Unfortunately, what passes for opposition to leftism in the western world is a bizarre mixture of leftism, mixed in with a great big bag stupid, which is then spun around even more. Take examples of extreme “rightism” in the form of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, only in the 20th century could they be passed off as anything but degenerate stupidity. We know (or should know by now) that conservatism is a progressive offshoot that is younger than progressivism, and all these claims of classical liberalism are just attempts to resurrect an older form of leftism. As an added piece of confusion, the cold war split created an obscene situation in which all the sins of “leftism” were transferred to Communism, and Liberalism (its birth mother) was claimed to be its total opposite (“left” liberalism and “right” liberalism are an utter joke.) Political discourse is fundamentally shot. It is useless. That no one outside of the De Jouvenel tradition can even define right and left with any coherency should make this clear.
This situation seems to be assisted by the pervasive idea that what happens in society is a matter of collecting a group of ideas together (a political platform) and then advocating for your leaders to then implement the collection of wishes which then come true. So a Libertarian will make a list as so: I want liberty for all, weed legalization, free exit, small governance etc, while a designated socialist will demand a list as so: equality, social security, social justice etc. Here is another good example, and so is here, and here.
The absence of any serious thought as to the function of government as a complex process requiring extreme skill is pronounced. But unfortunately, that is the state of things in the west. The East seems less utterly delusional, but it is hard to tell.
The direction of serious thought would logically need to not begin with what should happen, or its imperative offshoot “must happen,” but with an analysis of what does happen. But this line of thought is unpleasant and leads to conclusions which people do not like.
Everything linked with the alt-right and neoreaction is firmly in the “must”, and “should” camps, and can best be described as a collection of political platforms. So white nationalism is a collection of platforms with a central premise of declaring that ethnic interests should be secured to varying degrees, whilst neoreaction seems to be a collection of libertarian, rationalist and paleo-con platforms with no real rhyme or reason plus an advocate of extreme non-governance via AI and/ or automated constitutions (the ultimate magic “should” and “must” political thinking.)
This is all very entertaining and all, but I don’t see any realism in any of it. The starting point in all of this is firmly not in the “what does/ did happen.” The original cathedral analysis (not the nonsense it has become) was firmly in the “what did/ does happen” category, De Jouvenel’s analysis is firmly in the “what did/ does happen” category, Carlyle’s analysis of the effects of non-governance is firmly in the “what did/ does happen” category. All of these things lead to unpleasant, but deeply necessary conclusions. So unpleasant that even those noticing it could sometimes not bring themselves to state the solution.