We are accustomed to thinking about the current Political and Religious Divides within the confines of the Left/Right Dynamic, with the Left being Progressive and the Right being Conservative.
Within the framework of Christianity, we’d label as “Conservative” those individuals who desire to preserve a Religious Tradition that is more Fundamental and thus, a Biblically rooted Historical Perspective, and would label as “Progressive” those individuals who wish to see the Christian Faith lean considerably further into the Egalitarian and Universalist aspects thereof.
Within the framework of Politics, we’d label as “Conservative” those individuals who desire to preserve a Socio-Cultural Tradition that is both in line with the Historical Narrative of the relevant ethnic group, and would label as “Progressive” those individuals who wish to see all Socio-Cultural Variety replaced with a Universal set of Social Norms and a Universal Culture.
All of this assumes that the current Status Quo is Conservative.
The Truth, however, is that we exist within a Global Framework , which, at its core, is Universalist and Egalitarian in scope and is thus in line with what we would call the Progressive Worlde View.
The Progressives are attempting to Protect, Preserve, and Defend the current Status Quo – the one they ushered in during the 1960’s and have worked diligently, with significant success, to both entrench and aggrandise.
That being the case, the Progressives are the Conservatives, as to Protect, Preserve and Defend a currently extant position is precisely what it means to Conserve.
I would argue that Classical Liberals – whether they be Moderate Liberals or Moderate Conservatives – and Libertarians are also Conservatives, as these two groups wish to see the Status Quo preserved because it employs Civic Nationalism as a mechanism to establish and maintain a Common Social Norms and Culture not associated with a particular ethnicity (Classical Liberals) and leverages an Economic System that in theory is centered on Private Property and Free Markets but in practice centralises Economic Power at all levels into the hands of a few hand – selected individuals who will wield it without respect to ethnically-specific Social Norms and Culture (Libertarians).
If my first assertion is true (that the current Status Quo is Globalist), then it is also the case that Nationalism (the de jure prevailing framework for Western Civilisation since the establishment of the Westphalian Concept in the mid-17th Century) is NOT the current Status Quo.
That being the case, I posit that those of us who call ourselves “Conservatives” have also been labouring in service of Preserving, Protecting and Defending the current Status Quo. We have done this is by advocating for a roll-back of only some of the Norms of the current Status Quo instead of a complete overthrow of the current Status Quo altogether.
Take Infanticide as an example. Instead of advocating for an Abortion Policy that actually only permits Infanticide in cases of Rape, Incest and to save the life of the Mother, we instead attempt to appeal to the Classical Liberal and Libertarian perspective of Personal Choice, then equivocate on when Infanticide is permissible based on the original Trimester Framework established by Roe v. Wade, which is no longer the Law of the Land.
“Same Sex Marriage” is another ideal example of how those of us who call ourselves “Conservative” labour in service of Preserving, Protecting and Defending the current Status Quo. Instead of advocating for a Marriage Policy whereby Wedlock is a Religious Sacrament/Institution and therefore only the Church, and not the state, can grant and nullify Marriage, we instead attempt to appeal to the Classical Liberal and Libertarian perspective of the Harm Principle while simultaneously further entrenching the state in what is a Religious Sacrament/Institution by actively, openly and aggressively advocating for U.S. state legislatures to make decisions regarding Wedlock.
In both of these instances, we have actively supported “speed limit” Liberalism.
Where we are not advocating for a full and complete Restoration of the Status Quo that was up-ended to institute the current Status Quo, our actions lend themselves to validating the current Status Quo.
It is therefore crucial for us to not only re-frame as Restorationists, but to clearly define exactly what we want to Restore.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that those of us on the Hard Right will be able to pivot successfully from “Conservative” to Restorationist for one reason: Instant Gratification.
The Restoration of the Historical American Narrative is likely an Initiative that will span three generations, with the first (current) charged with consigning the current Status Quo to the Dustbin of History, the second charged with overseeing the actual Restoration, and the third generation tasked with the most important of the three tasks – ensuring the entrenchment of the Restoration.
And it is only after the third generation succeeds that the fourth generation can then re-frame as Conservatives, as their goal, at that time, will become the Preservation, Protection, and Defence of the Restored Status Quo.
Because of the spiritual and intellectual degradation of the American Nation, a considerable number of Americans (note: not all U.S. Citisens are Americans) will likely not sign up to labour in service of an object whose Fruits they will not enjoy. This is highly problematic, as Restoration will require each individual to do work within the context of the Nuclear Family (i.e., Wedlock, Parenthood), his Local Community (i.e., Civic Participation), and his National Community (i.e., Cultural Practices, Economic Value, Patriotism).
I posit that Restoration Initiatives will be successful in the West in general, with considerable contention in the Anglosphere with the exception of the British Isles.
Restoration will be easier in and throughout Europe because the countries of Europe were, until World War II, Ethnically Homogenous, and thus, void of racial/ethnic tension at the centre of its founding.
By Contrast, the founding of the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia as settler nation-states includes, as part of their founding stories, tension with one or more non-white racial groups. In the case of the United States and Canada, the common non-white racial group is the varying Native American Peoples. In the case of Australia and New Zealand, the common non-white racial group is the varying Aboriginal Peoples. What’s more, the United States has a second non-white racial group associated with their founding story: Sub-Saharan Africans.
This is not to say that Restoration will be easy for Europe and is impossible in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
In general, if Restoration is to become possible in the West at all, Western People will have to stop apologising for Colonialism and find ways to ensure that their ability for self-accountability, self-reflection and introspection is no longer hijacked by others to engender the White Guilt Narrative.
The other factor that will determine whether Restoration will hold in and throughout the West is: Monarchy. Where Monarchies have been dissolved, they must be restored. And where Monarchies are extant but are merely acting as figureheads, it must be made clear that the mandate is for Monarchies – and, by extension, Royale Families – to be expressly charged with acting as the Protectors and Defenders of their Nation’s Culture, Identity and Historical Narrative.
When the Americans established a Republican Form of Government as part of the 1789 Constitution, what they did is cut themselves off from the Anglo-Saxon Historical Narrative of “Parliamentary Kingship.” As part of an American Restoration, the Americans will have to re-connect to their Anglo-Saxon, and thus, their European Heritage, circa Monarchy.
In Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand in particular, the descendants of the founding stock have to, first, re-asset themselves as the dominant peoples and cultures in their respective countries, and second, absolve themselves of any further obligation to effect the socio-economic uplift of the non-white peoples in their Homelands descended from the respective non-white racial groups associated with their founding stories.
The object of Restoration is a grandiose one. The most difficult aspect, however, is the re-framing at current from Conservative to Restorationist.
This will be difficult because we’ll have to come to terms with the Truth:
we cannot Conserve what does not exist.