There was once a time when college was considered a relatively upright place where men went to study, gain knowledge, and become disciplined leaders. Evidently, such a time no longer exists.

As a student myself, I often feel intensely disgusted walking around campus. I hear conversations about parties in which drinking has taken place. I see clothes that would have warranted execution 100 years ago. Most of all, I see the carefree attitudes. Nobody seems to have any problem with the way things are. Even within my right-wing peers, who are so excessively preoccupied with matters of race and immigration, there is zero interest in public morality.

After all, what is the problem? Why take everything so seriously? Why should I care so much about how people dress or what they do on Friday nights? To even ask these questions is insulting! And they warrant a serious discussion about the lack of spiritual literacy in modern society. Especially the misguided attempts at being “spiritual” by certain groups of people and the even more misguided attempts at being “moral” by others.

It really isn’t a question anymore that the course of public morality needs to be corrected. And it is even more apparent that the only ones capable of doing so are religious reactionaries. But before one can declare himself a religious reactionary, one must examine and learn from the numerous phenomena causing mass anti-moral behavior in the first place.

The Devil’s Promise On the Right Wing

I have an unapologetic metaphor of sorts that often puts me at odds with my more ethnonationalist or right-of-center peers. Put simply, if the Devil were to rise from Hell and promise them a nation (made to their liking) in which there were no “foreigners” so long as they renounced their faith in God, they would take the deal.

When I introduce this point to my right-wing friends, they often laugh it off and dismiss it as an unrealistic fantasy. However, the contention is more real than they are willing to admit. It has become very common for racial hatred or certain cultural frustrations to overshadow faith in God and morality so intensely that they become secondary, and this is evident in the contemporary right-wing establishment. Even worse, though, is the total shifting of the bounds of conservatism and the erosion of ideological solidity. Take gay marriage, for example, which was rightfully considered immoral and condemned by the right decades ago. Now? There’s an organization called “Gays Against Groomers,” founded by a deviant homosexual woman, and which has somehow received the glamour of being called “far-right.”

You may say, “The left has these problems, too!” But that is a given. The left rarely values religious moralism and is intrinsically committed to relativism. Of course it would make a deal with the Devil. The very concept of “evil” is ever-changing to a leftist, and of course this lack of objectivity will always serve the immediate human desire — that is, animalistic desire.

But the right wing? This is supposed to be the side of objective, absolutist morality. And yet the behavior of rightists is just as ever-changing as the left in the modern day. How many scandals have been uncovered on the right wing in the modern day? I could fill novels with tales of each one, often a sexual scandal. This fact is incredibly concerning. The left wing is designed to reject public morality in favor of a “whatever I want” mentality, and now the right wing is rapidly becoming spiritually depraved and plagued by the same mindset. If the right wing falls as well, what is left?

Lacking Presuppositions

The right-wing hypocrisy we see today is not even the largest shadow looming over those moral crusaders such as ourselves. The massive barrier between our ultimate goal of public morality and actual public opinion is the total lack of presuppositions.

Let’s use the example of “partying,” as it seems most college students have indulged in this. To the average youth, this is simply a social gathering to hang out with friends and meet people. To a religious reactionary, it is an active source of vice and a breeding ground for sinful behavior. Do you see the disconnect here?

The average youth views partying from a perspective lacking concern for religion entirely and often frames desire as the primary goal. They desire social validation and a dopamine boost, so they go to “meet people” and “hang out,” often engaging in any and every behavior necessary to achieve their desire. The religious reactionary is constantly thinking about being holy and pleasing God. Is that simply their desire? No, it is their duty. It is the duty of the religious reactionary to see sin before it arises, and thus avoid participating in any level of vice entirely.

Notice that the sin is avoided entirely by noticing it beforehand. This exists in contrast to the average Christian lifestyle of “Sin first. Repent later.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote about this very reliance on God’s grace to constantly bail one out, and, diverging from orthodox theology temporarily, it’s worth questioning if God simply stops doing so at some point. Many modern Christians live as though God is their personal wish-granter and sin-forgiver rather than their commanding officer. It is unconducive to public morality to use the typical Christian perspective of “God’s children” because it leads to this exact cheap grace. Rather, the religious reactionary must view himself as God’s soldier, following His orders and commands to the letter.

If public morality is to be corrected, and it is to be done by the religious reactionary, then he must embody the very presuppositions that allow us to prevent sin entirely. He cannot simply live in accordance with his immediate desires and assume God will rescue him each time he sins. This will make him permissive; it will make him weak, and he will cease to be a religious reactionary.

The Influence of Degenerate Media

We’ve covered the hypocrisy of the contemporary right wing and the lack of presuppositional prescience regarding sin and vice, but we have yet to cover the third major cause of society’s anti-moral standing: Degenerate media.

Often, the greatest deterrent to religious reactionary ideology is this degenerate media that contributes to its demise. The modern man is extremely pacified by the media, and this is especially true in Generation Z (my own). What young man does not consistently consume modern music, such as those pop songs which sing excessively about love? What young man has not consumed the very movies and shows of today as well, such as “anime” and those Hollywood productions which feature one sexual scene after another? The religious reactionary does not find himself pacified by such media because he does not consume it in the first place.

This is often where every reader realizes they would never wish to be a religious reactionary. If one has to relinquish modern comforts, then what incentive could there possibly be for religious reactionaries? My second point about correcting one’s presuppositions applies here again — what incentive could you possibly seek other than the act of devotion itself? If you seek incentives, then your devotion to God and moral rigorism are clearly downstream from your personal desires, and this is the presupposition you must correct. If your entire concept of living is fundamentally misaligned with religious reactionism, then you are running in circles and chasing your own tail. You would neither understand the ideology nor become a part of it, so attempting to do so is futile in and of itself. To the true religious reactionary — that is, one who truly aligns with the ideology — he who neither seeks to relinquish his comforts nor conform to the asceticism commanded by God is no peer or equal, but a spiritually empty unit of economic use; he is simply an unholy object to be ruled by the holy. The Christian desire to evangelize only hinders one’s own spiritual ascent here, and the religious reactionary recognizes that he who objectifies himself cannot be saved by any un-divine force. Simply put, leave the “saving” to God in the afterlife.

