by Anomaly UK
http://anomalyuk.blogspot.com/2013/04/reactionary-unity.html
Note: On the whole, I’d rather see a patch up of the existing order of things – less government, more sensible government, a general reconnection with the English past, and so on and so forth. It is possible, however, that things have gone too far, and that the next economic crisis will also bring on a terminal crisis of legitimacy. This being so, it is nice to see that someone is thinking hard about what may happen. SIG
Reactionary Unity
Spandrell talks of three groups among the reactionary movement: capitalist, religious/traditionalist, and ethnic/nationalists. He and Nick Land both consider the degree to which the three groups will be able to work together.
The answer, for me, depends entirely on what the work is that is to be done. That depends again on what the path is for getting to a reactionary state, which I am long overdue to pay more attention to.
It has to depend on local circumstances. For Britain, the path that looks most plausible to me is the restoration of the existing monarchy to power. America needs to take some other path: possibly a seccession, possibly a military takeover. The future reactionary ruler could get there by commanding an army or militia, by being stonkingly rich, or a TV personality, or even a prophet.
In any case, what I see as the future goal is not a ruling politburo of reactionary philosophers, whether neoreactionary, othodox, ethno-nationalist or any combination thereof. What seems more likely is someone who gets power by a more practical method, in a crisis, then points at all the reactionary theory and explains that he’s not going form a transitional administration with the goal of free elections in X months because that would be repeating the mistakes of the past. Rather, he is going to continue to govern according to these fine guiding principles which these clever people have worked out, and will rule in a reactionary manner.
The supporters of this regime will overwhelmingly not be neoreactionaries, they will not be ethnonationalists, they will be ordinary people whose reasoning is “Fuck it, maybe this will work, nothing else has”. That’s the key constituency.
For this to happen, some ideas will have to be widespread: that the solution to the problems of democracy is not more democracy, that the obsessions of the lefter-than-thou pharisees of progressivism are insane, that stable government is so much preferable to anarchy that unpleasant policies should be tolerated for the sake of peace.
However, though distrust of democracy and progressive purity are spreading and might easily become widespread over the next decade or so, true apathy — the belief that, like it or dislike it, government policy is not your responsibility — is a much tougher goal. Stirring up apathy, in Lord Whitelaw’s immortal words, is very difficult. That’s why I believe the wheel has to go full circle — we will have to experience anarchy before we can have the reaction. If we are lucky the anarchy may be brief and not too destructive.
Without anarchy, there will still be a progressive party. If a reactionary movement defeats it, it will remain as an opposition and have to be fought at every turn, and the process of fighting it will nullify most of the advantages that reaction brings. The government will have to actively court popularity in order to weaken the progressive opposition, and that dependence on public opinion politicises what should be the non-political aspects of government.
Progressivism needs to be so discredited that the population will view it with revulsion without the state needing to bargain with them to reject it.
Because I do not see a “reactionary party” as forming any part in the process, the question of cooperation between the wings of the reactionary movement does not really arise. The work we have to do is to get the theory done, and prepare the ground. We will do that between us, and whether in overt cooperation or in rivalrous competition doesn’t really matter. If the first ruler is there because he wins a race war, then the contribution to theory of the ethnonationalists will be important. If he has raised an army of religious crusaders, the orthodox will be more important. If he has carved a peaceful oasis out of the anarchy by hiring mercenaries with the profits from his data haven business, he’s going to be paying attention to the futurists. The initial political formula doesn’t matter too much, provided that it’s not demotist. The political formula that will stick is, “this is what gives us peace and order”.
You cannot claim that formula if you start out by attacking the peace and order that exists already. That is why reaction has to wait. It has to restore order from anarchy. The standard to initially rally around will not be reactionary theory per se. It will be something that can restore order — flag, crown, cross, or something else. I don’t think it is likely that there will be multiple reactionary choices at this stage. Whatever has the best chance of producing order will attract the support. The reason I emphasise royalty and call myself a royalist is because, in Britain, the Crown looks like the most likely candidate. Religion frankly isn’t at all plausible here — several football clubs have a better chance of concentrating sufficient power than any church does. Ethno-nationalists are also a possibility (the distinction between nationalist groups and football supporters’ groups is a blurry one anyway). Is Tesco in the running too? I doubt it, but who knows?
The old order will fall when parallel power structures start to form outside its control. This could happen first in some localities or it could happen all at once (if the state is no longer able to pay its employees, for example). When it is no longer a case of trying to take over the existing state, but rather to create a new one, it becomes possible for reactionaries to act.
The rivals will be the democrats, the hard left, and Islam. The old hard left has pretty much dissolved into the establishment, and does not look like much of an independent threat. Islam doesn’t have the numbers, even in Luton, though it will probably organise effectively earlier than anyone else. Assuming the actual state institutions are not functioning, the democrats will be fighting on equal terms with the others, but with the aim of restoring democracy. At that point, it becomes OK to fight them, though it would be preferable to ignore them. Immediate tactical necessity is likely to dominate strategy at this stage — that’s why the strategic propaganda work has to already have been done, the narrative that says that democracy and progressivism brought on the breakdown, that it was predictable and expected, and that only those who truly value order can now achieve it, has to already be in place. The failure has to be seen as the failure of the system, not of one party or faction. That will reduce the support that politicians get during the anarchy, compared to other authority figures. Even the authority figures who are gathering forces at that point will not be talking theory, they will be asking for support to create local, short-term order. If the ground has been prepared properly, the traditional conservatives, the Christians, the ethno-nationalists and the neoreactionaries will all support the same quasi-state.
That said, some political formulæ will cause more difficulties than others. The problem with religion is that people will disagree about it, and claim it justifies them in fighting the (new) state. For that reason, I don’t think a reactionary state that fundamentally justifies itself on religious grounds will be successful for long. However, a state that justifies itself on the grounds of protecting Christianity from outside enemies (progressivism, Islam, etc.) should be able to earn the loyalty of the faithful without getting tied up in the theological disputes among them. The arms-length relationship between church and state that we have in Britain seems about right* — the ruler is Defender of the Faith, but not Priest-King.
The facts that we have to spread among the public ahead of time are much less than full reaction. They are just the context in which reaction can take its place:
- There is such a thing as progressivism, and there are non-progressive ideas, not just more and less progressive ideas
- There are otherwise sane people who hold non-progressive ideas
- That some aspects of government are the result of the democratic system, and not of the particular politicians who have been elected
- That a more peaceful and ordered society is possible, and that even the peace and order we still have are at risk
If those ideas are widespread, then reality will do the rest when the time comes.
* bit of a fishy coincidence there, but I can’t see a hole in it. It would make sense to back off a little from “Head of the Church”.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In the British context someone of any race may be loyal to the Queen and to the cultural institutions and traditions of this land – and thus be British.
And, in the American context, someone of any race may be loyal to the principles of the Constitution of the United States – and thus be American.
The above should not be read as support for “anti discrimination laws” or state edicts violating freedom of speech.
Nor should it be read as support for “free migration” which violates private property (for example the private property of ranchers on the border of the United States with Mexico – who are dragged into court, by their own government, for the “crime” of trying to defend their own land) and which in the context of “free education” and “free emergency healthcare” is utterly absurd.
The word “free” (in the context of “free healthcare”–and, of course, it isn’t “healthcare” anyway–“free education,” etc.) is shorthand for “paid for by money extorted from strangers.*”
At the very least I wish people would quit talking about “free” and say “taxpayer-funded” instead, even if it is (a) five syllables not one, (b) less catchy, and (c) more honest.
*Of course, it’s possible that some of the “free” education (say) isn’t paid for by strangers but by you, if you are working, or your parents, or your neighbours. And not all of it is extorted, strictly speaking: Some people willingly part with some part of their taxes, because they see it as a matter of giving willing help. –This is the Devil in the Details again.
On the back of some Roman Imperial coins – the word libertas (sounds nice). But the object shown is a loaf bread.
Not freedom – free bread.
Not nice to think of the perversion of the principle of liberty – especially as we are seeing it again.
Paul, the truth of Rome, liberty for some, slavery, imprisonment for many
others, the only truth there will ever be, yes there was bread for humans
treated like dog’s.
Karl – slavery sneaks up on Rome during the Punic wars (indeed it is part of the Punic curse).
Oddly enough Roman legal thinkers accepted that slavery was against natural law – but they held that state law trumped natural law
In the Christian age some (not all) legal thinkers started to argue the opposite case, that natural law trumped state law.
I think many not prepared to ague with state law, Nero might have invited
them to dinner.
Indeed Karl.
One leading Roman legal thinker told an Emperor that it was less difficult to murder your brother than it was to write a legal justfication for doing so (which the Emperor had just “asked” him to do).Of course the legal thinker was the Emperor’s next victim.
Legal Positivism (the doctine that “law” is just the “will of the rulers” – the principle of Thomas Hobbes and others) is senseless. It makes a mockery of the whole concept of “law”, of legal right and wrong – the effort to apply the principle of justice, to-each-their-own in the circumstances of time and place.
Murder still contiunes within the mechanisims of statisim, it’s just got more
organised and sophisticated, psychological in some way’s, but yes paul
you are correct. Your breif on history is fine and sound!
Of course the had down from Nero still continues, they no loger use the lethal herbal concoctions, it’s difficult for them, not all coroners are corrupted, we have post mortums these day’s, It’s taken a new stance, demoralisation, maladministration of the law, disgusting, physical abuses, pychologiacal turture, the pre-planned inflictions of “Reactionary Depression” the new battle plan of staistism, hence the high numbers of suicide, you have to be strong when dealing with such peole paul, for
their are indeed dangerous. no room for the laymen, only the experienced
crusader, who knows how to use a shield and sword in battle, for with
every attack, we grow stronger, we use their engergies to protect us, not
to destroy us, much to their folly. You know the saying paul, withdraw your
sword from it’s scabbard. point to the heavens. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES
Why use me as an example for murder, you statists have your own way’s of doing things, firstly you have he police, your chief exccutives, your ciminal shrinks, your armies of “Shipman” Quacks, you do a far better job on controling democracy than I ever could, although I accept my methods have evolved somewhat to say the least.We never had false death certificates in Rome, or the abilities to fabricate dossiers on computors.
I can’t help noting the irregulaties in these sucides, how come you have
numerous people killing themsleves under one shrink and not another,
just look at the case backgrounds,If some of these shrinks had driving licences yes indeed they would certainly no doubt
be off the road, lets have a competition, what srink hold the record for
suicides of patients, is it, labour, Liberal, Conservative, am I getting warm!