When Von Hayek wrote his book in 1944, he was reminded daily that government is simply "the holder of coercive power." His native Austria was besieged on all sides by different kinds of totalitarian planners - Nazis, Fascists and Communists. Yet in 1944, von Hayek foresaw an even greater menace to individual freedom.

The New Order plan to "equalize" standards of living

"Those who preach a New Order, which is no more than a projection of the tendencies of the last forty years [...] can think of nothing better than to imitate Hitler. It is indeed those who cry loudest for the New Order who are most completely under the sway of the ideas which have created this war [World War II] and most of the evils under which we suffer." [3]

What was this New Order? For von Hayek, it was the specter of coercive and centralized planning on a global scale. Even as the horrors of WWII unfolded, the prospect of the New Order stirred revulsion. For from this kind of centralized planning, global in scale, there was no escape, by migration or otherwise. Two years before the 1946 San Francisco conference on the United Nations, von Hayek wrote:

"There will probably exist a strong tendency to make any new international organization all comprehensive and world wide and there will of course be an imperative need for some [...] new League of Nations" [4]

But von Hayek saw through the utopian pretensions of the global planners, which he called "fatal delusions." Perhaps he should not have been quite so sure that they were deluded, as opposed to dishonest. For it would be even plainer in 1944 than it is now that the project of centralized global planning would require the planners to conduct a distasteful form class warfare that would result in many casualties:

"There is every reason to expect that with world planning the clash of economic interests [...] would in fact appear in even fiercer form as a clash of interest between whole peoples [...] To a worker in a poor country the demand of his more fortunate colleague to be protected against low wage competition is frequently no more than a means to deprive him of his only chance to better his conditions" [5]

Von Hayek knew that planners would have to favor or disfavor the citizens of particular nations, and that any advantages citizens enjoyed due to their own nation's accomplishments would have to yield to the planners' imperative of producing a uniform standard of living for the worlds' peoples:

"To produce the same result for different people, it is necessary to treat them differently" [6]

Von Hayek believed that the European peoples would never allow their national standards of living to be undermined by the New Order agenda:

""There is at present a great deal of muddleheaded talk about "planning to equalize standards of life. [...] To plan for the deliberate equalization of standards of living means. [...] that some must be given precedence over others, ...Until I find a sane person who seriously believes that the European races will seriously submit to their standard of life and rate of progress being determined by a world parliament, I cannot regard such plans as anything but absurd." [7]

The New Order and "Free Trade"

But von Hayek underestimated the treachery of which American elites were capable. Cheap labor outside America with free access to American markets means higher profits. Financial elites reap the harvest in higher stock prices and executive pay. Political elites collect more investment taxes and campaign contributions. But Americans who work for a living are walking the road to serfdom.

Paul Craig Roberts, who holds a doctorate in economics, is one of the few media columnists who writes about this issue without partisan motives:

"Since President Bush has been in office, 2.5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost [...] the U.S. economy is creating jobs, but not for Americans... they have been moved offshore and given to foreigners" [8]

Roberts predicts that if this trend continues, the "U.S. will undergo wrenching economic, social and political adjustments."

Of course, Bush II is not particularly to blame for this exodus of jobs from America. What is to blame is the "free trade" policy that holds sway in our Republicrat Congress and presidential administrations since 1988, i.e., Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. Combined with the "strong dollar policy" of "appointed for life" Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, "free trade" is making it ever less possible to produce goods and services in America, and sell them in other countries.

Manufacturing jobs began to migrate overseas in the 1980s. Many believed that this migration represented America's conversion to a new "high-tech" service economy, in which Americans with university degrees and technical skills would flourish. Not so. According to Roberts, 170,000 computer system design jobs have recently left the United States for places like India and Communist China.

Now, generations of highly educated (or over educated) Americans have been left high and dry in a domestic economy without jobs. The world's wealthiest nation lacks employment opportunities for its own citizens. The world's "superpower" is apparently powerless to provide them.

Even the prescient Von Hayek did not foresee that the New Order would equalize standards of living not so much by raising the standard of living of his "worker in a poor country" but by lowering the standard of living of those who work in wealthier countries. And the worker who has lost the most and will continue to lose the most in this nefarious process of leveling is the native born working citizen of what was until now the wealthiest nation - the United States.

The New Order and taxes:

The planners of the New Order shall continue to superintend our standards of living, not only by lowering our wages and salaries, but also by raising taxes.

According to the Financial Times, the "Group of Seven" met in Paris on February 23, 2003. Not to be confused with the Chinese Counterrevolutionary "Gang of Five", the "Group of Seven" are the central bankers and finance ministers of the European and North American nations.

The President of the European Central Bank is Wim Duisenberg. He is Alan Greenspan's Continental counterpart. He attacked Bush II's tax cut plan, claiming it endangered "the global economy." The phrase "global economy" is a nebulous concept, but appears to be shorthand for what von Hayek described as centralized, global economic planning. The Financial Times reported that John Snow, our new Treasury Secretary, was not deterred by Mr. Duisenberg's salvo, and still was "pushing hard" for international support.

The Financial Times is published in Europe. American media would have us believe that decisions about the tax burden of American citizens are made in Washington D.C., and not Paris, France. Also, we are told that our elected representatives decide what our taxes should be. We are not told that their decisions require the "international support" of a guy named "Wim".

