I first heard about Dark Enlightenment or the Neoreactionary movement probably a decade ago, but I was an Obamabot and just thought "Huh, weird, anyway".
I finally sat down and spent a few hours reading An Open Letter to Open Minded Progressives. Especially as someone who already had tried to rid himself of progressive thoughts and beliefs, it was quite a ride.
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded-progressives/
Overall I find his ideas and arguments fascinating. The claim that our modern progressives as the direct heirs of Protestantism/Whigs is quite the claim, but I think it makes sense. The way that he lays out the history of the Whigs and the Tories and their respective religious factions and how the Whigs won and that their religion and ideology is the literal foundation of our culture to me rings at a bare minimum as partially correct.
It just makes too much sense that something like the Inner Light doctrine would naturally evolve into "No human is illegal", or whatever slogan they're throwing around about how we're all exactly equal and the same. Even the sect I was raised in (Mormonism...I know) experimented in communistic communes and I can't even tell the difference between Mormons (The heads of the church, not necessarily the individual adherents) and Globalists anymore, which I think was inevitable due to the way that they proselytize globally.
When he brings up the Malvern Conference I honestly was speechless. A giant representative coalition of American Christians came together to produce a document demanding No Borders, One World Government, International Control of all Armies and Navies, etc, is almost unbelievable. Unless he's correct that whether folks are aware of it or not, nearly all of us are Whigs, who would make argument for such things and have consistently for hundreds of years?
I assume some people here have read him before, what do you think? I find his diagnosis and historical narrative of our country incredibly persuasive, but I'm not sold on his prescription (Restoration of the Stuarts). If nothing else, I am quite moved by the argument that we're all Whigs. Obviously not literally 100% of Americans, just like 99%.
u/Gizortnik
Indeed. He sounds incredibly similar to Moldbug.
A random quote:
America basically was founded as a White Country (Because, you know, our founders emigrated from Europe and England specifically), and if one thinks that Moldbug is correct on our history, we didn't even "embrace" leftism, we seem to have always been. The idea that an ethno-state will serve as any sort of bulwark against leftist-ism/progressivism/collectivism does seem rather just flat out wrong historically.
/u/Ralt & u/MilkPilled
Honestly, I think I've read Moldbug once, and I didn't agree with him because he was a bit too black-pilled. But his comments about the Cathedral are absolutely true.
I just happen to think it might be even less organized than that because of how rapidly the scope of The Cathedral has actually grown in recent decades. The Social Justice Rackets have invited every single sociopath, narcicist, and degenerate into a position of hall-monitor/internet-janitor levels of power to expand The Cathedral well beyond it's normal reach.
The Cathedral is still supposed to be an elite vangaurd for pushing Fabian Socialism, but it seems like the "Mass Society" dynamic has actually caught up to the Cathedral itself, and it has begun expanding so fast that it is breaking itself down. It is hoping to profit off of balkanizing and partitioning people into controllable segments, but you can't populate the cathedral with that many predators without someone getting their throat bit.
I actually see all of human society moving towards liberalization in this century in the same way early 20th century and late 19th century historians and political scientists saw human societies moving towards Socialism due to the human comodificaiton of the industrial revolution. As such, the Fabian Socialist Syndicate (read: Cathedral) has effectively found itself in a power 'bubble' that is about to burst. They know something's wrong and they are resorting to it by trying to double down on totalitarianism; but the radical left are moving from Global Syndicalism to Anachro Syndicalism which will still lead to the total destruction of the the current political order.
From my view, the entire current political order is dead and no one knows it.
But anyways, that doesn't matter against Ralt's point.
Not only due the White Naitonalists not understand that "whiteness" doesn't protect against Leftism. Whiteness is Leftism. Whiteness was European Homo Globo for the 18th Century, and it really does stem from English Supremacism along with the construction of the purely abstract "British" identity. Whiteness, at the time, was a multi-ethnic identity. White ethno-nationalism, is effectively an oxymoron. It is why Whiteness never caught on as a construct in Europe, and why the French never really adopted it either. It's why "Identity Europe" will fail, and any White Nationalists should be utterly opposed to people like Adolf Hitler and National Socialism if they had any honesty, since he slaughtered Whites. The thought white slaves were as worthy of extermination as anyone else.
The construction of an "inter-temporal abstraction" to turn into a single, socialized, body-politic, that represented a myth of a race (what Hitler called, a "Volksgemeinschaft") is a Leftist tactic. No different when they do the same thing with Labor, Women, Gays, Blacks, Immigrants, or even Islam. This is why it is so important to recognize the use of White Racialism for Democrats to seize power from Republicans during Reconstruction, and institute a one party state in the Solid South. It should not be a surprise that Woodrow Wilson was a Progressive Racialist. It should also be no surprise that Richard Spencer is pulling the same stunt, and I still argue will be the leading White Nationalist in the world within a decade; as he is slowly adopting a political strategy to infiltrate the concept of "White Affinity" on the Left. The only reason that the Democratic Party ever appeared to abandon Racialism was so that they could subvert the American people's natural Liberal instincts. Their attack on the Dixiecrats is no different from any other purge that the Left has ever conducted when it's leadership changed direction and declared that they were always at war with East Asia.
The John Birch Society was right about Communist infiltration and direct-action within the Civil Rights movement. We are seeing the direct descendants of those radicals within the movement operating today under the same arguments. Barry Goldwater was right about the 1964 Civil Rights act, because in 1965 the Left immediately started arguing that legal equality wasn't enough and racial discrimination through Affirmative Action was necessary; but the American people of the time period thought it an incredible contradiction considering what they had said before, and this started to stall the movement. In response to this stalling, the Civil Rights movement descended into open violence as Leftist Racialists struck out against a weakened Fabian Democratic Socialist order (like the Anachro-Syndicalists of Spain struck out against the Fabian Spanish Republicans as the Spanish Civil War broke out), and allowed an alleged Rightist, but political Leftist, Nixon (like Franco) to take power.
They keep doing the same shit, in the same ways, with same mistakes, every fucking time. I'd ask how this could be possible, but if they were capable of learning, they wouldn't be Socialists.
In the end, the Racialist "Right" are the single most dangerous force to the Right at this point because their reactionary attitudes allow them to disguise themselves as being anti-Left, while profiting off of resentment mongering that the other progressive racialists have stoked. They serve as a useful structure to undermine and de-legitimize all anti-Leftist movements by being controlled opposition based on their policies that are Leftists in all but name.
I have another problem with Political Catholicism... of which the entire concept of Social Justice stems, but that's a different essay for another time.
I don't know, what do you guys think? Does that sound like Moldbug?
I don't have anything to add I just figured I'd enjoy your thoughts. I mostly just follow Nick Fuentes and don't know how much their views overlap
Thanks. Not a fan of Fuentes tbh.
I don't know exactly how to describe what you sound like other than you seem to be trying to objectively describe reality and history. Which I do think is similar, but perhaps that's because I'm really just becoming aware that I was still viewing the world through progressive lenses (ie. democratic or whig) and anyone speaking from a perspective truly outside of the cathedral sounds similar to me as it's not the same propaganda I've heard my entire life.
I've long been a fan of history and science, so I have long spoken about it objectively. When I realized how much bullshit I had consumed, that same focus on history and science pulled me pretty violently clear because I couldn't rationalize the old narrative with the specific facts in my hand.
As such, speaking from (not exactly an objective standpoint) but a narrative that rejects the mainstream fabain socialist narrative's tropes, it can sound more objective because it ends up having more nuance and showing all sides in more human ways.
When I try to speak truly objectively, I'll tend to try and weave the different perspectives together with the individual events, so you understand how each faction saw the same thing.