ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

Darth Vox

An amusing article on the creepy "Sith Lords of the Dark Enlightenment":
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Dark Enlightenment. The Empire is striking back. Much as Christianity grew out of the cult-sodden ferment of the Roman-occupied Middle East, the Dark Enlightenment has sprouted from the hyper-anxious anti-liberalism precincts in the darker recesses of the Internet.

So we’ve dug deep into the Web, where the movement lurks. We’ve talked online to its philosopher king, Nick Land, and we’ve conversed with his faceless adherents.... As the term suggests, the Dark Enlightenment is an ideological analysis of modern democracy that harshly rejects the vision of the 18th century European Enlightenment—a period punctuated by the development of empirical science, the rise of humanist values and the first outburst of revolutionary democratic reform. In contrast, the Dark Enlightenment advocates an autocratic and neo-monarchical society. Its belief system is unapologetically reactionary, almost feudal....

In the Dark Enlightenment, we seem to have stumbled across a place where pseudo-intellectually grounded racism is flourishing in a way it hasn’t since before World War II.
I have to admit, I'm more than a little bemused to be informed that I am a faceless adherent of some guy whose name I've literally never seen before. It's also a little odd to see myself listed under Christian Traditionalists rather than Economists or even Masculinity; I am certainly a Christian but I'm hardly a Christian Traditionalist in the Chestertonian style. I also enjoyed the term "pseudo-intellectually grounded racism". This is Left-wing shorthand for the writer's confession that the position is an intelligent and well-grounded one for which he have no rebuttal, but with which he disagrees anyhow.

One would think that he would at least stop long enough to consider why it is flourishing, but his analysis doesn't run so deep. Setting aside the author's fumbling attempts to make sense of what is developing and provide a nonexistent structure to it, this bit particularly amused me:
Could the Dark Enlightenment become a major political movement?

Probably not. To acquire momentum in the real world, the systems of modern democratic capitalism would have to suffer a blow far more damaging than any received so far.  
And, as we all know, that is inconceivable, since we all know that history is nothing but the chronicle of the inexorable progress towards modern democratic capitalism and the unending bourgeois paradise it entails. Perhaps he might like to consider reading The Return of the Great Depression. We are already five years into Great Depression 2.0. The systems of modern democratic capitalism are already flashing red blinking signals and we are now merely awaiting the blow that will cause them to collapse. What it will be, no one claims to know, but it is coming, sooner or later.

And the article wouldn't have been complete without the mandatory bit of nonsensical finger wagging: "Universal equality and classical democracy are not synonymous with an all-purpose, lowest-common-denominator leveling of mankind. Rather, they speak only to an existential fairness in which each of us has the right to value, direct and make meaning of our own lives."

First, equality, universal or otherwise, doesn't exist. This argomentum ad singulicornu is simply an irrelevant nonstarter. As for classical democracy, what does that have to do with the unelected European Commission, the unelected U.S. Supreme Court, the bifactional ruling party and the "first-past-the-post" parliamentary systems, all of which are meant to strictly limit democracy and forcibly prevent people from exercising their right to value, direct, and make meaning of their own lives.

But Mr. Sigl is right about in one thing. People would do well to take me and the other "Sith Lords" seriously. Because, as it happens, we are realistic and generally correct, on average, about the past and present states of Mankind.

Labels:

83 Comments:

Blogger rycamor January 12, 2014 10:52 AM  

Irony. This article will have exactly the opposite effect of what Sigl intends. If anything, he is making the Dark Enlightenment seem pretty cool, or at the very least, quite intriguing. If I were a typical frustrated but clueless young man, I would find myself wanting to know just a little more.

Blogger nik January 12, 2014 11:03 AM  

"But Mr. Sigl is right about in one thing. People would do well to take me and the other "Sith Lords" seriously. Because, as it happens, we are realistic and generally correct, on average, about the past and present states of Mankind."

Arrogant much?

Blogger Hector January 12, 2014 11:04 AM  

Have you ever read John Derbyshire's book We Are Doomed? In it he has a chapter on female suffrage and how it is harmful to conservatism. It's a pretty simple argument. Women are less conservative than men and make up 51% of the population, so in any system of universal suffrage conservatism will lose out at the ballot box. Can't find the book now but that's how I remember it. If you are a conservative you can't be too big a fan of universal suffrage. My own thoughts on the subject, from the level of town governance there seems to be too much input from people with no skin in the game. There's the big push to get young kids involved in town government. You often see a school committee member just out of highschool, living with his or her folks, and definitely not themselves getting a property tax bill. Or the influence of renters, especially if a college town or area, who are transients and have no long term interest in the town. I'm reminded also of one of my favorite quotes from Mencken, "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."

Blogger Bocafan January 12, 2014 11:04 AM  

Bring it on Sigi! The lamentations of a bedwetting gamma male.

Blogger Krul January 12, 2014 11:07 AM  

The Dark Enlightenment: The Creepy Internet Movement You’d Better Take Seriously

How will he convince you to take them seriously? By calling them "Sith Lords", of course.

Also by putting their names on magic cards. Nothing says "super serious" like f*cking magic cards.

Anonymous VD January 12, 2014 11:11 AM  

Arrogant much?

You have no idea.

Blogger James Dixon January 12, 2014 11:15 AM  

> "anti-liberalism"

And yet I'd wager you're far more liberal than Mr. Sigl ever dreams of being.

> autocratic and neo-monarchical society

Either he has no clue what a libertarian is, or he's deliberately mischaracterizing. I'll be polite and not suggest which. Yet.

> pseudo-intellectually grounded racism

Yes, speaking the truth is considered racist now. We already knew you got the memo, Sigl. You didn't need to emphasis it for our benefit.

> ...until they reach the level of collective criminality and comprehensive social corruption...

How anyone can state not and then not conclude that they may have a point is beyond me.

> The Dark Enlightenment’s desire to raze the democratic edifice of modern civilization...

Whether we want it or not isn't important. It's process is well underway and is not reversible under the current system.

> ...the darkly enlightened see social hierarchies as determined not by culture or opportunity but by the cold, hard destiny embedded in DNA...

Again, the truth is racist.

> While he didn’t articulate how an anti-democratic, racially charged, anti-modern, authoritarian political movement could be, in any way, anti-fascist...

Again, completely ignoring the explicit fascism of our current administration.

> The world is richer, healthier, less poor, less violent, and able to access more information than ever before.

Overall? Perhaps. In the developed west? Not hardly.

So, overall a deliberate mischaracterization of the movement in an attempt to marginalize it. And, as rycamor notes, it'll probably fail.

Blogger nik January 12, 2014 11:18 AM  

Hector, if I read your comment correctly, it seems like you equate "having skin in the game" with being wealthy or at least having taxable wealth. So you seem to be advocating for some form of plutocracy. Did it ever occur to you that the wealthy already have an outsized voice in this "democratic" country? Is that not enough? You also refer to young people negatively in regards to government participation, at least on a local level. Have you taken a look at our representatives in Congress? They're embalmed attorney skeletons. As a matter of simple math, you can determine that the US is a gerontocracy both in its voting patterns (80-20 rule) and in its elected representatives. I'm just wondering how people can be so out of touch as to complain participants in government are not old enough or wealthy enough.

Blogger Cinco January 12, 2014 11:22 AM  

It's also a little odd to see myself listed under Christian Traditionalists rather than Economists or even Masculinity...

Nah. You wrote for WND; you will be amongst the first to board the cattle cars when the time comes...

Blogger Cinco January 12, 2014 11:25 AM  

Arrogant much?

Quantifiable too!

Blogger stareatgoatsies January 12, 2014 11:25 AM  

rycamor- "should be taken seriously...reasonably argued...can be an engrossing read". The author is recommending Dark Enlightenment writers.

Blogger James Dixon January 12, 2014 11:27 AM  

> Arrogant much?

nik, common posters like myself and Nate are merely arrogant. Vox is on a whole different level.

Blogger James Dixon January 12, 2014 11:31 AM  

> Hector, if I read your comment correctly, it seems like you equate "having skin in the game" with being wealthy or at least having taxable wealth.

Wealth as such isn't normally taxed, at the federal level, nik. Only income. And you don't have to be wealthy to have income.

> Did it ever occur to you that the wealthy already have an outsized voice in this "democratic" country?

The ultra-wealthy do, yes. The working class which pays the majority of the taxes? Not so much so.

Blogger Hector January 12, 2014 11:34 AM  

nik, at the town level I equate it with owning property since the town gets its revenue from the property tax. Every few years there is a vote to raise the property tax. I get the feeling that many of the people in support of raising this tax, always presumably for funding education, never get the bill. When they vote to raise the tax by 7% that isn't a real number to them. Whatever the number is they would vote for it because it is disconnected from their lives. That strikes me as being wrong.

Anonymous Michael Maier January 12, 2014 12:03 PM  

”HBD, broadly conceived, is simply a fact. It is roughly as questionable, on intellectual grounds, as biological evolution

LOL! Good times... so much for questioning the status quo...

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey January 12, 2014 12:05 PM  

I'm surprised you only now wrote about this piece. I laughed when I first read it. All that sci-fi/fantasy nonsense.

Anonymous bearspaw January 12, 2014 12:06 PM  

Invincible red bladed light saber, flowing black robe with sinister hood, Death Star. All that adds up to a pretty cool look.

Blogger IM2L844 January 12, 2014 12:11 PM  

I'm absolutely certain that Matt Sigil would never ever misrepresent or mischaracterize, but just in case he accidentally misspoke, I think I'll read what Nick Land actually wrote about The Dark Enlightenment before I draw any final conclusions.

Anonymous bob k. mando January 12, 2014 12:13 PM  

As for classical democracy, what does that have to do with the unelected European Commission...


never forget the UN delegates.


so far as i know, every single one of those is and always has been a state appointed diplomat. and the UN is oldest surviving institution where this 'faux-democratic' idiocy got started.

who gives a fuck what passed a vote in the UN? did you vote for your UN delegate? then how is that 'democratic' or even ( more properly ) republican?

it's certainly the oldest if you consider it merely a continuation of the League of Nations.

Anonymous Michael Maier January 12, 2014 12:14 PM  

> Arrogant much?

nik, common posters like myself and Nate are merely arrogant. Vox is on a whole different level.


I'm starting to think that Arrogance is the only rational response to the fact that MPAI. And most truly ARE.

Blogger Markku January 12, 2014 12:21 PM  

You can also have condescension, if you prefer.

Same to me.

Blogger Nate January 12, 2014 12:25 PM  

Moldbug is an idiot.

Blogger Markku January 12, 2014 12:30 PM  

So Nate keeps saying, but now I find myself interested. Now I'm thinking, is this just rivalry towards another aspiring neo-reactionary leader? Will have to look into this.

Blogger Alexander Thompson January 12, 2014 12:37 PM  

Do liberals like this understand that they are the stagnant, ignorant establishment they were taught to hate?

Or that Times they 'a change?

Anonymous jack January 12, 2014 12:37 PM  

If Darth Vox, when whence his Death Star?
I could suggest that there may be several DS's in the Darth Vox arsenal. Not the least of which might be the construct known as AlpinWolf. First the seed construct, then the World.
May the itch be with you! Eh, the Power.....

Anonymous fish January 12, 2014 12:38 PM  

How come these guys always look just as you would suspect? Matt Sigl the "Les Nessman" of Slate.com.

Anonymous Salt January 12, 2014 12:51 PM  

Sigl needs to be nominated for the Hugo.

Blogger kurt9 January 12, 2014 1:10 PM  

VD, similar thoughts to yours:

http://alfinnextlevel.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/a-society-of-chumps-vs-a-society-of-dangerous-children/

Anonymous cheddarman January 12, 2014 1:41 PM  

"Sigl needs to be nominated for the Hugo."-Salt

As in the Hugo Schweyzer Award

Anonymous Josh January 12, 2014 2:00 PM  

So Nate keeps saying, but now I find myself interested. Now I'm thinking, is this just rivalry towards another aspiring neo-reactionary leader? Will have to look into this.

Moldbug is an idiot because it took him roughly 10,000 words to explain how the supply demand curve works.

Anonymous Josh January 12, 2014 2:03 PM  

”HBD, broadly conceived, is simply a fact. It is roughly as questionable, on intellectual grounds, as biological evolution

LOL! Good times... so much for questioning the status quo...


Yeah I can't take anyone who could say that seriously.

Anonymous Laguna Beach Fogey January 12, 2014 2:45 PM  

Moldbug is totally overrated, for reasons difficult to understand.

Blogger Markku January 12, 2014 2:59 PM  

The funny thing is that just based on what Nate has said, I can guess what makes that joke funny.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 12, 2014 3:07 PM  

Nik,

Hector, if I read your comment correctly, it seems like you equate "having skin in the game" with being wealthy or at least having taxable wealth. So you seem to be advocating for some form of plutocracy.

