The Dark Enlightenment

For some years now I’ve been going around telling friends that we need a ‘New Enlightenment’. It would aim at a reboot of civilization, based on sounder principles, which picks up where the so-called Age of Enlightenment left off. It would have a theoretical wing: completely rethinking politics and the economy in a way that takes the biosphere and the patterns of human behavior into account. It would also have a practical wing: fighting for freedom and justice against the authoritarians and billionaires. But I think we really need a well-thought out positive vision of what we want—not just what we don’t want.

Of course I know this sounds hopeless. The first enlightenment probably did too! But they had the advantage of communicating by letters, not in a public forum where some ‘reply guy’ instantly undercuts any idealism, and even well-meaning people pull each idea in a dozen divergent directions. So the New Enlightenment, if it happens, will have to be a bit careful about communication.

I don’t especially like the term ‘New Enlightenment’. First, I think there was something too ‘light’ about the first one. It seems to have ignored the dark irrational side of human behavior, which came roaring back in the Romantic era, and later Nazism. Second, I don’t even like these light/dark metaphors. I just haven’t thought of a better term yet.

So, I was surprised when a friend I’d never discussed these ideas with asked if I knew about the ‘Dark Enlightenment’:

• Wikipedia, Dark Enlightenment.

If you read about this, you’ll see it’s also called ‘neoreactionism’ or ‘NRx’. It was first pushed by a guy named Curtis Yarvin. Paraphrasing part of the Wikipedia article:

Yarvin’s theories were elaborated and expanded by philosopher Nick Land, who first coined the term Dark Enlightenment in his essay of the same name.

In 2021, Yarvin appeared on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Today, where he discussed the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan and his concept of the “Cathedral”, which he claims to be the current aggregation of political power and influential institutions that is controlling the country.

Several prominent Silicon Valley investors and Republican politicians have expressed their influence from the philosophy, with venture capitalist Peter Thiel describing Yarvin as his “most important connection”. Steve Bannon has read and admired his work, and there have been allegations that he has communicated with Yarvin which Yarvin has denied. JD Vance has cited Yarvin as an influence. Michael Anton, the State Department Director of Policy Planning during Trump’s second presidency, has also discussed Yarvin’s ideas. In January 2025, Yarvin attended a Trump inaugural gala in Washington; Politico reported he was “an informal guest of honor” due to his “outsize influence over the Trumpian right.”

Land drew inspiration from libertarians such as Peter Thiel, particularly Thiel’s claim that “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible”. The Dark Enlightenment has been described by journalists and commentators as alt-right and neo-fascist.

Andy Beckett stated that “NRx” supporters “believe in the replacement of modern nation-states, democracy and government bureaucracies by authoritarian city states.”

This vision is pretty much the opposite of what I’m hoping for. But if Trump, or his backers like Thiel, have any long-term game plan, maybe this is it. Authoritarian city-states? And maybe some large oppressive empires like Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China, for people who can’t get into a city-state?

Wikipedia writes:

Yarvin in “A Formalist Manifesto” advocates for a form of neocameralism in which small, authoritarian “gov-corps” coexist and compete with each other, an idea anticipated by Hans Herman-Hoppe. He claims freedom under the system would be guaranteed by the ability to “vote with your feet”, whereby residents could leave for another gov-corp if they felt it would provide a higher quality of life, thus forcing competition. Nick Land reiterates this with the political idea “No Voice, Free Exit”, taken from Albert Hirschman’s ideas of voice being democratic and exit being departure to another society:

“If gov-corp doesn’t deliver acceptable value for its taxes (sovereign rent), [citizens] can notify its customer service function, and if necessary take their custom elsewhere. Gov-corp would concentrate upon running an efficient, attractive, vital, clean, and secure country, of a kind that is able to draw customers.”

But we’ve already tried something like this. Historically, authoritarian city-states don’t always make it easy for people to enter or leave. Why would they? What would compel them to? Remember, Bach was jailed by the Duke of Saxe-Weimar for trying to leave town for a different job. That was typical in his day.

So, I said more about what I don’t want than the positive vision of what I do want. But I’ll try to say something more positive soon. We’re very short of that these days.