Learn to code...

B. Natural law: There are certain patterns that repeat in history. Societies that abandon values like patriarchy, asabiya, nationalism, religiosity, worship of ancestors, martial values, eugenics, [and] modesty decline and collapse. Those that abide by them flourish. You gauge from this that it is God's will that these values be adhered to. This is how the universe is designed and you must abide by these principles. It is the right order of things.

I've had this on my mind on and off these past few days, since I've been thinking again about just why societies apex and then degenerate in a somewhat circular fashion.

'Patriarchy': I think this one is practically a necessity. As soon as a society has something resembling equality between the sexes, birth rates seem to plummet. Whatever the higher powers are, they clearly favour 'patriarchy'.

Asabiyyah: This one has been the one most on my mind lately. Asabiyyah in the Khaldunian sense (probably best translated as ethnic/racial/tribal solidarity) is obviously practically non-existent in an ever-growing part of the world. Furthermore, Khaldun makes it clear that people with more asabiyyah tend to conquer those with less. Thus we see that powers with more asabiyyah like China and Russia are viewed as threats to places with weaker asabiyyah like Taiwan and the Ukraine.

Nationalism: I'd probably subsume this into asabiyyah, which is surely a prerequisite for both tribalism and nationalism. Also, ethnonationalism is probably subsumable to a tribalism writ large.

Religiosity: The first thing that comes to my mind is the way that religiosity can actually serve Left-liberalism through the proliferation of a 'progressive Christianity', one that is clearly the product of the dominant Left-liberal ideology's warping of Christianity. For example, that propagated by this inbred- and retarded-looking queer nutcase from the 'Chosen Family Church' https://www.tiktok.com/@revjefftheartist

For who God is non-binary, queer and autistic. However, his arguments for the first two effectively claim that any non-living object is non-binary and queer, and are some of the most stupid I've yet heard: https://youtu.be/eXjNvvkstuA

Non-Binary:

God does not have gender, so, by definition, God is non-binary.

The vast majority of objects in the world do 'not have gender'. By this same reasoning, footballs are also non-binary.

Queer:

God is not explicitly sexual; and since asexuality is part of the LGBTQ spectrum, we can say that God is queer.

Here he effectively makes the same stupid argument as above. The vast majority of objects in the world are 'not explicitly sexual'. By this same reasoning, footballs are also asexual and thus queer.

There is obviously some kind of logical fallacy in his argument, but I don't know the precise name of it. The lack of some human property (gender or sexuality) simply can't be ascribed to non-humans to infer the presence of their opposites, or else practically everything is agendered, asexual, non-binary, queer and transgendered (because non-binary is apparently regarded as a subset of transgender, and since something can't be both agendered and transgendered, we run into yet another obvious problem with these arguments).

This kind of religiosity, I imagine, is unlikely to even remotely delay any kind of civilizational decline. So we are really looking at something like conservative religiosity rather than mere religiosity per se.

Ancestor worship is a pretty obvious one, since it perfectly complements ethnonationalism: one's ancestors are obviously by and large people of one's race.

It's pretty reasonable but still ideological. The fact that you summed up two viewpoints in a few lines doesn't mean that they are completely self-evident and uncontroversial. In the first example you say "That which is good for the group and the individual" is good but only "That which is maladaptive for the group" is bad, so you are proposing some form of collectivism or socialism here. But a lot of people believe in individualism.

Besides that, most governments try to stick to a pragmatic approach while staying true to the commonly shared values. You can get those values by religion, tradition, philosophy, mithology and many more, but those are still ideological in nature.

Now I'm going to guess, but since you are not the first I saw lately pushing this pragmatist agenda, and since this is usually linked to a very pro Russia stance, I think that this derives from the fact that United Russia as a party has pragmatism in his platform. But United Russia is based on the assumption of Russian imperialism (greater Russia), orthodox Christianity and patriotism as commonly shared values that are not worth to be discussed. If you try to apply this pragmatic approach in the West, the commonly shared values will be those of liberalism.