Conservatives Are Wrong: It’s Not About Culture, It’s About Power

In reading De Jouvenel’s “On Power,” the only real conclusion you can reach regarding the question of whether power or culture is primary is that power is clearly primary.

At each point, the central power is that which is in the position of acting as gatekeeper and controller of the influence and reach of cultural currents within society. The tragedy of modernity is that what has been ensconced as power is a rejection of judgement in favor of automatic systems in the form of constitutions, electoral politics, bureaucracies, and guidance by science. That this arrangement is failing, and has been failing badly since its inception, is a grounded concept within neoreaction, but what is not, is the ultimate cause of this failure.

When political structures, philosophical systems, and society begin to stop working, there are only a few general responses which can be offered. The first is that the problem is a result of a failure of the constituent actors to apply the rules and systems truly and accurately. This is the response seen in relation to the current crisis of science. The problem is seen as a failure to apply the scientific method properly, resulting in a perversion of science. This pattern is also observably in the conservative reformation which lead to Protestantism. The problem was the Catholic Church was not sticking to the book close enough. It is a doubling down on literalism.

The second option when systems break down is to rejoice and attack it by elements which have an ingrained hate of the particular system. The enemies of the system in effect. Examples include Marxists, utopians, liberals – the general progressive collection.

At first glance, this would appear to support the thesis of culture above power. The general flux of ideas and new philosophies spread and create unrest which then emerges from the bottom up – but this is false, and fails to see the hand hidden in plain sight- the central power, which is what De Jouvenel seeks to bring to view so well.

This is one of the key elements that sets neoreaction apart from conservatism.

The rise of the state that gave birth to modernity is really a story of four groups of actors, and not three groups of actors as put forward by De Jouvenel. The first group is the central power, that is, the king’s court, which then became the parliamentary democracy, and then the bureaucratic democracy. The second group is the feudal regime, which comprised the various forms of order based on human judgement and devolved decision making. This reaches all the way down to the family itself, and represents very simply human judgement connections. The third group is the elements of society, which actively hated the relationships and human judgement connections, and various other disaffected agitators with varying complaints. The forth group, which it would seem De Jouvenel includes with the middle, but which really need a separate grouping, is external and or/parallel power influences. This includes the Catholic church and its bishops.

The central power in the form of the king’s court in effect sows dragons teeth as a means to undermine the middle structures and the external or parallel power structures. It enters into an unholy para-alliance with the agitators and rebels. The adoption of Protestantism as a means to remove church influence is one such example of power allowing (and in the case of Henry VIII) and engaging in aggressive implementation of cultural turnover. The monarchs actively opened the gates, it was not inevitable, and they did it to remove competitor influence.

This process continued in all walks of life, with anti-scholasticism being encouraged as a means to further remove Catholic influence. That a number of scholastics such as William of Ockham were responsible for beginning the process is not that surprising. If the state was not engaging in anti-Church stances, they would have been roundly ignored and forgotten.

The next alliance was that of the protestant “science” aka empiricism, which promised an alternative to human judgement and the philosophy of the scholastics comprised of Aristotle and Aquinas. Anti-Aristotleanism and anti-scholasticism marks the Enlightenment and modern philosophy from Descartes onward. It is an anti-human judgement endeavor. It was in effect, a system adopted by first the state headed by monarchs in the case of England (see the Royal society,) and then by anti-royal and anti-feudal Encyclopeiestas in France. British empiricism is heavily ingrained with the French revolution, as it is in liberal politics in the form of Hobbes, Locked, Hume, Smith et al.

At this point, I think a further elaboration and emendation to De Jouvenel is needed. The central power with the French revolution went from being one guided by rational human judgement (even if misguided, lacking serious wisdom as to the outcome of its actions) and constituting a cosmic central power, to one which was devoted to rejecting order. It then became a chaos central power. The parliament became the central power and then subsequently bureaucracy. From this point, the idea of constitutionalism, systems, and rejection of human judgement would become key.

No rational actor is present in the Chaos central power, as rejection of human judgement is central to it. All growth by the central power is therefore not subject to correction, direction, or amendment. The only central organizing principle is removing judgement and replacing with laws and rules devised in accordance with scientific, skeptic, and empirical principles. Every action and every development of further thought that pushes towards even greater rejection of judgement is giving a direct pass to power. Any counter prevailing position withers on the vine. Power selects the culture which best suits it.

So we see conservative literalists and fundamentalists, gender ideologues, anti-racists, progressives, science advocates, and the whole collection anti-human judgement groups in fundamental para-alliance either at once, or in differing times, but all working toward the same goal. The religious and conservative literalists, often providing the role of the vanguard destroying order on a the misguided principle that they are bring greater order, has finished its role much as Protestantism did for Europe.

On a deeper level, then, De Jouvenel’s theory points to towards a concept of Cosmos, which is very much based on human judgement, with chaos being used as an enemy against it, and then consuming the actors which use it against other wielders of human judgement.

This would seem to the key to political organisation and the apparent contradictions of modern political theory. The dividing line is between human judgment and systemic adherence. Human judgement is that which progressives have always been aligned against. From the bizarre criticisms of monarchical and dictatorial government on the basis of being unable to trust what the leader would do, to the attack on every form of asymmetric personal relationship from slavery through to feudalism and non-progressive marriage (modern marriage appears to be a form of optional friendship.)  The line is clear. This is further augmented in other fields, such as scientific theory and epistemology with the spread of empiricism, and the aforementioned literalism of religious text. Systemic adherence is therefore chaotic at route, the only question is then your motivation.

That systemic adherence is ultimately chaotic regardless of the various dreams of hyper right-wing concepts that can be locked in by a system is that the system can never be bounded, and will always be a fraud. The deeper philosophical question is present in the conception of “sovereignty is conserved” which maintains there is always and outside of society. There is always someone manning the system, and the only escape would be to create an intelligence which is non-human to man the system and correct for unforeseen circumstances which any given “right wing” system could never account for. Such a system must at all times be directed against human judgement as a threat to itself and in effect would be de facto chaotic in that regard as well.

More modern examples, which highlight this ingrained division, can be seen in the current state of Chaos central power (aka the liberal state) dictated modern society. The red-black alliance of ISIS-western elite is real and clear, as is the elite-immigrant criminal alliance, as is the general criminal-elite alliance, as is every elite-scum alliance. The alliance is always anti-order, where order is defined as human judgement and human relationships not mediated by the state. Bible thumpers and other right-wing literalists, constitutionalists, and democrats of varying colors are a visible useful enemy (for now) but their role of stupid refreshers of chaos central power is inbuilt, as Thomas Jefferson said “the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants” and they will have their time again, and will usher in more chaos as they are brother in service to chaos, unless reaction occurs and human judgement and cosmos is recovered.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. The central power in the form of the king’s court in effect sows dragons teeth as a means to undermine the middle structures and the external or parallel power structures. It enters into an unholy para-alliance with the agitators and rebels.

    This was the case in spades in pre-revolutionary France as well. The crown sought to aggrandize its power at the expense of the aristocracy. Late czarist Russia as well.

    It’s almost always the case that a revolution is preceded by a monarch playing the liberal. “Sowing dragons teeth” is an excellent analogy.

    1. From Tocqueville’s introduction to ‘Democracy in America’ “In the course of these seven hundred years it sometimes happened that in order to resist the authority of the Crown, or to diminish the power of their rivals, the nobles granted a certain share of political rights to the people. Or, more frequently, the king permitted the lower orders to enjoy a degree of power, with the intention of repressing the aristocracy. In France the kings have always been the most active and the most constant of levellers. When they were strong and ambitious they spared no pains to raise the people to the level of the nobles; when they were temperate or weak they allowed the people to rise above themselves. Some assisted the democracy by their talents, others by their vices. Louis XI and Louis XIV reduced every rank beneath the throne to the same subjection; Louis XV descended, himself and all his Court, into the dust.
      The mechanism is real.

  2. Why do you call empiricism “protestant science”?

  3. Politics is all about power.

    No cultural revival saves us. That’s a cop out by scribblers afraid of a fight.

    As for Culture: Power determines culture now in the time when we live, where we live.

    If we want anything but chaos including in culture into our very homes then chaos must be removed from power and it won’t happen by talk or culture wars.

    We are actually blest at least in our enemies. Seldom has there been a group this weak in power for more than short time and they have made mortal enemies of their instruments of force.

  4. “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to contradict ‘received wisdom’, but anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy can find himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing.”

    This observation, by Orwell, helps to explains how conservative literalists and fundamentalists, gender ideologues, anti-racists, progressives, science advocates, etc., are all working towards the same goal.

  5. If I’m reading you correctly you think culture comes from the bottom and is therefore in conflict with power? what’s your definition of culture?

    I like Ezra Pound’s:

    “Culture is what’s left over after you forgot what you tried to learn.”

    It is instinct. But, learned instinct.

    Anyway, having lived in other cultures I can tell you power is shaped by culture, mostly by high culture. To give you an example: In many parts of the world the idea of romantic love is suspect. Valentine’s Day is very controversial in, say, India. And is probably banned in Muslim countries. If elites, who pick up western concepts like romantic love, try to impose this new custom on the people they need to change the culture first through various forms of persuasion and status marking. They can’t force men and women to change their relationship by fiat. Over several generations of carefully staged propaganda they may be able to get men to give a Valentine Day card or gift. Maybe. Doesn’t matter if it’s a democracy, dictatorship or whatever.

    Same with dhimmitude. Men can become dhimmis without really knowing it. The culture becomes feminized. “Tolerance” is considered a virtue even when men cave to threats of violence from other groups who despise them. After a few generations of “caring” men, or what passes for men, they become second-class citizens who must pay special taxes and apologize as a matter of course. No system of political power was necessary to create dhimmitude.

Comments are closed.