Scrapping

Due to a mixture of out-in-the-stickitude, device deficiency, and technical incompetence I can’t even link to the Demos attack on ‘the dark enlightenment’ hosted by The Daily Telegraph (at the right edge of the UK MSM). I’ll be grateful for a link to this piece in the comments here (complacently confident there’ll be one).

Some not-quite-random remarks:

1. The article is dismally poor, even by the standards of these things. Neoreaction is something cooked up by Moldy and me, apparently, starting from “two blogs”. It’s also ‘neofascism’.

2. The comment thread isn’t remotely cooperating.

3. Demos has an interesting history.

4. As this nonsense gets bigger, it’s descending into sheer self-parody. Cathedral culture is a kind of chaos, which makes the strategic issues far more intriguing than the quality of this material might suggest.

January 20, 2014admin 85 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

85 Responses to this entry

  • Lesser Bull Says:

    Here is the unintellectual product in question.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/jamiebartlett/100012093/meet-the-dark-enlightenment-sophisticated-neo-fascism-thats-spreading-fast-on-the-net/

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Thanks (it’s always soothing to have one’s complacency reinforced).

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 4:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    My own take: the piece is formally anti, but the anti elements are too cliched and rote to sting much. The rest is good advertising copy–saying that the dark enlightenment is transgressive and brainy and is a lot like a popular movie and dislikes the professors and journos and politicos that everyone dislikes is hardly offputting.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 4:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    Comment that should most make the gatekeepers tremble:

    “Wow. I’d never heard of these “neo-reactionaries” but they sound awesome.
    Thanks for spreading the word Jamie.”

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Worst case scenario: This Jamie was subconsciously intending to proselytize, but this commentator is just trying to troll.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 4:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    Added to my Reaction Ruckus Rolls. I’m up over 50 now.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Have to get someone to graph out the growth curve at some point …

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 5:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • SGW Says:

    The fact that the telegraph and this left-wing think tank are unable to find better writers than this fellow, let alone researchers, who can write about political subjects from a left-leaning perspective makes me feel rather optimistic about the future. On the other hand, the fact that this person is allowed to write for someone at all is a good indication of the degree his ideology get patronized by the governing class [/optimism].

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 5:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mai La Dreapta Says:

    Why the characterization of neoreactionary bloggers as “angry”? One suspects that this is a covert way of discrediting the reaction as emotional and irrational, despite the fact that outrage is one of the primary discursive modes of the Left, and I almost never see this sort of thing among the reaction. The only exception that comes immediately to mind is Jim’s blog, and I suppose that’s part of why I don’t read it.

    [Reply]

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    in either case, hate is not undesirable by necessity. anger is a function of the desire for control, hate then, properly understood, is a refinement of this. hate is not simply opposed to love, hate is infact a hope for love, it is the sentiment that something is not as good as it could be, hate is an expression of care (example, can one genuinely hate a negro for lacking the same potential as a member of another ethnity?).

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    I’m really not (deliberately) trolling (or whatever) you, but:

    anger is a function of the desire for control, hate then, properly understood, is a refinement of this. hate is not simply opposed to love, hate is infact a hope for love

    Are you arguing therefore that to love is to (in some sense) control?

    [Reply]

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    to be is to control.

    also, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incensed

    fotrkd Reply:

    The more I stare at the word control (con-trol) the odder it seems (to the extent I feel like it’s misspelled). Must be French :)

    But if ‘to be is to control’ then ‘ego’ is necessary, no? Anyway… “3. Flattering or fawning attention; homage.” – is that trolling?

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Hate isn’t a hope for love, it is the sentiment we feel towards threats to things that we do love.

    [Reply]

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    my thinking was here mainly about ‘reclaiming’ the language of hate as a rhetorical device in a discourse (given its own use as a popular device by leftists). i see where youre coming from though, expanding the menagerie of adjectives can allow for more nuance (but also invites hair-splitting and conflation).

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 6:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Fyrdsman Says:

    I love the stock photo caption:

    “Futuristic, reactionary or plain creepy?”

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 6:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner Says:

    The left is never angry, they are just “passionate.”

    NR is always going to labeled as angry, to discredit neoreactionary ideas. Blah, blah, blah, Neoreaction is a desperate attempt to strike back at world where the power of white men is being eroded by women and minorities, so everything they say is fueled by anger.

    And we all know that anger is the fuel for hatred, so for the good of the children, the Hate Speech of Neoreaction will have to be curbed….

    I expect more mockery and hatchet jobs, but eventually they will go to full sale attack. Neoreaction will wind up on the SPLC website, and we will be labeled as white supremacists and Neoreaction will be condemned on the grounds of hate speech.

    I am heartened by the comments to the article, where plenty of mainstream people note there basic agreement with some Neoreactionary ideas. Attacking Neoreaction only spreads the memes further, and the more of us there are out there, the harder it becomes to resist the Neoreactionary memeplex.

