Category: funding the movement

Inherent Racism of Multiculturalism

More Salter analysis.

I am going to quote, and comment on, several excerpts, not to critique the entirety of the whole piece, but rather to illuminate certain points important to this blog and to the interests of Whites in general. In all cases, emphasis added.

This article follows from my review for Quadrant of the SBS documentary Is Australia Racist? which was hosted by Ray Martin, funded by Screen Australia (and therefore the taxpayer) and aired on Sunday, 26 February 2017.1 The program was grossly inaccurate and biased against Anglo Australians. In other words, it was typical of the wide-borders multicultural propaganda awash in the mainstream media over the last half century. 

Here, I look behind the program’s glossy façade to examine another long term feature of multiculturalism: its academic enablers. I look more closely at the program’s four academic experts, their on-screen claims and previous writings. It is important to look behind the smooth opinions of laymen such Ray Martin if we are to discover whether the linked policies of massive immigration and minority privilege have any basis in reason and scholarship.

That’s what Salter’s essay is about.  Let’s look at certain important excerpts.

Prof. Dunn’s publication list is a window into academic multiculturalism. His research is funded by the academic and multicultural establishments. He researches racism and ethnic discrimination but, it seems, only when committed by mainstream Australians. He is not interested in Anglos being victimised, only in their transgressions against others, which includes denials of racism and privilege. These, together with immigrant victimhood, are treated as axiomatic. For example, he states that the “new racism” is a distinctly Anglo view of the nation as assimilationist, ethnocultural, or egalitarian. He argues that it is racist to assert the equality of all Australians, because this (supposedly) denies white privilege…Jakubowicz argues that multiculturalism is a fraud because it benefits the (allegedly) dominant Anglo population. British and Australian governments have claimed that their societies have been tolerant of diversity, reflecting genuine expressions of Anglo-liberalism. In fact these governments “disguise systematic structures of racialised inequality masked by surface egalitarian discourses.” 

This account resembles Dunn’s view that egalitarianism is a form of Anglo racism.

This is astonishing, and reflects the extreme radical drift of the Left on racial issues.  The old bywords of equality and egalitarianism, once a bulwark of the leftist worldview, are now considered forms of “Anglo” (i.e., White) racism!  Multiculturalism, which oppresses the White majority while empowering non-White minorities, is a “fraud” because it “benefits” the very group it viciously oppresses.  The very things leading to White demographic displacement – let us be frank, White Genocide – mass migration, assimilation, multiculturalism – are now considered by the Left to be manifestations of “White racism” and “White Privilege.”

The Left has drifted so far into the fever swamps of revolutionary madness that slow White genocide is not only insufficient but akin to White Supremacy – not only must the pace of displacement be increased, but Whites must be constantly humiliated, disempowered, subjugated, slandered, and tormented, all the while being gaslighted by being told they are privileged racists living in a White supremacist society.  In truly Orwellian fashion – nay, even to extremes Orwell could not imagine – a majority group being systematically dispossessed and destroyed is told that the System destroying them is a pro-majority fraud working for majority benefit and reflecting the majority’s selfish racism!  By analogy, Auschwitz was a bastion of Jewish Supremacy, and the Holomodor an example of Ukrainian Privilege.

By any objective, rational standards, the Left is stark, raving mad.  But, perhaps it is not madness bit just pure, crystalline, rock-hard hatred.  The fundamental basis of the modern Left is an unquenchable racial hatred of Whites, and the need to humiliate Whites while destroying them.  Destroying Whites alone is not enough; Whites must be made into a subaltern, despised caste, while all the time being told they are “privileged.”

To summarize: The Right can no longer assume that their opponents are merely sincere but deluded egalitarians who foolishly, but goodheartedly want equality for all peoples.  No, the opponents are revolutionary extremists so consumed by hate that the complete eradication of the hated White enemy is not good enough; Whites must be ritually humiliated as they are being eradicated.

Jakubowicz also shares Dunn’s assumption that Anglos dominate Australia’s racial hierarchy. “In most Western societies Christian values or Christian social institutions dominate public debate and public practice.

Case in point.  By some mysterious circumstance beyond our comprehension, the dominant group is being demographically and culturally displaced, while being castigated by the likes of Jakubowicz.  That’s some strange dominance, I’ll tell you that for nothing.

