Liberalism is a cancer that is eating away at the heart of Western civilization by eroding its foundational institutions. But there is another movement that may be even worse than liberalism—the conservative movement.

The conservative movement consists of most Republican politicians as well as those donors, pundits, news outlets, think tanks, and lobbyists that are supposed to represent conservative voters. While they pretend to be conservatives themselves, their real values are diametrically opposed to those of their voters.

A false friend is worse than an enemy

Military strategists are unified in teaching that a general should know his enemy. This makes sense because you can’t defeat an enemy unless you understand what its strengths and weaknesses are.

But false friends are worse than an enemy. You would never take the advice of an enemy, but you will listen to a false friend even though he will lead you to defeat.

Liberalism is the clear enemy of everything that is traditional. It was liberalism that pushed for no fault divorce laws that causes almost half of all marriages to end in divorce. Liberalism pushes feminism caused women to abandon childbearing in exchange for fulfillment in a cubicle. Through a poorly designed welfare state, liberalism has created a permanent underclass in the US and in many Western nations. Two decades of liberal lobbying led to the legalization of same-sex marriage, and liberals have plans for even more extreme social engineering.

The conservative movement says that it is a friend of traditional men and women, but it is a false friend. It promised that if we voted for True Conservative™ politicians and donated to conservative lobbying groups they would not only stop the destruction being wrought by liberals, but reverse it.

If the conservative movement had put up a real fight against liberalism and lost, there would have been no shame. But in virtually every case, conservative leaders put up only token resistance. As we shall see, the movement’s real priorities lie in servicing a globalist agenda.

Ditching Morality

Average Americans who identify as conservatives do so because they want to conserve their way of life. For most of them, that means a society with some semblance of Christian morality. It doesn’t mean that conservatives want a theocracy—only a place where children can grow up in a healthy environment.

The conservative movement was supposed to fight against the erosion of morality. William F. Buckley, one of the leading lights of the movement, wrote that part of its mission was defend traditional morality:

The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order.

Defending the organic moral order is a noble goal. Unfortunately, conservative leaders almost never do it. When was the last time you heard a conservative politician or pundit say that no-fault divorce should be rolled back?

Gay marriage is a similar case. The leaders of the conservative movement put up only token opposition to same-sex marriage before it became the law of the land due to the Obergefell Supreme Court decision. The reason for their limp-wristed response is that many of the most revered conservative leaders are actually social liberals. Jonah Goldberg, a Senior Editor for National Review, thought that same-sex marriage was a great idea all along:

I also find it cruel and absurd to tell gays that living the free-love lifestyle is abominable while at the same time telling them that their committed relationships are illegitimate too. Many of my conservative friends often act as if there’s some grand alternative to both the bohemian or the bourgeois lifestyles. But there isn’t. And given that open homosexuality is simply a fact of life, the rise of the HoBos — the homosexual bourgeoisie — strikes me as good news.

While the leaders of the conservative movement abandoned any defense of traditional values, they neglected to tell their followers. On occasion, conservative politicians will wrap themselves in the mantle of Christian morality to gain votes, but once they are in office all morality issues conveniently disappear off the radar screen.

By the way, conservative lobbying organizations are no better. These groups solicit donations from gullible conservative voters while they have no intention of ever achieving victory. After all, victory would mean that they would be out of a lucrative job.

Loading...

Trade

So if preserving the moral order is not a goal of conservative leaders, what is? The conservative movement’s position on trade shows us that their real priority is fostering globalism.

Globalism doesn’t focus on the needs of an individual nation. Rather, its concern is to do away with national boundaries so that all barriers to trade are removed. Globalism benefits a small cadre of wealthy individuals and corporations, but it has been a disaster for the US workers who have seen their jobs shipped overseas.

Even though the free trade deals like NAFTA have hurt the US, most conservative voters strongly believe that opposing these deals is not conservative and somehow un-American. But how did conservatives become convinced to vote against their own interests?

Through indoctrination.

Wealthy globalists are able to influence the political process through their donations. They donate to candidates and their Super PACs to buy the candidate, but they also use their donations to influence the voters directly. They are able to fund conservative publications, think tanks, and news organizations to spread the message that free trade somehow magically enriches everyone.

This is why you’ll see publications like National Review and think tanks like Cato write glowingly about trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Afterward, pundits will go on Fox News or conservative websites and repeat the “wisdom” that they gleaned from these conservative or libertarian thought leaders.

The indoctrination has not been fast process. The key globalist doctrines have been preached by these outlets as the conservative orthodoxy for years or even decades. Over time, rank and file conservatives came to believe that anyone who deviates from this message is a liberal.

Immigration

Immigration is another example of where the interests of the interests of the conservative movement’s globalist masters conflict with those of its voters.

As anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics should be able to discern, increasing the supply of labor through immigration drives down wages. That hurts the average American worker. Yet conservative publications such as the Wall Street Journal tout the idea that immigrants are the “engines of economic growth.” That phrase appears so frequently in conservative literature that I believe someone must have market tested it.

The idea conservative outlets are trying to convey is that importing immigrants magically raises everyone’s wages. Unfortunately, while some immigrants might be good people, immigration does not defy the law of supply and demand. Indoctrinated conservative and libertarians who do not believe me should study the work of Professor George J. Borjas of Harvard University.

Due to space constraints, I’ve only touched on the wage impacts of immigration, but is very likely that the unchecked immigration that is pushed by the conservative movement is part of a deeper sinister agenda.

Can the conservative movement be salvaged?

When someone decides to run for election as a Republican politician or when a writer decides to seek work at a conservative publication, I believe they start out with good intentions. However, getting elected or supporting the staff of a conservative publication takes a lot of money. Outside money is often required, and that money always comes with strings attached.

Also, it is human nature to want to preserve a good thing. Conservative leaders are invested in the status quo even if it is destroying the country.

What this means practically is that most of the conservative movement leadership is compromised by donor dollars. The million-dollar question is whether you can ever trust someone who has been compromised.

Ultimately, the only thing that can be done is to radically re-orient the system in a healthy direction. Patriarchal Nationalism represents just such a re-orientation. While it will take time to achieve, it will be easier than trying to salvage the existing system.

Read More: The Castration Of The American Conservative