**The United Kingdom:** The U.K. is fighting a secessionist movement in Northern Ireland against Irish nationals who seek reunion with Ireland. Currently there is a shaky ceasefire, punctuated by riots and other unpleasantries. The case can be made that the fighting in Northern Ireland is either a terrorist war or a guerrilla war. In either case, the secessionist campaign in the not so United Kingdom is clearly tribal in nature.

All of these unfortunate countries problems are mainly or partly ethnic in nature, but that's only half the picture. On Table 3a, these conflicts seem to be randomly distributed because the countries are listed alphabetically.

Now consider Table 3b where the countries are listed by the percentage of the dominant ethnic group. The countries on the uppermost portion of this list are free of serious conflict, but about half the countries of the bottom portion are plagued by war, terrorism, and occupation by foreign armies, The countries at the very top of the list are almost purely monoethnic. They may be rich or poor, or large or small, but they are monoethnic and relatively internally stable. On the other hand, about half the countries on the bottom of the list are multiethnic shooting galleries.

**Table 3b: European nations, arranged by majority percent.**

To be accurate, acts of terrorism do occur in the more monoethnic countries of the top of the list. However, these terrorist incidents are usually ethnic in origin as well. Europe's growing third world populations will probably supplant unassimilated European minorities as the most serious terrorist threat in the next century.

The lesson is clear: The more monoetnnic a European nation is, the more likely it is to be peaceful and stable. The more multiethnic a European nation is, the more likely it is to experience tribal civil wars. There is simply no real arguing with this brutal fact. The lesson here is that the likelihood of a minority group having a go at a military divorce from the nation increases with its chances of success, and its chances of success increase with its percentage of the population. Consider the most multiethnic nation in Europe - Bosnia. Bosnia was literally born fighting in 1991, and this civil war has produced more dead than any other of the recent wars in Europe. The most multiethnic European nation produced the most multiethnic dead. Let me say that again: The most multiethnic European nation produced the most multiethnic dead. If there had been only Moslems residing in Bosnia, there would have been no civil war in Bosnia.

Is America a multitribal country and therefore unstable? With each and every passing day, more and more Americans of all ethnic groups arc perceiving their tribal affiliation as more self-definitive and more important than their common American nationality. By this measure we are increasingly unstable.

More bad news: Of the European countries, the median size of the most numerous ethnic group is 89%. In America, the most numerous ethnic group (the English-speaking whites) is only 75% of the total population and falling. By this measure, America is again not as internally stable as most European nations. Twelve European nations have primary ethnic groups that are 75% or less of their total population. Seven of these twelve nations are fighting wars, are occupied, or have internal secessionist terrorists.

More bad news: Of the European countries, the median size of the second largest ethnic group is 5%. In America, our second largest ethnic group (the blacks) is 12%. By this measure, America is again not as stable as most European nations. Twelve European nations have secondary ethnic groups that are 12% or more of the total population. Four are fighting wars, two are occupied by foreign troops, one is fighting internal terrorists.

More bad news: Of the European countries, the median size of the third largest ethnic group is 1%. In America, our third largest ethnic group (the Hispanics) is 9%. By this measure, America is again not as stable as most European nations. Two European nations have third ranking ethnic groups that are 9% or more of the population. One is fighting a civil war, the other occupied.

More bad news: In America, 88% of the people speak the most widely-used language (English) as their primary language. Of the European countries, the median size of this percentage is 94%. By this measure, America is again not as stable as most European nations.

More bad news: There are now about six million Moslems in America, and they are expected to outnumber Jews by,the end of this decade. America has been described as a Judeo- Christian nation. Are we now to be a Judeo-Christian-Moslem nation and all that it implies? The concept of freedom of religion can absorb only so much cultural diversity. As the Moslem percentage of the population grows, it is predictable that they will demand and eventually get laws allowing polygamy, chopping off the hands of criminals, death by stoning for adulterers, and the host of other antique horrors Moslems embrace. In Miami, Dade County has a special maintenance squad that cleans up dead chickens, goats, lizards, voodoo powder, and other "hex" items found each morning on the grounds of the county courthouse (The New York Times. August 9,1995). These items are ritually deposited there by adherents of the Voodoo, Sanataria, and similar religions whose members are appearing before the court on various charges. Almost all are immigrants from the Caribbean islands. Eventually, our diversity will increase to the point that there will be no common basis for our laws. That's why America is becoming an undemocratic imperial system, and that's why we'll break up in a civil war.

