and the management of the “globalneconomy” and the “global environment”nare two of the most commonnsuch formulas, though periodically thenapologists for globalism also invent newn”threats” of one kind or another tonwhich we must dedicate ourselves tonresisting and fighting.nYet all of these new globalist ideologiesnring hollow, and none has so farnoffered any compelling reasons whynAmericans should continue to spendntheir time, their money, or their livesnsolving the problems of other peoples,npaying for their errors, or fighting theirnwars. Moreover, there is good reasonnwhy Americans should resist the newnformulas and the agendas and interestsnthey rationalize.nThe globalist agenda includes notnonly continued U.S. intervention in andnmanagement of foreign events but alsonthe diminution or abolition of the UnitednStates itself as a sovereign nation, annautonomous economy, and a distinctivenculture. Hence, globalists support andnpromote the subordination of U.S. nationalninterests and sovereign freedomnof action to transnational organizationsnand their bureaucratic elites that supposedlynrepresent a “global community”nor “global economy.” They alsonadvance the amalgamation of the nationnand its people and civilization into anglobally homogeneous “mankind”nthrough toleration of massive immigration,nimposition of “multiculturalism”nin educational curricula, and the neverendingncrusade against “racism,” “sexism,”n”homophobia,” “xenophobia,”nand “chauvinism.” The victory of thenglobalist agenda would mean in effectnthe extinction of the United States andnits people — not physically, but extinctionnas a coherent collective identity.nThat extinction would serve the interestsnof the globalist elite, for particularistnnational and cultural institutions restrainnthe transnational power of the elite andnoffer impediments to the full scope of itsnability to manage the planet. Hence,nthere is a profound conflict of interestnbetween Americans who want to retainntheir national identity and those elites,nAmerican or not, that seek global unificationnunder their own dominance.nIt is likely that this conflict of interestnwill soon emerge in the United States asnthe principal political and ideologicalndivision, replacing or redefining the oldndivision between “right” and “left.”n10/CHRONICLESnIndeed, this conflict is already apparentnin the foreign policy of the Bush administrationntoward emergent nationalismsnin Iraq, Yugoslavia, and the SovietnUnion. The administration, planningnon using existing multinational states asnbuilding blocks of the globalist NewnWorid Order, is reluctant to recognizenthe nationalist and ethnic separatistnfragmentation of such states. If globalismnis to prevail, then its architectsncannot allow such centrifugal nationalismsnand separatisms to flourish, thoughneven as globalists prophesy the disappearancenof nationalism, it explodesnunder their own noses.nFor the most part, the United Statesnhas not yet witnessed any such explosion,nbut sooner or later, as the globalistnelites seek to drag the country intonconflicts and global commitments, presidenover the economic pastoralizationnof the United States, manage the delegitimizationnof our own culture and thendispossession of our people, and disregardnor diminish our national interestsnand national sovereignty, a nationalistnreaction is almost inevitable and willnprobably assume populist form when itnarrives. The sooner it comes, the better,nand if it is to be successful — not merelyna militant nostalgia or a hormonal reflexn— it will have to define its goals andnagendas and the premises on whichnthey are based.nIn foreign policy, the idea of puttingnAmerica first involves a radical dismantlingnof the Cold War state. It meansnabrogating most of the mutual defensentreaties of the 1950’s, withdrawing mostnof the troops and military bases fromnEurope and Asia, and terminating almostnall foreign aid. It also means thatnmuch or most of the national securitynand foreign policy bureaucracy—in thenPentagon, the State Department, thenintelligence community, the U.S. InformationnAgency, the Agency for InternationalnDevelopment, the PeacenCorps, etc. —should be abolished ornradically reduced in size and functions.nMost of these agencies were establishednfor explicitly Cold War purposes, andntheir continued existence at this point inntheir present form not only is uselessnand expensive but also provides a powerfulnpressure group for continuingnglobalist adventure and entanglement.nIn addition, several conceptual andnlegal changes are desirable for institutionalizingnan America First foreignnnnpolicy that adequately protects nationalnsecurity and interests in the world but atnthe same time does not propel us intonglobal management.n(1) Office-holders and candidates fornoffice should be expected to commitnthemselves to the principle of the nationalnsovereignty and independence ofnthe United States, not only as a legalnabstraction but also as a practical guidelinenfor the conduct of foreign andnmilitary policy and the approval of treatyncommitments. No treaty should benconcluded or ratified that compromisesnor dilutes national sovereignty or requiresnchanges in U.S. law and policyncontrary to the Constitution. ThenBricker Amendment of the 1950’s,nwhich sought to perpetuate these principlesnin the Constitution itself, shouldnbe revived and adopted.n(2) There must be a geopoliticalndefinition of a secure area or perimeternbeyond the borders of the United Statesninto which foreign powers would not benallowed to intrude militarily. Pat Buchanannhas suggested confining thisnarea to Central America, the Caribbean,nand the northern littoral of SouthnAmerica. Not to quibble, but I wouldnexpand it to literally hemispheric dimensions,nextending from the NorthnPole to the South and from the GreenwichnMeridian to the InternationalnDate Line (or geopolitically convenientnapproximations of these artificialnboundaries). Whatever happens withinnthe hemisphere would be deemed relevantnto our national security and interests;nmost of what happens outside itnwould not be relevant.n(3) The United States should maintainnan adequate standing military forcento (a) protect its territory and citizensnwithin the hemispheric perimeter andn(b) mount rapid and effective punitivenand rescue missions outside the perimeternagainst aggressive powers as needed.nThe Strategic Defense Initiative shouldnbe implemented, and a standing armynand navy should be recruited throughnuniversal military training for all ablenmale citizens. The mission of this forcenshould be to fight—not to gain anneducation, learn a trade, see the world,nprove that women are the equals ofnmen, or provide a laboratory for socialnexperiments. Personally, I believe thenright to vote should be contingent uponnfulfilling the military obligations of thencitizen, and this is consistent with then