The Death of the New World Order.

I support nationalism. I support political decentralization and the breakdown of international bureaucracy.

To this end, I support the growing nationalist movements in Europe. If I lived in an EU nation, I would support the major nationalist movements. It would be my goal to see the dismantling of the European Union as a political apparatus.

I am not explicitly a nationalist in the sense that I give sacred or holy value to national identity. For instance, I do not believe in the concept of American exceptionalism. I believe in Liberty exceptionalism. Insofar as the USA has been exceptional, it is due to adhering toward principles of liberty and minimal government. But I strongly support the idea of political decentralization favoring national sovereignty over international governance. To that end, I am a nationalist.

Nationalist movements are gaining ground across Europe. The UK has UKIP, Germany has PEGIDA, and France has le Front Nationalé. Scotland, while voting “No” in the last separation referendum, is very close to a majority vote on secession from Britain. Spain has Catalan independence looming on the horizon. Poland recently elected an anti-EU government to a parliamentary majority. Europeans are figuring out that they have been receiving a raw deal, and many want out.

The New World Order consisting of international bureaucrats and businessmen is in serious trouble. What they want is an international centralized order administered by unaccountable bureaucrats and special favors to particular businessmen. They want to have control over the markets. They want to pretend that they, the unaccountable entrenched bureaucrats and elite businessmen, are needed for market to function smoothly. This is why we have ironically-named “free trade agreements” like NAFTA and Obamatrade; they are managed-trade agreements, not free-trade agreements. The only agreement needed for free trade is “Let’s agree to trade freely.” NAFTA and the rest are agreements of subjection to bureaucratic regulation and boondoggle.

I feel differently from the NWO. I, too, want international cooperation. But I do not want centralized planning and administration. I want international trade with minimal interference from civil governments or international bureaucracy.

The Free Market, by its very nature, is an internationalist institution. If all nations of the world adopted a total free market outlook, then we would have a consistent international order of voluntary free trade. The most fascinating aspect of this is that the Free Market provides its own internal governing mechanism: profit and loss. No unelected bureaucrats are necessary to administer this. Businessmen are held accountable to their own decisions, and accountable to the Kings of the Free Market: the consumers. In the Free Market, everything boils down to consumer sovereignty. Consumers have authority, while bureaucrats do not.

The problem with nationalist movements is this: they are frequently anti-international free trade. They are generally in favor of erecting trade barriers with other nations to supposedly keep economic prosperity from fleeing the country to other nations. This outlook is known as Protectionism, which is a thoroughly idiotic and discredited idea. But many people are also idiots. So, many people continue to gravitate to Protectionism, as they have for millennia.

Protectionism makes people poorer. But at least protectionism is a self-contained disease, restricted to the interior of national borders. The whole crux of protectionism lay in national borders and national sovereignty. International central planning, meanwhile, also makes people poorer. This is what happened in the USSR and Eastern Bloc, which was basically a collection of USSR vassal states (minus Yugoslavia and Albania). Marxist central planners succeeded in making themselves rich, and making everyone else poor. This is why the Iron Curtain was erected; to prevent destitute citizens of the Warsaw Pact nations from fleeing their socialist paradise to the largely free-market Western Europe.

This was all predicted by the Austrian School of economics, as epitomized in Ludwig Von Mises’ prophetic article “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.” His main point was this: even if everyone is a cheerful robot and does whatever the State tells them to do, the State will still never be able to figure out what they should do. Profit and loss are the keys to economic order. Without profit and loss, it becomes impossible to plan an entire economy.

This is why, despite pleas from certain conservatives, government cannot be run like a business. Government and business are two completely different things. A legitimate business can only get money by satisfying consumer demands. Income is made from voluntary exchange. However, government does not make money this way; government makes money through the involuntary exchange known as taxation. They take your money. They do not earn money through the profit and loss system. Therefore, government planners ultimately cannot calculate how to efficiently spend money. Waste is inevitable. Money taken from productive people and wasted by the government is what makes people poorer.

So, I will take increased protectionism over international central planning. Protectionism itself is a form of national central planning. I will take national central planning, restricted to one country, over international central planning, which is a pox upon many countries.


All major national governments are Keynesian in economic outlook. All international bureaucratic organizations are Keynesian in outlook. The bottom line of Keynesian economics is this: specialized bureaucrats can make better decisions for the economy than market forces can. Keynesians believe that specialized bureaucrats can make better choices for consumers than consumers can make for themselves.

