I have written about before about pathetic apostates from White nationalism, many of whom now shill for “watchdog groups,” and/or who now run their own “anti-hate” groups, and who like to promote the meme that WNs are “troubled people” with “deep personal problems” who “join the movement because they are searching for a sense of belonging” – you know the whole song and dance by now. Of course, this description never is applied to non-White racial activists, but no matter. These shilling apostates are typically people who used to be Type I nitwits, and who claim they become “freed from hate” once “they met a good Black person and realized that not all non-Whites were bad” – as if a ludicrously retarded idea that “all Whites good, all non-Whites bad” actually reflects the reality of authentic White racialist thought, and that the writing of a Taylor or a Johnson or a MacDonald (regardless of my own personal disagreements with those gentlemen) actually conflates with such a simpleton’s view of the racial question.
To the extent these apostates are being honest, and not mendaciously parroting System lies, it is obvious that what they are doing here is projection. Their description of the “lonely, troubled, searching White youth desperately looking for meaning” is actually a self-description. It is THEY who joined the “movement” for all the wrong reasons, it is THEY who were the flotsam and jetsam of White society, and is THEY who were easily peeled away from racial activism because they never really believed in it to begin with. THEY joined because of their own personal defects; THEIR “activism” and subsequent “leaving the movement” reflects on THEM, not on racial activism itself. The reality of race, the racial question, the reality of race replacement and White genocide – these realities exist independent of the psychological problems and social maladjustments of Type I retardates.
Having said all of that, there is another take on the issue. Someone recently told me about a comment made by a CEO of some company, in which the CEO basically said: “At our company the employee comes first, the customers second. If you have happy and satisfied employees, they will do a good job and satisfy the customer; if you don’t, no amount of ‘the customer comes first’ rhetoric will do the job.” I am also thinking of a young activist I know long ago during my own (young) analog activist days. This person, who eventually dropped out (but who insofar as I know never became an apostate; he simply dropped out), once complained to me about his fellow racial activists – “they don’t care about me as a person, they are not my friends, all they care about is the work I do for the organization.”
I do not believe this is the same person, but the general attitude is the same.
Let’s consider that complaint in the context of, first, the apostate spiel, and, second, the CEO idea. Now, the person’s complaint is not the same as the apostate meme. The person in question, based on what I observed, was a sincere activist, with a good understanding of the issues. He did not join primarily “to belong to something.” However, having joined, he wanted to be respected and valued as a person, and he wanted a feeling of comradeship - he wanted normal human company (something sadly lacking in the “movement"). Now, me, I’m a cold person, am not interested in “being buddies” with other racial activists, and, to be honest, the attitude behind the complaint is alien to my nature. But I can understand it on a purely intellectual level, although I never shared those feelings. But this person’s dropping out was a real loss. He was a good activist, a fine fellow; I respected him. But as I’ve been disgusted with the “movement” – albeit for different reasons – I can understand his situation. The only thing is that this fellow made the mistake many do – they equate Der Movement with racial activism, so for them dropping out of the former means dropping out of the latter. That does not have to be so.
This gets back to the CEO’s ideas. If you want your endeavor to be successful, first you have to take care of your employees. Then you care for the customers. By analogy, in racial activism, the activists are the employees, and the White masses (or at least that fraction that is reachable) are the customers. It’s true that Der Movement treats activists shabbily – with all the feuding, warring, aberrant behavior, defectives, unpleasantness, Quota Queen Incompetence and undependability, ethnic fetishism and hostility, etc.
So, while a “sense of belonging” should NOT be the fundamental reason for becoming an activist, there is no harm – and much gain – in creating an authentic movement that can create such a sense of belonging for activists. You want to retain quality activists, just like a company wants to retain quality employees. While it is true that genuine racial activists, who really understand the problem of race, are not going to become anti-racist leftist apostates against racial activism, it is possible that they will drop out (while still retaining their core beliefs). And if these dropouts are quality people, the damage will be enormous because there are so few such people to begin with; racial activism lacks a critical mass of such people and can ill afford to blithely go along its merry way, alienating such people on a constant basis (as does occur).
There has to be mechanisms for improving the activist experience. Now, of course, that is not the fundamental priority. People need to understand that racial activism is not there for personal fulfillment. But activists should not be gratuitously offended, alienated, disgusted, insulted, etc. – which is what often happens. Comradeship should occur.
A good start is to eliminate some of the more egregious examples of negative and alienating behavior and outcomes; after that, one can think about adding positives. Eliminating negatives – how about cutting back on the feuding? The acceptance of Beavis-and-Butthead lulzing trolling? How about making sure meetings are not so easily infiltrated? How about not having homosexuals hitting on young men at meetings? How about being up front about your ingroup, and then not tolerating ethnic fetishist attacks against people you accept in your group? You know, the time to decide on whether or not someone belongs is BEFORE they join, not AFTER, not after they’ve invested months or years of work for you and your group. The very definition of a group is the dividing line between in/out and any group that can’t even decide on something absolutely fundamental to its existence is not really any sort of viable group at all.
I’m sure the fearless leaders of the “movement” can think of many areas of improvement with respect to the issues broached in this post. Being a real leader means being able to make good use of the human material at hand; it means valuing people who are indeed valuable. When you have something valuable you want to retain it and make good use of it, not toss it in the rubbish heap on a whim.