
The Darkness Before the Right - myrrh
https://theawl.com/the-darkness-before-the-right-84e97225ac19#.4gic29jrj
======
internaut
While overall a reasonable article I disagree with some of the perspective.

Warning: This subject lends itself to sagas and rebuttals and counter-
rebuttals and counter-counter-rebuttals. It is not obfuscation and dog
whistles as some suppose but a form of political storytelling, something my
people have long been familiar with which is why I'm toasty. If you have ADD
caused by modernity and can't swallow books whole then you will necessarily be
unable to follow the tides in Nrx thought. This is supposed a filter by some,
and this is absolutely correct.

An observation: many people in opposition to Nrx are fascinated by it. I
suggest that is because it is a return to first principals, an examination of
the principals so adroitly articulated by our common ancestor, the
Enlightenment society.

This is something that has not been done for a very long time, at least since
Marx. The left feels the urge to do something parallel but has not yet found
the path to doing so because genuine revolutionary fires are at an ebb. They
wish to usurp but they are the Kingmaker, which is this weird position to be
in. The long and short of it is that they are caught in a contradiction of
their own making and cannot leave the tangle until they sort out some internal
politicking. They don't recognize Moldbug's dictum about Cthulhu's journey so
this is... not about to happen anytime soon.

Talking of Enlightenment; Nrx bears some nascent markings of a lunar society.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Society_of_Birmingham](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Society_of_Birmingham)

Whether it shall achieve great things or even things is a separate question,
it at least is a new perspective and the omens are good that productive
results can be got this way. Exit, anybody? All sorts of interesting
possibilities! The trajectory is good but it probably shall change shape
before its final pocket monster form.

Let's also be clear on things. Thing one: People on the Internet talk a lot of
shit. Nrx is certainly not wholly against the entire Enlightenment project.
That cannot be substantiated no matter who says it, unless you believe we're
about to throw out Darwin and Galton (no). A critique is not the same thing as
a rejection of baby as well as the bathwater.

The other thing is that the article supposes that there is a special class
(not really unless you mean a thousand interlocking Olympic rings) that would
be supported from below by a mass of persons who vaguely agree with some of
the things said.

This is understandable because the iconography of modern politics is like
that. Get the people behind you and you can do great things!1! Then you get
the 'shit, we can only do things on scale if our supporters comprehend
problem' as I think you mentioned. It's a disease of democratic politics and
you'll surely agree that Nrx is kind of against that.

Consider that in time of technological power there is no reason to depend on
fluctuating popular support. It can just be outright dispensed with by
ignoring it or not being, er, visibly extant. I won't delve too deeply here
but I thought this should be obvious. That's the problem with the Cathedral's
education, it impressed patterns on minds so resolutely that they crop up when
they don't help you understand anything, it's pavlovian, like how the
Americans continually conflate race and class despite the evidence. It's their
goto.

So what's the objective of this on a moral level? Because in the end that is
what this is about, what is the right thing to do? How should a man or woman
live? How should a society live? And what's it for? These are all questions
any human faction must answer.

On good days I see it as a method to break out of the local maxima we are so
clearly trapped in (the Stagnation Hypothesis but also broader). On the bad a
method to prevent humanity from capitulating to stupidity and defying Gnon.

