One World OrderTransnational corporations -- those corporations which operate in more than one country or nation at a time -- have become some of the most powerful economic and political entities in the world today. From Joshua Karliner, in his book, The Corporate Planet: Ecology and Politics in the Age of Globalization [Sierra Club Books, 1997], we can gleam a host of fundamental realizations, including the fact that many of these companies have far more power than the nation-states across whose borders they operate.
In dealing with the status and possibly threatening posture caused by the predominance of Transnational Corporations (TNCs) in the world, an intriguing conversation developed between a small group of knowledgeable individuals. The issue was raised by Dave who suggested that the United Nations’ leanings toward endorsing TNCs as possible members of the UN’s “Economic and Social Councils” was a first step toward increasing influence by TNCs in the United Nations, and ultimately, world domination by corporations. With the potential for the rich to gain total control over lesser and greater “nations” by means of their controlling stock holdings, things were looking very bleak.
Daniel then entered late and added: “The gist seems to be that of the question of whether or not there is some fundamental conspiracy -- Conspiracy with a capital “C” -- being foisted upon the human race by a small elite band of extremely powerful individuals and/or groups, and who -- for lack of a better word -- has been previously termed the “owners”.
“It has been said that one should never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by greed, incompetence, or just plain stupidity. But having said that, it should also be stated that individuals who suspect conspiracies exist are not necessarily silly people whose primary claim to fame is rampant paranoia. Keep in mind that paranoia is “the illusion that people are out to get you.” If they really are out to get you, then it’s not an illusion and thus not paranoia. Furthermore, to generalize conspiracy theorists as all a bunch of crazies is just plain dishonest.
“Were it necessary for anyone to make a judgment on this issue of a possible World Conspiracy based on the presentations incorporated within the above (and more) -- one would have to conclude that the “preponderance of the evidence” (i.e. that sufficient for a judgment in a civil trial) is on the side that indeed such a conspiracy is likely to exist in one form or another. It’s rather hard (and possibly naive) to discount the “testimony” of past presidents, prime ministers, and a host of other notables who have made it abundantly clear that they all ascribe to such a conspiracy theory -- or that there is much that is being hidden from the world at large, and which may be highly detrimental to all societies.
“Significantly, none of the alleged quotes put forth as evidence for a World Conspiracy were ever challenged in the proceedings. It is a disservice to challenge arguments on the basis that anyone who apparently ascribes to such “conspiracy theories” is in any way not fully in contact with reality. The latter comes under the category of “debate tactics” and are inherently dishonest.
“One potentially valid argument against the World Conspiracy Theory was put forth by Alex, who seemed to be thinking along the lines of Porcupine (of Pogo fame): “We have met the enemy and they is us.” Supposedly, this is based upon the fact that in many ways -- from investments to everyday decisions -- many, if not all of us, have contributed to the problem.
“But this is wholly unrealistic. What, for example, is the percentage of people in the world who have invested money in the stock market, mutual funds, or other means of encouraging transnational and/or corporate ownership of anything? Even in the United States, the percentage is extremely low. Pensions funds? Discounting the fact that over two thirds of Americans have NO pension funds, what sort of control over a pension fund does the average pensioner or prospective pensioner have?
“Basically none -- at least in terms of telling anyone where and under what circumstances to invest. Thus the argument that we have only ourselves to blame is a bit transparent -- the sort of ruse that the “owners of the world” might encourage among the intellectuals of our society. More importantly, the possible fact that all of us bear some responsibility for the state of the world affairs does not in any way reduce the likelihood of a world conspiracy of tyrants bent on absolute control of everything.