Keynesian economics came into vogue during the 1930s. The Keynesian order has dominated throughout the last century. But the Keynesian order is being thrown into disarray by something they did not expect: the Internet and computer networking. The growth of the Internet and computer networking as mediums of communication, information-sharing, and exchange are undermining the central planners. They are losing ground.

This is causing a great knashing of teeth among the elite international bureaucrats and businessmen of the world. No organization in America better represents this class than the Council on Foreign Relations. Mark Leonard, a director within the CFR, lamented these trends in a recent article:

True revolutionary change is a rapid, fluid, and inherently indeterminate process. But there has been no indication so far that transformative economic change will lead to the types of policies — for example, a minimum basic income, greater investment in public goods, heightened multilateral cooperation, and closer regional integration — that would promote political stability.

On the contrary, rather than embrace the new global connectivity, there is a yearning to build fences and walls, resist trade deals, and restore national independence.

The funny thing is this: the “new global connectivity” has already been embraced. It’s called Facebook. It’s called Wikipedia. It’s called electronic payments. The “new global connectivity” of international cooperation already exists, and it is wildly successful. But Mark Leonard does not acknowledge this. Why? Because this form of successful international cooperation has not needed an international bureaucracy to govern it. To an elite state-worshipper like Mark Leonard, this is utterly terrifying. It is a complete backfiring of everything he holds dear. Mr. Leonard desires international cooperation, and he’s getting it. But he also desires control. The central planners want control over international cooperation. But the increased computerization and networking of society is rapidly spinning out of their control. The flow of goods, money, and information is taking place beyond the control of international central planners.

It gets even worse for the internationalist elite. Not only is their control being eaten away by technological development, but they also face increasingly restless domestic nationalism. These are people who are fed up with being controlled by international bureaucrats. Voters, like the ones in Poland, are beginning to reclaim a modicum of power from the international old boy network. So, the internationalists are being eaten away on both fronts, both internally and externally.

Finally, there is the Old World Order: Islam. The rise of Islamic terror and ISIS have caught the international bureaucrats with their pants down. Every terrorist act in Europe is a reminder to voters that their internationalist masters at the EU headquarters helped bring this upon them through unrestricted welfare and open borders. Every report of some new atrocity out of ISIS-controlled territory is a reminder to voters that internationalists tried to play the Middle East like a game of Risk but utterly failed. The Old World Order does not play nice with the New World Order.


The international elites are trapped. There is no escape. Computerization and voter unrest are destroying their credibility and influence. But they don’t know how to deal with this. The best they can do is double-down on their agenda and hope for the best. I call this the Angela Merkel strategy, named for the German Prime Minister who has insisted on the need for open borders and unrestricted welfare despite increasingly negative consequences.

They cannot backpedal on economic control. They cannot backpedal on political control. It would be tantamount to political suicide. Mikhail Gorbachev tried this in Russia in the late 1980s, and it ultimately led to the destruction of the USSR. If the EU begins to backpedal on economic and political domination of Europe, they too will face a similar fate.

This is all a beautiful thing to behold. It is continuing proof that the spirits of liberty and innovation in mankind cannot be wiped out, despite the best efforts and machinations of the international elites. The tighter they grip onto power, the more it slips out of their grasp. The Spontaneous Order, first clearly outlined by Austrian economist Frederich Hayek, outwits the Planned Order at every turn. Not even the Soviet Union, with all their instruments of terror and coercion, could overcome this. The new internationalist elite does not even have instruments of terror; they will never overcome this.


Near the end of the article, Mark Leonard says this:

…the process of creative destruction is occurring faster than ever. Confronted by the meteoric rise of Uber, for example, traditional taxi drivers “are being asked to adjust in a matter of days, rather than years, leaving democratic systems little time to determine how much compensation they should receive, and how it should be distributed.”

Uber is a perfect example for everything I have discussed. It is spontaneous order in action. It was founded on one principle: to turn a profit by connecting people who wanted a ride with people who wanted to make money. That single principle has utterly overturned the government-dominated taxi industries in cities throughout the entire world. Taxi companies, which usually rely on government-enforced cartelization to survive, are being eaten away by the spontaneous order and voluntary interaction of the free market. No bureaucrats were necessary. No government oversight was required.

The international elites like to think of themselves as harbingers of the new wave, guiding the rest of society by the light of their bureaucratic genius. This couldn’t be further from the truth. They are on the backside of the wave, trying to make sense of it.


Tags: , ,

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: