in list format:

1a) reaction has no steady agreed upon system of ethics or justice so the use of reactionary language is chronically unclear.
1b) This effects moldbug's conception of the state as a soviegn corporation. Is this a useful fiction? Is the corporation real? Are the rights it holds over lands real? What makes them rights, if so? If not, are rights only expressions of the will to power? What kind of actions a soverign corporation ought to take are determined by your conception of ethics and what it means for there to *be* a soverign coporation.
1c) As a result more and more the discussion has tended to revolve around purely negative criticisms of modern society. That it is damaging to men, and thus damaging to growth since men tend to be those who start companies, that society is organized by the democratic process and so the populace will vote itself more benefits until everyone is poor and so on.
2) Reaction isn't at all familiar with major conservative authors so their criticism of recent conservative political defeats are exaggerated into the defeat of conservatism always and forever. The clintionian change of the left from Mcgovern to neoliberalism is not appricated. The change of the last 40 years has been more libertarian than liberal. I cannot imagine the current American society passing affirmative action, you could do that in the great society and we have its legacy but it would not be voted for today. Casinos, Cannabis and gay marriage were libertarian causes far more than liberal causes. Obamacare was touted as providing benefits to all instead of as a necessary sacrifice of some to provide for the whole of society. This is contradicted b y the tone of the Great Soceity and the New Deal which was one of group solidarity. “If you like your plan, you can keep it” is not how Social Security and Affirmative Action were argued for.  Elizabeth Warren is simply *not* electable today or probably in 2016.
3a) Reaction acts as if their concerns aren’t allowed to be talked about. This may be true with regards to criticisms of democracy and race realism, but remember that the Blank Slate is a popscience sensation, that Jonathan Last’s book on Demography was very well received, that Camille Pagila defended the masculine virtues in WSJ two weeks ago. Our environment is quite chilly with regard to some of the issues reactionaries are concerned about and full debate is not allowed. I do not dispute this, but to act as if everyone will howl in anguish if you say that men and women are different is just not true. We simply are not ruled by tumblr. While some issues reactionaries are concerned about get no airtime, many, including the birth dearth, the marriage gap, single motherhood, and so on have plenty of right leaning wonks purposing policy solutions. Consult the latest National Affairs.
3b)  Reaction has not even begun to read and criticize the core texts of the liberal tradition. As long as bloggers content themselves to show the average liberal intern columnist is bad at reasoning (journalists aren’t philosophers? Who knew!) conceptual progress on the core reactionary tenants will not be made. I’ve read too many bloggers who try to start out as a Irving Kristol or Leo Strauss end up being a Rush Limbaugh.


For Catholics:
 I'm skeptical that a catholic can coherently defend the first and only right as the right of exit because this is essentially the right to divorce and schism applied to society. Because of this conceptual incoherence though I’m not sure what exist is supposed to *mean* aside from taking it blogger to blogger.