The Counter-Currents site is rejecting my comments for being "too fast" (Greg, there's a coding problem there again), thus I post here:
First, I want to re-emphasize that I am critiquing approaches, not people. None of this is a personal critique of any activist, living or dead. By analogy with football: your team quarterback can be a good man, a solid family man, honorable, trustworthy, and hardworking - but if he can't get the job done, if he makes the team lose game after game, he must be replaced. You can thank him for his service, and appreciate his effort, but if you want to win, he must be replaced.
Second, I approve of different approaches in theory, but two points:a) that football analogy again - you have to do what works. Having different approaches is fine, but after a while (25-30 years can do nicely), you need to ask: what is working or not working, and why?b) in Europe particularly, the mainstreamers attack those more radical, to the joy of their cheering squad elsewhere. It's time to admit that mainstreaming has failed as much as vanguardism. There is no empirical evidence that one works better than the other.
Now, the Trump case is interesting. If evidence is unearthed that mainstreaming activism has influenced Trump's move to the right, then that is to its credit.
On the other hand, in the recent media frenzy "linking" Trump to "haters" I note that no distinction is made between, on the one hand, Amren/CCC and on the other hand, Duke, Daily Stormer, Stormfront, etc. It seems like mainstreaming is lose-lose: on the one hand, the constant attempts to "move center" disgusts core activists and projects weakness to the public; on the other hand, the mainstreamers are not "getting credit" for their moderation but are still lumped with the extremists.