This is a bit too long for my taste,

I haven't really enjoyed anything Keith has put out in the last 3 or 4 months. Maybe longer. Some of his interviews are ok but that's about it.

In my view, that is also what "popular sovereignty" put in practice in general tends to boil down to - manufacturing consent. In any case, we are dealing with a phenomenon which does not present an eternal truth and is neither inevitable nor constant, but rather precariously maintained, even as a fiction or an illusion.

Well said and I agree. Popular sovereignty feels like ethnic nationalism subverted and diverted into bureaucracy with contractual terminology.

Watching this video has convinced me that while there is indeed great value in philosophy, a broad, high-quality historical education would probably be a lot more useful to Rightists today.

Strongly agree but there's a good deal of overlap between history, philosophy and politics. I don't think you can completely understand any of them without spending time on the other two. As you get closer to modernity in your study of history you'll notice that political concepts and philosophy becomes more convoluted and derivative.

History, when examined carefully and from the correct perspective, allows us to understand where various ideas come from, what purpose and whose goals they served or continue to serve, and what ideas are correct and incorrect.

Hard work and honest evaluation of historical sources always brings you back to certain timeless concepts. There's a manipulative self serving way to approach history and an honest and fair way. Unfortunately I think the 'honest' way is often tragic. History looks quite brutal and repetitive the deeper you go. People don't learn their lesson very easily.

It is not easy to read history correctly

That's an understatement. Ultimately history is delivered to us by imperfect messengers. Ourselves.

One of Evola's main contributions was, in my opinion, a Rightist theory of history, and his work even provides some practical examples of that theory put to action, but I am not sure if there is any significant amount of historical literature written from that perspective.

When I think of a 'rightist' theory of history I think of anti revisionism. There was no right or left in the past because the Jew had not yet captured institutions and created the left. Most classical historians were already living under right wing preceps as they documented. We only strive for a rightist view because we are like a man held down under water struggling for air.