A Riposte to the Overt

A response.

A common recent trope in the “movement” coming from those who write (and do other things) under their own names – those who are open and overt activists – is that they are morally superior to those anonymous and pseudonymous activists who are not open and overt. Indeed, these attitudes, being increasingly common at Counter-Currents, particularly among some of its newer writers, are typically expressed in sanctimonious terms.

I would like to make a counter-argument, one that I believe has not been made before (or at least, I have not seen it presented).

Overt writers and activists are most typically directly or indirectly dependent on “D’Nations” of some sort to support themselves. Further, many of them are employed by others, at (often online) journals, blogs, etc. for which they write (and these journals and blogs are themselves supported and maintained by supporter donations and/or subscriptions). Therefore, these open and overt writers need to be careful so as to not to offend and alienate the donors, subscribers, and employers on whom they depend. This will, naturally, result in self-censorship and the inability to freely speak their mind on various topics. Even if they choose to associate with journals and blogs for which they already have an underlying ideological affinity, it is unlikely that they are going to agree with their donors, subscribers, and employers on all important topics, and therefore the possibility of self-censorship to preserve their income exists, and is indeed likely. Overt writers are therefore more likely to be more constrained, and less free, to express controversial views within their particular domain (e.g., controversial views about the "movement" itself) than those who are anonymous/pseudonymous.

I can imagine that some of the Counter-Currents writers will claim that they now have complete freedom to speak their mind, unlike their previous situation at other online journals/blogs.  Perhaps.  However, would they still be viable at their new home if they, for example, started criticizing homosexuality with the vehemence of, say, Andrew Joyce?  If they critiqued Greg Johnson as has Joyce, Forney, and Friberg?  I think not.  And the same applies elsewhere. How long would a VDARE writer be welcome if they started attacking the monetary compensation practices of the happy penguins? What about an American Renaissance writer who delves into anti-Semitism or who criticizes HBD “race realism?” Then there is the possibility of self-censorship of the overt writer because of concerns about the reaction from the Left.

In contrast, one can reasonably argue that anonymous/pseudonymous writers, particularly those not affiliated with anyone else and even more particularly those who do not shill for “D’Nations,” are more free to speak their minds about controversial subjects, including subjects controversial within the “movement,” without needing to consider whether angry donors would withhold handouts or whether outraged subscribers would decide to cancel - or whether a blog editor would be offended and cut ties with them.

I’m not arguing that the anonymous/pseudonymous are superior to the overt; indeed, all else being equal (which it so rarely is, truth be told), the latter can reasonably be seen as more valuable than the former. But each has its place, and we must “balance the books” and look at the costs of benefits of each option. The overt activists present the view that their choice to be open in their activism may be harmful only to themselves but always is a benefit to the “movement.” That is not invariably true. An alternative scenario is that of someone who makes a living off of their activism (and in some cases, a six-figure living), while spouting dogma to please donors and subscribers – cui bono?  Does activism as a whole benefit when people modulate their opinions to maintain their viability within a “movement” on which they depend?  In which group are “movement” grifters most often found – the overt or the anonymous and pseudonymous?  The answer is obvious.

The attacks have heretofore always one-sided, always the overt critiquing the anonymous/pseudonymous. There are two sides to every issue.  Instead of ad hominem attacks based on overt vs. anonymous/pseudonymous status, how about an honest evaluation of ideas instead?