In these conflicted times with a hodgepodge of various authoritarian ideologies ranging from far left to far right, there is a little noticed growing of interest in reactionary conservative philosophy that borders on fascism and which also has a distinct overlap with it, with fascists and reactionaries mingling and debating their ideas on fora, reading the same literature with works by e.g. Spengler, Schmitt, Burke and Evola, but also modern fascists like Donovan. All of it commonly masked under a cover of admiration for beauty, history and culture.
Getting a grasp of these very radical ideas takes a bit of work, but is very important as we need to recognize that it is just not some quaint grumpy old man’s desires, and all of it would have very far reaching although conflicting and conflicted implications, both for society, but also for the individuals, for you, in your home, at your work even at leisure activities, with fundamental and extreme changes, and removal of hard earned rights and freedoms that people have struggled over and died for, for centuries, and which have been debated for millennias in e.g. Greek, Roman and medieval philosophy, by e,g. Aurelius, Epictetus, Seneca and in the Kitab Sirr al-Asrar, even parts of both the Bible and the Quran.
Some of those fundamental changes which reactionary conservatism commonly seek at national, municipal, even at small organisational level in companies and even “clubs”, and in your home, are the following.
- A society should only change when it needs to do so in order to defend its institutions. All other changes are unnecessary or a threat to its stability.
Society has already failed and the Western Civilization is deep into a decline that will end it. We must, in the words of Evola “ride the tiger”, and wait for the complete and inevitable breakdown and prepare ourselves in various ways so we remain standing strong in the ruins, ready to restore proper, “natural”, conservative civilization (GNON).
- An honour and duty based society needs to replace the proclaimed “self-focused” one, rooted in spirituality, religion, mysticism and tradition, to the degree that honour, and in particular male honour, should be defended with the threat or use of violence.
- Elitist rule and removal of the right to vote for everyone, especially those of low education, those of little understanding of society, and those of low intelligence. In this, reactionary conservatism is fundamentally undemocratic.
- Meritocracy. No one is born with any value or deserves any respect for simply existing (except for King and aristocracy). Your value comes from your achievements and contributions to your society and group only. And those merits are the only consideration for your functions and rights in society and in your group. Your opinions have no value whatsoever without such proven merits.
- A return of the aristocracy and the elite as noble ideals for the masses to aspire to.
- A logic- and knowledge based management of society, with no room for emotional or compassion driven decisions.
- Nationalism as foundation for the nation, preserving and enforcing tradition and culture, with far less room for norm-breaking and sub cultures.
- A national normative morality that is distinctly less allowing towards individual freedom of choice.
- A separation of ethnicities and cultures into different nations, believing mixing them inevitably leads to conflict.
- A reversal of migration, with the returning of all immigrants and their families to their birth countries.
- Beauty and spirituality over science, function and financial consideration, applied to e.g. architecture and city planning, but also for the support of art and culture.
- A society where the individual is deeply bound by duty to their employer, city and nation, with more restrictions on individual choice and decision.
- Clear, binary gender roles with separate duties.
- The father as leader of the family, the business leader as a father to his employees, the mayor as a father to his city, and the king as a father to his nation.
- A virile masculine manhood with a preparedness and readiness for violence, to defend his honour, his family, his city and his nation, even tested through ritual violence and rites of passage.
- A feminine womanhood, returning to the primary role of mother and supplier and the associated traditional tasks of raising children, supporting the husband, even wearing of dresses and no male clothing, like pants.
Funny. Reading one of the most renowned reactionary bloggers talking about how things used to be so much better, how we used to feel safe (when we were kids) but now worry about our own walking to school (Yes, it is different being a parent and not a child…), and how all men used to be proper virile men, I come to think of the contemporary protests in the press when they built the Grand Theatre in Gothenburg, in the late 1850s. It was the first official building outside of the city moat, and the press protested fiercely as by going there it would expose the fine folks to all sorts of dangers, and with the harsh elements threatening their health and clothing. It was thus doomed to fail as people would just not want to go.
This theater, which the brave, fine people would not dare to visit in the late 19th cent was built a 100 meters outside of the city moat. Time for all of us modern snowflakes to man up.
“There lies great danger in any religion that promises end of the world and restored Paradise, as they essentially, at their core, are death cults, with acolytes waiting for and wanting an end, with a deep longing to see events unfold that trigger this apocalypse, even seeking to actively create or trigger those events, to bring on their saviour and a new, better world to replace the one we live in.
It is a very fundamental, human desire for a better world, but a mutated exploitation thereof, which instead of making this actual world we live in better, requires for the ‘true believers’ to fulfill the ultimate prophecy by making the world worse, to instigate cataclysmic violence and evil, so that the divine will, in reward of their sacrifices, steps in and gives relief to the faithful martyrs. And this drives reactionary extremists at all levels, be they terrorists, neo-fascists, corporate leaders or top level politicians.
This can be balanced by a requirement of proving one’s humility and kindness to become worthy of entering paradise, but too often is not, and especially not against the unworthy unbelievers, who to the fundamentalists are almost everyone, but a very select few, with only those deemed worthy being shown respect and kindness.”
“About 20 years ago I witnessed an episode that has stuck with me ever since, as I thought it was such a poignant example of the complex and contradictory nature of the human soul.
While browsing rental videos at the store around the corner I overheard a middle-aged man talking to the clerk, asking if the thriller he was holding in his hand was any good, and the clerk answered; “Oh yes, it’s fantastic! You have to see it! It is brilliant!” The man then asked if the clerk thought it’d be suitable for his young daughter’s all-girl birthday party, to which the clerk responded “Hell no! They cut fingers off of little girls in it.”
Similarly, I remember the documentary I saw about the travelling cinemas of India, where the owners for the last 70 years have been driving their buses across India showing big screen Bollywood movies to people in villages who have never seen a movie or even read a book before. In such villages violence is extremely rare, and in some cases the cinema owner was struggling as these people were so shocked by the comparatively mild violence they saw in the movies that they literally felt physically ill, and in some villages everyone walked away, incapable of continuing watching.
This has stuck with me ever since. It is interesting how we can condition ourselves and what our “root state” of being is. There is a potential hidden there, if hard to reach.
This of course also has some interesting consequences and follow up questions:
First of all, since that root state is always under threat from those already conditioned to the use of violence, protective counter-violence will likely always be necessary, and in order to preserve that root state for as many as possible, others will have to submit themselves to a conditioning for threat and use of violence, serving as police or soldiers, thereby, and by necessity, choosing to become less sensitive to it.
Second, while according to research, movies and games do not directly cause us to commit crime, it quite clearly can function as propaganda, and desensitizes us to the use of violence, while it also, at the same time, can sensitize us to the threat of the same. And, large parts of the world has been doing this for the last 60-70 years, with ever increasing brutality, exposing even young children to it.
Third, what are the effects of large scale conditioning of the citizens of a society to the threat and use of violence? Those effects are bound to be of great interest for exploitation by political and particular financial forces, as fear. e.g. can be used both to control people, to pacify as well as to instigate them, and to boost sales of various forms of protection, and to motivate temporary and permanent infractions on the citizens’ freedoms and rights.
Photo by Amit Madheshiya
“Seems to me as if many, if not all, religions and philosophies are built around the ultimate goal of everyone accepting them as their guides in life, and that when everyone does, these systems will finally be fulfilled and work as intended.
Meanwhile, as these philosophies are unable to cope with various issues in society and life, the blame for this is put on various groups of people who do not accept these philosophies. In extreme cases those people are then forcefully converted or even removed, killed. But a society, and its people, can never be forcefully, nor fully converted, and there will always be dissidents and opponents, and the more it is forced, the less successful it will be.
The other aspect of this is, that if not aggressively seeking to convert, many philosophies go the other way of idealizing pacifity and acceptance of “fate”, promising rewards after and outside of the world and individual life, thus making both society and its people very vulnerable to exploitation and brutalization. This too is problematic if it is to be used as a system for governing society.
No matter the path chosen, the fundamental goal of these philosophies is very flawed, breaking the whole system, regardless of whether they are implemented with force or not. They are idealistic, but unrealistic and in a larger perspective doomed to fail, this due to a fundamental unwillingness to accept the nature of humanity, and this idealistic view, while understandable, maybe even needed, is also also at the core profoundly problematic because of its willing blindness to its own inevitable ineffectiveness and inability to build the world it seeks to, just because of the fact that as we breed and become many, fewer and fewer will share the same beliefs, and some will always exploit or brutalize others.
This however, does not mean these philosophies lack value, nor that we should give up on them, especially not from an individual perspective, but as political systems, we may ultimately need to look elsewhere, beyond the ultimate goal of a unified system.
Still, sometimes there is no perfect solution and we have to make do with imperfect, less bad ones, while we strive to adapt and manage the issues we face.”