In Jakubowicz’s view Anglo Australians have no legitimate ethnic interests. Their only ethical option is complete acquiescence to minority demands, which do represent legitimate group interests. His call for Chinese-Australian inclusion makes no reference to numbers. Like other mainstream multiculturalists, he treats the displacement of Western populations as not worth mentioning. Note also his cavalier attitude towards Australian security despite acknowledging the growth of Han nationalism and its linkage to Chinese economic and military power. These potential threats can only be exacerbated by the growing Chinese presence in Australian politics and business, which Jakubowicz sees as an encouraging trend.

Pure hatred of Whites as Whites.

It is relevant that Beijing is already utilising Chinese-Australian individuals and organisations as agents of influence in this country, a development that is alarming security analysts. Chinese voters have been swayed by ethnic interests for many years, an example being Prime Minister John Howard’s loss of the seat of Bennelong in 2007. Sam Dastyari, a Labor powerbroker, was forced to resign from parliament after he allowed improper influence by local Chinese businessmen; his foreign policy pronouncements were slavishly pro-Beijing. Chinese community leaders helped defeat the Abbott government’s attempt to reform the draconian section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. It is true that apart from the important matters of identity and security, Chinese have been in the main high quality immigrants with stable families, an admirable work ethic, low crime rates, and strong educational outcomes. 

That last part: Oh, no; just…NO.  Maybe Salter has a reason to be moderate here and praise Chinese qualities, akin to the slavish obsessions of HBDers.  But these positive qualities – even if we were to assume they are all true – are not the point.  Even the loyalty issue is not the point.  The point IS Salter’s own paradigm of ethnic genetic interests; Chinese are a biologically (and culturally) alien intrusive subspecies in the Australian human ecology and for that reason – and that reason alone should be sufficient regardless of other considerations – Chinese immigration must be prevented.

But the Chinese population has risen from close to zero to about five percent of the population since the 1970s, concentrated mainly in capital cities. This success largely invalidates attempts to portray them as victims. Instead the issue of greatest import to Australia concerns their loyalty. If Markus and other academics had asked the obvious questions the political class would be informed on Chinese ethnicity and business cohesion, matters of national security at a time when China has become the world’s second largest economy and is increasingly activated by nationalism. Decades ago they would have realised that many Chinese Australians feel, or will come to feel, allegiance to their ancient homeland. Some would have come to respect Australia’s founding leaders for sparing the country a large Chinese minority. They would have been right to ask what madness led governments to squander this social capital by introducing a potential fifth column into the country?

True, but how about squandering the genetic capital?  One can debate the presence, and place, of non-Anglo Whites in Australia; that’s one issue – but as regard non-Whites the situation should be unambiguous and not even a required topic for debate: they do not belong.

Some factor is missing from the picture. Why the bias against Anglos?

The most overtly Marxist of the four, Kevin Dunn and Andrew Jakubowicz, may have replaced the bogey of the capitalist exploiter with the bogey of an ethnic exploiter, Anglo Australia. 

And what did the old time Marxists want to do with the “capitalist exploiters?”” What did they do once coming to power?  That’s what the Racial Marxists of today are planning for Whites.

Professors Markus and Paradies have different theories but arrive at a similar conclusion, that white racism is the main risk to the joys of permanent open borders and multiculturalism…One thing we do know is that Dunn, Markus and Jakubowicz were willing to work with Martin and Paradies, self-declared ethnic loyalists, in making a documentary that dealt in part with the latter’s identity group. It is not obvious how individuals motivated by leftist ideals could cooperate to make a program that furthered an ethnic agenda. Jakubowicz has called for Chinese Australians to establish an ethnic lobby.

An ethnic lobby for “Chinese Australians” would no doubt be welcomed by the “HBD race realists.”

Andrew Markus is Professor of Jewish Civilisation at Monash University, a chair funded by the late Richard Pratt, a generous philanthropist for Jewish causes in Australia, Israel and elsewhere. As the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted on Pratt’s death, many of his philanthropic gifts went to Israel’s universities, the integration of new immigrants (all of whom are Jewish due to Israel’s strict immigration laws) and disadvantaged Israelis. That shows love for his people, a noble sentiment. But what is Markus, supposedly a radical cosmopolitan, doing accepting funds from an ethnic nationalist? Would not a cosmopolitan shy away from a vertically integrated ethnic enterprise in which a Jewish academic is paid by a Jewish donor to study Jewish affairs? Markus has spent his professional life criticising Australia and other Western countries for immigration policies that were mildly discriminatory compared to Israel’s. Yet it seems he has never criticised Richard Pratt or the Israeli leadership, all dedicated ethnic loyalists. Indeed, he has co-authored a paper praising Israel’s discriminatory immigration policy.2

Jewish dual morality; the enemy revealed.  But some on the “Far Right” tell us that Jews are “White Men of the West.”  Do you, dear reader, really believe that?

Multiculturalism was always a regime imposed on a reluctant majority by a triumphant left-minority alliance. 

How did that alliance become triumphant?  One cannot exempt Whites themselves from blame; indeed one must place significant blame on this race of cowardly lemmings.  The failure of the “movement and its inept “leadership” must also be held accountable.

…Anglos and whites in general are rapidly being reduced to minority status due to bipartisan immigration policies imposed by the major parties and the cultural establishment. If Anglos are dominant and racist, as Dunn insists, why have they been cowed and silenced by political correctness? There is no doubt that Anglo-Australians are the prime target of the human rights apparatus. As observed by Stephen Chavura, a political scientist at Macquarie University, “Multicultural discourse is about silencing any who would dare to criticise the way immigration and integration have been conducted since mass immigration shifted from Europe to Asia and the Middle East in the mid to late 1970s.”14 Anglo-Australians look very much like a subaltern ethnic group, leaderless and prevented from complaining even while losing their country.

And yet they are “dominant” and “privileged.”  


Conclusion and Policy Implications

One lesson of this review is that Australians should not be intimidated by academic titles and media fame. Individuals with high positions and the title of “professor” can peddle transparent falsehoods, as can the university courses they teach. Policy makers should be looking for ways to circumvent the leftist censorship in the social sciences and public broadcasting and re-establish a robust market of ideas.

But how?  We need concrete proposals.

The deep state has been dragging Australia down with suicidal ethnic policies for half a century…The vanguard of the new morality are the elites. Indeed, capture of the elites has been a triumph for the broad and disparate progressive tide. In Australia, like the US, elites in government, business, the public service, and civic organisations are embracing progressive ideas […] The sheer size of the professional class now dealing with the new morality is immense.27

And while this professional class was being assembled, the mainstream Right was babbling about “tax cuts” and “economic growth” while Der Movement was pontificating about Kali Yuga, subfractional admixture percentages, the racial provenance of Leonidas, the “men who can’t tell time,” cephalic indices, Pyramids of Atlantis and Ultima Thule, and “being snug in your hobbit hole.”  Plenty of blame to go around, no?

The leftist professional class described by Kelly consists of several mutually-supporting components. The main sources of personnel are university departments of humanities and social science. Left-dominated universities develop doctrine and train professionals to man the many positions in the media, bureaucracies, unions, political parties, and schools used to suppress Anglo resistance under the cover of human rights. The mainstream media play a vital role in instructing the public and intimidating majority activists. An important arm of the infrastructure is equal opportunity and affirmative action offices employed by universities, corporations and unions, who develop and manage multicultural programs at state and federal levels.

How to dismantle this?  How to build Rightist equivalents?  And, also, we need an analysis on how self-serving affirmative action “infrastructures” were built within the “movement.”

Again, it is not surprising that multicultural ideologues fear the rise of parties that could begin to build an ethnic infrastructure for the majority. The greatest danger to them is not temporary defunding of particular projects, but the creation of a professional class of national activists able to work in and with government agencies to neutralise and then replace the system of minority-left supremacy. 

A danger they seem they will not have to worry about for some time.

There have been many attempts to explain the nature and cause of the intolerant Left’s dominance of the universities…These accounts fail to explain why cosmopolitan, anti-Western ideology has prospered. A satisfactory explanation remains elusive. The academic literature on the subject agrees that the left’s takeover of elite culture began early in the twentieth century. Sociologist Eric Kaufmann has traced the starting point back that far in the United States. The process lasted for two or three generations, ending in the 1950s to 1960s when the takeover of elite universities was completed.31

And all doing this time the Right did nothing.  In my lifetime the two periods in which the Left has grown by leaps and bounds (after the 1964-1974 leftist political explosion) was during the Reagan and Trump Presidencies (the latter we see unfolding on a daily basis).  Does that tell you anything? The Right declares victory and then sits around and does nothing while allowing the Left to roll up one real victory after another.  The Right is not serious.  After all, look at the stupidities that Der Movement concerns itself with.

As already noted, there is some doubt that multiculturalism is unambiguously leftist. The SBS program’s attack on Anglo-Australians reveals that, despite its rhetoric, it can be seen as coming not only from the Left but also from individuals well to the right of One Nation. Multiculturalists mobilise ethnic constituents, their tribes, by warning them of threats from another tribe, Anglo Australia, which they vilify with accusations of racism.

But what to do about it?  We all know this is true.  What now?

It will be difficult to correct the social sciences and humanities while respecting the autonomy of scholars and the universities that employ them. Another hurdle is the fact that Australian academe is connected to international disciplines that are themselves politicised. If a way could be found, governments would be justified to defund intellectually corrupt courses and academics. The funding instrument might also be used to establish centres of excellence that champion science and disinterested scholarship over ideology. These centres would offer students real alternatives, and society real experts. Such reform will not be possible while governments of both sides of politics remain under the thumb of the powerful multicultural lobby. A parallel approach might work to reform public broadcasting.

But how exactly to get started?  We can never “get over the hump” from proposing these obviously beneficial ideas to even the slightest beginning of any real progress.  We require fresh ideas and careful planning, followed by competent implementation.

Screen Australia should be abolished or, preferably, reformed to defend traditional values. It should be feasible to reduce the high level of inaccuracy evident on ethnic and cultural themes in public broadcasting. Programs such as Ray Martin’s should not progress beyond the proposal stage. Their poor scholarship and ethnic bigotry should have ruled them out. The media and academic elites examined in this review give first loyalty to political values ahead of curiosity and intellectual openness. They and their enablers need to be exposed before Australia can begin to rebuild its national identity and social cohesion.

You can expose them, but to oppose them you will need your own competing infrastructure. I do not see anyone on the Right capable of building such.  Given the current inept “leadership” any budding infrastructure would be infiltrated by the first Swede or movie critic who walks in the door.

However, as philosopher Michael Walzer has noted, it is not feasible or desirable to abolish ethnocentrism in an open society. Instead, the multiple ethnic loyalties found in Australian society must be balanced. Decades of impotent criticism of the ABC show that balance can only be achieved among channels, not within individual channels. And that can only be achieved by establishing a counterweight, a network that take the side of Anglo Australia.

Another good analysis by Salter.  Imagine if all the money that has been wasted on the Happy Penguins had gone instead to fund Salter, so as to allow him to commit full time to ethnological/nationalist analysis and also to advising political activists worldwide.  If you want to contribute to Salter’s work, do so as described here.  Give generously.


One Reason Why the Alt Right Can’t Have Nice Things

Nice things like an infrastructure, proper financial support, dedicated legal help, competent full time staffers, etc.

Remember this?

In case you are wondering where some of that money goes (apart from helping happy penguins enjoy that suburban blue state lifestyle), see this panhandling screed:

Derb is on my April Immigration Patriot Prophet List because, after some years during which he was one of the few voices of immigration intelligence left at NATIONAL REVIEW after Bill Buckley purged it of immigration patriots, he was fired in a panic. Threats had been lobbied from a Politically Correct lynch mob because Derb had published a seminal article in another publication about the costs of diversity. With typical hypocrisy, NATIONAL REVIEW is now whining because another of its alumni, Kevin D. Williamson, has just been fired from THE ATLANTIC i.e. the Politically Correct lynch mob is now coming for cuckservatives too.
I take great pleasure from the fact that was able to offer John Derbyshire a home after his disgraceful treatment. But, of course, we can only do so because of your generous support.

Your generous support.  To support this.  Pay up, you latrine flies!

Affirmative action in a picture.

Question: Besides being ethnically English, what has Brimelow and Derbyshire actually contributed to justify VDARE getting the lion’s share of “movement” money?  Even if you want to argue they’ve done something positive – such as Brimelow’s book (a long time ago, by the way) – how do those relatively meager contributions justify them taking in such a large proportion of the monies flowing into Der Movement, Inc?  Given the fiscal flows, you’d think that Prime Happy Penguin was a racial nationalist dynamo leading the White race to ever greater glory.

Against the Twitter Purge

A brief statement of principle.

I’m going to postpone the post I had planned for today; instead, I want to make a statement about the ongoing Alt Right deplatforming, now manifested in a Twitter Purge of some on the Far-Right, including Taylor and Amren (as well as others, and one can expect the list to expand in coming days).

Readers of this blog know I have my differences with American Renaissance, and with some of the other “movement” precincts that have been, or will be, banned from social media.  That’s not relevant here.  Regardless of what I think of these individuals, organizations, and their work, I fully, and without reservation, support their rights of free speech, of free expression, and I unalterably oppose what has happened, what is happening.

Nitwits will of course start the song and dance that “Twitter is a private company, so they can do as they please here.”  Two points.  First, Twitter, Amazon, Google, PayPal and all the rest have become, basically, akin to public utilities and should be regulated as such. While I’m sure the SJWs think that Alt Righters should be deprived of electricity, heat, water, telephone service, medical care, etc. most reasonable people would disagree.  In the digital age of global communication and commerce, the aforementioned digital entities are analogous to analog service utilities and thus the issue should not merely be one of private preference.  Second, the hypocrisy here is breathless, in that bakers – private businesses! – are being forced to service homosexual marriages, and the same progressive have no problem with freedom of association being violated in that case (or in the case of race, for example – why can’t realtors or property owners discriminate based on race with respect who they sell to or rent to?).

I may also add that Twitter’s rationale that Amren promotes “violence” against “citizens” is ludicrous.  Taylor denounced Spencer merely for Hailgate – how do a bunch of suit-and-tie HBDers threaten “violence” to anyone?  All these Alt Right types are actually the victims of leftist violence, not the perpetrators of any sort of attacks.

The whole thing is a travesty.

But, this looks like the future.  Despite my disagreements with Der Movement, I oppose it being censored.  After all, from the broad perspective, I’m involved as well.  At times like this, all the “heroes” of the “movement” need to put aside their petty feuds and figure out approaches to bypass dependence upon a System that is opposed to all of us on the Far-Right.

The money and resources are available for this, as I’ve written many times, and apparently, KMacD agrees (emphasis added):

We have to hope that racially conscious Whites will eventually create an infrastructure that begins to match the multicultural, anti-White infrastructure that is already in place. The money is certainly there and the situation on the ground can only convince more and more Whites that Rep. Mo Brooks is right — that there is indeed a war against them.

More money for real projects and less money for “frilly things” for mudsharks and less money for happy penguins to live the good life, and maybe we’ll be getting somewhere.

Why Don’t Wealthy Whites Support Racial Nationalism?

The tin cups are empty.

Let us assume for the moment that the “movement’ deserves to be funded.  Or, more generally, let’s consider the funding of racial nationalism as a conceptual entity, independent of Der Movement, Inc.  We can ask a question.  Why aren’t there extremely wealthy Whites willing to bankroll White racial nationalism?

The question is valid because we can assume that no such bankrolling exists, not at the level that the question implies.  Indeed, if such existed today, various “movement” precincts wouldn’t have to be spending so much time with their tin cup panhandling, they wouldn’t be so concerned with deplatforming, etc.  So, assuming that they aren’t running a cunning con job or are being very adept at hiding secret funding (and it’s unlikely the types who can’t prevent their meetings from being continuously infiltrated by pitifully transparent “anti” activists would have such cunning and discipline), we can assume that no such funding exists.  Very well.  Why?

What is it about wealthy Whites that make them unconcerned about their people’s interests, or unwilling to give even if they were so concerned?

The latter part of the question can be tackled first.  One could speculate that the pro-White wealthy are being misled into contributing to more mainstream conservatism or to civic nationalism.  But that’s not what I’m talking about here – to use an Alt Right phrase that I usually try to avoid, let’s assume the wealthy White in question is “red-pilled.”  They know the score – that White nationalism is the way to go. So, what is it?  Simple fear of being discovered?  One would think that the wealthy would have their ways of discretely funneling money; on the other hand, if racial nationalists were suddenly flush with cash, the System would leave no stone unturned to find out where the funds came from.  So, fear of being labeled a “wealthy Nazi” or a “rich racist” or a “millionaire/billionaire fascist” would inhibit giving.  But still that really can’t explain the total lack of such people.  One would expect at least a few wealthy individuals very committed to the cause, and perhaps old enough and/or ornery enough that they wouldn’t care what people think, that these people would shell out the shekels.

Is it because they don’t see anything worth contributing to?  If so, I really wouldn’t blame them, but I doubt that is it either.  Even if major American WN “leaders” are thought insufficient, there’s a lot of ideological (and other) diversity among racial nationalists, even with all of the smaller groupuscules like EGI Notes.  Then there are in Europe some genuine nationalist activity that could be seen as worth support by their well-off countrymen. There are things to support if one was willing to do so.

So, let’s shift the focus.  Instead of asking why the pro-White wealthy don’t give, we can ask – why there aren’t pro-White very wealthy individuals to begin with?

Is there a psychometric explanation?  That the type of people well suited to generate/accumulate great wealth are the type to be unconcerned with racial interests?  Are these hyper-individualists?  Individualists with universal altruistic tendencies (hello, Bill Gates).  The purely selfish?  Dark triad psychopaths?  Remember Bardeche saying all the fascists he knew were poor; is there a connection?  Are Moralpaths bad at making money?  Are racial nationalists – even those with a scientific bent – insufficiently materialistic to gravitate to money-making schemes?  Are the wealthy wrapped up in their own little bubbles?  Are they so insulated from the racial problems that most Whites face that they are unaware of those problems, or wouldn’t care if they were so involved?  A la the theories of Sailer, do they see themselves as elite “Good Whites” at war with the crude, low brow “Bad White” “bigots and racists?”  Do they see the world as White-White competition?  Is it that all the Whites they deal with in their bubble are wealthy and powerful, so they are so stupidly shallow that they don’t even recognize that a racial crisis even exists?  Do they just want to “enjoy life and “sit poolside” and so do not care if “after me, the deluge?”  Is their conception of self–interest only financial, so that racial and cultural interests mean nothing?  Do they only care about protecting their wealth and status, and eschew the chaos that racial nationalism would bring (racists are not good for stock prices, I suppose)?  Do they have non-Whites as business partners – the opposite problem of them only knowing wealthy Whites – they see, on a regular basis, intelligent and successful non-Whites and see nothing wrong with that.  It’s not that the wealthy are all drawn to libertarianism; there are leftist wealthy Whites – indeed, wealthy Whites come in all political flavors except the Far Right (I think it more likely, ironically enough, to find Far Left wealthy Whites than Far Right).  Is there such a dichotomy between Economic Man and Raciocultural Man that the former and latter never meet?  But what about people who become wealthy through invention or writing, etc?  These may be more scientific or artistic types, not necessarily hedge fund manager types, and yet even the inventors and artists are unconcerned with race.  Why is it that racial nationalism can’t “hit the lottery” in the form of having someone (even a lottery winner!) who is both wealthy and deeply concerned about White interests?

Should we try and proselytize to the White wealthy?  Should we try and get racial nationalists to generate wealth?  Both?  Some alternative approach?

A Long Term Solution For the Meeting Problem

Do it yourself.

I was reading about this.

And the same has happened, or will happen, to others on the Far Right.  What to do?  Short-term options include small scale informal meetings that piggyback on the meetings of others (e.g., using a mainstream conservative conference or even some non-political event to have activists meet up; this assumes that if “movement” leaders use their real names in registering there will no problem, and also assumes that something productive can be achieved via this awkward arrangement), suing the Feds to force them to fulfill their hosting obligations, or somehow finding a private venue that won’t reject Far Rightists.  It’s also interesting how private businesses can be forced to bake cakes for gay couples, but businesses and even the Federal government (with its obligations in this arena) have the right to stifle free assembly by denying use of facilities for political reasons.

The only long-term solution I can see is for the Far Right to purchase (or build) their own meeting hall facility (or facilities).

The characteristics required:

1. Large enough and well equipped enough to handle Amren-sized meetings or even larger.

2. Should NOT be out in the middle of nowhere.  It should be within relatively easy access of a major airport and nearby various hotel facilities.


3. Obviously it would need 24/7 security, trained personnel, cameras and other electronic security, and, of course, there needs to be solid property insurance.  The security aspect is going to be perhaps the major practical hurdle, but what other options are there?  You either hold no meetings, hold meetings hosted by others and these others have the obligation for security (I doubt hotels or government facilities would accept Far Rightists providing the security in the hotel property or Federal facility), or do it yourself on your own property.  If you want meetings, then it comes down to outsourcing or insourcing.  If no one wants to accept your patronage, then the choices conflate down to one: do it yourself.

4. The property would need to be protected legally as well as physically, to protect against lawsuits designed to strip the property from you as “payment for damages.”  The Far Right needs a cadre of legal help, including people versed in property law and the protection of assets from liability.

5. The facilities should be made available to anyone in “this thing of ours” who wants to use it, regardless of “movement” feuding (e.g., if Spencer’s people own the property, they should let, e.g., Johnson rent it out if desired), for a reasonable fee.  This could be both national as well as international users.  Fees charged could help defray the cost of the facilities. The facilities could also serve other purposes, such as being a headquarters, storage facility, and temporary living space for activists in need, etc.

And, no, I do NOT want to hear “there’s no money for this.”  There is.  Stop wasting money on happy penguins living the good life in blue state suburbs, stop funding “Radio Derb,” stop funding the rest of the Alt Wrong and their pro-Jewish and pro-Asian HBD, and stop funding other tin cup panhandling nonsense.

Even if it requires different factions of the Far Right to overcome their differences and pool resources, it would be worth it.  Eventually, more than one facility could be actualized (maybe one East Coast and one West Coast, for example), but there needs to be at least one.

If this is considered another “crazy” and “low information moralizing” Sallis idea, then please come up with something better.  At least I’m making suggestions that have a degree of plausibility (assuming even the smallest amount of “movement” competence, selflessness, and discipline).

If any “movement” leaders read this blog, they should consider the suggestion.  I assume they’ve already thought about it, perhaps dismissing it because of the financial and security issues.  My answer is that the money is there if properly directed and utilized, a properly run facility can bring in a cash flow, and security is a necessary part of holding meetings: either you do it or trust others to do it for you.  What’s your alternatives?

The Alt Righters believe they can still use public buildings in DC.  I hope that is the case, but I wouldn’t put all my eggs in that basket.   Then I heard that Spencer wants to own his own meeting place.  Having written this essay several days ago, after I first read about the meeting problem, I was gratified to hear that he’s thinking along similar lines. It’s basic common sense, after all.  And as I’ve suggested the money is there, it just needs to be redirected away from parasites and grifters and into productive pursuits and projects. Lack of financing?  Face facts: you are in competition with the parasites and grifters.  There’s limited niche space and if you can’t face those facts, you’ll be outcompeted financially.

And, no, this post is not incompatible with my previous (and continued) calls to “defund the movement.”  I’ve made clear that while Der Movement, Inc., and all its associated stupidities, should be defunded (to clear the way for a New Movement), and, certainly, particularly stupid and useless precincts of the “movement” should be defunded, I’ve also supported targeted funding of important projects that would benefit racial nationalism as a whole, such as a “legal defense fund” to help build a cadre of pro-White lawyers.  Here, in this post, I suggest a solution to the “meeting problem,” a solution that can be of broad benefit for activists worldwide (as one criterion is that the meeting hall needs to be broadly accessible to activists who wish to use it).  This solution – or some other alternative that is equally capable of solving the problem – is worthy of financial support.  Activists should use the “power of the purse” to steer the “movement” in the proper direction: defund incompetence; fund competence.

Funding the Movement: Three Practical Problems

Three of the biggest problems.
In the latest Counter-Currents debate between Johnson and Parrott, re: conferences, Johnson made the reasonable point that money wasted on conferences could be used directly by activists (such as himself) to hire staff and get things done. I would like to comment on the issue of funding the “movement” via supporter contributions. This should not be construed as any sort of attack or criticism of Greg Johnson himself who, insofar as I know, has put contributions to good use. Nor do I expect any sort of “movement reform” – I stand by my call that the (American) racial nationalist “movement” – The Old Movement – needs to be completely destroyed and replaced by something new.  With all of that, I would still like to present what I see as three major problems that many potential contributors would have with funding the current “movement.”  I will assume that the supporter has the fiscal means to make a contribution (not true in many cases) and that there are no major areas of ideological disagreement (but see Point 3).
Point 1: The support will be wasted.  The “movement” has a terrible track record of “accomplishment” using the resources it has already been given.  This does not instill confidence that future contributions will be put to effective use.  The best example of this is Pierce and his National Alliance. Over many years, a significant amount of money (and time and effort) went into supporting the Alliance and its “home office” in the mountains of West Virginia.  And what was the outcome of that investment? When Pierce was alive, nothing substantial was accomplished, certainly nothing commensurate with the level of support given. After he died, the entire enterprise disintegrated over the course of the following decade, with much lost, until the organization was hollowed out and is now the subject of an attempt at “rebuilding.”  Regardless of what happens with this “rebirth,” it is clear that the Alliance was a black hole that absorbed a significant portion of the “movement’s” limited support, and, for the most part, wasted what it was given.  Other examples abound that need not be discussed now.  Indeed, we can turn it around: instead of cataloging “movement” failures, we can ask for a list of definitive success stories – examples of where contributor input was put to good use and accomplished something lasting of value. The list for America: NOTHING.
Point 2: Lack of security that will compromise any potential success.  Related to point 1, the “movement” has a terrible record of internal security. They pose as “dissidents in a totalitarian state” but behave as if this was all a video game. Infiltration by government agents and/or by NGO “anti-racist” groups is routine and relatively unopposed.  The slightest degree of common sense of groups with their lists of “members” and “contributors” does not exist. The “movement” is unable and unwilling to even resist “cognitive infiltration” by obvious trolls and infiltrators in online forums, so there is little confidence of any foresight, discipline, or self-awareness anywhere else. “Loose-lips” on online forums and at (infiltrated) meetings abound. I will not go into specific details about things I have seen, since that would obviously be an example of the “loose-lips” principle I am criticizing. However, I suspect that anyone with experience in the “movement” knows that Point 2 is a big problem.
Now, I don’t expect activists to openly discuss the details of their security measures, which would defeat its own purpose, and would of course itself be prima facie evidence of poor security. But we should be able to see outcome-based evidence of security considerations. We should be able to see the overt practices and outcomes (lack of breaches) that would begin to instill a bit of confidence. We could see a hard line against “Sunsteinism.”  We can see if prudent advice is dispensed.  We can see an absence of the “loose-lips” phenomenon.  We can see an absence of defective characters and suspicious activities.  That would be helpful.
Point 3: EGI blindsiding.  Some activists – with good reason (experience) – are justifiably suspicious as to whether they will get “blindsided” by animus toward their ethnies from individuals/groups that they have heretofore supported.  Consider activists of certain European ethnic origins who supported Pierce and the Alliance, later to see their suspicions confirmed by publication of Pierce’s screed, Who We Are.  It seems obvious that Pierce must have had an ethnoracial animus toward some of his own supporters.  Or, for example, we have certain Amren supporters getting a slap in the face from the “Hippocrates” incident.  There have been plenty of cases of individuals/groups/journals/sites that have made the pretense of being “pan-European” or “pan-Aryan” or “White inclusive” to maximize support, and then the mask falls off and one sees that there was always a more exclusivist (and dishonestly hidden) subracial agenda all along.  I really don’t see any American grouping that I would consider pan-European by my standards. 
Now, it is one thing to ask people to be relatively ethnically (and personally) disinterested for the common (racial) good.  It’s something else entirely to ask them to fund and support attacks against their own narrower genetic interests.  It’s hypocritical as well, since the “movement” would, I am sure, vigorously oppose the idea that Whites should be racially disinterested and support anti-White activities for the “greater common good of humanity.” Any honest racial nationalist movement (no scare quotes) would support the genetic interests of its members through the entire spectrum: personal, familial, ethnic, subracial, racial.  You cannot ask people to completely sacrifice one level for another while at the same time criticize the System for asking Whites to sacrifice their racial interests for humanity.
Any precinct of the “movement” asking for support had better be honest, transparent, and consistent about who it is they represent.  I haven’t seen that in America.