Apologies to anyone I offended with the above, but I wanted to make a point, the point being: Words mean something. They don’t mean nothing. For instance, from the preceding paragraph you’d probably conclude that the writer, if sincere (which in this case he wasn’t), is a racist. Why? Because words mean something. They don’t mean nothing. Indeed, words have been responsible for igniting race riots--and not a few barroom brawls.

Which is why I’m completely baffled by the refusal of otherwise intelligent people to acknowledge that there is a movement afoot to institute a global system of governance. Call it transnationalism, multilateralism, globalism, world government, or a new world order. Call it what you will, but deny its existence and you betray either your ignorance of, or complicity in, what’s going on.

Politicians, diplomats, educators, and businessmen are well aware of the impact of words, for words are the currency of ideas. They convey our motives, intentions, and desires. With mere words, leaders build bridges--or burn them. Diplomats avoid wars--or start them. Educators enlighten minds--or poison them. And businessmen consummate deals--or lose them. Words are powerful tools. Words mean something.

That said, consider the following words:

There can be no rule of law as long as some major powers are absent from the main institutions of the world community. Membership in the United Nations should not be considered a privilege, a reward to a well-behaving nation, but an obligation to be imposed on every country, whether it likes it or not. --Louis B. Sohn (Bemis Professor of International Law, Harvard University), “Possible Steps Toward the World Rule of Law,” Toward Century 21, New York: Basic Books, 1970, p. 184

If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable future lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis . . . . In short, the “house of world order” will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great “booming, buzzing confusion,” to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end-run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault. --Richard N. Gardner, Foreign Affairs, April 1974. Mr Gardner, a Harvard graduate and Rhodes Scholar, is a lawyer and holds a chair at Columbia University in Law and International Organization. He served in the State Department during the Johnson and Kennedy administrations, as Ambassador to Italy under President Carter, and Ambassador to Spain under President Clinton. He has served the UN in various capacities, and is the author of several books, including, In Pursuit of World Order: US Foreign Policy and International Organization.

My country's history, Mr. President, tells us that it is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity, that common action is possible despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see here in this chamber. Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order. --Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, October 1975

If we are serious about nuclear disarmament--the minimum technical requirement for real safety from extinction--then we must accept conventional disarmament as well, and this means disarmament not just of nuclear powers but of all powers, for the present nuclear powers are hardly likely to throw away their conventional arms while non-nuclear powers hold on to theirs. But if we accept both nuclear and conventional disarmament, then we are speaking of revolutionizing the politics of the earth. The goals of the political revolution are defined by those of the nuclear revolution. We must lay down our arms, relinquish sovereignty, and found a political system for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. --Jonathan Schell (best-selling author), The Fate of the Earth, New York: Knopf, 1982, p. 226.

It is the judgment of all intellectual leaders--scientists, educators, philosophers, and theologians--that the next logical step in the history of man's attempt to settle conflicts in non-violent ways is to create a federation of governments or a world government. . . . Clearly, nations, in their own national self-interest, should relinquish enough of their sovereignty or right of self-determination to permit the creation of a transnational or international institution of governance. --Charles W. Kegley, USA Today magazine, September 1983, p. 49. Kegley was Associate Editor of USA Today, and Professor of Philosophy at California State College, Bakersfield, CA.

We are Americans, part of something larger than ourselves. . . . What is at stake [in this war with Iraq] is more than [just Kuwait]. It is a big idea, a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom and the rule of law. Such a world is worthy of our struggle and worthy of our children's future. --President George Bush, State of the Union Address, January 29, 1991.

The new world order envisioned by Presidents Bush and Gorbachev would be founded on the rule of law and the principle of collective security. That principle necessarily entails the possibility of military enforcement measures by the United Nations. Twice in its history the Security Council has authorized such action. The first instance was in the Korean War in 1950; the second was in the Persian Gulf in 1990. More occasions are likely to follow. . . . [T]he [U.N.] Security Council should be able to mobilize a force to serve under U.N. command for enforcement purposes. That capacity may be virtually indispensable in an emergent world order. The chance to achieve it should not be missed. --Russett, Bruce and James S. Sutterlin, “The U.N. In a New World Order,” Foreign Affairs, Spring 1991, pp. 69, 83. Russett was Dean Acheson Professor of International Relations and Political Science at Yale University; Sutterlin is former Director of the Executive Office of the UN Secretary General, and was a Fellow at Yale's International Security Programs.

. . . it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government. --Strobe Talbott, “The Birth of the Global Nation,” Time magazine, July 20, 1992, p. 70. Mr Talbott is currently serving as US Deputy Secretary of State.

Now, at the end of the twentieth century, we face a great battle between the forces of integration and the forces of disintegration; the forces of globalism versus the forces of tribalism. . . . --President Bill Clinton, Address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 15, 1999.

On the eve a new Millennium we are now in a new world. We need new rules for international co-operation and new ways of organising our international institutions. --British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Address to the Economic Club of Chicago, April 22, 1999.

It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. --Walter Cronkite, Address to the World Federalist Association, United Nations, New York, October 19, 1999.

To realize the full possibilities of the new economy, we must reach beyond our own borders, to shape the revolution that is tearing down barriers and building new networks among nations and individuals, economies and cultures: globalization. It is the central reality of our time. --President William Jefferson Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 27, 2000.

True Believer: So, what do you think of that, Mr. Skeptic?

Born Skeptic: Wait a minute. Are trying to tell me--with a straight face, no less--that there’s some dark, new world order conspiracy going on behind our backs, and that political and economic leaders have been meeting secretly to weave this diabolical web of sedition and international intrigue? (Laughs) You right-wing wackos are all the same: paranoid. A conspiracy in every corner.

True Believer: You’re changing the subject.

Born Skeptic: No, I’m not changing the subject. You’re a crackpot.

True Believer: Yes, you are changing the subject. Ad hominum attacks? I thought you were a thinker, open-minded.

Born Skeptic: I am a thinker. I am open-minded. But this “new world order” thing is simply ludicrous. What’s there to think about?

True Believer: Well, let’s think about the quotes for a moment, okay?

Born Skeptic: Look, you’re not going to convince me that all these people are part of some conspiracy.

True Believer: I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m simply asking you to consider the quotes.

Born Skeptic: The whole idea is preposterous.

True Believer: Let’s forget about whether it’s preposterous or not. What about the quotes?

Born Skeptic: What about them?

True Believer: Well, these people are all pretty smart, right?

Born Skeptic: Yes . . .

True Believer: And they’re all people who have made an art of choosing the right words for the right occasions, wouldn’t you say?

Born Skeptic: I suppose . . .

True Believer: Okay, so tell me: What do you think these quotes mean? What seems to be the point all these smart, articulate people are trying to make?

Born Skeptic: I know your game. You’re choosing the most sensational quotes you can find in order to prove your point. I, too, can find quotes that will “prove” just about anything.

True Believer: On the contrary, these are only a few--and by no means the most sensational--of the quotes available on this subject. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of others available in magazines and books sitting on your local public library’s shelves. Besides, sensational or not, they’re still quotes.

Born Skeptic: Well, you’re taking them out of context.

True Believer: Am I? Why don’t you go to the library and look into it for yourself? See if I’m taking them out of context.

Born Skeptic: I’d rather not waste my time. Look, I don’t care what you say, you’re not going to make me believe that all these people are involved in some conspiracy. That’s ridiculous.

True Believer: What is it about this conversation that reminds me of a dog chasing its tail?

Born Skeptic: What’s that supposed to mean?

True Believer: Never mind. It was a rhetorical question.

That’s about how most conversations regarding the new world order go. The debunkers don’t like to hear documented quotes about world government, because they don’t quite know what to do with them. And it can’t be much fun having to perform the mental gymnastics necessary in order to believe that world leaders don’t really mean what they’re clearly saying about global governance. The skeptics do, however, love a good conspiracy theory. The more extreme the theory the better, because by drawing attention to the absurdity of the theory they can ignore whatever facts are behind it.

Granted, there are some rather extreme theories about world government out there, some of which would have us believe virtually nothing happens but that sinister political or economic forces are to blame. Such theories go with the territory. One would expect as much, given the nature of the subject. But bad theories do not necessarily disprove a premise, and our premise here today is that words mean something. Which brings us back to the quotes. Those nasty quotes. What shall we do with them?

