The rhetorical change towards being counter-revolutionary is an important one and one I've started using a little more myself. In fact I wonder if abandoning labels like "neoreactionary" or "dissident right" and going with something like "counter-revolutionary" or "counter-revolutionary right" is better, because it draws attention to the fact that this isn't a phase from the regime that it's gonna grow out of, nor is it just the "inevitability of social progress". It's a top-down revolution
Great piece. Evola wrote concerning the left’s appropriation of the term “revolution.” Like the color red, they stripped it of its original meaning, one correctly used in other contexts; the completion of a cycle and reassumption of a prior state. A planet competes a revolution when it circles the sun; not when it usurps its place in a bloody revolt. Revolution is return. It is unfortunate that we must use neologisms. Counter-revolution is a political project centered on the rollback of a particular usurpation. For my part, I prefer “reactionary” for the general program.
Good article but I wouldn't really call the founding fathers revolutionary either. The American revolution was basically a conservative one, the colonists were trying to preserve their way of life they had for 150 years that the British parliament were trying to change for about 10 to 20 years prior. The British parliament were the revolutionaries and the founding fathers were the counter revolutionaries representing the American nation and it's way of life and fighting to preserve that. America as a nation wasn't created by the revolution, it was saved by it
It strikes me that the perennial problem with counter-revolutionaries is remaining lenient with their enemies for too long until it is too late rather than having the mindset:
Kill revolutionaries, behead revolutionaries, roundhouse kick a revolutionary in the face, throw a revolutionary baby into the trashcan, launch revolutionaries into the sun...
"You're not real revolutionaries. If this was actually a civil war it wouldn't be so uncivil so it actually can't be" Ken said with a smug smile a moment before his brains were splattered from a revolutionary's bullet. The revolutionary marveled at the insouciance of the glassy rictus grin in all its American Spectatorishness but had little time to reflect as he blasted the brains out of a dozen more counterrevolutionaries in quick succession before remembering that his/hir/zir dilation time was drawing nigh and that by using firearms the carbon tax he'd owe would grow. The revolutionary then switched to using a railroad spike and mallet to offset the carbon footprint. "At least that grin didn't call me a reactionary. I'd really feel mis-revolutioned and that would make all the difference with my rainbow revolutionaries who can't see colour. I prefer to be labeled as an Algerian Spanish American rather than as a simple American and that makes all the difference." It thought as it's birthing partner lactated red blood cells he had carved into his face that he had newly labeled as mammary glands.
Great write up. I'm interested in making videos of your posts that would include narration. If there is any way you can reach out to me, I'd love to discuss in more detail.
I don’t care what you call it. Real people know what to oppose. I’m not signing onto anything as a “this” or a “that.” In fact naming those who love our country enough to keep it AND change it may turn out to be difficult for you.
The left does not “own” any mantel. Rest easy, the people understand the needs.
I understand your thinking, but first, give us a little more credit, and second, the article you restacked sows confusion. He grants a “mantel” of “revolutionary” to leftists while they use their political power to weaponize the FBI, the IRS, the DOJ to do their dirty work. That’s not being a revolutionary. At the same time, conservatives as counter-revolutionaries suggests we want to preserve the status-quo, politics as usual, graft, corruption and sale of our representation by career politicians.
How is the FBI killing old people over Facebook jokes not revolutionary? The elected Spanish government before Franco was revolutionary even though it was the government. They released terrorists from jail and made them police officers, then let them kill opponents of the regime.
You and I have totally opposite ideas of the point of revolution. You prove my point with the FBI involvement; this is an agency of the federal government. Revolutions do not employ the powers of government, they oppose it. Your example is from Spain. I rather tend to think in terms of the American Revolution, you know, the country that’s the subject matter. Here in America, revolutionaries fought the monarchy of the English and established a new nation. When the Constitution came along it was to have set guidelines. There were no allowances for a corporatocracy, but there are provisions to rewrite that Constitution and a clear statement that the people might replace the government, if they saw fit.
Corruption allows extensions of the government to step outside its bounds and it does that, every single day. Leftists live that. They are not American revolutionaries.
They are the problem. Along with dishonest politicians from both parties.
If I seek to replace that government with another that actually serves the needs of the people, that hardly makes me “counter-revolutionary,” one who accepts a corrupt government as-is.
This article was not about Spain, it was about the USA. Redefining revolution to suit one’s view does not make it right. All of history was written by someone, and understanding exactly what occurred does not mean that every term applied by its author applies to every nation in every situation. In my original reply, I said I would not be signing on as a “this” or a “that,” because I could see the article’s author had confused his terms.
I’d suggest that you and the author both look back at the first comment, from Librarian of Celaeno, which he liked. Unlike me he complimented the piece, but he also said the same things as I’ve said in a different way. We could go on all night about it, but my original reply stands. The situation as it exists is untenable and must change. The change I have in mind is certainly not acceding to takeover ny a corporatocracy, which is the change that is in process, and which the left enables. If history, mind you, history, labels my sort as “counter-revolutionary,” I’ll apologize. But by then I’ll be dead anyway. So I won’t have an opportunity to be pissed-off about it, the way this particular melon-head has done.
