The writings of Mencius Moldbug: http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com/ Mind-bending writings on politics, history and economics.
I do not at all get neoreactionaries but I find their movement fascinating.
"I do not at all get neoreactionaries"
The first thing to understand is that many neoreactionaries live in once great American cities where the schools look like this: ( http://www.philly.com/philly/news/special_packages/inquirer/... ), many of the neighborhoods look like this: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1_____enUS368US369&q=urb... and if you move to the wrong neighborhood this will happen: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Father-Memorial-Da...
When that is your daily lived experience, you start asking questions about when it all went wrong.
But, it is a lot more accurate to see ideology and religion has basically the same phenomena, with belief in a deity being pretty much spurious, than it is to see ideology and religion as two entirely different things. So I give Moldbug credit for pointing out that progressivism is basically the same thing as a religion.
The purpose of his blog is to create hyperbole in the opposite direction of the current prevailing ideologies. The blog is shock treatment to get you to think about our society as a time traveler from two hundred years in the past or in the future might see it. He tries to snap you out of presentism. So there is a lot of crazy stuff in it. But there is a lot of information and perspectives that can be found nowhere else, and if you read them and incorporate them into your world views, you will have a more accurate picture of current reality, and you will make better predictions about world events.
I do agree with the long-winded part. Some people like his whimsical, sci-fi jargon infused, verbose writing style, others cannot stand it. That is a matter of taste.
This is accurate and well-said.
I differ greatly in the value I'd assign to the end product. It takes way too much work to untangle the possibly true, mind-bending stuff (<5%) from the sophomoric, reactionary (in the most derogatory sense of that word) stuff (>50%). It's not worth it.
Also, and I say this as someone who enjoys reading long-winded essays for fun: the information density is too low.
And finally, given the above: way too much attitude.
If you believe the political situation is more good than bad, or if you believe it is bad only due to not being progressive enough, bad due to America not being enough like Sweden, then you won't find Moldbug at all convincing.
But if you are disaffected with both the mainstream right and progressives, then you are in search of an alternative theory of why everything is going so rotten. And in that case, Moldbug's theories are a revelation.
Far from being a radical repudiating "the currently prevailing ideologies" I would say that he is steeped in the currently ideologies and just advocating their logical end; dictatorship. The Left and Right are both intellectually bankrupt and now just seek power for power's sake, i.e., they stand for nothing. The society is ripe for a dictator and we will get one as soon as another economic or other crisis arises. The Left and the Right secretly are hoping for such a crisis and that their gang happens to be in power when it happens. Writers like Moldbug are a harbinger of the future of the US as we drift toward dictatorship and they existed in Germany before the rise of the Nazis, laying the intellectual ground work.
Fortunately there is real intellectual opposition to this fate in Ayn Rand's philosophy. You should read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and more importantly her intro on ethics "The Virtue of Selfishness". She identified what is wrong with the Left and the Right and proposes an alternative ethical and political theory to support Capitalism and her writings are crystal clear and to the point.
I also think that American's get in a trap where we think that tyranny==dictatorship. The left is power hungry and totalitarian. But it has no desire for a dictatorship. The tyranny is the distributed tyranny, peer-to-peer tyranny, of a thousand different bureaucracies, SJW's, judges, civil service agencies, etc, all with their petty fiefdoms creating problems.
"I do agree with the long-winded part. Some people like his whimsical, sci-fi jargon infused, verbose writing style, others cannot stand it. That is a matter of taste."
I would agree that such a style, up to a point, is a matter of taste. But beyond that point I think that verbosity, long run-on paragraphs, detours and "long-cuts" into side issues and irrelevant historical background, etc. serves two rhetorical purposes. First, to obfuscate and ameliorate a point he can't state plainly; that he is advocating a dictatorship [I call it fascist, you can call it whatever you want]. Second, it gives him the appearance of saying something deeper and more important than what he is actually saying, i.e. pseudo-intellectualism.