Neither are we here to engage in politics nor to categorise Aristotelian hairs in the egg, but there is an interesting contrast in the political world that needs to be brought out into the open: to be right-wing or to be left-wing.
In the ancient world there was no concept of ‘left and right’, there were no political parties that alternated eternally doing and undoing. There was, however, what we might call tacit knowledge of human, divine and natural rules.
Common sense was what was most often enough, especially for natural and human rules, to survive and even live well. If common sense told you not to go into the woods because there are thieves in there, the natural consequence of going into the woods was that, in all likelihood, you would either come out well cleared or not at all. Conversely, there were not so many thieves, contrary to what the ‘Dark Ages’ would like us to believe…always bad weather, foggy, muddy and cold, very dangerous, but let’s not digress.
So, back to the forest, as Jünger would say, but in this case we follow a modern-day liberal-progressivist warned of the danger of thieves. Obviously he, in defiance of natural and human rules, would go there to demonstrate some kind of superiority of the Kantian principle of justice (not divine eh! Mind you). In doing so, he would be Darwinianically selected, which would maintain a certain equilibrium in the human hierarchy (the idiot who goes into the woods, though warned, either does not reproduce or learns his lesson and will teach his offspring not to go into the woods full of thieves…let us remind the reader, however, that nowadays thieves are out of the woods…and indeed, we would advise those who are still sane to find refuge in the woods).
Today, however, the left-wing liberal-progressivist survives and Darwinian selection stops because there is a system of rules and bureaucracy that saves him.
In the same case, as we were saying, the right-wing reactionary, who knows that the rules, once face to face with the thieves, will not help him feel less headache after the blow he has received, does not go into the woods. Should he go into the woods, however, he would arm himself to the teeth. Or he could form a small handful of men who need to go through the woods sooner or later and vaporise these damn thieves (see the Romans against the pirates in Pompey’s time).
Here, in modern legalised society, our man who would defend himself is not only forbidden to carry a weapon but would also be penalised if he needed to defend himself. Moreover, thieves are not even punished.
What unites today’s right-wing reactionary with his comrades of the past are the realistic characteristic of appreciation and intuition of his limits and the reality of the moment. The same intuition of the natural laws that allow him to survive. The same intuition that does not see a moral right and wrong but a straightforward causality.
The moderate leftist liberal, on the other hand, finds no counterpart in the past because those who did not have that intuition of cause and effect simply croaked. Nature, devoid of judgement, took its course. Even a courtesan at the court of Louis XIV would have had more common sense: fear is a form of common sense that would give that little sense of helplessness to that courtesan who went into the woods.
It is through right-thinking men that common sense has come to determine laws and pacts between men. Without understanding the link between common sense and laws (the elimination of compulsory conscription is exactly part of this misunderstanding) the door has been opened to weak-minded individuals who rely only on laws for their own defence and stability. Today we are at the point where bureaucratic law has become an institution and is completely disconnected from the real world (common sense indeed).
The reactionary right-winger seeks balance within himself, he does not look for it outside, he does not rely on external rules that might change according to the politician on duty (see Laws of Nature and Laws of Law). The left-wing respecter regards the reactionary as a lawless brute of little intelligence, as if he cannot understand the very important complexities of the system of laws set up to manage society. The rule-licker has a swollen belly, thin paws and a very long neck, a round head with little hair, his glasses are part of his exoskeleton as he has to, out of necessity for survival, check every single paragraph or subsection of every law that comes out in the official gazette. He lives off the backs of those who create and produce tangible goods, sucks the precious nectar that comes from efficiency and transforms it into the less thermodynamically noble matter: low-temperature heat, noise.
The prissy legaliser is not the proletarian who fights for his independence from the capitalist overlord, but is the one who justifies the enslavement of the proletarian and restrains the producer of capital. The sinister legaliser is an intestinal parasite that, hidden in the folds of the rectum, exploits the health and strength of the host organism until its limbs are weakened by time and eternal tireless patience. The progressive has blind faith in science but does not know what science is because he does not get his hands dirty screwing components and making them work, he calls an expert or a technician even when he has to drain the sink, a metaphor for his soul. The prissy progressive has faith in the future, in the progress of technology but uses Apple, he speaks of Democracy but cannot be able to defend it because if he went into the woods as in the rainy, foggy and cold Middle Ages he would end up being skinned alive with his peel left to pull through the trees. So he licks his derriere at ever higher altitudes so as to protect himself and be able to participate, along with others of his kind, in the rendition of ever more elaborate and solipsistic regulations. He spits in the dish where he used to eat and sucks the purge of his superiors.
Let us remember, therefore, that the man of the right, in case it had not been understood, respects laws as long as they make real sense, while he starts to give a damn when the laws contradict themselves or are in blatant contradiction with common sense.
This is the real and only difference between a man of the right and a man of the left, apart from all useless partisanship. Having said that, neither would we justify certain nefarious deeds of plausible right-wingers, nor would we let absolutely legal filth perpetrated by pusillanimous left-wingers go unpunished. It should be clear to the reader this perennial difference, traceable to the dawn of time, while remembering that being progressive is in any case a recent fashion.