Offers news articles, cast list and discussion board. · Watch recent full episode of MTV shows on MTV.com. The Dark Enlightenment – Part 1 The Dark Enlightenment – Part 2 The Dark Enlightenment – Part 3 The Dark Enlightenment – Part 4 The Dark Enlightenment – Part 4a. Choose Ryu, highlight color 1, then press cancel. Choose Ken, highlight color 9, then press cancel. Choose Sagat, highlight color 8, then press cancel. Need help identifying a movie that you just can't remember the name of? Here's the place to ask. As always, Google first, but if you have no luck searching on y.

This fuck party movie is really special and extremely exciting! Wanna know why? Me and my friends had a sort of a bet. We decided to throw a hot sex party and invite. The Dark Knight is a 2008 superhero film directed, co-produced, and co-written by Christopher Nolan. Featuring the DC Comics character Batman, the film is the second. Roughly three-fifths of the weapons sold on a selection of dark web marketplaces originate from the United States, according to a new study examining the scope of the.

Clashing Visions, Brutal Test Screenings Plagued Journey to Big Screen – Variety. With millions of loyal readers and a fantastical setting, Stephen King’s “The Dark Tower” book series has long tantalized Hollywood.

The movie business is always on the prowl for the next “Lord of the Rings” or “Harry Potter.” King’s novels, about a mysterious gunslinger on a quest to save the universe, had the markings of a potential blockbuster. However, getting the promising adaptation to the big screen took more than a decade and suffered several setbacks along the way, as one top director and screenwriter after another — including J. J. Abrams, who originally optioned the material — tried and failed to wrest the author’s eight- book opus into a workable film. After Universal Pictures scrapped plans to make a series of interconnected films and television shows with Ron Howard running point, Modi Wiczyk, co- founder of Media Rights Capital, set the project up under a co- financing deal with Sony Pictures. In 2. 01. 5, MRC and Sony jointly announced they had found a way into the story and tapped Nikolaj Arcel, the Oscar- nominated Danish filmmaker behind “A Royal Affair,” to direct the movie. With “The Dark Tower” poised to debut this weekend, multiple sources told Variety that the creative process — particularly in post- production — was plagued with problems and clashing visions.

Wiczyk and Sony Pictures chief Tom Rothman downplay any suggestion that the movie faced major hurdles. But when Arcel delivered an early cut of the picture that alarmed Wiczyk and Rothman, they considered bringing in a more experienced filmmaker to recut it. While the two men deny this and insist their joint contribution was limited to giving the director notes, one insider said that Rothman spent hours in the editing bay offering his input. Arcel seemed the ideal director on paper — “A Royal Affair” had earned an Oscar nomination and proved he could handle lavish spectacle, while his screenwriting work on “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” demonstrated he could adapt beloved novels.

Also, he was a big fan of King’s, enlisting his books to improve his English. Arcel, however, had never worked on this complicated a project, and he found himself in over his head on the $6. Three blind screenings last October, shown before final effects work had been completed, confirmed fears that the picture was a mess. Audiences at the test screenings couldn’t understand the mythology and rated the film poorly. A classic tale of good and evil, “The Dark Tower” stars Idris Elba as the last Gunslinger, who is locked in an eternal battle with a sorcerer known as the Man in Black, portrayed by Matthew Mc.

Conaughey. Sources say the companies ultimately opted not to enlist another filmmaker (one explained it would have been too costly), but the executives from the studios remained heavily involved. Ron Howard, a “Dark Tower” producer, who had hoped to direct the film when it was set up at Universal, advised Arcel on the music, and co- writer and producer Akiva Goldsman helped wrangle the film into shape. Arcel insists he wasn’t sidelined.“On a film with two studios and powerful producers, obviously there is much passionate creative debate on how to work certain ideas or beats,” he said. But I felt supported throughout, and they all looked to me for answers. If someone had jumped into my editing room and taken over — I would have left instantly.”Rothman and Wiczyk say they were impressed with Arcel’s work, with the Sony chief saying he “hopes to” collaborate with the director on future projects.

Wiczyk also hit back at claims the film was troubled.“We shot this on time and on budget,” he said. We didn’t go over our schedule by even a day.” Calling his company “artist driven,” he added, “We would never marginalize or remove a director or dare to edit a film.”Sources paint a more acrimonious picture of the production, one that was enabled by the unique nature of the deal that Sony struck with MRC — a pact that allowed competing power centers to emerge.

The two companies split costs, and in return MRC was granted “kill rights” on everything from the marketing campaign to the final cut of the picture. If one company didn’t like a trailer or a cut of the film, it had to be scrapped, making it difficult to achieve consensus. It’s a rare type of partnership, with the kind of sign- off that few production companies enjoy. That led to a case of “too many cooks in the kitchen,” according to one insider. King also had a great deal of input. In return for the rights to his work, he retained veto approval of almost every aspect of the film.

Sony and MRC admit “The Dark Tower” defied easy translation. The books move forward and backward in time and reference multiple genres, from gangster films to Arthurian legends. It was a struggle to combine parts of several books into an 8. King devotees and mainstream audiences. Sony and MRC spent $6 million on reshoots to fill in more backstory about Elba’s character’s hatred for Mc.

Conaughey’s Man in Black. In addition, to better familiarize audiences with Mid- World, the film’s magical setting, five minutes of exposition were cut and a new scene was shot to combine ideas that had been sprinkled throughout the picture. Sony’s Rothman believes that the narrative complexity will ultimately help the film connect with audiences. It’s a fantasy film and so yes, it’s complicated; it’s intricate and ambitious, but that’s a good thing because with the complexity of the stuff on television now, theater audiences want ambition,” he said. On social media there’s been speculation about the quality of “The Dark Tower” given that the studio moved the picture premiere from February to July, only to push its release back by an additional week. Despite the mixed buzz, “The Dark Tower” is tracking to open in the mid- $2.

It also has the support of an important critic. In the novels, someone who acts dishonorably is said to have “forgotten the faces of his fathers.” After seeing the film, King sent Arcel an email praising him. You have remembered the faces of your fathers,” he wrote.

The Dark Enlightenment, by Nick Land. The Dark Enlightenment – Part 1.

The Dark Enlightenment – Part 2. The Dark Enlightenment – Part 3.

The Dark Enlightenment – Part 4. The Dark Enlightenment – Part 4a. The Dark Enlightenment – Part 4b.

The Dark Enlightenment – Part 4c. The Dark Enlightenment – Part 4d. The Dark Enlightenment – Part 4e. The Dark Enlightenment – Part 4f(inal)  Part 1: Neo- reactionaries head for the exit. Enlightenment is not only a state, but an event, and a process. As the designation for an historical episode, concentrated in northern Europe during the 1.

Renaissance’ and ‘Industrial Revolution’ are others). Between ‘enlightenment’ and ‘progressive enlightenment’ there is only an elusive difference, because illumination takes time – and feeds on itself, because enlightenment is self- confirming, its revelations ‘self- evident’, and because a retrograde, or reactionary, ‘dark enlightenment’ amounts almost to intrinsic contradiction.

To become enlightened, in this historical sense, is to recognize, and then to pursue, a guiding light. There were ages of darkness, and then enlightenment came. Clearly, advance has demonstrated itself, offering not only improvement, but also a model.

Furthermore, unlike a renaissance, there is no need for an enlightenment to recall what was lost, or to emphasize the attractions of return. The elementary acknowledgement of enlightenment is already Whig history in miniature. Once certain enlightened truths have been found self- evident, there can be no turning back, and conservatism is pre- emptively condemned – predestined — to paradox. F. A. Hayek, who refused to describe himself as a conservative, famously settled instead upon the term ‘Old Whig’, which – like ‘classical liberal’ (or the still more melancholy ‘remnant’) – accepts that progress isn’t what it used to be. What could an Old Whig be, if not a reactionary progressive? And what on earth is that?

Of course, plenty of people already think they know what reactionary modernism looks like, and amidst the current collapse back into the 1. Basically, it’s what the ‘F’ word is for, at least in its progressive usage. A flight from democracy under these circumstances conforms so perfectly to expectations that it eludes specific recognition, appearing merely as an atavism, or confirmation of dire repetition. Still, something is happening, and it is – at least in part – something else.

One milestone was the April 2. Cato Unbound among libertarian thinkers (including Patri Friedman and Peter Thiel) in which disillusionment with the direction and possibilities of democratic politics was expressed with unusual forthrightness. Thiel summarized the trend bluntly: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”In August 2.

