We’re all familiar with the famous maxim: Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.

But why?

What is this qualitative force that creates strong men, and how can a civilization prevent good times creating weak men?

Modern theorists have attempted to quantify the lifespan of civilizations. Some, following Sir John Glubb’s famous essay The Fate of Empires, argue that civilizations last roughly 250 years, passing through predictable stages from pioneering vigor to commercial expansion and finally to decadence.

Oswald Spengler, more metaphysical in tone, insisted in The Decline of the West, that cultures rise from the “vitality” of a people rooted in a particular landscape, and decline when that soul becomes exhausted. Despite their differing frameworks, both converge on the same conclusion that civilizations enter a state of decline or “civilizational winter” when they abandon the virtues that made them great.

But rather than succumbing to the deterministic view that history unfolds through impersonal forces alone, historians and political theorists have long recognized that austerity is the animating force behind civilizational vitality and longevity.

Austerity is the disciplined posture that steels a people for endurance, sacrifice, and collective purpose, even when circumstances tempt them toward ease. While poverty often forces a people towards discipline while prosperity just as often dissolves it.

Whether it were the Romans or the Americans, the pages of history reveal that the greatest empires are forged in hardship. By embracing austerity, a civilization remains strong and dynamic, resisting the softening influence of abundance and preserving its vitality across centuries — and no institution has proven more effective at cultivating this posture than religion.

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

The Spiritual Foundations of Political Order

In his Politics, Aristotle wrote that “the first task of the lawgiver is to make the citizens good,” and religion has historically been the lawgiver’s greatest ally in this work. Religion has always been the most reliable institution for producing austerity because it forms rather than coerces, effectively training individuals to restrain the lower appetite, accept limitations, and reorient the self toward higher and more noble ends.

Ancient religious practice made austerity habitual. To sacrifice crops or animals was to surrender immediate gain for a higher purpose. Moreover, fasting taught mastery over hunger, and ritual feasting reinforced gratitude rather than indulgence. These rhythms of denial and celebration cultivated what Xenophon in the Memorabilia called “the habit of ruling oneself,” which he considered to be the foundation of all political order.

In materially poorer societies, this habit was easier to cultivate since necessity reinforced virtue as a means to survival, but when prosperity arrives, only religion can preserve the disciplines that necessity once imposed.

The Discipline Behind Roman Power

While many think of Rome as the powerful empire that came to dominate the ancient world and reshape the course of Western history, they often overlook that the Roman Republic began as a modest agricultural settlement of citizen‑soldiers.

Inspired by the model of their legendary founder Romulus and his successor Numa Pompilius, the Romans were a warlike people who paired martial vigor with strict religious observances. Their austerity was not simply the consequence of environmental factors but was deliberately cultivated through religion, custom, and law — the way of the ancestors the Romans referred to as the Mos Maiorum.

Roman religion itself reinforced this austere posture. The gods of early Rome were not distant abstractions but guardians of the household, the fields, and civic duty. Moreover, rituals were simple, sacrifices modest, and worship centered on discipline rather than ecstatic experiences.

Moreover, the foundational virtues that constituted the Via Romana were religious obligations as much as they were civic ideals. To neglect duty was to offend the gods, and to live simply was to honor them. In short, Roman religion sanctified restraint, making austerity more than a social expectation but a sacred duty.

The citizen-soldier was the secret to the success of the Roman Republic. These men, hardened by labor and oriented toward duty were, according to the Cato the Elder, “the bravest of men and the most steadfast of citizens,” because the land taught them restraint and fortitude. Modest means kept Romans ‘grounded’ in the most literal sense of the word, producing a disciplined citizenry capable of sacrifice and loyal to their familial and civic obligations.

The same principle held true for Rome’s aristocratic families. The Roman domus served as a school of discipline, where the paterfamilias shaped the character of those under his authority and instilled habits of restraint from childhood. Although these households displayed impressive atriums filled with ancestral busts, military trophies, and public honors, their private living quarters remained deliberately austere. This was a purposeful expression of pietas, and served as a reminder to the familia that their status was not determined by wealth but by virtue and service to the Republic.

Spengler saw in this foundation the source of Rome’s civilizational vitality. “Every culture,” he wrote, “is born in the countryside and dies in the cities.” As Rome began to conquer more territory, importing more slaves to work their fields, and concentrate into urbanized centres, its civilizational spirit gave way to something more artificial.

To this end, the historian Sallust lamented that after Rome’s expansion, “ambition drove many men to become false; wealth made them greedy” and “pleasure made them soft.” Luxury increased, religious observance weakened, and the Mos Maiorum was all but abandoned.

Even as Rome became materially wealthy, it lost the strict religious observance that had once sanctified restraint. As a result, prosperity severed the link between abundance and virtue, and without religion to discipline the appetite, Rome’s austerity collapsed — and with it, the character that had sustained the Republic.

The early Republic’s austerity produced strong citizens capable of extraordinary feats, but the victories they won forged an empire inherited by sons accustomed to comfort — men whom Roman moralists condemned as soft, idle, and effeminate. Rather than plowing the fields and fighting in the legions, they frequented spas, spectacles, and the diversions of urban life.

Yet Rome’s story does not end in 476 AD. While the West succumbed to civil war and decadence, the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire endured for nearly a thousand years more. Though pockets of wealth existed in the East, most Romans in the Balkans and Anatolia continued to live as smallholders, soldiers, and farmers whose labor preserved the strong civic character and austere spirit that had once defined the old Roman Republic.

This austere agrarian backbone, further reinforced by Christian monastic austerity that punctuated almost every moment of life, reinforced those conditions that made them strong men and enabled the Byzantines to withstand wave after wave of invasions when others would have surrendered.

Frontier Discipline to Modern Comfort

The United States, like Rome, began in austerity. The early republic was shaped by frontier hardship, Protestant self‑discipline, and a civic ethos that prized restraint.

In his Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans possessed “habits of the heart” formed by religion and local self‑government, and these habits produced a culture of self‑command, industriousness, and civic responsibility. Moreover, material scarcity on the frontiers and the severity of the environment instilled within the settlers the fact that survival required discipline.

The American Founding Fathers also understood the necessity of austerity for civic life. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address that “virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government,” and John Adams added that “Public virtue cannot exist without private virtue, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.” These men, well versed in the liberal arts understood that a free people must encourage those dispositions and create those conditions to ensure that strong men do not lose the civilizational vitality that made them exceptional.

For much of its early history, the United States followed the example of the early settlers and Founding Fathers in maintaining a religious and rural character. But as the nation urbanized and industrialized, its cultural foundations inevitably shifted. The agrarian austerity that once shaped American life gave way to abundance.

Moreover, the Christian religion, once the backbone of civic formation, was abandoned. Like Rome, the virtues that had been instrumental in forging the character of the American republic became harder to maintain in a rapidly changing social and political landscape defined by prosperity.

The United States today resembles Rome in its late Republican and early Imperial phases. It is wealthy, powerful, technologically advanced, but increasingly unable to restrain itself. A civilization that becomes prosperous and loses its religious foundations loses the mechanism that produces austerity, and without austerity, the virtues that build the greatest of empires begin to collapse under the weight of their own success.

The Need to Recover Religion and Austerity

Empires rarely fall because they are conquered from external enemies, but rather, fall because they surrender to the forces within. The cause is not primarily economic or political but spiritual. Prosperity without restraint produces weak men, and weak men make hard times inevitable.

If the West is to preserve its prosperity, it must recover the religious foundations that once governed appetite and formed its civilizational character. It requires the humble recognition that a return to religion is necessary for the preservation of Western Civilization since austerity creates those conditions that allow virtue to flourish, and these virtues will strengthen families, communities, and nations.

In short, it is a civilizational safeguard against weakness and effeminacy — which is the inordinate attachment to pleasures, and the pain of being deprived of them.

The task before us is clear. We must embrace austerity in our daily lives, and work to restore the religious and moral foundations that cultivate austerity to ensure that prosperity does not erode our character or the cultural landscape of our nations. The history of Rome reveals that even the mightiest of empires can fall, but austerity mitigates collapse, allowing a people to survive for a thousand years.

Hard times will still come, and when they arrive, strong men will need to rise up and restore good times — or what Spengler called the “civilizational spring” of the West.

Join the fight for the Soul of our Civilization!

By subscribing to Atlas Press, you are supporting an honest group of guys who are working to help revitalize Western Civ through the re-enrichment of the Western mind. We appreciate your support greatly and hope you join us.

Subscribe now

When speaking of virtues, we generally cite such things as patience, justice, temperance or humility. It would be unusual however if somebody remembered constancy.

So what is ‘Constancy’? In short, reliability. In a bit more depth, a constant man is a reliable man because he does not waver in the face of temptation or adversity. A constant man is resistant to systemic shocks, and adheres to certain convictions through good times and bad.

Constancy is indeed itself a constant, having been prized as a virtue throughout history by both our pagan and Christian ancestors. One man who noticed this, and understood how important constancy was to states and individuals alike, was the Florentine statesman Niccolò Machiavelli. During his Discourses on the First Ten of Livy, he indeed wrote a short essay on the subject, “That strong Republics and valiant Men preserve through every change the same Spirit and Bearing”.

In that essay, Machiavelli compared two case studies, Ancient Rome and Renaissance Venice, to analyse how constancy brought glory to one and near destruction to the other, and what we can learn as a result.

So, here is why constancy is a severely underrated virtue, why you need to cultivate it, and how to do so?

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission of revitalizing the Western Mind at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

The ‘Constant’ Man

“CONSTANCY, noun - Fixedness; a standing firm; hence, applied to God or his works, immutability; unalterable continuance; a permanent state.”

Webster’s Dictionary, 1828

As the above entry from the 1828 edition of Webster’s Dictionary reiterates, constancy has long held deep religious connotations. The reasons for this are clear. A man who anchors himself to a higher purpose and faith is far more likely to see himself as part of something bigger, and is therefore more likely to weather hardship for longer.

The constancy of God himself, and the encouragement this brings, is indeed central to Christianity:

“For I am the LORD, I do not change;
Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob”

Malachi 3:6

One can fight a battle far more readily if we believe in the cause, and it is that belief which propels us through the war. It is this truth which Machiavelli highlights in the opening of his essay, where he praises the Roman statesmen Marcus Furius Camillus:

“Among other high sayings which our historian ascribes to Camillus, as showing of what stuff a truly great man should be made, he puts in his mouth the words, “My courage came not with my dictatorship nor went with my exile;” for by these words we are taught that a great man is constantly the same through all vicissitudes of Fortune; so that although she change, now exalting, now depressing, he remains unchanged, and retains always a mind so unmoved, and in such complete accordance with his nature as declares to all that over him Fortune has no dominion”

Machiavelli, Discourses on the First Ten of Livy, III.31

Camillus quite simply saved Rome. In the wake of the devastating sack of the city in 386 BC, it was he who sought out and vanquished the Gauls who had all but conquered Rome, and persuaded the dejected Roman people not to abandon their burning homeland, but to stay and rebuild. The crux of his heroism in the annals of Roman history is that he recognized that Rome was about more than bricks and marble. It was an idea, and a civilization that was dawning, and one worth nurturing. He likewise understood that it would take time to nurture, and that the road would not always be smooth.

With Rome a smouldering ruin, Camillus embodied Roman virtue by not giving up, even when all others around him had. His constancy ensured the Sack of Rome was a temporary pain and not a permanent end. The Constant Man, therefore, is impregnable to Fortune. He is immune to shifts in Fortune because he recognizes that such shifts are temporary, and he is anchored to things which will outlive them.

As Machiavelli relates, however, what was once a largely personal virtue of one man would through his example become an integral virtue of Rome herself…

The Model of Rome

“The same merits and defects which I say are found in individual men, are likewise found in republics, whereof we have example in the case of Rome and of Venice. For no reverse of fortune ever broke the spirit of the Roman people, nor did any success ever unduly elate them; as we see plainly after their defeat at Cannae, and after the victory they had over Antiochus.”

Machiavelli, Discourses on the First Ten of Livy, III.31

While revered today as the last word in military glory, in reality Rome endured a torturous path to Empire. The early centuries of the Republic were defined by hardship, and there was rarely a war that Rome won without first suffering terrible defeats.

From the maulings she received at the hands of the Italic tribes — particularly the Samnites — on a regular basis, to her early confrontations with Carthage, Rome was tempered into shape by fire. As the most famous total war of the ancient world, the Second Punic War, indeed revealed, it was Rome’s ability to cope with defeat that truly set her apart. On the battlefield of Cannae in 216 BC, which Machiavelli references above, Rome lost over 50,000 men in a single day — numbers which would have been staggering even in the World Wars of the 20th century. Many other states would have capitulated after a disaster half that scale.

Rome however did not, because the Roman spirit was extremely resilient to ‘shock’. Of course it was, for Rome had endured countless defeats before. However terrible the losses at Cannae were, the situation was still not as bad as it had been in Camillus’ day over a century earlier, when the capital itself was occupied and sacked. Rome by now had a robust identity, one far more so than Carthage. Roman armies were filled out by Roman citizens — those of Carthage by hired mercenaries. The host of Hannibal was united by hatred of Rome and gold. Rome however was defined by a societal-wide investment in a common civilization.

As a result, to the legendary bafflement of Hannibal, Rome allowed herself only a moment’s grief before returning to the field and expanding the war. As Machiavelli emphasizes however, constancy comes into play in good times as well as bad:

“Here, therefore, we see that in times of adversity the Romans were neither cast down nor dismayed. On the other hand, no prosperity ever made them arrogant. Before fighting the battle wherein he was finally routed, Antiochus sent messengers to Scipio to treat for an accord; when Scipio offered peace on condition that he withdrew at once into Syria, leaving all his other dominions to be dealt with by the Romans as they thought fit. Antiochus refusing these terms, fought and was defeated, and again sent envoys to Scipio, enjoining them to accept whatever conditions the victor might be pleased to impose. But Scipio proposed no different terms from those he had offered before saying that “the Romans, as they lost not heart on defeat, so waxed not insolent with success””

Machiavelli, Discourses on the First Ten of Livy, III.31

Rome, therefore, was reliable. At her height, she was optimistic in defeat, and moderate in victory. She gained a reputation for honoring her word, be it to allies or to enemies, because there was a clear consensus among Romans that Rome stood for something that transcended the everyday, and that her word, once given, had to be honored for the sake of the honor of all Romans.

Constancy, therefore, was a central pillar of Rome’s identity, and her success. Sometimes, however, in order to better understand how important a virtue is, we need to consider what happens when it is absent.

For this, Machiavelli turns to a painful example from his own day, when Venice was almost wiped off the map by her own inconstancy…

Read more

We inhabit an age that earlier centuries could scarcely imagine — a world that has not merely drifted from Christianity but has turned decisively against it. The modern West, once shaped by the liturgy, the sacraments, and the moral imagination of Christendom, now treats its own inheritance as a superstition to be purged from public life.

Instead, public life is governed by a radically secular creed that tolerates Christianity only when it is silent, private, and politically harmless. As a result, the Church is increasingly pushed to the margins, its institutions weakened, its symbols mocked, and its moral claims dismissed as relics of an unenlightened past.

We live, unmistakably, in a post‑Christian society, and the hostility is no longer subtle.

The question presses upon us with new urgency: what are we to do, and how should Christians respond when the civilization built by their ancestors no longer recognizes them?

Two answers have emerged in our time — the Benedict Option and the Boethius Option — each founded in a different moment of civilizational crisis, and each offering a distinct vision of Christian fidelity in an age of dissolution.

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

Benedict the Monk

St Benedict of Nursia lived at the twilight of the ancient world. Rome had fallen, the old civic order had collapsed, and the cultural unity of the West had broken apart into warring fragments.

Born around AD 480 in the Umbrian town of Nursia, Benedict was raised in a noble Roman family and sent to Rome for his education, only to find the city spiritually diseased and morally disordered. Disillusioned by the decadence of urban life, he abandoned his studies and fled into the hills east of the city, eventually taking refuge in a cave at Subiaco, where he lived for three years as a hermit devoted to prayer, fasting, and ascetic discipline.

In this landscape of civilizational ruin, Benedict refused to waste his strength attempting to resuscitate the dying institutions of the empire. His withdrawal was not an escape from responsibility but a deliberate act of purification, a turning away from imperial decay toward the stability of prayer, work, and communal discipline.

His example proved contagious. Others, equally disillusioned by the collapse of Roman public life, gathered around him, and together they formed the first nuclei of what would become a new monastic culture. From these early companions emerged a constellation of small communities, each shaped by the principles that Benedict would later codify in his Rule.

From this withdrawal emerged a new civilizational seed. Benedictine monasteries became islands of order amid the wreckage of Europe. They preserved Sacred Scripture, safeguarded learning, cultivated the land, and formed men whose lives were governed by the Regula Benedicti — a rule that bound the soul to obedience, humility, and stability.

Rather than conquering a fallen world, Benedict and his followers chose spiritual retreat, and in time, they became the humble architects of a perfected Roman Empire — Christendom.

The Benedict Option

The Benedict Option, as invoked today, draws inspiration from this ancient pattern. It proposes that Christians, confronted by a hostile culture, should form intentional communities where the faith can be preserved, transmitted, and lived without compromise. It is a call to rebuild the household, the parish, the school, and the local community as counter‑cultural sanctuaries — places where Christian life can flourish even as the wider society collapses into moral and spiritual dissolution.

For many, this vision is compelling. It recognizes that the modern world is not only indifferent to Christianity but antagonistic to it. It acknowledges that the formation of Christian character requires a stable environment, not the constant turbulence of a secular culture that seeks to reshape the soul. Moreover, it echoes the wisdom of St Thomas Aquinas, who wrote in his Summa Theologiae that “peace is the tranquility of order”, and that order must be cultivated deliberately and not simply assumed.

The Benedict Option thus offers a path of withdrawal for the sake of preservation — a retreat into smaller, intentional communities where the Christian faith can be lived in its fullness.

It is a noble vision, and in certain contexts, a necessary one — but it is not the only vision.

Boethius the Statesman

Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius lived not in seclusion but at the very center of Roman political life. As a Roman statesman, philosopher, and Christian, he served the Ostrogothic kingdom during one of the most turbulent periods of late antiquity. When political intrigue turned against him, he was falsely accused of treason, imprisoned, and eventually executed. Yet in his confinement, Boethius produced one of the most influential works of the Western tradition: The Consolation of Philosophy.

In that dark cell, awaiting death, he wrote words that have strengthened the faithful for centuries: “Nothing is miserable unless you think it so; and on the other hand, nothing brings happiness unless you are content with it.” And again, reflecting on divine providence, he affirmed: “All fortune is good fortune, for it either rewards, disciplines, amends, or punishes.”

Boethius did not retreat from the world. He remained within its structures, fulfilled his public duties, and bore witness to the Christian faith even when fidelity demanded suffering. His example is one of steadfast endurance — a refusal to yield the public square to falsehood. He trusted that God governs history even when history appears governed by injustice.

The Boethius Option

The Boethius Option calls Christians to remain in the world, to endure persecution without despair, and to defend truth even when the institutions of society turn against them. It is the path of the statesman, the scholar, the teacher, the parent, the priest — those who cannot withdraw because their vocation binds them to the very places where the faith is contested.

Pope Leo XIII, writing in an age that already sensed the coming secular storm, insisted that Christians must not abandon the public sphere: “Christian wisdom must be allowed to exercise its saving influence in the laws and institutions of the State.” His words echo the Boethian spirit — a call to remain engaged, to labor for the common good, and to trust that divine providence governs even the darkest hours.

