Those who retain a respect for democratic pluralism are dismayed by these lemming-like rushes over cultish cliffs, seeing them as divisive and unproductive of any real solutions. But there is one brand of fundamentalism, seldom identified as such, which may be ultimately the most dangerous. Unlike the others, this one is promulgated by the mass media, government leaders, and self-appointed experts of all stripes - but like the other fundamentalist mythologies, it does not stand up to any kind of real scrutiny. I'm speaking of the "unregulated free market", or as it has been called for more than a century, laissez-faire economics.

The term "laissez-faire" is never used by today's proponents, because that would invite looking at the embarrassing historical record. Instead "market reform" is sold as if it was a bold new idea. Not a new idea at all, it has been tried sufficiently (for example, 19th Century America and much of today's Third World) for its unsavory consequences to become apparent. Rather than a libertarian utopia, it brings economic waste, curtailment of individual freedom, corruption, and a managed society - with robber-baron monopolies at the helm.

"Laissez faire" should not be confused with "free enterprise". The ability of buyers and sellers to negotiate prices, for producers to follow their own judgement about market potentials, and for the give-and-take of the marketplace to drive the dynamics of an economy - these "free-enterprise" mechanisms have proven themselves to be productive and beneficial to society. But these mechanisms work best under appropriate government regulation: to maintain "level playing fields", to avoid monopolies, and to avoid excessive exploitation of workers, consumers, and the environment. "Laissez faire" refers to the elimination of such proper restraints - turning full control over to monopoly-trending corporate players.

Neo-laissez-faire proponents phrase "reform" in terms typical of fundamentalist mythologies - complete with a revisionist history, caricatures of alternate approaches, and rose-tinted visions of its own efficacy. Even as "reform" leads directly to unemployment, homelessness, crime, and a general deterioration of the quality of life, its proponents try to lay the blame at other doorsteps, and call for still more "reform" as the path to salvation.

Laissez faire is dangerous enough when unleashed at a national level. But today, there is a far more ominous threat. Those whose interests are served by unrestrained "free trade" - the large transnational corporations - are not satisfied with their current successes in dominating the economies of individual nations. Happy as they are with the record-setting profits they have gained from their Reagan/Thatcher successes, and their domination of the Third World (courtesy of military-dictatorship proxies), the transnationals want more, and they want it quicker. Emboldened by their seemingly unassailable ascendency, they are seeking to "lock in" their dominance by a grand strategy increasingly known as the "New World Order".

The New World Order

The New World Order (NWO) has several inter-linked agendas: military, political, economic, social, ideological, and propagandistic. Its ideology - and economics - is the mythologized "free market". Disastrous as this agenda is for all but a tiny elite, it does indeed provide alluring profits to a shrinking number of highly concentrated corporate conglomerates.

The social agenda of the NWO can be summarized as "no more entitlements". In the First World this translates into dismantled social programs, undermining of labor and safety laws, and a general disregard for maintaining a healthy environment or the quality of life. This dismantlement has been facilitated by media propaganda, and accomplished by demagogic government leaders, exemplified by the likes of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Bob Dole, John Major and Newt Gingrich. The role of such demagogues is to sabotage government from within - assuring that it fails - and then proclaiming deregulation and privatization as the "only possible solutions" to the problems they themselves have created or aggravated.

Similar "solutions" are imposed on the Third World, but instead of relying on domination of the political process in each individual nation, the policies are imposed on each from outside, by conditions set by the international financial community.

This raises the political agenda. The political regime being installed to command the Orderly New World is frighteningly simple: it includes no political parties, no constitution, no declaration of human rights, no balance of powers, no effective redress of grievances, and no elections (in fact no kind of popular representation). Instead the nations of the world are to be controlled by faceless commissions of technocrats, appointed (directly or indirectly) by transnational executives, and dedicated to serving their corporate interests.

A precursor of these commissions can be seen in the International Monetary Fund (IMF). As a mechanism of control, the IMF is efficient and highly leveraged. Instead of intervening in the internal affairs of individual nations, as with traditional imperialism, a small commission of technocrats simply run their spreadsheets and announce guidelines. Whole nations are then forced to find their own way of living within the imposed constraints. Very tidy, as far as the transnationals are concerned. Very ugly, to the millions who are forced to somehow survive and rear their families under these guidelines, or, increasingly, are simply left to starve. It's not nice to be redundant to the needs of the New World Order and its corporate masters!

This nightmarish political regime is being expanded to the Second and First Worlds by means of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area), GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), the WTO (World Trade Organization), and other similar agreements and entities. Unlike the IMF, which controls via the purse strings, these so-called "trade agreements" control via intrusion into the regulatory power of signatory nations. By exploiting the treaty mechanism, which has the force of national law, these agreements become permanent parts of each constitutional system, making it all but impossible for future governments to choose different regulatory policies. Thus the transnationals are able to translate temporary political ascendency, attained at considerable effort and expense, into a permanent stranglehold over sovereign nations.

These agreements go far beyond the bounds of "trade policy". But by masquerading as trade agreements, they manage to avoid the deeper policy debates which are sorely needed. Instead, a few "trade negotiators" from each country meet in relative secrecy and hammer out terms of "economic reform", down-playing the far-reaching consequences for sovereignty.

Thus the NWO "reform camel" sneaks its nose into the national tent. The bulky body of the full NWO reform camel is not limited to imports/exports, quotas/tariffs - it pushes its weight into labor laws, safety regulations, air quality rules, land use practices, social programs, and so on ad infinitum. The camel itself has no concern for the quality of life, and the citizenry is expected to adapt to its pitiable life style.

There's one more NWO infiltration scheme which deserves special mention - Maastricht and the European Union. Just as the IMF masquerades as a funding source, and GATT as trade reform, so the EU is sold as a "more competitive Europe" - and the deception is equally profound. As with the trade agreements, the debate over Maastricht has been channeled as narrowly as possible, primarily to the question of "opening of markets". But Europe has a highly educated public and a strong democratic tradition, and some of the debate has (fortunately) touched on the real issue at stake - surrender of national sovereignty to bureaucrats in Brussels. Unfortunately the Euro Skeptics in the British Parliament, and the Norwegians - and others who are demonstrating the ability to think ahead - are being drowned out in the mad rush to endorse the pathetic Maastricht formula.

The reasons for narrowing the debate over Maastricht as much as possible are obvious: if Maastricht were evaluated for what it actually is - the operating framework for a United States of Europe - it would be found sorely wanting. It lacks firm guarantees of human rights, a well thought-out balance of powers, a bicameral legislature, and many other elements that are necessary to a sound democratic system. It simply doesn't stand up at all as a serious constitution, and so the true scope of its ultimate authority is intentionally concealed.

This time the NWO camel has sneaked more than its nose into the tent of an entire continent. And as usual, the humps of the NWO camel are the same - control concentrated in appointed technocratic commissions whose primary goal is to facilitate investment opportunities for the corporate sector. As part of its deceptive propaganda campaign, there is currently an EU emphasis on progressive measures, such as extending workers' rights in nations below the European average. But such concerns are not the inherent focus of Maastricht, and as Brussels' power becomes more entrenched, its true colors will come increasingly to the fore. As with all cons, the bait comes first, and the hook goes deep when finally felt.

In this era of instantly available global communications, how have the world's people permitted themselves to fall blindly down the slippery slope of this undemocratic neo-feudalism?

This question raises the propagandistic agenda of the New World Order. At an alarming rate, all global sources of information and entertainment are being concentrated into a handful of media conglomerates. Television, newspapers, magazines, and film production are being gobbled up by a few conglomerates which have full control over their content and distribution. These conglomerates decide which events are to be deemed "news", how that "news" is to be interpreted, which story ideas will be developed into films and TV series, which candidates are to be considered "realistic" in elections, which legislative proposals are to be praised or ridiculed, and which mythologies are to be sold to global audiences.

Primary among the myths being sold is "market reform". In a narrow sense, media conglomerates have an immediate self-interest in this "reform" ideology. We see this in the recent Hollywood/Chirac debate over the preservation of domestic European media production. But this by no means explains the depth of the media's devotion to the "reform" faith.

Media conglomerates have interlocking directorates with - and in many cases are owned by - other non-media conglomerates. The media is a member in good standing of the corporate community, and its own special role - as a team member - is to align global public opinion with the aims of that community. Increasingly, this translates into pushing the various agendas of the New World Order.

