Sunday, September 24, 2017

It’s Time to Defund the “Movement”

Problems and a solution.

There are those who perhaps do not understand why a blog called EGI Notes comments on the state of the “movement.”  I would have thought it obvious, but there are of course cognitively deficient individuals in racial activism, as there are in the general society.  More to the point, likely many of these people merely pretend not to understand in order to oppose such criticism, and in some cases the opposition to my criticism has its basis in rent-seeking behavior.  After all, if one lives off of supporter donations, one wouldn’t want those supporters to get any idea that the money is being wasted, would they? Is that one reason Pierce had an online unit dedicated to discrediting Covington?  And is that why some today become so hysterical when I and others point out objective facts about “movement” ineptitude?

For those who, for reasons of deficiency or mendacity, do not see the point of linking genetic interests with criticism of the “movement,” the following may be helpful:

1. The only credible approach for pursuing ethnic genetic interests (with “ethnic” here meaning “ethny” in its broadest sense) is through racial nationalism (at the racial level) and ethnic nationalism (at the ethnic level).

2. For a long time, such nationalism has been encompassed within a sociopolitical artifact that I call “the movement” (or “Der Movement”).

3. Therefore, it is quite clear that the state of such a “movement” has a powerful, direct influence on our ability to pursue our genetic interests.

4. Hence, any blog dedicated to “EGI” will as a matter of course have analysis of this “movement” as a major area of concern.

QED.

Having put that aside, let’s consider some recent events. Emphasis added:

The Head of Research suggested infiltrating London Forum, a convention that attracts right-wing extremists of varying piousness, from the ethnosocialists in British National Party to downright Holocaust deniers. Hermansson quickly connected with the founder of the forum, Stead Steadman, who as many others in the subculture nurtures a fetish for Sweden.
”He learned Swedish and Icelandic by studying the Edda. He worships Thor and Odin.”

One could write volumes about that, but two quick points will suffice. First, when reality converges on caricature, you know you have a real problem. Second, any reader of my work over the years could have predicted this embarrassing nonsense with 100% accuracy.  
His guide, Stead Steadman, the man behind London Forum, opened his big, black phone book with numbers and e-mail addresses to all of the Nazi leaders in the West. Many happily participated in interviews for the “thesis.” 

No doubt they “happily participated.”  

Hermansson met dark horse Greg Johnson who founded a Nazi-convention in Seattle. ”He offered me to speak at the opening about my thesis topic: how the left has infiltrated the right. I spoke in front of 75 armed white supremacists.”

Now, the heavy breathing about “75 armed white supremacists” is just moronic leftist hysteria, which can be more accurately written: “75 white nationalists who were either unarmed or, if in any way lightly armed, was merely for protection against leftist attacks.” 

That one phrase aside, is any of the above in any way inaccurate? Essentially, reading between the lines of accounts written by “movement” figures themselves, it would seem the above storyline tracks well.  We have a young Swedish homosexual, posing as a “newcomer” to the “movement,” with a transparently flimsy cover story that no one involved in the vetting bothered to seriously and comprehensively check out, being given year-long access to private “movement” meetings, getting to interview prominent “movement” figures, while – as these figures tell us in their own explanations – sincere, legitimate activists were blocked out of various events because of the vetting.  Obviously then, it stands to reason that the infiltrator was given special treatment. Hermansson states that his preferential treatment was because of his Nordic Swedish ancestry and the “movement’s” obsession with that background, as well as Steadman’s own particular interest in, and practice of, “Germanic paganism.”  Indeed, it seems that Hermansson was chosen to play the infiltrator role precisely because the leftist extremists knew that he would be attractive (in one way or another) to “movement” activists. This much is clear, and “movement” figures really do not deny any of this, they just attack those who point it out.  

Now, no doubt, the “movement” spin doctors will tell us that the Hermansson incident may well not have much of a long-term impact.  It’ll be in the news for a while, fade away, everyone will forget about it, and then it’s back to business as usual.  

Maybe so. But that’s not the point of course.  It’s not the incident itself that is the major problem, but what it tells us about the incredibly bad judgment and raw incompetence of “movement leadership” and how it tragicomically lifts the lid on underlying “movement” obsessions and fetishes. You see, it is precisely “business as usual” that is the problem here, and in the long run, the best thing for a real movement is if this incident does not go away, and we do not have business as usual (sadly, given people’s short attention spans, likely it will all be forgotten in a week or two).

Business as usual will one day lead to a situation in which there is an extremely serious “movement” private meeting, where crucially important high strategy is being discussed, and fundamentally important planning is being conducted, and sitting at that meeting, secretly recording everything, will be some anti-racist infiltrator, let in and given the keys to the kingdom because of some stupid reason (e.g., “he’s Swedish”)..

And now we move on to recent events involving AltRight.com.

Surprise!  EGI Notes right once again: Spencer on Jorjani.  The two in happier days.

OK, all true I guess, but a little late, no?  I can’t help think back when I was criticizing the involvement of Jorjani in the Alt Right, and when the “white trash” (Jorjani’s words) of the AltRight.com commentariat were rightfully skeptical, the Alt Right crew were all on board the Jorjani train. To be fair to AltRight.com, they weren’t the only Alt Righters taken in by Jorjani. Those other individuals know who they are – as do I.  It was obvious from the beginning that Jorjani was everything the Alt Right is realizing now.  Even Silver had the good sense to question the Alt Right's judgment on this, many months ago. So, from my third party observation deck, I shake my head sadly, and have my understanding of the poor judgment of “movement leadership” confirmed once again.

What’s the solution?

Out in the real world, when people fail miserably, when they make horrendous mistakes, when they make their businesses or institutions “crash and burn,” they typically resign or are fired. “Movement” leaders, being without shame, will not resign, so they must be fired. How are they to be fired? Look at it from the economic angle, supply and demand, costs and benefits, payment and service.  Are supporters getting their money’s worth from their donations?  If not, then why give?  Defund the “movement” as it currently exists, and stop supporting failed leadership.

Cut them off financially.  Don’t give them a penny. No donations.  No book purchases. No nothing.  Do not support them as professional activists any longer.  After all, most of these individuals complain all the time about the sacrifices they make, so we can assume they would certainly prefer the experience of actually having to earn a living through regular work. These individuals could, if they so wished, still be part-time unpaid activists, but they would no longer be financially supported allowing them to fulfill the leadership roles they have so clearly failed in.

Long time readers of this blog may point out that I have previously written about the need to support full time activists and that a step toward victory would be when such activists could live a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle. I stand by that and there is no inconsistency, because it is expected that in exchange for that support, the leadership will be effective and accountable, and neither of those two characteristics define current leadership. Letting Hermansson joyride through the “movement” for a year, or enabling Jorjani’s rambling, are certainly not examples of effectiveness, and no one is being held accountable for any of it.  And those are just two examples from an endless litany of “movement” woe. Further, much of the largesse being bestowed on the “movement” isn’t even going to racial nationalists.  For example:

The Connecticut-based VDare Foundation is led by Peter Brimelow, founder and editor of an anti-immigration website. Brimelow, who spoke at the National Policy Institute’s conference last month, founded his nonprofit in 1999 and raised nearly $4.8 million between 2007 and 2015.
Brimelow has denied that his website is white nationalist but acknowledged it publishes works by writers who fit that description “in the sense that they aim to defend the interests of American whites.”
Brimelow received $378,418 in compensation from his nonprofit in 2007, accounting for nearly three-quarters of its total expenses that year. Brimelow says his salary that year was $170,000 and the rest reimbursed him for travel, office supplies and other expenses.
From 2010 through 2015, VDare Foundation didn’t report any compensation directly paid to Brimelow. But, starting in 2010, the nonprofit began making annual payments of up to $368,500 to Brimelow’s Happy Penguins LLC for “leased employees.” Brimelow disclosed his ownership of that company on tax returns.

