Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Dark Enlightenment, Part II

No sooner do I put up a post on the Dark Enlightenment than Takimag puts up a more organized one. To elaborate a bit on what I said yesterday, those of us on the right are a thinky bunch, as opposed to those feely guys on the left. The left is all about emotion and feelings and judgmental things like "fairness" and "equality." The right, on the other hand, is into facts and reasoning. No wonder we have such a hard time communicating with leftist bozos. We want to discuss, and they want to emote.

Well, for a long time now, many of us on the right have been at least suspecting that "conservatives" are mainly just supporters of the liberal ideas of a few years ago, and not conservative in any sense other than the fact that they're slightly less liberal than the cutting-edge liberals are. Sometimes. And some of us are catching on that we've been letting liberals frame all the issues, and accepting some pretty freaky liberal assumptions.  Some examples:

1. Democracy is an end in itself. It's so good it trumps everything else.

2. All men are created equal. (Note that this doesn't mean today what Jefferson meant. He meant that nobody was entitled to rule because of noble birth. Nowadays it means that all races are equal, an idea which would have sent Jefferson into hysterical laughter.)

3. Freedom is always a good thing, no matter what people use it for.  This is a libertarian failing. They're often thrilled to see people killing themselves with illegal drugs, because they're "fighting for freedom."

4. The whole world should be, or become, just like us.  And it's a noble thing to waste our blood and treasure encouraging them to do so. This is very much a liberal idea, and you can trace  it to the progressives of a century ago.

5. Martin Luther King was way cool — kind of a conservative Republican. (Neocon nonsense.  He was a goddam communist.)

And etc. To make a long story short, the Dark Enlightenment are those catching on to those flaws.

Today's quibcag is from the essay below, and contains the pithiest critique of both conservatives and libertarians I've ever seen. To the essay, from Takimag:

Overreacting to Neoreaction

Mainstream liberal blogs have recently discovered the neoreactionary movement, also known as the Dark Enlightenment, which is a plucky collection of backward-looking upstarts that started to gel sometime in late 2012. The only unifying themes in coverage are an unfounded sense of hysteria and a complete inability to get the point.

To start with, neoreaction isn’t a political movement per se—at least not yet and not for lack of trying. It’s more an intellectual trend that scrutinizes hatefacts away from “The Cathedral,” the neoreactionary neologism for the semi-official universalist secular religion of equality that ironically emanates from Harvard’s elites.

Neoreactionaries trade ideas on WordPress blogs and Twitter. Their disparate voices include British expat continental philosopher Nick Land, monarchist transhumanist Michael Anissimov, Catholic anarchist Bryce Laliberte, post-libertarian escape artist Jim, and the snarky satirists of Radish. On discussion boards, scattered Old Right fanboys and a gaggle of fresh-faced, clean-cut Southern men working on oil rigs, ranches, and forex markets discuss the relative merits of Frederick the Great, Lee Kuan Yew, and Thomas Carlyle. Theden is the popular daily record, a sort of neoreactionary Huffington Post—except way, way smarter, natch.

The Dark Enlightenment is a big tent, but there are some common points of agreement. Democracy is seen as a dangerous scam, inevitably tending toward Morlock mob rule. Order is more precious than “justice,” which is really just a code word leftists use to bully everyone else. The world’s social order has been out of whack since approximately 1789, with cultural decline masked only by technological advance. Elitism—nay, aristocracy—is to be cultivated as the only antidote for the egalitarian dysgenic trend toward idiocracy.

Like any fringe movement, the DE has its own lexicon. The Cathedral is the seat of secularist, universalist, progressive power. One often hears the refrain “America is a Communist Country,” which is both a washing of the hands and a warning to cover your ass. Demotism means something between “democracy” and “populism”; it seamlessly encompasses fascism, Bolshevism, and Anglo-American liberal democracy.

It’s easy to see how TechCrunch, The American Spectator, and The Telegraph were so confused. There’s a lot to take in here, making it much easier to declare the movement an idiosyncratic form of monarchism or even (clutch the pearls) neofascism and move on without engaging it seriously. It’s even starting to scare some bloggers on the right who show a painfully shallow understanding.
(Intrigued?  I am. Read on HERE.)

1 comment:

  1. "Nowadays it means that all races are equal, an idea which would have sent Jefferson into hysterical laughter."
    Thomas Jefferson's writings indicate that he believed whites were superior to Black and Indians. However, He also expressed an expectation that the lower races would evolve to catch up. Seems to me that liberals are acting to block this progress.