Dark Enlightenment

If you don't know what the Dark Enlightenment is, you ain't woke.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment

Dark enlightenment is a bit of a meme. The most interesting thinker out of that entire sphere of thought was Mencius Moldbug and he is clearly stuck on this one idea he had, which was admittedly a very good one, his deconstruction of 'democratic history', but he never really moved on.

Nick Land is amusing and intelligent, but resembles the schizophrenia of a Deleuze more than anything noticeably new and sophisticated.

dark enlightenment just sounds cool, it's a shitty ideology. the only thing they get right is that progressivism is a religion.

reinstating a monarchy is fine and all but it's fucking worthless unless the monarch is a tyrant upholding truth, justice and decency like that romanian cunt because i refuse to believe that the problem with modern society is that people can't get shit done because they don't lead for long enough.

There is no being 'woke', no ideology will save you from the inevitable decay of your physical body. What is it that you think that identifying as 'x' will accomplish?

Nobody is discussing personal salvation, crypto-Christfaggot. Only you are.

i think he was refering to immortality

I've been following AmRen since 2006.
Great guys.

That's what Christfaggotry promises.

and science delivers

Wow, you're fucking projecting which is not surprising given the intellectual laziness associated with bandwagoning behind your ideology. Belief is the death of intelligence, and no I'm not a christfag. Even if I were, that's a logical fallacy kiddo. I am as nihilist as it gets, and I don't enjoy it.

The principles of liberalism self destructive. An ideologically consistent liberal must not practice discrimination against individuals whose entire worldview is an antithesis to liberalism. In this way liberalism consumes itself. Muslims are a perfect example of this. Biological equality is unscientific.

Social equality is a French enlightenment ideal it is NOT a law of nature. It is interesting to see liberalism consuming itself in France, where all this madness began. A good book on this subject, decline of the West by Oswald spengler.

I can't tolerate the dark enlightenment people because it's basically a camp for racists and cryptofascists who try to hide their hatred behind pleb-tier philosophical obfuscation

traditionalism is where it is at

What's the difference honestly? The main theme of the dark enlightenment is a revolt/rejection of modernity. I would assume traditionalism is similar. Why do you consider it racist and what makes you feel that racial isolationism is morally repugnant?

>he doesn't like Hoppe

I wouldn't say they are all 'fascists', more so that they acknowledge that democracy and liberalism are destined to perish in the west.

don't know Hoppe, what is he about

Debate me faggots

your cucumbers are soft
and your garden is overgrown

...

>dark enlightenment is a revolt/rejection of modernity

you mean postmodernism, but yeah it is essentially reactionary. I should've clarified I was talking about academic traditionalism, if that helps

DE exists on the blogosphere, which isn't bad inherently but it is certainly clique-based. And among the cliques they accept tacitly are white supremacists and monarchists

any movement needs a brand, a symbol that being either a person, a central ideology, an aesthetic, something that people will resonate with. The Dark Enlightenment seems like a fragmented in centralized mess of ideologies (they're good ideologies don't get me wrong, but it's all over the place). There's no organization or group or activity within this movement, just talk.

My cucumbers are hard, and I have no problem driving my hard cucumbers into your soft top soil. The sight of your moist garden soil simply causes my cucumbers to grow harder.

you think you played me as a Tony Baloney
but you have yet to feel the wrath of THIS SON OF A SHEPHERD!

They are. I am reading Sam Francis right now. He basically was a proto-Trumpist in the 1990s and 2000s who spoke honestly about race and had a national column. Too bad he died in 2005.

>among the cliques they tacitly accept are white supremacists and monarchists

And? Liberalism isn't actually liberalism if it cannot accept a discussion of these ideas.

sure they can discuss them, but the ideas are retarded

white supremacists are either blinded by hate or just simply haven't interacted with educated non-whites

pro-monarch sentiment can be countered by studying European history

>racists and cryptofascists
Spotted the crypto-shill.

>blinded by hate
What does that even mean? Can a person be blinded by love?

There are various ways in which a person may think the white race is intellectually or creatively superior that has nothing to do with 'hate'.

I personally do not feel that races are inferior or superior, but I do not think that racial isolationism is the same as a fanatical belief in racial superiority.

In a white exclusive society would whites not reign as supreme? What is retarded about that?

Is traditional Japan not a Japanese supremacist society?

...

Interacting with other races is anecdotal. Averages always assert themselves when a group grows larger.

>I am as nihilist as it gets and I don't enjoy it
I bet you've a wicked sense of humor too.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

>using niggaspeak
>talks of being enlightened

top jej

Some solid Pareto right there

>he thinks it might be sarcasm
Get a load of this goy!

I am, my dude!

It's almost too much!

MUH IMPERIUM
MUH TRADITION
MUH REVOLUTION OF 1789

Are you illuminati?

