Comments on: Yuray Reviews Anissimov’s Guide for Neoreactionaries

By: Johann Theron

Johann Theron — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:51:02 +0000

Thank you for sea stead reference. It would be important to interface with them because there are a few narrative inaccuracies visible, but a lot of common ground.

By: IA

IA — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:54:51 +0000

Have you heard if Seasteading?

http://discuss.seasteading.org

By: Johann Theron

Johann Theron — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:04:59 +0000

One unexplored territory that boldly deserves the title of NRx experimentation is the Safety State. Regardless of what or how this organization works – the primary aim is safety. Since the formula for P(Safety) = P(Health) x P(Security) x P(Systems) as derived via the System Safety Society, an organization with this purpose is very clear on how it manages its risks. Economically United Nations data shows that longevity has a 61% correlation with GDP/capita. International Corporates as well as the Scandinavian ROWER group have shown that a safety approach benefits the bottom line as well. That safety benefits organizations due to a lower risk profile is obvious, but that safety facilitates better productivity performance is less known because safety and productivity are measured by different service providers (departments). Therefore it is possible to derive that safety is a force-multiplier. This approach allows in terms of executive management and oversight a combined land and sea oversight (Admiralty Law) where one would elect or appoint a “Captain” to determine vision and performance, but limit that same “Captain” to safety limits – similar to passenger airline (If the plane goes down, so will he). This opens the door to the argument that only shareholders can be executives – not receiving any salary. This type of “direct” management can be transferred to a direct democracy and capitalist approach. This would make a foreign-control Reserve Bank illegal for example. Because citizens are more involved, sharing of common values becomes an imperative, which is a desperate immigration requirement.

By: IA

IA — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:11:39 +0000

I almost feel that this line of thought superfluous and beside the point. The real question which needs to be addressed is, does European culture, or even white men, have the “right” to exist at all. According to prevailing views the answer is negative, which the author alluded to in the bit about the “white bigots who ought to be summarily dismissed.”

Naturally, the people who are involved in this website think we have this “right.” But, our enemies and status-marking Eloi sellouts harbor no such illusions. As we see almost daily, socalled “rights,” like freedom of association, can vanish as fast as it takes to upload a video.

To me, the pace of anti-white male scapegoating is picking up. Dhimmitude is a very real possibility. We’re unofficially there already. I hope I’m wrong but there’s ugly stuff going on which is far removed from discussion of the merely political.

Can white men become feminized to such an extent that they no longer know who they are? Any thought or cultural artifact made by white men both past and present that is “diversity” non-conforming is made taboo. To do this does not require reasoned arguments. Just the opposite.