Turn on thread page Beta

What's going on? The dark enlightenment watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Observatory


    Better ideas such as?



    Could you give an example of what wouldn't be equalitist?


    Or do you support some form of feudalism?
    I don't have definite ideas what to do about this, but the first step is recognising that 1. we have a state religion and that 2. it is crazy and going to kill us all.

    The "Dark Enlightenment" (a name that is so try-hard I recoil from it, but it's a more descriptive label than any other I've seen) should be understood in analogy to the original enlightenment. At its root it is a rediscovery of old ideas, which show that current ideas are crazy and dangerous, but will lead to something new. The original enlightenment thinkers held up Greco-Roman ideas in contrast to the Catholic theocracy in which they lived, and tried to ape Greco-Roman values, culture, and even art, but they did not themselves become Greeks or Romans, or create a neo-Greece or neo-Rome; they created and became something new.

    It is more useful to see the problem in terms of what attributes a successful society must have. I consider them to be:

    1. Free markets: private property and contracts

    2. Free science, independent of the state, with competition and not collaboration between scientists

    3. An above replacement birth rate

    4. Patriotism, which means common social support for the institutions that maintain the above, ostracism for those who do not support the institutions that maintain the above.

    We are coasting on 1. and 2., and Equalism is slowly throttling both. The Muslims have 3. and 4. but not 1. and 2.. In the short term, markets are probably the most important attribute. In the long term, though, the birth rate is probably the most important. We need a full house.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Most problems can be fixed by property rights and contracts. These are ways to set up useful patterns of authority and subordination. E.g. it is in my interest to work for Bill Gates because he is better at managing businesses than me. It is not in my interest to work for Stalin because he is not better at managing a country than me. Feudalism isn't great because the lord might be an idiot, or might not have my best interests at heart. Equalism is horrible because the median voter is definitely an idiot. In a contractual system, I am incentivised to give limited authority over my life to people I trust by promise of rewards.

    Equalists don't like this, because if people were really equal then contracts would result in socialist anarchy, as no one would need anything in particular from anyone else, and all labour would be interchangeable. That's not the case so contracts are hierarchical. Commies complain that contracts create these hierarchies, but they don't, they just ameliorate the problems of a natural hierarchy, by tending to put the people best suited to lead in positions of leadership, in the spheres of human activity where their special skill lies.

    Low birth rates are probably also just a coordination problem caused by lack of contracts. In order to have a sensible number of children, women need to start giving birth early. In order to do this, they need men to support them in that time, and they need to have confidence that those men will continue to support them for ten or twenty years. And men want something in return for this arrangement: an exclusive relation and permanent access to their family. You used to be able to sign a contract to do this, called marriage, but now marriage can be cancelled at will, so it is impossible to make a contract whereby two people pledge to mutually support one another for thirty years. You can only make an unenforceable, symbolic gesture that you intend to do so, which doesn't work nearly so well. That shouldn't be surprising. Imagine if businesses were run like this: you could take out a loan and decide, at any time, to stop making repayments, because making someone pay back a loan is coercive and evil. Sounds great, right? Well, not really, since the result would not be free loans for everyone, the result would be that no one offers to make a loan, credit dries up, and the economy collapses. Much as our demographics are collapsing.

    Equalism hates contracts, because contracts produce answers Equalists don't like. But contracts don't create those conditions, and are generally the most effective tool for making the best of them.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Observatory


    Thanks for your posts I will ain to reply fully tomorrow. I've just endured a series of videos about the dark enlightenment. I get the feeling if there was such an event, people like ramzpaul would be lynched. I can sympathise with the anti democratic view point but I think they over egg the PC fascism viewpoint and the race stuff.

    Before I get some sleep two points.

    1: suppose bill gates idiot son inherits the company. He largely does nothing but be an ass and pick up bonuses whilst a team of managers run the company. In some ways this can be seen as an International hereditary corporate monarchy but where there is no real need to look after the subjects thus the worst of both worlds.