It’s noteworthy that the common concept of “love,” especially as it manifests in both Christianity and leftism, is practically opposed to the religious reactionary ideology and lifestyle. Instead of “loving one’s neighbor,” the religious reactionary is devoted to the duty which leads to greater spiritual prosperity for his neighbor. His devotion is not directed at his neighbor, but rather at God. What good may be done for his neighbor can only come out of doing right with God.

Conclusion

Our critiques of the modern college campus are often rejected entirely. After all, who could reject mass fornicating and drinking alcohol? Isn’t such a thing the very definition of young life which all children strive to one day live? Of course it is not. And I can see this only because I can see the fundamentals, the presuppositions, the hypocrisy, and the degeneracy of modern media. This makes me, and all who see the same, religious reactionaries.

My words are not meant to be permissive on other issues, however, and while it is strictly necessary to spiritually cleanse the public, numerous other rectifications must take place to truly order society as God intended.

But for the religious reactionary, the only rectification needed is that of public morality.

Note: This article is the first in the Ideology & Essays section, which includes theoretical discussions, subjective analysis, cultural commentary, and more that aren’t nonpartisan policy discussions.

The world’s strongest-ever display of soft power, without a doubt, comes from the Sinosphere — the region of Sinic cultural influence roughly encompassing Greater China (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan), Vietnam, Korea, and Japan. Cultural exports coming from this region, particularly from China, Korea, and Japan, have spread far and wide, influencing culture in regions across the world.

But within the decades-long internationalist ardor inspired by these very cultural influences, a larger problem exists. China’s political apparatus, and by extension, the broader Sinosphere, represents the ultimate realization of utilitarian secular statecraft.

Though the U.S. is often viewed similarly as a secular nation, this is arguably inaccurate, as Christian influence on policy-making is historically certain and remains (to an extent) in modern times. Functionally, Christianity is core to American culture and identity.

Christian moral law can guide the nation toward a divinely inspired destiny, but increasing Sinic influence poses numerous risks to this path. To circumvent these risks, it is necessary to examine the actual features within the Sinosphere that are fundamentally adverse to American religious governance, as well as how they all build off of the secular foundation of the region.

The Illusion of Confucianism

China, evidently, is not guided by any religious dogma. Some may argue that Confucian and Buddhist influences exist in common Sinic culture, but these religions are not dogmatic and are often interpreted flexibly (hence the denominationalism of each one). One might also claim that Confucianism was often functionally dogmatic due to historical state orthodoxy, but even so, it is non-theistic, placing it in opposition to Christianity. That lack of adherence to divine authority also makes it easily co-optable by Chinese state authorities whose Marxian heritage promotes state atheism.

Put simply, the Sinosphere’s philosophical and “religious” heritage is bereft of any divine foundation for human dignity and moral law; therefore, morality itself becomes a matter of utility for the Chinese bureaucratic machine with no motivation other than economic output, state stability (note the state as the top priority, not the nation), and geopolitical power. The result is the culture exported to the United States in the name of “soft power.”

Chinese philosophies like Confucianism and Legalism (among many others), whether dogmatic or not, are considered guiding systems within the Sinic paradigm, and regardless of their practical usage, they instill neither devotion to God nor moral absolutism, placing them in direct defiance of the Christian morality that motivates — or should motivate (in the case of certain other perspectives) — American society.

Soulless Technocracy

Religion and philosophical history aside, China’s bureaucracy is a problem on its own. Sinic non-theism, although indirectly, contributed to a highly technocratic leviathan government ruled by a deeply entrenched political party: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This empty authoritarianism has led to yet another significant cultural barrier forming in opposition to the culture of America: mass surveillance.

China maintains a mass surveillance state unlike anything the world has ever seen. Initiatives like Skynet for urban centers and Sharp Eyes for rural ones ensure that real-time analytics identify individuals, recognize license plates, analyze crowd density, and track movement across cities, all in cooperation with private companies still under the authority of the CCP. It goes without saying that this level of surveillance is unmatched worldwide.

Many argue that the U.S. has a similar apparatus, but that is irrelevant; in the digital age, nearly every major nation has also begun developing its own mass surveillance system. The clash arises in the public cultural response. China has had this system for years, and there has never been widespread outrage over it. Public sentiment there views the system positively due to state control of messaging. In the U.S., however, instances of similar surveillance from private companies like Flock and Palantir, as well as government agencies like the NSA, have been met with nothing but fury from the people.

Thus is the second threat. Such a surveillance state built on secular culture has accelerated the Sinic culture of soulless technocracy — a national direction of numbers and measured output rather than divine providence. American culture, on the other hand, opposes such authority (the very founding of the nation was a revolt against authority) and is far more capable of a religious future. But only through eliminating the incompatible influences of Sinic culture in the American homeland.

Subversion of the Church

The Chinese government subjugates the Christian Church within its borders, and the freedom to worship God is restricted heavily by state authorities. Churches must register with government-approved — and thus, secularly motivated — associations, and clergy must maintain loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party and actively promote state ideology. Sermons are censored, authorities select church leaders, and gravest of all, the Bible is heavily edited and altered to fall in line with the CCP’s ideology. All youth under 18 are also banned from participating in religious activities, which prevents children from building a strong devotion to God during their most developmental years and severely damages the spiritual cleanliness of older youth, who no longer have any moral framework and may justify any behavior so long as it aligns with state policy.

