What I am getting at is that when it comes right down to it, Moldbug does not want us, yes us, to take actions designed to fulfill our own ends. He does not advocate that we adopt a consequentialist stance like he does when doing so would counteract his ideals, ideals which he, just like Kant, has deduced from first principles. Not even Kant, I think, is such a strident anti-consequentialist that he does not want us to take actions in keeping with Kantian ideals that would bring those ideals to fruition in everyday life.

If it's a question of how large a sheet of abstract ideals an ethical system proposes to drape over your life without justifying each one in turn with respect to their consequences, then Moldbug makes that intentionalist misstep when he asks you to subordinate your ends to his ideals without bothering to show which bridging ought-statements this move coincides with, in what manner that you'd have to own up to these ought-statements being implied by your current ends, and what this implies about how you ought to behave and why. Now don't get me wrong, this does not mean Moldbug is a slave. Supermen need not demand that others behave like masters in Nietzsche's fanboyish way.