This will be a bit shorter than my usual fare, because I’m merely tying together a few ideas I’ve put forth before.
I’ve previously discussed the possibility that any movement that could fall under the reactionary umbrella will have to focus on the quality of its members rather than quantity of support, at least in its beginning stages. As such, I believe that any such movement will initially be spearheaded by the Natural Aristocracy, and that only later on, if it gains momentum, will others rally to that cause. This will more likely than not be the case, although I am not so unsubtle in my thinking as to be under the impression that this is a hard and fast rule.
Now, who among the aristocracy will be those who spearhead these movements? Well, those with the least investment in society and with the most to gain from a potential upheaval will always be the ones most likely to push for societal reorganization. This means, for the most part, the young, a term which I use here to refer to the demographic under the age of 30 (but perhaps most accurately for my purposes here, those between the ages of 18 and 30).
Finally, which demographic (on a very broad level), is the one most likely to stir things up, go to extremes, and be devoted to causes beyond the pale of mainstream thought? Men. Men are more likely to be found rioting, revolting, revolutionizing, reinventing and reorganizing whenever things start to get a little unstable. Because of the male power of violence, men are not only the segment of the population most capable of keeping order, security, and balance within a society, but are also most capable of destabilizing it and undermining it.
This sort of thing has been realized throughout history of course. Stable societies find outlets for their young men so that they may be content and channel their urges into preserving the order and prosperity of the social structures and superstructures at large. However, a society that offers few outlets (or even inefficient and suboptimal outlets) will find itself with a backlog of built-up male urges and desires. Combine this with other factors like a lack of economic opportunities and watch a dangerous concoction ferment before your very eyes.
Put this all together and what do we get? Young, aristocratic men tend to be the forefront of any initiative that seeks to alter the status quo. Keep them happy and content, of course, and they devote their talents and efforts to the proper upkeep and elevation of society. Alter the dynamic and give them a society in which the young and aristocratic feel angry, disconnected, and (for lack of a better term) fucked-over and you get a society that will inevitably face major discontentment and fracturing. Is this going to play a part in the future of the west? Count on it.
Update 11/12/13: It seems Peter Turchin has been having similar thoughts recently. I love it when I’m not the only one who thinks of these things.
(This post dedicated to AnarchoPapist. Happy Birthday, Bryce).