Their doctrines are actually more characterized by what they dislike. As I said, NRx is a criticism first and foremost.

Certainly there are far more neoreactionaries than those I have read, but those I have read, including the ones I just mentioned, are arguing for certain arrangements. Their animus towards the present is explicitly based on that. NRx, as I have seen it, is a criticism that explicitly bases itself, as you have done in this thread, on "certain traditional principles" which, to quote your Evola quote, "enjoy a perennial actuality". That is the core of neoreaction. As for the specifics of which cultures are held up as examples to emulate and which as examples to avoid, Moldbug primarily goes to recent centuries to show how things were done better in those days.

Some of the most prominent neoreactionaries are libertarian anarchists.

Perhaps they are, but they have so far not come to my attention.

Yes, but being a wholly negative doctrine is still the "Dissent" in Dissenter. I think it is a mistake to be wholly negative, but that is a community discussion I suppose.