With the 'heirs to the counter-enlightenment' debate the right has descended into dangerous waters. In the 20th century there were perhaps less than ten heirs to the counter-enlightenment, with the state of decline one can imagine what those numbers might be today. Over the next few months I will try to give some context to this debate and what relevance the counter-enlightenment has today.

This is not to say that people involved in these discussions are unintelligent. The question is not one of knowledge but rather a way of seeing, a way of orientation. The counter-enlightenment is for us as distant as pre-socratic philosophy. Our situation is like that of sitting in an abandoned theatre, simply imagining the play is not enough, one also has to account for the historical and spatial difference in how that play was perceived and performed. Character changes just as much as the sense of beauty.

I think a great starting point for anyone interested would be "The Oldest Programme for a System of German Idealism". It is considered to be a collaborative effort by Hölderlin, Hegel, and Schelling. I will post a link later if it is not freely available online. Very short essay and should also be of interest to anyone studying religion.

I will also try to work out a reading list.

Post-hoc rationalisation is a type of perspectivism for weak men, or simply those lacking vision.

Just as any plan is better than no plan, a calm head is better than any other when plans go awry. This is Nestor's role in The Iliad, he is something other than a hero or prince.

Writing a response to Academic Agent's 59 Theses. This will help differentiate nihilist irrationalism from intellectual intuition and Schmitt's decisionism. AA, like most today, does not understand what Schmitt means by decisionism. This is most clear where he tries to apply the friend-enemy distinction to party politics, what is fundamentally anti-deciaionist.

17. "Any new regime will be established only by the most organised available alternative elite."

Technical elites are not elites. If there is merely a mechanism switch there is no real exception to the norm of power. The train switches tracks or derails – this is neither an engine failure nor an economic catastrophe.

18. "Apolitical formula is an ideological 'top line' that justifies sovereignty ('BS BS. BS BS. therefore we rule')."

The digital encyclopaedia is the sovereign 'top line' of a non-sovereign world. (Post-hoc word association. Therefore BS BS. BS BS.')

19. "Apolitical formula cannot brook an 'and'."

The apolitical by nature cannot be a formula. The maxim must have some infinite quality which no formula can even chip away at.

20. "'Clear them out' is the only political formula that can unite dissidents against the current ruling class."

'Clear them out, and, but, leave me out.'

Name change alert. To make it distinct from other projects and also clarify the apocalyptic intent.

With this we firmly establish ourselves as the heavyweight champions of dissident thought. We won't be so humble as to limit ourselves to the right-wing – which through its very name reveals a fear of separation from the political norm.

On Power

1. "Power is defined by 'who rules'"

Power is not only 'who rules', which is a tautology, it is a force directed towards a specific end or fate. One may speak of destructive power, doomed might – as in Menoetius, the titan. Absolute destruction too is a power, and it acts against sovereignty.

2. "Mosca’s Law: the organised 100 will always defeat the disorganised 1000."

A god will defeat millions of the organised; the law will make mortal the immortal.

3. "'Who says organisation, says oligarchy'"

Oligarchy requires a level of nobility and aristocracy. It is often a mixed state directed against democracy, or an emergency state when monarchy fails. Organisation approaches its absolute limit in the technical democracy – the total plebiscite.

4. "There is no genuine separation of powers."

There is, and we are living in it. Here Parvini contradicts another thesis, that "Culture is downstream from law."

5. "There are no neutral institutions."

The fundamental law of technical democracy is neutralisation. Therefore, there are no neutral institutions to the degree that the world approaches one total neutral institution.

https://actaeon.substack.com/p/a-dialogue-against-neema-parvinis

The ethnicity is only the average of heroic men.

The almost-despairing is closest to nothingness; neither god nor devil compels him.

The greatest spirit includes and surpasses action. Cyrus raises the lowest men into centaurs. Beating a man into the ground would simply make him another Thersites.

For God is above all the knowing, and his followers the well-interpreted.

The Endarkenment:
Reformation of the Neo-Reactionary Trichotomy
Part 1 of 9

What is the Neo-Reactionary Trichotomy?

The Neo-Reactionary (NRx) Trichotomy is a political spectrum presented by Nick Land in order to describe the political landscape according to NRx principles.

The Trichotomy begins by exploring whether the Three Estates can be mapped onto modern socio-political institutions.

Upon proving that the Three Estates can be mapped onto modern socio-political institutions, the next step is to explain a healthy trichotomy versus an unhealthy trichotomy. A healthy trichotomy is a society in which the Three Estates are working in harmony with each other. In an unhealthy trichotomy, one or more points are behaving in an unhealthy and destructive manner.

In the NRx model, only one point, the Clergy, has moved into an unhealthy state while the other points have moved so far apart that they do not tend to recognize each other as allies in any way.

—————————
Go to Part 2 of 9
—————————

Some of you may remember the discussions of a new political spectrum, following Empedocles and the elements. I wrote a lot while I was away, and this essay by Fascifist should help with finishing it.
No timeline for now but will try to post interesting parts. Should also be less schizo than my last essay.

"For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary. And those members of the body which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour."

Left and right hold no distinction, they are fixed positions before which change is given a certain neutrality. Political sense is eliminated along with any dynamic of struggle. Replacing the image of the body politic, we see the wound man – all of the daggers, arrows, and separatting devices represent the organising units of the levelling process. The wound man is the body politic of the monarchomachs, whether through conspiracy, taking the dagger pressed into one's hand, an incapacity to stand for the king or strengthen his sovereign position through resistance.

Resistance even in monarchies can be essential to sovereignty, as a contest to order rather than dissolution and neutralisation which is central to democracy. The illusory opposition of the classes in democracy is not directed against order, not something to lean on, it is rather to perfect the system of neutralisation, to generate organised zones of identification which replace dominion, the old idea of estates.

"The sovereign power represents the head; the laws and customs are the brain, source of the nerves, and seat of the understanding, the will, and the senses, of which the judges and magistrates are the organs; the commerce, industry, and agriculture are the mouth and stomach that prepare the common subsistence; the public finances are the blood that is discharged by a wise economy, performing the functions of the heart in order to distribute nourishment and life throughout the body; the citizens are the body and limbs that make the machine move, live, and work and that cannot be harmed in any part without a painful impression immediately being transmitted to the brain, if the animal is in a state of good health."
~ Rousseau

The technical image is opposite to the metaphor, what carries something forth. Instead, there is a strict limit to possibility, the technical image lacks a spatial order, abstractions are extended and fixed, the space filled by an intensification of movement – the figures are overstretched into unnatural positions to give a sense of completion in place of order. Thus the political order in modern democracy is like that of the man bound to a torture device. The organs share nothing but pain; at worst he is drawn and quartered.

In the classical image an order establishes boundaries, reason in a higher sense and to which abstractions must be subject to movement. At one time the king was associated with the general will, in the chest of the body politic. With Hobbes he was separated, given higher distinction in the head. This possibility of a shifting spatial order is not at all like the technical political idea, the perfect system in which there are infinite and yet absolutely confined spaces.