The logic of the right-wing conservatives is perfectly formulated by the ancient Chinese (who had already been influenced by the patriarchal-traditionalist ideology of Confucius for several hundred years): "A barbarian who lives like a Khan is a Khan. A Khan who lives like a barbarian is a barbarian". I.e., it doesn't matter who you are by origin, it's important to know the culture of the society you belong to.
Thus, right-wing conservatism separates its society from the rest and sets forth the conditions that determine belonging to this society. But it does not deny the right of other societies to exist in the form dictated by their culture and traditions.
Left-wing movements differ from right-wing ones by the fact that want to make the whole world happy. The left always seems to know the universal recipe for happiness for all nations. Hence the ruthlessness of all left-wing revolutions ― from liberal bourgeois to social democratic and communistic (proletarian). By the way, Hitler's national socialism positioned itself as a left-wing revolutionary movement too (it only limited mankind to Aryans). If you know that you have a universal recipe for happiness in your hands, then you can easily come to the conclusion that absolutely everyone who does not agree with you is the enemy of not one nation, but of all humanity, and the sooner they are destroyed, the better it will be for everyone.
The left is atheist (even if it is the bourgeois liberals of the French revolution or the modern left-liberal globalists) for the same reason. To recognise the existence of God is to destroy the foundations of any left-wing ideology. After all, as was said above, any leftist considers themselves to be the owner of a universal recipe for the salvation of all mankind. But only the Lord is omniscient and all-powerful. Thus, by claiming universalism, the left rejects God. Therefore, left-wing atheism is natural, and "Orthodox Communists" are neither Orthodox nor Communists.
If you know the universal recipe for happiness, then you yourself lay claim to the position of the Lord in the universe, and you do not need a second Lord. So the left denies God, seeing him as a competitor in the fight for the minds and hearts of people. When it was still impossible to deny God (in the XIV-XVI centuries), back then quasi (some degree) movements rejected an official religion, inventing their own surrogates, which made it possible to push God on the second place on expense of recognising for a preacher and, ideally, for every person, the right to interpret the word of God and follow in their life not the predefined rules, but their own interpretations. By denying the rules and extolling their own right to interpretation, the then predecessors of the left (who did not yet know that they were leftists) did the same job as the modern left ― liberal globalists, destroying the moral, cultural, and ideological foundations of society.
But after all, the same was also done by the French revolutionaries (from Girondists to the left Thermidorians), and also the Bolsheviks. The destruction of monuments and the eradication of religion are the generic features of any left-wing movement.
And indeed, having a recipe for building a universal (hitherto unprecedented) welfare society, it is necessary to clear the ground for this new society. The old social structures interfere, even if they do not resist, even if they welcome the new. Therefore, they must be destroyed. But as soon as society realises that the revolutionaries have come to destroy, not improve, what is available for the sake of some hypothetical "better world", it starts to resist and civil war breaks out.
Even if the left wins the civil war (which in the last 300 years has happened quite often), all of them equally suffer a defeat on the ideological front, because victory in the civil war is given to them only if they accept the need to integrate their ideas into the existing social structure. And then for several years or several decades society mills the ideas and returns to the normal state (although at the price of big human and material losses). If the left completely refuses compromises, then they suffer a defeat in the civil war, because sooner or later they are alone against everyone. Every person and every social group may not like something in society, and they would like to change it. But not at the price of the destruction of all of society, a habitual way of life, change of traditions, renouncing the faith of the ancestors, etc.
It is precisely for this reason the majority of left-wing parties sooner or later integrate into the current socio-political structure, retaining only the name and certain (non-essential) program provisions from their leftism. However, there is always a demand for left-wing radicalism, and "traitors" are replaced by new generations of revolutionaries who create new parties.
In the modern world we became witnesses of the reverse phenomenon. The fashionable left-liberal globalist ideology was accepted by such traditionalist forces as the German CDU/CSU, French de Gaullists, British Conservatives, and the US Democratic Party (as well as a considerable part of the Republican Party). In their place, new right-wing non-systemic politicians start to come forward (Alternative for Germany; a group of Republicans who place a stake on the non-systemic traditionalist Trump; and so on). I.e., instead of the traditional adjustment of the left and the nomination of new radicals in their place, we see the right veering leftwards and the nomination of new left-veering conservatives in their place. This sudden change in standard is due to the nature of globalism, which was born as a universalist ideology of the right-wing conservative American system.
For the first time, conservatism was able to spread globally due to the US taking the position of the world hegemon. But it was immediately reborn into left-liberal globalism with all the defects inherent in left-wing movements: the denial of traditional values, religion, the sovereignty of national states, the desire to force all humanity into a left-liberal "happiness".
But the right that became the left did not escape the problems of the traditional left. The forceful implantation of left-liberal ideology started to cause increasing resistance both on the world's periphery and in the centre of the global empire ― in the countries of the united West. This resistance became stronger as the pressure of the globalists became stronger. In the end, the further promotion of left-liberal values became possible only with the help of revolutionary violence. Hence the "colour" coups and civil wars waged on foreign territories by American globalists.
In general, Milosevic, Kuchma, Yanukovych, Shevardnadze, and other victims of "colour" putsches were much more in the interests of the United States as a state than any of their successors. But they did not correspond to the interests and views of the left-liberal elite. It was favourable to the US state to have strong stable allies capable of defending their national interests. But the left-liberal ideology demanded the destruction of nationalist states and the creation in their place of helpless protectorates controlled by the equally helpless "Sorosites". Since the arrival of globalists to power in these (and other post-socialist and post-Soviet) states was not possible by peaceful means (people did not vote for them), it was necessary to resort to revolutionary violence.
However, the very fact of the transition to violence testified to the critical weakness of the system, which is unable to ensure the attractiveness of its "bright future" for all mankind. It is not surprising that, having got involved in the promotion of left-liberal ideas around the world, the globalists wasted resources and started to lose their support in their own base - in the West (in the United States and Western Europe). It turned out that they start losing fair elections everywhere. And the growth of the popularity of conservative forces was so explosive that it became clear that one or two electoral cycles remained before the absolute world-historical defeat of left-liberal globalists.
They were especially afraid of the re-election of Donald Trump for a second term. A second presidency for him would destroy the globalists' narrative about the accidental clouding of the minds of American voters and show a clear tendency among them to support conservative politicians. During the second Trump term, the globalists would lose control of American political structures. This would give a strong incentive to European conservatives, and the political landscape of western Europe would also critically change.
Left-liberal globalists differ in nothing from the traditional left. They very much believe in the super-value of their ideas that they are ready to kill for the sake of their celebration with millions and to destroy not only foreign states, but also their own. In order to prevent a second Trump term, they unleashed a colour uprising in the United States. This uprising successfully skipped the stage of the traditional "Maidan", immediately entering the phase of a nationwide putsch with a serious physical component and with a rapid flow into a state of civil war.
Since the danger threatened globalists not only in the United States, but also in Europe, the putsch quickly spread across the ocean, covering Great Britain, France [not to be confused with the anti-globalist Yellow Vest movement - ed], Germany, and Belgium. Globalists are trying to maintain control of the united West (as a springboard to world domination), even at the cost of a devastating civil war in the west itself. Like all leftists, they believe that their seizure of power justifies any sacrifice.
Comment: See also: