What Is the Dark Enlightenment? A Gadfly’s Irreverent Guide to the Neo-Reactionary Movement

May 17

By Michael Kelman Portney & ChatGPT

The Dark Enlightenment – also known as the neo-reactionary movement (NRx) – is a loosely organized far-right ideology that believes everything you learned in civics class is a lie. In a nutshell, the Dark Enlightenment is an anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian, reactionary rebellion against modern liberal values. Its proponents argue that democracy is a failed experiment (yes, they want to throw out government by the people) and that egalitarianism is a delusion holding back society. Instead, they advocate a return to old-fashioned power structures like absolute monarchy – albeit updated for the 21st century with a techno-authoritarian twist. Think of it as feudalism 2.0, where society is run by a CEO-king and common citizens are mere shareholders in the state. If this sounds dystopian, that’s because it is – and the Dark Enlightenment wears that label with pride, marketing itself as the grim truth no one else is brave (or foolish) enough to say out loud.

Originating online in the late 2000s, the Dark Enlightenment movement formed as a backlash by disillusioned conservatives, contrarian techies, and self-styled internet philosophers. They claim to offer a grand “red pill” awakening that will cure your brain of “politically correct” democratic propaganda. In reality, they’re repackaging archaic ideas (like the divine right of kings and pseudo-scientific racism) in geeky internet jargon. Despite (or perhaps because of) its fringe nature, the Dark Enlightenment has gained an outsized intrigue. It has quietly influenced Silicon Valley elites and online subcultures, and it sporadically pops up in political conversations – often to the alarmed question: “What on earth is this Dark Enlightenment thing, and why are people talking about it?”

In this article, we’ll play the gadfly – poking, prodding, and unflinchingly critiquing the Dark Enlightenment. We’ll explain what it is, who’s behind it, why people are drawn to it, and why it’s selling dangerous nonsense under an intellectual sheen. Strap in for a witty, irreverent ride: by the end, you’ll understand this neo-reactionary movement and why it deserves to be dragged into the light.

The Origins: From Enlightenment to “Dark” Enlightenment

It’s no coincidence that the Dark Enlightenment brand themselves as the inverse of the Enlightenment. The real Enlightenment (circa 17th–18th centuries) championed reason, equality, and democracy – values our Dark Enlightenment contrarians see as a big mistake. To hear them tell it, the last few centuries of liberal democracy have led to societal decay, and the only cure is to roll back the clock to pre-Enlightenment forms of governance. (Yes, they’re essentially saying the actual “Dark Ages” weren’t so bad – more on that irony in a moment.)

The movement’s intellectual foundations were laid in the late 2000s on obscure blogs and forums. A software engineer named Curtis Yarvin, writing under the deliberately pompous pseudonym “Mencius Moldbug,” began posting lengthy essays in 2007 outlining his heretical worldview. Yarvin had been a self-described libertarian and onetime progressive who grew disillusioned with mainstream conservatism. His blog Unqualified Reservations promised to “cure your brain” of liberal ideas by offering a “red pill” – a reference to The Matrix – that would supposedly reveal hidden truths. Swallow that pill (which Yarvin joked would be the size of a golf ball and “sear your throat like a live coal”) and you’d learn that everything from universal suffrage to Noam Chomsky is part of a grand delusion. According to Moldbug, the Enlightenment and all its ideals (humanism, democracy, equality) led us to ruin; the remedy is a “Dark Enlightenment” that unapologetically embraces hierarchy, order, and authoritarian rule.

Yarvin drew inspiration from some very old-school sources. He idolized the Victorian polemicist Thomas Carlyle, a 19th-century philosopher who dismissed democracy and called for a “government of heroes” – essentially rule by an elite great-man dictatorship. (Moldbug literally called Carlyle “superhuman,” placing him alongside Shakespeare.) He also took cues from anarcho-capitalist thinkers like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who once wrote Democracy: The God That Failed – so you can see the pattern. The Dark Enlightenment stew mixed these reactionary philosophies with modern tech culture cynicism. By 2010, Nick Land, a British philosopher turned internet occult writer, had latched onto Yarvin’s ideas and gave the movement its memorable name. Land coined the term “Dark Enlightenment” in a 2012 essay, expanding on Yarvin’s themes and adding his own futuristic, cyberpunk flair.

It’s worth noting that Nick Land himself had an avant-garde pedigree – in the 1990s he was an academic known for “accelerationism” (the idea of accelerating capitalism/technology to see what happens). By the 2010s, Land had effectively “accelerated” straight into neo-reactionary territory. His writings on the Dark Enlightenment read like a blend of political theory and sci-fi horror. Land imagined a “neo-cameralist” future where governments are run like corporations, competing for citizens in a marketplace of micro-states. Each state would have a CEO-like sovereign aiming for maximum efficiency and profitability – no pesky democratic accountability to slow things down. In Land’s view, “democracy is inherently evil” and social progress is a myth; only ruthless Darwinian competition and technocratic overlords can steer society. He spiced up these ideas with transhumanist speculation (think AI rulers and engineered elites) and a hefty dose of nihilism. If Yarvin provided the basic recipe for neo-reaction, Nick Land dumped in the hot sauce and gave it an edgy brand name.

Thus, by the early 2010s, the Dark Enlightenment/NRx coalesced as a small online subculture of blogs, forums (like Social Matter, Hestia Society, and Thermidor Magazine by mid-2017), and pseudonymous polemicists. It had no formal organization or party – intentionally, perhaps, to avoid mainstream scrutiny. But it did have a canon of sorts: Yarvin/Moldbug’s countless blog posts (often running tens of thousands of words) and Nick Land’s treatises became the foundational texts. The movement remained clandestine – “no visible leaders, no solid organizations, nor official think-tank backing,” as one journalist noted – but the ideas were out there, waiting to be discovered by curious (or disaffected) minds searching the internet’s fringe.

Key Figures: Curtis Yarvin and Nick Land – Architects of the New Reaction

Let’s shine a light on the two names you’re most likely to encounter in any Dark Enlightenment rabbit hole: Curtis Yarvin (a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug) and Nick Land. These two are the ideological architects of the movement, coming from very different backgrounds but converging on the same destination – a rejection of modern democracy in favor of extreme elitism.

Curtis Yarvin, born 1973, is an American software developer turned political theorist (or perhaps internet crank, depending on your perspective). Under the pen name Mencius Moldbug, Yarvin began blogging in 2007 and became the ur-guru of neo-reaction. By all accounts, Yarvin cuts a mild figure – a bespectacled programmer – but his ideas are incendiary. On Unqualified Reservations, he argued that the United States and other Western societies are essentially living under a progressive mind-control regime he dubbed “the Cathedral.” The Cathedral, in Yarvin’s lore, is the entwined network of universities, media, and cultural institutions that allegedly propagandize democratic and egalitarian ideals. (Think of it as a secular “church” of liberal ideology.) In Moldbug’s telling, this Cathedral enforces political correctness and left-wing values as a kind of state religion, deluding the masses into believing in equality and progress. Yarvin’s goal was to shatter those illusions. He proposed that liberal democracy is beyond reform – it must be completely discarded. His preferred solution, often delivered with a sardonic smirk, was to install a “CEO dictator” in charge of America, restructure the state as a corporation, and run it for efficiency and profit. Democracy, he argued, should be treated as an outdated operating system to be uninstalled. “If Americans want to change their government, they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia,” Yarvin quipped in 2012. Dark humor aside, he was dead serious.

Yarvin didn’t just dabble in abstract theory – he had concrete (if fanciful) plans. He mused about a world of “patchwork” city-states: hundreds of small sovereign units, each run by a corporate government, competing with one another to attract citizens like companies compete for customers. In this vision, you wouldn’t have rights so much as you’d have “shareholder” status in whatever mini-state you choose to live under. Don’t like how your king/CEO is running things? You can attempt to exit to another realm (assuming the ruler lets you – a big assumption). It’s libertarian in rhetoric but authoritarian in practice – a bizarre hybrid of Silicon Valley startup culture and old-world monarchy.

Importantly, Yarvin’s worldview also included an ugly underbelly of racial and gender hierarchy. While he often coyly framed his writing as high-level thought experiments, he has slipped into overt white supremacist and sexist arguments at times. He’s mused that some races might be inherently more suited to slavery than others and downplayed the horrors of Nazism as “overrated” in evilness. He and his followers promote the idea of “Human Biodiversity” (HBD) – which is a pseudo-scientific way of saying different races have immutable genetic differences in intelligence and behavior. (In plainer terms, it’s a rebranding of discredited racial hierarchies.) They insist this is just “racial realism,” not racism, but geneticists have thoroughly debunked these claims as junk science. Similarly, Yarvin & co. reject modern notions of gender equality – in their view, patriarchy is natural and women stepping outside traditional roles is a civilizational mistake. A Dark Enlightenment subreddit bluntly declared: “Race and gender are not social constructs… not all men or women are created equal. It is easier to believe in leprechauns than to believe in egalitarianism”. Charming, isn’t it? In essence, Yarvin provided an intellectual-sounding justification for every reactionary position under the sun: from rolling back civil rights, to re-segregating society by aptitude, to disenfranchising the masses. Small wonder scholars have slammed his work for “misrepresenting the historical record,” noting that the autocratic regimes he romanticizes were in reality deeply oppressive for their subjects.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Nick Land emerged as the movement’s philosophical provocateur. If Yarvin is the programmer-turned-kingmaker, Land is the acid-fueled philosopher-poet of the Dark Enlightenment. A Brit born in 1962, Land made a name in academic circles for wild, postmodern theory in the 1990s. By the 2010s, he resurfaced online with a series of essays that crystallized neo-reactionary thought, the most famous being titled simply “The Dark Enlightenment.” Land’s style is flamboyantly intellectual (sometimes bordering on incomprehensible), blending political argument with science fiction imagery and apocalyptic language. He took Yarvin’s core idea – democracy must be ditched – and ran with it to extremes. Democracy, Land asserts, is not just inefficient; it’s outright malignant. He described democratic society as a decaying organism, impeded by the weak and the mediocre, and he advocated a kind of hyper-Darwinian reboot. In one notably chilling line, Land wrote that while the state cannot be completely destroyed, “at least it can be cured of democracy”. (Imagine “democracy” said with the disgust one might reserve for a disease – that’s Land’s tone in a nutshell.)

Nick Land introduced or popularized several buzzwords in the NRx lexicon. One is “neo-cameralism,” which as mentioned is governance by a sovereign CEO with a board of shareholders – a concept originally inspired by 19th-century Prussian cameralism, updated for the Silicon Age. Another concept is accelerationism, which in Land’s right-wing usage means pushing capitalism and technology to evolve faster, even if it destabilizes society, under the theory that a new order (their order) will emerge from the chaos. Land’s Dark Enlightenment writings also have a distinct futurist tech flavor: transhumanism (embracing artificial intelligence and human enhancement) and social Darwinism (the belief that competition will naturally elevate the “strong” and eliminate the “weak”) feature heavily. As one historian summarized, Land essentially wants capitalist corporate power – not voters – to be the organizing force in society. If that sounds a bit like a cyberpunk dystopia, you’re not wrong. Critics have described the Dark Enlightenment ideology as “feudalism” or “techno-feudalism” with a high-tech gloss, and even as a form of neo-fascism dressed up in digital era clothing. Land bristles at the fascism comparison (he claims fascism was too mass-oriented and anti-capitalist for his taste), but the authoritarian, ultra-elitist spirit is unmistakably similar.

Together, Yarvin and Land form a kind of intellectual tag-team for the Dark Enlightenment. Yarvin provided the political program (monarchy 2.0, dismantle democracy via “red pill” awakening) and an endless stream of blogged polemics; Land gave the movement a philosophical patina and catchy moniker, linking it to edgy theories of technology and history. Neither man has anything like mainstream popularity – you won’t see them on primetime TV debates – but in certain corners of the internet and elite circles, they command an almost cultish respect. To fans, they’re brave heretics “freeing” minds from the Cathedral’s lies. To critics (count us among them), they are essentially reactionary propagandists repackaging discredited ideas (from absolutism to scientific racism) as the Next Big Idea.

The Anti-Democratic, Elitist Ideology in a Nutshell

Let’s break down what the Dark Enlightenment actually believes – and why it’s both radical and dangerous. At its core, the ideology says that modern liberal democracy is fundamentally flawed and must be replaced with authoritarian rule by a natural elite. Here are the key pillars of their thinking:

Democracy = Disaster: NRx proponents argue that democracy leads to decline, mediocrity, and even civilizational collapse. Some Dark Enlightenment writings melodramatically claim “democracy leads to the zombie apocalypse” (yes, literal zombies – they like that metaphor). Hyperbole aside, their belief is that when everyone has a vote, the “low-IQ masses” (their view, not ours) will vote for short-term perks over long-term health, or for egalitarian policies that “coddle” the unproductive. Rather than government by the people, they want government by the wise (read: by them, or people like them). As one summary put it, the Dark Enlightenment thinks democracy is a mistake and “equality is not a desirable goal”.
Reboot to Monarchy (with a Tech Twist): The solution, they say, is a return to monarchy or principled dictatorship. But they brand it in palatable terms like “CEO governance” or “neo-monarchy.” The idea is to run a country like a corporation. The head of state would be a CEO or king who has broad powers to enforce order and efficiency, unconstrained by voters or term limits. This ruler might be advised by shareholders (elite stakeholders who “invest” in the state), and citizens become essentially customers or employees. It’s the merger of ultra-capitalism with feudal-style hierarchy – imagine Amazon or Google, but it’s your government and you can’t exactly quit. They genuinely argue this would be superior to messy democratic governance, claiming a CEO-dictator would make smarter long-term decisions than pandering politicians. (History’s numerous incompetent and cruel kings are conveniently overlooked in their theory, of course.)
Natural Hierarchy & Elitism: The Dark Enlightenment worldview is unapologetically elitist. They believe that humans are not equal – some people are just naturally fit to lead, and others to follow. In Moldbug’s own words, “humans fit into dominance-submission structures,” so a stable society should explicitly build around that reality. They borrow ideas from old aristocracy and social Darwinists: intelligence and “quality” are unequally distributed, so let the smart, “superior” few rule over the rest. Importantly, they always seem to imagine themselves among these superior few. It’s a philosophy that flatters would-be technocrats and wealthy insiders who feel held back by the leveling forces of democracy. The average person, in their eyes, does not know what’s good for them and doesn’t deserve a say in governance. Better to let the “natural order” of talented geniuses (or billionaire investors, or Ivy League wizards – whoever they deem worthy) make the decisions. If this sounds like a tech-bro echo of Plato’s philosopher-kings or even a whiff of master-race ideology, you’re not wrong. It’s anti-egalitarian to its core.
Anti-Equality (Race, Gender, You Name It): Flowing from that elitism, Dark Enlightenment thinkers are hostile to efforts to equalize society. They loathe multiculturalism, racial equality movements, feminism, and social welfare – all of which they see as unnatural meddling with hierarchy. Many in NRx circles subscribe to so-called “human biodiversity” (HBD) or “race realism.” This is the belief that racial groups have different inherent abilities and aptitudes, usually placing whites (and often specifically white males) at the top of the hierarchy. They’ll cite dubious statistics and genetic theories – for example, claiming that genetics explain “50% or more” of differences in group outcomes – to argue that inequality isn’t just unavoidable, but actually desirable or reflective of natural order. As the Anti-Defamation League notes, these neo-reactionaries use terms like “race realist” and HBD to put a pseudo-scientific gloss on old-fashioned racism. Similarly, they argue that gender equality is a myth – that men and women have biologically destined roles, with men naturally dominant in public life and women ideally relegated to traditional supportive roles. In their view, attempts to create an egalitarian society – be it through civil rights laws, affirmative action, or feminist policies – are not only futile but actually harmful “political correctness” that weakens Western civilization. The Dark Enlightenment essentially provides highbrow justifications for white male grievance: the feeling that progress (toward diversity, inclusion, equality) is really regression, and that we should revert to a time when a narrow group held most power.
Order Over Freedom: While Dark Enlightenment adherents talk a big game about “freedom” (especially freedom from the current liberal order), the society they envision prizes order, stability, and authority over individual liberty – at least for those not in charge. They often point to examples like Singapore or medieval monarchies as models: places or times where, in their view, crime was low, social cohesion high, and pesky dissent squelched. Of course, that order often came at the cost of personal freedoms and rights. But NRx supporters argue that liberal freedoms (speech, voting, equality before law) are overrated or even fraudulent if they lead to chaotic or “degenerate” outcomes. Better a benevolent dictator who can engineer a stable, efficient society than an unruly democracy that risks descending into conflict or mediocrity – so they say. This is why some observers call the movement “neo-fascist” in spirit, since classical fascism also idolized unity, hierarchy, and strength at the expense of liberal freedom. The NRx crowd would reject the fascist label (optically they try to distance from 20th-century fascism), but if the shoe fits…

In summary, the Dark Enlightenment’s ideology is a stew of reactionary ideas: bring back strongman rule, enshrine hierarchies of race, gender, and class, and toss egalitarian democracy into history’s dustbin. It’s a direct affront to Enlightenment ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity – hence the cheeky name Dark Enlightenment. They genuinely see their project as enlightening (revealing harsh “truths” about human nature and society) but “dark” because it goes against the comforting liberal narratives of progress and equality. As we’ll see, this ideology remained relatively marginal, but it has tentacles that reach into some powerful places, which is why it’s important to understand and challenge it.

Rhetorical Tricks: “The Cathedral” and the Cult of the Red Pill

One thing that makes the Dark Enlightenment confounding (and alluring to some) is its clever rhetorical framework. These folks have a knack for coining dramatic terms and metaphors to reframe how people see the world. Two of their favorites are “the Cathedral” and “the Red Pill.”

The Cathedral: We touched on this earlier – Yarvin’s concept of an all-encompassing progressive hegemony. In NRx-speak, the Cathedral refers to the supposed unofficial coalition of universities, media, and cultural institutions that spread liberal democratic ideology. Imagine an invisible cathedral where the priests are journalists and professors preaching equality and human rights as the state religion – that’s how neo-reactionaries visualize modern Western society. By dubbing it “the Cathedral,” they imply that beliefs in democracy, diversity, and social justice are not reasoned conclusions but dogmas enforced by a quasi-religious authority. It’s a framing device that turns the tables: they claim we (liberals, democrats, mainstream folks) are the blinkered faithful, while they are the heretics with forbidden knowledge. This concept shares DNA with the more common right-wing idea of the “Deep State” or establishment. In fact, the Cathedral is like a cousin to conspiracy theories that a hidden elite runs everything. It’s no coincidence that the Cathedral idea resonates with the kind of people who also sniff at globalist cabals or QAnon-like narratives. Even though Yarvin’s Cathedral is meant to be a secular-progressive “church,” it overlaps with the paranoia that shadowy forces are subverting the nation – in this case, through mind control rather than secret police.

NRx adherents use “Cathedral” as a catch-all pejorative. If a piece of research debunks racial IQ pseudoscience, they’ll say “the Cathedral suppresses the truth.” If universities teach Enlightenment values, they’re “Cathedral indoctrination centers.” If media and government and academia all broadly agree that, say, racism is bad or climate change is real, the neo-reactionaries nod sagely and say “ah, that’s the Cathedral consensus at work.” It’s a self-sealing world-view: disagreement with them is proof of the Cathedral’s power. Conveniently, it absolves them of having to engage with evidence – any contrary evidence is just Cathedral lies. The term also gives a melodramatic flair to their writing; it sounds much more ominous to say “the Cathedral’s narrative” than to say “mainstream consensus.” This concept has proven influential even outside strict NRx circles, as it dovetails with broader right-wing distrust of institutions. It planted seeds that later sprouted in things like the alt-right’s rhetoric about the “Globalist media” or Steve Bannon’s war on “the administrative state.” Indeed, when Yarvin appeared on Fox News' Tucker Carlson Today in 2021, he explained his Cathedral concept to that mass audience, essentially translating neo-reactionary ideas into primetime paranoia about elites controlling the country. The Cathedral mythos is arguably the meme-able contribution of NRx: it reframed establishment liberal institutions as a sinister monolith – a boogeyman that fellow travelers (from Q believers to certain tech libertarians) could also rally against.

