Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:35:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: cyberjournal <>
Subject: cj#771> Welcome to the new world order...
Article: 69467
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Message-ID: <>

Welcome to the new world order...

By Richard K. Moore, 14 July 1999

Publisher's note: Because the emphases in this article were not terminated, I had to guess where to stop them.

Dear cj,

Sorry not to have posted for the past week... an intensive session was required to learn how to build web databases and interactive forms (rent's gotta be paid!) Many of you sent in further comments on the book-discussion thread. We'll get back to those later.

The subject for today is the dramatic and rapid consolidation of the new global regime. George Bush's comment in 1990, that the Gulf War heralded a new world orde, was the trigger that got me started on the path of analyzing and writing about political power relationships. Bush was suggesting that the Gulf War was more than a special case, that it was establishing some kind of new pattern for international order. He didn't tell us much about the details, and I found myself drawn in to figuring out what he could have meant.

The starting point for the investigation was the Gulf War itself. What was unique about it?

In some ways it wasn't anything new—it looked quite a bit like yet-another case of American gunboat diplomacy, one which expanded on the tactics used earlier in Panama and Grenada. All three events were accompanied by misleading propaganda, including lies about how the conflict developed, about the intensity of the bombing, and about the postwar consequences. All three invasions were carried out quickly, blitzkrieg style, avoiding the public backlash that can accompany protracted engagements.

In all three cases, a new regime of control over the media was in evidence. Release of official information was highly centralized, and media channels made no effort to pursue independent sources—even though sources were often readily available. The result was more than simply slanted news - the coverage didn't resemble previous war reportage at all, it was more like a real-time Hollywood movie—a story with black-and-white characters and a simple, clearly developing plot line. In the end, the bad guys were defeated and the good guys were victorious, and the whole tidy episode happened within the dramatic attention span of the audience. That last word sums it up—we had become an audience to a presentation. As in the the Roman Republic, the meaning of citizenship had been reduced to the act of watching circuses.

I highly recommend the documentary Panama Deception for a dramatic and in-depth treatment of all the points mentioned above, as they apply to the case of Panama. (If anyone knows where to order copies, please let me know so I can post it). In this case, there was a very definite hidden agenda (partly sovereignty over the canal, and partly related to Central American policy), an invasion much larger than we were led to believe, and the media coverage was trivialized into an irrelevant search for Noriega chase story. It's a documentary that should be shown to every high school student.

In all these ways, Desert Storm was simply the latest version of intervention, American style, employing the state-of-the-art in stealth warfare—both on the battlefield and in the management of public opinion.

What was unique about Desert Storm was the way in which the project was internationalized. For the invasions of Grenada and Panama, legitimacy came from the approval of the American public, and the propaganda was directed primarily at an American audience. The contrived war-provocation incident involved an American serviceman who was shot (after speeding through a Panamanian checkpoint and exchanging fire with the guards, none of which was revealed at the time), and it was an American court in Florida which had indicted Noriega on drug charges.

In Desert Storm, the legitimizing audience became an international one, and the contrived war-provocation incident was one of international concern - the invasion of Kuwait. It is important to note that the US could probably have carried off a unilateral action against Iraq, just as it did in Panama and Grenada. There would have been protests from some quarters in the international community, but that hasn't stopped the US in the past.

It seemed that the US was intent on achieving international legitimacy, as a goal in its own right. But the legitimacy sought was of a rather narrow variety. The US wasn't really seeking allies as it did in WW II—joint powers acting from a shared consensus. Instead, the US simply wanted an official authorization to pursue its own agenda, and token allies, whose presence was more symbolic-of-legitimacy than substantive militarily. Much was made of the need for an authorizing UN resolution, but once the resolution was signed the US completely ignored the spirit and letter of the resolution—and proceeded to carry out the war in whatever way it wanted, releasing only the information if chose to release.

These considerations led me to a tentative hypothesis regarding the nature of the new world order to which Bush was alluding.

It seemed that a whole slice of American culture—the traditional warpath scenario—was being re-installed in a larger context. Under this scenario, the international (particularly Western) public would be managed with the same Madison-Avenue / Hollywood techniques which had been perfected in the US; wars and interventions would be justified by contrived or fabricated incidents, and once underway would be pursued by means and toward ends which would be largely unnanounced; the UN would be expected to emulate the American Congress, which traditionally gives the Executive a blank check in time of warfare.

