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.