe that this will be the last dying gasp of the Collectivist ideology that has been inflicted on the world in the last century and a half.

So are Objectivist concerned about the New World Order? The answer is that there is nothing really new about it. It is a fight that has been going on for centuries.

[SapereAude]

The term “New World Order” does not describe a specific order. It, at most, indicates a change in the existing order of the day.

Historically there have been several “World Orders”. From Ancient Greece and Rome to the Dark and Middle Ages. From the Renaissance and the Age of Reason (which stared in Britain and founded the U.S.) to the “Collectivist” Age (Marxist/Socialist). However, the one thing all “ages” have in common is Reason vs. Mysticism. Every society or age will, to a degree, be dominated by one or the other. This is not just true in the West but is fundamental to all human societies (and individuals as well).

Currently the change in order is from Marxist/Socialist to “Environmentalist”. However, they are both Collectivist at heart and neither can withstand rational scrutiny. As Rand would say, “they are two sides of the same fraudulent coin”. The "science" behind climate change was dealt a serious blow by the Climategate Emails.

Environmentalism as a New World Order has been in the works for several decades. Should one be concerned? Yes. But I personally believe that this will be the last dying gasp of the Collectivist ideology that has been inflicted on the world in the last century and a half.

So are Objectivist concerned about the New World Order? The answer is that there is nothing really new about it. It is a fight that has been going on for centuries.

You are partly correct, New Buddha.

"new world order" is you say.

However "New World Order" when capitalized becomes the proper name for a specific manifestation of what some think the next "new world order" will be.

Specifically, when capitalized the New World Order is a reference to the conspiracy theory that a massive bureaucracy in in the works to take over everything, bringing in an era of global collectivism.

[rtaylortitle]

Yes, I believe that too many individuals in powerful places (with more and more boldness since Bush, Sr.) have shared what they really expect to happen, to-wit: a world government with common currency (or two or three) controlled by a small cabal of enlightened individuals that know what's best for the rest of humanity. With America's perpetual welfare/warfare state thanks in large part to those we now called neo-conservatives, our absolute infatuation with Israel (a nation fully capable of taking care of itself) and the newest religion of "global warming...I think it is fairly easy to envision what is now occurring on the world scene. Checks and balances are dissapearing, we have a Marxist president with a Congress that acts more and more like the mafia with extortions and bribes for votes and a Supreme Court that seems to have forgotten about the Constitution and states rights. I am an Objectivist, but I am not a fool.

[2046]

Okay, thanks for the responses, I am getting the feeling that this term is a bit more vague and generalized thatn I thought. I understand why it is associated with all sorts of nonsensical ideas and people who discuss it tend to be immediately out of the mainstream or just immediately maligned as "You're a kook!" but I have found mentions of it in many mainstream sources. So it kind of seems like a contradiction, you take the words directly out of Obama, or Clinton, or any of these assorted European politico's mouths, and then someone tells you you're crazy and it doesn't exist. I understand some people are so emotionally attatched to certain conspiracy theories qua conspiracy theories ("chemtrails" comes to mind) but I mean, there is the information in plain sight, the words come out of their own mouths, and you can look and see the schemes they are calling for and moving towards putting in place and then someone will just tell you it doesn't exist and you're crazy.

So I am trying to get some more Objectivists to comment on what they think about this specific "new world order" concept, because it is really difficult to come by some rational analysis.

What do some of you think about this:

There are three organizations which are usually attributed in some of these conspiracy theories about the NWO.

Bilderberg Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

Trilateral Commission

http://www.trilateral.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission

Council on Foriegn Relations

http://www.cfr.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

These are private groups, which meet regularly consist of hundreds of members from the US, EU, and Asia. They can be described as extremely secretive, (CFR less than the other two,) insisting everything be off the record and their members are not allowed to discuss the details with the media or public.

They do make some things public, CFR makes pretty open advocacy to global governance through its website, as it calls itself a "foreign policy think tank."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/18985/#/Oce...erview%20Video/

The challenge of global governance has never been more imperative and more daunting to realize. The headlines are filled with transnational challenges, from terrorism to climate change to weapons of mass destruction. To foster better understanding of modern global challenges—and the international community’s record in responding to them—the International Institutions and Global Governance (IIGG) program has launched the Global Governance Monitor.

http://www.cfr.org/project/1369/internatio...governance.html

International Institutions and Global Governance: World Order in the 21st Century

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has launched a comprehensive five-year program on international institutions and global governance.

[...]

It is motivated by recognition that the architecture of global governance--largely reflecting the world as it existed in 1945--has not kept pace with fundamental changes in the international system. These changes include accelerating global economic integration; a shift in global power to non-Western countries; the rise of transnational security threats; the emergence of agile non-state actors; a proliferation of failing states; and evolving norms of state sovereignty. Existing multilateral arrangements thus provide an inadequate foundation for addressing today’s most pressing threats and opportunities and for advancing U.S. national and broader global interests.

[...]

The program will focus on arrangements governing state conduct and international cooperation in meeting four broad sets of challenges:

1.Countering Transnational Threats, including terrorism, proliferation of WMD, and infectious disease

2.Protecting the Environment and Promoting Energy Security

3.Managing the Global Economy

4.Preventing and Responding to Violent Conflict

As Reuters reports, the Obama Administration has promised to cooperate with the UN and international community on the same points as CFR. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN12189461 Of course the president of CFR, Richard Haass, is Obama's Foreign Policy Advisor, as well has having several other CFR members in his cabinet.

Here is a cursory list of other CFR members:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_th...reign_Relations

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama advisor, National Security Advisor Carter Admin.

Richard Holbrooke, special foreign policy envoy Obama admin.

Dennis Ross, special foreign policy envoy Obama admin.

John McCain

Madeleine Albright, 64th United States Secretary of State

Sandy Berger (United States National Security Advisor under President Bill Clinton)

Michael R. Bloomberg (Current Mayor of New York City)

Tom Brokaw

Rick Warren, pastor

Jimmy Carter

Dick Cheney

Bill Clinton

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Robert M. Gates (United States Secretary of Defense, former Director of Central Intelligence)

Alan Greenspan

John Kerry

Henry Kissinger

Paul R. Krugman

Paula Zahn - news media, formerly an anchor on CNN

fareed Zakaria, anchor CNN

John D. Negroponte (United States Deputy Secretary of State, former Director of National Intelligence, former U.S. ambassador to Honduras)

Stan O'Neal (Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Merrill Lynch)

Henry Paulson (United States Treasury Secretary)

Thomas Friedman (journalist, The New York Times)

Ethan Bronner (deputy foreign editor of The New York Times)

Colin Powell (former United States Secretary of State, former National Security Advisor, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)

Charles Prince (chief executive officer of Citigroup)

Condoleezza Rice, 66th United States Secretary of State

David Rockefeller, Jr.

John D. Rockefeller, IV

Charlie Rose

Fred Thompson (Actor, former Senator from Tennessee, Presidential candidate)

Paul Volcker (former Chairman of the Federal Reserve)

Barbara Walters

George Soros

George Shultz (former United States Secretary of State, former United States Secretary of the Treasury, former United States Secretary of Labor)

James D. Wolfensohn (former president of the World Bank)

Paul Wolfowitz (former president of the World Bank, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense)

James Woolsey (former Director of Central Intelligence and former head of the Central Intelligence Agency)

Robert Zoellick (President of the World Bank)

Nelson Rockefeller

John D. Rockefeller 3rd

Gerald Ford

Trilateral Commission makes its member lists public, has press releases of its agenda, but does not allow anything else public. It was formed in 1973 by former CFR chairman David Rockefeller (who in the OP openly calls for global governance for population control.)

http://www.trilateral.org/moreinfo/faqs.htm

To be effective in meeting common problems, Japan, Western Europe, and North America will have to:

1. consult and cooperate more closely, on the basis of equality, to develop and carry out coordinated policies on matters affecting their common interests;

2. refrain from unilateral actions incompatible with their interdependence and from actions detrimental to other regions;

3. take advantage of existing international and regional organizations and further enhance their role.

Trilateral cooperation will be facilitated as greater unity is achieved in Europe through the progress of the European community and as Europe and Japan develop closer relations.

[...]

How are Trilateral Commission members chosen?

Membership is by invitation. In the United States group, for example, the Executive Committee decides on invitations on the basis of recommendations made by members and staff. A rotation policy ensures some openings each year.

[...]

Is the Trilateral Commission secret?

No. Right from the beginning, the Commission’s membership list and informational materials on its aims and activities have been available to all free of charge. Each of the Commission’s task force reports is publicly available, as is the publication providing extensive coverage of each annual plenary meeting. Information on the Commission’s funding and major contributors is also available. The agenda and a list of participants for each plenary meeting are regularly distributed. Press conferences are held during the meetings, and draft task force reports are customarily made available to the press. Only the discussions at the meetings are kept “off-the-record,” to encourage frankness and maximize the learning process for members.

[...]

Is the Trilateral Commission trying to establish a world government?

No. The Trilateral Commission encourages international cooperation on many issues, but does not promote a world government. No Commission report proposes that national governments be dissolved and a world government be created. Individuals or organizations who believe the Trilateral Commission supports or intends to form a world government are misinformed.

Oh well that explains everything, then!

I suppose Senator Barry Goldwater was misinformed when he wrote in his 1979 book With No Apologies: "In my view, the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical. All this is to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community. What the Trilateralists truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. They believe the abundant materialism they propose to create will overwhelm existing differences. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future."

Here is a cursory list of Trilateral Commission members:

http://www.trilateral.org/MEMB.HTM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission

In the Obama Admin:

* Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner

* Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice

* National Security Advisor, Gen. James L. Jones

* Deputy National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon

* Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee, Paul Volker

* Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair

* Assistant Secretary of State, Asia & Pacific, Kurt M. Campbell

* Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg

* State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Haass

* State Department, Special Envoy, Dennis Ross

* State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Holbrooke

(Noticing a trend here?)

Zbigniew Brzezinsk, Obama advisor, 10th National Security Advisor

Anne-Marie Slaughter, Director of Policy Planning, U. S. Department of State

James B. Steinberg, U.S. Deputy Secretary-designate of State

Lawrence H. Summers, Director, U.S National Economic Council

Gen. James L. Jones, U.S. National Security Advisor

Adm. Dennis B. Blair, U.S. Director-designate of National Intelligence

David Rockefeller

William Jefferson Clinton

George H.W. Bush

Jimmy Carter

Dick Cheney

Alan Greenspan

Henry Kissinger

Paul Volker

Warren Christopher: former Secretary of State under Clinton and Deputy Secretary of State under Carter

Henry Cisneros: HUD Secretary under Clinton[32]

Joe Clark: former Canadian Prime Minister

Raymond Barre: former French Prime Minister

Lloyd Bentsen: former US Senator and Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton

Otto Graf Lambsdorff, Federal Minister of Economics, Germany

Kiichi Miyazawa, former Prime Minister of Japan

Akio Morita, co-founder Sony Corp.

Takeshi Watanabe, president Asian Development Bank

François Bujon de l'Estang, Ambassadeur de France; Chairman, Citigroup France, Paris; former Ambassador to the United States

Georges Berthoin, International Honorary Chairman, European Movement [10]; Honorary Chairman, The Jean Monnet Association; Honorary European Chairman, The Trilateral Commission

Toyoo Gyohten, President, The Institute for International Monetary Affairs [15]; Senior Advisor, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, UFJ, Ltd.

Tom Bradley (politician): former Mayor of Los Angeles

John H. Bryan: former CEO of Sara Lee bakeries, affiliated with the World Economic Forum and a director on the Boards of Sara Lee, Goldman Sachs, General Motors, British Petroleum and Bank One.

Rona Ambrose: Member of Parliament, Canada

John B. Anderson: former US Congressman

Bruce Babbitt: Interior Secretary under Clinton

Daniel J. Evans: former Governor of Washington

Gaston Eyskens: former Prime Minister of Belgium

Dianne Feinstein: Democratic U.S. Senator, former Mayor of San Francisco, member of the Council on Foreign Relations; chairwoman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security.

Alexander Haig: former Secretary of State under Reagan

Sirkka Hämäläinen: Member of the Executive Board, European Central Bank, Frankfurt-am-Main; former Governor, Bank of Finland

Edward Heath: former British Prime Minister

Mugur Isărescu: Governor of the National Bank of Romania

Horst Köhler: President of Germany

Lucas Papademos: European Central Bank Vice President

Martha Piper: Former Chancellor of UBC

Lee Raymond: Former CEO and Chairman, ExxonMobil, vice chairman of the Board of Trustees of the American Enterprise Institute, director of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., director and member of the Executive Committee and Policy Committee of the American Petroleum Institute

Anthony M. Solomon: former President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Ted Sorensen: former special adviser to President Kennedy[3]

Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa: Leader of the Social Democratic Party (Portugal)

Robert Zoellick: President of the World Bank, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State

Paul Wolfowitz: Former President of the World Bank, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense

Bilderberg Goup has no website, insists on a total media blackout, aside from where its annual meetings are held, and who attends them. It was formed in 1954 by a group consisting of Denis Healey (UK Secretary of Defence, Chancellor of the Exchequer), Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, Josef Retinger (Polish politician, founder of the European Movement and European Union), Belgian Prime Minister Paul Van Zeeland, Paul Rijkens (head of Unilever), Walter Bedell Smith (head of the CIA), and President Eisenhower (although he did not attend the meeting) in the Netherlands and named for the Hotel de Bilderberg where they met for the first time. According to a Times Article (Caroline Moorehead (18 April 1977). "An exclusive club, perhaps without power, but certainly with influence: The Bilderberg group". The Times) the steering committee does not publish a list of attendees, though some participants have publicly discussed their attendance. The delegates meet in secret annually for three days, but nothing they discuss is allowed to be made public.

About the goal of the Bilderberg Group? Founding member Denis Healey stated in an interview with a British journalist, Jon Ronson from The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/10/extract1

"To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."

Here is a list of Bilderberg attendees:

(Note every name has a citation to a source on wikipedia:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants

Royalty:

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands (1997, 2000)[1][2]

Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (1954, 1975)[3][4]

Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, United Kingdom (1986)[5][6]

Juan Carlos I of Spain, King of Spain (2004)[7]

Prince Philippe, Prince of Belgium (2007)[8]

Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, United Kingdom (1965, 1967)[9][10]

Queen Sofía of Spain[11]

US politics:

George W. Ball (1954, 1993),[12][13] Under Secretary of State 1961-1968, Ambassador to U.N. 1968

Sandy Berger (1999),[14] National Security Advisor, 1997-2001

Hillary Rodham Clinton,[15] 67th United States Secretary of State

Douglas Feith (2004),[16] U.S. Under-secretary of Defense

Timothy Geithner,[17] Treasury Secretary

Richard N. Haass (1991, 2003, 2004),[16][18] president, Council on Foreign Relations

Lee H. Hamilton (1997),[1] former US Congressman

Christian Herter,[19] (1961, 1963, 1964, 1966), 53rd United States Secretary of State

Charles Douglas Jackson (1957, 1958, 1960),[20] Special Assistant to the President

Joseph E. Johnson[21] (1954), President Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Henry Kissinger[18] (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1977, 2008),[22] 56th United States Secretary of State

Jessica T. Mathews (2004),[16] president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Colin Powell (1997),[1] 65th United States Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice,[15] 66th United States Secretary of State

Walter Bedell Smith (1954-1957),[23][24] former White House Chief of Staff, Director of the CIA, U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union

Lawrence Summers,[17] Director of the National Economic Council

Paul Volcker,[17] Chair of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board

Presidents:

Bill Clinton (1991),[25][26] President 1993-2001

Gerald Ford (1964, 1966),[3][27] President 1974-1977

Barack Obama?

The 2008 Bilderberg meeting took place in Chantilly, VA just outside of Washington DC on June 5-8. If you remember the story during the campaign was that Obama had "tricked" the press into getting on his campaign airplane on June 5 with the promise that he would join them and they would all fly to Chicago for a rally. The press boarded Obama's plane, the doors were shut, but Obama was not present, the annoyed press were told by Mr. Gibbs that he "decided to meet with some people" and couldn't comment further. The Bilderberg Group was meeting in the Westfield Marriott hotel a mere 20 minute drive from Dulles Airport. It was rumored that Obama as a "secret meeting" with Hillary, at her house, but then it was revealed that they weren't at Hillary's house, then Dianne Finestein (Bilderberg Attendee, and Trilateral Commission member) said that they met in her house in DC, but that she wasn't present at the meeting.

ABC: "Obama, Clinton Ditch Press for Secret Meeting"

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?i...2995&page=1

ABC: "Clinton Sneaks Out to Meet Obama in Washington"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...-ditches-p.html

CNN: "Behind the Scenes: Obama press 'hijacked' during Clinton meeting"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/bts...ch.obama.press/

Fox News: "News Outlets Complain to Obama Campaign About Secret Meeting"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/...secret-meeting/

CNN: "Obama, Clinton hold talks in Feinstein's living room"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/cli...wrap/index.html

Politico: "Clinton and Obama hold secret meeting"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/...secret-meeting/

Senators:

Tom Daschle,[15] Senator from South Dakota 1987-2005

John Edwards (2004),[16][28][29] Senator from North Carolina 1999-2005

Dianne Feinstein (1991),[12] Senator 1992-current, Mayor of San Francisco 1978-1988

Chuck Hagel (1999, 2000),[30] Senator from Nebraska 1997-2009

Sam Nunn (1996, 1997),[1] Senator from Georgia 1972-1997

Governors:

Jon Corzine (1995 - 1997,[1] 1999, 2003, 2004),[16] Senator 2001-2006, Governor of New Jersey 2006-current

Rick Perry (2007),[31] Governor of Texas 2000-current

Mark Sanford (2008),[32] Governor of South Carolina

Douglas Wilder (1991),[12] Governor of Virginia

UK Prime Ministers:

Prime Ministers

Tony Blair (1993),[25][36] Prime Minister 1997-2007

Gordon Brown (1991),[26] Prime Minister 2007-current

Edward Heath,[3] Prime Minister 1970-1974

Alec Douglas-Home (1977-1980),[55] Chairman of the Bilderberg Group, Prime Minister 1963-1964

Margaret Thatcher (1975),[56] Prime Minister 1979-1990

There are also heads of state from Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Iceland, etc.

Banking and Finance:

Ben Bernanke (2008,[32] 2009),[47]Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United States Federal Reserve

Wim Duisenberg, former European Central Bank President [58]

Timothy Geithner, (2004),[16]) president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Gordon Richardson,[82](1966, 1975) former Governor of the Bank of England

William J McDonough (1997),[1] former President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Jean-Claude Trichet (2009),[83] President of the European Central Bank 2003-current

Paul Volcker (1982, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1997),[1] former Chairman of the Federal Reserve

Siegmund Warburg (1977)[82]

Peter Weinberg (2004),[16] CEO of Goldman Sachs International

James Wolfensohn (2004),[16] president of the World Bank

Media:

Nicolas Beytout, (French)[84] Editor of Le Figaro (France)

Conrad Black (1981, 1983, 1985-1996)[48](1997),[89] columnist and publisher, now in prison

William F. Buckley, Jr. (1996),[90] columnist and founder of National Review

Will Hutton[25] (1997), former CEO of The Work Foundation and editor-in-chief for The Observer

Andrew Knight (1996),[35][48] journalist, editor, and media baron

George Stephanopoulos (1996, 1997),[48] Former Communications Director of the Clinton Administration (1993-1996), now ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent

If you've noticed the trend, yes, many of these people are members of two or all three groups, Bilderberg, CFR, and Trilateral Commission. So, Objectivists, talk me down here! Why would there be heads of state, major politicians, leaders of governments, royalty, leaders of major corporations, leaders of financial institutions and banking, and members of the media all belonging to these groups, and a lot of them openly call for one world government and some like to subtly hint at it in between the lines of their collectivist-altruist ramblings?

How does these meetings not contradict the Logan Act of 1799, at the very least ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act ) which forbids as a felony any unathorized citizens and/or government officials from negotiating with foreign governments or conduct any foreign relations without authority? How is any of these activities not in direct violation of that? Come, on help me out people. What do Objectivists think of this?

[TheEgoist]

Global government isn't a terrible idea in theory.

Especially with space travel.

[Jake_Ellison]

If you've noticed the trend, yes, many of these people are members of two or all three groups, Bilderberg, CFR, and Trilateral Commission. So, Objectivists, talk me down here! Why would there be heads of state, major politicians, leaders of governments, royalty, leaders of major corporations, leaders of financial institutions and banking, and members of the media all belonging to these groups, and a lot of them openly call for one world government and some like to subtly hint at it in between the lines of their collectivist-altruist ramblings?

Talk you down from where? You did not express any negative views on such meetings, you only seem to be in disagreement with the politics of the various participants. To the extent they are collectivists, I don't like them either. Doesn't mean I'm opposed to their right to meet though, in secret or otherwise.

How does these meetings not contradict the Logan Act of 1799, at the very least ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act ) which forbids as a felony any unathorized citizens and/or government officials from negotiating with foreign governments or conduct any foreign relations without authority?

They aren't negotiating with any goverments, in the name of the US, nor are those foreign officials negotiating in the name of their own governments. Plus, the Logan Act is an obvious violation of individual rights, thank God it's never been enforced.

[2046]

I had almost forgotten about this thread, when I saw a bit of "Fareed Zakaria GPS" this morning, in which Zakaria had guests on his program including the finance ministers of France and Singapore, Obama Advisor and Former Treasury Sec. Larry Summers (who, not that it's relevant, looked like he had herpes sores on his mouth), and head of the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn, CFR members all. Zakaria even joked off the cuff about having a room full of Bilderberg and Trilateral members, but the gist of the segment was a roundtable discussion in which all agreed that global government is necessary for the global economy, or else we will "repeat the same mistakes." Strauss-Kahn, it was mentioned, is a member of the Socialist Party, and called for what he termed a "FAT tax," in which every first-world nation must be forced pay a global financial tax to the IMF, of course, for the good of the global economy. They all lamented that China and those reactionaries in the USA would never support such a visionary idea. But take heart, Zakaria told us at the end of the segment, for the future is a battle between what he called "free market capitalism" (represented by the USA) versus the progressive "State capitalism" (represented by China) and he believed that "free market capitalism" was destined to fail and "State capitalism" was the system of the future.

I have never seen such brazen pro-global government agit-prop like this, now out in the open. I remember once castigating people for even suggesting such organizations exist, and writing them off as paranoid, but it seems I was wrong.

I wonder why CFR has recently seen fit to produce a video telling us of all the good it does?

[TheEgoist]

Global government, again, not so bad.

[Grames]

Global government would necessarily be a disaster in the current philosophical climate, and if the philosophical climate was objective and rational global government would not be necessary.

Plus, the Logan Act is an obvious violation of individual rights, thank God it's never been enforced.

I don't find the Logan Act obviously or even nonobviously a violation of individual rights.

Text of the Logan Act

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

Since the Constitution locates the power of deciding foreign policy in the executive branch, this measure is necessary to make that delegation real and not theoretical. We can't have governors negotiating separate peace treaties in war, or their own immigration policies or trade policies in contradiction to the federal policy.

[CapitalistSwine]

Global government, again, not so bad.

Global government in our ideal world is not necessary and technically probably not even wanted by any means.

Global government in our current world is necessarily an excellent way for statism to spread and will only achieve negative goals for society and the individual in the long run.

Be careful not to mix the positive effects of globalization with that of a global government.

Edited May 17, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[Maximus]

Global government, again, not so bad.

I want some of what he's smokin'.

[Hairnet]

I am not entirely sure if global government literally means the removal of all nation-states and the creation of one global state. I don't think that would be to the advantage of the rich and powerful, because (from what I have gathered) the rich and powerful often take advantage of the inconsistencies.

In addition to that, wouldn't a global government mean the dissolving of all of these internationalist groups? How can their be internationalism, and internationalist institutions without nations to be in between?

In the end I don't see any literal global state emerging (Armies, Cops, and such), as much the increased power of international bodies. Think of it like the catholic church in the middle ages.

A global state might be necessary one day, but that is a question of how big and how centralized the government (not in power, but in amount) has to be to do its job well. It is an interesting question, but I am not entirely confident that there is any real way to figure that out. Every other kind of organization needs to be shaped by the market in order to find the right size and centralization. The state can't do this because the market can't shape government.

[2046]

I am not entirely sure if global government literally means the removal of all nation-states and the creation of one global state. I don't think that would be to the advantage of the rich and powerful, because (from what I have gathered) the rich and powerful often take advantage of the inconsistencies.

In addition to that, wouldn't a global government mean the dissolving of all of these internationalist groups? How can their be internationalism, and internationalist institutions without nations to be in between?

Yeah, I don't think it necessarily means that individual nation-states are to be dissolved, but it is just a drive for centralized decision-making, which entails centralized authority to tax and regulate without the possibility of having to worry about emigration, which a single state always faces if it gets too internally aggressive. I think the main goal right now is the drive for a world central bank.

[TheEgoist]

Global government in our ideal world is not necessary and technically probably not even wanted by any means.

Global government in our current world is necessarily an excellent way for statism to spread and will only achieve negative goals for society and the individual in the long run.

Be careful not to mix the positive effects of globalization with that of a global government.

Why would we not want an ideal government to take up as much territory as possible?

[aequalsa]

As I understand the phrase "New World Order," (leaving conspiracy theories aside) it is a reference to any large scale shift in global power. Britain in the early 1900's was a global hegememon that was challenged by the massive increase in German industrial power on the lead up to world war I and II. After the cost of the two massive wars and the conclusion of the Breton-woods agreements, "a new world order" came about with the ascendancy of the US who was relatively unscathed by both. The USSR then grew in power and capacity which, again, led to a "new world order," in which the world was divided in a bipolar sense, dividing roughly on the communist or globalizing capitalist sides. The abrupt fall of the Soviets in 1987 changed the global order again leaving the US with its massive productive capacity and military(we spend some 45% of all military dollars world wide, which is more then the next 10 countries combined) as the single global governor and enforcer of norms. The EU and China could very likely supplant the US in the next few decades as could an empowered and more heavily funded UN as the central authority between countries. The UN along with the world bank, IMF, WTO, GATT, etc all seem very interested in lessoning US power. With the self destructive attitude of the current administration, and our politicians generally, I see the downfall as close to inevitable.

[Grames]

Why would we not want an ideal government to take up as much territory as possible?

First you come up with an ideal government, then we'll discuss promoting it around the world.

[2046]

Why would we not want an ideal government to take up as much territory as possible?

Because again, it's not necessary (the territory does not have to be the same state to be any more or less ideal than otherwise), and if that government became less than ideal as history has shown us, then we would want it to take up less territory. This doesn't mean a global government is per se bad, or intrinsically bad, but given these facts, it would be therefore preferable to keep the ideal government in smaller units.

[CapitalistSwine]

When we speak about global government, the idea that one government will control all nations (that have dissolved into states perhaps?) is logistically implausible and the likelihood of such is near none unless there is some major cataclysmic event (ala Anthem for instance, possibly). What is most likely being referred to when we use the phrase global government, if we are to be realistic, is likely several federations of states. You know, European Union, Eurasian Union, American Union, North American Unions, Eastern Union, what have you.

[flatlander]

When we speak about global government, the idea that one government will control all nations (that have dissolved into states perhaps?) is logistically implausible and the likelihood of such is near none unless there is some major cataclysmic event (ala Anthem for instance, possibly). What is most likely being referred to when we use the phrase global government, if we are to be realistic, is likely several federations of states. You know, European Union, Eurasian Union, American Union, North American Unions, Eastern Union, what have you.

I think these unions would be a transitional stage. When the point is reached that currently-sovereign countries submitted to international uber-governments, the logical conclusion of such a process would be the merging of those unions into even larger federations. All the Americas, for example. Maybe Australia merged with Asia. None of the global government push would bring limited government, to be sure. I don't see how such a drive towards a One World government would be anything but tyrannical. It might be a sort of polite tyranny of busybodies, all wrapped up in liberal fascist trappings like environmentalism and multiculturalism.

It certainly would take a major crisis to bring global government to fruition. Maybe a massive meltdown of credit markets that sends heavily indebted countries to the brink of economic collapse. Maybe a US President that is far more collectivist than any of his predecessors, and who would systematically assault individual rights.

Oh, wait a second......