From Yao Lin's critique of Chinese market intellectuals', to Breuer & Johnston's description of the Sino-US relations insecurity spiral, to the death knells of political ideologues, Incels, mass shooters, and culture wars online in fringe spaces, even to the rhetoric of academia, in simplistic hypothesis testing, failing to induce, failing to be creative, the digital era is a "schizoid function" which validates users' ego to the extent of whatever stake they put into myriad platforms. Users narratives’ always grow dense, and occupy a hypercharged position in the conduit of American politics; where potential capital is the alt-Right or fringe, who has the motivation to evolve the regnant memes of the contemporary, post-modern, liberal world. The difference between Fringe and Mainstream? Breuer & Johnston ask, "could the so called US-dominated liberal world order be in decline?" Fringe, alt-Right, existential, and Traditionalist ideologues inherently believe yes, mainstream liberalism, no. It is an inverted space: as AH Stuart proposes, users more likely to engage in such binary discourse are nihilistic, egoistical, and motivate massive amounts of potential capital, implying van Ginneken's 2013 conjecture: digital spaces are apogenetic, and cultures, like the US, in endemic decline always irrationally evolve regnant dogma. The digital space is inherently "degenerate", to borrow the alt-Right's own logic. Ergo, Leviathan is too patrician to inherit the vulgar dialect of digital era statecraft, because statecraft inherits the fringe actors of the "schizoid" space (Harris 1995); where each actor intrinsically must offload their fears and distrust of the world itself (ie. Kruger 2021) and justify it under the iconoclasm of politics.