Michael Lind posted a democratic riposte at Salon, digging up some impressively malodorous dirt, and concluding: The dread of democracy by libertarians and classical liberals is justified. Libertarianism really is incompatible with democracy. Most libertarians have made it clear which of the two they prefer. The only question that remains to be settled is why anyone should pay attention to libertarians. Lind and the ‘neo- reactionaries’ seem to be in broad agreement that democracy is not only (or even) a system, but rather a vector, with an unmistakable direction.

Democracy and ‘progressive democracy’ are synonymous, and indistinguishable from the expansion of the state. Whilst ‘extreme right wing’ governments have, on rare occasions, momentarily arrested this process, its reversal lies beyond the bounds of democratic possibility. Since winning elections is overwhelmingly a matter of vote buying, and society’s informational organs (education and media) are no more resistant to bribery than the electorate, a thrifty politician is simply an incompetent politician, and the democratic variant of Darwinism quickly eliminates such misfits from the gene pool. Stargate Atlantis Saison 3 Episode 14 Streaming.

This is a reality that the left applauds, the establishment right grumpily accepts, and the libertarian right has ineffectively railed against. Increasingly, however, libertarians have ceased to care whether anyone is ‘pay[ing them] attention’ – they have been looking for something else entirely: an exit. It is a structural inevitability that the libertarian voice is drowned out in democracy, and according to Lind it should be. Ever more libertarians are likely to agree.

Voice’ is democracy itself, in its historically dominant, Rousseauistic strain. It models the state as a representation of popular will, and making oneself heard means more politics. If voting as the mass self- expression of politically empowered peoples is a nightmare engulfing the world, adding to the hubbub doesn’t help.

Even more than Equality- vs- Liberty, Voice- vs- Exit is the rising alternative, and libertarians are opting for voiceless flight. Patri Friedman remarks: “we think that free exit is so important that we’ve called it the only Universal Human Right.”For the hardcore neo- reactionaries, democracy is not merely doomed, it is doom itself. Fleeing it approaches an ultimate imperative. The subterranean current that propels such anti- politics is recognizably Hobbesian, a coherent dark enlightenment, devoid from its beginning of any Rousseauistic enthusiasm for popular expression. Predisposed, in any case, to perceive the politically awakened masses as a howling irrational mob, it conceives the dynamics of democratization as fundamentally degenerative: systematically consolidating and exacerbating private vices, resentments, and deficiencies until they reach the level of collective criminality and comprehensive social corruption.

The democratic politician and the electorate are bound together by a circuit of reciprocal incitement, in which each side drives the other to ever more shameless extremities of hooting, prancing cannibalism, until the only alternative to shouting is being eaten. Where the progressive enlightenment sees political ideals, the dark enlightenment sees appetites. It accepts that governments are made out of people, and that they will eat well.

Setting its expectations as low as reasonably possible, it seeks only to spare civilization from frenzied, ruinous, gluttonous debauch. From Thomas Hobbes to Hans- Hermann Hoppe and beyond, it asks: How can the sovereign power be prevented – or at least dissuaded — from devouring society? It consistently finds democratic ‘solutions’ to this problem risible, at best. Hoppe advocates an anarcho- capitalist ‘private law society’, but between monarchy and democracy he does not hesitate (and his argument is strictly Hobbesian): As a hereditary monopolist, a king regards the territory and the people under his rule as his personal property and engages in the monopolistic exploitation of this “property.” Under democracy, monopoly and monopolistic exploitation do not disappear. Rather, what happens is this: instead of a king and a nobility who regard the country as their private property, a temporary and interchangeable caretaker is put in monopolistic charge of the country. The caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his and his protégés’ advantage. He owns its current use – usufruct– but not its capital stock.

This does not eliminate exploitation. To the contrary, it makes exploitation less calculating and carried out with little or no regard to the capital stock. Exploitation becomes shortsighted and capital consumption will be systematically promoted.

Political agents invested with transient authority by multi- party democratic systems have an overwhelming (and demonstrably irresistible) incentive to plunder society with the greatest possible rapidity and comprehensiveness. Anything they neglect to steal – or ‘leave on the table’ – is likely to be inherited by political successors who are not only unconnected, but actually opposed, and who can therefore be expected to utilize all available resources to the detriment of their foes.