and legal preferences of this or anynother country.nBut nothing offers more opportunitiesnfor one-worldist mischief thannenvironmentalism. Since the “environment”nextends across national borders,nmanaging it cannot be restricted to ansingle state and has to be undertaken bynseveral governments. The result of then”global environmental crises” now routinelyndiscovered every year will be thenregulation of the social, economic, andnpolitical life of particular nations innaccordance with environmental rulesnpromulgated (and presumably enforced)nby a supranational authority.n• Writing in the lead article of ScientificnAmerican’s September 1989 issuendevoted to the topic of “ManagingnPlanet Earth,” William C. Clark ofnHarvard’s Kennedy School of Governmentnannounced that one requirementnfor “adaptive planetary management”nis:nthe construction of mechanismsnat the national and internationalnlevel to coordinate managerialnactivities. … In fact, a dozen ornmore global conventions fornprotection of the environmentnare now in effect. . . . [But]nthe immediate need at theninternational level is for anforum in which ministeriallevelncoordination ofnenvironmental-managementnactivities can be regularlyndiscussed and implemented,nmuch as is already done forninternational economic policy.nThe kind of transnational managementnof the natural environment that Mr.nCarhenge, Nebraska’s curious automotivenclone of Stonehenge, appears safenfrom bureaucratic bulldozers. A trulynout-of-the-way sculpture fashioned fromnjunk cars by a hometown artist, Carhengenhad been threatened with demolitionnafter displeased neighbors in Alliancen(pop., 9,800) seized upon a codenviolation — it lacked a paved access road.nCarhenge supporters, citing the conspicuousnabsence of a Mt. Rushmore ton10/CHRONICLESnLIBERAL ARTSnAT LEAST IT WASN’TnNEA-FUNDEDnClark advocates would indeed complementnthe similar arrangements alreadynin place for global economic management.nAs libertarian scholar LlewellynnH. Rockwell, Jr. recently pointed out,n”Under the aegis of the Bank for InternationalnSettlements . . . banking isnnow regulated on a global basis. Andnthe Bush administration is pushing fornworid regulation of the stock, bond, andnfutures markets. The administration isnalso promoting—with the other G-7nindustrialized nations — internationalncash controls, international financial police,ninternational tax collusion, internationalnfiscal controls, and a UN treaty tonmake confidential banking a crime.”nIf global management of the environmentndoesn’t polish off the nationstate,nmanaging the global economyncertainly will. The New Republic seniorneditor Robert Wright, in a recentnessay in explicit defense of oneworldism,nargues that global economicninterdependence and the resultingn”policy coordination” are pressures fornthe kind of “institutional subordinationnof national autonomy to internationalnwill” that he envisions for the planet ofnthe future. “As the leaky nationalneconomy becomes hostage to internationalnforces,” he writes, “we can eithernseize control of these forces in concertnwith other nations-, or surrender a goodnmeasure of control altogether.”nThe obvious but seldom-asked question,nof course, is: who is “we”? Thosenwho will gain from the evanescence ofnthe nation-state and of the concept ofnnationality itself will be those elites ablento preserve and enhance their ownnpower in the new, denationalized ordernthat the globalists anticipate — thosenattract tourists, argued that a scrapheapnsculpture is a suitable alternative, even ifnit’s just 16 junk cars stuck trunk-sidendown in the prairie, with six more clunkersnplopped atop them as an ironicntribute to prehistoric Stonehenge. And itnlooks like they’ve won. Last November angroup called Friends of Carhenge drovento the rescue of artist James Reindersnwith $2,000 in asphalt money. Carhengenwill remain.nnnwho will be managing the environment,nplanning and running the worldneconomy, and enacting, administering,nor enforcing the transnational laws andntreaties by which the planetary regimenis to be governed and the humannproclivity to differentiate into distinctngroups restrained. The cultures, religions,nlanguages, and nations fromnwhich this elite emerges will be largelynirrelevant to its powers and interests.nThey will in fact present an obstacle tonthe furtherance of its powers and interestsnand will therefore need to benreduced or eliminated entirely if thenemergent transnational managerialnelite is to flourish. The elite may retainnsome quaint vestiges of nationalism,njust as we today conserve places likenWilliamsburg, and it may even findnnationalist imagery useful in gainingnthe confidence of patriotic types whonfail to see the glories of the new age.nBut whatever the merits of the globalistnargument that the world had just betternget itself together or else face disaster,nthe logic of the new elite’s interests willnincreasingly ensure that nationality —nand the legal and political claims andncultural identities that go withnnationality — is extinguished and itsnown global technocratic regime perpetuated.nAmericans, who began their nationalnhistory by severing the bonds thatnconnected them to a dying civilizationnand who ventured into history determinednto build a new civilization politicallynindependent of and culturallynunique among the powers of the earth,nwill find themselves reduced in bothnpower and identity by the emergentnworid order that both the “right” andnthe “left” today like to celebrate. Theynwill eventually find themselves deliverednback to the mercies of whatevernglorified pencil-sharpeners from Europenor the Third World happen to benin charge of their future this year, andnthey may become indistinguishablenfrom the rest of the cattie in the globalnbarnyard who provide the fluctuating,nmobile populations of the planetaryneconomy and government. Americansnwho don’t want to become such cosmopolitanncoolies need to start thinkingnabout what they can do to preserventheir nation, its heritage, and themselvesnfrom the managerial colossusnthat now begins to straddle the globe.n<^n