The Dark Enlightenment, a reactionary movement that seeks to dismantle democracy and replace it with a form of authoritarian technocracy, presents itself as an intellectual alternative to modern liberalism. But upon closer examination, it is little more than a regressive, anti-humanist ideology wrapped in pseudo-intellectual justifications. It is a movement that fetishizes hierarchy, glorifies elitism, and dismisses human rights as naïve sentimentality. It is not merely wrong—it is dangerous.
At the core of the Dark Enlightenment is the claim that democracy is inherently flawed, inefficient, and destined to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. This argument is neither new nor particularly compelling. Critics of democracy have existed since Plato, yet time and again, democracy has proven to be the most effective system for balancing stability, adaptability, and individual rights. The democratic experiment, though imperfect, has been the primary engine of human progress in the modern era. It has allowed for the peaceful transfer of power, the protection of civil liberties, and the empowerment of marginalized voices. The idea that democracy is a failure is not borne out by history; rather, history shows that democracy’s failures arise when it is weakened, subverted, or hollowed out by powerful interests.
Yes, democracy is messy. It is slow. It requires compromise and debate. But the alternative—authoritarian rule—inevitably leads to oppression, stagnation, and abuse. History is littered with the failures of autocratic regimes that, despite promises of “efficient governance,” ultimately collapsed under the weight of corruption, incompetence, and the unchecked ego of their rulers. From the Roman emperors to the feudal monarchies of Europe, from fascist strongmen to communist dictators, centralized rule without accountability has led to some of the worst atrocities in human history. The neoreactionary fantasy of a society ruled by an enlightened monarch or a technocratic elite is naïve at best and dystopian at worst.
The real problem is not democracy itself, but rather the way it has been undermined—by corporate interests, systemic inequality, and the erosion of public trust. If democracy struggles, it is not because democracy is inherently broken, but because those in power have deliberately weakened democratic institutions. The answer is not to abandon democracy but to strengthen it, making it more responsive, accountable, and participatory. The failures of democracy are not failures of the idea itself, but failures of its execution—failures that require more democracy, not less.
The Dark Enlightenment rests on the assumption that some people are naturally fit to rule while others are destined to be ruled. This is an old, discredited argument that has been used for centuries to justify monarchy, colonialism, slavery, and every form of oppression imaginable. The claim that certain elites—whether by birth, intelligence, or economic success—deserve absolute power is nothing more than a modernized version of feudalism. The movement seeks to return to a world where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, where the many exist to serve the elite, and where social mobility is nonexistent. This vision is not only unjust but also fundamentally unsustainable.
Human societies are not static pyramids where power must always flow to the “best.” Societies evolve through collaboration, mutual respect, and the acknowledgment that all people, regardless of background, deserve dignity and a voice in their governance. The idea that a Silicon Valley billionaire or a reactionary philosopher is better suited to rule than a democratically elected leader is both arrogant and absurd. The greatest achievements of civilization—from scientific discoveries to human rights advancements—have come from societies that foster participation, creativity, and pluralism, not those that concentrate power in the hands of a few self-proclaimed “geniuses.”
Neoreactionaries often talk about “exit” rather than “voice”—the idea that, instead of engaging with society to improve it, elites should simply leave and build their own enclaves, free from the “burden” of democracy. This is seen in their fascination with seasteading, private city-states, and techno-feudal governance models. The belief that elites can simply opt out of the broader social contract and create a utopia free from the “irrational masses” is not only a form of cowardice but also an utter misreading of history and human nature.
This philosophy is not only unrealistic but deeply anti-social. The great advancements of human civilization have come from engagement, cooperation, and collective struggle—not from elites retreating into their own bubbles. The world’s problems will not be solved by billionaires retreating to floating islands, nor will the creation of a corporate monarchy suddenly make governance more just. Societies are strongest when they build together, not when the powerful abandon the weak. Any attempt to create a parallel society for the elite would be doomed to failure, as history has shown time and again that even the most powerful are still dependent on the broader social fabric. The idea that governance should be based on the principle of “exit” rather than “voice” is nothing more than an excuse for evading responsibility.
One of the most chilling aspects of the Dark Enlightenment is its dehumanization of the majority of people. It sees individuals not as citizens with rights and dignity, but as a mass to be managed by their “betters.” This is why neoreactionaries admire autocratic regimes—they do not see oppression as a moral failure but as an efficient way to run a society. They believe that inequality is not only natural but desirable, that democracy’s attempts to level the playing field are futile, and that the strong should rule over the weak without interference.
The greatest atrocities of the twentieth century—colonial exploitation, fascist dictatorships, Stalinist purges—were all based on the idea that some people are less valuable than others and that centralized power should be given to an elite who “knows best.” The Dark Enlightenment is not an intellectual revolution; it is merely a recycling of the same authoritarian logic that has led to suffering and bloodshed throughout history. It does not offer a new path forward but instead seeks to revive the worst elements of the past under the guise of rationalism and efficiency.
Neoreactionaries fantasize about running society like a tech startup, where a “CEO-king” makes all decisions efficiently without public interference. This ignores a fundamental reality: even corporations are not immune to inefficiency, corruption, and failure. Tech companies have been responsible for some of the greatest disasters of the modern era—data breaches, monopolistic abuses, and exploitative labor practices. The idea that the same billionaires who cannot manage social media platforms without causing harm would somehow govern a society effectively is laughable.
Even if a technocratic dictatorship could function efficiently for a time, what happens when the ruler is incompetent, corrupt, or malicious? Without democratic checks and balances, there is no peaceful way to remove a failing leader. The result is either tyranny or revolution—both of which lead to unnecessary suffering. Any system that relies on the benevolence of a single ruler or a small elite is doomed to fail, because power without accountability inevitably leads to abuse.
The failures of modern democracy are not an argument for its abolition, but for its renewal. Democracy must evolve to meet modern challenges—economic inequality, misinformation, climate change—not be replaced with a dictatorship, whether by monarchs or tech elites. The solutions to our problems do not lie in authoritarian fantasies but in greater participation, civic education, and the restructuring of economic systems to benefit all people, not just the elite. We should be striving toward a more democratic, just, and inclusive world—not regressing to medieval notions of kings and subjects.
The Dark Enlightenment is not an intellectual movement. It is a justification for power-hungry elites to rule without accountability. It is not a bold vision for the future—it is a cowardly retreat into the past. It is the ideology of those who have given up on humanity, who see oppression as a virtue, and who mistake cynicism for wisdom.
For those of us who still believe in justice, equality, and the inherent dignity of all people, the answer to the Dark Enlightenment is clear: we reject it in its entirety.