comments on Doublespeak and the New World Order

Fri, 26 Apr 96 12:42:03 EDT
br00510@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (gehrig@banyan.doc.gov)

I am a little confused about the NWO definitions that Moore wrote
about in his post yesterday: Specifically, the following:

The "competitiveness" definition seems to say that 1st world
countries are being forced by the NWO conspiracy to lower their
standard of living to 3d world conditions, but the section following
"globalization" seems to contradict this, saying that "globalization"
leads to a greater disparity between the first and third worlds.

Which is happening?
And I guess I should ask: Which is desirable from the Progressive
point of view?

After all, isn't the fact that jobs are moving to the third world a
_desirable_ thing? If wages are decreasing in the first world, the
have to be rising in the third world. Perhaps I am interpreting the
article incorrectly, but it seems the author's ideal situation is that of
preventing third world countries from having producers, (i.e. no jobs,
no producers) but sending aid money to be used for high levels of
consumption (of first world products) in the third world.

I think you hit the right note on the Conservative vs. Liberal swap
of meanings. I was reading an account of the issues that liberals
espoused in the 1870-1920 time frame: Free Trade, Curtailment of
government power, Resisting Leviathan etc...... It seems Liberals are
now conservatives, and conservatives liberals - makes the language
most confusing, don't you think? Speaking of which, do you really
think _Thatcher_ and _Reagan_ were plugging for less government
sovereignty? The democracy part maybe I could buy, but you do
remember the dustup over the EU....?

CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as
distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with
others.
---Ambroce Bierce, The devil's dictionary

One more nitpick: Who are these long-term strategic deep-thinker
"NWO Strategists? If they are corporate managers, are they the
same guys who are always being castigated as not being able to look
beyond the next quarterly performance review? Is it what we
laughingly call our President?