EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrn’Theodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, ]r.rnEDITORIAL ASSISIANTrnChristine llaynesrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnJohn W. Mdridge, Harold O.j.rnBrown, Katherine Dalton, SamuelrnFrancis, George Garrett,rnE. Christian Kopff, Clyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnJanet Scott Barlow, Bill Kauffman,rn]ohn Shelton Reed, David R. SlavittrnEDITORIAI. SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnCOMPOSITION MANAGERrnAnita FedorarnCIRCLILAI’ION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn934 North Main Street, Rockford, IE 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815) 964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5811.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, 11.61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnFor information on advertising in Chronicles,rnplease call Rochelle Erank at (815) 964-5811.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,rnSanduskv, OH 44870.rnCopyright © 1993 by The Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChromdes (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnluonthly for $24 per year by The RockfordrnInstitute, 934 North Mam Street, Rockford,rnIL 61103-7061. Second-class postage paidrnat Rockford, IL and additional mailing offices.rnPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol, 17, No. 6 June 1993rnPrinted in the Unilcd St^itcs of AnKTicarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn ‘Knut Hamsun’rnIn a longer version of my “Letter Fromrnthe Baltics” (January 1993), there is anrnadditional paragraph on Knut Hamsunrnthat clarifies his life and work, which I’drnlike to note: “Hamsun’s heroes were loners,rnvirile individualists, thwarted, selfcentered,rnwith a heroic rather than tragicrn(Hamsun was not a Catholic) sense ofrnlife. He hated England and the English,rnwhich is perhaps not well-known,rnthough it is there in inany of his writings:rnhis contempt for the hypocrisy ofrnthe English, their puritanism, a dislike ofrntheir cult of moderation and of fairness.rnHamsun was a Nietzschean of sorts. Itrnis not surprising that I lamsun admiredrnHitler till the very end, sticking to hisrnguns, embarrassing and upsetting hisrnown countrymen. And now my Swedishrnfriends and I see Hamsun as a strikingrnperiod piece, as a rebel voice that soundedrnstrong and clear at a certain time.rnThis period has little to say to us now, tornthose of us who also know that we livernin a world at the edge of the sinkingrnModern Age—when all the real bourgeoisrnvirtues, their interiority and probity,rnhave remained enduring, loveable,rnand admirable like a piece of family furniturernthat is both finer and more solidrnthan we once thought, a more and morernprecious heritage as we are carried fartherrnand farther away from its time. Asrna matter of fact, our only tangible heritage.”rn—John LukacsrnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnREGARDING IMMIGRATION,rnthose like me who see it as an issue ofrneconomics and not of culture and whornmaintain that the American system hasrnsucceeded, and continues to succeed,rnin turning anyone in the world into anrnAmerican owe critics of our view an answerrnto a simple question: Is there anyrnclass of immigrant we would exclude?rnFor so formidable a claim to the continuingrneffect of the American systemrnshades over into mindless Panglossism,rnunless a fair answer can be given tornsuch a perfectly legitimate question.rnYes, there are persons to keep out: immigrantsrnwho reject the American systemrnat its foundations and who comernin sufficient numbers to threaten thernsystem’s continued hegemony. The systemrn—to define it—accords equal protectionrnof law to all persons, but specialrnprivilege to no classes of persons. Everyonernis therefore subject to the samernlaws, enjoys the same opportunities,rnmay make of himself what he will; inrnthe fair division of rights and responsibilitiesrnno one gets less, or more, by lawrnthan any other.rnNow, what if an entire class of iminigrantsrnwere to make a clear claim tornstand apart from the law that governsrnthe country as a whole, seeking an exclusivelyrnreligious, not a secular-pluralist.rnidentity in American society? Such persons,rnrejecting to begin with the premisernof the American system, clearly cannotrnfind a place within it and do not wantrnto; they furthermore propose to end thernsystem of equal protection of law to allrnpersons, replacing it with a system ofrnpolitical allocation of rights and responsibilitiesrnamong groups of persons.rnIf a class of immigrants, for example,rnwere to advocate or demand politicalrnrecognition for their religion or specialrnstatus for their group, that group, asrnsuch, would declare at our borders itsrnintention to change our system for soinernother. We could not admit that group,rnalthough the individuals of said grouprnwho renounced such a claim would obviouslyrnenjoy the same rights as anyrnother individuals. A class of personsrnunanimous in their rejection of democracy,rnthe American Constitution andrnBill of Rights, the rule of law, the rightsrnof individuals to property, and the likerncannot be admitted as immigrants. Wernpassed precisely such an immigrationrnlaw in denying right of entry to communistsrnintent on destroying this country.rnLest I be accused of inventing a casernas a facile riposte for purposes of argument,rnwith no concrete example inrnmind, let me point to the following:rn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn