Dr. Alexander Wendt and James Corbett Clash Over Inevitable One World State |301|

#1
Dr. Alexander Wendt and James Corbett Clash Over Inevitable One World State |301|
by Alex Tsakiris | Jan 13 | Skepticism

To this Ohio State University International Relations Professor a one world state is inevitable. To Alt media blogger James Corbett it’s a catastrophe.
http://www.skeptiko.com/wp-content/uploads/skeptiko-298-david-hart.jpg

photo by: Royce Bair

Today’s show is not about consciousness, spirituality, or any of the topics we normally cover. Today’s show is about geopolitics and whether a “One World State,” or what some call a, “New World Order,” is an inevitable political reality. It’s a provocative topic, and may be of interest to some Skeptiko listeners, but what makes this show special are the participants in this threaded debate. Dr. Alexander Wendt is a professor at Ohio State University and a recognized expert on international relations and political science. He’s a serious academic, but as you’ll see in this interview, he’s willing to take seriously, and straightforwardly address, the concerns of those who believe deep state politics are driving world politics.

After talking to Wendt, I wanted to hear from someone on the front lines of reporting on these deep state geopolitical shenanigans. So, I asked James Corbett, a leading figure in the geopolitical, alternative media and host of the Corbett Report to give me his take on Wendt’s influential One World State paper.

The result was a challenging, and sometimes uncomfortable dialog about questions that don’t seem to get as much attention as they deserve… e.g. if a one world state really is inevitable should “we the people” try and shape it?
 
#2
"Is there really a deep state political drive toward a one world state? Towards a new world order. Towards consolidation of power at that level. Is that even a remote possibility or is it just crazy conspiracy theory?"

I think there are elite organizations that try to control the world from behind the scenes. This is most overt in Europe where countries that lacked popular support for joining the EU were brought into it anyway. But I don't think the different power centers want to unite into one world government. Some of the more powerful elite organizations might want to co-opt some of the weaker ones, but I don't see these groups willing to share power with each other or working in the open where the public can make an informed decision.

"Is there any scenario under which we would want to get out in front of the issue turn it around and say okay great here's what a one world state should look like, here's how we want it to emerge."

No.

"Or should we resist that at every turn because as James Corbett says the power structure that we have no is incapable of doing anything other than completely subverting and corrupting any efforts along those lines."

Yes but it is not just the elite that is the problem.

From the transcript:
Dr. Alexander Wendt: My general feeling, and I should’ve said this on the show, is human beings know a lot less than we think we do. We’re just at the beginning of figuring out the nature of the universe. It seems to me. And I think a lot of scientists and my colleagues think we’re really smart and we’ve already got most of it figured out. I just think that’s completely wrong. Who knows even 100 years from now what people will take as common sense that today we can’t even imagine.
I am not in favor of one world government because I don't believe we understand what the best economic and political systems are and it is better to keep experimenting with different systems. In fact, there might not be one best system. Some people (like the Amish), might prefer to live under different systems and they should have the opportunity and right to move to a different country with a different system if they want to. I see space colonization as the best hope for the future of humankind because it will allow people to design systems from scratch and see how their ideals work in practice.

Another thing to consider is that the problem is not just the elite, it is the population too. Even the people with good intentions have been so misled by the professional liars and hate mongers, politicians and journalists, we can't have a conversation because we don't know what the facts are.

http://cafehayek.com/2016/01/the-sorry-state-of-american-politics.html
January 12, 2016
...
Here’s a letter to the Wall Street Journal:
...
the success of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders testifies unmistakably that the ranks and files of both major parties are now filled with far too many simpletons who not only are utterly ignorant of the ways that economies and governments work, but who also are in equal parts mindless, bigoted, and uncivilized. They are, in short, dupes for power-mad despots-in-waiting.
Personally, I don't think Trump and Sanders are the first indication of this problem.

The problem of political antagonism between different factions, like liberals and conservatives, the belief that they are a conflict between smart vs stupid and good vs evil, is designed by the elite to keep us living like mushrooms (in the dark, being fed manure). The solution is to educate people that our differences are natural, adaptive, and relatively minor but are being played up by the journalists and politicians trying to advance their own personal interests. When we understand how we have been misled, we can work together in mutual respect and understanding to find solutions to problems. As it is, we can't have rational discussions about problems because we immediately descend to calling our opponents stupid or evil. If we the people could get our act together, governments couldn't exploit us and the hypothetical benefits of a one world government would be moot.

