in the domestic sphere, we see in Bill Clinton’s gleeful projeetionrnof a non-European ethnic majority’ in the next century,rnAmerica as a scene out oi Blade Ri/nner—dominates our relationsrnabroad as well. Our anh-nahonal, pseudo-intellectualrnelites are not content just with destroying the American nation;rnthey want to eliminate everybody else’s national identity too.rnThe budding totalitarianism inherent in the domestic conceptrnof group rights based on “diversih”—race, ethnicitv’, language,rnreligion, sex, age, economic class, handicap, sexual preference,rnand so on (the breeding of the new and improved Americanrn”rainbow” analogue to Homo Sovieticus)— needs little elaboration.rnOf course, the means emploved —open trade and immigration,rnfederalized education and health care, gun control andrnthe inversion of traditional morality, feminization of the militaryrnand more federal, state, and local criminalization of “haterncrimes” —may, in the long run, prove as destructive to some ofrnthe currently favored groups as it is to the traditional Americanrnidentity that is being broken down: E pluribus nullum.rnrr %t question of nationality (andrnits accompaniment, self-determination),rnhas become putty in thernhands of the global elite.rnThe same impulse operates in the international sphere, inrnwhich the denationalized “new” United States is rapidly becomingrnboth enforcer and prototype for a new global order.rnLast November the Washington Post, a publication that is anythingrnbut hostile to globalization, ran an article entitled “EvenrnAllies Resent U.S. Dominance: America Accused of BullyingrnWorld.” The Post quotes the German newsmagazine DerrnSpiegel:rnNever before in modern history has a country dominatedrnthe earth so totally as the United States does today.rnAmerican idols and icons are shaping the world fromrnKatmandu to Kinshasa, from Cairo to Caracas. Globalizationrnwears a “Made in USA” label. The Americansrnare acting, in the absence of limits put to them b}’ anybodyrnor anything, as if they own a blank cheek in theirrn”MeWorld.”rnOf course, not all foreigners object to “McWorld.” As one commentatorrnin Germany put it: “American values and arrangementsrnare most closeh’ in tune with the new Zeitgeist. . . . Andrnthat makes for a universal culture with imiversal appeal.”rnSeveral years ago. Strobe Talbott, Bill Clinton’s O.xfordrnhousemate and now Deputy Secretar)- of State, wrote an essayrnfor Time entitled “America Abroad: The Birth of the GlobalrnNation.” In it, he expresses his prediction —and his hope,rnwhich he is now in a position to help realize—that in the nextrncenturv “nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all statesrnwill recognize a single, global authority. A phrase briefly fashionablernin the mid-20th centur}’—’citizen of the world’—willrnhave assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st” (and if Talbottrngets his way, a lot sooner than that). The established consensus,rndiffering only in details between the Talbott/MadeleinernAlbright internationalist left and the “national greatness” pseudo-rnconservatism of the Weekly Standard, ensures that for thernforeseeable future American “benevolent global hegemony”rn(the Standard’s expression), in symbiosis with the United Nations,rnwill be the order of the day. As I have outlined previouslyrnin Chronicles, this impulse is a continuation of those of thernpretenders to global domination that were born in the FirstrnWorld War and figured so prominently in the Second. Thern20th century has been the century primarily of red fascism andrnbriefly of brown fascism. The 21st begins as the era of rainbowrnfascism, stamped “Made in USA,” an America none of thernFounding Fathers —with the possible exception of TomrnPaine—would recognize, much less countenance.rnWhat is a nation? The following can serve as a usefulrnworking proposition from the pen of a man who hadrnsome experience with nations (mainly with destroying them),rnlosif Vissarionovieh Dzhugashvili, better known as Stalin,rnwrote:rnA nation is an historically formed community of peoplern(but one neither racial nor tribal), possessing a commonrnterritory, a common language, and a commonly sharedrneconomic life, a communit)’ of psychological outlookrnwhich is manifested in a community of culture.rnNot too bad for a guy who dropped out of the seminary to becomerna bank robber, although one might quarrel with the partrnabout “neither racial nor tribal,” since indeed most nationsrncome into being precisely as organic extensions of the family,rnthe clan, and the tribe.rnhi the American context, this was obvious to John Jay, whornnoted in Federalist 1 that America wasrnone connected country, . . . one united people, a peoplerndescended from the same ancestors, speaking the samernlanguage, professing the same religion, attached to thernsame principles of government, ver’ similar in their mannersrnand customs.rnIndeed, to Jay it was self-evident that, contrary to the prevailingrndelusion that national culture is irrelevant to national creed,rn”the creed,” as Huntington puts it, is “a product of the culture.”rnHuntington suggests that “the values and institutions of thernoriginal [American] settlers, who were Northern Europeans,rnprimarily British, and Christian, primarily Protestant,” werern”modified but not fundamentally altered” by later waves ofrnWestern, Southern, and Eastern European immigration. Still,rnwe all instinctively recognize that there is something morerncharacteristically “American” about that original stock: it hasrnlong been possible to be an “ethnic” or “hyphenated American”rnwho was also Italian, Greek, Polish, Jewish, or Irish. Butrnan American cannot be “English” or an “English-American”rnunless he himself actually is from England. (The seldomencounteredrn”French-American” would sound almost as silly.)rnAccording to the “American Creed,” it is heresy to admit whatrnwe all know to be true: that on a certain level, those of us whorn20/CHRONICLESrnrnrn