lot boxes than of conformity to globalistrnprecepts; “Only a decade ago, Washington’srnBig Business liberalism was consideredrnsomething of a joke bv Europe’srnLeft and Right alike. Europe was morernsocial-democratic, more anti-immigration,rnmore ata’istic and national. It isrnstriking that the immigration question—rnthe great globalist Signifier—was alwaysrnhandled, in practice, on strangeK’ Americanrnassumptions despite the unfriendlyrnnational contexts. The power of globalistrnideology to freeze the national capacityrnfor action, even reaction, was there forrnall to see.”rnThe Albright-Soros attack on the nation-rnstate is unrelenting and explicit.rnThe more you resist, the bigger thernsiege engines used against you. ThernSwiss decision not to join “Europe”—actually,rnnot the EU but the regulatedrntrade penumbra—they resented. Surernenough, Swiss banks soon hit the headlines.rnCompared to those now humbledrnbastions, Malaysian trenches look flimsv.rnSo Mr. Mahatir better take note. Whatrnhappened to your currency last summerrnis onh’ a mild warning, a nonchalant shotrnacross the bow, lest vou forget your assignedrnrole. Produce more, sell more,rnimport more. And forget who you are.rnAnd learn to sing.rn-Srdja TrifkovicrnAL GORE, in a recent address to thernNational Council of La Raza, the militantrnHispanic organization, creditedrnLatinos for creating “a new economy inrnAmerica” and said “not enough Latinosrnare participating fin its benefits]. Wernhave a lot of work to do, and we will notrnrest until everyone in the communityrnshares fully.” The problem can be rectifiedrnin the next presidential election, ifrnthe 32-million-member Latino populationrngoes for Al Gore. On the same dayrnthat the Vice President spoke. La Razarnreleased a report showing that one-thirdrnof American Hispanies are impoverishedrn—not a surprising datum when juxtaposedrnwith another finding in the report,rnthat 53.4 percent of Latinos in thernLInited States graduated from highrnschool in 1995, compared with 73.8 percentrnof blacks and 83 percent of whites.rnFor Clinton Democrats who regardrnthe white American majority as incurablyrnracist. La Raza’s statistics have a sinisterrnsignificance they are eager to sharernwith a potential constituency, whichrnmore than one speaker in Chicago referredrnto as a “sleeping giant.” “I don’trnwant to hear any talk that’s supposed tornmake us feel good,” said Arturo Viirgas,rnexecutive director of the National Associationrnof Latino Elected & Appointed OfficialsrnEducation Fund. “I want to hearrnabout the immigrant bashing and thernthreats to affirmatie action that arcrnsweeping the country.”rnAs the Chicago convention makesrnclear, the immigration time bomb continuesrnto advance toward detonation,rnand the blame for this situation restsrnwith the national government. Washingtonrnmay or may not have had advancernknowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing,rnbut it’s known about the immigrantrninvasion since the 1960’s and advanced itrnas national policy ever since—passive atrnfirst but then increasingly activist untilrnPresident Clinton, in a recent address torna convocation of black bigwigs in Washington,rnfelt sufficiently confident tornthrow caution to the wind and announcerna Third American Revolution to transformrnthe United States into a non-Europeanrncountry.rnThe majority of federal officials strategicallyrnplaced to implement—or ratherrnto de-implement—American immigrationrnpolicy are Clinton appointees.rnMeanwhile, the Clintonization of thernRepublican Party since the collapse ofrnits own “revolution” has converted thern”opposition party” to a me-too positionrnon nearly every issue of national importance,rnincluding immigration. The resultrnis that such reforms as were accomplishedrn—for example, the elimination ofrnsome welfare benefits to immigrants—rnhave been reversed, and the nation as arnwhole can look forward to more annualrnincreases in immigration.rnEven worse, the botch that goes byrnthe misnomer of immigration policy,rnthrough its inept combination of loudrntalk and carrying a toothpick, has succeededrnin polarizing what little real debaternon immigration actually exists. Inrnthe eady 1980’s, anti-irnmigrationists, relyingrnon the time-honored principle thatrnblood is thicker than water, argued thatrnmass immigration from non-Europeanrnsources would produce a fractured populationrnloyal only to its various ethnic origins,rnpromoting the political and culturalrninterest of particular ethnic and racialrnblocs and using its growing numbers tornprovide the electoral clout necessary tornassure those interests. If immigration reformrnwere delayed, they warned, tens ofrnmillions of alien voters would pLit Americanrninstitutions and the United States asrnwe know it beyond hope of sah’ation. Forrnsome years afterward the danger, howeverrnplausible theoretically, seemed not tornbe materializing. What is the point ofrnemigrating from Mexico to the UnitedrnStates if the rest of Mexico is permittedrnto follow you there? One poll after anotherrnindicated that new or lately arrivedrnimmigrants agreed with indigenousrnAmericans in opposing a generous immigrationrnpolicy, let alone a virtually openrnone.rnNow that situation has changed,rnthanks to political ineptitude in Washington.rnA more politically shrewd strateg)rnwould have entailed retaining benefitsrnl^or immigrants already in the UnitedrnStates, while substantially reducing thernnumber of those arriving in the future.rnMeanwhile, the Clinton administrationrnengages in strenuous efforts to fan thernfires of ethnic rivalry to its political advantage.rnIn the interest of a DemocraticrnHouse of Representatives in 1998, and atrnthe expense of an increasingly racializedrnpolity, the Democrats are willing to sellrnout the white majority and eater to SeiiorrnVargas y amigos. The logical fate of a nationrnof immigrants is the never-endingrnstruggle among competing immigrantrngroups as to which of them will dominaternthat nation. The Democratic Partyrndoesn’t care, so long as the winningrngroup isn’t white, and so long as it controlsrneverybody—and everything. Andrnthe Grand Old Party in concert chirrups,rn”Me too!”rn—Chilton Williamson, ]r.rnFRANCOIS FURET’S death on juiyrn11 in Toulouse at age 70 ended the careerrnof a truly iconoclastic historian. DespiternFuret’s association with the politicalrnleft, as a youthful communist and middle-rnaged social democrat, his scholarshiprnwent against the grain of the French andrnAmerican academic establishments. InrnPenser la Revolution and in other revisionistrnworks. Furet questioned assumptionsrnabout the French Revolution thatrnhad been drummed into American asrnwell as French uniersity students forrngenerations. As a graduate student inrnthe niid-1960’s, I encountered thoserndogmas before Furet’s demythijication,rnmost of them drawn from the FrenchrnMarxist Albert Mathiez and his Americanrndisciple Robert Palmer. Robespierrernand the Jacobins were allegedly democraticrnheroes beset bv counterre’olution-rnOCTOBER 1997/7rnrnrn