The world of “neo-reaction”, which roughly consists of some blogs and writers who are against the current political system, and want some kind of non-democratic replacement, has come out against ethno-nationalism, or white nationalism, recently.
Neo-reactionaries tend to be inspired by Moldbug, or at least encouraged by him. Neo-reactionaries are anti-democratic, but if you examine closely not deeply in conflict with the system. They are race realists, but are not driven by any sense of racial pride or unity. They are mostly pro-business, pro-capitalism, and pro-technology. They are mostly against the destructive effects of political correctness, and the ridiculousness of multiculturalism and feminism.
Moldbug wanted- I speak of him in the past tense, since while the man behind him is still around, he seems to have wrapped up his blogging- only to replace the system with control based on the capitalist principle of ownership. This would seem to describe “techno-capitalism”, and “anarcho-capitalism” would seem only to spread the control around, but not so much as to result in actual chaos, or pardon me, anarchy.
Progressive capitalists don’t really have a problem with this. They control a great deal through what they own, and they would be happy to control everything by owning everything. Capitalism is inherently progressive, which is the defect of all capitalist or business-based conservatism.
This is why the man behind Moldbug has not been defenestrated, or why Justine Tunney promotes this sort of thing openly, without a pseudonym and while remaining a Google employee. Fundamentally, these people are as opposed to non-elite ethnic loyalty as the current rulers are, although they don’t have the visceral hatred they do for it.
Neo-reaction has been described as having the three branches of ethno-nationalism, traditionalism, and techno-capitalism. With this break, I think that can’t be said to be true any more. I was never a neo-reactionary, and traditionalism can’t tolerate techno-capitalism. So what the ne0-reactionaries call neo-reaction is just techno-capitalism, and they are just techno-capitalists.
So, this is the divide. What problems do techno-capitalists have with ethno-nationalism? One that it is anti-capitalist, two that it is democratic, three that it is socialist, and four that it is traditionalist in a way that suits the needs of non-elite whites.
Techno-capitalism claims to be capitalistic, but it isn’t really this either. Techno-capitalists come from tech businesses, which did not spring fully formed like Venus from the seashell, but were the product of heavy subsidy and investment from the US government. The Internet, microprocessors, GPS, cellular telephony- all dependent on government research, investment, and franchises. This was true of the original Industrial Revolution as well, and anywhere you find large sums of business or capitalist cash, you find the state right behind it. The state behind modern technology is mostly the US Department of Defense, a product of the pseudo-nationalist New Deal state, formed to control the excesses of communism- itself a product of progressive capitalism- like a wildland firefighter watching a back burn, and to control non-elite whites and keep them from turning to fascism.
Ethno-nationalism is against capitalism, when capitalism is defined as letting businessmen do whatever they want because they are Promethean heroes, which they are not.
The criticism that ethno-nationalists are democratic and socialist can be addressed together. Techno-capitalists dislike both democracy and socialism, neglecting to realize that democracy and socialism actually work pretty well, when they are confined to white people. Seriously, Norway is going to be Norway, and Nigeria will be Nigeria, capitalist, communist, democratic or authoritarian, or any combination. Ethno-nationalism is for democracy and socialism, when they are defined as white people participating in their government and having some insurance against illness and hardship.
Theoretically techno-capitalism can be allied with traditionalism. Techno-capitalists are pretty traditional people socially and sexually. Mark Zuckerberg’s marriage to his pre-Facebook college girlfriend is only the reflection of how people have mated from the beginning of time. An early match with another young person of your social class takes care of all legitimate human needs and these people are too busy doing business to be having lots of sex and romance. Traditionalists are fine with a monarchical state- monarchical in its literal sense as a non-democratic concentration of power in one entity- so there is no obvious conflict with techno-capitalists.
The trouble is in traditional traditional societies, businessmen and capitalists have never had anything like the power they do now, and in a re-established traditional society they could not, since their interests are in too great a variance with society at large.
Actual traditionalism- the kind that sustains people, and thus is of interest to non-elite whites- depends on traditional sex roles, traditional relationships between employers, traditional family relationships, and traditional patterns of consumption. When techno-capitalists say they like “tradition”, I think they mean the religious tradition of England and Italy, where religion is pretty but doesn’t cramp anybody’s style too much.
Techno-capitalism is both a system already in power, and one impractical to establish. Ethno-nationalism is both a system impractical to implement, and yet at the same time already in power. Everything that moves and sustains life is ethno-nationalism. Reality is ethno-nationalism, and you can’t get any more powerful than that.