Assembly Line Entryism vs. Steady State Churn

Realism.

"Movement" grifters and others like to promote the idea of entryism, put forward as an assembly line analogy. Thus, the idea is that people are first attracted to moderate HBD race realism sites like American Renaissance (Amren), and then the better fraction of those individuals become more radicalized and graduate to sites like Counter-Currents, The Occidental Observer (TOO), and others. They note that the commentariat at the more moderate sites is larger than at the more radical sites, and so they envision a process in which the moderate sites constitute a large pool of potential recruits to hardcore WN, and smaller numbers of the vanguard eventually reach these higher levels of activism. These are then replaced in the moderate pool by new additions to that pool, and thus we see an assembly line process building an ever-larger radical WN cadre, through continuous movement of individuals from the "normie" mainstream to Amren and then to the more radical sites, with the former serving as an entry to the latter.

Like mainstreaming in politics, it all sounds plausible, and like mainstreaming, there isn't any empirical data to support the entryist hypothesis.

An alternative hypothesis would be that of steady state churn.  Here, people join the moderate groups like Amren. Many stay at Amren for years, most of these never move on to more radical groups; they are content to stay where they are.  A few may move to the radical groups, even more just drop out of the "movement" completely; these losses are compensated by new additions, creating a steady state churn rate. People coming to the more radical groups - either from moderate sites like Amren or from elsewhere - are merely replacing others who drop out. Thus, instead of assembly line growth of the radical vanguard, fed by moderate entryism, we simply see the same steady state churn here as well.  People join, others leave, a few of those who join may come from the moderate sites, but these do not contribute any net growth. Since there are always more moderate folks than those who are very radical, the moderate sites will always be larger than the radical ones; there is no correlation between those relative numbers and there is no reality that the moderate sites are serving as a "minor league training ground" for the radical Nutzi "major leagues."

Indeed, the steady state churn hypothesis would suggest that the moderate sites aren't even necessary for radical WN growth. If Amren didn't exist, those individuals who are of a mindset to eventually end up at the more radical sites would end up there anyway, through other pathways. Indeed, without sites like Amren, it is possible that Counter-Currents and TOO would see even faster growth, since interested individuals would bypass the Amren cul-de-sac and, searching for answers to the racial crisis, would more directly find the radical sites (which I'm sure many readers of those sites have actually done). 

As a long time reader of all of these sites, and analyzer of the comments threads, I really do not see any constant flow of recruits from the moderates to the radicals. I merely see churn, turn-over, different sets of commentators over the years, but no real growth, no real progress.

And even if entryism had some validity, there really isn't much to entry into. The Alt Right, particularly the Spencerian faction, has collapsed. Other groups and sites have barriers to growth, whether it is Nordicism, homosexuality, esoteric traditionalism and other freakishness, paywalls, endless grifting, feuds, infiltrations, various disasters, etc. There really isn't much choice; the menu is limited. No wonder people drop out, or just get stuck at the Amren dead-end for years.

The situation is grim.