All that money for VDARE, it’s milquetoast articles, Sailer writing about real estate and golf courses, “cheesecake” photos of women accompanying stories, and last but not least Derbyshire. Brimelow: a $170,000 salary (year 2007) for being the editor of that website; that is is pretty good “work” if you can find it.  And can we be told who are the "leased employees" who are being paid out of the “up to $368,500” (2010-present)? That is actually indicative of another issue: financial accountability.  Why don’t all these activists living off donations tell supporters how the money is spent?  How much goes for salary? How much for operating expenses, and what are those expenses?  If we are talking about hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars shouldn’t those who donate know how it is being spent?

Not to put too fine of  a point on it, but some "activists" seem to live a lot better than most of the supporters they implore donations from: trendy blue state lifestyles, frequent international travel, vacations, pets (how much donation money goes for dog food, for example?), etc.

That’s step one, at least: get financial accountability.  Step two is actual accountability of performance, and since “movement leadership” has so clearly failed in that respect, they should be feel it in the pocketbook.

What about those activists who come from wealthy families, and who do not require handouts?  Won't my suggestions give them an unfair advantage in the “Darwinian competition” between activists?  Perhaps, but life isn’t fair, and we must do the best we can. If such individuals exist, and if they fail as leaders, they can be dealt with by withdrawing other forms of input and support.  A stereotype (and don’t we believe that all stereotypes have a basis in truth?) of inherited wealth is that such individuals have a sense of entitlement, a habit of immediate gratification, a low threshold for frustration, and a lack of long term resiliency.  If they observe that their followers are getting frustrated with leadership failure, if they see they are being constantly criticized or increasingly ignored, then they may take their private money and find a new toy to play with; they may give up on activism even if they would still have the financial means to continue.  So, in all cases, shutting off the money spigot isn’t enough; if you have had enough with failure, then take your business – ideological and social as well as financial – elsewhere.

Assuming we stop wasting donations, what should be done with the money instead?  A good short term solution is to fund specific projects instead of just showering individuals with money; at least one website to do so has been established, and that is a good start, assuming that the projects have clearly defined goals and the recipients of the donations are held accountable (that word again) to the donors for successfully completing the project. That would be equivalent to a grant award.  More long term solutions would include establishing competent think tanks and other organizations, professionally run, with – you guessed it – performance and financial accountability, and these groups, openly racial nationalist, can support competent full time racial activists at the lifestyle level alluded to above.  

But the way things are going now, any of my readers who are donating to the “movement” are essentially performing the equivalent of flushing money down the toilet. You are feeding a metastatic cancer. We need chemotherapy here.  Analogous to an “angiogenesis inhibitor” cutting off a tumor’s blood supply, we need to cut off the money supply to the various “movement” cancer cells proliferating around us.

I’m not optimistic that I will be able to get most activists from pouring good money after bad. But I can certainly try.  Any progress, even incremental, in preventing the enabling of chronic failure, would be helpful  Even though many precincts of the “movement” are well-funded, a big enough financial hit may well slow them down enough to open the field for other people, better people, to establish themselves.  And once a New Movement gets established, then you will have a real choice as to who you can support.

The power – including the power of the pocketbook – is in your hands (and wallets).  And if you need a reminder as to why this is important, let's consider some of the things that have occurred in 2017 alone (forgetting for a moment the last 50-60 years of utter "movement" failure):

1. The Spencer-Friberg-Johnson feud
2. The Charlottesville fiasco and subsequent "deplatforming"
3. The humiliation of the Alt Right by Trump's constant betrayals
4. The Alt Lite turning against the Alt Right after the latter tried to bring the former into a "big tent" against all reason and common sense
5. A prominent "movement" activist promoting the idea that Europeans should "ethnically cleanse" each other after national disagreements
6. The Jorjani fiasco on the Alt Right
7. Last but not least the Hermansson infiltration came to our (and world) attention

Is that worth your continued support?