combined with the Wilsonian dream. This experiment hasnnot resulted in perpetual peace. In times of great crises hostnnations no longer look at aliens as purveyors of exoticnfolklore, but rather as predators snatching bread from theirnhost’s mouth. Peoples are not the same; they never havenbeen and never will be. Ethnic groups can be compared tonthe inmates of large American prisons, who usually begin tonrespect each only when their turf is staked out and whenntheir cells are separated by massive stone walls. Thrown intonone cell they are likely to devour each other in a perpetualnconflict over “territorial imperative.”nThe best way, therefore, to resolve the Yugoslaviannmultiethnic crisis is not by appealing to the spirit ofn”brotherhood and unity” but rather by dismantling thencountry into a loose confederal state. Blood and soil willnforever determine the life of nations. “Scratch the skin ofnany globalist,” goes the proverb in Croatia, “and you willnfind beneath a passionate Croat, Serb, German, or Jew.”nWith the end of communism, the end’ of history will notnfollow, as some would wish us to believe. Had the Europeansnin the 13th century conjured up the “end of history,”nthe Mongol khananat would have been transferred to thenIberian peninsula. Had the Germans and the Poles preachednthe liturgy of affirmative action in 1683, Vienna wouldnshine today as the capital of the Turkish sultans. The endlessnpower game among nations and ethnic groups, the constantnshifts in demographic trends, teach us that life goes on in allnits “creative” hatred — Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam notwithstanding.nToday, more than ever before in the history of mankind, itnis the specificity of peoples that is threatened by thenuniversalist credo. Whether one travels to Warsaw ornSarajevo, or lands in Bucharest or Berlin, the blaring of rocknmusic and the iconography of junk culture have become thennew lingua franca of the global village. One could spendndays in the Budapest Hilton without ever knowing one hadnleft the suspended bridges of the hotel complex of downtownnAtlanta. The new universalism, in order to enforce itsncreed, no longer needs to resort to genocide and depopulations,nto the frigid climate of Kolyma or Katyn, to whichnStalin, in the name of a paradigmatic global proletarian,ncarted off Volga Germans, Kalmuks, and Chechens. Thennew universalism need only turn to a tepid universe ofnKentucky Fried Chicken, a society in which everybodynequals everybody, and where ethnic identities, therefore,nmean nothing.nThis “cool Stalinism” strips peoples of their souls byncreating a Homoeconomicus-dollaricus. The end results ofnboth brands of universalism are pretty much the same,nexcept that the veiled violence of liberal universalism cannnow be more dangerous than the blunt violence of communism.nIt is an irony of history that naked violence oftennpreserves regionalism and ethnic roots; each persecution hasnits cathartic virtue, and each sacrifice invariably strengthensna peoples’ historical memory. Communist violence hasntriggered a hitherto unseen ethnic pride from the Balkans tonthe Baltic lands. In an air-conditioned hell of coo/ universalism,nby contrast, regionalism and the love of one’s countryndo not need to be openly crushed; instead, they can benturned into a commodity, and thereby rendered superfluous,nif not outright funny. If ever the ethnic pride disappearsn24/CHRONICLESnnnfrom Eastern Europe it will not be as a result of communistnrepression, but rather as the outcome of a new. infatuationnwith capitalist gadgetry. The global village knows how tonenslave Ulysses’ lotus eaters without even making themnrealize the peril that they face.nIn a system in which everything has become a commodity,nethnic identity is viewed as an expendable trivialityntoo — a triviality that may at best arouse some culinaryninterest or a tourist’s curiosity. If necessary, universalism willneven do good business from the hammer, sickle, andnswastika — as long as they sell well. For a globe-trottingnmerchant, home is where he hangs his hat, and where henmakes a big buck. Montesquieu was, after all, not wrongnwhen he wrote that commerce is the vocation of equalnpeople.nUntil recently, the concepts of egalitarianism and globalndemocracy were strictly limited to Western peoples.nToday, in a spasm of masochism, and because of thenso-called “white guilt,” the West has extended these principlesnto the antipodes of Earth. The bon sauvage has beenntransformed in our postmodern age into the therapeutic rolenof white man’s superego. Not long ago it was the white mannwho had to teach the nonwhites the manners of the West.nToday the roles are reversed; now it is the non-European,nwith his pristine innocence, who grafts himself onto thenailing consciousness of the Westerner, pointing out to himnthe right path to the radiant future.nThe very concept of “the West” has been stripped of itsnoriginal geopolitical and geographical significance, becomingninstead a metaphor for a meta-system that encompassesnAlaska, the Philippines, South Korea, and any nook orncranny where the idea of the mercantile global villagenthrives.nWith the end of its competing ideology the philosophy ofnthe global village has taken hold in many countries, eulogizingnthose who support it, vilifying those who don’t. Whatnthe future holds is not difficult to guess. It may well happennthat inter-ethnic troubles will eventually subside in EasternnEurope, but this is not likely to happen in the West, wherenracial turmoil looms large. We may soon see replicas of thenBeriin Wall erected in New York and Philadelphia in ordernto contain the multiethnic violence of the global village.nThe lesson of artificial Yugoslavia should not be forgotten.nOur “promiscuous altruism,” as Garrett Hardin writes, maynlead us against our will into a war of all against all.nThe cult of the global village appears today as a politicalnresponse to theological and ideological battles that havenrocked the West for more than a century. But it remains tonbe seen how the singular principle of human rights can benimplanted in a world that remains eminently plural. “Weninvoke human rights,” continues Hardin, “to justify interferingnin another nation’s internal affairs. Thereby we risknmaking enemies of that nation . . . The intentions behindnthe fiction of ‘human rights’ may be noble, but insisting onnsuch rights poses grave dangers.”Global democracy is thenlast twilight dream of those who are spiritually homeless andnphysically uprooted. It is a doctrine that eloquently masksnthe ethnic and racial reality behind the theology of universalism.nn