Yeah, the best approach is to UnIdea "neoreaction". As for your suggested LWSpeak dictionary for political speech, that's conveniently another method of control. You can't use these symbols. You can't talk this way.

I guess you have read something about "professing and cheering", "applause lights", "affective spirals", "rationalist taboo", "anticipated experiences", and "replacing symbols with substance". Political debates are not a separate magisterium. Neoreaction is not a separate magisterium within politics.

If your belief has the ambitions to describe the territory, you should be able to describe the same thing without using the shibboleths. A marxist could transform "capitalists exploit workers" into "people who control resources can achieve transactions disadvantageous in long term to people who must participate in transactions with them in order to survive". A libertarian could transform "free markets lead to progress" into "when interactions between people are free of coercion, people are more likely to fully use their creativity". A theist could transform "homosexuality is a sin" into "if you live in a universe with an omnipotent being who infinitely punishes people for sexual relationships with people of the same sex, it is prudent to avoid such relationships".

But if your beliefs are merely cheering for your team, or if the words you use are merely mysterious formless substances, you cannot transform them. Or if your beliefs are wrong (do not match the territory), unpacking the keywords can make the wrongness more obvious. Refusing to unpack your keywords means that on some level you already know that it wouldn't end well. Just say loudly: "countries with a lot of democracy, such as Switzerland, have lower quality of life than countries with no democracy, such as North Korea, because democracy makes people selfishly destroy the society, while a dictator will optimize for long-term prosperity" if that happens to be your belief with the symbols replaced by the corresponding substance.

LW has a rare density of Libertarian leaning people, who generally aren't the types to sit silently and assent. Failing to ideologically bully, the Left resorted to pressure to just not talk about politics, which achieves the main goal of silencing the Unbelievers.

Reality check: is Eliezer supposed to be that leftist bully who oppresses the rare libertarians at LW? I'm asking because he wrote the articles about anticipated experiences, tabooing words, affective spirals, et cetera. Do you perhaps believe that the techniques described in the Sequences are merely a clever ploy to oppress heretics?

Because to me it seems like you simply refuse to apply some general techniques to a specific set of beliefs... for pretty much the same reason why a theist would object against using an Occam's Razor to religion.