CON/CUCKSERVATIVE, REACTIONARY, REVOLUTIONARY

comnreacution2

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.

11 thoughts on “CON/CUCKSERVATIVE, REACTIONARY, REVOLUTIONARY”

  1. Solid article. The term cuckservative was a good meme that unfortunately wasn’t carried to its full potential, it ended up legitimizing subcultural bases within the sad morass that is conservatism instead of attacking it entirely. ALL conservatives are cucks. Every last one of them. The only thing they’re good at is dignified losing- which appeals to woe-is-me status signalers with a sinking ship fetish, nothing that warrants actual respect or produces results.

    1. No, I’m specifically against any kind of “interests” as they are a product of a selfish, narcissistic, materialist, modern, wishful thinking viewpoint which is inherently the viewpoint of our enemies, if you keep using their thinking you’ll keep losing because they already worked out the logical conclusion of that type of thinking. It’s like if you tried to argue against communism using communist rhetoric, class struggle for example – you can’t, communism is the logical conclusion of such rhetoric.

      By Truth I mean what has literally been called by various Nazis and Fascists the Truth/Universal Order (James Mason), Providence (Adolf Hitler), Natural Laws (David Lane) and etc, what I sum up as the Universal Truth/Cosmic Order/Natural Order, in other words it is a view that there is a natural structure and law in the form of hierarchy that affects everyone according to their nature in relation to said Truth. Thus I oppose the idea of “supremacy” as a goal motivated by “racial interests” and instead promote “adherence to the truth” which means that one must strive to fulfill his nature and take up whatever his position in that hierarchy is regardless of personal feelings and interests. This means that one who is naturally superior must seek to fulfill his potential as such and not betray his nature by falling down to behavior that is inferior to his stature, something that in many old teachings is regarded as big an offense as someone who is naturally inferior trying to reach well above his station and potential (it can be said that Rockwell’s quote on the application of the Truth and the Scientific Method to oneself is well in line with this narrative), which by the way, happens always out of pursuit of interests (“waaah I want more, I deserve more, waaaah”) and is propagandized today on a mass scale with the mantras of equality and “you can be anything you want” that breed entitlement and what follows is the degeneracy we’re stuck with today.

      Interests are shit. There is just the singular Truth of how the world IS and the multitude of lies on how it SHOULD BE, always motivated by interests of someone who is trying to oppose reality and the Truth.

      1. this is a big spook. following racial interests will not lead to communism, it will just be following darwinian law and lead to lesser races being expunged from the world in the conflict for land and resources – which i’m guessing is a problem in this static hierarchy(?)

        1. I didn’t say that racial interests lead to communism, I used communism to point out how its impossible to fight an enemy using their own way of thinking because they already played it out to the logical conclusion. Racial interests will just muddies the bigger perspective and leaves people to think only in selfish terms.

          Interests by definition are always self-invested, thus they are selfish. You only support your race because you happen to be a member of it so you’re looking out for yourself by looking out for the group you belong to, same as class interests or any other interests – it’s all selfish and leads to the same line of thinking, the exact line of thinking that got us into the degenerate mess we are in the first place: “memememememe, what I want, I do wha I wan, I can be anythin I wan, can’t tell me different MOM/DAD/STATE/GOD!”

          Darwinian law can be argued to be the manifestation of “Deus Vult” or the natural order affirming itself on the naturalistic, material scale. Those who are superior by their nature and place in the hierarchy will naturally rise to the top but only so long as they adhere to their nature, once they depart from it the Natural Order punishes them, in the social sphere this can be seen as the decay and degeneracy we see all around. This doesn’t require total annihilation of other races though, just that they be put in their proper place, which is the whole struggle in a nutshell: put the superiors in their proper station, above the degeneracy they fell into, and put the inferiors in their proper station that they attempted to rise above, which is impossible however, no matter how much social leverage you give the inferior they will stay inferior and know it, thus you have constant regression of their logic, first they wanted social equality but since that doesn’t create actual equality (which is impossible) they are trying to mimic the promised results of equality by enforcing equity, that won’t work either at which point they’ll just realize that the only way to make all equal is to eradicate their superiors altogether, which is why the Race War is inevitable – either we strike first or they do.

          Frankly total eradication of other races could possibly make matters worse because lack of conflict will breed complacency and the degeneration of society that I mentioned in the article – the existing power will start growing degenerate as it simply enjoys the formal structure and comfort but without a distinct outside enemy utilizing this to their benefit there is no rallying cry to restore the original order. If anything this is what may lead to communism because there will be no premise for race struggle, only for class struggle.

          Bottom line is that interests always lead to erosion of the natural order (leading to degeneracy and decay) which doesn’t just end with the race hierarchy as it is part of a larger hierarchy still. And the land/resources conflict argument is mute, we’re already using up all the resources globally in a non-sustainable way, the name of the game becomes to fix the proportion of world population (race war should do well to cut down nonwhite populations and the fascist racial doctrine will do its job to increase ‘white’ population while keeping global population at a reasonable level) and have the existing resources utilized correctly under Aryan control once victory is achieved globally. Just going about it like it is still the 18th or 19th century won’t cut it anymore, that chapter ended with WW2.

          1. i can see your points, except the quasi-religious spook – david lane, william pierce, hitler, whatever, all were motivated by the collective interests of their people (as they would term it, the “love” of their people, which is a translation for in group altruistic collectivism instilled by genes) – hitler, an ethnic, german nationalist, the other two racialists – not by this Truth spook – what benefited and made their race strong was the goal, hierarchy is definitely included in that, because that is biological and beneficial to the folk. WLP created a cosmotheist offshoot for the purpose of adding a spook to validate his race-feeling however. though on the idea of global RaHoWa it would probably just place a greater emphasis on inter-ethnic violence/tribalism, and unless there is some kind of super structure than can direct that european energy elsewhere (maybe by that time there will be space colonialism), ethnic warfare will replace racial war. darwinian law however doesn’t include anything like a hierarchy where two sub-species of the same species, ala Red Squirrel and Grey Squirrel, are disputing the same living space – they exterminate one or the other through competition. imperialism/exploitation of non-whites isn’t a good idea. though that being said there are non-white civilizations which have been valuable, and an example being india where non-whites have admirably preserved the original Aryan rulers’ ideas and culture, i’m not an advocate for a complete global exterminationist venture on these grounds. shitholes like Africa with completely useless races inhabiting the land could be turned over to whites again, for colonization on the basis of racial idealism (living space). but this is all LARPing anyway

          2. And yet all of them spoke and written of a higher order/truth to the world. Thing is, Nazism/Fascism are not ideologies, so the authors don’t originate these ideas, the truth is expressed through them. Like explorers discovering a new continent from different shores or scientists who work independently of each other, unlocking the secrets of the same phenomena, the first generation of 20th century fascists were all pioneers who were unlocking the Truth, that is what their commonality was, they wanted to discover how the world is supposed to be and put it back in order, this was indeed motivated by the feeling that their people have been wronged but based on that they did the groundwork for something greater and in their own time managed to express a lot of it that further generations could build on. It’s actually amazing, if you’ve read enough of these materials, how they all manage to provide different pieces to the same puzzle that all fit neatly and advance the complete picture.

            Hitler despite everything was still a product of his time and thus his views were still skewed by contemporary politics and thinking though he did a lot to teach us how the struggle is to be fought in this day and age and obviously did see a higher order, he called it providence.

            William Pierce took it as far as founding Cosmotheism. The very first several of the 88 Precepts that David Lane wrote speak about the Natural Law as the manifestation of Higher Truth, an expression of “God’s will” as it were. Codreanu directly perceived everything through an Orthodox Christian interpretation, Quisling wrote a book “Universalism”, haven’t read it yet myself as there is no english translation, but from what I’ve been told it likewise explores these same notions. Rockwell called Hitler the messenger of Truth and viewed himself as the “St Paul to Hitler’s Christ” in the sense of being the spreader of Truth, James Mason talks about National-Socialism being the one worldview that came the closest to uncovering the Truth. Just look at all these quotes:

            “The moment the plan’s creator attempts to consider so-called “convenience” and “reality” instead of absolute truth, his work will no longer be a star seeking humanity and will become nothing more than an everyday procedure.” -Adolf Hitler

            “[Man] must understand the fundamental law of necessity rules in Nature’s domain, and realize how completely his existence is subject to these laws of eternal battle and the struggle for dominance.” -Adolf Hitler

            “You either believe in the scientific method and the truth, and you apply it to yourself without egotism, otherwise you don’t believe in the scientific method and you’re kidding yourself.” -George Lincoln Rockwell

            “Anyone so conceited and foolish as to be determined to flaunt Nature’s Laws (Truth) may do so but only for a limited period of time. He cannot go on doing so indefinitely. ” -George Lincoln Rockwell

            “Whatever People’s perception of God, or Gods, or the motive Force of the Universe might be, they can hardly deny that Nature’s Law are the work of, and therefore the intent of, that Force.” -David Lane

            “Nature evidences the divine plan, for the natural world is the work of the force or the intelligence men call God.” -David Lane

            “National Socialism has been the closest thing yet to approach successfully the task of putting the Truth to work in reality.” -James Mason

            “Unlike all these other philosophies, National Socialism has never been invented – it has been derived from the eternal Laws of Nature, which have existed as long as the universe and which have governed all life since the first primitive organism came into existence.” -Povl H. Riis-Knudsen

            “National Socialism was not invented by Adolf Hitler, but is the conscious expression of the fundamental Laws of Nature governing our lives. It is based on a infinite love of the creation in all its diversity, a deep, unconditional respect for the wisdom of Nature, and an ardent will to preserve life as it has grown out of this wisdom.” -Povl H. Riis-Knudsen

            You’re obviously supposed to love your people, in the context of following the Natural Order it means seeing that your people are in their correct place in the hierarchy and follow their racial/national truths as part of the Higher Truth, however none of this is done out of pursuit of interests or the kind of false humanist altruism of our enemies that stems from the notion that all are equal (all are equal i.e. egalitarianism, thus all are equally valuable, i.e. humanitarianism) and the golden rule bullshit (treat others as you yourself would like to be treated – a direct appeal to self-interest that leaves no room for proactive choice: “ME? BUT I LOVE MEMEMEMEME okay guess I’ll treat others well then.”).

            In other words you’re arguing from the starting point of the journey and not seeing where the road goes. If it is only an idea of interests than anyone can apply it to themselves equally and it becomes a match of “we claim they claim” (claim superiority that is), as opposed to the recognition of there being an inherent Truth, an inherent natural superiority rather than an idea of superiority as a claim. If it’s only about whoever wins then by that logic our enemies are superior because they are in power. In reality it’s the inferiors usurping a power they have no right to hold in the first place.

            “what benefited and made their race strong was the goal” – a utilitarian approach that is entirely false, because, again, it can be likewise used by anyone rendering it all an “up for grabs” game i.e. superiority becomes something that can be claimed by ANYONE, an egalitarian position at its heart “you can achieve anything you want, become anything you want, you are just as capable as anyone else”. In reality all races truly benefit from different things according to their own unique nature as per the “to each his own” principle, suum cuique, “render unto caesar the things that are caesar’s and unto god the things that are god’s”. Inferiors can’t become superior if they work really hard at it which is what your position implies which thus renders Aryan supremacy to merely “finishing first in a race of equals where it was anyone’s game”.

            Already mentioned Cosmotheism and in the context of other quotes provided I’m pretty sure you can see that it wasn’t something made up to justify those positions, but an understanding that there is something more and he explored it. He didn’t have to make up anything to “justify” jack shit. Check out Povl H. Riis-Knudsen, he didn’t use any spiritual justifications and kept it strictly in the material domain yet what he says actually further confirms this point I’m making.

            You’re just laboring under this extremely materialistic perception of the issues rendering humans to being nothing more than animals, which, frankly, is the position of the enemy. Yes, we are not exempt from animal influences but there is more to man than that otherwise we would be no different than animals, yet if you look at degenerates, the worst of them act in ways that are subhuman, but you wouldn’t even call it animal behavior, it’s actually WORSE than that. So humans at their worst, succumbing to their animal side, are actually worse than animals. This likewise signifies that humans have a specific nature that puts us aside and thus we are governed by more than just animal laws, but again, we are influenced by natural law like all others.

            And that line of logic on ethnic warfare replacing racial warfare would inevitably assume that there is only one ethnicity that would remain in which case, again, it would fall to decay, degeneracy and the only conflict remaining after that would be class conflict. Imperialism is a materialist, marxist definition that has nothing to do with true Empires at the state of Imperium, it’s only legitimate when talking about Empires that have already decayed and forgotten what they are supposed to be about so it becomes purely about the material goals of expansionism, this was covered in the article.

            Take a look at a couple of our materials like Squire’s Trial http://laraj.ca/AGwiki/uploads/Contemporary/IronmarchOriginals/IronMarch%20-%20A%20Squire%27s%20Trial.pdf or the Next Leap anthology http://laraj.ca/AGwiki/uploads/Contemporary/IronmarchOriginals/IronMarch%20-%20Next%20Leap.pdf to get more insight into what I’m talking about.

  2. 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?“

    This is all that needs to be said of the “conservatives” that decry the youth for their Radicalism and apparent disrepet while claiming to fight for the values of tradition. We fought the regain the truth that the prior generation lost and never taught their children, due to their incompetence and laziness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *