In other news, the White Nationalist movement has been found, in fact, to be entirely non-existent. After putting on a good show for quite some time we’re not more than fanciful bogeymen, shadows dancing on the walls, or the omnipresent Phantom Menace of identitarianism. At least, that’s what Hewitt E. Moore (writing for Occidental Observer) and Horace the Avenger (writing for White Rabbit Radio) think about the collective movement.
Moore gives such a strict requirement for what it means to be an activist that hardly anyone would count, and Horus puts so little requirement on what is needed to be an effective activist that anyone would count. Not only that, but the two definitions are at odds with each other in a second way. The former thinks that we technically have only a handful of activists, and the latter thinks we can be activists without leaders. It doesn’t have to be that way, it doesn’t even have to be one of those ways.
Moore’s image of a movement is something that moves, and because he doesn’t see as much movement as he would like that’s supposed to mean that we’re either not a movement or that the precious few who are in the movement aren’t actually moving anything. I don’t want to make any assumptions about Moore’s education in social movements, but the fact of the matter is that all social movements are lead by a minority.
Not all people can be (or should be) leaders or direct-action agitators in a social movement. For the sake of argument let’s talk about how many people figured prominently in the Civil Rights movement. During a ten-year period between 1958 and 1968 there were, at best, only a couple dozen prominent activists (going by Moore’s definition). How many did they lead, and how do you think that any of those leaders could have accomplished anything were it not for the un-qualified activists they claimed to lead? Even better yet, ask anyone who the most famous black Civil Rights leaders were and you’ll get less than ten names: Malcolm X, MLK, Jr., Stokely Carmichael, Rosa Parks, and Ralph Abernathy are probably all that anyone will come up with. This is to say nothing of the people who engaged in letter writing campaigns or other low-level activities. So, how about it, Moore, how many people really need to meet your requirement of being an activist?
Branding, public image, and respectability are a concern for any person or group involved in activism, so it’s fair that Moore point that out. The mistake you’re making here, Moore, is that when two people meet in person for the sole purpose of discussing far-right activism and politics they have to take into account the (unfortunate) reality that far-right activism has a significantly stronger stigmatization and social penalty than far-left activism. It’s the same as what Matt Parrott mentioned previously: I could boast about being a satanist or atheist (or even an eco-terrorist….) and most people would respond “oh, that’s nice…” Most people have no idea what it means to be careful until they start getting out in the world and try to meet with other self-described like-minded people. There are safer ways to meet face-to-face, but the only real safe way to meet is over Skype, 8Chan, Facebook, and comments threads, which, apparently, you despise. These are all fine tools for networking and educating people, but let’s not wholly discount it and instead call it an activism precursor. The more people we get talking about something does not always equate to changing minds or even educating people, but it does often translate into action of one or another kind. The other trouble is that the ocean of voices in Internetlandia are looking for a productive outlet to channel their energy into for real-world events. So far, most of us in the movement have not been able to find that sweet spot which brings people out en masse.
You can’t discount everyone who fails to meet your “active activist” criteria, Moore. Having a large body of vocal and active agitators does not make a movement, but rather effort over a length of time does. The Common Man falls in and out of movements, leaders, too, come and go. But, by the time that a social cause has made it’s mark in history as a bonafide social movement the work will already have largely been done and certain key players will have been identified. You can make that list of key players shorter or longer depending on your criteria. You can also declare that there weren’t any leaders at all, but that still doesn’t explain what it is that extended networks of online or real-life agitators are doing. Social movements are like tanks. They have a crew and an operator. The crew greases the wheels, and the commander tells the crew how to operate the tank. Even if the commander greases the wheels all by himself, the tank won’t go anywhere if it doesn’t have a crew to operate it. Let’s recall what happened with the Occupy movement. They imploded because they were a “leaderless” movement. There was no commander to tell the tank which way to turn or where to aim its activism.
Horus the Avenger wrote about exactly this question over at White Rabbit Radio, but he’s of the opinion that we don’t need a tank commander, rather all we need are lots of people with grease guns and a willingness to get dirty. Moore’s estimation of the White Nationalist movement was kinder than Horus’s, but it’s Horus who’s living in a virtual reality if he think’s that his solution is any better.
Horus has a fair estimation of the “Cathedral” (which is just a fancy sounding name for the pro-liberal hegemony) saying that they’ve sized us up as ghosts, our epitaph is already written, and that rational people believe that the concept of White Genocide is just plainly absurd. How does he want us to change this? He wants us to go back in time. Or something. His whacked out metaphor of how Custer could have won the battle at Little Bighorn if he had a tank tries to say that we can win the battle against White Genocide now if we just use our white power brains and white power intellect. Horus, if you haven’t heard this yet, I’m sorry to be the one to do it: We have some fantastic colleges and universities here in America, and not one of them has availed itself to your cause. It might just be the case that modern white people are some of the dumbest people when it comes to the question of race. Not only that, but most white people actively look for ways to excuse, deny, and mitigate problems related to race realism and identity. We’ve got the brains, we’ve got the people, and we have the educational institutions, and yet, somehow we’re still dumb enough to fall for the rhetorical trappings of white guilt and thuggish anti-racist activism.
The mantra monkeys make some good points now and then, but I hardly think that blasting the Mantra is any better than what the hive-mind liberal opposition does by screeching about racism, Hitler, the Holocaust™, and bigotry whenever something they don’t like comes up. Having gone through a mantra monkey phase myself, watched the public’s actions and reactions to White Genocide billboards, and sat through podcasts where the Mantra is dissected and eviscerated line-at-a-time is telling me that it’s not having the intended effect. I’m still waiting to see this much sought after educational revolution get started. The Mantra monkeys lose every argument because after a well placed Mantra bomb’s whiz-bang-sizzle wears off, the community leaders, leftist intellectuals, and public officials continue the conversation in a way that suits their ends (Guess who isn’t going to be a part of that conversation: you).
Horus thinks that if we just “wake up” white people then we’ll put our white man brains and white man intellect to work at solving the problem with state of the art pro-white identitarianism borrowed from the next century. Know what will happen if you sit around waiting on white people to “wake up”? You’re going to die of old age. The opposition is very well funded, has hegemonic control, and is deeply invested in keeping that control. Keyboard commandos do count as activists in a broader sense, but for all the energy they spend shit-posting the Mantra on news articles, Twitter, and on Facebook posts they would do so much better if they invested a portion of that time in a “real political organization.” That is, if they can find one that fits Moore’s criteria.
So, where does this leave us? Leaders of a social movement don’t get to pick and choose who follows them, it’s our job to find ways to make them beneficial to the movement. Activist communities can attract some supremely weird people at times, but weird people make the world go round and we need them. Arguably, we have even less control over who gets to be the leader of any given social movement. The dominant type of rhetoric in a social movement will demand a certain type of person to take the lead. Furthermore, certain types of rhetoric give license for people to behave in certain ways (opposition and supporters alike). If a leader can’t fit the image of what the movement expects, nor if he can satisfactorily perform the kinds of action licensed by movement rhetoric and its supporters he or she is not going to lead the movement in a positive way. In no way does this mean we’re supposed to sit back and wait for der Übermensch to come down from high and lead us away in a White Nationalist rapture. That’s not going to happen either. The way that social movements evolve and progress through periods of inactivity or insufficient activity is by finding a dedicated activist whom you believe in and backing that person’s play. It doesn’t matter whether that person be an executive officer in a licensed LLC or just a highly respected individual– find someone you believe in and get behind them.