It’s fairly obvious why a unipolar approach to world politics will in the end fail and why the New World Order which is another term for one world government) does not and cannot in fact logically exist.
All human beings and organisations are in some way flawed and imperfect. Through the fact that competition is inherent to human nature, (which can exist between competitive and cooperative systems) individuals or groups will seeks to take advantage of the flaws which exist within other individuals or groups. One can either use the Nash equilibrium or the law of attraction to explain this.
This is why the world has always had groupings of one form or another and there has never been an empire or an individual who has ever controlled the whole world or lasted for ever.
A basic point is that where there is a lack of intellectual and especially scientific freedom, as would be necessary in a country whose rulers seek to dominate the world and where they would as a consequence need establish a rigid hierarchy to preserve that rule, others will as a consequence take advantage of that and weaken that country.
To look at matters in terms of thermodynamics, the more complex a system is, which in this instance refers to the system under which most western countries appear to be subordinated, namely unipolarity, the greater the probability exists of conflicts and mistakes within that system. In order to prevent such a situation and to maintain the stability of that system, it is obvious to state that there would need to be less freedom within this system.
Furthermore even if the world were to reach the stage of a new world order, the rulers would naturally become decadent and weak and other groups would seek to destroy them. And it is equally possible that it will destroy itself.
If one really consider this carefully then it must be true to state that the country which has most intellectual freedom will be the strongest. As a consequence it would make sense for rivalry between countries to function on this basis.
One could define this in a sense as the American viewpoint dominating the world in as much as America supposedly cares about freedom but then as Thatcher suggested, freedom is not an American concept.
Freedom is not the sole preserve of capitalism given the fact that poverty, lack of education, inequality and lack of health which all seem to be particular to the form of capitalism which currently exists in the west and which are of concern of socialists are very much a barrier to freedom.
As to why there is so much mention of the new world order on the internet, this is disinformation and forms by an attempt by those who seek to subordinate the world to give the impression that the west is more powerful than it actually is.
One might also like to pose the question as to whether it is a coincidence that the decline in western societies really began in earnest around the time when there greater restrictions upon freedom through the various anti-terrorism legislation. I refer of course to events since around 2000.
I think is an apt illustration of the decline of freedom in the west can be seen through a small observation.
In the area around the FSB headquarters in Moscow, there is as much CCTV as is necessary. I can say this because you can just go and look. Similarly around the national parliament of Belarus in Minsk, there is even less and to be frank I couldn’t find a CCTV camera.
If one approaches the American School in Paris however or indeed the American embassy in Paris, they both have CCTV, black bars everywhere.
Why does a school or an embassy need more CCTV than the FSB?
If one compares freedom in the West versus Russia, one can conclude that Russia has more freedom.
- Religion: In the west religion and religious freedom is on the decline whilst in Russia it is on the ascendency.
- Political Freedom: I would say they are broadly comparable, particularly with respect to the British system. With regards to any allegations that Russia is authoritarian, this is a necessary consequence of the decline of Russia in the nineties and the need to rescue the country.
- Usage of surveillance: Most definitely more extensive in the UK and US compared to Russia. In any case, Russia does not appear to have the inclination or the funds to go back to a system which existed in Soviet times. Any implementation has been debated in the Russian parliament and criticised by Edward Snowden unlike with respect to the NSA’s surveillance systems
- Scientific freedom: They would not be likely to ignore something as fundamental as the fact the conclusion that a high level of perceptual reasoning negates the possibility of psychosis because they don’t need to in that unlike the west they do not employ certain systems of surveillance which necessitate such suppression.
- Corruption; The perceptions of corruptions index is flawed in that it is based upon perception. Countries in the west are better at concealing the corruption given they have the aforementioned systems of surveillance which are used when individuals complain about corruption.