Globalists Or Nationalists: Who Owns The Future?

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via,

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.

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.


Lordflin El Vaquero Tue, 03/13/2018 - 20:21 Permalink

The way we are going it will be the worms, assuming they survive... The globalist appear to intend to go nuclear and/or  they will make extensive use of AI and self directed killing machines... think the acceleration to war is too fast to allow for much of the latter (assuming that these weapons are not in hiding somewhere) so guessing it will be nuclear... and as things are going it could be almost any day. I think the nationalists backlash is too little too late, but happy for the world to prove me wrong.


In reply to by El Vaquero

ZeroSpam pier Tue, 03/13/2018 - 22:11 Permalink

^^^  pier   ^^^  CHRONIC SPAMMER

This chronic spammer (aka "stizazz" and "lloll" -- recently banned) is a CHRONIC SPAMMER whose "disguised links" ("WILL BE NO FUTURE", above) will take you to his Spam- and Trojan-laden webpage, fondly known by ZHers as "The Whacked Out Biblicism SPAM page" where you will be the happy recipient of numerous virus from this very disturbed and obsessed individual, spamming here for more than five years.


Copy and send this text to

"Please remove all postings and ban log-on from user "PIER" who chronically posts short-URL links to his virus- and spam-filled website.  This is the same individual posting chronically as recently-banned "STIZAZZ" and "LLOLL", among dozens of other banned log-ons (that's YOU dailywesterner  and  biblicisminstitute).       Thank you."

In reply to by pier

NumbersUsa Dindu Nuffins Wed, 03/14/2018 - 00:06 Permalink


Excerpt From:

"Every few weeks or so, for the past five years and counting, a reader will ask for comment on the persistent false allegation of Adolf Hitler having been a secret agent of the Rothschild bankers.

Dismissing the claims as retarded rubbish with a few sentences of clarification is generally all it takes to reassure Hitler fans that there is no cause for alarm. 

All one has to do is look at the level of never-ending red-hot hatred that is still being leveled at Hitler. Seventy years after Germany's defeat in World War II, he continues to be vilified by the PRC (Predatory Ruling Class) for one simple reason -- to scare people into a "never do that again" frame of mind. The Great One was true blue -- the real deal -- the genuine article.

Contrary to the idiotic claims of patriotards and assorted trolls who are known to pose as “anti-Globalists,” Hitler shut down the German, French and Austrian branches of the House of Rothschild -- a very peculiar action for a “Rothschild agent”, eh?  

1 - The Daily News, Perth, Friday, 8 April, 1938, page-2

VIENNA, -- Whether ex-King Ed ward of England, the Duke of Windsor, had anything to do with it is not announced, but his Jewish friend, Austrian banker, Baron Louis Rothschild, was released today by the Nazis. But the Rothschild Bank is confiscated. The Duke made a personal plea to Hitler for the release of Rothschild and others three weeks ago. But he was given a rebuff. Hitler replied, ‘regretting his inability to comply with the request.’ 2- The Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 23 September 1939

LONDON, Sept. 22. (A.A.P.)

The fortune of Mr. Julius Rothschild, a member of the well-known ‘ Jewish banking house, has been confiscated by the German Government, states a message from Berlin.

This un-sourced nonsense about Hitler the British-Rothschild agent doesn't even merit the time that it takes to rebut it. But because more than a few truthers have bought into this lunacy and continue to repeat this lie (promoted by advertising salesmen such as Alex Jones of DisInfo Wars, among others) -- what follows is a "put-up-or-shut-up"refutation of the major points of the "Hitler-worked-for-the-Rothschilds" fairy tale and its lesser variant: "The-Rothschilds-funded-and-manipulated-Hitler."

Some of these crackpots even go as far as to say that Hitler was not just a Rothschild puppet, but an actual family member!

Claim: Hitler tried to make deals with the British. He should have known that England would ally itself with Russia rather than against it. This proves that Hitler was a Rothschild agent and false opposition.

Rebuttal: The English ruling class was NOT monolithic. Hitler's outreach was to the reasonable elements -- not to scum such as Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden. 

There were powerful men in Britain that were resisting the drive to World War II with Germany. Men such as former Prime Minister David Lloyd GeorgeKing Edward VIII (later demoted to Duke because he was an open admirer of Hitler)the 5th Duke of WellingtonLord Halifax, and even Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain -- the "appeaser" who was maneuvered into war by the traitors in his own Party.

It was those type of Englishmen that Hitler was trying to forge an alliance with -- not the Rothschild Jews and their Freemason stooges!" Continued......

The full article here:

In reply to by Dindu Nuffins

Endgame Napoleon Dindu Nuffins Wed, 03/14/2018 - 02:14 Permalink

Globalists are not individualists; they believe in emphasizing tribal / racial identity within a pluralistic society. A strong nation state is much more tolerant of individuals, as it deemphasizes the tribal / racial loyalty that ropes individuals into bloodline groups, but it places the nation’s interests ahead of the interests of other nations.

This is another great article from Pat. So few of today’s public intellectuals provide historical context with any depth, using a bunch of specific, historical examples, although certain phases of history are overemphasized, forming a constant media drumbeat, like the civil rights movement era, for instance. 

While Reagan fits in this timeline as a nationalist POTUS, both Bushes were more globalist. It is hard to say with Nixon. He opened up relations with China, but he certainly did not have the current naive / Kumbaya globalist attitude. Okay, so, the globalism was nascent in the Sixties, but Bill Clinton was the biggest proponent of it. He was globalism’s closer. 


In reply to by Dindu Nuffins

Blame_Goats Endgame Napoleon Wed, 03/14/2018 - 09:04 Permalink

What I have learned is 'free trade' was an excuse used by industrialists in the late 19th cen. to justify building an American economic empire.  We wanted free trade in China to help us sell our production - over production really  -  much of which had been financed by English investments or loans from the mid 19th century.  England was investing more in India and the USA than they were in England.  Why?  The lower classes were getting too powerful and threatening the status quo. Better to invest it overseas where England did not have to worry about the growth of socialist opposition groups.

One has to dig to get the investment flow figures ... but the way the US robber barons' aped English aristocracy is a widely known cultural indicator of what was happening ...

In reply to by Endgame Napoleon

NumbersUsa ZeroSpam Wed, 03/14/2018 - 00:28 Permalink

The postings you rail against seem to oppose zionist dogma and continual wars for so-called israel. We think his/her postings are an excellent endeavor protected by the 1st amendment.

Seems to us you would be inciting pc censorship for the sole purpose of maintaining the jew supremacist stranglehold upon the U.S.A., U.K. Germany, France, Austria, etc..

In reply to by ZeroSpam

Yukon Cornholius stacking12321 Tue, 03/13/2018 - 20:19 Permalink

Citizens, by definition, are subjects. Subject to the will of their government who has granted them their "rights". Globalist or nationalist, it matters not. Citizens = chumps.

A People, on the other hand, grant their own rights, and are subject to no rule, statute, regulation, by-law or other impediment to freedom that private governments might create. A People is the source of power, governmental or otherwise.

Which are you? People or citizen?  

In reply to by stacking12321

stacking12321 Yukon Cornholius Tue, 03/13/2018 - 20:55 Permalink

who, me?

neither, i don't really relate to groups.

i'm just one guy, going his own way, not looking to impose on anyone, not willing to be imposed on, by anyone.

government is better and more honest, the smaller and more local it is.

the logical conclusion of that, is self-governance; the individual being the atom of governance that can't be split further.

In reply to by Yukon Cornholius

El Vaquero stacking12321 Tue, 03/13/2018 - 21:00 Permalink

Except there's a little thing about people:  We form hierarchies.  Get enough of us together in a sedentary living condition like agriculture allows, and those hierarchies grow until they resemble something like government.  You're going to get a government whether you like it or not, and one way or another, no matter how noble the intent of the people forming it, it will become more and more self serving.  This is why the tree of liberty must be watered with blood from time to time.

In reply to by stacking12321

stacking12321 El Vaquero Tue, 03/13/2018 - 21:49 Permalink

people do tend to form communities, and to co-operate, and work together, yes there is advantage in cooperation and specialization.

hierarchies are not necessary, though, especially with decentralized p2p solutions for communication and organization.

you're mistaken about a government necessarily forming. government is the use of violence, or the threat of violence, to control others. i would not tolerate it in the people around me, it's a violation of natural law. if someone insisted on such a course, i would cut them off. my relationships with those around me are based on mutual respect, and 100% voluntary cooperation.



In reply to by El Vaquero

thisandthat Yukon Cornholius Tue, 03/13/2018 - 22:25 Permalink

Well, there's the difference between a (democratic) republic and monarchy: in a republic every citizen is a co-sovereign and bound to no one but each other, on equal terms.

Citizens of a republic going to a monarchy and acting deferentially to a (foreign!) monarch that's in fact a peer, really should be punished for disrespecting their own country and sovereignty.

In reply to by Yukon Cornholius

lester1 BabaLooey Tue, 03/13/2018 - 20:18 Permalink

Globalization and open borders is the agenda of the reptilians. They are demons and the cause of all the evil and wars in the world. They want to see humans suffering. Globalism is no different than communism where are very small select few are super rich, and everybody else is dirt poor and basically slaves. 

Just look at what globalization has done to the United States already. It's decimated our manufacturing sector and turned us into a debtor Nation. We can't even fix our roads. There's a massive opioid crisis because people are getting hooked on drugs rather than having a good paying job and a bright future. 


I would rather be on the side of the Nationalists, who want peace, prosperity and progress for our nation.

In reply to by BabaLooey

Ocean22 BabaLooey Tue, 03/13/2018 - 21:25 Permalink

Since “globalism” was built to be destroyed ( by the shadow globalists ) we will see globalism go down, however, riding quietly ( but completely in control ) in the background of smaller “national” units,  the True Globalists will pull the strings the very same way that “ globalism” would, but it will appear that we [ nationalists ]  will have won, when in fact, we loose.  

Hegelian dialectic people. The biggest slow-con the world has ever seen is being roled out as we speak [and few can see it.]  

In reply to by BabaLooey

soyungato Tue, 03/13/2018 - 20:11 Permalink

Nationalist. The question for what the future brings boils down to what is the meaning of life. When AI can think like a human, it will take off exponentially and exceed human intellectual and physically. The question then becomes what relevance the human has in such a world. Might the AI not just simply replace human. The question then becomes what is the purpose of life , for human and more importantly , for the thinking AI. The answer is the purpose of existence of the AI machine is to serve the weaker human. Ideally, human will be left do things their way with AI helping ad caring like a mother. Instead of merging globally, human will segregate into their own little groups and mind their own business.

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Tue, 03/13/2018 - 20:14 Permalink

I abhor the globalist, open border, free trade crowd. I am firmly a nationalist.

If you missed it, the U.K. held Lauren Southern in detention and deported her to Calais. For what? I wish I was joking: terrorism. Or possible terrorism. Get ready. Things are going to get bloody.

lew1024 HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Tue, 03/13/2018 - 20:55 Permalink

Total BS. I know Muslims in America. We are friends, went to their daugher's wedding. Standard wedding, alcohol, etc.

Just recently, after knowing them for 5 years, we find they are Muslim.

Didn't seem like they are trying to take over the world to me.

They are a standard diverse people, believers and non-. All kinds of political views. They hate the extremists as much as anyone, and think the US imposed those extremists on them and their countries.

Muslims have suffered far more from ISIS and the other crazies than anyone else, and ISIS is Saudi Arabia, Israel and US's baby. Badly needed, because we need enemies to justify the $1T military spending.

In reply to by HRH of Aquitaine 2.0

Indo_Expat lew1024 Tue, 03/13/2018 - 21:24 Permalink

Lumping all Muslims together is the same as saying all Christians follow the same dogma i.e. Catholics are the same as the Pentecostals.

Indonesia is a good example where the rank and file majority Muslim moderates loathe the radicals and Detachment 88 exterminates them. Religion here is as complicated and diverse as the 17,000 different islands are, where cultures often retain ancient local deities and beliefs and blend them into Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Pagan and the myriad other faiths that coexist peacefully - for the most part - here.

In reply to by lew1024

NumbersUsa lew1024 Wed, 03/14/2018 - 00:34 Permalink

a couple of those same muslims ate, drank, and worked with their coworkers, and then showed up at a Christmas party and slaughtered their so-called American friends. 

Albeit-Get the jew supremacists out of our government, schools, media & banks and the troubles of the world will all but completely subside. 

In reply to by lew1024

I Write Code Tue, 03/13/2018 - 20:19 Permalink

Buchanan, always brilliant and often bent.

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.”

I don't believe that for a second.  Bartley ran a great editorial page, sadly missing afterwards.  If Bartley ever said anything that sounded like that it was meant abstractly, as something like Marx's fading away of the state, and just about as likely.  I think Buch is losing his last few marbles.

cubitknot Tue, 03/13/2018 - 20:22 Permalink

I find it interesting how people get polarized around names designed to separate them from themselves and their neighbours. The sheer fact of the matter is the only reason why you have such outlandish terms to grasp onto is so you don't understand the basic fact that your government and the fiscal policies that allow them to rule are your enemy.