well, he knows that they don't all join up with the cons. some others revolt and revel to create more egalitarian social relations. that those people exist is a given. the interesting paradox (?) I think he wants to say is that reactionaries are always situational. There is very little that is trans historical about the specifics of what they advocate. people who are subordinated rise up to throw off their chains and that they do sets off a reaction to defend the old order: thus reactionaries. but these reactionaries, while their rhetoric may superficially appear to want to set the clock back to, as ron paul libs often say, before Lincoln or before women's lib, they also make it clear that this new world order for which they strive isn't really the time before lincoln or women's lib. they know that can't do that and must preserve some of the social changes that have come about. thus: cooptation of the language of the left.
that's why, in that passage around the quote ravi clipped mentions Phyllis Schlafly: a voice of reaction against women's lib, but one which wanted to preserve some of those gains in the public sphere.
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)