What do we want?

I was thinking, what do we reactionaries want and what are we willing to do about it?

Of course, in theory the answer is simple, we want to return to a traditional society with a monarchy, official religion, and so forth. But practically, what are we going to do about it? Mark Citadel argues that we just wait, and eventually society will collapse itself, and then at the point we take over.

But is this necessarily the case, will liberalism destroy itself? While it would be very good, I have my doubts about whether or not this will actually happen. The devil isn’t stupid, it would seem reasonable to think he’ll ensure that whatever evils liberalism inflicts on us will be inflicted in such a way that they don’t lead to the total collapse of liberal society. Moreover, I would argue that the actual facts back me up on this, while social bonds are very weak, the state is stronger than ever. Just try so much as mentioning that there’s a nearby church in a real estate ad, and the ever-tolerant federal government will put a swift stop to it.

Should we just support the Republican Party? No, the most obvious reason being that we’re not republicans. But there’s also the fact that, as Bonald points out, they don’t even advance their own ideology well, all they serve to do is keep one conservative belief within the bounds of respectability.

What I say we need to do, is actually start presenting our message politically. Sure, we’ll get little support, but if we try to force reaction into the mainstream, eventually it might get there, and then at the very least cultural degeneration will be halted, if not reversed. While we must never alter our positions for popularity, we should at least try to push our beliefs into the mainstream. It works for radical leftists, why not for us?

Does anyone have any other ideas, or am I missing anything?


5 thoughts on “What do we want?

  1. RS says:

    Are you more of the donoso Cortes persuasion (monarch as necessary and useful), or of the Sir Robert Filmer type (monarchy by right)? I am more of the latter. As such, I am not a practical monarchist, as I have no idea who would have the right?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. All monarchies were at some point established by someone who did not have the right acquiring the throne. While I’m supportive of efforts to restore old monarchs, some countries do not have a monarch by right. In such a case, it seems that reactionaries should push for monarchy on principle, and appoint one should we ever get power.


    • It is also the case that many current monarchical lines have been derelict and ipso facto have betrayed their own title. It is not illegitimate to replace such monarchies since they do not actually function as such, and would prove hostile to our own plans in many cases.


  3. McLaughlin says:

    I think that philosophical Liberalism, taken to its logical conclusions, necessarily will exhaust and then cannibalize itself. What remains to be seen is how to pick up the pieces.


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 )

Connecting to %s