The Red Pill: Borrowed from pop culture, the “red pill” metaphor is ubiquitous in fringe online movements, and the Dark Enlightenment is no exception. In The Matrix, taking the red pill means seeing the real world hidden behind comforting illusion. For neo-reactionaries, the “red pill” means waking up to their view of reality: that equality is a lie, democracy is a sham, and everything we’re taught about freedom and progress is sugar-coated propaganda. Curtis Yarvin explicitly marketed his blog as a red pill: “Curing your brain” of Orwellian leftist propaganda with a dose of harsh truth. The imagery of a “golfball-sized red pill” searing your throat was Yarvin’s tongue-in-cheek way of saying his ideas might be hard to swallow but will burn away the falsehoods. Other Dark Enlightenment writers similarly invite readers to be brave enough to take the red pill and reject “The Cathedral’s lies.”

This is a powerful recruitment tool. It appeals to the vanity of the reader – who doesn’t want to think they are perceiving a hidden truth that others can’t handle? It’s almost a gamified approach to radicalization: swallow the pill, join the enlightened few, and laugh at the “blue-pilled” sheeple still slumbering in democracy-land. The red pill concept didn’t originate with NRx (it was popular in the mens’ rights and early alt-right circles too), but neo-reactionaries definitely supercharged it with academic-sounding content. They position their blogs and manifestos as the forbidden wisdom that will break the “progressive conditioning” of society. In practice, what does taking the Dark Enlightenment red pill lead one to believe? As one medievalist scholar wryly summarized: you’d conclude that modern ills are due to leaving the Middle Ages behind, and that “the Enlightenment’s humanism, democracy, and quest for equality are responsible for the decay of Western civilization”. In other words, everything we consider modern progress – universal rights, equality before law, pluralistic governance – the Dark Enlightenment calls a civilizational poison. It’s a through-the-looking-glass inversion of mainstream values, sold with the heroic narrative that only a brave few can see it.

Other rhetorical quirks include referring to liberals as “nice” (meant as an insult indicating naiveté), calling mainstream conservatives “cuckservatives” (a term the alt-right also loves, implying they’re cuckolded by liberalism), and using lots of esoteric historical analogy to make their points sound erudite. They’ll drop references to Carlyle, Julius Evola (an Italian fascist philosopher, another favorite of theirs), or obscure economics texts like The Sovereign Individual (a 1997 book that Peter Thiel cited as influential). All of this gives the uninitiated reader the impression that gee, these guys have really done their homework. It creates a veneer of intellectual depth – which can be persuasive to a curious person who finds mainstream political discourse shallow. But as one critic put it, Dark Enlightenment “gurus” write long, self-aggrandizing screeds that dabble in just enough science, philosophy, and political theory to be dangerous. They overload the reader with cherry-picked facts and half-truths, wrapped in a narrative that appeals to cynicism and elitism. It’s intellectual seduction via contrarianism.

One more mythos to mention: Dark Enlightenment proponents often glamorize the Middle Ages or other pre-democratic eras. They cherry-pick historical narratives where strong rulers or homogenous societies “achieved greatness.” In fact, an observer quipped that reading Moldbug or Land feels like “a Victorian social Darwinist has time-traveled into Silicon Valley”. They fetishize the pre-modern West – imagining it as a time of order and cultural purity – conveniently ignoring that it was also a time of rampant disease, ignorance, and oppression. They similarly romanticize the Victorian era’s attitudes (social Darwinism, colonial confidence, rigid social roles) and try to resurrect them in a high-tech context. It’s all part of creating an altered historical narrative where Enlightenment = downfall, and our only salvation is to reverse course.

Silicon Valley Libertarians and Techno-Monarchs: The Dark Enlightenment’s Tech Connection

One of the strangest twists in the Dark Enlightenment story is how this fringe anti-democratic philosophy found a foothold in Silicon Valley – a place one might assume would be forward-looking and freedom-loving. Yet, starting in the 2010s, quite a few tech elites and investors developed a fascination with neo-reactionary ideas. This is not entirely shocking if you know tech culture: Silicon Valley has long harbored a strain of libertarianism and utopian “startup society” thinking. Many tech titans see the world in terms of engineering problems – including government. To them, democracy can look like an outdated operating system: slow, full of bloat (bureaucracy), prone to crashes (political paralysis). The Dark Enlightenment offered an appealingly radical update: throw out democracy and install a CEO with root access to the nation’s codebase.

The most famous (or infamous) tech figure associated with the Dark Enlightenment is Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of PayPal and an early Facebook investor. Thiel has openly expressed skepticism about democracy. In a 2009 essay for the Cato Institute, Thiel declared “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” This line often gets quoted as it almost perfectly aligns with NRx philosophy. Thiel has indeed been a patron of Curtis Yarvin and his ilk. Through his venture capital arm, Founders Fund, Thiel provided early funding for Yarvin’s tech startup Urbit (a decentralized computing project Yarvin created – ostensibly unrelated to politics, but philosophically aligned with his anti-establishment worldview). Yarvin even boasted that he had been “coaching” Thiel, and that Thiel was “fully enlightened” (in other words, privately on board with NRx ideas). Thiel also bankrolled the Seasteading Institute, an initiative to build independent floating city-states in international waters. Seasteading was co-founded by Patri Friedman (Milton Friedman’s grandson) and is basically a libertarian fever dream to escape existing governments – something very much in line with Yarvin’s vision of a patchwork of new sovereignties. The Institute’s goal of creating anarcho-capitalist utopias on ocean platforms dovetails perfectly with Dark Enlightenment/neo-cameralist ideas. Thiel’s money helped keep these ideas on life support through the 2010s when they had few other institutional backers.

Another tech heavyweight who’s dabbled in these circles is Marc Andreessen, the billionaire co-founder of Netscape and a prominent venture capitalist. Andreessen has publicly called Curtis Yarvin a “friend” and even quoted Yarvin approvingly in an interview with the conservative Hoover Institution. In recent years, Andreessen has become more vocal about his contempt for certain aspects of liberal society – at times echoing NRx-like rhetoric. For instance, he’s railed against “the current thing” mentality (a meme mocking how the public allegedly just follows whatever cause is in vogue, implying sheep-like behavior promoted by media – very Cathedral-flavored thinking).

