Why? Because he is the only one among them who is pointing to a historical form of government--monarchy--and saying, "Hey, that could work." The rest are certain that they can come up with something better and altogether new.
Neoreactionaries are up in arms about "entryism" and are manning the blockades against libertarian participation. They should be worried about ossification and hubris.
Instead, they're conversing in philosophese and congratulating themselves on how smart they all are. "Yes, boys, that genius political structure is right around the corner. What we need to think about right now, though, is how to keep the rubes out of our clubhouse."
What I'm getting at is that I read a lot about how great neoreaction is going to be but not much neoreactionary thought.
I'm starting to think that neoreaction is quickly becoming neo-Objectivism. Both believe themselves to be philosophical revolutions. Both realign our principles of government towards natural winners rather than natural losers. Objectivism was simply the arguments of Marxism turned upside-down. Neoreaction wishes to shade Objectivism with race and aristocrats and "black is black in that 'blackness' qua 'blackness' is..."
It's no wonder the press runs like frightened rabbits at the thought of them--what is neoreaction doing other than trotting out old Social Darwinist arguments and racial taxonomy and dressing it with Mondo 2000 and Wittgenstein Cliff's Notes?
Anissimov is trying to pull neoreaction into reality, emphasizing the "reaction." He wants to reconfigure old, stable structures for our age. The neoreactionary movement in general emphasizes the "neo." They wish to create a new structure from old ideas.
I think Anissimov, like the title of his site, is more right than his compatriots. We have a lot to learn from powerful monarchies. After all, the end of absolute monarchism didn't come because it failed but because eventually the monarchs themselves became liberal democrats.