Chronologically, every ideology begins as a critique of some other dominant view. The Enlightenment began as a critique of medieval philosophies and, whether you think it right or wrong, it enjoyed a lot of success when it began doing the work of solving its own skeptical problems. It even, quite obviously, became the dominant worldview of the formerly Christian West.LaLiberte touches on a number of excellent points. First is that those who oppose liberalism, feminism, Marxism, whatever fill-in-the-blank post-Enlightenment modernism one wishes to fight, must not fall into the trap of defining oneself or one's ideology using your adversary as a touchstone. This is a lesson that MRAs, for instance, readily grok: as authentic masculinity does not arise from the feminine but is something set apart entirely, a lasting masculism must define itself as something other than, and more than, anti-feminism. Similarly, if one is to propose a viable philosophical alternative to Enlightenment-based secular humanism and all its fever-swamp derivatives, simply being anti-feminist, anti-Marxist, or anti-liberalist isn't enough. There must be "there", there.
To a certain extent, as neoreaction grapples with the shortcomings of feminism, it must also grapple with the key premises that ground modernist ideologies. The development of feminist ideology is, in respect to the Enlightenment, no accident. A key premise of the Enlightenment, that all individuals within society enjoy equal powers of reasoning and motivation, obviously tends to be in opposition to the notion that men and women are innately distinct, and that society ought not to treat them that way. It is really only the same as democratic optimism concerning mass man, which sees the proletariat as envious of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie as envious of the role rulers possess, albeit tuned to the particular role envies women have for men. As such, this is why I believe a warning must be delivered to the Reactosphere: you must give up your modernist presuppositions. Classical liberalism/libertarianism that tells of a happy society ruled by the marketplace is missing out on the fundamental and vital influence of social institutions for determining the material arrangement of society. Anarchist I may be, no libertarian am I. The market mechanism isn’t adequate for achieving a number of vital social goods, even within the market. Don’t believe me? Read your Coase. The point is this: society is not a meeting of individuals, each individually negotiating their terms of exchange; it is a meeting of individuals who are also seeking to coordinate their interests with and for others. Hence the rise of social institutions that hinge on hierarchy.
Neoreaction must go beyond its roots in the critique of feminism. It must become, or at least produce, a rival theory that can stand on its own. Furthermore, it must be a theory which could have been produced were feminism never to occur.
Second, language remains important as always. Those who refer to themselves today as "neotraditioanlists" and "neoreactionaries"--for lack of a better shared vocabulary--must eventually doff the language and semantic framing of their adversaries and coin a different term. "Reactionary" has specific, perjorative meaning to Communists, Jacobins, Marxists, and other strains of Progressivism, and "traditionalist" is nothing more than an amped up Reactionary pining for the days of the status quo ante. Use of these terms in a culture defined and ruled by liberalists will likely only serve to confuse potential recruits as well as provide large broadside targets for liberalist attacks and ridicule.
Third, LaLiberte's assessment of the inadequacy of the market as a basis for social organization is on point. While the market in general, and capitalism in particular, is a the best mechanism invented to date for organizing and optimizing resources, it fails entirely to address the moral questions that inevitably arise during all those individual market interaction. This is no accident; capitalism's godparent, Classical Liberalism, doesn't give much of a fig about the spiritual side of man, whereas I suspect LaLiberte the self-styled "Anarcho Papist" would agree with me that man is, at his core, spiritual in nature, and needs to nurture that spiritual aspect lest he descend into narcissism, nihilism, and crass materialism. Secular humanism's and market capitalism's failure to serve this fundamental need is its undoing. It cannot go on forever...so it won't.
I'm not smart enough or prescient enough to know where this will all go, but my sense is that there is an opportunity for revolution built upon the exhausted, stinking corpse of the liberalist theoretical corpus.