It's not like there's a whole bunch of literature that they're stubbornly ignoring.

The mainstream of political philosophy and political science is pretty much opposed to their positions. While none of it specifically addresses the topics covered by Molbuggians and neo-reactionaries in the terms they use, the burden of proof seems to be on them to prove there is something massively wrong with the mainstream before the mainstream has to specifically craft responses to their arguments.

(For reference here's an example of what I mean by mainstream 'progressive' writing which argue that democracy has empirically better outcomes for its citizens and outlines democratic peace theory )