Why Your Group Should Be Small and Nameless
Contrary to popular belief, less is more--and flying a banner is a bad idea.
Look around; it doesn’t matter what kind of group you’re in, it wants to be bigger. When it comes to political activism, neighborhood preparedness, or related pursuits, it seems like growth comes before anything. Sure, some groups provide lip service to the idea that vetting people is important, but if you dig past that into what their process is or what the goals are, getting more folks in the group is always at or near the top.
In addition, the need to identify is deep. Look at some of the prominent groups in the last few years and even currently. BLM, Antifa, Oathkeepers, Three Percenters, whatever your political system is, there’s a group for it—and they all have national presence. People will attach themselves to these labels and names and organizations as if it explains who they are as people, as if it allows them to state with 3 words or less exactly what they believe and what they’re willing to do in support of that belief.
Why do we crave the group banner? Cialdini’s social influence principles can explain a lot of it. It’s easier to be in a group while acting than be alone. We all understand how groups can foment conduct that someone may never engage in if by themselves. We need to feel like we are part of something…and that goes back to validation. It's easier to say, “I'm a member of _______" than it is to say, “I believe _______.”
In fact, identifying with others is such a big deal that even if people using your group’s name act badly, rather than disassociate with the name, groups will simply keep using it and try to tell people that they aren’t those group members, they’re different. Or they’ll slap on another word in their name, as if it somehow delineates them from the other group. News flash: that may work for insiders, but it doesn't work at all for the general public.
The Irish Republican Army is a classic example. While those in the know might understand the nuances (and obvious discrepancies in timeline), the average person cannot explain a single difference between the IRA and the Real IRA…or the Provisional IRA, or the Continuity IRA, or even a Roth IRA if you want to go there. See the problem? To someone highly familiar with that area and its history, it's easy. To John Q. Public, they’re all the same, especially if ANY action can be construed to be anything like the people you're trying to claim distance from.
The same applies to other political groups. Earlier this year, the self-proclaimed ‘headquarters’ of the Three Percenters claimed they were shutting down. As VICE put it, “the group quickly learned that when you make yourself a figurehead of a decentralized, sprawling movement, you also make yourself accountable for actions of people you don’t even know or chapters you didn’t even know existed.” (Yes, even VICE gets something ballpark right once in a while.)
That means you get lumped in with every single person in the entire country calling themselves a Three Percenter, or any variation of them. Even when they’re stupid and take over federal buildings, try to bomb things, blow up vans they think have explosives in them, get caught with ‘illegal’ firearms that they posted all over Facebook, choke their kids out in public, give interviews that expose them as idiots and worse, ignore any form of OPSEC, talk big about violence…the list goes on.
Is that stuff really what Three Percenters should be doing? Absolutely not, and the founder's writings explain that clearly. The problem is, one of the most maddening things for Three Percent members who actually knew Mike Vanderboegh or understood his writings and vision is that there are a lot of people running around claiming to be Three Percenters who don't even know who he is or what the principles are. As a result, they're acting however they like, outside of what the Three Percent was designed to be, and in doing so they paint everyone with the same brush.
Every single person who claims the same affiliation and all of their actions are essentially on you. That’s how it’s viewed by the public—the same public you will need to eventually rely on for support. And no matter what, a hundred good acts will get wiped out by one bad actor every time. Would you like to spend a lot of your time explaining why the pedophile who got caught with Three Percenter gear next to his stash of child porn wasn’t a “real” Three Percenter? And why you are one?
And what about other groups? Maybe you're identifying with another group because you think it is fighting for a cause you believe in. Maybe your cause is breast cancer and you're raising funds for a major organization...only to read a news story that some members of that group were stealing the funds they raised. Do you think anyone will want to donate to you for that same organization again? What about if you explain that THOSE people are different from you and YOU didn't do anything wrong? Good luck with that.
It’s not fair. It’s not okay. But that’s how it is, like it or not. And trying to engage in a public relations campaign that attempts to retool your own image while attacking those who are lumping you together will fail every time. As Churchill said, a lie can get around the world before the truth even gets its boots on. When the things you’re getting lumped in with are actually true, even some of the time, or other members and affiliated groups are 'going rogue,' you’ll never recover from that no matter how much work you put into trying to clean your label's image.
In fact, nothing will work unless you’re willing to actually let go of the name--and everything that comes with it. Unfortunately, that conflicts with many people’s need to be seen, known, and recognized.
It screws with the basic need to matter, because how can your contributions—and by extension, YOU—matter if no one knows you’re part of the effort?
How can you be respected if you haven’t earned any clout, and how do you get clout if no one knows you earned it?
It’s a vicious cycle that can and does suck people into dangerous situations, including being in groups they should have left long ago.
What’s this have to do with group size?
It’s hard enough to distance from other groups in other locations that are Doing Bad Things while using your same affiliation. It’s a whole other problem when it’s people within your own area, or even worse, your own group.
It is not possible to properly and safely vet your prospective members while focusing on growth as a priority. Eventually growth will win out, and you’ll find yourself letting things go on the vetting front.
Group members John and Pete know this new guy so we’ll go ahead and let him in.
We are all so spread out we don’t have the ability to interview every single person.
We are letting the boots on the ground determine who they let in; we aren’t monitoring that at the higher levels. (How many levels do you have and why?)
We need as many people as we can get. Only numbers can help us reach our goals.
It’s not our job to decide if someone is good enough to identify with our cause.
Well, he doesn’t have a criminal record, so we can let him in while we get to know him.
These statements show a basic and even dangerous misunderstanding of how effective groups work, and how they should be designed and maintained. Unfortunately, that means every single person in the group is in danger, put there by their own leadership through ignorance, arrogance, or need for validation themselves.
Okay so what are we supposed to do?
It all goes back to things we’ve discussed in previous articles. Let’s start at the top, and then bring in the new principles.
What is your group’s goal? Again, “taking back our country” or “fighting for human rights” is NOT a goal. “Getting two laws passed this year that further our cause” is. “Changing county/city ordinance about X issue” is. Even groups that choose to be involved in more gray area activities should have a very specific and time based goal.
Are you getting involved with mission creep? Are other issues starting to distract you and drag you away from your stated focus goal? Is your group starting to become the “jack of all issues and master of none?”
How much time are you having to devote to internal drama? That’s a sign you don’t have the right people—or that you’re not leading/being led properly. But I repeat myself.
What’s your vetting process? If you’ve been paying attention at all over the last few weeks, then you already know that there is a whole lot more to understand about a prospective member than whether he agrees with your politics.
Are you already too big? As previously stated, if you’re too big to do things right, then you’re too big. End of story. Physical location also plays a role; if your group spans a metro area or county, then you’re looking at managing people you’ve never met, or putting trusted members in untrusted situations with people they don’t know.
What’s your leadership’s motivation? If you’re a leader, you have mental work to do. If you are a member and you can’t answer this question according to the standards we’ve already established, then you are in an untenable position.
Why do you need a name and/or banner? What are you trying to identify with and why do you need it? Does having it help or hurt your actual goal? Check validation and manifestation factors for this one. Also ‘read the room’ and see how your affiliation is playing in other theaters, so to speak. If your group is named the Superhero MegaFan Group, and yet another group under the same name just got busted as a human trafficking ring, you need to quit trying to explain you’re not the same group, and just change your name—or go without one.
Putting it all together
You cannot stop others using your banner while acting in ways you don’t agree with. You can’t keep from being lumped in with them when they do.
What you CAN do, is refuse to be associated with it. Refuse the banner. Does it actually help you anyway? If your organization name is known elsewhere as being involved with burning and looting, racist invective, violent attacks, terroristic acts, child porn, or other disgusting things, do you really want to take that mantle and try to convince the public that you’re somehow different? If your org is actively being demonized by a willing media, do you really want to keep fighting against that tide? Every day that you spend having to address things like this are days you don’t get to actually do work for your cause.
A good, healthy organization is like water flowing down a river. As water moves, it simply goes around or over rocks and logs. The organization focused on goals will keep the mission first. If you need to change your group name or drop it entirely to keep pushing forward, thats what a good group does. If your group is trying to hold on to a person, logo, or name at all costs, then your mission isn't what you think it is.
Instead, quit caving to the idea that you need a name. Quit thinking you need hundreds of people, organized chapters and hierarchy and famous leaders and instantly recognizable organizations. You don’t need any of that—and in the current climate, those things will work against you.
In fact, if the current leadership of your group wants to keep pushing for growth, is unable or unwilling to communicate a tangible goal for the org to the ENTIRE membership, refuses to listen to reason, or insists that anyone not on board with his visions of grandeur is “not committed enough,” get out. You’re following a fool. If you’re the leader doing these things, then you’re the fool.
You as a member (or leader) don’t have the time to educate people as to why you’re better than the other people running around with a related organization name, or why you kind of subscribe to their beliefs but don’t agree with their tactics. You don’t have the time to spend trying to fix the image that other people are currently ruining, so stop. Choose 2-4 people you can absolutely count on, who can handle the mental work required, make your goal, and go after it.
In the next issue, we will talk about the kind of people you should be choosing and why. Subscribe today to get it delivered!