What Should The Right Wing Be?

[The Name of Love]

On two separate threads, I laid out some criticisms of mainstream conservatism. To summarize, I believe that the modern Right has three problems:

1. It cannot adequately deal with the problem of social disintegration.

2. It cannot fully grasp the reality of the Left's utter dominance and why it has come to power.

3. It refuses to learn from the failures of previous Right-wing movements, instead clinging to the same tired tropes.

I'd like to have a discussion on here on a positive vision of the Right wing that will address these problems. I believe that, right now, the Right should be a place for people of varying ideas to come together and discuss alternative ideas that have been considered taboo by the mainstream. In order to implement the correct solution, we must come to a correct understanding of the truth, no? I think that the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas provides the way forward, and I'll elaborate in a post later on, but I'd like to know what you guys think first.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

If we're talking foundational principles?

The Right must be willing to sacrifice leisure, convenience, and social status. Such things cannot be held as valid reasons for action, or excuses for inaction.

The Right must not finance its enemies.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The Right must dispel with its naivety and realise it is in a new age. Gone are the Whigs and Classical Liberals of old, who have been utterly overthrown and usurped by Socialism. This idea is inherently revolutionary and totalitarian, being in a constant state of war with every other ideology. It cannot be reasoned with and will perceive any attempt at mediation as a sign of weakness. It is utopian, so the end justifies the means for it, no matter how long it takes. Never has there been a more insidious threat to man's liberty.

The Right thus must coalesce around a core of staunch traditions and patriotism so they can become an unbreakable bulwark against the rampant revolutionary nature of the modern Left. Then and only then, with their advance halted, can you push them back. By the way, in this hypothetical scenario of a cultural counterattack, your first target must be the schools. And under no circumstance can you let them go again.

 

[Morphic Tide]

The big thing is that the Right needs to find axioms to unite around that, importantly, can appeal to the urban. It can't try to lay claim to Truth any time remotely soon, because the great mills of reason have operated on left-wing presumptions so thoroughly. Any reformation of the Right must prioritize the current political realities in deciding what to publictly state itself as standing for, and therefor must find lures for the urban areas.

So long as the cities are the domain of the Left, the Right will lose ground. Unless there is a civilizational collapse, humanity will perpetually increase urbanization, and thus the rural becomes ever less politically relevant. So the Right needs to find something that sells it to the urban areas. Ultimately, it likely comes down to civic nationalism working to directly combat multiculturalism and ethnic tensions, unifying the country around values that materially benefit the whole in a very obvious way. Not the pursuit of GDP increase, but the decrease of cost of living as a portion of wages. Try and crack deflationary policies to make savings go up, even.

First priority for the United States is probably going after the urban black community, dragging them out of poverty by building infrastructure and business at a loss, perhaps for a whole generation. These businesses need to hire regardless of prior criminality, but report current criminality and uphold other standards of labor, giving the chance to change to these communities. Essentially work to privatize welfare in the form of charitable corporations, offering much better opportunities than strictly economically sensible as their way of aiding the poor by giving them well-paying work instead of giving handouts.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

It should be clearly defined for starters. Are we talking imperialist Luddites that want to turn back the clock culturally and technologically and restore the glory of the Roman empire or the majesty of the Russian czars? Are we talking Ronald Reganites who want to bring back the cultural and economic boom of the United States of the 80s and 90s? Are we talking ethnonationalist that want what is essentially their own version of Judaism and Jerusalem? Are we talking isolationist that want to simply be as independent as possible and want government to mostly stay out of their way? As delusional as the left is, they are at least defined in the sense that they are anarchist who are followers of Karl Marx. The title of right winged seems to be nothing burger title that is only defined by its hatred of the left. As Darth Traya would say, "An alliance forged by hatred is a fragile one at best. "

The right wing in the united states right now is even more of a mixed salad bowl of goals and values than even the left is.

It's a giant game of Who is Spartacus except instead of people saying "I'm Spartacus" but it's "I'm the right wing."

 

[King Krávoka]

It shouldn't be "anything" because the wing dichotomy is a method of controlling political discourse. The "left" is super cohesive because the establishment has done an excellent job of co-opting them, the "right" will not be anything in particular until it gets power back. Indeed, whatever-unity is just one part using the rest of the alliance until it's powerful enough to eat them. I'd also argue that the wing concept is rooted in pluralism and thesis-antithesis-synthesis logic which many ideologues fundamentally reject.

