The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Globalists & Nationalists: Who Owns the Future?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: “There shall be open borders.”

Bartley accepted what the erasure of America’s borders and an endless influx or foreign peoples and goods would mean for his country.

Said Bartley, “I think the nation-state is finished.”

His vision and ideology had a long pedigree.

This free trade, open borders cult first flowered in 18th-century Britain. The St. Paul of this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his vision and the power of his rhetoric.

In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to be removed. There, Cobden thundered:

“I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe — drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.”

Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the “American System,” had been embraced.

The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: “A free people … should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.”

In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence.”
This was wisdom born of experience.

At Yorktown, Americans had to rely on French muskets and ships to win their independence. They were determined to erect a system that would end our reliance on Europe for the necessities of our national life, and establish new bonds of mutual dependency — among Americans.

Britain’s folly became manifest in World War I, as a self-reliant America stayed out, while selling to an import-dependent England the food, supplies and arms she needed to survive but could not produce.

America’s own first major steps toward free trade, open borders and globalism came with JFK’s Trade Expansion Act and LBJ’s Immigration Act of 1965.

By the end of the Cold War, however, a reaction had set in, and a great awakening begun. U.S. trade deficits in goods were surging into the hundreds of billions, and more than a million legal and illegal immigrants were flooding in yearly, visibly altering the character of the country.

Americans were coming to realize that free trade was gutting the nation’s manufacturing base and open borders meant losing the country in which they grew up. And on this earth there is no greater loss.

The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest.

We see it in Trump’s hostility to NAFTA, his tariffs, his border wall.

ORDER IT NOW

We see it in England’s declaration of independence from the EU in Brexit. We see it in the political triumphs of Polish, Hungarian and Czech nationalists, in anti-EU parties rising across Europe, in the secessionist movements in Scotland and Catalonia and Ukraine, and in the admiration for Russian nationalist Vladimir Putin.

Europeans have begun to see themselves as indigenous peoples whose Old Continent is mortally imperiled by the hundreds of millions of invaders wading across the Med and desperate come and occupy their homelands.

Who owns the future? Who will decide the fate of the West?

The problem of the internationalists is that the vision they have on offer — a world of free trade, open borders and global government — are constructs of the mind that do not engage the heart.

Men will fight for family, faith and country. But how many will lay down their lives for pluralism and diversity?

Who will fight and die for the Eurozone and EU?

On Aug. 4, 1914, the anti-militarist German Social Democrats, the oldest and greatest socialist party in Europe, voted the credits needed for the Kaiser to wage war on France and Russia. With the German army on the march, the German socialists were Germans first.

Patriotism trumps ideology.

In “Present at the Creation,” Dean Acheson wrote of the postwar world and institutions born in the years he served FDR and Truman in the Department of State: The U.N., IMF, World Bank, Marshall Plan, and with the split between East and West, NATO.

We are present now at the end of all that.

And our transnational elites have a seemingly insoluble problem.

To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2018 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Free Trade, Globalism, Immigration 
Hide 37 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    I think the Brits embraced ‘free trade’ because they thought it justified their imperialism. After all, this ‘free trade’ was FORCED on other peoples by the British Empire. In the name of ‘free trade’, the Brits could break down barriers, invade other peoples, and expand trade. But it was hypocritical because Brits suppressed industry in places like India. India was made to produce cotton, but the finished goods were made in Britain. So, it wasn’t so much utopianism as opportunism.

    Also, there was one difference between US and UK. US had so much land and resources that it could be self-reliant. It could be a great power without overseas colonies. In contrast, UK alone wasn’t much. It had to have an empire to be great. And their imperialist expansion needed some kind of rationale. It used to be Christianity, but religion was on the decline, so the new secular mantra became ‘free trade’.

    Also, as UK was the most advanced nation on earth, they thought ‘free trade’ would favor British industry because undeveloped or undeveloped parts of the world would have to buy stuff from Britain.

    In contrast, a developing nation obviously opposes mutual ‘free trade’ since the advanced nation has the advantage. After all, if one nation makes cars and if another doesn’t, then the former will sell cars to the latter. In order for the latter to build a car factory, it needs to protect its own nascent economy.

    So, the reason why US was for protection in the 19th century was because Europe was more developed and advanced. To build its own industry, US companies needed protection.

    Men will fight for family, faith and country. But how many will lay down their lives for pluralism and diversity?

    I dunno. All those British soldiers and colonialists who invaded the world…. Were they fighting for family and country? What were they doing in India and Africa? Why were they willing to die on foreign lands? Empire isn’t about family and country(in the narrow sense), but it’s about glory and power, and people are drawn to those things. Why did so many Roman legions fight to expand Roman Empire when it wasn’t about family, faith, and country? Many of these men died in foreign lands. Partly, they were following orders. But it was because men love adventure and glory and power.
    Why did Alexander’s men follow him to India, so far from family, faith, and country? Glory and adventure.
    Diversity and pluralism may be problematic but they are part of globalist empire-building, and many people find them exciting, especially among the elites. American elites are addicted to World Power. Nationalism is boring to them. They love globalist game of world domination. It’s more fun to play the imperial game than lead and represent boring white Americans, or so the elites think.

    Also, people love being self-righteous and sanctimonious. And PC instilled so many white minds with the idea that Diversity and Inclusion are sacred. If people could be made to believe that some Jewish man who was crucified is Son of God, then people can be made to worship strange things.
    The fact is Diversity and Pluralism make white people feel so holy-shmoly and loving and compassionate. In contrast, nationalism seems narrow and petty to them. Christianity and Islam are universal faiths that tries to convert the world. It’s like Free Faith, the religious version of free trade. The moralistic love to be messianic. Buchanan who’s a Catholic should know this.

    On Aug. 4, 1914, the anti-militarist German Social Democrats, the oldest and greatest socialist party in Europe, voted the credits needed for the Kaiser to wage war on France and Russia. With the German army on the march, the German socialists were Germans first.

    No, those German socialists who voted for war betrayed Germany. The reckless stupid moronic Kaiser was playing an imperialist game, as was the Russian Tsar, another stupid moron.
    German Socialists should have opposed the war in the name of nationalism, i.e. Germany should mind its own problems than get embroiled in an imperial war on the side of another imperial power(Austro-Hungary)with another empire(Russo-Slavic empire) allied to another empire(French empire). Sadly, French socialists did like German socialists and supported the war. What shame. Instead of sticking with national workers, they voted for imperialist wars. As the result, so many young workers got butchered in the melee.

    Now, imagine if French Socialists, German socialists, and Italian socialists and etc could have all opposed the war and prevented the meaningless mayhem.

    Buchanan is sometimes blind. He says he’s for nationalism but then praises German socialists for supporting a crazy imperial war that brought ruin to Europe.
    It’s all the more ironic since Buchanan opposed the Iraq War and was called unpatriotic by neocons of all people.

    • Agree: Carroll Price
    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Randal
  2. KenH says:

    We see it in Trump’s hostility to NAFTA, his tariffs, his border wall.

    It depends on the day. One day Trump wants to destroy NAFTA in its entirety then the next he’s ok with parts of it. Trump has claimed he’s both a globalist and a nationalist even though they’re mutually exclusive. 4D chess, I guess.

    Trump enacts tariffs on steel and aluminum then grants exemptions to the crybaby nation of Mexico and Canada and said he might provide further exemptions. At this rate every nation might get an exemption by the end of the month. This is a replay of Dubya Bush who imposed steel tariffs then rescinded them within a year due to pressure from business special interests and free trade zealots.

    Trump’s been in office just over a year and not one foot of border wall has been laid.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  3. m___ says:

    Globalism, as defined and understood now by more of the many and conceived for the benefit of the few, is dead, globalism as in it’s theoretical meaning, “taking in as the defining context for interaction, the whole of the planet” give or take the biosphere and the universe cherry-picking, will see the remnants of nation states die, in any sense.

    A single low to earth example, poisoning on a two-seater park bench in Britain, within the chicken coop, is referred at rightly when accused, by the Russian foreign ministry, as subject to a global organization, the OPCW(Prohibition of Chemical Weapons), of which both Britain and it fiefs of housewives(Johnson, May and the rest of the run), and the “nationalist” Russia are members, consignees. So much for local stardom.

    A second example, still very “dog – dog”, the nagging and straining of the US in Syria, with no strategy and tactics of gang war.

    In the “what really matters” category: the environment, the global population excess and density, inequality, quality of life, quality of species, technology, AI, spatial endeavours, nuclear agnosticism as to it’s outcomes, none can be even envisioned from within territorial borders, from within class, pertaining preposterous stances that respond to local logic. Another example is the Muslim breeding wars and Western sterile, navel staring, consumerism and having the elites getting away with the short-term benefits.

    This century will see a war of ideas that contain the larger context, and larger humanity will be as good as the equilibrium between breeding and biting. Our elites, our pending to the now and here, the individualistic, family, clannish, race confinement, a human instinct of our elite critters globally, and just, since sourced out of a cannibalistic system, only proves itself wrong as history stumps it’s borders. Human nature is a liability where it matters, our ruling “elites”.

    To cater to reality in the twenty-first century is “thinking out of the box”, and there are going to be some hard choices, that “democracy” and “individual greed is good for the collective”, a growing economy meaning more and easier consumers, ready exploitation(covert this last one), tolerance for unlimited breeding, propagating the idea that “diversity” means “strength” rather than “blending sweet milk and obesing coca-cola”, and covertly trying to exploit and contain the enormous blob of excess human presence as an advantage to the few, is dead tracking for a while now, enough to see the orange glow of our polluted dawn.

  4. There is a slight imprecision in this article, and it makes things seem worse than they are. Be careful not to conflate globalists and internationalists. The globalist racket (IMF, WTO, World Bank, NATO) was always a US attempt to end-run internationalists at home and abroad. Globalist predation has certainly hit the wall. The IMF bankers’ scheme to use your economic rights as bait for the debt hook has failed. Globalist ISDS, trade as corporate rule, is discredited.

    What’s left is the UN’s original development model: the institutions, ECOSOC, UNDP, and UNCTAD, and the concept of development as the sum of all rights.

    http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r128.htm

    Ask people, Do you exist for the state, or does the state exist for you? They’ll puff out their chest and say, this isn’t totalitarian North Korea, the state is for me! But then ask the same question about the economy: Do you exist for it, or does it exist for you? The same people are perfectly OK with the notion that they should starve if they fail to propitiate ‘the market’ or ‘the economy,’ that accidental result of crooked double-dealing by history’s biggest assholes. That lifetime debt peonage is just what it takes to get tertiary education. That you have to pay for health care but you get neutron bombs for free. Note the thing about internationalist development that really sticks in the globalist’s craw: disarmament (not just half-assed arms control) and diversion of resources to things we humans actually want.

    The world never stopped working on its original idea of development – though you’d never know it, inside the US propaganda bell jar.

    https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/211-development/52393-towards-a-framework-convention-on-the-right-to-development.html

    http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet16rev.1en.pdf

    So don’t worry. Nations will take over from transnational elites. That means UN member nations. Keep your eye on them.

  5. Globalists & Nationalists: Who Owns the Future?

    Communists.

    • Replies: @nickels
    , @Saxon
  6. nickels says:
    @WorkingClass

    Or cockroaches and isotopes.

  7. polskijoe says:

    There are three groupings:

    Globalists
    The In Betweens
    AntiGlobalists

    Western think tanks believe we are moving to the In Betweens.
    Also also admit the world is moving to bipolar and/or multipolar world..

    And I think thats good.

  8. Tiny Duck says:

    People of Color are the future and they believe in globalism

    Pretty much everyone believes in globalism except losers who cant hack it

  9. Rurik says:

    transnational elites have a seemingly insoluble problem.

    To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.

    then they will be cajoled into going

    gently or otherwise

    Never Again!

    (wasn’t six million enough for you Pat Buchanan?)

  10. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Free trade is not to blame because it has never been tried.

    • LOL: TomSchmidt
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  11. @Tiny Duck

    Globalism doesn’t have to mean immigration. I’m all for scientific exchange, tourism and trade but am also for nation-states.

    I guess that I’m a loser that can’t hack it like my fellow ethno-state globalists the Japanese, Chinese, South Korean, Israelis, Poles, Czechs and Hungarians. What a bunch of sad losers those guys are. Wish they could create great civilizations and inventions like the Africans have done.

    (Btw, I have a family, friends, a successful business and pretty decent net worth. What have you got TD?)

  12. @Tiny Duck

    Little one, do you have evidence that “People of Color”, who number in the billions, believe the things you project onto them? Put up, or shut up.

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
  13. Renoman says:

    I’m afraid it will end in War. White folks don’t like black folks and they have all the guns, the black folks are targets.

  14. Free trade has exactly one function, other than sucking wealth from richer countries to poorer countries:

    To make money for middlemen.

    We import steel, we export steel. Why didn’t we just use our own steel? because then no one makes any money passing steel from one country to another and back.

  15. polskijoe says:
    @Tiny Duck

    before you make such bold statements,

    define globalism in detail… (because there are plenty of definitions).

  16. Esperanto was a great idea. But eventually it died out.
    Why?

  17. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    BANNED VIDEO

    Immigration and War

  18. @Tiny Duck

    What do you expect from the vulgar senile pineally-calcified savage cavebeasts, @Tiny Duck? Truly, white men are fragile oppressive abominations, inferior in every cognitive and spiritual respect to Bodies of Color and Indigenous People. Thankfully, globalism will result in the end of white males, all of whose grandchildren will be beautifully and thankfully Of Color, as Leonard Pitts has brilliantly prophesied. The future is interconnected, global, and free of all strife and conflict and horror, free of the white man’s wicked inventions such as racism and misogyny and transphobia and environmental degradation — free of the vomit-inducing pale-skinned pathetic vessels through which all evil enters the world, the vile cishet white males that have for many thousands of years brutalized everyone else and therefore will suffer for their sins for eternity as racial karma commands.

    Whites are repulsive, white women prefer brown and black men, the future is brown and black — Get Over It, Incompetent White Male Losers!

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Wyatt Pendleton
  19. expeedee says:

    Ethno nationalism is the only ideology consistent with evolved human behavior.

  20. Saxon says:
    @WorkingClass

    That’s what a globalist really is. “Globalism” is just communism with a better mask. It still doesn’t work, though, since the people at the top just enslave the workers, typically because they’re a different ethnicity and don’t care about exploiting and murdering tens of millions of people who aren’t their own.

  21. peterAUS says:
    @Briny Schmuck

    You could be right.

    The thing is, your vision hasn’t, ever, been realized.

    Those realized have been, slightly, different.

    So, if history is teacher, probably the more likely scenario would be:
    “….future is disconnected, regional, and full of all strife and conflict…”
    “Horror” part depends solely on which side one belongs to: losing or winning.

    Now…looking, again, at the historical record, well…….I am not quite sure that “people of color” will fare well there.

    One way to find out.

  22. pyrrhus says:
    @Giant Duck

    We have evidence that people of color have built nothing, and can’t even maintain the technology given to them by their superiors in the first world. That’s conclusive. Move to Equatorial Guinea if you like that kind of place.

  23. Bliss says:

    The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: “A free people … should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.” In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence.”

    The Founding Fathers of the American Republic were wise.

    They were all Enlightenment Liberals who chose egalitarianism over hereditarianism, rationalism over superstition, secularism over theocracy, freedom of speech over it’s suppression.

    Of course every nation should strive to be as self sufficient as possible.

  24. Bliss says:
    @Anon

    as UK was the most advanced nation on earth, they thought ‘free trade’ would favor British industry because undeveloped or undeveloped parts of the world would have to buy stuff from Britain……In contrast, a developing nation obviously opposes mutual ‘free trade’ since the advanced nation has the advantage……So, the reason why US was for protection in the 19th century was because Europe was more developed and advanced. To build its own industry, US companies needed protection.

    Exactly. It is as simple as that. Britain was the the first nation to industralize so it was the first to preach free trade, because it was to their great advantage .

    Every nation that successfully industrialized after Britain had to practice protectionism: America, Germany, Japan, China etc

    When America dominated manufacturing free trade was hugely advantageous but times have changed. Now East Asia and Germany disproportionately dominate manufacturing so of course they are among the loudest voices for free trade.

    • Replies: @Anon
  25. llloyd says: • Website

    In New Zealand where I come from, there is a huge issue of name changing to traditional Maori names from European names. I tried to show to the “deplorables” that the changing to Maori names did not stand the test of history and the Maori’s own culture. I just got shouted down. They don’t want to know an historical cultural argument even though it works in their interest. Pat Buchanon can wax lyrical on the nativist American society but maybe like the Kiwis they are so zonked out on their hedonism that it is a lost cause. I think there are seeds of resistance but the homogenious enterprising white societies of America and N Z are finished. On another point. Scotland and Catalonia patriots are opposed to the national States of UK and Spain. They actually want to stay in the EU with its free trade. Theirs is a romantic archaic nationalism.

  26. @Tiny Duck

    People of Color are the future and they believe in globalism

    Pretty much everyone believes in globalism except losers who can’t hack it.

    They will regret that dearly. They will be ruled over by amoral whites who control all WMD stockpiles. Nothing will change for them.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  27. @Briny Schmuck

    Not one single white amoral elite will be removed from power/influence by people of color. They will hold you at bay with WMD and their Uncle Tom’s who will govern you into more avenues of living in mud huts. They are so murderous that like Nero, they will cackle whilst the world burns before they allow any of you to administrate the earth in their stead.

  28. Rurik says:

    looks like the (((globalhomoists))) have their work cut out for them

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/finland-tops-2018-global-happiness-index-n856461

    just look at those racists strolling around as if they weren’t evil!

  29. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Bliss

    The other reason the Glob pushes ‘free trade’ is because the biggest winners are not Chinese but US multi-nationals.

    While US working class lose jobs and while Chinese/Mexicans work for a pittance, US multi-nationals rake in most of the profits by exploiting cheaper foreign labor and then selling the products in the US and around the world.

    It’s not a zero sum game of China wins, US loses. Some in the US win bigger than ever because they are no longer bound to US labor and the unions.

    Look at Apple.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  30. Randal says:
    @Anon

    Agree except for the rather simplistic dismissal of Germans who supported their government’s imperialist war. These situations are not straightforward, and nationalists are put in awkward positions by such wars, especially once the war has started.

    German Socialists should have opposed the war in the name of nationalism

    Good idea, combining the best feature of socialism (loyalty to the working classes of your own nation), with the best feature of nationalism (patriotic pride and loyalty).

    Hang on, nationalism and socialism? Wouldn’t that make them……?

    Now, imagine if French Socialists, German socialists, and Italian socialists and etc could have all opposed the war and prevented the meaningless mayhem.

    Buchanan is sometimes blind. He says he’s for nationalism but then praises German socialists for supporting a crazy imperial war that brought ruin to Europe.

    French socialists did oppose war until it started (and one of their leaders was murdered for doing so). But if French socialists had opposed the war after it had begun, France might have been defeated by Germany, and even if it was not, the socialists would have emerged from it as treasonous pariahs.

    It was indeed a crazy and disastrous imperial war (mainly because it destroyed the established orders and establishment resistance to socialism, which then gave us the Nazis and the Communists, and ultimately the late C20th triumph of leftists allied with big business, which is self-evident when you compare US sphere societies today with those of 1914 – big government, welfare, open borders, political correctness thought and speech control, feminism and the end of the family, the pretence that homosexual behaviour is the same as normal sexual behaviour, etc).

  31. MarkinLA says:
    @Anonymous

    Yeah, and “real” communism has never been tried either. There is no such thing as a pure ideology in practice. The only thing you can do is notice that the more you have of something the worse off things become. The closer you came to pure communism the worse things got for most people. The more free trade you have the worse things got for the average working stiff.

  32. MarkinLA says:
    @KenH

    Trump is already cucking on the DACAs and the wall. He is negotiating with himself to do a DACA save for only the wall. It is obvious that his acting tough was something he couldn’t keep up for more than a few months.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-is-open-to-short-term-daca-deal-white-house-tells-gop-leaders/ar-BBKdjve?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartanntp

  33. ricpic says:

    “….losing the country in which they grew up. And on this earth there is no greater loss.”

    Eloquence. True eloquence.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  34. @Wyatt Pendleton

    They’re far more likely to be ruled by amoral or immoral Chinese.

  35. @Anon

    Chinese government and some Chinese people win, almost all Americans lose.

  36. Yan Shen says:

    Pat, isn’t it obvious that the future belongs to the cognitive elite?

  37. PADDY says: • Website

    Listen Paddy you can’t help yourself it seems. Utter trash. I’ve watched you blame Britain twice. What you will never do is speak about who it really is. JEWISH PEOPLE. You tried to blame Britain for world war two yet infact it was as Forestall and Joe Kennedy clearly stated Amerians pulling the strings bullying Neville Chaimberlain into the second world war. WILLIAM C BULLITT and ROOSEVELT. Bullitt a descendant of HAYIM SOLOMON the same rascalish family line that has always been against Britain, and behind America. The Jewish hand. We know paddy your covering for those you dare not speak of so you blame Britain conveniently don’t you Paddy. Conservatives have no balls, and are paid to of effects in regards to problems but not that which causes it. see through. HAIL MOSLEY. HAIL WILLIAM COBBETT and all the others that spoke out. Nick Knack

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.