Neoreactionaries create words and terminology in a profoundly idiomatic way, and there are numerous examples of apt new descriptive titles (hypercalvinism, neocameralism) that are either integral to building a coherent critique of the system or in constructing a proposal for an alternative model to found the Restoration upon, if and when it should come.
However, there is one stem that frustrates this writer in a way that none of the others do, in its obviousness of purpose, redundancy and inaccuracy. The ‘demot-’ group, particularly ‘demotic’. Its blatantly obvious intention is to find an angry, mean sounding alternative to ‘democratic’ with a series of hard consonants and vowels in it. It even sounds like demonic (gasp!). This would be entirely justified if there wasn’t already a wonderful word to describe the inevitable fate of democracy in Aristotle’s idea of anakyklosis. That word is, of course, ochlocracy or mob-rule. It is evocative, descriptive, and really quite brutal to say (affect a Scottish pronunciation for the ‘och’ if you like; it’s very satisfying). It is, simply, the perfect word to describe the present situation of vote buying, favours and socialist ‘progress’. You’ll also note that demotic was the common written language of the Egyptians, beneath both hieratic and hieroglyphic, and you wouldn’t like it if someone started referring to a future, perhaps technocratic system as ‘alphabetic’.
If you use ‘demotist’ to mean ‘rule justified by a mandate from the people’, then just use populist. It’s another, perfectly good dirty word.
So please, let’s stop using the ‘demot-‘ stem. It really is a poorer choice.