I am in the process of laying out the next edition of The White Worker, and had the pleasure of reading an article submitted by our comrade WH Clark. The article itself, which will be printed in the April issue, is concerned primarily with the recent release of the alleged remaining JFK files and Oswald’s mediocre marksmanship, but for context he also made mention of one of the forces at work in the world at the time of the assassination (and now, as it turns out) called the Liberal World Order.

I confess, I had not heard that term before and glossed over it at first, thinking it was just another way of say “Globalist”. It’s not. It turns out it’s actually a thing, and you should be aware of it too. Essentially, the LWO is an attitude or belief that our jewdeo-capitalist economy should be the model for the rest of the world, and a group of institutions dedicated to perpetuating that myth. It gives the teeth to the globalist bite.

What it is and where it came from

Depending on what source one reads to learn about the Liberal World Order (LWO), its origin can be traced to Wilson’s pledge to “make the world safe for Jewish-led capitalism”…er…sorry, that was “safe for ‘democracy’” in WWI, Roosevelt’s Atlantic Charter and Yalta agreements in WWII, or the creation of the unholy trinity during and after the war: The UN, The World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

It is a liberal system in the sense that it operates on rules that are, in theory, applied to each country equally and that it encourages each country to be democratic and to open its economy to the rest of the world. It is a global system in that every country around the world is encouraged to join and follow those rules, even if some do not. And it is a system that promotes order in that most countries that buy into it respect the borders of other countries and seek to resolve their differences peacefully.

It was developed in an effort to avoid repeating the major man-made disasters of the first half of the twentieth century: the Great Depression and two world wars. Following World War II, the United States, along with several other countries, started drafting an aspirational blueprint for what later became known as the Liberal World Order by establishing certain international institutions.

World 101: The Council of Foreign Relations

Those institutions are the aforementioned UN, WTO, and IMF.

The why

As stated, the claimed purpose of this new cabal, sorry, Liberal World Order, is to prevent the recurrence of global economic catastrophes by creating an overarching rules-based authority among nations and, as much as practicable, entwining economies. The thought being that birds of a democratic feather that flock together won’t wage war on each other. It was also seen as a bulwark against non-democratic nations (that is to say, the Soviet Union and Communist China) in as much as it, theoretically, also combined a global unified military response to countries who tried to invade other countries. The motivation behind all this was, frankly, that the US emerged so strong from WWII that it was assumed to have done something right:

“The U.S. credited democracy and free markets for its success and urged other countries to become more democratic and to build economies that were open to trade and investment. Oftentimes, the U.S. would offer financial aid to other countries on the condition that they make such liberal reforms.”

-ibid

This is where the USAID program came from. It’s called a bribe.

As the Army War College states:

“Democratization is something else that the liberal international order has purported to do irrespective of where a state is located on the globe. Democracy is expected to produce internal and external restraints on the use and abuse of power, which is held to be critical for the behavior of democratic states towards fellow democracies.”

It’s all very touchy feely.

Let it grow

As time went on, the LWO postulated the need for more and more global governance in an increasing number of areas: economic development, health, environmental regulation, migration, and human rights, for example. (For further information, see the EU and Brussels). This in, in turn, justified more rules and an increasing role for the Liberal World Order, serving as an engine of global governance, as seen in new rules being added to international humanitarian law, the creation of International Criminal Court, the Responsibility to Protect mandate (designed to forestall genocide, unless perpetrated by Israel evidently), Security Council resolutions and arms control treaties such as the bans on landmines, cluster munitions and nuclear weapons…and so on.

Funny how we often hear about how “Hitler wanted to conquer the world” and his being bent on “world domination.” And yet, after 1945, look at American foreign policy and the rise of the Liberal World Order, and explain to me again who was actively working for world domination?

The problem and the hypocrisy

In short, the LWO consists of all the rules and governing bodies we National Socialists typically condemn. Not because we don’t understand the need for rules, or we want to see more wars. No, we condemn the LWO because of what their vision of the world really is: a happy homogenized planet without races or unique cultures, ethnic identities, and national boundaries.

Their disdain for us can be found in an Brookings Institute article by Jewish Senior Fellow Robert Kagan, who writes that the LWO is under threat because:

“The past decade has seen the rise of tribalism and nationalism; an increasing focus on the “other” in all societies; and a loss of confidence in government, in the capitalist system, and in democracy. We have been witnessing something like the opposite of the “end of history” but have returned to history with a vengeance, rediscovering all the darker aspects of the human soul. That includes, for many, the perennial human yearning for a strong leader to provide firm guidance in a time of seeming breakdown and incoherence.”

Catch that. Your yearnings for strong leadership, belonging to a Volk or tribe, and your doubts about capitalism and democracy are the “darker aspects of the human soul”. Oy Vey as they say! And it always irks me when a hear a Jew complain about tribalism.

The truth

So, again, the ostensible reason for the LWO was to provide stability and peace to the world. In realty, that’s malarkey, as can be seen by the challenges it now faces (for further information, see the state of panic the world is in as we slowly take our blank check off their tables, the blow-back from unfettered immigration, and the increasing anger at the concentration of global wealth in the hands of a few thousand families). People have begun to question the efficacy of the LWO. Why? Because while economic globalization made for major economic growth rates, the liberal international order conveniently forgot to address income inequality. Thanks to the rule of the LWO, the rich have gotten embarrassingly more rich, while the number of poor remained roughly the same and real wages for the working class have stagnated or declined. All while countless millions died in the so-called Cold War and its proxy conflicts.

For all the lip-service the LWO pays to human rights and the well-being of humanity, I think the ultimate goal is to create compliant consumers to further the wealth of the financial elite. The bottom line is the bottom line: it’s easier to sell goods and buy services in “democratic” countries than it is in autocratic ones, and its easier to move goods from point A to point B when countries are not at war. Do you think the well-heeled elites in the Washington think-tanks like the Brookings Institute or the Council of Foreign Relations, walking back and forth through the revolving door of government power, really care how a peasant in some Vietnamese rice-paddy is doing, or a wheat farmer Ukraine? How about a dairy farmer in Wisconsin? Starry-eyed dreamers like Wilson aside, their vision of world peace doesn’t rise any higher than the wallet in their back pocket.

If we ever go to war with China over Taiwan, it won’t be because anyone gives a rip about “democracy” in Taiwan, it will be because some billionaire is worried about his international stock portfolio. For all the whining about Hitler’s disdain for treaties, at least his foreign policy was honest: he was going to do what needed to be done to protect and propagate Germany and the White race, and others could get out of the way or pay the price.

So what’s the difference between Globalism and the Liberal World Order? As near as I can tell, Globalization is generally economic and cultural, perhaps even technological, whereas the LWO is fundamentally ideological and political. They’re different means to the same end: to make the wealthy more money .

Amerika Erwache!

Subcribe (It’s Free)