The Reactionary Revolution

Damon Linker thinks conservatives are drifting toward authoritarianism.

The Week:

“The conservative intelligentsia keeps returning to authoritarianism.

Back in June of last year, I wrote a column about how the intellectual right was talking itself into tearing down American democracy. The occasion was a debate between David French, a social-conservative defender of the right to religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment, and Sohrab Ahmari, a more stridently right-wing opinion journalist and editor who favors a politics actively devoted to re-ordering American life “to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good,” even in the absence of popular support for such a religiously informed project. …

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the right in our time is evolving in the direction of rejecting the regular transfer of power between two legitimate political parties within a liberal frame. In its place, the reactionary conservatives oscillate wildly between support for revolution when its opponents win elections and endorsement of authoritarianism when it manages to gain power.

Both extremes follow from the conviction that only one side in our political disputes possesses legitimacy. You can see where this type of thinking ends.”

I’ve struggled with the issue.

1.) Intellectually, I obviously do not believe in the premises of liberalism, but I would like to salvage some aspects of it. I don’t believe in the existence of universal natural rights, but I see our tradition of constitutional liberty and rights as part of our peculiar English cultural inheritance. Basically, I think of Anglos as a people who are free by their own unique legal tradition which couldn’t and didn’t arise anywhere else in the world precisely because it is not universal.

2.) As for the American Founding, I see it as a natural and ultimately necessary development. It was inevitable that the American colonies would grow too large and powerful to be ruled indefinitely from Britain. Even if independence had not been declared in 1776, it would have come eventually. It is tragic that the American Founding later became identified with liberalism.

3.) Finally, liberalism has abolished itself without any assistance from the Right. It no longer respects my rights. It doesn’t tolerate people like me. It is fine with violent mobs toppling statues. It is fine with overturning the democratic process by impeaching the president. It has given up on protecting property rights. It now rules through censorship and intimidation to chill debate. It now chooses which laws to enforce and whose rights are protected from the mob. It has sanctioned everything up to and including mob violence against the federal government. The sole standard that matters now and which determines everything is race and political alignment. Why should anyone in my position believe in it?

Liberalism has collapsed into anarcho-tyranny.

These are brutal facts. The democratic process is now summoning lynch mobs to destroy people. No one bothers with reason, civility or persuasion. There is no longer any space for principled disagreement. There is now moral clarity about who are the good guys and who are the evil doers. Tempermentally, liberalism is supposed to be against fanaticism, but liberals are now all a bunch of possessed fanatics. Social Justice requires the extirpation of White people in order to dismantle white supremacy and establish equity. That’s just the way it is now and it is not because people like me are in charge.

About Hunter Wallace 12320 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

13 Comments

  1. I support authoritarianism in principle, but also know that any authoritarianism that emerges from the American right wing will be deranged and not at all in our interests. It would mean an even more belligerent form of neoconservatism where secret police take you away to a concentration camp for hate speech or antisemitism, or they torture you in a black site if you oppose bombing Iran.

    • @Dart…

      “I support authoritarianism in principle, but also know that any authoritarianism that emerges from the American right wing will be deranged and not at all in our interests. ”

      You know, I had not thought about that, but, now that you mention it, what comes to mind are those insanely unAmerican laws some states have passt, penalizing you should you participate in the boycott of Israeli consumer goods.

    • “I support authoritarianism in principle, but also know that any authoritarianism that emerges from the American right wing will be deranged and not at all in our interests. ”

      This is because the American Right is not Autocratic (biblical government) but derived from PAGAN premises- Democracy- RULE OF THE MOB – i.e., supposed equality of hominids, ‘all bipeds created equal,’ BS.

      “Theology—not philosophy, literature, geography, economics, politics, law, art, music, or science—was and is the mainspring of our culture and history.  It is that which set it in motion, and maintained its cohesion and harmonious movement.  ..”.http://www.anthonyflood.com/farrellghdprolegomena.htm

      If then there is nothing in any member of the human race to attract God’s love, and if, notwithstanding, He does love some, then it necessarily follows that the cause of His love must be found in Himself, which is only another way of saying that the exercise of God’s love towards the fallen sons of men is according to His own good pleasure,” (pp. 24-25). Chapter 1, A.W. Pink- Sovereignty of God

      “Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better…”
      – Theodore Dalrymple

      St. Philaret of Moscow stated: “Love your personal enemies, hate the enemies of Christ, destroy the enemies of the fatherland.”

  2. Thomas Jefferson was considered “liberal”, in his day.

    The problem with the very word “liberal”, is that it was, like so many more terms, hi-jacked and re-defined. The left understands the mechanism of language, and plays it very well; something most people on the right simply do not get. If you try and make an argument or case using your enemy’s definitions, you have already lost. The left will go to extremes to make a point about whatever word they are currently weaponizing, and scream it over and over and over, until the narrative revolves around their definitions.

    “Liberals”, as such, are really rare; a true “Libertarian” might be closer to the real meaning of “liberal”. Those who call themselves “liberal” today, are mostly aligned with some strain of marxism, and calling them “liberal” artificially legitimizes them. Too many White people are brain-washed to accept the current usage of the word, while being unable to really scrutinize it, or define it.

    As for the meaning of the word “liberal”, used in the article, a better term might be “useful idiot”, or “traitor”.

  3. Within the first few sentences, framing David French as a “social leaning conservative”, the man who openly advocates for anti white, anti Chrisitian, pro LGBT “values” is a social conservative. And the “far right” participant is an Arab?

    How can he honestly write that line without laughing out loud

    • @Captain Schill…

      “Within the first few sentences, framing David French as a “social leaning conservative”, the man who openly advocates for anti white, anti Christian, pro LGBT “values” is a social conservative. And the “far right” participant is an Arab?

      How can he honestly write that line without laughing out loud”

      Yes, if I had been reading that article at my own behest, the moment I had read that would have been the moment I read no further, because it’s either total lunacy or serious Leftist propaganda – take your pick!

      • @Ivan in a strange way I believe we should be thanking French and his kind. They are making it clear even to the most ignorant normie Fox viewer that Republicans and Conservatives are not on our side nor do they share our values. These people are our enemies

    • There should be a word for the writer’s technique. It’s an introduction that is really a conclusion. A conclusion passing itself off as an intro to the topic.

  4. A good first step would be for Trump to nationalize Twitter so he can communicate to the American peoplw unhindered.

    Failure to take this step to ensure the Presidents own first amendment rights may be one of the leading causes of not getting re-elected. Nationalize!

    • @Jeff…

      “A good first step would be for Trump to nationalize Twitter so he can communicate to the American people unhindered.”

      I agree with that, or, at least, he ought set the unJustice Department on them using all the laws at their disposal.

      To be clear, there are more than enough laws already on the books to make Social Media behave right – it’s just that The Senate is paid not to enforce them, starting with Utah Senator Mike Lee, who, if memory serves, heads up the committee with that responsibility.

  5. ““The conservative intelligentsia keeps returning to authoritarianism.”

    Yes, and many Liberals are drifting towards authoritarianism, as well, even though their drift does not have quite the same fragrance as those who drift on The Right.

Comments are closed.