The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Is the Spectre of Trump Haunting Davos?
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
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The lights are burning late in Davos tonight.

At the World Economic Forum, keynoter Joe Biden warned global elites that the unraveling of the middle class in America and Europe has provided “fertile terrain for reactionary politicians, demagogues peddling xenophobia, anti-immigration, nationalist, isolationist views.”

Evidence of a nationalist backlash, said Biden, may be seen in the third parties arising across Europe, and in the U.S. primaries.

But set aside Joe’s slurs — demagogues, xenophobia.

Who really belongs in the dock here? Who caused this crisis of political legitimacy now gripping the nations of the West?

Was it Donald Trump, who gives voice to the anger of those who believe themselves to have been betrayed? Or the elites who betrayed them?

Can that crowd at Davos not understand that it is despised because it is seen as having subordinated the interests of the nations and people in whose name it presumes to speak, to advance an agenda that serves, first and foremost, its own naked self-interest?

The political and economic elites of Davos have grow rich, fat and powerful by setting aside patriotism and sacrificing their countries on the altars of globalization and a New World Order.

No more astute essay has been written this political season than that of Michael Brendan Dougherty in “This Week,” where he describes how, 20 years ago, my late friend Sam Francis predicted it all.

In Chronicles, in 1996, Francis, a paleoconservative and proud son of the South, wrote:

“[S]ooner or later, as the globalist elites seek to drag the country into conflicts and global commitments, preside over the economic pastoralization of the United States, manage the delegitimization of our own culture, and the dispossession of our people, and disregard or diminish our national interest and national sovereignty, a nationalist reaction is almost inevitable and will probably assume populist form when it arrives. The sooner it comes, the better.”

What we saw through a glass darkly then, we now see face to face.

Is not Trump the personification of the populist-nationalist revolt Francis predicted?

And was it not presidents and Congresses of both parties who mired us in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, and negotiated the trade deals that have gutted American industry?

The bleeding of factories and manufacturing jobs abroad has produced the demoralization and decline of our middle class, along with the wage stagnation and shrinking participation in the labor force.

Is Trump responsible for that? Is Socialist Bernie Sanders, who voted against all those trade deals?

If not, who did this to us?

Was it not the Bush Republicans and Clinton Democrats?

Americans never supported mass immigration.

It was against their will that scores of millions, here legally and illegally, almost all from Third World countries, whose masses have never been fully assimilated into any western nation, have poured into the USA.
Who voted for that?

Religious, racial, cultural diversity has put an end to the “bad” old America we grew up in, as we evolve into the “universal nation” of Ben Wattenberg, who once rhapsodized, “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”

James Burnham, the ex-Trotskyite and Cold War geostrategist whose work Francis admired, called liberalism “the ideology of Western suicide.”

If the West embraces, internalizes and operates on the principles of liberalism, Burnham wrote, the West with meet an early death.

Among the dogmas of liberalism is the unproven assumption that peoples of all nationalities, tribes, cultures, creeds can coexist happily in nations, especially in a “creedal” nation like the USA, which has no ethnic core but rather is built upon ideas.

A corollary is that “diversity,” a new America and new Europe where all nations are multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural and multilingual, is the future of the west and the model for mankind.

Yet, large and growing minorities in every country of Europe, and now in America, believe that not only is this proposition absurd, the end result could be national suicide.

And when one considers the millions who are flocking to Trump and Sanders, it is hard to believe that the establishments of the two parties, even if they defeat these challengers, can return to same old interventionist, trade, immigration and war policies.

For Trump is not the last of the populist-nationalists.

Given his success, other Republicans will emulate him. Already, other candidates are incorporating his message. The day Francis predicted was coming appears to have arrived.

Angela Merkel may have been Time’s Person of the Year in 2016, but she will be lucky to survive in office in 2017, if she does not stop the invasion from Africa and the Middle East.

Yet Joe Biden’s dismissal that it is reactionaries who oppose what the progressives of Davos believe is not entirely wrong. For as Georges Bernanos wrote, when Europe was caught between Bolshevism and fascism:

To be a reactionary means simply to be alive, because only a corpse does not react any more — against the maggots teeming on it.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2016

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Davos, Donald Trump 
Hide 19 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says:

    ‘Joe Biden’

    Total opportunist and sleazebag.