It goes without saying that this total control of Christianity in China is entirely antagonistic to America’s freedom of religion, and the encroaching Sinosphere — itself delegated to the CCP — would be detrimental to the entire religious infrastructure of the United States, and it would certainly harm the primacy of Christian ethics as the core of American culture.

An Appeal to Heaven

If American society is to embark on a path of divinely-inspired morality and become “One Nation Under God” as it was always intended to be, then the cultural influences of the Sinosphere must be eliminated, no matter how much consumer resistance there may be. Such a task is monumental, however, and it requires a shift in American perspectives so substantial that it can only be described aptly as “an appeal to Heaven.”

Two core ideas must regain preeminence in American cultural and political discourse if this shift is to occur, and the first is American exceptionalism. America once more needs to see itself as an exceptional nation, unique in the world, and akin to none. Only when America no longer functions as “European-derived,” “Pacific-adjacent,” or “cosmopolitan” can it pave the way for the final step: Christian moral primacy — not necessarily in the modern Christian nationalist sense, which is motivated far more by evangelicalism and lacks the mystical basis needed to overcome Chinese secular influences.

Christian moral primacy: The total authority of Christian moral law within American public life, neither dominating nor dominated by American culture. This idea is the largest undertaking out of the two, and though realistically unlikely, it is spiritually necessary. In addition to recovering absolute morality within American society, Christian moral primacy is also crucial to repairing the atomization of community in the modern era.

Establishing this primacy would not involve undermining the First Amendment (which allows freedom of religion) or any seditious anti-Constitutionalism, but rather modifying the Constitution to promote moral law and begin moving away from secular nationalism to a more mystical spiritual nationalism. For instance, this may include the addition of a Christian amendment, if not as the end goal of incremental amendments.

American traditionalism can arise once more if these two ideas are established to combat liberal influences. But the rising threat of the secular Sinosphere cannot be ignored.

Japanese Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi recently visited the infamous Yasukuni Shrine (where Japan honors 14 Class-A war criminals responsible for countless Chinese and Korean deaths) on the 81st anniversary of Japan’s WWII surrender. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, however, broke from her usual unwavering national pride by skipping the visit to avoid straining relations with South Korea, which she has made significant moves to strengthen in the interest of countering China together.

Takaichi seemingly avoided the shrine to both avoid damaging the very relations she has built so far with Korea and also to avoid inciting any Chinese aggression. The focus remains on the two nations which tragically lost many of their people because of the very Japanese war criminals that Koizumi paid respects to.

But while Koizumi’s visit to the shrine may have been seen positively by Japan’s right-wing establishment, was this really the time for such a stunt?

Muddying Counter-China Cooperation

South Korea and Japan are the two major East Asian nations that are aligned with the United States, united by their desire to counter China. However, historical realities often got in the way of efficient cooperation between the two nations. South Korea, formerly a Japanese colony under brutal repression, carried many grievances about the treatment of its people that often placed it in contention with the Japanese desire to cooperate.

While America typically sought to eliminate this boundary and encourage cooperation between the two, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi put in substantial effort herself to strengthen relations as well. She has held numerous bilateral summits with Korean President Lee Jae-Myung, for instance, and her avoidance of the shrine was another attempt to maintain strong diplomatic relations. From the American perspective, Korea-Japan cooperation is paramount to create a powerful barrier against China, which actively seeks to encroach upon the borders of its neighbors and the security of the United States.

As the Minister of Defense, Koizumi’s participation in Takaichi’s productive dialogue with Korea is critical, yet the recent shrine visit gives off an entirely different message. It communicates to South Korea that Japan is indifferent to its suffering, and that it still sees the brutal repression of the Korean colony as an instance of national pride. Is this productive for counter-China relations? Absolutely not.

Poking the Red Dragon

Alongside building relations with Korea, Japan also needs to avoid angering China. Beijing routinely protests the Japanese government’s visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, and public sentiment in China is overwhelmingly negative toward Japan. That said, China’s recent activity in regions like the South China Sea indicates a rising willingness to directly confront its enemies.

With the U.S. already moving military resources out of Asia to secure its front in the Iran conflict, Japan, which technically does not have a fully-fledged military of its own, cannot risk angering China. Without the usual oversight of the American military, it is arguably in a weak position to adequately ward off Chinese aggression, and it is terrible optics for U.S. allies to appear defenseless while Washington fights an invisible threat in the Middle East.

Societal Self-Destruction

Koizumi’s stubborn refusal to fall in line with Japan’s greater diplomatic interests illuminates a deeper issue that currently plagues the nation, one that maintains similar intransigence and is currently fracturing Japanese society: the illusion of stability.

When Takaichi won the premiership in 2025, many voters hoped that the “Iron Lady of Japan” would be the one to topple the country’s ruthless work culture. Such culture has caused serious problems threatening the future of Japan’s entire civilization, like plummeting birth rates, a widening generational wealth gap, and a disturbing phenomenon called “karoshi” (death from overwork). However, Takaichi, upon entering office, dedicated herself to the complete opposite.

In fact, one of her first vows to the public was to “work, work, work, work, and work.” Suddenly, the excitement vanished. Takaichi would similarly post online, gloating that she slept only 2 or 3 hours per night and had even held crucial meetings deep into the night, forcing the bureaucracy to adapt to her absurd schedule.

While Takaichi’s inhuman work ethic is admirable and her posts are quite funny, her lack of attention to the actual needs of Japanese society darkens the sky over the island nation. The conservative establishment has a functionally irremovable hold over Japanese policy-making, so the changes that need to be made to correct the course of their civilization can only come from said establishment.

But, clearly, there is no willingness to make such changes.

Correcting Course

To her credit, Takaichi made a positive move by skipping the shrine visit, and she does appear to be focusing more on correcting birth rates and work culture in recent months. Still, at the heart of her premiership is counter-China policy and the revival of Japanese militarism. In such an administration, the Defense Minister’s behavior is nearly as important as the Prime Minister herself.

Koizumi’s stubborn refusal to align with Takaichi is another highlight of the Japanese right-wing shooting itself in the foot. If the current administration wants tangible national improvement, they must prioritize the future over the past and look inward.

Dutiful self-sacrifice is a core tenet of Japanese traditionalism. Figures like Shinjiro Koizumi must rediscover this and let go of their prosperity-hindering convictions.

The U.S. has long made a promise to its allies in Asia that can be summed up as simply: “We will protect you if China attacks.” The growing expansionist activity of the Chinese government, alongside its rapid and aggressive military buildup, has alarmed nations across the Indo-Pacific and has given the United States reason to assist in return for economic cooperation.

That promise was mostly kept for decades. However, President Trump’s second administration is proving to take us in the opposite direction, undermining the American defense of the Indo-Pacific and diverting loose resources to unnecessary conflicts and wasteful activity rather than productive domestic affairs.

Dying Diplomacy

The U.S. State Department, the leading agency for international affairs, is the first victim of Trump’s cuts. Specifically, as part of an ongoing push for “America First” bureaucratic efficiency led by the White House and the Office of Management and Budget, the State Department notified Congress of plans to close several smaller diplomatic posts.

However, two of these posts were the U.S. consulates in Nagoya, Japan, and Medan, Indonesia. These posts were exceptionally small, with total projected savings across these and the other global closures estimated at roughly $4.4 million annually.

The administration claimed that these closures were a matter of necessary fiscal restraint and administrative streamlining to reduce an already-cluttered American bureaucracy. But critics and Democratic lawmakers argue that cutting diplomatic contact points in strategic areas such as Indonesia and with key partners like Japan sends a bad message.

Experts such as John Kiriakou have consistently stated that the current American foreign policy establishment either wastes our diplomatic resources or neglects their use entirely. The Trump administration's push to exacerbate this problem does not serve long-term American interests in any way.

Military Hopes and Dreams

The ongoing U.S.-Israel military campaign against Iran has also caused significant friction between Indo-Pacific priorities and actual resource allocation.

The U.S. Navy recently pulled its last aircraft carrier, the USS George Washington, out of Asia to rotate in for the USS Abraham Lincoln, which returns home soon after being at sea in the Middle East for 9 months (significantly longer than the administration initially projected). Leaving the Western Pacific without a premier aircraft carrier has now forced the U.S. into a zero-sum game with its naval assets.

The Iran conflict has been a particularly agitating point of contention between Trump’s administration and reality. It has overstretched resources, especially naval (in a failing bid to control the Strait of Hormuz) and has significantly driven up costs for the American economy. The premise of the conflict was preventing their nuclear development, but Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has stated over and over again that Iran does not intend to pursue nuclear armament.

If “America First” was the priority of the administration, even going so far as to delete diplomatic stations in key areas, then what is the Iran conflict supposed to be? As of now, Americans have seen virtually zero tangible benefit at home.

Two-Faced Policy

The Pentagon maintains that “great-power competition” with China is a top priority of American defense policy, but recent actions paint an entirely different picture.

At the moment, the public sees an administration that does not care about domestic consequences and wastes its resources pursuing foreign policy goals that ignore American interests. If American global primacy is to be maintained, the United States has to rediscover its “America First” roots and begin shifting its priorities.

But the Iran war has caused a rude awakening, and Washington is beginning to learn the fault of its current priorities. As the conflict continues to slash through old pipe dreams with reality, the optimistic outlook says that the establishment will finally allow the State Department to rebuild what was once the strongest diplomatic service in the world.

Impowering American diplomacy is the best way to proceed with healing the rifts that the administration has caused between us and our allies.

American national identity has never been more fractured than it is today. Partisan identity, religious faith, ethnicity, and all sorts of new categories are being articulated as core to American identity. But at the core of this search is American nationalism: the belief that the American people constitute one nation whose interests take the highest priority of all in policy-making.

American nationalism has guided domestic politics since the Revolutionary War and subsequent national founding. Today, it takes a lesser role than a more moderate patriotism, but nationalism remains a crucial tenet of American identity and political activity. However, a significant problem has occurred that prevents the policy apparatus from establishing American nationalism as a driving force for national unity: Nobody really agrees on what it should look like.

Civic Nationalism: Values, Laws, Citizenship

Scholars most commonly agree that American identity is guided by civic nationalism: Nationalism that adheres to the traditional liberal values of freedom, egalitarianism, and individual rights. Historically, civic nationalism first emerged during the American Revolution, when European, African, Hispanic, and Native American ethnicities fought under the same banner for the same goal: To create a nation governed by the people and for the people.

Despite having the largest consensus, however, the creedal definition of American identity has been rejected by some today. For example, Americans who trace their ancestry back to the colonial era (some calling themselves “heritage Americans”) feel that the creedal definition unfairly rejects their families’ long history in the country by declaring that a new arrival to the U.S is entirely as American as they are.

Although civic nationalism remains the dominant force today, with approximately 95% of Americans agreeing that being born to two U.S. citizens makes you fully American, some dissenters have begun to formulate a new version of nationalism, one that now maintains a significant online presence and is gradually being introduced into mainstream politics.

White Nationalism: Race and Ethnicity

Put simply, American white nationalism espouses three core beliefs:

1. A White race exists, composed of all European ethnicities.

2. America is a White nation, and European ethnic identity is inseparable from American identity.

3. White people are being demographically replaced in America.

Though White nationalism is still very fringe and mostly limited to an online presence (powered by controversial commentators like Nick Fuentes), the 2016 election saw White nationalist figures heavily integrate with Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Many still align with Trumpist politics in the second administration, but a growing majority has separated due to disagreements over foreign policy (specifically, Israel).

Policy aside, however, White nationalism remains a growing force in the country primarily due to mass immigration. As more people (generally from non-European countries) migrate to the U.S and White birth rates continue to drop, supporters of White nationalism believe that a replacement of White people in America is occurring. This appears to be the guiding grievance of all supporters of this type of nationalism. Supporters often also cite the initial immigration policy of the U.S, which limited citizenship to “free white persons.”

However, opponents of White nationalism typically argue a few critical points. Firstly, all birth rates are dropping. While White nationalists consistently frame declining birth rates as a primarily European problem, that is only the case because European nations developed earlier, and thus experienced this phenomenon earlier. But birth rates and fertility across the entire U.S population appear to be dropping, just at different rates due to significant cultural differences (social conservatism and familialism are far more common in modern Eastern backgrounds, for instance, compared to modern Western ones). Second, immigration to the U.S has been handled completely differently from historical expectations. At one point, Founding Fathers like Benjamin Franklin were similarly concerned about German immigration to the U.S. Later, Irish immigration led to the creation of the nativist and White nationalist “Know Nothing Party.” Italian and Eastern European immigration incited the same fire in the Anglo-Saxon Protestant population. All of those migrant groups would be considered “White” and purely American by White nationalists today. Opponents point to this cognitive dissonance as another reason why the racial identity espoused by White nationalists makes no sense concerning American identity.

While ethnic and racial nationalism have long been considered fringe due to their small size and heavy exclusivism (cutting out half of the U.S population and thus reducing maximum support), another type of non-civic nationalism has taken conservative politics by storm. And this one maintains support from White, Black, Hispanic, and even Asian Americans.

Christian Nationalism: Culture and Religion

Christian nationalism has a simple yet powerful meaning: America is a Christian nation, founded on Christian values, for Christians alone. Although some moderates tend to espouse similar beliefs, Christian nationalism often goes hand-in-hand with Christian supremacy (the belief in the superiority of the Christian religion).

Christian nationalism arrived in mainstream discourse at the same time as White nationalism during the 2016 election. Trump’s “non-denominational” stance tends to appeal to Christian nationalists as Christianity itself is split into numerous denominations, each with entirely different views on institutional rule. Supporters of Christian nationalism often point to the religions of the Founding Fathers (51 out of the 55 delegates who signed the Constitution were Christian) as proof of America being founded as a Christian nation. Regardless, Christian nationalists believe it either is or should be.

Though motivated primarily by Protestant coalitions, Christian nationalism has received plenty of support from Catholics and Orthodox Christians, making it an ecumenical phenomenon. Christian nationalism is both a uniting force among various ethnicities and denominations, espousing a multiethnic rejection of civic nationalism, and also a dividing one that pushes away non-Christian Americans. However, this form of nationalism often takes the shape of Christian-motivated governance rather than the total alienation of non-Christians. Still, a reduction of division does not mean none at all.

Our Answer

Answering the question of “which nationalism is right” is difficult because each form of nationalism has rights and wrongs. But defining our perspective requires us to evaluate each on the basis of national security, and the one that is most beneficial for the nation is the one that we should prioritize as American identity. We gave each form a rating out of 5 based on how much it either strengthened or weakened national security, with 5 being the strongest.

Civic Nationalism (4/5): For national security, civic nationalism unites far more than it divides. While many may find its inclusivism to be far too tolerant of newcomers, civic nationalism also bases itself on the ideals of Americanism; the same ideals that have motivated American global power for decades. Domestically, civic nationalism unites the people by creating an identity that applies to all of the citizen population. Some may think this undermines heritage as a factor in American identity, but in terms of American global power, a united America trumps a divided one in every scenario. We subtracted one point, however, because civic nationalism is far too lax on cultural unity (often allowing multiculturalism) and often allows too many foreign influences to affect the population without any assimilation. Unity through values is significantly undermined if foreign cultures introduce opposing values.

White Nationalism (2/5): White nationalism received a low score because, although it is intended to unite White Americans and establish a European ethnic identity at the core of American identity, it is fringe even among White people (estimated support is limited to 4-8%). So, not only does it exclude half of the American population that is not European, but also most of the White population. Fringe ideologies with such minimal support yet such a loud online presence often undermine national security in many ways. For one, it obviously divides the population, weakening America’s ability to act as a unit in global and domestic affairs. And second, it redefines American identity to be downstream from European identity, placing ethnicity above loyalty to the U.S. This type of identitarian dissent is not conducive to national unity or even national security, as it calls into question whether its supporters prefer American or European primacy. However, it receives two points because it is often tied to a rejection of multiculturalism and an appreciation for a common religion (Christianity), which we believe strengthens its position. We conclude our score of White nationalism at a 2/5.

Christian Nationalism (4/5): If leveraged properly, Christian nationalism can be beneficial to American identity and national security. The American Constitution establishes freedom of religion in the land, and many believe Christian nationalism undermines this. However, while Christian supremacy certainly does, Christian nationalism, when used purely to maintain a common core identity, can enforce American cultural dominance over multiculturalism, thus strengthening national unity. This kind of nationalism is also not purely civic, as it promotes the Christian religion as core to American identity, but still bases itself on the core values that established the American nation (most of which trace their lineage back to the Protestant Reformation). Still, though it reaps many of the benefits of cultural and civic nationalism without most of the negatives, most Christian nationalism is technically opposed to America’s original message of “separation of church and state.” Additionally, it alienates 32 to 38% of Americans, which is not Christian. Considering the utility for national unity and promotion of right social policy but taking into account its own version of exclusivism, we score Christian nationalism at a 4/5.

Our Conclusion

So, what should American nationalism look like? In essence, it looks like all of the above options.

At the heart of American nationalism should be exceptionalism: America is distinct and exemplary compared to all other nations. There has never been a nation that can accommodate so many different people yet unite them all under a single banner, and America can only be further strengthened by embracing its uniquely dynamic culture and Christian spirit.

So finally, we conclude that American nationalism should be a combination of cultural and religious nationalism that does not reject the creedal values of America’s founding while still valuing the European origin of its culture. Of all the strands of patriotism, this compound nationalism takes the center stage as the most productive for national security, unity, and strength.

Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir joined thousands of Jewish ultranationalists who demonstrated in front of the Al-Aqsa Compound, one of the most culturally sensitive holy sites in Jerusalem, on Thursday. They were escorted by armed police as they prayed, sang the national anthem, and waved the Israeli flag, a direct challenge to the decades-old "agreement that restricts non-Muslim prayer at Islam’s third-holiest site.

What was intended to be a domestic show of political strength acts internationally as a strategic signal: Israel’s internal rightward pivot is creating growing friction with its primary security partners and regional allies.

A Minister of Extremes

Itamar Ben-Gvir, in particular, is a controversial yet influential figure. As the leader of the ultranationalist and Jewish supremacist Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”) political party, Ben-Gvir’s appointment to the position of Minister of National Security by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew immediate criticism from domestic legal authorities and international diplomats.

Despite holding a 63% negative approval rating compared to a 32% positive one among the general populace, Ben-Gvir retains 58% positive approval among right-wing Israelis. His key constituency appears to be hardline religious nationalist voters who approve of his uncompromising stance and see it as a necessary counterweight to traditional establishment politics.

Ben-Gvir’s six Knesset seats also carry a disproportionate weight within Netanyahu’s narrow governing majority, but he cannot fire Ben-Gvir without collapsing his governing coalition, thus allowing disproportionate power to a highly radical coalition that would otherwise be marginalized. However, the rise of politicians like Itamar Ben-Gvir is only one reason behind the degeneration of Israel’s international appearance.

The Police and the West Bank

Ben-Gvir’s appearance alongside numerous hardliners at yesterday’s Tisha B’Av events at the Al-Aqsa/Haram al-Sharif was not just as a politician. As the Minister of National Security, Ben-Gvir is also in charge of the Israel Police. He used that power to replace district commanders in the Jerusalem Police District with ideological allies, changing the police’s duty from preventing non-Muslim prayer to protecting it.

This shift marks one of many institutional “corrections” made by the Netanyahu government toward a further right shift in domestic politics, drawing international concerns over the treatment of non-Jewish minorities. However, aside from the usual risks that come with Ben-Gvir’s majoritarian beliefs, Netanyahu’s courting of such radical figures risks alienating Israel’s already-shaky regional relations.

Alliances In Jeopardy

Firstly, the rising normalization of Jewish ultranationalism places Israel in direct opposition to the ideas of its Muslim neighbors, many of which already carry historical concerns over the idea of a Jewish state.

1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty

The most immediately fragile relationship is the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty (and some earlier historical agreements). Under this treaty, King Abdullah II’s Hashemite dynasty holds official custodianship over Jerusalem’s Islamic and Christian holy sites (via the Jordanian Waqf). But ultranationalist figures like Ben-Gvir outright advocate for the assertion of unilateral Israeli authority over the Temple Mount/Haram Al-Sharif through the use of police forces to escort Jewish prayer groups. This undermines Waqf authority and operationally threatens Jordanian custodianship. Additionally, because Jordan’s population is majority Palestinian, if the King is perceived as failing to protect Islam’s holy sites from the Israelis, it could trigger massive domestic unrest in the nation. So, Amman is forced to adopt a hostile diplomatic stance, which stalls security cooperation and constantly threatens to freeze or downgrade the peace treaty to preserve internal stability.

The Abraham Accords

Another very critical alliance that is under threat is the Abraham Accords, which is a series of historical agreements between Gulf signatories, primarily for technology access, defense trade, and a shared counter-Iran interest. These agreements were premised on the idea that Arab states could decouple their economic and security normalization with Israel from the unresolved Palestine dispute. However, the implicit condition was that Israel would avoid blatant provocations at holy sites or mass West Bank annexations. The disruptions perpetrated by Ben-Gvir and his compatriots make normalization politically toxic for Gulf leaders in the court of Arab public opinion. While the treaties likely won’t be significantly altered overnight, existing signatories like the UAE and Bahrain could freeze high-level diplomatic visits, slow down joint defense projects, and issue strong public condemnations. Then, prospective partners like Saudi Arabia, who have maintained that Palestinian statehood is a prerequisite for formal normalization, would be effectively blocked from accepting any concessions from Israel that would otherwise be needed to sell a normalization deal domestically.

U.S-Israel Bipartisan Alignment

The U.S expects Israel to act as a stable and predictable regional partner. Washington provides Israel with significant military aid and diplomatic defense at the UN, but such protection relies on shared strategic alignment and domestic political consensus, the latter of which is already seeing major structural shifts. The American diplomatic preference for big-picture initiatives (such as countering Iran) is averse to settling localized problems in Jerusalem.

When Israeli coalition partners provoke crises at significant friction points like Al-Aqsa, the U.S State Department is compelled to issue reprimands, which alienates domestic political constituencies in the U.S and distracts from broader diplomatic objectives. The erosion of bipartisan support for Israel in Washington is already accelerating due to a number of factors, and the constant far-right provocations only push this shift further.

Conclusion

With American domestic support for relations with Israel already in severe decline, the latter cannot afford to continue tolerating the aggravations of ultranationalist figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir. Such incitements portray Israel as a liability that threatens U.S regional strategy and force readiness, rather than the strong ally that the foreign policy apparatus has long considered it to be.

Yemeni Houthis have entered the Iran conflict, vowing to blockade the Red Sea and attack Saudi Arabia. A total blockade has yet to be achieved, but the Houthis have successfully launched attacks on the Saudi oil tankers Rubymar and Tutor (Liberian-flagged), as well as various ports and military targets. Though these attacks drew coalition retaliation against Hodeidah and Kamaran Island, the opening of a new front in an already costly and difficult war only pushes the United States into deeper economic and international chaos.

But a new development indicates a much more long-term and dangerous problem for U.S global primacy: Chinese ships are being uniquely allowed to pass through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

Common Anti-Americanism

Since its founding, the Houthi movement has shared a strong anti-American sentiment with various other international players, China later becoming one of them. Though it won’t explicitly call itself so, American protection of Taiwan and alliances with Japan and South Korea (not to mention The Quad, a coalition maintained to counter Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific) have caused deep rifts in U.S-China relations, and the trade war between the two during Donald Trump’s first presidency did not help.

The common enemy, however, has led to expected alliances. The Iranian government has long backed the Houthis to counter the influence of pro-Western Saudi Arabia, and through Iranian membership in BRICS and flourishing diplomacy with China (on the grounds of countering American influence), Iran-China relations have allowed for a direct pathway to Chinese support for the Houthis. It should be noted that the Chinese explicitly deny backing the group, but U.S intelligence reports consistently find Chinese indirect and tactical support, especially through dual-use drone components that the Houthis use for warfare.

The common anti-Americanism between China and the Houthis has led to a very visible relationship that we are now seeing China reap the benefits of during this war. While American ships are being targeted in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a critical passageway for oil shipping, Chinese ships are being allowed to pass through. Aside from preserving Chinese supply chains while disrupting American ones, imbalancing the two competing economies and tipping the scales in favor of China, there is the problem of visibility.

The Chinese Image

Allowing Chinese ships to pass through a warzone where American ships are being attacked is not a first for this war. Earlier in the war, when Iran attempted to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, an Aframax-class oil tanker named Karachi carrying Das crude from Abu Dhabi to Pakistan was given special passage through the guarded region after its shipment was settled in Chinese yuan instead of the typical U.S dollar. While this instance does not signal a total collapse of the petrodollar, it does indicate a significant erosion in trust. The new problem is where that trust is going.

China has now shown that yuan payments can rival the dollar, its ships can pass through warzones incited by the U.S, and that it is not causing active military conflicts worldwide nearly at the same rate as its main rival. When placing all these developments together, a new picture begins to emerge on the world stage. Is China standing where the United States once stood? If so, where is the U.S now?

Beijing has successfully created the image that it is a far more reliable economic partner and anchor for global peace than the United States, and although no major powers have moved in favor of this image just yet, it is evident that numerous smaller nations are enchanted by the idea of a new world order. One that is not held back (in their view) by modern American volatility.

China appears to be successfully positioning itself as the prime alternative to the U.S as the latter spends itself into oblivion. But with Washington becoming more and more unpredictable on the world stage, will it even be able to deter such a threat?

With President Trump hinting at a deal that may allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium, many questions have arisen regarding the latter’s nuclear capabilities in general. The one that interests us most is: If Saudi Arabia advances to full-blown nuclear production in the near future, what does it mean for the Middle East?

A Middle Eastern Arms Race

For starters, it means conflict. Israel, being the main Western-aligned (though they have recently been pursuing a level of strategic autonomy) nation in the Middle East, would not take well to a Muslim nation acquiring nuclear weaponry. Between Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, this deal would cause the world’s first three-way nuclear standoff.

It should be noted that Saudi Arabia financed Pakistan’s nuclear program in the 1980s and 1990s, and this resulted in an implicit agreement that if Riyadh ever needed off-the-shelf warheads, Islamabad would come to its aid. Combining the American-built domestic enrichment with Pakistani foreign backup effectively gives Saudi Arabia a fast pass to nuclear armament.

Israel would not be the only nation aggravated by such a change, however. Turkey and Egypt will not sit idly by while their two main rivals, Iran and Saudi Arabia, go nuclear. A nuclear Saudi Arabia permanently diminishes global non-proliferation.

A Major Trap For U.S Foreign Policy

Historically, Washington insists on the “Gold Standard” when it helps a foreign nation build civilian nuclear infrastructure (a Section 123 agreement), meaning that the host nation agrees not to enrich uranium or reprocess spent fuel domestically. However, giving Riyadh a pathway to enrich its own uranium severely blurs the line between “peaceful power grid” and “breakout weapons capacity.” This marks the end of the “123 Gold Standard” that America has upheld since signing with the UAE in 2009.

More importantly, though, is the major clash of sovereign and commercial interests. Saudi Arabia was heavily pushed by American nuclear energy titans like Westinghouse, who were eager to capture multi-billion-dollar contracts before China or Russia signed the deal in their place. But by supplying the tech, the U.S unknowingly creates a moral hazard. Washington becomes the ultimate security guarantor of a now-nuclear absolute monarchy, which entangles American military power even deeper into Gulf security right as it becomes crucial to pivot to the Indo-Pacific.

Conclusion

Many regional divisions will be stirred, and U.S involvement in arming a nation with nuclear capabilities is sure to be met with international pushback. Giving nuclear potential to yet another volatile regional power in conflict with others can only increase the odds of a nuclear war.

The U.S is already under fire across most of the world over the Iran war, and America has not done itself any favors in attempting to move forward with such a non-trivial deal in the middle of global economic turmoil. Washington can no longer act as though it is diplomatically immortal post-Pax Americana, and with the Chinese threat growing, it has never been more important for the United States to be a champion of peace.

Becoming such a champion after so much international provocation, however, will require significant military de-escalation and diplomatic resurgence. Actions that the U.S government does not seem capable of taking at this moment.

With the United States entering a new phase in the war against Iran, the realities of modern military conflict are beginning to slam on the doors of the Pentagon.

On Tuesday, July 21, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee to request an additional $67 billion to fund the war in Iran, and after being grilled and called a “failure” by Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), it became clear that the war has caused serious damage to the U.S’s defense budget.

In fact, the Pentagon’s funding for ongoing Navy and Air Force operations is projected to run out by the end of July, and critical operations budgets are expected to run out similarly by mid-August. The cost of the Iran war is rising, the Pentagon is running out of money, and a hidden problem is emerging: Should a conflict break out in the Indo-Pacific, will the U.S be able to afford it?

The accelerating financial strain on the Pentagon is detrimental to U.S operations in the Middle East, but the Indo-Pacific requires similar military focus to counter China. According to the WSJ, the U.S already diverted significant military assets from the Indo-Pacific to strengthen operations at the start of the war. Specifically, thousands of Marines, including approximately 2,500 Marines from the Okinawa-based 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit in Japan, the amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli, the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, and Patriot missile batteries and high-end interceptors.

This massive diversion of military assets to the Middle East from the Indo-Pacific significantly weakens the counter-China presence of the United States. Now, coupled with the financial strain on the Pentagon and depleting funds, the American capability to deter Chinese aggression is looking bleak.

With Chinese irredentism still unyielding, will the U.S be able to maintain its role as a protector of Asia? Or will it simply be too expensive?

The deep post-WWII ties between the U.S and Japan have proven to be one of the strongest American diplomatic relationships in the modern day, and a powerful counterweight to Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific. But a growing frustration with U.S involvement in Japanese politics is beginning to demonstrate that such ties may not have been unbreakable at all. Arguably, one of the groups leading this shift is Nippon Kaigi.

Nippon Kaigi, meaning “Japan Conference,” is a far-right ultranationalist lobbying group that is considered to be one of the most powerful. Of all the politicians to maintain membership in such a group, the most significant is Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi. Though Japan maintains democratic freedom of association, and Japanese nationalism is ingrained in the nation’s recent history, such an extreme association could prove problematic for relations with the U.S.

Despite the pro-American foundation of Japan’s current conservative establishment, the previous premiership of now-deceased Shinzo Abe (also a member of Nippon Kaigi) began a shift toward “strategic autonomy” that is being carried on by Takaichi, one of his closest protegès. Both politicians led the moderate right-wing Liberal Democratic Party, but Takaichi’s connection to the even more extreme Nippon Kaigi begs the question: Will Takaichi’s ultranationalism and dedication to Japanese autonomy lead to a decline in relations with the U.S?

After all, the pro-American establishment in Japan was built by Americans themselves after the former fell to the latter in WWII (and lived under American military occupation for nearly seven years). Japanese ultranationalism is mechanically incompatible with the current establishment, and though Nippon Kaigi is not explicitly anti-American (it would be organizational suicide to be so), the natural consequence of their ideology is structural reform to the constitution and a reversal of the pacifist nature of Japanese defense. It would strike a blow to Washington’s power base and would allow a window of opportunity for China to evade Japanese defenses should a conflict over Taiwan break out.

Takaichi’s own policies have already begun to reflect such a shift. Her administration has shifted defense spending to 2% of the GDP and is actively working to transform the Self-Defense Forces into a fully-fledged military. Recent reports also indicate that Japan is constructing a new domestic intelligence agency to centralize intelligence sharing and further protect local supply chains. All signs point to the exact autonomy that Nippon Kaigi wishes Japan to regain, and the Takaichi administration will only accelerate this change.

The Isolationist Perspective: This shift is nothing but positive. Japanese relations with America are virtually unbreakable in the face of Chinese aggression, which both nations wish to counter. Additionally, should Tokyo consolidate greater control over its defense and security, it would take a burden off of the United States and allow it to focus on domestic affairs. In sum, there is an argument to be heard that greater Japanese autonomy could prove to be beneficial for both the American economy and military-industrial complex.

The Interventionist Perspective: Japanese “strategic autonomy” serves not just to improve their own self-determination, but also isolates the U.S in the Indo-Pacific. With nations like India and South Korea (both important opposition to China) also pursuing similar strategic autonomy policies, a lack of direct U.S involvement in deterrence policies could prove to be problematic if a conflict ever broke out. Washington’s role in shutting down such a conflict and maintaining primacy in the Indo-Pacific would diminish in the face of numerous “autonomous actors,” and previous American military dominance would be slightly reduced to diplomatic garden-tending.

So, could Sanae Takaichi’s Nippon Kaigi membership signal a future decline in U.S-Japan relations? At the moment, it’s unlikely. A decline in American dominance is sure to occur, but the relationship between the two Western-aligned nations is very unlikely to falter as long as China maintains its own opposition to the Global North. The American-Japanese alliance seemingly will not fall anytime soon, and though Takaichi hopes to achieve Japanese military independence, Washington will retain numerous opportunities to reap economic benefits from their growing self-determination.

A meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui took place in Moscow on Sunday, July 19, 2026. The Russian President thanked Pyongyang for their support in his war against Ukraine in the latest push for diplomacy between the two nations, Russian state media reported.

The meeting appears to have been held despite no specific occasion and has raised speculation that Choe may be coordinating a possible visit to Russia by North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un. North Korean state media reported that she left for Russia on Saturday at the behest of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, but has not yet commented on the purpose of her visit.

In 2024, under a mutual defense pact, North Korean soldiers helped Russian forces repel a Ukrainian invasion into its western Kursk region, significantly bolstering relations between the two. Kim Jong Un, in recent years, has chosen to make Russia a high priority of North Korean foreign policy, sending thousands of soldiers and a hefty supply of weaponry to support Putin’s war in Ukraine (possibly in exchange for economic or technological aid).

Since the collapse of nuclear diplomacy between Kim and the U.S (during the first Trump administration in 2019), he has used Russia’s war on Ukraine as a diversion to accelerate the advancement of the North Korean nuclear weapons program, furthering their increasingly aggressive posturing toward the Western-aligned South Korea.

It should be noted that the Russian Foreign Minister invited his North Korean counterpart as Ukrainian strikes are crippling Russia’s oil refineries and the long-stagnant war appears to tip further in the latter’s favor, but it is unclear whether this meeting occurred because of recent losses or in the interest of long-term relations.