And of course, we can’t ignore Elon Musk, currently the world’s wealthiest (and most online) entrepreneur. Musk has not explicitly endorsed the Dark Enlightenment, but he frequently rubs shoulders with its ideas. He’s known to interact on Twitter with some reactionary thinkers and has voiced themes congenial to NRx: for example, Musk once tweeted that “The world is controlled by the media,” and he often bemoans “woke mind virus” and calls for population control by elites (he suggested that voting power might be better given to parents, effectively weighting votes by number of children – a notion that clearly undermines one-person-one-vote). Musk’s championing of absolute free speech on Twitter (even at the expense of democratic norms) and his flirtation with far-right memes suggest he’s at least Dark-Enlightenment-adjacent in worldview. In one telling instance, Musk explicitly referenced “the Cathedral” when criticizing Twitter’s former content moderation – a direct nod to Yarvin’s concept that progressive orthodoxy rules institutions. Furthermore, Musk’s vision of colonizing Mars or creating new societies beyond Earth echoes the seasteader mindset of escaping current governments. It’s not an exaggeration to say NRx ideas have penetrated the Silicon Valley zeitgeist, especially among those frustrated with government regulation or who see themselves as a superior cognitive class held back by democracy.

The tech connection goes beyond individuals. By the late 2010s, parts of the crypto community and the burgeoning world of tech podcasts/startup culture became breeding grounds for neo-reactionary curiosity. The cryptocurrency scene’s disdain for central authorities meshed with the NRx dream of exiting the nation-state system. Some crypto enthusiasts started discussing creating “network states” or communities of the like-minded – concepts that sometimes drew from Yarvin’s patchwork idea. Meanwhile, tech conferences and private dinners occasionally featured the likes of Yarvin or his followers sharing ideas with investors and engineers. Famously, Yarvin was invited (then quietly disinvited) from at least one tech conference after controversy erupted over his views. But the very fact he was on the invite list shows how these ideas found an audience in elite tech circles.

Why would wealthy tech entrepreneurs be drawn to anti-democratic philosophy? Simply put, it flatters their self-image and aligns with their frustrations. Many such individuals see themselves as superior problem-solvers. Democracy, with its regulations, taxes, and voter whims, is an impediment to their grand visions (whether that’s building rockets, disrupting finance, or remaking cities). The Dark Enlightenment tells them that they are right – the masses are holding back progress, and it’s okay (indeed, necessary) for the enlightened elite to take charge. It replaces guilt with a sense of mission: perhaps they should be the philosopher-kings. As one commentator observed, these tech magnates “tend to believe they’re the masters of the universe: they want fewer regulations, while still wanting to take advantage of government support when convenient”. In other words, they’d love a world where they have maximum freedom to operate and minimum accountability – which, not coincidentally, is exactly what a neo-monarchist system would give them.

This synergy explains how Dark Enlightenment talking points started infiltrating Silicon Valley conversations and even politics. By the late 2010s and early 2020s, you saw a cross-pollination: Thiel-backed political candidates and operatives began referencing or echoing Yarvin’s ideas. A striking example is J.D. Vance – a venture capitalist turned politician (author of Hillbilly Elegy) who became a protégé of Peter Thiel. Vance reportedly spoke admiringly of Yarvin’s influence on his thinking. In one 2024 interview, Vance – by then an Ohio Senator and ally to Donald Trump – discussed how Yarvin’s critique of democracy made him rethink some of his own positions. By 2025, reports indicated that Vance (now in high office) was openly friendly to Yarvin’s vision. Meanwhile, Steve Bannon, the notorious ex-Trump strategist, was reading and in communication with Yarvin as early as the first Trump presidency. Bannon, who has his own brand of traditionalist, burn-the-system populism, found common cause in Yarvin’s writings about dismantling the “administrative state” (Bannon’s pet term, which is basically the Cathedral by another name). There were even allegations (denied by Yarvin) that Bannon directly consulted him.

All this culminated in the somewhat surreal situation where a one-time obscure blogger’s terminology and ideas were percolating in the halls of power. According to a Washington Post report, some staffers in the Trump-era State Department regarded Yarvin as an “intellectual beacon.” It was said to be an “open secret that everyone in policymaking” circles of a certain faction was reading Yarvin. Indeed, at an event in late 2024 nicknamed Trump’s “Coronation Ball” (the moniker itself a wink at monarchist yearnings), Curtis Yarvin was an invited guest of honor. Imagine that: a man advocating kings and dictators mingling at a celebration of American electoral victory. Irony dies a thousand deaths.

The bottom line is that the Dark Enlightenment moved from obscure internet forums into the real-world influence of tech and politics. It’s still far from a household ideology, but its fingerprints are on some prominent people and projects. This tech-world embrace also gave the movement a sheen of credibility it otherwise lacked. If billionaires and successful innovators are nodding along to NRx ideas, some onlookers might think, “Hey, maybe there’s something to this?” That’s one reason we need to scrutinize and critique it – having money or clout doesn’t make an idea less toxic.

From Online Obscurity to Alt-Right Infamy

The Dark Enlightenment doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It emerged in parallel – and often entwined – with the broader alt-right and far-right resurgence online in the 2010s. While not identical to the alt-right, neo-reactionary ideas have substantially influenced and intersected with alt-right movements. Think of the Dark Enlightenment as the theory and the alt-right as the practice, in a sense: NRx provided a lot of the ideological justification and intellectual framework for the more populist, street-fighting alt-right that burst onto the scene around 2016.

Recall that the alt-right (short for “alternative right”) was a loose coalition of white nationalists, identitarians, neo-Nazis, meme-spreading trolls, and some dissident conservatives. Their common denominator was rejecting mainstream conservatism in favor of more openly extremist ideas, especially centered on white identity and authoritarian politics. Now, not all alt-right folks were deep into monarchist theory or reading Moldbug’s 20-part essays on Carlyle. But many alt-right leaders and propagandists did latch onto elements of the Dark Enlightenment. For instance, the concept of “race realism” – that different races have different inherent capacities – is a staple both in NRx and in alt-right/white supremacist ideology. The alt-right also embraced the notion that egalitarianism is a myth and that society should be ordered hierarchically (with white males at the top). This is essentially NRx 101.

Some neo-reactionaries explicitly rebranded themselves as alt-right once that term gained traction around 2015-2016. The ADL notes that “another segment of the alt right refers to themselves as neo-reactionaries… some neo-reactionaries refer to their theories as the ‘Dark Enlightenment.’” In other words, within the alt-right’s big tent, the Dark Enlightenment was known as a niche intellectual wing. Alt-right figureheads like Richard Spencer (who coined “alt-right”) and his fellows often indulged in pseudo-intellectual justifications for their racism; one can imagine some of them reading NRx writings for ammunition. Indeed, the Dark Enlightenment has been described by scholars as “the theoretical branch of the alt-right,” giving the alt-right much of its pseudo-philosophical backbone. It’s been called “key to understanding the alt-right’s political ideology” and the “most significant political theory within the alt-right”. In plainer terms, NRx provided a highbrow gloss on far-right ideas that might otherwise be dismissed as just crude bigotry. When a white supremacist can cite Nick Land instead of, say, Mein Kampf, it sounds a tad more sophisticated (even if Land’s conclusions about hierarchy overlap uncomfortably with fascism).

Conversely, the rise of the alt-right helped boost Dark Enlightenment visibility. During the heyday of alt-right websites, imageboards like 4chan, and Reddit communities, links to Moldbug’s essays or discussions of “the Cathedral” became common in those spheres. The alt-right’s penchant for ironic humor and meme culture also rubbed off on NRx (or vice versa). Both communities loved to use sarcasm, trolling, and insider lingo to create an in-group feeling. If you stumbled on an alt-right forum circa 2016, you might have seen users debating “formalism vs. monarchism” or sharing Moldbug quotes between the usual racist memes. The overlap was significant enough that outsiders often conflated the two. However, there’s a subtle distinction: the alt-right was more overtly populist and activist, rallying (mostly online, occasionally in rallies like Charlottesville) for things like Trump’s election or anti-immigration policies. The Dark Enlightenment crowd, in contrast, was more elitist and cerebral, disdaining mass action. As historian Jaime Caro pointed out, NRx has “a more elitist and less popular character than the alt-right”. They weren’t out there chanting in the streets; they were penning treatises and schmoozing with venture capitalists. In fact, some NRx thinkers looked down on the alt-right’s crude racial populism as low-brow – even though they share the anti-democratic, white patriarchal worldview. It’s a bit of a good cop/bad cop routine: the alt-right says out loud with a bullhorn what the neo-reactionaries whisper in a seminar room.

Where the two converged strongly was in their targets and fears. Both loathed “the Cathedral” (even if the alt-right didn’t use that term as much, they raged against “liberal elites” and “globalists” – conceptually the same enemy). Both were convinced that Western civilization was under threat – by demographic change (immigration, higher non-white birth rates), by feminism (declining birth rates, loss of traditional gender order), and by left-wing cultural values. This siege mentality – the idea that white, Western, or traditional values are being erased – underpinned both the alt-right movement and the Dark Enlightenment writings. In fact, one could argue the Dark Enlightenment is just the alt-right with bigger words and less willingness to hand out tiki torches.

The danger here is that Dark Enlightenment ideas can act as a gateway. Someone might start by reading an edgy blog about how democracy is flawed, get into the “red pill” mindset, and gradually slide into more extreme beliefs about race or authoritarianism. Because NRx presents itself as an intellectual exercise, it can disarm skeptics who would dismiss a swastika-waving skinhead. It’s a kind of far-right radicalization with an ironic, scholarly aesthetic. For example, a young man disillusioned by partisan politics might find Yarvin’s arguments intriguing. He might initially balk at open racism, but as he absorbs the constant message that “egalitarianism is a lie” and “hierarchies are natural,” he may come to accept more and more of their racial and misogynist assumptions – all while thinking he’s just being rational and skeptical. The alt-right online ecosystem was very effective at using humor, memes, and pseudo-intellectualism to lure people in; the Dark Enlightenment contributed heavily to that pseudo-intellectual part.

In sum, the intersection of the Dark Enlightenment with the alt-right and other online far-right subcultures greatly amplified its reach and impact. It went from being a tiny echo chamber of bloggers to becoming part of a larger movement that actually influenced elections and public discourse. The 2016 Trump election, Brexit, and the global wave of right-wing populism all provided fertile ground for these ideas to take root in more minds. Notably, some mainstream conservative circles began flirting with neo-reactionary themes without perhaps even realizing it – e.g., talk of “elitist liberal cabals” controlling the government (Cathedral), or arguments that America isn’t a democracy but a republic (hinting that pure democracy is bad), or praise for authoritarian leaders abroad. The Overton window shifted just enough that things Yarvin wrote in obscurity a decade prior (like questioning whether universal suffrage is wise) suddenly were topics of debate on cable news. This blending with the alt-right is precisely why many analysts and watchdog groups now explicitly call the Dark Enlightenment a facet of the alt-right phenomenon.

Why Are People Searching for the Dark Enlightenment?

If you’ve read this far, you might be thinking: Okay, this is fringe stuff – why is it showing up in my search bar? Ironically, the very strangeness and secrecy of the Dark Enlightenment piques curiosity. In recent years, more people have been Googling it (or DuckDuckGo-ing it) for a few key reasons:

Tech and Media Buzz: The involvement of high-profile tech figures like Thiel, and commentary by journalists, has brought the Dark Enlightenment into the spotlight. For example, a 2023–2024 wave of articles (in publications like Time and El País) discussed how neo-reactionary ideas are influencing Silicon Valley and even national politics. Headlines about “billionaires endorsing anti-democracy bloggers” or “the neo-reactionary movement infiltrating the GOP” naturally drive people to search “What is Dark Enlightenment?” If you heard a pundit mention that a U.S. Senator (like J.D. Vance) reads Moldbug, you’d be curious what that means. The term’s mystique – it sounds like an ominous cult or a heavy metal band – also invites a closer look.
Curiosity from Concern: Many searchers likely come from a place of concern or alarm. They might have seen the phrase on a forum or Twitter and thought, “Dark Enlightenment? That sounds menacing – is this some new extremist ideology I should worry about?” Given the rise of disinformation and fringe movements, people are rightly keen to educate themselves on what odd corners of the internet are brewing. The anti-democratic stance of NRx is especially alarming to those who value democracy; the fact that it’s gaining adherents among people with power (tech moguls, online influencers) is a red flag. Thus, journalists, academics, and everyday citizens concerned about the health of democracy end up researching this movement to understand its appeal and spread.
Intellectual Allure (The Forbidden Fruit): On the flip side, some are searching for Dark Enlightenment out of interest in its ideas. The movement markets itself as forbidden knowledge – and nothing draws curiosity like the promise of hidden truth. A certain subset of truth-seekers, contrarians, or disaffected young men might hear whispers that “there’s this thing called the Dark Enlightenment that explains why everything’s broken.” They might not initially know it’s essentially a far-right ideology. They just hear it’s edgy, possibly insightful, and not what your professor will teach. So they search it out. Some might be coming from adjacent interests – for instance, readers of libertarian blogs or students of philosophy might stumble on NRx references and want to learn more. The pseudo-intellectual aura (lots of blog posts with footnotes and historical references) gives an impression of depth that can lure in the academically inclined or those bored with mainstream discourse.
Pop Culture and Internet Osmosis: It’s possible some search traffic comes from the term being dropped in pop culture contexts or online discussions. Perhaps a YouTuber did a video essay on “Dark Enlightenment explained,” or it got mentioned in a podcast discussing the alt-right pipeline. The name is evocative – it tends to stick in memory once heard. And unlike older extremist brands, this one is internet-native and relatively new, so people can’t rely on high school history class knowledge; they have to look it up.
Personal Encounters: Finally, some people may search because someone they know has started parroting these ideas. Perhaps a friend or relative suddenly talks about “the Cathedral” or how democracy is mob rule. Concerned, one might search those terms and find they trace back to Dark Enlightenment sources. Sadly, we are in an era where radical ideas spread peer-to-peer. If you find out your college buddy is citing “Moldbug” in debates or your co-worker jokes about installing a king, a quick web search might be your way of unpacking what influences they’ve been exposed to.

