Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 36

Thread: The Dark Enlightenment

  1. #1

    The Dark Enlightenment

    If you look at my other threads, I've said that I'm a mix of Paleoconservative and Traditionalist Conservative. Now, I am also a member of the Dark Enlightenment.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
    So my political ideology now contains a mix of Paleoconservatism, Traditionalist Conservatism, and Dark Enlightenment views. What are your thoughts on the Dark Enlightenment? What am I politically? Serious answers please.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I like many of the ideas of the DE and identify with NRx. One of the main difference between paleocons and neoreactionaries is that paleos tend to be okay with some level of republicanism or democracy, whereas reactionaries are opposed to the franchise being extended beyond the aristocracy. Also, I'd assume you'd err on the traditionalist side of neoreaction's trichotomy.

    Best DE/NRx blogs:
    Unqualified Reservations (Moldbug)
    Radish
    XenoSystems (Nick Land)
    Amerika
    Social Matter
    Jim's Blog

    There are others, but those come to mind.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  4. #3
    Seriously, simple is much better.

    “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” -- Albert Einstein

  5. #4
    meh

    there are two and only two paths

    1) state regulated economy
    2) not state regulated economy

    anything in between is back to #1

    Whether your aristocrats are "elected", "born", or otherwise really makes no difference.
    Whether they support "traditional family values" or 99 channels of gay sitcoms also makes no difference.

    The question is:
    Do they enact territorial command and control over economy?

    Fiat? Taxation? Controls? Regulation? License? Permit? Registration? Subsidy? Welfare? Ordinance?

    If so... $#@! them:
    Autarchy, Agorism, Underground, and Individual Sovereignty;
    I will not obey. I will not participate. I will not endorse.
    My voluntary peaceful interaction with my fellow man is subject to no state or territory.
    Last edited by presence; 05-01-2016 at 07:59 AM.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    there are two and only two paths
    Some people, despite all evidence to the contrary, still think that it is possible to maintain freedom for themselves while tyrannizing others.

    Republican and democratic forms of government failed to protect people from the tyrannical government powers and structures that those same people had supported to be used against others. Rather than correctly identifying the problem as that of excessive state power and control, neoreactionaries have decided that the people (specifically some people, with disagreement as what type) themselves are at fault. They think that a state without voting rights for the general populace could ensure the freedom of a chosen people without extending freedom to others. Again, in spite of the entirety of history.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by PaleoConPrep View Post
    What am I politically?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  8. #7
    "Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

    K.I.S.S.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by PaleoConPrep View Post
    What am I politically? Serious answers please.
    Based on your previous posts, I'd say you're a socially conservative, nationalistic, moderate interventionist (in the economic sense).

    So basically Pat Buchanan.

    The most (only?) interesting part of the Dark Enlightenment, IMO, is its opposition to democracy.

    ...which all sensible libertarians should adopt.

    But I take it your attraction is to the social conservatism and ethno-nationalism.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-02-2016 at 05:59 PM.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Based on your previous posts, I'd say you're a socially conservative, nationalistic, moderate interventionist (in the economic sense).

    So basically Pat Buchanan.

    The most (only?) interesting part of the Dark Enlightenment, IMO, is its opposition to democracy.

    ...which all sensible libertarians should adopt.

    But I take it your attraction is to the social conservatism and ethno-nationalism.
    i am also opposed to modern democracy. I've said in previous posts that I think an aristocracy, composed of conservative old-money families, would be the best form of government. I'm not necessarily an ethno-nationalist. I despise people and groups who make race the be-all end-all. Race is important, but we must never develop an obsession with it. I believe a nation should be of one majority ethnicity.(in our case, 90-95% White)
    Last edited by PaleoConPrep; 03-04-2017 at 02:03 PM.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by PaleoConPrep View Post
    i am also opposed to modern democracy. I've said in previous posts that I think an aristocracy, composed of conservative old-money WASP families, would be the best form of government. I'm not necessarily an ethno-nationalist. I despise people and groups who make race the be-all end-all. Race is important, but we must never develop an obsession with it. I believe a nation should be of one majority ethnicity.(in our case, 90-95% White)
    Hmmm, sounds kinda like a fan and cheerleader of the Illuminati, [dark enlightenment indeed].

    There are probably not nearly enough of those around.
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 05-03-2016 at 05:22 AM.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by PaleoConPrep View Post
    i am also opposed to modern democracy. I've said in previous posts that I think an aristocracy, composed of conservative old-money WASP families, would be the best form of government.
    If you mean democracy with a much more limited franchise, with the criterion being wealth, that would indeed be better than mass democracy.

    ...but still far inferior to monarchy or a narrow oligarchy.

    I suggest reading Moldbug, beginning perhaps with the article "The Magic of Symmetrical Sovereignty."

    Then the series of articles about "Patchwork," his model for an ideal society.

    I'm not necessarily an ethno-nationalist. I despise people and groups who make race the be-all end-all. Race is important, but we must never develop an obsession with it. I believe a nation should be of one majority ethnicity.(in our case, 90-95% White)
    That makes you an ethno-nationalist.

    Now, if this is just a personal preference, so be it; who cares?

    But, if you'd like the state to bring about this situation, through immigration restrictions, eugenics, etc., then we part company.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-03-2016 at 02:07 PM.

  14. #12
    How could anyone possibly be pro monarchy? Anyway, sounds like generic Republican to me.
    Carthago Delenda Est

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by ArrestPoliticians View Post
    How could anyone possibly be pro monarchy?
    A monarchy is more likely to pursue libertarian policies than any other form of government, because of the incentives involved.

    In a nutshell, it's the same reason that private property is better managed than the commons.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-03-2016 at 04:40 PM.

  16. #14
    I really think that liberty is only possible in the long term with a Representative government and an populace that understands liberty.
    Stop believing stupid things

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    I really think that liberty is only possible in the long term with a Representative government and an populace that understands liberty.
    That is impossible.

    Also, even if they did understand it, it is not (for a great many of them) in their interest to support libertarian policies.

    For those on the receiving end of government largess, they'd have to give it up for altruistic reasons.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-03-2016 at 06:02 PM.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That is impossible.

    Also, even if they did understand it, it is not (for a great many of them) in their interest to support libertarian policies.
    19th century Americans disagree.
    Stop believing stupid things



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    KIDS KIDS.

    It's ALL impossible.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    A monarchy is more likely to pursue libertarian policies than any other form of government, because of the incentives involved.

    In a nutshell, it's the same reason that private property is better managed than the commons.
    Bizarre, since monarchy itself refutes self ownership and the historical record is hardly kind
    Carthago Delenda Est

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by PaleoConPrep View Post
    i am also opposed to modern democracy. I've said in previous posts that I think an aristocracy, composed of conservative old-money WASP families, would be the best form of government. I'm not necessarily an ethno-nationalist. I despise people and groups who make race the be-all end-all. Race is important, but we must never develop an obsession with it. I believe a nation should be of one majority ethnicity.(in our case, 90-95% White)
    If this were the case you would be deported to a third world. You are not even white. The fact that you want that is mind boggling.

  23. #20
    LibForestPaul
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    A monarchy is more likely to pursue libertarian policies than any other form of government, because of the incentives involved.

    In a nutshell, it's the same reason that private property is better managed than the commons.
    Voltaire, France monarchy, vs England, parliament... please read history.

  24. #21
    I usually find that people advocating aristocracy rule falsely believe that they would be part of said aristocracy. Beyond that, old money WASP families are not what they once were; they are dwindling in the halls of influence and power, daily replaced. Their day in the sun has been over for quite some time; you long for something that is likely as a libertarian society, that's to say impossible.
    ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  25. #22
    Dark enlightenment , sounds like Jumbo Shrimp . When I was young I spent a lot of time in the dark and never saw too much enlightenment .

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by LibForestPaul View Post
    Voltaire, France monarchy, vs England, parliament... please read history.
    Chicken, tomato, horseradish, artichoke...these are also random words.

    Did you have a point?

    If so, try to articulate it better next time.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by ArrestPoliticians View Post
    Bizarre, since monarchy itself refutes self ownership and the historical record is hardly kind
    An elected politician needs the political support of others in order to maintain his office, and so he will use his power to satisfy the ambitions of those constituencies. These constituencies almost invariably demand governmental interventions in the market, which benefit them at the expense of the country as a whole (e.g. corporate subsidies). Thus it is in the self-interest of elected politicians to pursue interventionist policies. For the elected politician, the costs of interventionist policy (economic damage) are externalized, while the benefits (being reelected) are internalized. Moreover, the benefits of liberal policy (economic growth) are externalized, while the costs (not being reelected) are internalized. Acting on the basis of these perverse incentives, any rationally self-interested politician will naturally pursue interventionist policies.