"Skin in the game" means you don't let people decide to spend other people's money. That always leads to squandering society's resources and enriching the most venal at the cost of the most decent. The reason is, it's too easy for the grifters to hide their take and blame someone else for it. If you're a home owner, you pay property tax and you know how much your local government costs. If you're a renter, you don't know how much of your rent goes to pay property tax, how much pays your landlord's mortgage and other costs, and how much is profit for his plutocratic soul. So the local government raises property taxes to pay for some boondoggle project that their buddies skim millions from and give them kickbacks for, then sends out agitators to tell all the renters that landlords are ripping them off with high rents. Uninformed you get's pissed at your landlord while the real fat cats steal both your money and his. Brilliant.

A few years ago, some local gas stations started posting a sheet on the pumps that listed how much of the cost of a gallon of gas went to pay for the gas, how much went to various taxes, and how much was profit for the station owner. The stations quickly removed the signs after getting threats from the State transportation regulators who didn't like people being reminded how much the taxes really were when they were actually paying them.

Getting one group of people to make decisions about what to spend money on and sending the bill to a different group of people is one of the scams politicians use to steal money. Social Security wasn't origionally passed or subsequently expanded with the votes of a bunch of geriatrics. It was heartily approved of by young people. You may note that half of the Social Security tax is paid "by your employer." Of course it's really paid by you - either as lower wages you recieved or by higher prices you pay - but it looks like you're getting somethng for free, or at least for half-price. And what happened to it? Yeah, almost all of it stolen. Social Security never would have been enacted without flooding the electorate with liberal voters.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 12, 2014 3:19 PM  

I have to admit, I'm more than a little bemused to be informed that I am a faceless adherent of some guy whose name I've literally never seen before.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who said "who?" at Nick Land's name. Guess I should look him up.

It's also a little odd to see myself listed under Christian Traditionalists rather than Economists or even Masculinity

And he has Cappy Cap listed under "Masculinity" instead of Economists (at first it looks like he's a bridge between the two, but upon closer inspection there is no connecting line). Plus, Athol's MMSL is AWOL

So is Dr. Helen. Maybe this guy is just smart enough not to poke someone with the reach of Instapundit.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter January 12, 2014 3:30 PM  

"Moldbug is totally overrated, for reasons difficult to understand."

I think it has to do with his verbal incontinence.

Anonymous PA January 12, 2014 3:33 PM  

Moldbug made a lot of good and original discoveries but the faults of his worldview are:

- Overstating the "Brahmin" (intellectual) side of post-WWII politics and underestimating the "Optimate" (finance, specifically) side.

- Positively asserting that workable societies needn't be organized along ethnic or racial lines.

- Related to the above, his half-monstrous, half-technogeek Formalist utopia is nonsense

- Overstating USG's invincibility

- Never reconciling his anti-democracy with the fact that the US and EU are precisely the anti-populist governments he promotes

- Counseling inaction as the only effective opposition to the "Cathedral"

- His post on Brevik revealed a number of annoying tics, beginning with the fact that of all things you one can call him, he called him "stupid."

Anonymous Hoss January 12, 2014 3:47 PM  

"Universal equality and classical democracy are not synonymous with an all-purpose, lowest-common-denominator leveling of mankind..."

Uh, that's exactly what it is.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic January 12, 2014 3:49 PM  

What shouldn't surprise me but does is how viscerally erstwhile conservatives respond to any reactionary ideas. Liberals are always shrieking of course; it's all they do. But conservatives just act horrified that anybody dare suggest the American experiment is beginning to display a number of portents for ending very, very badly.

To my observation, the only thing conservatives are conserving at this point is 20th century American progressivism Or to put it another way, now that the Cultural Revolution is institutionalized, then that's what conservatives devote themselves to conserving.

Anonymous Godfrey January 12, 2014 3:52 PM  

"... As for classical democracy, what does that have to do with the unelected European Commission, the unelected U.S. Supreme Court, the bifactional ruling party and the "first-past-the-post" parliamentary systems, all of which are meant to strictly limit democracy and forcibly prevent people from exercising their right to value, direct, and make meaning of their own lives."


The more obvious the failure, the more desperately the fool clings to his myths.

The fact is we live in a post-Christian society. It has been a post-Christian society for centuries. What Christian capital was left was slowly spent over the centuries and has been gone for awhile now. What has replaced it isn't a nice shiny secular scientific-based egalitarian utopia, but a totalitarian hell-hole run by a small cabal of wealthy paranoid narcissistic psychopaths. And these lunatics view human life as dirt cheap.

The last century, the century secularism triumphed, was a century of STATE sponsored butchery on an utterly enormous scale. The secularists failed impressively in a significantly short amount of time. Last century’s hundreds of millions of rotting corpses are a testament to their failure. They know they failed. We know they failed. They are playing defense.