The Boethius Option is not a passive endurance but an active witness and fidelity. It is the steadfast readiness to speak truth in a world that punishes truth‑tellers; it is the fortitude to fulfil one’s duties even as the surrounding order collapses; and it is the unshakable conviction that all things — blessings and sufferings alike, prosperity and adversity — are governed by Divine Providence, and that in the end, Christ conquers.

Benedict or Boethius?

Both the Benedict Option and the Boethius Option arise from moments of civilizational crisis, both respond to a world that has turned against the faith, and both seek to preserve Christian truth in an age of dissolution.

Yet our age differs from theirs in one decisive respect.

Benedict withdrew into a wilderness that still existed. There were mountains to flee to, valleys to hide in, monasteries to build far from the reach of imperial decay. The world was vast, and the collapse of Rome created spaces where new forms of Christian life could take root. Moreover, those who followed him were already a people accustomed to the land — men and women who knew how to farm, to build, to endure hardship, and to sustain themselves apart from the machinery of a collapsing state. Their withdrawal, though radical, was not a departure from the skills or rhythms of life they already possessed.

We possess no such spaces, nor do we possess the habits that once made such withdrawal possible. There is no wilderness left. The modern world is global, interconnected, and totalizing. Its secular ideology reaches into every institution, every school, every corporation, every digital platform, every corner of public life. There is no Subiaco to retreat to, no Monte Cassino beyond the reach of the empire. The entire world has become the empire.

However, this does not render the Benedict Option meaningless. Those called to monastic life should embrace it with zeal, and those capable of forming intentional communities who are already accustomed to such a life should do so since the Church will always require places of refuge, formation, and stability. But for the vast majority of Christians, withdrawal is not possible.

We are parents, workers, students, and citizens. We inhabit the public square whether we wish to or not. Our children must be formed in a world that seeks to deform them. Our institutions must be engaged because they shape the lives of millions. Our culture must be contested because it will not leave us alone.

Why Our Age Demands Boethius

In such a world, the Boethius Option is not simply one path among many but the path demanded of most Christians. It calls us to remain where we are, to endure hostility without surrender, and to trust in Divine Providence even when the world appears governed by madness. Aquinas, reflecting on fortitude, taught that “the principal act of courage is to endure and withstand dangers.”

That same courage — the courage to remain steadfast when reason falters and the age descends into confusion — is what Boethius himself embodied. It summons us to speak truth with the serenity and confidence of Boethius, who asked, “If God exists, whence comes evil? If He does not exist, whence comes good?” — a question that still pierces the conscience of the modern world.

In his Sapientiae Christianae, Pope Leo XIII warned that Christians must not shrink from public duty, insisting that “to recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes.” And unlike Benedict’s followers, who could step away from a dying order to build anew, we inherit a civilization that our ancestors spent centuries constructing — a civilization sustained by their labor, their sacrifice, and their faith.

As Leo XIII also taught, the Christian must “strive that the State may be constituted and governed in accordance with the rules of the Gospel,” for abandoning this task is to betray both faith and heritage. To abandon it is not humility but a dereliction of duty. It is to dishonor the very inheritance we claim to defend. The Boethius Option is precisely this: the courage to endure, the courage to remain, and the courage to witness.

We live in a post‑Christian world. There is no frontier left to flee to. If you wish to choose the Benedict Option, then join a monastery.

For the rest of us, the age demands Boethius.

Join the fight for the Soul of our Civilization!

By subscribing to Atlas Press, you are supporting an honest group of guys who are working to help revitalize Western Civ through the re-enrichment of the Western mind. We appreciate your support greatly and hope you join us.

Subscribe now

‘The West has fallen’ is by now a common theme on social media. Consequently, so too are proposals on ‘How to Save the West’.

Many however remain unaware that one man was fully two centuries ahead of the curve. This man was no mere fringe thinker however. Prince Klemens von Metternich, Chancellor of the Austrian Empire, was indeed a man so influential that the entire mechanism of great power diplomacy in the early 19th century was termed the ‘Metternich System’ after him.

Having witnessed the entire arc of the French Revolution, and served as Foreign Minister to Catholic Austria at the height of the Napoleonic Wars, Metternich knew better than anyone what had been unleashed upon the world.

In 1820 however, Metternich put all of these thoughts to paper, and sent his Political Confession of Faith to Emperor Alexander I of Russia. It is an extraordinary audit of the state of the Western world, what went wrong and how to fix it.

Today, we explore this remarkable warning and advice from history, from a man who predicted the future with chilling accuracy…

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

The Source of Evil

If you wish to cure illness, you must assume the role of a doctor. So too if you wish to cure a society of malaise. “Few men, however”, as Metternich states, “stop thoroughly to examine a disease which they intend to combat”.

Thus he begins with a frank diagnosis of Europe’s condition in the wake of the French Revolution:

“Kings have to calculate the chances of their very existence in the immediate future; passions are let loose, and league together to overthrow everything which society respects as the basis of its existence; religion, public morality, laws, customs, rights, and duties, all are attacked, confounded, overthrown, or called in question. The great mass of the people are tranquil spectators of these attacks and revolutions, and of the absolute want of all means of defence”

Prince Klemens von Metternich, Political Confession of Faith

Eerily prescient though his words are to anyone reading them today, they are also quite brilliant in identifying that what was happening was not the will of the majority. Most people, indeed, were “tranquil spectators” to widespread societal vandalism, whose support was claimed yet never sought by the ringleaders of these ‘revolutions’.

What we commonly call ‘revolutions’, after all, are almost never grassroots in origin. Virtually all of them have been top-down and elite-led coups d’état which are then retroactively marketed as ‘popular’. A common problem then is that people criticize the propagandized version of revolutions rather than their actual substance. Metternich then follows up with yet another observation that has aged like a fine wine:

“These are the precepts of morality, religious as well as social, and the necessities created by locality. From the time that men attempt to swerve from these bases, to become rebels against these sovereign arbiters of their destinies, society suffers from a malaise which sooner or later will lead to a state of convulsion”

Prince Klemens von Metternich, Political Confession of Faith

Man is anchored by faith, morality and place. Revolutionary leaders sought to dislocate Man from each, and society is unstable as a result. It really is as simple as that. More useful, however, is again identifying why this happened in the first place.

As per Metternich’s observation, the flourishing of Christianity was the singular thread that held European civilization together following the collapse of Rome in the West. Rome was conquered by the barbarians, yet the barbarians were conquered by Christ, and through Christ the European found common purpose, understanding and ethic. No matter his other curiosities, the resident of Atlantic Portugal shared with the Russian settler of the Siberian tundra a common allegiance to Christ. So too did the mightiest Emperor and lowliest serf.

But it would be a serious mistake to assert that the French Revolution was ‘Year 0’ of the breaking apart of this. A perfect storm of factors prepared the ground:

“The facilitation of the communication of thoughts by printing; the total change in the means of attack and defence brought about by the invention of gunpowder; the difference suddenly produced in the value of property by the quantity of metals which the discovery of America put in circulation; the spirit of adventure provoked by the chances of fortune opened in a new hemisphere; the modifications in the relations of society caused by so many and such important changes, all became more developed, and were in some sort crowned by the revolution which the Reformation worked in the moral world”

Prince Klemens von Metternich, Political Confession of Faith

More than anything else, an attitude of ‘win at all costs’ had been brewing ever since the Renaissance. The spread of the printing press allowed bad actors to whip up the populace through spreading libel which was difficult to challenge as quickly as it spread. The discovery of the New World triggered an ‘all or nothing’ global race between the great powers for resources, with elite society becoming ever more materialistic as a result.

But the true root of evil, however, was the perversion of our attitude towards knowledge…

Wisdom or Arrogance?

“The progress of the human mind has been extremely rapid in the course of the last three centuries. This progress having been accelerated more rapidly than the growth of wisdom (the only counterpoise to passions and to error)…”

Prince Klemens von Metternich, Political Confession of Faith

The advance of technology has been accompanied by a deadly two horse race in the background. That between knowledge and wisdom.

As society fragmented towards individualism, it was inevitable that knowledge would begin to flourish in fields increasingly isolated from each other. By the ‘Enlightenment’ of the 18th century, wisdom, fed by such mutilated knowledge, had morphed into a dangerous arrogance. Too many people began to view themselves as kings in their field, and therefore worthy of being kings over all fields:

“This evil may be as described in one word — presumption ; the natural effect of the rapid progression of the human mind towards the perfecting of so many things. This it is which at the present day leads so many individuals astray, for it has become an almost universal sentiment”

Prince Klemens von Metternich, Political Confession of Faith

The man sceptical of the Church, comfortable in his bubble and unaccustomed to opposition, saw fit to interpret all of society through his own narrow lens. At the same time, he considered himself above laws, customs and beliefs that he saw no way to credit himself for:

“Religion, morality, legislation, economy, politics, administration, all have become common and accessible to everyone. Knowledge seems to come by inspiration ; experience has no value for the presumptuous man; faith is nothing to him; lie substitutes for it a pretended individual conviction, and to arrive at this conviction dispenses with all inquiry and with all study; for these means appear too trivial to a mind which believes itself strong enough to embrace at one glance all questions and all facts. Laws have no value for him, because he has not contributed to make them, and it would be beneath a man of his parts to recognise the limits traced by rude and ignorant generations. Power resides in himself; why should he submit himself to that which was only useful for the man deprived of light and knowledge?”

Prince Klemens von Metternich, Political Confession of Faith

France, the eldest daughter of the Church, and therefore the kingdom which had taken Christian society for granted the most, was therefore most vulnerable to ‘presumptuous men’. Particularly in Paris, which by the 1780’s had a large number of newly wealthy men disconnected from the rural bedrock of France.

Selfish ambition, when sparked, is difficult to contain, and it was inevitable that ‘presumptuous men’ would lash out against the principal constraint upon their ‘new moral code’ — the Church. “Drag through the mud the name of God and the powers instituted by His divine decrees, and the revolution will be prepared!”, as Metternich described their plan.

Equally nefarious was the ability of the revolutionaries to hoodwink otherwise proud subjects by laundering subversive beliefs as ‘patriotic’. Especially after the revolution was marketed by ‘military glory’ under Napoleon:

“Nevertheless the revolutionary seed had penetrated into every country and spread more or less. It was greatly developed under the regime of the military despotism of Bonaparte. His conquests displaced a number of laws, institutions, and customs; broke through bonds sacred among all nations, strong enough to resist time itself ; which is more than can be said of certain benefits conferred by these innovators. From these perturbations it followed that the revolutionary spirit could in Germany, Italy, and later on in Spain, easily hide itself under the veil of patriotism”

Prince Klemens von Metternich, Political Confession of Faith

Yet Metternich did not view the situation as unsalvageable. On the contrary, knowing that revolutionary subversion is driven by elites and not the people actually makes combating this much more manageable, as long as the will exists.

As a result, Metternich devotes the remainder of his Political Confession to a clear six-point roadmap for any government that wishes to save Europe, the West, and Christendom itself…

Read more

Religion in the ancient world expressed itself through two broad modes that, while never mutually exclusive, reveal deep cultural instincts shaping the later development of Eastern and Western Christianity.

The first may be called the mystical or participatory mode, a form of religion that emphasizes direct experience of the divine, interior transformation, and the possibility of union with God. The second mode is rational or systematic, emphasizing order, doctrine, clarity, and conceptual precision. These modes are not rigid categories but tendencies that permeated the ancient Mediterranean.

Both modes of religion existed in Judaism, Hellenism, and Roman culture, yet each Christian tradition inherited and developed one more strongly. The East gravitated toward mystical participation, while the West gravitated toward systematic articulation. At the same time, both traditions preserved significant internal diversity. The East produced rigorous dogmatic definitions, and the West produced profound mystics, reminding us that these modes describe tendencies rather than strict theological divisions.

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

Eastern Religion: Mystical, Theotic, and Apophatic

Before Christianity emerged, the Eastern Mediterranean world was already shaped by powerful mystical traditions that emphasized ecstatic experience, divine union, and transformative ritual.

The Dionysian mystery cults, for example, invited participants into intense rites involving music, dance, and symbolic death‑and‑rebirth. These rituals aimed not at intellectual understanding but at direct participation in the divine life of Dionysus. Initiates sought a kind of ecstatic liberation, believing that the god’s presence could be felt in the body and in the dissolution of ordinary consciousness.

Other mystery religions — such as the Eleusinian Mysteries — promised secret knowledge and personal transformation through ritual initiation. Meanwhile, Hellenistic philosophical traditions like Platonism and Neoplatonism taught that the soul could ascend toward the divine through contemplation and purification.

Plotinus, for instance, described mystical union with the One as an experience “beyond knowing,” where the soul becomes what it contemplates. Jewish apocalyptic mysticism also contributed to this atmosphere, with visions of heavenly ascent and participation in divine glory.

Together, these traditions created a cultural environment where mystical experience, symbolic transformation, and the search for union with the divine were seen as central to religious life.

Eastern Christianity emerged within this world shaped by ancient Near Eastern religiosity, Hellenistic metaphysics, and Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. Platonism and Neoplatonism taught that the soul ascends toward the One through purification and contemplation, while Jewish visionary traditions imagined heavenly ascent and participation in divine glory. These currents formed a spiritual atmosphere in which the early Eastern Fathers naturally understood salvation as transformation rather than mere pardon, as participation rather than mere instruction. The Eastern instinct was to approach God through mystery, silence, and the recognition that divine reality surpasses all conceptual grasp.

Even the structure of the Divine Liturgy reflects this instinct: the iconostasis veils the altar, signaling that the Eucharistic sacrifice unfolds within a realm of mystery into which the faithful are invited but never fully admitted. In short, the liturgical space surrounding the altar itself becomes a theological statement about divine transcendence.

This instinct reached its classical expression in the apophatic theology of Pseudo‑Dionysius the Areopagite, who taught that the soul approaches God “by the negation of all things,” since the divine is “beyond every affirmation and every denial.” His hierarchical vision of the cosmos, culminating in a union beyond intellect, shaped the Byzantine tradition profoundly.

St Maximus the Confessor deepened this mystical orientation by presenting the cosmos as a liturgy in motion, a vast ascent toward deification in which human beings serve as mediators. His doctrine of synergy — divine grace cooperating with human freedom — expresses the Eastern conviction that salvation is a dynamic participation in divine life.

Gregory Palamas, defending the hesychast monks of Mount Athos, articulated the distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies, safeguarding both God’s transcendence and the possibility of real participation in His uncreated life. For Palamas, the apostles on Mount Tabor didn’t simply behold a created symbol but the uncreated light itself.

Thus Eastern Christianity became a tradition oriented toward Theosis, mystical participation, and liturgical experience rather than conceptual system‑building. Its theology is contemplative and ascetical, shaped by the conviction that God is known primarily through unknowing. As Gregory of Nyssa observed, “Concepts create idols; only wonder comprehends anything.”

The East does not reject reason, but it subordinates reason to the higher knowledge of union, preserving the mystery of the Divine from the reduction to human categories.

Western Religion: Systematic, Juridical, and Conceptual

Before Christianity, Roman religion was shaped by a strong concern for order, stability, and correct ritual practice. The Latin word religio itself was distinct from fides — which referred to personal faith or belief — but in the strict observance of one’s duties toward the gods in accordance with justice. The Romans believed that peace between man and the gods — which they called the Pax Deorum — was maintained only when sacred rituals were performed exactly as tradition required according to the Mos Maiorum. If a priest mispronounced a word or performed a gesture incorrectly, the entire ceremony had to be repeated.

The Pontifex Maximus, which is the greatest bridge between gods and men, oversaw the religious calendar, supervised sacrifices, and ensured that public rituals were carried out according to tradition. This office later became associated with the emperor himself as the principle of spiritual and political unity.

Roman religion was therefore highly structured, legalistic, and focused on maintaining cosmic and civic order. It did not encourage mystical union or ecstatic experience; instead, it emphasized duty, discipline, and the careful management of divine favor. These habits of mind — precision, order, and legal reasoning — formed the cultural soil into which Western Christianity was planted.

Western Christianity developed within this cultural world of Rome, where religio meant the maintenance of right order, duty, and justice, and when Christianity took root in this environment, it naturally absorbed these religious dispositions. The Western instinct was to articulate doctrine clearly, to define boundaries, and to construct systematic theological frameworks that safeguarded the integrity of the faith which is reflected in the writings of the early Western Fathers.

St Augustine stands as the principal architect of the Western theological imagination. Through the introspective brilliance of the Confessions, the sweeping historical vision of the City of God — where he claimed that the Church perfected what Rome only prefigured — and his penetrating treatments of sin, grace, and Christian doctrine forged the intellectual framework by which West would learn to understand its relationship with God, the human person, and the drama of salvation.

As the Western Church moved from Augustine’s conceptual clarity to the practical demands of governance, St Gregory the Great emerged as the figure who translated this theological vision into durable institutional form. Great, with his pastoral acuity and administrative genius, embodied the Western instinct for order, discipline, and practical governance. His Regula Pastoralis and liturgical reforms reveal a mind concerned not with speculative ascent but with shaping the moral and ecclesial life of the Christian people. Moreover, by assuming the ancient title Pontifex Maximus, he consciously styled the papacy as the new Roman principle of unity, gathering under ecclesial authority what the empire had once held together by law and power.

The medieval scholastics brought the Western mode to its fulfilment. St Thomas Aquinas, drawing on Aristotle, Augustine, and the Fathers, constructed a theological system of extraordinary coherence.

Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae stood as the high point of Scholasticism, a synthesis that drew the Western intellectual inheritance into a unified and architectonic whole. His principle — “grace does not destroy nature but perfects it” — encapsulated his entire theological vision as it expressed what he accomplished with the classical world: he baptized Aristotle and the Greco‑Roman philosophical tradition, receiving their insights into nature, virtue, and metaphysics, yet showing how supernatural revelation elevated and completed everything pagan reason had only partially grasped. In doing so, he argued that grace perfected Western culture itself, fulfilling rather than negating its deepest intellectual instincts.

His method was rigorously cataphatic, defining terms and distinguishing concepts, while still acknowledging the limits of human reason, and as a result, Western theology developed in the same spirit. The belief that the sacraments conferred supernatural grace ex opere operato reflected the ancient Roman instinct for legal precision, objective ritual form, and stable ecclesial order. Finally, Thomism understood the sacraments as Christ’s efficacious work in visible signs, and the Mass fulfilling rather than replicating the ancient Pax Deorum.

In this way, the West “baptized” Roman intellectual habits just as the East “baptized” Hellenistic mystical ones. Ultimately, the West’s strength lay in its clarity, coherence, and capacity for doctrinal development, and its systematic theology provided a stable framework that guarded the faith from confusion.

The Synthesis of East and West

In the modern world, Eastern Christianity continues to emphasize mysticism, liturgy, asceticism, and apophaticism. Theosis remains the goal of Christian life, and experiential knowledge of God is sought through prayer, sacrament, and the hesychastic tradition defended by Gregory Palamas. As a result, the East remains a living witness to the conviction that God is encountered more deeply in silence than in syllogism.

Western Christianity, by contrast, continues to emphasize systematic theology, moral clarity, and doctrinal precision. Its universities and seminaries cultivate analytical approaches to Scripture and doctrine. Even its mystical writers, such as Teresa of Avila or John of the Cross, articulate their experiences with conceptual rigor. This instinct has produced remarkable intellectual achievements, yet it can sometimes appear distant from the experiential depth cherished by the East.

These tensions are not merely theological but reflect different cultural and religious sensibilities. The Eastern doctrine of the essence–energies distinction seems to conflict with the Western doctrine of divine simplicity, and mystical experience appears to stand in tension with rational definition. Yet these contrasts reveal complementary strengths rather than irreconcilable oppositions.

A mature Christian theology requires both instincts. The East reminds the West that God transcends conceptual mastery, and the West reminds the East that clarity protects mystery from distortion. Such a synthesis would not erase the differences but integrate them into a fuller vision of the Christian life.

The East’s great conciliar definitions — especially in Christology — demonstrate that it, too, maintains doctrinal clarity when the integrity of the faith demands it, just as the West’s mystical tradition — from Bernard of Clairvaux to John of the Cross — shows that rational precision never excluded contemplative depth.

As St John Paul II observed, the Church needs both East and West, “the two lungs with which she breathes,” so that she may be drawn ever more deeply into the contemplation of God.

Join the fight for the Soul of our Civilization!

By subscribing to Atlas Press, you are supporting an honest group of guys who are working to help revitalize Western Civ through the re-enrichment of the Western mind. We appreciate your support greatly and hope you join us.

Subscribe now

The question of what makes nations ‘great’ is an inherently awkward one. Not necessarily because it is difficult to answer, but because answering it honestly requires facing uncomfortable truths.

One man who certainly feared no such controversy was Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor and Attorney General of England under King James I. As one of the most influential philosophers of Early Modern Britain, whose lifetime and office indeed coincided with the beginning of Britain’s rise to a global power, Bacon’s answer to this question warrants attention.

What makes Of the True Greatness of Kingdoms and Estates, written by Bacon in 1597 and revised in 1625, especially fascinating is that it also holds up a mirror to nations which already consider themselves great. Is that greatness built on rock, or sand?

So what does make a country truly great, and is your country on track to achieve greatness, or lose it?

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Does the Ruling Class Fiddle or Govern?

Bacon opens by reminding us of the Athenian admiral Themistocles, whose rise to political statesmanship involved constant struggle against the established elites of Athens, who disdained his lowly birth and his populism. In particular he recalls the admiral’s iconic retort when mocked for not being able to play the lyre:

“Thus it came about that, in after life, at entertainments of a so‑called liberal and polite nature, he was forced to defend himself rather rudely, saying that tuning the lyre and handling the harp were no accomplishments of his, but rather taking in hand a city that was small and inglorious and making it glorious and great.”

Plutarch, Life of Themistocles, II.3

This, then, sets the scene for Francis Bacon’s primary measure of a nation’s success. What kind of statesman is elevated in it? Who occupies its key decision-making roles? Men who fiddle, or men who can genuinely “make a small town a great city”?

In other words, are those who are perceived as ‘great statesmen’ simply those who are skilled at image and ‘politics’, or those who actually get things done and are prepared to do what it takes to raise the country up, regardless of popularity? It is remarkable that Bacon, who lived centuries before the advent of professional politics and before political campaigning became a multimillion dollar industry, remained so clear-sighted about this:

“For if a true survey be taken of counsellors and statesmen, there may be found (though rarely) those which can make a small state great, and yet cannot fiddle: as, on the other side, there will be found a great many that can fiddle very cunningly, but yet are so far from being able to make a small state great, as their gift lieth the other way; to bring a great and flourishing estate to ruin and decay”

Francis Bacon, Of the True Greatness of Kingdoms and Estates

If the ruling class itself openly treats the acquisition of power as a game to be played, and the public tolerates it, then the ‘greatness’ of that nation is resting on a broken staff. Especially when the ‘game’ is so drawn out and so dependent on so many conflicting interests and backroom deals that only the unscrupulous have the will to see it through, or even get involved at all. The cumulative effect, ultimately, is deeply corrosive to the public good:

“And certainly, those degenerate arts and shifts whereby many counsellors and governors gain both favour with their masters and estimation with the vulgar, deserve no better name than fiddling; being things rather pleasing for the time, and graceful to themselves only, than tending to the weal and advancement of the state which they serve”

Francis Bacon, Of the True Greatness of Kingdoms and Estates

But even if the governing cliques are corrupt, can the resources of their countries make up for it?

Size Matters Not

“An argument fit for great and mighty princes to have in their hand; to the end that neither by over-measuring their forces they lose themselves in vain enterprises: nor, on the other side, by undervaluing them they descend to fearful and pusillanimous counsels”

Francis Bacon, Of the True Greatness of Kingdoms and Estates

All countries possess resources and assets, be it in the form of economic goods or manpower. While the extent of these of course varies from one state to another, so too does the confidence of the country in them.

Excessive faith or pessimism in them are equally dangerous, as does anything which distorts the perception either the government or the governed has of their country’s true power. The country may have vast reserves of natural resources, but are they being exploited efficiently, and to the benefit of the country?

Perhaps the most obvious example of this is the country’s perception of its military:

“The greatness of an estate in bulk and territory doth fall under measure ; and the greatness of finances and revenue doth fall under computation. The population may appear by musters ; and the number and greatness of cities and towns by cards and maps; but yet there is not anything amongst civil affairs more subject to error than the right valuation and true judgment concerning the power and forces of an estate.”

Francis Bacon, Of the True Greatness of Kingdoms and Estates

An army may be large on paper, but a paper tiger in war. There are many reasons for this, ranging from poor leadership and thinly stretched resources to ineffective doctrines.

A particular flaw of great powers lies in a failure to adapt after victory, as complacency leads the military establishment to continuously assume — and subconsciously hope — the next conflict will be waged like the last. This is precisely what would happen to France in the 19th century, when the French Army marched fatally unprepared against the rapidly modernized forces of Prussia in 1870. After suffering defeat after humiliating defeat, the Franco-Prussian War revealed to the traumatized French public that the ‘prestige’ of their armed forces had blinded them to the new reality of its actual wartime performance. Arguably, the country has never fully recovered its martial image from this disaster.

Bacon likewise warns against the childish notion that ‘my country is bigger so it must be better’:

“The kingdom of heaven is compared, not to any great kernel or nut, but to a grain of mustard-seed; which is one of the least grains, but hath in it a property and spirit hastily to get up and spread. So are there states great in territory, and yet not apt to enlarge or command; and some that have but a small dimension of stem, and yet apt to be the foundations of great monarchies”

Francis Bacon, Of the True Greatness of Kingdoms and Estates

Virtually all empires have been undone by powers they had once written off as insignificant. The vast and multicontinental Persian Empire, after all — the world’s first superpower — disintegrated to a single campaign launched from Macedon, a comparatively tiny kingdom that even Greeks had long considered a barbarian backwater. Alexander the Great, ultimately, like the Prussians of the 19th century, marshalled fewer resources far more effectively.

For Bacon, the martial aspect of the state is one that stands central to any discussion of a country’s ‘greatness’. However, it is not simply in the sense of ‘how good’ the country is at waging war:

“Walled towns, stored arsenals and armories, goodly races of horse, chariots of war, elephants, ordnance, artillery, and the like; all this is but a sheep in a lion’s skin, except the breed and disposition of the people be stout and warlike. Nay, number (itself) in armies importeth not much? Where the people is of weak courage; for (as Virgil saith), It never troubles a wolf how many the sheep be”

Francis Bacon, Of the True Greatness of Kingdoms and Estates

That is, when judging the greatness of states, the character of the country’s military cannot be divorced from the character of the civilian population. A house divided, after all, cannot stand.

So what is the character of a people which can truly call its nation ‘great’?

Read more

History has always invited competing interpretations, each attempting to grasp the underlying figures and forces that shape the rise and fall of civilizations.

In his Republic, Plato observed that “the beginning is the most important part of the work.” This principle can be rightfully applied to a study of history where the framing of historical inquiry determines its conclusions. Plutarch later sharpened this insight in his Life of Alexander by shifting attention from grand events to the moral feats of exceptional figures. “We are not writing histories but lives,” he insists, noting that the most spectacular deeds do not always reveal the deepest truths of character.

These ancient distinctions signal an early awareness that the individual, the elite, and the structural all contend for explanatory primacy.

Modern historians have extended this tension rather than resolved it. Will Durant, emphasising the biological substrate of human affairs, described history as “a fragment of biology,” while Oswald Spengler, taking a more deterministic view, argued that cultures unfold according to “strict necessity,” like organisms bound to destiny. Each, in his own way, inherits the ancient struggle to decide where historical explanation truly begins.

Across these traditions, three dominant readings emerge: the Great Man Theory, which sees history as the work of singular figures; Elite History, which attributes change to aristocratic minorities; and Historical Determinism, which views events as the inevitable outcome of impersonal forces.

Each offers insight, yet each alone is insufficient. Civilizations are too complex to be reduced to a single mechanism. Still, by examining these three readings, we gain a clearer sense of how human agency, social hierarchy, and structural destiny intertwine in the long arc of historical development.

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

Monarchy and the Great Man Theory

The Great Man Theory rests on the conviction that history is shaped by exceptional individuals whose will, intellect, or charisma bends events toward new trajectories. Its lineage stretches from Herodotus’ portraits of kings in his Histories to Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, where the character of a single man becomes the fulcrum of an age.

In this reading, monarchy becomes the political analogue of historical agency. The king, emperor, or founder embodies the unity of the state, and his decisions carry disproportionate weight. Alexander’s conquests, Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, and Constantine’s conversion each illustrate how one individual can redirect the flow of centuries.

Will Durant, reflecting on such figures, wrote in his Story of Civilization that “the hero is the culmination of a thousand causes,” yet he insisted that the hero remains indispensable, because without him “the causes would have remained ineffective.” The Great Man is thus both product and producer, shaped by his age yet capable of transcending it.

Spengler, though more deterministic, acknowledged the potency of singular leaders within the life-cycle of cultures. He recognized in Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon, a symbol of a world collapsing into the hands of one man, suggesting that in moments of civilizational crisis, the individual becomes the vessel through which destiny expresses itself. Here monarchy functions as the embodiment of destiny itself, concentrating the movement of a culture into the decisions of a single leader who becomes the pivot of history.

Critics argue that this view exaggerates the role of individuals and neglects broader historical forces. Yet the undeniable reality remains that certain men altered their worlds in ways no committee or collective movement could replicate. Their presence accelerated processes that might otherwise have unfolded slowly or not at all.

Thus, the Great Man Theory reminds us that history is not only a chronicle of structures but also of decisions, ambitions, and the unpredictable spark of individual human genius, and the ability of one man to impose their will upon the world.

Aristocracy and Elite History

If the Great Man Theory elevates the singular figure, Elite History shifts attention to the aristocratic minority that governs, administers, and directs the machinery of civilization.

In his Politics, Aristotle argued that “the best form of government is that which is administered by the best men,” capturing the ancient conviction that a small, cultivated class inevitably shapes the destiny of the many. This reading of history sees change not as the work of single heroic figures but as the cumulative action of ruling elites — senates, councils, priesthoods, merchant dynasties, and intellectual circles.

Plato’s vision of the philosopher‑kings in the Republic reflects this aristocratic ideal. He argued that only those trained in virtue and reason should guide the polis, for “the heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior.” In historical practice, elites have often fulfilled this role, whether in the Roman Senate, the Venetian patriciate, or the Oxbridge‑trained administrators who dominated the British civil service in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Their decisions, alliances, and rivalries constitute the hidden hand behind major turning points in history, exerting influence that rarely appears in the official record.

Will Durant emphasized this dynamic when he wrote that “history is the biography of the community,” arguing that elites shape the moral and institutional contours of the societies they lead. Their character becomes, in time, the character of the civilization itself. Spengler, more severe in tone, argued in his The Decline of the West that every high culture develops a dominant minority whose style, values, and will‑to‑power define its epoch. For him, aristocracy is not just a political arrangement but a cultural necessity since “every culture has its own soul, and the aristocracy is its first and last expression.”

Elite History highlights the continuity of institutions and the slow, deliberate shaping of societies by those who possess education, wealth, and influence. It explains why revolutions often replace one elite with another, why bureaucracies outlast kings, and why cultural norms persist long after charismatic leaders vanish. Yet it also reveals the fragility of civilizations when their elites decay, lose confidence, or become detached from the people they govern.

Aristocracy, in this reading, is both stabilizing and perilous, capable of guiding a civilization to greatness or presiding over its decline.

Democracy and Historical Determinism

The third reading, Historical Determinism, views history as the unfolding of impersonal forces — economic pressures, demographic shifts, technological innovations, and cultural cycles.

In this interpretation, individuals and elites are swept along by currents far larger than themselves. This deterministic view aligns with the democratic sensibilities of the modern age, for it privileges the collective forces of society over the exceptional individual.

The masses, through their aggregated choices and pressures, become the true authors of historical change. From a deterministic perspective, political upheavals arise not from the actions of a single agitator — or even a coordinated revolutionary elite — but from material conditions that accumulate until they produce open conflict.

Industrialization alters economic structures and social relations, while migration patterns, climatic shifts, and technological innovations effectively reshape civilizations through pressures that far exceed the reach or influence of any single leader or elite.

Durant acknowledged this historical approach when he wrote that “civilization is a stream with banks,” suggesting that while individuals may stir the surface, the deep currents that become human history are shaped by geography, biology, and economics. Determinism thus offers a sobering reminder that history is not infinitely malleable since it imposes constraints, patterns, and necessities that no individual ruler or powerful elite can fully overcome.

Yet determinism can become overly rigid, reducing human beings to passive instruments of fate. While it explains long-term trends — whether it be the rise of cities, the spread of technologies, the cycles of empire — it struggles to account for sudden ruptures or the unpredictable emergence of transformative figures. Still, it remains indispensable for understanding the structural forces that underlie historical change, reminding us that civilizations are shaped not only by decisions but by conditions.

Spengler, too, underscored this structural dimension, insisting that cultures move through predetermined seasons of growth, maturity, and decline. For him, even the greatest leaders are “signs, not causes,” embodiments of forces already ripening within the cultural organism. Durant echoed this sentiment in a more moderate key, noting that “the laws of history are the laws of biology,” and that no society can escape the limits imposed by its material base.

Together, these perspectives reinforce the deterministic insight that history possesses a momentum of its own — a momentum that individuals may momentarily redirect but never fully command.

The Synthesis of Historical Readings

Each of the three readings—Great Man, Elite, and Determinist—captures a dimension of historical reality. The Great Man Theory reveals the potency of individual agency, Elite History uncovers the enduring influence of ruling minorities, and Historical Determinism exposes the structural forces that shape civilizations across centuries. However, none of these readings is sufficient alone since history is not a single-threaded narrative but a complex thread woven from personality, hierarchy, and necessity.

A balanced historiography recognizes that individuals act within structures, elites guide and restrain those individuals, and deeper forces set the boundaries within which both operate. Spengler’s cultural cycles, Durant’s biological metaphors, and the classical emphasis on virtue and leadership all converge on this point: history is a dialogue between freedom and fate, and civilizations rise when these elements align and collapse when they fall into disarray.

Understanding this balance allows us to appreciate the complexity of the past without surrendering to fatalism or hero-worship.

Yet even within this balanced view, one truth remains evident across the ages: we must never forget the power that one man has to radically alter the course of human history. For this reason, we make statues to men — not committees or forces.

Join the fight for the Soul of our Civilization!

By subscribing to Atlas Press, you are supporting an honest group of guys who are working to help revitalize Western Civ through the re-enrichment of the Western mind. We appreciate your support greatly and hope you join us.

Subscribe now

Poll after poll has shown, decade after decade, that the general public thoroughly rejects ‘modern’ art.

It has done so for so long that this issue could well be called the canary in the coal mine when it comes to the disconnect between governors and governed across the Western world. The ‘aesthetic’ disconnect has indeed been present for so long, however, that it has largely been taken for granted, with protest regularly shut down with the Orwellian line that ‘anything is art’.

This vagueness has an unfortunate tendency to spill across the divide, and as a result ‘Western art’ is too often defended in abstract terms that modernists quickly pounce upon to discredit criticism. If we are to truly stand up for our civilizational aesthetic therefore, it is critical we have a proper understanding of what Western art actually is, what specific qualities set it apart, and therefore why even overwhelming institutional messaging has failed to win the Western public over the modern art.

So what is Western art, how did it complement our civilization, and how can the broken aesthetic bond of our society can be remade?

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission of revitalizing the Western Mind at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

The Western Wilderness

The quality and extent of art in Ancient Rome is often overlooked, particularly as her marble sculptures tend to dominate the public’s perception of it.

But the Romans were exceptionally talented painters, as evidenced by the breathtaking frescoes which adorned both public and private buildings alike, and which still survive today. Drawing upon Etruscan and Greek traditions, the Romans achieved extraordinarily detailed depictions of people, animals and landscapes alike, and by the reach of their empire, elevated this into the first genuinely ‘Western standard’ of art.

It is clear too that Roman painters adhered to a certain cultural expectation when it came to ‘what art should be’, and that was a faithful depiction of the subject. The oldest encyclopedia in the world, the Natural History of Pliny the Elder, indeed contains a critical passage on this very subject, giving us all we need to know about what Roman elites considered tasteful or not in the visual arts:

“The painting of portraits, used to transmit through the ages extremely correct likenesses of persons, has entirely gone out… Consequently nobody's likeness lives and they leave behind them portraits that represent their money, not themselves… indolence has destroyed the arts, and since our minds cannot be portrayed, our bodily features are also neglected”

Pliny the Elder, Natural History, XXXV.2

We have, therefore, our first key anchor in Western art. That it should reflect nature, and that straying from this reflects a normalization of questionable morals.

With the collapse of Rome in the West however, all of this came to an abrupt end. For hundreds of years Italy and beyond were condemned to an aesthetic wilderness, defined by conflicting Germanic and Eastern influences which produced the same result — natural fidelity was out, and abstract was in. The art, therefore, was a tangible representation of Western Europe’s subjugation, and fragmented identity. At least until Italy’s reawakening…

The Return to Form

In medieval residences, art was a shadow of what it had been in Roman villas.

It tended to be extremely basic, consisting of simple geometric shape patterns. In Italian churches, it was all but indistinguishable from the icons you would see in Byzantine Greece. Scenes were rigid, two-dimensional and almost entirely devoid of emotion. Set upon brilliant gold-field backgrounds, such icons were inherently abstract.

It is clear, however, that there was no small resentment towards this situation. Giorgio Vasari, the Florentine painter and father of Art History itself, likened it to a foreign occupation. An occupation that was first truly resisted in the late 13th century by arguably the first true painter of the Italian Renaissance, Giotto. Turning his back on Byzantine tradition, from his Crucifix to the decorations of the Scrovegni Chapel Giotto dared to paint three dimensional scenes, with realistic figures and naturalistic backgrounds. Note the language Vasari used in the 16th century to describe him:

”The child not only equalled the manner of his master, but became so good an imitator of nature that he banished completely that rude Greek manner and revived the modern and good art of painting, introducing the portraying well from nature of living people, which had not been used for more than two hundred years.”

Giorgio Vasari, Life of Giotto

Vasari does not mention Pliny the Elder in the biography. But separated though they were by over a thousand years, the unity of themes across this pagan/Christian divide is as uncanny as it is unambiguous. The art natural to Italy, and by extension the West, is once again anchored to Nature. Vasari doubles down on this in the same biography:

“That very obligation which the craftsmen of painting owe to nature, who serves continually as model to those who are ever wresting the good from her best and most beautiful features and striving to counterfeit and to imitate her, should be owed, in my belief, to Giotto, painter of Florence, for the reason that, after the methods of good paintings and their outlines had lain buried for so many years under the ruins of the wars, he alone, although born among inept craftsmen, by the gift of God revived that art, which had come to a grievous pass, and brought it to such a form as could be called good.”

Giorgio Vasari, Life of Giotto

This, then was the central driving force behind the Italian Renaissance in Art. A rebirth of the classical world, portrayed in a return to Nature. Again and again, ‘natural’ appears in contemporary descriptions of Renaissance artists and their work. None more so, however, than in reference to arguably the greatest painter the Western world has ever produced — Raphael.

Raphael, ultimately, achieved the union of natural and artificial grace. He painted the human form as it was, in surroundings which elevated both the subject and the message. Consider, if nothing more, the words that were chosen for his epitaph, and which can still be read clear as day upon his tomb in the Pantheon:

“Here lies Raphael, whom Nature feared to be outdone while he lived, and when he died, Nature died with him”

Epitaph of Raphael Sanzio, Pietro Bembo, c. 1520

But upon his death in 1520, Western art stood at a crossroads. How do you improve upon something almost everybody had agreed was already perfect?

If Nature is the baseline, then there are only two paths to take. Our civilization has seen both, but only one remains rooted to the actual tradition of Western art.

Curiously, Raphael’s own words have the answer…

Read more

Long before a people codifies law, drafts a constitution or constructs a senate floor, it learns to imagine itself through the founding myths it tells — around fires, in marketplaces, and in the epic poems passed from one generation to the next.

A village that gathers each year to retell how its ancestors — whether real or imagined — crossed the seas or over mountain range is already a nation in embryo. This story grows into ritual, the ritual matures into tradition, and the tradition becomes their civilizational character.

These stories do more than recount origins, but rather articulate the virtues a community admires, the vices it wishes to restrain, and the kind of human being it hopes to produce.

In his Republic, Plato suggests that the founders of a city must be “the makers of tales.” He understood that political communities are shaped not by syllogisms but by a captivating idea. A founding myth is therefore not merely a narrative of beginnings but a template for national character, embodied in the hero who stands at its centre. Moreover, these myths explain why a land is cherished, why ancestors are honored, and why the future is worth defending.

Yet their deepest power lies in the transformational power of their stories. Geography becomes homeland, ancestry becomes inheritance, and the founding hero becomes a model of civic virtue.

Modern historiography, however, tends to treat these stories as complete fabrications — superstitious relics of the past that need to be cleared away so that the “real” history can be taught. Yet in stripping away the poetry, it strips away the animating principles that create a people.

While history reduced to a science may inform, it cannot inspire, and it is no coincidence that the nations that have endured for centuries — if not millennia — are precisely those with the strongest founding mythologies.

Myth, then, is not an escape from reality. It is the cultural framework that allows a society to interpret its reality, to endure its trials, and to realize its destiny. When citizens understand themselves as co-constructors in a long, unfolding narrative, they accept burdens and responsibilities that no policy or bureaucratic appeal could ever legislate.

However, when that foundational myth is dismissed or forgotten, the animating principle that binds civic life is slowly but surely unravelled, and the nation inevitably collapses into a loose confederation of atomized factions with nothing to bind them together.

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

Romulus and Remus: The Twins Who Forged an Empire

“Go and tell the Romans that by heaven’s will, Rome shall be capital of the world. Let them learn to be soldiers. Let them know, and teach their children, that no power on earth can stand against Roman arms.” – Titus Livius (Ab Urbe Condita: The Early History of Rome)

According to Roman tradition, the origins of the eternal city lie in the survival of two infants abandoned on the banks of the Tiber River. Romulus and Remus were said to be descendants of Aeneas, the Trojan exile whose journey westward preserved both his royal lineage and the household gods of his people. They were also believed to be sons of Mars, a divine paternity that placed Rome under the patronage of the god of war from its very inception.

This connection situated Rome within a chain of continuity stretching back to the heroic age described in Homer’s Iliad, giving the city a pedigree that combined divine sanction with the memory and inheritance of a fallen civilization.

Ancient historians record that the twins were abandoned because Amulius, having usurped the throne from his brother Numitor, feared any legitimate heirs who might one day challenge his rule and therefore ordered the infants to be destroyed. Fate would have it that Romulus and Remus would survive their exposure being rescued by a she‑wolf who “gave them suck, as though she had been sent by some god to preserve the founders of Rome.”

In his Early History of Rome, Titus Livius recounts that then, raised by shepherds and ignorant of their noble past, Romulus and Remus grew into figures “of extraordinary size and strength, and as soon as they were old enough they roamed the hills hunting and engaging in contests of speed and strength”. This naturally drew men of the surrounding country to them like the gravitational pull of a celestial body.

When they resolved to establish a settlement for their people, disagreement arose over its location and leadership. The auguries they sought offered no clear resolution, and their rivalry hardened into open hostility. On the Palatine Hill, Romulus began to trace the boundary of his new city, and Remus, in an act interpreted as a challenge to the sacredness of the boundary, stepped across the unfinished wall.

Romulus withdrew his weapon and slew his brother since such a violation of his city’s honor was intolerable, and in doing so delivered the historic aphorism that would come to characterize the Roman people: “so perish whosoever shall overleap my battlements”.

In this episode, the Romans later saw the first assertion of the city’s authority and the principle that its security and preservation outweighed all other obligations. For later generations, the killing of Remus was read as the moment in which the inviolability of the pomerium — the sacred boundary that marked not merely the physical limits of the city but the sphere of its divine protection — was first established in blood.

Thus the myth concluded with fratricide, divine ancestry, and the establishment of a sacred boundary that would effectively shape Roman self‑understanding for millennia.

In the years that followed, Romulus was remembered not only as the city’s founder but as its first conqueror, subduing the neighbouring tribes of the Caeninenses, Antemnates, and Sabines, thereby demonstrating that Rome’s destiny lay in expansion from its very inception. He was also revered as a religious lawgiver, establishing sacred rites, priestly offices, and the first political assemblies — a reminder that Roman authority was always intertwined with divine sanction.

As sons of Mars, Romulus and Remus embodied a divine temperament marked by austerity, discipline, and a readiness for conflict — traits the Romans believed they inherited. Romulus’ own life reinforced this belief. He was a warrior‑king who fought, ruled, and worshiped with equal severity, and in doing so, became the archetype of the Roman man — pious, martial, and unyielding. His ascent into the heavens as Quirinus, Rome’s deified founder, further cemented the idea that Roman identity was forged through a fusion of religious duty and military prowess.

Following Romulus, the Roman people embodied an austerity of spirit that bordered on severity, a disciplined acceptance of the burdens imposed by fortuna, and a conviction that both the individual and the collective city moved within a destiny larger than themselves — a destiny they believed lesser peoples could neither imitate nor withstand.

Over time, Romans came to see in these foundational myths the earliest expression of the Mos Maiorum — not merely the “way of the ancestors” but the hard inheritance that set them apart from the softer nations they would later conquer. It became the standard by which they measured themselves and legitimized their rule.

This mythic legacy cultivated a fierce Roman exceptionalism: a people born in struggle, descended from the god of war, and consecrated by sacrifice. Convinced that the blood of Mars ran in their veins, the Romans interpreted victory as the visible working of fatum — a cosmic mandate rather than a human achievement.

In this way, the myth furnished the psychological and spiritual foundations of the relentless militarism that enabled Rome to subdue the ancient world and impose the imperium that would later be celebrated as the Pax Romana.

George Washington: The General Who Became the Republic

“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty… is finally staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” — George Washington (First Inaugural Address)

The origins of the United States of America are inseparable from the figure of George Washington, whose life came to embody the transition from colonial dependency to national sovereignty.

Born into the provincial gentry of Virginia, Washington belonged to a society still shaped by English customs yet increasingly conscious of its distance from the imperial centre. His early military service in the French and Indian War placed him at the frontier of imperial conflict, where the limits of British authority and the ambitions of the colonies became unmistakably visible.

When tensions with Britain escalated, Washington emerged as the figure capable of uniting disparate colonial interests. His conduct during the Revolutionary War — namely, austere self‑command, political restraint, and a reputation for unwavering reliability — became the template for the American character. As he wrote to the Continental Congress in 1776, “I have no lust for power, but a sincere wish to serve my country,” a declaration that later generations would treat as the moral foundation of his leadership.

In the darkest winters of the war, he embodied a civic ideal: a leader who accepted hardship without complaint, subordinated personal ambition to the common good, and held together a fragile army through sheer moral authority.

At Valley Forge, where disease, hunger, and desertion threatened to dissolve the Continental Army, Washington’s refusal to abandon his men became a defining moment in the American imagination. During the retreat across New Jersey in 1776, when defeat seemed imminent, his calm persistence prevented the revolution from collapsing. And at Trenton and Princeton, his willingness to strike boldly when all seemed lost demonstrated that resolve, not resources, would determine the fate of the new nation.

Later generations would see in him the first assertion of a distinctly American virtue; the belief that liberty required discipline, sacrifice, and a willingness to endure trials for the sake of posterity.

Washington was also a man steeped in the classical tradition. In urging his officers to cultivate “the virtues of the ancients,” he revealed not only admiration but a deliberate effort to shape the new republic in continuity with the classical world. Educated in the histories of Greece and Rome, he and the other Founding Fathers consciously drew upon the ancient republics when drafting the Constitution.

The Roman model offered both inspiration and warning: from it they adopted the language of the Senate, the symbolism of the fasces, the ideal of the citizen‑soldier, and the conviction that public virtue was the foundation of political liberty, even as they rejected the imperial temptations that had corrupted the later Republic.

Thus, while they adopted Roman models of law, representation, and civic virtue, they carefully constructed political created checks and balances to prevent the slide into autocracy.

This contrast reached its defining moment when Washington declined the offer of kingship and voluntarily surrendered military power. In his own words, “I retire from the great theatre of action,” a renunciation that Americans interpreted as the crowning achievement of the Revolution — the decisive act that ensured the republic would be founded on consent rather than coercion.

In that renunciation, Washington became the American Cincinnatus, the patriotic citizen‑soldier who surrenders authority and returns to private life once public duty is fulfilled.

Over time, Americans came to see in Washington’s life the earliest expression of their own civilizational code — a New World analogue to the Roman Mos Maiorum. His example became the standard by which leaders were judged and distinguished the American new republic from the old monarchies of Europe.

As the United States expanded westward, asserted itself on the world stage, and came to see itself as the defender of freedom, Americans interpreted their rise as the unfolding of a national destiny. This conviction was later reinforced when the United States entered the World Wars, casting itself as the decisive power that would restore order, defend democratic ideals, and secure the peace that older empires could no longer guarantee.

In this way, the Washington myth became the republic’s foundational narrative, shaping its conviction that the United States of America possessed a singular role in history. From exceptionalism to Manifest Destiny and eventually to global hegemony, Americans came to see themselves as co-constructors of a new political order defined by liberty and sustained by their willingness to defend it.

Destroying Mythology Destroys Nations

Oswald Spengler saw the decay of the mythic imagination as the first symptom of civilizational decline since a culture that no longer believes its founding stories has already begun to exhaust its inner vitality. Like a tree severed from its roots, a people severed from its mythology withers and dies because it is the animating spirit and unifying principle of their civilization.

When a nation’s founding myths are attacked, trivialized, or discarded, the consequences are not only cultural but civilizational. A people stripped of its stories becomes disoriented, unable to understand who they are, what they honor, or why their future is worth defending.

Myth is the connective tissue between past, present, and future — the vessel of cultural memory through which a civilization recognizes itself across generations. It provides a moral framework, a model of character, and a vision of the kind of human being the nation aims to form.

Modernity’s obsession with scientific reduction empties myth of meaning and treats the past as irrelevant, but a people that abandons its founding stories is not enlightened — it is committing cultural suicide.

The destruction of mythology is therefore not enlightenment but cultural vandalism. A people that forgets its foundations forgets itself, and once that forgetting begins, the unraveling is swift, silent, and almost always irreversible. For when a nation ceases to believe the stories that once gave it purpose, it does not become rational, it becomes hollow — a civilization moving, as G. K. Chesterton put it, “with a weary and heavy heart, toward the dark house of its own extinction.”

Thank you for reading.

Join the fight for the Soul of our Civilization!

By subscribing to Atlas Press, you are supporting an honest group of guys who are working to help revitalize Western Civ through the re-enrichment of the Western mind. We appreciate your support greatly and hope you join us.

Subscribe now

The modern world has done much to pollute the idea of aristocracy by conflating it with oligarchy.

What is the difference, you may ask? After all, isn’t it all just small groups of elite people who run the country?

But there is one simple difference which makes all the difference. In an oligarchy such as we know today, power lurks in the shadows. It is unwritten, unacknowledged and therefore unchecked. In an aristocracy, power is open. It is written, acknowledged and there is no plausible deniability over who is wielding it.

How power transfers in an oligarchy is never clear. In an aristocracy, it is openly and unapologetically hereditary. Modern elite thought views this manner of succession as a weakness. Our ancestors of course did not, and indeed one man who championed what hereditary nobility can do for society was an actual saint.

On September 8th 1584, Saint Charles Borromeo indeed delivered a sermon in Milan on this very topic. In it, he argued that nobility can be a powerful stimulus for public virtue, and that the hereditary element was crucial to this.

So, how can aristocracy stimulate virtue, and how therefore can you become more aristocratic?

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

Nobility of Flesh, Nobility of Soul

Saint Charles Borromeo was uniquely well-qualified to speak on the subject of aristocratic virtue. As well as being a cleric who served as Archbishop of Milan, he was also a nobleman himself. Descended from the House of Borromeo, one of the older lordly families of Lombardy, he had centuries of family tradition behind him.

You may think, therefore, that it was self-serving of Charles to champion nobility as an asset to society. But he was a man who practised what he preached, and who put his money where his mouth was. In 1573, he founded a successful school in Milan, the College of Nobility, with the express purpose of educating aristocratic sons in Christian virtue, away from temptations that would lead them astray.

When a deadly plague struck Milan three years later, Charles would become renowned for his selfless dedication to the suffering. Successfully mobilising the Christian communities of the city to coordinate aid, he famously went into steep debt himself to procure food for the starving. So when he addressed the congregation of Milan on September 8th 1584 with a stirring sermon on Christian nobility, he did so with credibility.

He indeed began that sermon with a reminder that to be Christian is to already be imbued with the dignity of nobility:

“Moreover, although we are not ignorant of the fact that true nobility — the Christian nobility — is that which the Only Begotten of the Father conferred on all of us when“ as many as received Him, He gave them power to be made the sons of God” (John I:12), and that this dignity of nobility is common to all faithful Christians, nevertheless we believe that nobility according to the flesh ought not in any way be despised or rejected”

Saint Charles Borromeo, Homily of September 8th 1584

That said, “nobility according to the flesh” absolutely has a role to play in encouraging this “dignity of nobility”. First of all, in the role it plays in setting out expectations within the noble family itself:

“In the first place, the splendor of the blood and the virtue and famous deeds of the ancestors have a marvelous effect in disposing the noble, virile man to follow in the footsteps of those from whom he descended”

Saint Charles Borromeo, Homily of September 8th 1584

There is nothing, after all, quite as motivating as the example set by your own flesh and blood to inspire you to equal or surpass it. The bond of kin between the nobleman and his ancestor brings with it a certain reassurance, that within him a certain ability flows, and that he is capable of greatness.

This of course works in multiple ways. The man who is aware of his ancestors has examples both positive and negative to draw upon, and the more acquainted he is with those ancestors, the deeper the well of wisdom he has to draw upon. While the “nobility of the flesh” is by definition better placed to do this, since noble families by their nature tend to be aware of and celebrate their ancestors to a greater degree, the same logic applies to any family.

“Know Thyself”, as the inscription above the Oracle of Delphi famously said. Know your family, who has come before you and what battles they faced. Every family has a story, of which you are a chapter. Unless you know where in that story you are, your chapter will ramble, undermining the course of those that are to follow.

But how can aristocracy itself help with this?

A Stage For Elevating Virtue

“All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women are merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts”

William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII

If virtue can be cultivated by anyone, and a strong family unit can assist in the cultivation of it across generations, then there is one clear role that titled nobility can play — to serve as a stage for that virtue.

In other words, the existence of an aristocracy, whose status is known to all and whose lives are visible to all is an exceptionally powerful tool. An aristocrat, after all, is fundamentally different to a celebrity. His status and standing, after all, cannot be divorced from service to the country. Under Feudalism, this was true to an absolute degree. It was physically impossible to own the land which could beget wealth without possessing a title that carried with it clearly defined obligations in governance and military leadership.

An aristocracy therefore can provide the same ‘appeal’ as celebrity and inspire the same ‘personal investment’ from the people, while keeping said ‘aura’ anchored to productive service. Since their very status as aristocrats fluctuates according to their deeds, this in itself acts as an incentive to virtue, as does the fear of scandal. The aristocrat, therefore, has a clear interest in fostering virtue in his children:

“Whence it follows that the nobles, as if by a certain instinct of nature, seek after honor, cultivate magnanimity, despise cheap gains, and finally abhor those things deemed unworthy of their nobility”

Saint Charles Borromeo, Homily of September 8th 1584

We may laugh today at the fussiness of etiquette and the preoccupation with standing among the pre-war nobility, or perhaps smile at its quaintness, but there was of course a reason for these manners. Lesser sin, ultimately, was seen as the tip of the iceberg. A man who took a lax view of ceremony, or else indulged in gambling or infidelity, it was believed, had slipped and had opened himself to temptation that would enable graver crimes. A man in disgrace is a man unlikely to be given opportunities — opportunities that could elevate himself and his family.

Thus nobility, and above all, the culture of nobility, can act as a surprisingly self-regulating standard of conduct among the ruling elite:

“In the second place, nobility is equally a stimulus for holding fast to virtues. This differs from the first benefit we have described: the first predisposes the noble to embrace righteous works more easily; the second adds powerful stimuli to that which has been rendered easy and, as it were, is a kind of bridle that represses vices and actions unbecoming of the noble and that, should the noble fall into some fault, causes him to be overcome with an extraordinary shame so that he may, with all his strength, take care to purify himself of this stain.”

Saint Charles Borromeo, Homily of September 8th 1584

It is important to remember, too, that if we speak of hereditary nobility then the ‘stakes of conduct’ are raised for the individuals. For they risk the name not only of themselves, but their ancestors before them and descendants after them.

At the same time, if we speak of hereditary nobility, then we are also speaking of a certain prestige that a mere career bureaucracy cannot emulate, and has singularly failed to replicate. There is an innate human respect for anything that lasts, including names. Coming back to the stage, therefore, nobility has the power to reflect its own prestige onto what it does upon that public stage:

“Finally, the last benefit of nobility to consider is that, just as a precious rock glimmers more when it is set in gold than in iron, so also these virtues are more splendorous in the noble than in the common man; and nobility added to virtue is its greatest ornament.”

Saint Charles Borromeo, Homily of September 8th 1584

Virtue is pure, and nobility majestic. When the two are allied, they are greater than the sum of their parts. A virtuous nobleman makes virtue itself glamorous.

At this point, if not before, you are likely wondering if I will address the elephant in the room. ‘Yes, but not all noblemen are virtuous, indeed some have been downright scandalous, so now what?’.

Counterintuitively however, an immoral nobleman can be as much an asset to his society as his virtuous kin. For as Charles points out, aristocracy can be the stage of society. But in order to tell a compelling story from that stage, it needs villains as well as heroes…

Read more

Historians and political theorists have long noted that no society — ancient or modern — appears out of a void as drifting abstractions that later harden into institutions. Every civilization begins as a people already shaped by land, faith, and inherited culture.

And just as a household needs walls to protect the family within, a people require boundaries — physical and cultural, visible and invisible — that distinguish them from outsiders and preserve the form of life they mean to hand on.

Yet an opposing view insists the analogy is outdated: that nations are the remnants of an antiquated past, that borders are arbitrary lines drawn by history, and that humanity is better understood as a single moral community rather than distinct peoples.

This is why the question “Why do nations need borders?” predates contemporary arguments about sovereignty or immigration. It belongs to the older inquiry into how order is created and how justice survives across generations. At its center lies the more unsettling question: what is a nation?

Is it an accident, is it an idea, or is it a family?

If it is merely an accident or an idea, then borders are arbitrary lines. But if a nation is a family then borders are not optional — they are the conditions of its survival, and must be defended.

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

The Classical Understanding: Borders as the Form of a People

According to the Ancients, a people did not emerge as an abstract collection of individuals but as a koinōnia — a living fellowship or extended family whose character was inseparable from the land it inhabited and the boundaries that defined it.

Rather than treating geography as an accident, the ancients saw it as the primordial architect of a people’s habits, virtues, and limits. In the Laws, Plato writes that “the habits of the citizens must be molded by the laws, and the laws must follow the nature of the place.”

Mountain ranges, rivers, coastlines, and plains were not neutral features but formed a people as much as their own parents. In this sense, their geography and subsequent borders were not imposed from without, but rather, inextricably connected to who a people, and these geographic features formed the boundaries of their society.

Plato’s reflections on the city-state (polis) presuppose this intimate bond between land and people. Rather than being an administrative unit, Plato argued that the city‑state was an extended family, a community of shared descent, shared memory, and shared culture. Its members could meaningfully know, recognize, and care for one another only within a determinate space.

Moreover, in his Republic, Plato warns that “When a state becomes many instead of one, it is no longer a state.” A city-state that extends beyond the scale of familial recognition ceased to be a unified people, because it lost the cultural and historical intimacy that made it a single people.

Aristotle sharpened this philosophical insight by grounding political life in the natural progression from household to village to city, each stage deepening and reinforcing the koinōnia. This progression was genealogical as well as political.

The city-state was the natural extension of the household whose shared history, language, religion, and customs united and formed them as a people. In his Politics, Aristotle insisted that “a state when composed of too many is no longer a state, for law has no strength when the mass of the people is too great,” and he tied this directly to geography, noting that “the character of peoples differs according to their location; for the climate has much to do with the formation of habits.” This development was always tied to place.

The virtues appropriate to a maritime people differed from those of a mountain people because the land itself disciplined their dispositions. Thus, “the state must have a definite territory, for the state is a community of families and of clans for the sake of a good life.” Borders not only preserved a people’s safety but also its civilizational character and morality.

Marcus Tullius Cicero’s conception of the people (populus) was not an accidental collection of individuals under law but the union of a people by shared customs, affections, and religious rites. This civic family was formed as a conscious reflection of its own lineage and cultural inheritance. As he wrote in De Re Publica, “a commonwealth is the property of a people; and a people is not every assemblage of men, but an assemblage united by agreement in justice and partnership in common good.”

Romanitas, the distinctive character of the Roman people, was inseparable from the city’s sacred boundaries (pomerium), the disciplined order of its agrarian landscape, and the rhythms of life shaped by the Italian peninsula. To this effect, Cicero wrote that “the walls of the city are not the ramparts of the stones, but the laws and customs of our ancestors,” which reflected the general consensus that borders were as cultural as well as physical.

To belong to the populus Romanus was to belong to a historical family whose identity had been forged by its land and its memory. However, Romanitas was adoptive as well as ancestral since those who accepted its laws, cultus, and civic virtues could be integrated into the populus without dissolving its identity. This was possible because the principles of proportionality, assimilation, and the common good were maintained since “The safety of the people was the highest law”.

The Christian Understanding: Universal Faith, Particular Peoples

Christianity entered the ancient world with a revolutionary claim. Through Christ, the Church transcended the limits of tribe and territory, announcing a community united in faith rather than descent. St Paul’s proclamation that the Gospel was for “Jew and Gentile” alike introduced a spiritual universality into human affairs, a unity that no political order could produce.

Yet this universality did not abolish the natural order of peoples and sovereignty. Paul’s own letters presuppose the legitimacy of civil authority, and the early Church never imagined that the spiritual unity of believers somehow erased the concrete distinctions of culture, law, and territorial integrity of particular peoples.

This distinction between supernatural unity and natural differentiation became foundational for Christian political thought. When St Augustine wrote The City of God, he clarified that the Church — the heavenly city — is gathered from all nations without displacing them. Earthly communities, with their laws, borders, and sovereignties, remain necessary for the preservation of order and justice in the temporal realm.

Augustine’s contrast between the two cities was not a call to abandon the earthly city but to understand its role in directing man toward one of his dual ends — temporal flourishing (eudaimonia). For Augustine, the Church is a supernatural community that transcends temporal borders without negating their political necessity.

The earthly city, shaped by history, geography, and shared civic practice, forms a people whose common life requires clear boundaries. Augustine underscores this by recalling that “God divided the nations, setting the bounds of the peoples,” a scriptural affirmation that political order presupposes territorial differentiation. Thus he could say, “The earthly city, which does not live by faith, desires an ordered concord of civic obedience,” a concord that depends on defined authority, territorial integrity, and national sovereignty.

Without such boundaries, political authority cannot fulfil its charge to restrain disorder, adjudicate competing claims, and secure the conditions for civic peace oriented toward the common good.

St Thomas Aquinas later refined this synthesis with greater philosophical precision. Drawing on Aristotle, he affirmed that political communities arise from the natural sociability of human beings and that their particular forms reflect the concrete circumstances of their land, history, and customs.

For Aquinas, this diversity is not accidental, since “Different peoples have different customs, according to the diversity of their conditions.” The common good of a people is inseparable from the order that binds them together — an order that requires defined authority, stable jurisdiction, and territorial integrity. Sovereignty is not merely a pragmatic necessity but a moral requirement: rulers must have the capacity to govern a determinate people for their flourishing.

Aquinas thus completes the classical‑Christian account: the universality of the Church pertains to grace, while the plurality of nations pertains to nature. The supernatural fellowship of believers does not erase the natural bonds that constitute a people; it presupposes them. By maintaining their borders, nations preserve the concrete cultural and religious forms through which the life of grace is transmitted across generations.

In this way, Christian thought deepens the Greco‑Roman understanding of borders as the form of a people, affirming that distinct nations, shaped by their own histories and environments, remain essential to moral and political life.

Borders, Justice, and the Preservation of a People

Unlike the ancient and medieval, the modern age is animated by a radically egalitarian impulse to level all distinctions between man and woman, parent and child, citizen and foreigner, nation and world — and in its zeal to erase hierarchy, it also erases form and identity.

What earlier ages understood as the natural foundations of civic life — the family, the community, the nation — is now treated as an arbitrary constraint to be overthrown.

Yet, recent history has shown that a society that undermines these foundations does not liberate but destroy itself. This egalitarian project inevitably turns against the family, the first and most fundamental community. It undermines sovereignty, the authority by which a people governs its own life. And it rejects borders, the visible expression of a nation’s right to exist as a distinct people shaped by its own history, land, and faith. Such gestures, however noble they appear, unsettle the natural order on which any society depends.

A family without authority breeds children conditioned to servitude, a community that cannot define itself cannot defend itself, and a people without borders becomes an inconsistent mass without identity, memory, or purpose. When everyone is welcome, no one belongs, and rather than promoting universal brotherhood, the dissolution of borders leads to new and extreme forms of tribalism which tear apart the very fabric of society.

The Greco-Roman and Christian traditions maintain that the virtue of justice requires rendering every man his due, and this includes rendering a people its due: the right to its own land, its own laws, and its own way of life. These would admit that borders are inherently exclusionary and divisive, but this is not done for hatred of the other but for preservation of the self according to the order of charity (ordo caritatis).

A house has walls so that a family may be preserved within it. The walls distinguish one household from another and make care, responsibility, and protection possible. Similarly, a nation without borders is like a house without walls: it fails in its primary duty, which is the safeguarding of its people and the common good. In attempting to help everyone, it helps no one.

A nation that refuses to defend its borders is not practicing compassion — it is preparing its own extinction. For this reason, borders exist, and a people must defend their borders, for in defending their borders they also defend their land, their history, their language, their religion, their culture and their destiny — and in extreme circumstances this defense requires force.

Disconnect between government and the governed has arguably never been more apparent across the Western world than it is now. This does not mean, however, that our ancestors were not also troubled by it, and how it happens.

One man who sought to analyze this great question was a French nobleman of the 18th century, Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron of Montesquieu, the very man who pioneered the concept of Separation of Powers.

In Part I of his seminal 1748 work The Spirit of the Law, Montesquieu considers three forms of government — republican, monarchic and despotic — and offers a surprisingly cutting insight into what uniquely makes and breaks each of these governments.

So, what should the virtue of your government be, and what is it now?

Reminder: You can get TONS of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

The Principles of The Three Governments

1 - The Principle of Republics

Montesquieu proposes the intriguing idea that each form of government is ultimately defined by one driving principle. A principle which is unique to that form of government, which gives it vitality, and which — as long as it is adhered to — can mitigate any weaknesses of said form of government.

For a republican state, which Montesquieu defined as one in which sovereign power lay in either the “collective body of the people, or particular families”, that principle is Virtue itself.

At first glance, this may sound like a bland platitude, but the reasoning is not. Montesquieu prefaces his explanation by pointing out that a monarchic system can more easily ‘self-repair’ following an ineffective reign:

“Clear it is also that a monarch, who through bad advice or indolence ceases to enforce the execution of the laws, may easily repair the evil: he has only to follow other advice; or to shake off this indolence. But when in popular government, there is a suspension of the laws, as this can proceed only from the corruption of the republic, the state is certainly undone”

Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, III.3

A republic, however, cannot, for the blunt truth that misrule in a republic is by definition a blight that has spread throughout a critical mass of its governing elite. The very ‘checks and balances’ which dilute power then become a direct obstacle to holding the broader decay to account. It is, as a consequence, far more difficult to ‘prune’ the evil without a wholesale and hard reset — a violent revolution.

As a result, the only meaningful counterweight to elite misrule is the intolerance of the people towards it. Ergo, Virtue is the principle that a republican system must aspire to, champion and uphold. Montesquieu develops this by listing several examples from history — from Sulla’s march on Rome to the English Civil War — of where he believed republican experiments were entirely wasted because the citizen body had been corrupted by either the same vices as the elites they had overthrown, or simply been beaten down into collective apathy. In other words, unless the citizen body loves Virtue and demands it, their elites will sooner or later betray them and their interests.

Furthermore, Montesquieu gives a remarkably prescient summary of what happens to republics that fail to take this principle seriously:

“When virtue is banished, ambition invades the hearts of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community. The desires now change their objects; what they were fond of before, becomes indifferent; they were free, while under the restraint of laws, they will now be free to act against law; and as every citizen is like a slave escaped from his master's house, what was a maxim of equity, they call rigour; what was a rule of action, they call constraint; and to precaution they give the name of fear. Frugality, and not the thirst of gain, now passes for avarice. Formerly the wealth of individuals constituted the public treasure; but now the public treasure is become the patrimony of private persons. The members of the commonwealth riot on the public spoils, and its strength is only the power of some citizens, and the licentiousness of the whole community.”

Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, III.3

So if Virtue is the principle of republics, what is it for monarchies and why is it different?

2 - The Principle of Monarchies

Under an executive monarchy, that is a monarchy in which the sovereign wields actual decision-making power, the calculations are different.

“In monarchies, policy makes people do great things with as little virtue as she can. Thus in the finest machines, art has contrived as few movements, springs, and wheels as possible”

Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, III.3

Since power in a republic is distributed across many moving parts, even in an ideal scenario the making of sound policy faces considerable inertia. In a true monarchy, this of course is avoided, and therefore so too the need for the broader populace to be as vigilant of Virtue. There is broader no elite to hold to account, and in any case, the monarch does not depend on election to hold that power nor the cooperation of elites to wield it. But that does not mean that monarchies have no need of a principle.

So instead of Virtue, the principle of monarchy is Honor:

“Monarchical government supposeth, as we have already observed, pre-eminences, and ranks, and likewise a noble descent. Now as it is the nature of honor to aspire to preferments and distinguishing titles, it is therefore properly placed in this government.

Ambition is pernicious in a republic. But in a monarchy it has some good effects, it gives life to the government, and is attended with this advantage, that it is no way dangerous, because it may be continually checked.”

Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, III.7

The system of honor, and of honors, is an effective way of harnessing individual ambition and transforming it into activity that is constructive for the kingdom itself. Men desire honors, and honor for themselves and their family, and since these are achieved by actions that are publicly perceived as wholesome, advancement in a true monarchy forces the ambitious to at least partially work for the good of the state instead of purely for power. The throne itself, after all, is off limits, and so the desire for glory is separated from the desire for power.

A system of honor, radiating out from the princely court, can be just as effective a check on misrule in a monarchy as a virtuously guided and honestly managed election in a republic. Moreover, as Montesquieu implies, monarchic Honor shifts the emphasis away from popularity and politicking and towards individual acts:

“Is it not a very great point, to oblige men to perform the most difficult actions, such as require a great degree of fortitude and spirit, without any other recompence, than the fame and reputation arising from the actions themselves?”

Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, III.7

But there is a third form of government, which both of the above can mutate into…

3 - The Principle of Despotism

It is profoundly naive to believe that monarchy alone is vulnerable to despotism. A despotic government after all, Montesquieu maintains, is any in which the principle is fear:

“As virtue is necessary in a republic, and in a monarchy honor, so fear is necessary in a despotic government: with regard to virtue, there is no occasion for it, and honor would be extremely dangerous.

Here the immense power of the prince is devolved entirely upon those to whom he is pleased to intrust. Persons capable of setting a value upon themselves would be likely to create revolutions. Fear must therefore depress their spirits, and extinguish even the least sense of ambition.”

Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, III.9

As the later French Revolution and beyond would reveal, fear can just as easily emanate from a government that preaches liberty as one that embodies autocracy. Quite simply because a despotic government is an illegitimate one. That is, a government which is not underpinned by clear written laws or historical and cultural roots.

As the written laws have already been violated to establish the despotic regime, the enforcement of law is by definition selective. Despotism thus occupies a grey area of confusion which requires force, and therefore fear, to perpetuate itself. Any government, republican or monarchic, which enforces laws arbitrarily is therefore despotic. The dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell, which defined England’s brief republican phase and which relied on the New Model Army to enforce London’s will and Puritanical ideology, is a typical example of the former.

So, how do we know when the principle of our government is compromised, and therefore when to act?

Read more

History is often described as the slow movement of powerful trends and forces — geography, demography, economics, and culture — shaping the destinies of peoples over centuries. This view, which is fashionable among modern historians, treats individuals as mere expressions or instantiations of these deeper currents.

Yet this interpretation, for all its analytical neatness, obscures a fundamental truth. At the decisive thresholds of history, in decisive moments when the future hangs suspended, it is not these abstract, impersonal forces that redirect the flow of events, but individual men.

Great men are undoubtedly conditioned and impacted by the trends and forces of their age, but this must never be mistaken for a submission to these very same trends and forces. The age provides the proverbial stage, but the individual man assumes the role as both director and actor and must play his part accordingly.

Spengler, like many historians, would argue that a single man, disciplined, directed, and defiant, can crystallize latent forces that would otherwise remain inert, summon them into coherence, and wield them as a weapon, thus imposing himself upon his world and redirecting the course of human history.

This is most evident in two of history’s most influential figures — Charlemagne and Napoleon Bonaparte — whose influence radiated far beyond their lifetimes. Both emerged in periods of social and political fragmentation, and both imposed form upon formlessness, reshaped political structures, cultural identities, and the imagination of Western Civilization. Rather than being products of their times, each became the architect of a new order.

While their legacies differ, their impact demonstrates the recurring truth that when a civilization reaches a moment of upheaval, it is the decisive individual — not the trend or force — who becomes the hinge upon which the future is determined.

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

Charlemagne: The Great Man Who Reforged the West

When Charlemagne inherited the Frankish kingdom in 768 AD, Western Europe was less a coherent realm than a fractured social and political landscape. The shadow of Rome still stretched across the continent, but its institutions had long since disintegrated under the weight of invasions and political decay.

Local warlords partitioned the old provinces into petty dominions, long-standing trade networks were severed, and the intellectual tradition flickered dimly in the remote discipline of Catholic monasteries. Into this disordered world stepped a ruler whose imagination refused to accept the limits of his age.

Charlemagne possessed not only an instinct for consolidation but a temperament oriented toward order. His campaigns — relentless, deliberate, and often personally led — were the outward expression of an inward resolve. Frontier pressures may have shaped the context of the Saxon Wars, yet their driving force was a sovereign intent on turning a resistant borderland into a coherent Christian polity.

Einhard’s claim that Charlemagne pursued these wars “with the greatest determination” points to a personality that would not abide the centrifugal forces of his age which would have naturally drifted further towards dissolution.

Similarly, his administrative reforms bore the imprint of his character. Charlemagne divided his realm into counties governed by counts, and he dispatched the missi dominici as royal envoys to supervise them. These inspectors enforced justice, ensured fiscal discipline, and carried the king’s authority across vast distances. No structural trend demanded such a system; rather, it was the intentional design of a man who believed that power must be organized if it is to endure.

Charlemagne also understood that culture is a mode of governance. The Carolingian Renaissance — the schools, the scriptoria, the standardization of Latin — emerged as a deliberate restoration shaped by a ruler who grasped that learning had slipped toward extinction.

Alcuin of York praised him for reviving study “which had almost perished,” a judgment that mirrors the king’s conviction that civilization survives only through cultivation. His reforms reveal a mind that treated education as the very architecture of order and the scaffolding upon which a coherent political identity emerges.

The coronation of Charlemagne on Christmas Day in 800 AD crystallized this social and political vision. When Pope Leo III placed the imperial crown upon his head, the gesture marked the reassertion of Western imperial authority and established a political ideal that would shape Europe for a millennium.

The Holy Roman Empire emerged as the outward form of Charlemagne’s inner imagination — an imperial architecture conceived in his mind and realized through the force of his character, bearing the unmistakable imprint of the man who forged it.

Charlemagne stands among the great men of history because his personality fused audacity, administrative genius, and an almost preternatural sense of civilizational purpose. He combined the Germanic warrior’s instinct for decisive action with the Roman statesman’s capacity for long-range institutional design, enabling him to subdue fractious frontiers while simultaneously orchestrating a cultural renaissance.

Moreover, his curiosity drove him to gather scholars, reform liturgy, standardize law, and impose coherence upon a fragmented world; his charisma bound nobles, clergy, and conquered peoples into a single political imagination.

Napoleon: The Great Man Who Engineered Modernity

A thousand years after Charlemagne, Europe again entered yet another age of upheaval. The infamous French Revolution overthrew the Ancien Regime Charlemagne had established, unleashing a wave of ideological fanaticism that swept across the continent with unprecedented velocity.

Thrones wavered, revolutionary armies moved with accelerating force, and the streets of Paris became the central arena in which ambitious figures tested their claims to authority. Historians often describe this era as the natural consequence of social and economic transformation, yet such interpretations overlook the extraordinary rise of a Corsican artillery officer who advanced from obscurity to command the political imagination of Europe.

Into this unsettled world stepped a figure whose meteoric rise revealed how, in periods of civilizational rupture, the individual can emerge as the organizing principle of an entire age.

Napoleon Bonaparte possessed a clarity of mind that shaped every stage of his rise, and this intellectual steadiness allowed him to navigate the Revolution with an instinct for opportunity and a disciplined sense of its possibilities. His Italian campaigns revealed a strategic intelligence that redefined the conduct of war, for he combined speed, concentration, and psychological insight in a manner that astonished even seasoned commanders.

Claus von Clausewitz later observed that Napoleon “stood so high above all his contemporaries that he towered over them like a giant,” a judgment that captured the scale of his military imagination and the reach of his strategic vision. His victories emerged from a mind capable of discerning patterns within chaos, drawing them into coherence, and converting that coherence into decisive action.

His influence extended far beyond the battlefield. Napoleon reorganized France with a precision that reflected his administrative temperament. The Napoleonic Code, issued in 1804, established legal equality, secured property rights, and provided a rational civil framework that endured long after his empire fell, spreading across Europe and shaped legal systems on multiple continents. They emerged from a statesman who understood that institutions are the vessels through which a civilization preserves its identity and directs its future.

Napoleon also restructured education, finance, and administration. He founded the Bank of France, centralized taxation, and created a merit‑based bureaucracy that rewarded ability rather than lineage. These measures stabilized a nation exhausted by revolution and restored order to a society that had drifted toward complete dissolution.

Napoleon’s achievements resembled those of Charlemagne since he imposed order upon a fragmented Western world through purposeful administrative design, cultural renewal, and the disciplined exercise of his authority. Both men recognized that power acquires permanence only when it is organized, codified, and embodied in institutions capable of outlasting their creators.

Napoleon’s vision extended across the continent, and he sought to construct a European system unified by law, administration, and a shared political imagination. His coronation in 1804, when he lifted the imperial crown and placed it upon his own head, echoed the moment a millennium earlier when Charlemagne received the crown in Rome.

Both ceremonies revealed rulers who understood empire as a personal vocation and who treated the imperial title as the outward form of an inner civilizational purpose. Napoleon’s gesture unsettled Europe because it displayed a sovereign who claimed authority through deliberate will, assuming responsibility for the destiny of nations with the same commanding certainty that had once marked the Carolingian revival.

Napoleon occupies a singular place among the great men of history because his character combined relentless energy, strategic imagination, and an unshakable conviction that he carried the future of Europe within his grasp. He possessed a mind that could absorb complexity at a glance and convert it into action with astonishing speed, shaping events through a force of personality that few rulers have ever matched.

His will animated armies, reorganized states, and recast the political vocabulary of an entire continent, leaving institutions and ideas that endured long after his banners fell. He entered a fractured world and infused it with direction, momentum, and a new sense of political possibility, giving Europe a coherence that had eluded it since the collapse of the old regime. His life reveals how a single individual, endowed with vision and disciplined resolve, can set the trajectory of civilizations and leave an imprint that continues to shape the imagination of later ages.

Napoleon’s career also exposes the limits of the view that history unfolds through impersonal trends and forces. His ascent cannot be reduced to demographic pressures, ideological movements, or institutional decay since these elements had existed long before he appeared and persisted long after he fell. What altered the trajectory of modern Europe was the arrival of a man whose will, imagination, and administrative genius redirected energies that would otherwise have remained diffuse.

In this sense he stands beside Charlemagne since both men demonstrated that at certain civilizational thresholds, the individual does not merely participate in history but becomes the crucible through which history is forged.

The Return of the Great Man

Charlemagne and Napoleon lived in different ages, separated by a millennium, yet their lives reveal a single civilizational pattern.

Each emerged at a moment when the old order had collapsed and the future lay unclaimed. Each confronted a world drifting toward fragmentation. Each imposed structure, direction, and purpose upon societies that had lost the capacity to generate these things for themselves. Their achievements were not the mechanical outcome of geography, economics, or demography, but the expression of a single will capable of gathering the scattered energies of an age and shaping them into a coherent political form, thereby altering the trajectory of history itself.

The modern world resists this truth. It prefers to speak of systems, structures, and forces, as though history were an impersonal machine and human beings mere passengers carried along in its carriages. This view flatters our desire for detachment while excusing our reluctance to act.

It teaches that agency is an illusion, that the great man is a myth, and that the currents of history are too vast and too strong to be redirected by a single will. Yet this doctrine of inevitability is itself a symptom of civilizational fatigue and the onset of what Spengler described as the “civilizational winter.” The very figures who built the world we inhabit — saints, kings, emperors, explorers, reformers, conquerors, founders — stand as living refutations of the idea that history moves without human direction.

At decisive thresholds, it is the individual who gives the age its form. It is the individual who crystallizes diffuse forces into a single movement, and it is the individual who rallies armies to conquer foreign lands, not economics.

The lesson of Charlemagne and Napoleon is therefore unmistakable: when a civilization hangs in the precocious balance, one man will always emerge to assume responsibility for its future. What our age requires is precisely such a figure — a new Charlemagne, a new Napoleon, and perhaps, he is already here.

Concern over the direction that art and aesthetics is taking in the Western world has recently emerged as one of the most common talking points on social media.

It is a rightful clamour for beauty to return to our world, along with the deeper meaning underpinning it. Few people, however, have articulated this desire more beautifully than one of the most widely respected world leaders in living memory — Pope John Paul II.

Beyond his more famous achievements, on Easter Sunday 1999 the late Pontiff wrote one of the most extraordinary texts to emerge from the modern Vatican — the Letter to Artists.

A letter from the heart and the soul, John Paul II’s words form a moving call to arms to the world’s artists ahead of the dawning third millennium, urging them to fuse their talent with faith and realize the true potential of the visual media.

Beauty can save the soul, and here is why, from a man whose very duty it was to save souls…

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

Art is More Than a Skill

John Paul II begins his letter with a stirring address indeed:

“None can sense more deeply than you artists, ingenious creators of beauty that you are, something of the pathos with which God at the dawn of creation looked upon the work of his hands”

Pope John Paul II, Letter to Artists I, April 4th 1999

Immediately, the Pope draws a direct connection between Man and God through the common wonder of the act of creation. The artist, he maintains, when surveying his completed work should evoke the opening of the Book of Genesis. For when God created the world, and populated it with grass, trees, creatures and light, “God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1). If the artist can therefore look upon his work in such a manner, he is, as the Supreme Pontiff records, “sensing in it some echo of the mystery of creation with which God, the sole creator of all things, has wished in some way to associate you”.

In this way, any artist for whom his profession is a calling, rather than a means to achieve material reward, is already turned towards God, whether he consciously knows it or not. It is here that John Paul II states the wholesome purpose of the letter:

“In writing this Letter, I intend to follow the path of the fruitful dialogue between the Church and artists which has gone on unbroken through two thousand years of history, and which still, at the threshold of the Third Millennium, offers rich promise for the future”

Pope John Paul II, Letter to Artists I, April 4th 1999

While he will expand on the course of the Church’s relationship to art later in the text, he explains in depth here why theologically it is important for the Church to have such a relationship in the first place. Put simply, as the Supreme Creator, God is the “exemplar” of any person who makes use of their creativity.

Crucially however, this is not to say that everyone or anyone can or should be an artist. Or more correctly, that not all creative art is essential art…

The Mission of the Artist

Just because the act of creation connects us to God does not mean that all acts of creation are virtuous:

“Not all are called to be artists in the specific sense of the term… It is one thing for human beings to be the authors of their own acts, with responsibility for their moral value; it is another to be an artist, able, that is, to respond to the demands of art and faithfully to accept art’s specific dictates”

Pope John Paul II, Letter to Artists II, April 4th 1999

Creativity, as the Pope asserts, consists of moral and artistic aspects, and only when both condition the other can the resulting art be a masterpiece. At the same time, a masterpiece must by definition be personal:

“In shaping a masterpiece, the artist not only summons his work into being, but also in some way reveals his own personality by means of it. For him art offers both a new dimension and an exceptional mode of expression for his spiritual growth”

Pope John Paul II, Letter to Artists II, April 4th 1999

Taken together, it is clear that an artistic masterpiece does not simply seek to imitate others or follow trends, but is a sincere representation of the artist’s soul, while respecting “art’s specific dictates”. Subversion for subversion’s sake, therefore, is a perversion of the artist’s calling as it betrays both principles simultaneously.

That said, since art must be a calling to the artist, it must have a purpose. An artist who is capable of masterpieces is ultimately disregarding his calling if said masterpieces are not elevating Man. In a more mundane sense, the Pope joyfully quotes one of his compatriots, the Polish poet Cyprian Kamil Norwid, who in the Promethidion wrote that “beauty is to enthuse us for work, and work is to raise us up”.

Beauty enthuses, however, because it is “the visible form of the good”, and upon beholding it, man waters his taproot to Heaven, just as the artist who created is watering his own to God. If God bestowed the talent of art upon a man, he did so for a reason, and it is incumbent upon the artist to use that talent to bear good fruit. It is as if a spark were before us. We can choose to shelter and kindle it into a warming fire, or sit idly, and waste the opportunity to cast away the darkness, languishing in the cold.

The artist therefore is tasked with labor at the service of civilization. Their talent is a blessing, but so too a clear responsibility to use it for wholesome ends:

“Artists who are conscious of all this know too that they must labour without allowing themselves to be driven by the search for empty glory or the craving for cheap popularity, and still less by the calculation of some possible profit for themselves. There is therefore an ethic, even a “spirituality” of artistic service, which contributes in its way to the life and renewal of a people”

Pope John Paul II, Letter to Artists 4, April 4th 1999

Arguably more groundbreaking, however, is what John Paul II said next. For it is not only that the Church needs Art, but that Art needs the Church too, and only together can the world be renewed…

Read more

Religious revivals appear throughout history with a rhythm that suggests more than coincidence. They rise in moments when a culture senses its own exhaustion, when institutions lose vitality, and when the spiritual imagination seeks renewal.

Oswald Spengler, reflecting on the morphology of civilizations, wrote that every culture possesses a distinct soul, and that this soul periodically reasserts itself when threatened by decline. His insight clarifies why revivals do not erupt as isolated anomalies but instead follow the deep pulse of a civilization’s inner form. They arise when a people feels the weight of disorder and turns again to the sources of meaning.

Classical historians often describe these moments as restorations rather than innovations. A people looks backward in order to move forward. Warren H. Carroll, whose historical vision combined narrative precision with theological depth, argued that history cannot be understood without acknowledging the spiritual forces that animate it. In such hours, a civilization retrieves the symbols, rituals, and memories that once gave coherence to life, drawing strength from the very traditions it had neglected.

Similarly, in his Story of Civilization, Will Durant observed that “civilization is a stream with banks,” and that religion forms one of those banks, guiding the flow of the civilizational soul. When the bank of religion erodes, the stream dissipates, losing force and direction.

It is precisely in these moments of erosion — when a people confronts the fragility of its own order — that religious revivals emerge as instruments of civilizational renewal. The pattern reaches its clearest expression in the Maccabean Revolt of ancient Israel and in Fransisco Franco’s twentieth‑century institutional reform of Spain’s Catholic order.

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

Insurgency: The Maccabean Revolt

The world of the Maccabees was one of cultural pressure and spiritual crisis. After the conquests of Alexander the Great, the Near East became a mosaic of competing Hellenistic kingdoms. Greek language, customs, and civic ideals spread across regions that had long maintained distinct religious traditions. For many communities, this encounter produced a creative synthesis, but for others, it threatened the very foundations of their identity — and Judea experienced the latter.

The Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV attempted to impose Hellenistic customs upon Jewish life to the extent of banning traditional Jewish practices because these were seen as forms of political resistance.

For years the Jews had watched Greek customs incrementally creep deeper into their cities — through the imposition and adoption of Greek games, fashions, festivals — but they endured them so long as the Temple remained untouched. However, when the Greeks “set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar”, forcing the sons of Judea to offer libations to a pagan god as a sign of submission, the Jews could endure it no longer.

From that desecration, restoration in the form of revolt became a necessity.

Mattathias, a respected elder of Modein, was thrust into a decisive moment. Ordered to offer sacrifice in obedience to the Seleucid decree, he instead drew his weapon and struck down the Judean who stepped forward to violate the covenant, crying out, “Let every one that is zealous for the law, and maintaineth the covenant, follow me”.

With that summons the spark of revolt was lit.

Mattathias and his sons — above all Judas Maccabeus — transformed that spark into open war against the Seleucid kingdom, fusing national liberation with religious restoration. Their cause was animated by a spiritual zeal that refused assimilation and sought to restore obedience to God rather than imperial power.

Against overwhelming odds, the Maccabees won victory after victory against the Greeks. Their forces were small, mobile, and accustomed to striking from the hills and narrow passes of Judea, using the terrain to offset the Seleucid advantage in numbers and equipment.

Judas Maccabeus rallied his fighters, “arm yourselves, and be valiant, and be ready against the morning, that you may fight with these nations that are assembled against us to destroy us and our sanctuary”, reminding them that “the battle is not ours, but God’s”. In doing so, he effectively framed each engagement as an act of faith as much as arms, turning their guerrilla tactics into a form of covenantal warfare.

The Maccabean Revolt (167–160 BC) reveals a pattern common to every true revival: renewal begins not with the many but with a steadfast remnant who refuse to yield, refuse to forget, and refuse to surrender the inheritance entrusted to them. Their campaign was not the march of a conventional army but the persistence of a small, fervent band who struck swiftly, withdrew into the hills, and returned again with renewed zeal.

Animated by faith, they challenged and even overthrew a far larger imperial power, since zeal for God introduces an unquantifiable variable into battle that no empire can calculate.

In time, the Seleucid forces — exhausted by constant ambushes, stretched supply lines, and the impossibility of extinguishing a religiously driven insurgency — were compelled to concede ground. Their withdrawal opened the way for Judas and his men to reclaim Jerusalem, drive out the occupying garrison, and restore the Temple, bringing the long‑awaited rededication that became the enduring symbol of their victory.

Warren Carroll saw in the Maccabees one of history’s clearest confrontations between faith and tyranny, calling their uprising “a miracle of fidelity in an age of compromise.” Similarly, Christopher Dawson’s insight that “the great civilizations have been the creations of religious forces” finds its proof in their victory.

In defending their faith, the Maccabees not only preserved their nation but established an enduring pattern for religious revivals. This model of a fervent few restoring religion entered the Western imagination and reappears in every age effectively shaping and reshaping the spiritual trajectory of Western civilization.

Institutional Reform: The Spanish Civil War

The modern world presents a landscape unlike that of the Maccabees — industrialized, ideologically fractured, and spiritually disoriented — yet the rhythm of revival endures, assuming new forms suited to a modern age of mass politics and cultural upheaval.

In twentieth‑century Spain, a nation strained by regional divisions, economic instability, and violent ideological currents, the return to religious tradition emerged through a deliberate act of civilizational reconstruction, a state‑directed attempt to re-anchor a people in the Christian spiritual order they had nearly abandoned.

Spain entered the century in a condition of profound cultural erosion. Anti‑clerical riots, the burning of churches, and the murder of clergy revealed a society tearing at the seams of its own inheritance.

The revolutionary factions on the Republican side — particularly the militant Communist elements — unleashed a wave of iconoclasm that recalled the French Revolution not only in violence but in its desire to sever a civilization from its religious history. In such an atmosphere, Will Durant’s observation that “when the present fails us, we return to the past” found unmistakable confirmation in the Spanish Civil War (1936—1939) as an existential battle of a nation fighting for its soul.

As the conflict deepened, Francisco Franco emerged as the unifying figure among the Nationalist forces. For many Spaniards, the war ceased to be a contest of political programs and became instead a struggle over the soul of their civilization. Following the Nationalist victory in 1939, Franco presided over an ambitious reconstruction program that not only sought to restore order but to re‑consecrate the public and political life of the nation.

Where the Maccabees revived faith through insurgent zeal, Franco coordinated the imposition of renewal from above — a conscious re‑ordering of institutions, education, ritual, and public symbolism.

Across Spain, religious instruction returned to schools, concordats re‑shaped Church‑state relations, and traditional Catholic festivals and devotions were elevated as civic expressions of national continuity. In short, Catholicism was publicly enthroned as the religious framework of Spain, serving as both a revival and an antidote to the ideological disintegration of the modern age.

In The Last Crusade, Warren H. Carroll described the Spanish Civil War as “the great ideological crusade of the twentieth century,” not to romanticize its brutality but to underscore the depth of the rupture. For Carroll, Spain’s post‑war return to Catholic tradition was the instinctive act of a civilization attempting to reclaim its spiritual center after standing on the brink of dissolution.

Christopher Dawson’s warning in Progress and Religion that “a society which has lost its religion has lost its culture” finds unmistakable confirmation here, namely, Spain’s religious revival was not an accidental political policy choice but deliberate civilizational necessity.

Spengler’s morphological reading of history further illustrates this phenomenon. Late civilizations, sensing their own exhaustion, often attempt to recover the vitality of earlier ages — not by resurrecting the past in its original form, but by reasserting the spiritual and moral depth that once animated it.

Spain’s religious reconstruction fits this pattern precisely. They were a people confronted by ideological chaos who instinctively reached for the only source capable of restoring form and order — the Catholic religion that had shaped their civilization for centuries.

What emerges from Spain’s experience is a different species of revival — a restoration imposed from above rather than ignited from below, an institutional re‑ordering rather than an insurgent return. Yet the civilizational rhythm endures: in moments of conflict and upheaval, a people instinctively seeks the religious order that once held their world together.

Why Religious Revivals Reappear Across the Ages

The pattern of religious revivals reveals a recurring truth about human societies. When cultural foundations weaken, when institutions lose coherence, and when the collective imagination becomes unsettled, a people often return to the faith, sacred symbols, and religious practices that once gave them identity.

This return is not nostalgia, but rather, an attempt to recover meaning. It is the civilizational instinct for self‑preservation — a way of arresting decline by re‑anchoring life in the sources that once gave it form. In moments of impending fracture, religious revival functions as a kind of civilizational reset, a renewal of the spiritual order that keeps a culture from dissolving into chaos.

Modern societies face their own forms of dissolution, but on a scale unknown to earlier ages. Rapid technological acceleration uproots habits faster than communities can absorb them, moral frameworks shift with such speed that meaning has collapsed, and globalization dissolves traditional boundaries of faith and community without supplying new forms of identity and cohesion. The result is a civilization that is materially powerful yet spiritually hollow, restless in its prosperity and anxious in its freedom.

In such an environment and under such conditions, spiritual revivals are not only possible but imminent.

A civilization that is spiritually exhausted eventually turns to the only sources capable of renewing its original strength. In this convergence of memory and crisis, Carroll’s claim that “history is the drama of man’s response to God” provides the final key: every spiritual revival is a reckoning — a moment when a civilization stands before its own soul and decides whether it will continue drifting toward dissolution or recover the faith that once held its world together.

It is here that a people chooses, once again, what it will worship and which religious vision it is willing to defend as the foundation of its future.

Join the fight for the Soul of our Civilization!

By subscribing to Atlas Press, you are supporting an honest group of guys who are working to help revitalize Western Civ through the re-enrichment of the Western mind. We appreciate your support greatly and hope you join us.

Subscribe now

If there is one emotion that unites all men of all the nations of the Western world, it is perhaps the one we feel when confronted with the ruins of Ancient Greece and Rome.

What, after all, can tug the heartstrings of the romantic soul more than the sight of past glory in a state of present humility?

Rome, after all, forms the benchmark of any Western notion of earthly glory. As the seat of the Roman Church, for over a billion souls it forms the benchmark of spiritual glory too. For many long centuries, a journey to Rome would result in a profound emotional reaction to seeing the ruins of that glory.

But why, and more importantly, is our reverence for ruins actually a disservice to our ancestors?

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

Do we Ignore Them?

The collapse of Roman power in the West was equalled only by the collapse of the Roman population itself.

In the days of Augustus, Rome became the first city in the world to reach a million inhabitants. Following the the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in AD 476 however, only a few short decades would see her plunge to barely 30,000 souls. It would not reach a million again until the dictatorship of Mussolini.

Consequently, for the vast majority of Rome’s post-imperial existence, the city was simply too large for the population that resided there. Ruin was inevitable, and exacerbated by the second order effects of imperial collapse. When the Ostrogoths cut the aqueducts during the Siege of Rome in AD 538, large sections of essential infrastructure simply ceased to be. With education clinging on in isolated monastic communities, enormous sections of the formerly literate populace fell into ignorance, not only of written language, but their very identity.

With no money to maintain the once great ransacked edifices, nature and theft alike worked to dismantle them. With the new Romans lacking any understanding of what these great buildings were, and therefore caring nothing for them, they viewed their cultural heritage much like anyone knocked back to the lowest rung of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs — raw materials. To the medieval Roman, the pride of Caesars was a mere source of commodities, to be plundered at will.

Ruins had become what lottery winnings are to the financially irresponsible. Once people realized that they could forgo the effort and expense of quarrying and cutting stone themselves, and simply take what lay on the ground, exploiting the fruit of someone else’s labor, the inevitable happened:

“There is much porphyry and marble from ancient buildings, but every day these marbles are destroyed by being burnt for lime in scandalous fashion. What is modern is poor, that is to say the new buildings — the beauty of Rome lies in what is in ruins. The men of the present day, who call themselves Romans, are very different in bearing and in conduct from the ancient inhabitants. Breviter loquendo, they all look like cowherds’.”

Alberto de’ Alberti, March 1444

Through ignorance, the Romans themselves became precisely the barbarians their ancestors had reviled. That said, a case can be made to defend this approach, no matter how wounding to the soul. What was the point of maintaining structures that circumstances had rendered obsolete?

We may scoff, but how would you convince an impoverished Roman, who had no concept of history, that slabs of broken marble were better off on a dilapidated ruin than saving him money for the repairs of his family home?

Do We Protect Them?

It would not be until the Renaissance that any perceptible effort was made to think of Rome’s ruins as anything more than a rubbish heap to be picked through at leisure.

The great Roman Forum, from where one quarter of the world’s population had once been ruled, was now the Campo Vaccino, or ‘cow field’. Where once senators had passed, livestock now dragged a plow. Thankfully, however, in early 1337 one Italian man who had developed a curiosity in obscure ancient texts happened to visit Rome, and was shocked at what he found:

“For today who are more ignorant about Roman affairs than the Roman citizens? Sadly do I say that nowhere is Rome less known than in Rome. I do not deplore only the ignorance involved (although what is worse than ignorance?) but the disappearance and exile of many virtues. For who can doubt that Rome would rise again instantly if she began to know herself?”

Petrarch, Letter to Giovanni Colonna, Familiares VI.2

This then brings us to the immediate reason why the European Renaissance happened at all, and why it was powerful. Words can exaggerate, and stories can embellish, but these towering vestiges of Antiquity did not lie. To the Italian who then cared, there was simply no getting around the fact that these ruins were irrefutable evidence that a civilization vastly more advanced than their own had existed not merely in the past, but fully a thousand years earlier, on the very same soil as their own.

The question of what constitutes ‘more advanced’ requires more nuance to answer in modern times than it did in the 14th century, but the dynamic remains the same. After all, speaking of advances in technology and political thought are meaningless noise in the face of a glory that defies quantity or attempts to rationalize it. Men instinctively know when something with meaning and value has been lost, and the more difficult it is to put into words, the more powerful and impenetrable that knowledge becomes.

Petrarch may well have felt that he was yelling into a void, but his firm stand would allow others to run where he had walked. As the Renaissance gathered pace, and a reverence of Roman civilization caught flame, with it came the understanding that ruins were a direct anchor to that civilization. By the 15th century, the ruling elites themselves recognized that something had to be done to avoid that anchor being cut:

“‘Oh Rome! Your very ruins are a joy,
Fallen is your pomp; but it was peerless once!
Your noble blocks wrench’d from your ancient walls
Are burn’d for lime by greedy slaves of gain.
Villains! If such as you may have their way
Three ages more, Rome’s glory will fade’”

Pope Pius II, Epigram

In 1462, Pope Pius II issued a bull, Cum almam nostram Urbem, which explicitly prohibited the deliberate destruction of Rome’s ancient monuments, in one of numerous moves by the Supreme Pontiffs to safeguard Western heritage.

At the same time, Italy’s living buildings gradually started to resemble her ancient ones. Classical architecture was re-emerging. It was fashionable, well funded, and married pagan material wonder to Christian spiritual glory.

Such was the true meaning of the Renaissance, or Rebirth. One the one hand, a respectful reverence for civilizational roots, and on the other, a commitment to draw upon those roots to build something new which honored them.

It is a difficult balance to strike, so where did it all go wrong, and why, perversely, is our romanticization of ruins largely responsible for this?

Read more

The Iliad, though born in an age unimaginably distant from our own, continues to challenge and inspire the modern world. It confronts us with something perennial, namely, the hard limits of human excellence and the fierce aspirations that drive men to strive against them. These are the virtues that make heroes — not in the sentimental, moralizing sense preferred by modernity, but in the older, classical conception of heroism.

Classical historians, philosophers, and theologians have long recognized in the Homeric ideal the foundations of the West’s heroic imagination. Aristotle, reflecting on the poetic tradition, observed that “poetry is more philosophical and more serious than history, for poetry speaks of the universal.”

Thus the deeds of the heroes of the Iliad are more than a chronicle of ancient warfare. In the individual actions of Greek and Trojan champions alike, we encounter the raw universal qualities that have embedded themselves in the Western consciousness, for in their triumphs and in their failures we are compelled to look inward and measure ourselves against the standard they set.

For all its material advantages, the modern world is lacking something essential. We have inherited a civilization we no longer understand, having lost the very qualities that built the ruins we now admire at a distance. What we require is a restoration of the Homeric ideal — not as an indulgence in antiquarian fantasy, but as a rediscovery and reassertion of the virtues that once animated the Western spirit: kleos, timē, aretē, alkē, and aidos.

These Homeric values were embodied in the heroes of the Iliad. In figures such as Sarpedon and Achilles, Agamemnon and Menelaus, Diomedes and Odysseus, Ajax and Hector, Glaucus and Priam, we see how these men understood their purpose, their obligations, and their place within the moral order of their world.

Their stories are mirrors, and in them — if we dare to look — we may still find the qualities needed to remake the modern world.

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

Kleos: The Desire for Immortal Fame

Kleos, the longing for glory that outlives one’s mortal life, is the first and most formative of the Homeric ideals. It is the recognition that human life is fragile and fleeting, and that the only permanence available to mortals lies in the memory of heroic deeds.

Sarpedon, speaking to Glaucus, articulates the desire for kleos in his remark, “Let us go forward, so that many may say, ‘Our kings are not inglorious.’” In this brief exhortation, the essence of kleos is laid bare. Sarpedon knows that a warrior’s life is fragile and that death is certain. Rather than a tactical command, his call to advance is more than a tactical command is an appeal to live — and, if necessary, to die — in a manner worthy of everlasting praise.

Achilles embodies the Homeric ideal of kleos in the very structure of his life. Confronted with the choice between obscurity and a short life crowned with glory, he chooses the latter, knowing as he declares “I shall win glory everlasting”. His grief, his wrath, and his final return to battle all arise from the conviction that a life without greatness is a life not worth living. For both Sarpedon and Achilles, kleos is more than an ornament but destiny.

To the modern man who prefers a life of comfort, the desire for kleos is confronting. And yet, the impulse has not vanished. Men still seek to leave a mark that outlasts them, though often in diminished or distorted forms.

The hunger for remembrance survives in the pursuit of reputation, online visibility, curated identities, and the desperate hope that one’s name might linger a little longer in the minds of others. Even the impulse to launch projects, movements, or personal “initiatives” reflects a faint desire to establish something that stands beyond the self, however thin its foundations may be.

These are pale imitations of the ancient longing for everlasting glory, and shadows of a virtue once tied to courage, sacrifice, and the willingness to stake one’s life on something greater than oneself.

Timē: Honor and the Weight of Social Worth

If kleos is the aspiration for immortality, timē is its daily currency. Rather than being a private sentiment, honor in the Homeric world was a public reality — the visible measure of a man’s standing among his kin and countrymen. It is the recognition that one has fulfilled the demands of courage, loyalty, and rightful action.

Agamemnon’s quarrel with Achilles is more than a petty dispute over the captive woman Briseis; it is a deliberate assault on the very structure of honor that orders the Achaean world.

When Agamemnon declares, “I am king of men, and my power is greater,” he does more than seize a captive, he publicly humiliates the greatest warrior in the host. The act is a political wound as much as a personal one — a king who cannot recognize merit corrodes the authority he claims to uphold, and a warrior stripped of timē has no reason to fight. The cohesion of the Achaean army trembles because the moral architecture sustaining it has been violated at its core.

Menelaus, too, is defined by timē, and his role in the war is far more than the grievance of a wronged husband. Paris’s abduction of his wife Helen is a grievous act of public dishonor and a direct assault on Menelaus’s standing among kings.

As the poem reminds us, “For me alone they suffer, for my sake the war is waged,” and to leave such an insult unanswered would be to accept humiliation before the world. His determination to besiege Troy is more than vengeance, it is the necessary restoration of the honor that legitimizes his rule and safeguards the dignity of his house.

In the modern world, honor is often dismissed as archaic or even dangerous, yet every society possesses its own forms of timē. Modern honor attaches itself to wealth, influence, spectacle, and the curated self — a thin and weightless currency. To restore timē is to re‑establish the link between public esteem and genuine excellence. As Aristotle observes, honor is “the prize of virtue,” and when severed from virtue it becomes hollow.

Modern man, however, routinely dishonors himself. He trades conviction for approval, integrity for convenience, and dignity for celebrity. When honor collapses, nothing rises to replace it except vanity, appetite, and the restless pursuit of being seen.

Aretē: Excellence and the Fulfillment of one’s Purpose

Aretē is the fulcrum upon which the entire heroic vision turns — the point where raw courage is shaped into the fullness of excellence. In Diomedes and Odysseus, Homer presents two expressions of this ideal, each revealing a different expression of human potential.

Diomedes personifies aretē in its most incandescent form. His excellence is the hard-won product of discipline and long training, a life shaped by the conviction that mediocrity is a betrayal to his nature. Diomedes moves through the battlefield like a man who has reached the outer limit of his own powers and refuses to retreat from it, challenging gods and men alike without hesitation or the faintest gesture of surrender.

In the Iliad, Homer recounts that Phegeus and Idaeus charge Diomedes together in a chariot, attempting to overwhelm him by force and speed. Rather than retreat, Diomedes meets their charge head‑on, and “he slew them both, and stripped the armour from their shoulders.” In the pre-modern world, the stripping of an enemy’s arms and armor in the heat of battle — known as the spolia optima — was the ultimate symbol of martial excellence which immortalized him.

Odysseus reveals a different but equally demanding form of aretē. His excellence lies in endurance, judgment, and the disciplined clarity that allows him to perceive what others overlook. He is the man who continues when others falter, who sees steadily when others are confused, who acts with deliberation when the world is clouded by fear. Homer captures this quality in the simple but decisive line: “Odysseus stood firm, and did not forget his cunning.”

His aretē is not the blaze of sudden force like Diomedes but the steady triumph of wisdom ordered towards victory — the capacity to read a situation, to restrain impulse, and to choose the right course of action when lesser men are ruled by panic or pride. In him, excellence becomes a matter of interior strength: the endurance to suffer, the judgment to discern, and the prudence to act only when action serves a worthy end.

The modern world has lost this understanding of excellence. Modern man still strives, but his striving is disordered. He pours effort into pursuits unworthy of attention, mistaking popularity for achievement and novelty for mastery. He cultivates skills that do not ennoble the soul, and instead, pursues distinctions that are of no consequence.

To restore aretē is to recover the older truth that excellence is not the perfection of trivial talents but the disciplined formation of the whole person toward ends that deserve the labor of a human life.

Alkē: Courage in the Face of Danger

Alkē is the operational heart of the heroic life. Often synonymous with andreia, alkē is the virtue without which all others collapse. It is the courage to stand and face danger — and in most cases, certain death — without retreat.

In the Iliad, Homer characterizes Ajax as “a tower of strength,” advancing with the fierce resolve of a man who has accepted danger as the price of duty. In battle he shows a near‑reckless disregard for his own safety, wading on many occasions into the press of spears to hold the Achaean line. His courage is both inspirational and gravitational as his courage draws the Achaeans into his orbit and forces them forward onto victory.

Hector’s courage belongs to an entirely different order. He courageously accepts the challenge to face Achilles in single combat knowing he is doomed to die and that Troy will fall without his leadership on the battlefield. Yet, he subdues his fear and accepts his fate. “Hector, the breaker of horses, did not shrink from the fight… He stood alone before the gates, awaiting Achilles.”

His bravery is the fulfilment of duty in the face of annihilation — the courage of a man who chooses honor before his kin and countrymen knowing that honor will lead to his death.

Modern man, by contrast, is effeminate. He lacks the courage to resist the smallest of temptations — the lure of convenience, the narcotic pull of entertainment, and the endless pursuit of pleasure — and as a result, he finds himself unable to resist anything at all. When the will is trained only to yield, defeat is inevitable.

To restore alkē is therefore to recover the discipline that orders desire, strengthens the will, and prepares the soul to face not only private temptations but the greater evils that press upon a broken world with unwavering courage.

Aidos: Shame-Respect and the Moral Conscience

Aidos is the most interior of the Homeric virtues. It can be understood as the reverent shame that restrains a man from violating what is sacred.

Glaucus embodies aidos when he discovers his ancestral bond with Diomedes on the battlefield. Realising that their grandfathers once exchanged gifts and swore friendship, he refuses to profane that inherited bond for the sake of momentary glory. Instead, he declares, “Let us avoid each other’s spears, even in the press of battle.” In this moment, aidos overcomes the frenzy of war as Glaucus honors lineage, loyalty, and the sacred obligations of hospitality.

Priam embodies another dimension of aidos when he enters Achilles’ tent to ransom Hector’s body. While a lesser man may have clung to pride or fear, aidos requires that man embraces temporal shame so that the dead be honored.

Thus Priam passes behind enemy lines under the cover of darkness, kneels before Achilles, and declares, “I have endured what no man on earth has ever done before — I have kissed the hand of the man who killed my son.” Achilles, stunned by his enemy’s bravery, surrenders Hector’s body, and in doing so, yields to the ancient laws that bind all mortal men.

Modern culture treats shame as pathology, yet rightly ordered shame is a safeguard of virtue. It prevents the soul from collapsing into self‑indulgence or dishonor. Modern man, however, has been conditioned to feel no shame at all. He broadcasts his vices and parades his impulses. He apologizes only when pressured, never from conscience, and treats every boundary as an imposition on his sovereign will.

To restore aidos is to recover the truth that one’s life is accountable to standards that transcend personal preference — the humility that acknowledges obligation and the dignity of those to whom it is owed.

Restoring the Homeric Ideal in a Modern World

By restoring the Homeric ideal in a Modern world, we do not mean the return of Bronze Age warfare, rather, the recovery of the virtues that once animated the heroic imagination.

The first task is to return to the classics as an antidote to the present. By studying the lives and deeds of great men, one begins to rediscover the blueprint for greatness that can be applied in a modern world.

The second task is careful and deliberate habituation of virtue. Kleos requires sacrifice, timē demands integrity without praise, aretē calls for disciplined cultivation of mind and body, alkē encourages the confrontation of fear, and aidos forces one to consider the moral weight of their actions. Rather than shrink from difficulty, embrace every opportunity to grow — from the most trivial challenges to the greater.

The third task is to cultivate connections that honor virtue. Iron sharpens iron, and no one becomes heroic in isolation. Seek out individuals who value these heroic ideals and encourage one another to embody them.

The task is demanding, yet not beyond reach. As Homer reminds us, “The gods give nothing without effort”, and the restoration of the heroic ideal begins with the willingness to strive.

Join the fight for the Soul of our Civilization!

By subscribing to Atlas Press, you are supporting an honest group of guys who are working to help revitalize Western Civ through the re-enrichment of the Western mind. We appreciate your support greatly and hope you join us.

Subscribe now

When looking for inspiration, it is both tempting and natural to look at what history’s most influential figures did at the height of their fame.

Arguably however, it is more interesting and helpful to consider what they did before achieving greatness, to better understand what inspired them.

One extraordinary example we have of this is a work that is almost entirely unknown in the English speaking world — I Libri della Famiglia. Literally The Books of the Family, it was written around 1430 by a young Leon Battista Alberti, the man who would go on to become arguably the first true ‘Renaissance man’.

His later works would rewrite the rulebook for both art and architecture, and propel the Florentine Renaissance to its golden age. But the preface alone of I Libri della Famiglia offers an extraordinary insight into what motivated him, and what he believed society needed to start doing.

So, what can the founding father of the Renaissance aesthetic teach us about inspiring a new Renaissance?

Agency over Fortune

We know from his own autobiography that Alberti, a scion of a wealthy Florentine family, wrote the Libri della Famiglia when he was in his late twenties, while serving as a secretary to the Papal Curia in Rome.

As befits the title, the work was primarily intended for his family, not the public. When Alberti rose to success and fame in Florence, the Libri were entirely buried by his later masterpieces, and it was not until the 19th century that the rediscovered work was identified as having been written by him. As a result, there is an air of sincerity about it, and something quite personal too. After all, it appears to have been written in a frustrated response to the decline in fortunes of his own family, which had been unceremoniously exiled from Florence decades earlier for political reasons.

Doubtless inspired by the plight of the Alberti family, he took an interest in the plight of Italy, and how it was that she had fallen from her imperial greatness. Was it all just bad luck?

“When I recall from ancient histories and from the memory of our elders that many families which were once most happy and renowned are now extinct, as we have been able to witness in our own day in Italy and elsewhere, I often grieve and wonder. Can an unjust and malevolent Fortune have such power over men?”

Leon Battista Alberti, I Libri della Famiglia, Preface

It was a depressing thought to him indeed. If families as great as the the Fabii, Decii, Drusi, Gracchi of Ancient Rome could fall, what hope was there for the humble Alberti, mere merchants of Tuscany?

As a result, Alberti dedicates the Preface of the Libri to considering this question. Is it fortune, or agency, that is the undoing of great families and great nations?

Drawing on the misfortunes of his own line, Alberti has the sincerity and humility to declare that attributing all failures to ‘bad luck’ is to abdicate responsibility:

“But if anyone wishes to investigate carefully what exalts and ennobles families and maintains them at the height of honor and magnificence, he will clearly see that most of the time men are themselves responsible for whatever good or ill befalls them. Nor, certainly, will he ever attribute such power to fortuitous circumstance as to be led to conclude that ability is not of more avail than Fortune in gaining praise, importance, and fame”

Leon Battista Alberti, I Libri della Famiglia, Preface

After all, successes and failures are always the consequence of decisions that somebody has taken along the way:

“Just laws, virtuous princes, prudent councils, resolute and steadfast deeds, love of country, loyalty, diligence, the citizens’ most scrupulous and praiseworthy obedience, these have always enabled nations to achieve and seize fame, even without Fortune’s aid”

Leon Battista Alberti, I Libri della Famiglia, Preface

Ultimately therefore, it is counterproductive to simply lament the fall of Rome as a tragedy. Instead, Alberti argues, it is far better to be honest about what she did right, what she did wrong, and accept our own agency for the times we live in…

The True Source of Rome’s Greatness

After denouncing the irresponsible opportunism of the Macedonian generals following the death of Alexander the Great, which doomed his empire by prioritising personal ambition over public good, Alberti quickly brings the discourse home:

“And is the same not true of our own Italy? As long as our excellent and most sacred ancient institutions were observed by us; as long as we were willing to emulate our forefathers and acted with vigor to surpass the glory of past generations; as long as we thought it our duty and obligation to offer all our works, industry, and skill, and indeed all our possessions to the fatherland for the public good and the welfare of all citizens; as long as we risked our possessions, our blood, our very lives to uphold the authority, majesty, and glory of the Latin name, was there a people, was there a fierce and barbarous nation which did not fear and obey our edicts and laws?”

Leon Battista Alberti, I Libri della Famiglia, Preface

It is an increasingly popular position today to argue that we have ‘lost touch with our roots’. So much so that it has largely become a cliché on social media. To say this in 1430, however, was rather more original.

After all, the Renaissance itself is called that because it literally means rebirth, and incarnated the will to see the glory of Antiquity born again. The importance of understanding what core principles governed your cultural identity was indeed an argument which another illustrious Florentine, Niccolò Machiavelli, would repeat a century later. Alberti, however, avoided sliding into excessive sentimentality by alluding to a plain truth:

“Can it be said that our marvelous, boundless empire, our dominion over all peoples obtained through our Latin virtues, acquired through our industry, and strengthened through our Latin might, was granted us by Fortune? Shall we say that we are indebted to Fortune for what we acquired through manliness? Shall we ascribe to Fortune the prudence and moderation of Fabius, that singular man who, by delaying and biding his time, restored to the Romans their nearly extinct freedom?”

Leon Battista Alberti, I Libri della Famiglia, Preface

If we stop looking at historical trends in terms of ‘luck’, then it stands to reason that human flaws brought down Rome, and therefore human virtues could raise Italy up again.

Indeed, Alberti argues, Rome’s greatness lay precisely in her refusal to bow to the fickle course of Fortune.

“In how many ways was Fortune with all her power and malice seen to battle and strive against Latin armies at Cannae, Trebia, and Trasimenus, in Gaul, Spain, and other places, with no less hatred and wrath than the most cruel and monstrous enemies?”

Leon Battista Alberti, I Libri della Famiglia, Preface

Rome, after all, was never an invincible military colossus. Her path to empire was frequently tempered with humiliating defeats. Cannae alone, which cost Rome over 50,000 lives on a single day, would have established a narrative of inevitable defeat in lesser nations. Rome’s virtue lay in remaining grounded in the face of crisis. She was only ever strengthened by the tempering fire, for the ordinary Roman feared betraying the glory of Rome more than he did death.

Rome therefore, had grasped a dangerously simple concept. That Fortune follows success, not the other way round:

“Though the glorious course of Roman victories was often interrupted by envious Fortune, yet to Roman valor glory could never be denied. As long as they considered valiant deeds and the observance of their country’s just laws to be both the ornament and the strength of their empire, a benign and favorable Fortune always accompanied the Romans.”

Leon Battista Alberti, I Libri della Famiglia, Preface

In more modern terms, therefore, Alberti is telling us that the first step to renewal is to reject a ‘narrative of decline’, and accept that you have it in your power to make difference.

But what do we do with this?

Read more

In his eleven‑volume series The Story of Civilization, historian Will Durant warned that from barbarism to civilization requires a century but from civilization to barbarism needs but a day.

This observation captures not only the speed of civilizational collapse, but a much deeper and more confronting truth that speaks to the modern West. Every great empire passes from an age of form to an age of dissolution, and the philosophy that governs this late phase is the same across all ages.

It is the creed we now call liberalism.

Rather than being a political re‑alignment, liberalism is a metaphysical inversion — the replacement of inherited order with the sovereignty of appetite, the elevation of the individual above the common good, the will above the law, and desire above duty.

Liberalism reverses the hierarchy that made civilization possible in the first place. Order is the first principle of any enduring society, and liberalism is the gradual unravelling of that order — a slow corrosion of the restraints that once held barbarism at bay. When a society elevates autonomy above discipline, it inevitably begins to sanctify what earlier ages recognized as vice. In time, it not only tolerates licentiousness but enshrines it in law, confusing license for liberty.

The infamous French Revolution reveals that even when the most refined peoples embrace liberalism, they become the barbarians inside the gates. Its descent from lofty ideals to blood‑soaked chaos stands as a warning that civilizations are not always conquered from without, but from within by heirs who have forgotten how to govern themselves.

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

The Exaltation of the Individual

The first principle of liberalism is the exaltation of the individual as the supreme measure of truth, morality, and political legitimacy. In this vision, the self becomes the final arbiter of meaning, accountable only to its own desires.

What appears as a political claim is, in fact, a metaphysical rupture since it presumes that human beings are self‑originating and self‑sufficient, that truth is not discovered but constructed, and that the moral order is no longer something to which one conforms but something one invents. As a result, objective truths become subjective, and the pursuit becomes less about aligning one’s self with the order of the universe, and instead, based on one’s solipsistic experience and perception.

Spengler recognized this shift as the onset of “civilizational winter.” Once the individual is enthroned as the organising principle, the older structures of duty, hierarchy, and communal purpose lose their binding force. Once the individual is enthroned as the organising principle, the older structures of duty, hierarchy, and communal purpose lose their binding authority and the civilization begins to disintegrate into a new form of barbarism.

France in the decades before the infamous Revolution offers a striking illustration of this phenomenon. Moralists such as La Rochefoucauld had already noted that the self was becoming the hidden engine of public life, and by the mid‑eighteenth century, the Enlightenment philosophes openly recast the individual as the sole measure of truth Rousseau’s “inner voice” and Diderot’s sentimental morality signalled a decisive shift from an external moral order to the sovereignty of personal experience.

The Church, the monarchy, the guilds, and the complex networks of village life — the Ancien Régime — were increasingly dismissed as constraints upon the self’s right to define its own meaning by a people who sought to remake the world in their image and likeness.

In the modern West, one can hear echoes of the French Revolution — or at least, the beginnings of it. Identity has become an act of self‑creation rather than an inheritance received, and truth has become a matter of personal experience rather than participation in a universal order. The result is a society of atomized individuals — each demanding recognition, each resisting limits, each convinced of his own unbounded sovereignty. In time, this process accelerates to the point where individuals are unable to relate to one another. Their perceptions of reality are so fundamentally opposed that the existence of the other is seen as an existential threat that must be annihilated.

The Disintegration of the Natural Bonds of Community

The second principle of liberalism is the dissolution of the natural bonds of community that form the foundation of civilization.

Liberalism treats society as a voluntary association of individuals rather than an inherited order of families, parishes, guilds, and local loyalties. Christopher Dawson observed that the modern world has abandoned the religious foundations of European culture, and in doing so, abandoned the communal structures that transmitted culture across generations.

France in the eighteenth century offers a clear illustration of this abandonment. The Enlightenment’s elevation of abstract reason above inherited custom weakened the traditional bonds that had long held French society together. By the eve of 1789, the nation had ceased to be a network of interdependent communities and had instead become a collection of isolated individuals united only by shared grievances and revolutionary fervor.

The National Assembly abolished the guilds, suppressed the monasteries, and reorganized France into administrative departments that ignored historic regions and local identities, replaced by a centralized state presiding over uprooted individuals. Even the family, universally understood as the building-block of civilization, was reimagined as nothing more than a legal construct subordinate to the state. To this end, Tocqueville later observed that the Revolution was not simply the overthrow of a political order, but the destruction of the communal fabric that had sustained French society for centuries.

The modern West faces an analogous crisis. Family structures have weakened and local communities have dissolved, leaving the West less a community of citizens than a marketplace of consumers. When no principle of unity remains, co-operation becomes impossible, and the common good collapses into a competition of private interests. In such a climate, citizens are incentivized to see their neighbours as potential threats, and turn violently against one another the moment opportunity presents itself.

The Separation of Church and State

The third principle of liberalism is the strict division between religious authority and political authority.

Historically, civilizations flourished when their political institutions were anchored in a transcendent moral order. Liberalism effectively severs this bond since it insists that the state must be morally neutral, religiously indifferent, and that public life must be stripped of all vestiges of the transcendent.

In the decades leading up to the French Revolution, the Enlightenment philosophers’ campaign against the Church was more than a critique of what they considered to be clerical over-reach, it was a philosophical assault on the very idea of a transcendent moral authority. Voltaire, Diderot, and their contemporaries treated the Church as an obstacle to progress. They sought to replace Christianity with a purely rational, secular ideology, but as their influence grew, their intention to destroy the Church became undeniable.

This antagonism culminated in the Civil Constitution of the Clergy which effectively subordinated the Church to the revolutionary state, severing centuries‑old bonds between religious and political life. Traditional holy days were forcibly abolished, church property was confiscated, religious orders were dissolved, and the calendar was rewritten.

Although the revolutionaries claimed merely to be removing religion from public life in the name of tolerance, they installed a new religion animated by ideological fervor, with philosophers as its priesthood and liberty as its god. The Cult of Reason, and later the Cult of the Supreme Being, was installed as a new civic religion in the place of Christianity. It demanded its own sacrifices, namely, those who held to the old faith were branded enemies of the state and met with mass execution, as the self‑proclaimed liberators descended into a tyranny more sweeping and totalitarian than any French monarch could have ever imagined.

The modern West undergoes the same desacralization, though in subtler and more bureaucratic forms. As public life is stripped of transcendence, religion is pushed into the private sphere — managed, regulated, and quietly sidelined. Churches close not only from dwindling attendance but from a cultural climate that persecutes and even punishes those who cling to something older than the prevailing orthodoxy because it is an indictment against the conscience of the revolutionary.

Faith is tolerated only when it is silent, compliant, and politically inconsequential, and in its place, the state and its cultural machinery elevate secular ideologies that function as civic religions, demanding assent while offering neither order nor meaning.

The result is a people severed from their spiritual inheritance — detached, disoriented, and ripe for whatever new ideology promises salvation. A population that has forgotten the sacred will follow anyone who claims to fill the spiritual void, often with catastrophic consequences.

Popular Will Supplanting Divine or Natural Law

The fourth principle of liberalism is the elevation of popular will above divine or natural law. When the will of the people becomes the highest authority, truth is determined by majority rule.

In his Lessons of History, Will Durant warned that “democracy is the most difficult of all forms of government since it requires the widest spread of intelligence.” When the citizens are unmoored from tradition, the popular will can be steered by demagogues and used as a force of destruction rather than renewal.

The Enlightenment’s insistence that legitimacy arises solely from the people severed political authority from any transcendent moral foundation. Rousseau’s doctrine that sovereignty resides entirely in the people was transformed, in revolutionary hands, into an instrument of absolute power. Once the National Assembly declared itself the sole voice of the nation, law became whatever a majority — or a loud minority — proclaimed it to be. The result was a moral volatility unprecedented in European history.

One year the Church was tolerated and the next it was abolished, one month the monarchy was constitutional and the next it was criminal, and the same assemblies that preached liberty sanctioned the Reign of Terror. The Revolution revealed the peril of grounding political authority solely in the shifting passions of the people since they are easily swept into movements they neither understand nor control.

Tocqueville later observed that without a transcendent moral standard, the general will could justify anything — confiscation, persecution, even execution — so long as it claimed to speak and act for “the people.”

The modern West faces a similar danger. Democratic institutions are increasingly steered by emotion, media manipulation, and ideological fervor. In such a climate, truth becomes a matter of consensus rather than correspondence to reality, and the result is political instability and cultural fragmentation — an inevitable collapse, because the very foundations of order shift beneath a populace that no longer knows what is true or binding.

Licentiousness and Moral Collapse

The final principle of liberalism is the transformation — or rather, degeneration — of liberty into license.

In his Lessons of History, Will Durant rightfully observed that “freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies” since a society that pursues absolute freedom inevitably destroys the conditions that make ordered liberty possible. Classical freedom meant the capacity to pursue the good whereas liberalism conflates freedom with the absence of restraint. When every desire becomes a right and every limit becomes an oppression, the moral fabric of society begins to unravel.

Rousseau pushed the Enlightenment’s celebration of autonomy in a radically different direction by idealizing the noble savage — a human being unshaped by institutions, unburdened by hierarchy, and uncorrupted by the disciplines of civilization.

To accomplish this end, the revolutionaries systematically dismantled every social, moral, and political boundary so that the noble savage could re‑emerge and finally usher in an Edenic utopia. The National Convention abolished long‑standing moral and social restraints, from religious festivals to traditional marriage laws. The Festival of Reason, the cults of civic virtue, and the redefinition of moral norms were all attempts to replace inherited discipline with a freedom understood as unbounded self‑expression. This unrestrained liberty became license and quickly devolved into moral collapse and culminated in the orgiastic violence of the infamous Reign of Terror — proving the ancient observation that lust begets blood-lust.

In the West, the pursuit of absolute freedom has produced what Spengler recognized as a profound spiritual exhaustion. When every restraint is cast off, freedom ceases to be a discipline of the soul and becomes a weapon turned inward since freedom severed from virtue inevitably collapses into violence. A society that refuses limits soon discovers that its appetites can never be satiated, its institutions lose their moral authority, and its people become unleashed upon one another.

The West is plagued by rising civil disorder that no policing strategy can meaningfully contain, crime that grows not only in frequency but in ferocity, and a culture in which transgression becomes a form of self‑expression. Abroad, the same exhaustion manifests as wars waged without clarity of purpose, conflicts justified by abstractions rather than necessity, and a foreign policy that mirrors the inner chaos of a civilization that no longer knows what it stands for. All of this unfolds against the backdrop of collapsing birth rates and a pervasive sense of meaninglessness that no amount of material comfort can disguise, since a civilization that abandons limits ultimately abandons the very conditions that make freedom worth having.

The Antidote to Liberalism

If liberalism is dissolution of the inherited structures that once ordered the soul and bound communities together, then the only antidote is a deliberate return to the sources of strength that sustained earlier ages.

Tradition and religion are these deep roots from which the West drew its strength, its discipline, and its sense of purpose. Once a society has forgotten how to revere what is higher than the self it can no longer endure since it degenerates into barbarism until it devours itself.

Renewal therefore requires more than political reform — it demands a recovery of asceticism, of limits freely embraced, of the virtues that train desire rather than indulge them. Only by restoring these older forms of life can the West arrest its descent and reclaim the inner discipline that once made ordered liberty possible.

If decline begins with the abandonment of tradition, then restoration begins with its recovery, and if liberalism dissolves the foundations of civilization, only a return to those foundations can prevent the collapse that otherwise awaits us.

Join the fight for the Soul of our Civilization!

By subscribing to Atlas Press, you are supporting an honest group of guys who are working to help revitalize Western Civ through the re-enrichment of the Western mind. We appreciate your support greatly and hope you join us.

Subscribe now

“Many things grow in the garden that were never sown there”

Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

There are many signs of civilization, from the more familiar monuments to the innovations of the mind and of science. Another that hides in plain sight, however, is how far it has been able to master Nature.

Or more properly, how far it has been able to harness Nature to serve the needs of that civilization. In its primal stages, a civilization is at war with the encroach of flora and fauna. In its maturity, what was once intimidating can be tamed to support life and even be transformed into a source of beauty and pleasure. As a result, the most literal example of civilization is arguably the garden.

But the modern man, busy at work and in the house, has many distractions from his garden, if he even has one at all. To the city dweller, the thought might be entirely alien. But to neglect the garden is to sever a taproot between yourself and civilization.

So how did our civilization master nature, and why is J.R R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings an ode to gardening?

Reminder: You can get tons of members-only content dedicated to useful knowledge, and support our Mission at the same time for a few dollars per month 👇

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Get actionable principles from history to help you navigate modernity

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

Upgrade to paid

Sweat of the Brow

‘Garden’ today is often used as a catch-all expression to mean, in the bluntest way, the outdoor part of your property, where you would not be irritated to find a plant or wild animal.

To our ancestors, however, things were a little more particular. This of course is because prior to the Industrial Revolution, an ability to work the land was the primary skill of a man, and produce of the soil the lifeblood of the economy. It was our business to understand such things as much as our pleasure. As a result, much of our relationship to the garden has been characterised by a struggle with one particular question — should a garden be functional, or aesthetic?

In the ancient Western world, for a long time the answer was very much the former. To the early Romans, a hortus — the root of horticulture — was a small plot of land whose function was to grow vegetables for the kitchen. Since much of the population were farmers anyway, the hortus was generally a phenomenon only for the urban poor. As a result, the use of plants to please the eye tended to occur only on the large country estates where there was room to spare.

Everything changed however around 60 BC, when the general Lucius Licinius Lucullus promptly inverted this dynamic. Stunned by the great water gardens he had observed on campaign in Persia and the East, he attempted to build his own in a vast estate on the Pincian Hill. By all accounts it was a wonder to behold, and clearly established that a garden could be an aristocratic asset. Among its innovations was the use of the garden to display artworks, including statues of gods, heroes and ancestors, harnessing Nature to imprint one’s cultural and familial identity.

Soon enough, it became fashionable among the Roman elite to receive guests in their gardens, which in the beating summer heat of central Italy, formed convenient areas in which to have deep philosophical conversations. As Cicero himself put it:

“If you have a garden in your library, everything will be complete”

Cicero, Ad Familiares, IX.4

It was not all praise, however. Agrarian Rome was highly sensitive to the proper use of land, and saw a certain decadence in gardens that were too large for any one man to manage. Pliny the Elder, whose Natural History was the world’s first encyclopedia, lamented this phenomenon, noting that even the Kings of Rome had once “cultivated their gardens with their own hands”, and confessing melancholy for the days when:

“At Rome at all events a garden was in itself a poor man’s farm”

Pliny the Elder, Natural History, XIX

One should be careful for what one wishes for — you might just get it…

Medieval Function

One of the most astonishing signs of Rome’s collapse in the West is that grand pleasure gardens entirely disappeared from the European continent for almost a thousand years.

With Italy overrun by barbarian hordes, many of whom had no tradition whatsoever of horticulture, Pliny’s wish was ironically fulfilled, as gardening was instantly knocked back to the pre-Lucullus days. The political fragmentation of the early medieval period, and collapse of an overarching authority, in any case, made it unwise to invest large sums in vulnerable suburban or rural estates.

However, the Christianization of Europe posed a new challenge to Western Man. After all, Genesis commands us to subdue the Earth:

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”

Genesis 1:28

It is no surprise therefore that, along with many other traces of civilization, it was in monks and the monastic life that some form of horticulture survived in Europe. Monastic Orders were required to be self-sufficient, and typically took vows of labor, vows often fulfilled tilling the Earth. Monastic gardens, however, like the cities of the day, were walled off, and generally served to sustain life, not celebrate it.

That said, it was not entirely dead. Larger gardens could be found, but generally they were Giardini dei Semplici, or gardens dedicated exclusively to medicinal herbs, often attached to Europe’s proto-medical schools, such as at Salerno and Padua. Aesthetic beauty was virtually irrelevant. Gardening had gone from being aristocratic to academic.

Fortunately however, the Renaissance would not only revive the roots of civilization, but cleverly reconcile the extravagance of Antiquity with Christian calling…

Mastery Over Nature

Read more