    A politician, not a patriot.

    Insults his own people before an audience of GLOB oligarchs.

  2. AndrewR says:

    If the West embraces, internalizes and operates on the principles of liberalism, Burnham wrote, the West with meet an early death.

    Angela Merkel may have been Time’s Person of the Year in 2016 [!!!], but she will be lucky to survive in office in 2017, if she does not stop the invasion from Africa and the Middle East.

    Pat has had a great run but, nearing 80 years of age, he is apparently getting senile. Fortunately, I’m sure he can afford an editor to help him out.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  3. Tom_R says:


    Thanks for the great article, Sir. You are so right.

    Joe Biden, a Democrat is owned and operated by his Jewish masters. Judaists contribute 50% of the campaign contributions to the Democratic party and billions more under the table. The Democratic party is basically a sham front for Jewish control of USA.

    But one day he admitted who is behind the liberalism and the alien invasion rackets:

    ““The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized influence per capita,” Biden also said. More specifically, he cited the Jewish role in shaping popular attitudes and in setting policies on race relations, the role of women in society, and “gay rights.” He went on: “You can’t talk about the civil rights movement in this country without talking about Jewish freedom riders and Jack Greenberg … You can’t talk about the women’s movement without talking about Betty Friedan.” Biden also praised the Jewish community’s “embrace of immigration.”


  4. nickels says:

    Heterogeneous Crowds (Gustave Le Bon):

    “The [heterogeneous, i.e. diverse] crowd state and the domination of crowds is equivalent to the barbarian state, or a return to it. It is by the acquisition of a solidly constituted collective spirit that the race [or nation, Le Bon uses race both ways] frees itself to a greater and greater extent from the unreflecting power of crowds, and emerges from the barbarian state .”

    Leftists are not (all) dumb, only malicious. It is quite likely they realize diversity = barbarism, and use this as a method to weaken the nation states for their own ends (namely the institution of a global commie state).

    I am a huge fan of Austrian economics, but this trade issue seems to be something they completely fail on, as Nationalism and Austrian trade seem to be at polar opposites.

    God, Country, Family!

  5. Kamran says:

    Mr. Buchanan can you tell me where I can come and meet you?

    I would like to discuss with you ways in which European ability/IQ/power can be recreated and acquired. I much desire to speak with you, sir.

  6. Rehmat says:

    NOPE, Buchanan, your White Supremacist hero, wouldn’t have any problem, because he supports Israel. The only people like Turkey’s president Erdogan have problem at Davos for insulting your Bible’s “Chosen People”.

    • Replies: @Unz Reader
    , @manton
  7. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Comrade Patrick

    Donald Trump is phase 1 of the revolt…What comes after phase 1?

    Here it is:

    1)hardcore racial xenophobia

    2)more hardcore racial xenophobia

    3)Highly racialized Native Born White American Working Class Racial Nationalism

    4)a Highly racialized Native Born White American Working Class economically progressive Labor Revolt against the Greedy Cheating White Liberal MEGA-CEO Male(I have the former Verizon MEGA-CEO…a guy named Smith….in mind) for these vile creatures are the force behind 1)the open and deliberate policy of wage slavery…2)War with Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia ….3)the over-the-top-aggressive promotion of homosexual social and cultural filth!!!

    5)A hardcore anti-interventionist Foreign Policy=No more Rural American economically distressed Heartland Native Born White Christian Teenager canon fodder for the hyper-ethnic Jewish State of Israel and the Luciferian Chenney Family from HELL ITSELF!!!!

    6)Stripping all MEGA-CORPORATIONS of any legal rights at all in US Courts.

    7) A recognition that Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia is the Social,Cultural, Moral, and Spiritual Leader of all European People.

    Comrade Patrick

    Go have a listen to the Clancy Brothers CD of Irish Rebel Ballads…Saint Patricks day will be here soon enough.

  8. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says:

    I think we need to stop using outdated terms like ‘left’ and ‘right’. After all, our side will prefer pro-white socialists over anti-white capitalists. Indeed, we would even prefer pro-white communism to anti-white libertarianism.

    Instead of ‘left’ and ‘right’, we should think in terms of vertical and horizontal. Verticality is about hierarchy, roots, and locality. After all, a pole has to be stuck or ‘rooted’ in the ground. Also, a vertical pole has high areas, middle areas, and low areas. Verticality cannot not about equality. Also, verticality is fixed in territory like a pole is stuck in one place.

