The Hyper-Fragile New World Order

With the Brexit vote less than a month away, I guess I’m not going to be able to get away from the topic of the EU for the next few weeks. But Spiked! has a bunch of very interesting essays about it, including The EU Is A Mirage:

When I am asked to describe the European Union, I often say that it is a bit like a mirage. We all know how a mirage works. From far away, the image is clear and strong. As you get closer, it starts to wobble and shimmer until eventually it disappears.

The EU is like that. Seen from national capitals, be they London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Bratislava or Madrid, it looks clear and distinct. It has its own institutions, its own buildings, even its own legal order. It can punish national governments for over-spending and close national banks. But as you get closer to Brussels, this image begins to wobble. Finally, when you are really up close, it disappears altogether.

What is left are our own national leaders – German chancellor Angela Merkel, French president Francois Hollande, Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi, and so on – taking decisions between themselves in meetings closed to the general public.

The EU, he says, is simply a way for member governments to distance themselves from their electorates, deciding matters for themselves behind closed doors. The real powers remain the sovereign member states, in the persons of Merkel, Hollande, etc. The EU is just a cloak they draw around themselves.

Rather than deriving their power internally, from their own subjects, governments of member states derive their power from sources externally, in particular from relations forged with other governments and international organisations. The most extreme case of this was Italy a few years ago. In 2011, when Silvio Berlusconi was ousted from power, he was replaced by Mario Monti. Monti’s authority derived from the support he received from outside powers: global markets, other EU leaders, the European Central Bank. When he tried to win over the support of Italians themselves, he failed miserably…

The relations forged with other governments and international organisations will include all the various EU treaties (Rome, Maastricht, Lisbon, etc.), but also treaties like the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). And these binding treaties have now come to exert more power over governments than the votes of their own national electorates.

Governments are increasingly bound more to one another than to their own people. The FCTC matters more than than any electorate does, and that’s why we all have smoking bans.

Negotiations between governments in international settings have become the dominant mode of policymaking, replacing deliberation within national parliaments.

Hence all the endless G7’s and G8’s and Bilderbergs. They’re where the real decisions get taken. And the only people who matter are world leaders. And they’re the only people who need to be listened to – as was shown during the EU Referendum campaign:

One of the most striking aspects of the current campaign has been the use of the borrowed credibility of foreign leaders and non-partisan organisations, by the Remain side in particular. A key point in the campaign was US president Barack Obama’s endorsement of Remain…

It’s a vision of the EU as a set of national governments tied more strongly to each other than to the people who elected them, becoming

a political class that has severed its links to society

One additional feature of this is that it would seem that the priorities of this political class have progressively become detached from the priorities of the ordinary voters that they no longer pay attention to. There are lots of examples of this: Smoking bans, global warming, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms. Most ordinary people simply don’t care about any of these things.

I’ll run with this a bit.

Governments all over the world are no longer supported from below by a solid base of national votes, but are instead kept in place by a floating global spherical mesh of treaties and alliances and agreements. It might be depicted thus:

NWO

It’s a completely new political architecture. It’s as if the political skyscrapers of the old political order have been replaced by an enormous geodesic dome spanning the entire globe, holding everything up.

The inherent instabilities of this New World Order are fairly obvious. Firstly, it’s completely detached from the (political) ground, and is liable to fall to earth. And secondly, if one set of treaties/agreements breaks, the entire system is likely to fly apart. There is the potential for complete chaos as all the governments in the world are simultaneously brought down, not by revolutions from below, but by the failure of supporting ties to other governments.

It’s a situation that’s rather like that of Europe immediately prior to WW1, where all the states were bound to each other by a complex web of treaties and alliances and agreements, which explosively unravelled in August 1914, hurling governments in all directions. Except it’s now a global web of treaties and alliances and agreements that is set to unravel, pitting government against government everywhere.

And it’s out of this clash of governments that war is likely to erupt, just as in August 1914. Only this time it will erupt simultaneously everywhere, all over the world.

The old political order was much more stable. If one government collapsed, the others wouldn’t all collapse too. They were largely independent of each other. But now that they’re all tied together, they’re all dependent on each other. And more dependent on each other than ever, because they no longer have much popular grassroot support, given that they’ve been neglecting ordinary people. They’ve lost contact.

The unstable New World Order is set to be swept away, and more or the entire global political class along with it. And most likely they’d take with them much, if not all, the politically correct dogmas they introduced – including smoking bans.

Or that’s one possibility.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to The Hyper-Fragile New World Order

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    CRAPOLOGY- PSUEDO-SCIENCE OF ANTI-TOBACCO

  2. waltc says:

    That’s a mind-blowingly neat observation. Also explains why they’re all (including us in the US) into globalizing everything–from trade to Warming and, of course, Health. Keeps the club intact and its members in power. Over here, Washington seems to be our Brussels. The constitution, supposed to protect against federal tyranny, is routinely ignored but secession (the equivalent of Brexit, Frexit etc) can never realistically or pragmatically happen. I only disagree where you say that most people don’t care about the federal impositions. They do: Enter Trump, and before him the quite different Tea Party. The same roiling against The Ruling Class is an international phenomenon. The only question is whether it’s yet sufficient. And then, the other question of what comes after. The history of revolutions is a mixed bag

    On a newscast today I heard the latest scare tactic of the Remains:.British pensioners will lose their pensions and savers will lose their savings. They attached a Number to it too– somewhere in the billions of pounds.

    And in response to your comment on mine yesterday–that Trump could be The Voice–yes,he could but who knows where he stands or how quickly he’d retreat? Someone commented on a political blog yesterday “if I Knew how bad Trump would be,I’d vote for him , but I still don’t know.” I could even consider going along with that. If I knew.

    • Frank Davis says:

      “if I Knew how bad Trump would be,I’d vote for him , but I still don’t know.”

      Sounds like whoever wrote that wanted someone even more iconoclastic than Trump. And I suppose I agree. There’s been not a peep out of Trump about the smoking bans that are marching across America (and which are already well established here). But then, what politician anywhere ever talks about them? Even Nigel Farage here in England hardly ever mentions them.

      I only disagree where you say that most people don’t care about the federal impositions.

      I should have written more carefully. What I meant was that most ordinary people don’t care one damn about global warming, or other people’s cigarette smoke, or gays and transgenders (who has ever met one of the latter outlandish beings?). But the political class in the form of Obama and Al Gore seem to take them very seriously. I agree that they do take seriously the consequences of the adoption by the political classes of these various crazy causes.

      …and while we’re on transgenderism, I’m reminded of Joan Rivers, who declared a few months before she died that Michelle Obama was a “tranny”. She was a comedian, and I assumed it was a joke. But recently with Obama’s transgender bathroom edict, I’ve been wondering whether it might not have been a joke at all.

      • west2 says:

        As it happens Frank I have met transgenders and they were not ‘outlandish beings’, just the opposite. It is the more outlandish that get the attention.

        To further the aims of the vocal, they align with other groups forming ‘movements’ or NGOs, to get governments to listen to their opinions.

        For example, Identity politics is used by SJWs to enable collectivization of group opinion. All ‘X’ think this way, all ‘Y’ think that way. Many within the group do not agree, though they are marginalised or ignored. What you see on the surface are the activists who speak on behalf of a group, whether they are of that group or not. Intersectionality enables this discourse.

        Have you been following Milo’s tour? This gives an interesting insight into how these things work.

        Note: An example of something directly relevant to this blog, the FCTC is very much a charter for the ‘in group’, Tobacco Control. The out gtoup, those who disagree, are marginalised. Putting on an SJW lens helps to understand these dynamics. Using a classic liberal lens gives a different perspective. TC is collectivist, the classic liberal is individualist.

        TC forge links with governments such that their voices are the only ones heard by those in power. This is how the majority become disconnected or do not now what is going on. The press and out groups are excluded, so decisions made in closed session can be left unscrutinised and fed to governments as if they are representative of ‘public’ opinion.

        As this process continues, government becomes even more disconnected from the governed and yet still claim that so called ‘civil society’ represents mainstream society. Your model seems to be missing this ‘filtering’.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Have you been following Milo’s tour?

          I have no idea who Milo is.

          Your model seems to be missing this ‘filtering’.

          Not really. In my model above of the NWO, there’s no link to the voting population, even though they can still vote. When governments are paying much of their attention to TC and other NGOs, the various “stakeholders” never include the general public, so their voice never gets heard.

          And I’m not sure that the press is excluded. They do a very good job, after all, of steadily feeding their readers with the health scares du jour.

        • west2 says:

          Milo @nero –> Milo Yiannopoulos. A journalist currently on his ‘Dangerous Faggot’ tour of american universities. Milo is a cultural libertarian and (I believe) smokes menthols. It is not important what the issues are, What is interesting are the presentations and reactions. Sargon gives a good analysis of the recent DePaul talk at https://www.youtube.com/user/SargonofAkkad100/videos (The #DePaul Debacle)

          Exclusion –> For example, press and public exclusion from FCTC events. More generally, NGOs set themselves up to express a view. They present this exclusive view as a worldview with general public support. This translates into public policies and laws that spread to other governments via ‘public’ pressure, treaties and competition between governments to satisfy ‘the general public’.

          Filtering –> You gave a good example of press filtering about health matters. ‘Experts’ and NGOs provide the copy (press release) and journalists paste it into the paper. Science by press release is an obvious example.

          A more specific example from the UK smoking ban. First a false public consensus was created to get a draconian law passed. Second the law was presented to government as a public success by those who lobbied for it. The general public’s view, on introduction and results, is sidelined. As far as the government are concerned they did a good job. It appeared to be following what the general public want. This is lazy government.

          Incomplete model –> The model, as I understood it, was Governments supported by treaties. Treaties are just part of the support network and are the result, in the case of the FCTC for example, of NGOs filtering views based on their own agenda.

          NGOs are more permanent than governments. Look at how the Health lobby managed to convert ‘Conservative’ ministers into Nanny Staters. The persistence of the health lobby provided the impetus, the treaty (FCTC) the framework and the government the means,

          Another example you gave was transgender bathrooms. This spread from Charlotte (NC), to boycotts by musicians of NC, to Target (a store like ASDA) support followed by a boycott of Target, to Target ignoring their customers, to a US Government decree on bathrooms in schools, to discrimination on a Channel Islands ferry all in a short time. This wasn’t the result of treaties as such. It seems lobbying groups were able to use connections to get the issue raised widely and quickly.

          It seems the network of NGOs are part of a support and/or initiator network whether there is a treaty or not. If there is a treaty it is exploited to express a particular worldview. This is why the model seems to be incomplete. Maybe this is something like blobs in between the governments or extensions on top of the government red parts or both?

        • Frank Davis says:

          Milo Yiannopoulos.

          Actually I have heard of him, just about.

          NGOs are more permanent than governments.

          Memorable.

          Maybe this is something like blobs in between the governments or extensions on top of the government red parts or both?

          I like the present simplicity of it. The governments were still geographically located. NGOs don’t need to be. And outfits like the UN or WHO are global in scale. They could all belong in the green lines between governments.

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    To me the EU is like being on the chain gang you do what your told and only get was given you yet they take everything from you including your dignity.

  4. Rose says:

    It’s a completely new political architecture

    Reading your post, Frank, I recognise a very old one, the divine right of Kings to rule and nations of voiceless serfs who must obey or be punished, it looks like we are going back to square one.

    • Frank Davis says:

      That’s more or less what I was thinking while I was writing it. We are, in effect, back in 1066 again: voiceless serfs. With Magna Carta and all the rest of it, we very slowly, very gradually, put together something of a parliamentary democracy in which we had something of a say in our lives. And now it looks like it’s back to square one, with the EU as a new Norman conqueror.

  5. To me, you could use the same diagram to represent the evolution of single people, with only very local “power” in the old days, to the new situation of the Internet which has made a single person, with a single brain, now vast, because it connects with a global network of other brains. The fact that ordinary people have now got extraordinary ability to influence worldwide, to me, is how the “New World Order” can be undermined, made to collapse. You are an example of this. In the 1950’s your “influence” would have been very local, yet now, you are read worldwide. The Internet, to me, is a miraculous development that in evolutionary terms, might counteract the “power” of the global framework. It is attacking it, and undermining it constantly. And people are more “Aware” now of the corrupt system we live in. I am going to have to incarnate again to see what happens in the future I’m so curious! Global Framework collapse? Bring it on I say!

    • Frank Davis says:

      Yes, the internet is another example of global connectedness, much like the intergovernmental treaty-connectedness I was writing about. And it’s indeed a miraculous development. It still seems rather miraculous to me that I can write something here in England, and it’ll be read one hour later, maybe one minute later, in America or Germany or Australia. It’s an innovation on the same scale as Gutenberg’s printing press.

      One thing that it undermines is the Gutenberg printing press monopoly on defining what’s news, and what isn’t. What people think and what they don’t. In the USA, I’m intrigued at how Donald Trump has got round the almost-universally-hostile mass media by using a combination of Twitter and old-style townhall meetings. What’s even more intriguing is that here in England I can read those tweets, and (almost) attend those meetings. I can read Rush Limbaugh and listen to Mark Levin. It doesn’t have to be mediated through the New York Times. And that’s why the US mass media haven’t managed to kill off Trump. They’re powerless.

      We’re becoming less and less democratic, but we can complain about it in all sorts of new ways.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The Vetting – Holder 1995: We Must ‘Brainwash’ People on Guns like we did on cigarettes

      Breitbart.com has uncovered video from 1995 of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announcing a public campaign to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”
      Holder was addressing the Woman’s National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to “change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC” about guns.
      http://www.breitbart.com/Breit

      “What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”

      Holder added that he had asked advertising agencies in the nation’s capital to assist by making anti-gun ads rather than commercials “that make me buy things that I don’t really need.” He had also approached local newspapers and television stations, he said, asking them to devote prime space and time, respectively, to his anti-gun campaign.

      Local political leaders and celebrities, Holder said, including Mayor Marion Barry and Jesse Jackson, had been asked to help. In addition, he reported, he had asked the local school board to make the anti-gun message a part of “every day, every school, and every level.”

      Despite strict gun control efforts, Washington, DC was and remains one of the nation’s most dangerous cities for gun violence, though crime has abated somewhat since the 1990s.

      Holder went on to become Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, and currently serves as Attorney General in the Obama Administration.

      The video of Holder’s remarks was uncovered by Breitbart.com contributor Charles C. Johnson.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

        ”Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

        Read under the title :
        Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created

        milbankDOTorg/uploads/documents/0712populationhealth/0712populationhealthDOThtml

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

  10. Cecily Collingridge says:

    I am tired of more of the same. On a more hopeful note, I’m in the middle of reading ‘The Leaderless Revolution – how ordinary people will take power and change politics in the 21st Century’ by Carne Ross, a former British diplomat. It’s described as an inspiring plea for emerging anarchism. It certainly reflects my view of the world. There is a website: http://theleaderlessrevolution.com/

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s