The conservative movement is incapable of fighting, much less winning, an unprecedented revolution against Western civilization.




Of all the calamities currently turning this country on its head, the most demoralizing is the catastrophic failure of 100 years of conservatism. Conservatives are good at piecing together the collapse of the southern border, the weaponization of the Department of Justice, and the en masse sexual grooming and mutilation of children, as well as pointing the finger at the Marxist Left and their radical policies.

Conservatives are less interested in the “How did we get here?” debate. Without this, the prospects of resuscitating a republic on life support are negligable. We’re in the throes of an unprecedented winner-takes-all revolution against Western civilization. Since the objective of worldwide communism, cunningly rebranded in recent decades as “globalism,” was always the full communization of the United States, this is no surprise. The real shock for many on the right is that the conservative movement is ipso facto incapable of fighting, much less crushing, this rebellion. (READ MORE: From Conservatism to Revivalism)

An American who realized this over 80 years ago was Communist Party defector and former Time magazine editor Whittaker Chambers. Before breaking with the party, Chambers had worked for a Soviet intelligence network in the United States. In 1948, he blew the lid off the Communist-infiltrated executive branch in jaw-dropping testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Chambers’ evidence, notably the famous “pumpkin papers,” which exposed senior State Department official Alger Hiss, was so damning that committee member Rep. Richard Nixon, upon learning of the stashed files, arranged to be picked up at sea by the Coast Guard while en route to Panama for a long-awaited vacation with his wife, so that he could race back to Washington and review the bombshell contents.

A decade earlier, Chambers met with Gen. Walter Krivitsky, a former senior Soviet military intelligence officer and a fellow Communist Party fugitive. They shared their perspectives on communism and agreed that the forces of history in the postmodern era “can be grasped only as the interaction of revolution and counterrevolution.” When a totalitarian, pseudo-messianic ideology like communism seeks the radical remaking of governments, societies, economies, history, culture, families, and the individual himself, there is no middle ground.

The problem, as Chambers saw it, is that counterrevolution has little to do with conservatism. The conservative seeks first to conserve what he is and what he has. He wants to be left alone and is largely uninterested in self-sacrifice. This is the head-in-sand strategy: If I ignore it long enough, it will probably just go away.

The passive resistance of the conservative movement has been further diluted through its mésalliance with the my way, your way, anyway classical liberals, whose lack of a fixed moral compass is the ideological loophole communists exploited to gain a foothold in this country in the first place. The product of this union is the line-in-sand strategy: don’t force me to abandon my side and I’ll leave you alone on yours.

Both stratagems are futile against the violent and inexorable tides of communism. If he adopts the former, the conservative will be engulfed in the deluge. If he tries the latter, his position will be erased and redrawn to the point that he no longer recalls where he started.

These dynamics are playing out in every aspect of today’s “culture war.”

The conservative derides his opponents as “woke progressives” and “social justice warriors.” The counter-revolutionist recognizes that they’re communists.

The conservative will accept amnesty for illegal aliens. The counter-revolutionist demands deportation along with liability for every public office holder, human trafficker, and nonprofit organization head who has aided and abetted the breaking of federal law.

The conservative seeks to wrest the levers of power from a hostile administrative state. The counter-revolutionist wants to starve the beast by permanently defunding it.

The conservative genteelly defends himself against accusations of “book-banning.” The counter-revolutionist uses existing criminal codes to go after the pedophile teachers, librarians, and administrators who knowingly distribute or expose pornographic content to minors.

The counter-revolutionist adopts the position that this great secular faith of the postmodern age is wrong.

The conservative frankly can’t keep track of which companies he’s supposed to boycott. The counter-revolutionist has the names etched in his brain. He’ll happily forgo slave-labor merch from misogynistic brands like Nike and disposable junk designed by satanists for groomer retailers like Target.

The conservative won’t let politics get in the way of sports. The counter-revolutionist won’t offend God and scandalize his children by supporting leagues like the NHL and the MLB that venerate sodomy, adultery, and blasphemy.

The conservative wants “school choice” and the control of school boards. The counter-revolutionist wants to dismantle the Department of Education and rip federal funding from a public education system so decayed by anti-American, anti-family, anti-Christian, and anti-intellectual rot that it would be better to let the whole vessel sink and let individual states salvage what they will.

Crucially, the conservative understands that this is an attack on history, culture, tradition, and biblical values. The counter-revolutionist intuits that it’s fundamentally a revolt against God. As Chambers explained, communism is not simply a vicious conspiracy hatched by wicked men. It’s not just about Marx and Lenin, and dialectical materialism, collectivism, subversion, and the control of the masses — although it is all these things. At its root, it’s a vision of man without God.

Hence, the counter-revolutionist adopts, as Chambers did, the position that this great secular faith of the postmodern age is wrong and the Christian faith of the ages is right. If you dance around this basic premise, you wind up with Republican governors who think banning child mutilation procedures amounts to “vast government overreach” and brand-name conservatives who fret that boycotting Bud Light over its cynical mockery of women would destroy an iconic American company. You get renowned intellectuals who argue that pornography is acceptable and writers who think jokes about sodomizing women make for witty conservative commentary. You also end up with America’s most pro-life president quibbling over six-week abortion bans.

This might impress a handful of libertarians here and appease a smattering of neurotic suburban women there, but it won’t quell a demonic, revolutionary spirit that seeks nothing less than the exile of the God-Man Jesus Christ and the enslavement of mankind. This force can only be countered by a level of discernment, faith, courage, and self-sacrifice every bit as zealous as that of the opponent’s.

On each of these fronts, conservatism has outlived its usefulness. If “God alone is the inciter and guarantor of freedom,” as Chambers wrote, it follows that God alone sets the parameters by which this freedom is enjoyed and preserved. This is the standard under which the counter-revolutionist relentlessly, faithfully, and obediently marches. Meanwhile, the conservative lamely waves the tattered banners of custom, convention, collaboration, and compromise, as he bungles his way through one disastrous campaign after another, increasingly oblivious to what it is he’s even supposed to be conserving.