Recently I got into a debate with some about Neo-Reaction vs. Techno-libertarianism
Techno-libertarianism and neo-reaction can compliment each other in that the both oppose democracy and egalitarianism. Techno-libertarianism, as the name suggests, tend to be pro-technology in a context of a free market, and is the ‘position’ that I support. Neo-reaction, which rose to preeminence in 2008 or so around the same time as techno-libtertarianism, tends to be more traditionalist and nationalistic, but still to some extent supports the technology subculture of Silicon Valley, probably because they both believe in IQ and HBD (high-IQ being important to coding and getting rich for the techno-libertarians, and how HBD should influence policy). That’s why I created the category partial libertarians to describe people who are libertarian as far as markets are concerned (similar to the mixed capitalist system we have today), but still support some form of a state (minarchism) and yet oppose egalitarianism, excess or all welfare spending, victimization/SJWs and other welfare-liberal/social democracy ideals. That’s kinda why I created the ‘grey enlightenment’ as a middle ground between far-right NRx, neo-liberalism & neo-conservatism and libertarianism. I’m picking and choosing between both ideologies to create an incrementalist hybrid one that is similar to the system we have today, but with some tweaks and adjustments to make it better. The state is not inherently evil, but should exist to serve the best and brightest and to defend the nation, or in other words, to optimally allocate public resources for a ‘greater good’, in which I give the example of funding innovative, high-IQ companies like Tesla.
Besides ideological differences between traditionalists and technologists/libertarians, another roadblock for NRx is the tendency to get distracted by petty crap that sucks time and energy.