(This model is an intentional oversimplification to serve as a guideline, not as a rule.)
Hope is the wellspring of courage, therefore hope is necessary but not sufficient for useful action. I’ll be using hope and courage more or less interchangeably, so that “encourage” will mean “to inject/remind a person with/of positive expectations” and “discourage” will mean the opposite. Now, put people in a 2×2:
Some argue that hope is an unalloyed good regardless of whether a person is delusional, useless, etc. This was the conceit of the Q movement and can be traced to a combination of a abundance mindset and a fixed mentality, which can be traced to the belief that we live in a post-scarce, deterministic world. I disagree, because I believe a scarcity mindset and a growth mentality are more appropriate. In a scarce world there is no point in encouraging a useless person because even if they take positive action, they still aren’t going to make a positive contribution. If anything, it will be counterproductive, which makes them a liability according to my scarcity mindset.
Therefore, in the simplified model a useless person should be discouraged until they move into the useless, discouraged square of the 2×2. This is true regardless of whether discouragement will produce the realism which is necessary for them to rise from the ashes as a useful person (probably discouraged at first, but potentially encouraged). We can observe that some people can eventually process discouragement into adjusted expectations (growth!) while others will forever roll around on the floor clutching their heads (fixed). Either case is an improvement both for society, which benefits from both the creation of (some) useful people and the reduction of delusional parasitism, and an improvement for the moral condition of the parasites, because parasitism is worse for you than privation even though it feels better.
The case of a useful person is more complex. If they are engaging in a particular counterproductive thing but they are contributing in general, then we do not want to move them into the useful, discouraged category. They should be encouraged in general and if particular criticisms are floated at all, these should be restricted to constructive forms sandwiched between 5 genuine compliments of their character and accomplishments in general (why five?). However, if the particular thing they are doing is so bad it’s going to wipe out their positive contributions, i.e. move them into the useless, encouraged square, then they need to be discouraged from it like the useless person even if this is at the cost of their contributions. For example, a well-heeled father of four who’s starting to drink too much absolutely should be discouraged from it. A good example of this is how the artists formerly known as the Alt-Right had to clean up their alcoholic party culture and go a bit straight-edge. While I wasn’t there personally, I’ll make an educated guess that not everyone bought into the new buzzkill policy immediately.
Public discouragement has an even more stringent requirement, because criticizing a person in public is implicitly advocating for them to be banished from the in-group unless they modify their behavior. The purpose of criticizing in front of an audience is not merely to amplify the negative feelings, it’s to imply the unanimous consent of the silent majority. For whatever reason, the modern right has acquired rose-colored glasses about the nature of public shaming and grassroots bullying in general, and they can’t see how this is related to their inability to organize large groups. But any serious organizational manual (such as military training manuals) will tell you that criticism must be done in private. Why? Because the manual assumes that one failure of discipline is not going to result in the person being driven out of whatever military or corporate role they’re in. That’s a recipe for a very, very small military or organization, which is suicide in a competitive environment. This implies, again, that public discouragement should only be employed when an individual needs to be banished from the group, which is a leadership responsibility and absolutely should not be decided by the rank-and-file, who are shortsighted, primitive, and not accountable for overall group outcomes.
A good example of public discouragement used properly was when Adam Green started going fedora on Christianity and Myles Poland challenged him to a debate. Green was abusing his leadership position to air personal grievances and encourage religious fractiousness in a pro-white political movement, which has been more or less unheard of since the Alt-Lite fell apart in 2018. He has arguably made enormous contributions in general but if this behavior continues we would have been better off without him all along, and it’s the duty of other leaders like Myles to make that judgment call and then coordinate with each other to make it happen.
To finish up, here’s a checklist for what constitutes “contribution” in white nationalism to remind you that it’s a broader question than you’re inclined to think when you get heated about theological differences:
- Family – Do they have white children? Are they close with their other family members? (I.e. Would anyone miss them?)
- Social – Do they encourage other white people?
- Financial – Does their existence contribute to/enable the existence of other white people in their personal life?
- Career – Does their existence contribute to the economy in their public life (as distinct from their personal financial situation)? E.g. If a man has anti-white opinions, but he works at McDonald’s, that’s a real economic contribution that ought to be considered seriously.
- Religiosity – Intrinsic: Do they take their religion seriously? Extrinsic: Are they an active participant in their religious community, regardless of what it is?
- Physical – Do they keep healthy and fit?
- Intellectual – What’s their IQ? What do they use it for? Do they overperform or underperform in these pursuits?
(This is adapted from Ziglar’s version of the Wheel of Life. Adapt it to whatever in-group you’re interested in nurturing.)