Considerations.
Sallis’ Law can broadly be described thus:
If any “movement” conversation goes on long enough, someone will mention “racial admixture” in Southern and/or Eastern Europe.
It can be more narrowly described:
Any “movement” discussion about Southern and/or Eastern European countries or peoples will eventually mention “racial admixture” in those counties and peoples.
Or, even more narrowly:
Any “movement” discussion about Italy will mention “racial admixture” among Italians, Southern Italians, Sicilians, etc.
Sallis’ Razor:
Do not multiply dissident politics freakishness beyond necessity.
Applied to the “movement,” consider that to “normies” White nationalism itself is considered “weird” and “freakish.” There is a large barrier to get “normies” to accept even the most basic fundamentals of White racialism. For that reason, there is no reason to increase that barrier by unnecessarily adding more controversial topics to the mix. Thus, one should not add such things as moon landing hoax, anti-vaxx, atom bomb hoax (a new one for me), the moon itself is not real (ditto), smoking does not cause cancer, flat Earth, or any other conspiracy theory or bizarre ideation.
One can very effectively promote White racialism without adding superfluous controversial material, such material is not necessary; even worse, such discussion will alienate many people, and delegitimize the main focus of White racialism by needlessly associating it with these other issues. Do we really need to have pro-White activism associated with, for example, flat Earth ideas? Isn’t it obvious that the cost/benefit ratio does not favor such as association? Why must defective individuals always indulge their peripheral crank ideas and insert them into racial activism? Why must rational people waste time trying to keep these ideas out of authentic dissident discourse? For example, I wouldn’t have to constantly beat the drum in favor of vaccination if the anti-vaxxers hadn’t unnecessarily inserted themselves into White racialist discussions.
I have often criticized conspiracy theorizing in this regard; for example, see this book review. Conspiracy theorizing has many problems, including but not limited to:
1. These theories do harm by delegitimizing important discussions and alienating rational people, particularly STEM people and other academic types, and doing so in a completely superfluous fashion.
2. Objectively, such theories are often completely absurd. Is it really necessary to point out why “the moon is a hologram” or “the Earth is flat” or “the atom bombing of Japan was really napalm and mustard gas” and similar crank ideas are ridiculous, against facts and common sense, and in constant violation of Occam’s Razor?
3. Arguing against such stupidity is a colossal waste of time and effort that could be used for more productive endeavors.
4. People who believe in these bizarre and stupid ideas get derailed into a cul-de-sac; although one can argue that anyone who would believe in such ideas are so defective that it is better that they are so derailed and get out of the way of the rest of us.
5. The propensity of right-wing dissident politics to engage with such conspiracy ideas is a highly negative characteristic, and can be leveraged by enemies of right-wing dissident politics to delegitimize dissidents (see point 1).
eginotes 