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2016/01/jonathan-haidts-constructive-approach.html
The political polarization in the US is caused by journalists and politicians who are misleading the public. Research by sociologist Jonathan Haidt shows that all people throughout the world have the same five basic intuitions about morality. The differences between liberals and conservatives occur in slight preferences about which aspects of morality they think are most important. Liberals and conservatives have much more in common than they have differences. However, journalists and politicians gain personally by demonizing and dehumanizing people who disagree with them when they portray these differences as a matter of smart vs. stupid or good vs. evil. This is a scam. This hate mongering makes it harder to find solutions to problems because it leads discussions to rapidly degenerate into name calling and vilification. It breeds mistrust and keeps us fighting among ourselves which makes us susceptible to exploitation by demagogues and moneyed interests1. Good, intelligent people can disagree. Every scientific controversy shows that the interpretation of facts is only an opinion. If people will stop being fooled by this deception, the hate mongers will become powerless and our society will be able to solve problems through civil discussions based on mutual understanding and respect. The politicians are not going to solve this problem until it is in their interest to do so. We the people have to come together ourselves and reject media sources and political candidates that persist in dividing and polarizing the country. As Milton Friedman said, we the people need to make it politically profitable for the politicians to do the right thing2.
 
Last edited:
#3
in Europe ... countries that lacked popular support for joining the EU were brought into it anyway.
Can anyone help me with a reference for this (or a refutation) I can't seem to find any examples using google. I have read there are countries that were brought into the EU by their governments without popular support. Does anyone know of any actual examples?
 
#4
Can anyone help me with a reference for this (or a refutation) I can't seem to find any examples using google. I have read there are countries that were brought into the EU by their governments without popular support. Does anyone know of any actual examples?
Could it be the disagreement about joining had to do instead with ratification of the new constitution? In seven of those nations, ratification was left to the people via referenda, and the French and Dutch peoples rejected it.

About the Dutch rejection, see this 2005 article in the Guardian:

Dutch say 'devastating no' to EU constitution

Doug
 
#5
The Irish famously voted against the Lisbon treaty, and were then told to vote again. The second time they agreed to it!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_European_Constitution_referendum

These votes about the EU treaties are almost meaningless because the wording of the treaties is impossibly - and I think deliberately - obscure. Even MP's only vote tribally on such matters, most have not read the treaties themselves. For example:

http://www.aedh.eu/plugins/fckeditor/userfiles/file/Textes UE/Consolidated version_09_05_08.pdf


When the UK voted to join the EU, it was a vastly different organisation from what it is now.

Unfortunately, the EU has meddled with so much in recent years, and I doubt that it will remain intact much longer.

What supporters of a world state, tend to forget, is that it is a historical fact that civilisations and empires do not last. Something in the human psyche stops working just when empires seem to have total control.

David
 
#6
As always, I couldn't care less that someone is "a recognized expert" In fact, that term often makes me think the person has little substantive to offer,

IMO the belief that there will be a one-world state anytime in the next fifty years is idiotic. Those arguing for or against that are both engaged in a pointless exercise. The power elites do not want such a thing.
 
#7
Terrific subject!

My feeling is that whether you are for or against one world government depends more on your political sensibilites rather whether you're ignorant and/or dismisive about the deep state, conscpiracies etc.

Even though I agree that the Democrat v. Republican is largely a false dichotomy, I still think there basic differences in people's political sensibilities. So if you're of libertarian persuasion anything that limits the individual, e.g. government, is seen as undesirable. Whereas if you're more of a leftish persuasion (and I admit that includes myself) you more likely to recognize at least some aspects of government as a legitimate representative of the collective. Hence libertarians see one world government as a evidently evil oppresive power structure, but people on the left are more likely to embrace it as an ideal embodying the brotherhood of man.

I've been following the 911-movement for a long time and the heterogeneous nature in this respect of the 911-movement really stands out to me. For instance when the movement sought to further it's cause through the political channels, members on the left supported Dennis Kucinich, while libertarian members supported Ron Paul. So it's not like the knowledge and acceptance of deep state politics and conspiracies leads to a unified political outlook.

The best example really is David Ray Griffin. He is probably the most important intellectual in the 911-truth movement and nobody can claim he is ignorant of the issue of deep state and conscpiracies. Yet, he also belong to the left and here he is arguing for a one world government:

 
#9
Terrific subject!

My feeling is that whether you are for or against one world government depends more on your political sensibilites rather whether you're ignorant and/or dismisive about the deep state, conscpiracies etc.

Even though I agree that the Democrat v. Republican is largely a false dichotomy, I still think there basic differences in people's political sensibilities. So if you're of libertarian persuasion anything that limits the individual, e.g. government, is seen as undesirable. Whereas if you're more of a leftish persuasion (and I admit that includes myself) you more likely to recognize at least some aspects of government as a legitimate representative of the collective. Hence libertarians see one world government as a evidently evil oppresive power structure, but people on the left are more likely to embrace it as an ideal embodying the brotherhood of man.
good point.
 
#10
Great interviews! :)

"Is there really a deep state political drive toward a one world state? Towards a new world order. Towards consolidation of power at that level. Is that even a remote possibility or is it just crazy conspiracy theory?"

There is always a drive to consolidate and expand power. I think there are competing interests and cliques of elites involved in this and that there is a web of alliances and wars going on all the time among the power players. The Zionists seem to be ideologically cohered in such a way as to effectively outmaneuver many of the rest.

Is a One World Government possible? Not a chance. Churches, corporations, governments, and basically all institutions are in a constant state of flux with schisms and alliances being made and broken. I do think that the ease of flow of information and travel provided by technology enables the world to have larger and fewer states. Perhaps a One World Government will be momentarily achieved some day, but I feel that it would only be a facade and that there will always be underlying competing power structures.

"Is there any scenario under which we would want to get out in front of the issue turn it around and say okay great here's what a one world state should look like, here's how we want it to emerge."
I DO like this concept of ideoligical jiu-jitsu. They like to control the narrative by changing the definitions of terms on us, so let's do that to them. Let's call it a "New World Order" but create our own definition for that. And I think the best definition might be something like a United States of the World where there are independent smallish sovereign states. The global government would basically do nothing except make sure no one state tries to coerce another or grows too large and powerful. Even in this scenario (like with the United States presently) there is the potential for overreach of the global government resulting once again in tyranny. And then there's the possibility of one state creating secret weapons and secret alliances that can suddenly overtake others... Peace and security will always be tenuous and temporary on this planet... at least in the foreseeable future.

"Or should we resist that at every turn because as James Corbett says the power structure that we have no is incapable of doing anything other than completely subverting and corrupting any efforts along those lines."
I agree the power structures currently in place are thoroughly corrupt and should be axed. I like his idea of anarchism and volunteerism with the only maxim of no coercion, but I do think it is a pipe dream. In the scenario discussed where a group begins to form that begins coercing people into joining and expanding itself, he suggests that other people would voluntarily join together to defeat this group.

What then have is a balance of power between those who are immoral and corrupt and coercive and those who are moral, ideologically sound, and non-coercive. The former group relies on power, fear, and physical pleasure reward for cohesion. The latter group relies on a moral narrative for cohesion. But the kind of people with the moral fiber who would voluntarily lend themselves to a moral narrative and sacrifice their lives for it, are generated by seeing the suffering created by the immoral group. So this is why we have the multi-generational cycle of history. The kind of people who can perpetuate this pipe dream of anarchism and volunteerism are only created through the hardships endured under the coercive system. Without resistance people get soft and lose the ability to defend themselves. The Yin Yang makes the world go round...

The only problem with this Yin Yang cycle is that the increase in technology means this otherwise harmonic oscillation between good and evil is being excited by more and more force leading to a dangerous resonance (a.k.a. nuclear war).

The only way we might be able to make this pipe dream a reality is if we put our kids through a rigorous and harsh spartan upbringing that artificially created the qualities of strength and moral and mental fortitude necessary to defend and perpetuate the peace. Its almost like we would need to create another virtual reality planet... where everything is running amok... so that they can figure things out there... and when they "die" they come out of the simulation and join the real world... and maybe that's what this world is... who knows?
 
#12
Great interviews! :)

Is a One World Government possible? Not a chance. Churches, corporations, governments, and basically all institutions are in a constant state of flux with schisms and alliances being made and broken. I do think that the ease of flow of information and travel provided by technology enables the world to have larger and fewer states. Perhaps a One World Government will be momentarily achieved some day, but I feel that it would only be a facade and that there will always be underlying competing power structures.
you make a great point re competing interests/alliances/forces the come together at certain times but remain mostly independent.
 
#13
Forgot to mention I'm amazed at the skill with which Corbett employs the phrase: "I will finish." Very assertive... I'm going to have to try that... :D
yes, but he did close the deal :) his endgame is volunteerism... that kind of wild idealism is tantamount to just giving up.

I (despite my ranting) take more of a glass-half-full perspective. Sure, scoundrels, liars and psychopaths are running the machine, but they're not that different (with a few exceptions) from the scoundrels, liars and psychopaths that have always run the machine... a little bit of regime change could go along way. moreover, I think the US Constitution is a pretty darn good place to start... those dudes seemed to have a good handle on how things can run aground and how to right the ship.
 
#15
his endgame is volunteerism... That kind of wild idealism is tantamount to just giving up
As the Greeks used to say... A man without a Polis is nothing.

I don't know where I stand on this. I'm a libertarian at heart but could devote myself to a state if it embodied the right ideals. Given that there will always be power struggles it seems appropriate to join somebody's team...

Utopian ideals can certainly get people in trouble (I.e. Communism ). Perhaps volunteerism is just as likely to end up badly.

I think the best approach is to take a hard look at the psychology of the human race and try to promote the development of the individual and put checks on the expansion and consolidation of power wherever you can.

Sure, scoundrels, liars and psychopaths are running the machine, but they're not that different (with a few exceptions) from the scoundrels, liars and psychopaths that have always run the machine...
...Except with nuclear weapons and the ability to spy on everyone.

I think the US Constitution is a pretty darn good place to start... those dudes seemed to have a good handle on how things can run aground and how to right the ship.
Agreed.
 
#16
If we the people could get our act together, governments couldn't exploit us and the hypothetical benefits of a one world government would be moot.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/738162-i-do-not-believe-that-the-solution-to-our-problem
Milton Friedman:
“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.”
50 second video of Milton Friedman

Transcript
No we don't need to change congress. Excuse me. People have a great misunderstanding about this. People in congress are in a business. They're trying to buy votes. They're in the business of competing with one another to get elected. The same congressman will vote for a different thing if he thinks that's politically profitable. You don't have to change congress. People have a great misconception in this way. They think the way you solve things is by electing the right people. It's nice to elect the right people but that isn't the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.
 
Last edited:
#17
As the Greeks used to say... A man without a Polis is nothing.

I don't know where I stand on this. I'm a libertarian at heart but could devote myself to a state if it embodied the right ideals. Given that there will always be power struggles it seems appropriate to join somebody's team...

Utopian ideals can certainly get people in trouble (I.e. Communism ). Perhaps volunteerism is just as likely to end up badly.
I think you should research the subject a little more, Hurm. You and Alex sound kinda dumb.

Silly statists.
 
#19
Here is a description of the formation of a small local government of 256 men where none had previously existed. Read into it what you will, but I think it is interesting.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/11942/pg11942-images.html


THE WINNING OF THE WEST BY THEODORE ROOSEVELT
VOLUME TWO

FROM THE ALLEGHANIES TO THE MISSISSIPPI 1777-1783

...

CHAPTER XI.

ROBERTSON FOUNDS THE CUMBERLAND SETTLEMENT, 1779-1780.

...

As the country where they had settled belonged to no tribe of Indians, some of the people thought they would not be molested, and, being eager to take up the best lands, scattered out to live on separate claims. Robertson warned them that they would soon suffer from the savages; and his words speedily came true—whereupon the outlying cabins were deserted and all gathered within the stockades. In April roving parties of Delawares, Chickasaws, and Choctaws began to harass the settlement. As in Kentucky, so on the banks of the Cumberland, the Indians were the first to begin the conflict. The lands on which the whites settled were uninhabited, and were claimed as hunting-grounds by many hostile tribes; so that it is certain that no one tribe had any real title to them.

Formation of a Government.

True to their customs and traditions, and to their race-capacity for self-rule, the settlers determined forthwith to organize some kind of government under which justice might be done among themselves, and protection afforded against outside attack. Not only had the Indians begun their ravages, but turbulent and disorderly whites were also causing trouble. Robertson, who had been so largely instrumental in founding the Watauga settlement, and giving it laws, naturally took the lead in organizing this, the second community which he had caused to spring up in the wilderness. He summoned a meeting of delegates from the various stations, to be held at Nashborough; ... Henderson being foremost in advocating the adoption of the plan.

...

The settlers, by their representatives, met together at Nashborough, and on May 1, 1780, entered into articles of agreement or a compact of government. It was doubtless drawn up by Robertson, with perhaps the help of Henderson, and was modelled upon what may be called the "constitution" of Watauga, with some hints from that of Transylvania. ... The settlers ratified the deeds of their delegates on May 13th, when they signed the articles, binding themselves to obey them to the number of two hundred and fifty-six men. The signers practically guaranteed one another their rights in the land, and their personal security against wrong-doers; those who did not sign were treated as having no rights whatever—a proper and necessary measure as it was essential that the naturally lawless elements should be forced to acknowledge some kind of authority.

The compact provided that the affairs of the community should be administered by a Court or Committee of twelve Judges, Triers or General Arbitrators, to be elected in the different stations by vote of all the freemen in them who were over twenty-one years of age. Three of the Triers were to come from Nashborough, two from Mansker's, two from Bledsoe's, and one from each of five other named stations. ... Whenever the freemen of any station were dissatisfied with their Triers, they could at once call a new election, at which others might be chosen in their stead. The Triers had no salaries, but the Clerk of the Court was allowed some very small fees, just enough to pay for the pens, ink, and paper, all of them scarce commodities. [Footnote: Haywood, 126.] The Court had jurisdiction in all cases of conflict over land titles; a land office being established and an entry taker appointed. Over half of the compact was devoted to the rules of the land office. The Court, acting by a majority of its members, was to have jurisdiction for the recovery of debt or damages, and to be allowed to tax costs. Three Triers were competent to make a Court to decide a case where the debt or damage was a hundred dollars or less; and there was no appeal from their decision. For a larger sum an appeal lay to the whole Court. The Court appointed whomsoever it pleased to see decisions executed. It had power to punish all offences against the peace of the community, all misdemeanors and criminal acts, provided only that its decisions did not go so far as to affect the life of the criminal. If the misdeed of the accused was such as to be dangerous to the State, or one "for which the benefit of clergy was taken away by law," he was to be bound and sent under guard to some place where he could be legally dealt with. The Court levied fines, payable in money or provisions, entered up judgments and awarded executions, and granted letters of administration upon estates of deceased persons, and took bonds "payable to the chairman of the Committee." The expenses were to be paid proportionately by the various settlers. It was provided, in view of the Indian incursions, that the militia officers elected at the various stations should have power to call out the militia when they deemed it necessary to repel or pursue the enemy. They were also given power to fine such men as disobeyed them, and to impress horses if need be; if damaged, the horses were to be paid for by the people of the station in the proportion the Court might direct. It was expressly declared that the compact was designed as a "temporary method of restraining the licentious"; that the settlement did not desire to be exempt from the ratable share of the expense for the Revolutionary war, and earnestly asked that North Carolina would immediately make it part of the State, erecting it into a county. Robertson was elected chairman of the Court, and colonel of the militia, being thus made both civil and military commandant of the settlement. In common with the other Triers he undertook the solemnization of marriages; and these were always held legal, which was fortunate, as it was a young and vigorous community, of which the members were much given to early wedlock.

Thus a little commonwealth, a self-governing state, was created. It was an absolute democracy, the majority of freemen of full age in each stockade having power in every respect, and being able not only to elect, but to dismiss their delegates at any moment. Their own good sense and a feeling of fair play could be depended upon to protect the rights of the minority, especially as a minority of such men would certainly not tolerate any thing even remotely resembling tyranny. They had formed a representative government in which the legislative and judicial functions were not separated, and were even to a large extent combined with the executive. They had proceeded in an eminently practical manner, having modelled their system on what was to them the familiar governmental unit of the county with its county court and county militia officers. They made the changes that their peculiar position required, grafting the elective and representative systems on the one they adopted, and of course enlarging the scope of the court's action. Their compact was thus in some sort an unconscious reproduction of the laws and customs of the old-time court-leet, profoundly modified to suit the peculiar needs of backwoods life, the intensely democratic temper of the pioneers and above all the military necessities of their existence. They had certain theories of liberty and justice; but they were too shrewd and hard-headed to try to build up a government on an entirely new foundation, when they had ready to hand materials with which they were familiar. They knew by experience the workings of the county system; all they did was to alter the immediate channel from which the court drew its powers, and to adapt the representation to the needs of a community where constant warfare obliged the settlers to gather in little groups, which served as natural units.


 
Last edited:
#20
"Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion (feat. Larken Rose)"

I agree that there are a lot of problems with government. I am wondering what proposals there are for alternatives to the current system? Is the author of the video advocating no federal, state, county, and city/town governments at all, or his he advocating a different, less authoritarian form of government?
 
Last edited:
Top