I could write a long summary of the extreme autism of each of those LARPing neoideologies but I don't think it would be worth the trouble so here's an abridged version which is still tl;dr.
If you decided to ditch the at least a bit developed fascist doctrine for this undefinable German clusterfuck of the 1930s because Hugo Boss and raunchy memery, you should actually kill yourself on the spot. No one loves you nor acknowledges you.
Cryptocurrencies won't make you rich and the REAL elites won't thank you, they'll fuck you with the cheapest broomstick they can find. If you're a wealthy individual who's favorized enough by the statu quo to retire profit of instant lolbertarianism, you're not posting on this website to begin with.
It's 2017, it's dead since a century. Monarchies had their role in the shaping of states, but today's surviving monarchies are just bourgeois/client regimes where the king is either someone's little bitch or the first of his bourgeois friends. It's funny to see the "b-but monarchy can work in theory!", yeah, just like stalinism.
The only thrieving monarchy of today's is Morocco, because the previous king (who knew more about the history of Europe than all "The Right" combined) knew how to develop an unique culture, double the size of his country and choose a market economy against the whole of Africa and Middle East states. But he was a Muslim so I guess Jesus would weep if his legacy was studied by The Right.
Xi Jinping seems to want to position himself as some kind of mock monarch to rebuild China as a coherent whole, but since his open goal is to save communism, I guess he is just looking for a way to kill 100 millions people. Pls ignore. Why am I giving those examples anyway? We know that 90% of "monarchists" are just fanboys of Final Fantasy, Code Geass, Game of Thrones or Warhammer 40k.
Oh look, it seems this time, we have something that might be more than just LARPing! Neofascism (I will include the New Right) was an intellectual movement that despite from being totally disconnected from reality, was worth studying as it looked like a genuine force against American imperialism. Yes, American imperialism. Our neo-nationalists don't seem to realize that neofascists used to be everything they claim to hate, pro-USSR, pro-revolutionary Arabs, anti-Anglo to the core and they sure didn't give a soykaf about Eastern Europe.
The tides turned this decade because globalization and the Internet turned out to be so strong that neo-fascism, already nothing more than a concept, was on the verge of extinction. They jumped on the "populist" bandwagon of identity politics which leads them right to the cliff. Actually, it's kinda sad to see anti-Americans of the 60s suddenly support Trump because they want to stay relevant (they won't).
Alain de Benoist wrote something around 2014 about the youth who were yearning for adventure while going in Syria/Irak, but the neo-nationalists were so offended he had to back down. Because once again, the politically incorrect are on par with the rainbowed-gender in terms of skin thickness. So yeah, fascism? Killed by The Right.
>Authority is natural
Except the current gov because I don't like it. Also it's a bad definition because despite what ignorant memesters from The Right always try to imply, Rousseau wasn't about running naked in the jungle, he was about the law, the law, and only the law. The fact that he believed Man was inherently good didn't mean he was an anarchist. His model was Sparta and he was a prime influence of fascist doctrines.
The classical Reaction lived on the premise that the revolutionary times were nothing revolutionary. It was just a short period of troubles led by idealists which was doomed to fail and which would bring nothing but endless, stupid wars. This is quite the difference between today's The-Right which get off at chaos and share fake news of violence in what really is wishful thinking. So, not only today's modern era is the most peaceful one in human history, but the pseudo-Reaction is jumping all over in hopes of war. This is ironic.
On the Reaction side, we can say the most influent thinkers were Joseph de Maistre and the Czar Alexander. They didn't really "lose" in the sense that they weren't the nutjobs the Left and The Right claim they were. They were intelligent people, influenced by the Enlightenment, who realized their own world didn't lived to their expectations and who tried to reform it. Perhaps they have failed in the formal way, but their values are still hold by normal people who never heard about them, the same that actually care more about refugees than Realpolitik and the virtues of Despotism. Austria tried the most regressive stance and broke down in less than half a century.
One funny anecdote, a monarchist uprising in France failed in the 1830s because it was revealed that the mother of the legitimate heir was pregnant from an unkwown man. Today's The Right brags about the virtues of porn, creatine, and sex with teens in nightclubs. But abortion is still a no-no.
On that stuff, the pseudomonarchists who worship Mencius Moldbug always spout bullsoykaf like>The Right is about muh hard truths
This is how you spot the manchild. Inequality (especially through capitalism and its pseudomonarchist variation) is inherently modern. The difference between a Patrician and a Plebeian was that the Patrician's father gave him the (costly) protection of the family's god. Equality between men was always the norm: inequality came from the blessing of the gods, and the more gods you got the protection of, the better your fared. That means a Greek princess would rather marry Subsaharan nobility than your redneck ancestor. Le Antic Cucked, lol. In the medieval/warring ages, equality of all men was a given, through the teachings of Christianity, Islam, and modern Buddhism. Hence the organic distribution of the roles in society, the recourses against tyrannical rulers, all of this which allowed for the states to span beyond simple cities abusing their surrounding, allowing the terrible globalist forces to develop trade, culture, and other elements which compose that loose word "Civilisation".
Did this ideal state translate perfectly in practice? No. Were there abuses? Many. And when the trust in the institutions start to shatter, symbols of power, impressive monuments and shows of forces vainly try to cement what doesn't seem to be that obvious anymore. Those shows of force are what make the shiny The Right foam. Decadence and ostentation is what the dirt born Moldbug fanboys want in the first place.
Enough talk about The Right, what is the right? Believing in authority, real authority, not the lust for decadent symbolic. It means being polite, trying to be excellent, avoid conflict, avoid chit-chat and talking only when it's necessary, helping the poor no matter where they came from, choosing action before reaction, frowning at ostentatiousness, not trying to do an expert's job for x reason like redpill, abstaining from making trouble in general, and trusting God/whatever in-built logic in the universe that led us from primitive living to modern conditions to fulfill whatever role is given to us. We can't describe it in words? Well, we don't need to, you and me are just atoms in this whole construction and we just need to be moral. Humbleness is where it's at.