While overall a reasonable article I disagree with some of the perspective.

Warning: This subject lends itself to sagas and rebuttals and counter-rebuttals and counter-counter-rebuttals. It is not obfuscation and dog whistles as some suppose but a form of political storytelling, something my people have long been familiar with which is why I'm toasty. If you have ADD caused by modernity and can't swallow books whole then you will necessarily be unable to follow the tides in Nrx thought. This is supposed a filter by some, and this is absolutely correct.

An observation: many people in opposition to Nrx are fascinated by it. I suggest that is because it is a return to first principals, an examination of the principals so adroitly articulated by our common ancestor, the Enlightenment society.

This is something that has not been done for a very long time, at least since Marx. The left feels the urge to do something parallel but has not yet found the path to doing so because genuine revolutionary fires are at an ebb. They wish to usurp but they are the Kingmaker, which is this weird position to be in. The long and short of it is that they are caught in a contradiction of their own making and cannot leave the tangle until they sort out some internal politicking. They don't recognize Moldbug's dictum about Cthulhu's journey so this is... not about to happen anytime soon.

Talking of Enlightenment; Nrx bears some nascent markings of a lunar society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Society_of_Birmingham

Whether it shall achieve great things or even things is a separate question, it at least is a new perspective and the omens are good that productive results can be got this way. Exit, anybody? All sorts of interesting possibilities! The trajectory is good but it probably shall change shape before its final pocket monster form.

Let's also be clear on things. Thing one: People on the Internet talk a lot of shit. Nrx is certainly not wholly against the entire Enlightenment project. That cannot be substantiated no matter who says it, unless you believe we're about to throw out Darwin and Galton (no). A critique is not the same thing as a rejection of baby as well as the bathwater.

The other thing is that the article supposes that there is a special class (not really unless you mean a thousand interlocking Olympic rings) that would be supported from below by a mass of persons who vaguely agree with some of the things said.

This is understandable because the iconography of modern politics is like that. Get the people behind you and you can do great things!1! Then you get the 'shit, we can only do things on scale if our supporters comprehend problem' as I think you mentioned. It's a disease of democratic politics and you'll surely agree that Nrx is kind of against that.

Consider that in time of technological power there is no reason to depend on fluctuating popular support. It can just be outright dispensed with by ignoring it or not being, er, visibly extant. I won't delve too deeply here but I thought this should be obvious. That's the problem with the Cathedral's education, it impressed patterns on minds so resolutely that they crop up when they don't help you understand anything, it's pavlovian, like how the Americans continually conflate race and class despite the evidence. It's their goto.

So what's the objective of this on a moral level? Because in the end that is what this is about, what is the right thing to do? How should a man or woman live? How should a society live? And what's it for? These are all questions any human faction must answer.

On good days I see it as a method to break out of the local maxima we are so clearly trapped in (the Stagnation Hypothesis but also broader). On the bad a method to prevent humanity from capitulating to stupidity and defying Gnon.