 

[Marduk]

So long as the cities are the domain of the Left, the Right will lose ground. Unless there is a civilizational collapse, humanity will perpetually increase urbanization, and thus the rural becomes ever less politically relevant.

That is just not true, a balance is to be established for the numbers to oscillate about, depending on various social, economic, technological and other factors, too much urbanization has major downsides and cities are feeling it right now. We are living in the specific time proving that. Between the particular urban factors causing the riot plague that for the same reasons city political-cultural elites are unwilling to deal with, and the corona plague forcing businesses to test out tele-work solutions, and all the backlash on immigration to import additional urbanites-to-be with little choice in the matter, prospects are dim for expanding urbanization in the west at the moment.

So the Right needs to find something that sells it to the urban areas. Ultimately, it likely comes down to civic nationalism working to directly combat multiculturalism and ethnic tensions, unifying the country around values that materially benefit the whole in a very obvious way. Not the pursuit of GDP increase, but the decrease of cost of living as a portion of wages. Try and crack deflationary policies to make savings go up, even.

Absolutely contrary to city politics, with their need for cheap immigrant labor and property bubbles that increase budget at the price of increasing costs of living and forcing the related misery on cityfolk. Yet they still vote for it, for some reason.
As the example of Guilliani's crackdown on crime in contrast to current day city issues show, its not that the right has nothing to offer to cities, its that the political status quo of cities is bonkers, and has lots of voters who demand hopium and pie in the sky, not solutions to their problems, as real solutions don't make them feel good about themselves, real solutions are dirty (particularly by standards of predominant city culture, not so much right wing friendly subcultures) work that has to be done but neither the voters nor the local politicians want to be the ones seen doing it.
Only once cities stew enough in consequences of their own mistakes and ideals maybye they will become more open to what the right offers.

You will see this in the near future - any guess how many of the cities hit hardest by riots, with the mayor and city council refusing to do anything about the chaos and destruction, will show the left the door and elect the most hardline law&order right wingers they can get their hands on?
Yeah, the core of the problem is ideological and cultural, which is not something that can be dealt with in the timescale of an election cycle or two.
Of course the right also can't justkowtow to this culture (which is something disturbingly many politicians think about), for that will mean just becoming indistinguishable to the left (which has more experience and reputation with that culture, so good luck), and becoming inherently unable to solve the problems that fester under this culture.

First priority for the United States is probably going after the urban black community, dragging them out of poverty by building infrastructure and business at a loss, perhaps for a whole generation. These businesses need to hire regardless of prior criminality, but report current criminality and uphold other standards of labor, giving the chance to change to these communities. Essentially work to privatize welfare in the form of charitable corporations, offering much better opportunities than strictly economically sensible as their way of aiding the poor by giving them well-paying work instead of giving handouts.

So just another variation of throwing money at the problem, i can already tell you how well it will work - just as well as all the other attempts to solve this problem in this way. Hint: communist countries had make-work, it wasn't great, neither for wealth nor culture.
The only way to improve the situation in urban black community is to push through massive cultural changes in it, and improvement in economic situation will naturally follow from this development, in form of making them a better environment for business with all that follows. These changes would not be popular with the young to say it lightly, especially at first, yet would require a long time to take effect, its a multi decade program for sure, so the "how" in this case is the main problem.

What's the bloody point of building lots of nice business and infrastructure, private or public, if its just all gonna get looted and burnt the next time the left gets the youths angry over something stupid, assuming the city government won't destroy it with taxes and regulations first?

 

[robertliguori]

If we're talking foundational principles?

The Right must be willing to sacrifice leisure, convenience, and social status. Such things cannot be held as valid reasons for action, or excuses for inaction.

The Right must not finance its enemies.

This is a great aspiration, but I feel that as a social strategy for humans giving up on these things will be flawed. If we had a great, grand, overriding purpose or some agreed-on existential threat looming on the horizon and clearly approaching, we can sacrifice these things and pull together, but I feel that it was the appeal of leisure, convenience and most especially social status that has lead to the decay of the position of the right wing, as it could no longer provide these things (and people wanted those things).

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

If we're talking foundational principles?

The Right must be willing to sacrifice leisure, convenience, and social status. Such things cannot be held as valid reasons for action, or excuses for inaction.

The Right must not finance its enemies.

the desire for leisure, convenience, and social status is what has caused us to try to change politically and advance technologically in the first place. If these things were not a important tirade, we'd all be surfs DIRECTLY living under hierarchic kings. Virtue signaling and saying death to your enemies is easy. Actually working towards building a name for yourself is hard.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

the desire for leisure, convenience, and social status is what has caused us to try to change politically and advance technologically in the first place. If these things were not a important tirade, we'd all be surfs DIRECTLY living under hierarchic kings. Virtue signaling and saying death to your enemies is easy. Actually working towards building a name for yourself is hard.

It is fine to desire such things, it is natural for humans. We cannot permit such desires to rule us.

You are correct in noting the ease of virtue signaling compared to earning ones place. This is one of the reasons why, if a New Right is to be a functional and successful organism, its members must hold abstracts such as virtue and obligation higher. Not being seen or rewarded for virtue, but being virtuous.

As for your claim that these desires lead the West to political and technological advance, I doubt such a claim can be supported or defended. There are many more motivations relevant to both.

This is a great aspiration, but I feel that as a social strategy for humans giving up on these things will be flawed. If we had a great, grand, overriding purpose or some agreed-on existential threat looming on the horizon and clearly approaching, we can sacrifice these things and pull together, but I feel that it was the appeal of leisure, convenience and most especially social status that has lead to the decay of the position of the right wing, as it could no longer provide these things (and people wanted those things).

We do not have to give up on them. We do not have to categorically forsake them. However, we absolutely must be willing to trade them for more important things. That so many chose to put them above virtue is not a thing to be pandered to -- it is something to be changed.

As for a grand purpose and an overwhelming threat looming on the horizon, we already have those. Survival and self-determination. As it stands, every currently great Western nation will cease to be Western in blood in only a handful of generations, and there is no indication of corrections in this course. Our nations will become mud countries, ruled with the same short-sighted, corrupt, irresponsible attitudes that have made most of the world suck ass since time immemorial. If this is not a threat, nothing is.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

As for a grand purpose and an overwhelming threat looming on the horizon, we already have those. Survival and self-determination. As it stands, every currently great Western nation will cease to be Western in blood in only a handful of generations, and there is no indication of corrections in this course. Our nations will become mud countries, ruled with the same short-sighted, corrupt, irresponsible attitudes that have made most of the world suck ass since time immemorial. If this is not a threat, nothing is

*Sigh*

This is why I say the right wing needs to be more clearly defined. We can't possible be both right wing when the only thing we share in common is a common enemy (in this case a hatred for Marxism.) One way or another this fire is going to die down and eventually someone is actually going to have to build something. The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend as we inevitably found After WWII.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

*Sigh*

This is why I say the right wing needs to be more clearly defined. We can't possible be both right wing when the only thing we share in common is a common enemy (in this case a hatred for Marxism.) One way or another this fire is going to die down and eventually someone is actually going to have to build something. The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend as we inevitably found After WWII.

No honest man ever believed they were friends. Insightful men such as General Patton understood that we failed, that it was our obligation to crush communism, and that our defeat of Germany was more tragedy than triumph. Our 'leaders' were not interested in 'saving Europe from tyranny' or any such altruistic goal. Their masters in international finance already had their goals met, their rival who rejected international monetary influence crushed.

To your point regarding definition of the 'Right', yes, it must be more than mere tactics. I put forward tactics first because I have observed that the last iteration, Conservatism, failed utterly in this regard. The two principles I suggested are additions to a whole, and nowhere near enough on their own.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

No honest man ever believed they were friends. Insightful men such as General Patton understood that we failed, that it was our obligation to crush communism, and that our defeat of Germany was more tragedy than triumph. Our 'leaders' were not interested in 'saving Europe from tyranny' or any such altruistic goal. Their masters in international finance already had their goals met, their rival who rejected international monetary influence crushed.

To your point regarding definition of the 'Right', yes, it must be more than mere tactics. I put forward tactics first because I have observed that the least iteration, Conservatism, failed utterly in this regard. The two principles I suggested are additions to a whole, and nowhere near enough on their own.

well thank you for at least admitting you and I are enemies at least. bye.

 

[Morphic Tide]

That is just not true, a balance is to be established for the numbers to oscillate about, depending on various social, economic, technological and other factors, too much urbanization has major downsides and cities are feeling it right now. We are living in the specific time proving that.

The issue is that technology continues to progress, both lowering the need for rural populations and raising the sustainable population density. The trend has always been towards growing more urban over time, until a major civilizational breakdown causes the technological and economic factors to reverse. You can't pack up and move a million people out of the Bronx, San Francisco isn't shrinking without a full-on Depression, and flat-out rural areas continue to have terrible network access because that's infrastructure that scales poorly with area. What you'll be seeing best case is a new wave of suburban sprawl, and even that's iffy because of the necessary in-person services. Telework needs computer hardware and extremely reliable network connections.

Between the particular urban factors causing the riot plague that for the same reasons city political-cultural elites are unwilling to deal with, and the corona plague forcing businesses to test out tele-work solutions, and all the backlash on immigration to import additional urbanites-to-be with little choice in the matter, prospects are dim for expanding urbanization in the west at the moment.

The riot plague is not a native result of urban factors, but an outcome of an incomprehensibly complex series of functions, mostly centering on multiculturalist nonsense leading to immense internal friction. Civic Nationalism could cure the current riot plague, utterly independently of degree of urbanization. The issue with the immigrants is that they hold beliefs and practices caustic to the countries they're migrating to. Not some innate, instinctual blight, but the fact their culture simply doesn't fit inside ours. A melting pot works fine, as it boils everything down to one set of values, the problem is the enclaves forming "cultural mosaics".

Absolutely contrary to city politics, with their need for cheap immigrant labor and property bubbles that increase budget at the price of increasing costs of living and forcing the related misery on cityfolk. Yet they still vote for it, for some reason.

Cheap immigrant labor isn't voters, at least yet. Those politics are the behind-closed-doors policy positions of the politicians, not what it is the city folk vote for. The city folk are voting for "helping the poor" and "checking privilege". Merit and civic nationalism can be sold to this mindset, especially an above-curve employment scheme, because it's fundamentally an aversion to stratification, where society has hardened classes that one can rarely move between. The Right needs to learn how to do this, tackling the same concerns with its own policies, because it's otherwise going to fall to the same preference cascades and purity spirals the Left is suffering now, be locked away in a powerless bubble, or turn into a mirror of the Left.

Hint: communist countries had make-work, it wasn't great, neither for wealth nor culture.
The only way to improve the situation in urban black community is to push through massive cultural changes in it, and improvement in economic situation will naturally follow from this development, in form of making them a better environment for business with all that follows.

It's not make-work, it's actual work with unusually good terms. Jobs the community actually has need of, like proper grocers to deal with the "food desert" issue, hiring locals and giving pay above the strictly sensible despite (most kinds of) criminal records so there's the impetus for that change. It's directly constructing the economic situation in microcosm to habituate the community to the necessary behaviors. The benefits need to be clear before the cultural change can happen, because there's otherwise no reason to take the risk.

 

[almostinsane]

The first thing the Right must do is establish its central narrative. People must believe in something higher than themselves in order to sacrifice present hardship for returns that might not come their way for a while. For the longest time, Christianity and the belief in American Exceptionalism drove this nation forward. Today, the narrative of overthrowing a present white supremacist, patriarchal, etc. structure drives the Far Left. It gives them the zeal to evangelize and pursue their goals.

What the Right must do is articulate what makes the West great: freedom of thought and conscience, love of country, love of the family, and an exceptional individualism what allows people to achieve great things. In short, the Right must not only point to the destruction left in the Far Left's wake, but also point to a better way. We shouldn't be afraid to say what is the obvious truth that, for example, the two-parent household is vastly superior to the single-mother household and is the biggest bulwark against poverty, criminality, drug abuse, depression, and mental illness.

Furthermore, we must admit to ourselves and others that monopolies are a dangerous thing and whether through unchaining the Invisible Smackdown of the Market or using the trust-busting powers of the government, they must be checked rather than allow them to harm or betray their own country for another few bucks. At the same time, we must laud the free market and private innovation, invest in long-term economic benefits such as infrastructure, and adopt an economic and foreign policy of sheer pragmatism. Flawed idealism led us to tech monopolies threatening our freedom of expression and, before that, led to the military disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. We must learn from these mistakes.

 

[Marduk]

The issue is that technology continues to progress, both lowering the need for rural populations and raising the sustainable population density.

You are considering it in only one aspect while ignoring important economic calculus.
Those technologies " raising the sustainable population density" aren't free.
They aren't even cheap.
If housing people in cities was cheap, the living costs there would have been low...

And speaking of need for rural populations, ask the same question about city populations.
Yeah, automation affects both...

The trend has always been towards growing more urban over time, until a major civilizational breakdown causes the technological and economic factors to reverse.

Look at what's happening in these cities. Its almost as if they are begging for more or less soft variation of that. Does going full Detroit count as civilizational breakdown?

You can't pack up and move a million people out of the Bronx, San Francisco isn't shrinking without a full-on Depression, and flat-out rural areas continue to have terrible network access because that's infrastructure that scales poorly with area.

As someone who lives a continent away in a sub 5k pop town with decent 20mbps+ internet, i say its more complicated than just that. Many US cities have bad internet issues too....

Of course you won't have millions suddenly moving out, think more of first strangling the flow of people there, and then slow trickle outwards to suburbs/exurbs, with follow up spill to rural areas.

What you'll be seeing best case is a new wave of suburban sprawl, and even that's iffy because of the necessary in-person services. Telework needs computer hardware and extremely reliable network connections.

Computer hardware is a truly petty issue nowdays in a grand list of problems, and internet infrastructure is a more worthy investment than make-work economy for most dysfunctional cities.

The riot plague is not a native result of urban factors, but an outcome of an incomprehensibly complex series of functions, mostly centering on multiculturalist nonsense leading to immense internal friction. Civic Nationalism could cure the current riot plague, utterly independently of degree of urbanization.

Nationalism of any variation and definition is not on the minds of cultural and political elites of the cities, and the variation is just a function of how exactly offensive they would find it.
Its a non-starter for them. You would need to make these elites change, change the elites, or live with the current status quo until its collapse ruins said elites.

The issue with the immigrants is that they hold beliefs and practices caustic to the countries they're migrating to. Not some innate, instinctual blight, but the fact their culture simply doesn't fit inside ours. A melting pot works fine, as it boils everything down to one set of values, the problem is the enclaves forming "cultural mosaics".

The hidden question is which set of values.
And you are still missing the overarching issue - the very idea pressuring or forcing the vibrantly diverse cultures to conform to American, which they would call "white" values, is offensive to the abovementioned elites and all their supporters.

Cheap immigrant labor isn't voters, at least yet.

There are several avenues through which they become voters or equivalent, currently all of these avenues are matters of hot political debate and even supreme court cases.

Those politics are the behind-closed-doors policy positions of the politicians, not what it is the city folk vote for. The city folk are voting for "helping the poor" and "checking privilege".

Yes, so lets translate it from political speak to simple language - they are being fooled, successfully and enthusiastically, by simple, ideologically flavored propaganda, which they eat up, like anything else with that ideological flavor. Perfect for making lives of politicians easier, but completely antithetical to any sort of nationalism or traditional American values.

Merit and civic nationalism can be sold to this mindset,

In what world? Have you seen all the affirmative action pushing and propagandaizing that has only intensified since the riots?
The mindset itself, the priority, existence and importance of concerns involved are the core of the cultural problem i've mentioned.

The point is, the right can't sustainably convince people with that mindset to itself, the only way it can win is change the mindset, and then there is no need to cater to it anyway.

The Right needs to learn how to do this, tackling the same concerns with its own policies, because it's otherwise going to fall to the same preference cascades and purity spirals the Left is suffering now, be locked away in a powerless bubble, or turn into a mirror of the Left.

Can't happen in current setup of "the right" - it doesn't have a singular ideological, semi-religious even, leading ideology equivalent to the intersectionality based, cultural marxist worldview of the left. It has several ideological camps, if it was to purity spiral, it would first need to decide according to which camp the purity is to be decided - religious right, libertarian, neocon, national-populist etc?

It's not make-work, it's actual work with unusually good terms. Jobs the community actually has need of, like proper grocers to deal with the "food desert" issue, hiring locals and giving pay above the strictly sensible despite (most kinds of) criminal records so there's the impetus for that change. It's directly constructing the economic situation in microcosm to habituate the community to the necessary behaviors. The benefits need to be clear before the cultural change can happen, because there's otherwise no reason to take the risk.

As i said, throwing money won't fix cultural problems. Like your example of food deserts - what good does overpaying the staff there do, when the problem is simply that these stores take too much loss from local crime and other troublesome behavior, and a lot of people don't wanna buy the oh so complained about "healthy foods" anyway, so the stores that do survive don't bother stocking it, because it just takes space and spoils?
If you artificially sponsor these communities benefits of cultural change, where's their motivation for it, when they can enjoy the benefits of it without changing at all?
Its just more roundabout way to have social welfare, by building a whole pretend economy around it, sponsored by taxpayers, who would hopefully not leave, like NYC seems to be fearing now.

De Blasio Fires Back at Cuomo: NYC Decisions Not Based on the Rich

New York City Bill de Blasio Thursday continued his push for a tax on wealthy New Yorkers after Gov. Andrew Cuomo publicly pleaded for rich city dwellers to return to the city...

www.newsmax.com

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The first thing the Right must do is establish its central narrative. People must believe in something higher than themselves in order to sacrifice present hardship for returns that might not come their way for a while. For the longest time, Christianity and the belief in American Exceptionalism drove this nation forward. Today, the narrative of overthrowing a present white supremacist, patriarchal, etc. structure drives the Far Left. It gives them the zeal to evangelize and pursue their goals.

I think adulation of the nation itself and the reverence of its history should prove a sufficient core for the Right across the world. Indeed, it is the desire to uphold the traditions and work of our forefathers that brings us into direct conflict with the unyielding Revolution Boner of the Left. Although they are for the most part completely off their rockers, I think early fascist ideology may have been on to something with the idea of a country being a living organism that can become ill and beleaguered. Thus, we, the children of our grand old ladies (America, Britannia, France, etc), must tend to their health so that they may tend to ours.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I’d say urban life is problematic in that increases degeneracy and madness.

Transgenderism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, etc...

Are all primarily urban phenomena. The reason for this is complex but I suspect it comes from separation from nature and the reality thereof.

If your whole life is built around what you buy in stores, and your identity based on brands, then it’s not too much of a leap to say you can change your sex or have multiple partners in meaningless trysts. None of it’s really real anyway, just the latest fashion. It’s unhealthy and destructive, but without strict social policy is nearly unavoidable.

Urban life breeds decay and degeneracy.

It isolates man from nature and from his natural instincts, and the truths he knows.

City people often do not know where their food comes from yet they presume to tell rurals how to live.Urban environments themselves are the problem.

As for nationalism-we run into the issue that large sections of the populace are not nationalistic-not just the hard left but the upper middle classes, upper classes, and many other segments of society are entirely de nationalized. Having no serious national identity. True, few are sincere ideological internationalists or globalists but they follow the lead of those that are(either sincerely or for sinister reasons).

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

I think adulation of the nation itself and the reverence of its history should prove a sufficient core for the Right across the world. Indeed, it is the desire to uphold the traditions and work of our forefathers that brings us into direct conflict with the unyielding Revolution Boner of the Left. Although they are for the most part completely off their rockers, I think early fascist ideology may have been on to something with the idea of a country being a living organism that can become ill and beleaguered. Thus, we, the children of our grand old ladies (America, Britannia, France, etc), must tend to their health so that they may tend to ours.

Nation and history are a good components but not enough on their own. They are both large and impersonal, and neither can be relied on to teach and enforce morality. Additional foundational components are needed.

Reverence for the family (nuclear and extended!) is a necessity to defend children against perverse influences. Healthy, intact families are necessary to produce functional, well-adjusted children, without whom a nation perishes. Broken families lead invariably to a population of broken people.

Reverence for faith (in the west, Christianity) is necessary because humans require stern moral guidance. The west flourished under the authority of the Lord, and now falters after a century of us deciding that we know better and can do well enough on our own. Some things cannot be up for debate. I know this one is a sticking point for a lot of people, but the west gets shit results without it. It is human to think we know better, but we don't.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Reverence for faith (in the west, Christianity) is necessary because humans require stern moral guidance. The west flourished under the authority of the Lord, and now falters after a century of us deciding that we know better and can do well enough on our own. Some things cannot be up for debate. I know this one is a sticking point for a lot of people, but the west gets shit results without it. It is human to think we know better, but we don't.

I think it would be difficult to make society religious again, if not impossible, but Cultural Christianity is something that should be pushed and the Right should embrace. That way you come across as less of an Evangelist and more "I know the whole God stuff is a bit iffy, but the virtues and teachings of this religion are an excellent foundation to build society upon."