The New World Order, “Free” Trade, and the Deindustrialization of America

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

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, his support of Russia’s current clown prince Boris Yeltsin, and, most recently, his campaign to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through the Congress.

These days when Mr. Clinton or some other politician uses the expression listeners no longer ask themselves, “New World Order? What’s that?”

What’s surprising, however, is the lack of any formal explanation for the use of the expression. No President or other national leader ever explained exactly what the term means. No President ever called a news conference and announced that thenceforth the interests of the United States would be subordinated to the interests of a new entity, the New World Order, and that whenever U.S. armed forces were engaged in some “peace keeping” action under United Nations auspices in the future, the aim would be to force some unruly subject of the New World Order to toe the line.

Lacking such an explanation, most people who have become familiar with it 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”; the wage levels of U.S. and European workers will be brought down to those of workers in the Third World; national boundaries will for all practical purposes cease to exist; 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; an elite consisting of international financiers, the masters of the mass media, and managers of multinational corporations will call the shots; and United Nations “peace keeping” forces will be used to keep anyone from opting out of the system.

Historical Background

The New World Order has very deep historical roots. Some scholars claim to have followed them back into the 18th century and even earlier, but that may be stretching things a bit. The history of the concept can be traced fairly clearly back to the beginning of this century, however, when Jewish leaders from a number of countries held a series of international Zionist Congresses (the first in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland) to map a strategy for taking advantage of the tensions then developing among the major European powers. The Jews’ aim was not only to secure a world headquarters for themselves in Palestine, but also to increase their influence over the Gentile nations as much as possible.

The first part of this aim was realized in just two decades with the issuance in 1917 by the British government of the Balfour Declaration, promising British support for the establishment of a Jewish “national home” in Palestine. This may seem a rash undertaking by the British, considering that Palestine was governed by Turkey and occupied by Arabs who had been living there for centuries and had no interest in having their country become a Jewish homeland. The Jews, however, had allied themselves with the war party among the British leadership (the faction bent on destroying Germany as a commercial rival) and had used their already considerable influence in the United States to swing the U.S. government away from non-interventionism and bring that country into the war on the British side. The British leaders considered the promise to the Jews of a few thou-sand square miles of desert belonging to someone else reasonable payment for such a service.

In achieving this first goal the Jews relied very heavily on a number of Gentile collaborators, both in Britain and in America. Some of these were simply “bought” politicians, and others were Bible-bemused Christians who saw “prophetic” significance in empowering the Jews in the “Holy Land.” In the first quarter of this century Christian fundamentalism had more adherents among the rich and powerful than it does today.

After the First World War the Jews focused more effort on their second goal, and again they relied heavily on collaborators. Woodrow Wilson was their most notorious American partisan, but others, such as “Colonel” Edward M. House, actually were more active in pulling the strings and setting the organizational plans in motion for what eventually came to be known as the New World Order.

The ill-fated League of Nations, formed by the victorious Allies in 1919, was the first major organizational effort in this direction. Although its real purpose — in the minds of all the principals except the inner circle of New World Order conspirators — was to enforce the terms of the Versailles Treaty and protect the interests of the victors as opposed to those of the vanquished, it concealed this purpose behind a propaganda barrage about internationalism, reduction of armaments, and the rule of law among nations. It lost most of its political relevance when the U.S. Congress declined to ratify U.S. membership in it, but it continued as a billboard for internationalist propaganda until it was eventually subsumed into the United Nations Organization during the Second World War.

More important in recruiting individual Gentile collaborators were a number of elitist membership-by-invitation groups. These groups not only served as public propaganda organs for internationalism and egalitarianism, but they carried on a quite effective program of subversion by infiltrating their members into positions of influence in academia, government, finance, and big business. With a panoply of richly endowed fellowship programs, they kept their eyes open for promising young men on the make, who were flattered by a membership invitation or the offer of a Rhodes or Carnegie scholarship and were easily persuaded that they could look forward to a greased career track by adopting the goals of the group as their own.

The Council on Foreign Relations

Probably the most influential and best known of these many groups is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), formed in 1921. With generous support from the Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie foundations, the CFR eventually extended its tentacles into every sphere of influence in America. During the Second World War, which it had eagerly sought, it gained a quasi-official status through its relationship with the U.S. Department of State. After the war CFR members were appointed to the most important ambassadorships and Cabinet posts.

It was CFR member Henry Morgenthau, Franklin Roosevelt’s treasury secretary and closest confidential advisor during his entire time as President, who as much as anyone else manipulated America into the war. Morgenthau, a Jew, also authored the genocidal “Morgenthau Plan” for deindustrializing Germany and liquidating half of that country’s population through starvation.

A few of the CFR members besides Morgenthau who held high-echelon government positions during or after the war were John Kenneth Galbraith, George F. Kennan, Adlai Stevenson, Averell Harriman, David Bruce, Chester Bowles, John J. McCloy, William C. Bullitt, John Foster Dulles, Arthur Goldberg, Dean Acheson, Robert S. McNamara, Dean Rusk, Douglas Dillon, George C. Marshall, Allen Dulles, Herbert Lehman, Arthur F. Burns, Roswell Gilpatrick, Paul Nitze, Sumner Welles, Arthur M. Schlesinger, James R. Schlesinger, Elliot L. Richardson, McGeorge Bundy, Eugene and Walt Rostow, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, George Bush, Hubert Humphrey, Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Alger Hiss, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Harry Dexter White, and Henry Kissinger. There have been hundreds of other CFR members at the highest levels of the U.S. government during the past 50 years — including Bill Clinton.

The CFR and most similar groups were and are not secret societies, in the ordinary sense; they operate quietly, out of the public view, but not secretly. A policy of strict secrecy has not been necessary, because of the protection extended by the controlled news media. Indeed, the CFR has included among its members a number of leading lights of the controlled media, including the publishers of both the New York Times and the Washington Post. Members can quite openly discuss with one another policies which would bring the wrath of the public down on their heads if they were made generally known — but they won’t be made known, except in such circles and in such terms that they will not attract unfavorable attention.

Neither have these groups devoted to the promotion of internationalism been exclusively or even predominantly Jewish in their overall membership. They have, nevertheless, very effectively served Jewish interests. The Jews, the most ethnocentric of peoples, always have been intensely hostile to every nationalism but their own and feel themselves well served by anything which weakens the national feeling or sense of national purpose of the host peoples among whom they live. Thus, regardless of the motivation behind it, almost any move toward internationalism or “globalism” is welcome to them. A cadre of well situated Jews in each organization has been enough to steer it along the desired path.

Between the two world wars the principal ingredients in the ideological flypaper used to attract semi-thoughtful academics and other Gentiles into internationalist groups like the CFR were the concepts of reduction of armaments and providing a forum for the non-violent resolution of disputes between nations. The introduction of nuclear weapons during the Second World War added much cogency to this appeal.

North vs. South

After the Second World War egalitarianism also came out of the closet as a primary motivation of those promoting internationalism. The enormous inequity in wealth and power between the nations of the North and those of the South was held up as an evil to be eliminated. It was not only morally wrong but a threat to the peace of the world for the virtually all-White nations of the North Temperate zone to have such a high standard of living and such a disproportionate share of the world’s wealth, while the teeming Brown, Black, and Yellow nations to their south lived in perpetual squalor and poverty, argued the internationalists. The South had many more people than the North, and their envy and desire for a share of the North’s wealth would lead inevitably to conflict. It would be in the interest of the North to assuage this envy and desire by sharing its riches with the non-White South. Furthermore, the non-White peoples should be freed from the yoke of colonialism, which was keeping them in a subservient state and fostering resentment.

That such an argument could have persuaded anyone is an indication of the moral decadence of the North in the 20th century. There certainly were valid reasons for the White world to be concerned about the overpopulation of the non-White world: the destruction of tropical rain forests and other natural habitats, along with the wildlife in them, was sufficient reason in itself to justify a radical reduction of the world’s non-White population. At the end of the Second World War the North certainly had the capability for effecting such a reduction fairly quickly and easily, simply by withdrawing all the technical support — especially medical support — being provided by the colonial powers to their colonies and letting Nature take its course. Today, with the modern chemical and biological means which have been developed during the past half century, the task could be accomplished even more quickly.

