The Dark Enlightenment

[Mr. Piccolo]

Is anyone here familiar with the "Dark Enlightenment?" It appears to be a hardcore reactionary movement that has become something of a popular Internet ideology. I stumbled on these folks accidentally elsewhere online and I was surprised by how popular their ideology seems to be online.

In a nutshell, the Dark Enlightenment is a mix of various ideological strands, from biological determinism (including scientific racism), to monarchism and traditionalism, to techno-libertarianism, to the Men's Rights/Pickup Artist community. The binding glue of the Dark Enlightenment, however, is anti-modernism and anti-egalitarianism.

The following articles are pretty good summaries of the ideology:

http://www.thebaffler.com/blog/mouth...-machiavellis/

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/uncat...ake-seriously/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...nt-am-i-right/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...loons-and-hbd/

While on the surface the Dark Enlightenment looks like a silly Internet movement without any real-world relevance, this movement seems to have wealthy backers in Silicon Valley and it appears that there has already been some seepage into the mainstream conservative movement.

I am wondering what comrades here think of this movement. Is it worrying to you or not? Have you had any experiences with Dark Enlightenment supporters?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Everything that needs to be said about this is that it's, apparently, a "popular Internet ideology". I have heard about it, mostly from panicking leftists. Who are panicking over something that literally only exists on the Internet, you might as well be concerned about Slenderman.

[Hit The North]

Given that the word enlighten means to shed light on something or to illuminate it, to call your movement the dark enlightenment is beyond stupid.

[The Intransigent Faction]

A former Marxist I knew from the debate team at university sent me the links and gave me a spiel all about it. I read a chunk of it before I closed my laptop and huddled on my knees in the corner in terror.

Seriously, it's some of the most vile reactionary garbage I've ever had the displeasure of reading. It's as if my friend went from being a clean teetotaler to doing the ideological version of speedballs and krokodil.

This ideological boogeyman of the "Cathedral" representing an amalgam of loosely connected progressive movements treated in this fantasy world as sacrosanct in mainstream culture is just bizarre. As I recall it lumps together everyone from classical liberals to communists. They seem intent on dragging us backward in history, not merely a few decades, but centuries.

I've probably said far more than is ever worth saying about it, but I'll close by saying that its influence does seem largely confined to the internet. I don't recall this guy who sent me the links ever openly, publicly advocating this garbage. I'm sure that's because he knows that if he talked about it in a room with pretty much anyone who's not a wealthy middle-aged cis-gendered white heterosexual male, he'd either be called out or dismissed as a troll.

I agree with Xhar-Xhar, but on a personal level the fact of knowing someone who showed he understood things like the labour theory of value and falling rate of profit, and who supported socialist revolution, who is now spouting this stuff is...unsettling. It's unsettling even if these things are rarely if ever outright said in public outside of the internet.

[Mr. Piccolo]

My first reaction was also to dismiss the Dark Enlightenment as a quirky Internet ideology without much real world relevance. However, I think there are some reasons to be concerned with the influence of this ideology.

First, there are some rich Silicon Valley figures who have given financial support to Dark Enlightenment types. The wealthy can sometimes use their money to push unusual ideologies and make them mainstream by funding publications, think tanks, and Astroturf organizations. The Koch brothers are a good example of this.

Second, there is some precedent for this kind of reactionary ideology in the real world. I think you could classify the Dark Enlightenment as a form of reactionary modernism, which would include some forms of fascism and neoliberalism (the Californian Ideology).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary_modernism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology

Third, most of the current advocates of the Dark Enlightenment are probably young. When these people get older, will they bring this ideology along with them if they assume positions of power and influence in capitalist firms or in politics?

I am not sure we can assume that this ideology will always remain the sole province of ineffectual guys on the Internet.

[Rafiq]

It's easy to dismiss it as a fringe internet tendency with absolutely no contextual relevance whatsoever. This is far from the case: The "dark enlightenment" is nothing more than the honest, conscious and identifiable manifestation of ideological trends capitalism has been predisposed to since Neoliberalism. The 'dark enlightenment' is well alive not only ideologically in our society but has become more and more definitive of our present epoch.

The fringe nature of this 'internet tendency' does not stem from the ridiculousness of what they claim, but the ridiculousness of its conscious adherence monolithically. Mark my words, dark enlightenment at this present rate is the future of our society.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Some of the Dark Enlightenment stuff I've read online actually reminds me of something straight out of A Confederacy of Dunces.

Like, if Ignatius Reilly went into the software industry, this is the exact type of bullshit he'd be spouting.

But hey, if you want to see just how far the rabbit hole this stuff can go, just look at whatever Theodore Beale (AKA Vox Day) writes about on any given day. His lunacy is basically the inevitable conclusion of the whole neo-reactionary school of thought.

[TheBigREDOne]

Well any idea on how to counter this?

[Rafiq]

Well any idea on how to counter this?

Unconditionally through the re-vitalization of the spirit of Communism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As a Bay Area resident, it's true: tech-bros have some really gross ideas about the world.


I've never heard of this particular theory, and I don't think there's much social force behind it so it does seem like just some fringe thing.

Reading the baffler article about it was interesting and I think I half agree with rafiq in the implication that the possible appeal of these ideas isn't really in their innovation but that they are a synthesis of trends that have been part of neoliberalism. It's sort of an honest libertarianism, or at least taking it to its natural conclusion. But really I don't think this is much of a threat, it's too openly elitist to really become a rallying cry for a hypothetical neo-fascism in the u.s. (This would be much more populist in tone and be more Clint-Eastwood white vigillente than matrix-nerd).

But what it does show are, like I said, some of the really gross ideas that have become more widespread among the middle class. The tech industry is full of entitled people who have no shame in openly racist and elitist ideas. It also generally fits into middle class ideas perfectly: the world should be run by professionals (or their machines), I.e. The world can be rationalized like an assembly line, office, or bit of programming. The population is too stupid to have power, the rich and political class too illogical and short-sighted, self-interested, etc. for these people who make their money by rationalizing things, "solving problems" in code or what start-up will open the apple or Google investment taps, it's their competition and problem-solving skills that make their subjective world, so why wouldn't they think it could make the whole world.

But really they aren't solving universal problems: they are solving problems for capital, what to do with all this investment money, how can some task be automated, how can labor be rationalized, how can some bit of tech be commodified.

[Broviet Union]

It is petit-bourgeois nonsense at its most direct. The workers will reject it and the elite will laugh at it for being the utter nerdery it is. Basically, Moldbug's daddy issues began a movement tied into the MRA+Gamergate+Austrian School memeplex and mutated into something grotesque but as politically relevant as LessWrong. Just high IQ autistics jerking off to how edgy they can be.

[Atsumari]

It's easy to dismiss it as a fringe internet tendency with absolutely no contextual relevance whatsoever. This is far from the case: The "dark enlightenment" is nothing more than the honest, conscious and identifiable manifestation of ideological trends capitalism has been predisposed to since Neoliberalism. The 'dark enlightenment' is well alive not only ideologically in our society but has become more and more definitive of our present epoch.

The fringe nature of this 'internet tendency' does not stem from the ridiculousness of what they claim, but the ridiculousness of its conscious adherence monolithically. Mark my words, dark enlightenment at this present rate is the future of our society.

It is rather funny to see radicals on both ends of the spectrum try to associate the other radical with the dominating ideology.

[RedKobra]

It is petit-bourgeois nonsense at its most direct. The workers will reject it and the elite will laugh at it for being the utter nerdery it is. Basically, Moldbug's daddy issues began a movement tied into the MRA+Gamergate+Austrian School memeplex and mutated into something grotesque but as politically relevant as LessWrong. Just high IQ autistics jerking off to how edgy they can be.

Not cool.

[Broviet Union]

Yes, let's refrain from using ableist language against people like Mencius Moldbug, Vox Day, and Nick Land.

[RedKobra]

Yes, let's refrain from using ableist language against people like Mencius Moldbug, Vox Day, and Nick Land.

If its not too much trouble.

[Thirsty Crow]

It is rather funny to see radicals on both ends of the spectrum try to associate the other radical with the dominating ideology.

It's a phenomenon peculiar to the class position of the intelligentsia itself which simply has to ground its own sense of importance in some way, and most of the time by using the "natural" means at their disposal - intellectual self-delusion.

[Rafiq]

It is rather funny to see radicals on both ends of the spectrum try to associate the other radical with the dominating ideology.

Except "dark enlightenment" is not the dominating ideology, it is a real pretense to ideological hegemony. It is a tendency logically consequential of the political and social developments of the very late 20th century. Tell me again about how civic values aren't gradually waning in the west, how political standards which would have been impossible fifty years ago are becoming hegemonic in Europe. Tell me, Atsumari how the facade of liberal political correctness isn't losing its prolonged vitality. The fact is that liberal democracys existence is becoming irrational - capital demands a new authoritarian political apparatus as evidenced by China's expansive productivity and the rise of the mini-Putin in Europe. Meanwhile, "cultural Marxists", conscious conspirators are being accused of infiltrating state and cultural institutions. This worthless platitude you're giving us is already wrong anyway: These people see themselves as rising champions with a real destiny against the hegemony of cultural Marxism and the decay of civilization. The decay of civilization is NOT perceived as an imminent threat but a problem that we are finally, imminently able to deal with. So what does this mean? That there is truth even in their relative subjectivity: In their pathology alone it is clear they perceive themselves as champions of destiny, while for those of us at the "opposite end of the spectrum", we see clear signs of a coming dark age.

Ideological - or for Links "intellectual" difference is NEVER a matter of completely contradictory realities *as such* - it derives from real processes of the real, absolute truth is identifiable in them. For reactionaries - this is IMPOSSIBLE in perceiving external subjectivity. There has to be a conscious conspiracy "brainwashing" the masses, forcing them in a state of near-psychosis, they see themselves (all reactionaries for that matter) as taking the "red pill". Communists don't do this however: everything is rationally explicable and real external subjectivity is necessarily articulated as a pre-requisite to its own foundations. There is no necessity of consciously "red pilling" - the world is not perceived as an other we have to completely oppose, rather our struggle derives from its circumstances. So there is truth in the identification of Marxism and ruling liberalism - our opposition internalizes the achievements of liberalism and fights it as supersession - their opposition is REACTIONARY.

Then again, as someone who speaks the tongue of a bourgeois ideologue convinced of an actual dichotomy of two opposing "spectrums", it isn't surprising that you dismiss real analysis for the banter of engaged subjectivity.

[Counterculturalist]

Ideological - or for Links "intellectual" difference is NEVER a matter of completely contradictory realities *as such* - it derives from real processes of the real, absolute truth is identifiable in them. For reactionaries - this is IMPOSSIBLE in perceiving external subjectivity. There has to be a conscious conspiracy "brainwashing" the masses, forcing them in a state of near-psychosis, they see themselves (all reactionaries for that matter) as taking the "red pill". Communists don't do this however: everything is rationally explicable and real external subjectivity is necessarily articulated as a pre-requisite to its own foundations. There is no necessity of consciously "red pilling" - the world is not perceived as an other we have to completely oppose, rather our struggle derives from its circumstances. So there is truth in the identification of Marxism and ruling liberalism - our opposition internalizes the achievements of liberalism and fights it as supersession - their opposition is REACTIONARY.

This is an interesting and, I'd say, correct point, one that has a lot of similarities with ideas I've been grappling with lately, and attempted (badly) to address in the ill-conceived thread I started about "misanthropy" not long ago.

I still think that capitalism has appropriated and internalized non-economic aspects of typical "left" discourse in order to adapt and expand. I suppose one of our tasks as leftists is to support and encourage these tendencies while simultaneously (re)introducing an economic opposition that, when combined with the so-called "cultural" elements of the left that have infiltrated capitalism, can gain enough strength to help bring it down for good.

[Slavic]

Everything that needs to be said about this is that it's, apparently, a "popular Internet ideology". I have heard about it, mostly from panicking leftists. Who are panicking over something that literally only exists on the Internet, you might as well be concerned about Slenderman.

To be fair, followers of Slenderman did result in a ritualistic stabbing.

Militant preteen acolytes of Slenderman abound.

[#FF0000]

Who are panicking over something that literally only exists on the Internet, you might as well be concerned about Slenderman.

Excuse me but Slenderman's serious as hell. Next you're gonna tell me we shouldn't worry about Candlejack or someth