sorry about the late publication time, morning hockey sessions screw up my schedule
Every once in a while I get an email suggesting I read up on the New World Order and their secret plan to enslave the world as my writing demonstrates a woeful ignorance of this conspiracy. My standard reply is that I don't see much of a conspiracy, just politics as it has always been in recorded history.
The desire to rule the world, or its lesser included temptation of increasing national sovereignty is a temptation few leaders of nations which sense the possibility can avoid. Of more interest to me are the ways and means by which these power hungry individuals plan to achieve their goal.
As the United States grew from a bunch of rebellious colonies into a world power this desire to extend sovereignty grew as well. As with the European powers, this expansion of political sovereignty went hand in hand with commercial expansion. In order to have commerce the rules thereof must be enforced, thus the need for political control.
The aspect of the United States' attempt at world dominance that may be leading people to see it as conspiratorial is the lack of public discourse. A century ago, this was not the case. There was a party behind expansion of sovereignty and a party against, but no more.
Now the distinction is the form of control. Thus the oft made observation that there is little difference between the two parties, because on this key point, they agree.
The Democrats would apparently like to create a World Government, as per this recent proposal:
The most potent threats to life on earth - global warming, health pandemics, poverty and armed conflict - could be ended by moves that would unlock $7 trillion - $7,000,000,000,000 (£3.9trn) - of previously untapped wealth, the United Nations claims today.
The price? An admission that the nation-state is an old-fashioned concept that has no role to play in a modern globalised world where financial markets have to be harnessed rather than simply condemned.
The Republicans would apparently like the United States to be the vehicle as per the President's State of the Union speech:
We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy, or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership. So the United States of America will continue to lead.
To me trying to rule the world is a bit like trying to make a fiat currency retain value, it just can't be done over the long term. As Abe Lincoln put it, you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Of course, just because something is impossible is no bar to trying. Which brings us to the financial tie in.
A few weeks ago I argued, The "Peace Dividend" in a sense, was wagered. What I meant was, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and China's shift to a more market based system the debate over whether the world would be ruled by a single entity, at least in the minds of many corporate leaders, central bankers, et alios, was over, only the form mattered. Thus they expanded the financial web under the assumption that the world would be made safe for commerce and its prerequisite, a currency accepted the world over..
I argued earlier this week that the Davos crowd was beginning to see the light and judging by the rising dissent from the Libertarian leaning wing of the Republican party, they too may be getting cold feet. Judging by the recent run in Gold, the financial guys too may be seeing the writing on the wall. If they only understood and believed the sense of the Tower of Babel story we might have avoided this whole mess, but then again, silly me for thinking that our leaders would learn from history.