Neither Force Nor Will

I remember the first time being called a “reactionary.” It was several years ago during what was intended as a friendly social gathering that had started to foul with the stench of fermented liberal preening. A flatulent boomer dwarf, emboldened by mojitos, began to advise of my various moral infirmities made apparent by what was at the time only a barely perceptible ember of hate.

Taking a few moments to digest what was intended as insult, I thought what an odd one it was. Reactionary? As in one who responds to stimuli? As a glass of milk, in contrast, would not? I pointed out that his own immune system was highly reactionary to foreign pathogens, and if I punched him in the face, he would be reactionary as well. As it turns out, we haven’t been invited back.

Though with the acuity of age I’ve begun to see his premise as it applies to conservatives in general. Increasingly those panting beagles, whose incoherent philosophical hodge-podge is stapled together and called conservatism, have come to define themselves almost exclusively by reaction to others. Writing cowardly under a pseudonym in Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton captured the essence quite well. He described the judiciary as having neither force nor will, but merely judgment. I’ll make no accusations as to illicit possession of the third, but having neither force nor will would also be an accurate description of the drones shuffling through a CPAC conference. They do not impel, or even much alter, the direction of society. They simply recoil from what their enemies despise. No force, no will. It’s like smacking a plate of jello; there’s only waves of backlash.

The most obvious of these is the generations long struggle session to convince liberals that conservatives are not racist. All the world’s religions can only wish their adherents were so devout. Dems are the real racists is more than a meme for mockery. For conservatives it is liturgy. And once a movement of traditionalist whites adopt fealty to non-whites as their cornerstone, you can be assured not much of either tradition or whites will be conserved. So because of this frenetic recoil against anything that actually benefits themselves, conservatives are left with little more than an inanimate market-place to defend. Which ultimately results in an American future of blackish-brown corporate Calcuttas. A scene I presume conservatives have obliged themselves to embrace with a horrified rictus. I don’t even see race!…(gulp)

But they are hardly finished reacting. As racist recoil has made them more anti-racist than any blue-haired barista, so is Donald Trump now triggering a similar response to nationalism. As obedient as any terrier, movement conservatives noted liberal and neocon disdain toward Trump’s milquetoast nationalism, and have come furiously yapping in reaction. This portends poorly. For it is very likely many conservatives will now add nationalism to their unholy writ and commence cobbling their platform around opposition to it. That they will do so with unreachable zeal makes them about as useful to their posterity as a protractor in Sheniqua’s school bag.

Thus you may be assured of seeing anti-nationalist sentiments from the so-called right that once would have only lubricated the crevice of liberals. Most now appearing along the lines of anyone is an American who believes in our ideas. In response, I’ve asked for a consensus list of American-making ideas, and how we validate that each migrant is in proper possession of them–will pass along upon receipt.

Similar is this anti-nationalist via Trump rumination from neocon neophyte Ben Shapiro.

White supremacist support for Trump isn’t predicated on Trump’s white supremacy (there’s no evidence he’s a white supremacist); it’s likely predicated on Trump’s ideology-free nationalism, a nationalism which suggests that birth in the United States confers special merit, rather than adherence to a traditionally American philosophy.

White supremacist, it’s just a given…from conservatives. But note the indictment of Trump’s so-called nationalism. Suggests that birth in the US confers special merit. Yes, there is that suggestion floating in ideologically-free waters that birth in the US confers special merit–such as being an American. Not that I’m an advocate, but the 14th Amendment suggests the same thing. Has Shapiro disavowed this amendment, or has conservatism disavowed Shapiro? Which question will Fox News ask first?

Though the concluding point is that reflexive conservative recoil is now in full wave motion. And if Trump is saying we have a country or we don’t, then the answer can only be the latter. What, you think you’re more American than a bushman on the Serengeti just because you were born here?

13 thoughts on “Neither Force Nor Will

  1. ” … it’s likely predicated on Trump’s ideology-free nationalism, a nationalism which suggests that birth in the United States confers special merit, rather than adherence to a traditionally American philosophy.”

    What “traditionally American philosophy” is he talking about? When I was in middle school in the 1970s, we were actually taught that nationalism was good and that it made countries stronger. Where do guys like Ben Shapiro get off telling us that nationalism is a bad thing? In fact, when did nationalism become this thing that we’re supposed to disdain?

  2. Jewish neoconservatives view America’s founding philosophy as a proto-Zionist neoconservatism [redundancy abound]. They may over-rely on Old Testament verse and George Washington’s handler (((“Publius”))), but they have a sound case. Michael Lind, editor of the National Interest, in his latest Trump analysis defined neconservatism, which he pridefully belongs to, as
    “protoliberalism”, a conclusion not too far from the truth.

    I think this goes back to the Platonic idea of the “noble lie”, which Strauss routinely emphasized. Conservatism inc. will lie constantly about race issues to retain power and, in their view, be able to halt the excesses of Leftism. Though they aren’t fooling us or the Left, I think this lie may have worked on the Red masses, who have internalized racisme as bad by forty years of screeching from above. They understand, somehow, that they cannot beat the Left, but may conduct a scorched earth campaign of tradition to stave off Red Terror for a bit longer. This trickery also permeates from the moralistic fondness for “human dignity” latched onto by traitorous conservatives, if only one treats the barbarian as he is civilized then he will not lash out or mobilize.

  3. Pingback: Neither Force Nor Will | Reaction Times

  4. Here’s what “conservatism” is reduced to: sitting back while invaders overrun your country, then doing a deal with a corrupt Third World country to swap them for “genuine” refugees.

  5. Erdogan is offering to swap random Third World migrants for his own hand-picked Islamist invaders, and somehow the EU thinks this is a deal worth doing. How can they not understand that he is a cuckoo in the NATO nest? The entirety of the EU and NATO ruling elite should be compelled you read John Wyndham’s Midwich Cuckoos, and discuss what they read there in light of the Sharia understanding of war.

  6. Reblogged this on The way I see things … and commented:
    I accept my white privilege everyday!
    “The most obvious of these is the generations long struggle session to convince liberals that conservatives are not racist. All the world’s religions can only wish their adherents were so devout. Dems are the real racists is more than a meme for mockery. For conservatives it is liturgy. And once a movement of traditionalist whites adopt fealty to non-whites as their cornerstone, you can be assured not much of either tradition or whites will be conserved. So because of this frenetic recoil against anything that actually benefits themselves, conservatives are left with little more than an inanimate market-place to defend. Which ultimately results in an American future of blackish-brown corporate Calcuttas. A scene I presume conservatives have obliged themselves to embrace with a horrified rictus. I don’t even see race!…(gulp)”

  7. The ‘neoconservatives’ are neither new nor conservative: they are communists. They work to pursue Trotsky’s international socialism agenda – constant conflict, erosion of borders, and the ‘social justice’ driven wealth redistribution from the First World nations to Third World nations via horrifically bad ‘free trade’ deals – while the Democrats work on implementing domestic socialism.

    Their ultimate goal appears to be a worldwide Orwellian slave State, with the inner party comprised of themselves.

  8. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2016/03/10 | Free Northerner

  9. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2016/03/13) - Social Matter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s