A disturbing idea about world government....


PDA






beerslurpy
May 28, 2005, 06:03 PM
Reading this little piece (http://www.sandersresearch.com/Sanders/NewsManager/ShowNewsGen.aspx?NewsID=946) of tin-foil-hattery.

And I came across this quote: Thomas P.M. Barnett, a professor of political science at the Naval War College, has come up with a handy ideological framework for the first half of Wolfowitz’s agenda in his recently-published The Pentagon’s New Map. Barnett argues that the world is divided into two parts: “the functioning core” and the “non-integrating gap.” It is America’s task to integrate nations of the gap into the global economy, and thereby deny terrorists a launching pad anywhere in the world. In order to meet this ambitious goal, Barnett sees the military evolving into a relatively small body of fierce warriors, and a much larger force of non-warrior “system administrators, a civil affairs-oriented and network-centric, always-on, always-nearby, always-approachable resource for allies and friends in need.”[15] Special-op bureaucrats, in other words.

Wolfowitz’s World Bank grants will enable the Pentagon’s system administrators to implant themselves throughout targeted countries’ governments, not just their central banks and treasuries per usual. When the warriors then arrive to clear the field, though the government may well collapse, the functioning core’s agents will still be standing and able to keep a shell government in place until local stooges can be recruited via mass paper ballots and paper dollar bribes for propaganda and administrative purposes.

Does it occur to anyone that this really is the creation of a worldwide government run by the US Military? Am I the only one that thinks this takes us to a disturbing place?

If you enjoyed reading about "A disturbing idea about world government...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Justin
May 28, 2005, 06:07 PM
Realpolitik by any other name...

beerslurpy
May 28, 2005, 06:18 PM
Dont get me wrong. I dont care if the US is taking advantage of poor countries or overthrowing one corrupt regime to install another.

It really isnt going to affect the people on the ground that much. I mean, the average serf isnt going to notice if his cruel chinese master is replaced by a cruel american, martian or islamofascist master next week. He still has ????ty work hours, a short life expectancy and a life of misery. It might even be for the better to shuffle in new whip hands once in a while.

I'm almost entirely worried about what will happen if our scheme at world domination ends up like the other ones. You know, the ones that ended with barbarians overrunning the empire and life generally sucking for a centuries afterwards.

RevDisk
May 28, 2005, 06:26 PM
http://www.skippyslist.com/skippylist.html

208. Not allowed to play into the deluded fantasies of the civilians who are "hearing conversations" from the NSA, FBI, CIA and KGB due to the microchip the aliens implanted in their brain.


If ya wanna be tin foil, look up how many countries the US Army is deployed to. ;)

Standing Wolf
May 28, 2005, 08:26 PM
It is America’s task to integrate nations of the gap into the global economy...

Baloney! We need to clean up our own act and set a good example, not fix the world.

Ironworker
May 28, 2005, 09:11 PM
Barnett is scary for a couple reasons. I have read his bok, "The Pentagons New Map of the World" and seen two different versions of his presentation on CSPAN. The book is simply a written form, near verbatim, of his lecture.

First, Barnet does not realize that he is proposing an American Empire, ruled though military might. He does not see anything wrong with this, and cannot seem to imagine anyone within the "functioning core" to object strenuously to this. He doe not see this as illegal/illegitimate under US constitutional theory.

Second, he thinks that the US can continue selling huge amounts of debt to other countries ad infinitum because, and this is the kicker, they are really paying for US military power. The US, in his perfect little world, would become a nation of mercenaries at worst, a new Rome (on the Imperial model) at *best*. And he says this is a good thing.

There are a number of other "little" problems. He thinks the US is immune from historical precedent, and any who use history to refute his arguements are full of crap. He spends dozens of pages talking about not his theory, but how to make an eye-catching PowerPoint slide (which, to my mind, is an excellent arguement for a near total BAN on PowerPoint.) Barnett makes a great speaker, and a spiffy PowerPoint presentation. He has some interesting ideas (restructuring the US military so the Navy and Marine Corps become the fast responding sharp point of the spear, the Army becomes a little older & wiser Peacekeeper force, and the Air Force looses it's mission completly and is absorbed into the USN and Army aviation units), but in the end, the guy is is trying to argue for some ivory-tower fantasy utopian empire.

His book is worth reading, so as to better learn how the enemies of a republic, though they cannot see themselves as such, think and work.

RevDisk
May 28, 2005, 10:14 PM
An even better book is "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives" by Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997).

Brzezinski is the stuff of conspiracy theories. Has been working for every President since Carter, and founded the "Trilateral Commission". Ordinarily whenever I hear anything about the Trilateral Commission, my eyes start rolling and usually don't stop. Except for the minor fact that this guy wrote a book on how to create an American Empire. Reading it, I alternated between "Is this guy insane?" and "Gods, I hope this guy is insane."

Here's some good quotes.

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

He advocates the 'Reichstag fire' strategy over and over in his book.


"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." (p. 24-25)

Uhm, gee, maybe voters don't want to foot the bill of other countries.

"In that context, how America manages Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

:banghead:

MacArthur wasn't an idiot when he made his "Don't get involved in a land war in Asia" comment. We haven't had much success in the past.

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)


The scary part is how much power this unelected desk weenie has held over the years.

beerslurpy
May 28, 2005, 10:24 PM
Second, he thinks that the US can continue selling huge amounts of debt to other countries ad infinitum because, and this is the kicker, they are really paying for US military power. The US, in his perfect little world, would become a nation of mercenaries at worst, a new Rome (on the Imperial model) at *best*. And he says this is a good thing.

Actually he is entirely correct IMO. I came to this conclusion separately a few months ago when I was evaluating the strength of the dollar as part of deciding how to invest money.

The only reason other countries dont devalue the dollar tonight is that the US can acquire through conquest anything it cannot acquire through commerce. All the other governments are doing is giving money to the US to give back to their citizens through exportation of goods. The constant moving of money is enough to keep the system running more or less efficiently.

However, I dont beleive, like him, that the situation is permanent. Barring some sort of technological revolution that puts the US permanently out of reach, it seems unlikely that other nations will be unable to at least reach parity with us. Once that happens, we lose our dominant position, if only because the world is 95% people that arent the US.

Selfdfenz
May 28, 2005, 11:11 PM
America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last."

Following his model we sure will be the last!

The problem with empires is none ever created have been controllable by the societies and miliatry forces that crafted them.

S-

Ironworker
May 28, 2005, 11:53 PM
I should clarify. Barnett seem to think that other countries will continue to buy American debt because what they are really buying is American military power. They would rather pay Americans to do it because of social-technological issues at home, and Barnett is assuming that those socio-technological issues are permanent emplacements. Foreign states will always have money to buy US debt, and will always want to buy US debt, and will never decide that it would be better to creat their own expeditionary army, and that the US will be interested in playing that game. If you like the idea of this country turning into a net exporter of mercenaries, I suppose this is all well and good.

Second, while half (likely more) of American power lies in the quality and quantity of training and education of its troops, the remainder of our edge comes from a technological superiority (or supremacy, depending on how and what context you are considering.) This edge comes from a heavy investment in basic research, but also fostering an atmosphere condusive to innovation and constant evolutionary change punctuated by revolutionary change. The armed forces are some of the more conservative members of US society, but they are fantastically dynamic compared to those of other countries. The problem is that basic research costs money, whether it be grants from a federal or state agency, or it comes from a group of vernture capitalists (who, in any event, tend to avoid investing in basic research since it represents too great an unknown.) If there is no available money in circulation in the US, because local, state and federal governments are broke and taxing everything in sight to pay for social spending obligations, there is no VC money either, and basic research dries up.

Ian Moore, of Intel fame, came up with the idea that computer technology will double in capacity and drop in price by half every 18 months; since 1965, technology has been slightly ahead of this curve. (This is why your video card that you got for Doom 3 has much more computing power than was available to NASA to design, build and fly the Saturn 5 missions to the moon.) Moore's law can increasingly be applied to other fields of research other than computer science, as other fields benefit from increased magnitudes of number-crunching speed. The US is ahead of most of the world in most areas of technology, at parity in some, and behind in a few (bio-genetic engineering is a noteable example, and entirely for silly reasons.) It wouldn't take too many technological generations for a major power with an active industrial base (say for sake of example, Korea, Japan, or China) to catch up to and surpass the US technological base if there is not the constant flow of money for people researching the next generations of technology. If foreign states control our purse strings, it would be fairly easy to restrict new technology, or suborn it to their interests.


Of course, there is a fallback stance, whether it is the old maxim that "gold may get you soldiers, good soldiers will always get you gold" or the variant, "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing". If, of course, push came to shove, the US military is really the only one on the planet, currently, that is not simply capable of operating in overseas enviroments, but is the only one designed structurally to operate in an offensive fashion. Every other national military force on the planet is intended, with the exception of a few units, to operate close to home in a defensive fashion. No other nation has a strategic nuclear arsenal with a known reliability rate, in both gravity bomb or ICBM format, and there is only one that can match the quantity of our stockpile, but Russias nuclear arsenal is a dubious quality after 15 years of neglect and abuse. (Contrary to popular opinion, nukes are rather finicky things, and will have a very high failure-to-function rate if not given enourmous amounts of regular maintainance for the conventional components, and the radioactive core will become unuseable in a matter of years. Bono, it is really damm simple to disarm a nuclear bomb.) Of course, if this sort of stick becomes necessary, we really will have lost the republic, in likely an irrevolkable fashion.

Art Eatman
May 28, 2005, 11:53 PM
"It is America’s task to integrate nations of the gap into the global economy, and thereby deny terrorists a launching pad anywhere in the world."

First off, it's not "America's task". Secondly, the leadership of terror groups tend to be quite intelligent and commonly have been educated in the West.

Note that with the exception of oil, the GDP of Mideastern and African oil-exporting nations is somewhere between slim and none, and Slim left town. And to "integrate" their economies means changing the cultures into one of industrial productivity of some sort. I note that Islam inherently does not lend itself to industrial productivity. (Ref: "What Went Wrong?" by Bernard Lewis. I recommend it.)

Empires generally cease being empires because of the cost of projecting power. When only Europeans had machine guns, it was easy to control Fuzzy-Wuzzy. When Fuzzy-Wuzzy gets RPGs, the price of poker goes way up. When projecting power into colonies exceeds the profits therefrom, sayonara empire. It's "worster and faster" when there are no profits at all, to begin with--which seems to be the US model.

As for Brzezinski, think about "In that context, how America manages Eurasia is critical." That notion is not now possible. China, mostly, will manage Eurasia, through economic power and trade agreements. IMO, anyhow. They've already begun both. I've no clue how long they'll continue a 10% annual growth rate, but that means a doubling of their economy every 7.2 years. And, FWIW, Islamic hatreds are focussed on the West, not the East.

"May you live in interesting times" and Wow! Do we ever!

Art

bjbarron
May 29, 2005, 12:34 AM
This is a subject that has been out there in slightly different forms since the Soviet Union Imploded.... what should the last superpower do?

Think about the world today. In terms of population, probably 80% or more live in third world sh*t holes that are centuries behind the industrialized west. They ain't playin' catch-up real quick. And they certainly aren't ready for a centralized world government.

All societies fail sooner or later...some hard and some soft. What we hope for is a soft landing for the US. How to achieve that is beyond me and weighs on the minds of men a lot smarter than me.

If we do nothing and become isolationist, the world will devolve and sooner or later some demagogue will unite it against us. We cannot win in that scenario.

If we stay engaged, we might be able to float the worlds boat a little at a time, a little higher each year, curtail the worst of the abuses, until someday the world at large is ready for a true world government that we can be subsumed into...it ain't even close now.

Therein lies the rub. Some people see 'engaged' as 'imperialistic' and that could certainly be a result. Some see us as not helping the world fast enough, some too slow, and some don't want to help the world progress at all. Most see Americanization as evil and would prefer we give everything except who and what we are.

All of these things you read about the future use of the military, the future use of our trading power, the future of our science and innovation, the future use of our financial power, and the effect of Americanization on the world; is pointing to that future soft landing.

Our choices, as long as we are bound to this Earth alone, is to bring the world closer to our level, or be eventually destroyed by it…probably with help from weakness within.

Me, I’m moving to New Texas as soon as the survey ships return.

Boss Spearman
May 29, 2005, 12:39 AM
I'm with Standing Wolf on this one.

GRB
May 29, 2005, 12:49 AM
“system administrators, a civil affairs-oriented and network-centric, always-on, always-nearby, always-approachable resource for allies and friends in need.”This is an absolute crock of smelly stuff in my opinion. Although it may someday take shap, it would never work - The World Civil Service - yechhhh.

RevDisk
May 29, 2005, 12:49 AM
As for Brzezinski, think about "In that context, how America manages Eurasia is critical." That notion is not now possible. China, mostly, will manage Eurasia, through economic power and trade agreements. IMO, anyhow. They've already begun both. I've no clue how long they'll continue a 10% annual growth rate, but that means a doubling of their economy every 7.2 years. And, FWIW, Islamic hatreds are focussed on the West, not the East.

China does have a very impressive economic growth rate. Whether it's sustainable... We'll know within a decade. As for managing Eurasia... They are our primary competition for dominance. Personally, I say, let 'em try to conquer Asia. Heh.

The Central Asian govt's are gonna be the new Balkans, I agree with Brzezinski on that matter. We're trying to use our time honoured "Support dictators and hope everything works out" routine, and I'm not sure how well it will turn out. I doubt it will turn out any better than our support of the Shah of Iran. It's gonna be a mess with Russia, China and the US all fighting for control of the region.

China is starting to face resistance from Islamic groups in Xinjiang. It's quiet at the moment, but it's growing. I promise ya, it will start getting a lot more interesting in the years to come.

ravinraven
May 29, 2005, 07:35 AM
"'May you live in interesting times' and Wow! Do we ever!"

And just think. In 2008 we'll start living in Hillarious times.

It is interesting to read all this in this thread. Well, I've still got to read some of it. But the questions raised have been rattling around my head for years. So far I've come up with no answers.

I've thought that we might go into a new "dark age" such as hit the world after the Roman Empire folded its tent. This "World Civil Service" idea seems laughable when you consider how inept even local, down the street, civil servants are. And I don't have a clue how you'd go about training anyone for a position in such a "service."

Maybe a new fuedal system complete with computers and the internet is coming. That sounds like something from science fiction.

rr

Selfdfenz
May 29, 2005, 08:25 AM
If we stay engaged, we might be able to float the worlds boat a little at a time, a little higher each year,

Why is that our responsibility? Much more desirable if the world learns the mechanics of floating its/their own boat. The destination is important, but the journey is perhaps more important.


curtail the worst of the abuses, until someday the world at large is ready for a true world government that we can be subsumed into...it ain't even close now.

One of the scariest things I've ever read on THR. May it never get one nanometer closer.

S-

2nd Amendment
May 29, 2005, 10:33 AM
I was going to say about the same thing, Selfdfenz. There's always that question floating around about "when is it time"? Well the submission of the US into a One World Government would indeed be a good time to start hunting every goober involved.

Art Eatman
May 29, 2005, 10:58 AM
selfdfenz, "staying engaged" isn't the same as "running the show". :)

The problem, seems to me, for these third-world countries, is that they don't have either a culture or a socio-economic structure to allow upward mobility--either economic or social. The only way I see to change a thugocracy is by force, and that doesn't work out all that well, historically

I gotta agree with anybody who says changing these systems is not our responsibility--but that doesn't mean we should just ignore them, or not encourage change. But I don't mean encourage by more than subtle influence.

Art

fallingblock
May 29, 2005, 08:43 PM
"The only way I see to change a thugocracy is by force, and that doesn't work out all that well, historically."
*********************************************************

Sometimes maybe the best course of handling a thugocracy is to dismantle it.

It's the reassembly bit that's tricky. :D

Selfdfenz
May 30, 2005, 12:02 AM
Art,

IIR engagement has delivered up a near miss with UN policy on small arms becoming applicable to US gun owners. I'm also not sure where World Court decision begins, and US autonomy ends. (Just two examples) There’s much to be said about having steering input, and not being "a player" may truly give us none, but then talks to which we are not a party lack the color of our approval or even a promise that we/the US will toe the line. Sometimes that’s a very good thing.

We are on-and-off in our multi-national engagement over N. Korean nukes with no results so far except the N. Koreans move forward with their plans and continue to stall. The previous cycle of NK engagement amounted to a massive bribe.
We were engaged with the UN in all matters regarding Iraq, but SH still robbed and killed his countrymen and easily co-opted the UN. As it turned out, many of the other engaged-countries were backdoor selling him banned military items and accepting bribes. France, Germany and the FSU lined up against us. (So much for steering input) I think our government knew the Euros and the UN were working their own deals and said nothing. That’s a lick on our .gov.
I’m thinking we are engaged in the Iranian nuclear program but to no good end I can see.

By the time we figure out engagement in N. Korea and Iran is a failure they will be much nastier customers to deal with and I have a justifiable fear our partners in negotiations will smile and walk away. Engagement never stops a Hitler type.

I wonder if the benefits of engagement aren’t massively over rated even in our own minds. As far as engagement in anything even remotely close to a world government we should stay completely out of it as almost everyone else at the table will have anything but our best interests at heart. I just see the people at the UK and similar organizations as the more erudite class of cooks from banana republics around the world. If we stay away it falls apart. Any world government they come up with, I want no part of.

S-

Fletchette
May 30, 2005, 01:04 AM
This has been a very interesting thread!


I have a few pertinent thoughts:

1) I do not like the idea of “America the Empire” as opposed to “America the Republic”. Empires, by definition, are almost certainly unsustainable. Furthermore, aside from practicality, empires are immoral as they do not respect individual rights. Enforcing the existence of individual rights is the ONLY reason a just government exists:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

2) Because the mission of a just government is to enforce individual liberty, the United States should not “be subsumed” into a one-world government. I am not opposed to a one-world government in principle, but that government would have to respect and enforce individual rights before it was considered a just government. I do not want a one-world tyranny.

With this in mind, it is important to realize that we already have the political machinery towards these ends. Instead of gradually erasing the borders between countries, and allowing sovereignty to flow like water between the countries to the lowest common level, there already exists a method for a just government to expand: Other countries may petition the Congress for admission into the United States of America. If they agree to respect the Constitution, and submit to Federal enforcement of individual rights, they are accepted and receive representation in Congress. The security of the borders are maintained, and Liberty is expanded, by the consent of the governed, not by conquest.

3) Aside form the ethics of a just government, the economics of an Empire are unsustainable. Everything that Mankind does must abide by the laws of Nature. Like in quantum mechanics, we can violate the laws for a short period of time, but then we have to pay it back. Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Monarchies all are unsustainable over a given period of time, some for longer periods of time than others, because they violate the rights of individuals. If an individual has no reason to live, eventually the sum total of the individuals will have no reason to live. It is like a body that consumes a poison, killing off cells. After awhile the whole body is sick, weak and dies.

The United States has become so successful largely because it has respected individual rights. People are encouraged, not repressed, to try new ideas. While it is true that The U.S. benefited from a new continent and abundant resources, the Central and South Americas had just as many resources yet failed to become global powers. In my opinion, this is largely due to the repression of individual liberty in those areas.

4) Continuing with the Natural Law theory, The United States, like a biological species, will have a finite lifetime and die…unless it can reproduce. This means that if the United States wants to survive as a free nation it will have to colonize other lands in order to expand. I am not talking about conquest here on Earth, but of colonizing other worlds.

This last part may sound a little kooky, but if you think about it for awhile I don’t think that it is really. Rome expanded as a Republic, and contracted as an Empire. A thousand years of Dark Ages were the result. The Kingdoms of Europe existed until the Renaissance bred explorers. Shortly after the New World was colonized, it broke away as an independent nation. The mere existence of a functioning non-kingdom brought most European kingdoms to an end very quickly.

Whenever people were repressed enough they eventually left for the Frontier. The Puritans left Europe, the refugees of the American Civil War, many former slaves, went West. On the Frontier former slaves were free and independent, women were allowed to vote. People found equality on the Frontier because life was hard and the only thing that mattered was results, not where you came from.

The current world has run out of Frontiers. Every corner of the Globe is run by some government. This is the first time in history that this has ever happened. I am afraid that if we do not re-establish a Frontier soon (50 – 100 years) America the Empire will collapse and the world will plunged into a long Dark Age.

Think about it. Do you think we will be allowed to own firearms if there are 20 billion people crammed onto this planet? How about Free Speech?

Ironworker
May 30, 2005, 01:24 AM
"I am not talking about conquest here on Earth, but of colonizing other worlds."

Glad to know I'm not the only space cadet here. But, of course, it is the only way for the US to continue to expand. Americans have always been an expansionist people, and we've been going nuts for the last few decades since that driving force has been stifled. We can go into other nations and try (again) to remake them in our own image, or we can move up and into fresh territory.

The only catch here--aside from luddites, environazis, and assorted nattering nabobs of negativity--is the 1968 Outer Space Treaty, but what is a bit of paper to the driving force of our national conscienceness?

Selfdfenz
May 30, 2005, 01:25 AM
Think about it. Do you think we will be allowed to own firearms if there are 20 billion people crammed onto this planet? How about Free Speech?

We have about 6 to 6.5 billion people now IIRC. We will have major, major problems getting to 20 with the natural resources and food production assests we have now. That may make firearms a necessity.

All the world governement in the world can't keep some manner of recalibration from happening long before we get to 20 billion people. Not sure what that recalibration could be but at some point starvation, disease and other terrible things to contemplate take over and no world government stops that.
S-

If you enjoyed reading about "A disturbing idea about world government...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!