It’s been said, “The Left will always win because they have something the Right doesn’t: unity.”

It’s true. The so-called “Left” is more than happy to align itself with Islamists, Hindus, refugees, immigrants, environmentalists, atheists, radical feminists, LGBTQAI++ activists, abortionists, trade unions, anti-capitalists, globalists, and countless other groups that often share little in common beyond one crucial point—a point that makes all the difference.

One clear reason the Left can appear more unified than the Right is that it is often bound together not by a coherent shared vision for some ideal good, but rather by a shared hatred. That is, by a common sense of what or who constitutes the central social problem to be confronted, dismantled, and defeated.

The Right, on the other hand, is generally more united around ideals, principles, and standards. While a wide range of varying groups can all agree on what they oppose, finding agreement on what should replace it is much more difficult. And that is how those on the Right often define themselves, not merely by what they are against, but what they seek to establish or restore.

On the other hand, when dismantlement and destruction become the chief purpose, there’s no shortage of potential allies. That is why the Left has so little problem siding with those who would fundamentally oppose them in any other context.

Of course, they don’t have the same ultimate vision of the world, but they share a common foe and a common hurdle that is preventing them from ever reaching their desired outcome. Whatever their “eutopian vision” of the world may be, Western civilisation—or more precisely, Christianity stands in their way.

There are countless ways to dismantle or undermine a Christian society, and that creates broad opportunities for cooperation between groups that otherwise would have very little in common. Differences are put aside, provided they are all working in some way to the same destructive end.

We often mock the unity of our opponents with memes like “Chickens for KFC,” but if both the chickens and the restaurant become convinced they share a common enemy, then the old saying proves true: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

On the Right, the dispute usually centres on the remedy. Even when there's agreement that cultural decline exists, there's often significant disagreement about the primary cause and the necessary cure.

As a result, the Right tends to be far more fragmented than the Left. While their standards may differ on the Right, and even if, only to a small degree, each faction generally believes its own standards are higher—and that the abandonment of those standards is the chief cause of the cultural and social decline they seek to reverse.

This is the reality in which we operate—and, whether it’s a good thing or not, it leaves the Right at a significant disadvantage. “Divided we fall,” as it’s said. The more pressing question, then, is not whether differences exist or even whether they matter, but whether they can be properly ordered, and at times, overlooked for the greater good?

If there is genuine agreement on the nature of the cultural crisis, then the first task is not to resolve every internal disagreement we might have, but to recognise what is at stake in failing to act in unity at all. Movements rarely succeed by achieving perfect ideological harmony in advance. They succeed by identifying a shared measure of concern that compels cooperation despite remaining differences.

On that basis, the issue is not whether all factions of the Right can or should become identical in outlook, but whether they are capable of subordinating secondary disputes to a more immediate and common task.

We don’t need to put aside internal debate; it simply cannot be allowed to become so paralysing that we are virtually ineffective. It would just be ensuring our own death by a thousand factions.

Perhaps the better way to think about it is what comes first. What issues must be dealt with together now, and what disagreements can wait until later without putting at risk the civilisation, culture, and institutions that all factions say they want to preserve?