What was your introduction to DE and Neo-reaction? I started reading about human bio-diversity because of Sup Forums and went down the rabbit hole to traditionalism and unironically quoting Evola. It's been a wild ride.

I am literally the champion debator of Sup Forums.

Has anyone here even read any Evola, Guenon, or Schmitt? Or does everyone mainly read the bloggish stuff. I guess Alain de Benoist has some interesting work. Anyone confirm or deny?

The YouTube channel expanding Overton.

>Can a person be blinded by love?


Totally invoking jesus on this one

A huge section of my MA thesis focuses on Plato and the sacred science. Evola is someone I reference regularly. It's a pretty wild ride.

Well there is Jonathan bowden as well.

If you've read Evola, check out Schmitt. Political Romanticism is 10/10 polemic, and his heartier stuff is CoP and Nomos. Guenon will take you further down the holism rabbit hole.

I'm completely secular, just to be clear.

I'm a little scared to continue down the rabbit hole. I already feel like I've overdosed on red pills.

nah you just provided my point with this post

Dude. I'm reading about alchemy and hermetics and finding the same symbolism in Platonic dialogues.

Don't even get me started ahaha.

No, why do you ask?

What made you ask that?

Not an argument ;^)

Because you are obviously illuminati bro

Not an argument.

I'm asking as a favor; could you please explain why you think I'm illuminati?

>pro-monarch sentiment can be countered by studying European history
The downfall of the monarchy ushered in the most brutal and bloody period that humanity has ever known. That said, I am inclined to agree with Evola that everything has been downhill since Rome. I would not uphold the European kings as the paragons of monarchy.

A year ago I would have dismissed it all as /x/ garbage, but as I study I find the spiritual aspects increasingly compelling. We have discarded so much traditional knowledge in the name of science.

me too , im all about physics, science and natural will

>as a favor

Exactly what the illuminati would say. You think I'm an idiot? I can smell the illuminati a mile away.

In Democracy Hoppe describes a fully libertarian society of "covenant communities" made up of residents who have signed an agreement defining the nature of that community. Hoppe writes "There would be little or no ‘tolerance’ and ‘openmindedness’ so dear to left-libertarians. Instead, one would be on the right path toward restoring the freedom of association and exclusion implied in the institution of private property". Hoppe writes that towns and villages could have warning signs saying "no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus".[23][24]

Hoppe writes:

In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.[25]

Dawg, it's called sacred science for a reason. The alchemic part only posed as science to communicate a secret teaching about nature and man's place. A lot of it was to bridge the dualism created by natural philosophy, aka primitve science.

Aight, I'm just gonna end this; I've lost interest.

It piqued my curiosity, but certainly you're not gonna explain.

Illuminati confirmed

I've mostly been focused on the more political and practical side of traditional philosophy and haven't dug too deeply into hermeticism and alchemy. Where did you start?

>monarchism

>a fucking leaf

>an argument

There's no best place to start. It's kind like trying to read Hegel. I guess a good beginning is to acquaint yourself with any set of European myths. I went with the Greeks. Myths are always a means of explaining or commenting on natural and social phenomena. They're pregnant with esoteric meaning. Then acquaint yourself with basic symbolism. Cirlot, Jung, Evola, and Guenon all talk about it extensively. Just grab something like Evola's The Hermetic Tradition, read it, pick a myth, and then see what you can find.

For me it was when the numales and feminists in charge of the Strange Loop conference banned Curtis Yarvin from attending due to his Dark Enlightenment views. I'd never heard of Curtis, DE, Moldbug, or even Strange Loop before then. Ironically it was their attempt to punish Curtis for his beliefs that ended up spreading them.

check 'em. I'm already familiar with Evola's writing style so I suppose that's a good place to start.

It was inevitable. You'd think at some point humans would remember about the Streisand effect.

Mercy is FOR the weak. And all strength is relative.

In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

-Matthew 7:12

...

Probably read Revolt Against the Modern World before reading Evola's lesser-known works. He gives you his (incredibly complex) worldview in Revolt; and you'll better understand his other works if you read Revolt first. It helped me, at least.

It's so peculiar to think back to your schoolboy years

Being told about the "progress" we've made

How "evil" and "ignorant" and "wrong" and "cruel" our ancestors were

I see it all now

They weren't evil, they were redpilled

Human rights, democracy, liberty, etc. are all fairytales invented by the weak and conniving to control the powerful

Yeah, the big thing is having your feet wet with what he's alluding to. Trying to read Evola without knowing what he's referencing is kinda like trying to read Nietzsche without knowing to who or what he's replying. Have fun bro

Paleolibertarian/anarcho capitalist/Catholic recognized by many in the Mises Institute as Murray Rothbards greatest successor