The New World Order
by Dr. William Pierce
Today let's talk about the New World Order. We've talked about it before, and we'll be talking a lot more about it in the future. I always used to feel a little funny about using that term. It sounds like the sort of terminology right-wing cranks use. And I think many people don't believe it's real. They think it's a concept invented by right-wing cranks who are paranoid about the United Nations. Even when I was being interviewed by the Voice of Iran last week, and I mentioned the New World Order, the interviewer in Teheran asked me what that is, as if it were something he had never heard of before.
Well, during the past few days it has become much easier to talk about the New World Order without having to worry about being considered a right-wing crank. That's because the whole Clinton gang has begun talking openly about it. Which is to say, the whole New World Order gang has come out of the closet.
Earlier this month Susan Estrich spoke her mind on Clinton's war against Serbia. Susan Estrich, remember, is the militant radical feminist lawyer -- a Jewess, of course -- who is a bosom pal of the Clintons and was under consideration for a cabinet post not so long ago. She's now a law professor at the University of Southern California and a big-shot Democratic Party activist. Estrich is ecstatic about the war. She just loves it. It is, she said:
". . . the first war of the 21st century: a conflict not about communism, but about race and ethnicity, being waged by committee, against a madman who is not himself a direct threat to the countries waging war against him. . . . [T]he President is committed, and the country is behind him. The number of Americans willing to take the war to the next step - committing ground forces - has in fact been increasing steadily. It speaks well for the future."
You know, that's really breathtaking. This radical-feminist Jewess loves this war because, first, it isn't against communists but is against people who are concerned about ethnicity; second, it is being waged by a committee -- feminists believe that everything should be done by a committee; and third, it is a war being waged by countries who have not been threatened in any way by the country they are attacking. In other words, it is not a war to defend America but solely to force a sovereign nation to change its internal policy to suit the tastes of Susan Estrich and company: to force Serbia to stop trying to establish ethnic homogeneity but instead to embrace multiculturalism. One gets the impression that this Jewess also would approve of a war against, say, Saudi Arabia to force that country to establish coed bathrooms in all public buildings.
She says that American public support for escalating the war against Serbia by sending in ground forces has been increasing steadily, and that makes her feel good about the future. This Jewess also felt good about Clinton's popularity polls during his impeachment. Basically, what she feels good about is the fact that her kinsmen in the media now have a majority of the American electorate whom they are able to manipulate in any way they choose. Just keep the ball games on TV -- and the "entitlement" checks in the mail -- and they'll cheer for the folks signing the checks and broadcasting the ball games. Just keep their refrigerators full of beer and they will give thumbs up to a President who has been publicly exposed as a perjuror, a rapist, a degenerate, a draft-dodger, a traitor, a money-launderer, and a cokehead. They really don't care. Start a war somewhere which they can watch on TV, and they'll support that too, if Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather and Peter Jennings and the rest tell them to. When they get bored with watching the smart bombs blow up apartment houses and passenger trains and our fighter planes shoot up refugee columns, they'll cheer the sending in of ground troops so they'll have something more exciting to watch on their television screens.
Despite the fact that Miss Estrich is not a public official, her views are worth noting. First, she is a member of the Clinton crowd; she shares their values and opinions. Second, she is typical of the arrogant, noisy campus Jews who during the 1960s were trashing deans' offices and demanding all sorts of Politically Correct changes at American universities. They also were burning ROTC buildings in protest against the Vietnam war. That was a war against communists; remember? A bad war. These Jews have grown up and taken over most of our influential public institutions.
But what Estrich is saying is echoed by all the rest of the Jews and their collaborators. America's highest paid professional "Holocaust survivor," Elie Wiesel, showed up at the White House on April 12 to cheer the bombing of Serbia and announce his support for sending in ground troops. Ironically, Wiesel is the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize -- but then so were Henry Kissinger and the late Israeli warlord Menachem Begin. That's what Nobel Peace Prizes are all about these days.
Probably the most important public figure to declare for the New World Order is Britain's Tony Blair, the tag-along, wannabee Clintonista that British patriots sneeringly refer to as "Bambi." In an essay in the April 19 issue of Newsweek magazine Blair declares:
"This is a conflict we are fighting not for territory but for values, for a new internationalism where the brutal repression of whole ethnic groups will no longer be tolerated, for a world where those responsible for such crimes have nowhere to hide."
That's interesting. The key words here are: "We are not fighting for territory" -- and he might also have added, "We are not fighting to defend ourselves or our national interests" -- "but we are fighting for a new internationalism," Blair said.
And of course, "a new internationalism" is simply his way of saying "a New World Order." And that really is a radical departure from the past, when America and Britain went to war to defend what they considered their national interests, not to impose "a new internationalism" on some other country which just wanted to be left alone. It's good for America's soldiers to understand that the reason they're deliberately bombing civilian targets in Belgrade, shooting up passenger trains, and so on -- and occasionally even risking their own lives -- is to impose "a new internationalism" on the Serbs. To people like Estrich and Blair and Clinton, having armed forces for the purpose of national defense is old fashioned, an outmoded, 20th-century concept. The really trendy thing now -- the 21st-century thing -- is to use your armed forces to impose the will of the New World Order on countries too small to hit back.
"Bambi" also said in the April 19 Newsweek that the Serb policy of ethnic cleansing must not only be stopped but also "reversed." Which really ties in with the insistence of the whole New World Order crowd that no ethnically clean countries will be tolerated in the 21st century. Only "multicultural" countries will be permitted.
General Wesley Clark, the Clinton gang's political general in charge of NATO and of the current effort to impose "a new internationalism" on the Serbs using cruise missiles, said it as plainly as anyone. Just a few days ago General Clark enunciated the general philosophy of the New World Order and the specific motivation for the assault on Yugoslavia when he told a CNN reporter:
"There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th-century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states."
You know, the specific phrasing may be new, but the attitude, the mindset, behind it is quite old. We could subtract a thousand years from General Clark's statement, taking us back to the time just before the Crusades, and it would read something like this: "There is no place in modern Europe for pagans or heretics. Paganism is a ninth-century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 11th century, and we are going to do it with Christian states." A little later one could simply replace "pagan" and "Christian" with "Protestant" and "Catholic," respectively -- or vice versa. That mindset prevailed during Europe's numerous religious wars up until the middle of the 17th century, a cruel and bloody 650 years during which Europeans slaughtered not only Turks and Arabs but also each other in their "conflicts for values," as Bambi would have put it.
You know, my main theme is that this change in the reason for which we fight wars is not a good thing. It is not good to attack another country which has not harmed or threatened us in any way and begin killing its people in order to force them to run their country in accord with our beliefs -- assuming that the beliefs professed by the Clinton gang actually were our beliefs. That sort of ideological bigotry really smacks of the religious bigotry of the Middle Ages. But before we get into that, let us note that not even the Susan Estriches and Tony Blairs and Wesley Clarks really believe the ideological snake oil they're trying to sell to the public.
In his justification for the bombing of Belgrade and the killing of Serbs Tony Blair wrote in Newsweek:
"We need to enter a new millennium where dictators know that they cannot get away with ethnic cleansing or repress their peoples with impunity."
That's a crooked statement. Blair understands perfectly well that Slobodan Milosevic is no dictator repressing his people; he is the democratically elected leader of his people and has their strong support. And Blair also understands that the conflict between the government of Yugoslavia and the Albanians in Yugoslavia's Kosovo province arose in the first place because his good buddy Bill Clinton approved the covert arming and financing of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army -- the KLA -- which aimed at driving out the Serbs and establishing an ethnically cleansed Albanian Kosovo.
But even if Bambi has conveniently forgotten these facts, he is not opposed to ethnic cleansing on principle. You can safely bet your bottom dollar that if Milosevic had not moved decisively and crushed the KLA, and the KLA were now doing to the Serbs what the Serbs are doing to the Albanians, Bambi would not be writing indignant essays about it for Newsweek magazine, and Madleine Albright would not be sending her cruise missiles against Tirana instead of against Belgrade. This New World Order gang, which makes such a pretense of being opposed to ethnic cleansing, has not lifted a finger to stop it in a dozen other parts of the world in the last few years. Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is the prime example of this, but many other examples also can be cited: Turkey's treatment of the Kurds, for example.
All of these New World Order "humanitarians" speak with forked tongues. The simple fact is that they have a plan for Yugoslavia, and for Serbia's mineral-rich Kosovo province in particular, and the Serbs don't want to go along. The New World Order gang want Kosovo under Albanian control, because Albanians will take orders from them, while the Serbs won't. That's what this war boils down to: making an example out of the Serbs because they're too independent and are in the way of a plan the New World Order gangsters have for rearranging Europe.
Now let's look, from a strictly American point of view, at what these gangsters are doing and what they are planning for the future. America's wars in the 21st century, they are telling us -- beginning, actually, with the war against Serbia now -- will not be wars to defend our territory or our vital interests but to force other countries to handle their internal affairs in accord with our ideas -- or more correctly, in accord with the ideas professed by people like Susan Estrich, General Wesley Clark, and Tony Blair.
Bill Clinton is a bit less forthright about this than the aforementioned gangsters: one of the reasons he has been giving us for the war against Serbia is that it is to protect American jobs by keeping Europe stable and prosperous so that it will remain a good market for American products. That explanation is, of course, sheer nonsense. The war against Yugoslavia is hardly doing anything to stabilize Europe, and Mr. Clinton, with his enthusiasm for Chinese imports, certainly isn't concerned about saving the jobs of American workers.
What the gangsters are doing is transforming America's armed forces from a national defense force to an enforcer for the New World Order. They are transforming American soldiers from defenders of the American people and the American nation to mercenaries in the service of the New World Order. And they're actually sending our armed forces out to bomb and kill under these new auspices. The Jewish radicals like Susan Estrich are all for it. The Jewish media bosses are all for it. The 1960s style leftists like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair who grew up chanting for Ho Chi Minh and trashing the dean's office are all for it. And the political careerists in the military, like General Wesley Clark, are willing to go along with it. The politicians in the Congress are willing to go along too, just as they are willing to go along with anything else the media bosses want.
But what about the American people? What about our Constitution? What about our traditions and our national interests? I realize that the Susan Estriches and Wesley Clarks and Bill Clintons of this world have only contempt for these 19th-century and even older things, but not all of us share their feelings. There are a lot of us who still believe that the affairs of our nation ought to be governed by law, not by whatever the Jewish media bosses and the aging campus radicals left over from the 1960s decide is fashionable for the 21st century.
The men who wrote our Constitution certainly understood that we might have to fight wars in order to defend our territory or our national interests. They had just come through a war against Britain themselves for the sake of securing our freedom and independence. And in the Constitution they provided for such possibilities in the future. But they certainly did not condone the United States sending its armed forces off to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries which were not harming or threatening us. Nor did they intend for our armed forces to be the plaything of the President or anyone else in our government, to be used for furthering some pet project of his overseas. They specifically reserved to the elected representatives of the people the power to wage war against another country.
Now, Mr. Clinton may want to quibble over the meaning of the word "war," just as he quibbled over the meaning of the word "is" during the great national embarrassment that he visited upon us so recently, but not one of America's Founding Fathers would call what we are doing in Yugoslavia now anything but "war." And they would consider it war waged in violation of the Constitution, since the House of Representatives has not authorized it.
I hope you don't mind my quibbling about these details, about these old-fashioned legalities. I mean, I realize that the same rabble which didn't want Clinton impeached are happy enough with his war now. And the way the Clinton crowd looks at it, whenever a majority is in favor of something, then it's all right to do it. It makes no difference how debased and irresponsible that majority is; as long as you're ahead in the polls, you're OK. And of course, this Clinton-favoring, bread-and-circuses majority couldn't care less about old-fashioned legalities. And I'm sorry to say, the gang in the Congress isn't much more responsible than the majority which still approves of Clinton and his war. Congressmen can count heads as well as the pollsters, and they aren't going to make much of a fuss about not having actually voted for war against Yugoslavia as long as the media bosses are for it and the rabble don't care.
I suppose the real question here is not whether Clinton's war is illegal or not. I mean, we've pretty well established the principle now that it's OK for the President to do illegal things, so long as his polls are up. The real question is, what are we old-fashioned, 19th- and 20th-century-style Americans going to do about the misappropriation of our country and our future by the New World Order gang? These people, these Estriches and Clarks and Clintons, have agreed among themselves that from now on they'll run the world and tell everybody else what to do, committee style, because we're moving into the 21st century and the rabble will back them. We're supposed to go along meekly and not make any trouble for them.
Well, I'll tell you right now, I'm not going to do that. I've always been a law-abiding person, but I'm not inclined to let this gang interpret our laws in their way and tell me that from now on everything is going to be different because the polls say it's OK for them to do whatever they want. From my viewpoint it's the Clinton gang who are the outlaws, the violators of our Constitution and of all of our old-fashioned legal and moral principles, and anything that we do to oppose them is legal and is morally justified. Anyone who goes along with them is a traitor, in the strict, old-fashioned sense of the word, and anyone who sits on his hands now and refuses to oppose the Clinton gang is not much better.
This trendy, new crowd, which likes to do everything with committees, really believes that all it takes to make anything legal and OK is a majority. I guess they call that democracy. When the majority is what it has become in the United States today, a better name is mobocracy. But really, it's much worse than mob rule. It is rule by a self-appointed elite of utterly evil and destructive people who have in their hands the tools for controlling and guiding the mob. They're pretty cocky now -- so cocky, in fact, that they're making statements of the sort I've quoted today. They're cocky because they believe that no one can take away from them their tools for controlling the mob, and that as time passes and America becomes darker and more degenerate, their grip on the mob will only become firmer. Our job is to prove them wrong. It's a big job, and we'd better get started.