discovers that Huber’s conservatism is ofrnthe cornucopian —i.e., having-it-all—variety,rna secular version of Christianitywithout-rnthe-Cross. hideed, it is largely arnrestatement of the smelly intellectual corpusrnof the late Julian Simon, which Huberrnhas ill-advisedly sought to resurrect.rnHuman beings are not the problem, Huberrninsists, they’re the soluhon; wealth isrnthe most effective birth-control device:rnnational populations decline with increasedrnprosperity. “There is no inherentrnscarcity of food, fuel, metal, mineral orrnspace to bury our trash”: only of wildernessrnand the wildlife that inhabits wilderness,rnwhich “consen’atives” should seekrnto preserve through the conservation ofrnwedands and forests. As the nation matures,rnHuber suggests, it wishes to conservern”more law, more history, more freedomrnand more public land, too. And sornwe should, political conservatives especially.rnThis is the most conservative convictionrnwe can embrace.” Linda Chavez,rnat the start of a newspaper column devotedrnto Huber and his book, noted that shernfeels nervous when Bill Clinton doesrnsomething she approves of (in the presentrncase, granting protected status to thernGrand Canyon tract). Similarly, I’m suspiciousrnof any conservationist plan endorsedrnby Linda Chavez, founder andrnspiritual leader of the United ImmigrationistrnChurch.rnA few days past New Year’s, the CensusrnBureau heralded the third millenniumrnwith the announcement that it is projectingrnthe population of the UnitedrnStates at 571 million people by the yearrn2100. This grim news was for the mostrnpart ignored by the media, except for encouragingrnreflections that, even with 571rnmillion inhabitants, the United Statesrnwould have a lower population densityrnthan Germany has today (as if that countryrnwere a third waterless desert and anotherrnthird truck garden and bread basketrnto much of the world). For the next couplernof weeks I scanned the press for commentrnfrom the Sierra Club but foundrnnothing—as might be expected from arnprotectionist organization whose officialrnresponse to massive population increasernproduced by immigration is to demandrnthat native Americans produce fewer offspringrnas a balance for the fertility of nonnativerncitizens and illegal immigrants.rnThe refusal by the Sierra Club to recognizernthe greatest existing threat to therncause it was founded to promote indicatesrnthe extent of the Terror sustained byrnthe organs of official opinion in thisrncountry and the power underlying thernconspiracy of silence on immigration, asrnon other “sensitive” issues. Sierra Clubrnofficials, of all people, ought to be alert tornthe likely eventual fate awaiting largernbirds with pompom bodies, outsizedrnpadded feet, stick legs, and serpentinernnecks who react to proximate danger byrnsticking their heads in the sand. Historically,rnthe conservationist movement andrnthe environmentalist one that succeededrnit have been, like democratic institutionsrnarising from traditional British liberties,rnculturally specific phenomena. Do Mexico,rnNicaragua, Kenya, Ghana, Thailand,rnChina, the Koreas, Vietnam, Haiti,rnJamaica, Russia—to name onlv a few ofrnthe countries sending immigrants in substantialrnnumbers to the United States—rnhave their own equivalent of the SierrarnClub? Have they passed any vast body ofrnenvironmental law onto their statuternbooks? (Do they have anything properlyrndescribable as statute books, as Britishrnlaw understands them, or enjoy even thernrule of law itself?) hnmigrationists seemrnto believe America has its own unique atmosphere,rna gaseous bubble enclosingrnthe North American continent, which,rnprocessed through the lungs of aliens,rnproduces the red blood cells specific torn100-Percent Americans. Of course, anyonernwho knows anything about humanrnnature, histors’, and politics, or even readsrnthe newspapers intelligently, knows thernBubble Effect to be mere superstition,rnlike the alchemical transformation ofrndross into gold and other medievalist beliefsrnrational progressivists deride. It’srnabout as reasonable to expect that thernAmerica of 2100 in which white European-rnAmericans constitute 52 percent ofrnthe population (20 percent less than todav)rnwill have a commitment to wildernessrnpreservation as to imagine it will berndevoted to maintaining present affirmative-rnaction law (especially in defense ofrnthe coming white minorit)’). Huber himselfrnadmits that wilderness (which I preferrnto think of simply as open, humanly undevelopedrnspace) is in scarce supply. Is itrnlikely that a hundred years from now,rnwith the population of the United Statesrnmore than doubled, that supply will notrnhave dwindled considerably? The answer,rnfor those who believe in the possibilit}-rnof having it all, is Yes.rnWhich, in America, is ever’body whornis anybody. The only message to arisernfrom the current political season is thatrnon EVERY SIGNIFICANT PUBLICrnISSUE, whether domestic or international,rnthe candidates of the two major partiesrn(and even some of the minor ones) are inrnfundamental agreement. And the basisrnof this consensus, or unanimit}’, is havingrnit all: autonomv and regulation, diversit)’rnand identity, multiculturalism and Americanism,rnimperialism and a volunteerrnarmy, military adventurism and no casualties,rnimmigration and wilderness,rngrowth and open space, private propert)’rnand government lockups, freedom ofrnexpression and sensitivity training, affirmativernaction and a color-blind society,rnlower taxes and Social Security, overvaluationrnand zero inflation, tobacco subsidiesrnand tobacco penalties, French andrnno tears, moralit)^ and unrestraint, sadisticrnentertainment and benign children,rncorrupt politicians and election reform,rnthe Constitution and the SupremernCourt, abortion and the blessings of God.rnGee—ain’t America grand?rnRecently, Alan Greenspan offered arnno-so-veiled hint to the congressionalrnand executive branches of the federalrngovernment when he observed in arnspeech to the Economic Club of NewrnYork Citv that the tight labor market virtuallyrnguarantees eventual inflationaryrnpressures—unless the countrv’ makes therndecision to import labor. . . . LindarnChavez, the Manhattan Institute, andrnother familiar parties must have beenrngratified, but what does the Sierra Clubrnreally think of the idea? The answer is,rnlike most of the rest of brain-dead America,rnit doesn’t reallv THINK at all.rnLooking for a good book?rnSupport Chronicles by purchasing books, CDs, and other itemsrnthrough the Amazon.com link and search engine on our website:rnwww.chroniclesmagazine.orgrnChronicles wiW receive between 5 and 15 percent on every purchase.rn50/CHRONICLESrnrnrn