Charlton argues that reactionaries, like many libertarians, are only tolerated by the liberal-left because they help the left achieve its goals.

Here below is a response by Charlton to a comment on his post about Moldbug.

Note: I’ve never read Charlton’s blog before; don’t know what else is advocated on it; do not endorse it and am only quoting it because I think there’s something to his point about Moldbug:

@GR – You misunderstand my opinions. MM wants to be a reactionary, but does not want to become religious – he wants the socio-political effects of religiousness, although he thinks that religion is untrue.

I expect that sooner or later he will recognize the necessity of religion, then the truth of religion, and will then be converted (probably to Christianity).

I would guess Foseti is probably in this category too.

MM’s followers vary – but are mostly anti-Christian, rather than currently-unconvinced.

About ‘doing something’ you may have misunderstood what I wrote – since the MM-influenced self-styled reactionaries are actually Leftists (as are Libertarians) then it is possible that they are indeed moving towards some kind of ‘success’, in the same sense that self-styled libertarians may have successful careers in writing, academia, the media and think tanks.

Libertarian ideas are ‘used’ by the mainstream Left to generate arguments and evidence in favour of mainstream Leftist policies such as mass immigration and attacks on the Christian church, marriage and the family, and the military.

In these areas of policy ‘libertarians’ serve ‘Liberal’ goals – and this is indeed the reason why the Left tolerates libertarians.

MM’s followers are – unlike libertarians – mostly socially conservative (they are mostly, I think, disaffected secular libertarians) but since they have the same basic goals as Leftist (i.e. this worldly, hedonic goals) then there is no reason why some specific Moldbuggian ideas, analyses and policies may not be appropriated by mainstream Left/ Liberals.

This kind of thing happens all the time. Any influence my own ideas have had (e.g. on UK medical education) have been by appropriating specific ideas in what seemed to me a distorted and incomplete fashion to produce results I opposed – but that is the nature of influence.

I don’t suppose Nietzsche would have been happy to know he was the official Nazi philosopher; while Heidegger, who actually put in an application for this job, was rejected.

If MM has a real world effect (which is certainly not impossible) he will almost certainly come to despise the distorted and counter-productive nature of his own influence – since the people with power enough to make influence effective are the people who will use it for their own (anti-Moldbuggian) ends.”