No. Really. The Dark Enlightenment…

is something no Catholic should touch with a barge pole.

  • Andy, Bad Person

    Wait, wait. “The Dark Enlightenment” is an actual named person/organization? I thought it was another ad hoc group you were talking about!

    • HornOrSilk
      • Nick Corrado

        As far as I know it’s just another name for the Neoreaction. That Twitter account has no authority, although I wouldn’t say it’s not representative. Racism among the Neoreactionaries is really common.

      • Andy, Bad Person

        I don’t even…

      • orual’s kindred

        Found these too:

        http://the-american-catholic.com/2014/01/29/brace-yourselves-the-dark-enlightenment-is-upon-us/

        http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/jamiebartlett/100012093/meet-the-dark-enlightenment-sophisticated-neo-fascism-thats-spreading-fast-on-the-net/

        http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/the_dark_enlightenment_hits_stage_two.html

        Quote from the American Thinker article: This is not neo-fascism but an intriguing idea, and it connects with the fact of early individualism in England and augments Max Weber’s idea that Christianity broke down tribalism in European cities by teaching its adherents to trust non-kin and thus cooperate in “corporate” institutions.

        and

        Moldbug simply calls the church of the academy, the media, the policy analysts, and the cultural production guys in Hollywood “the Cathedral.”

        Interesting.

        • Ben

          “The Cathedral” , that’s the name the white separatists chose for their enemies? I smell Uncle Screwtape. Somewhere he is having a good laugh over this.

          • Tom Smith

            The “Synagogue” and the “Hive” would be more appropriate, perhaps, but given the soft, corrupted nature of modern Catholics–particularly on display at this site–the “Cathedral” is more than apt.

            • orual’s kindred

              I didn’t know a cathedral was softer than a hive :-D Or a synagogue, for that matter!

      • Andy, Bad Person

        Like most movements, they do a good job of seeing what’s wrong and a horrible job of coming up with solutions.

        I can’t tell if they’re feudalists, fascists, white supremacists, or all of the above.

        • jroberts548

          I don’t think you can say that white supremacists do a good job of seeing what’s wrong.

          ETA: Yeah, 4 downvotes!

          • Andy, Bad Person

            Most people, white supremacists included, can see what’s wrong (mostly). The trouble is their approach to fixing it. White supremacists see other races as the the source of these problems, when obviously they’re not. That doesn’t mean there is no problem at all.

            • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

              In fact, the most reliable method that I’ve found to ‘defang’ this sort of thing is what was used to defang the dixiecrats. The major parties adopted their entire platform except for their racism, leaving them with only one issue to campaign on and they withered and died as a movement because of that very deft counter.

            • jroberts548

              What non-obvious problems have these dark enlightenment fools identified? I tried poking around at occamsrazormag, linked to above, and saw only a bunch of racist bullshit.

              • Andy, Bad Person

                Oh, I didn’t say they incisively identified anything that hasn’t been noticed before, any more than the Tea Party is the first group to notice out-of-control spending and power-grabs by politicians. How either group chooses to go about solving those problems (racism from the DE crowd, ???? from the Tea Party) is where they break off from reality.

            • Tom Smith

              The source of these problems also include Jews, liberals, Christians, and others.

        • Christopher David Williams

          They are monarchists, anti-egalitarians, sexists, and racists (with the latter terms being used objectively, not as pejoratives i.e. they recognise gender and racial differences as being real).

          • chezami

            No. What they recognize is primarily about who is superior and who is inferior, according to race and gender. And the guy whose tweet I mentioned is where this movement is headed, because the gospel, frankly doesn’t care about such issues while they are the raison d’etre of the DE “thinkers”. It is a movement that is at fundamental odds with the gospel. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female. For the DE, it is *all about* the ethnos and gender differences. Racialism, and particularly, post-Christian racialism, is going to be fundamentally hostile to the gospel, which is why so many of these nuts are turning to bullshit “northern” paganism and complaining of the Faith as “liberal”. They feed off clueless conservative hostility to PC and label the Church’s teaching as PC as well. And discernment free conservatives fall for it. Poison.

            • Christopher David Williams

              What can I say? You’re wrong about the philosophical tenets of neoreaction. The guy whose tweet you mentioned is where the movement is heading away from. Internet bullies and keyboard warriors attach themselves to new movements. As the movement grows, and the participation of Catholics awakened to the traditional teaching of the Church on these matters increases, these elements will be crowded out.

              Surely you don’t believe that people’s DNA changes when they become Christian, or that the Church teaches there are no differences between men and women?

              • chezami

                The Church’s teaching will not influence this movement. It will be crowded out by racialist nutjobs and post-Christian pagans, because it is a movement that is primarily about power, pride, and racialism. Its emphasis is not on “difference” but on superiority and inferiority.

  • wlinden

    Umm, couldn’t possibly be a troll?

  • Cypressclimber

    And why does the Great and Powerful Shea think this is worth drawing attention to?

    A friend of mine has a saying: keep your eye on the main chance; don’t stop to kick every barking dog.

    • chezami

      Because it’s emblematic of the mindset of DE types.

      • Christopher David Williams

        Howso?

  • Tom

    Is…is that person actually serious?

  • Stu

    Is anyone actually touching this guy with a barge pole. I wouldn’t call 400+ followers that menacing.

    • HornOrSilk

      Look to the movement. Look to Mencius Moldbug, for example. Yes, this is actually spreading (thanks to the internet)

      • Stu

        I think many who are on the Internet everyday sometimes think that everyone is on the Internet and of course wandering in our same circles.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        Now Moldbug looks like someone who bears watching. Someone who is assembling the shiny bits and pieces from a number of philosophies and is open about it is not likely to understand the second order effects that will be the effect of including these bits and pieces in a haphazard way without having an underlying system that keeps things philosophically orderly.

        That kind of thing in the programming world is all unit tests and no system tests. We last saw that in the wild with the disastrous Obamacare rollout. It’s no less of a mess when you do it on the philosophical field.

        • Tom Smith

          Again, “bears watching”?

          • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

            Moldbug isn’t doing anything illegal. He is doing something that is philosophically dangerous but sometimes that just ends up in harmless crank territory and there’s no need to do anything about it.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Maybe. Maybe not. When a low-ranking soldier, Hitler by name, joined the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in 1919 (to which was prepended Nationalsozialistische a few months later), he became but its fifty-fifth member.

      • Stu

        Little early for such comparisons.

        • ivan_the_mad

          Hmm, I did think the numerical comparison of a noxious ideology in its nascent stages apt given your quantification above. I’m not sure why you think it’s a “little early”, as opposed to timely or late.

          But I am curious as to what figure you would call menacing, since you’ve given us a figure that you “wouldn’t call … that menacing”.

          • Stu

            Well, it certainly isn’t a guy with a twitter account of about 400 followers whose biggest spike probably came with Mark Shea highlighting him. The Internet is filled with all manner of crazies and if you go looking for them you will find them.

            I fear this guy about as much as I fear being victim to the “knockout game”.

            But maybe he is the next Hitler. I’m opening to you making your case on that.

            • ivan_the_mad

              Yes, we’ve already established what “you wouldn’t call … that menacing”. I’m asking what figure you would call menacing; after all, you must have a standard of comparison.

              I never claimed anybody to be next Hitler, nor am I interested in doing so.

              • Stu

                I’ll know it when I see it.

                If you want to make the case that he is menacing (using comparisons to Hitler), then I am all ears. As of now, he is just a crank who doesn’t warrant attention.

                • ivan_the_mad

                  So you don’t know. That’s an answer.

                  • Stu

                    Indeed, I don’t know everything. But I do know comparisons to Hitler at this point are extreme.

                    • chezami

                      Who made any comparisons to Hitler?

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      In case you missed the relevant post, I’ll reproduce it in its entirety.

                      ivan_the_mad posted the following on this thread

                      “Maybe. Maybe not. When a low-ranking soldier, Hitler by name, joined theDeutsche Arbeiterpartei in 1919 (to which was prependedNationalsozialistische a few months later), he became but its fifty-fifth member.”

                      Now he claims that this is not a Hitler comparison. Could somebody tell me what it is then? It is rather confusing to me as anything *but* a Hitler comparison.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      Keep reading the chain, where you’ll find a further explanation. I am comparing a nascent Nazi movement to a nascent DE movement. Stu asserted that 400+ followers is not that menacing. As I wrote, maybe, maybe not. The nascent Nazi party, once upon a time, could claim far fewer numbers. By the time Hitler joined, they had but fifty-five. Hitler is simply a notable data point in membership numbers for a nascent Nazi Party. Mention of and comparison to are not the same thing.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      What made the Nazis dangerous was not that they believed in an erroneous idea. What made them dangerous was their impervious reaction to evidence and their habit of killing the messenger. This dynamic, along with their politicization of all life, is what makes totalitarianism uniquely bad.

                      So is DE totalitarian? Then the Nazi analogy holds and is worth making. I’ve yet to see evidence of that, your critique being merely of their current, mistaken beliefs.

                      Fools spouting on the Internet does not make Nazis. It’s the willingness to beat and kill to shut up critics and to mass murder scapegoats so that failures of policy have an alternate explanation than the ideology is failing. That is what makes Nazis.

                      Calling a fool a nazi is invidious and not to be done.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      That’s certainly your opinion. I don’t share it.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      I realized that when you decided to play the sneak with an implied and unnecessary Hitler shot. I’ve read enough DE stuff since the start of this thread to know that it’s a guaranteed way to get them to stop paying attention to your critique.

                      The colloquial term for what you’re doing is engaging in a 2 minute hate. It’s not a christian concept.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      Oh dear, no.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      I compared no one to Hitler.

                    • Stu

                      My mistake. Must have been someone else.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      No worries, Stu, it happens. Thank you.

            • chezami

              DE is a small *but aggressive and growing* movement on the right, that is particularly getting a hearing by the young. This particular guy is a nobody. However, he makes clear what is acceptable in the universe of discourse among DE types.

              • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                I’ve seen this sort of thing before but never without a very large dose of socially imposed epistemic closure. They see everybody else nodding to obvious idiocy and so they rebel. But all they know is caricature of Emmanuel Goldstein because they’re trapped in the same society and subject to the same epistemic closure. It’s a sad dynamic. In my opinion, the fix is blowing up the epistemic closure that started the cycle. You seem to be attacking the inappropriately expressed rebellion to that epistemic closure.

              • Stu

                Fair assertion.

              • Christopher David Williams

                How does he make clear what is acceptable?

          • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

            You are speaking on the Internet which, among many other things, has certain social norms, one of which you have just violated. Stu’s being polite about your social faux pas and giving you an honest shot to explain why your argument actually is appropriate and you’re not just being offensive.

            If you’re looking for background on the social norm because you were unaware, it’s called Godwin’s law and you’ve violated one of the corollaries.

            • ivan_the_mad

              Oh how silly. Yes, I dared mention Hitler and the Nazi party. But if we’re going to invoke some corollary which you haven’t cared to share with the class, let’s look to what I’ll assume to be an Internet arbiter on the subject, Wikipedia, specifically the section entitled “Corollaries and Usage”:

              Relevant to my comparison: “The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist’s fallacy.” DE’s pernicious ideology has a large overlap with Nazi ideology, especially regarding racial superiority, hence I deemed the comparison apt.

              Relevant to you: “While falling afoul of Godwin’s law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility, Godwin’s law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent’s argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.”

              • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                Your comparison was on the dangerousness of small groups. Now it happens that I agree that this Dark Enlightenment bears watching but on other grounds, that any grab-bag ideology that has no underlying consistent principles is going to be inherently dangerous outside of the special case of constant divine intervention in the group’s favor. That’s in advance of any serious examination of what they actually believe.

                The appropriate ranking positions of something as ill-defined as race on something as general as human achievement seems a fool’s errand to me, always has. But these are things that are objectively definable and I guess you could set up a ranking if you felt like running that errand.

                The bigger sins of Nazism were that they a priori declared superiority, and regularly lied about it as well as declaring the differences to be significant far beyond what modern researchers in the field have actually found to be true. The big finish is that they created policies based on those lies and killed millions in furtherance of these policies. It’s the lying that is the fundamental problem as it shaped and demanded the follow-on violence, not a statistical number derived from the reality of the world that God made.

                The world is what God made it and if there are racial differences then I’m not going to buck Him, just like I’m not going to buck Him on loving my brother as myself.

                As I am personally likely to be medium high on just about any totalitarian’s list to go on the death trains for various reasons, I take an interest in trying to figure out sustainable objections that will adequately defend me and mine from ever having to take such an evil trip. The size of a group as an objection strikes me as particularly likely to rebound to the group’s advantage. It’s a nothing critique that generates more sympathy than caution.

                • ivan_the_mad

                  “Your comparison was on the dangerousness of small groups.” No, not really. I made no judgement on whether small groups are more or less or inherently or not inherently dangerous. My intent, by way of comparison and in response to Stu’s contention that 400+ followers is not that menacing, is merely to point out that a group that is now small and assumed to be not that menacing is not guaranteed to remain in such a state.

                  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                    So a Jim Jones comparison would have worked just as well? People usually do well to avoid mentioning Hitler if there are alternatives.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      No, I don’t think it would have.

                • Tom Smith

                  “Bears watching”?

                  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                    IE, it’s a reasonable position to take an elevated level of scrutiny regarding what this guy is doing.

                    • chezami

                      It’s not “this guy”. It the DE movement. This guy is simply an example of what is “acceptable discourse” in that movement.

                    • Christopher David Williams

                      How is this guy an example of what is “acceptable discourse” in the DE movement?

              • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                Caught up with the thread entirely and am now puzzled. You mentioned Hitler but you also assert later that you were not comparing Hitler with anybody. What is the point of mentioning Hitler in this context except as a comparison?

              • Christopher David Williams

                There is really very little overlap. Nationalism is the idea that every nation should have its own state – the opposite of racial superiority, which suggests some races should rule over others.

                The core of neo-reaction is monarchism, while national socialism was anti-monarchic.

                Neo-reactionary economics is largely (but not exclusively) libertarian/austrian, but not as absolute. The National Socialists were, of course, socialists.

                There is very little overlap between NR and NS.

            • The original Mr. X

              Godwin’s Law isn’t a “social norm”, it’s an observation which then mutated into a (completely ridiculous) rule that anybody mentioning Hitler in an argument automatically loses said argument.

              • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                That rule is a social norm. It may not be your social norm. So be it.

                Now it happens that with regard to the Dark Enlightenment (now that I’ve done a quick catch up) that there’s a better than average applicability of a serious Hitler comparison. My curiousity (and I assume Stu’s) is whether iven_the_mad stumbled on to it the way a stopped clock gets the correct time twice a day or whether there’s actual grey cell action that provoked this normally tedious and asinine comparison. Do we put every organization’s 55th member down for a round of Hitler comparisons?

                • Andy, Bad Person

                  Do we put every organization’s 55th member down for a round of Hitler comparisons?

                  Do those organizations advocate fascism and racial superiority like this one?

                  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                    Ok, your answer is yes. I think that this tactic is likely to be counterproductive and create sympathy and increased attractiveness for organizations subject to such treatment. Therefore I’m against it because I don’t want to inadvertently support the cause of fascism. I recommend that position for you as well.

                  • Tom Smith

                    Beware: the 56th member is even worse.

                  • Christopher David Williams

                    You realise fascism is anti-monarchic, and like the one single most important thing about neoreaction is that it’s monarchist?

          • Christopher David Williams

            What is noxious about neoreaction?

            • chezami

              You mean besides the anti-Christ pride, racialism and arrogance?

              • Christopher David Williams

                There are proud and arrogant people of every political persuasion.

                Is believing in biological differences between ethnic groups antichristic?

                • chezami

                  The philosophy is intrinsically proud and arrogant and searches for grounds for racial exaltation of one’s own ethnos. It’s not about “differences”. It’s about superiority, inferiority and above all, power.

                  • Christopher David Williams

                    The basis of NR is monarchism. What should a monarchy look like? Traditionally, they were nationalistic – each nation had its own king. NR’s think each nation should have it’s own state and so be able express to express their culture and heritage through their own laws and institutions.

                    Monarchism allows one to hold that authority is a divine delegation. Democracy forces on to believe that authority is human, and delegated from below – a proud and arrogant (and atheistic) notion.

                    • chezami

                      Have you considered allying your very very promising movement with the Catholic geocentrist movement?

                    • Christopher David Williams

                      Why the pointless snark? Who did this comment help?

                    • chezami

                      No. The basis of NR is pride.

                    • chezami

                      That will come as news to the Dominicans, the oldest democratically run institution on the planet.

                      Any thing that has its origins in “reaction” is already showing its non-Catholic colors. The Church is primarily for something. You guys are primarily against those humans and other Catholics (i.e most of the human race) that don’tt measure up to your deluded fantasies of superiority.

        • jroberts548

          Did you see the tweet above? It’s not out of line to compare people like that to Nazis.

          • Stu

            One idiot running his mouth on the Internet is not enough to make Nazi comparisons.

            • jroberts548

              Someone advocating the deaths of third world immigrants, Blacks, “mestizos” and mixed race children is.

              ETA: Godwin’s law should not prevent us from calling actual nazis, fascists, eugenecists, and white supremacists what they are.

              • Stu

                Well, no.

                Nazis actually took over an entire nation and employed a fierce military in an attempt to achieve their ends. I am unaware of this dork on Twitter doing the same and don’t put much stock in having 400 some online followers.

                Let’s not dilute the real evil and threat of the Nazi by comparing them to this guy.

                • jroberts548

                  They are not like the Nazis in 1938. They are like the nazis in 1920.

                  What do you think these people would do given the chance?

                  • Stu

                    So you assert. But that hasn’t been proven. Look, this sort of rhetoric, while reprehensible, is nothing new in society. Now if you want to make the case that these guys are the next Nazi party, they make that case. Absent something compelling, they are just a bunch of cranks.

                    • jroberts548

                      I think the tweeter supra made that case by advocating the killing of Black people, immigrants, and people of mixed race.

                    • Tom Smith

                      Is killing White people wrong?

                    • jroberts548

                      Yes. Why?

                    • Stu

                      He made the case that he is a crank and that is it.

                • chezami

                  I repeat: the point is not that this jackass is a leader. The point is that this jackass demonstrates what is acceptable discourse in a small, but aggressive and growing movement on the right. As long as you continue to pretend that my point is about this particular guy, and not about the movement to which he belongs, the effect of your words is that you are laboring to excuse and minimize the reality that this movement exists, is aggressive, and is growing.

                  • Stu

                    Mark,

                    Enough of always trying to assert that I am making an excuse for people like this. It’s just plain weak on your part.

                    What I do point out is that you routinely like to find obscure cranks and highlight them as your foil. Just because someone on the Internet says some other group of guys on the Internet are a dangerous threat doesn’t make it true. Start showing me an infrastructure and support of some major political arm and you may have something. But until then, it just some cranks.

                    • chezami

                      No. What I did was note what is acceptable discourse for DE types. Others on the thread have noted the proliferation of DE thinking in this small but aggressive and growing movement. You can downplay it if you like, but the signs that I am seeing, particularly among the post-Christian right, worry me. So I caution against it and highlight what the movement is really all about.

                      I recognize the rhetoric is not new. What is new is the de-Christianization of the Right which allows such thinking into the Right, much as AIDS allows opportunistic infections in. Judging from the number of DE jerks I’ve had to kick out of my comboxes, I think you underestimate their growth and growing influence, particularly among the young.

                    • Stu

                      It’s acceptable discourse for a whole litany of cooks out there. Why not find them all and showcase their loony thoughts and then accuse me of making an excuse of them?

                      I don’t underestimate any evil but I also don’t believe overplaying it helps either. I would expect you to provide an alternative to such thinking not just point out what is obviously flawed thinking and again, imply that I am an enabler of such trash.

                      ETA: And so you think this “movement” is a threat. Fair enough. Then make that case. Show why you believe it is so instead of relying on Internet echo as proof. Quite frankly Mark, if you did as much diligence in thinking this out as you did in speaking out on DHS enforcing Customs regulations, then it isn’t going to cut it.

                    • chezami

                      Because they aren’t all a growing and aggressive movement. My post was really pretty simple. Stay away from this crap. Why are you spending so much time arguing about such a simple point, Stu?

                    • Stu

                      I am responding to a post that you made, ostensibly because you think it is important. Is this sort of thinking really a threat to most Catholics? You assert that it is aggressive and growing? Is it? Again, ostensibly you think that the case given the spotlight you have given it. But is it?

                      You make assertions on your blog? Is it really that surprising that they come under scrutiny? Isn’t that the point?

                    • chezami

                      I don’t care if it’s not a threat to most Catholics. I care that it is a threat to some Catholics. Almost any heresy you can name is not a threat to most Catholics. But some Catholics are attracted to this and some to that heresy. So when I run across one that appears to be getting bigger on the radar, I warn of it.

                    • Stu

                      “Some” Catholics are attracted to all manner of things. Are your readers attracted to it?

                    • HornOrSilk
                    • chezami

                      Close to a hundred readers flooded my comboxes with apologetics for DE crap the first time I mentioned it. My guess is that they stood for quite a few more. I don’t get flooded with 9/11 Truther or Moon Landing hoax nuts. But I’ve been buried in DE nuts.

                    • Stu

                      Hundreds of readers…the first time YOU mentioned it.

                      Indeed, point out a pile of shit and the flies will soon follow.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      First, you act like it isn’t his readers, so it’s not a problem. When shown it includes his readers, you act like the problem is pointing out a pile of shit.. is a pile of shit. Seriously, why the defensive posturing?

                      http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-dark-enlightenment.html this is a dangerous movement, and it is trying however it can, to get any disenfranchised conservative within it.

                    • Stu

                      No, I recognize that a few cooks on the Internet doesn’t reflect reality or the rest of the World. Increasingly, the blog set it becoming so insulated they actually think they represent the entire World when most are a tine subset of subset.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      And, of course, there are those who think, “because it’s happening on the net, it’s only limited to the internet.” As if people can’t find and be attracted to what is on the net. Seriously, you are just trying hard. If you find it is meaningless, why the constant chat on it?

                    • Stu

                      I chat on for the same reason I chat on with conspiracy theorists who come to unsupported conclusions. Alway hopeful of changing minds and downplaying fears of the bogeyman.

                    • Christopher David Williams

                      Why the vitriol for DE?

                    • chezami

                      Because it is an *obviously* spiriitually poisonous movement that only the absolute clueless conservative anti-charism of discernment could fail to perceive as spiritually poisonous.

                    • Christopher David Williams

                      Why is it spiritually poisonous? What is spiritually poisonous about it?

                    • chezami

                      Racialism, pride, arrogance.

                    • Christopher David Williams

                      Pride and arrogance are universal human vices, not unique to NR.

                      Could you please expound your opposition to racialism?

                    • chezami

                      No. I have better things to do than waste time trying to explain to a monomaniac why the racialist pride and arrogance of DE bullshit is repellent to me personally and obviously repugnant to the faith. If you can’t see it, I can’t open your eyes.

                    • Christopher David Williams

                      What is heretical about neoreaction?

                    • Alex

                      What is new is the de-Christianization of the Right which allows such thinking into the Right, much as AIDS allows opportunistic infections in.

                      If de-Christianisation of the Right is AIDS what is the HIV that caused this?

                      Could it be that the Right has become de-Christianised because the hierarchy of the Church has moved to the left in recent decades?

                    • chezami

                      More of that Party of Personal Responsibility talk eh? We may be racialist morons, but it’s the bishops’ fault! Bad Cathedral! Bad! You make us be racialists!

                    • Alex

                      It’s human nature, surely. Many people — quite a few of them young, intelligent and really not evil — are waking up to the fact that Enlightenment culture is in a wretched state. Among other things, they see moral degeneracy promoted as a human right and cultural capitulation to hostile elements promoted in the name of diversity.

