Over a week ago, I wrote an article about how the Left erodes Western civilization at its very foundations by effectively assassinating the legacy of our heroes.
It's a cowardly form of attack that relies on the ignorance of the people to sell the idea of a person as nothing but a flawed individual worthy of nothing but derision, and it completely ignores their contributions to civilization, effectively reducing them to the "sins" they committed as defined by a modern lens.
The targets are far-reaching, but one in particular that I found interesting was the attacks on Alexander the Great:
In life, he was undefeatable. Even in death, his impact couldn't be reduced, and few historical figures could ever outmatch it without being an actual deity. To truly kill him, you'd have to wait till he was long dead, then proceed to erode his reputation by exaggerating the wrong aspects of him to the ignorant who live in a different time, and force them to look at the figure through a one-sided modern moral lens.
Over time, you can reduce one of the most powerful and consequential people the world has ever known, and one who helped lay the foundations of the Western world as we know it, into a cowardly villain who is worthy of nothing but spite at worst, and being forgotten at best.
And if he can be reduced to that status, then how does that reflect on the West, which holds this man in such high regard?
READ: The Coward's Way to Slay a Hero
But there's another way to handle heroes of old. Though fictional, many heroes we erect to embody the virtues and beliefs we hold as good and moral are just as valuable as real ones. Superman is just as important as George Washington, as both are models of Western — particularly American — values. Aragorn from "The Lord of the Rings" is just as important as Achilles, and possibly even more so due to his relevance to modern culture.
So if you're trying to collapse Western civilization, it becomes important to co-opt and corrupt these figures as well, through any means necessary. However, unlike historical figures who actually lived, fictional characters need to be handled differently. You can't simply say, "you were mistaken about these people all your life and here's the real story about them," like you can with historical characters.
So, you have to make them work for you. Now, you can't just suddenly make the characters into completely different characters by giving them an entire new set of beliefs. The audience would push back too hard. You have to take a more subtle approach.
Before I even show you a picture, I'm sure you can already guess what that strategy is, because Hollywood is so soaked in it that it's become one of the most common tropes in cinema today.
The white hero becoming an old, bitter, drunk and lonely asshole is the only trope Hollywood knows how to write now pic.twitter.com/E4ginG0aDO
— Kaguya’s Top Gal (@hayasaka_aryan) August 17, 2026
You take those heroes, and you age them up, make them bitter, disillusioned, and borderline hateful.
The strategy is sort of clever, or it would've been if it hadn't been done to death. You take a hero like Luke Skywalker, a man who has always been depicted as hopeful even in the darkest moments, highly skilled, enthusiastic about fighting the darkness, and willing to find the good in someone, even if they're gripped by evil.
Then you turn him into an old, grizzled, bitter man who isolated himself from the world because his virtues were ultimately wrong and misguided. He gave in to fear and anger and attempted to do something he would never do as the Luke Skywalker we know because he was ultimately too weak, and because of this, he became disillusioned with his philosophy, his moral compass, and his ability to lead.
His sad life only begins to turn around when he accepts the mentality and moral compass of his more diverse and ideologically superior replacement. He even dies for her, cementing him as a martyr for her cause. He dies a "hero," fully accepting an ideological transition that the Luke Skywalker we know and love never would've needed in the first place.
Luke Skywalker didn't die at the end of "The Last Jedi"; he died at the beginning, the moment he tossed his father's lightsaber over his shoulder bitterly. Possibly more accurately, he died the moment modern writers set their eyes on him. They turned him into something he wasn't to make him a sacrifice on an altar he had no business being on.
I recently watched the first episode of "Lanterns," which seems like a pretty decent show so far, but the trope is so obvious now that it's hard for me to get past it. They depict Hal Jordan as an angry drunk who's been doing his job so long that he's become disillusioned with it. He's skilled, to be sure, but those skills are often offset by his rudeness and willingness to upset people for his own gain. They paint a man not trying to save anyone but a man who just loves doing his job because it means he gets to keep aliens off the planet.
His "trainee" John Stewart is a black man and a vegan who likes to have sex with strange, white married women, yet is far more friendly and empathetic towards people. He mistrusts anyone who doesn't tick a diversity box, including Jordan, and is often finger-wagging at Jordan about his attitude toward people. He dresses far more professionally; he's on time, and he seems a better fit for the role of Green Lantern. Spoilers: By the end of the first episode, there's a 10-year time jump, and Stewart is well-groomed, well-dressed, and asking after the health and well-being of people's children. Jordan, meanwhile, has a gunshot wound in his head, sitting on the bleachers of a high school football field, covered in snow.
They killed off THE "Green Lantern," making it clear that his replacement will be taking the lead no matter how this pans out.
Do you see the pattern?
These heroes didn't fail because they were valiantly defeated in battle. They failed because they first failed themselves. They adhered to a worldview that was ultimately wrong and found wanting. Their replacements are much stronger and beloved. They have the right values. The right attitudes. They're morally confident, and it pays off for them by making them more competent and skilled.
Do this with enough characters, and you can create a fresh new perspective for newer generations, fooling them into thinking that the heroes we all grew up with would actually reject the former morality and virtues that form the pillars of our civilization.
If you don't think I'm right, or you think I'm reading too far into it, then ask yourself this.
Why are they always trying to worm their way into churches to redefine Jesus's teachings?
