Should we take the American neo-reaction seriously? This is the bet of Arnaud Miranda, associate doctor in political theory at the Center for Political Research at Sciences Po (Cevipof), in his book The Dark Enlightenment – Understanding Neo-Reactionary Thought (Gallimard, January 2026). The work methodically delves into this composite intellectual current, born on the internet, which aims to liquidate the democratic heritage of the Enlightenment in the name of radical political realism.
Why be interested in it?
It would be tempting to reduce this galaxy of authors, blogs and manifestos – of which Arnaud Miranda offers both a cartography and a genealogy – to a simple absurd ideological jumble. The author, however, invites us to suspend this judgment: if these ideas appear outrageous, their internal coherence and, above all, their capacity for aggregation testify to an intellectual construction that is worth examining.
Donald Trump’s second presidential term encourages us to do so. His decisions, as erratic as they may be, can no longer be explained solely by his taste for dealhis sense of spectacle or improvisation, borrowed from reality TV. They visibly obey defined guidelines, first and foremost an assumed ultra-presidentialism. Understanding these dynamics requires examining their ideological underpinnings, as confusing as they may be, like the statements of JD Vance. The analysis of ideas does not exempt us from observing practice, but it sheds light on its mechanisms.
Where does this current come from and what does it highlight?
The neoreaction is part of a broader recomposition of the American right. From a classic conservatism, part of this right has slipped towards openly reactionary positions, to the point that this trait now seems to be able to serve as a unifier for otherwise distant components: fundamentalist Catholics, libertarian technophiles or even ethnonationalists.
Arnaud Miranda focuses on the most structured fringe of this ideology, which has appeared over the last two decades. By tracing the genealogy of the Dark Enlightenment (Dark Lights in French) by Nick Land and by analyzing the proposals of Curtis Yarvin – who conceives the State as an enterprise led by a sovereign executive –, he shows how neoreaction attempts to synthesize apparently incompatible traditions: technophile libertarianism, assumed elitism, counter-revolutionary nostalgia, accelerationism.
It is an attempt at doctrinal recomposition around a common postulate: liberal democracy would be a costly illusion, incapable of ensuring order and prosperity in a world dominated by technological competition.
His refusal to debate
One of the most confusing features of this trend lies in its relationship to the debate. Born and developed mainly on the internet, in spaces marked by anonymity, derision and radicalization, it does not seek to convince so much as to form communities of convinced people. Neoreaction does not seek to win a controversy: it aims to delegitimize the very framework in which a controversy could take place.
This posture, combined with its online exposure, partly explains why these ideas seem so unusual today and why it is so difficult to measure their real influence.
Uncertain prospects
The evolution of the American situation, with the mid-term elections and the exacerbation of competition between the candidates to succeed Donald Trump, could weaken the heterogeneous coalition which combines traditionalism, techno-futurism and national-populism, and for which the neo-reaction played the role of catalyst.
There remains the question of the diffusion of these ideas outside the United States. Despite the Trumpist administration’s stated support for the European far right, they still seem very foreign to the political culture of the Old Continent, even if illiberal conceptions have progressed there in recent years.
How can we combat these ideas?
Arnaud Miranda leaves open a decisive question: how to combat these ideas? Should we respond point by point to assertions that may seem delusional? How can we confront a thought that immediately rejects the principle of rational debate? Taking these theses seriously is undoubtedly an intellectual necessity. But it is also granting them a dignity that their supporters deny to the very principles of democracy.
The book Dark Lights sheds light on a phenomenon whose real influence remains uncertain, but whose resonances in contemporary political discourse make examination essential. In short, the work invites us to reaffirm the democratic values contested by this movement, without forgetting, however, that the fight against ideas cannot avoid a response to the existential concerns which fuel the attraction for authoritarian and exclusive solutions.