This hypothesis, at the time, was highly speculative. It was based on three asumptions: (1) Bush was serious with his NWO remark; (2) his seriousness was linked to policies that some community of people had the power to implement; (3) the unique aspects of Desert Storm provided the necessary clues as to what those policies were about.

I didn't realize it at the time, but subsequent events were to overwhelmingly validate the hypothesis in every one of its particulars. More about that a little further down. While waiting for on-the-ground validation, I used my time to investigate who this community might be, that could define and then implement new world orders—of whatever variety, and what else was involved in their new order besides the globalization of US interventionism.

This led me to investigate corporate power, the Reagan-Thatcher revolution, the EU, the free-trade agreements, and the rapidly developing global bureaucracy centered in the WTO (World Trade Organization), IMF, et al. This led to a review of the history of the old world order... the Enlightenment and the birth of republics, and the relationship between the growth of capitalism and the growth of democracies.

Already in late 1995 this work had led to an analysis which includes most of the elements now in Part I of the Achieving a Livable World. Here are three paragraphs from Common Sense and the New World Order, which was published in New Dawn in September-October, 1995):

This nightmarish political regime is being expanded to the Second and First Worlds by means of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area), GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), the WTO (World Trade Organization), and other similar agreements and entities. Unlike the IMF, which controls via the purse strings, these so-called trade agreements control via intrusion into the regulatory power of signatory nations. By exploiting the treaty mechanism, which has the force of national law, these agreements become permanent parts of each constitutional system, making it all but impossible for future governments to choose different regulatory policies. Thus the transnationals are able to translate temporary political ascendency, attained at considerable effort and expense, into a permanent stranglehold over sovereign nations.

Over the past century, the U.S. has felt free to intervene unilaterally in dozens of countries to support the operations of various corporate interests. As foreshadowed by the Gulf precedent, the NWO scheme is to legitimize such interventions, by embedding them within an international framework. That framework won't be the U.N. —which includes too diverse a representative base—instead, it will be framed within organizations such as NATO, which fit better the technocratic model and are more easily managed by the NWO elite.

Thus the military agenda of the NWO can be foreseen by simply looking back at the history of U.S. imperialism in the Third World. Whenever a country gets too uppity—pursuing its domestic interests rather than those of transnational corporate investors—it can expect to be subdued by overwhelming military force, preceded by an appropriate media demonization campaign. Traditional international law—largely ignored in practice anyway—is to be formally replaced by an internationalized, but elite controlled, NWO Police Strike Force.

So far, I had been looking at two things: the events of the day and a few history books. I had not yet heard of Samuel Huntington and his Crisis of Democracy and Clash of Civilizations, nor had I looked into the Council on Foreign Relations and the well-documented history of elite planning as the basis for major US policies. The current genre of globalization books had not yet been published, including two landmark works: Michel Chossudovsky's Globalization of Poverty, showing how the IMF acts as a conscious agent of Western neo-imperialism, and Mander & Goldsmith's The Case Against the Global Economy, which comprehensively covers the economic and political aspects of globalization (but not the military aspects).

All of this later material, together with the continued unfolding of the NWO agenda on the ground, only served to confirm and to expand the orginal hypothesis. The evidence became overwhelming and conclusive. There is

By the end of 1997 none of this, in my mind at least, was any longer in the hypothesis category. The investigation had been carried out, and the conclusions were inescapable. I turned my attention to two new projects: (1) learning how to explain what I had learned in terms that could be received by those who have been conditioned by a lifetime of dis-education and corporate propaganda, and (2) investigating what could be done to change things. As members of the cj and rn lists, you have been appreciated participants in these projects.

Nonetheless, c. Jan 1998, much of the NWO was still latent. The handwriting was on the wall, but the implementation had not been carried out. For the skeptical, Desert Storm could be seen as a one-off event, and even still today the WTO has not unleashed its full powers against environmental laws and the like. Most people still think they are living in sovereign nations, and link the term NWO to right-wing conspiracy theories. Much of what I was writing could be categorized as prediction.

Now all at once, in the space of a few short months, the NWO hammer has come down—the final implementation of the global military regime has occurred. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton have announced that Yugoslavia is only the beginning, that we can expect interventions throughout the world as routine policy. NATO is to be the vehicle, humanitarianism is to be the pretext, and centrally-controlled wag-the-dog propaganda is to make sure events are interpreted with the white hats and black hats plainly assigned to the right characters.

Clinton made it all quite clear, when he spoke to NATO troops recently in Macedonia (The Clinton Doctrine, from the Washington Post, reprinted in The Guardian Weekly, July 1-7, p. 31):

We must win the peace. If we can do this here...we can then say to the people of the world, Whether you live in Arica or Cental Europe or any other place, if somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion and it is within our power stop it, we will stop it.

You've got hand it to them... it's a very effective formula. Who can resist the idea of doing something to prevent genocide?

The problem with the tidy little formula is that the same folks who decide where to intervene are the ones who run the global system that intentionally creates the conditions which are destabilizing societies globally and making pretexts for intervention plentiful.

It is the US who installed and supported Noriega, Marcos, Pinochet, the Shah, and the Ayatollah; it is the West that sold Saddam weapons of mass destruction; it is the West that supported Suharto and profited from his crony-capitalist regime and East Timor repression; it is the US and Germany who intentionally promoted the destabilization of Yugoslavia over the past decade and repeatedly encouraged Milosevic, giving him enough rope so they could later hang him with it.

A band of arsonists has successfully usurped the role of global fire crew. They start fires all over the world on a routine basis, and whenever they want to intervene militarily, all they have to do is turn the media spotlight on the results of their own diabolical handiwork. Not only that, but when they do intervene, as we've seen in Iraq & Yugoslavia, they don't put out the fire: they simply burn down the rest of the house.

If you seek alternative source of information, then you know ethnic repression is going on all over the world, including within staunch American allies such as Turkey and Israel, and Most-Favored-Nations such as China. But when the mass media gets around to revealing such circumstances, then you know you're being prepared for a sooner-or-later potential intervention.

Let's move up one level, re/ strategic analysis... let's follow the money.

In terms of global capitalism, what we are seeing in Yugoslavia is a large-scale redevelopment project. When a developer wants to build a new shopping center, or housing estate, he bulldozes down all existing structures and starts over from the ground up. That's exactly what happened in Yugoslavia, and that's why the biggest bombs were aimed at the economic infrastructure. I can thank Eric Margolis for pointing out that weeks into the attack most of Milosevic's military equipment had not been touched by the bombing. Eric interpreted this as stupidity on the part of NATO targeters. In fact, it merely confirms the economic origins of the prefabricated sequence of events in the Balakans during the past decade.

As Marx and Lenin foresaw, the global triumph of capitalism has led to the exposure of contradictions inherent in the system. Growth and wealth concentration, the engines of capitalism, can only proceed so far. Real economic growth in the global economy has been relatively stagnant for more than a decade now. The paper-growth that we read about in the economic news and on the exchange ticker-tapes is related more to the final stages of concentration, where giant TNC's gorge themselves with mergers and by taking over markets currently served by smaller businesses or by public agencies.

The engineered destabilization of Southeast Asian economies was part of this concentration phase, knocking competitors to Western-based TNC's out of global markets, and giving those TNC's an opportunty to further gorge themselves on undervalued Southeast Asian assets.

But as I mentioned above, even this IMF-assisted concentration phase cannot last forever. The TNC's already control something like 80% of global markets. They're now rapidly squeezing the last few miles out of this growth vehicle.

Capitalism far from ready to give up the ghost, and new growth vehicles are being developed. In Yugoslavia we see the latest model being deployed. NATO blitzkrieg is the bulldozer, and recovery programs are the growth vehicle. Over the next few days I'll post some good pieces about the rush to begin the redevelopment phase in Yugoslavia, the corporate scramble to see who can profit the most from rebuilding Kosovo. Serbia too will eventually be invaded by the developers, but it will apparently be subjected first to the discipline of Iraq-style sanctions. The people of the world must understand that it's not nice to resist the dicates of the new world order.

bye for now,