1) It's fascinating to see how you guys manage to take every conversation and make it all about your peculiar utopia.
2) Potential embarrassment is not the reason why we object to NRx. Just like a Christian who assumes atheists are just angry at God, you make a blanket assumption about all progressives, evidently without having bothered to actually listen to one. You cannot have a productive conversation with your ideological opponents if you keep willfully misrepresenting their motives.
3) How is humanity "diminished" by having more freedom and more equality?
4) "we might find Neoreactionary World more fulfilling of our natures" sounds like Naturalistic Fallacy had a love child with Appeal to Tradition. No good ideas can be born from that union.
How is humanity "diminished" by having more freedom and more equality?
Because these values come into obvious conflict. Freedom allows humans to sort themselves into organic hierarchies which demonstrate their inequality, as we can see in sports and in business. To enforce equality, you have to reduce the freedom of the more capable to show their excellence, and play this perverse game not to hurt the feelings of the less capable by reminding them of their inadequacies.
This month's media thread includes a short article on some people's idea to have Ayn Rand frozen, which ultimately didn't happen. My first reaction was a shudder. I thought, I definitely wouldn't want Ayn Rand preserved forever. My second thought was, What right do I have to say who can and who can't get frozen?
Whatever your thoughts on Ayn Rand, I think this can spark an interesting conversation: What, if anything, should humankind do about people who are widely seen as harmful for the whole? For example, if the Castro dynasty in Cuba or the Kim dynasty in North Korea decide to freeze themselves to ensure they will continue oppressing their countries forever, should that be prevented? (And yes, my opinion of Ayn Rand is such that these examples came to mind.)