    An absolute monarch does not need anyone's political support to maintain his throne, and so will not use his power to satisfy the ambitions of any constituency. Instead, he will use his political power to satisfy his own ambitions: namely, to maximize his own revenues. In order to maximize his own revenues, he must maximize the economic output of his subjects, of which his revenues – via taxation – are a fraction. If he understands economics, he will know that economic output is maximized in a free market economy. Any intervention would only benefit one group of subjects at the expense of another, while causing a drop in total output, which is contrary to his own interests. For a monarch, the costs of interventionist policy are internalized, as are the benefits of liberal policy, thus creating proper incentives to pursue liberal policy. The monarch will pursue laissez faire policies, not intervening in the economy except to collect those taxes necessary to finance his own consumption. Further, he will appreciate that any increase in tax revenues in the present will reduce future tax revenues (by reducing savings and thus capital investment), and so his choice of tax level will be determined by his time preference. A higher time preference monarch will maintain taxes at a higher level, sacrificing future consumption for greater consumption in the present. A lower time preference monarch will maintain taxes at a lower level, sacrificing present consumption for greater consumption in the future. An absolute monarch who holds office for life, who must ensure the continued prosperity of the state for decades to come (and even beyond his own death, if he's concerned with the happiness of his heir) will naturally tend to have lower time preference than an elected politician whose time horizon extends no further than to the next election.

    What if politicians or monarchs are not materially self-interested? What if they are driven by ideology? If the monarch is an ideological socialist, he will pursue socialist policies, regardless of the material losses he will suffer as a result. If the elected politician is an ideological liberal, then he will pursue liberal policies, regardless of the losses he will suffer as a result. But we have to compare apples to apples. If both monarch and elected politicians are socialists, both will pursue socialism; if both are liberals, both will pursue liberalism. In other words, if we assume that all politics is driven by ideology, then it makes no difference whether a government is democratic or monarchical. But not all politics is driven by ideology; some is driven by material self-interest. In those cases, monarchical government will pursue more liberal policies than democratic government. Even if these cases are rare (though I would argue they are in fact the norm), it follows that a monarchical government is more likely to pursue liberal policies than a democratic government. The less rare these cases, the greater the advantage of monarchy.

    Finally, we should assume that the ideology of the monarch is randomly assigned, but we should not assume the same about democratic politicians. There are structural reasons for democratic politicians to be interventionists: namely, most consistencies demand interventionism, and those politicians who refuse to satisfy them for ideological reasons tend not to be elected or reelected. Thus, even if it were true that ideology drove all politics, monarchy would be superior.

    What if politicians or monarchs do not understand economics? The democratic politician who is materially self-interested will act as before, implementing interventionist policies in order to satisfy those constituencies which they benefit. A monarch will not act as before. Though he wishes to maximize his revenues, he does not understand how to do this. He will likely pursue interventionism by default, on the advice of constituencies which exploit his ignorance. Thus, on the assumption of economic ignorance, monarchy loses its advantage, and there is no difference between the two systems.

    As for HISTORY, we'll return to that later, if you like.

    But, suffice it to say, monarchical government has in historical fact been smaller than democratic government, by about an order of magnitude.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    19th century Americans disagree.
    We were talking about what worked long term, no?

    The American Democratic Party from the founding to 1896 was the remarkable exception that makes the rule.

    ...where are we now?

    It's as public choice theory would predict. The special interests eventually overwhelmed the principled.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by PaleoConPrep View Post
    What am I politically? Serious answers please.
    You're just another face in the crowd, man. Poltically speaking, that is.

    I've finally stopped bothering with looking for isms to attach to myself. I just try to be the best human I can be now. Works...

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    An elected politician needs the political support of others in order to maintain his office, and so he will use his power to satisfy the ambitions of those constituencies. These constituencies almost invariably demand governmental interventions in the market, which benefit them at the expense of the country as a whole (e.g. corporate subsidies). Thus it is in the self-interest of elected politicians to pursue interventionist policies. For the elected politician, the costs of interventionist policy (economic damage) are externalized, while the benefits (being reelected) are internalized. Moreover, the benefits of liberal policy (economic growth) are externalized, while the costs (not being reelected) are internalized. Acting on the basis of these perverse incentives, any rationally self-interested politician will naturally pursue interventionist policies.

