Nasty New World Order

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

Edward Mandell House, the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson was more than just an “aide,” he was dominant. He was Wilson’s “alter ego” and credited for being the most powerful individual in the United States during the Wilson Administration from 1913 until 1921.

House’s goal was to socialize the United States and in 1912 he wrote the fictional book “Philip Dru: Administrator.” In this book, House laid out a plan for the conquest of America, telling how to control both the Democratic and Republican Parties, and used as instruments in the creation of a socialistic government. It was House who advocated the establishment of a central bank. The passage of the Federal Reserve Act brought into power a private central bank to create the money of the United States, usurping this power away from the United States Congress. The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution gave is the graduated income tax. It was in 1913, during the very first year of the House-dominated Wilson Administration, when these proposals became law.

In 1921 House was the prime mover during the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  House and his colleagues who formed the CFR had an obvious disdain for the sovereignty of the United States. Right from the beginning, the CFR attracted men of power and influence. Major financing for the CFR in the late 1920s came from the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. During President Roosevelt’s administration in 1940, members of the CFR gained domination over the State Department.  This is true today as well.

The late Dr. Carroll Quigley, Professor of International Relations, Georgetown University Foreign Service School, Washington, D.C., in his tome “Tragedy & Hope” wrote about the “Round Table Groups” such as the CFR.  Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor, wrote on page 950 of his book:

I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960’s to examine its papers and secret records... I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

The CFR’s publishing organ is the periodical called “Foreign Affairs.”  It is here that readers can see the elite’s writing that often boasts about a “New World Order.”  Typically, any mention about such a thing as a New World Order brings on the knee jerk reaction - “the person who said that is a kook.” So why does the mainstream not relegate the CFR members to the kook fraternity when they talk about a New World Order? Because the media is a member of this same establishment. As an example, I would like to go back to some years and dive into an article from the May/June 2003 issue of Foreign Affairs - Why the Security Council Failed by Michael J. Glennon.

This article focused on the Iraq crisis because it “…has made clear is that a grand experiment of the twentieth-century--the attempt to impose binding international law on the use of force--has failed.” Glennon is a Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and the author, most recently, in “Limits of Law, Prerogatives of Power: Interventionism After Kosovo.”

While Glennon’s treatise is an analysis of the Iraq intervention, there are key paragraphs that openly promote the New World Order. The first paragraph of note introduces the reader to the notion of the New World Order:

Architects of an authentic new world order must therefore move beyond castles in the air -- beyond imaginary truths that transcend politics -- such as, for example, just war theory and the notion of the sovereign equality of states. These and other stale dogmas rest on archaic notions of universal truth, justice, and morality. The planet today is fractured as seldom before by competing ideas of transcendent truth, by true believers on all continents who think, with Shaw’s Caesar, “that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”  Medieval ideas about natural law and natural rights (“nonsense on stilts,” Bentham called them) do little more than provide convenient labels for enculturated preferences -- yet serve as rallying cries for belligerents everywhere.

First, here we have it an “authentic new world order” straight from the pen of the establishment. This is one of many articles over the years from Foreign Affairs that touted the New World Order or more recently “globalization.”  As proof of the CFR’s disdain of independent nations, there is the above phrase “… imaginary truths that transcend politics -- such as, for example, just war theory and the notion of the sovereign equality of states.” More disturbing is the disdain for clear lines of morality in the mantra “... archaic notions of universal truth, justice, and morality.”  It gets worse in the second paragraph that follows the aforementioned:

Answering those questions does not require an overarching legalist metaphysic. There is no need for grand theory and no place for self-righteousness. The life of the law, Holmes said, is not logic but experience. Humanity need not achieve an ultimate consensus on good and evil. The task before it is empirical, not theoretical.  Getting to a consensus will be accelerated by dropping abstractions, moving beyond the polemical rhetoric of “right” and “wrong,” and focusing pragmatically on the concrete needs and preferences of real people who endure suffering that may be unnecessary.  Policymakers may not yet be able to answer these questions. The forces that brought down the Security Council -- the “deeper sources of international instability,” in George Kennan’s words -- will not go away. But at least policymakers can get the questions right.

So here we have it, “Humanity need not achieve an ultimate consensus on good and evil.” And the phrase “… consensus will be accelerated by dropping abstractions, moving beyond the polemical rhetoric of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’…” is another solid example of the elite’s love affair with consensus built on a house of cards.  The next paragraph is the capstone for globalization:

One particularly pernicious outgrowth of natural law is the idea that states are sovereign equals. As Kennan pointed out, the notion of sovereign equality is a myth; disparities among states “make a mockery” of the concept. Applied to states, the proposition that all are equal is belied by evidence everywhere that they are not -- neither in their power, nor in their wealth, nor in their respect for international order or for human rights.  Yet the principle of sovereign equality animates the entire structure of the United Nations -- and disables it from effectively addressing emerging crises, such as access to WMD, that derive precisely from the presupposition of sovereign equality. Treating states as equals prevents treating individuals as equals: if Yugoslavia truly enjoyed a right to nonintervention equal to that of every other state, its citizens would have been denied human rights equal to those of individuals in other states, because their human rights could be vindicated only by intervention.

The most striking admission here is the author’s disdain for natural law. The New World Order is not a conspiracy. It is a movement by individuals with wealth and power who have the same thoughts about the makes us all serfs. As James Bond said in Dr. No - “World domination. The same old dream. Our asylums are full of people who think they’re Napoleon. Or God.”