    2: I was interested in your point on marriage. As I learnt to my cost last year, such arrangements give disproportionate power to older males who are obviously more financially secure and thus a more attractive investment for a number of reasons for young women to attach themselves to. I've noticed that this trend is increasing and whilst understandable do find it an undesirable outcome (mainly from a romanticist view point- but also due to the unhealthy family life that it would lead to.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    As I understand it "dark enlightenment" is an intellectual movement, not an event or an organisation, which was basically started by a loose collection of tech millionaires in California*. These people had the freedom to oppose the state religion because they were independently wealthy and they had the interest and ability to do it because they're the kind of people who would have gone into academia if Silicon Valley hadn't made a better offer. It does not really have a manifesto or something, but it is united as a coherent movement by its basic rejection of the state religion, as opposed to e.g. Trump or UKIP supporters who do not explicitly reject the state religion, just demand that some of its more obviously damaging policies be ended.

    On your points.

    1. It doesn't matter on a social level. Gates' son bankrupts the company which is sad but the resources are taken by someone else in the market. Idiot sons are only a problem if they can command the customers to keep paying which companies in the free market can't. Of course a company with competent management that could command customers to pay would be even worse!

    2. What arrangements - current marriages or enforceable marriage contracts? Don't see how you would have experienced someone engaging a contract which is, as far as I can tell, legally impossible to make. Old men who marry young women under current marriage law are basically paying way above market for a live-in call girl.





    *It then filtered down through various bloggers of lesser, sometimes much lesser, quality, but then that happens to all ideologies.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    As I understand it "dark enlightenment" is an intellectual movement, not an event or an organisation, which was basically started by a loose collection of tech millionaires in California*. These people had the freedom to oppose the state religion because they were independently wealthy and they had the interest and ability to do it because they're the kind of people who would have gone into academia if Silicon Valley hadn't made a better offer. It does not really have a manifesto or something, but it is united as a coherent movement by its basic rejection of the state religion, as opposed to e.g. Trump or UKIP supporters who do not explicitly reject the state religion, just demand that some of its more obviously damaging policies be ended.

    On your points.

    1. It doesn't matter on a social level. Gates' son bankrupts the company which is sad but the resources are taken by someone else in the market. Idiot sons are only a problem if they can command the customers to keep paying which companies in the free market can't. Of course a company with competent management that could command customers to pay would be even worse!

    2. What arrangements - current marriages or enforceable marriage contracts? Don't see how you would have experienced someone engaging a contract which is, as far as I can tell, legally impossible to make. Old men who marry young women under current marriage law are basically paying way above market for a live-in call girl.

    *It then filtered down through various bloggers of lesser, sometimes much lesser, quality, but then that happens to all ideologies.
    1: well for a start, it wouldn't be a meritocracy if he de facto ran the cimpany, and ias it is a gargantuan business it is highly unlikley to fail and thus given huge advantages over competitors. Also consider things like pensions and in oarticular the recent BHS farce and bank bail outs etc. whilst unpopular, there would be large scale societal fall out Uf the market U.S. left to its own devices.

    2: i and people in my age group have notice a growing trend of women in similar our category going for older men as to put it simply in general we are not able to adequately compete with a settled male at the peak of their career. Although irritating and unpleasant, it's easy to see why and your view of the things reminds me of this reality.


    Last,y on your point about birth rates. Couldn't one solution be incentivising middle class Brits into breeding whilst incentivising the poor into sterilisation ( liberal eugenics) and thus we are able to keep a controllable population of workers who do the undesirable jobs whilst retaining a constant native elite population, of which say only net contributors were allowed the vote? *


    *.Rakas21: I suspect this last point is what you're after?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    1: well for a start, it wouldn't be a meritocracy if he de facto ran the cimpany, and ias it is a gargantuan business it is highly unlikley to fail and thus given huge advantages over competitors. Also consider things like pensions and in oarticular the recent BHS farce and bank bail outs etc. whilst unpopular, there would be large scale societal fall out Uf the market U.S. left to its own devices.

    2: i and people in my age group have notice a growing trend of women in similar our category going for older men as to put it simply in general we are not able to adequately compete with a settled male at the peak of their career. Although irritating and unpleasant, it's easy to see why and your view of the things reminds me of this reality.


    Last,y on your point about birth rates. Couldn't one solution be incentivising middle class Brits into breeding whilst incentivising the poor into sterilisation ( liberal eugenics) and thus we are able to keep a controllable population of workers who do the undesirable jobs whilst retaining a constant native elite population, of which say only net contributors were allowed the vote? *


    *.Rakas21: I suspect this last point is what you're after?
    Basing liberal eugenics on culling people based on family income is absurd.

    We do need to provide incentives to breed and we do need to have certain people and groups not breeding (violent criminals, those with severe hereditary illness) but we want both the poor and rich to breed and then compete.

    We also want a rising population, not a constant one. Malthus is wrong in the UK at least.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    This thread is about trying to understand what is currently occurring in the world with the rise of new anti establishment parties, politicians and movements from Donald Trump to Corbyn and even more relevant, the social movement behind them. I want to understand what it is and if and what we should do to change it.

    Although it's a cliche, I think we are seeing a wave of change spread across the western globe in response to rapid globalisation.

    On LBCs James Obriens show, one can often notice how similar in mentality the Corbynites acted to the ukippers. It has long been noted that the far left and right have far more in common than with the so called moderate centre but I think this is different. My theory is that it isn't about ideology (there are plenty of moderate Corbynites and Farage fans- [and whilst I dislike both of them, neither actually have that extreme policies- in fact, short of simple buzzwords they don't really have policies]. Instead this is about a very basic narrative which boils down to this:

    1: A vision of the past (generally revisionist) which generally sees the last thirty or so years as a failure, and crucially of things being far better.

    2: A betrayal by an establishment- Heath taking us into the common market/ Blair costing up to Murdoch in order to help win power. Which leads to:

    3: A binary narrative of the protagonist "we" (decent, ordinary) people vs the antagonist (Establishment). There is no room for bystanders in this conflict between what is perceived to between the good people and the bad establishment. Incidents such as the White van and 'bigoted woman' incidents only reinforce this narrative. Above all this is a conflict in which facts are meaningless in the quest for a reflateable identity.

    Thought?
    Reading history shows us that progress is anything but linear. Perhaps what was once common understanding of how the world works has to be dismantled in order for something better to come?

    I'm not so sure things are that bad yet. We live in an age where there's exponential amount of science papers and books published every year.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Basing liberal eugenics on culling people based on family income is absurd.

    We do need to provide incentives to breed and we do need to have certain people and groups not breeding (violent criminals, those with severe hereditary illness) but we want both the poor and rich to breed and then compete.
    I agree 100%- but which group of people are more likely to have hereditary diseases/ be violent criminals/ any other problems? I would say this problem is mostly based on the environment more than nature.



    It was a crude and clumsy way of putting it though tbf, and like you I m not exactly coming from royalty!

    We also want a rising population, not a constant one. Malthus is wrong in the UK at least.
    Stctge moment we seem to have the worst case situation where our best members are not having enough if any kids whilst the least in society are breeding tenfold. I think we need to reverse that trend, at least for now.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    1: well for a start, it wouldn't be a meritocracy if he de facto ran the cimpany,
    Maybe but so what? This is about sound social engineering - getting results - not giving everyone their just deserts. The message of the past 200 years is that trying to push down the "undeserving" and lift up the "deserving" does way more damage to everyone than just trying to make everything work and damn who gets what.

    and ias it is a gargantuan business it is highly unlikley to fail and thus given huge advantages over competitors.
    Huge businesses fail all the time. Huge businesses are usually sclerotic bureaucracies. And the vast majority of advantages they do have come from the state, so absent state intervention in the market they would fail much more quickly, and the optimal business size would be smaller than now.

    Also consider things like pensions and in oarticular the recent BHS farce and bank bail outs etc. whilst unpopular, there would be large scale societal fall out Uf the market U.S. left to its own devices.
    Sure, with present day institutions it is hard not to bail out vested interests. That's a large part of why present day institutions suck so much.

    2: i and people in my age group have notice a growing trend of women in similar our category going for older men as to put it simply in general we are not able to adequately compete with a settled male at the peak of their career. Although irritating and unpleasant, it's easy to see why and your view of the things reminds me of this reality.
    I am struggling to see your point. Are your criticising my proposed reforms or the present system? It seems like the second but I am not defending the present system.

    Last,y on your point about birth rates. Couldn't one solution be incentivising middle class Brits into breeding whilst incentivising the poor into sterilisation ( liberal eugenics) and thus we are able to keep a controllable population of workers who do the undesirable jobs whilst retaining a constant native elite population, of which say only net contributors were allowed the vote? *
    No. If you give the state control of eugenics it will breed state clients and destroy the self-reliant yeomanry. That is what they are doing with immigration policy. No successful population planning can be state run, just as no other successful economic planning is state run.

    And we do not want "underclass to do undesirable jobs". The truth is there aren't really undesirable jobs, just jobs done by undesirable people. Investment banker is an objectively *****y job, that has high status only because it most people can't do it. If every street cleaner could be an investment banker, street cleaner would not be lower status nor worse paid than investment banker.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Simply ending dysgenics would make a huge difference without needing to instate eugenics.

    Today huge numbers of people with degrees are paid caring for the children of the underclass in various ways, who after transfers can no better afford children of their own than the underclass, paid out of taxes levied on the best and most productive people.

    This is insane. The poor should not be able to afford children, and be employed caring for the many children of the elite, not the other way around. For most of British history, age of marriage went down with increasing wealth. Today, the opposite.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Low birth rates are probably also just a coordination problem caused by lack of contracts. In order to have a sensible number of children, women need to start giving birth early. In order to do this, they need men to support them in that time, and they need to have confidence that those men will continue to support them for ten or twenty years. And men want something in return for this arrangement: an exclusive relation and permanent access to their family. You used to be able to sign a contract to do this, called marriage, but now marriage can be cancelled at will, so it is impossible to make a contract whereby two people pledge to mutually support one another for thirty years. You can only make an unenforceable, symbolic gesture that you intend to do so, which doesn't work nearly so well. That shouldn't be surprising.
    Given that if one marriage contract ends, a new can be formed with another male, that the male from the previous contract will likely be liable to support the family via alimony, and that if this does not happen the state will then step in and support the family, I am not sure that lower birth rates are caused by marriage contracts no longer being guaranteed for a period of time long enough to raise a family.

    I think it's mainly down to two other factors.

    The first is affordability and housing. We're not longer in the age where a single income of someone typically of the age to start a family is sufficient to support said family to a living standard deemed acceptable. This doesn't apply so much to those from immigrant backgrounds, where even a low standard of living here may be better than what they would enjoy back home, or those from very low income backgrounds who are supported by the state. But I think it does apply to the middle classes who may not wish for a potential family to miss out on the comforts and quality of lives that they grew up with, and working classes who aspire to something better.

    Then there's housing, which is very expensive as the supply is artificially constrained by the planning system. And quite small too. How many people of prime fertility are in a position to house a family? If you're living in a flat-share or staying with your parents, you're probably not thinking about raising a family.

    The second is a change in societal attitudes towards careers and stay-at-home parents. People don't want to have children in the in the prime ages for doing so (say 25-30) because these are also the years in which they will be attempting to progress with their careers, or establish themselves on one if they aren't already on one, and enjoying being single. Many don't yet have the stability of knowing where they will be based.

    Given that many jobs today only recruit from applicants with degrees that would have yesteryear taken on school leavers, many are facing delayed starts to their careers. I think this has the effect of also delaying the maturity of people in their twenties, too, but it doesn't postpone a natural decline in fertility. I think that people are waiting longer to settle down and start a family, because they don't feel ready for it, and/or aren't in a financial position to do it. We haven't modified human biology is that female peak fertility is delayed by a decade, so the net effect is that people have less time to physically produce a family.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Davij038)
    2: i and people in my age group have notice a growing trend of women in similar our category going for older men as to put it simply in general we are not able to adequately compete with a settled male at the peak of their career. Although irritating and unpleasant, it's easy to see why and your view of the things reminds me of this reality.
    This isn't a recent or growing trend and has existed across many different societies, and also confers benefits to males.

    Last,y on your point about birth rates. Couldn't one solution be incentivising middle class Brits into breeding whilst incentivising the poor into sterilisation ( liberal eugenics) and thus we are able to keep a controllable population of workers who do the undesirable jobs whilst retaining a constant native elite population, of which say only net contributors were allowed the vote?
    The biggest problem is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to be both middle class and reproduce.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Given that if one marriage contract ends, a new can be formed with another male, that the male from the previous contract will likely be liable to support the family via alimony, and that if this does not happen the state will then step in and support the family, I am not sure that lower birth rates are caused by marriage contracts no longer being guaranteed for a period of time long enough to raise a family.
    That would be true if men were indifferent to being forced to raise families they had no access to. In reality, this possibility is a strong deterrent to men getting "married" or having children within "marriage".

    It's true that women can marry the state. My impression is that women for whom marrying the state is a good deal tend to have a fairly healthy birth rate (which is not a good thing).

    I think it's mainly down to two other factors.

    The first is affordability and housing. We're not longer in the age where a single income of someone typically of the age to start a family is sufficient to support said family to a living standard deemed acceptable.
    Affordability is certainly not a factor in determining the overall fertility rate (although it probably is in determining the distribution of births). All the world's most fertile countries are dirt poor.

    The second is a change in societal attitudes towards careers and stay-at-home parents. People don't want to have children in the in the prime ages for doing so (say 25-30) because these are also the years in which they will be attempting to progress with their careers, or establish themselves on one if they aren't already on one, and enjoying being single. Many don't yet have the stability of knowing where they will be based.

    Given that many jobs today only recruit from applicants with degrees that would have yesteryear taken on school leavers, many are facing delayed starts to their careers. I think this has the effect of also delaying the maturity of people in their twenties, too, but it doesn't postpone a natural decline in fertility. I think that people are waiting longer to settle down and start a family, because they don't feel ready for it, and/or aren't in a financial position to do it. We haven't modified human biology is that female peak fertility is delayed by a decade, so the net effect is that people have less time to physically produce a family.
    I'm sympathetic to this idea: I think we do have too much education and that it is infantilising. But it doesn't fit the data. Germany for instance had very little higher education until quite recently, yet the German fertility rate cratered in the late 60s/early 70s. Collapse of fertility rates pretty closely tracks the abolition of enforceable marriage contracts everywhere. See the same thing in the third world: India has near Western fertility levels despite the fact that it is just as poor as socially conservative parts of Africa with high fertility rates.

    My guess what is happening today is that stable marriages mostly involve women approaching the end of their fertility window, for the reason that these women will have quite few options in future, so the men they marry can be confident that they won't be faced with alimony payments for a family they never see. The old deal of financial support for domestic services and kids probably has suffered from social disapproval, but I'm basically not sure you can still make this deal. Women need careers because no one is offering to support them, because there's no legal guarantee of reciprocity.

    There is no real problem with most marriages being between men about five years older than the women they marry. This is historically normal and causes few social problems. There is a problem with the average newly married woman being 35.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.