26. The New World Order

Pierce often refers in his radio programs and writings to the evils of the “New World Order.” In order to understand Pierce’s way of looking at things it helps to get a sense of what he means by New World Order and precisely what his problems are with this idea.

The concept of a New World Order was popularized by President George H. W. Bush during the last two years of his administration. As Bush articulated it, the New World Order had to do with a reordering of international relations following the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The New World Order, he said, would be a new era marked by international cooperation, peace, and justice. Bush invoked the ideal of a New World Order to justify the 1991 Gulf War – Saddam Hussein was a contradiction to its principles and must be opposed. President Bill Clinton also called upon the concept of a New World Order to rationalize policies and programs he favored, the North American Free Trade Agreement being one example. During the debate over whether the Congress should approve the treaty, Clinton said that NAFTA was essential to the creation of a New World Order, which he associated with an era of greater harmony and equality among the countries in this hemisphere.

It would appear that for most people the idea of moving toward the creation of a New World Order has a positive ring to it. But to William Pierce a New World Order is precisely what he doesn’t want to see happen. To Pierce, the New World Order amounts to a global version of everything he abhors in domestic affairs. New World Order, multiculturalism, diversity, equality, democracy – all part of the same package as far as he is concerned. The New World Order just expands the context from America to the world. As Pierce sees it, the New World Order is what his enemies want to impose on the United States writ large.

So how does Pierce view the New World Order? As he defines it, the New World Order is a utopian scheme for a world government with the following major features: National boundaries will for all practical purposes cease to exist. An increased flow of third-world immigrants into the United States and Europe will produce a non-white majority everywhere in the formerly white areas. The economies of the United States and the other nations of the world will be globalized. Wage levels among the rich and poor peoples of the world will be equalized. An elite consisting of international businessmen and the heads of the news and entertainment media will call the shots, aided by politicians who are dependent upon this elite’s financial support and strengthened by the backing of democratic majorities marshaled by those among the elite who control the flow of information to the masses. International “peacekeeping” military forces will maintain order throughout the system and put down resistance to any of its policies.1

Pierce identifies three types of people drawn to the idea of the New World Order – he calls them “the New World Order booster club.”2

First, there are those he refers to as “the amoral, super-wealthy elements: cosmopolitan and raceless individuals who already wield a great deal of power through their wealth and who like to flatter themselves with the thought that they deserve even more power over the lives of the rest of us.”3 Within this group, says Pierce, are those who are involved in multinational business enterprises. International capitalists are hostile to national sovereignty, he says. National boundaries and any tendencies toward protecting national interests just get in the way of their business dealings and cut into their profits. What these individuals want, according to Pierce, is a global labor pool to exploit and a global market to milk. These business bosses see more profits for themselves if the world is converted into a worldwide plantation of sorts, with themselves in the role of its owners and overseers.

The second group in the New World Order booster club – and Pierce says this group is vastly more numerous than the first – are those who join up for reasons of ideology or fashion.4 Among them according to Pierce are:

•     Leftist academics and clerics and shallow intellectuals. National sovereignty has had a bad odor with leftist academics and their semiintellectual hangers-on for a long time, argues Pierce. The notion of a world government per the New World Order appeals to these people. Patriotism is an alien concept to them, and they are instinctively hostile to patriots. Concern for the interests of one’s own people is regarded as residual tribalism which must be eradicated. Patriotism is also contrary to the universalistic ideas held by many Christian clerics.

•     Guilt-ridden Christians. Many of the Christian supporters of the New World Order, claims Pierce, are tormented by feelings of white racial guilt over the poor circumstance of the non-white hordes of the world. They see the New World Order as a way to equalize the races by redistributing the world’s wealth and to punish whites for their evil deeds by bringing them down to the level of the oppressed non-whites.

•     Peace-and-order advocates. Among the backers of the New World Order are those who believe that in a world with weapons of mass destruction the only way for humanity to eliminate war and its associated evils and to be safe and secure is through the establishment of a New World Order. And then there are those who simply are attracted by the concept of a more orderly world under centralized control. Since the early part of this century, Pierce notes, groups such as the Council of Foreign Relations have been working behind the scenes politically and on the academic front to promote the idea of a New World Order. Pierce makes the point that despite their professed abhorrence of war many of these individuals and organizations were hot to unleash World War II, the most destructive and murderous war ever inflicted on the world, and supported the development and use of nuclear weapons in that war.

•     Ambitious politicians. They go along with the New World Order campaign in order to receive a few choice scraps from the table.

•     Homosexuals and feminists. Pierce says these people see the New World Order as the antithesis of the heterosexual, patriarchal world they hate with “insane fervor.”

•   Egalitarians. They are hell-bent on equalizing everyone, offers Pierce, and the New World Order looks to them to move things in that direction.

•     Fashion-conscious academics and literati. These people simply want to be fashionable, says Pierce. For them, it wouldn’t have to have been the New World Order. They would have enthusiastically gotten on any other bandwagon that was as skillfully propagated as this one has been.

•   Shortsighted idealists. These are sane and principled people legitimately concerned about such things as world population and the ongoing destruction of the global ecosystem who latch onto the New World Order as a vehicle for dealing with the issues they care about. Indeed, something needs to be done about their concerns, Pierce agrees. The problem with these people, however, says Pierce, is that they do not have the courage to deal in a realistic and forthright way – that is to say, his way – with the population explosion in the non-white world and all the other pressing demographic and ecological problems we face. Instead, they have opted for a solution to the self-destruction of the planet which allows them to persist in their comfortable illusions.

And then there is the third, and most important element, among the New World Order booster club. Of course, it is the Jews.

Clearly the Jews see a dominant role for themselves in a world government because of the power they already wield. Beyond this, with their highly leveraged situation – that is, their need to maintain their control over numerically much larger Gentile populations everywhere, increasing centralization of governmental power is the only strategy which makes sense for them. They have a tiger by the tail, and they dare not let go. Their great fear is that a strong and genuinely patriotic leader may arise in some nation, another Adolf Hitler, and he will succeed in breaking the Jewish control over his people and ending Jewish power in his nation. If that is permitted to happen in any major nation, it may spread quickly to other nations. That is why they pulled out all the stops to destroy Germany during the Second World War. And, if they were not already convinced, the Second World War redoubled their conviction that they must make every nation subordinate to a world government under their control… The Jews want a final end to the possibility of the resurgence of any nationalism – except their own of course. They want to eliminate forever the possibility that the people of the United States, Germany, Britain, or any other country except Israel will act on their own will.5

Pierce believes that the New World Order concept provides the basis for understanding and linking a number of seemingly unrelated issues. To illustrate his point he cites the ongoing debate between the advocates of free trade and protectionism. Pierce considers free trade to be central to the New World Order scheme and he strongly opposes the idea. It is Pierce’s position that in order for the United States to maintain its industrial base, autonomy, and standard of living, it must regulate imports of goods from other countries.

Pierce says the New World Order crowd has worked hard – and, he acknowledges, effectively – to create the impression in the mind of the public that protectionism is a misguided and morally corrupt policy. Americans have been told that free trade is a boon with no real downside. They will have access to more products at lower prices than they would have had if there had been trade barriers. “And don’t worry if a few American jobs go overseas,” the message to the public has gone. “We’ll more than make up for it with the growth of our export industries.” The free trade proponents have been very successful in linking free trade to the achievement of economic interdependence with other countries, a worthy goal in the eyes of most people. Pierce sees the media and the schools as having taught two generations of Americans the virtue of interdependence and cooperation rather than independence and competition. Pierce says that interdependence is “warm-and-fuzzy” and therefore a very attractive idea in this feminized era. In contrast, independence or a go-it-alone attitude

has been given a nasty flavor by these people. It is a Politically Incorrect concept. What we should have instead of independence and autonomy is interdependence. That is, all of the countries of the world should be dependent on each other to such a degree that no country can act unilaterally on any matter, but must first obtain the consent of all other countries on which it is dependent: like a big “family of nations.”… Perhaps you hadn’t noticed, but the most enthusiastic of the “free traders” are the people who are most enthusiastic about every other sort of egalitarian program, every other sort of racial mixing program, every other sort of program which promotes the interests of non-Whites to the disadvantage of Whites. Today’s “free traders” are the folks who were marching arm-in-arm with Black “civil rights” demonstrators a generation ago and were picketing the South African embassy a decade ago and are in favor of open borders and unrestricted immigration today. Being in favor of “free trade’ today and against national autonomy is a touchstone of Political Correctness.6

In a Free Speech article entitled “Thoughts on Free Trade,” Pierce outlines his case against free trade.7 At the time Pierce wrote this piece, Asian economies had been experiencing a serious downturn, and some companies and individuals in this country had been hurt by it. Pierce noted that as the Asian economies had slowed and as their currencies had fallen relative to the dollar, Asians were not able to buy as much from American producers as before. The result was that American companies dependent on exports were in trouble and being forced to cut back on their operations and lay off workers. Pierce said that the problems in the Asian economy and their repercussions in this country were a good thing to the extent that they warn us of where economic interdependence leads. It might prompt Americans to ask themselves whether they really want to be dependent on China, Korea, Mexico, and a whole array of other Third World countries. As for Pierce himself: “I will tell you now that everything I intend to say on this subject is from the very unfashionable viewpoint of a man who believes that autonomy is one of the most precious possessions a nation can have. Autonomy is a prerequisite for freedom. A nation which gives away its autonomy soon will lose its freedom as well.”8

Pierce points to our growing dependence on imports from Asia.

We used to have a consumer electronics industry in America – televisions, VCRs, microwave ovens, and so on – and we also used to have a machine-tool industry: lathes, milling machines, and so on. Those industries have been wiped out – completely destroyed – by Asian competition. The same thing is happening in textiles, shoes, and a hundred other more or less basic industries: industries which are essential for national autonomy… The factories have been shut down and the skilled workers who used to make them are dishing out fries at McDonald’s. It would take us a year to tool up again and probably five years to really pick up steam in many of these basic industries.9

Pierce worries about what this circumstance will do to America’s autonomy as a nation. He thinks that the more we are dependent on other countries economically, the less we will be able to act unilaterally. Particularly he is concerned that foreign competition will drive essential industries out of this country. Then we will be in a position, he fears, of having to secure the agreement of the countries that supply us products necessary to our national well-being – machine tools, ball bearings, computer chips, or whatever else – before we can make a major move in international affairs.

Even if we do everything we can to maximize our efficiency, there are many products, Pierce points out, that American industries simply cannot produce and sell as cheaply as their Asian competitors can. He illustrates his point by noting that he purchased some strings of one hundred Christmas tree lights made in China for two dollars and fifty cents a string: “No American company can possibly produce and sell them that cheaply and remain in business – unless, of course, their labor is essentially unpaid.” And again, it is not just the lost American jobs that concerns him. It is the prospect of lost essential industries and thereby our autonomy. “We can get along without Christmas tree lights, but there are many other things we cannot get along without, and we are losing our ability to produce those things just as surely as we have been driven out of the Christmas tree light business.”

Pierce tells his readers that despite his criticisms of it, he is not against free trade altogether.

There are cases where unrestricted trade may be beneficial rather than harmful. If two trading partners already have a community of interests – which is to say, if their populations are very similar – then “free trade” will have the effect of binding them together and making them even more similar. Their wage scales and standards of living will tend to become equal. Eventually, their mores and ideas and attitudes also will become more similar. And their dependence on each other will grow. The individual partners will lose their autonomy. But if the populations already are essentially the same, then a new and larger autonomy will emerge. It’s a bit like a man and woman becoming married. Each gives up individual autonomy and freedom and develops a dependence on the other. But the two as a whole – the married couple – gains a new autonomy which may be better for each of the partners than before – provided the marriage is a good one, and that is a critical stipulation. We may want to contemplate a marriage with Canada, say, or with Britain, Germany, or Switzerland. But we should not even consider a marriage with Mexico or China.10

The sort of marriage the New World Order types like best, says Pierce, is just the opposite from the kind he wants: where the partners are as unequal as possible, “a marriage with the least community of interests.”11

Pierce says that to understand the issue of free trade one must understand its ideological and racial dimension:

For the trendy, air-headed liberals and media bosses who are the principle enthusiasts for “free trade,” it is not primarily an economic issue, rather it is an ideological issue, and the ideology is egalitarianism, raised from the individual level to the national level. They want America to lose her autonomy and her freedom and to become dependent on non-White nations, in the same way that they wanted White South Africans to become subservient to Blacks and in the same way that they wanted government-enforced racial integration of our schools and in the same way that they want the flood of Mexican, Haitian, and Chinese immigrants into our country to continue.

I’ll tell you a secret: the “free trade” issue is really a racial issue. The folks who were so hot to push NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) through wouldn’t have been so interested in it if it had involved just Canada and the United States. What appealed to them was the idea of increasing our dependence on Mexico, the idea of equalizing Brown Mexicans and White Americans. They’re not really interested in increasing our dependence on Sweden, Germany, or Poland; what appeals to them is making us more dependent on Nigeria, Vietnam, China, or Honduras. Their view of history is a vision of White bullies and exploiters pushing the non-White peoples of the world around, and this is a very painful vision for them. They would much rather have things the other way around – so long as they personally are not the White people being pushed around. They want to make sure that White people don’t have a chance to be bullies again. And the way to do that is to make us dependent on non-Whites.12

Pierce says that in the long run free trade brings about a leveling of wages and standards of living among the workers of the various countries involved. When industrial production moves from a country with high wages to a country with low wages, he argues, the effect will be a reduction in the difference between the wage levels of the two countries. Wages in the country that gains the industry will rise and the other will fall. This is true whether the production is in the hands of nationally based companies or multinational corporations. If Ford closes a plant in Detroit and builds one in Mexico, wages will rise in Mexico and fall in the United States as displaced American workers are forced to find employment in a lower-salaried sector of the economy or make do with part-time jobs. Another possibility, wives will leave their children and find work outside the home to compensate for their husbands’ lost income. Pierce points to what is happening in the American clothing industry as an example of what he is talking about.

American women who work at sewing machines in American factories earn about $10 an hour, plus medical and other benefits. Korean or Guatemalan women doing the same work receive about one dollar per hour and no fringe benefits. The consequence is that American clothing factories are shutting down, one after another, and the companies are having the work done in Korea or Guatemala. The clothes are then shipped back to America, where the yuppies and the couch potatoes can buy them for less than if they were made with American labor, and the companies can make more profit.

But the American women who were making $10 per hour plus benefits are being forced into minimum-wage work. Wages gradually rise in Korea and Guatemala, while they gradually fall in America.13

There is some evidence that gives credence to Pierce’s contentions. Between 1982 and 1997, goods imported to the United States as a percentage of domestic production rose from 15.3 percent to 39.3 percent. In the manufacturing sector, employment dropped by 2.5 million positions between 1979 and 1997. The sector that added the most jobs during this period – 7.1 million – was retail sales. This would seem to indicate that American workers are increasingly being hired to sell products produced elsewhere. The typical manufacturing job pays much more than one in retail sales and usually comes with far more substantial health and retirement benefits. Taking inflation into account, despite the seven economically “fat” years in the 1990s, the pay of the typical worker in 1998 was not as high as it was in 1989. Men and women didn’t take the economic hit equally, however, as the median level of men’s real wages fell 6.7 percent during this period while women’s actually rose slightly. Since 1975 the percentage of women with children under the age of six who are employed outside the home has gone up from thirty-eight percent to sixty-five percent. These data are consistent with the theory that American women are saving families and men from declining living standards by seeking employment outside the home.14

Although factory workers are first to be hit with the transfer of American industry out of the country, eventually most other segments of the workforce will suffer as well, warns Pierce – “even the yuppies and others who would never think of working with their hands.”15 Those kinds of people are happy now because they can still buy more consumer goods for less money, he says, but the consequences of free trade will catch up with them eventually, just as it already has caught up with our workers in industries dependent on exports to Asia and with our workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas. And when it starts happening to them, they won’t be so happy anymore.

Pierce says the promoters of free trade are counting on the process of increasing interdependence and wage equalization moving slowly enough so that Americans won’t become alarmed and try to pull back before the process has gone so far that they can no longer extricate themselves.

It’s a bit like the old story of cooking the frogs slowly enough so that they don’t realize they’re being cooked until it is too late to try to jump out of the cooking pot. The idea now is to keep the yuppies and couch potatoes reasonably happy, pay off the unemployed textile workers with extended government benefits taken from taxes on those who are still employed, and keep everybody intimidated and confused with a steady flow of propaganda from the controlled media to make people think that they will be condemned as racists if they object to “free trade” policies. If the media bosses can pull it off, it will be one more demonstration of their ability to persuade a Gentile nation to commit mass suicide.16

Another example Pierce offers to show how the New World Order concept puts things in perspective is around the problem of immigration to this country. Immigration is a particularly important issue to Pierce. In a broadcast called “Non-White Immigration” Pierce asserted that during the past few decades America has been “darkening,” that is to say, becoming less white.17 He said that the “floodgates” have been opened and that people from the non-white world have been pouring into this country legally and illegally. Pierce was primarily talking about Asians and “mestizos,” as he refers to the mixed-blood people from Latin America. (Kevin Strom in his introduction to the audio tape of that broadcast said that more non-white immigrants are coming to our shores each day than hit the beach at Normandy on D-Day.) In the broadcast, Pierce said that if you live on a farm in Kansas you might not notice what has happened, but if you live in Florida, California, or New York City you certainly have noticed it – “you have had your face rubbed in it.”

At some time in the next century, whites will become a minority in North America, and the flood will continue. And the television propaganda telling us that the flood of nonwhites is really a good thing will continue too. The politicians will continue to sing the praises of diversity and multiculturalism in tune with the television. We will be told if we object to the flood we are haters and racists. Interracial sex will continue to be presented as fashionable by the media, and what was a white country fifty years ago will gradually become a brown country. Of course, even a hundred years from now there may be some super-rich white families who will be able to keep their heads above the flood on their own private islands with their own private security forces, but for the rest of us there will be no white schools, no white neighborhoods, no white clubs or bars or restaurants. We’ll be submerged as a people. That is the way it has been planned and that is the way it will happen – not may happen but will happen if we don’t interfere, if we just keep watching TV, paying our taxes, and voting for the Democrats or the Republicans.18

Pierce says that every race of people has a unique spark, including whites, and that if we don’t stop being participants rather than spectators in life and take responsibility for the course of history, our spark will be extinguished forever by a tide of foreign influences that will engulf us. He says it won’t happen next year or in the next decade. It won’t happen in our lifetimes or in the lifetimes of our children and their children. But eventually, in a century or two – a very short time in the history of mankind – it will happen. That is what is at stake in all of this, declares Pierce.

Pierce is convinced that stopping the hoard of illegal aliens crossing our borders each year and deporting the illegals already in this country would be an easy thing to do if the government really wanted to do it. But the government doesn’t really want to do it. Why doesn’t the government want to do it? Because, says Pierce, clamping down on illegal immigrants doesn’t line up with the program of the New World Order. “The New World Order schemers have the ultimate aim of creating a homogeneous population of coffee-colored serfs – docile, predictable, and interchangeable,” exclaims Pierce. “They don’t want any large reservoir of White people anywhere who might rebel.”19 As for the United States, Pierce believes the people in charge want to keep nonwhites coming into the country and promoting their racial mixing and anti-discrimination ideas and policies. This will homogenize the American population and destroy its white character gradually without whites catching on to what is happening and offering any concerted resistance. The question for Pierce is whether white Americans are going to realize what is going on and oppose it.

Another example Pierce cites of how the idea of a New World Order makes sense of things is the current campaign in this country to enact hate crime legislation. Pierce views this effort as part of a much larger campaign to scrap the Bill of Rights and silence those, like him, who would “blow the whistle” on the New World Order campaign and organize resistance to its implementation.

What we see when we look closely at the principal backers of the New World Order and at the people who have been the loudest in their demands for curbs on First Amendment rights, in their demands for the elimination of all Second Amendment rights, and in their calls for government behavior contrary to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as well, all in the name of increasing public security – what we see is that these are the same people. The people who want to outlaw what they call “hate speech,” the people who want to confiscate all private firearms, the people who believe that Political Correctness should take precedence over the right to due process and a speedy trial, to freedom from double jeopardy, from being compelled to testify against oneself, and from unlawful search and seizure – all these are fervent promoters of the New World Order. All of the people who have been scheming for the New World Order understand that the one thing which could upset their applecart is a rebellion by White patriots, and they’re determined to have the government tighten its grip on the people in order to prevent a rebellion from taking place.20

A last illustration of how Pierce uses the New World Order concept was his response to the United States military actions against the Serbs in their conflict with ethnic Albanians in the Yugoslavian province of Kosovo. Pierce believes that the major reason that we took after the Serbs as we did was because they weren’t going along with the New World Order’s multiethnic social experiment. The Serbs wanted to live among other Serbs and were refusing to let outsiders tell them how to run their country, and that wasn’t acceptable. An example had to be made of them lest other countries might think they can get away with bucking the New World Order program. That was Pierce’s cut on it.

Pierce devoted a series of radio programs to this matter in April of 1999. The first one, broadcast on April 3rd, Pierce called “Hands off Yugoslavia.”21

I want to make something clear: I do not approve of rape, torture, and throat-cutting as a means of settling ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, whether it is the Serbs or the Albanians or some other group committing the atrocities. I believe that ethnic cleansing can be done without atrocities. I am sure that some atrocities have occurred in Kosovo province, because that’s the way things always have been done in the Balkans. I’m also sure that the media bosses in America have exaggerated atrocities committed by Serbs and ignored atrocities committed against Serbs…

But really, it’s not the conflict between Serbs and Albanians that should be our principal concern here. What we should be concerned with is America’s policy of killing people who refuse to obey the New World Order gang. We should not let our armed forces be used as a private death squad by [Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright. We should be concerned about the Clinton government’s policy of ignoring the sovereignty of other countries and calling in missile strikes whenever we don’t like the way they’re conducting their internal affairs. And the disagreement between Albanians and Serbs in Yugoslavia’s Kosovo province is strictly an internal affair in the sovereign country of Yugoslavia. When we attacked Yugoslavia last week we were committing raw, naked aggression against a sovereign country. Running around the world doing that sort of thing is not conducive to stability or to world peace, regardless of Mr. Clinton’s attempts to justify it. America is clearly in the wrong in the present war against Yugoslavia…

Pierce told me that this program received an especially strong response. The number of web site “hits” in the period immediately following the broadcast’s posting on the National Alliance Web site was twice what it usually is, and he received hundreds of supportive letters and e-mail messages.

On the April 24th American Dissident Voices program called, appropriately enough, “The New World Order,” Pierce said:22

General Wesley Clark, the 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 is 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.”…

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… But they certainly did not condone the United States sending its armed forces off to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries which are 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 to the people the power to wage war against another country…

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?

Pierce believes that the one force that can stand up effectively to the New World Order is nationalism, his own white nationalism being one brand of it. He writes:

Nationalism is the one force which can thwart them, the one political ideology active on a large scale in the world today in which money is not the primary concern. That is why any success by nationalists anywhere in the world today, any declaration of independence from the global plantation is good news for decent, freedom-loving people everywhere. It is good news when it happens in Germany, Hungary, or France…

We in the National Alliance are not nationalists in the old-fashioned sense, in the sense of geographical nationalism. We don’t belong to the “USA, right or wrong” crowd, which considers any featherless biped claiming U.S. citizenship, regardless of race, color, or creed, as a compatriot. Our nationalism is really racial nationalism. Our compatriots are our fellow White men and women, our fellow Europeans, everywhere: in America, in Europe, in South Africa. Nationalism in our sense – racial nationalism – is still a relatively new thing as a political ideology, although it is based on instincts much older than any ideology.

A lot of people, conservatives especially, are still much more comfortable with the old-fashioned sort of nationalism – or with an ethnic nationalism which is much more limited in scope than our racial nationalism. Conservatives are more comfortable with Scottish nationalism or German nationalism or Polish nationalism. And that’s all right. We encourage these more limited ethnic nationalisms. We encourage any nationalism which is not anti-European or anti-White. We even welcome Black nationalism, Hindu nationalism, or Chinese nationalism, because nationalists of every variety are facing a much bigger threat today than any rival nationalism. Intelligent Hindu nationalists understand that Irish nationalists, Ukrainian nationalists, and Swedish nationalists need not be hostile to them, and we understand that too.

Every national group which is concerned with preserving itself, with preserving its unique racial culture, traditions, and life-styles, is the natural ally of every other nationally conscious group at a time when all of us are faced with the threat of the New World Order… a plantation without national boundaries, with a homogenized population, and a uniform standard of living for the serfs – every nationality will be lost permanently in the mass. Now is the time to derail this nightmare scheme for global subjugation, and any nationality, Hindu or other, which helps in derailing it, by whatever means, deserves our praise.23


1 William Pierce, “The New World Order,” Free Speech, vol. 3, no. 9, September 1997, p. 12.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 The following list is drawn from William Pierce, “The New World Economic Order,” American Dissidents Voices audio tape no. 587 (Hillsboro, WV: National Vanguard Books, 1994).

5 Pierce, “The New World Order,” p. 14.

6 William Pierce, “Thoughts on Free Trade.” Free Speech, vol.4, no.2, February 1998, pp 6-7.

7 Pierce, “Thoughts on Free Trade.”

8 Ibid., p. 6.

9 Ibid., p. 8.

10 Ibid., p. 6.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid., pp. 7-8.

13 Ibid., p. 8.

14 William Hawkins, “Globalization and the Decline of the Family,” Chronicles, vol. 23, no. 5, May 1999, pp. 42-43.

15 Pierce, “Thoughts on Free Trade,” p. 8.

16 Ibid., pp. 8-9.

17 William Pierce, “Non-White Immigration,” American Dissident Voices audio tape 631 (Hillsboro, WV: National Vanguard Books, 1995). Also, see two books that are favorites among those who are on Pierce’s side of the political spectrum: Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints (New York: Charles Scribner’s and Sons, 1975); and Brent Nelson, America Balkanized: Immigration’s Challenge to Government (Monterey, VA: The American Immigration Committee, 1994).

18 Pierce, “Non-White Immigration.”

19 Ibid.

20 William Pierce, “The New World Order,” p. 15.

21 William Pierce, “Hands Off Yugoslavia,” American Dissident Voices broadcast, April 3, 1999.

22 William Pierce, “The New World Order,” American Dissidents Voices broadcast, April 24, 1999.

23 William Pierce, “Nationalism and the New World Order,” Free Speech, vol. 4, no. 5, May 1998, p. 12.

25. Men and Women27. Pierce’s Vision
Book Contents
Blog Contents