Zombies and the Last Conservative Cause

by Nadra Enzi, Contributing Writer

Halloween 2015 is a perfect backdrop for discussing two top topics: zombies and self-defense, which I once called the last conservative cause. Self-defense is an act of supreme autonomy. In an anti-autonomous age, it’s also at risk of legislative extinction.

The tragic necessity of self-defense is graphically depicted Sunday nights on the American Movie Channel (AMC). The Walking Dead television series is a hypnotic study on how the individual either defends himself at all costs or succumbs to something worse than death. The folly of opposing self-defense is illustrated in the plight of Alexandria, a walled community – I promise not to invoke Donald Trump – with the suicidal distinction of being a gun-free zone in the belly of Zombieland.

Full disclosure: Zombieland is also a favorite genre movie, one which I watched tonight. The walled community in The Walking Dead was attacked by a group of murderous nihilists aptly named, Wolves. It was doubly painful watching unarmed survivors cut down by knives and axes within walking distance of an arsenal. I hope the congresswoman who founded Alexandria will re-think her gun-free stance, since it cost her husband’s life – who erected the wall – and many neighbors too. The storyline doesn’t mention political affiliation because it’s irrelevant. In the series, as in real life, we face this conclusion: you don’t have to be a Republican to practice self-defense as the last conservative cause because your life is what will be conserved – not partisan talking points!

Nadra Enzi aka Cap Black uses zombie fiction as a lens to assess societal decline. He also sneaks up behind an unaware associate and startles him by warning, “Beware the zombie swarm!” http://www.gofundme.com/capblack

What is Conservatism Conserving?

by Nadra Enzi, aka Cap Black

The landscape of the American body politic is littered with cultural wreckage: marriage undone and national identity steadily unraveled by amnesty-addicted bi-partisanship. Conservatism has almost become a political punchline whose power doesn’t seemingly extend much farther than some state capitols, networks (terrestrial and online), think tanks and talkshows.

As the 2016 presidential race gains momentum, its frontrunner, Donald Trump, isn’t a conservative by current standards. His candidacy shows just how impotent many card-carrying conservatives have become after repeatedly being steamrolled by a progressive coalition which would have been laughed out of the pre-Obama Democratic National Convention. The Right seems relegated to keyboard combatants whose fallen spirits are lifted by optical injections of Fox News, One America News Network, the Blaze, etc. In a country where violent illegal aliens lounge in enabling sanctuary cities and being transgender isn’t proof of severe mental illness or demonic possession, is it any wonder I join a cultural choir asking, what is conservatism conserving? Not much, if one is keeping score.

Nadra Enzi aka Cap Black is a contributor to the Bold Pursuit, a free security activist in the Hood where it’s desperately needed and a traditionalist in a post-traditional America


Do We Really Need Borders? (Hint: there is a reason we have them)

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

I live in a low tax state. Because it is a low tax state, many people move here from high tax states. Once they get here, many of them vote to raise taxes. Then they complain about the high taxes. This tiny factoid is a microcosm of vastly larger events taking place today.

As we have seen in the United States and Europe, when borders are not enforced, people will migrate in huge numbers from one territory to another. Usually, this means that they will move from a less desirable locality to a more prosperous one.

This is nothing new. Throughout most of recorded history, mass migrations have occurred. When food ran short in one region, due to drought or even over-population, people picked up their belongings and traveled to greener pastures.

Oftentimes, this diaspora resulted in warfare. People who were already settled resented the influx of strangers. Nor was this resentment irrational. People in the settled region had adjusted their food production to meet their needs, and when masses of immigrants began to arrive, food ran short again. Consequently, both the natives and the immigrants resorted to violence in order to eat. For this reason, instead of mass immigration, poorer nations often mounted full scale military invasions in order to secure farmland for food. Other nations often went to war when they felt the need to prevent future invasions. It was all much more complicated than this, but the principle is repeated throughout history.

Today, the mass migration problem has become more complex than at any time before. Those who are already settled are generally very prosperous, and do not feel threatened by immigration. They should.

The immigrants, on the other hand, are not content to leave behind them the political and religious strife which caused their exodus to begin with. They willingly bring their problems with them. It’s not that they wish to impose higher taxes on their hosts, but more than that, they insist upon imposing their language, religion, and cultural values on the natives. They use up public resources at taxpayer expense. They commit crimes at a level disproportionate to their percentage of the population. Instead of gratitude, they express resentment, even hatred, for the natives who are supporting them.

This is unlike the mass immigrations from Europe to the United States in the era 1890 to 1910. Those immigrants, although strikingly different from native born Americans, sought to become Americans. They boasted that their children could speak English without a foreign accent. They attended churches and synagogues. They revered the principles of freedom and justice which they found here.

Sensible immigration policy would achieve gradual absorption of newcomers from around the world. It would require fluency in English. It would ensure that new arrivals already had employable skills that would keep them off the welfare rolls. It would require them to affirm the principles in the Constitution. If necessary, it would go farther than that.

It is indeed necessary. Because so many immigrants come to the United States not to affirm our values but to destroy them, we should require all immigrants to affirm specific rights guaranteed in the Constitution, one of them being freedom of religion, and even more specifically than that, to affirm the right of any individual to change his religion if he so desires.

Of course people can falsely affirm anything, and so the affirmation would have to be enforceable. For example, a preacher teaching his followers that apostasy should be punishable by death, should be expeditiously deported.

Obviously, this policy has in mind the fact that Moslem immigrants are the most likely ones to seek to impose religious laws on non-Moslems. There is no polite way to say this. So let’s be, when necessary, impolite.

It’s not just our food that is at stake. It’s our identity as free, sovereign citizens of a just nation.

We have but one chance to get this right, and time is running out.