© Thomas Barnett
That 'new balance of power' when referred to by Woodrow Wilson, Churchill and George HW Bush, was decidedly weighted towards the USA and its allies. Bush used the term along with Gorbachev to describe a post Cold War era and a spirit of co-operation between the 'Great Powers'. But in 1990, when Bush and Gorbachev made their speech, Russia was no longer a 'great power', and Bush felt comfortable qualifying the idea of 'co-operation' by saying "there is no substitute for American leadership". The post WW2 and post Cold War New World Order was in reality a euphemism for the 'New American Century' where America would reign supreme and unchallenged.
As we sit here in the year 2017 and look at the world around us, we see that America's vision for a NWO and New American Century is in shambles, with the architects of the American Empire reduced to setting fire (literally and figuratively) to countries in a futile attempt to stave off the moment of its complete collapse.
This week on BTH we'll be taking a look at the real new world order that is taking shape and how it radically diverges from the supposedly well laid plans of the Western political elite. We'll also be gazing into our crystal balls to predict what moves on the grand chessboard can be expected as the anglo-American empire builders grow increasingly desperate.
6-8pm CET (4-6pm UTC / 12-2pm EST), only on SOTT!
Running Time: 01:56:48
Download: MP3
Washington DC has repeatedly shot itself in the foot by not confronting the neocon coup but instead cooperating with those evil people. It appears likely that everything that happened on 9/11 and since is due to the immutable agenda of these people. The entire War on Terror is a way to centralize power on POTUS and his immediate advisers and use it to entrench a new system on the world. That new system will be democratic governments everywhere under the direction of a few safe pairs of hands in Washington DC. Those global rulers will send down instructions from the World Health Organisation (and the World this and the World that) to the inferior governments to debate and draft appropriate legislation. We see something similar in Europe where the European Commission directs the elected representatives in their work.
I think this is objectionable.
The choice of democracy as the norm is because its the weakest form of government, readily destabilised and changed whenever necessary. It is the beginnings of unpopular government by remote and untouchable people.
There is a better way if we wish for it.
We rehabilitate the UN. Its venal and/or incompetent officers will have to go. We set the UN's finances on a solid basis with absolute certainty that every country pays its dues. We extinguish the permanent membership of the Security Council and replace it with rotating membership.
At the national level we rehabilitate democracy. Instead of strangers parachuted in to represent us we will adopt Primary Constituencies of 2-300 people who are school-friends and neighbors. They select one of their number to represent them at the next level and so on up the representative chain to the top. In this way we will all have a point of contact with the executive and we can and will make our feeling known. The ability of government to ignore the electorate will be ended.
And we will attend diligently to the education and welfare of the people as a majority of them will be establishing national policy.