Anonymous Godfrey January 12, 2014 3:56 PM  

@jack January 12, 2014 12:37 PM
If Darth Vox, when whence his Death Star?


The Death Star? The Death Star is Washington DC. Washington DC is the destroyer of worlds.

Anonymous Judge Dredd January 12, 2014 4:37 PM  

Ever notice how the Left always characterizes its opponents with their flaws? Its not coincidental. They know NOTHING ABOUT YOU!
The Left is filled with nothing but losers who's only purpose in life is to find a niche. Leftism is nothing but the Elephant Graveyard of failed Conservatives that became Leftists because no one else wanted them.
Its "Revenge of the Nerds" writ large, with nice guys, pansies, uglies and incoherent lazy people ganging up on the Cool Kids and the Successful Ones.
Their "equality" is to tear others down, because they've fallen and won't ever get up! Your racism is better genes, your hate is their hate, and your success is the bane of their loser's life.
Take no prisoners. You don't want to be around those people!

OpenID mattse001 January 12, 2014 4:53 PM  

I especially enjoyed the "Magic the Gathering"-style trading cards. I was disappointed that Vox didn't get one of his own though.

Anonymous Godfrey January 12, 2014 4:53 PM  

There's nothing a leftist fears more than the possibility that his industrious neighbor may succeed. Better the world burns than he become conscious of his own inadequacies.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 12, 2014 4:59 PM  

"Either he has no clue what a libertarian is.." Heck, many self selected libertarians don't have a clue...heh...

Now when someone asks me what my political leanings are I can tell them Dark Enlightenment........thank you, I can die happy now.....

Anonymous patrick kelly January 12, 2014 5:00 PM  

"There's nothing a leftist fears more than the possibility that his industrious neighbor may succeed. Better the world burns than he become conscious of his own inadequacies."

Thread winner !!

Anonymous Jack Amok January 12, 2014 5:07 PM  

There's nothing a leftist fears more than the possibility that his industrious neighbor may succeed. Better the world burns than he become conscious of his own inadequacies

Jealousy is a far more dangerous sin than greed.

Blogger Harold Carper January 12, 2014 5:34 PM  

Arrogant much?

You people make it so easy.

Anonymous Breeze January 12, 2014 6:07 PM  

who the fuck is nick land? I've been hanging around this corner of the web since 07 and I've never heard of him. He sounds like some bandwagon jumper trying to hijack everyone else's hard work. Next thing I expect tim ferris to declare himself a teacher of the dark enlightenment since the beginning.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 12, 2014 6:23 PM  

Gandhi said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

We're moving from the "ignore" phase to the "laugh" phase.

But the bad guys have read Gandhi, and Alinsky. And they know that eventually, we will win.

Blogger James Dixon January 12, 2014 6:24 PM  

> I was disappointed that Vox didn't get one of his own though.

What would the card for an Internet Super-Intelligence look like? Anyone up to making one?

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 12, 2014 6:36 PM  

Also, thirded - who the hell is Nick Land? I read Vox, Sailer, Moldbug, William S. Lind, Fred Reed, VDare, Mangan, Heartiste, Bruce Charlton, Pat Buchanan,and Takimag (especially Derb) all the time, and I'd never heard of this Nick Land guy. But if a lefty declared him to be king of the Neo-Reaction, I'm suspicious.

I don't agree with all the ideas of all the above people. But that's a good thing - Neo-Reactionaries are not gape-jawed team cheerleaders like leftists are. Having a brain means thinking for yourself instead of letting the team do it for you. Allies, yes - masters, no.

As for the Sith Lord thing - a society in which good is evil, decency is hate, and sanity is "creepy", is a society that I'm happy and proud to be seen as a villain in. So first it's the "red pill", and now the red lightsaber... I'm ready for it!

Anonymous PA January 12, 2014 6:41 PM  

A point that libs don't even bother to deny is that all the intellectual activity is on the alt-Right. We won the war of ideas.

Libs are intellectually bankrupt and they know it -- liberals' thinking begins and ends with womanish snark. And they know it; as Bryan Caplan arrogantly admitted, the liberal intellectual does marketing for the ruling class.

Anonymous Salt January 12, 2014 7:15 PM  

the intellectual activity is on the alt-Right.

You got that right! Whenever I watch O'Reilly or Hannity, no matter they get one or two things right, that is apparent.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 12, 2014 7:20 PM  

This all touches on an idea I have for one of my own upcoming columns; specifically, on Bakunin's Corollary to Flair's Law.

