Regarding the recent conversations on the Dark Enlightenment (here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), I’d like to offer a few comments. (If you’re unfamiliar with the Dark Enlightenment, read British philosopher Nick Land’s series “The Dark Enlightenment“.)
As I’ve noted previously, the Dark Enlightenment, largely an American phenomenon notwithstanding Land, has much in common with the European archeofuturist or identitarian movement, although the later is less influenced by libertarianism (perhaps for the better).
But what are these underlying characteristics?
Here are some:
– A rejection of sociological universalism, and a preference for particularism.
– An acceptance of human biodiversity.
– An acceptance of science and futurism as a means to improve at least some peoples’ lives while not rejecting one’s ancestral folkways (i.e. archeofuturism). And a recognition that ‘progress’ will be available only to some, and not the entire human population.
– The recognition that there is no single best political order. As Aristotle notes in the Politics, some ethnies are better suited for monarchy; others, for aristocracy; others, for a limited form of politea.
– A realization that liberty is incompatible with democracy, and that democracy leads to mediocrity.
– A realization that terms like ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ and ‘feminist’ are beyond their expiration date.
– A concern with bio-politics, oriented to a particular people’s biological and demographic imperatives.
– A rejection of egalitarianism.
Please leave other suggestions, or commentary, below.
Radish Magazine provides a list Dark Enlightenment articles.
Education Realist discusses his placement in the Dark Enlightenment.
Nick Land warns (me) that Darkness will never be popular.