Where did I say that Moldbug is not a consequentialist political philosopher? I only ever intended to argue that Moldbug is proposing a system that brings other people into slave morality, because his system does not preserve the independence of disciples. Rawls believes he can convince other rational theorists to converge on his system, (a cornerstone of his theory) whereas Nozick's attacking style is like, "Does adopting position A, B, or ... generate the least bullshit results?" repeated over and over. Compare these two analytic philosophers to Moldbug's approach. If someone whose ideals differ even slightly from Moldbug's reads his actual arguments and agrees with them straight up, that man thereby enslaves himself to another's dreams. But you're the one who's taken philosophy classes, so I probably expressed myself badly.