So is there a conspiracy to institute world government? I have an answer for that: Does it matter? Does it really matter whether the emerging “new world order” is the result of a conspiracy, or simply the way the cards are stacking up? In one sense it really doesn’t, because it’s hard to imagine how things could be all that different from the way they are. After all, left to itself, power tends to consolidate. In the business world, for example, monopolies happen, and AT&T does not, of its own accord, spin itself off into a semi-infinite number of Baby Bells. It must be forced to do so. Why? Because power consolidates. Those who have it tend to want more of it, not less. Successful companies tend to get larger, not smaller. And in so doing, they seek to assimilate, destroy, or ally with the competition. Survival of the fittest, and all that.

Things work pretty much the same way on the geopolitical level. Nations enter into treaties as a matter of self-interest. Treaties lead to alliances (military, trade, etc). Alliances become blocs. Blocs become super-blocs . . . and voila! Consolidation. Monopoly. World government. Admittedly a rather simplistic overview. To save time I skipped over the chase scenes, shootouts, and fist fights, and cut straight to the ending. But you can be sure that’s how it will end, sooner or later, one way or another. It’s virtually inevitable. In fact, the process is occurring before our very eyes. And if seeing isn’t believing, then there’s always the quotes.

Many people recoil at the mere mention of “world government” because, in their minds, the phrase conjures up images of anti-christs and 666 tattoos, conspiracy kooks, the John Birch Society, and TV preachers selling snake oil. That such images are unjustified is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that they serve to obscure the facts. And the fact is, many of the most powerful, influential people in the world are saying the same thing: Let’s consolidate. Regardless of who, what, when, how, why, or where, that’s exactly what’s happening. The world is slowly but surely being consolidated into one mega-bloc. A global village. McWorld.

Yes, there have been--and will be--bumps along the way. Consolidation is rarely a simple matter for corporations, let alone nations. There are always trouble makers who refuse to be swallowed by someone bigger and stronger--people (or nations) who have their own ideas and opinions about the way things ought to be. Nevertheless, most people (and nations) prefer security to insecurity. Most people (and nations) want at least the hope that they’ll be around in ten years. The world is a dangerous place, after all, and grows more so with each passing day. At least that’s the general perception. And if giving up a few personal freedoms (or a little national sovereignty) means more security in the long run, makes us more confident that we’ll still be around in ten years, then what the hay. It’s worth it, isn’t it? Whatever their motives, be they good or ill, that, in essence, is the line our leaders are feeding us. And the public, for the most part, is lapping it up.

Okay, so assuming that all this “new world order” stuff is true, what’s the problem? Answer: Nothing--in and of itself. In some respects, the idea is quite fetching. Let’s do away with borders, let people live where they want to, work where they want to. Multiculturalism. Tolerance. No more wars. One big, happy family singing the praises of global unity. Enter reality. Sorry to spoil the party, folks, but nature calls. Which is to say, in case you haven’t opened your eyes lately--in case it’s been a while since you’ve cracked open a history book--it’s simply not in the nature of men (or women) to live at peace with one another. Not for very long, at any rate. That’s why we invented government in the first place, to create order out of chaos and enforce the peace. Even with global government the peace will need to be enforced. Question is, who will do the enforcing?

One reason that borders exist, of course, is because different peoples embrace different ideals, ideals that are not always compatible. Communism versus capitalism pops to mind. As does democracy versus totalitarianism, and Christianity versus Judaism versus Islam versus Buddhism versus paganism. It seems to me that if borders need not exist, if national soverignty is outmoded, if global governance is indeed an idea whose time has come, we'd not need all these one-world evangelists out there desperately trying to convince us such is the case. Am I simply being paranoid here, or is something not quite right with this picture? We find bureaucracy intolerable at the local level, let alone on a global level!

Another problem with global governance is the very real danger of global tyranny. It's frightening to hear how casually new world order proponents dismiss this possibility, almost as if they couldn't imagine a sillier notion. "That's an issue we'll deal with as the need arises," is essentially their response. Uh huh. Today, people at least have the option of fleeing to another country in order to escape government oppression. But where do you go when the oppression is global? Another subject for another time.

My real purpose here is not to build a case against the new world order, but rather to poke a sharp stick into the eye of anyone too ignorant (or too stubborn) to acknowledge the obvious: Our leaders are marching in virtual lockstep toward global government, and we're skipping along with them as if on our way to a picnic. If you have a hard time believing this, you have only to listen to what they're saying. Don't just listen--listen. And as you're doing that, be sure to keep in mind that words mean something. They don't mean nothing.