The inevitability of conspiracy

By Michael Price.

Many people believe that belief in a "One World Government" conspiracy is paranoid delusion and that no such conspiracy could exist. I write this to prove that not only is such a conspiracy likely it is inevitable unless something very strange is going on. It is not within the scope of this essay to theorise on whether the proposed OWG is good or bad, simply to demonstrate that covert and active support for the proposal does exist.

First let us define our terms, conspiracy is An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. according to dictionary.com, however I would add the element of secrecy to the definition to more closely describe the meaning in this context. OWG I define as any authority with taxation, judicial and military powers that extend over the entire earth, regardless of the attitude of regional, national, local etc. governments. I feel that any group that did not have these three ingredients could not really be considered a OWG.

It is easy to find groups that are in favour "One world government". For instance the World Federalists Association would have to include all the ingredients for it in their own recipe for their "Federation" to be successful. There are many other people who feel that national sovereignty should be reduced or eliminated (e.g. Geoffrey Robinson "Sovereignty is not a shield"). However by definition people who are prepared to act secretly are obviously harder to find. This does not necessarily make it harder to infer their existence.

It can easily be observed that many people (particularly Americans who are somewhat ambiguously described as "right wing") hate the idea of a One World Government. While I am not giving an opinion here about the rightness of OWG there is a lot to hate about it. There is a lot to like about it too, but the fact is that some opponents will not be persuaded to support it by any honest means and others will not be persuaded at all! They would deride, block, seek to nullify or even respond violently to actions to bring it about. Given that people generally accept the use of violence to ensure continuation of their preferred political entity this morally and politically acceptable to the majority of people. You cannot seek to force people into a political entity and not expect war. Given this it is clear that to achieve OWG some measure of secrecy is necessary, both to achieve goals and to avoid or minimise resistance or even violent retaliation. To assume otherwise is to assume a level of honesty that has not existed in any political cause as far as I know.

Therefore at least some OWG adherents would choose covert, deceptive and dishonest means to advance it. Some of these would seek work in places that could advance this scheme e.g. the UN, World Bank, IMF or other organisations. Certainly the sort of people who are considered to head such organisations are more likely to be pro-international integration. There is nothing wrong with seeking to reduce many of the barriers between nations (I favour that myself), however pro-OWG are necessarily such people.

Additionally OWG would mean an expansion of cross-border political power and the UN, IMF, etc. already do that. While it is possible that people who are against what the UN, IMF, etc. do would work for them most people prefer to work for something they believe in or at least do not oppose. Therefore a disproportionate number of people employed at world-wide quasi-government institutions would be pro-increased cross border powers and a disproportionate number of them would be pro-OWG. Given the unpopularity of these institutions in certain quarters revealing this tendency would be politically unwise for these institutions (even if they consciously realised it) so there would be secrecy on this aspect.

But the greatest cause of pro-OWG secretive activity is one of the reasons Ian Mackinder believes it is impossible. In his words "the UN would be hard-pressed to locate its collective backside with both hands. At least - not without a road map, months of deliberation, a couple of fact-finding missions, creation of at least one brand-new committee, re-vamping of two pre-existing committees, a call for restraint from somebody, and writing of a 'Rules Of Engagement' guide bigger than the King James Bible". I would like to agree and add that the UN as currently structured is as much use to it's stated goals as the BATF is to promoting peace and harmony in the US.

Given this employees of the UN have several options. Firstly they can take the money, power and (in some cases) diplomatic immunity and shut up. This is a mean, venal thing to do but some of them certainly do it. Secondly they could quit in disgust, since this makes them no longer employees we can ignore the people who do this. Thirdly they can hang on and try to do their best hoping that any UN-like organisation is better than none. This is probably the course most people take. The fourth option is to believe or pretend to believe that the UN is capable of achieving it's goals if it's powers are increased. This is a common government tactic when less than optimal results occur and it would be unreasonable to expect no one to resort to it. It is very familiar to pro-gun movements who notice that the next gun law is always supposed to work, although the present ones never did. Progressive increases in power would continue until OWG is achieved. This is because it is the UN's structure rather than it's lack of power that causes the problems. As far as I know nobody has voted to accept the UN as it's legal government. Promoting such a change would in many people's minds be advocating a change in sovereignty without their consent (which is an excellent causus belli. As I observed above this would be far more effective and less politically/physically risky if covert.

Mr Mackinder also raised the notion that various nationalities would not put aside their differences to subdue the US. While I concur wholeheartedly that sections of their populations and government would not do this it was never anyone's contention that ALL foreigners wanted a OWG. It can easily be observed that many non-US citizens are just as worried about their national sovereignty as any US citizen (e.g. anti-EU sections of the British Tory party). But that does not imply that people within their governments are not seeking greater power over people outside their borders. Indeed it was recently noted in "The Spectator" that giving more intrusive police power to the EU is an easy way to increase police powers of national governments. For instance giving the EU police officials the power to monitor internet communications without a warrant is politically less controversial than allowing Scotland yard to do so. This is because less people monitor what is happening in the EU than in their own country.

Another argument Mr Mackinder raised was the fact that the US routinely attempts and often succeeds in manipulating the UN, therefore the UN cannot be attempting to control the US. In fact this is the opposite of the truth. The UN has MORE interest in controlling those that succeed in manipulating it. Controlling them allows it a measure of independent action. In addition OWG is about controlling the population rather than the government or "ruling elite". While I don't want to go into political theory here there is in America and other countries a political class that includes professional politicians, lobbyists, media commentators and others. This class is the one that manipulates the UN. Citizens of a country as a whole (and the rest of us) are the ones who would be controlled by a OWG. Thus the total power of the political class over the general population could be increased by a OWG. Therefore claiming that US manipulation of the UN proves that there is no danger of a OWG is naive at best.

The last of Mr Mackinder's arguments was that he can "Speaking as a non-American, I can assure all US citizens that neither I nor anybody of my acquaintance prays for Green Cards, or lies awake at night dreaming of subjugating North America.". It is abundantly clear from observing the international situation that a) a lot of people want green cards or their Australian equivalent (we have a few hundred being towed somewhere as I write) and personally I don't blame them and b) a lot of people want to subjugate American and indeed everywhere else.

The final reason I believe people must be conspiring for a OWG is the obvious and well publicised fact that the current system of national sovereignty is not well designed for many of the world's problems. Crimes against humanity for instance are not easily dealt with inside the national jurisdictions, likewise environmental problems rarely stop conveniently at the border, drug smuggling is by definition not confined to the territory of one nation etc. When the environmental movement says "Think globally, act locally" it is no coincidence that they ignore the national level entirely. In some ways the conventional system is obsolete and those who advance a OWG simply recognise that. It would be incredible that nobody in a position of power did so. It would be more incredible if no powerful people who recognise this fact did not act to advance a OWG. It would be beyond all reason that they would act entirely overtly. It is not necessary to believe in evil to believe in a OWG conspiracy, simply to believe that those with other views are capable of the same discretion we use.