Last month I had the pleasure to meet in person with Nick Land in a small classy bar in Shanghai. It was quite surreal to talk about this matters in person, meeting for the first time. At first it was the two of us alone loudly discussing Moldbug this Moldbug that, but after a while the place got quite crowded. Shortly we were surrounded by rich kids with outrageous hairdos and high voices wooing teenage girls in short dresses. All while we were dead serious talking about the future of human society.
The discussion was very amiable but somewhat awkward too. We have very different backgrounds, I am basically a student of history , and Nick Land is a philosopher, with a more theoretical, aesthetically driven way of seeing the world. Or at least that is the impression that his writings give me. That difference didn't mean much in practical terms though, as we pretty much agreed in everything. We talked about the reactionary blogosphere and its connections with various anti-liberal movements (Game, MRA, traditionalists). It was funny that we happen to read almost the same blogs. We agreed that while the analysis of the sheer madness of liberalism is mostly right, all the proposed solutions are all implausible. Monarchy? Christian traditionalism? Henry VII? Come on. As a futurist, Nick Land is surely extremely bored by proposals which amount to pretty much turning back the clock.
Given that we didn't really believe in any way of fixing the mess, the discussion turned to how is the situation likely to evolve. He has this model on the elite, which he defines in a Pareto distribution as the productive 20% (against the useless 80%), would simply flee to civilised fortresses mega-cities a la Singapore where they would enjoy the benefits of a high IQ society. With robotics and other advances the utility of low skilled labor will decrease into what amounts to nil, so the masses would left to their own devices in the hinterland. Where they'd starve to medieval densities.
I didn't really agree with this model. He argued that the elite is incredibly globalised, and doesn't give a shit about their nations or countries. Which is true. Also true about both of us. American HBDers have a certain sense of white solidarity, but that's because most dysfunction in America is caused by NAMs, so whites represent both the tribe and the good of civilisation. But in Britain it's hard to love your own people. But still the elite today is still characterised by allegiance to the post-christian creed of human equality, and while flight into civilised fortresses has been slowly happening for some time already, with cynical liberals bidding up home prices to isolate themselves, a complete removal is in my opinion quite unlikely. I don't think it's plausible that the elite would be having fun eating fancy food in a Shanghai mall while the left half of the Bell Curve is starving. Welfare has been the highest moral principle for centuries.
Which is the most important point in my view. Welfare and it's associated political arrangements are destroying the world economy, and by any measure it won't last much longer. I know I'll see it collapse. Still I don't see how elite liberal will be able to rationalise fleeing to Shanghai to enjoy french cuisine while fellow humans are starving in the interior. We know a lot of people, especially white people, prefer to die rather than being morally inferior. So there's no moral framework that justifies letting the proles starve. Well, there is one, HBD. But HBD is scary business, and according to your temperament it might mean different things. HBD taken seriously might also mean total NAM removal. Wars for lebensraum. Mandatory eugenics. It's nasty business, and all my models of a HBD realist world involve a lot of blood. Nick Land doesn't see it that way, he says people will isolate themselves and make up stuff to rationalise it.
I guess it's the age difference. Mr. Land is 50, I'm still in my 20s. He'd rather have fun in Shanghai than try to remove the NAMs from Britain. It's understandable. If current fertility rates stand, his point of view will grow in numbers. So perhaps he's right after all.