The rhetorical change towards being counter-revolutionary is an important one and one I've started using a little more myself. In fact I wonder if abandoning labels like "neoreactionary" or "dissident right" and going with something like "counter-revolutionary" or "counter-revolutionary right" is better, because it draws attention to the fact that this isn't a phase from the regime that it's gonna grow out of, nor is it just the "inevitability of social progress". It's a top-down revolution
I'm a super counter revolutionary
I want for things to operate the way they did 2000 years ago
Many may die but it is a worthwhile sacrifice
Great piece. Evola wrote concerning the left’s appropriation of the term “revolution.” Like the color red, they stripped it of its original meaning, one correctly used in other contexts; the completion of a cycle and reassumption of a prior state. A planet competes a revolution when it circles the sun; not when it usurps its place in a bloody revolt. Revolution is return. It is unfortunate that we must use neologisms. Counter-revolution is a political project centered on the rollback of a particular usurpation. For my part, I prefer “reactionary” for the general program.
It stems from jealousy, anger, and poor paternal relationships. They’re trying to fill a void that can’t be filled in this world
Good article but I wouldn't really call the founding fathers revolutionary either. The American revolution was basically a conservative one, the colonists were trying to preserve their way of life they had for 150 years that the British parliament were trying to change for about 10 to 20 years prior. The British parliament were the revolutionaries and the founding fathers were the counter revolutionaries representing the American nation and it's way of life and fighting to preserve that. America as a nation wasn't created by the revolution, it was saved by it
It strikes me that the perennial problem with counter-revolutionaries is remaining lenient with their enemies for too long until it is too late rather than having the mindset:
Kill revolutionaries, behead revolutionaries, roundhouse kick a revolutionary in the face, throw a revolutionary baby into the trashcan, launch revolutionaries into the sun...
"You're not real revolutionaries. If this was actually a civil war it wouldn't be so uncivil so it actually can't be" Ken said with a smug smile a moment before his brains were splattered from a revolutionary's bullet. The revolutionary marveled at the insouciance of the glassy rictus grin in all its American Spectatorishness but had little time to reflect as he blasted the brains out of a dozen more counterrevolutionaries in quick succession before remembering that his/hir/zir dilation time was drawing nigh and that by using firearms the carbon tax he'd owe would grow. The revolutionary then switched to using a railroad spike and mallet to offset the carbon footprint. "At least that grin didn't call me a reactionary. I'd really feel mis-revolutioned and that would make all the difference with my rainbow revolutionaries who can't see colour. I prefer to be labeled as an Algerian Spanish American rather than as a simple American and that makes all the difference." It thought as it's birthing partner lactated red blood cells he had carved into his face that he had newly labeled as mammary glands.
Great write up. I'm interested in making videos of your posts that would include narration. If there is any way you can reach out to me, I'd love to discuss in more detail.
I don’t care what you call it. Real people know what to oppose. I’m not signing onto anything as a “this” or a “that.” In fact naming those who love our country enough to keep it AND change it may turn out to be difficult for you.
The left does not “own” any mantel. Rest easy, the people understand the needs.
> Real people know what to oppose.
Not really. They tend to have a vague idea of what the problem is.
I understand your thinking, but first, give us a little more credit, and second, the article you restacked sows confusion. He grants a “mantel” of “revolutionary” to leftists while they use their political power to weaponize the FBI, the IRS, the DOJ to do their dirty work. That’s not being a revolutionary. At the same time, conservatives as counter-revolutionaries suggests we want to preserve the status-quo, politics as usual, graft, corruption and sale of our representation by career politicians.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
How is the FBI killing old people over Facebook jokes not revolutionary? The elected Spanish government before Franco was revolutionary even though it was the government. They released terrorists from jail and made them police officers, then let them kill opponents of the regime.
You and I have totally opposite ideas of the point of revolution. You prove my point with the FBI involvement; this is an agency of the federal government. Revolutions do not employ the powers of government, they oppose it. Your example is from Spain. I rather tend to think in terms of the American Revolution, you know, the country that’s the subject matter. Here in America, revolutionaries fought the monarchy of the English and established a new nation. When the Constitution came along it was to have set guidelines. There were no allowances for a corporatocracy, but there are provisions to rewrite that Constitution and a clear statement that the people might replace the government, if they saw fit.
Corruption allows extensions of the government to step outside its bounds and it does that, every single day. Leftists live that. They are not American revolutionaries.
They are the problem. Along with dishonest politicians from both parties.
If I seek to replace that government with another that actually serves the needs of the people, that hardly makes me “counter-revolutionary,” one who accepts a corrupt government as-is.
> Your example is from Spain. I rather tend to think in terms of the American Revolution, you know, the country that’s the subject matter.
Being successful requires learning from history, and you self-sabotage by limiting your learning to the history of a single country.
This article was not about Spain, it was about the USA. Redefining revolution to suit one’s view does not make it right. All of history was written by someone, and understanding exactly what occurred does not mean that every term applied by its author applies to every nation in every situation. In my original reply, I said I would not be signing on as a “this” or a “that,” because I could see the article’s author had confused his terms.
I’d suggest that you and the author both look back at the first comment, from Librarian of Celaeno, which he liked. Unlike me he complimented the piece, but he also said the same things as I’ve said in a different way. We could go on all night about it, but my original reply stands. The situation as it exists is untenable and must change. The change I have in mind is certainly not acceding to takeover ny a corporatocracy, which is the change that is in process, and which the left enables. If history, mind you, history, labels my sort as “counter-revolutionary,” I’ll apologize. But by then I’ll be dead anyway. So I won’t have an opportunity to be pissed-off about it, the way this particular melon-head has done.