The Twisted Thinking Behind World Government

Jurriaan Maessen
September 24, 2009

The battle for freedom is raging on all levels. Consider Glenn Beck. Here’s some rotten fruit that fell out of the apple-basket to appease conservatives. Keith Olbermann, on his side of the playing field, covers the liberal part of the paradigm. Notice how careful they are to remain inside their respective boundaries, ignoring true arguments that care nothing for ‘isms’ but a great deal for freedom. As these respective characters speak directly to the big chunk of the mesmerized people, glued to the television screen, there is also a more subtle- but no less crucial- battle going on in the halls of academia.

As history exhaustively shows, any idea can be theoretically legitimized with the help of equations, calculations and otherwise cleverly devised systems of thought. But, as a famous writer once stated, ‘cleverness is for the dwarfs’. It is wisdom that is lacking from most academics and their writings, not to mention modesty and an open mind. In the beginning of the 20th century for example, eugenicists would work to legitimize their arguments with all kinds of semi-scientific serpentines. As a matter of practise it was not uncommon that a person’s skull would be measured with a ruler at birth to ‘determine’ if he or she would be prone to criminal activities in later life. Although widely rejected as devious quackery, eugenics has since found new ways to sell depopulation to the masses, the most prominent of which, of course, is environmentalism as a pretext to do away with 80 percent of the world population- or so the elite state on a regular basis.

It was only a matter of time, of course, before the full weight of academia was put behind the idea of world government- as it had done so passionately for the manmade global warming contrivance not long before. A mere ideological blueprint would not suffice for its purposes. In addition, the concept of world government would have to be shrouded under a thick cloud of sparking scholarship. And University of Chicago’s Alexander Wendt was the man designated to stamp on the fire.

In 2003, Wendt witch-crafted a philosophical monstrosity under the header “Why a World State is Inevitable: teleology and the logic of anarchy”. Carefully avoiding any moral implications clinging to his manuscript, Wendt argues the case for world government as the necessary and inevitable end result of the current merging of nation-states into ever-larger bodies of influence.

“(…) this article argues that a global monopoly on the legitimate use of violence- a world state- is inevitable.”

It is not a new concept, the idea that the large emerges from the small, rising in the steadiest of lines upward in time. This idea accommodates our most intimate fancies about time, evolution and progression. The mind, after all, tends to construct scientific parameters around the immeasurable vastness of the universe in order to encapsulate infinity. It also watches nature and then, one on one, projects it to political systems. Real science, on the other hand, does not only propose and hypothesizes, it tears down and rejects. Ideas that are held in high standing at one time are mercilessly thrown in the trashcan the next. And out of knowledge gathered, sometimes a rare Amarillo flower unfolds in the sun. Such is the way of it. But Alexander Wendt cares not for accuracy, as he pancakes hypothesis upon hypothesis to prove his position, that a world state is inevitable. But it is a false understanding, manufactured by a biased predisposition: both time and space have stunningly little regard for our fancies, phasing- as they do- in and out of our grasp as quickly as you can say ‘fallacy’. History, it seems, does not support Wendt’s argument.

After the Roman Empire had collapsed, other, smaller kingdoms emerged out of its ruins. This goes for the Greeks, the Babylonians, and almost every other system with imperial designs. The Egyptian kingdom, once a vast and powerful culture, grew to be just a shadow of its former self at the beginning of our calendar. Charlemagne established the great Frankish empire only to unwittingly lay the groundwork for the establishing of sovereign states, like Germany and France. We have only to study history in order to counter the mythology of a gradual evolution towards a one world system. There is no evidence supporting an historic, chronological pattern of progression from the small to the great. More often than not it is the other way around, for excessive power tends to provoke resistance.

Without boring you with the details of Wendt’s elucidation let it suffice that Wendt invokes many of the major philosophers in order to add credibility and substance to the concept of the inevitability of a world state emerging out of the ruins of national sovereignty. After parading big names to invigorate his “big idea”, the author finally departs from a neo-Darwinian predisposition and the self-organizing principles included in it. In the struggle of nation-states, Wendt concludes, there can be no other outcome than the formation of a world state to settle all scores. He forgets to mention that neo-Darwinism can just as easily be applied to the idea that life organizes itself into more complexity as it evolves. But Wendt pays no heed: he raises his finger in foreboding: the greatest threat on the path to world government, he states, is national sovereignty. Wendt:

“Rather than go down with the ship of national sovereignty, states should try to “get the best deal” they can in the emerging global constitution.”

After identifying the main enemy to world dictatorship, he then proposes to co-opt the natural drive towards auto-determination in order to bring about his desired world state.

“Nationalist struggles for recognition are by no means over, and more new states- “more anarchy”- may yet be created. But while further fragmentation is in one sense a step back, it is also a precondition for moving forward, since it is only when difference is recognized that a larger identity can be stable. (…) Far from suppressing nationalism, a world state will only be possible if it embraces it.”

Everyone dedicated to fight the push for world dictatorship should wash their ears well with this statement. For the New World Order will pull out all the stops, including flirting with national sovereignty, courting true libertarianism and align itself with any and every grassroots movement springing up out of the soil. The anti-venom is education, education and some more education. The more people aware of the idea of world government and the devices with which it means to consolidate power, the harder it becomes for the globalists to push ahead with their plan.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s