After the meeting was over, the G7 centralized planners issued a stylish "final communiqué" stating that European economies would "accelerate labor, product and capital market reforms" and that the United States would "boost savings and capital formation"

The New Order and the use of force:

To be distinguished from Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss, Dr. von Hayek saw the New Order as the worst of all possible worlds: " the centralized direction of economic activity on a world scale". Just as the Soviet "5 year plan" required coercion on a national scale, the New Order project of "planning on an international scale", von Hayek observed, "cannot be anything but a naked rule of force."

The necessity of force is inherent to international planning, because peoples of different religions and cultures are unlikely to voluntarily agree on the same social, political and economic agenda. Writing in 1944, von Hayek said:

"To undertake the direction of the economic life of people with widely divergent ideals and values is to assume responsibilities which commit one to the use of force [...] As the scale increases the amount of agreement on the order of ends decreases and the necessity to rely on force and compulsion grows." [9]

While Woodrow Wilson laid its groundwork in 1918 with the League of Nations, the structure of this New Order has risen dramatically since the fall of the Soviet Union. Ironically, the Cold War was a time of potential devastation, but at least after the Vietnam War, a time of relative peace for the United States. Since 1988, however, the United States has increased its troop deployments as average of six per presidential term. This average increase does not factor in the troop deployments of the Napoleonic Bush II. During that time, the United States has been at war with or in Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq (twice). Currently, the Bush II administration is threatening to attack Iran, Syria and North Korea.

Our federal government's current mania for national or "homeland" security is a direct outgrowth its earlier mania to patrol the globe and "stabilize" international affairs. Abroad, many religious and ethnic groups desire to "destabilize" affairs for their own idiosyncratic reasons. For New Order planners, the only solution is the use of force on worldwide scale to crush dissent in selected "hotspots." And in America, the venerable ban on using military force against citizens who engage in political and religious dissent is in the process of being lifted.

No jobs except soldiering:

Donald Rumsfeld brushes off suggestions that the United States military might not be able to make war on two or three different nations at a time, To many observers, his insouciance appears disingenuous. Expect the feds to reinstate the military draft within five years, possibly two. Do not expect much in the way of debate, referendum or even notice, beforehand.

At least those who are drafted won't have to leave their jobs. They are not likely to have any. And given that it was the New Order planners who undermined the economic opportunity of America's born citizens, insult shall be added to injury as they are compelled to render military service to defend the same system that subverted their standard of living.

Are we going to sit back and take it?
If not, what do we do?

The point of this essay is not to whine about the lack of jobs. Americans are used to economic insecurity. Things have been worse before, from an economic standpoint. Not too many breadlines have formed, at least not yet.

But the loss of our Constitutional rights and freedoms is a different matter. Von Hayek wrote:

"Nothing is more fatal than the present fashion among intellectual leaders of extolling security at the expense of freedom [...] freedom can be had only at a price and that as individuals we must be prepared to make severe material sacrifices to preserve our liberty [...] we must regain the conviction upon which the rule of liberty in the Anglo-Saxon countries has been based and which Benjamin Franklin expressed in a phrase: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" [10]

Instead, the point of this essay is to emphasize to all, and especially to "Republicans" and "Conservatives", the depth and breadth and duration of our government's commitment to this "New Order." Federal government support for the New Order is traceable back to Woodrow Wilson. In 1944, when von Hayek wrote his book and FDR was President, the New Order about to become tangible in the form of the United Nations. After a relatively short dormancy during the Cold War, it has emerged under Bush I Clinton /Bush II as a working world government.

The loss of economic opportunities for working Americans is the least grievous injury inflicted by our government's commitment to the "New Order." Von Hayek believed the triumph of the New Order would inevitably mean the loss of our political freedoms. His prediction has been borne out by a federal government that is busy snuffing out our Constitutional rights and using its warmongering as an excuse to impose totalitarianism upon our "homeland"

The stunning treacheries conceived and carried out by the federal government against its own citizens cannot be undone or remedied by ordinary political means. Things have gone too far for too long a period of time. We are reaching the end of the long road to serfdom.

Deliverance shall come, if at all, in the form of a counter-revolutionary strategy designed to preserve our rights, our freedom and our religion. Unlike Conservatism, the aim of such a strategy is not to preserve the status quo in government and culture, but to destroy it.

What European Christians can do today is to withdraw all support from the New Order and our totalitarian federal government. Because United States combat troops are disproportionately comprised of European Christian men, [11] declining service in the Armed Forces will be a very effective tactic.

Christian eXile is an attempt to withdraw support across the board and achieve real economic and cultural independence from New Order planners. (See, Four Steps on the Way to eXile).

Deprived of our support, and given time, the New Order will fall of its own weight. Its eventual fate shall be the same as its totalitarian predecessors, the Nazis and the Communists. No form of government based on coercion, global or otherwise, can long endure.

To facilitate that self-destruction, and to preserve the good, a voluntary and separatist association of free Christians, in the form of Christian eXile, is our best strategy.

X - In Hoc Signo Vinces

June 14, 2003 (Flag Day)
Luke Exilarch - luke@exilemm.com