Talk:Dark Enlightenment

Land makes it clear that the neo-reactionary movement is not connected to fascism, and the movement does not have any similarities in origin or content to fascism at all unless you define Fascism as synonymous with a broad right-wing authoritarianism, which is ahistorical. References to accusations of neo-fascism should be removed from the introduction as they are dealt with later in the article, the article should be removed from the "part of a series on neo-fascism" template as well. HyperAnemoia (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but apparently if a gaggle of journalists and a couple of academics say something is fascist, then that has to be true. On Wikipedia, 'interpreting primary sources' to refute these accusations isn't valid. It seems that 'reputable' academic sources are always right, even when those who parrot their claims can't explain the reasoning behind them. The differences between neo-reaction and fascism should be obvious to anyone who's taken the time to study them, but instead some prefer not to think so they can keep tarnishing a thing they don't like. How sad, how sad. AFEG64 (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates upon the principle of WP:V; the essay WP:TRUTH helps to elucidate how this works. As such, yes, it is effectively correct that 'interpreting primary sources' to refute these accusations isn't valid. It is also very nearly correct that 'reputable' academic sources are always right in as far as what goes into a Wikipedia article must be derived from reliable sources and in as far as interpretation of primary sources is considered WP:OR. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• It is what reliable sources say. Reliable sources do indeed define Fascism as a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement (to quote our own summary of the best available sources on it), so it's not a surprise that such sources would use a similar definition here. Note that the wording here is cautious and attributed - The Dark Enlightenment has been described as part of the alt-right, as its theoretical branch, and as neo-fascist. It is, all else aside, true that high-quality sourcing has described it as neo-fascist. --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  Reliable sources define fascism as A far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology, meaning one of many that fit into that broad definition, not meaning that it is synonymous it, many ideologues and ideologies adhere to those points yet are clearly not fascist and are not defined as such by reliable sources. The wording being "cautious and attributed" means nothing when you put those baseless accusations in the introduction, it is no different in effect than calling neo-reaction objectively fascist, a prospective viewer in either case will walk away from the article thinking it a fact that NRx is neo-fascist and having a warped view on the entire subject. HyperAnemoia (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  No, you don't understand, reliable sources call dark enlightenment the philosophical wing of neo-fascism. Nobody is being as simplistic here as to assert every far-right movement is fascism. Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Don't you mean that the sources call it a neo-fascist philosophy, rather than "the philosophical wing of neo-fascism"? They say that NRx is a (neo-)fascist philosophy+movement, not that it's the philosophy of the neo-fascist movement (which would be hardly be possible anyway, given that neo-fascism was born more than half a century before NRx) AFEG64 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  Just as reliable and academic sources define Trumpism as a fascist movement, yet there is only one sentence, an offhanded remark about there being a 'debate' over whether the label fits, on the 'Trumpism' article. At MOST there is justification for a sentence mentioning accusations of neo-fascism in the introduction, certainly there is no cause for a third of the introduction to be used JUST introducing this accusation already sufficiently covered in a different part of the article. HyperAnemoia (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but you are incorrect. Simonm223 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  No elaboration? HyperAnemoia (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Ad Orientem take it to the talk page and discuss? I was the only one actually talking on the talk page and justifying my edits, instead of "you are incorrect" with no elaboration! HyperAnemoia (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  @HyperAnemoia See WP:DR for tips on how to resolve content disputes. Edit warring is not an acceptable course of action. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is reliably sourced material from good sources. That you disagree with it is not grounds for removal. Do you have sources to support your assertions? Simonm223 (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  The point is not that the information is not correctly sourced according to Wikipedia standards, it is that too much emphasis is given to the information presented as to give a misleading impression that "neo-fascism" is more than superficially similar to the ideas of NRx (its not), was influential in the development of NRx thought (its not), or otherwise has been shown to be related to NRx except by the overly-confident words of academics (it has not). Again, how is the situation here any different than Trumpism? Just as reliable sources there say that Trumpism is fascism, which is clearly wrong as it is clearly wrong here, and thats why it is only given a passing sentence in the introduction. HyperAnemoia (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  @HyperAnemoia I believe the relevant policy you are leaning on here is WP:DUE. No comment on the legitimacy of your argument. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  How superficial the similarity is appears to be just a personal opinion. Due weight is better determined by reliable sources. Using your own opinion to say this is "clearly wrong" is not persuasive, and neither is the comparison to Trumpism. This approach just seems pointlessly inflammatory. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Neo-reactionary and neo-fascist theory is objectively contradictory, it is not my opinion, it is objective fact if you look at their writings. Land himself is 1000x better a source than any of the "reliable" sources listed in the article. The point is maintaining the truth instead of a consensus lie. HyperAnemoia (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  We generally prefer secondary sources - and in this case the writings of Land are primary, and self-serving at that. Fascist writers often like to claim that they are not fascists due to the PR problem of fascism being an unpopular ideology. However, again, you are gesturing vaguely in the direction of a (primary) source without providing any concrete sources that support your opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Land has openly praised neo-nazi satanism, I don't think he is avoiding associating with fascism to keep up public reputation. It is just as common occurrence that academics accuse non-fascist movements of being fascist as well, how should one remedy that? HyperAnemoia (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  By following the academics. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator and it appears what you want to do here is right great wrongs. Simonm223 (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  What makes you think these academics will change their minds? The facts are already before them and they have chosen wrong, so what can be done! HyperAnemoia (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  At least minimize the rot, contain it. HyperAnemoia (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  There is no rot and we don't minimize academic sources based on vibes. Simonm223 (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  It is not "vibes", have you read Land, Yarvin, Mussolini, Gentile? It is assessable and verifiable irreconcilable contradictions. What is "vibes" is these baseless accusations, and treating them as fact and broadcasting it as fact to anyone who might stumble upon this article and come away from it thinking Land is a secret neo-fascist. HyperAnemoia (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Your claims of irreconcilable contradictions is an example of original research, which is disallowed. The breadth of my reading is also irrelevant. I am, in fact, something of a subject matter expert on the post-Deleuzean milieu that the CCRU operated within, including the work and biography of Nick Land, but this mostly means I am good at providing reliable secondary sources. All we are asking of you is the same. Simonm223 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  The breadth of your reading is in fact relevant. It goes without saying that one should be familiar with what one is judging; if one isn't familiar with the philosophical foundations of both the Neoreactionary movement and Fascism, one can hardly claim to know of their similarities/differences. AFEG64 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  Also, while the matter of sourcing for reliable claims (etc.) is certainly of critical importance on this site, it worries me that you seem unable (or unwilling) to actually define the nature of this link between the Neoreactionary movement and Fascism, despite passionately defending the idea that it exists. AFEG64 (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  If your reading is so much broader than that of other users, you should be able to name sources that refute what those users are saying, instead of just attacking them for their alleged non-breadth-of-reading (but actually for disagreeing with you). That is the point of people demanding sources from you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  I wasn't 'attacking' Simonm223 for his 'non-breadth-of-reading', but I do dispute the idea that one's breadth of reading is 'irrelevant' when it comes to assessing differences and similarities between political philosophies.

  With regards to sources, the core issue in trying to disentangle NRx from Fascism is admittedly the apparent lack of published works that try to do so—one may consider that in itself to be evidence for their sameness, but I don't concur. Some who object to this claim might instead attribute this inequality to a would-be academic bias against NRx (and consequent unwillingness to argue for its distinctness)—I'm not exactly in agreement with this, either. Anyhow, I do think that consulting the core founding works of both NRx (e.g. Yarvin's 'Unqualified Reservations') and Fascism (e.g. 'The Doctrine of Fascism') provides a pretty clear picture of their differences.

  It is mainly for this reason that I find it difficult to consider the sources which argue for their identity as valid; they do not seem to actually establish any meaningful links between them, not without ignoring critical differences (though I must remain open to the idea that there could be valid points worth considering). There are traits which the two share (mainly their view of wielding authority as a necessity, and a contempt for liberal principles) but they ultimately come from very distinct places, something which I would think fairly evident if one has considered their ideological and philosophical genealogies. AFEG64 (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a convoluted way of saying that because you don't agree with the existing sources, they don't count. If that's not what you're saying, find a way to explain it better in fewer words, please. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, and Wikipedia doesn't evaluate sources based on any individual editor's opinion on their validity, making this approach appear to be a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. And it still contains no sources for the claim, only book titles. I suspect that the editors here are supposed to read those books and then somehow come to the same conclusions as AFEG64. That is not how Wikipedia works. The sources need to explicitly say what can end up in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

If I believed it was necessary to 'read those books' in order to come to this conclusion, I would have said so. Perhaps the way I write does not convey things plainly enough, in which case I apologise.

You don't need to say that Wikipedia "doesn't work this way". I know how the site works, and my intent with the above was to acknowledge that what I want to do is difficult because of it. Of course, that is a good thing, since sources etc. are always a necessity. AFEG64 (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Look, the problem remains that you're asking for us to override secondary sources with what ammounts to a WP:SYNTH exploration of comparison between primary sources. Your argument is effectively, "if you read this book by Yarvin and compare it to this book by Mussolini and Gentile you will observe ideological differences." What I'm saying is that we need a reliable secondary source to say that before it's worthy of inclusion in this article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

But we aren't arguing in favor of an inclusion are we, we are arguing in favor of an exclusion of accusations of neo-fascism in the introduction, which would still in any case be dealt with later in the article. HyperAnemoia (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You still need a reliable secondary source if you want to exclude something. Do you have any? Question169 (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

You obviously do not need a source to exclude something from an introduction if it is addressed later in the article. Thats nonsensical. ~2025-41916-24 (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I already looked through the article and the part where it addressed the claim was a comment made from the person being accused. Given as everyone but the person in charge of the movement is claiming otherwise it makes no sense to exclude the claim from the introduction. I think the DUE rule would apply here. Question169 (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• I know what you are referring to, but it would be untrue to say that it was 'prais[ing] neo-nazi satanism'. AFEG64 (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  Land doesn't call himself a fascist because his philosophy does not owe its intellectual heritage to fascism. Of course, it's very easy to believe he's instead being dishonest, especially when it affirms your existing prejudice, but hardly reasonable. AFEG64 (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  Again: we follow the sources. People's WP:OR regarding Land's ideology are irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  "Reliable sources" define it in several different ways. They also regularly incorrectly define fascism, instead offering a reductionist definition as a means of associating a movement with Nazi imagery. By these standards, I could find a "reliable source" that uses Leon Trotsky's definition of fascist and paint nearly every country on the planet as such. JeanJohnJones (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to go through the sources that @Deamonpen removed one by one and provide some feedback on their concerns regarding OR.

Sources removed by first edit:

1. This source clearly identifies Andressen as being an adherent to Dark Enlightenment. It does not, however, tie that to military technology. It does tie Andressen's ideological convictions rather specifically to "AI" technologies instead. It should be used to note the connection between Dark Enlightenment adherents and AI. It is sufficiently reliable for this. It is not sufficiently reliable to support the claim for which it was used. Unfortunately it does not mention Scale AI, which is a key topic of down-stream articles.
2. This source establishes that Peter Thiel has a lot of defense contracts but does not tie those contracts to Dark Enlightenment in any way.
3. This source seems of questionable relevance - in this regard I agree unreservedly with Deamonpen that this source can only be treated as an inclusion synthetically - by tying prior articles mentioning Thiel and Scale AI to this article about Scale AI.
4. This article has similar problems to the Bloomberg one. It ties the activities of Andressen and Thiel to AI military technology but does not tie them to dark enlightenment.
5. Talks about Scale AI but not Dark Enlightenment or any of its key intellectuals.
6. And again.
7. This article seems to be entirely synthetic again.

So here is what I can say about the sources removed by this edit - the closest any of them get to the button is the Vice one at the top. It Identifies Andressen as a person involved with Dark Enlightenment and associates that specifically with a technology - to whit AI. Subsequent articles tie Andressen to military technology via Scale AI but they do not indicate a connection between Scale AI and Dark Enlightenment except via the involvement of Andressen.

I would support reinclusion of the vice source discussing how Dark Enlightenment beliefs have led Andressen, and only Andressen, to invest in AI technologies. The rest, yeah, Deamonpen was right. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

That's all I have time for right now but, based on this first edit reviewed, while I do want to be thorough, I'm not overly concerned. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, second edit is easy. None of the removed sources say anything whatsoever about Dark Enlightenment or even any of its intellectual luminaries. Good edit. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The Technofeudalism link at the bottom leads to Yanis Varoufakis, a prominent Greek politician who is the author of a book called Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism. Varoufakis is a left-winger who is criticizing technofeudalism, not a right-winger writing in support of it. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B011:13:B683:5D84:D2D2:1FBE:36DE (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)