You beat me to the punch with this one, but honestly you probably wrote it better than I would have.
Land is best in irony, and he demonstrates it really well throughout The Dark Enlightenment. The book is an excellent read if you have any friends on the "fashy" side of the D.R, as it both acknowledges the fundamental truths behind the "White-Nationalist" narrative of race while demonstrating its complete lack of political viability, (Molbug also does this).
For me the best part is the ending, (which I noticed you didn't discuss here), because it also demonstrates how little race could potentially matter in soon-to-arrive future where those with wealth actively modify either themselves of their children's genetic code. In fact, I think that in honestly the last sentence is the reason why he wrote the entire rest of the book/essay. While Land references science fiction, this is a legitimate concern within the next two decades and it does highlight that, while race matters in many key ways, in the grand scheme perhaps there is a bigger picture..
Again, really well done essay, curious to hear your thoughts on Land's predictions of a "bionic horizon".
Thanks for the kind words Grug! I will look into bionic horizon - I’m circling back around to Land after a couple years of other interests, and I plan to do a part 2 for this to cover the 4a,b etc.
This was a very well-written essay, and it helped me understand Land/Yarvin better (I have not studied them very closely). However, there is one fundamental thing that strikes me as just obviously wrong about their Neoreactionary framework:
It casts capital and business interests as the aggrieved party, who are merely operating according to natural and unobjectionable market mechanisms, as against the machinations of the state and its priestly woke class, who form a network of power against capital/business.
Essentially, this school of thought appears to me as inverted Marxism. Instead of the mythologized working class (and educated liberals who identify/sympathize with them) you have a mythologized business class (and the conservatives who identify/sympathize with them). Instead of a parasitic, vampiric capitalist class and their hangers-on leeching value from productive workers, you have a parasitic, vampiric state and their hangers-on leeching value from productive businesses.
So in my view “The Dark Enlightenment” fails to challenge the Enlightenment myth of progress on a fundamental enough level. It mostly achieves the effect of seeming dark, scary and intriguing through its inversion, but all that is is a Hegelian negation that fits squarely within the box of rational Enlightenment thought. The standard Hegelian process always seeks to preserve as it seeks higher forms. The problem with this as I see it is that is starts to accumulate unnecessary baggage. Why are we committed to viewing the world in this way? Why are we carrying water for this outmoded and silly Marxist framework, which amounts to a morality play?
Zizek with his updated interpretation of Hegel would say that dialectics needs to take a shit. You can’t hold on to everything, sometimes sublation is achieved by letting go and forgetting what is no longer useful. I would think you could reach this conclusion from multiple perspectives, e.g. Deleuzian.
But I guess this framework is useful to the political right so that accounts for it, just like regular Marxism is useful for the left. It has just enough edge to seem radical and interesting but seems ultimately empty from the perspective of pure philosophy in my view (this is what I identify with in terms of Enlightenment) I am interested in reading Land at least at some point to see if I change my mind at all.
You beat me to the punch with this one, but honestly you probably wrote it better than I would have.
Land is best in irony, and he demonstrates it really well throughout The Dark Enlightenment. The book is an excellent read if you have any friends on the "fashy" side of the D.R, as it both acknowledges the fundamental truths behind the "White-Nationalist" narrative of race while demonstrating its complete lack of political viability, (Molbug also does this).
For me the best part is the ending, (which I noticed you didn't discuss here), because it also demonstrates how little race could potentially matter in soon-to-arrive future where those with wealth actively modify either themselves of their children's genetic code. In fact, I think that in honestly the last sentence is the reason why he wrote the entire rest of the book/essay. While Land references science fiction, this is a legitimate concern within the next two decades and it does highlight that, while race matters in many key ways, in the grand scheme perhaps there is a bigger picture..
Again, really well done essay, curious to hear your thoughts on Land's predictions of a "bionic horizon".
Thanks for the kind words Grug! I will look into bionic horizon - I’m circling back around to Land after a couple years of other interests, and I plan to do a part 2 for this to cover the 4a,b etc.
This was a very well-written essay, and it helped me understand Land/Yarvin better (I have not studied them very closely). However, there is one fundamental thing that strikes me as just obviously wrong about their Neoreactionary framework:
It casts capital and business interests as the aggrieved party, who are merely operating according to natural and unobjectionable market mechanisms, as against the machinations of the state and its priestly woke class, who form a network of power against capital/business.
Essentially, this school of thought appears to me as inverted Marxism. Instead of the mythologized working class (and educated liberals who identify/sympathize with them) you have a mythologized business class (and the conservatives who identify/sympathize with them). Instead of a parasitic, vampiric capitalist class and their hangers-on leeching value from productive workers, you have a parasitic, vampiric state and their hangers-on leeching value from productive businesses.
So in my view “The Dark Enlightenment” fails to challenge the Enlightenment myth of progress on a fundamental enough level. It mostly achieves the effect of seeming dark, scary and intriguing through its inversion, but all that is is a Hegelian negation that fits squarely within the box of rational Enlightenment thought. The standard Hegelian process always seeks to preserve as it seeks higher forms. The problem with this as I see it is that is starts to accumulate unnecessary baggage. Why are we committed to viewing the world in this way? Why are we carrying water for this outmoded and silly Marxist framework, which amounts to a morality play?
Zizek with his updated interpretation of Hegel would say that dialectics needs to take a shit. You can’t hold on to everything, sometimes sublation is achieved by letting go and forgetting what is no longer useful. I would think you could reach this conclusion from multiple perspectives, e.g. Deleuzian.
But I guess this framework is useful to the political right so that accounts for it, just like regular Marxism is useful for the left. It has just enough edge to seem radical and interesting but seems ultimately empty from the perspective of pure philosophy in my view (this is what I identify with in terms of Enlightenment) I am interested in reading Land at least at some point to see if I change my mind at all.
Great read here, would certainly read a follow up.
Curious, for anyone who has read xenosystems, is there much if any overlap re: what is discussed here?