                      Half a century ago the Church would have been a natural place of refuge for such people because it was a fortress against the modern world. Friendly fortresses are a blessing to refugees fleeing the enemy.

                      Nowadays the Church hierarchy is seen to be indifferent to their fears or actively collaborating with the enemy, so they go elsewhere — to paganism, which is seen as virile and aesthetically pleasing while the modern hierarchy too often appears gay and dorky; or to DE, which is seen as intellectually challenging while the modern hierarchy too often seems sappy and unserious.

                      Thankfully the tenets of DE are perfectly compatible with Catholicism and its adherents are usually bright enough to understand that “the modern hierarchy” is not “the Church”.

                      As for cretins like that “pro-lifer” being part of acceptable DE discourse, that’s like saying the Westboro Baptists’ stunts are part of acceptable Christian discourse therefore decent folk shouldn’t touch Christianity with a bargepole.

                    • chezami

                      Your rhetoric is almost identical with the propaganda for the German Christian Movement. DE racialism is wholly incompatible with the Faith, as is your rejection of the Magisterium and you replacement of it with DE bullshit.

                  • Christopher David Williams

                    What makes you think this is acceptable? I found this site after condemning the tweeter after it got RT’d (whether approvingly or not I know not, but I certainly hope not) into my timeline.

      • Tom Smith

        How do you know you’re winning an argument with a liberal?

        When the liberal brings up racism and Hitler.

        • jroberts548

          The tweeter above advocates killing Blacks and people of mixed race. How is racism not an issue?

          • Tom Smith

            You’ve misinterpreted it.

            There’s no “advocating killing blacks and mixed race”.

            lolz

            • chezami

              Uh. Yeah. There is.

              • Christopher David Williams

                *Techincally* he’s advocating not prosecuting Blacks &c. for killing their children, not advocating killing Black children. Still morally reprehensible to the utmost degree, obviously.

            • jroberts548

              How else should I interpret it?

  • Ben

    That any Catholic would come near thus stuff is extra ironic in that it wasn’t too long ago that the ethnic groups that predominate in the (white) American Catholic Church were very much seen as “the other” and painted in a light not dissimilar to how the current crop of racists view Latinos.

    “Can’t trust those Irish! No sir, they drink too much and are loud and have too many damn kids and vote for Democrats” etc. etc. Same as it ever was.

    Heck my late grandmother had that sort of reaction when she found out I converted. “why do you want to leave the Episcopal Church for a Church full, of *disdainful look* ITALIANS and POLES?” Today it would be Mexicans and Filipinos.

    • john smith

      You make some good points but it’s not “the same as it ever was.” There is a major political party which has managed to legalize and aggressively promote a grave intrinsic evil as bad or worse than human slavery. That cannot be brushed aside with a glib stroll down memory lane.

  • Rebecca Fuentes

    So nice to find someone who hates my children. Now I have to add this guy to my prayer list.

    • jroberts548

      Way to demonstrate that you and your DE comrades are a bunch of racist nazis. Good work.

    • Stu

      Or, your parents could teach you to respect others.

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      You first.

      My husband’s family has lived in the northern TX/southern CO area since before they were US states, but WE are supposed to move? My family is newer than his, from Germany by way of Russia 110 years ago or so. We should be used to it, since the Russians drummed us out for being German and the Germans drummed us out for having been in Russia, and we were unwelcome in the eastern US because we were Catholic.

  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

    The appropriate task for a Catholic with regard to the Dark Enlightenment is to wedge them and try to salvage what is salvageable. That’s not quite the same as don’t “touch with a barge pole” but perhaps it’s within shouting distance.

    In other words, the task of evangelization and conversion of the spirit apply here too.

    • chezami

      To the people tempted by it, yes. Not to the ideology, which is consciously anti-Christian and which cannibalizes Christianity in order to tempt post-christian conservatives into its racialism by posing as “anti-PC.” Give the stunning lack of discernment conservatives routinely display, I would be very cautious unless the conservative would-be evangelist has a firm grip on his faith, lest the the wrong person get evangelized.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        Fair enough, though down below the description of their philosophy (as described by this Moldbug character) as a sort of chinese menu approach void of originality and proud of it makes me curious as to what you’re arguing against. They’re just as likely as not to adopt a shiny bit of the magesterium but their adoption does not discredit what they adopt. So long as we can agree on that last part, I think we’re on the same side here.

    • jroberts548

      What, precisely, is salvageable here?

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        Mostly souls is what I’m worried about, but this is a wide ranging movement with several camps. I’m leery of blanket condemnations as it is quite possible in a philosophy that is as disordered as this that some bits of the magisterium are tucked away inside this movement. DE appropriating them would not discredit them. It’s unreasonable to condemn prior to understanding what it is you’re actually condemning.

        • jroberts548

          Souls are salvageable even in a good philosophy. Thomists need saving like anyone else.

          What bit of the magisterium is tucked in “I’m prolife except for blacks”?

          • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

            5 words
            1 = I’m
            2 = prolife
            3 = except
            4 = for
            5 = blacks

            Words 3 and 4 are objectionable. Word 2 is praiseworthy. If the guy would have shut up after the first two words, there would be no difficulty.

            • HornOrSilk

              Except, of course, what is said beyond the second word shows that the meaning of the first two was an equivocal use of the term, rejecting actual life. You are trying too hard of late. You keep promoting and defending outrageous evils.

              • Stu

                Where, specifically, has he defended an evil here?

                • HornOrSilk

                  A non pro-life position being equivocated as pro-life “with some bad words thrown in after.”

                  • Stu

                    Where did TM promote or defend any evil? Please quote him.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      He’s saying the evil words are good

                    • Stu

                      No, he did no such thing. Instead, you are wrongfully asserting such.

              • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                Um, not promoting, and not particularly defending. I thought we were beyond the ‘kill them all, God will know his own’ level of targeting sophistication. Describing more precisely and attacking what is the problem only, makes for a better intervention.

                So, glad to hear you’re pro-life, @DarkEnlighten, but sorry to hear that it’s a pro-life commitment of convenience. What would be wrong with philosophical consistency instead of situational ethics based on political expediency?

                • HornOrSilk

                  You are defending, trying to redfine pro-life like he is. Sorry, you continue the downward spiral.

                  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                    You are attacking, unjustly, in the form of libel. It’s not actionable. It is wrong. Pro-life means pro-life, without convenient exception. But if you like the label, adopt the label, and obviously desire the label, the fix is to demonstrate how you haven’t quite reached the goal you’ve chosen for yourself and show how to reach that goal by being consistent about the principle.

                    Or, you know, you can just call names and have the person just shut you out as someone who is just an unthinking critic who doesn’t actually care about them.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      You continue to give a pro-life reading to words which are not pro-life, which have nothing to do with life and its affirmation. What I said is not libel: it’s the words themselves, which must be read as a whole. Just like if I said “Life is meaningless, exterminate!” the fact I said “Life is” does not make my statement some positive good. You equivocate to justify evil. You keep promoting evil and calling it good.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      I do not withdraw my position but I am currently unable to continue our delightful exchange of ideas because of a family tragedy. I just lost a cousin. His name was Adrian Lutas. I got the news between my last post and this one.

                      I just finished the round of calls and have no patience for you today or any other debating partner. No doubt we will lock horns another time but, pace, leave this dog to nurse his wounds for now.

                    • chezami

                      I’m so sorry to hear it. May God grant him eternal rest through Christ our Lord. Amen! Mother Mary, pray for him and all us sinners at the hour of our death.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      Eternal memory

            • jroberts548

              If you’re pro-life except for Black people, you are not pro-life.

              If he said Jesus saved everyone, except for Blacks, immigrants, and people of mixed race, would you say this guy was a Christian?

              • Stu

                So do you write him off as lost? Or do you pick up the dialogue where he goes off the road?

                • chezami

                  Do not cast your pearls before swine. Do not give what is sacred to dogs.

                  • Stu

                    Ascertained all of that about him from a single tweet? Impressive.

                    I wonder if a younger Mark Shea would have similarly given up on a younger Joseph Pearce.

                    • chezami

                      It’s fascinating how you keep trying to make this about the single guy who wrote the tweet and steadfastly refuse to acknowledge my point that it’s not about this guy, but about what is acceptable in the universe of discourse for the DE crowd. It’s also amazing that you can’t grant that “I’m prolife except for blacks” is, yeah, deliberately and aggressively anti-Christ. If you want to go and waste your time on this aggressively racist guy, knock yourself out. I’m not going to, just as I’m not going to waste my time trying to convert the head of Planned Parenthood. They have my prayers, but my efforts are better spent warning people away from them.

                    • Stu

                      It’s fascinating how you resort to making up crap on the fly.

                      Okay, so your complete write-off wasn’t directed at this guy in particular but I suppose anyone in the DE movement? And you constantly bemoan anyone with a purity test. And of course, you “get” Francis. Just ask you and you’ll tell us.

                      Yes Mark, the tweet is reprehensible (I have never said anything to the contrary) but for someone who is both inclined and skilled at engaging those who need to hear the Gospel, there is an opening there. If that is what you want.

                    • Christopher David Williams

                      Why pray for them if you won’t do anything to help them? I feel like James would call that a waste of time.

                    • enness

                      Prayer is doing nothing and a waste of time? Since when?

                • jroberts548

                  I wouldn’t write him off as lost. I would, however, write off his worldview as completely lost.

              • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                I would say that such a person is a very ignorant and confused christian at best. The modifiers matter, profoundly. But if we’re going to give a pass on condom use for disease prevention as Benedict XVI did as a sort of transition step, on the road to a better understanding of Christ, then the sort of parsing that I’m doing is small beer.

                http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/world/europe/22pope.html?_r=0

                • jroberts548

                  First, and off topic, the pope didn’t okay the use of condoms. He said that at an individual level, choosing to use a condom in order to protect another from disease is a step away from selfishness and towards morality. I don’t see how a reasonable person of good will could be so stupid as to think Benedict “gave a pass” for condom usage.

                  Second, I don’t see how a belief that it’s okay to kill Blacks, non-white Hispanics, immigrants, and people of mixed race could be a possibly be step in any direction, other than towards hell.

                  Just using “pro-life” in a vacuum isn’t praiseworthy. Someone whos’s pro-life except for minorities isn’t someone who recognizes the value of human life in the womb. It’s someone who just hates minorities.

                  And someone who thinks Jesus only saves white people isn’t ignorant and confused. He has profoundly refused to recognize either Christ’s or his nieghbor’s humanity. He is in no conceivable sense a Christian.

                  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                    There aren’t enough people in DE to go above the individual level. This movement is tiny.

                    Now, stuffing words in my mouth is not a step towards communication. I said that the claim to be pro-life is a step in the right direction. Instead of being wholesale for death in all circumstances, some respect for life is showing here. But, like the AIDS infected working male prostitute, there’s a very long distance from present behavior to behavior that gets you into Heaven.

                    By refusing to recognize that, however much the guy doesn’t get the implication of the word pro-life right now, the claim to be pro-life is better than the alternative, you’re failing to recognize the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy in advocating evil means you’ve got a better chance than wholesale advocacy of evil within an internally consistent moral framework. That’s what I took Pope Benedict’s idea to be.

                    I don’t mind at all that you don’t get this. It’s a subtle and very small opening. I expect people to have difficulty with this. But what I don’t appreciate is misstating my own position when I’ve been perfectly clear about what it is.

      • Christopher David Williams

        What, precisely, is unsalvageable here?

        • jroberts548

          The white supremacism

          • Christopher David Williams

            White supremacism is not a part of NR, though. NR is philosophy that can be adopted by any ethnic group.

            • jroberts548

              I’m trying to figure out how someone who wasn’t the world’s filthiest bigot could express the sentiment tweeted above, and coming up empty. I guess maybe an Asian racial supremacist could feel that way about Blacks, immigrants, non-white Hispanics, and mixed race people. It’s still not salvage ale.

              • Christopher David Williams

                The tweeter is a filthy bigot, separate to being a neoreactionary. Bigotry is not a necessary component of neoreaction. His bigotry was expressed qua bigot, not qua neoreactionary.

                • jroberts548

                  Can you point to neoreactionaries on the Internet who aren’t white supremacists? I tried looking around at Occam’s razor mag and at moldbug, and, to extent what I saw wasn’t delirious, incoherent rambling (moldbug, though he did have a lengthy defense of anders breivik), it was a bunch of bullshit about how races are different, and mixing and immigration are bad.

  • Dillon T. McCameron

    When reality is stranger than satire…

  • Lee Penn

    The “Dark Enlightenment” may be a fringe group now, but it needs to be watched and refuted anyway. Tiny fringe groups in 2014 could become mass movements, with demagogic leaders and militant cadre, in 2034 … if the US or world system undergoes massive stress or collapse in the meantime.

    The mainstreaming of evil fringe groups has happened before. Who in 1913 Germany would have predicted what Germany became in 1933? Who in 1897 Russia would have expected the triumph of Lenin’s Bolsheviks in 1917?

    Watch and pray … including a prayer for the conversion of the DE people.

    Lee

    • Christopher David Williams

      Many of these people are Catholics already. What aspects of neoreactionary thought do you think are refuted by Catholic truth?

      • Lee Penn

        And I have a question for you and your fellow DE supporters …

        1. There have been many political movements and regimes since 1789 that have had counterrevolution (and opposition to Enlightenment/Modernist thought) as their aim. Which of these movements – in any country – comes closest to your ideals and your political agenda?

        2. There are explicitly counterrevolutionary movements within (or sometimes outside) the Church: SSPX, the sedevacantists, Opus Dei, Tradition/Family/Property, the Legionaries, and others. Which of these, if any, is closest to your own aims and methodology? (Can I guess that you would like to revive Maurras’ Action Francaise?)

        Lee

        • Christopher David Williams

          Thank you for your question. I can not answer it, as my only knowledge in this area is reading wikipedia summaries of the ideologies of various groups.

          I would like a restoration of the ancient monarchies of Europe, a restoration of Catholicism as the state religion, and the ordering of the State according to Catholic social teaching.

          • Dillon T. McCameron

            And the Jews wanted a Messiah that would reestablish the Davidic kingdom and kick out the Romans.

            Those days aren’t returning. So much the better. The temptation for temporal power is much too strong.

            • Christopher David Williams

              But God’s plan was for a Christianizing Roman Empire. The empire fell, and was succeeded largely by the nation states that exist today. The monarchies of these nations were blessed and ordained by the Church. Revolt against them is impermissible. These royal houses still exist, and should be restored, and our rebellion against God’s ordained authority ended.

              Democracy doesn’t reduce the temptation of temporal, but rather radically increases it, so I don’t understand that argument.

              • chezami

                How the hell do you know what God’s plan was for? Talk about hubris.

              • Dillon T. McCameron

                “But God’s plan was for a Christianizing Roman Empire.”

                God’s plan, if anything, is for a Christian world. A Christ-like everyone.

                “The monarchies of these nations were blessed and ordained by the Church.”

                And they served their purpose. Some better than others. But we can’t go about chasing memories, because we’ve our own purpose for these days, in this secular world.

                From what I’ve seen of God’s works, He does not favor nations or factions; His Will will be done through whatever devices He sees fit to use: blessed or cursed, holy or profane

                ” I don’t understand that argument.”

                It is, let the profane squabble over their world, we have work to do. If you want to change the world, fine. Do it: through charity and kindness and prayer.

                Anything else invariably leads to misery. That bitter sort, that comes from setting out with the best of intentions.

              • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com/ Beadgirl

                “The monarchies of these nations were blessed and ordained by the Church.
                Revolt against them is impermissible. These royal houses still exist,
                and should be restored, and our rebellion against God’s ordained
                authority ended.”

                Doesn’t King Henry VIII serve as a refutation of this? Or was it part of God’s plan that we all become Anglican?

          • Lee Penn

            Christopher, I wonder if your vision was anticipated a century ago by Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson, an Anglican convert to Catholicism. He published a dystopia in 1907, and a Catholic utopia in 1911.

            His earlier (1907) book, “Lord of the World,” is on-line here:

            http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14021/pg14021.html

            (A more attractive layout of the same book is here: http://archive.org/stream/lordofworld00bens#page/n0/mode/2up)

            “Lord of the World” occurs around the end of the 20th century/start of the 21st century, and describes a world in which almost all Christians are Catholic … but very few Catholics remain. Instead, there is Marxism and
            Humanism and Freemasonry triumphant. Antichrist appears, and just as he is about to annihilate the last Christians (the fugitive Pope and his Cardinals, holed up in Nazareth), Christ returns and the world ends. This is one of the century’s first dystopian novels, and it is far better than the Left Behind nonsense.

            A few years afterward (1911), Msgr. Benson wrote “Dawn of All,” to show what the world might be like if the Church triumphed.

            Here’s the plain text, from Gutenberg:

            http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/11626/pg11626.html

            Here’s a fancy presentation of the same text:

            http://www.archive.org/stream/dawnofall00bensiala#page/n1/mode/2up

            =================

            Read “Lord of the World,” and shiver in horror at the
            thought of Liberalism and Marxism triumphant. Every traditionalist fear is confirmed, every rightist dread is made real.

            Then read “Dawn of All,” and recall that Benson meant that book to be a utopia, not a dystopia. Most republics have been replaced by non-constitutional monarchies; a heretic is tried by a new Inquisition and is discreetly relaxed to the secular arm; the Church is almost everywhere the State Church; egalitarianism and democracy are anathema;
            at the end, the Pope makes an appearance in a glorified fashion that brings to mind the appearance of a False Christ.

            To the Integrists and trads and DE people… is this the world that you really wish would replace our messy, decadent liberal order?

            Lee

          • Andy

            And Catholic Social Teaching says what about racial superiority?

  • SteveP

    I agree a barge pole is not called for in the situation. How about “nothing . . . except Jesus Christ, and him crucified”?

  • KM

    Okay since I was curious, I went to the website called The Dark Enlightenment where Moldbug and Land have essays. I question the intellectual credibility of the “Dark Enlightenment” thinkers/writers by Land’s inclusion of fake founding father quotes, and the phrases “zombie apocalypse” and “sith-tentacles” in his article “Dark Enlightenment, parts 1-4f” (which actually has 10 parts) . This guy seriously describes himself as a “British philosopher?”

    Moldbug’s “Open Letter, parts 1-14″ and “Introduction, parts 1-9b”, along with the Land article, are long, meandering, unenlightening, and simply boring. I just think they’re self-important attention seekers with way too much time on their hands.

    Now if I can only get back the 30 wasted minutes of my life I spent reading that

    • Stu

      How did you like the use of graphics that look like teasers for adolescent boys and online gaming?

      • KM

        I missed those. What site were those graphics on? The DE site itself looked pretty bland.

        To me it was off-putting to find pretentious writing with references to zombies, sith-tentacles, and fake founders quotes. Hard to believe that Moldbug and Land are in their 50′s too. There is an adolescent gamer/fantasy cultural feel to the whole thing.

        • Stu

          Must not be that particular site. I’ll see if I can find it.

          • KM

            I think I found a companion site which has gamer references and cartoonish-looking gamer-related cards to describe facets of the “movement.” I just cannot take this seriously at all.

    • Christopher David Williams

      I don’t know of Land, and I think most would credit Moldbug with the aesthetic foundation of the movement, rather than it’s academic footings. I personally find his style very entertaining.

  • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com/ Beadgirl

    Not a pleasant thread to read after a sickly, exhausting day. May I suggest this as a corrective? It always restores my faith in humanity:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY

    • ivan_the_mad

      That’s awesome!

  • http://brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

    Some are saying that Mark’s overreacting here. I’m not so sure. Call it anecdotal evidence, but I’ve had at least one well-meant attempt at social media networking land me in the middle of some dodgy company.
    Personally I’m inclined to take Mark’s warning about exercising proper discernment to heart. This DE/human biodiversity rot is spreading, and in my experience disgruntled conservatives/disenfranchised young men are dangerously susceptible.

    • Christopher David Williams

      What about neoreaction or HBD is “rot”?

      • http://brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

        The absurd claims that certain groups of people are inherently superior to others based on genetic factors.

      • Andy

        The fact that there is no scientific evidence to point out racial superiority – rather there a tendentious reading of semi-scientific tracts that say there is racial superiority. It very well may be that in God’s infinite wisdom you are not superior, but rather inferior. To see a set of people – any set of people – suggest because of an accident of birth – race – one is superior boggles the mind.

  • Christopher David Williams

    There are idiots in every movement and institution. Even in (gasp!) the Catholic Church. Perhaps Catholics should stay away from the Church?

    Or perhaps we should judge ideologies and philosophies by their principles and teachings, and not by the actions of those who name themselves as members.

    I would be hear interested to hear what part of neoreaction you think a Catholic can and should dissent from.

    • Dillon T. McCameron

      “Even in (gasp!) the Catholic Church.”

      This is not news to Catholics, who are well aware that the Church is,

      “An institute run with such knavish imbecility that if it were not the work of God it would not last a fortnight.” – Belloc

      This likely affords us too much comfort for our own good.

      —-

      It is your contention, then, that this idiot in question is not representative of the…movement?

      My only contact with this particular, ah, philosophy? has been through places such as Occam’s Razor.

      It was rather disturbing.

  • KM

    American Spectator says “The Dark Enlightenment is Silly Not Scary,” and I have to agree based on the coma-inducing writings I sampled. Mencius Moldbug is a computer programmer named Curtis Yarvin. Oh yeah and he describes himself as the Sith Lord of Neoreaction aka Dark Enlightenment. I can’t stop myself from laughing.

    “Yarvin is clearly an intelligent man, but he is also a terrible writer.
    Like most people whose imaginations bear the familiar stamp of computer
    culture, he brings no aesthetic or historical (at least beyond
    Wikipedia) sensibility to bear upon all of these very complicated
    issues. Facts about, say, the American Revolution that are well known to
    the millions who have read popular biographies of the Founding Fathers
    evidently astonish him.”

    His DE sidekick, Nick Land, is an expatriate English Philosopher (self-proclaimed) who is also a terrible writer. I cannot take these guys seriously with their references to Sith-tentacles, the Sith Lord, zombies and fake founder quotes.

    http://spectator.org/blog/57516/dark-enlightenment-silly-not-scary

    • Christopher David Williams

      Why seriously engage with a philosophy when you can just ad hom its proponents?

      • KM

        I’ve had the misfortune of reading 30 minutes worth of this incoherent, poorly-written “philosophy.” Yarvin describes himself as a Sith Lord, and Land has ridiculous phrases and fake quotes in his essay. How can anyone take this stuff seriously? Sorry but it’s not worth being “seriously engaged.”

        • Christopher David Williams

          It would seem rather that you don’t actually know what neoreaction is? I find Moldbug fun to read, but he’s hardly a clear expositor of the movement he is a part of.

          Neoreaction is basically a rejection of the Enlightenment, and a return to social, moral, religious, and political values held before this time. This includes advocacy of hierarchy, support of monarchy, disdain for democracy, denial of popular sovereignty, viewing nationalism as the organic principle of the state, recognition of gender and racial differences, and regard for tradition and culture.

          There are various sub-movements emphasising various aspects over others, but this is the core, and it can be in accord with Catholic social teaching. Atheistic strains of neoreaction may hold opinions contrary to the Gospel, but the traditionalist Catholic side is perfectly orthodox.

          • chezami

            Catholic monarchist loons will be drowned out by the post-Christians pagans, racists, and power-worshippers who are the engine of this toxic racialist movement.

            • Christopher David Williams

              “Catholic monarchist loons”
              I focus on this phrase because the rest of the comment is so generic as to applicable to every contemporary mainstream political movement.

              Why do you find monarchy loony? Monarchy is the way God’s people Israel were governed. It is the system of government affirmed by the Apostles Peter and Paul in the New Testament. It is affirmed and never condemned by the Church. It affirms the true nature of authority – a divine delegation, and denies false conceptions, such as popular sovereignty. Rebellion against monarchy is forbidden by the the bible and the Church.

              I’ve yet to encounter an argument for democracy that is congruent with Catholic doctrine. If you know of any, I would be glad to read them.

              • chezami

                Because it’s a boutique political movement for effete elitists that will go nowhere and amount to nothing. You are welcome play around with it in the hothouse of elitist Traddery. No harm will come of it. But much harm could come from your excuse-making for the racialist nuts who are making use of your silly cooperation with their all-too-earnest contempt for common decency and the clear teaching of the Church. The post-Christian racialism, not your fantasy of the Holy Roman Empire redivivus is what will float to the top of the de-Christians racialism that is the engine of DE “thought”. Your Dungeons and Dragons fantasy world simply sucks in Catholics. You are a feeder conduit that suckers Catholics into a movement that is deeply anti-Christian at its heart. Mind that in lying down with dogs you don’t get up with fleas.

                • Christopher David Williams

                  The omission of any defense of your own position is telling. Monarchism is wrong because your demotist system will prevent it from being restored. Sorry for not being convinced of the superior theological and moral merit of your positions from such an argument.

                  You keep using the word “racialism”. What do you mean by this? Are you theologically opposed to the belief in biological differences between ethnic groups? On what grounds?

                  What do you believe the heart of neoreaction is? And why is it anti-Christian? I discovered the movement (without necessarily considering myself a member) from my theological studies into the nature and origin of authority. These studies convinced me of the error of liberalism, and caused me to abandon my libertarianism.

                  • chezami

                    Enjoy your rich fantasy life.

                  • Andy, Bad Person

                    Who are you accusing of omitting defense? You haven’t even stated a position. All you have done in this thread is post pedantic questions akin to a child playing the “Why” game.

                  • kenofken

                    As a post-Christian pagan (though not an anti-Christian one), I have to second Mark’s core point on this. I don’t think you quite appreciate the forces you’re flirting with, or maybe you do…

                    You employ a curious turn of phrase: “belief in biological differences between ethnic groups.” That is THE coded rally cry for white power Odinism. In fact when I first read that, I thought it had come straight out of the Asatru Folk Assembly literature. They’re big on the idea of the “peoples of Northern Europe” (the ones who happen to coincide with Aryan ideals) as a “biological group.”

                    They represent a relative sliver of the pagan movement, and the vast majority of us consider racialism an abomination, but I can tell you they would very much appreciate the post or pre-democracy social order your “neoreaction” seems to envision.

                    Catholic monarchists (aka you and the other two guys on CAF), would be chum in the water in an environment of rule-by-divine right nationalism. They’d keep you around as cannon fodder for the early street battles with police, and for laughs, until they got settled and got their snazzy new uniforms and social “housecleaning” apparatus in place. Then it would a one-way Sunday drive to a birch forest somewhere.

                    • Andy, Bad Person

                      That is THE coded rally cry for white power Odinism.

                      This. Exactly. One too many time has “every race should have its own nation” really meant “black people should get out of my country” for any such discussion to be taken as “just saying.”

    • Chris Fiebelkorn

      Your post basically sums it up. Think of this as a less tastefully
      humorous version of “The Flying Spaghetti Monster” movement. Between the Star Wars (Sith) references and poor cohesive writings I can’t help but not take this seriously. They’ve (2 guys) taken a few historical treatises and injected them with “Dark Humor”, big words with many syllables, Sci-Fi references, and the usually cliche detached computer junkie philosophy that I also can’t even begin to take seriously
      anymore. But yes, of course, you’ll find a small pathetically serious cult following them while they laugh and bask in their own brand. Meanwhile the Catholic/Christian “intellectuals” will take this overly serious and simply add fuel to the flame; especially the Creationists who claim to be “God Scientists” and denounce Evolution as the work of The Devil. Then, we’ll end up with many a discussion thread with supposed academics bantering back and forth, often in soliloquy, accusing one side or the other of being an infidel using terms unheard of since the times of Shakespeare. I swear, is this the product of high unemployment? I ask this because people CLEARLY need more meaningful work to do. By even acknowledging these guys you’re feeding into the problem. If every Christian on the face of this Earth treated everyone with love, and allowed themselves to be beacons of God’s love, then darkly depressed people such as this would never exist. That’s my “soliloquy” anyways ; )

      • KM

        Loved your reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster movement. This does seem similar. It’s like a few guys were pontificating while sniggering over a bag of dorritos and smoking something after a marathon Star Wars video game session, and said, “Dude, how can we make neo-reaction sound super-awesome? Hey let’s call it The Dark Enlightenment! Whoa, that sounds spookily serious and intellectual.” To bolster its “credibility,” the 100,000 essay and other similar long-winded tomes became the “movement’s” bibles.

        I don’t doubt there are some bad actors attracted to this, but those are the types who are looking to attach themselves to anything they think will give them “credibility.” This “movement” has the veneer of intellectualism, but it really just appeals to a small cult following as you said.

        To me personally it just sounds dorky — The Dork Enlightenment. (And I say this as an self-described occasional dork.)

        • Chris Fiebelkorn

          LOL! I love the “Dork Enlightenment” re-branding. It’s pretty accurate. I agree with you 100%.

    • http://theden.tv/ Wesley Morganston

      “an expatriate English Philosopher (self-proclaimed)”

      “Self-proclaimed”? It’s 2014! We have Google! Don’t embarrass yourself like that!

      • KM

        He’s an internet writer for an internet mag with a wikipedia entry who writes long pretentiously boring articles that a small cult following reads. Big deal. I guess everyone on the internet who writes long pretentious articles must be a philosopher.

      • KM

        Hey look! The random Postmodernism Generator! It creates intellectual-sounding philosophical texts too:

        http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

  • Lee Penn

    In one of the posts below, Christopher David Williams offers clarity about the political/social/ecclesiastical agenda of (some?) DE enthusiasts. He wrote: “I would like a restoration of the ancient monarchies of Europe, a
    restoration of Catholicism as the state religion, and the ordering of
    the State according to Catholic social teaching.”

    It seems that Msgr. Benson’s “Dawn of All” (a Catholic utopia, for which I provide a link in the earlier discussion) is indeed a picture of what Neo-Reactionaries want to see. Read that book carefully … is this what you really intend to do, if you could?

    More generally, I dispute the notion that human monarchy is reflective of God’s plan for the organization of human society. If God unconditionally approved of human monarchy, He would not have given the warning that He did in 1 Samuel 8:4-22. He let Israel have the king it wanted, but said, “they have rejected Me from being king over them.”

    Recall the instances of attempting to institute Christendom …

    1. Christianity moved from being a tolerated/favored religion under Constantine to being the sole lawful religion after 380. Within 30 years, Rome was sacked, and within a century, the Western Empire was gone..

    2. In the mid-500s, Justinian tried to use force of arms to reestablish a unified, Christian empire. He failed, and plague/calamity/military defeat undid all his attempts at establishing a new “Christendom.” It was only a few decades to go from hubris to nemesis.

    3. Some romantic/medievalist Catholics hail the 13th Century as the peak of Christendom and hence of human civilization. That did not last long: the 1300s brought the Avignon Papacy, dueling popes and anti-popes, and the Black Death … which wiped out at least 1/3 of Europe.

    4. Others look back to the era of European empire and global “Christian” predominance before 1914. That lasted, at most, 40-50 years: say, 1870-1913. We all know what came next.

    From the historical record, I do not see evidence that God preserves, protects, and sustains human monarchies and empires that say that they are establishing “Christendom.” If anything, such projects come down in ruins within 50-100 years.

    In short, romantic medievalists, DEs, and Integrists are trying to build a Christian form of the Tower of Babel … and God will (I suspect) give short shrift to such a project.

    (I make this argument at greater length in this essay: http://www.leepenn.org/StateAndChurchAlliance.html. Go there for details and footnotes.)

    Lee

    • Dillon T. McCameron

      If these ventures had been as pleasing to God as their leaders claimed, God would have prospered and protected these “Christian” empires.

      I…don’t believe that follows. What’s the, ah, “turnover” rate for non-Christian empires during the same period? Is the duration of an empire’s lifespan a measure of God’s approval of it? Napoleon’s empire was much shorter lived than the Soviet’s; what’s to be made of that?

      Saints are frequently murdered. Well, martyred. Churches are sacked. Innocents slaughtered. Surely this is not indicative of God’s displeasure, per say, so much as it is that “He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”

      Given what His Beloved and only begotten Son endured, I don’t think that we should expect any better for ourselves or our institutions.

      …I do not see evidence that God preserves, protects, and sustains human monarchies…that they are establishing “Christendom.”

      Given that calamities fall where they may, it seems to me that His Mercy is being ever poured out on us, and the question is whether or not we accept this grace and be saved by it, or reject it and be destroyed.

      Perhaps the strength of these monarchies and these attempts at Christendom was not that they were ideal or efficient institutions, but merely that they were set up in such a way so as to better respond to God’s mercy when it appeared in the guise of purification.

      The Christian king would go to confession. Would repent, and fast, and call his nation to join him in this. Good luck getting a modern leader to pray, or repent, or much less lead his people to God.

      “I dispute the notion that human monarchy is reflective of God’s plan for the organization of human society.”

      Dare you posit what might be? The secular liberal nation states of our current era? They seem to be suffering some strain, both from the moral dissolution within and in facing a foe who couldn’t care less about about their ethics of toleration and so on.

      (I’ll end with the final sentence of your essay, which I agree with very much.)

      “The higher we men build our Towers of Babel, and the more trust we put in them, the greater the ensuing calamity for those who make their residence in Babylon and trust in its power.”

    • jroberts548

      “1. Christianity moved from being a tolerated/favored religion under Constantine to being the sole lawful religion after 380. Within 30 years, Rome was sacked, and within a century, the Western Empire was gone…”

      Rome spent the previous 300 years in a near constant state of civil war. Blaming the sack of Rome in 410 on Christians is beyond stupid. That’s just lazy historiography.

      • HornOrSilk

        And it’s a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the kind which pagans tried and led to Augustine penning The City of God as his response.

  • IWriteCode

    Father Guido Sarducci appeared at John Stewart’s restoring sanity rally, so I guess that means that all Catholics agree with John Stewart’s political views? That makes about as much sense as judging neo-reaction by the tweets of a guy that uses ‘the humongous’ as his avatar. This is simply a ridiculous witch-hunt based on guilt-by-association with a silly humorist.

    • HornOrSilk

      No, not the same thing, because the ideology behind the Dark Enlightenment is exactly what is seen in this tweet. It’s like saying it’s guilt by association that Hitler was a Nazi.

    • jroberts548

      What should we judge it by?

      • IWriteCode
        • jroberts548

          For a bunch of nativists, you people seem averse to writing in English.

          Is there anything written in a reasonable amount of English prose sentences?

          I’m not going to read hundreds of thousands of words of this. I’m not going to try to decipher “When theonomists scrutinize ethno-nationalists and techno-commercialists they see evil heathens.
          When ethno-nationalists scrutinize theonomists and techno-commercialists they see deluded race-traitors.
          When techno-commercialists scrutinize theonomists and ethno-nationalists they see retarded crypto-communists.
          (The details of these diagnoses exceed the present discussion.)”

          No immigrant has done as much violence to the English tongue.

          • http://theden.tv/ Wesley Morganston

            I’m surprised that a commenter on a blog about a religion that did most of its communication for much of its history in a language no one spoke natively is so shocked to discover that people in a field use words when talking among themselves that people who don’t know the field can’t immediately understand.

            • jroberts548

              The quoted excerpt was from “neoreaction for dummies.”

              If someone asked me at a most basic level what we should judge catholic doctrine by, I would either give or link to a concise summary. I wouldn’t tell someone they needed to read a dozen different things in Latin.

              And, for the most part, church Latin is concise. If you can read Latin, you can read church Latin. I can read Latin, English, and German; nothing in the link above was decipherable.

    • Dan C

      There is nothing in Catholicism which comes close to condoning the racialism (or at times overt racism) of Dark Enlightenment. It’s support is something to be roundly condemned. Such matters contaminate that philosophy.

      Those Catholics lending support to that embrace falsehood and embarrass the faith.

      • chezami

        You’d think that would be obvious, wouldn’t you?

      • IWriteCode

        The DE is a big tent, like other organizations. Attempting to discredit such a diverse community by association with a single set of ideas (or actors) is unfair. I’m sure Catholics can clearly relate to being generally associated with the actions of a small minority of the church who do not represent the whole. I would expect less of a rush to general condemnation.

        • Dan C

          The trouble with your assessment is simple: you do not proclaim the radioactivity these racist views should provoke. Additionally, most of the defenders of DE support by Catholics actually come out in favor of the racialist messages. In short , while Catholics in the Democratic Party need to renounce abortion support to be considered serious Catholics, I see more than passive acceptance and overt support of DE racism.

          Not one has denounced these views on this thread. Just said passive comments like yours above. A comment that fails to note how you stand on these matters.

          • IWriteCode

            If the DE is anything, it is scientific and it is open. If you have contributions or reasonable refutations of any idea put forth by anyone, then you can express it directly to the authors. If you don’t like a Twitter post, then feel free to respond to the author.

            • Dan C

              What you have failed at, however, is acknowledging or denying what racialist (or racist) theories you and the rest of the DE share. You fail to distance yourself and now go to lengths to avoid commentary.

              Once again, this shows the depth to which the contamination of racist and racialist views permeates the DE and its Catholic adherents. You are making the case strongly. By your clumsy silence.

            • chezami

              Scientific racism. How very 19th century. And Dan’s right. Your defenses of this crap and refusal to name it for the radioactive bullshit it is only demonstrate how it is co-opting discernment-free “conservatives” with the racialist message.

            • HornOrSilk

              It is neither scientific nor open. Just look at how it ridicules scientists as being a part of “the Cathedral.” It is pseudo-science which rejects real science, and it is a closure to itself, raging as it is with hate of the other, denigrating them, ignoring the inviolable good of the human person.

              • chezami

                Just so. It has all the earmarks of a haughty group of college sophomores who have the world by the tail and are sure that wisdom will die with them. The instant denigration of all critics as “The Cathedral” demonstrates what a cocky bunch of pissants these guys are. But then racialism and pride go hand in hand. One of the man reasons Catholics should not touch this stuff with a barge pole.

      • KM

        Also they embarrass and discredit themselves.

  • Dan C

    Dark Enlightenment supporters and those journeying on the same path as DE all seem to be embracing racialism and racism. They do so with barely concealed eagerness to embrace these racist theories.

    My conclusion thus far with all these adherents is that they are not merely showing up at DE club gatherings just for the beer but are full-on cheering squads for the most distasteful aspects of the Dark Enlightenment.

    I am not seeing anyone convincingly noting otherwise.

    • orual’s kindred

      I may have missed it, but neither have I. I also have not seen any actual declaration of ‘I support X, but not Dark Enlightenment.’

      The passage I quoted below cites Max Weber as stating that the Church taught adherents to ‘trust non-kin.’ Given that no human has 100% kinship to God or His angels, I’m not sure how Christians would a problem in seeing the problems of such claims.

      • orual’s kindred

        Bah! ‘Would have a problem.’ Time to eat, I guess!

  • Newp Ort

    Greetings from The Humungus! The Lord Humungus! The Warrior of the Wasteland! The Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla!

  • orual’s kindred

    Oh! Well then I guess you’re great at irony, too :-D

  • kfreed

    The Dark Enlightenment…they’re so far on the “flat earth” right, they’ve dropped off the edge of the world:

    Creepy Internet Movement: “anti-democratic, racially charged, anti-modern, authoritarian political movement”
    http://www.vocativ.com/12-2013/dark-enlightenment-creepy-internet-movement-youd-better-take-seriously/


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X