It's a good critique of conservatism, But what's the alternative? Trump populism (or Milei libertarianism) might address the economic layer, but it doesn't really address the cultural layer- other than in rolling back DEI. This won't work. Most educators will simply refuse to teach young people just how many times Socialism has been tried, or that it's failed abysmally every single time.
It's a broader problem with Revolutions- revolutions only work when they are movements peopled by those fighting for rights, access to opportunity and cultural inheritances already possessed by other people!
I also think any of the more drastic solutions will work. Community and human connectedness is a good start, because it addresses the central problem of power accumulation at the top of any political system, with its innate tendency to dehumanise, but there is no romance to such observations. Heroic struggle is a bad formula as well- it has a history of coalescing into Counter Enlightenment movements. The best I can up with is a form of creative realism- a movement which places truth and beauty above hurty feelings. Sure, this is a form of heroic struggle, but at least it's a productive one.
The problem is you need a movement which incorporates a sense of moral mission, without alienating people. The Left does this by resorting to what Shelby Steele calls Poetic Truths- beliefs which sound right, but prove wrong when examined. Will the Right resort to the same tactics? To win by lying seems like the same means versus ends justifications the Left is fond of deploying...
Thank you for the thoughtful response. It’s not simply about finding an alternative political movement in the mold of Trumpian populism, Milei-like libertarianism, etc. These approaches may address surface-level concerns but fail to engage with the deeper cultural and spiritual decline that undermines us. The real struggle is metapolitical—reshaping the ideas and values that define the destiny of a people. As Guillaume Faye stated, it is not about preserving the past but about sustaining the essence of a victorious life, the enduring spirit that propels a people to assert its rightful future rather than cling to hollow, outdated forms.
Conservatism fails because it lacks this metapolitical vision. It is reactive by nature, constantly responding to the left's assaults without shaping the underlying cultural foundations. As you pointed out, leftist revolutions triumph by offering myths that give their followers a sense of purpose, even if those myths collapse under scrutiny. Our response is not to mimic these deceptions but to cultivate a counter-mythos that is both true and elevating—a vision rooted in strength, beauty, and loyalty to our people. This isn’t about nostalgia or endless reaction but about a forward march, guided by a shared destiny.
Community and cultural inheritance are vital, but they must be anchored to a larger mission capable of inspiring greatness, not just survival. Without this, any movement devolves into sterile administration or blind struggle without aim. True transformation arises when the soul of a people is reawakened to higher meaning and the natural order.
Politics follows culture, and culture follows the eternal truths that shape the life of a nation. The real question is whether there are leaders capable of articulating this vision today. That is both the challenge and the opportunity before us. A movement without a foundation in truth and identity will falter and become a mirror of its enemies. The goal must be to restore a higher order—one driven by loyalty, rooted in the spirit of our ancestors, and aimed at the full flourishing of our civilization. Only through such a vision can we reclaim our future and endure.
Well, the question then becomes what are the Left most intent upon grafting a false narrative upon? The answer is our history.
The West needs to challenge this false history. Yes, there are sources of shame in our history, but there are also things for which the West should be immeasurably proud, not the least of which have been the ending of legal slavery, extending lives through scientific revolution, and raising near to 90% of the world's population up out of persistently semi-malnourished poverty. There are few online sources these days which even mention the fact that one of the conditions of the treaty which saw the British victorious in the Third Ashanti War was an end to human sacrifice.
The West was an exception in that it was the first and only civilisation to end the era of perpetual and unremitting brutality which was a human universal (with the possible exception of Tibet).
The theme of the counter narrative should be exploration and the pioneering spirit, whether it's scientific and human truth, new frontiers or artistic beauty. Everything the Left creates is ugly.
What’s wrong with being Counter-Enlightenment? The Enlightenment while having some good things also gave us some bad as well, like the fixation on egalitarianism and equality. Personally I think the best of the past and the best of the enlightenment is what we need to drive us forward.
A good comment, but it's important to remember that for most of the Enlightenment, the progress was mainly positive. The best way to elucidate this point is to look to Stanley Baldwin. One of his better quotes is on the subject of the theories Victorian Jurist Sir Henry Maine. Maine argued that under the aegis of the Enlightenment, human societies had evolved "from status to contract," meaning a shift from rigid social hierarchies to relationships based on voluntary agreements.
"The progress of our civilisation had been of recent centuries a progress on the part of mankind from status to contract. Socialism would bring him back from contract to status."
Socialism and it's ideological successor are both a reversion to the Counter Enlightenment. If you want to dig down to the foundational layer, a lot of the Left's current ideology has echoes of Lysenko- with the Left claiming that material circumstances at birth account for a huge portion of inequality of ability and results. Sure, it's a cause- but a small one. Fathers, especially at a community level, have a far more profound effect. Vitamin D deficiency probably has a larger impact than wealth, other than for tiny percentage born to genuine privilege and in possession of incredibly powerful influence networks driven by their parents social contacts.
My point would be that the Left cannot accept inequality of ability in many areas, or won't accept that the solutions lie in areas which make them uncomfortable. In short fairness and equality of outcome are mutually incompatible. One of the most hilarious examples of how they won't accept solutions which work is the Michaela Community School in London. Like all of the schools which have helped reduce inequalities of academic outcomes in London, it relies heavily on school discipline. Birbalsingh has even been captioned as Britain's Strictest Headmistress.
Here is a podcast with Peter Boghossian interviewing Birbalsingh. Quite apart from the fact that he's flabberghasted by the school itself, his brain cannot compute that instead of wanting to duplicate the model and raise outcomes across the board, the Left only wants to criticise and go after Birbalsingh.
I agree with your second line. The trick is understanding that the Left actually wants to make people equal in ability. It's why they always want to close schools for the exceptional who don't have wealthy parents. They don't like the fact that different cultures produce different outcomes in different areas, or that the solutions to these problems would require them to impose interventions and moral judgements which inherently repel them.
Thanks for the response. You make some good points. On Art, I really love medieval artwork and architecture, especially the Gothic Cathedrals and churches in general. In terms of modern art, I got into Jack London and Naturalist writing thanks to Chad Crowley's article on him.
'On Art, I really love medieval artwork and architecture, especially the Gothic Cathedrals and churches in general.'- then your probably familiar with divine proportions, or the golden ratio? I told a local artist about it. She had been printed in Vogue, but they didn't pay her for her work. She recently told me she has started using the golden ratio in her work. I hope it helps.
You should try the BBC's A History of Art in Three Colours, if it's available in your region (or through YouTube). It's from a period when the BBC had started to expand its content, because of digital coming online, but before they went woke. Sky Arts has also made some good content. Some of the episodes of Tate Britain's Great Art Walks are worth watching. The Helena Bonham Carter episode detailing the life and works of Dora Carrington is particular good.
Thank you! Sankara was an interesting man, but ultimately, he failed to create lasting, tangible change, revealing the limits of leftist frameworks, particularly within an African context. Why do you ask?
Just curious because I like some of his ideas like the “Upright Man.” And I saw a great documentary on him a while ago by the channel Cultured Thug. Have you seen his videos?
Great post. The utter failure of the entire political spectrum is by design. Our eternal enemies have infiltrated, corrupted, and weaponized everything against us. The impending backlash will lead to a total collapse of the system, again, by design. The enemy believes that we will beg them to stop the chaos and already has everything in place to meet that supposed need. However, I don’t think it is going to happen how they plan it. I use how Wade became Deadpool as a metaphor for how it will really happen. What we are living through is no ordinary history rhyming scenario. This is the culmination of ALL of history. This is the end game. In order to activate Wade’s latent mutant genes, he had to be brought to the brink of death. Right now, we are Wade, dying from cancer. Our only hope is for a catastrophically dangerous process that, if successful, will result in our transmogrification into angels of wrath. The radical plan that we are yearning for is this: Conquer the planet or die trying. Our enemies have the same plan but the difference is that they are chthonic cowards and we are brave soldiers of light. Only we can wield the flaming sword of Truth.
It's a good critique of conservatism, But what's the alternative? Trump populism (or Milei libertarianism) might address the economic layer, but it doesn't really address the cultural layer- other than in rolling back DEI. This won't work. Most educators will simply refuse to teach young people just how many times Socialism has been tried, or that it's failed abysmally every single time.
It's a broader problem with Revolutions- revolutions only work when they are movements peopled by those fighting for rights, access to opportunity and cultural inheritances already possessed by other people!
I also think any of the more drastic solutions will work. Community and human connectedness is a good start, because it addresses the central problem of power accumulation at the top of any political system, with its innate tendency to dehumanise, but there is no romance to such observations. Heroic struggle is a bad formula as well- it has a history of coalescing into Counter Enlightenment movements. The best I can up with is a form of creative realism- a movement which places truth and beauty above hurty feelings. Sure, this is a form of heroic struggle, but at least it's a productive one.
The problem is you need a movement which incorporates a sense of moral mission, without alienating people. The Left does this by resorting to what Shelby Steele calls Poetic Truths- beliefs which sound right, but prove wrong when examined. Will the Right resort to the same tactics? To win by lying seems like the same means versus ends justifications the Left is fond of deploying...
Thoughts?
Thank you for the thoughtful response. It’s not simply about finding an alternative political movement in the mold of Trumpian populism, Milei-like libertarianism, etc. These approaches may address surface-level concerns but fail to engage with the deeper cultural and spiritual decline that undermines us. The real struggle is metapolitical—reshaping the ideas and values that define the destiny of a people. As Guillaume Faye stated, it is not about preserving the past but about sustaining the essence of a victorious life, the enduring spirit that propels a people to assert its rightful future rather than cling to hollow, outdated forms.
Conservatism fails because it lacks this metapolitical vision. It is reactive by nature, constantly responding to the left's assaults without shaping the underlying cultural foundations. As you pointed out, leftist revolutions triumph by offering myths that give their followers a sense of purpose, even if those myths collapse under scrutiny. Our response is not to mimic these deceptions but to cultivate a counter-mythos that is both true and elevating—a vision rooted in strength, beauty, and loyalty to our people. This isn’t about nostalgia or endless reaction but about a forward march, guided by a shared destiny.
Community and cultural inheritance are vital, but they must be anchored to a larger mission capable of inspiring greatness, not just survival. Without this, any movement devolves into sterile administration or blind struggle without aim. True transformation arises when the soul of a people is reawakened to higher meaning and the natural order.
Politics follows culture, and culture follows the eternal truths that shape the life of a nation. The real question is whether there are leaders capable of articulating this vision today. That is both the challenge and the opportunity before us. A movement without a foundation in truth and identity will falter and become a mirror of its enemies. The goal must be to restore a higher order—one driven by loyalty, rooted in the spirit of our ancestors, and aimed at the full flourishing of our civilization. Only through such a vision can we reclaim our future and endure.
Well, the question then becomes what are the Left most intent upon grafting a false narrative upon? The answer is our history.
The West needs to challenge this false history. Yes, there are sources of shame in our history, but there are also things for which the West should be immeasurably proud, not the least of which have been the ending of legal slavery, extending lives through scientific revolution, and raising near to 90% of the world's population up out of persistently semi-malnourished poverty. There are few online sources these days which even mention the fact that one of the conditions of the treaty which saw the British victorious in the Third Ashanti War was an end to human sacrifice.
The West was an exception in that it was the first and only civilisation to end the era of perpetual and unremitting brutality which was a human universal (with the possible exception of Tibet).
The theme of the counter narrative should be exploration and the pioneering spirit, whether it's scientific and human truth, new frontiers or artistic beauty. Everything the Left creates is ugly.
What’s wrong with being Counter-Enlightenment? The Enlightenment while having some good things also gave us some bad as well, like the fixation on egalitarianism and equality. Personally I think the best of the past and the best of the enlightenment is what we need to drive us forward.
A good comment, but it's important to remember that for most of the Enlightenment, the progress was mainly positive. The best way to elucidate this point is to look to Stanley Baldwin. One of his better quotes is on the subject of the theories Victorian Jurist Sir Henry Maine. Maine argued that under the aegis of the Enlightenment, human societies had evolved "from status to contract," meaning a shift from rigid social hierarchies to relationships based on voluntary agreements.
"The progress of our civilisation had been of recent centuries a progress on the part of mankind from status to contract. Socialism would bring him back from contract to status."
Socialism and it's ideological successor are both a reversion to the Counter Enlightenment. If you want to dig down to the foundational layer, a lot of the Left's current ideology has echoes of Lysenko- with the Left claiming that material circumstances at birth account for a huge portion of inequality of ability and results. Sure, it's a cause- but a small one. Fathers, especially at a community level, have a far more profound effect. Vitamin D deficiency probably has a larger impact than wealth, other than for tiny percentage born to genuine privilege and in possession of incredibly powerful influence networks driven by their parents social contacts.
My point would be that the Left cannot accept inequality of ability in many areas, or won't accept that the solutions lie in areas which make them uncomfortable. In short fairness and equality of outcome are mutually incompatible. One of the most hilarious examples of how they won't accept solutions which work is the Michaela Community School in London. Like all of the schools which have helped reduce inequalities of academic outcomes in London, it relies heavily on school discipline. Birbalsingh has even been captioned as Britain's Strictest Headmistress.
Here is a podcast with Peter Boghossian interviewing Birbalsingh. Quite apart from the fact that he's flabberghasted by the school itself, his brain cannot compute that instead of wanting to duplicate the model and raise outcomes across the board, the Left only wants to criticise and go after Birbalsingh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3taXF-cjLBc
I agree with your second line. The trick is understanding that the Left actually wants to make people equal in ability. It's why they always want to close schools for the exceptional who don't have wealthy parents. They don't like the fact that different cultures produce different outcomes in different areas, or that the solutions to these problems would require them to impose interventions and moral judgements which inherently repel them.
On a lighter note, some aspects of the Counter Enlightenment are more palatable. I love the art, and am I big fan of the Pre-Raphaelite movement.
Thanks for the response. You make some good points. On Art, I really love medieval artwork and architecture, especially the Gothic Cathedrals and churches in general. In terms of modern art, I got into Jack London and Naturalist writing thanks to Chad Crowley's article on him.
'On Art, I really love medieval artwork and architecture, especially the Gothic Cathedrals and churches in general.'- then your probably familiar with divine proportions, or the golden ratio? I told a local artist about it. She had been printed in Vogue, but they didn't pay her for her work. She recently told me she has started using the golden ratio in her work. I hope it helps.
You should try the BBC's A History of Art in Three Colours, if it's available in your region (or through YouTube). It's from a period when the BBC had started to expand its content, because of digital coming online, but before they went woke. Sky Arts has also made some good content. Some of the episodes of Tate Britain's Great Art Walks are worth watching. The Helena Bonham Carter episode detailing the life and works of Dora Carrington is particular good.
I’ll check out the documentary, thanks.
No problem. Cultured Thug’s channel is on Rumble by the way.
Good article. Conservative is only functional when they are conserving a morally upright society. Hey, what do you think of Thomas Sankara?
Thank you! Sankara was an interesting man, but ultimately, he failed to create lasting, tangible change, revealing the limits of leftist frameworks, particularly within an African context. Why do you ask?
Just curious because I like some of his ideas like the “Upright Man.” And I saw a great documentary on him a while ago by the channel Cultured Thug. Have you seen his videos?
Great post. The utter failure of the entire political spectrum is by design. Our eternal enemies have infiltrated, corrupted, and weaponized everything against us. The impending backlash will lead to a total collapse of the system, again, by design. The enemy believes that we will beg them to stop the chaos and already has everything in place to meet that supposed need. However, I don’t think it is going to happen how they plan it. I use how Wade became Deadpool as a metaphor for how it will really happen. What we are living through is no ordinary history rhyming scenario. This is the culmination of ALL of history. This is the end game. In order to activate Wade’s latent mutant genes, he had to be brought to the brink of death. Right now, we are Wade, dying from cancer. Our only hope is for a catastrophically dangerous process that, if successful, will result in our transmogrification into angels of wrath. The radical plan that we are yearning for is this: Conquer the planet or die trying. Our enemies have the same plan but the difference is that they are chthonic cowards and we are brave soldiers of light. Only we can wield the flaming sword of Truth.
BE THE LIGHT! 🔥