I never particularly got the whole “cuckservative” thing, I did get it’s value to shock conservatives with the realization that they are whiny, pathetic and repeatedly give up ground to the enemy. However at the end of the day that is what a conservative is by definition. As George Lincoln Rockwell had already said seemingly so long ago: “Conservatives are sissies“. That behavior is the very core of conservatism, but here we can look at the other implication of this new title – attempt at differentiation. Upset rank and file conservatives saying to their establishment representatives “you failed us, you’re no real conservative, you’re a CUCKservative, you betrayed what we stand for, you’re a sell-out“. And yet the people using that title are the same, they just realize how badly they are losing and they don’t see that their very position is premised on inevitable defeat, so they put the blame elsewhere to hang on to their delusions.
So I’d like to give you a run down of what conservatism actually is, then we can also look at the reactionary position and finally the Revolutionary position and dispel some illusions around those terms as well.
Conservatism comes from the word conserve. The entire point of conservatism is to conserve or preserve something – that’s it. As such this concept is entirely relative to whatever has been established prior, most likely by people of strong character and vision or principles, like conquerors and revolutionaries. Their descendants inherit these things but they never worked to get them in the first place, however the first few generations fight to build on and expand from there because they still have a direct connection to that original glory. Yet as time marches on descendants become more and more disconnected from that original glory and take their position for granted though they certainly still enjoy that position, purely for the benefits they receive – they no longer understand the glory, they only understand the formal benefits and comforts. This is the downward slope of the inherently losing position that carries the name of conservatism. It’s an attempt to stop something that is destined to die from dying just for the sake of its formal benefits. The glory, the living spirit that established the structure that provides said benefits has long since left, it’s but an empty carcass that is falling apart, however this carcass is the most precious thing to those who never knew the glory in the first place.
To put it simply: someone builds an Empire, their immediate descendants build or expand its spirit and glory, inevitably the spirit and glory fade and what is left is but a formal structure inhabited by people who never knew the spirit and glory and only knew the benefits of the structure – the positions and titles, the basic political power and thus they don’t get the point of why the Empire was built in the first place. When the spirit and glory are gone the Imperium becomes merely an Empire. So they are focused solely on keeping the structure and they want to preserve it. This is the very premise of the ancient teachings on the cycles of rise and fall in societies, for instance the Greek Anacyclosis.
This is something that the German thinker Ernst Niekisch had spoken of after Germany’s defeat in the First World War, describing the conflict between the generations, namely the generation of old men who lost the Empire and the young generation who never got to know the Empire of their ancestors: “These young hearts have never been impressed and inspired directly by the proud grandeur of their Fatherland. Political anger, social poverty, economic decline – that is what is self-evident to them, always in their face, their personal experience. Prewar Germany was nothing more than historical memory, akin to the memory of the Empire of Otto I, Frederick Barbarossa, with the memory of the great and incomparable state of Prussian King Friedrich. But if the old generation were to chide the youth for such “historical” viewpoint of Bismarck’s empire, it might have received a reply in the form of bold and impertinent questions: Wasn’t the fate of this empire in your hands? Were you not the ones who lost this empire in the first place? How do you have the audacity to still so arrogantly claim your own importance on the political scene?“
However, again, conservatism has no core of it’s own. It is always relative to what preceded it, thus conservatism isn’t inherently “right-wing“, if you still buy into that formal differentiation. Conservatism is always different from place to place. In the United States conservatism stands to conserve the Constitution, the ideas of the Founding Fathers and so on. Which all happen to be liberal in the classic sense of the word, of the government as being nothing more than a “guard dog” of society, with little to no involvement in the economy and social affairs, only enforcing the law and protecting it from enemies without. Is this not the american conservative/republican motto of small government? Compare that to conservatism in the British Empire that at one point defended absolute monarchy against constitutional monarchy, defending the big government, conserving its power. Hell, look at USSR, think there was no Soviet Conservatism? It stood against Gorbachev‘s reforms, attempting to conserve the old soviet system, which later became reactionary, but more on that specific example later.
Conservatism is always a defensive position of what had been established prior, thus it is always relative and has no core of its own and it differs from place to place and time to time. It defends the formal structure that has lost it’s real core, what gave it life in the first place. Conservatism defends the purely material, formal outer shell, it mistakes the outward form for the essence. Just as when the animating energies or the soul leaves the body, once the essence is gone, once the life force that created the form in the first place is gone, the form is already as good as dead and it’s decay and death are inevitable. But the conservative grasps hold of it in desperation, not wanting to lose what he has, but inevitably failing and coming to terms with their failure but he’ll just try again: “Well we lost some ground, but not a step back from here on in! Oh, we lost again. Well no mo-oh, it happened again. Well this will be the las-damn it!” Slowly but surely, they give ground and what they try to conserve is chipped away at, piece by piece. They can’t defend it, because they fight for something temporary and that is fated to pass away, mistaking it for the end all and be all.
Thus all conservatives, by definition, are cuckservatives and sissies. The name is a nice zinger, but it doesn’t do much in of itself other than feed the delusion of those who use it to signify that they are different, that they are the “real” conservatives who will uphold the “conservative values“. Mind you that with the United States we do have a special case, namely that it was built entirely on the ideas of the founding fathers, which from the get go do not reflect the values that we Fascists uphold. Defending them is no better than defending the Soviet values, which likewise came about from man-made ideas. It’s simply a choice between a liberal republic and a state socialist republic. And still both concepts decayed over time into merely formal structures, not even the original ideas remained.
Here we move on to Reactionaries. The difference between conservatives and reactionaries is purely in their stance, the former one being defensive (conserving and preserving), the latter is offensive (attempting to restore the old structure). At the end of the day, however, it is a thin line and one could say that reactionaries are at the very least admirable for being more pro-active, yet it is still a fight for an empty husk – not reanimating the corpse, just trying to rebuild it from the rot it decayed into. To give an example of actual reactionaries you can once again look to USSR, reinforcing the point of how it is likewise a relative position with no core of its own. The old guard of the Soviet system formed the State Committee on the State of Emergency and attempted to stop Gorbachev’s reforms during the August Coup of 1991. Some people in Russia like to entertain the idea that the USSR could have lasted a while longer had the coup succeeded, but it’s decay and collapse were inevitable, because likewise the spirit and ideas that built it in the first place were no longer present in the political elite that was simply engaged in basic politics.
Reactionaries are but a braver kind of conservative, someone who is willing to take real action to retake the husk, but again, they place the value into something that itself only gained value from elsewhere, from the essence that had built it in the first place and without it, it is surely doomed. Reactionaries may even use violent means but their fight is nevertheless destined to fail, which was best explained by the Russian thinker Nikolay Vasilyevich Ustryalov, who likewise wrote on the difference of form and essence: “Violence cannot save a dying idea, but it can provide immeasurable help to the rising idea.“
And the rising idea always comes in the form of Revolution, regardless of the means for it’s rise, but again, violence can provide it immeasurable help. Whilst man-made ideas are by their nature lies, figments of the imagination, as opposed to the Natural Order and Truth that we as Fascists and National-Socialists uphold, they still have power to them and have a certain spirit which can sway masses of people and the course of history.
Thus Revolutions are inhabited by something living, they have some essence to them (the Truth or Idea), when talking about real revolutions that is, like the March on Rome which was a revolution through a show of force, or Hitler’s rise to power which was a revolution made through entry and reform. Even the Russian October Revolution, which was a violent, living revolution (as opposed to the February Revolution of decay or the events of Black October). We’re not talking here about “revolutions” that are orchestrated by (geo)political interests or which happen as a slow decay, like the Social Justice Warrior degeneracy we see today. Revolutions are always passionate, they breathe fire, fire that destroys and creates, regardless of what it is that it creates. SJW and modern liberal/democratic change is more akin to a parasite or growing rot than a fire-breathing dragon.
Revolutions are always aimed at the decaying husk, they burn away the husk and create space for something new, which can be either good or bad but it is nevertheless full of life rather than decay and death. You can’t compare modern commies and SJW’s to the original communist revolutionaries, the latter would probably kill the former had they ever met. But the original communist is long since dead, and he was a worthy foe, unlike the scum we face today which don’t deserve the title of enemy – you can respect an enemy for his dedication to his beliefs and readiness to die for them, even if he is dead wrong. SJW/PC/Feminist/etc scum are just parasites that can be easily crushed underfoot, they don’t wish to die because what they fight for is comfort and pleasure which cannot be enjoyed while dead – they’re merely pawns to our real enemies who profit from the decay they create.
What’s more important, however, is that real Revolutions are all about essence, they will destroy any form that stands in the way of the victory for their essence, whatever form doesn’t oppose them will be infused with the victorious essence, though essence of ideas will always be at odds with the essence of Truth. And here comes into play the difference between Ideas and Truth. Ideas are lies of the imagination, man-made concepts of how the world should be. The Truth is how the world actually is. Ideas can substitute one another, rather reflective of Marx’s view of how history is a continuous cycle of revolutions, which in turn takes cues from the concept of cycles of rise and fall in societies that we spoke of earlier. Thus the essence of an idea is temporary, though they may reoccur over time. The Truth, however, is eternal, it is always one and the same. Forms may come and go, regardless of the essence that lives and fades in them, but the Truth remains the same. Thus our struggle is an eternal one.
We don’t fight for forms, and that is our primary difference from the conservatives and reactionaries. We do not fight for mere ideas, even if they are revolutionary. We fight for the Truth. It is eternal but forms are not and so the Truth may fade from a given form and a revolution becomes necessary to bring back the essence of Truth. Which is what puts us at odds with conservatives and reactionaries – they protect a decaying husk, they protect something dead and lifeless. They defend the product of essence, whereas we fight for restoring essence itself even if its old form must be destroyed. What puts us at opposition with revolutions of Ideas is that they are lies. We have no allies in conservatives and reactionaries, or revolutionaries who do not share our loyalty to the Truth.
Let’s clear up something else, however, before we draw this to a close. Namely the confusion around the title of Conservative Revolutionaries, which is essentially just a clumsy way of explaining a Revolutionary struggle for essence, as it is again confused with the form. It was probably the first attempt made to articulate this direction in some categorical terms and thus a rather clumsy title was formed, driven by the desire so signify that this is a living, revolutionary force that wants to defend that, which made the old form great, back when it used to be infused with essence. At the end of the day, however, it is the same force as us Fascists and National-Socialists, though it was more concerned with self-analysis than action. I’m adding this part to make it perfectly clear to people who would use this title to differentiate themselves from “those bad fascists and nazis” that you won’t fool anyone but yourselves – we fascists know what it actually is and our enemy can smell that it is something related to us. It is not some other “third position“.
Using these terms to differentiate from Fascism and National-Socialism is futile, just as futile as it is to attempt to differentiate between “real” conservatives and “cuckservatives” – the former a delusion indulged in an attempt to protect oneself from the enemy’s criticism, the latter a delusion indulged in an attempt to protect oneself from admitting that he stands for something that is doomed to fail and fall. And this is why Fascism always was and forever will be a Revolutionary force – it fears not the destruction of forms, of what exists purely on paper fading away. So long as there is essence it can make manifest new forms, ones infused with living spirit, appropriate for a new time and a new place. That is our struggle, to carry on the Flame of Truth, from one torch to another, while the conservatives fawn over burnt wood that the Flame had already departed from.
There are no conservative or reactionary principles, they have none. We carry the principles, they obsess with the byproduct. The only driving “principle” behind these notions is that of the walking dead – to keep something lifeless from collapsing.