What’s the Dark Enlightenment?

What’s the Dark Enlightenment? January 21, 2014

Basically, it’s a de-Christianized form of right wingery that is drinking deep of white supremacy and racialism. Sometimes, it appeals to something called “Western” Christianity, but this is basically a fig leaf for getting discernment-free conservatives to jettison actual Christian teaching in favor of nutty white supremacy by rhetoric about how Euro-superiority makes it plain that the whole “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek” race indifference is a huge mistake.

Other times, it daubs on a layer of pseudo-science by tossing around the phrase “human biodiversity” (by which they mean “some races are inferior to others”).

And not infrequently, some of its adherents ditch so much as the figleaf of Christianity (since Christianity really is irreconcilable with racism) and openly promotes bullshit “northern” neo-paganism as they get in touch with their inner Himmlers. Because everybody knows that the people who erected standing stones as their highest achievement were just about to usher in a golden age when they were rudely interrupted by brown ruffians named Augustine and St. Paul and Plato who tamed their manly Nordic creativity with their ethnically impure southern barbarism.

As socially maladjusted jerks always do, they trumpet their moral repulsiveness as a mark of “courage” and declare anybody who holds to actual Christian beliefs about the moral evils of racism are part of something called “The Cathedral” (an amorphous bogeyman compact of designated enemies critical of racialism). Discernment-free conservatives who react Pavlovianly to embrace anything that is “anti-PC” can be easily snookered by this tactic, which is why the movement is growing, almost exclusively among righties.

It will be interesting to see if the Thing that Used to be Conservatism can fight off this obvious and evil cancer. I sure hope so. The question will be if the sane conservatives can make their case without being stigmatized as members of “the Cathedral” by hotheaded young turks who are inclined to see extremism as “integrity”. It goes without saying that no Catholic should give it the time of day–and that many Catholics will anyway. At least one of my readers has a young, formerly Catholic, relative who is going for this vile crap in a big way (he now practices bullshit white supremacist paganism because Christianity adulterated European racial stock with its acceptance of all races as children of God) and it is apparently going viral in some College Republican circles (according to people who are writing me about it).

A conservatism decoupled from the Christian tradition will not be a good thing any more than liberalism decoupled from the Faith has been. A conservatism that perverts the Christian tradition into the service of racialism and white supremacy will be a deeply evil thing. Only a race as fallen and stupid as homo sapiens can look back on the 20th century and conclude, “Racial ideology is absolutely the way to go!” But to step from the Catholic faith into the sewer of racialism take a special kind of stupid.

"There is a term these days for what you are doing. It's called "gaslighting"--and gaslighting ..."

I don’t buy all of this, ..."
"I never heard of garabandal before now. All kinds of predictions, some comfortably in the ..."

I don’t buy all of this, ..."
"Oh, and now we all learn just today (from "crack reporters," if you'll pardon the ..."

I don’t buy all of this, ..."
"Try being loyal to Pope Francis first."

I don’t buy all of this, ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I read the Bizarro World travelogue you linked to. I can’t decide what’s worse: that erstwhile intelligent people are clamoring to overthrow democracy based on Star Wars and Matrix quotes, or that the author of that article concluded that they’re to be taken seriously.
    Not that I don’t see a serious problem here–several, in fact.
    1) These moral and historical idiots actually have a following.
    2) Therefore, large numbers of the population are just as morally and historically ignorant.
    3) That includes people like the post’s author, whose only defense against frothing right-wing chronological snobbery is smirking left-wing chronological snobbery. (I nearly broke my keyboard in half when he credited the Enlightenment with advances first made during the High Middle Ages; then had the gall to imply that a Dark Enlightenment triumph would set the clock back to the 14th century. And hey, what are these regressives complaining for anyway, what with everything being better than ever now since everybody [where I live] has so much stuff?)
    4) People with rational, morally sound critiques of modernity and political correctness will be labeled Dark Enlightenment fanatics by leftists, thus marginalizing sane conservatives with constructive ideas for preserving democracy.

    • chezami

      Yeah. The author of the piece is all kinds of smug. But nobody has take the trouble to catalog the “intellectual” sources of this nascent racialist movement with pretenses to some kind of philosophical credential so far, except this guy. Given the epic cluelessness and lack of discernment I regularly encounter from Conservaties who will follow any crook, charlatan or moron just so long as he hates on the correct PC pieties–and given that I am encounter more and more alarums that these jerks are winning a hearing on College Republican forums–I thought it worth giving a heads up. Ignore the smugness of the critic and pay attention to the fact that a post-Christian racialism, frank in its white supremacy is being taken more and more seriously by the faux intellectuals of the young right. That’s very, very bad.

      • Mandatum Mandat

        Why is it “very, very bad”?

        • chezami

          You mean, aside from the fact that racialism was the basis of a war that killed 50 million people?

      • Guy

        Libertarian Vox Day (Ted Beale) has responded to your piece…any thoughts?


        • What’s to think about? This? “[E]very church, including the Roman Catholic Church, that has embraced equalitarianism, feminism, and anti-racism has almost immediately begun to die.”

          Anyone who wants the Church to be pro-racism isn’t someone desirable to engage with. Also, Mr. Beale’s false dichtomy between Christianity and what he calls “Churchianism” sounds like a rejection of Sacred Tradition. No thanks.

      • I’m with you. Just pointing out that PC lacks the rhetorical strength to stop what is largely a golem of its own making. It can’t deal with an ethos that rejects its categories wholesale except by saying “shut up.” That sort of preaching only convinces the choir.
        Like you’ve said, the only way out of this mess is for everyone (starting with me) to repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  • James H, London

    I have occasionally wandered through some of what that article is talking about. Basically, you shouldn’t get your information about a movement from its opposition (or in this case, its target).

    Granted there is some zombie Nazi component to a lot of it, but the source of its rage is a violent reaction against Political Correctness and the feminism that informs ‘Eat Pray Love’. In fact, I would hazard a guess that a large chunk of their audience has been taken to the cleaners in a divorce by a woman who wanted to ‘find herself’. One of them regularly links to John C Wright’s articles, though he doesn’t return the compliment.

    • MarylandBill

      The only problem with your argument here is that plenty of us have learned about these groups not from their opponents but from their web sites. The fact that some might read John C Wright does not excuse the racist beliefs they hold.

      As for the comment about divorce and women, I suspect that most of them bear far more responsibility for their divorces than they are willing to admit. It is easier to place all the blame on their wives than admit their own fault (in fairness blaming the spouse for the divorce is a two way street).

    • chezami

      I’ve gotten my information initially by reading the racialist bullshit over at the Occam’s Razor blog and similar watering holes for these goons. I just thought this guy did a decent summary of the “intellectual” (if you want to call it that) sources for this crap. Violent reaction to things are not a smart way for Catholics to proceed. We are far more *for* something than against something and the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Avoid this poison.

      • James H, London

        ” Violent reaction to things are not a smart way for Catholics to proceed.”

        Granted. These guys, where Christian, are the Evangelical equivalent of RadTrads (who also haunt the blogs). Poison, indeed.

        ” the enemy of my enemy is not my friend”

        Not always.

  • ivan_the_mad

    I see they’ve got Chronicles magazine in their data visualization. I think that’s accurate. I subscribed to that rag for a couple of years but let the subscription lapse because the racial undertone became less and less subtle. This Dark Enlightenment filth is the inevitable conclusion to pernicious ideas of blood and soil. The slope there is slippery indeed.

    Conservatism’s antidotes to such a poison are still many and potent, drawn from one of the richest of human patrimonies, if the patient will suffer the treatment. Look to Scripture first, and then to the likes of Dawson and Kirk.

    “The principal elements of this common patrimony of American and European
    civilization are the Christian faith, the Roman and medieval heritage of ordered liberty, and the great body of Western literature. It is a legacy of belief, not a legacy of blood. So far as race and nationality are concerned, the continuity between Europe and America is very confused and imperfect.” — Russell Kirk, The Common Heritage of America and Europe

  • Andrew Simons

    Reagan got the ball rolling with legitimizing racism by kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, judging non-existent “welfare queens” driving Cadillacs (gee, what race do you think she is?), and exploiting conservatism’s “Southern strategy” as legitimate. The reason many of us have a hard time giving conservative ideas more than a passing consideration is because racism is an essential part of modern conservatism. Just look at the sea of white faces at any Republican gathering — you’ll get the drift.

    • Paul Druce

      No, Reagan was actually referring to a real person who was then currently in the news. Bit surprising to find that out actually.


      • Andrew Simons

        Reagan used *one* real person (a welfare fraud case) to make a racist generalization about welfare recipients. Reagan’s idea of “big-tent Republicanism” was to include unabashed racism in the fold.

        • Paul Druce

          If you could point to his racist generalizations, I’d be much obliged.

    • Rob Hobart

      So you have a hard time giving credit to conservative ideas because you believe false stories about Ronald Reagan? Count me unimpressed.

      Also, what does this have to do with the crackpots in the Dark Enlightenment movement? Nothing.

  • CJ

    “Sometimes, it appeals to something called “Western” Christianity, but this is basically a fig leaf for getting discernment-free conservatives to jettison actual Christian teaching in favor of nutty white supremacy . . . ”

    Uncle Screwtape saw these clowns coming miles away:

    “On the other hand we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience.”

  • Mark, one of the key bloggers for these cranks is “Mencius Moldbug,” whose main interests are not racialism (not that he’s necessarily opposed), but monarchism and hard-money Austrian economics.
    The racialist stuff is easy for most of us to reject. But I have met a troubling number of conservative Catholics who are *way* too fond of, e.g., monarchism. Some of these are the reactionary opponents of Pope Francis you often complain about. I once met a monarchist seminarian in Boston who had printed up business cards for himself with a self-designed coat of arms on them who wouldn’t shut up about monarchism and how the Founders were awful until I quoted enough of Deuteronomy and 1 Samuel at him to make him buzz off (he was used to blocking attacks from the Lockeanism to his left, but being accused of idolatry for having a King other than Christ was a jab from the right, and it struck home). Plenty of great medieval Catholics were understandably monarchists, and (non-figurehead) monarchism isn’t inherently evil or anything, as opposed to insanely unrealistic under modern conditions. But the monarchist *subculture* is rife with Dark Enlightenment people. It’s probably the main connection between the bad kind of Latin Mass enthusiasts and the Dark Enlightenment.
    As for Austrian econ, although I personally disagree with it and think it may be incompatible with Catholic social teaching, plenty of good Catholics believe in it. But unfortunately, goldbuggery often leads to Ron Paul often leads to Confederate apologetics, and then you’re right in the fever swamps, despite (I hasten to clarify) Austrian econ itself not being more than a legitimate prudential judgment about how the world works that I personally disagree with.
    IOW, don’t just attack the racism. It’s not the gateway drug; it’s too obviously evil. The Catholics who are most likely to fall prey to this Satanic Machiavellianism are good people who start with something legitimate (a love for the Extraordinary Form, or hard money opinions in economics, or a love for their native South, or a love of medieval chivalry) and then meet other enthusiasts for what they love who have fallen into this pit. Satan uses the good things these people love to make this apologetic for tyranny seem incrementally more plausible to his unwary victims, until they find themselves thinking the U.S. should be a racialist tyranny run by a C.E.O.-monarch who owns everthing–it’s gradual, like the proverbial boiled frog.
    We need to pray for these people.

    • Stu

      There is nothing about monarchy that is incompatible with the faith. In fact, one could argue that monarchies of old were actually much more decentralized in power sharing than our current government which admittedly has drifted away from it’s federalist roots.

      I would be more concerned with the racial aspects and the Austrian economics.

      • I agree entirely about monarchy. The City of God is relatively indifferent to whether the City of Man is organized like the Roman Empire, or a kingdom, or a representative democracy, or whatever.
        My worry is that the pro-monarchist Internet subculture in our own cultural moment, qua contemporary subculture, is riddled with sympathizers with this Dark Enlightenment baloney. Far too many blogs with pretty blazons on the side of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy’s coat of arms, or a picture of St. Louis of France on the masthead, or similar tics, link approvingly to posts by the likes of Moldbug and Nick Land. So the monarchist *websites* are kind of the problem, not the once actually exisiting monarchies of, e.g., the High Middle Ages, or a personal devotion to veneration of Blessed Charles I of Austria (whom I personally think ought to be canonized someday, and find quite inspiring).
        TL;DR: the problem isn’t yesterday’s monarchy. It’s today’s monarchists.
        Aside: Whatever an American monarchist is, he isn’t a conservative. For all its flaws, Lockean republicanism is the only traditional organic political culture we have in this country.
        Pining for American monarchy is un-conservative utopian revolutionary twaddle: these people think they’re prudent Jacobites, but sadly they’re sickly Jacobins.

        • Stu

          I’m a monarchist. And an American. And a Catholic. And a Distributist.

