Reaction Is About Universals; One's Life Is About Particulars

An interesting back-and-forth with Anissimov is discussed at Outside In.

Reaction is neither a destination nor an ideology.  This writer is a proud Reactionary (in he hopes and suspects the most offensive sense of the term) but recognizes that Reaction ain't much to live one's life for - or by.

Neocameralism and Identitarianism are by nature not goals to be achieved but intellectual frameworks/models that illustrate values to which societies (or in some ways individuals) might aspire.  And while these two streams of Reaction do differ on important priorities,  each is only inherently true or good or right inasmuch as reality is explained by it.

The Neocameralist and Identitarian subscribe to -isms.

Having stared long enough into the abyss, we at Deductive Prosecutions aren't fond in general of subscribing to -ism's, particularly those conceived of in the past few centuries.  The few -ism's we deem worthy of deliberation in some intuitive sense are not only irrational but explicitly so.  Deductive Prosecutions subscribes to... the -ism Shlomo Maistre was born as/with.

True Reaction is not so much philosophy as it is understanding of how the real world works.  A Reactionary's pursuits in the temporal realm are guided by his understanding of the universal laws by which the social fabric of humanity evolves over time.  Man does not adhere to universals, but to particulars, and while a diluted Reactionary may seek out meaning in understanding Reaction, the complete Reactionary seeks out the understanding of Reaction for the sole purpose of more capably recognizing, measuring, and pursuing the particulars of his own life.

Although all communication is action, no two actions are created equal.  Debate does not a society form.  Indeed, less theorizing tends to indicate (and indirectly lead to) more orderly society.  Insofar as Reactionaries seek to build cohesive, orderly, and efficient societies, note that there is no philosophy sufficiently well analyzed, argued, or articulated to render the unifying, healing, and conserving effects of blind beliefs less instrumental to achieving such an end.