    People need verticality. They need roots. They need a specific place in the world. For example, Germany is over HERE, and Turkey is over THERE. Also, people need to understand that there will always be classes and different social outcomes among individuals. Some people will be more intelligent and rise higher. Some people will be more talented. Some people will run into bad luck.

    Strict ‘rightness’ is about verticality.

    Horizontality is about equality, movement, and universality. It tries to spread evenly all over the place. It is about spreading wealth, power, and laws.

    If verticality is like solid material, horizontality is like liquid. You need solid material to build stuff upward. You need liquid stuff to flow outward. Land tends toward verticality. Oceans tend totward horizonality. Land has hills and mountains and valleys and canyons. But all the ocean of the world is flat in surface. There are no such things as watery hills or mountains. Seas can produce waves, but they all flatten out eventually.


    Strict ‘leftness’ is about horizontality. Horizontality tries to level everyone and everything. It animates against barriers and hierarchy. Communism tried to create a society where people were like a sea of humanity without the ups and downs of classes. And some leftists want all people around the world to be equal or have equal access to wealth. Though horizontality can be forced and coercive, as under communism, it is also a natural force. Look at the animal world, and all creatures ‘steal’ from others. If a squirrel has ‘too many’ nuts, other squirrels try to take them. Also, if you allow cats and dogs to do as they please, they will run and roam all over the place. To keep them in one place, you need to put them on a leash or build artificial barriers to hem them in. The fact that humanity, since it first emerged in Africa, exist in all five continents means that there is something in us that is nomadic. Of course, we don’t have a single nature. We are made up of conflicting but also complementary natures. We see this in animals too. Dogs like to run around freely, but they also mark territory with urine. They have a keen sense of “which turf is mine, which turf isn’t mine”. And even as cats love to go outdoors, they also eventually want to return and sleep and eat in the safety of home.

    Because the left is horizontal in its leveling agenda, it supports open borders. If one nation has more people than another, then the excess population should flow into the other nation. It’s like once a cup is filled, the water fill flow over and move all over the place.

    In some ways, capitalism is also ‘leftist’ in a sense because capitalists aren’t content to hold and contain their wealth within the borders of their own nations. They want their investments to flow outward all over the world and set up enterprises all over in the name of lifting all boats. Of course, unlike communism, capitalism freely admits to creating winners and losers as its ever-expanding investments flow in all directions around the world.

    Communism was about spreading the wealth around by taking from the rich and giving it to the masses.
    Capitalism is about spreading the wealth around by investing capital all over the world. For that reason, capitalists also value open borders. They want their investments to flow outward so that profits will flow inward.

    Capitalism is a hybrid creature, and it partially explains why Jews have been so good at it. There is, after all, the hybridity of rootedness and rootlessness in the identity of Jewishness.
    Capitalism is verticalist(or rightist-like) in creating hierarchies and classes. But it is horizontalist(or leftist-like) in its drive to spread capital all over the world and establish production and distribution systems all over the world. It breaks down national barriers.

    Now, there is value to both verticality and horizonality.

    We need verticality.

    Without roots and grounding in locality, there is no permanence and stability for a people. People need a homeland and identity. A people and nation need to be established in a specific place, much like a pole stuck in the ground. Also, vertical hierarchy will always be a fact of life because no two people are equal in everything. Though most people tend to fall somewhere in the middle, there will be elites and there will the underclass. And people need to find work according to their ability.

    We also horizontality.

    We need movement and change. Without it, we would all end up in a rigid class system in which the upper caste hogs all the wealth, privilege, and power, while rest of the population feeds on the bottom. Who wants to live in caste system where, if one is born into a lower caste, he must remain at the bottom despite his talent to prove himself and rise up in the world? In such a world, those born high will remain high no matter how dumb and worthless they are, and people born low must remain low from cradle to grave.
    So, a person with 150 IQ who is born low must remain low while a person with 90 IQ who is born high will get to control the power. Despite some of the neo-monarchist crap we hear in some corners of ‘alt right’-verse, no sane modern person wants to live under a king. Besides, who gets to be king? Who gets to decide? And must we all bow down this king’s son, even if the son is a retard? Suppose we were born poor but filled with talent and intelligence. Must we suppress our abilities in order to serve the insipid spoiled mediocrities who were born high?