Flair's Law states that in order to be The Man, you've gotta beat The Man.

Bakunin's Corollary is that once you do beat The Man, you then become The Man, whether or not you intended to, sought to, or said that you would when given the chance.

This is what the anarchist Bakunin was trying to tell Marx in the wake of the First International, when he told Marx that you could take the most bleeding-heart egalitarian activist in the whole world, and put him on the throne of all the Russias, with all that money and power available to him, and within a year he'd be worse than the Tsar. Which of course, history bore out as being completely true.

Leftism beat The Man, if by that we mean the cultural forces that made up the power structure that ran the United States and the West as a whole in, say, 1962. But then it became The Man - and is as stifling, repressive, intolerant of dissent, culturally and intellectually stagnant, arrogant, and lost in Normalcy Bias as anyone who has ever been The Man has ever been.

They're stale, boring, old and busted... there's no excitement there, no matter how much their shills in Hollywood try to artificially breathe synthetic cool into these ideas. All the new ideas, the excitement, and the thrill of flipping the bird at The Man is in libertarianism and the Neo-Reaction. Today, the new Kerouacs, Burroughses, and Dylans are all there. And it's very exciting indeed.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 12, 2014 8:07 PM  

"Last century’s hundreds of millions of rotting corpses are a testament to their failure. They know they failed. We know they failed."

They don't know they failed. To them, the mountains of corpses was part of the point. It was what they WANTED, and continue to want. They think they succeeded, and they think they're winning now. What keeps me awake at night is the thought that they're probably correct.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 12, 2014 8:28 PM  

Then in Our American Pravda Ron Unz chronicles his discovery that the Media lies.

If you thought John Kerry was bad, get a load of Shameless McAmnesty

Not to mention how bad the government is.

While he does not mention it, now that the Clintons seem to have derailed the Fat Man's presidential run, is there no dirt that can be dug up on Hillary apart from the fact that she is a late blooming lesbian and incredibly incompetent?

Anonymous Rollory January 12, 2014 8:55 PM  

Nick Land is basically a self-appointed guru who seems to be trying to take the whole dark enlightenment concept and steer it into techno-economic libertarianism and futurism. I have never read a single thing he has written that didn't leave me feeling I had wasted my time, and I am not reading anything further from him.

If he successfully captures the label for whatever it is he wants to advocate, it is a pity, because it is a good label. But the people who have made this something interesting will not be following.

Anonymous Red January 12, 2014 9:20 PM  

"I especially enjoyed the "Magic the Gathering"-style trading cards. I was disappointed that Vox didn't get one of his own though."

Vox is very much an independent thinker that while well respected and much loved, isn't part of the neo-reactionary movement. I don't think Vox is interested in joining or forming his own movements. Sometimes a great man is just man and not a movement.

Blogger Doorstop January 12, 2014 9:46 PM  

Heh...stumbled across and read Sigl's article just yesterday and was pleased to wake up this morning and see Vox writing about it. The "Magic the Gathering"-style cards appear to originate from this website which Sunshine Mary linked to on her blog. Someone made a card for her, and there are a lot of other cards too, so I was disappointed to see that no one has made a card for Vox yet.

Anonymous Tizona January 12, 2014 9:48 PM  

It's surprising, if not shocking, that Vox is unfamiliar with his betters. Nick Land and the Speculative Realists are true scholars, and terrifying thinkers. The closely related OOP school is an adult version of Vox's "game designed universe."

Maybe it's time for Vox to step up to the big leagues and pick a fight with Land, Negestrani, and friends.

Boy, would that be amusing.

Anonymous daddynichol January 12, 2014 10:09 PM  

Breeze:
who the fuck is nick land? I've been hanging around this corner of the web since 07 and I've never heard of him. He sounds like some bandwagon jumper trying to hijack everyone else's hard work. Next thing I expect tim ferris to declare himself a teacher of the dark enlightenment since the beginning.


Sounds like he's the step cousin of Scalzi.

Anonymous The CronoLink January 13, 2014 12:27 AM  

First, the Imperial March at your wedding day; now, officially accused of being part of the Dark side of the Enlightenment. The Circle is now complete.

Anonymous Toby Temple January 13, 2014 12:37 AM  

Hmmm.... new tagline?

Vox Popoli

Dark Lord of the Sith

Anonymous Eric Ashley January 13, 2014 12:54 AM  

Vox's card?

A pale-faced demon prince in suit and tie, with an overlarge head (like The Leader in Incredible Hulk), spreading dark bat wings with little talons, kicking a soccer ball.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 13, 2014 1:00 AM  

and terrifying thinkers

Did you misspell "terrible"?

Anonymous Roundtine January 13, 2014 2:05 AM  

I collected a lot of neoreactionary blogs and fellow travelers (such as paleocons) here: Unorthodoxy

OpenID mattse001 January 13, 2014 2:41 AM  

Not bad, Eric Ashley. Now we just need a caption as good as "Disappears in a cloud of exo-semantics, becoming politically unclassifiable & thus untargetable."

Anonymous Andre B January 13, 2014 8:30 AM  

This whole Neoreaction movement is really, really interesting, but I can't shake the feeling that they hate Conservative Christians just as much as they hate leftists.

Blogger Racket Mensch January 13, 2014 10:22 AM  

Andre - some conservative Christians (in name) are indeed hated, because they are hateful. The "Reverend" Hagee is orders of magnitude worse than the "Reverend" Jackson, for instance. Neuhouse, Weigle, and co., who selectively ignore Commandments that are inconvenient to their agendas. You know, hypocrites.

Anonymous Andre January 13, 2014 11:14 AM  

I don't mean it that way. I mean they actually believe G. K. Chesterton was a fool and a midwit. And they seem to have an admiration with Nietzsche and with the idea of the ubermensch (specifically the will to power).

From what I understand, in their want for traditionalism (which we share), they wish to quickly separate themselves from the barbarians. Here I'll just state my personal position so you know I (probably, hopefully) have no prejudices: I consider myself a Conservative Christian, and I have no problem with their HBD studies. Truth is truth and if they're correct about it, then so be it. So they draw maps to separate peoples by ethnicity, for example. Nothing much different from Vox's views here and no objections here.

The thing is that they're quick to elect themselves as the Aristocracy to come and to categorize Conservative Christians as a stumbling block on the road to their ideal: "a Conservative would rather have an elected Trotsky than an unelected Marcus Aurelius". I confess I still harbor some romantic feelings (naive, I know) for Democracy, but wasn't the Roman emperor actually a persecutor of the Christians? Even if that's beside the point, the secular Neoreactionaries are pretty excited about this whole Realtalk (Neo-Reactionaries - When an ideology is pre-immunized against Christianity).

Anyway, for now it all seems a bit messy. I've seen some anarchist NRs defend monarchy for its hierarchy system and attack Conservatism. Reminds me of Russell Kirk's article Libertarians: the Chirping Sectaries, where he defended that Conservatives and Libertarians could never be actual allies. Well, guess what? It seems this whole movement may be the birth of another, different kind of self-proclaimed antagonist: one that's traditionalist, but not necessarily Christian.

Anonymous Josh January 13, 2014 11:28 AM  

The neo reactionaries seem to be remarkable uneducated and illiterate (in the Twain sense).

They're really not much different from your conventional Republican in the way that their positions are simply the opposite of their opponents.

Both conservatism (starting with Burke) and libertarianism (starting with the Austrians) have much richer ideas.

These idiots remind me of the teenagers who think they've just invented sex.

Anonymous Andre January 13, 2014 11:42 AM  

Here's what they'll call "The Conservative Mind": early American liberalism.


"They're really not much different from your conventional Republican in the way that their positions are simply the opposite of their opponents."


Oh and many of them have a specific contempt for Protestants, too. Including Nietzschean Catholics and it seems like they'd rather ally themselves with secular Monarchists. They're picking many opponents. It boggles the mind how they'd pass on so many natural allies against the Cathedral and instead just place themselves in a position that alienates pretty much everyone that's not a NR.

Blogger Racket Mensch January 13, 2014 11:42 AM  

NR's and DE's are all over the intellectual map, otherwise they'd just be Reactionaries (my own preferred position, [I think]) - "no enemies on the right" might move the ball down field, but the schisms are already apparent. The big question for me is whether the postmodern wasteland can be reclaimed or routed around somehow. Conservatives, except RonPaul, seem to be mostly conserving the liberalism of last year.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic January 13, 2014 11:51 AM  

The only thing the conservatives are conserving is 20th century American progressivism. Now that cultural Marxism has been institutionalized then, per Burke, that's what conservatives are fighting to conserve.

Those libertarians who want to maintain ideological consistency have an intractable problem which they are unable to address: a solid one-third of the population lacks the intelligence and impulse control necessary to self-sufficient existence in a free society. So either the libertarians bring back slavery, or they carve out their own region and exile anti-libertarian dissenters and patrol the borders with machine guns. Either way, they're no longer libertarian.