Sharing, not population thinning, was the course into which the globalists steered the North in its dealing with the South, however. The White nations liberated their colonies, but they did not liberate themselves from the “White man’s burden” which always had accompanied colonialism. The modern concept of “foreign aid” was born, and since the war some $300 billion in aid has flowed from the United States and Western Europe into Africa, Asia, and the Middle East (not counting “reparations” and other special subsidies for Israel). The internationalists were able to enlist the support of Christians and conservatives for this program: the former saw it as humanitarian, and the latter let themselves be persuaded that it was the most effective way of halting the spread of communism. The net result of the foreign aid program, of course, was an even greater non-White population explosion and a gradual increase in the material resources of the non-White world to the point where the threat it posed gained new dimensions.

All along the internationalists have been able to justify the policies they have imposed on the U.S. government with the same whacky logic their collaborators on the domestic-policy front have found so successful: if a dose of poison makes the patient violently ill, then that’s clear evidence that the dose was too small, and what he needs is an even bigger dose of the same poison. Since decolonization followed by a massive program of handouts has only exacerbated the alleged threat posed by the poverty-stricken Third World, no time should be lost in imposing full equality on the entire world and using whatever degree of coercion is needed to maintain that equality. Thus, with this imperative scribed on its banner the New World Order finally has emerged from the shadowy conferences of the CFR, the Club of Rome, the United World Federalists, and a dozen similar groups into the full light of day, where it even can be mentioned within earshot of the White hoi polloi by such shabbas goy illuminati as George Bush and Bill Clinton.

Jews, Politicians, and Crazies

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 Jewish stringpullers aiming at world domination for themselves and their kind; there are the cynical Gentile politicians of the Bush/Clinton stripe hoping to receive a few choice scraps from the Jews’ table; and there are the multinational capitalists, who have learned how to turn a profit from the plundering of their own people.

Then there are the crazies: the homosexuals, feminists, and pederasts, 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 Bible-crazed Jew-worshippers and 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 with equal enthusiasm 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 — soon. Many of those who recognize these facts are neither power-hungry cynics nor deranged haters nor even fashion-conscious egg-heads, but instead are sane, principled men who either do not have the moral courage to put forth the solution mentioned above — the radical depopulation of the non-White world — or they have permitted themselves to be persuaded that even if they were willing to accept such a solution themselves, very few others would. Therefore, 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 most effective tactic used by the schemers in recruiting this last group of collaborators has been a skillful steering of the debate within “acceptable” guidelines. Anyone who strays outside those guidelines is either ignored or denounced by the controlled media, and the rest of the herd is more careful in the future.

There always have been utopian schemers, of both the malignant and the benign variety, but most of them have had little lasting effect on the world. The minions of the New World Order, by way of contrast, have made a devastating impact on world conditions during the past few decades, and the chances are good that they will wreak much more havoc before they can be put down.

War and Mongrelization

One might with good reason lay the watershed event of this century, the Second World War, at their doorstep. They certainly wanted it, and they plotted tirelessly to bring it about. In particular, they played the pivotal role in bringing the United States into the war, changing it from a conflict in Eastern Europe which left to itself would have put an end to communism a half century ahead of schedule, into a world conflict which was tantamount to racial suicide. It was the secret assurances given to Britain and France by the Roosevelt administration which led those two countries to declare war on Germany in September 1939, after German troops entered Poland. It was the Roosevelt administration’s policy of undeclared war against Germany for two years after that which led Hitler to despair of remaining at peace with the United States and guaranteed that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 would result not only in a Pacific war but also would bring the United States into the war in Europe.

The fact that the Roosevelt administration was riddled with CFR members goes a long way toward accounting for its pro-war policies. Even without the natural hatred of the Gentile internationalists in America toward National Socialist Germany, however — even without any internationalist motivation at all — the Jews would have used all of their very formidable influence to recruit the United States into their crusade against Hitler, in the hope of regaining the deathgrip on German society which they had enjoyed before his rise. In other words, the Second World War conceivably could have been brought about even without the CFR and any considerations of a New World Order.