    An absolute monarch does not need anyone's political support to maintain his throne, and so will not use his power to satisfy the ambitions of any constituency. Instead, he will use his political power to satisfy his own ambitions: namely, to maximize his own revenues. In order to maximize his own revenues, he must maximize the economic output of his subjects, of which his revenues – via taxation – are a fraction. If he understands economics, he will know that economic output is maximized in a free market economy. Any intervention would only benefit one group of subjects at the expense of another, while causing a drop in total output, which is contrary to his own interests. For a monarch, the costs of interventionist policy are internalized, as are the benefits of liberal policy, thus creating proper incentives to pursue liberal policy. The monarch will pursue laissez faire policies, not intervening in the economy except to collect those taxes necessary to finance his own consumption. Further, he will appreciate that any increase in tax revenues in the present will reduce future tax revenues (by reducing savings and thus capital investment), and so his choice of tax level will be determined by his time preference. A higher time preference monarch will maintain taxes at a higher level, sacrificing future consumption for greater consumption in the present. A lower time preference monarch will maintain taxes at a lower level, sacrificing present consumption for greater consumption in the future. An absolute monarch who holds office for life, who must ensure the continued prosperity of the state for decades to come (and even beyond his own death, if he's concerned with the happiness of his heir) will naturally tend to have lower time preference than an elected politician whose time horizon extends no further than to the next election.

    What if politicians or monarchs are not materially self-interested? What if they are driven by ideology? If the monarch is an ideological socialist, he will pursue socialist policies, regardless of the material losses he will suffer as a result. If the elected politician is an ideological liberal, then he will pursue liberal policies, regardless of the losses he will suffer as a result. But we have to compare apples to apples. If both monarch and elected politicians are socialists, both will pursue socialism; if both are liberals, both will pursue liberalism. In other words, if we assume that all politics is driven by ideology, then it makes no difference whether a government is democratic or monarchical. But not all politics is driven by ideology; some is driven by material self-interest. In those cases, monarchical government will pursue more liberal policies than democratic government. Even if these cases are rare (though I would argue they are in fact the norm), it follows that a monarchical government is more likely to pursue liberal policies than a democratic government. The less rare these cases, the greater the advantage of monarchy.

    Finally, we should assume that the ideology of the monarch is randomly assigned, but we should not assume the same about democratic politicians. There are structural reasons for democratic politicians to be interventionists: namely, most consistencies demand interventionism, and those politicians who refuse to satisfy them for ideological reasons tend not to be elected or reelected. Thus, even if it were true that ideology drove all politics, monarchy would be superior.

    What if politicians or monarchs do not understand economics? The democratic politician who is materially self-interested will act as before, implementing interventionist policies in order to satisfy those constituencies which they benefit. A monarch will not act as before. Though he wishes to maximize his revenues, he does not understand how to do this. He will likely pursue interventionism by default, on the advice of constituencies which exploit his ignorance. Thus, on the assumption of economic ignorance, monarchy loses its advantage, and there is no difference between the two systems.

    As for HISTORY, we'll return to that later, if you like.

    But, suffice it to say, monarchical government has in historical fact been smaller than democratic government, by about an order of magnitude.
    Incredible. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler were modern Monarchs. Limited government?
    Carthago Delenda Est

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by PaleoConPrep View Post
    If you look at my other threads, I've said that I'm a mix of Paleoconservative and Traditionalist Conservative. Now, I am also a member of the Dark Enlightenment.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
    So my political ideology now contains a mix of Paleoconservatism, Traditionalist Conservatism, and Dark Enlightenment views. What are your thoughts on the Dark Enlightenment? What am I politically? Serious answers please.
    That wiki article says that one of the features of the Dark Enlightenment is "a libertarian or otherwise right-wing or conservative approach to economics."

    But that's not what you believe in. Is that just the one part of it you disagree with or something?

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by BamaAla View Post
    I usually find that people advocating aristocracy rule falsely believe that they would be part of said aristocracy. Beyond that, old money WASP families are not what they once were; they are dwindling in the halls of influence and power, daily replaced. Their day in the sun has been over for quite some time; you long for something that is likely as a libertarian society, that's to say impossible.
    America's old money WASPs are almost entirely the descendants of roundheads.

    ...which is to say that they have no part in the old order which some of us would like to see restored.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by ArrestPoliticians View Post
    How could anyone possibly be pro monarchy? Anyway, sounds like generic Republican to me.
    When the alternative is democracy, monarchy doesn't look so bad.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •