More of the same.
I've noticed a lot of internal churn and drama in the "movement" recently. Some of it derives from the Miller fiasco, complete with comments thread flamewars, gossip, and name calling between "movement" personages: the same old tired scene, replayed for the amusement of the "watchdog groups," endlessly without hope of a glimmer of self-awareness by any involved.
However, some of the turmoil is of a more substantial nature - partnerships broken up over significant and fundamental issues: pan-Europeanism vs. pan-Germanism, White nationalism vs. Hitlerian fundamentalism and a strictly Germanic nationalism, and the endless "Who is White?" nitpicking debates and self-indulgent analyses on such issues.
The fundamental definition of any group revolves around the definition of who's in and who's out. This isn't a side-issue open to debate and endless discussion, this is fundamental, this is something that needs to be established at the beginning of any endeavor, of any partnership. If folks can't even agree on the absolute basics, then ending the partnership (which should never have been established in the first place), is the correct and proper thing to do.
There are some issues that can never be resolved in the sense that there is going to be a general consensus on it. The issues mentioned in the second paragraph of this post are such issues. While third party observers, without any strong opinions and ideals, may be influenced by debate, those people with strong ideological worldviews, the leaders, are not going to have their outlook altered. It's a waste of time. And the masses will simply follow whatever leadership that they choose, or under whose authority they find themselves.
Divisions on fundamental premises cannot be glossed over, the parties involved need to go their separate ways and develop their own endeavors based firmly on their guiding principles. Others can then choose which endeavor fits best for them, and each endeavor can either succeed or fail based upon its merits.
There's no point to belabor differences when these differences are obviously irreconcilable.
Another underlying theme is the differences between the Old Movement and an alleged New Movement. The latter does not exist. Gossipy comments thread flamewars, the politics of ad hominem, Hitler worship, the inability to separate away from "popular" bloggers/writers who slyly promote violence (all the time knowing that the "watchdogs" are watching) and engage in the "Who is White?" melodramas - that's all part of the Old Movement. Taking sour swill and relabeling it as fine wine doesn't alter the fact that it remains swill. A New Movement will need to be actualized as a real and revolutionary change from the past Old Movement, it will need to manifest itself as something completely different - it must have NO COMPROMISE with the antics of the Old Movement, it cannot value short-term pragmatic value ("but blogger X writes weekly essays that get so many hits!") over long-term rock-solid integrity and moral courage.
If there's a New Movement out there, it has apparently escaped my notice. And I want nothing at all to do with the Old Movement. It is a complete and utter waste of time and energy. Worse than a waste - a net negative.