Justin Raimondo

A New World Order?


Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of Antiwar.com, discusses his article “Beware the New Globalism,” the shift in U.S. empire from Bush’s unilaterism to Obama’s multilateralism, how the economic meltdown is only the latest justification for global regulation, the appeal of smaller and more efficient regional governments, the likelihood of increased international cooperation on Iran sanctions and intervention in Africa under the Obama administration and how the U.S. is eschewing a democratic republic in favor of plutocratic socialism.

MP3 here. (53:44)

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com. He is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000). He is also the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (with an Introduction by Patrick J. Buchanan), (Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993), and Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans (1996).

He is a contributing editor for The American Conservative, a Senior Fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, and an Adjunct Scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and writes frequently for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.

18 thoughts on “Justin Raimondo”

  1. listen to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsG2QMHJ-pw

    “It’s like waking up from a bad dream and realizing that you weren’t dreaming…”

    I liked that line because it homes right in on our present situation. The govenment, banksters and WS frauds are desperately trying to put the people back to sleep (with the people’s own money) but their desperation only calls more attention to their schemes. People are waking up and 2009 will be an interesting year.

    “May you live in interesting times…”

  2. small decentralized units are more efficient…. blah blah blah.
    i bet that all these small units aren’t for a basic right, that to know the language of our local democratic governance, and that of our fellow planetary citizens.
    eventually there will be a crisis about whether a citizen needs to know the language of his local democratic governance, and that of his/her fellow planetary citizens. this spits in the face of minority rights. the crisis says basically that eventually, that if there are N speakers of the language of governance, that N speakers must be able to interface with the speakers of all other nations, or retreat to nationalist enclaves, with or without written or (nowadays) technical means to learn the languages of the world.
    there certainly exists a mathematical solution that answers the question: do i have the right in my country to know the language of all other countries?! populations smaller than that deny the basic rights of others. systematically, we all have the right to learn all languages of the world, and any language that denies us that right is lacking in a basic way when it comes to human rights.
    this is a great issue indeed.

    sorry, i was wrong, i will gladly marry anybody to learn your language. it’s cool.

    pardon my interruption. the interview seems to involve people that either don’t know enough mathematics, or languages.

  3. It is interesting to see Justin and Scot attempt to predict what the Obama administration will DO…….

    There seems 2B an assumption that they will stiff their constituents in favor of some New World [dis?] Order Dreams……….. Obama did NOT get where he is………… by signing on to absurd fantasies……..

    The U.S. is a declining power……. Jeez, the peons are begining to throw shoes………. Always a sign of trouble [SABOTAGE!!]

    I for one will be surprised if Obama follows failed bush dreams in reality……… But in words………YA.. “Tellim what they wanna hear” “Always pass another beer!”

    The bush neoconz were all shock and awe and no reverence……. Trying to scare off any threat or potential threat to ISRAEL……. For them, the U.S. is Israel’s protector and financial benefactor..
    Hey….. They use the U.S. foreign aid to pay their spies in the Pentagon, White House..Congress..

    One mess leads to another…… Like Justin said….. After 911….. They said…. No tine for questions..We gotta ACT…. Same with the bailout… No time to think…….GOTTA HURRY>>>>

    Why should Obama get involved in bush/neocon/world-gov schemes? No drama— Obama

  4. Ah no, please. Snorting dismissals on the up-and-coming “Global Warning” problem? How tedious. Hoping that it all will fall over so that everyone can play house in his little national corner strikes me as going a tad too far in wishful thinking.

    Conveniently, contrarywise to crises that have political causes and are manufactured, this one has the basic property of reality in that it won’t go away when you stop believing in it. So we will know one way or the other in few decades.

    If worst comes to worst I guess one can always have a monstrous international coalition try planetary engineering by covering the earth in a dust shroud before all the permafrost and ocean-floor methane is dumped into the atmosphere. I’m not sure I really like that. Ah well.

    Now, for the common “they predicted the ice age in the 70’s” argument, we find at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643 this is a fat canard:

    “A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.”

    Ok guys, lay of the editorial coffee spigot for an hour and read up on it. You know you want to:


  5. Thank you for talking about the myth of Global warming. The reason these ultra liberals push this is because they want to implement a global carbon tax. They also want a limit on “green house gas” emissions. These two moves are justified by the global warming hype.

    here look http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10111
    Climate Security Act introduced by Lieberman (wrote about it Nov 2007)

    I am worried because although the bill states it purposes on limiting greenhouse gas emissions it also creates a Federal body able to regulate a multitude of businesses from farming to enterprise. Look at SEC. 2101-2 of the bill. It allows people to Sell their emission allowances. There won’t be any less emissions just only those with enough volume will be able to have them. For example one of the gasses farms will have to limit unless they buy slots will be common methane. This is something in any animal poop. Big farms have no problem buying emissions slots because they get subsidized by the government anyway. All they have to do is increase subsidies. However small farms have to calculate between selling their allotments or actually producing something. Thus the road to monopoly once they sell rather than produce.

    Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the lawful holder of an emission allowance may sell, exchange, transfer, submit for compliance in accordance with section 1202, or retire the emission allowance
    The privilege of purchasing, holding, selling, exchanging, and retiring emission allowances shall not be restricted to the owners and operators of covered facilities.
    And SEC. 2303 allows third party to collect interest payment on it! ???


    For each borrowed emission allowance submitted in partial satisfaction of the compliance obligation under subsection 1202(a) for a particular calendar year (referred to in this section as the `use year’), the number of emission allowances that the owner or operator is required to submit under section 1202(a) for the year from which the borrowed emission allowance was taken (referred to in this section as the `source year’) shall be increased by an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying–

    (1) 1.1; and

    (2) the number of years beginning after the use year and before the source year.

    I see a potential problem here. Let’s just look at farming sense it is familiar and easy to understand. What we could have here is a new federal business here where by larger agribusinesses can buy up emission allowances from the smaller corporations who aren’t going to use theirs for anything but selling. And increase in federal farm subsidies to the buyers just means we will be paying for these trades through taxes and all it does is rope in even the smaller formerly more independent farms and ranches into an umbrella corporation. The large farm loses nothing as it can pay for what it borrows with money it gets from the government anyway. The small business will gamble with cost efficiency of whether to produce or just sell their gas allowances thus giving the larger corps a greater monopoly of not only production but the distribution as well. And that spills into to mean business.

  6. “We can’t pay. We won’t pay” isn’t by the San Francisco Mime Troupe, as Justin said. It’s by Dario Fo, an Italian populist playwright. It’s pretty good stuff.

    I wish he was right about global warming being a globalist plot. Unfortunately, it’s very real and would require changes at the personal, community, national and global levels to stop. Good luck with that,world. See this link

    I appreciate what Justin said about the “It’s a crisis! We have to act now! No time to think!” strategies of the rulers. Actually, Naomi Klein laid that out completely in The Shock Doctrine.

    But what I most wish is that people like J and S would get clear on the relationship between corporations and government. There’s no difference between “statist” approaches and corporatist approaches. Corporate capitalism has nothing to do with free markets or individual freedoms. Those are just slogans they use. Large corporations and the state are the same people – just different branches of the same organization. (Think tanks and much of academia are other branches). People move between branches all the time. We have to take them both on.

    As Scott said, globalism is not really anything new. The U.S. military is already acting as the global military. Globalism would just be an attempt to get other countries’ taxpayers to share the costs. Americans don’t have to worry about losing our freedoms to global government. Our own government is taking them away plenty fast already.

    But Justin is right that smaller is better. Maybe we need a Green / Libertarian alliance.

  7. “plutocratic socialism”

    The wealthy upper class– that class that actually owns a nation, in this case an empire– hiring the government, its treasury, and its military to protect and extend the wealth of the already wealthy upper class… would that be a lot like fascism?

  8. Global warming is not a liberal cause. It is a scientific fact. Scott and Justin, you both sound very well read in many areas, try reading more hard science materials (as ETC references) than the social/political soft sciences and you might not be so flipant about global warming. I remember the “new ice age” articles, and was confused when people started talking about warming. But if we were having a new ice age then it seems counter intuative that the world’s glaciers/ice caps are melting at a rate that written history hasn’t seen before. Climate change is the more appropriate name for what is happening. Under climate change, some parts of the world will be warmer, others cooler, some will get more rain, some will get less. Storm systems will likely be more dynamic and frequent. Climate, precipitation and growing patterns, and everything that goes along with that like fresh water and food sources will change along with the new patterns. These kinds of changes have ocurred before in written history. Anthropologists have evidence that indicates some ancient civilizations may have died off because of a change in climate. The difference is that we have a much larger population than the last time a change occurred and because the levels of CO2 are already so much higher than in recorded history, scientists believe we are going to have more drastic changes than we are used to.
    The melting of the ice caps/glaciers will also result in elevated ocean levels, which means millions of people in coastal areas will be displaced. Many of the world’s major rivers have their sources in mountain glaciers (Amazon, Ganges, Yalu, Colorado). Smaller or fewer of these glaciers will result in many cities along these rivers to suffer from a lack of fresh water. Dams along these rivers that provide power to communities will cease to function consistently throughout the year. Not to mention the political (and probably military) strife that will result over lack of water resources and displaced people. We could wait for nature to react or we could try to do what we can to reduce the amount of change.
    The main ways (and getting fastest results) that can alter this inevitability will be major volcanic activity or other natural catastrophies that will put dust/soot into the atmosphere (blocking out solar radiation), a drop in solar energy output, or a disruption of the ocean currents like the Gulf Stream (that help moderate and transfer heat around the globe) and cause a new ice age in Europe and spread. None of these are controlable by humans (unless your Dr. Evil).
    Minor ways to change this (it will take longer to achieve results) is to reduce our emission of warming gases like CO2 (more efficency and more alternative energy sources), and find ways to reduce the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere (more plants). We could all try to do our part on an elective basis, but that has been the tactic for 20+ years, the CO2 has increased and warming has continued. If there could be a libertarian solution to a global issue like this (besides waiting until its so bad we are all forced by nature to react) I would like to hear it. Until then we will need the often wasteful forces of government along with the ineffective forces of business to work together to try to develop a solution while we still can maintain something that resembles our current climate.
    CO2 is not the only warming gas. Methane is more altering than CO2, but unless you’re Fat Bastard, you are probably contributing less methane than CO2. We could reduce methane by doing a better job of feeding our animal food sources, or be really drastic and cut down on meat consumption.
    If we do nothing we will still have a planet Earth, it just will look and behave differently than we are accustomed to. That’s not liberal it’s fact.

  9. For a model of a decentralized system of social organization see this picture.
    It is a picture of brain cells, and a model of the universe. Some have called this the architecture of intelligence. Resiliant and adaptive mushroom mycelium and of course, the internet also share this organizational model. The disintegration of centralized power will be followed with by something, perhaps we have now the tools to build an adaptive, communicating decentralized social organization in which disparate parts draw strength from and contribute to the knowledge of the whole .

  10. Ry:
    I get annoyed with folks who want to turn conservation into a taxes issue. The reason behind a carbon “tax” is that this is an idea to try to level the cost playing field.
    Low polluting energy alternatives have their issues, like higher cost to implement or a lack of infrastructure that will be costly. To implement a carbon fee structure is to admit that putting pollutants in the air is costly to all of us in some way, shape or form (increased health/breathing issues for example). By adding in a monetary cost to these energy sources, forces the energy community to rethink their bottom line and their choice of energy sources. It is not an excuse to find ways to tax you. It is trying to use market forces to give a monetary value to something that is affecting our society, that is not being reflected in the bottom line of the companies that are responsible for the pollution.
    I hope you could at least admit that a carbon market place is better than a straight tax on pollution or waiting until the air/climate is beyond help.

  11. According to former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge-www.plrc.org-the Pentagon´s strategy for Nuclear War is a co-ordinated First Strike attack on Russian and Chinese submarines and missile silos, command centres, bomber bases, etc. According to Bob Aldridge the US Navy can track and destroy all enemy submarines simultaneously. Please see the article by Keir Lieber and Daryl Press, “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy”, in the 2006 March/April issue of Foreign Affairs. According to former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge the US aims to achieve a disarming, unanswerable first-strike capability. The Russians may have no choice but Launch On Warning.

  12. Wow … you liberals have a religious fanaticism about global warming. No diseenting opinons allowed, eh? You’re blind devotion and tunnel vision on the issue rivals 9/11 truthers.

    Liked the interview but I believe Scott is too dismissive about the chances of a NWO. We’re at a point with the power of global government where our nation was with the power of the federal government around the 1830’s. It seemed like the Feds would be ineffective and not a threat but within no time, you have a leviathan breathing down your neck. Hopefully, we won’t replay that scenario with a NWO.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.