In 1991 George Bush Sr., in at least two separate speeches, announced an active geopolitical endgame for global stability; something he called the “New World Order.” This was not the first time the concept of the NWO had been uttered by a prominent figure. Fabian socialist H.G. Welles wrote an entire book on the ideology decades before, in 1940, entitled ‘The New World Order’, and even scripted a thinly veiled propaganda film on the rise of globalism titled ‘Things To Come’. The core of this ideology is the institution of global governance and the erasure of sovereign nation states, ostensibly in order to end the persistent threat of world war.
It all sounds very noble on the surface, but there is much more to total globalization that the elites do not discuss very openly or very often.
A key quote from Bush’s White House speech to the nation on the eve of Operation Desert Storm in Iraq explains much behind the NWO concept:
“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order — a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful — and we will be — we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.”
The questions are, what did he mean by the “rule of law,” and what did he mean by the “law of the jungle?” As Bush clarifies further, the “rule of law” in his mind is the law as enforced by a globalist governing body (i.e. the UN). The “law of the jungle” would invariably be everything that represents the opposite of globalism (i.e. wild and unshackled sovereignty).
The “law of the jungle” sounds harsh and unforgiving, and it is, for people who do not pursue greater imperatives and who do not work hard to reach their ultimate potential. This idea is often misconstrued as “fascist” in its origins. That is to say, people commonly assume the law of the jungle is merely the subjugation of the weak by the strong. This is how the globalists WANT you to view sovereignty, national or tribal identity, individualism, etc.; they want you to see these principles as akin to savagery.
In truth, it is the elites that promote savagery as the core of globalism, though it is to be sure a highly sterilized and scientific form of savagery. Their “rule of law” is entirely arbitrary – it is not based in the light of conscience, but on darker desires of artificial advantage for the ruling class and the oppression of everyone else. A better interpretation of the law of the jungle would be that it is a more colorful description of “natural law”, the inborn right of self determination guided by inherent conscience. Under natural law, bureaucratic governance serves little purpose. It becomes obsolete.
While the law of the jungle is not easy or carefree or eternally “safe”, I think there are many virtues to a “natural”, unfettered and decentralized way of life far above the mindless homogenization and collectivism of the globalist ideal.
Here are just a few examples on why humanity would be much better off living wild and free rather than living an inhibited and micromanaged existence under a global authority.
Surviving In The Jungle Requires Strength And Intelligence
A shallow interpretation of the law of the jungle would argue that “only the strong survive.” Collectivists would claim that this is unfair to the weak and ultimately barbaric in principle. I disagree. The assumption these people make is that the “weak” cannot improve their circumstances and therefore require constant babysitting by a central authority. However, if you actually allow people to be challenged rather than coddled, it can be surprising how strong they become.
Globalism destroys the environmental conditions that inspire excellence and instead rewards and protects mediocrity. Take for example the problems regarding “too big to fail” banks; these institutions are really failures in every respect and, like wounded gazelles, should be given a quick death. But under the theory of globalization the strategy has (so far) been to keep these failures limping along. In other words, the incentive for success has been undermined and weakness has been rewarded.
In this way, not just in the business world but also in the social world, globalism encourages people to accomplish as little as possible and comforts them with promises of being forever nurtured by the global nanny state. If this kind of world becomes an absolute, society will decay and revert to something subhuman. All evolutionary progress will be lost.
Surviving In The Jungle Requires Merit
You have to be useful in the jungle; you have to produce, repair or teach something truly valuable. You have to build. You have to innovate. You have to invent. You have put in the effort to take control of your destiny. You have to prove your merit if you want to thrive. Under globalism, none of this behavior is really necessary or rewarded.
One of the early phases of collectivism, as it establishes its control base, is to forcefully “equalize” all existing elements. This means that collectivist societies often oppress the naturally successful and debase a population until they all meet the same standards of the lowest common denominator.
The small but vocal movement of social justice cultists in the West is a perfect example of the collectivist narrative inherent in globalism. If any movement embodies anti-merit, it is the social justice warriors.
The social justice presumption of life is that all human beings must be treated as if they have merit, and this is often based on their level of victim status rather than their accomplishments. For example, in my article “Why Conscripting Women Into Combat Will Result In Cultural Disaster,” I outlined the outright progressive dismantling of U.S. military training standards in order to open the door for far weaker females to enter active combat units. Superior merit is being systematically removed from the military in order to make way for homogenization based on mediocrity. And while the law of the jungle does not call for a standing military, the fact remains that the loss of merit will invariably lead to a weaker military overall.
I have even seen SJW men argue that they must promote the lowest common denominator under movements like feminism because in a culture based on merit, they personally would have no chance at survival. They claim they are too weak to undertake traditional male roles of production and protection and thus opt for the laziness and safety of the collective rather than bettering themselves. In the jungle, the willfully useless would be quickly eaten, or they would die simply due to their own stupidity and sloth; and I have to say, I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing.
When you give the least successful people the keys to the foundation of your society you discourage the truly successful from pursuing further excellence. The goal for a person who really wants to make their way in such a world would then be to gain as much victim status as possible in order to get the most rewards. Merit becomes superfluous.
Under globalism, this SJW nightmare would achieve world-wide recognition and political promotion.
Survival In The Jungle Requires The Will For Self Defense
The globalist ideal is rooted in pacifism. That is to say aggressive defense by the average individual is treated as either unscrupulous or futile. Why learn how to protect your own life and the lives of others when you can keep your hands clean and have the establishment do it for you? Why not support global governance, end the law of the jungle and put an armed sentry and surveillance camera on every street corner to ward off potential predators? Why not trade all self determination for the promise of endless comfort and a carefree existence?
The problem is, as we have seen in numerous instances in highly self-defense-restricted environments in Europe, the state cannot and will never be able to fulfill its empty promises of constant protection. At bottom, the only promise the authorities can keep is that they will quickly clean up the mess left behind by your corpse after an attack has already occurred. And, as we have seen in other instances in the U.S., the authorities are sometimes also the assailants.
In the jungle, there are no pacifists. They are all dead, or they have converted to a self defense mindset. Pacifists therefore need a collectivist herd to blend into so that they can hide, or so that the guy next to them can be eaten while they make their escape.
Globalism requires the dilution of an actively vigilant population because the philosophy of self defense leads naturally to an appreciation for individual action. Centralized government cannot take control of a citizenry that has the will to strike back on its own against predators.
Anyone who promotes a pacifist response is merely aiding the predators, and this includes people who promote a pacifist response towards predatory governments. If the average person lived by the law of the jungle rather than waiting for a “civilized” authority to protect them or parcel out the freedoms they were born with as if they were privileges, predatory governments would no longer exist.
The Law Of The Jungle Requires Freedom In All Things
You cannot act in the jungle if you are restricted by bureaucracy and collectivist niceties. And if you cannot act freely in the jungle then you will die in the jungle. Therefore, the jungle and the globalist system are mutually exclusive environments.
This does not mean that in the jungle there are no consequences for taking undue actions that harm others. As in the Libertarian concept of the non-aggression principle, it is far better to leave others alone to pursue their own prosperity, first because it is the right thing to do, but also because they may have means of self defense just as you do. To try to control the lives of others, the thoughts of others, the language of others, the personal associations of others, the property rights of others, is to elicit a justified backlash and the loss of your own life.
To be a predator in the jungle is not without ample risk, most animals will defend themselves when cornered and an injured predator could end up a dead predator. But to be a predator in a globalist world populated with unarmed sheep means there is little risk, especially when you are sanctioned by the establishment.
The jungle is a place where meaningful progress serving the individual is essential, for even a jungle tribe is only as strong as the individuals that make up its ranks. The globalist world is a place where meaningful progress is stifled and strong individuals are treated as a threat. Globalism requires a collectivist machine, a hive mind in which the individual is only a piston in the apparatus. Globalism displaces creative thinking in the name of efficiency, and murders innovation.
A globalist society would be a static society, frozen in an endless cycle of conformity and sameness. The only beneficiaries would be those at the top of the pyramid, who, as in all collectivist ventures, reap the majority of the rewards because they are the people who get to redistribute the wealth of production in any manner they see fit.
In the jungle, these redistributors would be seen as useless middlemen, parasitic gatekeepers standing in the way of production and prosperity, drinking their share of blood from every transaction and every invention; stealing earned wealth from the successful in order to feed another army of people they have encouraged to also become parasites through the ideology of anti-merit.
In the jungle, in a free world, people would immediately question why these middlemen posing as authority figures and financiers should exist at all? What purpose do they serve? They certainly have no merit. They are not successful because they are better than anyone else at anything necessary. They are not hunter gatherers, they are not producers, they are not defenders, they are not teachers, and they are not fixers. They feed off the rest of us but they are not active and honest competitors. They are not lions or tigers or bears. They are vicious scavengers. Carrion feeders or thieves. They are rabid hyenas and jackals looking to nibble a piece at time from us when while we are distracted.
In the jungle, these vermin are often present but certainly not welcome. At any opportunity they are squashed. In this way it is understandable why globalists would be so afraid of the jungle.
H/t reader squodgy:
“Milton Friedman, a jew “economist advocated GLOBALISM.
He was WRONG. He fucked up, because it only looked after the ‘shareholder globalists”.
The little man, on whom they relied, was a prawn……not just a pawn.”
* * *