Reactionaries say what Conservatives will not

I have written this piece as a continuation along the line of thinking expounded by Beefy Levinson in his inspired article ‘Clutching at Our Pearls of Great Price‘, which you can read in its entirety on his blog Lamentably Sane at the link. In his musings, Levinson encourages the casting off of Conservatism’s weak-kneed, useless facade of ‘respectability’ in the face of liberal accusations. To put it in his own words…

And what’s the best response when they learn that you’re a crimethinker? Laugh in their faces. Dare them to do something about it.


For almost a century there has been no militant or even resolute resistance to what is essentially a militant and resolute enemy. The fraudulent road of Conservatism that we have followed has led to nothing but our endless defeat, subjugation, and humiliation.


For the Rightist, the only avenue that makes sense is the Reactionary one, for this is the only mode of resistance that can be called legitimate and righteously justified. For no longer can Conservatives tell us that their political victory is near, that the ravages of Liberalism will be rolled back by some sweeping electoral victory that would put into power lying, greedy, globalist politicians a stone’s throw away from the position of Social Democracy. This will not save Occidental Civilization or revive Christian Order.


The Reactionary cannot call Liberals a political faction, for their nature is something far more severe. Akin to a plague of locusts or degenerative diseases, Liberalism stands as the most destructive dissolving agent known to man. 

mass rally of Aleksandr Dugin’s ‘Eurasianist’ movement

For all that can be critiqued about Russian ideologue Aleksandr Dugin and his ‘Eurasianist’ movement, one can recognize that he at least looks our tyrants in the eyes and states plainly that Liberals are the “enemy.”

“If you are in favor of global liberal hegemony, you are the enemy.”
                                                                                                  
How many Conservatives will state this clearly and without hesitation? The is no resolution in the soul of the Conservative. He will sell out under the slightest pressure all that he supposedly holds sacred. The Reactionary is built from stronger stuff. He has within him the iron foundation that will overcome and bury the current order.

If the Rightist is to follow through with the principles for victory taught by the famous Chinese tactician Sun Tzu, he must know himself and know the enemy. Let us for a moment take the specific case of the Indiana ‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act’ fiasco, which was the subject in question that Levinson loosely crafted his article around.


What does the Christian want? Really, not what is politically correct to say or what is considered ‘constitutional’, but simply what do we want?


– We do not want gross immoralities to be legally or societally recognized as good, taught as good to minors, or even to be legal at all in many cases, let alone there to be forced affirmations to such immoralities foisted on the population at large by governmental or extra-governmental powers.


That is about as plainly as you could state it.


and who says the left doesn’t have a morality police?

If we accept that this is the Christian political position, then how does what Conservatives claim to now be fighting for (and really they aren’t even fighting for it) measure up to this goal?

Having performed so pathetically in preventing the march of something so obviously nonsensical and disordered as sodomite ‘marriage’, Conservatives have a nice fallback position to tempt Christians with. “Don’t worry! We will make sure there are legal protections to ensure you don’t have to participate in their affairs.”

But wait… that’s not what we wanted. That’s not even mildly close to being in the ballpark. That is yet another appeal to something that might tempt liberals into nodding their heads, an appeal to freedom and tolerance for other viewpoints.

The Reactionary cannot accept this, in fact he laughs at it. So what if Governor Pence hadn’t buckled and Indiana businesses had the right to refuse service to sodomites and other assorted persons of ill-repute. What difference would that have really made looking ahead twenty or so years. One small business, a pizzeria, which appeared on television saying they would not cater to such people’s sham weddings, was hit with a mass boycott, a destruction of its online presence, and even death threats. No legal action was needed on the part of any left wing judge, the mob did the work themselves. Congratulations to Conservatives! You really helped that Christian business out with your new law.

In the end, the Conservative is exposed for the political compromiser and operator that he is. He has to keep up with the left because he is doomed to play by the electoral system. Since Liberals control all the information outlets and educational institutions, all the Conservative can rely on is what Liberalism spits out, the ‘less enlightened’ older generations, soon to be replaced by the current generation, who by then will have fallen behind on liberal dogma. Either way, Conservatism constantly shifts left to accommodate the new ‘behind-the-timers’.

voting never changed anything
it wasn’t even voting that brought us Liberalism in the first place

The Reactionary denies the concept of religious freedom because it is a mask for a destructive lie. In the Modern world, there is religious freedom so long as every religion in question adheres to the greater religion, that of the ‘Enlightenment’. Unfortunately, instead of having a written dogma that can be analyzed, Liberalism constantly mutates without any foundational principles. This is why such issues as those being discussed have only surfaced now and not say, back during the French Revolution. Instead of religious freedom, the Reactionary proposes syncretism between Church and State, that just as one ethnicity should have governance over itself, so must one religion, as the moral axis of law and justice within a society that cannot be bent or molded to suit the public’s emotional flavors. This is how it has been in the World of Tradition, and this is the functional system we wish to restore.

Am I intolerant? Yes. I am intolerant and proud of it. Tolerance is merely another word for the affirmation of evil in today’s lexicon. A relative of mine called me intolerant recently, and from the position of apostasy, lectured me about how Christ forgave prostitutes of their sins. This of course neglects to mention how Christ made clear that all who failed to accept His claim to be the Son of God, sent to die for man’s sins, then resurrected, would be damned at the final judgment to eternal torment and separation from the Divine Realm. Just a small detail, but I guess you cannot choose your family. God is forgiving in the face of genuine repentance. He is not tolerant.

The Conservative can never admit to being intolerant, even by the left’s warped definition. It would be the end of him. He just cannot bear the scorn of his Liberal overlords. By way of contrast, I as a Reactionary fully admit to being guilty of almost every thoughtcrime the left has devised, and I can tell you it’s liberating to stop playing the left’s games, to stop trying to sound like an acceptable opposition to them. I don’t want to be acceptable to the left. If the left doesn’t want me dead or locked up, then what opposition am I really offering? Nothing but a paltry foil for their political machinations to try and convince the citizenry that they really do have choices.

well, at least we intolerant people now know
we’ve got to get rid of you if we
are to live in peace

You cannot take the appropriate action to solve a problem unless you know your enemy and know yourself. We are intolerant, because it is natural to be intolerant of destructive and depraved things. They are also intolerant, but instead intolerant of all that is good and ordered, all the while claiming to be tolerant. With that in mind, there is no negotiated conclusion that can be reached between the Liberal Modernist and the Reactionary. There is no potential society in which we can ‘coexist’. The problem is that the Liberal knows this is the case and is united in stealthy works to destroy Reaction, but Reaction is hobbled by having this black hole of Conservatism on its left flank. Those who in other circumstances might be plotting the downfall of Western governments are instead giddily making phone calls for petty politicians and sending their hard earned money to advocacy groups asking for things like Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

No act undertaken in a secular legal system is going to protect Christians from what is eventually coming, and if you doubt something much worse than veiled threats against the faithful over the phone is on the horizon, read up on the Terror Rojo in Spain. When change happens in Europe, it is slow and gradual. When change happens in America it is catastrophically quick and no pundit or pollster sees it coming. Observant Christianity is a minority faith in the United States. Within the next generation, it will be a small minority faith. The smaller the minority, the more emboldened its eventual executioners.

Reactionaries say what Conservatives will not. Because if nobody says it, then the only blood spilled in the coming decades will be that of good, decent, Traditional people. Will you go in fighting or go in voting when the hour is upon us? Make your decision.
Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Reactionaries say what Conservatives will not

  1. Whenever I use the term Church, I am always referring (unless it is indicated expressly the opposite) to an institution that performs mediation between human souls and the Divine Realm, Christian or otherwise. I don't use the term to denote institutions that have taken on powers or the cultural influence previously occupied by the Church. These aren't Churches, they are usurping aspiritual institutions.

    So for example, the public school which now performs a task previously attended to by Churches, is not itself a Church, even if it bears some horrible twisted version of dogma (tolerance, diversity, other assorted crap) that might remind one of religious dogmatism in how fervently it is believed.

    Semantics aside, yes, this is a fundamentally anti-Christian culture and government. Which is why the Christian must commit himself to its annihilation.

    Like

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