It is in connection with the NWO's military agenda that the phrase "New World Order" gained prominence recently. I refer to President George Bush's explaining the Gulf "War" as a prototype of how the world is to be policed under the NWO. The term struck negative chords - it was used by the Axis in WWII - and has not been again re-emphasized. Evidently, Bush was using rhetoric for which the media had not yet adequately prepared the population. Fortunately, the slip-up helped reveal the scope of the NWO. A brief review of the Gulf "War" is instructive of both the military and the propagandistic agendas.

For at least a decade, the U.S and other Western powers had been trading heavily with Iraq, selling it all manner of industrial goods, ingredients for chemical weapons, and the means of conducting modern warfare. Besides the immediate profits from this trade, it was part of an alleged "tilt" against Iran in the protracted Iran/Iraq War. Saddam's internal political practices, though well known, were evidently of little interest, and received scant emphasis in the media.

With all this assistance, and with U.S warships present in the Gulf throughout the conflict, Saddam had every reason to consider himself the designated "proxy" of the Western powers in the region. There were even pieces floated in the mass media, characterizing Iraq as the new center of stabilization for this "fundamentalist-Moslem-infested" region. In this context, Saddam sent a message to the U.S. Secretary of State, declaring that he wished to act militarily on long-standing territorial claims against Kuwait, left over from the arbitrary borders set down by the British in earlier colonial days. Back came the unambiguous response that Washington considered such disputes as "internal Arab matters". It seems in retrospect that Saddam was foolish to be duped by such a response, but after years of support and encouragement of his military ventures, his credulity is understandable.

So the trap was set, and Saddam marched brashly into it. And what a well-sprung trap it was! Within hours of the invasion, the full weight of the global media, and of the formidable diplomatic power of an aroused U.S, was unleashed against Saddam. Suddenly the West "discovered" that Saddam was a dictator, had tormented the Kurds, was a military adventurer, and was in possession of formidable weapons. Since all this information wasn't on the propaganda agenda during the Iran/Iraq war, it played successfully as a "revelation" in the media. None of this was news, of course, to the U.S. government, anymore than was the invasion itself.

What was the purpose of this elaborate set up? It has been analyzed in terms of managing global oil supplies and limiting the modernization of Arab states - points which are surely part of the immediate picture. But from a more global perspective, the Gulf "War" may be seen as a carefully orchestrated precedent for the military regime planned for the New World Order.

The U.S.'s earlier exercises in blitzkrieg - Grenada and Panama - were undertaken unilaterally, as per the imperialist Monroe Doctrine. Those tests served to prove the effectiveness of the latest military techniques - stealth weapons, night warfare, blitzkrieg speed, ultra-high-yield firepower, etc.

Perhaps more important, the blitzkrieg exercises also tested a new generation of propaganda techniques: keep the press far away from the conflict; reveal almost nothing about the operation; deluge the media with meaningless sound bites and images of high-technology weapons; run a highly dramatized demonization campaign against "the enemy". All of this conveys the impression that the conflict is being covered by the press.

Despite providing no real information, these propaganda techniques succeeded not only in mustering overwhelming public approval for the illegal invasions, but actually made for highly popular prime-time entertainment. Such "press coverage" may seem bizarre for a supposedly democratic nation with a presumed free press, but they aren't unprecedented as propaganda technology. Exactly the same techniques, and with identical results, were used by Hitler when he was carrying out his own earlier blitzkriegs (largely funded by predecessors of the same corporate community).

Having proven the military and propaganda techniques in its own backyard, the U.S. orchestrated the Gulf "War" as a means of exporting these techniques into the context of the rapidly crystallizing New World Order structures. While all attempts at negotiation were successfully undermined or blocked by the U.S., the media bombarded the world with an intense and exaggerated demonization campaign against Saddam. In the end, the intensive and multi-faceted lobbying forced the U.N. to yield to America's demand for a free hand.

What the U.S. did with this blank check was not primarily to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but to systematically destroy the entire infrastructure of Iraq. It was not a war, it was a demolition. While 100,000 or more civilians were being massacred by B52s and cruise missiles, global television audiences looked at endless reruns of the same "smart bombs" destroying targets portrayed as "unin-habited" and "military". The bloodbath was not sanitized; the media coverage was.

Although the operation was primarily an American show, from beginning to end, it was carefully framed within a U.N. authorization and included token forces from other "allies", many of whom demanded extensive bribery to participate. There was thus an "internationalist" veneer over an American-initiated conflict, motivated by undisclosed goals, apparently related to NWO management of the Arab world and international oil supplies.

Over the past century, the U.S. has felt free to "intervene" unilaterally in dozens of countries to support the operations of various corporate interests. As foreshadowed by the Gulf precedent, the NWO scheme is to "legitimize" such interventions, by embedding them within an international framework. That framework won't be the U.N. - which includes too diverse a representative base - instead, it will be framed within organizations such as NATO, which fit better the technocratic model and are more easily managed by the NWO elite.

Thus the military agenda of the NWO can be foreseen by simply looking back at the history of U.S. imperialism in the Third World. Whenever a country gets too uppity - pursuing its domestic interests rather than those of transnational corporate investors - it can expect to be subdued by overwhelming military force, preceded by an appropriate media demonization campaign. Traditional international law - largely ignored in practice anyway - is to be formally replaced by an "internationalized", but elite controlled, NWO Police Strike Force.

What Can We Do?

The key question about the NWO is "What can we do about it?". By "we" I refer to all who share a concern for the future of humankind, democracy, and the quality of life. Overwhelming as the NWO lineup appears, it may be still reversible. The very scope of the NWO initiative and the brashness with which it is proceeding provide the seeds of a substantial opposing global coalition.

First, we should be able to appeal to national interests, both governmental and popular, in the preservation of cultural identity and the right to self determination. The NWO aims to undermine workers' rights; we should be able to appeal to labor unions and those aligned with labor issues. Similarly, there's really no limit to the number of progressive organizations and concerned citizens - whose focus is environmental protection, civil liberties, social programs, and entitlements - who could be expected to support a vision of human concerns and democratic sovereign nations.

In order to launch an effective counter-offensive, we need several ingredients: an analysis of the situation and the "enemy", a different and better vision of the future, and a coalition strategy. I've attempted to sketch the initial threads of the analysis.

The vision, I submit, must center upon a re-dedication to the principles of democratic government and national sovereignty. Flawed as they are, and in need of vigilant reform, representative democracies are a much better starting point than domination by corporate-run commissions. Even if draconian economic "reform" provided economic benefits, a highly dubious claim, the political price to be paid is simply unacceptable. Retrenchment from the phony trade agreements and Maastricht must become a top priority. But a vision based solely on opposition is doomed to failure. There also must be a positive element, an alternative picture of how the world is to evolve. Perhaps the seeds for that can be found in the very coalition that we need to build.

I submit that the best opportunity for building a potent coalition is to focus at the national level: gathering into a collaborative effort those nations which haven't already been fully co-opted by the NWO. This calls for domestic organizing efforts - to build constituencies within those countries - along with a global organizing initiative to bring such nations together. Just as the countries supporting the NWO have their own organizations, such as the G7, the "rest of us" need a new international forum of our own. Let's call it the "G99". The G99 is not the same as the U.N. - already carefully designed to be subverted by the G7-class nations. Perhaps the G99 can be fashioned from other existing organizations, such as TOES, "The Other Economic Summit".

The charter of the G99 could be focused around Self Determination, Cooperative Support, and Principled Action. The principle of national Self Determination needs to be supported individually and collectively by G99, providing a united front against NWO encroachments. Cooperative Support includes G99 relying upon its own resources, including trade - a collective self-reliance - to assure its economic future. To appeal to the G7 to provide funds and leadership is to succumb to the NWO seduction. Principled Action means that the G99 needs to lead with loud and clear public positions on matters of human rights, national sovereignty, non-intervention, workers rights, and the panoply of environmental issues.

Resist the New World Order

The NWO's global media monopoly poses a significant barrier to the organization and evolution of the G99. Special concern must be given to establishing independent channels of communication to support organizing activities, and to counteract demonization campaigns by the NWO. Visible support among citizen groups in the G7 nations would be very beneficial.

Resisting the New World Order will be a formidable undertaking, but submitting to it is simply unthinkable. We must begin the undertaking now; we may never get another chance.