state would be more than merely “in danger of breakingndown”; it would be certain to shatter. Driven by the twinnengines of self-interest and a craving for friends and allies, annatomized society would be certain to crystallize around newncenters — new cliques and new tribes. New loyalties wouldngenerate new conflicts.nToward the end of the 1980’s events in Eastern Europenand adjacent Asia poignantly illustrated the truth of Russell’snposition. After 70 years of nearly unrelieved antagonism, thenU.S. and the U.S.S.R. smoked a pipe of peace. The SovietnUnion, now that she had fewer external enemies to fear,nshowed signs of breaking apart “through lack of cohesivenforce,” to use Russell’s words. Latvia and Lithuania soughtnliberation. In the south, Georgians struggled for independence,nas did the Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Eady inn1991 a Soviet attempt to get 15 republics to sign a loyaltynoath netted a bare majority of eight. The future wasnclouded.nThis should have been no surprise. Since the UnitednNations was founded in 1945 many nations have undergonenfission. The only substantial fusions of nations have been thenundoing of previous fissions, e.g., North and South Yemenninto a reborn Yemen; East Germany and West Germanyninto a reassembled Deutschland.nNational fissions, on the other hand, have been legion.nPakistan violently budded off India, with a loss of livesnestimated at over a million. Then Bangladesh budded offnPakistan. French Canada is trying to free itself from the restnof Canada. Yugoslavia, ever since its creation by outsidenforces, has been an unstable association of Serbs, Croats,nand Slovenes (not to mention the Macedonians, Muslims,nand Albanians). Farther east, what price peace for Iraq, withnits Kurds and its two kinds of Muslims (Sunni and Shia)?nOutside forces that are sometimes adequate for the creationnof multi-ethnic nations prove to be impotent in makingnethnics love — or even respect — one another. It’s hard tonsee how there will be any peace until passionate ethnicngroups are segregated from one another by effective borders.nThis is common knowledge, but so opposed is it to thenideas we in America were taught to honor that we are now innthe process of destabilizing our own country through thenunlimited acceptance of massive immigration. The magicnwords of the destabilizers are “diversity” and “multiculturalism.”nDiversity is good, yes: but like all good things, it isnpossible to have too much of it in one place. The tellingnexample of our time is Beirut. For a while the diversity of thisncity was beautiful and exciting: it was called the Paris of thenMediterranean by the Arab millionaires who flocked to it.nBut as it grew in population, and as the proportions of thendisparate ethnic groups changed, peace vanished. Withinnthe bounds of a single nation the mutual stresses ofnintolerant groups became too great.nDuring the first part of the 20th century, immigration tonthe United States was biased to favor those who were mostnlike the people who created this legal entity — the northernnEuropeans. The bureau that governed immigration was,nsignificantly, called the Immigration and NaturalizationnService — “Naturalization” because we old-timers jolly wellnintended to make the newcomers like ourselves as rapidly asnpossible.nThen popular anthropology came along with its dogman20/CHRONICLESnnnthat all cultures are equally good, equally valuable. To saynotherwise was to be narrow-minded and prejudiced, to benguilty of the sin of ethnocentrism. In time, a sort ofnMarxist-Hegelian dialectic took charge of our thinking:nethnocentrism was replaced by what we can only callnethnofugalism — a romantic flight away from our ownnculture. That which was foreign and strange, particularly ifnpersecuted, became the ideal. Black became beautiful, andnprolonged bilingual education replaced naturalization. Immigrationnlawyers grew rich serving their clients by findingnways around the law of the land to which they (the lawyers)nowe their allegiance. Idealistic religious groups, claimingnloyalty to a higher power than the nation, openly shieldednand transported illegal immigrants.nIllegal immigrants have always been welcomed by employersnwho want to keep wages low, but employers werenusually pretty quiet about what they were doing. With thenblessing of some religious groups it is now said that suchnemployers serve a morality higher than the profit motive.nWith the backing of idealists, simple greed has becomensanctimonious greed. Though opinion polls show that thenmajority of the electorate want more restrictions on immigration,npowerful political elements continue to make thenborders ever more permeable.nWho is responsible for this mockery of democracy? I amnashamed to admit that it is the group to which I belong, thenwordmasters — the people who manipulate words to moventhe minds of men and women. Unfortunately, the mastersnof the media have made the field of argument anything butnlevel. How have they done this? And why?nThink how often you see a tear-jerking story in thennewspaper or on television about one Pedro Lopez who hasnjust come to America (probably illegally) and is havingntrouble supporting his wife and four children on his lownwages. But do you recall ever seeing a film clip of some JuannJimenez who has lived in the United States all his life andnhas lost his job to a new immigrant who will work for less?nIt’s a strangely limited sort of compassion that moves anreporter to see the first sort of needy person, though he isnblind to the second. A million immigrants, legal and illegal,nenter each year; perhaps two million. And for every millionnwho enter there are at least ten million more who would likento come in. What sort of patriotism is it that causes anreporter to espouse the cause of illegal immigrants whilenignoring that of America’s own unemployed?nOne factor that may contribute to such biased reportingnhas been suggested by the sociologist James S. Coleman.nIn the last year of the 19th century the economistnThorstein Veblen taught us that a desire for “conspicuousnconsumption” was a powerful motivator of much socialnactivity. Once this desire was honesfly labeled it was on itsnway to becoming unfashionable. In our time, says Coleman,nconspicuous benevolence earns more brownie points thannconspicuous consumption. Almost all news commentatorsnpractice conspicuous benevolence, and thereby gain a loyalnaudience. What’s wrong with that?nWhen a million new workers enter a country that alreadynhas five million unemployed, where do the million needednjobs come from? In large part they must be jobs that werenformedy held by individuals already on the spot. And if, asn