A fair accusation, I suppose, it’s just entirely made up. This is an inference that is in critics’ heads and nowhere else. I explained why this impression is false recently, but I might as well spell it out more.

-We neoreactionaries understand that we are just a community of everyday people on the Internet. Few of us are leader material. We are intellectuals, more than anything else.
-If, in the off chance that a neoreactionary state is implemented somewhere in the world, say on a patch of land in Kansas, it mostly won’t effect you. So there is no need to feel personally threatened by neoreactionaries. This might make you feel it less necessary to make up the rationalization that neoreactionaries “want to rule” as a way of discrediting something you see as a threat.
-Similarly, if a neoreactionary state pops up in Kansas, it’s more likely to be ruled by people from Kansas than people from elsewhere. This is because the nobility and the commoners must have a common culture. People from, say, California or Texas would not make great rulers there since they don’t know the families and don’t know the culture. When it comes to nobility, the more rooted in the local culture they are, the better. The first neoreactionary states are likely to be in rural areas with low populations where we don’t come from.
-A new nobility would likely be extremely wealthy. Few of us are that wealthy. Therefore, we personally won’t be nobility, even in the off chance that a neoreactionary state is created in our lifetimes.
-The kind of people capable of ruling over or managing plots of land are not the same kind of people who are good at writing political theory on the Internet.
-The kind of men who are followed as patriarchs tend to be older, aged 60-80. Not aged 20-30, like the majority of neoreactionaries today. Even if there were a neoreactionary revolution tomorrow, we would be too young to rule.
-The above are just a few reasons. We won’t personally join any new ruling class. Let me repeat that: none of us think we will be personally joining any ruling class.

To understand neoreaction, imagine people who see hierarchy as providing stability and prosperity, even if they personally aren’t in the ruling class.

Mostly, neoreactionaries just want to be left alone.

For the purposes of rhetorical attack, I can see why someone might falsely accuse neoreactionaries of having fantasies of rule (just like they might accuse us of being ‘fascists’), but in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.