Anonymous Andre January 13, 2014 12:06 PM  

The thing is that they're not attacking the new Conservative, who has adopted many progressive ideals but still labels himself with an old term.

From: The Conservative Mind After Forty Years: An Interview with Russell Kirk

"Kirk: This word, conservative, is a fairly old one. It became a term of politics only in the early years of the nineteenth century, appearing first in France, to describe those politicians who wanted to reconcile the best of the old order with the necessities of the new age—and who had read Burke usually. And then the term passes to England early in the nineteenth century, and was presently embraced by what had been the Tory party, which took their new title of Conservative party, meaning that they represented a fusion of the so-called Portland Whigs—followers of Burke—with the Tories who held office. And then it passed to America in the 1840s. It was first employed in America by John C. Calhoun and Orestes Brownson, the Catholic writer, and has lasted until the present time. Metternich, when he lived in England as an exile, suggested to Disraeli that he ought to continue to abandon the term “Tory party” and call it the “Conservative.” And with that powerful endorsement it so remained. Of course there is some talk (nowadays) of having some new term. And, indeed, terms of politics do change as circumstances change. There is a small group of people who like to speak now of “Nationalism” rather than conservatism. Nationalism, as it is displayed at present in Bosnia, is not a very attractive prospect."

So maybe instead of Neoreactionary I should start labeling myself Paleoconservative? I mean, the NRs would still hate me and see me as their enemy, since they're against the original term, That's my point. They're against the new AND the old Conservatives.

Blogger Racket Mensch January 13, 2014 2:32 PM  

Some are, some aren't. A big eye-opener for me was Moldbug's "Why I am not a libertarian", if not completely convincing. Divided sovereignty leads to anarcho-tyranny which combines the worst of both parents without the positives of either. It seems to have gone off the rails at the time of the Stewarts. Frankly, James I screwed the pooch, and we've been paying for it since, but I see no way to get there from here, so, if I HAD to take a label it would be paleo-libertarian, but even that is obviously somewhat incoherent from the red-pill perspective. Can we agree that the current arrangement is intolerable and getting worse? I might be a slave, but I'm not going to chain myself to the oar, Noam Sain?

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic January 13, 2014 2:41 PM  

I concur, Racket. We can't be monarchists again. The lines of succession are hopelessly muddled and we couldn't agree on who would crown the king in any event--Catholic bishop, Orthodox bishop, the Missouri Synod? Monarchy is over and done, like the paganism of antiquity.

There are some policies we could implement to turn things around, and they are highly distasteful to most people, so things will just have to run their course.

Anonymous Samson J. January 13, 2014 7:29 PM  

@Andre B:

This whole Neoreaction movement is really, really interesting, but I can't shake the feeling that they hate Conservative Christians just as much as they hate leftists.

They generally do, though some of them hide it to greater or lesser extents. Bruce Charlton has written quite a lot about the difference between (Christian) reaction and (secular) Neo-reaction, and why one of these holds promise, and one of them will never be more than guys talking on the internet.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic January 13, 2014 10:46 PM  

Bruce Charlton is also scared to death of weightlifting, tattoos and heavy metal music.

Here's his three point plan.

He's also enamored with Mormonism, which is not quite as bad as Scientology, but is still a pseudo-Christian heresy that not even its elders believe, which is why they're turning it into another unitiarian-universalist book club.

When TSHTF, people like Charlton will be useless, cowering in fear.

Anonymous Samson J. January 14, 2014 4:01 PM  

Bruce Charlton is also scared to death of weightlifting, tattoos and heavy metal music.

That's a terrible misreading of him, but he's a grown lad; I'm not here to defend him. The point stands that most people in the secular neo-Reaction are the types who like to talk online, but that's about it.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic January 14, 2014 10:03 PM  

most people in the secular neo-Reaction are the types who like to talk online, but that's about it.

Yeah. I mean, Bruce is actually out there on the front lines thinking it!

Anonymous Rollory January 18, 2014 8:46 AM  

"The lines of succession are hopelessly muddled and we couldn't agree on who would crown the king in any event--Catholic bishop, Orthodox bishop, the Missouri Synod? Monarchy is over and done"

What utter nonsense is this?

You don't start a monarchy by tracing it back to some failed confusion of inbreeding. It may provide political cover, but it's not what does it. What does it is a capable man seizing power and using it wisely, and then passing it on to his son who doesn't screw it up.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts