A New Cold War? The Fight Against the 'New World Order' and Britain's Fate

I am not, by and large, a conspiracy theorist.

I am not, by and large, a conspiracy theorist.  Nevertheless, it is equally naïve to suppose that, because a particular regime at a particular time collapsed in ruin, "the End of History" has arrived, and the world can henceforth become united in support of the 1990s' muddled, social democratic version of the free market.

The Soviet Union, unlike Nazi Germany, was not the product of one madman. It was a regime, established almost by chance, that ruled a large portion of the world for over 70 years.  Its economic nostrums were certainly not what enabled it to do this; even at the time, they were fatally flawed to any but the most rose-tinted observer.  What enabled it to rule, and to attract so much support from outside its immediate domain, was its political formulation, which proved immensely attractive to millions of people, most of whom never had to live under its sway.

The Soviet Union became a government of infinite power, on whom all its citizens depended for their existence, whose whims could therefore totally affect their lives, yet which could never be removed.  Needless to say, participation in the upper, middle and even lower reaches of that government was an attractive opportunity for millions of mildly intellectual bureaucrats, who could use Marx's idealism to convince both themselves and their people that they were motivated by pure altruism.

That dream, of participating with like-minded people in an infinitely powerful, infinitely unresponsive government that works ceaselessly to impose ideals on the populace, was not confined to the Soviet Union, and it certainly didn't die with the Soviet Union.  George H.W. Bush, at the end of the Gulf War, heralded a "New World Order"- a term which has been appropriated by many of those willing its arrival.

The western incarnation of that dream probably originated with the French philosopher Henri de Saint-Simon and was given additional impetus by the British Fabian Society in the early 20th century. However, the greatest impetus to its incarnation as practical policy came from economist John Maynard Keynes.  Keynes propounded two theories that had not been considered economically respectable before his time: that the government could effectively allocate resources between different producers and traders, and that public spending could be used to push an economy out of recession.

Keynes' theories, propounded in his intellectually obscure General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) envisaged an economy in which, while ownership technically remained predominantly in the private sector, all significant economic decisions would be taken by omniscient left-leaning public sector intellectuals like himself.  It was not necessary for government to own the means of production; indeed Soviet experience seemed to show that such ownership was so economically counterproductive as to breed political instability.  It was simply necessary to set up a system whereby all significant economic decisions required the approval of the bureaucracy.

This was the impetus behind the Indian Congress Party's "permit raj" until 1991; it is also the impetus behind much environmental regulation, practically all telecom regulation and much trade policy.  Free trade is not an NWO objective, although establishing an international bureaucracy to oversee trade may be a useful tool.  It is much better, instead, to have a system of massive subsidization of agriculture, quantitative control over textiles and the ability to impose randomly high tariffs against "dumping" malefactors.  All three increase bureaucrat control - the object of the exercise.

It is not enough, however, for government to be all-powerful, it must also be unaccountable.  As the British Labour party found out in 1979, it is little joy to leftist Keynesian bureaucrats to establish a "New Jerusalem" where they control the economy if the electorate can come along and throw them out, reducing their finely-crafted construct to rubble.  Accordingly, some mechanism must be found whereby, even if personalities and governments change from decade to decade, central bureaucratic control remains in place.

Two mechanisms exist for this:  the voting system and the supranational body.  NWO partisans seek to impose proportional representation systems, in which a multiplicity of parties appears, and where governments then tend to be formed by negotiation between insiders. 

The other favorite mechanism for reducing accountability is the supranational body.  Both the World Bank and the IMF are classic New World Order entities, being exempt from control either by a democratic electorate or by the market and enjoying special privileges in terms of access to capital and de facto right of first repayment of their loans.  Subsequent NWO entities include the European Union, the International Court of Justice, endless United Nations bodies and the World Trade Organization (the latter not entirely an NWO creation, since it remains pretty ineffectual without the full agreement of its member governments.)  All these bodies share the characteristics of permanence, lack accountability, possess immunity from economic pressure and have the ability to overrule private or even national interests that are the NWO ideal.

The European Parliament is the ultimate NWO vehicle, being both supranational and elected by proportional representation; with 45 of the current 626 Euro-MPs, the British Conservatives are the second largest grouping in the chamber.  Of course, all resolutions of this body are settled by insider bargaining, with the EU's electorate having neither input in nor indeed knowledge of what is being decided.

The last few weeks have seen a number of successes for both sides in this Cold War: