An Alt Right blog, integrally involved in the “Steadgate” infiltrations scandal complains:
Since then, we have gotten back a little more than half of the monthly amount we were receiving, but only about a third of our monthly donors.
That is in reference to the post-Charlottesville deplatforming, and the diagnosis is that it is the cumulative decision of “small donors” not to bother signing up for new platforms on the premise that their small donations won’t make a difference (a difference for what exactly is another story).
Perhaps that is the case for some, maybe most, could be all, of such donors. A small possibility – and one for which we can hold out hope – is that some of these people got disgusted over the latest “movement” fiasco. Maybe they don’t want to fund scum like Hermansson joyriding through the “movement” with nary an obstacle in their path?
Or, perhaps, what we are seeing here is not only a loss of previous donors, but also a decrease in the number of new donors – and the loss of new donors would not be due to the self-interested diagnosis above, but due to cost/benefit calculations over the wisdom of spending money on lost causes. After all, potential new donors are entering a situation in which the donation platforms are what they are today, with no comparison with the past; the new donors have to initiate a new funding stream today, not continue something from he past with the added inconvenience of a new platform. No doubt there are some new donors; the question is whether there would have been more had Steadgate never happened.
One wishes though that this fiscal prudency would be targeted in other directions as well, particularly the “happy penguins” of VDARE who, bizarrely, take in the lion’s share of donations, which goes to…well, have we ever had any sort of serious accounting from any of these people? Records reproduced in the mainstream media show that in previous years, a large fraction of those donations went for salary – the penguins must have been very happy indeed.