I have not come up with a better formula for the modern time than “confusion.” People have no idea what to do, or what they should want, so they fall back on simple animal methods and cover them up with social lies.
Coincidentally, that same approach got us into this mess, mainly because as societies grow, they become surrounded by people without purpose. They are just there for the jobs, food and company. This is why at its root what did the West in was individualism. But that is still a controversial thesis, so it should be left off for now.
Reactionary Future contributes a few points about Mencius Moldbug and Fred Nietzsche:
Brett Stevenâ€™s post very helpfully highlights how the alt-right is indeed Nietzschean, meaning it is basically still liberal and still sophist. It doesnâ€™t, and canâ€™t offer any structure or insight which is not arbitrary. It is (if you still want to use the Moldbug cladistics metaphor) a variant of liberalism that has developed from conservatism due to a shift in communication methods (the internet) so will be subject to selection pressure as brought to bear by the unsecure power of current political structures. It will therefore be ground down into (even more) mush.
He tackles two ideas here: first, the political future of alt-right as a political group, and second, the question as to what Nietzsche and Moldbug were trying to achieve.
As far as the first goes, it should follow the pattern of everything else in a modern time: leftward drift as people rise in the movement who bring with them certain assumptions. In politics, the assumptions are everything, because they are the step right before the conclusion that the individual draws — thinking it is his own thought — that propels him into full-blown Leftism, which has its root in egalitarianism.
It was these assumptions that doomed white nationalism. Since America and the UK did not have single ethnic groups, they went back to their roots and dug up the old Nativist, Know-Nothing and England First movements. These movements essentially affirmed the Western European identity of the USA and UK, and cast out those who did not fit this mold, usually the Southern/Irish and Eastern Europeans but also all non-Europeans.
The Nativists were the people who wanted to repatriate slaves and send all immigrants home with foreign aid for their countries of origin. They are so racist they are not racist — you might call it “meta-racist” — because their thinking is so practical. Homogeneity works; diversity requires a police state to temporarily work before the nation collapses and tyrants take over.
This leads to the second point: Moldbug and Nietzsche aim for two different things in the same vein. They are trying to change our assumptions, to program us to be ready to make the leap from the familiar Leftist programming to seeing the sanity on the other side of the abyss. Leftism is based in fear of nature; when we embrace the parts of nature that will work for us, we can overcome this fear and restore all the things we need: nationalism, aristocracy, capitalism and a transcendental goal, including un-deading God.
Moldbug is basically the operator of an intellectual salon. He offers a new vocabulary mainly to force us to admit the actual role of the state and egalitarianism as a control method. Then he gives us some ideas about what we might want to do to respond, which launches us down a path toward thinking those ideas through and realizing what would be required.
Nietzsche hoped to jump-start our spirits. Like the Traditionalists, he realized that our problems originate within. People do not have a spirit toward goodness, hope, excellence or beauty. They are conditioned toward the individual and its fears that make up the justification for the Leftist worldview. He is pointing us to the stage before some realizations, not the realizations themselves, for the most part.
Both of these are offering us the “pocket”: the state right before the punch. The punch itself is up to us, and not all can make this choice. This is natural selection. Civilization belongs to those who can upkeep civilization and everyone else belongs in the third world, which occurs in some form for all races on all continents. In the pocket, Nietzsche rewrites our assumptions and lets the best rise above the rest by their response to that knowledge, which in itself constitutes a choice to act or not.
It doesnâ€™t, and canâ€™t offer any structure or insight which is not arbitrary.
This however I disagree with. You cannot beat fatalism by running from nihilism. All of our choices are arbitrary and none are subjective. Even if there is an all-powerful God and His purpose to the cosmos, it is our choice to accept that like any other fact of Reality. Trying to make these things inherent is to deprive us of choice, and like liberalism, to standardize all people in order to save them, instead of allowing natural selection to do its work, which is much as that of religion, “good to the good, and bad to the bad.”
Leftism, Socialism and individualism are based on the opposite principle, which is “good to everyone” because this assuages individual fears by making everyone feel included and accepted. However, like a union or Communism, this means that the good get the same reward as the bad, which makes being good inefficient and consequently indirectly rewards the bad. No surprise such societies self-exterminate.