I usually understand Aretae’s posts, even if I sometimes disagree with him. This one, however, leaves me baffled.
I take Moldbug’s argument to be that most people who consider themselves to be anti-war and anti-interventionist are still highly interventionist compared to the reactionary ideal.
If Moldbug is wrong, how do you explain this? Incidentally, that link is the one that I would have juxtaposed with Moldbug’s piece. No one else’s theory of what is happening in Libya is capable of explaining why anti-K/G/Q(h)adaffi/y propaganda is written in English. The modern US is basically incapable of old school non-intervention. The form of non-intervention that would be practiced by the anti-war left or anti-war libertarians would still be interventionist by most reasonable historical standards.
The mainstream analysis of what’s happening in Libya goes like this: some – relatively small – segment of the Libyan population is rebelling against the unjust government and the unjust government is fighting back with disproportionate force. This is the end of the analysis. Any deeper analysis would require answering some unfortunate questions.
Why are rebels rebelling in the face of such disproportionate force? Who is fighting whom, anyway? What happens if we win?
I think the answers are: they’ve been convinced to rebel – largely by the US if in the convincing was done unconsciously. Sub-Saharan blacks have been imported to do the regime’s fighting. Victory by the rebels will possibly lead to an Islamic government, ethnic cleansing of the Sub-Saharans or a long drawn out Civil War.
Now, we’re officially involved in the conflict. As Sonic Charmer says:
“no-fly zone” is now the Western intelligentsia euphemism for “declaration of war”.
I don’t understand what I’m supposed to take from a comparison of Moldbug’s piece with neocon thinking. They’re speaking different languages on this subject – so much so that they’re almost mutually unintelligible.