I used to see people elsewhere post a lot of (intentional?) wordsalad describing detailed complex "neoreactionary" views which they admitted was purposely verbose (using more words than necessary to filter out "pseuds" or dumber people).
This seems to have filtered out in favor of a general MAGA populism (?), maybe just because it's the biggest alternative movement that's closest nearby to those views (?).
Anyway is anyone in to NRx views or is it a stale or dead meme at this point or what should we think of it?
My interpretation is that he is saying that Social Darwinism is self-enforcing. Humans can decide that it is too brutal, that they don't like it, and that they are going to opt out. But there is no opt out. Their non-Social Darwinist society will be dysgenic and in the fullness of time it will collapse due to dysgenics. Social Darwinism will reassert itself, all by itself. No authority is consulted or deferred to.
Perhaps one source of confusion is that Charles III offers an image of Royalty as quaint and old fashioned; talking to plants, championing traditional architecture against modern. But it wasn't always like that.
Back when the ballooning craze was taking off George III wrote to the Royal Society asking if research into 'air-globes' should be sponsored by the British Crown, or left to private individuals. He even held the string of a small hydrogen balloon launched from the terrace at Windsor Castle. Royalty has been up to date in the past, and could be again.
So naturally, some of NRx looks to retro-Kingship; quaint and old fashioned. And some is more modernist, embracing Darwinism, and new rules of succession, such as the Rotating Triple Crown.