And I quote:

"Another trend is the rapidly falling testosterone among American men, which has gone so far as to cause some men to dress up and pretend they are women. They might even get surgery to mutilate their genital organs. This behavior is destructive, a form of self-indulgence and escape which contributes to the breakdown of societal fabric. If communities are going to reap the benefits of strong families, they will have to reject and condemn these behaviors. Otherwise, the demographic suffers from below replacement births and has no future. A shrinking demographic is a dying demographic."

Michael Anissimov, May 27 2014. http://www.moreright.net/the-purpose-of-reactionaries/

I wouldn't say it's obvious, but here a graph of US government spending over time. It seems basically monotonic.

This comment is a work of art.

So, just to be clear... are you claiming that this quote isn't encouraging readers to reject and condemn transsexuals?

Or that the quote isn't yours?

Or that encouraging readers to reject and condemn transsexuals is meaningfully distinct in this context from calling for them not to associate with transsexuals?

Or something else?

You single out Tunney for being transsexual, not insane.

So the claim isn’t so much traditionalism is great, only enlightenment is worse than traditionalism after controlling for technology? I was thinking of neoreactionaries as deformed utopians, but the tone is more like, “let’s reset social ‘progress’ and then very carefully consider positive proposals.’

That makes sense, but now that I think about it I don’t find this claim particularly neoreactionary: Enlightenment memes induce a sort of agnosia that prevents the rational design of non-enlightenment social structures. Treating this agnosia will increase the amount of possible social structures we are able to consider and the chances that we will be able to design something better.

What I see proposed are specific forms of monarchy or corporate-like governmental structures. More exotic proposals like futarchy and liquid democracy are dismissed, at least by Moldbug. So pre-enlightenment (or maybe anti-enlightenment) does feel like a better label to my non-expert ears.

Why couldn't post-democratic outcomes exist even if human nature is deliberately reengineered?

They could, and there's the are scenarios in the premise where they likely will, but neoreaction isn't just a program of political philosophy for post-democracy. There seems to be much rhetoric and general memetic clustering in NRX around the idea that progressivism will fail because it has outstretched itself trying to re-engineer human nature with cultural conditioning, and that social orders which comply more with fundamentally unchanging elements of human nature are a good political attack against progressivism. The reactionary commenters at SSC seem to like narratives about long-term human decline which tend to rely on nothing interesting happening with human reproduction in many generations from now on.

With technology that can re-engineer human nature, you could have brand new chances to go at the progressive wouldn't-it-be-nice-if-people-were-more-like-this stuff. Then you'd have to start thinking which bits of traditional values are actually good for a general population of agents, and which are just time-evolved kludges around previously unfixable human systematic suckiness. I see a divide opening up here between people who value the idea of a reactionary society of baseline humans in itself, and people who just go for whatever gets things done effectively. Though I guess NRX already has formed subcultural divides.

Non-Enlightenment principles

Beware of non-apples

As such they hope to devise a government that is no longer a sham, and structurally will have finally the best interest of the people at its heart instead of selfishness.

Except that they somehow believe no democracy can ever accomplish this goal.