I was just pointing out that the links you provided weren't supporting your extraordinary claim that he actively decries the practice of people joining his movement.

What you've written here is not what I claimed three comments ago.

In [Anissimov's] view, NRx is weakened as its popular support increases.

I normally wouldn't care if random person X on the internet thinks I'm wrong about Anissimov, but I'm really tired of people gaslighting me on this. So here is your "extraordinary" evidence that Anissimov believes his movement is weakened by popular support.

To recap, I relayed two separate essays of his in which he holds this value. Emphasis added everywhere by me.

1) "Boundaries":

As neoreaction grows, it is causing people to change the way they think about progressivism, democracy, and modern governance. To maintain this property, it needs to contain a certain concentration of people who understand its principles and can communicate them.

Because neoreaction is quickly growing, it is at risk of becoming diluted by hostile groups. Today, the most prominent adjacent hostile group are libertarians. This puts us in a difficult position because we also gain many new recruits from libertarianism.

[snip...]

The key is to strike a balance; allow room for disagreement, while clarifying that certain minimum standards must be met for someone to qualify as a “neoreactionary”. If any libertarian can call themselves a “neoreactionary” and get away with it, the integrity of the group will be fatally compromised through dilution.

We can quibble about what these "minimum standards" are, but evidentally an upper bound on the amount of disagreement possible is given by the whole Justine Tunney incident.

2) "The Kind of People Who Should Be Nowhere Near Neoreaction"

There is definitely a place for being welcoming to curious learners, people who have not accepted right-wing principles yet, etc. I am not objecting to that. But there is a threshold of insanity that should simply be rejected outright. We have a clear example of that here.

Remember my claim earlier was:

In his view, NRx is weakened as its popular support increases.

You've claimed that he's only concerned about NRx's public reputation. To the contrary, he says quite clearly:

The credibility and viability of neoreaction—no matter what its role ultimately may be—is at stake.

3) "Social Conservatism and Drawing a Line in the Sand"

Here we have a more specific version of "NRx'ers must believe at least this much, or else they cannot be called NRx'ers":

There is a certain basic amount of social conservatism which must be met among all those who label themselves “neoreactionary”.

[snip...]

Why would I not feel comfortable saying that the average Democrat is surely too liberal to be called a “neoreactionary”? Shouldn’t that be obvious?

[snip...]

The point is that not everyone is a member of the group. Some people are members and others are not. This seems like it should be obvious, but I actually have to state it here, because of the hyper-inclusive social bias of geeks. [Emphasis is original.]

I feel this should satisfy any reasonable evidential standards to conclude the claim I actually made. Feel free to disagree with me substantially after actually reading Anissimov for yourself.