-
The Dark Enlightenment: New Corporate America
- 2025/02/22
- 再生時間： 1 時間 38 分
- ポッドキャスト
-
サマリー
あらすじ・解説
The Dark Enlightenment: New Corporate America Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6ntsax-the-dark-enlightenment-new-corporate-america.html The Dark Enlightenment, also known as Neo-Reactionary Thought (NRx), is a political and philosophical movement that emerged in the early 21st century as a critique of modern liberal democracy, egalitarianism, and progressive values. It was popularized by the blogger Mencius Moldbug (Curtis Yarvin) in the mid-2000s, who argued that democracy is fundamentally flawed, inefficient, and corrupt. Instead, he advocated for a return to hierarchical, authoritarian, or even monarchist systems of governance, drawing inspiration from pre-Enlightenment traditions. The movement's name, Dark Enlightenment, was coined by the British philosopher Nick Land, who expanded upon Yarvin’s ideas, integrating them with his own cybernetic and accelerationist perspectives. Land characterized liberal democracy as a declining force and viewed technocratic or corporate governance as a possible successor. The origins of the Dark Enlightenment lie in several intellectual traditions, including reactionary political thought, classical conservatism, and critiques of democracy found in thinkers like Thomas Carlyle and Joseph de Maistre. It also draws from Silicon Valley’s libertarianism and the broader online countercultural backlash against progressive ideology. The movement gained traction among certain technologists, political dissidents, and intellectuals disillusioned with modern governance, arguing that traditional power structures—such as monarchy, corporate rule, or decentralized city-states—are more stable and effective than democratic systems. The Dark Enlightenment is explicitly anti-egalitarian, believing that natural hierarchies should dictate social and political organization. If the ideals of the Dark Enlightenment were fully implemented, it is unclear what name this new system would take, as it depends on the specific form it assumes. Some proponents envision a "corporate monarchy", where governance is run like a well-managed company, while others suggest a "patchwork" model, where independent, competing city-states replace nation-states. Another possibility is a technocratic aristocracy, where governance is dictated by elite experts rather than elected representatives. Whatever form it takes, such a system would likely be named based on its defining characteristic—whether that be monarchy, technocracy, or decentralized governance. However, critics argue that any such implementation would likely resemble historical autocracies rather than a novel or improved system. A corporate monarchy is a system of governance where the state is structured like a private corporation, with power concentrated in the hands of a single executive, often a CEO-like ruler or monarch. This ruler is not elected by the public but instead appointed, inherited, or chosen based on meritocratic principles. Decision-making in a corporate monarchy is centralized, operating on efficiency, profitability, and long-term stability rather than public opinion or mass participation. The administration functions similarly to a business, where different sectors are managed by specialized executives or technocrats who answer directly to the sovereign authority. The guiding principle of such a system is order, hierarchy, and expertise over populist sentiment. Supporters of this model argue that it eliminates bureaucratic inefficiencies, prevents political instability caused by frequent elections, and ensures that governance is handled by the most competent individuals rather than those who are merely popular. In contrast, a democracy is a political system where power is distributed among the people, typically through elected representatives. Decision-making is based on majority rule, with policies shaped by public discourse, voting, and debate. Democracy values participation, individual rights, and political accountability, aiming to balance the interests of different social groups through mechanisms like free elections, checks and balances, and constitutional safeguards. Unlike a corporate monarchy, democracy assumes that governance should be responsive to the needs and desires of the population rather than dictated by a central authority. While this system promotes political freedom and representation, critics argue that it can lead to inefficiency, short-term policymaking driven by election cycles, and susceptibility to manipulation by mass media and interest groups. The fundamental difference between the two systems lies in how authority is legitimized and exercised. A corporate monarchy derives legitimacy from expertise, stability, and hierarchical control, while democracy derives legitimacy from the will of the people and collective decision-making. A corporate monarchy prioritizes efficiency and long-term strategic vision, often at the expense of public input, while democracy ...
activate_buybox_copy_target_t1