I continue to slog through Kuehnelt-Leddihn's Leftism Revisted and came to the following:
One must bear in mind that only leftists produce movements, whereas, at best, the right can "organize" in a relatively hierarchic fashion. It has been well said by Spangler that the concept of the "party" in itself is leftish. Yet if movements and parties have no affinities for a genuinely rightist outlook, we must come to the conclusion that the principles of the right within the parliamentary-democratic framework can only prevail after a catastrophic collapse of leftism. The right cannot normally win by its own virtue, its truth, its values because it will never fascinate the masses. It will attract extraordinary and superior people but hardly ever the average man.
A few notes of reflection, of course.If only leftism can produce movements, are C.Jay and Bionic Mosquito correct that the idea of a libertarian movement is basically a waste of time? If the political world creates an "illusion that libertarianism plays a fundamental role in society," and if a politicized world is inherently leftist, does it make sense to oppose leftism by operating within the very framework that leftism relies on?Secondly, is there any hope for those of us who uphold the idea of a moral, objective, and property based order-- or must we be forced to wait for the catastrophe of the left and then let society build naturally from there?
The west has been centralized under the meta-global vision of the American Ideology, so what hope is there in operating under this framework to achieve the opposite of what it has accomplished?Which brings us, of course, to secession. That's the most logical method of preventing the furtherance of the implementation of a leftist social framework. But is it possible if our ideals "will never fascinate the masses?" We often talk in the Ron Paulian strategy of spreading the ideas. But the only ideas that spread and stick are leftist visions of cultural progressivism, even if these are sometimes dressed up in libertarian rhetoric by the mainstream libertarian.Is there light up ahead? And if so, must darkness come first? The implications of Kuehnelt-Leddihn's paragraph suggest this.