Disaffection With The Enlightenment™

enlightenment_to_dark_enlightenment

Most people, until the recent Brexit and Trump election, had no idea how insane and pathological the Left are. It has spread a wave of shock through the West: these are our leaders?

Like insects, they impulsively repeat motions as if their heads have been removed and all that is left is the twitching reflex. Their ideology says that equality is better than reality, so they enjoy lying, distorting and editing history.

This is why for them, the fact that they lost an election is not particularly important. All that matters is “getting around” that little impediment. Because they are right. 100% morally right and socially right. In their minds.

A bigger story to this election is that the West is finally rejecting The Enlightenment.™ Since we no longer teach anything but post-1945 ideology in our schools, you might ask: what is The Enlightenment™?

The Enlightenment is the idea that the human individual should be the measure of mankind, and each individual should be free to live by intent, not hampered by social hierarchy. In other words: equality.

For every individual to do what they want, even if it is illogical, we must create a theory of equality so that bad results are equal to good results and therefore, it is okay that people are acting illogically. This is the root of Leftism.

From that you can see how collectivism is individualism. Each member of the crowd wants to ensure that he is accepted. He insists, to that end, that everyone be accepted even if they are bad. Now he is guaranteed a position.

Now, many centuries later, we are seeing the fruit of Leftism: broken social order, miserable wimpy people, horrible jobs, endless pollution, the nuclear threat is back again, our leaders are smug idiots, and many more… it is a laundry list of complaints. That is important because it indicates a generalized breakdown of society, not clustered around a single defect but arising from a defective design in general.

Those of us with any sense left are speaking of the only logical response possible: we took a wrong turn, so we need to go back, turn around, and take the path we were on before we went down this road to doom.

What does that look like? Around here, we speak of the four pillars:

  1. Culture. Nationalism (one nation = one ethnic group). Values. Heritage. Traditions. Eject defectives. Praise good examples. A timeless order of life and being.
  2. Aristocracy. Find our best people by inner traits, not single abilities like earning money. Give them the power and wealth. Have a social order: upper, middle and serf classes. Ignore the serfs and limit their breeding. Make the middle classes stay quiet. Ensure that the upper classes are intelligent and moral.
  3. Hierarchy. Social order by caste. Free markets are limited because the audience are the upper classes. Keep proles impoverished. Always promote the excellent, and demote the degenerate and weak. Manners, verbal ability and intelligence always rewarded.
  4. Transcendence. We have goals we cannot achieve, but can constantly approach: excellence. Goodness. Virtue. Strength. Pride. Honor. Aggression. Truthfulness. Piety. Wisdom. Hierarchy. We improve qualitatively by using time-proven methods.

This society would resemble the intersection of England in the 1930s and 1630s. The good people, who are maybe 20% of the population, would be promoted to positions of power. Everyone else would be gently subjugated. Moral and intellectual accuracy and goodness would be the primary concern of society.

There is a paradise outside our doorstep, and we do not need to go anywhere to find it. We just need to re-organize what we are doing, and specifically, stop doing the stupid things that Leftism and The Enlightenment™ induce us to do.

It is time to inherit the future of the past.

Tags: , , , ,

13 Responses to “Disaffection With The Enlightenment™”

  1. bob sykes says:

    The Enlightenment was actually rejected 200 years ago. The corpse just hasn’t stopped stinking. The Enlightenment was a movement of the 17th and 18th Centuries and was superseded by the Romantic Movement of the 19th Century. Think Back vs Beethoven. Leftism is a Romantic movement. It specifically rejects reason and science in favor of feeling and intuition. Nowadays we have moved beyond Post Modernism to something yet unnamed. Or least I don’t know what it’s called.

    • Leftism is a Romantic movement. It specifically rejects reason and science in favor of feeling and intuition.

      Slight glitch: Leftism predates Romanticism, and Romanticism is divided into right-wing and left-wing variants. If Romanticism has one statement, it is to look away from the madding crowd into self and nature for the truth. That sounds more right-wing than left-wing. It is also worth remembering that their model for feeling was the Aeolian Harp — a harp played by the wind — and not self-urges, desires, etc.

    • The enlightenment worshipped the powers of reason but they always had very romantic ideas about what its extent and powers were, especially regarding the capabilities of humankind.
      Even when romanticists were writing cautionary tales like Frankenstein, science was surging forward. They were upstarts against an Enlightenment establishment. The individualism we have isn’t the heroic individualism of the romanticists, but the bean counter individualism of untilitarianism.

  2. crow says:

    It is very unfortunate that “The Enlightenment™” to which you refer is the polar opposite of spiritual Enlightenment. Many people confuse the one with the other, as people are so prone to do.
    Which hands us the bizarre paradox of the very best examples of humanity being the enlightened ones, while also being the very worst.
    This is the limitation of words, terms, and symbols that humans use to refer to real things, while forgetting that the terms are not the things they symbolize.

    This is probably the single biggest failing of politicians: they have no actual lives, have never lived them, and exist entirely in a world of words and symbols. No wonder there is such an obvious disconnect between what they say, and what they are ostensibly appointed to do.

    I must take some issue, too, with the idea that there are certain goals we can not achieve, at least as far as the transcendental. Such states are achievable, although certainly not easily. It is probably a good starting point to take aim at such difficult to achieve things, in the conviction that such things are not impossible, but actually attainable.

    If you’re gonna dream of a worthy civilization, best to dream high, and adjust later, as necessary.

    • JPW says:

      In some respects, it was a reaction to spiritual enlightenment.

    • Excellence may be achievable in the moment, but then new frontiers open. For example: a Cray XMP was excellent, and gave way for new research and possibilities. In the same way, Chartres Cathedral is clearly excellent, but we can dream of other excellence (horizontal) and perhaps even higher degrees of excellence (vertical).

      The point about politicians is a good one, and it applies to all of our professions. To succeed in this nitwit society, one sits in school and then gets a series of well-paid jobs, essentially avoiding the experience of real life. Hillary Clinton has never lived in a normal middle class suburb, has never cut coupons and shopped around for the best prices on milk, and has almost certainly never attended a public school where racial violence is the norm. Experience? She has Excel spreadsheets of what the media reports to her, and nothing more.

      • Dualist says:

        “Chartres Cathedral is clearly excellent, but we can dream of other excellence (horizontal) and perhaps even higher degrees of excellence (vertical).”

        Such thoughts are surely one of the best motivations for our movement. Regard any medieval cathedral, and then recall that they were built in times with no cranes, no engines, no CAD; in fact, even the basic laws of forces were unknown. They could often take over a century to complete, hence the Lord paying for construction would normally be initiating something that he KNEW he would never see finished. They often contain the most ornate master-masonry in roof-spaces totally out-of-sight of the congregation. Such an idea seems incomprehensible to the Modern.

        And now consider any of the ‘wondrous’ buildings produced in modern times, something like the Empire State Building: it was thrown-up in a few years, concrete being poured into steel-frames, little embellishment inside or out.

        Next, imagine what we COULD build. If we can build a sky-scraper in 10 years, imagine what we could build if we spent TWO HUNDRED years on it, using all our architectural knowledge and space-age materials (at least for the structure). We could easily build monuments having not only the height of the CN tower, but with similar dimensions of width and depth, also. Imagine if our future Great Lords, instead of competing over how much money they had in the bank, competed over how much they could SPEND on patronising such works and, more importantly, over who’s Nation/fiefdom could generate the most Beauty. A world where instead of buying a super-yacht for themselves, they allowed our best artistic talent to create structures possessing the exterior of Milan Cathedral with the interior of Sainte-Chapelle (or whatever expression best suited the temperament of one’s particular Nation).

        Feast your eyes:

        http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1565555&page=2

        http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?s=c7af48abbc8b352837d269b8bf8d09c1&t=1565555

  3. Avraham Rosenblum says:

    While I like the Middle Ages and the Renaissance I can see that there were serious problems with the Enlightenment philosophers. But that is how philosophy progresses. At first there is some puzzle or problem, and then someone comes along and solves it. That was the problem of change for Parmenides. The greatest thinkers struggled wit that until you got Plato and Aristotle. Same with the Enlightenment philosophers that struggled with problems of human freedom and how we know stuff until Kant came along and then the whole German Idealism school. My advice would be to learn from the best of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and Kant.

    • Good point. The quest for wisdom is ongoing. And yet, some of it is simply obvious and timeless, and has been known before, and is forgotten because it is offensive to our risk-averse egos. That is known as “the important stuff.”

  4. Axel says:

    This is similar to the general preference for short-termism of modern democratic man

    http://theanti-puritan.blogspot.com/2016/01/crime-versus-investment.html

  5. TheUnbeholden says:

    ” Keep proles impoverished. Everyone else would be gently subjugated.”

    Politically yes, what I reject is the economic subjugation. Keeping people poor is not going to get any kind of utopian society. The only revolution that mattered was the materialist one, but the way I see it is that there is NO REASON why we can’t have both moral absolutism, epistocracy and capitalism that minimizes the globalist elements. Any attempt to try and copypaste societies that failed due to using violence to keep people from gaining any kind of wealth was the reason those societies failed.

    It wasn’t any kind of ideological revolution as I originally thought, rather IT WAS QUITE RIGHTFULLY violence being used to meet the violence of the ruling class. They may have generally left people alone BUT they kept any kind path to success away by limiting education, land & entrepreneurship away from the masses. When people realized they could become wealthy, the ideas came second to the outcomes. ie Capitalism was PRACTICAL. I think most didn’t careless about Romanticism, The Enlightenment or any other kind of intellectual fapping by the elite. People just didn’t want to be hungry, diseased ridden or overworked. The only way that I can possibly entertain (or for most people who would even venture this far) is if the ideas in question have both practical, moral and aesthetic value, but as it stands anti-capitalism does have some aesthetic value (due to globalism that arose from some combination of egalitarianism & democracy) but not practical or moral! Political subjugation makes sense because most people don’t even care about voting.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>