People don't say, "I'm talking about this from the perspective of ___ism," or anything, because to state, "I have a bias and a point of view," is to suggest that there are other points of view or fields fo knowledge that might be valid to a greater or lesser extent or offer better insights, when a reactionary only cares about "truth." I say a Christian public speaker exhcnaing questions with someone in the audience about transgenderism, and the guy basically asked him to at least hypothetically consider that transpeople might really exist, and he baldfacedly said, "Why would I entertain something that's not true?" as though it didn't demonstrate what an epistemic farce the whole thing was. "I'm talking to you because I know I'm right, I have the only perspective that matters, and if you don't agree it's only a matterof time until you do, or you burn in Hell."

FIRST!

The central metaphysical question concernign idelaism is, "is the mind in the physical universe, or is the physical universe in the mind?" We live in a social context which functions off of the ideological conceits of materialism. So we assume that the mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain. But it isn't actually possible to prove it one way or the other because, as Kant observed, whether objective material reality xists or not, we have no access to it. We only know of even it's potentialexistance through our sense impressions. The external world is entirely mediated through the senses an so the _ding an sich_ is not avalible to us. It's from that central question that all other idealists questiosna arise: if the world is mental rather than physcial, what are we to make of notions like currency? Did we make that up by assigning arbitrary value to coins? Or does what we arbitrate though social force relations actually exist, like some kind of platonic coninage of whcih physical currancy is an emanation of? This is why Marx had to contend, and was basically critical of, idealism. Because even though idealism isn't inherently against the formation of Communism, and could even be used in favor of it, it does lend weight to the modernist perception of grand narratives. So people attacked philosophical idealism as a way of eroding the ideological conceits of capitalism and Christianity. But in actual fact I think the idealist perspectiveis indispensible even if it isn't entirely true because mind and matter give rise to each other.

Meow-th!

Another reaon reactionaries talk the way they do is because of the concept of faith and conviction. Christ basically said, "If you beileve hard enough, you can walk on water and move mountains," which in turm comes from the Jewish idea of the covenant: Jews have faith in God, so God sustains them. So if you can show that you beileve harder -- if you're more pious -- God will supposedly favour you more. (By that same token, if anythign bad happens to you, you fucked up somehow.) So, baked into Protestantism, is the general sense that one's conviction in a belief will itself _make that beilef a reality._ I.E you'll invoke the favor of God, He will make it so. That's the emotional/psychological basis behind the contemporary intellectual memes and concepts. This is why reactionaries respond very positively to shows of bravado and arrogance because it's supposed to be a demonstration of _piety._ It all comes back to those tabernacles. This set sup a self-fulfilling prophecy where a reactionary gains favor from other reactionaries because of his shows of confidence, which leads to him weidling actual power, just like the orange man. So then the tautology gets even more circular because now that the reactionary in question has power, hsi shows of confidence are simply attempts to invoke divine providance but the demonstration that he _has_ divine providence. Nobody necessarily uses this explicit language of "piety" and "favor" anymore, but that's the archetypal basis; the processes the modern reactionary way of thinkign is derivied from. This is how kings ruled. The crown wasn't just an expression of power -- it _was_ power. So you can only imagine the forces that had to be invoked to break these titanic psychological forces (and they didn't even fully succeed because there are still plenty of tyrants who leverage the "fake it till you make it," "fortune favours the brave," "boy it, don't soy it," bravado.)