What you must logically and necessarily do if you believe in the Abrahamic God

If you believe in the Abrahamic God then you would logically and necessarily have to obey His laws after knowing He has taken the trouble to reveal them.

When the Catholic Church was the European hegemon, European laws and monarchs were controlled by the Catholic Church until it lost the Wars of the Reformation. But even under Protestantism, Europeans framed their laws according to what they believed the Bible permitted and commanded.

The purpose of God is also to see that the ruler does not exceed the laws set by God and be a check on his power. "Be you ever so mighty, the law is above you" is a universal idea. Emperors of Ancient China were presumed to be given the Mandate of Heaven until it was withdrawn.

But if you believe in the eternal, omnipotent and supreme Abrahamic God who created the Universe and even now controls it, you would have to believe that everything happens for a reason, even bad things. We are being pushed along with a narrative towards a conclusion and this means our suffering has meaning, but it will only have meaning if we make a point of learning from our mistakes.

If you are an atheist, you don't have to believe in God to accept that the Koran containing the rule of law is considered to be most in harmony with the Seven Noahide laws by the rabbis of God's Chosen People.  The Koran is believed by Muslims to be from God and is clearly more efficacious in promoting the rule of law than the New Testament written by mortal and fallible men such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There are no Christian theocracies now accept the Vatican, but Iran under sharia has allowed it to defy the might of America and its allies.

There is no requirement to believe in God to restore the patriarchy, but it helps.

Religion gives us status and identity without which we are but mere cattle

If the Universe was created by a Supreme Being, was that being good, evil or indifferent to either?

Would there be any point in choosing to believe in a supreme being that is indifferent to us or actually evil? No, because it would do us no good. Believing in an evil supreme being would neither improve our behaviour nor give us comfort.

Therefore we could choose to believe in a supreme being that is morally perfect, He would be omnipotent because He created the Universe and He must be omniscient to have created the Universe.

What if such a supreme being that is the Abrahamic God does not really exist?

It would still be useful to believe in Him because a Hypothetical Supreme Being would be the final authority for every question or decision, allowing us to order our thoughts and actions according to the Word of God found in scripture.

The advancement of civilisation is the consequence of allowing belief in God to guide our actions through the rule of law.

It may be that the Abrahamic God is no more than a Noble Lie, but it is belief in God and obedience to His laws that made Jews the world's most ancient and powerful tribe. The most ancient gentile empire is China whose emperors relied on the Mandate of Heaven - an idea that contained in it a conditional grant of earthly authority, but only if the emperor gave his people good government. Jews and Chinese are peoples who have maintained their identity over the ages. In our time of dentity crises of individuals, especially transgender individuals as well as nations and empires, a well-balanced and realistic national identity would give individuals and nations the self-esteem they crave. If framed attractively, imaginatively and inspirationally, it could even herald the moral regeneration of the degenerate, provided a suitable attitude of humility before God (if He exists) could also be instilled.

Does the Mandate of Heaven also apply to Europe?

The Mandate of Heaven depends on whether an emperor is sufficiently virtuous to rule; if he does not fulfill his obligations as emperor, then he loses the Mandate and thus the right to be emperor. The Mandate of Heaven would then transfer to those who would rule best. The fact that a ruler was overthrown was taken by itself as an indication that the ruler had lost the Mandate of Heaven. In addition, it was also common belief that natural disasters such as famine and flood were other signs of heaven’s displeasure with the current ruler, so there would often be revolts following major environmental events as citizens saw these as signs of heaven's displeasure.

The Mandate of Heaven does not require that a legitimate ruler be of noble birth, and dynasties were often founded by people of common birth (such as the Han dynasty and Ming dynasty). The Mandate of Heaven had no time limitations, depending instead on the just and able performance of the ruler and his heirs. Throughout the history of China, times of poverty and natural disasters were often taken as signs that heaven considered the incumbent ruler unjust and thus in need of replacement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

Louvre stops entries to protect artworks after days of torrential rain https://t.co/DWY1PdgS2T

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 2, 2016

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/282/viewall/ones-who-perished/

Sahih International: And never would your Lord have destroyed the cities until He had sent to their mother a messenger reciting to them Our verses. And We would not destroy the cities except while their people were wrongdoers.
Pickthall: And never did thy Lord destroy the townships, till He had raised up in their mother(-town) a messenger reciting unto them Our revelations. And never did We destroy the townships unless the folk thereof were evil-doers.
Yusuf Ali: Nor was thy Lord the one to destroy a population until He had sent to its centre a messenger, rehearsing to them Our Signs; nor are We going to destroy a population except when its members practise iniquity.
Shakir: And your Lord never destroyed the towns until He raised in their metropolis a messenger, reciting to them Our communications, and We never destroyed the towns except when their people were unjust.
Muhammad Sarwar: Your Lord did not destroy the people of the towns without first sending a Messenger to the mother town who would recite His revelations to them. We did not want to destroy the towns if the people therein were not unjust.
Mohsin Khan: And never will your Lord destroy the towns (populations) until He sends to their mother town a Messenger reciting to them Our Verses. And never would We destroy the towns unless the people thereof are Zalimun (polytheists, wrong-doers, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, oppressors and tyrants).
Arberry: Yet thy Lord never destroyed the cities until He sent in their mother-city a Messenger, to recite Our signs unto them; and We never destroyed the cities, save that their inhabitants were evildoers.

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=28&verse=59

Are Conservatives just people who don't know they are Fascist?

The Left are always accusing Conservatives of being "Fascist".  Should we Conservatives just embrace the term the way gay people have embraced the term "queer"?  

If you asked people what is the essential difference is between being a Conservative and a Fascist, many would say that one the first is a moderate and believes in democracy, while the latter is an extremist and would abolish democracy.  

What exactly is so good about democracy?

Surely democracy is not an end in itself, only good government is.  

If democracy, which is said to lead to good government, does not in fact lead to good government, then why not abandon it and replace it with something better?

What is the difference between a small c Conservative and a Big C Conservative?

If you are a small c conservative, this idea would horrify you.  

If you are a Big C Conservative, then this idea would thrill you.  

Only a one-party state would preserve and promote social conservatism.  

In a multiparty state all that is needed to subvert Conservatism is to offer an alternative to it, in a political environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage where the voter only votes in response to which party offers him the most attractive bribe. 

Voters don't tend to vote for the long term national interest, but then they do not have the option of voting for this, do they? 

How can they vote when our political parties never give it a moment's though, much less formulate policies that might serve it?   

Some might think that a one-party state would mean the abolition of elections but not so: China holds elections all the time, though in practice competing candidates would belong to the same party.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

The most important thing to remember about being a one-party state is that as long as the rights of party members eg to criticise party policy or leaders, are protected from abuse by the leader and his cronies, things should be OK.  

The constitution of the Conservative Party allows the party to expel any member without warning or explanation, at its absolute discretion, which cannot be conducive to the free expression of legitimate views, can it?  

A one-party state may not be sufficient to maintain the morals of the people, as China is currently discovering amongst its mainly atheist populace. 

It was George Washington who said "We must with caution indulge the supposition that  morality can be maintained without religion."  His warning was not without foundation, in my opinion.  

While it is in theory possible for a state ideology such as Nazism, Fascism and Communism to maintain the morals of the people, the fall of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Communism etc, means that the baby of morality will be thrown out with the bathwater of the fallen regime or the dead dictator who has no worthy successor.

It is therefore prudent to have a state ideology that is bigger than the state itself, and which invokes the protection of a just and omnipotent deity.   The Chinese idea of a mandate of heaven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven serves just this purpose.  Just rulers will be protected by God, and bad rulers deposed after they have their mandate withdrawn.  

My idea of fusing Conservatism with Nationalism should be useful too, for I propose that the national interest is the thing that Conservatives ought to conserve, and the national interest would include such things as solvency, social cohesion as well as standards of morality and education amongst other things.  

It would appear that I am advocating a one-party theocracy backed by the military, which does make what I am proposing very frightening indeed to the little people.  

But all that is necessary for this idea to take hold is for the political establishment as a whole to realise that it would improve their working conditions, make them more popular and make their jobs a whole lot easier. 

I have already anticipated their objections anyway, so a few interesting questions would be nice.