Government Zero: No Borders, No Language, No Culture (30 page)

Or, maybe the Republicans are just greedy cowards who aren’t interested in going out of their way to oppose the president on his terrifying mission. We know the establishment Republicans are willing to sell out our freedom. We saw that when Mitch McConnell tried to ram through renewal of the Patriot Act and defended the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata without warrants or probable cause.
⁹

Either way, we’re on a very dangerous road that America wouldn’t be the first to travel. With free speech and freedom of the press under attack, the military scaring the daylights out of civilians with massive training exercises in our cities and towns, and a president giving tacit support to nascent Brownshirts in our midst, the local police are our last line of defense. They are our antibodies against the disease of chaos and destruction invading our body politic.

That’s why the progressives are trying to destroy them.

I know you’ve sought out this book for answers. I am going to give you answers, but perhaps not the ones you expect. Extraordinary problems require extraordinary solutions. A nation that has been radically changed for the worse may need to be radically changed back to its best form.

It’s time to abandon conservatism as the defining principle of our movement. It has become meaningless.
Conservative
has come to mean anything anyone who joins the Republican Party says it means. It means “small government” to one person and “big government” to another. It means “military interventionism” to one and “isolationism” to another. It is “nationalism” to one and “internationalism” to another.

Any movement that could include Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson isn’t a movement at all. It has no defining principles. It is merely a buoy in the ocean to cling to while gainsaying the other side. We’ve
tried that approach in election after election. It hasn’t worked. The progressive juggernaut continues to swamp us while radical Islam attempts to finish us off.

Don’t get me wrong. I remain as much a conservative as I’ve ever been, in the true sense of the word. I seek to “conserve” those long-standing social and legal traditions that have protected our individual liberty and national greatness for hundreds of years. That’s what
conservatism
really means in the classic sense. But when Jeb Bush can promote Common Core in our schools, open borders, and Spanish as a second American language and call it conservatism, the word has lost its meaning, just as
liberal
has.

At one time,
liberal
meant laissez-faire capitalism, limited government, and personal liberty. While I believe in each of those principles, they are missing one important component that makes the rest of them possible: duty. Liberty and prosperity are not possible without commitment to preserve and defend the nation without which their existence is impossible.

I’m not talking about being enslaved to the government. I’m talking about responsibility to the nation.
The nation and the government are not the same thing
. That’s what the progressives don’t understand. Our forefathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to
each other
, not to any government.

The government is just a tool. It can be a means toward preserving the nation or destroying it. I don’t think I have to tell you how it’s been used for as long as you or I can remember. Decade after decade, the progressives have chipped away at those traditions that defined America as different from every other nation in history. Then, the Obama administration came in and replaced the chisels with bulldozers.

To counter that, we offered Mitt Romney. Romney is a fine
man and loves this country, but he obviously wasn’t the answer. He offered what amounted to light progressivism. He wanted to keep the good parts of Obamacare. He wanted to blow up the education bubble even further, just as Obama did. He supported NSA spying and even Obama’s horrifying claim that he can kill an American citizen on American soil on his own authority.

In spite of these positions, he was deemed too conservative by the electorate. That’s why I say the word has no meaning anymore. True conservatives know what it means, but they didn’t come out to vote for Romney. They won’t come out to vote for another light progressive like Jeb Bush, either. Besides, what good does it do to elect him? We already had light progressivism with his brother. Jeb is even more progressive than George W.

We need a fundamental political alteration of the monopoly game. I’ve been saying we need a nationalist candidate for years. Real Americans are starving for one. If a truly nationalist candidate ran as a Republican, he would win the nomination and the general election by a landslide. But if we’re going to put a nationalist candidate forward, we need to know what he or she would look like.

Conservatism
has come to mean almost nothing other than “pro-business.” Those who call themselves conservatives today have adopted the laissez-faire rhetoric of the old, classical liberals, but they don’t really want laissez-faire. They don’t propose to dismantle the massive regulatory structure built up by progressives over the past century and allow true laissez-faire competition.

Instead, they seek to tweak regulations, create loopholes, and bestow targeted tax cuts to allow their corporate donors (i.e., masters) to make bigger profits while remaining insulated from new competition by the remaining regulations and taxes.

The problem is these corporations are not American anymore. They are multinational entities with no incentive to be loyal to any particular nation unless they are given one. The Republican Party and most of those within it who identify as conservative don’t propose to do that. That’s why they backed NAFTA twenty years ago and back the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) today. As far as they’re concerned, what is good for big business is an end in and of itself.

This is why the Reagan approach didn’t work. Reagan was another fundamentally decent leader and much more authentically conservative than anyone we’ve seen since. But he was missing that one element that might have made his system successful: true nationalism. Reagan rejected the idiotic socialist policies that had dominated American policy for decades and was successful in reviving economic growth. He just didn’t incorporate the kind of nationalist polices that would have prevented the wholesale sellout that occurred under Clinton, with Republican support.

Don’t get me wrong. I wholeheartedly believe in a free market economy in which each individual keeps the fruits of his labor and competition determines the winners and losers. But I also recognize, as true conservatives have throughout American history, that the entire world is not a free market. That was why traditional conservatives gave the federal government the power to regulate trade. It wasn’t so the government could stick its nose into the minute details of every business in America. It was to defend and preserve the conditions within
which Americans could interact freely with each other and remain competitive with the rest of the world.

If the world economy consisted of 190 or so countries just like the United States, a laissez-faire approach on the world stage would be just fine. Perhaps someday that will be true. But here in the real world today, there are not 190 USAs. There is only one which provides the personal and economic liberty that has made America so prosperous. America’s uniqueness is what has led to a standard of living unrivaled in the annals of recorded history, with opportunity found nowhere else in the world.

That’s why it is not realistic to expect American workers to compete with Chinese workers kept in a state of poverty by political oppression, currency manipulation, and state capitalism. The only way for them to do that would be to accept the low standard of living that goes along with those conditions in China. That’s what the progressives argue conservatives want. It’s hard to disagree with them when the Republican Party wholeheartedly supports our internationalist president on trade deals like the TPP.

Traditional conservatives were also nationalists. From Alexander Hamilton to Henry Clay to Abraham Lincoln, conservatives have always staunchly believed in economic policies that were best for
America
. When the Republican Party was born, its platform included
higher
taxes. Lincoln was a former Whig who believed in high tariffs to protect American business from longer-established foreign competition.

Lincoln and the Republicans also believed the government had a responsibility to provide the infrastructure necessary for a modern economy to flourish. He wanted to subsidize roads, railroads, and other infrastructure. Contrast that with the Republican reaction to the Amtrak disaster earlier this year.
All they were concerned about was using the tragedy for political gain. From listening to them, you’d think they don’t believe the government should even build roads. That’s not traditional conservatism, and it’s certainly not nationalism.

A nationalist candidate would recognize there is a very specific role for the government. It is not to centrally plan or control every aspect of economic activity, as the progressives believe. It is not to redistribute wealth. But it is to maintain an environment in which a market economy can operate and provide the public goods needed to maximize the efficiency of that economy. It is to protect we the people from foreign powers buying and selling our infrastructure, transporting our manufacturing base, and dumping cheap goods on us to drive small- and medium-sized business into bankruptcy.

After the Amtrak wreck, Republicans immediately negated the fact that the infrastructure of this country is crumbling, despite trillions spent on stimulus. Where did those trillions go? Certainly not into new Hoover Dams, Golden Gate Bridges, Lincoln Tunnels, Empire State Buildings, or even highways.

The taxpayer money collected to rebuild America was stolen. That’s just corruption, not necessarily progressivism. True nationalist conservatives shouldn’t be arguing that we don’t need any government infrastructure. We need honest government like the kind that built the America we’re now letting fall into disrepair.

Regardless of which party has been in power, illegal aliens have flooded over our border. I’ve talked about why the progressives
have allowed this. It’s part of their agenda. They want to transform America from a constitutional republic based on English common-law traditions, Judeo-Christian values, and Western European customs into a secular social democracy based on atheism, multiculturalism, and Marxist economic principles.

That Mexican immigrants are more socially conservative and devoted to God, family, and a strong work ethic might be one reason why the Obama administration is bringing in far more Muslims, Asians, and Caribbean Islanders than he is Hispanics. While all immigrants, including Hispanics, tend to vote Democrat, Muslim immigrants are far less likely to assimilate into American culture than Hispanics.

As we’ve seen, Muslim refugees in particular have completely refused to assimilate, forming self-contained Muslim communities like Little Mogadishu in Minnesota, in which potential sleeper cells are constantly being formed.

None of this would come as a shock to most conservative voters, even if they hadn’t read this book. What they don’t understand is why the Republican Party, even when they held the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives for six straight years, failed to even slow down the flood of illegal immigrants. Knowing why the progressives are desperate to get them in and eventually give them the vote, knowing that even legal immigrants vote Democrat, why would they not act in their self-interest and stop it?

The answer is the same as for why they support a lopsided trade deal. They’re not a nationalist party. They are simply a pro-business party, and low-skilled immigrants provide a source of cheap labor for their corporate supporters. They are so bought and sold by these special interests that they will actually stand by and watch their own demographic destruction
before doing anything that might shave a penny off next year’s corporate profits.

This is why Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest men, supports Marco Rubio, a shallow man willing to open the floodgates to as many H1-B visas as possible, permitting Ellison, Zuckerberg, and Gates to bring in more foreign tech workers just to lower their labor costs.

I have no particular attachment to the Republican Party, outside of their usefulness in stopping the Progressive-Islamists. Unfortunately, they are going to take all of us down with them by not resisting the single greatest threat to our borders, language, and culture: indiscriminate, unregulated immigration.

So, what would a nationalist immigration policy look like? It certainly wouldn’t be closed borders forever. Immigration is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Neither am I arguing for a lower number of immigrants, per se. It’s more about who is allowed to enter the United States and why. Immigration policies today bring in people based upon what America can do for them. A nationalist immigration policy would completely reverse this approach and make decisions on whom to admit based on what they can do for America.

Does that mean we never take in refugees, or those seeking a better life in America than is available in their home country? Absolutely not. When you think about it,
nobody
seeks to immigrate unless the opportunities here are better than at home. But there is a finite number of people who can be admitted into the country in any given year, regardless of how efficiently the government agencies work.

That means there are choices to make on who to admit and who we cannot admit, at least for now. We’ve had a radically
liberal immigration policy for decades. We may need drastically opposite measures before we get back to normal.