PERSPECTIVErnIn the Time of the Breaking of Nationsrnby Thomas FlemingrnWe will bury you,” warned Nikita Khrushchev in thern1950’s, but in the end, it is America’s NATO imperiumrnthat is burying Serbs under the rubble of Novi Sad and Belgradernand Americans under the red tape of the New World Order.rnThe march of globalization has proceeded without cffecti’ernresistance but not without criticism, and dissidents on both leftrnand right have been calling for a new nationalism. This appealrnhas resonated with sensible people who are disgusted with thernloss of economic sovereignt\ which has been betrayed by NAFTArnand GATT, who are alarmed by the unchecked flow of legalrnand illegal immigrants, and who are disgusted with the internalrnsubversion of our culture by midticulturalism in thernschools and by a caste system of ethnic privileges that demoralizesrnEuropean-Americans without actually helping non-Europeanrnminorities.rnBut opposition to internationalism is not quite the samernthing as nationalism, and the enemy of my enemy is not alwaysrnmy friend. To oppose internationalism with nationalism persernis to make a false dichotoniv. It is perfectly possible to upholdrnthe dignity of the nation in matters of trade and immigration,rnwhile at the same time belonging to an international religionrnlike Christianity. Christians who oppose the New World Orderrnmay also believe that the national government has far too muchrnpower over the states and cities where real life is lived—outsidernthe Beltway and a half day’s drie from Saltwater—but the- arernnot necessarily prepared either to declare that the nation is e-rner)’thing or to deny that it is anything at all.rnChristians ought to be deeply suspicious of nationalism andrnglobalism, both of which developed in the course of the 18thrncentury and were advocated by the bloody-handed leaders ofrnthe French Revolution who killed each other over whether thernRevolution represented the revival of the French nation or therndawning of the brotherhood of man. In the end, the nationalistsrnwon, and while Napoleon pretended to be liberating therncaptive nations of the Holy Roman Empire, he was really onlyrnreplacing Austria with France, Habsburgs with Bonapartes.rnStalin and Trotsky played out the same homicidal farce in theirrnstruggle for control of the Soviet Union. Again, the nationalistsrnwon out, as they did in Germany, Italy, and the United States,rneach nation creating in the 1930’s (as James Burnham and JohnrnFIvnn observed) its own form of national socialism, which becamernthe dominant form of government in developed nationsrnlike the United States, Sweden, and Israel as well as in mostrnI bird World countries, where a series of strong men — Peron,rnNasser, Qaddafi, Mobutu-combined welfare policies with aggressivernnationalism.rnClassical liberals and libertarians, in criticizing the new nationalists,rntake their stand on the individual and defend economicrnliberty against what they call “protectionist” legislation.rnThe}’ ma’ oppose, as Paul Craig Roberts does, the World TradernOrganization and write critically of NAFTA, as Llewellyn Rockwellrnhas done, because those schemes are not truly instrumentsrnof market freedom; but in the end, classical liberals object tornanv economic plan that increases the power of a national governmentrnto interfere in the market choices of individual citi-rn10/CHRONICLESrnrnrn