The term "New World Order" sounds like something out of George Orwell's epic novel, 1984. However, a new academic paper comes close to proposing just that. Social engineering is discussed in the study to be published in BioScience in March 2013 titled "Social Norms and Global Environmental Challenges." The focus is how scientists can work with governments to manipulate the great unwashed into accepting unpopular environmental policies for their own good. The American authors uses "New World Ordery" phrases like "thought leader" and "choice architecture."
The report is not yet published, but is available ahead of print. The very first sentence in the abstract gives a clear indication of where these scientists are heading, "Government policies are needed when people's behaviors fail to deliver the public good." The writers suggest that scientists should conduct "targeted research on the emergence of social norms," in other words, scientists should figure out methods how to best manipulate populations to accept a government's agenda.
The government, after all, is "uniquely obligated to locate the common good and formulate its policies accordingly." It is unclear who among this crazy team made the decision that the role of the government was something other than to support those populations in which they serve; but it is good to know that these scholars have determined that they, and governments, know best.
They cite former Obama Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein's work on "choice architecture" (or "nudge") in order to "alter the architecture of decisionmaking ...to move people in great numbers toward better...behaviors."
The paper recommends using "support teams of scholars and policymakers to evaluate the potential impacts of different policy interventions on behaviors, social norms, and intended outcomes," potentially supported by the United Nations.
They acknowledge that some people have adapted already to the desired behaviors that will reduce such pressing concerns as "controlling fertility, reducing material consumption, biking to work..." but in order to make relevant environmental changes, they assert with typical academic arrogance, "Substantial numbers of people will have to alter their existing behaviors to address this new class of global environmental problems." This, they argue, will "ensure that the burdens of proenvironment behavior are widely shared, which increases the probability of measurable positive outcomes." It seems that these academics have determined that they alone know what masses need to do (for their own good), and as scholars, the authors of this study recommend that smart people like them should help the governments figure out how to control people. Sickening, but not unusual.
Manipulating the Masses
Take for example, the authors' interest in "controlling fertility." Consider renowned bioethicist Daniel Callahan, who founded the premiere bioethics think tank in the world, the Hastings Center. He was given a grant to study abortion in 1968 from the Ford Foundation and the Population Council (abortion was never about "women's health"), and in an article from last year, the prominent scholar speaks of euphemisms, a tool used by academics to justify abortion. He says:
"Clearly, many of my fellow advocates sought euphemisms for the actual procedure, any phrase or word that would avoid acknowledging that abortion is the outright killing of fetuses, often by chopping them up, crushing their skulls, and otherwise destroying them. Better to talk about 'emptying the uterine content' or 'terminating pregnancy.' A recent and notable addition to the list is to speak not of infanticide but of 'post-birth abortion.'"
The cleansing of language is how abortion came to be accepted, just as it is currently being used to discuss rationing (i.e. "death panels"), which will inevitably come from President Obama's Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) recommendations. Thankfully, legislation has been proposed that would repeal the IPAB.
Hopefully, this "academic study" will be roundly dismissed and the authors, instead of creating a New World Order, can find something productive to do with their time.
Image Source (Cass Sunstein): Nadav Kander for The New York Times