I have a hard time getting past the use of the term 'conservative' to mean more than paid-up, blackmailed homosexual.
I think the sense of 'Retvrn' he describes comes from one aspect of the propaganda mechanism involved in having a population go along with substantial reforms. From what's presented here, I don't believe his criticism of 'reactionary' movements is legitimate beyond that. That the state of harmony between virtues and happiness can always be improved upon is a good thing, not least for the propaganda function. It is a good orienting principle, especially in the right hands.
By all appearances 'conservatism' is primarily an embodiment of sloth and pride. There never has been a genuine will to conserve in any generation of 'conservative'.
Those I'd assume he'd label 'reactionary' are the ones who take seriously the fallen nature of man, the cyclical nature of human institutions, the necessity of organic development of institutions, and so on. Conservatives, on the other hand, find excuses to allow evil men to stay in power while mouthing safe, ineffectual criticisms against their policies. That is their entire mode of existence, in all ages.
The conservative spends his energy making excuses to not deal with obvious sources of problems. Those being besmirched as reactionary by Augusto del Noce are those who want to use internal active forces to push back against active malicious forces. The conservative wants to pretend there is no agency involved in order to excuse his own, as if monstrosities the likes of which USAIDs is but a part are as natural as weeds, but after witnessing bad actors running around sowing the seeds which birthed it.
I am forced to conclude this guy is up his own ass despite wanting some of the right things. So-called 'reactionaries' want what he claims the noble 'conservatives' want, but understand that glorifying ignorance and inaction will not achieve or defend those things. Even the point about being and becoming is misdirection. The whole point of maintaining virtue, whether that necessitates becoming or not, is so we can be.
In short, this early 'horseshoe' theory of politics is just as blinkered as its modern iteration.
You closed your twitter? Why? FWIW I've never had a twitter.
I took a four month hiatus. Just long enough that I had to rebuild my account from scratch.
👍
I have a hard time getting past the use of the term 'conservative' to mean more than paid-up, blackmailed homosexual.
I think the sense of 'Retvrn' he describes comes from one aspect of the propaganda mechanism involved in having a population go along with substantial reforms. From what's presented here, I don't believe his criticism of 'reactionary' movements is legitimate beyond that. That the state of harmony between virtues and happiness can always be improved upon is a good thing, not least for the propaganda function. It is a good orienting principle, especially in the right hands.
By all appearances 'conservatism' is primarily an embodiment of sloth and pride. There never has been a genuine will to conserve in any generation of 'conservative'.
Those I'd assume he'd label 'reactionary' are the ones who take seriously the fallen nature of man, the cyclical nature of human institutions, the necessity of organic development of institutions, and so on. Conservatives, on the other hand, find excuses to allow evil men to stay in power while mouthing safe, ineffectual criticisms against their policies. That is their entire mode of existence, in all ages.
The conservative spends his energy making excuses to not deal with obvious sources of problems. Those being besmirched as reactionary by Augusto del Noce are those who want to use internal active forces to push back against active malicious forces. The conservative wants to pretend there is no agency involved in order to excuse his own, as if monstrosities the likes of which USAIDs is but a part are as natural as weeds, but after witnessing bad actors running around sowing the seeds which birthed it.
I am forced to conclude this guy is up his own ass despite wanting some of the right things. So-called 'reactionaries' want what he claims the noble 'conservatives' want, but understand that glorifying ignorance and inaction will not achieve or defend those things. Even the point about being and becoming is misdirection. The whole point of maintaining virtue, whether that necessitates becoming or not, is so we can be.
In short, this early 'horseshoe' theory of politics is just as blinkered as its modern iteration.