Showing posts with label new world order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new world order. Show all posts

2026-03-29

Israel, the US, and the dawn of "technologically advanced barbarism"

Humanity has reached a profound existential inflection point. The fragile 75-year interlude of relative global peace that followed the Second World War is now over.

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this can be found on Substack.

The following was inspired by a speech delivered by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges at Princeton on March 25, 2026.

The world stands at a metaphorical precipice, pushed by two nations that have surrendered to the ugly and dangerous impulses of fascism. Because of Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu and the United States under Donald Trump—two narcissistic psychopaths—the world is tumbling toward an time of war, global instability, and economic chaos that we haven’t seen since the 1930s.


As in the past, the rich and powerful will navigate the descent with their yachts, private planes and fortified compounds, and profit from the oncoming misery, insulated by influence and wealth. However, average people, as they always do when the powerful wage war for power, control, and resources, will bear the brunt of the misery with ruined lives, shattered economies, and generational trauma. This is not hyperbole. It is the endpoint of the collapse of the post-World War Two international rules-based order, an order now openly defied by one of the architects of that order (the US), and a nation (Israel) which benefitted from that order since its creation as a settler-colonial state.

The immediate evidence supporting this view has unfolded in the Middle East beginning in October 2023. For more than 900 days Israel has unleashed unrelenting violence in Gaza—labelled a genocide by the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, the International Association of Genocide Scholars and prominent Israeli Holocaust scholars Raz Segal, Omer Bartov and Amos Goldberg. The apartheid nation has reduced swaths of the territory to rubble in what has been called by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges as the opening act of a new global order defined by “technologically advanced barbarism.”

Saturation bombing, forced displacement, and the deliberate targetting of civilian infrastructure have created a humanitarian catastrophe of historic proportions across the Middle East. In Gaza, over two million Palestinians have been rendered refugees in their own land. And now Israel’s aggression has expanded, with southern Lebanon facing obliteration, as the tactics of the Gaza plan are used as a “blueprint for destruction” perversely framed as a “path to peace” by Israel. More than one million Lebanese—one-fifth of the population—have been ethnically cleansed in mere weeks. Simultaneously, the US-backed war on Iran, launched February 28, 2026, has displaced three million Iranians. In all three conflicts more than six million have been made homeless across the region, a demographic change that clears a path for the idea of a “Greater Israel” stretching “from the Nile to the Euphrates.” This is no isolated geopolitical spasm. It is a deliberate replay of the chaos inflicted on Iraq, Syria, and Libya by the US and its key Middle East ally.

In Iraq, 23 years after the 2003 US invasion, the country lurches under economic headwinds, with the government’s almost total dependence on oil revenues to fund government operations, forcing austerity measures that threaten public salaries and pensions, while unemployment and corruption fuel street protests. Stability is relative, and prosperity remains elusive. The Iraqi economy, more than 90% percent dependent on oil, offers no buffer against regional shocks, like the war against Iran.

Syria, a little over a year after Bashar al-Assad’s fall in late 2024, has achieved fragile transitional gains under Ahmed al-Sharaa—sanctions relief, some territorial integration with territory controlled by Kurdish forces, and an end to the Assad torture state. But it remains economically devastated by 14 years of war, with reconstruction stalled, and new threats from the expanding Israel-US conflict looming over its borders, risking renewed fragmentation.

Then there is Libya, a nation made into a failed state since the 2011 NATO intervention, which endures in a delicately managed stalemate between the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity and the eastern Libyan Arab Armed Forces. Militias control its resources and territory, while oil-funded patronage creates division rather than resolution. Elections remain indefinitely postponed as repression rises, and the country teeters on the brink of renewed collapse, exporting instability across its borders.

In each case there is a pattern—Western-orchestrated regime change or destabilization that results in failed or fractured states, where ordinary citizens inherit poverty, displacement, death and endless insecurity while external powers secure oil, influence, or outright control, and in the process deny it to rivals like Russia or China. The architects of this disorder—Israel and the United States—have taken the strategy used on these three nations and are using it to accelerate the collapse of the rules-based international order which has maintained a fragile global peace for almost eight decades.

In all of this bodies like the United Nations and International Court of Justice, once guardrails against Darwinian power politics, have been relegated to the sidelines. Their resolutions and rulings are contemptuously ignored by these two rogue nations. Fundamental human rights, the evolution towards more open borders between trade partners, and international law lie shattered.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney captured the world’s attention in his January 20, 2026, address at the World Economic Forum in Davos when he spoke of a “rupture, not a transition.” He declared that the old order was dead and was not coming back. He said publicly what had been discussed privately in the back rooms of governments in Ottawa, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo and beyond since the return of Donald Trump to the Oval Office—great powers now wield economic integration as coercion, tariffs as leverage, and supply chains as weaknesses. “The strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must,” he warned, urging middle powers to unite in realism rather than nostalgia.

The post-1945 era of relative world peace—over 75 years without global war, however imperfect—has ended. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s illusory “peace in our time”—a statement made after signing the Munich Agreement with Adolph Hitler on September 30, 1938 allowing Germany to annex the Sudetenland—finds its modern echo in the hollow invocations of the “rules-based order” by leaders who exempt themselves and their nations whenever politically expedient.

This psychopathic display of power knows no limits for strong military powers like the US and Israel, making the weak their prey whenever they desire. Oppose them, refuse to bow to their capricious demands, and you face economic blackmail through strangled trade, sanctions, or face the prospect of being targeted with missiles and bombs. Netanyahu has lobbied Washington for four decades to launch a war against Iran but previous administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, wisely refused, recognizing that there was no existential threat and foreseeing disaster if they took a step in that direction. Trump, prodded by fervent Zionists Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, foolishly took the bait and went where past presidents were too intelligent to tread. Joseph Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned and in his resignation letter stated plainly that Iran posed “no imminent threat,” and that the war began “due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

Shifting rationales for the war have included: halting Iran’s nuclear program—which Trump said had been “obliterated“ in the US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025—the threat of Iranian missiles, regime change, and threats of state terrorism. They all served as deception for the Greater Israel plan, a vision which included shattering Iran into ethnic and religious enclaves like what happened in Iraq, Syria and Libya. Another goal was to secure the world’s second-largest natural gas reserves and 12% of the global crude oil supply, and controlling what would be left of Iran through proxies. The same thing happened to Iraq, Syria, Libya, and is now happening in Lebanon.

Israel justifies its military actions by invoking the Holocaust and taking advantage of Western guilt over the international community’s failure to halt Nazi atrocities. Yet this invocation reveals a profound hypocrisy when nearly all major Holocaust institutions and scholars steadfastly refuse to condemn the ongoing events in Gaza or draw any historical parallels, effectively hijacking the memory of the Holocaust. They have transformed this singular event into a shield that sanctifies eternal Jewish victimhood while absolving Israel of the crimes of settler-colonialism, apartheid, and genocide.

Effectively the slogan “Never Again” has been narrowed to mean “Never Again only for Jews,” with any attempt by Holocaust-related institutions or individual scholars to express even modest sympathy for Palestinian suffering triggering a swift, orchestrated backlash from Zionist organizations and their online trolls. They often include public denunciations, threats of funding cuts, or character assassination, creating a glaring “Palestinian exception” to universal lessons about preventing mass atrocity crimes.

Concrete examples illustrate this selective enforcement. In September 2025, the Holocaust Museum LA posted on Instagram a message stating “‘Never Again’ can’t only mean never again for Jews,” accompanied by imagery suggesting shared humanity. Many interpreted it as a subtle acknowledgement of Palestinian suffering amid the Gaza genocide. After a barrage of criticism and accusations of politicizing the Holocaust, the museum quickly deleted the post and issued an apology, promising more careful vetting of future content to “avoid misinterpretation.”

