Let me start by thanking you all for your patience and the relative slow speed of content production as of late. The winter has been quite difficult in terms of health, and the legislative session has been extremely busy with my serving on two committees due to a resignation that left House Education short. However, I hope you’ll be quite happy to know that a major book release is now only 1 week away. The Right is getting a reason to get excited about May Day - a day when the Left is planning to run an economic boycott to hurt American and Americans. Sure would be a shame if we turned the book into a bestseller on their boycott day…

I can also announce that this is only the first of several planned books. This, being the first and foundation of those to come, will be the most comprehensive and generalist manual on identifying how the enemy works and what we must do to get to the victory we all desire. For that reason, the subtitle of the book is The Field Manual for the Counter-Revolution. The title, in keeping with the theme, is Counterspell. The book pulls together to totality of my prior written works from the past decade, crafted into one coherent whole, and supplemented with significant new material, analysis, and biographical information.

The book is available for preorder in Ebook/Kindle format here: www.amazon.com/dp/B0GX35XZQF. Unfortunately, print edition preordering is not available, but both paperback and hardcover will go live on May Day.

I would like to share with you, below, a section on my developing Theory of Mind of Leftism.

Theory of Mind: Reasoning with the Wall

That is, a working model for understanding how the Leftist mind operates, and why reasoned argument fails against it.

You have likely experienced the following: you present a Leftist with a well-reasoned, evidence-based argument. You defeat their position thoroughly. And then, without a moment’s pause, they switch to an entirely different argument that flatly contradicts their first. Consistency is not required. You have not won anything. You have merely swiped at a vapid vapor.

This is not stupidity. It is the absence of the substrate from which consistent reasoning would proceed.

Conservatives tend to operate from a basis of ethics, and that ethical basis is typically transcendent—rooted in something above, beyond, and fundamental to the individual, the society, and the moment. Leftists tend to operate from shallow presuppositions: utilitarian, practically oriented, concerned with outcomes as defined by whatever the current social and strategic consensus holds to be desirable. Where the Leftist ethical basis is contemplated and well-formed—and it sometimes is—it is socially constructed and legitimized, not transcendent but immanent. It stands on the shifting sand of whatever the group currently affirms.

This is the foundational asymmetry. Reason does not produce ethics; it proceeds from ethics. Ethics are the first principle—the thing that exists before reason and informs experience. They do not exactly exist as “self-evident,” as if holding up a speculum to ones own heart will reveal them with fidelity to the mind. They cannot be properly legitimized by an appeal to “common sense.” As we established in our treatment of practical ethics, there are only three methods of ethical formation: assertion on one’s own authority (which rests on the authority of the person, which is to say next to none), social mediation (which is inherently relativistic and therefore not truly an ethic at all, but an anti-ethic), and the transcendent (which alone provides an ideal against which actions can be measured). The Leftist operates, at best, from the second. The Right, when consistent, operates from the third.

Because the Leftist’s ethical substrate is shallow, shifting, or absent, the reasoned argument has nothing stable to land on. Language for them is not a tool to describe reality; it is, per the alchemical tradition from which their entire project descends, a weapon to change it. You cannot argue someone out of a position they did not argue themselves into, but that was felt into. When the position rests not on reason but on social affirmation, emotionalism and shallow utility, your reason is simply irrelevant to the architecture of their belief.

The Persistence of Conscience

And yet something persists beneath the shallow presuppositions. The Leftist who operates against moral reality still feels it, even if they cannot name it. The moral law is written on every heart. The conscience registers violations of moral reality whether or not the person acknowledges the source of that reality.

For the reader who needs an account that does not rest on theological premise, the behavioral evidence makes the case. A purely social-constructivist account predicts that discomfort diminishes as social reinforcement of the in-group ethic increases—the more thoroughly embedded in an affirming ideological community, the less guilt the member should feel. The observable pattern runs precisely opposite. The doubling-down, the nihilistic self-injury, the intensifying need for social affirmation, the escalating suppression mechanisms—these deepen with ideological commitment rather than ease. The feedback loop tightens as the social endorsement grows. A model of suppressed conscience predicts exactly this: the harder you press against a functioning moral faculty, the harder it presses back, and the more energy must be expended in the pressing.

The secular materialist will object that cognitive dissonance theory explains the same data without requiring a transcendent moral faculty. The objection does not hold. Cognitive dissonance theory is itself a secular, incomplete reframing of the process inherent to conscience—it describes the symptom only. The theory predicts that dissonance diminishes as the contradiction is resolved through group affirmation and the adoption of a consistent in-group ethic. A person deeply embedded in an affirming ideological community should, under this model, experience decreasing discomfort as the community validates their beliefs. The observable pattern runs precisely opposite—and the in-group’s tyrannical need to cancel, excise, and punish any pangs of conscience surfacing among its members is itself demonstrative of the unreality of socially constructed ethics. A social ethic that was actually functional, and foundational to the subject, would not require a perpetual suppression apparatus directed at its own adherents. The very acts of tyranny used to maintain the social construction point beyond the group itself—to a higher authority than the group consensus, one the group did not intend to point to, that must be the impetus for the escalating totalizing suppression and perpetual revolution of shifting targets. The cancel machinery is not just aimed outward at the enemy. It is aimed inward at the faithful. That fact alone testifies that something deeper than cognitive dissonance is at work… [continued in Counterspell: A Field Manual for the Counter-Revolution, coming May Day 2026]