Category: funding the movement

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.

Advertisements

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.