The goal of the reactionary

"It is only the minority that counts." – Mencken

I’ve had several conversations (in person and online) with reactionaries about the end-game of reactionary blogging. In all these conversations I haven’t been able to express myself very well. Frankly, I never assumed that there was an end-game. I don’t blog to help create a new society or change the world. I blog for the purely selfish reasons of increasing my own knowledge and talking to other like-minded people. That’s good enough for me. It never occurred to me to want more.

I also think that mainstream systems – notably progressivism – are incredibly resilient. One could argue that progressivism in some form has been winning consistently for several centuries against opponents that, in many cases, are better/more powerful/etc than us. Your humble blogger harbors absolutely no expectation that this situation is about to change. Frankly, given the record of how progressivism deals with its opponents, I wouldn’t advise fighting it. My point is that I certainly don’t expect to live to see any meaningful changes. In other words, Whittaker Chambers was right.

The reactionary then, writes for himself and the small minority that matters. If some higher purpose is necessary, I’d suggest that it’s worthwhile to expose as many other people as possible to long lost, superior ideas, in hopes of finding more members of this (never large) minority. The structure of our society is very good at ensuring that people are only exposed to certain viewpoints (dissenting viewpoints are allowed, but only some dissenting viewpoints). There are very few places to encounter truly different ideas.

Advertisements

17 Responses to The goal of the reactionary

  1. Simon Grey says:

    I once wanted to change the world. Then I turned 18, went to college, and learned just how messed up the world was. The ignorance of my youth now astonishes me.

    Anyhow, the point I’m getting at is that there is still a bit of an idealist left in me. I hope that people read what I have to say and find it worthwhile. I hope that my writing helps to preserve those noble aspects of our society that are still yet noble. But these days, I mostly write because it’s therapeutic.

  2. Handle says:

    I don’t know about “changing the world” – but I do think the world has a way of changing itself, and that certain almost extinct ideas, if preserved and maintained just barely over the edge of mere existence can triumph once again.

    When, inevitably, one of those situations occurs that tends to shake up the existing ideological order, it’s nice to have some reserve ready to go for a “break glass in case of corrupt and insane social collapse” scenario. Blogging, commenting, things like the huge library at Mises.org – they keep this all alive and available, just in case. Maybe it all comes to naught, who cares it’s still entertaining and enjoyable for those who know how to appreciate it.

    Some great works of classical music are only appreciated by a maximum of 0.01% of the population. You can say “that’s tragic”, or you can say, “it’d be nice if things could change more people could learn to appreciate it, maybe I should try to achieve that” – or you can just be content to appreciate it yourself and keep the worthy tradition going for its own sake. If people change their mind, it’ll be there for them.

  3. Alrenous says:

    No higher purpose is necessary. Rather, for numerous goals, it’s necessary to know what the purpose is, even – and sometimes especially – when the purpose is humble.

  4. Red says:

    The greatest good any reactionary could do is building Moldburg’s Antiversity . Which I believe reactionaries are doing right now bit by bit through blogs. As long as we never become a threat to the cathedral the rebuilding processes will be greatly shortened when everything finally collapses. It will be a refuge for those who hunger for real truth in lives swallowed up a in sea of lies.

  5. Remnant says:

    The following words of George Lichtenberg have adorned Dennis Mangan’s blog for years:

    “I ceased in the year 1764 to believe that one can convince one’s opponents with arguments printed in books. It is not to do that, therefore, that I have taken up my pen, but merely so as to annoy them, and to bestow strength and courage on those on our own side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.”

  6. Jehu says:

    I’m a bit more optimistic. I believe that if we can win the immigration fight, we can win the long war by systematically weakening the key components of the Cathedral.. In addition, I believe that in the short game, there’s a very high chance of the Cathedral collapsing of its own rot, providing an opportunity to step into the resulting void. A bona fide financial or economic collapse has a way of draining the remaining legitimacy of a system.

  7. RS says:

    To me this post is like sooo one Goetterdaemerung ago, I honestly believe the system is toast. The question is can you get on top… can you stay on top. Except intellectually, you the reacto start with nothing. You’re at 0.2 Kelvin.

  8. Reactionary activism is like voting for King.

    You can do it, but it’s a terrible idea.

    If you want to act, as a reactionary, to achieve your goals, do so. Reactionaries are usually bright people, I’m sure you can devise a plan to get what you want.

    I blog because I want a record of my ideas, and I want it to be public. I do not seek to convince others through my blog; if I want to convince you, I will merely do so.

  9. Spandrell says:

    Well I do think that having an endgame is but our duty to posterity. Progressivism has always won because it has a purpose. Rightists never had, and historically never really fought the left in ideological terms.

    We are witnessing the dysgenics in a scale never known to mankind. Civilization itself is in danger. I think the endgame is eugenics. There is no other way.
    And we owe it to our kids that they may live in a world free of NAMs and jihadis.

  10. rightsaidfred says:

    Have progressives really won? They only ascend in a few wealthy places, and many adherents live personal lives that embrace conservative work ethics and morals.

    Most of the world is conservative.

  11. The genius of the system is that by relatively soft control and concentrating on culture, it is much stronger than rigid totalitarian systems. Its flexibility and elasticity make it stronger.

    But it’s still built on lies, grotesque, obvious lies. And so it has to collapse at *some* point. But it will take much longer. I believe it is now entering its Brezhnev period- people know it’s false, but pay it lip service to stay out of trouble while disconnecting as much as they can. The Brezhnev era was 25 years in the Soviet Union, so it could be 50 here.

  12. “One could argue that progressivism in some form has been winning consistently for several centuries against opponents that, in many cases, are better/more powerful/etc than us.”

    Progressivism is more powerful than it has ever been, its opponents far weaker, less competent, and less determined, than they have ever been.

    On the other hand, progressivism is crazier by far than it has ever been. Sooner or later, it is bound to make an disastrous unforced error.

    Progressives don’t win every fight. After the utter disaster of affirmative action lending they are looking for a way to retreat in good order from affirmative action. Global Warming looks like a bust. We are recovering the second amendment. Of course such victories are at best defensive. As “cuts” make government spending expand more slowly, such “victories” merely slow the overall movement leftwards. But a force that can be slowed, can be routed if they screw up badly enough.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Perhaps the biggest threat to liberalism isn’t right wing opponents, but pension hunry liberal babyboomers.

    The combination of impoverished minorities and boomers fighting for limited resources will present a huge challenge to the liberalism.

  14. Perhaps the biggest threat to liberalism is actually the babyboomers. The pension demands of the boomers will create greater poverty among minorities and low income whites stimulating unrest among the minorities and populist/nationalist opposition among the white proles.

  15. james wilson says:

    Hayek taught that all advances in civilization are anti-instinctual, the product of good experience with happenstance; that socialism is literally an inheritance of instinct from our evolution in small groups, which is why it cannot be abolished by experience and is easily manipulated.

  16. Mark Tully says:

    I don’t know about the end game, if there is one or should be one. For now, I think trying to reach people is a pretty reasonable ambition. I don’t expect positive feedback, or even to be taken seriously. I’m content with trying to put far right ideas in front of as many people as possible. If something sticks with just one person, if we help pull just one soul out of the fire of progressivism, I think the effort would be well spent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: