More and more I am coming to terms with my own cognitive limitations. I am used to being the smartest person in the room, but since the general IQ of reactionaries is higher that is no longer the case. I have certain biases that I refuse to shake because of past epistemic lock-in and path dependence. In other words, my 18 year old socialist, former Scientologist, and (later) libertarian past inhibits my willingness to consider alternatives. No iron logical proof will ever make me a monarchist. I'm too biased.
The more I study the more I think the solution to everything that ails Western civilization is a religion. Progressivism infiltrates because it has a religious characteristic. Capitalism co-opts everything through getting people to adopt its immoral value system of use-value as a moral and religious code. Islam is a threat because of its religious nature. Everything threatening and dangerous is religious. From one perspective this is a reason to try to abolish religion. But then you realize that religion is an integral part of the human brain, that it is going nowhere, and that human nature will always produce an incentive to exploit the religious part of people's minds. Something has to occupy the religious position. Abdicating that responsibility will simply invite someone else to take up the position and use it against you.
Spandrell has said that we need a new religion. If you can do it then by all means go ahead. But in the mean time what we need is something far older than a religion; we need a living tradition of story telling, mythology, and philosophy. We need something constructed as a group so there is less chance of making a mistake. A decentralized body is also less prone to attack or cooptation by entryists. And we need modern versions of men like Thomas Aquinas to give us a theological reinterpretation of existing faith to accommodate the role of nature's laws and processes of natural selection. Modern Christianity is basically Thomas Aquinas's invention. He came in a provided the standardized interpretation of the Gospel that became what we know today as Christianity.
If you are not willing to build a new religion, if that would make you feel like a fraud, may I recommend theological reinterpretation? Perhaps you could take an existing religion like Christianity and strip it of its progressive heresy? Then start a reactionary Bible study groups focused on developing an interpretation of the Gospel congruent with Gnon and the harsh nature of reality. Focus on the role of self-improvement, tradition, morals, and good breeding. It is difficult for people to change their habits once grown up, unless they have a habit of self-improvement. Teaching a child to improve themselves and educate themselves are the two most crucial life skills. Some of the worlds strongest alpha male leaders are autodidacts. In fact, are there any who aren't? A religion of self-improvement could conquer the world. Scientology is a religion of self-improvement, and though it is a poor example with many flaws, it has a massive influence for a group with only about 30,000 estimated members. Your local credit union probably has more members than Scientology. A religion, or just a Church, that requires its member to set a goal — any goal — and work towards it, will automatically tend to have more productive and more powerful people. An internalized cultural virtue of self-improvement, taught from a young age, was what I was given. This was reinforced both by Scientology and by my families addiction to Star Trek.
Most people would interpret the clip below as a rant against capitalism, but what I internalized was the notion of improving yourself, since that was what my religion was all about. The key part happens around 2:48. The man says, "then what's the challenge?" Picard: the challenge is to improve yourself."