If a movement is a reaction, motivated by reacting-against - then it is likely to be incoherent, unable to stand on its own feet, unable to motivate except by hatred, and (over time) almost sure to be net-destructive - since it is organized around opposition and may lack any other genuine focus.
This is the situation for secular Leftism. Historically, the Left as a movement was primarily a series of reactions against Christianity (theocracy, priests, The Pope, monks, Jesus Christ as divine, God, sexual morality etc); and secondly a reaction against 'capitalist' economics and social organization.
Consequently the Left is defined by what it opposes, and as Leftism advanced it became almost wholly motivated by hatred and destruction.
But the same problem confronts any movement which is primarily a reaction against secular Leftism - if it lacks a positive focus and sufficient institutional cohesion, anti-Leftism will - over time - drift into hatred and destruction.
This probably applies even to Christian reactions to secularism: more is needed than mere opposition to secularism, it is an insufficient principle for betterment.
Any worthy opposition to Leftism ought to be built-up coherently from positive principles, and aim at some comprehensible and in-principle sustainable state of affairs - and one which is expressed simply and clearly enough that its outlines are universally understandable; and inadequacies, gaps and problems can be predicted.