In short, interest in the Dark Enlightenment is driven by a mix of fear and fascination. It’s the same impulse that makes people research cults or extremist manifestos when they hit the news. There’s a desire to understand why anyone would be drawn to something so antithetical to democratic values, and a need to be informed in order to counter it. The movement, for its part, sells itself as the answer to people’s dissatisfaction. What are they selling? A grand theory that identifies a culprit (liberal democracy and “the Cathedral”) for society’s woes, and a promise of restoring order and greatness by empowering a rightful elite. For those who feel left behind or fed up with partisan gridlock, that pitch can seem tempting. The Dark Enlightenment essentially says: “Are you tired of chaotic politics, of feeling lied to by the media, of seeing ‘undeserving’ people promoted in the name of equality? We have an explanation – and a solution. The world is broken because we honor false ideals of equality and democracy. Give power to the worthy instead, and all will be well.” It’s a seductive story, tapping into both frustrations and ego (since of course the reader is invited to see themselves as among the enlightened elect). People searching for it might be those considering buying into that story – or those desperately wanting to debunk it.

Critiques and Dangers: Shining a Light on the Dark Enlightenment

Let’s not mince words: the Dark Enlightenment is dangerous bunk dressed up as brave contrarianism. Its core tenets fall apart under scrutiny, and history provides a brutal audit of what happens when societies embrace the kinds of ideas NRx promotes. In this section, we’ll drive a stake through the heart of the Dark Enlightenment’s claims and explain why allowing these ideas to spread, even as an “intellectual trend,” is playing with fire.

1. The Long-Dead Past Was Not a Golden Age: Dark Enlightenment advocates romanticize pre-democratic systems – monarchies, feudal orders, Victorian hierarchies – as better or more “natural.” This is an ahistorical fantasy. The very Enlightenment they malign arose precisely because absolute monarchies and feudal societies were found wanting. Those systems brought endless war, crushing oppression of the lower classes, and stagnation. People who actually lived under kings knew how bad it was – which is why movements for liberty and democracy gained support. Scholars have noted that the autocracies Yarvin praises were considered deeply oppressive by their subjects. Peasants and citizens didn’t adore their “rightful kings”; more often they feared them, or rebelled when the burden grew too heavy. To imply we should return to that is like suggesting we bring back smallpox because our modern obsession with health has made us weak. There’s no evidence a monarch or CEO-dictator would rule more justly or efficiently. In fact, power without accountability notoriously leads to corruption and cruelty – power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely, as the old saying (from Lord Acton) goes. The Dark Enlightenment’s solution is a false nostalgia for a world that never existed as they imagine. Even their favorite example of a “prosperous authoritarian” state – Singapore – is a very unique case (a tiny city-state with its own complex history), and it still has far less innovation and vibrancy than diverse, free societies like the U.S. or Western Europe. The NRx crowd might groan about dysfunction in democracies, but dysfunction is the price of freedom. Real people having a voice means things get messy. It’s far better than “order” imposed by a tyrant’s whip.

2. Elitists Aren’t as Smart as They Think: The Dark Enlightenment exalts an elite few as deserving to rule. But who chooses the elite? Their answer is essentially might (or wealth) makes right – the ones who can seize power should have it. That’s not a recipe for enlightened leadership; it’s a recipe for authoritarianism by the most ruthless. Even highly intelligent people can be disastrously wrong or selfish; putting them above law or public accountability guarantees not genius governance, but uncorrectable mistakes and self-dealing. The neo-reactionaries assume the “best and brightest” will benevolently guide society if unshackled. History strongly disagrees: from the philosopher-kings of ancient theory to the technocrats of the 20th century, time and again we’ve seen that excluding the many for the wisdom of the few ends in abuse. Moreover, the very notion of an objectively “natural” hierarchy of humans is flawed. Sure, people have different talents, but complex modern societies need broad participation and buy-in to function. A handful of purported geniuses running everything will be blinkered by their own biases and limited experience. Representative democracy, for all its inefficiencies, aggregates the knowledge and preferences of millions. It’s messy, but it’s also resilient and adaptable in ways autocracies aren’t. And let’s be frank: the supposed supermen of NRx – often tech CEOs or bloggers with inflated egos – have shown no evidence they’d be enlightened rulers. If anything, the morally blinkered comments from folks like Yarvin (e.g. pondering if some races want to be slaves) show a frightening lack of basic humanity. Handing such people unchecked power is a nightmare scenario, not a utopia.

3. Pseudoscience and Bigotry Underlie Their “Truths”: The Dark Enlightenment markets its ideas as bracing truths suppressed by politeness. But many of those “truths” are provably false or grossly oversimplified. The whole concept of Human Biodiversity (HBD) as they use it is a smokescreen for discredited racial science. Modern genetics and neuroscience do not support the idea of fixed, significant differences in capability between races. What differences do exist in group outcomes can overwhelmingly be explained by history and social factors, not immutable biology – and certainly not enough to justify structuring society around a racial hierarchy. Likewise, their view of gender is stuck in the 19th century: it ignores the vast evidence from anthropology and social science that gender roles vary widely by culture and that women are just as capable in leadership and intellect as men. By dismissing egalitarianism as a fairytale, they are basically declaring war on the very concept of human rights. Equality under the law, equal dignity of persons – these are foundational moral achievements of civilization. The Dark Enlightenment waves them off as delusions. That’s not edgy or cool; it’s regressive and dangerous. It’s telling that their stance echoes the same arguments used by defenders of slavery, colonialism, and segregation in ages past (e.g., “not everyone is equal, some must rule, others serve”). Those arguments were wrong then and are wrong now, no matter how much tech jargon or witty cynicism you wrap them in. Scientific racism and misogyny are still racism and misogyny, period – repackaging them with new terminology doesn’t change their falsity or moral bankruptcy.

4. The “Cathedral” Conspiracy is Baseless (and Self-Serving): The idea of the Cathedral is clever but ultimately just a conspiracy theory. It posits that universities and media are consciously colluding to enforce leftist ideology – an assertion for which there is zero concrete evidence. Academia and journalism certainly have liberal leanings on average, but that’s a far cry from being a unified brainwashing machine. The Cathedral concept conveniently dismisses any opposition to NRx as brainwashed or censorious, allowing neo-reactionaries to dodge substantive debate. It’s a rhetorical shield: rather than engaging critics, they accuse them of being high priests of the Cathedral, as if they are just dupes, not individuals with valid moral arguments. This is intellectually dishonest. It’s also deeply ironic: the Dark Enlightenment accuses progressives of having a religious-like dogma, yet NRx itself demands a kind of zealous faith in a coming “red-pilled” utopia. They deride the “Cult of Equality,” but they’ve merely substituted it with a Cult of Inequality – and built a boogeyman (“Cathedral”) to scare followers away from dissenting information. In terms of dangers: this Cathedral narrative encourages extreme distrust and polarization. If you believe your country’s institutions are brainwashing you, you may justify extreme measures to resist. That’s how violent movements and insurrections get fueled. Indeed, the overlap with QAnon/Deep State paranoia is notable – such conspiracy thinking contributed to real-world events like the January 6 Capitol riot. When you delegitimize all mainstream institutions, you pave the way to political violence and chaos (the very thing NRx claims to want to avoid!).

5. Slippery Slope to Authoritarian Abuse: Perhaps the biggest danger is that even entertaining these ideas softens the taboo around authoritarianism and elitism. The Dark Enlightenment often couches its vision as somewhat hypothetical or tongue-in-cheek – “we’re just exploring ideas; don’t you want to hear dissident perspectives?” But this intellectual game can have real consequences. It’s part of a larger trend of extremism laundering: far-right concepts being sanitized and introduced into discourse via pseudo-intellectual debate. That’s how once-unthinkable notions (like openly praising autocracy or revisiting racist policies) creep into legitimacy. If enough people in influential positions start thinking “Maybe democracy really is the problem,” policy could shift in dark directions: voter suppression, erosion of checks and balances, toleration of autocratic leaders, etc. Already we see hints: praise for figures like Orbán in Hungary or Putin as “strong leaders,” suggestions to restrict voting rights to the “informed” or property owners (a direct throwback to pre-Enlightenment franchise), attacks on independent judges and press. These are red flags of creeping authoritarianism. The Dark Enlightenment provides an ideological justification for such moves, which is why it’s essential to push back. Once democratic norms are eroded, getting them back is a herculean task – much harder than preventing their erosion in the first place.

In conclusion, the Dark Enlightenment is not just an edgy thought experiment. It’s a repackaged version of ideas that have led to human suffering whenever implemented. From fascist regimes to absolute monarchies, history’s verdict is clear: concentrating power in the name of order or racial hierarchy ends in oppression and often bloodshed. The Enlightenment values of democracy, equal rights, and reason emerged as a response to those dark outcomes, lighting a path to more just and free societies. The so-called Dark Enlightenment wants to snuff that light out, claiming the ensuing darkness will be somehow better. Don’t buy it. As a gadfly taking aim at this movement, I’ll put it bluntly – their vision isn’t bold or new; it’s a recycled nightmare wearing a futurist costume.

Conclusion: No, We Don’t Need a “Dark” Enlightenment

The Dark Enlightenment fancies itself the cure for what ails modern society. In truth, it’s snake oil – a toxic tonic of old authoritarian impulses, reactionary resentments, and misguided technocratic hubris. Its proponents might use witty blogs and high-minded jargon to sell it, but what they’re peddling is a return to a world where might makes right, and the “little people” know their place. We’ve been there, done that, and have the collapsing empires and mass graves to show for it.

It’s easy to see the shiny appeal this movement might have for some: a straightforward world of clear hierarchies, no messy politics, leaders who supposedly know best, and permission to act on prejudices dressed up as “science.” But part of being a responsible, ethical citizen in the 21st century is recognizing that those siren songs lead to wreckage on the rocks. Liberal democracy, for all its flaws and frustrations, remains the best system we’ve got for promoting human flourishing and guarding against tyranny. The answer to our current problems isn’t to torch democracy; it’s to strengthen it – make it more accountable, more inclusive, and yes, perhaps more efficient through smart reforms. The Dark Enlightenment offers no real solutions, only scapegoats (“blame equality!”) and strongman fantasies.

So if you were curious about the Dark Enlightenment, we hope this takedown has given you both understanding and resolve. Understanding, so you can recognize its arguments and influences – whether you encounter them in a late-night forum or coming from a billionaire’s mouth – and see them for what they are. And resolve, to not let glamorized authoritarianism go unchallenged. Think of this as inoculation: exposure to a weakened strain of neo-reactionary nonsense so you can build immunity to the full-blown thing.

In the end, the term “Dark Enlightenment” is almost self-parody. The real Enlightenment was about spreading light – knowledge, reason, human rights – to dispel darkness. This movement wants to reverse that, substituting a cult of power for the hard work of freedom. There’s nothing enlightened about that darkness. As a gadfly armed with facts and reason, I’ll happily continue to shine a spotlight and watch the roaches scurry. The only throne these would-be philosopher-kings deserve is one in the dustbin of history, right next to the other failed ideologues who thought the world would be better if only they could rule it.

Sources:

Simon, Ed. “What We Must Understand About the Dark Enlightenment Movement.” TIME, 2024.
Fanjul, Sergio C. “NRx: The (underground) movement that wants to destroy democracy.” El País (English), Nov 30, 2024.
Kaufman, Amy S. “A Brief History of a Terrible Idea: The ‘Dark Enlightenment’.” The Public Medievalist, Feb 9, 2017.
Wikipedia: “Dark Enlightenment” (for general definitions and context).
Anti-Defamation League. “Alt Right: A Primer on the New White Supremacy” (backgrounder).
Noys, Benjamin. Malign Velocities: Accelerationism and Capitalism. (Referenced via Wikipedia for critique of Land’s ideas as “fascist point” of capitalism).
Hawley, George. The Alt-Right: What Everyone Needs to Know. (Context on alt-right and NRx intersection).
Yarvin, Curtis (Mencius Moldbug). Unqualified Reservations blog archives (2007–2014).
Land, Nick. “The Dark Enlightenment.” Essay online, 2012. (Origin of term and neo-cameralist outline).

(The above sources provide further reading on the Dark Enlightenment’s origins, key ideas, and the critical responses to this anti-democratic movement.)

portneymk .