Many changes in America since the war can more unambiguously be attributed to the drive for the New World Order: in particular, the deliberate program of racial mongrelization of American society through a series of so-called “civil rights” laws and a radical change in the immigration law. The new immigration law was aimed at bringing more non-Whites into the United States, and the “civil rights” laws were designed to fully integrate Whites and non-Whites socially and economically. Both were intended to weaken the sense of racial and national identity White Americans had and to make them into more pliable raw material for the New World Order.

The internationalists were admirably successful in reaching this goal, though it required several decades and all the powers of the controlled mass media, used with diabolical skill, to get there. Certainly, prior to 1960 the great majority of White Americans would have risen in armed revolt against a government which tried suddenly to force onto them the degradation and ignominy they have learned gradually to revel in since then. Americans who in 1940 or even in 1950 would have responded with instant outrage to governmental demands that their children be bused to schools in non-White neighborhoods for the sake of “racial balance” or that employers give preference to non-Whites in hiring and promotion to compensate for past “injustice” now accept these things with a shrug and a bit of grumbling. Legislators who voted for laws requiring landlords to accept homosexual tenants or laws making it illegal to refuse to hire persons infected with AIDS would have been seized in their offices or homes by mobs of furious citizens and lynched — literally.

Turning America Upside Down

The Vietnam war period — especially the decade 1965-1975 — was used by the internationalists to turn American society upside down. The controlled media encouraged every sort of indiscipline and degeneracy in the name of “freedom.” Drug usage was glamorized. Patriotism was denigrated. Racial mixing was made mandatory. The deliberate “no win” policy imposed on the U.S. armed forces, combined with governmental tolerance of the most open and blatant treason in America’s streets, went a long way toward demoralizing the average American and sapping his will to resist the social and cultural transformation of America being orchestrated by the designers of the New World Order.

From the point of view of the internationalists the Vietnam war itself (that is, the military and geopolitical aspect of the war, as distinguished from the domestic social and cultural changes which accompanied it) served the primary purpose of killing national pride in White Americans. Americans were taught that they didn’t have the best fighting men in the world, after all: that little, Yellow men could whip them. They were taught that a large, White nation could be beaten by a small, non-White nation.

The internationalists loved it! They also had quite a bit to do with ensuring that the war went the way it did, so that the desired lessons could be drawn from it. CFR members ran U.S. foreign policy and defense policy throughout most of the war and formulated both the overall “no win” strategy and the crippling “rules of engagement,” which prohibited the U.S. armed forces from inflicting decisive damage on their communist opponents. (CFR member Dean Rusk was secretary of state from 1961 until 1969. CFR member Henry Kissinger controlled U.S. foreign affairs from 1969 through the end of the war, first from backstage and then as secretary of state, and was the single most influential policymaker throughout. CFR member Robert S. McNamara was secretary of defense from 1961 until 1968. CFR member James Schlesinger was secretary of defense from 1973 through the end of the war.)

What is the explanation for White Americans’ non-resistance to their dispossession? Over and above the power of the mass media — especially television — to compel conformity with whatever is presented as “public opinion,” there is the fact that White Americans were reasonably comfortable and reasonably secure during the period when we were being robbed of our honor, our dignity, and our children’s future through the social, cultural, and demographic changes engineered by the internationalists in the past four decades.

There have been periods of recession and periods of prosperity, but most people have been able to lead very soft and sheltered lives through it all. We have had more new gadgets and luxuries to buy, more new recreations and hobbies to distract us, than ever before. Despite the soaring incidence of crime against Whites by non-Whites, most of us have not yet been raped, stabbed, shot, or even mugged. Despite the growing threat posed by AIDS, most of us do not hang around with the kind of people from whom we might catch this lethal disease of degenerates and non-Whites. Despite the occasional spasm of revulsion that even the most Politically Correct television viewer must occasionally experience, most of us have been able to maintain a sense of philosophical detachment from the happenings in the world around us: it’s not our responsibility, we tell ourselves; we’re not really involved.

The Material Consequences

More important, most of us have suffered relatively little material loss so far. Although the average standard of living for White Americans has been falling during the past two decades, the decline has been gradual, and we’ve been able to hang onto most of our material well-being even as the civilization our ancestors built for us at such great cost has been destroyed piecemeal.

So now it’s time for the rest of the pigeons to come home. Now it’s time for us to experience the material consequences of our moral failure. Now it’s time for the Clintonistas to talk openly of the New World Order and to unveil the final programs intended to make the sick dream reality. Many of these programs are economic rather than cultural or social, and they will impact on many of us who so far have managed to dodge most of the New World Order’s incoming rounds. Actually, some of these programs have been in operation for many years, but now they are having an accelerated effect: practically unrestricted trade with Asia, for example. Let’s take an in-depth look at so-called “free” trade and its principal consequence, the deindustrialization of America. Before the Second World War the United States produced most of the manufactured goods it used. We imported Leica cameras, some specialized laboratory equipment, and some chemical products from Germany; watch movements and some optical instruments from Switzerland; and an occasional Rolls Royce from England. For all practical purposes, however, we had a fully diversified industrial base.

A few years after the war Japanese cameras began displacing German and 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 two remaining U.S. manufacturers, Polaroid and Kodak, still market cameras with familiar, American names, but a cursory examination of the products of these two companies in any camera shop or drugstore will reveal that most of them were not made 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 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.

The Rise of the Multinationals

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 Heavy Industries. 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 tractors. American farmers still can buy Ford tractors, just as they have for the last 80 years or so, but under the familiar blue and white paint everything is now Japanese. Even Ford’s tractor service manuals are printed in Japan.

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 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.

Thus, what formerly were American companies have been transformed in many cases into multinational corporations. Not just Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors, but Polaroid, Kodak, and hundreds of others have learned to beat the foreign competition by joining it. In doing so their interests have changed. They have jumped the fence and become ardent advocates of “free” trade instead of opponents. They have understood that they — i.e., their shareholders and managers — can make bigger profits, even in the face of foreign competition, if they are able to pay lower wages by doing their actual manufacturing outside the United States and at the same time are able to gain easier access to foreign markets. The world is now their market, and the world also is their labor pool.

At least, they can make more money for a while, until their principal market, the United States, becomes impoverished by the continuation of the process of deindustrialization — and a while is all anyone counts on these days.

Of course, not every U.S. manufacturer can do what Ford and Polaroid have done; not every American company is properly situated for becoming a successful multinational corporation. It works best for large companies which already have a toehold in the international marketplace. It also helps to be in the sort of business which is very difficult for a Third World competitor to get a start in: the sort of business which requires a very large and well ramified industrial infrastructure. Among the last U.S. industries to succumb to Asian competition will be the aerospace industry. It should be noted that America is not the only industrialized country susceptible to destructive competition from “developing” countries. Japan is an example. Actually, for several years now the Japanese content of Japanese cars has been declining. Japan’s enormous success in competing with American industry was accompanied by rising wages in Japan. Eventually Japanese manufacturers, despite much stronger nationalist sentiments than are found in any of their American competitors, were obliged to begin subcontracting substantial portions of their own cars and other products out to other Asian countries with much lower labor costs. Japan is just beginning now to succumb to the virus of globalism which once helped it to rise.

The Rise of China

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 single-handedly.

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 household items 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 are scrambling now 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. Malaysia has been taking a larger and larger share of the semiconductor industry for itself and is diversifying into cameras and other consumer items. Mr. Clinton has just invited the Vietnamese to join the feeding frenzy.

Lower Living Standard

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. Depending on one’s viewpoint, a lowered standard of living for a substantial portion of America’s White population might not be a bad thing: certainly, having the world’s highest wages didn’t seem to improve either the morals or the civic wisdom of America’s voters. Perhaps the unemployment line will help them to focus better on the important things in life. Meanwhile, the majority of America’s consumers are not really interested in hearing about what’s happening to the U.S. industrial base, because they’re too busy enjoying the short-term benefits of low-priced imports.

These benefits are short term, because in the long term the deindustrialization of the country and the lowering of the living standard for factory workers will pull down the living standard for other segments of the work force as well. When the labor market is flooded with millions of former factory workers looking for employment in some service industry, and when the average wage level for these dislocated workers is substantially less in their new work than it was in their former work, eventually the wages for office workers, sales clerks, truck drivers, and cooks will be depressed also. The man who was making $14 an hour as a lathe operator before his factory closed was spending most of his earnings to keep a whole army of paper-shufflers, sales clerks, transport workers, and cooks busy; now that he’s earning only $5.50 an hour as a janitor he won’t be seeing as many sales clerks or eating as many meals in restaurants, and the paper-shufflers — travel agents, tax accountants, and the like — won’t be seeing his name as often as before.

The Real Danger: Interdependence

A far more ominous consequence of the transfer of industry out of the United States is the loss of national self-sufficiency. It may not matter much whether we have factories for producing pantyhose 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 the following facts:

* 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. Being able to have “Made in the U.S.A.” stamped on his widgets may help him a little with patriotic customers, but it won’t help enough to keep him solvent.

* 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, 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, it has painstakingly built up its industrial base — with our collaboration — during the past 40 years or so.

* 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 multinational 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 by Mexicans.

Evening Out the Poverty

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 international affairs.

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 two decades ago was demonstrating in the street with other draft-dodgers, gleefully chanting, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong is gonna win!”

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. If states could erect their own trade barriers, then we might have wheat farmers in Nevada able to make a living selling their wheat locally, at a very dear price. Without any interstate trade barriers, however, they could not compete with wheat farmers in Kansas and would be forced to give up wheat farming and go into another line of work. Competition throughout the whole country results in specialization in certain areas and increased efficiency everywhere. Since there is no danger that Kansas ever will refuse to sell wheat to people in Nevada, they are no less secure without a local supply and are free to devote themselves to activities more suited to their locale.

The Aryan World Order

We might even justify the elimination of trade barriers between a racially cleansed United States and a selected group of other White countries, under certain conditions. One of those conditions would be that all the countries involved would be subject to a single authority, so that there would be no loss of security resulting from the regional specialization which would follow the dropping of barriers. Such an arrangement might be called the Aryan World Order, and it is something worthy of careful consideration — after we get a few obstacles out of our way.

The foremost of these obstacles is the currently emerging arrangement we have been examining in this article: an arrangement which, if accuracy were the primary consideration, might be given the name Jew World Order instead of the one by which it is commonly known. And a tough obstacle it will be. The Jews have a powerful combination in their control of the news and entertainment media and in the constellation of collaborators they have assembled in politics, big business, academia, and the Christian churches.

Their media control is too massive and too deeply ramified for us to wrest away by any feasible financial means. A single, minor readjustment in their media empire, such as the current merger of Sumner Redstone’s Viacom, Inc., with Martin Davis’s Paramount Communications, can involve the transfer of more than $10 billion.

Their collaborators are too many for us to assassinate. To kill even enough of them to frighten the rest into changing their ways is far beyond our means at this time.

The only feasible strategy for us is to develop our own media of mass communication and then use those media to make everyone painfully aware of the true meaning of the New World Order.

Reaching the people with our message and getting any sort of response from them was a hard row to hoe in the past, when it still was possible for them to persuade themselves that they could evade any personal loss from the changes taking place around them. With the deindustrialization of America hitting more and more people in the pocketbook, the response is growing substantially. In the next few years, as more of the consequences of the ongoing destruction of America’s industrial base impact on the standard of living of White Americans, we can fan that response into a revolutionary conflagration.

That prospect, of course, is what is causing the frantic effort now by the government to disarm America’s citizens, beginning with the only weapons — namely, semiautomatic rifles in military calibers — which have any significant revolutionary potential.

And it is that prospect which imposes on us the very grave responsibility to do whatever is necessary to reach all of the people with the truth about the New World Order while it is still possible to derail this monstrous scheme and restore what is left of our world to sanity and health.

* * *

Source: National Vanguard magazine, 1993