In a related incident around April 2025, staff at Germany’s Buchenwald Memorial pressured a visitor to remove her Palestinian keffiyeh (black-and-white scarf), claiming it violated house rules during a commemoration event. A German court later upheld the memorial’s right to refuse entry in such cases when the scarf was worn as a political statement. Critics, including the European Legal Support Center, argued that this reflected broader censorship where expressions of solidarity with Palestinians or references to genocide in the current context are increasingly suppressed at European Holocaust memorial sites, often with implicit or explicit support from German authorities.

Scholars who dare cross the line also face intense personal and professional repercussions. Israeli Holocaust scholar Amos Goldberg drew fierce criticism for publicly stating “Yes, this is genocide” regarding Gaza. He highlighted an unprecedented level of dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli society that he had never witnessed before in his lifetime. Similarly, American-Israeli scholar Raz Segal faced significant backlash—including the withdrawal of a job offer to lead a Holocaust and genocide studies centre—for his October 2023 article in Jewish Currents titled “A Textbook Case of Genocide,” in which he analyzed Israel’s actions in Gaza through the lens of the UN Genocide Convention.

German Holocaust historian Michael Wildt, a leading expert on the Nazi regime, was slandered by the tabloid BILD as a “Jew-hater” after voicing concerns about the situation in Palestine. The article received endorsement from Israel’s ambassador to Germany, Ron Prosor, amplifying the attack.

These cases expose the contradiction at the heart of contemporary Holocaust remembrance. The atrocity, which resulted in the death of over 17 million people, six million Jews among them, is upheld as a singular, incomparable event whose lessons must never be diluted. Yet any analogy or universal application of “Never Again” to Palestinian suffering is denounced as trivialization, antisemitism, or betrayal. This selective memory does more than protect a narrative, it undermines the very moral foundation of Holocaust education. If the purpose is truly to guard against future genocides by confronting the dark potentials of dehumanization, ethnic supremacy, and unchecked power, then exempting one group from scrutiny while weaponizing historical trauma against another reveals a profound ethical failure.

The result is a distorted framework in which Jewish suffering retains unique sanctity, while Palestinian deaths are framed as unfortunate necessities of self-defence or security. This hypocrisy erodes the universalist promise of “Never Again,” and risks turning Holocaust institutions into instruments that perpetuate, rather than prevent, cycles of violence and exclusion. True remembrance would demand consistency by applying the same rigorous standards of scrutiny, empathy, and prevention to all instances of mass suffering, without exception. Until that consistency is restored, invocations of the Holocaust in defence of current policies will continue to ring hollow for much of the global audience, particularly in the Global South, which recognizes patterns of selective outrage all too well.

History has shown that genocide is not an anomaly in human affairs. Rather, it is deeply encoded in the patterns of behaviour exhibited by European colonial powers and, more broadly, by “white” and nominally Christian nations throughout modern history.

The British, for instance, nearly annihilated Tasmania’s Aboriginal population through systematic dispossession, violence, and displacement. In the Belgian Congo, King Leopold II’s regime (1885–1908) unleashed mass murder and horrific atrocities against Black Africans, with a death toll estimates as high as ten million, with millions more suffering mutilation, including limb amputations, as punishment for failing to meet rubber quotas.

Germany carried out the slaughter of the Herero and Nama peoples in German Southwest Africa (present-day Namibia) between 1904 and 1908. This campaign featured explicit extermination orders and the establishment of concentration camps, resulting in the deaths of up to 80,000 Herero (more than 80 percent of their population), and 10,000 Nama (roughly half of theirs).

During World War Two, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill played a central role in the 1943 Bengal famine. He refused to divert food aid to millions of starving Indians, reportedly dismissing them as “a beastly people with a beastly religion.” The famine claimed more than three million lives, and is classified as genocide by many scholars.

The United States, for its part, dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. These attacks killed over 140,000 civilians in Hiroshima and approximately 74,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, with total deaths topping 240,000 when including later effects from injuries and radiation. The bombings were justified as necessary to end the war quickly, despite objections from numerous American political, military, and scientific figures who argued that the use of atomic weapons was unnecessary with Japan already on the verge of defeat.

These grim episodes form a consistent and damning historical thread. Whenever European and Western powers have exercised unchecked dominance, the dehumanization of non-European peoples has repeatedly paved the way for mass killing on an industrial scale. Such atrocities are almost always followed by elaborate rationalizations that minimize, justify, or try to erase the crimes from collective memory. Far from isolated aberrations, these events reveal a recurring pattern—one that thoroughly undermines any claim of unique moral exceptionalism by the modern West.

The violence that has engulfed Gaza since October 2023—indiscriminate bombing, deliberate starvation tactics, targeting of civilians, the routine dehumanization of Palestinians as “human animals,” and genocide—represents only the opening chapter of what is coming down the road, according to Hedges. The aggression now spreading to Lebanon and Iran simply extends the same blueprint tested and refined in Gaza. The age of “technologically advanced barbarism,” is here. It is an era in which psychopathic elites—the billionaire “Epstein class” and their political enablers in Washington, Tel Aviv and beyond—operate with superficial charm, grandiosity, habitual deceit, lack of a moral compass, and an absence of remorse.

Humanity has reached a profound, existential inflection point. The fragile 75-year interlude of relative global peace that followed the Second World War is now over. Today, Israel and the United States stand as the greatest threats to world stability. They are exporting chaos across the Middle East without a thought about its impact on the innocent or the economic impacts of their actions around the world. Meanwhile, ordinary people—workers, families, and the displaced—will continue to pay the heaviest price in blood, poverty, and shattered futures.

The choice before the vast majority of humanity is stark and urgent. We can either actively obstruct this descent into a law-of-the-jungle world order, or we can surrender to it. Whatever happens, history will render a harsh and unforgiving verdict on Israel and the US, nations which have deliberately set us on this dangerous path.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

2026-01-21

The United States has gone from supposed guardian to destroyer of the post-World War Two international order

The old world order is gone . . . Nostalgia won’t save us, but honesty and strength at home, and collective action abroad can forge a better future.

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

In what has been called an era-defining speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney laid bare the “rupture” in the global order that has sustained relative peace and prosperity globally since the end of World War Two. Drawing on Václav Havel’s parable of the greengrocer who props up a false system by displaying a sign he doesn’t believe in, Carney urged middle powers to stop “living within the lie” of a rules-based international system that no longer exists. The great powers, he argued—with a clear reference to the United States—now pursue naked self-interest, weaponizing economic integration and abandoning multilateral institutions.


For Canada, this means confronting a brutal reality where our largest trading partner, the US, is no longer an ally but an active enemy of the world order that has kept global peace for eight decades. It’s time for Canadians to remove our own signs of compliance, recognize the US as a clear threat to our sovereignty, and forge new alliances with nations that still uphold values like territorial integrity, multilateralism, and solidarity.

The post-World War Two order, built on institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, was imperfect but effective in preventing large-scale conflicts and promoting collective security and prosperity. The US, as its chief architect, provided benefits such as guaranteeing open sea lanes and supporting dispute resolution mechanisms. But under Donald Trump’s second presidency, America has morphed into a rogue actor, dismantling these very foundations through unilateral aggression and imperial overreach.

Consider the US military incursion into Venezuela on January 3, 2026, where special forces captured President Nicolás Maduro in a raid involving airstrikes on military installations and the temporary blackout of parts of Caracas. Trump brazenly declared that the US would “run the country” until a transition to a new regime suited American interests, echoing colonial-era interventions and violating the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force except in self-defence or with Security Council approval. This operation, planned for months without congressional authorization, underscores how the US now flouts international law, treating sovereign nations as extensions of American interests or as vassal states.

Trump’s threats against Iran further illustrate this erosion. Amid widespread protests in Iran, Trump has repeatedly warned of “very strong action,” including military strikes, if the regime executes demonstrators. He has gone so far as to vow that Iran would be “wiped off the face of this earth“ if it acts on assassination threats against him or harms protesters. While he dialed back immediate action after reports of declining violence, the sabre-rattling persists, with options like cyberattacks and airstrikes on the table. Such rhetoric not only destabilizes the Middle East but revives the spectre of pre-emptive wars, reminiscent of the 2003 Iraq invasion that shattered global trust in US leadership.

Even more insidious is Trump’s effort to “own” Gaza through his so-called “Board of Peace.” Ostensibly created to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction following Israel’s genocide of Palestinians, under a 20-point ceasefire plan endorsed by the UN Security Council, this body has ballooned into a pay-to-play imperial council with Trump appointing himself as chairman. Nations can buy permanent seats for $1 billion, with funds supposedly for rebuilding, but the charter omits any specific mention of Gaza, instead positioning the board as a “bold new approach to resolving global conflict” that could supplant the UN. This includes an executive committee controlling Gaza’s demilitarization and governance, effectively placing the territory under US-led oversight and sidelining Palestinian self-determination. By commodifying international diplomacy and bypassing established institutions, Trump is not building peace but entrenching US hegemony, turning the post-war order into a marketplace for those who can afford to pay his price.

For Canada, the implications are dire. Despite being our largest trading partner and neighbour, the US under Trump is no longer a friend or ally. Trump’s fixation on territorial expansion directly threatens our sovereignty as well as Greenland’s, Mexico’s and that of other nations. He has repeatedly floated annexing Canada as the 51st state since he was re-elected, citing our vast natural resources as motivations. In a September 2025 speech, he claimed Canadian leaders wanted to join his “Golden Dome” missile defense system “for free,” retorting, “Why don’t you just join our country? You become the 51st state.” Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau warned that these threats stem from the US coveting Canadian resources, noting, “They’re very aware of our resources, of what we have, and they very much want to be able to benefit from those.”

This ambition extends to the Arctic, where Trump’s wants the US to seize Greenland, and has threatened to impose tariffs on Denmark and allies like Norway, Sweden, France and the UK if they oppose his efforts. He has announced that tariffs of 10% on those supporting Denmark will begin on February 1, 2026, rising to 25% by June if no deal is reached to purchase or cede Greenland for reasons of America’s “national security.”

Trump frames this as benefiting Canada by countering Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic, but it is nothing less than a thinly veiled land grab. He has also criticized Canada’s defense spending as inadequate, pushing for joint military operations, updated warning systems, and US patrols in Canadian waters—steps that could erode Canadian control over the Northwest Passage, which Canada considers internal territorial waters. American insiders reveal a “secret plot” for larger takeovers, with aides noting Trump’s view that “the status quo is not enough” for Canada’s Arctic capabilities.

Canadian leaders have urged standing up to these threats, warning that if Canada fails to stand up for Greenland today, then can it can’t expect anybody aid Canada when we need it. Trump’s history of threats, including economic force during his first term, makes clear that military options aren’t off the table, though he deems them “highly unlikely. Yet, his invasion of Venezuela shows how quickly rhetoric can be turned into reality.

Canadians need to realize that this nation’s territory and sovereignty are now under threat from the United States—the world’s biggest economic and military power. As Carney noted in his speech, our geography and alliances no longer guarantee security. We face an era of economic and political instability, with the world’s three major powers vying for dominance.

However, in light of developments over the past year since Trump returned to the White House, the greatest threat to world peace today is not China or Russia, whose aggressions are predictable and often contained. It’s the United States, whose erratic, unilateral actions—fuelled by Trump’s irrationality and demagoguery—undermine the very alliances that once restrained such powers. In some very disturbing ways the US has become a modern-day incarnation of Nazi Germany, not through ideology alone but through its expansionist impulses, disregard for borders and international law, and willingness to coerce or invade other weaker nations under pretexts of security or access to resources.

To survive, Canada must heed Carney’s call for “values-based realism.” We need to depend on alliances with nations that share our commitments to sovereignty, international law, and sustainable development—partners like the European Union, with whom we’ve deepened strategic ties, or emerging coalitions in Asia and Latin America. Carney’s government has already pivoted by cutting taxes to boost the domestic economy, doubling defence spending by 2030, and signing trade agreements with China, Qatar, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates. We are championing multilateral initiatives, like bridging the Trans-Pacific Partnership with the EU to create a 1.5-billion-person trading bloc, and forming buyer’s clubs for critical minerals to reduce dependence on any single power.

