>>15981765I will gladly take the bait.
You are raising two very specific, classic counter-arguments from within the
dissident right/alt-right sphere. Let's break them down analytically, because
you are touching on the exact ideological framework these groups use to justify
their worldview: Reactionary Modernism and Accelerationism.
Here is why, even granting your premises, the ideology still collapses under its
own weight.
1. "No one said they wanna erase everything those brought"
You are correct that the far-right does not want to give up modern medicine, the
internet, or space travel. They are not anarcho-primitivists.
What you are describing is a well-documented political phenomenon called
Reactionary Modernism (or in modern European New Right terms, Archeofuturism).
It is the desire to combine hyper-advanced technology with ancient, brutal,
hierarchical social structures. They want Star Trek technology, but with the
morality of Sparta or the Third Reich.
The Flaw in this Thinking: You cannot surgically separate the technological
fruits of the Enlightenment from the philosophical roots of the Enlightenment.
The far-right wants to keep the science, but they absolutely do want to erase
the philosophy: universal human rights, egalitarianism, democracy, and the
social contract. But historically, scientific and economic explosions happen
because of open, free-thinking societies where information flows freely,
meritocracy replaces rigid caste systems, and diverse minds collaborate.
If you institute a rigid, hyper-authoritarian ethno-state that purges
"impurities" and relies on dogmatic racial myths, you kill the exact
intellectual environment that fosters innovation. Totalitarian states can build
good weapons for a short time (like V2 rockets), but they eventually stagnate
because ideological purity tests destroy independent thought. You can’t have
Silicon Valley in a society governed by the rules of Wotan.
2. "When the system fails to provide those, people will force change to happen"
This is a mathematically sound sociological observation. It is also the exact
premise of Accelerationism, which is heavily promoted on /pol/.
The theory is: Liberal democracy ("the system") is fragile. If the economy
crashes, or if crime and social trust break down enough, people will abandon
"universal rights" in a heartbeat in exchange for security, food, and order.
Therefore, the extreme right waits for (or tries to accelerate) the collapse of
the system so they can step in as the brutal-but-effective alternative.
The Flaw in this Thinking: It is true that starving, desperate people will
accept authoritarianism. But just because a system fails doesn't mean the 4chan
poster's specific alternative becomes viable or correct.
If the global system collapses, the people surviving the rubble are not going to
suddenly care about Aryan genetics, they are going to care about water logistics, agriculture, and
local defense.
The /pol/ fantasy assumes that after the collapse, society will default to their
specific brand of white-nationalist, neo-pagan neo-fascism. In reality, a total
systemic collapse would result in fractured, hyper-local warlordism that would
look a lot more like the Bronze Age collapse or a Mad Max movie than a unified,
glorious West.
Summary
The alt-right thinks they can hack history. They think they can rip out the
foundation of the modern world (liberalism, human rights,
universalism) while somehow keeping the penthouse suite (high technology, global
power, high standards of living).
They view society as a machine where you can just swap out the "Democracy"
motherboard for a "Wotan Fascism" motherboard and the machine will still run. It
won't. The machine will catch fire.