First of all, the position that you are calling "actionism" is very similar to deontology.

Second of all, you're confusing meta-ethical positions with ethical positions. A consequentialist does not have to agree with the claim

"It is moral to murder and harvest the organs of 99 people to save 100 sick people."

In fact, a consequentialist could maintain the opposite. As long as the moral conclusions reached are only a function of the consequences of an action, that's consequentialism, regardless of what those conclusions are. Similarly, a deontologist would not have to agree that

"You shouldn't kill someone in order to save humanity"

because a deontologist is in no way committed to the premise that killing someone is universally wrong. There are both consequentialist and deontological frameworks that would take any combination of positions on the truth of these two statements.