Every regular television news watcher has heard the expression
"New World Order" often enough now to be familiar with
it. George Bush really popularized the expression during the last
two years of his administration. Prior to that one heard only
occasional veiled references to it, but as Mr. Bush ordered wave
after wave of bombers over Iraq to pound Baghdad into rubble and
attempted to kill Iraq's President with "smart" bombs,
he spoke repeatedly of the need to punish those who tried to
stand in the way of the New World Order.
Bill Clinton has used the expression even more freely: he has
referred to the New World Order in connection with his futile
efforts to assassinate Somalia's uppity warlord Mohammed Aidid,
with his support of Russia's current clown prince Boris Yeltsin,
and, most recently, with his campaign to push the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through the Congress. Probably most
of you remember Mr Clinton talking on television about NAFTA
being essential for the New World Order and for equality in the world.
Most people who have become familiar with the term assume that
it is merely an abstraction: a convenient label for referring, in
a general, loose sort of way, to the reordering of international
power relationships which has been going on ever since the Second
World War -- and especially since the collapse of the Soviet
Empire at the beginning of this decade.
Actually, for the initiated, the New World Order has a much
more specific and concrete meaning. In brief, it is a utopian
system in which the U.S. economy (along with the economy of every
other nation) will be "globalized"; in which the wage
levels of U.S. and European workers will be brought down to those
of workers in the Third World; in which national boundaries will
for all practical purposes cease to exist; in which an increased
flow of Third World immigrants into the United States and Europe
will have produced a non-White majority everywhere in the
formerly White areas of the world; in which an elite consisting
of international financiers and the masters of the mass media
will call the shots; and in which so-called "peace keeping"
forces from the United Nations will be used to keep anyone from
opting out of the system.
This particular scheme for world rule has very deep historical
roots. Tracing those roots is fascinating, but I won't have time
for that on this program today. If you want to study the
historical details, then you should read my article on the New
World Order in the current issue of National Vanguard magazine, which
is available from the producer of this program.
I'll simply say today that the New World Order conspiracy had
its origins in a series of international Zionist conferences held
around the beginning of this century. It picked up steam during
the First World War and really began acquiring concrete substance
with the formation of a number of organizations in the period immediately
after that war, the foremost of which was the Council on Foreign
Relations. By the end of the Second World War the New World Order
planners formed a virtual ruling class in America with total control
of U.S. foreign policy and also a growing power to mold domestic
policy to suit their internationalist aims. What these people
understood, long before anyone else did, is the potential power of
the mass media. They understood what enormous, hidden political
power could be wielded in an age of mass democracy by a tiny
group of well-organized people who could manipulate public
opinion by controlling the mass media.
It should be noted that the New World Order booster club has
developed a rather diverse membership as its schemes have
matured. There are, of course, the original, power-hungry
conspirators, who believe that their god intended for them to
rule the world, and there are the cynical politicians of the
Bush/Clinton stripe who go along with the conspirators, hoping to
receive a few choice scraps from their table.
Then there are the crazies: the homosexuals and feminists, for
example, who see in the New World Order the antithesis of the
heterosexual, patriarchal world they hate with such insane
fervor. Along with these are the lunatic egalitarians, who are
hell-bent on "equalizing" everyone.
A substantial portion of the membership consists of a rabble
of academics and literati who simply want to be fashionable; they
would as enthusiastically support any other intellectual fashion
possessing as large and skillful a press claque.
Besides all of these, however, there are many people on the
New World Order bandwagon today for more or less benign reasons.
The world population really is far too large. The ongoing
destruction of the global ecosystem really is unacceptable.
Something must be done -- and soon. Many of those who recognize
these facts are neither power-hungry cynics nor deranged haters
nor even fashion-conscious eggheads, but instead are sane, principled
men who simply do not have the moral courage to deal in a forthright
way with the population explosion in the non-White world and with
a number of other pressing demographic and ecological problems.
They have opted for what seems to them the only solution for halting
the self-destruction of the world which has a sufficiently
powerful advocacy group behind it to be feasible. They really
believe that under the New World Order Kenyans no longer will be
permitted to machine-gun herds of elephants from helicopters in
order to collect their tusks, Brazilians no longer will be permitted
to destroy the rain forests with chainsaws and flamethrowers, and
Haitians will be forced to use condoms. Even White Americans will
be forced to curb their wasteful habits.
The New World Order schemers have played a very significant
role in bringing about many social and economic changes in
America, and I could spend a lot more time than we have today
talking about these changes--and why the internationalists wanted
them. If you want to understand that part of the scheme you'll just
have to read my article in the current issue of National Vanguard magazine. Today I must limit myself to just one New World Order
policy, and that's so-called "free" trade and what that
policy means for America.
Our first really notable experience with "free"
trade in the post-Second World War period was with Japan. A few
years after the war Japanese cameras began displacing U.S.-made
cameras from stores in the United States, until today they
totally dominate the market: Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax,
Olympus, Fuji -- they're all Japanese. The only two American
brands left are Polaroid and Kodak. If you'll go into a camera store
and look carefully at the Polaroid and Kodak cameras on display,
howeever, you'll discover that most of them were actually
manufactured in Japan or elsewhere, not in the United States.
After succeeding in establishing a virtual camera monopoly the
Japanese began moving into the consumer electronics business:
portable radios, television receivers, VCRs, pocket calculators,
microwave ovens, hi-fi tuners and amplifiers, etc. Within two
decades they virtually wiped out domestic production. The few U.S. consumer
electronics companies still surviving have their products made in
Asia and then put their names on them and bring them into this
country to sell them.
The average American saw nothing amiss with this; indeed, he
regarded it as a boon. More products were available to him, at
lower prices, than there would have been if Japanese products had
been kept out by trade barriers. The unhappy voices of the few
hundred thousand Americans who had been employed in the camera
and consumer electronics industries were drowned out by those of
millions of happy consumers. When Japanese automobiles began
appearing on American streets in large numbers in the 1970s,
there was more of a reaction. The unionized automobile and steel
workers were able to make their voices heard. They smashed
Japanese cars with sledgehammers in publicity stunts designed to
win sympathy for their plight. Even the politicians who had been
bought by the internationalists got into the act: worried by the
threat of losing union votes, they put on serious faces and talked
to the television cameras about limiting the number of Japanese
cars which could be brought into the country. The percentage of Hondas, Toyotas,
Subarus, Nissans, and other Japanese vehicles sold in America
eventually stopped rising. General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler
pulled in their belts, fired a few hundred thousand American workers,
and announced that they would survive. Although the U.S.
steel-making industry was hit hard and was forced to close dozens
of plants, it also managed to hang onto life.
All was not quite as it seemed, however. Americans were
reassured by the sight of new Fords, Chevrolets, and Dodges on
their highways, but in many cases not much more than the name was
actually American. The Chrysler corporation sold Dodge Colts
which, in fact, were made in Japan by Mitsubishi. Under a Chevrolet
label General Motors sold light pickup trucks which were produced
entirely in Japan. Ford did the same thing, not only with some of
its consumer vehicles, but also with its farm tractors.
Japan is not the only country which has claimed a part of what
used to be the American automobile industry. U.S. auto companies
have stayed in business only by having more and more of the work
which goes into their cars performed outside of the United
States, in order to take advantage of vastly cheaper labor.
Wiring harnesses from Mexico, electronic ignition modules from
Taiwan, seat covers and other upholstery from Korea, alternators
from Brazil, speedometers and other dashboard instruments from Hong Kong:
more and more of what is sold as "American" is made elsewhere
and only assembled in the United States.
The Asian country which has benefited most in recent years
from the U.S. policy of "free" trade is China. The
Chinese assault on American industry was not widely noticed at
first, because the Chinese did not begin with high-profile
consumer items, such as cars or television receivers. They began
at a more basic level, first with machine tools and then with
hand tools. They have virtually destroyed the American machine-tool industry
In the 1950s the United States was the world leader in the
manufacture of machine tools, with more than 50 per cent of the
total production. Machine tools -- lathes, milling machines,
grinders, stamping machines, and the other large, motorized tools
used in factories -- are the most essential component of a nation's
industrial base. Today we make only six per cent of the world's
machine tools. In the last decade alone our share of the world's
production has declined by a factor of three, down from 19 per
cent in 1984. It's still dropping. In another five years we'll
have only three or four makers of machine tools left, and they'll
be making only highly specialized, computer-controlled tools. All
of the general-purpose machine tools used in the United States
will come from China or Brazil.
The same thing is happening to the U.S. hand-tool industry. If
one examines the plastic-packaged tools and accessories hanging
on the display peg-boards in any of the larger automotive parts
stores -- the spark plug wrenches and screwdriver sets and
compression testers -- one will find that somewhere between
two-thirds and three-quarters of them are imported from Asia,
mostly from China. With the larger tools -- hydraulic floor
jacks, for example -- the situation is worse: the chances are
about nine out of ten that one will find a "Made in
China" label. If there are any U.S.-made jacks still to be
found, they will be priced at about three times the price of a
Chinese jack of similar quality. American manufacturers, with
their much higher labor costs, simply cannot compete with Chinese
industry, and they are being driven out of business.
For the past few years the Chinese have been moving into the
production of low-priced consumer goods as well: the sort of
plastic household goods that housewives buy in K-Marts or
Wal-Marts. Because these goods are priced substantially lower
than similar American products, consumers welcome them. They do not
consider the fact that the well-paid American workers who
formerly made such goods in U.S. factories now are scrambling to
find service-industry employment at substantially lower wages.
The Chinese (including those in Hong Kong and Taiwan) and the
Japanese are not the only Asians who are destroying the U.S.
industrial base. The Koreans, for example, have had the U.S.
clothing industry under attack for years and have devastated
large sections of it. Mr. Clinton has just invited the Vietnamese
to join the feeding frenzy.
There is a double significance to this transfer of American
industry out of the country. In the first place, it lowers the
average wage level of American workers, as they are forced to
move from manufacturing into a service industry or into less than
full-time employment. And although factory workers are the first
to be hit, eventually most other segments of the work force
suffer as well, even the yuppies and others who would never think
of working with their hands. When people who used to work in
factories have less money to spend, there's less money to earned
In the second place, the transfer of industry out of the
United States robs us of national self-sufficiency. It may not
matter much whether we have factories for producing panytyhose
and plastic hair curlers or we import these things from Korea,
but it matters very much whether or not we produce our own
machine tools. If the Koreans give us an ultimatum: do what we
say or no more plastic hair curlers, we can laugh in their faces.
If the Chinese decide not to sell us more machine tools, however,
we'll be in trouble.
This, of course, is exactly what the New World Order boys
planned. "Interdependence," they call it. They began
selling us on the virtues of interdependence -- and the evils of
independence -- as early as the 1950s. The New World Order is a
system in which every country is dependent on many other
countries for its necessities of life, and no country is
independent enough to opt out of the system and go its own way.
"Free" trade is essential to the whole scheme. The
controlled media deliberately have created the impression in the
public mind that "protectionism" -- the regulation of
imports through the imposition of tariffs or quotas -- is a
corrupt policy which benefits greedy industrialists at the
expense of everyone else. Actually, it is a necessity for
national survival and progress. Consider just three facts:
* Fact Number 1: Merchants always will buy their manufactured
goods from the supplier who will give them the best price for
goods of a specified quality. If the best price is from a foreign
supplier, and if international trade is unregulated, then the
merchants will import their goods from abroad. On an individual
basis the merchants really have no choice in the matter: a widget
merchant who pays two or three times as much for his
American-made widgets as other widget merchants do for their
Chinese-made widgets soon will be out of the widget business.
* Fact Number 2: For most manufactured goods the cost of the
labor which went into them is the largest single component of the
total production cost. When one country has a much lower wage
scale than another country, then it will be able to sell its
manufactured goods at a lower price, other things being equal.
The other things are labor discipline, organizational skill, and
the possession of the necessary machinery and raw materials.
Thus, Ghana or Zambia, for example, could not compete with the
United States in the production of manufactured goods even if it
paid nothing at all for labor, because it lacks labor discipline,
organizational ability, and an industrial base. China, on the
other hand, has very cheap labor which is better disciplined than
that in America, as well as the needed organizational skills for utilizing
that labor effectively in large-scale enterprises. Furthermore,
China has painstakingly built up its industrial base -- with our collaboration
-- during the past 40 years or so.
* Fact Number 3: When industrial production moves from a
country with high wages to a country with low wages, the
immediate effect will be a reduction in the difference in wages
between the two countries. Wages in the country which gains the
industry will rise, and wages in the country which loses the
industry will fall. This will be true whether the production is
in the hands of nationally based companies or a multi-national corporation.
Thus, if the North American Free Trade Agreement results in the
Ford Motor Company closing a plant in Detroit and building a new
one in Tijuana for the production of Fords, wages will rise in Mexico
and fall in the United States just as surely as if the production
had shifted from Ford to a company owned entirely by Mexicans.
What this means is that if an industrialized country which has
built up a high standard of living for its citizens wants to
maintain its industrial base and its living standard, it must
regulate imports of goods from countries with lower wage scales.
If it does not, its industrial base will be eroded, and its
living standard will fall. This is a fairly simple economic fact,
and most Americans could understand it if the proponents of the
New World Order had not thrown up a smoke screen of obfuscation.
They claim that there will be "readjustments" to be
made when all trade barriers are down, but that in the long run
everyone will benefit. We will import more goods, they say, but
we also will export more, and everything will even out. That is
not true, and they know it. What will "even out" will
be wage scales around the world. The rich countries will become
less rich, and the poor countries will become less poor, and if
the process continues long enough wage scales -- and standards of
living -- will approach equality, which is what the egalitarian ideologues among
the globalists really are aiming at. To them the present state of
affairs, with White Americans earning 20 times as much as Mexican peons
or Chinese coolies, is "unjust."
Other New World Order ideologues see in the interdependence
which will result from wiping out a number of strategically vital
industries in the United States (and other industrialized
nations) a sure way to prevent international conflict in the
future. They have taught two generations of Americans that "cooperation"
is a virtue in itself, and we will be a more virtuous nation when
we no longer are able to act unilaterally: that is, when we must
secure the agreement of the countries which supply our ball
bearings and our computer chips before we make a major move in
All of this is not to say that international trade is a bad
thing in itself. Trade, like many other things, should be an
instrument of national policy. A nation's international trade
should be regulated with one aim in mind: to maximize the
security and prosperity of the nation. Americans can hardly
expect that of a government headed by a man who only two decades
ago was demonstrating in the street with other draft-dodgers, gleefully
chanting, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong's gonna
The only environment in which unregulated trade can be
tolerated is within a natural community of interest: i.e., within
a group of political entities which have a common sense of
identity and a common set of interests, determined by Nature
rather than by politics alone. In such an environment unrestricted
trade usually is beneficial. For example, we do not want to
protect Michigan's automobile industry from competition by an automobile manufacturer
in Indiana or Texas. If Texans can build a better car at a lower
price, then we, as Americans, are better off for it. We don't
worry about people in Michigan becoming dependent on Texans, because
we're the same people.
But we damned well better worry about being dependent on
Chinese and Mexicans, who are fundamentally different from us in
Most White Americans, I am sure. even if they have been taken
in by the egalitarian propaganda that racial differences really
don't mean anything, are not willing to have their own living
standards continue to go down, so that Chinese and Mexican living
standards can rise. And very few real Americans are willing to sacrifice
our national independence and security to a scheme which will
make us dependent on countries like China and Mexico for a lot more
than cheap consumer goods.
But that's exactly what's happening now. Mr. Clinton and the
gang in the White House are pushing as hard as they can to
destroy American sovereignty, to boost interdependence at the
expense of national independence, and to make us equal to
Mexicans and Chinese.
The only way we can stop this is to reach millions of people
with our message, to make them understand the consequences of the
ongoing destruction of America's industrial base and the motives
of those responsible for it. We must make every American
understand what a dangerous and evil scheme the New World Order is
and what disastrous consequences it will have for all of us if we
fail to derail it while there is still time.
(This speech was originally broadcast on American Dissident
Voices, the only uncensored patriotic radio program on the air
today. Write for further information: PO Box 90, Department R,
Hillsboro WV 24946 USA. Fax # 304-653-4690 $1 for complete