    And the concept of rights makes more sense than the concept of privileges. Rights apply to all within a community and protects freedom & property in accordance to the law. In contrast, the concept of privileges says some people, on the basis of some arbitrary and bogus grounds, are deserving of special advantages while the rest must do without them for no good reason. And privilege is not something that is earned. If you work at success and make a lot of money, that isn’t privilege. What you have is wealth created by work and ingenuity. Because it was earned, it is not privilege.
    But if you’re a dumb lazy fool favored by the state or powers-that-be simply because you were born high, then you are surrounded by privileges. I wouldn’t want such privileges. I wouldn’t want a government that says, “domique-francon-society should have more privilege and advantages than everyone else simply because DFS was born ‘special’.” It would mean that my vaunted status in life is bogus and has been bestowed on me by an unfair system. And I wouldn’t want anyone else to have such privilege over me and the people. The system and the law should be impartial in its interpretation and execution of justice.
    If someone does me wrong, he should be judged according to the same set of laws that apply to anyone else. If I steal from him, I should go to jail. if he steals from me, he should go to jail. The system shouldn’t allow me to steal from others on the basis of some special privilege. Nor should the system say someone else should steal from me because he is privileged and favored by the state. During the Aristocratic Age, a small class of people has such privilege over the masses, and it is no wonder that Enlightenment values were appealing to so many people. The people didn’t think it was fair for the upper-classes to do as they pleased and get away with it with the blessing of the state. And the American Republic was founded on principles that a man had no right to abuse his power simply because he was born high.

    So, there is a need for a system of laws that ensure basic rights under the rule of law for everyone in a given social order.

    Now, why did humanity have troubles with verticality and horizonality?

    Because both have their limits, beyond which the practice begins to break apart or undermine itself.
    Every idea has a useful limit. When it goes past that limit, counter-forces come into play to restore the equilibrium between verticality and horizontality. But i would still emphasize verticailty over horizontality because things begin with verticality. There must be a strong and healthy verticality before a strong and healthy horizontality becomes viable.
    Consider a tree. It grows both upward and sideways. The trunk grows higher & higher, and the branches shoot higher & higher. But the branches also grow sideways and spread out. This is true of the roots as well. Roots dig vertically into the ground but also grow sideways into the surrounding soil.
    It would be silly for a tree to grow ONLY upwards. It needs to branch out sideways too.
    BUT, there is a limit to its horizontal growth. There is limit, beyond which the horizontal branch will break and fall(or threaten the balance of the entire tree). So, even horizontality must be an extension of verticality. This is true of water as well. In order for water to spread sideways, it must first vertically fill up the space it occupies.
    Also, verticals can be mutually reinforced through horizontals. Suppose there are four vertical poles. Suppose horizontal panels are nailed from pole to pole to connect them together. If this is done well, then the horizontal links will help to mutually support the poles.
    Indeed, the European project following WWII worked so well because each vertical European nation was horizontally connected to other nations through mutual trust and shared laws. If this system is beginning to break down, it’s because extraneous horizontal panels and bridges have been added in ways that undermine than serve the unity of the poles. Nations like Greece are wobbly poles with poor grounding in the soil. So, when such nations are connected to the more stable ones, they exert negative force on the edifice than help support it. It’s like adding a midget to a basketball team will not make it better. Sometimes, more is less and less is more. If more is always more, every dish will be improved by more salt and Mona Lisa will be better with more paint.
    Worse, EU under its PC regimen has decided to nail onto the poles the horizontal weight of the Third World. With so many Muslims and Africans arriving in Europe, the whole system is coming under great strain. The EU project, if it is to work, must be about solid European nations mutually supporting one another. Solid vertical poles connecting via horizontal panels can be mutually supportive.
    But when the panels are extended far into the third world, the sheer weight of the unsupported panels exert strain on the entire EU edifice. If there are two vertical poles, and if they are connected together by a horizontal wooden panel, then horizontality serves verticality. But if we add an extra panel to one of the poles, and if this extra panel isn’t nailed to another solidly grounded vertical pole but just hangs freely for someone to swing from like a gorilla, it will be a case of horizonality undermining veriticality.
    This is why functional internationalism depends on functional nationalisms. And this system should exclude dysfunctional political systems that don’t play by the rules and just dump their peoples and problems on other nations and peoples.

    So, there is a limit to everything. We need to settle on the meaningful intersection between verticality and horizontality.

    Verticality must not go beyond nationalism and meritocracy. The vertical phenom of nationalism must remain within national borders. Hitler ran into trouble because his vertical German-ism extended into non-German lands. The German pole must remain on German soil. It mustn’t be used as a club to strike at other poles.

    Also, even though we need to accept class differences, we also need to reject something like aristocracy and monarchy that says privilege should be made permanent by blood. According to aristocratism, even idiots born to privilege should be favored by the system over much deserving people. It means that even smart and skilled people born without privilege must remain without it.
    Though Alt Right has attacked National Review and GOP for being ‘too liberal’, the bigger problem may be that Conservatism Inc has a monarchical attitude toward most white Americans. It thinks in terms of dynasty and privilege. Since Jeb Bush was born into the Bush royalty, we are supposed to get down on our knees like humble serfs. Just because rich kings like Sheldon Adelson and Koch Brothers can buy up all the cuck politicians, we are supposed to be meek and sing praises to Jews and Israel forever.
    Well, it’s a great thing that populists with pitchforks said NO and threw their lot in with Donald Trump instead. What is happening in the American Right is more like the French Revolution than the Restoration. Conservatism Inc has anointed certain individuals as the Royalty of the movement. And the rest of us are supposed to shut our minds and just obey these neo-aristocrats without complaint.
    This is really a form of neo-monarchism. I mean why did George W. Bush become president? Because he was part of Bush dynasty. And why did Jeb Bush begin his campaign with a $100 million war chest? Because he too is part of the dynasty that is now connected with super-rich globalist Jews. To the extent that the Alt Right took up pitchforks and said HELL NO to this kind of privilege, it does have ‘leftist’ and horizontalist tendencies, which need to be valued for what they are.
    Furthermore, suppose by some fortune, the Alt Right were to gain power in the US. Should we then meekly bow down before the great Alt Right leader and follow him blindly like the Germans followed Hitler? Well, how did that turn out?

    Just as there is a limit to verticalism, there is one to horizontalism. The concept of Rule of Law that applies to every citizen within the nation is good and crucial. Also, each person needs to be protected by the law and be guaranteed BASIC rights of justice. Otherwise, the powerful and privileged could just him like dirt with impunity. And justice will be denied to him since the system is on the side of privilege and power. Who would want to live in such an order? Of course, things would be nice if one could be part of the privileged class in such an order, but what person of true honor and self-respect would want to ‘win’ on the basis of favoritism?
    A student with any self-respect would rather pass or fail based on his talent and input.
    How would it be to receive a ‘C’ even when you did A-level work? Or be given an A even when you only did C-level work?

    The Left was on the right side of history when it pushed for equality of basic rights and equality of recognition based on meritocracy.
    It began to go wrong when it turned radical and pushed for forced equality against freedom and merit. And it went decadent and crazy when, having achieved all its basic goals in the West, it came up with ever sillier causes in order to remain ‘relevant’. We can see this among blacks too. When blacks struggled for basic civil rights and equality under the law, they were on solid ground. But today, they are making fools of themselves with the mendacious BLM movement and idiotic controversies about black actors not being nominated for the Oscars.

    There needs to be a limit to both verticality and horizontality. If anything, the two need each other. Horizontality in law works best within a vertically constructed nation.
    But, when a nation tries to spread its power, ideas, and values horizontally into other nations, things get confused, troublesome, and messy. Ideally, each nation should ensure rule of law and basic rights to all its citizens. But it is up to each nation to decide on how to go about achieving this ideal.
    There is also the danger that when the elites of a nation become immersed in the larger world, they no longer care about their own people. Look at Sweden, Germany, France, and UK. All those nations have lots of native whites faced with all sorts of serious problems. But the elites only care about serving Jewish elites and masses of darkies in the Third World.

    So, while horizontality has great value, it should apply only within the borders of a nation. It’s like water in an aquarium should be for that aquarium, not for all the aquariums in the world. Let the water flow freely but within that aquarium. It has no business overflowing or splashing into other aquariums. Let the principle of basic rights and rule of law apply to the people of that nation. And that nation needs to remind itself that it is not its duty to take care of other nations or intervene in their affairs.

    The intersection of verticality and horizonality is what we should be about. That was the promise of fascism before Mussolini got crazy with egotism and Hitler got crazy with German-supremacism.

    Verticality needs to intersect with horizonality. Verticality should NOT behave like horizontality. Imperialism was unstable because it was verticality behaving like horizonality. It was about the power of one nation spreading all over and gaining dominance over other peoples and nations.

    But then, it is also problematic for horizontality to take on the semblance of verticality. This happened with communism as a new privileged class gained total power in the name of ensuring justice for all.

    Verticality must act like verticality,and horizonality must act like horizontality. It’s like there is a need for solid material and there is a need for liquid materials. Solid materials should act like solid materials, and liquid materials need to act like liquid materials.

    A working intersection of verticality and horizonality would be as follows: On the basis of verticality, there would be the need to preserve national boundaries and ensure that the nation is defined by a certain racial & cultural makeup and imbued with a certain historical narrative and sacred myths. It would also accept the fact that there will the elites, the middle classes, and the lower classes.

    Once such verticality has been established and secured, the factor of horizontality would ensure that each person of the nation is guaranteed with the basic rights of liberty, conscience, and property. The water(liquid) of horizontality would be contained within the tall glass(solid) of verticality.

    The problem with globalist ‘open borders’ radicals is that they believe in the water but not in the glass.
    The problem of extreme rightists is they believe in the glass but not in the water. For them, the glass should be filled with solid glass and contain no water. That way, everything is frozen. Bottom of the glass is always on the bottom, top of the glass is always on top.

    But a much better system is a glass that contains water. That way, there is stability and security provided by the solid form of the glass, but there is also free movement that allows top to fall to bottom and the bottom to rise to the top. Indeed, consider how nice it would be if the Bushes were to fall to the bottom. Do we want the likes of George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, George P. Bush, the Bush daughters, and etc to on top of the glass permanently? Of course not.
    We want such mediocrities to fall to the bottom, and we want fresh blood-and-talent to rise to the top.

    What is dangerous about globalism is it perverts both the rules of verticality and horizontality. This is because the globalist elites are no longer bound to their land and people. Traditional aristocrats were bound to the land they inherited and the peasants who worked for them. And national elites relied on their own country and people for power. British bourgeoisie relied on the British middle class and working class. The French bourgeoisie relied on the French middle class and working class. There used to be national capitalism in America, and America’s business elites were bound to American workers.

    The elites were part of the vertical pole. They were the top of the pole, but they were still part of the pole, and, as such, connected to the rest of the pole. They couldn’t defy gravity and solidity.

    But the globalist elites can defy political and economic gravity of nationalism. They’ve created a system whereby they no longer need to be bound to any single nation. They live in their own realm not unlike the sky island in the MIyazaki movie LAPUTA: CASTLE IN THE SKY. They live in a world not unlike the sky city in GUUM, aka BATTLE ANGEL. They are like the elites in ELYSIUM. Their power and privilege float all around the world above all nations and all humanity. Given their free-flowing movement, one might say the elites are horizontalist and ‘leftist’. But if horizontalism is like liquid and moves on the ground, globalism is like gas and moves along the top. So, it reaches high and moves ABOVE the horizontal movement of the liquid masses. Mexicans moving en masse to America is like a demographic horizontalism. So is the massive movement of Muslim and African hordes into Europe. These are ‘free’ movements of mobs with little or nothing. In contrast, the globalist elites glide high above everyone and own & control most of the wealth. They float above the liquid masses of the Third World and above the boundaries of vertical national entities. if anything, they drop bombs on the national walls from their sky castles. George Soros is typical among these globalist elites. Indeed, the ONLY walls they tolerate are the ones around Israel. Globalist elites don’t fear the Third World masses since they live in a world of their own that defies gravity. Even if German streets were to fill up with criminal African and Muslim mobs, the globalist elites don’t have to worry about getting hurt since they have multiple residences in the richest and safest places all over the world. Even if all of Germany were to be lost and even if the German masses were to suffer on the street level, the globalist German elites working in cahoots with the likes of Soros could use their wealth and connections to live in some fancy part of the world in the Middle East, Latin America, Asia, etc. They have a sky-and-money mentality, not a blood-and-soil mentality.

    Because globalists defy both verticalism(which is rooted to a specific territory and can rise only so high) and horizontalism(which is about the leveling movement of the masses), they constitute a new mode of power: levitality. Their power levitates over everything and everyone. They hover over us like satellites and have control over the entire globe.

    A national elite is at the top of the vertical pole. Their high status depends on the rest of the pole. They enjoy more power, wealth, and privilege, but they are mindful of the fact that their position would not be possible without the rest of the pole.

    In contrast, the globalist elites float above all national poles. They are fixed to no nation. They use global finance, communications, spying, and intelligence to mess with the entire world. They can destroy all of the Middle East and then pressure Europe to take in millions of ‘refugees’. Thus, Muslim and African liquid masses horizontally crash through the weakened vertical walls of Europe.

    But the levitational globalist elites remain glibly and smugly above both realities as it floats around freely in its anti-gravity sky castles.

    LAPUTA warned us of the danger of rootless globalism.

  9. @Rehmat

    Buchanan is no toady of Israel. He is at best neutral about it. That, more than anything else, is why he is hated by the American political establishment.

  10. manton says:

    I guess you’ve forgotten the whole “Is Pat an anti-Semite” controversy. There are many layers, but it was kicked off in the run-up to the first Gulf War when Pat said “there are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East – the Israeli defense ministry and its ‘amen corner’ in the United States.” This caused considerable outrage and eventually led to Buckley’s 40,000 word special issue of NR in which Buckley concluded that Pat is an anti-Semite and all the great, wise and good agreed.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
    , @Hbm
  11. @AndrewR

    Pat has had a great run but, nearing 80 years of age, he is apparently getting senile. Fortunately, I’m sure he can afford an editor to help him out.

    Andrew, stop acting the puerile asshole, eh?

  12. Rehmat says:

    NOPE darling – I wrote a book on that subject. Since his firing from MSNBC Pat has put duct-tape on anti-Israel side of his mouth while pushing more hot air from his anti-Muslim racist side of his mouth.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a fundamentalist Catholic and White supremacist. He believes that Muslim immigrants (not the Christian or Hindu immigrants) are greatest threat to West’s White Christian values. In some sense, I agree with him, so does Israeli Rabbi Baruch Efrati, who said in 2012 that “Islamization of western countries would help people to get rid of their immoral habits (sex, alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc.).

  13. Hbm says:

    Rehmat is an old hand at stinking-up alt-Right Internet sites with his Muslim shilling and disinformation– as if he were doing us a favor.

    The loathsome bunch of sand people he shills for are just as much of a threat to Whites as the Jews who empower them– and empower him, with his “White supremacist” and “racism” and all the other stuff he conveniently never talks about.

    • Replies: @Hrw-500
  14. Hrw-500 says:

    Speaking of the alt-Right, I spotted this video and blog post from a guy nicknamed “ramzpaul” who talk about the alt-Right.

    Here an exterpt from his text then I thought it might be worth to quote:

    The Hippies of the 1950s and 1960s were never a formal political movement. But the basic philosophy gave birth to organizations and influenced public policy. Hillary Clinton is basically a relic of the hippie generation. And they are now the establishment.

    We on the Alt Right are the hippies of our time. We are the counter culture. And while we are not a formal organization we do have organizations such as American Renaissance (AmRen) and National Policy Institute (NPI) that represent many of our values. The primary of these values being self-determination for all people.

    Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars, mentionned then “Conservatism is the new counter-culture”.
    (I think it was the real term of “conservatism” and not “cuckservatism”)

    • Replies: @Hrw-500
  15. Richard S says:

    Buchanan was ahead of the curve on this by decades. I’m delighted he’s survived to see everything he’s been saying about international finance and unAmerican elites being vindicated. President Trump should start by annihilating all of America’s enemies, one after the other. By turning the entire Kingdom of “Saudi” Arabia into radioactive glass, he’d be striking a blow for world civilisation

  16. Hasn’t America had enough of war? Weren’t things better during peacetime? When was that anyway?

  17. Sherman says:

    “For Trump is not the last of the populists-nationalists”

    Perhaps while extolling Trump’s nationalist credentials Pat forgot to take into account all the Wetback labor Trump has used over the years at his construction sites and doing groundskeeping at his golf courses.

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS