A New World Order: the Slaughter Fallacy

Hi all,

For those not familiar with the “world government” movement, the idea has been around for a long time. Back in the early days it was proposed not surprisingly in a format that mirrored the nation-state’s political framework; it was envisioned as a super state with all the attendant trappings of the nation-state, a constitution, government bureaucracy, legislatures, judges and presidents. Usually it was thought of in federalist terms since a federal system was considered optimum for a global super state. All of this might seem like common sense to most people and you might wonder why I bother to mention something that would be seemingly obvious; that is, why point out that a world government would likely entail having a constitution? Funny you’d ask that. Because common sense is apparently not so common in our day and age.

Over the decades this rather quaint idea of the “super state” started to sound a little stale so the groupies in the sixties sought a set of ideas that might score a little better on the hip-index. People love to come up with not-so-new ideas and call them their own. So, the idea of world government began to take a weird turn. In fact, it is ironically about this time that the idea of world government began to arouse so much negativity in the minds of the general public. Coincidence? No. Let me explain.

If you stop and think about it, the idea of a world government is really not an intrinsically “evil” or bad idea. Once you address the obvious problems associated with it (we’ve discussed some here) then it is an honest and reasonable proposition that need not harbor or conceal untoward motive. So, why did it become such a dark and evil concept in the eyes, at least, of most Americans? I think it became an unpopular idea the minute the advocates with the largest voice in the movement decided that due to its unpopularity (mostly because it just wasn’t well known to the public) they would just opt for an underground, below the table, dishonest and deceptive approach to creating a secretive cabal of elitists who would act as a world government of sorts without any knowledge or input of the general public … until it was too late for the general public to stop it. This kind of mercenary approach is never durable and always tends toward its own collapse. But, as I’ve stated elsewhere, I do not believe that we learn from history. We just keep repeating the same mistakes. And that is probably because the ability to avoid the mistakes was always absent in the first place.

This trend that began in the sixties toward a secretive and unaccountable form of global influence and control has had a devastating impact on the public’s perception of “world government”. Sadly, I think this is one of the biggest mistakes made in political thought in a long time. And the reader should not be confused. This is something that was done “in the open”, just in formats and venues that most people don’t pay much attention to. That’s because elitists have always worked this way. There is nothing really planned or intentional about that aspect.

So, it is not really a conspiracy, it’s a modus operandi.

But the better question is why did this happen?

The 1960s was a creepy and bizarre decade for the United States. Ever since the president sent the first combatant U.S. soldiers to Da Nang in 1965 he was working night and day to salve his conscience over the totally unnecessary killing of over 2 million people in that region of the world. As baffling as it is, one should remember the contrivance of the Gulf of Tonkin incident way back then when we think about Iran and its “nuclear weapons program”, of the IRI’s presidential comments about “destroying Israel” (totally false) and other such antagonistic nonsense used to provoke other nations into conflict. I will let the reader figure out whether it was LBJ or his delegates who were responsible for all this bally-hoo; indeed the reader might consider what LBJ’s delegates did to him mentally when he declined the Democratic Party’s nomination for President ‘round about ’69. No one declines that job without a very, very chilling reason. So, whatever the case, LBJ pursued a vigorous domestic policy including a “war on poverty” that resulted in a massive bloating and explosion of U.S. federal bureaucracy. This was the birth of the “new” new world order. The world order I envision I refer to as the “final world order” to distinguish it from the hijacked one.

The transition of thinking in global constitutionalism toward a model in which existing bureaucrats, unelected officials acting in public capacities (think business persons and investors) and government institutions are simply empowered to act as executors of an unwritten global social contract was a natural extension of the cult of bureaucracy that developed and blossomed in the United States in the 1960s. It was a result not just of the cult’s self-interest of survival but of the cult’s self-interest in growth and expansion, of domination and control far beyond the limited sphere of federal agency influence they once had as employees of U.S. government agencies and as well-endowed capitalists.

It is Poe’s “hideous dropping of the veil”, the House of Usher built in the 1960s in northern California, the ultimate extent and appearance of the malignancy of unaccountable bureaucracy when allowed to grow without bound. And its modern-day advocates are typically baby boomers who lived in the era of its formation and who today fight not just for its survival, but its growth and increased influence and power globally. Once fragmented, disparate and without a combined voice, the bureaucrats of most or all of the world’s governments – having thence followed LBJ’s example – have united and hijacked the global governance movement. Welcome to the Brave New World Huxley warned you about.

One of this cancers greatest growth hormones is a very influential person named Ann-Marie Slaughter who back in 2004 wrote a seminal work on this bureaucratic vision of world domination called, “A New World Order”.  Now, to be fair in saying this, Anne-Marie is entitled to her view and we simply disagree, which is okay. And the comparison I am about to make is not between Anne-Marie and Hitler, or her ideas and Hitler’s, but a comparison between the style of her approach and Hitler’s when writing Mein Kampf. In Mein Kampf Hitler laid bare, for all the world to see, exactly how he felt about certain groups of people in German society at that time, including Gypsies and Jews. Slaughter, in a similar way, lays bare her rather shocking view that unelected bureaucrats should be in full control of the globe. She doesn’t say it that way, but that is clearly what her statements mean. She calls them “judges”, “business leaders”, “regulators”, etc. To think that educated specialists are the best ones to rule, and that they should do so with little or no accountability, is a fallacy we’ve encountered innumerable times in history and which we have seen wax Epic Fail just as many times. One of them was a place called Rome. That someone as educated as Slaughter would be even contemplating this is shocking … until you realize who she represents. She’s just a part of that cabal I mentioned; the cabal of bureaucrats and sycophants that want to extend their own importance globally. Slaughter does not care about what I care about.

And this system of global control exists currently but is just limited in scope and extent. For now it might work fairly well since the bureaucrats are still tightly controlled and bound to constituencies (relatively speaking). Slaughter provides example after example of how well it works today. Indeed, it sounds a bit like the description of Hitler’s well run public services such as public transportation and crime control. But as time goes on and the system expands this token connection and loyalty to the constituency will loosen and grow tenuous and weak. And power will accrete in proportion to its reciprocal. As the accretion mounts the corruption will grow as there is no accountability mechanism to restrain it.

In the discourse of nations through history no lesson has been learnt at more cost and with more clarity than the simple proposition that no power without direct accountability to The People will remain virtuous any longer than the time it takes a man to blink his eyes.

But it is far, far worse than what history alone can explicitly illustrate. In this case we are talking about a special case of power accretion. It is the accretion of power under circumstances where the risk is stable but the benefit or gain is unparalleled in all of human experience. Power at a global level has never been seen before but is clearly far greater than anything with which we have any experience. It is disconcerting to see how readily so many of Slaughter’s ilk discount or marginalize this problem, apparently never realizing the centrality of this issue to the entire notion of global constitutionalism.

Global rule of law can emerge victorious in virtue and fidelity to the interests of The People only when a codified, very transparent and well discussed system of fundamental law is put forward, debated and democratically ratified by all parties affected. There can be no secret cabals or “councils of bureaucrats” behind the scenes. Accountability is central to the legitimacy of rule and to the application of rule of law and General Federalism is the only viable means of achieving this on a global scale.

– kk

 

Advertisements
7 comments
  1. archaeopteryx1 said:

    I guess Kir, that my primary reservation lies not so much with the nature of your concept, as with the nature of Humanity. The US is a new country, founded on the heretofore novel principle of Democracy for an entire nation, yet in less than two and a half centuries – and there are some HOUSES in Europe at least as old as that – this country has gone from a simple time in which George Washington walked down the street to his inauguration, to the corrupt, lobbyist-ridden political system before us today.. It just strikes me that we need to work on ourselves before any political system can fairly and efficiently work, no matter how well conceived and constructed.

    As the late cartoonist Walt Kelly had his lead cartoon character, Pogo ‘Possum announce: “We have seen the enemy, and it is us.”

    pax vobiscum,
    archaeopteryx
    http://www.in-His-own-image.com

  2. And I think this advances the conversation considerably. Your comments have framed our basic difference of opinion. I’ll try to outline it.

    You and I agree that human nature, if we can call it that, dominates the scene. And I agree that the degradation of principle here has occured shockingly fast.

    Where we differ is not simply in the “why”, but in the proportions of causes that we would probably both agree are playing a role. If I can say so, I think your view places the “human nature” element in greater proportion to anything else than my view would.

    Thus, in my view, the structural context, that is, the legal and economic structures and assumptions, are also a key factor in determining the durability of a regime or a status quo (durability here substituting for your reference to the degeneration of the U.S. political system over time). I’ve discussed some of the structural weaknesses of the U.S. system that are, to me, manifestly implicated in the low durability we have now witnessed here in the United States in just 200 or so years.

    Using these structural defects the outcome we now see was perfectly predictable; and this is a crucial point I hope to make on this site. It is in fact possible to predict outcomes based on structural defects. And this can be done hundreds of years in advance. Human behavior, when considered individually, is inscrutable. But when examined in large numbers, it is uncomfortably predictable.

    The defects that bring the United States up to date really fall mostly into a class of defect. This class of defect deals with the balance of powers in governance which Hamilton wrote of it extensively and which, sadly, most Americans are completely ignorant of due to the elision of its coverage in U.S. civics education. Most people I grew up with are well aware of the “separation of powers” doctrine that outlines a separation of powers under fundamental law between legislation, ajudication and execution. But what is far less known not to mention understood is Hamilton’s brilliant analysis of the relationship between the State and the Citizen.

    Hamilton understood that in order for a “democracy” (he wouldn’t use that term) to be durable some mechanism for balancing the powers and influence of the State and its Citizenry was necessary. Without it, democracy would fail in almost exactly the manner the British royalty was saying it would at that time. The common view across the pond was that the interests of the State will be neglected in any populist form of government. But the State is the very essence of durability. If its interests are not satisfied the State, by definition, loses. Over time it degrades. Eventually it fails. This is what is happening in the United States right now. Hamilton and the King were right. Madison was wrong.

    There is a chain of evidence over the last 200 years or so that strongly supports this contention. It is a bit lengthy for this reply but let me just say that the secret of creating a *durable* representative government is now clear (and only so thanks to the American experience, to which we all owe very much):

    One must understand, and clearly and cleverly delineate, the role of:

    1.) the delegation and assured revocabiilty of political power (the Citizens domain) and

    2.) the exercise of political power (the States domain)

    The U.S. Constitution was a weak attempt, but an attempt nonetheless, at doing this. General Federalism attempts to remedy this defect by placing considerably more focus on this issue, as I stated in my previous reply.

    So, the core of our difference in opinion will ultimately deliever us here; here to the point where we see that the two of us simply place different proportions of cause to why political systems fail. I believe that the avarices of human nature can be controlled and corraled by a sufficiently clever system. You are doubtful of that possibility, apparently.

    – kk

    • archaeopteryx1 said:

      RE: “…the avarices of human nature can be controlled and corraled by a sufficiently clever system. You are doubtful of that possibility, apparently.”

      Of such a system being capable of “controlling and corralling” – not so much; of the likelihood of devising such a system, definitely dubious, but – wild guess here – I’m betting you have just such a system in mind.

      I’m sure you’ve been told you’d make a good negotiator —

      pax vobiscum,
      archaeopteryx
      http://www.in-His-own-image.com

      • I think we’re clarifying our positions well, though I would put out the caveat that when I say “controlled and corraled” I really mean to say “sufficiently” controlled and corraled. In other words, the degree of containment need be only sufficient for the purposes of the social contract and not necessarily absolute.

        As for “having a system in mind”, it is what was just discussed in that post, so yes, I did have one in mind.

        – kk

        • archaeopteryx1 said:

          I thoroughly realize that I sound like a carnival “shill,” but since you and I both know that not to be the case, feel free to continue to “channel” Plato as you Socratically outline your Republic. Despite my humor, I really am interested.

          pax vobiscum,
          archaeopteryx
          http://www.in-His-own-image.com

          • lmao, nice.

            Okay, so your next objection could be that a system that can “sufficiently” contain these avarices has never existed. And for such an important endeavor a test of some kind is mandatory as a kind of proper due diligence.

            Of course, I have an answer to that, too 😉

            – kk

            • archaeopteryx1 said:

              Call me psychic (or psychotic, I always get those two mixed up), but I had the strangest premonition that you might —

              arch

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: