> That's the difference between planning nuclear reactors that will be built after your term, and used after your death, vs selling your national industries to foreigners

Are you saying that in western liberal democracies politicians have been selling “national industries to foreigners”? What does that mean?

Inter-communal trust sucks only when you consider well-being of a larger community which swallowed up smaller communities. You just created a larger community, which still has the same inter-communal trust issues with other large communities which were also created by similar swallowing up of other smaller communities. There is no single global community.

That is also how things wind down and progress ceases and civilizations decay. You need a measure of conflict and difference to move things forward.

I do agree however this needs to be controlled and within bounds so as not to be totally destructive and also because you can't get anywhere with everyone pulling in different directions.

In evolutionary terms, variation is the basis for natural selection. You have no variation then you have nothing to select from.

I had to google Landian to understand that the other commenter was talking about Nick Land. I have heard of him and I don't think I agree with him.

However, I understand what the "Dark Enlightenment" types are talking about. Modernity has dissolved social bonds. Social atomization is greater today than at any time in history. "Traditional" social structures, most notably but not exclusively the church, are being dissolved.

The motive force that is driving people to become reactionary is this dissolution of social bonds, which seems inextricably linked to technological progress and development. Dare I say, I actually agree with the Dark Enlightenment people on one point -- like them, I don't like what is going on! A whale eating krill is a good metaphor. I would disagree with the neoreactionaries on this point though: the krill die but the whale lives, so it's ethically more complex than the straightforward tragic death that they see.

I can vehemently disagree with the authoritarian/accelerationist solution that they are offering. Take the good, not the bad, are we allowed to do that? It's a good metaphor; and I'm in good company. A lot of philosophies see these same issues with modernity, even if the prescribed solutions are very different than authoritarianism.