    Nick *should* get massive credit for coining the term Dark Enlightenment. Under that umbrella, there are thousands of intellectual dissidents exploring Neoreaction, HBD, the Manosphere and Game. All with similar groundings in a fallen and evolutionary human nature.

    Meanwhile, the critics go after the peripheral low handing fruit like Monarchy, not realizing that it is only one exploration in a large and emergent intellectual framework of the Dark Enlightenment.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    I am heartened by the comments to the article, where plenty of mainstream people note there basic agreement with some Neoreactionary ideas.

    There’s certainly a striking lack of collective horror in the comments thread (particularly compared to previous Slate etc. articles). Speculating on why might be worthwhile – have the ongoing UK media attacks on UKIP, for instance, started to suck the potency out of words such as ‘(neo-)fascist’ (indiscriminately and copiously applied)? And is it a good thing what with admin’s desire to engineer a split rather than a bridge? If NR isn’t horrifying… what is it? (Superficially misunderstood?)

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 6:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    I think for the length it was really ok, we can hardly expect them to concede race realism is rational, or that fascism is not historically leftist. And i hope no one in the Dark really though we would be portrayed as anything other than racists, not only is it their favorite weapon we fit the bill that will be the ground,The throne and alter and singularity will be used as excess derision.The response will be the science the reason and their contempt for both. How we are to shoehorn Christianity into this and not end up pwnd by it like the GOP is beyond me Not that im not nostalgic sympathetic but if democracy is inherently leftist Christianity is virally so.our likliest alies besides racists ,libertarians will have a really hard time with monarchy personally I only like the kind im the monarch

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 6:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Matt Sigl Says:

    The begrudging interest and fascination is palpable, even in a hot piece like this.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 6:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Matt Sigl Says:

    “Hit piece” rather.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    ‘We’ know which one you really meant ;)

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 6:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aaron Says:

    It isn’t unique to the reaction and it has been like this for at least as long I have been paying attention. MSM stories are almost always focused entirely on “who”, “what” being relegated to the background. Progressivism needs enemies that are angry, disaffected, “the worst sort”, motivated by feelings of inadequacy, ignorant, etc, etc. They need to be paladins fighting the bad people. The overarching bird’s eye view of a progressive is that opposition to their program is anger at the loss of white male privilege, i.e. bad people having bad emotions. You would be hard pressed to find any progressive media doesn’t indulge in a bit of armchair psychoanalysis.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 7:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner Says:

    @Aaron The psychological projection in the progressive Left is ubiquitous.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 7:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • j. ont. Says:

    To be fair, a couple of the people around here do come across as angry (the degree to which this might impare their judgement—or whether it is instead the product of their position—is irrelevant). I won’t name names, but the stereotype of the “angry white guy” is fully realized here (but the dark enlightenment consists, in part, in the realization that stereotypes have very legitimate reasons for existing, so this shouldn’t be controversial).

    Are there any black neoreactionaries at all? Or even any non-whites? I ask only out of curiosity. One would think there would be some intelligent black guy out there willing to grapple with this stuff.

    [Reply]

    Stirner Reply:

    JayMan is a black proponent and defender of HBD. http://jaymans.wordpress.com/

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    He’s also a self described liberal who believes in democracy.

    Hence the need to keep a firm separation between “the dark enlightenment” (unpleasant truths) and “neo-reaction” (one political response to same).

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    so far we have no response except monarchy which is making us look stupid are we going to get it together or discuss what they think of us

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    The Neoreactionary critique of democracy is wide and deep, and one of its strongest points. The fact that the mainstream media (and practically everyone else in Anglophone society) has a brain virus that forces them to lump everything in the category “not democracy” into the “evil-fascist-totalitarian-dictator-monarchy-elitist-Nazi” category is not our fault. But neither can it likely be helped. If mainstream journalists simply cannot help themselves by “going there”, perhaps we can steer the conversation into ways we see as “improving democracy”, by letting only those who are naturally “better” at “voting” do so.

    Most people don’t think we should let felons vote. Why? Most people don’t think we should let children vote. Why? Why do you think limiting the franchise to freeholders (or any other generally capable minority group) would really be so bad? It must be because, at a deep subrational level, you conceive the franchise to be a type of warfare, where people will naturally vote themselves advantages at the expense of others. And if that’s true then what has “democracy” (in the expansive universal sense) to do with the common good? Nothing at all by those calculations.

    fotrkd Reply:

    @ Michael – Constitutional republic has been strongly argued for around these parts… as a sub-component of ‘Experiment at will’.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Extremely well put, NBS.

    Another basic argument against Democracy-worship is the federalist one, which most people accept at some basic level. Why should voters in New York (or wherever else is far away and culturally distant) have a say in your laws. Federalism, and even the idea of citizenship at all, says that there are some people who shouldn’t have a say in making laws for me because of their circumstances, and not necessarily because they are inferior beings or anything like that. But once you concede it in one circumstance, its hard to see why you shouldn’t even discuss doing it in others.