In this century in Europe, the core of the old Russian Empire known as the USSR dwindled down to about 50% Russian ethnics and broke up. At the time multi-tribal Yugoslavia exploded in ethnic savagery, its main ethnic group, the Serbs, made up 36% of the population. The multi-tribal Austro-Hungarian Empire broke up after defeat in war. The multitribal British Empire had to give the Irish their freedom after a civil war. Tribal nationalism is clearly the driving force in European politics, and produces the most stable (or if you prefer, the least unstable) arrangement. What about the other multiethnic countries in Europe, why aren't they embroiled in civil war? Let's take a brief took at them. All the European countries that spun off from the old USSR have Russian minorities: Belarus 13%, Ukarine 22%, Lithuania 9%, Latvia 34%, Estonia 28%. They are relatively peaceful, but live on the lip of the Russian Bear. These countries have achieved stability only by acquiescing to a frog/jump relationship with Russia, and civil war may yet erupt in these unhappy lands.

In our case, can we compare Mexico to Russia, and ourselves to these unfortunate Russian-dominated countries? Both Mexico and Russia are adjacent to the country their co-ethnics reside in. This existence of a common border increases chances of ethnic conflict in three ways: It makes assimilation of the minorities more difficult. It makes further immigration more likely. It makes invasion more feasible.

To be sure, an invasion of America by the Mexican Army would fail militarily, but that's not the point. Remember von Clausewitz: "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Wars are fought to advance the interests of the state. If the interests of the state are immediately secured by initiating the war regardless of the immediate military outcome, then the skeletal hand of the dead Prussian beckons his acolytes towards war. They do have a military academy in Mexico, by the way; and they do not neglect their study of Professor-General von Clausewitz.

The point is that such an invasion of America by Mexico would increase the internal political instability of America, almost certainly to the breaking point. In a very real sense, America exists at the pleasure of Mexico Just as surely as the Baltic countries exist at the pleasure of Russia. Mexico can bring down America as surely as Sampson brought down the Philistine Temple.

America's difficulty with the Hispanics in the southwest is similar to Britain's difficulty with the Irish in Northern Ireland. It is instructive to note that America and Britain are the countries in danger of losing their territory, not Mexico or Ireland. Consider this seeming paradox of two major military powers (both of them with nuclear capability!) in danger of losing territory to smaller poorer, weaker, non-nuclear neighbors. This muscle-bound impotence of America and Britain highlights the inherent weakness of countries that have large internal minorities and a land border with the country of origin of those minorities.

The historic remedies for this malady - if they can be thought of as remedies - are assimilation, ethnic cleansing, institution of a police state...or surrender of territory. As for assimilation, the Scots were assimilated into the United Kingdom (read English Empire). The lesson here is that entire groups can be assimilated easier than half a group. With our conquest of Northern Mexico, we foolishly tried to conquer half a people, but the fires of Mexican nationalism burned on in free southern Mexico. They burn still.

What about Belgium and Switzerland? They're multiethnic, more multiethnic than the United States, more multiethnic than many of the European countries with civil wars, yet both are peaceful and prosperous. Belgium (55% Dutch- speaking Flemish, 32% Frenchspeaking Walloons) is peaceful and prosperous, and arguably a more pleasant place to live than America. It wasn't always so. The Dutch-speaking northern half of Belgium and the French-speaking southern Half of Belgium should have been incorporated into Holland and France respectively during the nation building phase that swept Europe during the industrial revolution. For historical difficulties too complex to fall within the scope of this book, Belgium became more or less a buffer state between France and Holland. It came into being in 1830.

It was dominated in all respects by the wealthier French- speaking Walloons of the southern half of Belgium. This dominance of the French gave Belgium a certain stability, but it did not long endure. Slowly, the Dutch grew in relative numbers, political clout and economic power. Ethnic tensions mounted after World War II, culminating in intermittent tribal riots. All three major political parties split into Dutch-speak- ing and French-speaking wings. The people of Belgium faced the real possibility of civil war, a civil war that would certainly have drawn in both France and Holland.

Wisely, in 1980 constitutional reforms were enacted that recognized four semiautonomous linguistic regions - French-speaking, Dutch-speaking, German-speaking, and a bilingual French/Dutch capital of Brussels. Each region has a sort of legislature or "council" that determines much of what happens in that region. No ethnic group is entirely satisfied with this state of affairs, but it does keep the peace.

In Switzerland (J.Murray Luck, A Country Study by the Dept. of the Army - History of Switzerland, The Society for Promotion of Science and Scholarship, 1985) (65% German, 20% French, 4% Italian) has avoided ethnic conflict, again by the simple expediency of granting much autonomy to its 26 cantons, roughly our equivalents of states, but much more independent. Germans predominate in 17 cantons, the French in 4, and Italians in 1. All but four of the Cantons are unilingual. By and large, each ethnic group remains in its own areas and manages its own affairs.

In most cantons, gun ownership is little restricted, but yet there are no terrorists shooting Swiss policemen in the name of any secessionist movements. Clearly, the Swiss government exists with the full approval of the Swiss people. (Such is not the case in the emerging American empire where private gun ownership is rapidly being rescinded as part of the transformation process as ethnic conflict spreads.)

Multiethnic and multilingual nations can and do work, However, all evidence clearly indicates they work only if each group is allowed to conduct its own affairs without undue meddling by the central government. In Switzerland, the federal government has absolute authority in matters of customs duties and regulations, currency, post and telecommunications, and railways.

The cantons have absolute authority in matters concerning police protection, social services, housing and religion. In the categories of military affairs, unemployment, social insurance, and civil and criminal courts, the federal government has legislative authority, but implementation is left to the cantons. In the areas of taxation, road construction, health insurance, education and training, the federal government and the cantons share power. The overall concept is that the central government handles only matters that are best handled at the federal level, and that the cantons are sovereign in all other matters. America would be well-advised to adopt this policy, the one our country was founded upon. The Swiss reached their current stable state only after the usual ethnic warfare. In a brief civil war in 1847, the German cantons defeated the French cantons that attempted secession. Since then, the only violence of note occurred after World War II when a French-speaking part of a predominately-German canton seceded by popular vote after years of firebombings and other relatively minor terrorist incidents.

It is also interesting to note that Switzerland does allow large numbers of aliens to live and work there (about 17% of the total population and not included in the above stats.) However, when economic conditions deteriorate in Switzerland, the foreigners are expelled, providing jobs for unemployed Swiss. America should institute this policy at once and ship home all 400,000 H-1B foreign workers,

Only two of Europe's heavily-multiethnic countries have achieved peaceful internal stability - Switzerland and Belgium - and both achieved that stability by granting regional autonomy to their various ethnic groups. The United States is no longer a monotribal nation because our minorities have grown too numerous, and our clumsy attempts to deal with the problem are propelling us to war. The smaller ethnic groups are now militarily strong enough to reassert their tribal identities. Ominously, there are growing indications that the whites are likewise returning to their tribal roots and rejecting a national identity as Americans. In both Switzerland and Belgium the ethnic groups were geographically segregated. All these two fortunate nations had to do was simply draw up new laws formalizing regional autonomy, and then ethnic autonomy- the real goal - was automatically achieved. We do not enjoy such a clear pattern of geographic segregation here in America. Many areas like vast stretches of the rural Midwest are almost all white. Some, like the Mississippi Delta, are mainly black. Others, like Southern Texas, are approaching 100% Hispanic populations. However, the most common pattern is that every city and town of note has ethnically-exclusive areas and racially-mixed areas.

The stark reality is that we can probably not achieve ethnic autonomy like Switzerland or Belgium because we do not currently have sufficient geographic segregation. We may be able to achieve ethnic autonomy by allowing states to secede, or otherwise opt for increased autonomy. In this case, ethnic groups would tend to move to or from such areas as suited their advantage. Defusing our ethnic tensions by allowing states more autonomy would require a complete change in our legal system and large scale ethnic relocations. Although admittedly difficult and alien to our current notions of Americanism, secession and autonomy should be given serious consideration because otherwise such regional and ethnic autonomy will be achieved by civil war.

It is sobering to note that in ethnic patterns, America more nearly resembles the former Yugoslavia, than Belgiumi or Switzerland. In Belgium and Switzerland, each group was confined almost exclusively to distinct areas, plus the capital city. In Yugoslavia each group was primarily concentrated in one area, but had scattered villages of its ethnics in the primary area of the other groups. Also, almost every city and town of note had areas of each ethnic group, just like America. This pattern of concentration increased demands for secession, and the isolated pockets of ethnics in the primary area of the other ethnic groups provided easy targets that fueled ethnic violence that snowballed into civil war. Like Yugoslavia America is plagued by this highly combustible mixture of both ethnic concentration and ethnic dispersal.

When will increasingly quivering America become so unstable that it erupts in civil war? Again, there is no scientific formula, no mathematical equation, that will give us the year. Still, one can make projections. Objective analysis tends to indicate that the danger zone for secession begins when the majority ethnic group shrinks to 90%. At about 75%, where America is now, things get really serious. Red lights and sirens should be going off because America is becoming more ethnically, linguistically, and militarily unstable each day.

The likelihood of an ethnic group trying armed secession increases as their percentage of the population increases. It increases if they are concentrated in one portion of the nation It increases if the nation has a land border with the country of origin of the ethnic group. It increases if they have a different language. It increases if they have a different physical appearance. It increases if they have a different religion. It increases if they have a markedly different culture. It increases if they have historic antagonism.

Are we Americans witnessing an increase in our potential for civil war or not? Is our government becoming more imperial or not? Consider these monumental questions and draw your own conclusions.