          • Fair enough. FWIW, you’re not the people I’m talking about. You’re not a racist, and you don’t want to see the U.S. Constitution replaced by any sort of autocracy. The people I’m talking about have begun with a legitimate affection for monarchy (often inspired by the British monarchism of the Inklings, or Burke) but have fallen in with a racist, pro-autocracy crowd.
            That’s a problem with the subculture. It’s sort of akin to how the social justice subculture in the Church often flirts dangerously with either Marxist liberationism or heretical ideas about sexuality.
            The interest is legitimate, but ya gotta be careful out there with all the cranks on the Internet. I often find that I’ll start reading a liberal blog post at the Washington Post, and a few clicks later, I’m at an article at some Marxist magazine. Or I’ll start reading an article at The American Conservative, and a few clicks later I’m at a “human biodiversity” forum post. The good stuff is in dangerous proximity to the soul-rotting stuff. I think anyone who reads lots of politics on the Internet has observed this.
            Since I’m VERY sympathetic to Distributism myself, I’ve noticed that it’s usually only few clicks away from some very charming sites about monarchism, but that those sites often link to the Dark Enlightenment stuff. That doesn’t mean we need to throw out Distributism or those pretty pictures of medieval coats of arms. But it does mean that we need to exercise prudence.
            TL;DR: I’m reasonably certain we’re on the same team here.

            • Stu

              We are on the same team.

              I think the key is engagement. There will always be cranks. But there will always we newcomers to any movement who aren’t able right away to sort the wheat from the chaff.

              Perhaps I need to start posting on some of these more extreme sites as a counter. (As if I don’t always get enough flak here 🙂 ).

              • You might find yourself engaged in the wearisome futility of casting pearls before swine if you try to engage on some of the more extreme sites. And, while I know you can take care of yourself quite capably (IIRC the threads on gun ownership correctly), do please remember that some of the racialist types, in particular, can seek out people offline and get violent.
                (Godspeed if you try it, though! You have enough authentic conservative/traditionalist cred that you’d probably do a far better job getting through to such folks than, e.g., the likes of me.)

    • Pavel Chichikov

      And make them buzz off?

      • That’s fair. The monarchist seminarian (now a priest) has had some really heavy crosses to bear in his life, from what I’ve heard–escapist enthusiasms don’t spring from nowhere. Perhaps I should’ve been more charitiable in the heat of the moment. Certainly, for all I know, he’s a great priest now, and a better man than I am. For his sake, I pray he is.

    • Isobel_Riel

      Moldbug is not an Austrian.

      • Okay. His hard money proclivities, along with the mention of Austrian economics in his “About Me” blurb, misled me.

  • Chase

    One thing that always dismays me about idiots like this is that they tend to derail legitimate criticisms of political correctness, feminism, multiculturalism, etc. As far as monarchy is concerned, I am sympathetic to the old monarchies of Europe, but they are gone, and cannot be revived without heavy-handed actions no Catholic could support. However, I do think in the modern world we have become much too accustomed to the idea that the “endpoint” of political progress is democracy, a form of government I consider no better or worse per se than any other legitimate form, with major advantages and major problems of its own. That said, it’s what we have, and attempts to remove it will almost *always* be driven by more insidious, power-hungry elements.

    Anyway, all I wanted to say is that I hate when guys like this taint legitimate things with nonsense … it happens with liberalism, too, unfortunately. How many of you left-leaning folks out there have been accused of Marxism just because you support workers’ rights?

    • Stu

      But isn’t that the tendency? In an attempt to correct, we continually oversteer in the opposite direction. It’ either full rudder pedal to the right or full rudder pedal to the left instead of focusing on our course line. And it seems to me that Catholicism has been the steadying influence in the past to such a binary approach to steering.

      • Stu: Right on!

        “People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy.It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad.

        “It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic.

        “The Church in its early days went fierce and fast with any warhorse; yet it is utterly unhistoric to say that she merely went mad along one idea, like a vulgar fanaticism. She swerved to left and right, so exactly as to avoid enormous obstacles. . . .

        “It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic.

        “It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one’s own.

        “It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom—that would indeed have been simple.

        “It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame.

        “But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.”

        —G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, in The Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton, vol. 1 (Ignatius, 1996), pp. 305-6.

  • It would be helpful to decouple the empirical matter of human biodiversity (i.e., the factual consequence of evolution by natural selection acting on humans) from political/religious/whatever ideologies.

    I talk about human biodiversity (and I’m Black). How do I fit in your system?

    About Me « JayMan’s Blog

    • Chase

      I’m not sure about the “system” people mention here, but I always thought of “race” as a perception created by the fact that populations living in certain local areas tend to keep certain traits among them when limited by geography — in other words, I think it’s more our social perception of shared traits among certain groups, but I think it’s largely illusory and has way more to do with how we perceive race culturally than any actual biological distinction (which I think is no deeper, or not much deeper between skin colors than hair colors).

      The absurdity of “race” as a category has go to be the US census and all the subcategories under “Hispanic” (I have a friend from Venezuela named Chwoschtschinsky who is “Hispanic”) … originally the word meant something similar to “nationality” (see “the Scottish race” etc.). Only in 19th century pseudo-science did people start to think of races as somehow immutable categories people fit into, and that was fed by pseudo-Darwinian (I don’t wanna blame the man for what was done in his name) polygenesis and the notion that we are in fact, *not* one human family. But Catholics reject this crap.

      • , but I always thought of “race” as a perception created by the fact that populations living in certain local areas tend to keep certain traits among them when limited by geography

        In other words, geography affects the course of evolution, through isolation and adaptation to local conditions.

        I think it’s more our social perception of shared traits among certain groups, but I think it’s largely illusory and has way more to do with how we perceive race culturally than any actual biological distinction (which I think is no deeper, or not much deeper between skin colors than hair colors).

        Or lactose tolerance?

        The absurdity of “race” as a category has go to be the US census and all the subcategories under “Hispanic” (I have a friend from Venezuela named Chwoschtschinsky who is “Hispanic”)

        The problems inherent to the classification of race (which is by nature fuzzy and resist crisp delineation) doesn’t mean there is nothing to a category like say Hispanics, or that they don’t have things in common with each other that are distinct from other groups in the U.S.

        • Chase

          Cultural qualities, yes. Racial qualities, no, I refuse to accept that. At least no more than “American” is a race — “Hispanics” are just as racially diverse as US Americans, the major difference being cultural.

          Again, I do not doubt that as groups get isolated from one another, there are shared genetic features and characteristics, just as there are in families. But to pretend like there are immutable categories that can be neatly divided is utter crap.

          • Cultural qualities, yes. Racial qualities, no, I refuse to accept that.

            Reality doesn’t care about what you want to accept.

            At least no more than “American” is a race — “Hispanics” are just as racially diverse as US Americans, the major difference being cultural.

            Did you visit the link I gave you? Did you read it?

            In fact, White Americans are on their way to becoming their own distinct group.

            Again, I do not doubt that as groups get isolated from one another, there are shared genetic features and characteristics, just as there are in families.

            That’s basically the essence of it all.

            But to pretend like there are immutable categories that can be neatly divided is utter crap.

            You may want to look into fuzzy categories vs discreet categories.

            • Chase

              How are white “Hispanics” and black “Hispanics” any different from white Americans and black Americans?

              Why is a third-generation Argentine of Italian descent considered the same “race” as an Afro-Brazilian from Salvador de Bahía or a Maya Indian from Guatemala? That’s simply absurd.

              • Guest

                You don’t want to ask that question. Never ask that question. Just refuse to consider it, and leave it at that.

          • Right. “Hispanicness” is about ethnicity (i.e. culture), not race or skin color, because Latinos come in every race and every combination thereof.

            • Guest

              There was a time before “combinations thereof” and a time before the multicultural “culture” was forced on them to “combine” them. And in that time, yes, you have it right- multiple races existed. And it is those multiple races which make you a “racist” for having mentioned them. Stop noticing that race exists, you racist!

            • IRVCath

              Right. I know a Cuban-American who could easily be mistaken for an African-American if he did not open his mouth. We also, of course, know of Pope Francis, who looks like a guero, as my friends would say.. Both look different. But still both are Latino.

    • chezami

      On the contrary, if you are going to talk about human biodiversity, you *must* talk about the fundamental insight of the Catholic faith that, whatever our differences in natural abilities, God is no respecter of persons and we are all beloved of God. Otherwise, post-Christian racialism will most certainly be the result, as so clearly evidnenced by the racialist bullshit of the DE crowd.

      • Tucker

        whatever our differences in natural abilities, God is no respecter of persons and we are all beloved of God

        All of the Christian Dark Enlightenment sites *do* believe this, Mark.

    • Ethnic averages tell us nothing actionable about individuals. Further, ethnic averages in traits like IQ seem to be determined by socioeconomic factors. See, e.g., http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/race-iq-and-wealth/

      • Ethnic averages tell us nothing actionable about individuals.

        Indeed. They do tell you about probabilities, however, without having any additional information to go on (though that’s a slightly advanced topic).

        Further, ethnic averages in traits like IQ seem to be determined by socioeconomic factors. See, e.g., http://www.theamericanconserva

        That piece is complete and utter rubbish. The short answer is that IQ is predictive of various outcomes despite poverty and economic development.

        See my discussion of the matter here:

        Welcome Readers from Portugal! | JayMan’s Blog

        and more on the topic here:

        HBD Fundamentals | JayMan’s Blog

  • John Teggatz

    Majority rule is just great when you are in the majority. A lot of young white males realize that they are not going to inherit the world of their fathers and grandfathers and will no longer be the majority, so of course they’re upset. They’re unable to find women who wait and dote on them like their grandmother’s generation. So when you are no longer the majority (due to immigration and drastically dropping birthrates among your group i.e. race), democracy becomes “demotive” and you want to replace it with a meritocracy and/or aristocracy that “naturally” puts your group back on top.

  • Hi Mark. I’m a fan of your blog, and this post is funny, but I think you would do well to read the smarter people among the Dark Enlightenment before dismissing them all as white supremacist cranks. I don’t really see how this does anybody any good.

    I don’t think it implies a rejection of Christian universalism to note that public policy today is almost entirely based upon the premise of equality of aptitude, mental and otherwise, and that that has consequences. It’s just intellectually dishonest to conflate the two. In the public school system, our children are educated based on the idea that they all have identical mental aptitude. It isn’t true. The Dark Enlightenment is one of the only things out there that points that out — rather than these ridiculous conservative movement bromides about how the left has abandoned “true equality.” Yes, this attracts some crazy people. There are others that call themselves Nixon Republicans.

    The Dark Enlightenment, as I see it, is about getting out of the degenerative process that social equality creates — finding an ‘exit.’ One needn’t agree about the extent of degeneration, or even the source, to see the value of this type of thinking. This is the “Benedict option.” It’s free cities. It’s seasteading. One can even see echoes of this anti-democratic thinking as the Tea Party realizes democratic politics are not at all amenable to conservative ends, that’s why they’re starting to talk about things like an Article V convention and nullification.

    The neopagan thing is silly because that basically applies to the pre-neoreactionary alternative right — the Richard Spencer/Alternative Right type people, who often fell off the edge into neopaganism. Neoreactionaries tend to be atheists or Christians.

    • chezami

      Nah. It’s racist bullshit.

    • As for Mark Levin-style embraces of Article V conventions, nullification, and suchlike, I think its just people trying to change the rules of the game because the electorate is getting to look less like them–“the 47%” and all that. It’s about stifling “voice” for others. But if it’s your thing, there are plenty of Tea Party groups in which to pursue it without veering into HBD precincts.

      “Exit” options like free cities and seasteading can be pursued amongst more standard issue Patri Friedman libertarian types. No need to go all Dark Enlightenment–although admittedly there is a fair amount of overlap. (E.g., Michael Anissimov, IIRC).
      If you want to pursue Dreher’s “Benedict Option,” go live in an intentional Catholic community. No need to bring any of this Dark Enlightenment Machiavellianism into it.

      • The Deuce

        As for Mark Levin-style embraces of Article V conventions,
        nullification, and suchlike, I think its just people trying to change
        the rules of the game because the electorate is getting to look less
        like them–“the 47%” and all that.

        Sort of like how Catholics are trying to change the rules of the game and exempt themselves from providing contraception like everyone else. Sure, you all talk about “God-given rights” and “conscience” and “freedom of religion” and so forth, but we all know that’s *really* just a smokescreen for stifling the voices of women because you’re uncomfortable with an electorate that looks less like you, and hence all your concerns can be summarily dismissed with a bit of uncharitable psychoanalysis.

        (Sarcasm mode disengaged)

        Seriously, so many of you Catholics are your own worst enemies. I was infuriated by the contraception mandate when it first came out, and HHS’s blatant attack on the Catholic church, but recently I find myself less and less so. Why should I waste my time caring more about Catholics’ religious rights than they themselves do, even as they continue to dig their own graves while insulting the people trying to help?

        And if you don’t want people turning to the Dark Enlightenment, then how stupid do you have to be to respond to their concerns and questions with nothing more than pretentious sneering confirming their suspicions that you’ve got it in for them? If only one group is speaking to a person’s issues, that’s probably where that person is going to go.

    • SouthronKittie

      Jordan? The same one who goes by J. Arthur, who wrote this about the NPI conference last October for The Daily Caller?
      “It might seem that this is just a particularly nasty internet
      subculture, and it is, but their numbers are growing and they can be
      quite abusive, as a recent 20/20 report found.”
      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/19/white-nationalists-to-gather-in-washington-dc-next-weekend/#ixzz2rFwQh4Kl

  • John F

    I urge Mark and all of his readers to take JayMan’s words very seriously, and to read the introductory material on his website. “Human biodiversity” is a (obviously) real thing and by no means necessarily entails the value judgments progressives (and Christians) find so repugnant. Cogent political and social thinking MUST be grounded in a realistic anthropology, and research into human biodiversity gives us a mass of valuable data on the purely objective side of the anthropological question.

    Best of wishes.

  • Lamprotatia

    This stuff is all over Tumblr and it scares the crap out of me, because these kids are at just the right age to get sucked into evil culty bullcrap and end up so far in they don’t even know what happened to them. Even a lot of Catholics who aren’t into it and wouldn’t approve of the racism end up following guys (almost always guys) who ARE into it, because they are all over the tags celebrating Western religious art for all the wrong reasons. It’s insidious. Since my name over there is auf deutsch I’ve gotten followed by a lot of them, a lot of them blatantly glorify nazi “heroes” and post antisemitic conspiracy theories and gross misogynistic rantings alongside their lacy vestments and EF Mass snobbery. They unfollow me quickly when they find out I love Jews enough to have married one, adore our new pope, and don’t let racist idiocy pass without scathing comment.

    • Exactly. And this is why I worry. The EF Mass (and lacy vestments) are magnificent things. But people with legitimate interests in these things (or in traditional Western art and literature, as you say) can end up falling in with a bad crowd. It’s one more thing to prepare our kids against, and perhaps to warn about in catechesis.

      • Lamprotatia

        Yeah it seems to sneak up on people. When I first noticed it, I was sure people couldn’t be saying what I thought they were saying, advocating what they seemed to be advocating. People who are into the traditionalist stuff end up reading a lot of very old books with archaic ideas about society, and they are mining them for ideas that have been rejected by the mainstream that might still have great value. Sometimes that turns up gems. Sometimes they end up with 19th century “scientific” racism starting to sound reasonable to an impressionable young person. And then things generally go downhill from there. Especially when contrarianism is a strong motivator and/or personality trait, and they dig their heels into “anything that upsets minorities and women is brave and anti-PC, anything old is better than the new ways, anyone who criticizes these ideas is a Modernist heretic bla bla.”

        Even like, Chesterton, a trad darling if ever there was one, thought women shouldn’t vote, for instance. A young person who inhales GKC’s writings whole and spews them back out as their life philosophy will end up with that on board, because they aren’t reading him critically enough. And I have seen exactly that–angry young people insisting that women should not vote because of this and that argument from 1909.

        I’ve seen a fair number of young Orthodox men getting into this stuff on Tumblr, too.

    • R7 Rocket

      Of course it’s guys, it’s the guys who topple over decaying ruling structures. Especially guys who are not tied down by a wife. Thanks to the marriage strike against “marriage” 2.0, that single male population is growing. While deficits and unfunded liabilities are also growing.

  • Red

    Umm … Jordan Bloom? I appreciate your response here, but didn’t you just write a PC hit piece against Richard Spencer? Doesn’t everything you criticize about this post apply to your Richard Spencer article? Granted, your article was somewhat less of an exercise in “point and sputter” outrage than this post, but neither did you engage Spencer’s concerns or arguments. You primarily presented offenses against political correctness as if they were self damning. (FTW, I think all the neo-pagan nonsense in some of these circles is highly unfortunate.)

  • John Teggatz

    It’s interesting that for all their bluster and macho bravado, the Darkly Enlightened seem very thin-skinned, now that they are facing more critical attention. How quickly their pretense of high, “aristocratic” intellect drops when challenged in even the slightest way, and then it’s up to the mid-level bloglodytes to resort to hackneyed ad hominem counterattacks.

  • ivan_the_mad

    I thought this pertinent given the impotent and ignorant rage visited upon this thread by a horde of flying monkeys from the furthest recesses of the Intarwebz:

    “This psychological breach with the old European Christian tradition is a much more serious thing than any political or economic revolution, for it means not only the dethronement of the moral conscience but also the abdication of the rational consciousness which is inseparably bound up with it. It is indeed doubtful if Western society can survive the change, for it is not a return to the past or to the roots of our social life. It is too radical for that. Instead of going downstairs step by step, neo-paganism jumps out of the top-storey [sic] window, and whether one jumps out of the right-hand window or the left makes very little difference by the time one reaches the pavement.” — Christopher Dawson, Understanding Europe

  • There have been several calls to avoid secondary sources and go straight to the horse’s mouth before commenting. I went over to JayMan’s about page and clicked through some of the HBD links.
    A lot of the studies he cites empirically prove that empirical differences between people exist. Some folks nowadays may need to be informed of this fact. Most people, if they’re honest, acknowledge the physical and mental inequalities between themselves and others.
    The fatal deficiency in basing any kind of political or moral theory on these data is the insurmountable obstacle of deriving an “ought” from an “is”. Sure, empirical science can contribute to such discussions, but moral judgments are the exclusive realm of philosophy and theology.
    A telling statement on JayMan’s site is the metaphysical claim that all scientists should be atheists. Reasonable men of good will may differ on that point, but one who espouses materialist determinism utters a self-contradiction whenever he says “should”. In fact, he does so whenever he tries to convince anyone of anything. Furthermore, he commits the same fallacy by presuming materialism and then claiming that empirical science can be trusted at all.
    Pre-Christian cultures saw people’s inequalities clearly enough to make slavery and total war the norm. It took the supernatural revelation that all men are created equal in God’s image to fill in the blanks left by nature and correct the ancients’ excesses. We’re now facing the twofold consequences of rejecting that reveled truth: totalitarian liberalism enforcing a tyranny of relativism, and a movement that reacts against liberal errors to the point of embracing barbarism.

  • tz1

    Sometimes, it appeals to something called “Western” Christianity, but
    this is basically a fig leaf for getting discernment-free conservatives
    to jettison actual Christian teaching in favor of nutty white supremacy
    by rhetoric about how Euro-superiority makes it plain that the whole “in
    Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek” race indifference is a huge

    ref: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/01/dark-enlightenment-second-stage.html

    Conservatives who discern become libertarians.

    The sections of Africa when not governed by whites tended to be different than those governed by whites. At what point does “actual Christian teaching” tell you to deny obvious truth? This does not mean I assign a CAUSE, only that – ignoring the cause – whites may rule better or worse than blacks. In the sense that under Saddam Hussein, who I don’t think was an Christian, Christians were far better off than under Christian USA Bushian Vichy rule.

    Racism tends to destroy rationality on both sides. Better Idi Amin than De Clerk? Better Zimbabwe than Rhodesia (are the people really better off? If someone did what actually happened, would it be considered good or evil)?

    Racism has been displaced from its proper place as a minor evil in its benign forms, and has ascended to something like “the woman’s right to choose”.

    Racism itself derives its evil because it places a facade that denies the truth – a readily observable truth, and destroys justice. But the same truth says we must not deny existing differences and heal the harm, or support the helps.

    I’ve noted the dearth of colored people at the local church (I’m in Kent, WA at the moment). Perhaps we should have an express or simply not bother with RCIA and baptism and invite “people of color” into communion of the Catholic Church without bothering with all that procedural stuff… Oh… But isn’t fighting racism more important than procedure? Didn’t a recent reading recount Cornelius who was a Gentile Why treat PoC like goyim and insist they be circumcised or go through other irrelevant stuff?

    Discernment, temperance, and justice are hard and dear things.

    • chezami

      Conservatives who discern become Catholics whose minds are formed by the teaching of the Church, not by the shallow human heresy of libertarianism. As to the rest of what you wrote, it was absolutely incomprehensible to me.

      • Ita Scripta Est


        Vox Day is a rabid anti-Cathoic who blames Catholics for “ruining” America, and yet while Vox lives in Italy!

        • Chase

          Anyone else notice that “Vox Day” is a pun on “Vox Dei” (“the Voice of God”), at least how English speakers tend to mispronounce it?

  • Yeargh

    After seeing some of the comments that Mark has now (mercifully) deleted, I have no idea how anyone could get drawn into a movement like Dark Enlightenment where the followers are mentally ill, possessed, or both.

  • Ita Scripta Est

    If anything the so-called Dark Enlightenment is more libertarian than anything else.

    • Rob Hobart

      Only in the sense that it is in concert with the neo-Confederate/racist fringe of Libertarianism — the people Ron Paul was trying to appeal to with his notorious “newsletters.”

      • Ita Scripta Est

        I totally agree. That is why I oppose it.

  • Matt Baen

    From what I can gather, there are three major streams of ‘thought’ that converge in the Dark Enlightenment: 1) an elitist, ultra-capitalist form of Singularitarianism from tech industry types, 2) scientific racism from heterodox academics, 3) misogyny from the pick-up artist/men’s rights activist community. The other streams (Christianist, white nationalist, monarchist etc.) are either inconsistent with others in the network or marginal.

    Could opposition to the Dark Enlightenment be something that unites conservative Christians and liberal atheists?

    • Rob Hobart

      I doubt it, but one can hope.

    • No, it’ll be something that unites progressives and progressives.

      Same thing really.

      • Matt Baen

        The Dark Enlightenment is black metal for those embarrassed by corpsepaint: ‘traditionalism’, claims of being part of an ‘elite’, thrilled by transgressing against the establishment, provincial thug racism and misogyny with flimsy esoteric rationale.

        • In Rome, of course, critics were no problem. Out here in Pontus, it’s pretty much all, you talk like a fag. What makes the provincial critic so grimly, hilariously terrible is that he imagines himself not just equal to the wits of the metropolis, but vastly superior. Is it even possible to respond? Shall the man of letters respond: “excuse me, ‘Dr. Lexus,’ but I am resolutely heterosexual – as if it mattered – and ‘my shit,’ as you call it, is anything but ‘all retarded’?”

          • chezami

            Another classy representative of DE!

  • SpaceNazi

    My friends, your upstart cult of Catholicism is a criminal cannibal cabal built upon lies and fabrications. Only the prophet Lovecraft (pbuh) has revealed the abysmal truth about this ‘verse: that idiot Outer Gods rule our dying cosmos from the black spiral vortex at the center of infinity, and sent dead Cthulhu to destroy this planet when the stars come right again. I care not about Dark Enlightenment, but Endarkenment is understanding these and similar truths.

    Azathoth sees all! Azathoth knows all! Azathoth destroys all! Azathoth akbar!

    • Kristin

      For added enjoyment, read this aloud in a heavy metal growl.

    • Rob Hobart

      What a silly person you are.

  • SpaceNazi

    After 2000 years of persecution and cultural destruction, Europe is finally waking up and putting the nails in the coffin of the Cult of the Dead Jew. Let us hope the rest of the Western world follows suit. It’s payback time for the Nazarene cultists!

    • chezami

      I think I’ll leave you up too, just in case some people don’t believe you morons exist.

  • 237kmt

    If you can’t figure out how and why resource poor Switzerland and resource rich Swaziland are so different by the time your 30 years old, you’ve got some growing up to do.

    • chezami

      You mean besides the fact that Switzerland was never under the heel of a colonial power?

      • Michael Mason

        WTF? The Swiss people have had to lick the boots of the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, and Napoleon. Don’t give me that shit. Look just within the United States. Why are Detroit and parts of Chicago and Washington D.C. starting to look like the Congo? Why oh why could it be?

    • waltherm

      “by the time your 30 years old”

      If you don’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re” by the time YOU’RE 10 years old, YOU’RE dumber than any Swazilander I’ve ever met.

    • Rob Hobart

      Culture and race are not the same.

  • Rebel_Alliance

    Rather a risible article considering the cultural genocide that Christianity and the Catholic church has perpetrated across Europe for millenia. The Renaissance wasn’t really about rediscovering the myth of your ‘Christ’, it was about shrugging off the evil repression your religion brings.

    • Rob Hobart

      I would say your response is far more “risible,” especially given the historical illiteracy it displays.

  • DaveHolden

    “…nutty white supremacy…”

    What is that – opposing genocide? And are Zionists “nutty”?

  • Ranjit Patel

    I agree with the above: but this “DE” delusion is a reaction to the obvious, constant attacks on Christian civilization taking place throughout the West..sadly, Christians – including the Pope – have been largely supine in the face of this since the 1960s.

    • chezami

      “Reaction” is a notoriously stupid way to navigate life, particularly when it includes reaction against the Church.

  • VoiceofReason

    The Negro is a primitive specimen which cannot function in civilization and brings with it numerous unpleasant qualities everywhere it goes. Negroes do not belong in White societies, and they certainly cannot be granted “equal rights” or freedom when they are patently not our equals. Their inferior genes damn them to a savage existence.

    Negroes are genetic poison. HBD proves this. They must be treated as a biological menace. When a superior race mates with a Negro, their progeny is doomed because it lowers their average IQ.

    Consider this comparison: Rabbits are much cuter and less destructive than Negroes. Rabbits have never created a hellhole like Detroit or Haiti. But when rabbits become pests and destroy crops, we have no choice but to drastically reduce the number of rabbits. Negroes reproduce themselves at a much faster rate than rabbits because they’re too stupid to have any foresight or understand the lessons about contraception that liberals try to give them. Therefore, the White Man needs to step in and deal with the problem accordingly.

    Negroes should be relegated to the evolutionary dungheap where they belong.

    • chezami

      I’m also leaving you up so people can see what a crock of racist shit Dark Enlightenment is.

      • Michael Mason

        The problem is, my friend, that the word “racist” is loosing meaning rapidly among those in society who are independent thinkers. People are starting to see the obvious reality of racial differences and how multiculturalism is making a cesspool of every community it touches. It’s not like the 70s and 80s when everyone got their information from Jewish-owned television networks. Thanks to the internet, people can watch videos of how blacks really behave and what black countries look like.

        • Imrahil

          You don’t believe what you say do you.

          I had agreed myself that the word “racist” is sometimes broadened too much. However, anyone in his mind sees a comment such as that of “voice-of-reason” above aptly termed racist and quite abominable. In fact, criminal.

          • Michael Mason

            Evolution is a scientific theory of reason. It is because of evolution that racial differences exist. Do you really think that genetic traits are distributed equally among all human populations? Do you really think that the only reason why blacks fail to meet western standards everywhere is because of “white racism.” I really don’t understand what you’re trying to argue.

            • Imrahil

              And I really don’t understand why you don’t understand me. “voice of reason”‘s comment was *not* scientific. It was plain hatred and racism.

              I should not probably be answering. Because of my dislike to leave questions unanswered, I will do so nevertheless.


              I am agnostic to the question about the “distribution of genetic traits”. That is a scientific question and I am neither an ethnologue nor a biologist.

              I am not agnostic about morals, though. And in this point, the question is not “do differences exist”. That can either be left unknown or, if we are interested, science will answer (theoretically). The question is “supposing unprovenly that differences exist, what then?”.

              And in this, which is not science but morals, just anything “voice of reason” wrote above is completely heinous. I will not it repeat it, but doesn’t it freaking get into your head that saying “there are genetic differences by average” is something freaking *different* from planning, in an ode of hatred, racial extermination?

              • Imrahil

                By the way, just as an annotation because I can’t hold my mouth shut about something specific, supposing again that the IQ average of black people are indeed lower. 1. that is about an average, why should not a white girl marry an intelligent black man? 2. Why should not an intelligent man marry a rather less so woman, or vice versa? Wouldn’t this, *under* the hypothesis, even be a kind of *benefit*?

            • kfreed

              You’re referring to eugenics: pseudo-scientific claptrap debunked ages ago. Hitler found it useful to argue for the inferiority of non-white races right before he shoved into the ovens. There’s no “reason” in your line of thinking.

      • Michael Mason

        Throwing out insults without debating is the exact type of thing that’ll get you down-voted on your own site.

        • HornOrSilk

          Funny how ironic this comment is.

          • Michael Mason

            Until you see the paragraph that I wrote below…

            • HornOrSilk

              No, especially with what you wrote.

              • Michael Mason

                If there’s anything from my paragraph below that seems hypocritical or ironic to you, I’d love to hear about it.

        • kfreed

          What debate did you want to have? The one in which you claim to be of a superior humanoid race? Judging by your comments, that clearly isn’t the case. If I were one of you flat earthers, I wouldn’t be bringing up IQ and such.

          Glass houses.

          End debate.

          • Michael Mason

            LOL. Blacks have an average IQ of 80. Whites and East Asians have an average IQ of 100. These averages have been consistent throughout the past century. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Haiti and Africa are nothing in comparison to the western world. I know that you’ll never understand these things, simply because you are a politically correct parrot of the establishment and you can’t possibly accept the fact that nature isn’t fair and evolution has rendered some races more adept at certain traits. Blacks are more adept than Whites and Asians at sprinting, for instance, because their environment caused natural selection to promote that particular trait.

            These facts scare the piss out of you so much that all you can do is try to insult me for bringing it up.

            • kfreed

              I’m pretty sure white supremacists have IQ scores well below the median:) Your information is incorrect, but if you’d like to go down that road:

              “But look at the connection with party affiliation and he may have a problem on his hands. In 2008, a study funded by the UK medical council found that “people with a higher intelligence in childhood were more likely to vote as adults, and were more likely to vote for the Green Party and Liberal Democrats in a general election”.

              • Michael Mason

                White supremacists may indeed have IQ scores well below the median… I wouldn’t know because I’ve never met any that I’m aware of.

                James Watson, a Nobel prize winning molecular biologist and the co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, said that intelligence is determined by certain genes, and these genes are not distributed equally among all human populations. I guess he just went from being the world’s most renowned geneticist to some redneck who probably lives in a trailer park, eh?

                The study you mentioned is published by the guardian, a liberal newspaper. In the United States, there’s no doubt that the total income of all conservatives in the country is far more than the total income of all liberals. Liberals have all the welfare rabble, whose income is essentially negative because they consume more than they produce. Multiple undisputed tests have linked higher IQs with higher income brackets.

                • kfreed

                  Your comments clearly demonstrate that you’re a white supremacist… and clearly a right-winger defending a group of right-wing fascist white supremacist nitwits on the Internet:) See how that IQ thing works? Liberal website or no, the study they quote exists:)

                  • Michael Mason

                    So believing that racial differences in IQ exist automatically makes you a white supremacist?

                    • chezami

                      This seems to be a standard stupid pet trick for the DE crowd.

                    • Silviu


      • Imrahil

        Dear @Michael Mason, that was clear, downright, abominable racism ranking with hatred and stupidity. Calling it a crock of racist shit is nothing but a plain description of what it is. Frankly, how it can receive any up-vote at all, much less 23 including one of yours, I cannot perceive.

        • Imrahil

          I thought I had addressed that comment to Michael Mason. Seems to have not worked. Sorry.

        • Michael Mason

          The way “VoiceofReason” writes is a lot more crude than how I would put things, but it’s nevertheless a satisfying blow against the liberal cult of equality. Yes, liberals practice a cult; because when neighborhoods get more diverse, they get shittier. So it’s really a self-defeating belief to think that racial diversity is advantageous. In fact, we nationalists like to refer to multiculturalism as “ethno-masochism.” Masochism meaning self torture or being the willing victim of torture. By sacrificing the territory and resources of your own ethnic group to foreign ethnic groups, you are torturing/destroying your own. And of course you’ll go on thinking about how all I’ve said is “hatred and stupidity?” Well let me ask you, are the Japanese hateful and stupid for wanting Japan to stay 100 % Japanese? Are they “ignorant” for having an immigration policy that restricts non-Japanese? Hell no. And how are they doing without the “diversity is our greatest strength” bullshit? Well they have one of the highest GDPs in the world.

          • Imrahil

            I did not say I’m certain that what you *personally* and explicitly said was hatred and stupidity (doesn’t mean I think you’re right) – except for this, though, that I don’t understand, how anyone who claims to be not hateful and not stupid can openly endorse that hideous other comment.

            If I were of your opinion, I would not call that hideous comment a “satisfying blow against the liberal cult of equality” despite “well a lot more crude than how I would put things”. I would call it that of a traitor who puts his own lines under friendly fire.

            Indeed I half-ways tended to assume that “voice of reason” is a troll intent on giving a very bad look to the “Dark Enlightenment”. It’s that he is so explicitly endorsed which perplexes me.

    • kfreed

      HBD is nothing but pseudo-scientific clap-trap, otherwise known as eugenics (old hat) and your out-breeding idiocy is straight out of the fundie Quiverfull mindset. Toss yourself onto the dug heap of history along with Ron Paul:)

  • kid_you_not

    Is being White supremacist bad? Jew supremacy is openly practiced and called Zionism. The US government supports Jew supremacy so much they give over $10 MILLON a day to a Jew homeland. Should Whites not have a homeland paid for by US tax dollars, too?

    • chezami

      I’m leaving you up, genius, just so people can see the grade A morons Dark Enlightenment attracts.

      • Michael Mason

        Looks like your scheme backfired, genius.

        • kfreed

          Looks like you racist libertarian geekoids are pulling the same shit you always pull on the internet… swoop in like a flock of deranged geese and up-vote your idiotic selves:)

          • Michael Mason

            Looks like you liberals are using the same methods of arguing that you always use; that is, splattering out insults without confronting any of our talking points. People like you have an intriguing psychology. You literally think the word ‘racist’ is so evil and so dirty that you can use it in the same way that someone from the 15th century could use the word ‘witch.’ You literally believe that all the races are the same and anyone who thinks otherwise is an evil hater that should be silenced. The only way people like you can be educated on reality is if you go and live in a black country. Go on, just go live in Haiti for a few years and then tell me if you still believe in “equality.”

            • kfreed

              I call ’em like I see ’em. But you do make a splendid “victim.”

              How utterly predictable: A “Monarchy”? Really? Who did you all have in mind? King Ron Paul?

              “”Neo-Reactionaries’ drop all pretense: End democracy and bring back lords!”http://davidbrin.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/neo-reactionaries-drop-all-pretense-end.html

              • HornOrSilk

                “Those dumb liberals always insult” tactic is always funny to me. As I said, his comments prove ironic.

                • kfreed

                  This is one sad lot. Scratch the surface, you’ll find a den of Paulbots underneath:)

                • Michael Mason

                  Apparently you’re still in denial about all the things I’ve written. Otherwise you’d actually try debating.

              • Michael Mason

                You just lump me in with everyone else. I’m not specifically preaching the Dark Enlightenment. I haven’t even read all the stuff that’s on their website because frankly, it’s kind of dry. But some things I’ve heard about it are things that I agree with, particularly on the topic of race. I don’t believe we should have a “monarchy” or “lords” and “kings.” I do, however, believe that democracy in its current state is a disaster.

                For instance, minorities use their growing voting power to put into office politicians that in turn give them free welfare handouts. Politicians let in more and more immigrants from the third world and give them the opportunity to vote despite the fact that they are not citizens. This is how corrupt politicians retain power. This is why democracy (the way our current gov’t handles it) is a total failure. If you had democracy where voting was restricted to land-owners and members of the nation’s founding ethnic group, then you’d have an effective system.

                And I am no libertarian. I am a nationalist. Libertarians don’t believe in government. Nationalists believe in a government that promotes the interest of it’s own people and no other people.

                • kfreed

                  Yes, I lump you in with all the other far right kooks. Where you belong.

    • theasdgamer

      What is a White? Does this include people with English blush? People with olive skins? People with sallow skins? Reheads with lots of freckles? People with lots of moles? African albinos? Asian albinos? White Jews? How much pigment can someone have and still be considered “white?”
      Why not give tax dollars to all countries of ethnic origin? Why base it on skin color?

    • kfreed

      “Is being White supremacist bad?”

      Yes, dumbass, it’s bad.

      “Should Whites not have a homeland”

      No, we should not. Hitler tried it once, remember?

  • Jonna

    I would invite the moderator to take down this entire post. The early desert father Evagrius, when reflecting on Jesus’ temptation in the desert, noted that Jesus did not engage directly with the “Satan,” but instead responded with a simple Scripture verse to avoid getting caught up in inner dialogue with this enemy. Demons of any type (inner demons of fear to outer voices of hate) work to keep our attention riveted on non-stop inner commentary (or tweeting or texting or blogging). This inner chatter leads us away from the silence where God speaks. This post has engaged the satan.

  • joebagadonotti

    I know little about Mark Shea and little about the Dark Enlightenment, but having read this post and the “Vox Populi” response, I must say that “Vox Populi” is much more reasonable and articulate. If I were a young man questioning my Catholic faith, I would be much more impressed with the Dark Enlightenment than Catholicism as represented by Shea and most of the commenters in agreement with him.

  • Elaine S.

    Let’s say, purely for the sake of argument (I am NOT endorsing this belief but simply playing devil’s advocate here) that a genetic difference in intelligence among various races is one day scientifically proven. I would think that the proper Christian response in that case would be to approach persons of the (allegedly) “less intelligent” races in the same way we would approach any individual with an inborn or acquired handicap or learning disability: by respecting them as individuals, and helping them to overcome or work around their “disability” — NOT just tossing them overboard and saying to hell with them.

    Having said that, I suppose the next step in the Dark Enlightenment/HBD movement will be to pine for the glory days when the “feeble minded”, “crippled” and “insane” were all locked away in institutions. (This is not to deny that SOME disabled or mentally ill people, including some who are chronically homeless, really do need at least temporary institutional care, but I would rather not go back to the days when long-term institutionalization of ALL people with Down Syndrome, autism, mental illness, etc. was routinely advised.)

  • Silviu

    Where did all these lunatics come here from?