the other argument I am still going to write at some point is basically Filmer's argument filtered through Darwin, which is that all authority flows from Fatherhood, which imposes a non-theological hierarchy

I don't agree that this is a non-theological hierarchy

as fatherhood must also proceed from somewhere

Filmer's premise was God as Father, but I think you could do with out that

if it is incidental, then this is just arbitrary

and argue that it procedes from biology

yeah, it has to be "God the Father" to work

to work well

to work okay, you can sub in Darwin maybe

I appreciate the procession from biology but

that also removes your ability to raise this one aspect

and also, it reduces to utilitarianism

because your argument is ultimately "this works"

no framework for what working ultimately is, or what is good or bad

ignoring the ultimate metaphysics

hence always prey to the bigger scope of leftism

I think there's another question here as well

why do you, or anyone else, feel a draw to secular right etc. at all?

No, and I note in the post that you would need to develop that framework a lot a lot. I was just interested in whether there was a workable basis

why is it good that things works out, rather than they be changed

even at a cost

for some moral good

I don't, my only interest in a secular right is in shifting a large block of US voters

I now think there is no workable basis, ultimately

but temporarily?

I think you could do it, I would consider it evil however

I wish there was a workable framework, it would make things much easier

Eh. Everyone is religious. Some people just have a certain misinterpretation of what religion is and call themselves atheists and oppose themselves to random doctrine

A secular rightism that appeals to them on those terms but causes them to follow the action of a fundamentally religious ideology

could eventually correct their adolescent reaction to "religion" haha

idk

just a thought experiment

yeah, I understand dont worry about it

happy to engage

I've had the same thought

about reaction -> religion

there's a couple of really big problems with that though

number 1 is just being able to accept it

after that there is the issue that if someone is misled into thinking that ultimately there can be a secular "reaction", they will be further from religion than if they had simply experienced the hypocritical degeneration of PC morality

and more: it leads to an inhuman style of thinking

which I feel ultimately deadens one to reception of such stuff