The problem here is that (at least in the US), conservatism has become infected by the twin evils of Objectivism and militarism. It pays lip service to Christ, but its heart really belongs to Ayn Rand. Thus, American conservatives will rally to the ramparts to defend huge corporations, tax cuts, and tawdry foreign wars; but when it comes to actually trying to do something to roll back the revolution that has destroyed our civil society, they will, at most, mutter some encouraging-sounding platitudes before they wander off to do other things.
Objectivism is an antithetical to Christianity as Communism was, and militarism (especially when used to spread that old demon, mass democracy) is a horror. Can reactionaries really make a deal with people committed to such ideas?
@Nergol - " Can reactionaries really make a deal with people committed to such ideas?"
No - we should *not* make a deal with such people - did you think I was arging that we should?
27 December 2011 at 17:05
Nergol said...
@bgc
No, I don't think you were suggesting that we should. I was more noting that I don't think we could, even if we wanted to. Or, more that if we tried to, the various "conservative" parties would simply try to co-opt us by giving lip service to our ideas while fleecing us for money and votes.
Not that they'd get mine, of course. As a dedicated monarchist, I'd never be caught voting. But you get the idea.
The labels conservative and leftist always leave me confused because I am not sure of the meaning. As Negrol stated about the link in the US between conservatism and militarism it has confused the term conservatism for me.
Do you define these terms somewhere else in the blog or have a reference I could use?
@SC - By Conservative I simply mean the mainstream political world of the Republican, Conservative, Libertarian type. People who get elected and run for election.
In this blog, and my book, I argue that these are all Leftist parties. There are no Right wing parties in national politics.
I think the fundamental error we see here is of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" variety.
"Conservatives" (by this I mean, roughly, secular Objectivist/militarists) opposed Communism/socialism, as did we traditionalists/reactionaries. Thus, I think too many people that lean to the true right have assumed that everyone who opposes their enemies must be in the same camp as them. This has been a disastrous mistake.
1 January 2012 at 23:02
*
There is a sense in which mainstream Conservatives are one of the worst enemies of Reaction.
This happens because - when effective - Conservatives make partial corrections that temporarily improve the situation without curing the underlying trend.
Effective Conservatives defer collapse but do not prevent it - and the longer collapse is deferred, the worse collapse will be when it eventually comes.
*
Yet of course Conservatives are much closer to Reactionaries than are out-and-out Leftists: Conservatives are more-nearly right/ Right.
*
What happens in modern socio-political life is that nuanced/ reasonable/ sensible/ moderate Conservative positions are continually being absorbed into Leftism/ Liberalism/ Political Correctness by default as the political 'centre' is moved ever Leftward...
Except in those exceptional instances when a Conservative perceives this assimilation as it begins to happen, takes a deep breath, makes a stand - then quantum-jumps into extreme, beyond the pale, Reactionary views.
*
This entails an inner rejection of modernity that is weird and indeed hypocritical; since nobody can live by it.
To the Conservative, the Reactionary is either crazy, or insincere - either way the Reactionary is seen not to be living by his beliefs, Reactionary beliefs are seen as inapplicable to 'real life'.
Yet this is the spiritual destination of Conservatism - pushed to the point of decision.
It is likely that few will make that inner decision, the quantum-leap, that road less taken: since all worldly considerations are against it.
*
But until a decision has already been made to take the broad path of the pragmatic mainstream; then the mass of Christian Conservatives should probably be regarded as 'friends of Reaction'; not for what they are but for what they might become.
Conservatives should perhaps be seen as 'spiritual seekers' on a path which may lead to Reaction, but as individuals who have not yet arrived at the fork in the way.
"How should Reactionaries regard Conservatives? As seekers"
6 Comments -
The problem here is that (at least in the US), conservatism has become infected by the twin evils of Objectivism and militarism. It pays lip service to Christ, but its heart really belongs to Ayn Rand. Thus, American conservatives will rally to the ramparts to defend huge corporations, tax cuts, and tawdry foreign wars; but when it comes to actually trying to do something to roll back the revolution that has destroyed our civil society, they will, at most, mutter some encouraging-sounding platitudes before they wander off to do other things.
Objectivism is an antithetical to Christianity as Communism was, and militarism (especially when used to spread that old demon, mass democracy) is a horror. Can reactionaries really make a deal with people committed to such ideas?
27 December 2011 at 13:51
@Nergol - " Can reactionaries really make a deal with people committed to such ideas?"
No - we should *not* make a deal with such people - did you think I was arging that we should?
27 December 2011 at 17:05
@bgc
No, I don't think you were suggesting that we should. I was more noting that I don't think we could, even if we wanted to. Or, more that if we tried to, the various "conservative" parties would simply try to co-opt us by giving lip service to our ideas while fleecing us for money and votes.
Not that they'd get mine, of course. As a dedicated monarchist, I'd never be caught voting. But you get the idea.
29 December 2011 at 05:42
The labels conservative and leftist always leave me confused because I am not sure of the meaning. As Negrol stated about the link in the US between conservatism and militarism it has confused the term conservatism for me.
Do you define these terms somewhere else in the blog or have a reference I could use?
Thanks
29 December 2011 at 05:51
@SC - By Conservative I simply mean the mainstream political world of the Republican, Conservative, Libertarian type. People who get elected and run for election.
In this blog, and my book, I argue that these are all Leftist parties. There are no Right wing parties in national politics.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/07/simple-and-simplistic-classification-of.html
29 December 2011 at 05:55
@bgc
I think the fundamental error we see here is of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" variety.
"Conservatives" (by this I mean, roughly, secular Objectivist/militarists) opposed Communism/socialism, as did we traditionalists/reactionaries. Thus, I think too many people that lean to the true right have assumed that everyone who opposes their enemies must be in the same camp as them. This has been a disastrous mistake.
1 January 2012 at 23:02