But policy alone isn’t enough. Canadians also must rise up to express our outrage and opposition to this American betrayal. Protests, boycotts, and public campaigns can signal our refusal to “go along to get along.” As Havel taught, one act of truth can crack the illusion. By naming the US as the dangerous adversary it has become, we reclaim our power and invite other middle powers to join us in building a new order—one free from the fortresses of isolation and the coercion of hegemonic powers.

The old world order is gone, as Carney said. Nostalgia won’t save us. But honesty and strength at home, and collective action abroad can forge a better future. For Canada, that starts with turning our backs on a former ally turned enemy, and facing the world with open eyes and unyielding resolve.


© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

2013-02-13

Long Ago Dreams of a "New World Order"

February 13, 2013 -- I recently came across this map of the world that was created to illustrate what the "new world order" would look like after the end of World War II.  The map was actually completed before the Japanese attack onPearl Harbor and published on February 25, 1942.
File:Gomberg map.jpg It shows a proposed political division of the world after World War II in the event of an Allied victory in which the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union would rule. The map includes a manifesto describing a "New World Moral Order", along with quotes from U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms speech.

While there are many points from the policies of the New World Moral Order that are fodder for endless debate, the following three points should be of particular note: 
  • To reduce the burden and criminal waste of armaments expenditures everywhere in the world, the U.S.A., with the cooperation of Latin-America, the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the U.S.S.R. shall undertake to guarantee peace to the nations which will be permanently disarmed and demilitarized after the conclusion of the present war.
  •  A World Court with punitive powers of absolute boycott, quarantine, blockade and occupation by international police, against lawbreakers of international morality shall be organized.
  • In the New World Moral Order which we seek to establish, besides the essential political freedoms, the following fundamental economic changes are imperative:
 (a)   Nationalization of all natural resources and equitable distribution of same to all nations…everywhere in the world;
 (b)   Nationalization of international banking, foreign investments, railroads and power plants….everywhere in the world;
 (c)   Nationalization of all armaments producing establishments by all military powers;
 (d)   Federal control of foreign commerce and shipping;
 (e)   The establishment of a world common monetary system;
 (f)    World wide limitations of interest rates to a maximum of two percent.

This vision of a new world would have seen political domination by three major powers which would have been problematic to say the least.  However, in hindsight the goals of demilitarization, equitable sharing of the world's natural resources among all nations, regulation of international banking and commerce, and nationalization of the arms industry would have been welcomed (whoever was in control) considering what occurred geo-politically and economically in the decades following WW II, and the political and economic state of the world today.

Instead of the political, economic and social benefits that would have been enjoyed had this manifesto been implemented we have today a world which is more militarized, more economically selfish and politically inequitable then any time since World War II.  Today we have a world where 5% of the world's companies control 80% of the planet's economy and resources, and where the profits of corporations are placed ahead of the needs of people.  We have a world where international banking and commerce has become increasingly unregulated over the past several decades resulting in the world-wide economic crisis of 2008.  We have a world where the sale of armaments and military hardware is looked at in terms of its potential for job creation for the countries doing the selling rather then in terms of its potential for inflicting deathand destruction, encouraging militarism and causing political instability in various regions of the world.


Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "When evil men plot, good men must plan . . .When evil men would seek to perpetuate an unjust status quo, good men must seek to bring into being a real order of justice."  Looking at the state of society and the world today one has to wonder if "evil men" are the ones who have taken control of the world.

There is no guarantee that the New World Moral Order would have resulted in a world free of political, economic and social injustices.  The world doesn't work that way given the general falibility and self-serving character of humans.  However, the fact that it was an idea that was discussed at the highest levels, and its details recorded, shows that at one time there were leaders in the world who had a grand vision of a humanity and a world that was less selfish, less greedy and more altruistic then the world which we live in today.

One can only wonder what sort of world it might have been had those plans become reality.

© The View From Here.  All Rights Reserved.