    Or, judicial review. Most everyone in America is in favor of it in some circumstances. But its clearly an anti-democratic institution.

    If the media trusted popular opinion, would they spend so much time shaping it?

    I don’t see anything wrong with America that a moderately limited franchise wouldn’t fix, say married persons with children, taxpayers contributing more than say $25k to any or all levels of government, and military veterans. Or anyone with an IQ above 100. Shoot, anyone who has a high school degree and can pass the equivalent of the citizenship test.

    It’s hard for anyone to explain why this would be so disastrous to do.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Michael: I don’t see the problem with monarchy as an organizing principle of neoreaction. The world has several monarchies right now that serve as excellent counter-examples to democracy (Singapore, UAE, Monaco) and soon we’ll see seasteading and perhaps carved-out free zones in Honduras or Nicaragua that essentially function is corporate-run monarchies. Once real, new monarchies get some traction, democracy will lose its assumed primacy as the be-all and end-all of political organization.

    Murmur Reply:

    The Observer Watches is a good neoreactionary blog by a native Singaporean –

    http://theobserverwatches.blogspot.co.uk/

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Clare Chen is Asian.

    A couple folks known to me are (White) Hispanic.

    Plenty of females. Including in the wider reactionary community a couple of half (or so) black females.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Sorry ’bout the Asian ambiguity. That’s totally racist of me. Clare Chen is East Asian.

    O also Contemplationist is South Asian (pretty sure Indian)

    Mai La Dreapta Reply:

    There are a non-zero number of Asian neoreactionaries, and a somewhat larger number of female neoreactionaries (especially those associated with “Red Pill Women” and related sites). But the whiteness and maleness of NR is only a problem because the progs say that it is, so I’m not losing any sleep over it.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    Ill cop to being angry white and a guy, but not to the assumption im pissed about losing privilege, I got mine the old fashioned way-cue John Housman.Rather from my liberal teens to libertarian adulthood all the way to the dark side my motivation has been reason and efficiency even in the cause of mankind,As the wave functions collapse its not my privilege I see going out with a whimper but the end of mankind. Are we supposed to believe there will be a Nigerian led Renaissance. Its quite plausible the nuclear arsenals of the western powers will be inherited by the camp of the saints yeah Im angry what a waste

    [Reply]

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    I’m a Eurasian who is a connoisseur of the Dark Enlightenment. I’m about as White as Obama is.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    @ White Males angry—Notice J Ont pushes Das Raychisst button and all the autonomic denials and confessions of whom you are – and you are indeed identifying yourself as Whom to the Very WHO..notice instant Me No Racist well actually I’m 0.29 minority blah blah…

    Done it me self. learn.
    ———————————————

    @ Monarchy no problem. Yeah. I’m sure money and wealth in one place is not a problem, it’s a opportunity.

    It’s a problem for the victims however, who are losing their bitch victim mindset. & Monarchy or not and what government being a 2500 year old Western Cultural central question.

    Monarchy or not and what state is just is so fundamental a question to Western Civilization even Jesus was required to answer it in his very Gospels .

    So yes Monarchy is a fundamental question. Since Brutus expelled the Tarquins. Since Athens, since Solon.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 7:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/jamiebartlett/100012093/meet-the-dark-enlightenment-sophisticated-neo-fascism-thats-spreading-fast-on-the-net/?fb

    This has upset a lot of people.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 7:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Ah shit. Late to the party. Check your email though, Nick. A minor (nostalgic) sub-plot.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 7:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    That comments section … like watching a dam burst.

    I would think the Telegraph’s readership includes a great many very frustrated Tories. This could be what they’ve been looking for.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 10:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    It seems like such a tech-heavy group should be able quickly to come up with a robot Mainstream Media Neoreactionary Coverage Generator.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 10:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    There was an uproar regarding the telegraph post on Mark Fisher’s FB. Well, one or two got a bit nasty, especially turning on Nick’s politics. Robin Mckay, editor of FN, concluded with some sobering reflections. Spot on really.

    “I know there are lots of ppl who always couldn’t wait for a reason to write NL off. And others who are ashamed of their past and would like to think theyve ‘grown up’ and Nick hasn’t. But I can’t help thinking moral squeamishness is masquerading as intellectual superiority here: Anyone who actually reads the Dark Enlightenment series will have a hard time denying this is difficult (abrasively, cognitive-dissonantly difficult, not just jargonistic and obscure), intelligent, and indicative of real problematic complexes (even if it simultaneously inhabits them) ‘He is wrong/ he is bad’ is kind of a lame reaction . It seems to me NL is deliberately (still as a romantic of extremity and abolition) flirting with / thought-experimenting with things that he himself says (if you actually read it) are black holes and the province of sad losers (its not even clear to me that he has much respect for moldbug except as a conceptual probehead, like one of his philosophical personae who just happens to actually exist) – a typically NL provocative tactic, involving a pursuit of actual amorality in order to break out of transcendental constraints of reasonable political discourse. Its crazy how people are so reactive to it. I was actually ignoring this blog stuff but all the desperation of ppl to reassure each other it’s nothing makes it more interesting to me”

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Yes. ‘Editor of FN’ should impel you to probe deeper.

    [Reply]

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    the irony here is that his attempt to explicate lands efforts in terms of a mere ‘detached irony’ is itself a defense mechanism on his part. something cant both be wrong and non-existent, but the solipsist so dearly wishes that things he dislikes lack ‘genuine existence’ in some special way. to countenance and account for their very existence is disturbing to their framework, and they themselves cant be *wrong*, because being wrong would be *devalidation*, and when you identify ego with existence, change becomes death.

    insecurity is the mother of all rationalization.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    You have to keep enough of the organism for it to reform each dawn; and you have to keep small supplies of significance and subjectification, if only to turn them against their own systems when the circumstances demand it, when things, persons, even situations, force you to; and you have to keep small rations of subjectivity in sufficient quantity to enable you to respond to the dominant reality. (D&G, A Thousand Plateaus)

    [Reply]

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    the tragedy of the solipsist is that he is faced with different people thinking different things for different reasons, and is incensed by this fact, and yet cannot imagine it in fact. the mind turns uselessly into despair, or finds an outlet in received tradition.

    fotrkd Reply:

    Incense is useful in such situations, yes…

    Anonymous Reply:

    so wait

    our host doesn’t really believe any of this stuff, he’s just a detached observer? or, he only said that to some people – if so, why?

    wtf lol

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 10:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin's Severed Penis Says:

    “(its not even clear to me that he has much respect for moldbug except as a conceptual probehead, like one of his philosophical personae who just happens to actually exist)”

    Hmm… setting up a Pope Vs King conflict?

    I think it’s pretty clear to anyone who isn’t ‘actually ignoring this blog stuff’ there’s a lot of respect and more importantly, convergence.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 11:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    @fotrkd

    well that depends, by ego do you simply mean distinguishable existence? (a bee drone, for instance, certainly interacts with being), or something more along the lines of stirners einzige/unique one? at any rate, when i speak of a solipsists ego, im usually referring to an unconditioned solipsist, namely, a narcissist. a narcissistic ego is rather a simulation, an identity without actualization. they may not actually be a fighter pilot, or a nobel prize winner, or a tag team champion, or something more mundane (the same dynamic applies), but they *know* that they are *that sort of person* (and that if they were in such a situation, they could do the same or better). without something beyond themselves to contextualise themselves, their only recourse for dealing with things that counteract, devalidate, this simulation, is denial. and since conceiving that something is yet beyond their grasp, the importance of received traditions again displays itself.

    so to tie it to my earlier point, a functional solipsist (that is, in capacity, not just the specific philosophical position) has difficulty even imagining people thinking differently from themselves (when a leftoid talks about his opposition, hes really telling you about himself [see also, standpoint theory]). and when he disagrees with them, he has difficulty imagining how exactly they are even wrong. so beyond a merely validation’feelz based response (‘heretic/bigot/wow just wow’), he attempts to rationalize the things he disagrees with as somehow non-existent (see, im not saying youre *wrong* or anything, but, *scientifically* speaking, what youre doing is impossible [so pls stop doing it]).

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    I don’t know (a liberating expression)… but a drone (bee or otherwise) has no control. I agree there is often an inability to recognise other views (an ability to escape from your own preferences or subjectivity). Is that narcissistic or solipsism? I’m not so sure (cultish maybe). Wittgenstein seriously engaged with solipsism – not merely philosophically but existentially – but then he viewed renaissance Vienna as the high-point of the Western world. It’s not a criticism in itself (so long as your solipsism can accommodate the thoughts of the ‘others’ that you subsume).

    [Reply]

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    >but a drone (bee or otherwise) has no control

    naturally, those who do not/cannot create values/systems/ideals themselves, instead act out received ‘programming’ from a previous, more transcendent leader/creator. to attempt rebellion against such frameworks in a *categorical* manner (such as stirners ‘spooks’, or the left post-moderns ‘social constructs’), merely results in a default to frameworks one is not conscious of (usually, more base existential desires/insecurities, that is, narcissism [see, social justice warriors]). such a rebellion is often an expression of a solipsists desire for control, who realises how much of his ideals, values, and accepted concepts are based on the validation he has received (but perhaps not how he depends on it to begin with), and so he reaches for the simplest thing he can conceive of, an ostensible rejection of ideals whatsoever.

