The Dark Enlightenment

Anti-enlightenment philosophy
Constraining the state
New attempt at subsuming government
Establishment referred to as ‘the cathedral’ – NGOs, gov’t and Academia’s fallacious attempt at controlling things
Historical rhythm of the rise of the east – magnitude that cannot be ignored
Ideological freedom of Europe – declining matrix in 20th century, liberal suicide
Comparison of Internet era and Gutenberg era
Challenge to (catholic) hegemony, Martin Luther
Fukuyama end of history type theory, anti-‘globalist’ heresy
Brexit = ‘failure of liberal world order’ – exporting democracy, neoconservatism – end result of democracy itself?
Destiny of western Christianity
Political orthodoxy as religious zealot-ism
Age of exploration and colonialism meeting other cultures discovering particularism of theory – beliefs not universal but parochial assumptions
Cultural pathology of crime
Skepticism of western trajectory – modernity as mistake
Ethnic specificity, derision of assumed universal ethics
Social disfunction – ‘no-go zones’, result of west’s ‘open door policy’
Invade the world / invite the world

notes from: The Dark Enlightenment; Neo-reaction and modernity. Interview of Nick Sand by RedIce.TV – https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/the-dark-enlightenment-neoreaction-and-modernity

Additional text from Manifesto @ thedarkenlightenment.com

His awakening into neo-reaction comes with the (Hobbesian) recognition that sovereignty cannot be eliminated, caged, or controlled. Anarcho-capitalist utopias can never condense out of science fiction, divided powers flow back together like a shattered Terminator, and constitutions have exactly as much real authority as a sovereign interpretative power allows them to have. The state isn’t going anywhere because — to those who run it — it’s worth far too much to give up, and as the concentrated instantiation of sovereignty in society, nobody can make it do anything. If the state cannot be eliminated, Moldbug argues, at least it can be cured of democracy (or systematic and degenerative bad government), and the way to do that is to formalize it. This is an approach he calls ‘neo-cameralism’.

To a neocameralist, a state is a business which owns a country. A state should be managed, like any other large business, by dividing logical ownership into negotiable shares, each of which yields a precise fraction of the state’s profit. (A well-run state is very profitable.) Each share has one vote, and the shareholders elect a board, which hires and fires managers.

This business’s customers are its residents. A profitably-managed neocameralist state will, like any business, serve its customers efficiently and effectively. Misgovernment equals mismanagement.

Firstly, it is essential to squash the democratic myth that a state ‘belongs’ to the citizenry. The point of neo-cameralism is to buy out the real stakeholders in sovereign power, not to perpetuate sentimental lies about mass enfranchisement. Unless ownership of the state is formally transferred into the hands of its actual rulers, the neo-cameral transition will simply not take place, power will remain in the shadows, and the democratic farce will continue.

So, secondly, the ruling class must be plausibly identified. It should be noted immediately, in contradistinction to Marxist principles of social analysis, that this is not the ‘capitalist bourgeoisie’. Logically, it cannot be. The power of the business class is already clearly formalized, in monetary terms, so the identification of capital with political power is perfectly redundant. It is necessary to ask, rather, who do capitalists pay for political favors, how much these favors are potentially worth, and how the authority to grant them is distributed. This requires, with a minimum of moral irritation, that the entire social landscape of political bribery (‘lobbying’) is exactly mapped, and the administrative, legislative, judicial, media, and academic privileges accessed by such bribes are converted into fungible shares. Insofar as voters are worth bribing, there is no need to entirely exclude them from this calculation, although their portion of sovereignty will be estimated with appropriate derision. The conclusion of this exercise is the mapping of a ruling entity that is the truly dominant instance of the democratic polity. Moldbug calls it the Cathedral.

//

As well as being some of the philosophy that has influenced me on this course, this is my exact idea from before – though this theory is at least a decade old. I had thought that with the advent of the Internet, it should be possible to have an ‘Open source Gov’t’, where every single policy decision has a poll online, and it is up to each citizen on how deeply to interact with decision making.

 

 

Advertisements
The Dark Enlightenment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s