Understanding Neoreaction (NRx): The Dark Enlightenment’s Growing Influence
In the landscape of contemporary political thought, few movements have generated as much intrigue and controversy as Neoreaction (NRx). Emerging from the darkest corners of the internet and gradually infiltrating mainstream discourse, this philosophical movement represents one of the most comprehensive rejections of modern liberal democracy. Here we’ll explore the origins, key figures, core beliefs, and growing influence of Neoreaction in both Silicon Valley and Republican politics.
Origins and Key Figures
Neoreaction emerged in the mid-to-late 2000s as an online philosophical and political movement, primarily through blog posts and forum discussions. The movement’s foundational texts were written by Curtis Yarvin (writing under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug), a software engineer by day and political theorist by night who began publishing his critiques of modern democracy in 2007-2008 through his blog “Unqualified Reservations.”
Yarvin’s verbose, citation-heavy writing style attracted a small but dedicated following of readers who were drawn to his radical critique of contemporary political systems. His work was further developed and popularized by British philosopher Nick Land, who coined the term “Dark Enlightenment” in his 2012 essay of the same name. Land, formerly associated with the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit at Warwick University, added accelerationist elements to Neoreactionary thought, emphasizing the role of capitalism and technology in destabilizing existing political structures.
While Yarvin and Land are considered the primary architects of Neoreactionary thought, the movement draws inspiration from earlier thinkers. These include 19th-century writer Thomas Carlyle, who advocated for authoritarian governance; Julius Evola, an Italian traditionalist philosopher; and American economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, known for his critiques of democracy from a libertarian perspective.
Core Beliefs
At its heart, Neoreaction represents a fundamental rejection of Enlightenment values and the modern liberal democratic order. Its adherents advocate for several interconnected beliefs:
One of my favorite historians, Professor Richardson is a kind of north star to train your eyes on in making sense of this peculiarly unsettling moment in time. While any Heather Cox Richardson speech is worth your time, this one at Boston’s Old North Church — in commemoration of the anniversary of the lighting of the lanterns there in 1775 — deserves special mention for its sweeping yet intimate detail view of revolutionary sentiment in the colonies under waning British rule.
Professor Richardson has a true gift for both making centuries’-old history seem strikingly relevant today, as well as for analyzing today’s news through the lens of the long-term, clarifying its causes, and tempering it with context. A question we thought settled long ago — whether we are to be ruled by an all-powerful king whose power is unchecked by any force — has disturbingly resurfaced as Donald Trump convincingly play-acts (or perhaps naturally embodies) the role of mad king. Here she weaves the tale of revolutionaries in the late 18th century throwing off the mad king of their time, as an inspiration to those of us inexplicably confronting this same problem again in 2025.
Heather Cox Richardson speech summary
I would encourage everybody to watch or read the speech in full (as well as check out HCR’s other brilliant books) as it’s well worth your time — but for those short on the irreplaceable stuff, here’s a summary:
The divine right of kings is one of history’s most audacious power plays—a political theory that essentially says, “I’m in charge because God said so.” Monarchs throughout Europe wielded this doctrine like a holy scepter, justifying their absolute rule by claiming they were directly appointed by the Almighty. Forget elections, parliaments, or even the will of the people; in this worldview, earthly rulers were accountable to no one but God. To challenge a king’s authority was not just treason—it was blasphemy.
Core Principles of the Divine Right of Kings
At its heart, the divine right of kings boiled down to a few central tenets, all of which worked to reinforce the unassailable power of monarchs:
Divine Authority: Monarchs didn’t just claim political power—they asserted that their right to rule came straight from God. No earthly institution could grant or revoke this authority. In the grand cosmic hierarchy, the king was just one step below God Himself.
Absolute Power: Under this system, the monarch had total, unquestionable power. Whether dealing with rebellious nobles, restless clergy, or the murmurs of an unhappy populace, the king was above it all. No parliament, no council, and certainly no commoner had any right to challenge royal decrees.
Accountability to God Alone: This was the ultimate trump card. If a king was unjust, cruel, or tyrannical, only God could judge them. The people were meant to suffer in silence, trusting that divine justice would eventually come—likely in the afterlife, but certainly not on the earthly plane.
Sacrosanct Rule: Any attempt to restrict or overthrow the monarch wasn’t just an act of political rebellion; it was an affront to God’s will. Deposing a king was painted as sacrilege, a sin of the highest order.
Justifications and Interpretations
Monarchs and their theologians weren’t content with just making grand claims; they sought to root their power in religious texts and metaphors that reinforced their divine legitimacy.
Biblical Backing: Monarchs often cited verses like Romans 13:1 (“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers…”) to suggest that their rule was divinely sanctioned. The Bible became a political tool, shaping earthly governance with the weight of holy writ.
Metaphorical Comparisons: Kings weren’t just leaders—they were God’s lieutenants on Earth, strict father figures to their subjects (parens patriae), and the heads of the body politic. This imagery elevated their role from mere mortal ruler to something quasi-divine, making any opposition seem unnatural.
Pre-selection by God: Some went even further, claiming that kings were chosen by God and predestined to rule others before they were born. This preordained selection made their authority seem as inevitable as the rising sun.
Historical Context and Evolution
The divine right of kings didn’t just spring out of nowhere—it was the product of centuries of theological and political evolution.
Medieval Roots: The seeds of the doctrine were planted in the medieval period when rulers were seen as having been granted power by God to maintain order on Earth. But it wasn’t until later that the idea was fully weaponized by monarchs to cement their grip on power.
Reformation Impact: The Protestant Reformation inadvertently turbocharged the doctrine. As monarchs in Protestant countries broke away from the Catholic Church, they claimed not only political but also religious authority. The king was no longer just a ruler but also the defender of the faith—a potent combination.
Peak Influence: The divine right of kings reached its zenith in the 16th to 18th centuries, particularly under figures like James I of England and Louis XIV of France. These monarchs were its fiercest proponents, with Louis famously declaring, “L’état, c’est moi”—“I am the state.”
Implications of the Divine Right
This doctrine wasn’t just abstract theology—it had real-world consequences that shaped politics, religion, and society.
Absolutism: The divine right of kings was often used to justify absolute monarchy, where the king held total control over the state. It concentrated power in the hands of one individual, with no checks or balances to limit their rule.
Religious Authority: Monarchs also claimed the right to enforce religious uniformity. In Protestant nations, kings became heads of the church, dictating what their subjects could believe and how they could worship. This fusion of political and religious power only made them harder to challenge.
Resistance to Reform: The doctrine was a powerful bulwark against efforts to limit royal authority. Calls for more representative government or constitutional limits on monarchical power were met with accusations of heresy or treason.
Decline and Legacy
As potent as the divine right of kings was, it eventually met its match. The Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason, individual rights, and the social contract, dealt a fatal blow to the idea that kings ruled by divine mandate. The English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, and the French Revolution all demonstrated that the people—and their representatives—were no longer willing to accept unchecked royal power.
But even as the doctrine waned, its echoes can still be felt. The idea that rulers are chosen by a higher power hasn’t entirely disappeared—it just takes on new forms. From autocratic strongmen who claim destiny to religious leaders with political power, the shadow of the divine right lingers on, reminding us of the dangerous allure of absolute authority cloaked in divine justification.
In the end, the divine right of kings was a masterful fusion of theology and politics, granting monarchs an iron grip on power that was, for centuries, unassailable. But as history shows, even claims to divine authority can’t stand forever against the rising tide of human agency and the demand for justice.