    >Is that narcissistic or solipsism?

    solipsism in the capacitous sense (which predisposes one to narcissism, or indeed philosophical solipsism)

    wittgenstein is an interesting character, if i may use a phrase, he basically accelerated his autism past itself, and was definitely one of the more mystical philosophers by his later period that belies his pedigree and subject matter (i personally credit otto weininger for that development, witty’s esteem for him, and weiningers devalidation of traditionally ‘judaic’ pursuits/modes of thought, prompted him to try and reason out/rationalize this preconception).

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Much to dwell on here. I’m a big Wittgenstein fan at the moment – taking Philosophical Investigations as essentially a Buddhist text. I’m also – intuitively – put off by this binary distinction between those who think and those who are ‘programmed’, but as I say – I will dwell (in the meantime… sleep). I very much appreciate the continued interaction though.

    Posted on January 21st, 2014 at 1:26 am Reply | Quote
  • Igitur Says:

    The bad side effect of continued exposure will probably be adverse selection: too bloody soon we’ll see disaffected youths acting idiotically in the name of the dark enlightenment.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    This is a common complaint of ‘NRs’ – Vladimir is the archetype. It’s also a good test of your credentials. Hierarchy or spontaneous order (or neither)???

    [Reply]

    Igitur Reply:

    @fotrkd

    To be honest I don’t know my credentials check out. (Although I’m too old to be a disaffected youth vandal properly speaking). I’m some kind of post-libertarian, trained as a kantian neoclassical Chicago-style economist and then rejected Kant — and then this notion that freedom supercedes social stability and welfare in some extended, many-generational sense.

    I’m a fan of mr. Land, that’s how I got here. I think I said this before, but I used to read Moldbug before the financial crisis; then my free time for reading blogs was decimated, and he was left out. This was before “the Cathedral” or “Gentle Introduction” came up. But I’m more of a fan of Land than Moldbug really, and this because I rejected Kant by finally understanding Deleuze.

    Nick Land is next to Manuel de Landa in post-Deleuzian theogony, so to speak. (God is a lobster) Land is Schelling to de Landa’s Fichte to Deleuze’s Hegel, sort of. I’m saying this because de Landa has interesting work teasing out the “spontaneous order” thing about Deleuze (minimizing the Body without Organs/pure deterritorialization/generalized horror and madness that Land seems to have emphasized) — this is no mere Misesian catallaxy, even if somewhat amenable to cybernetics. Intensive science and virtual philosophy will explain destratification/restratification and morphogenetics; Philosophy and simulation is one of de Landa’s (originally a computer artist/architecture consultant) attempts to graft cybernetics onto it.

    Anyway — while I’m generally for pronomiamism, this “NR credentials” thing pushes me away. Static labels are dangerous — I might be comfortable with 80% with what passes for HBD these days, but not be willing to out myself as NR and bear with the white supremacists.

    I think NR as an identity is being pushed too much at the expense of NR as a strategy. As a result? When it’s being attacked in the media, all we know is to discuss dead-end philosophy and congratulate ourselves on.. our antinomiamism. When we should be able to scatter like “Anonymous” and say “no one speaks for us, we’re above all a zeitgeist and a movement only as a result, we’re growing out of the ruins of your moral, intellectual and civiilizational failures”.

    [Reply]

    Antisthenean Reply:

    I’m in a similar situation in that I discovered this place through Land, and it’s his approach that brings me back.

    On that note, can you recommend any secondary/introductory literature to Deleuze? I find everything except his Postulates on Linguistics from Plateaus completely baffling.

    handle Reply:

    I liked your last paragraph a lot.
    Still, when people read it, I think they’re going to immediately ask for clarification, “what failures, and what zeitgeist?” There are a million doctors of a sick society out there, with different complaints, symptoms, diagnoses, and prescriptions. What’s NR’s version of all that?

    The best, short, loose answer is “anti-progressivism thus anti-democracy”.. Everything else is embedded in the “thus”

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    “I think NR as an identity is being pushed too much at the expense of NR as a strategy.”

    Very good. Learn from the enemy. The Cathedral has no pope and no creed. What it has is a zeitgeist.

    NR will work much better as a movement of fellow travelers rather than true believers.

    Kevin C. Reply:

    @Lesser Bull

    “Learn from the enemy. The Cathedral has no pope and no creed. What it has is a zeitgeist.”

    Learn from the enemy, yes. But different ends often require different means. One does build a building with the tools one uses to tear one down. As Moldbug has pointed out, the Left is about chaos, about tearing down order and hierarchy. A leaderless movement with “no pope” is both produced by, and generative of (positive feedback loop), Jim Donald’s holier/Lefter-than-thou process driving the leftward ratchet: a would-be Progressive “Pope” would only last until someone Lefter overthrew him/her for insufficient Leftism, on and on to Leftist Singularity

    However, there is a fundamental asymmetry between order and disorder, between hierarchy and its absense. It is far easier to destroy than to create; the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees this. Decay to disorder is the natural trend, only fought off through continuous work. There is a Leftward ratchet, but never a Rightward ratchet.

    A leaderless “zeitgeist” of “fellow travelers” may be very effective at tearing down order and hierarchy, but I very much doubt that one could rebuild them. One does not restore a civilization with the same tools used to tear it down.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    @ Kevin C.,

    besides my reply below, consider that you need to expand your understanding of what order is. Formal institutions and creeds are only one form of order, with real but limited utility. Confucius understood very well another form of order, which was constituted by voluntary grouping around a noble man with noble principles. The order there is attractive, not formal, but in some ways more real and more robust. Market order is also not formally organized, but still real and along certain vectors effectively unstoppable.
    An informal but mutually supporting and sympathetic association of free, intelligent, able men was what some of the most effective groups in history were, like the Roman Fathers or the American Founders.
    Friendship is to the lever as Aristotle is to Archimedes.

    Posted on January 21st, 2014 at 1:31 am Reply | Quote
  • Carl Says:

    “… a return to some kind of futuristic, ethno-centric feudalism.”

    If we’re going to return to the future then it seems to me we should just use our time machine to go fix the past. Did he even read the first paragraph of his article?

    Also, chat rooms? Does that refer to Twitter or is our time machine is stuck in 1998?

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Let Nick work out the tablet interface then we’ll be fine…

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 21st, 2014 at 2:16 am Reply | Quote
  • fotrkd Says:

    Liked this:

    I’m not familiar with either Moldbug or or Land, but this is what it must have been like for Galileo. The Deformed Church of Political Correctness is, if anything, more intolerant than the Medieval Church was. At least PC hasn’t executed heretics. Yet.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 21st, 2014 at 2:17 am Reply | Quote
  • pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    @fotrkd

    your intuition is correct, the simple language says binary, but the intent is more a continuum (less transcendent ideals can be subsumed by more transcendent ones, one measure of natural nobility is the nobility of beings who will follow the leader, etc). the use of extremes is rather to illustrate the dynamic at work (but also raises a question, how would traditions change in a society where most beings have a higher capacity for transcendence?).

    this also illustrates how language itself is a form of initiation, and is a multi-lane street, so to speak (how do we communicate at all without having a foundationalist exegesis of first philosophy every time we want to say something? just so [ps fuck luther]).

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 21st, 2014 at 3:06 am Reply | Quote
  • Antisthenean Says:

    Loving the out-of-hand dismissal of HBD as ‘pseudoscience’. Regardless of whether or not Dark Enlightenment ever leaves the blogosphere, it sure is gratifying to be on the side that is capable of thought.

    @fotrkd and Chrysostom’s discussion of L.W., I can’t see how Wittgenstein can be anything other than a dead end. The speculative realists and eliminative materialists, meanwhile, have opened up exciting possibilities. Laliberte’s rhapsodizing on Wittgenstein is interesting but seems to suggest that only methodological considerations follow from W.

    Further release of Wittgenstein’s unpublished materials (I’ve heard there’s a lot) could change everything completely, of course.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 21st, 2014 at 6:30 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    What’s the Prog plan if calling us angry white males and “sophisticated Neo-Fascists” helps DEC instead of hurt?

    What was ever the plan when the White Male turned round, squared shoulders and said “You’re right. I am Racist. I am Sexist. And you can’t run…anything except into the ground”.

    I was never a Prog. What was the plan for the contingency of human nature asserting itself?

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 21st, 2014 at 1:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    “I’m saying this because de Landa has interesting work teasing out the “spontaneous order” thing about Deleuze (minimizing the Body without Organs/pure deterritorialization/generalized horror and madness that Land seems to have emphasized) — this is no mere Misesian catallaxy, even if somewhat amenable to cybernetics. Intensive science and virtual philosophy will explain destratification/restratification and morphogenetics; Philosophy and simulation is one of de Landa’s (originally a computer artist/architecture consultant) attempts to graft cybernetics onto it.”

    Apart from philosophy and simulation, can you point me to any other work De Landa has done on this?

    Cheers.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 21st, 2014 at 1:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    @VXXC

    Oh..I found it. “Whenever someone is arrested for a racist tweet…”

    Senator, I knew Josef Stalin. And you’re no Koba.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 21st, 2014 at 1:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    @VXXC

    “Whenever someone is arrested for a racist tweet…”

    To continue [pardon stream of consciousness] when you arrest someone or otherwise prosecute or attempt to intimidate them…you really, really, really, truly need to succeed.

    Otherwise all you have done is train their immune system in resistance, made them stronger, popped their cherry on the initial shock of 1st apprehension [ I don’t care how badass gangster you are, oh yes it is ] and in a word Trained them.

    You have excited both Hatred and Contempt.

    You.Fsking.Pussies. THAT’S IT ? .

    That all you Got?

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 21st, 2014 at 1:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    There is a big honking establishment that is tearing down civilization and that blocks any effort to rebuild it. Before you build, you must raze it to the ground.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Quite unavoidable.

    [Reply]

    Kevin C. Reply:

    @Lesser Bull

    “There is a big honking establishment that is tearing down civilization and that blocks any effort to rebuild it.”

    Yes, but you cannot tear down this establishment with the tools used to build it. The Left is immune to its own toxins.

    For example, entryism. Leftist entryism against (orderly, hierarchical) right-wing institutions is highly effective; Rightist entryism against (chaotic, leaderless) left-wing “institutions” is an absurdity doomed to failure.

    Or, as Moldbug has pointed out, Leftist-inspired terrorism like that of Bin Laden moves things leftward, while Rightist-inspired terrorism like that of Breivik moves things… leftward as well.

    Leftist means are adapted to Leftist ends, and will serve no other; one cannot simply reverse the polarity. When Rightists use Leftist means to try to accomplish Rightist ends, they succeed only in acoomplishing Leftist ends.

    And even if we had appropriate means to fight the Cathedral, what about the power disparity? Remember, most human beings are powerless, and have no influence on events, even as a mass; it is one of the great lies of demotism that it claims otherwise. Where history can be shaped, rather than emerging inevitably from geographic, technological, and economic conditions, it is alyways shaped by a few Great Men; so far, it seems that all those of our age, all the true movers and shakers, are on the other side.

    And third, the destruction machine that is the Cathedral has burrowed so deep into the foundations of the civilization it is undermining, I question whether it could be destroyed without destroying what’s left of those foundations? Can we blow up the demolisher without blowing up the building too, to stretch a metaphor?

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    @Kevin,

    When someone means HARM then it’s Duty to stop them. This is what men do, their first Duty is to Protect.

    The costs to allowing this to continue are before us all every moment.

    This marvel of man we are typing on is used for instance as a pornography delivery system, along with every other sort of Harm. If it had fallen into the hands of any other generation of mankind and all other ruling classes prior to include Stalins it would have been used to raise the mean IQ by several points. Instead it is used to degrade.

    For you see they do not wish to kill, they wish to degrade and break down. With subsidies, joblessness, pron, drugs, being forced to cower before bitter, ugly and barren harpies, street thugs given the powers of the state, faculity members hurling status based accusations, and the rest.

    For you see they are cowards who’s MO is a Pimp’s.

    I would say some may be content to endure tidal waves of degradation and malice, the very destruction of the family as policy, the ruin and degradation of all, but of course that is not the case. They are not content but the specter of trouble – and it mostly is a specter – paralyzes them into being helpless.

    The vast majority of men are indeed helpless. For they choose to be so.

    Pimps and most such predators run at the sight of men coming for them. They just do. Did I mention Abortion? Oh Catholic? Babies are killed because they’re the most helpless victims, and this Cathedral ye so tremble before, this bloodstained, shitstained Moloch are sniveling little cowards.

    If the specter of the destruction of baby genocide pimping drug and pornography peddlers troubles you, then do pray for the success of those who aren’t so troubled that they are paralyzed.

    Action has ever been a Tiny Province.

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    @ Kevin C.

    You said:

    “Or, as Moldbug has pointed out, Leftist-inspired terrorism like that of Bin Laden moves things leftward, while Rightist-inspired terrorism like that of Breivik moves things… leftward as well.”

    Questionable paragraph.

    Bin Laden was not a leftist. If he referenced leftist themes, it was for PR purposes, to get sympathy. He’s not an American, so what does he care if he moved America leftwards? His followers are moving the (rather large) areas they control dramatically to the right. Rightwards in a way that is rather unpleasant to our sensibilities, but rightwards none the less. Maybe they’ll lose in the end and the Muslim world will react against them by burning their headscarves, but right now they are hanging in there.

    And it’s not clear that Breivik moved things leftwards. His party, the Progress party, lost 12 seats in parliament. But the Conservative party gained 18 seats and Labour lost 9, so the Breivik’s Progress Party and the Conservative party now share power in a coalition, instead of being out of power with Labour ruling. The coalition is going to take measures to restrict immigration.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/01/norway-conservatives-coalition-immigration

    Probably only half measures, but not exactly the leftward lurch one might have expected as a consequence of his attack.

    I don’t know what the situation is in Norway, but it is remarkable how the English language left doesn’t really talk about Breivik that much. One might have thought they’d be beating us over the head with him.

    That said, your point is not necessarily wrong, you just picked a couple of bad examples. Political violence is often counter-productive and the Western right is especially ill-suited to use it, because it doesn’t believe that anything is worth fighting for.

    Best to remain completely legal, denounce / discourage any kind of violence and spread Dark Enlightenment ideas as far as possible in the short window of opportunity that remains before the SPLC and the NSA officially merge and politically incorrect speech becomes entirely (and retroactively) illegal.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    ” it doesn’t believe that anything is worth fighting for”

    I can’t find it, but I thought there was a Moldbug quote about the Tea Party movement being like a baseball coach who wants to put in a relief pitcher, but who suddenly realizes that he doesn’t have one. The only political philosophy on offer is Progressivism. Voters get to choose between the current package of Progressive policies or the most recent discarded package of Progressive policies, but there’s no choice besides Progressivism.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I agree on entryism, though not for the reasons you state, but that is not what we were originally disputing.

    Among other things, order is the efficient and harmonious adaptation of the means to the desirable ends. Having a leaderless, informal coalition–a “movement of fellow travelers”–is orderly because it is properly adapted to the current situation.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 22nd, 2014 at 12:14 am Reply | Quote
  • neovictorian23 Says:

    I was amazed to find that the link to the Dark Enlightenment series in this Telegraph piece went…(wait for it)…to my old Tumblr, which I hadn’t touched for over a year. How High Weirdness is THAT?

    This has precipitated the beginnings of a new blog of my own–NeoReaction in The Diamond Age

    I will be concentrating on some practical aspects of implementing the philosophy in the (so-called) Real World.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 22nd, 2014 at 1:52 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    The Sergeant spoke to his soldiers: Do you know how our Intellectual Elites came into being?

    They were cowards.

    They used their Intellects as tools to avoid 20th century mass conscription, which meant for the 20th centuries key decades of combat they were granted a college deferment.

    The key conflicts they avoided or used their gifts to mitigate danger and labor were World War 2 through Vietnam. No shouldering a Rifle for them. Or a shovel. By Vietnam their self loathing was so intense they spit on all bravery and nobility they saw. Vile creatures of boundless malice who’s self loathing had so peaked they set upon a dire course 50 years ago of degrading all that was decent, mocking all that was brave and noble, subsidizing all that was weak, playing to all that is low in man and calling it politics.

    And these creatures and their stunted children rule you now.

    And the Sergeants soldiers listened in silence, thinking but not betraying their thoughts as is wise for men of action.
    ===================================
    I doubt if the soldiers have any evidence the last few years the Sergeant was wrong.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 22nd, 2014 at 12:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    The above underscores the point of the Krieg series.

    War was always the key to the entire question. That has always been the banner they marched under – War. Not ideas.

    Ideas are ever but trumpets and drums.

    Everyone has an opinion. Few kill to see it carried out.

    As there has been some discussion of truth and virtue…

    Truth – well war is the moment of truth, you and those present will see it.

    Virtue – that originally meant Combat Ferocity or Valor. Not moral values, and certainly not chastity. Timur had Virtu in spades.

    The Progressives time has come not because their ideas have gotten rancid and because of a century of nightmares. The Progressives time has come – NOW – because they have lost their balls. They are now 75 years into selecting for cowardice and shirking.

    Mohammed made Shirk a mortal sin for Muslims for a reason.

    When they lost their balls their brains atrophied as well. Which of course is what happens in actual Castrati as well.

    The Foe is no Stalin. The Foe is Quimby from Lolita.

    As any man with a strand of decency in him cannot bear a Quimby for long..there only remains the Trumpets and Drums.

    For the Intellectual Fraud is a teeting Jericho, and it is the Duty of better minds to blow their trumpets until down come the Walls.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 22nd, 2014 at 1:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    Now Tim Stanley has jumped in, also in the Telegraph (blogs), basically arguing that some ideas are just too damned nasty to reason about. This is the way the Nazis win (as Moldbug warned an age ago in Internet time). When the moralistic fallacy is your only argument, you don’t get to keep anything when your police apparatus comes appart. At least there’s China …

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    You must have liked the ending: Or, at least, let’s hope it stays that way.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 22nd, 2014 at 3:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artemisia Says:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100255944/the-dark-enlightenment-is-more-sad-than-neo-fascist-scary/

    “‘Because ‘whiteness’ is a limit (pure absence of color), it slips smoothly from the biological factuality of the Caucasian sub-species into metaphysical and mystical ideas. Rather than accumulating genetic variation, a white race is contaminated or polluted by admixtures that compromise its defining negativity – to darken it is to destroy it. The mythological density of these — predominantly subliminal – associations invests white identity politics with a resilience that frustrates enlightened efforts at rationalistic denunciation, whilst contradicting its own paranoid self-representation.’

    This paragraph is actually contained within a vaguely negative critique of white nationalism, but it’s hard to tell it’s intention because a) Land can’t write and b) he appears to have a lot of sympathy for the discourse of “whites as victims”.”

    This: “…it’s hard to tell it’s intention because a) Land can’t write…” is incredibly amusing.
    It’s amusing not just because it’s false and Old Nick actually can write – and is able to do so with a degree of sophistication that can put people off or manipulate unsuspecting readers, but because the author confesses he cannot see “it’s” intention. This is, finally the lovely Soviet formula “I don’t know what this says, but I strongly condemn” admitted. Except that this also simply draws attention to the fact that Old Nick’s intentions are never very clear, are they…

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 22nd, 2014 at 4:59 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment