Talk:Dark Enlightenment

Conservatism Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dark Enlightenment article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dark Enlightenment. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dark Enlightenment at the Reference desk.

What do the Dark Enlightenment actually have to say?

This whole page almost completely lacks any description of what Land and Yarvin actually think and write. This is troubling, because there is a LOT of criticism of what they have said, but without telling us what is actually being criticized. It's very odd to see every single section of the page go to great pains to remind us that "commentators" have called them alt-right, but with no indication of why that is.

As a good example - The neo-reactionary lot directly reject the notion of egalitarianism. They don't believe that egalitarianism is possible or desirable; they think attempts towards it are both doomed to failure and also inherently bad. These are some eyebrow raising claims! Knowing what the claim is helps you to understand just how extreme these people are, and explains why they are called racist and misogynistic and so forth. These descriptions are not wrong at all, they are fair extrapolations of what the authors have said themselves, and with more context that can be made clear.

They also reject democracy because, to their mind, it is inevitably a tyranny of the majority which can simply overrule liberty by a vote. They argue that popular consent is not enough, and that in any case this is simply a veneer over an elected tyrant. They aren't authoritarian as such; they think ALL forms of statism are authoritarian, including democracy. They do want a state, so they would consider themselves to be in the authoritarian school, because any non-anarchist would be to their view. Again, these are some wild claims which are extremely heterodox. They are not people who are rejecting the freedom of democracy for some kind of dictator; they view democracy as a dictator too, and want to swap it for a dictator more their taste. This is an important difference, and helps to explain why they get called fascists by people who don't agree about the nature of democracy.

These are people who have published books and put out blogs about their thoughts. They are not shy about putting their views out there. So why is this article only able to summon up a single citation from the people who's work is being described? Why is there seemingly no interest in putting their views on the page which describes them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.35.70 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is a peculiar characteristic of Wikipedia to avoid directly addressing the subject in such cases. Benjamin (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources. If you can find any reliable secondary source that will uncritically summarize their insane fascist beliefs, feel free to add it yourself. Good luck finding one, though. No reliable source will bother to seriously consider any of the fringe nonsense these lunatics believe in, even for a minute. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

completely lacks any description of what Land and Yarvin actually think and write. The first paragraph of the lead would appear to sum it up, it also contains links to Land and Yarvin, you'll find additional detail there, that's generally how a wiki works. Acous mana 12:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classification as "a philosophy"

The introduction describes Dark Enlightment as "a [...] philosophy". I'd argue that this is a colloquialism with unclear meaning. There's a clear definition for philosophy but not for a philosophy (which is semantically just the negation of a connected, rational philosophical discourse and therefore a negation of the idea of philosophy). I'd suggest to call it a political movement. --Jazzman (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure about the classification as "a [...] philosophy", but calling it a political movement would definitely be more wrong, since there is no "movement" behind it. It's just a small group of people spinning ideas around, some of which entered the right-wing discourse and influenced actual movements, but the Dark Enlightenment itself doesn't have the necessary characteristics. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"School of thought"? Editor2020 (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not really a school either I think. Does "political movement" require a group to be big? If that was the only questionable aspect I'd happily take it over "a philosophy" which shouldn't be used in an Encyclopedia at all for the reasons described above. --Jazzman (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about " intellectual tradition", as suggested at School of thought. Editor2020 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sailer?

I don't believe the inclusion of Steve Sailer as a forerunner of DE is accurate, or supported by the citation 148.75.130.220 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is explicitly supported by the citation. Grayfell (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cited work merely asserts the claim, very briefly, and includes a link to Sailer's wikipedia page. The work provides no examples, quotations, citations, or anything else in support of the claim. The citation may be explicit but it is nowhere near adequate. The claim itself is simply false: Sailer's work does not emphasize political theory and his political commentary generally takes mainstream notions of parliamentarian/representative democracy for granted. 104.162.68.113 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent VOX article on Curtis Yarvin

Of possible interest to editors watching and/or editing this page... Who is Curtis Yarvin, the monarchist, anti-democracy blogger? - Vox. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Yarvin?

I feel an image of Yarvin would be helpful, if nothing else to provide a face to the name mentioned in the article. There's one already on his wikipedia page. Also relevant would be an image of Nick Land. Thoughts? JBrahms (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]