White Nationalism| The Phantom Menace


Is your activism feeling a bit spooky as of late? Maybe a bit hollow? It’s probably because you’ve invested yourself in a leaderless movement.

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.

Think you're going to win the war solely by telling everyone that "anti-racist is a code-word for anti-white" or that "diversity is a code word for white genocide"? Don't be the Jar Jar Binks of White Nationalism.

Think you’re going to win the war solely by telling everyone that “anti-racist is a code-word for anti-white” or that “diversity is a code word for white genocide”? Don’t be the Jar Jar Binks of White Nationalism.

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.



Just pointing out that Horus wasn’t actually saying what the title of his article states, i.e. “THE RESISTANCE TO WHITE GENOCIDE IS MADE UP OF PHANTOMS”. He starts, “According to the prevailing wisdom of the Cathedral and it’s politically correct “hivemind” allies, we’re nothing but ghosts.” and closes, “But first we have to wake people up to the real phenomenon of “white genocide,” or Western Civilization may become a ghost town.” The content in-between has nothing to do with those actually in the White racialist movement save the penultimate sentence: “What if we brought the tank to the battle?(metaphorically not like an actual tank.) If we utilize the advantages which largely have been historically unique to European people: science, technology, creativity, ingenuity, etc and combine them with our pioneering spirit, we may yet be able to alter the course of our future and preserve some semblance of our way of life.”

B.W. Rabbit

If you’re going to critique an article, at least give credit to the actual person who wrote it. How can one take your analysis seriously, when you can’t even figure out the author of an article you’re bashing? Also, don’t pontificate about NRx terms like “cathedral” which you clearly don’t understand anything about. This is why proles cant have nice things.


In my view, the “mantra monkeys” have done a tremendous amount in recent years to change the very nature of discourse. By shaping the language, they shape thought and the way the world is viewed. That’s worth something, and my hat is off to them.

I’ll give a personal example that offers a study in contrasts. Years ago, in my misspent youth, I was quite active in libertarian circles (in my defense, I was very young). Often we would hold an event to get media coverage, generally from the college rag, but sometimes local news as well. I’d do an interview, and make sure to include something effective and quotable. It was always a victory when I “got my key line in.”

But more often than not, the reporter didn’t include the “key line” at all. It was totally left out, and pure swill was printed instead. Even on the rare occasions when he did include it, the line was typically buried in an article filled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Some victory, huh?

I, like so many others, continued to play a rigged game. Pure idiocy.

In contrast, what do the BUGSers do? They make the key line THE STORY. It’s all about the key line.

They don’t try to slip it in or sneak it by. Rather, they put the key line front and center. If they want people to talk about, for instance, “Diversity means chasing down the last white person,” they don’t meekly hope that the reporter will deign to include it in the story. Instead, they make it the story. They put that line on a billboard, they plaster it across the internet. They make it impossible to get away from that line; they make it impossible to not see it. They give it a life of its own.

This is a brilliant move, and while it may seem simplistic on a certain level, the truth is that lots of very, very smart people couldn’t figure this out in the past. The BUGSers did. Give credit where it is due.

If our cause gave out MVP awards, Horus would definitely be in the running, and I say that as someone who is more interested in the intellectual and spiritual development of our cause.

My own view is that we need to starve the dying system media, and focus on building up our own. I don’t want the anti-white media getting more eyeballs, I want them getting less. Frankly, I don’t even want system media to start publishing the occasional reasonable story, because that would give them more credibility and legitimacy. I want them to have less of both.

But if someone is going to seek system media attention, the BUGSers have taught us much about how to go about it. As far as I can tell, they are the only folks out there that are making system media work for us – against its will. That’s real activism.

Thomas Buhls

I never said that their activism wasn’t activism, nor that it didn’t accomplish anything. The trouble is that most of them (by a wide margin) stop with the Mantra. For all fairness, there is a kind of synergy that happens if we take into consideration the BUGSters on the one hand, and other direct-action and street-action activists on the other. The overlap between BUGSter alarm-call-wake-ups and the people who make it into the WN movement are pretty slim. Even if the Mantra is all they did, they could do better by getting behind a grassroots political activist organization.


“Even if the Mantra is all they did, they could do better by getting behind a grassroots political activist organization.”

Perhaps, but maybe it’s the reverse, and a grassroots political activist organization would do better if they got behind the Mantra, or at least incorporated a mantra-like approach in terms of propaganda.


“Why not both??? It doesn’t have to be either/or.”

I agree that it doesn’t have to be either/or.

Richard Hutchinson

What is it to you, if their activism stops at the mantra? Can’t you recruit new Pro Whites, or are you trying to recruit existing Pro Whites? If the latter is the case, then you have failed.

Hunter Wallace

Hewitt Moore makes a number of good points.

I agree that there really isn’t a White Nationalist movement. That’s due to the actions of WNs themselves too. They have chosen to build their “movement” around what he calls Cyberia. That’s why it comes across as completely atomized, hopelessly divided, disorganized, and infected by paranoia. The nasty, low trust environment is the inevitable byproduct of spending all your time interacting with other anonymous people who are united only by abstract idealism.


Whites have had massive levels of organization in the not so distant past. The Dixiecrats carried multiple states in 1948. It happened again in 1968, this time with Wallace carrying multiple states as an independent. Both of these results dwarfed anything achieved by third parties in the modern era. Nobody else even comes close.

Despite these massive showings of strength, the anti-white juggernaut was not slowed down at all. It didn’t even break a sweat, much less its stride. It’s as if those incredible showings didn’t happen at all, as if they just disappeared into the ether.

I think a lot of people look at the track record of “organization” and find it to be dismally ineffective. Hence, they are looking for other approaches.

As just one example, a relatively tiny number of BUGSers have had more visibility and impact than many times their number standing around on street corners carrying signs. This is not to insult the banner carriers – that’s fine, too – just to observe who has had more of an impact. I could be wrong, but I think most honest observers would conclude that BUGSers win that contest, hands down.

There are other possibilities as well. PLE’s, informal networks of all sorts and kinds, covering the entire spectrum of human needs. Once a dense network of support networks have been established in a given area, then maybe “organization” will become more viable. But, until then?

And even then, serious doubts would remain about the efficacy of such an enterprise. Large scale organizations were more suited to the industrial mentality, when it was necessary to bring people physically together in order to indoctrinate and regiment them. That’s no longer required. There is certainly social value in meeting, and perhaps some other benefits as well. But frankly, probably not enough to justify a large scale enterprise. The future is likely to be small and lean, and more than a little amorphous.

It’s somewhat analogous to the university system, which developed in a world where very few men were even literate, much less learned. Books were incredibly rare and expensive. If you wanted an education, you needed to go off and live amongst a community of scholars. But now? While I do think that there is value in having a dedicated learning environment, it is more than a little obscene that just as the marginal transmission cost of information and knowledge has approached something near zero, the cost of a university education has exploded. That contradiction won’t go unresolved forever.

Point is, our society is littered with institutions and ways of thinking that are obsolete, either in whole or in part. They just don’t make sense anymore, but they are still standing…for now. The much maligned internet, providing instant communication and essentially free access to a phenomenal amount of information, is a game changer.

Even so, universities will likely hang on for a while longer, and so will calls for “organization.” But here is the truth: no organization is going to get you secession. Secession can only be achieved when countless, mostly under the radar networks are built, and gradually “mark” their territory as white. Where, over time, non-whites and anti-whites don’t want to live there anymore. Once whites have territories like this, secession becomes at least a possibility. Until then, forget about it. (I’ll also grant that street demonstrations could be part of “marking” territory, if they are held consistently in certain areas and never in others – thus giving some areas a reputation. But without networks on the ground meeting economic, cultural, educational, social and spiritual needs, and applying under the radar social pressures to friend and foe alike, it’s not going to amount to much of anything).

In any event, the possibilities are endless, once one stops playing the ridiculously rigged game of dreaming that the anti-white system is going to suddenly treat us fairly, if only we “organize.” They never have…and they never will. It’s not their job to do us any favors. You’re never going to have the organizational strength that the Dixiecrats or Wallace had, and that amounted to naught.

Honestly, I would think that under the radar networks would find at least some fertile ground amongst white Southerners. Regardless, I don’t insult those who join organizations. I don’t think it’s the best choice for most people, but at the end of the day it’s up to them. Maybe those people who believe in “organization” would do better if they spent their time building their much vaunted structures, rather than insulting those who have a different vision. Or maybe they could just accept that their way of thinking is, if not entirely obsolete, then seriously in need of an update.

Thomas Buhls

Organizing under the radar and waiting for “the day of the Happening” before jumping out to take over the collapsing system is…. Well, I don’t think that’s going to work. The way that kind of plan synthesizes in America is with white people running away from other white communities to “hide in the hills” and “get off the grid” while they wait for the White Nationalist rapture to happen. They’re not doing any good to anybody by running away from society. The places they’re running away from are populated with our people, and we’re giving up on them if we try to run to the hills. That’s not fighting for a future, that’s hiding from reality.


“They’re not doing any good to anybody by running away from society.”

I’m not talking about running away from society. I’m talking about marking territory, and building up decentralized networks that, once they become numerous enough, will begin to overlap and provide a real foundation for our cause.

“That’s not fighting for a future, that’s hiding from reality.”

In my view it is very much fighting for a future, and has nothing at all to do with hiding from reality. Tom, I respect the things you’ve done for our cause, but I do think there are other effective ways forward that either have been or can be developed. In any event, I guess it’s an agree to disagree situation.

Richard Hutchinson

Pro Whites have had big organizations before and they are all gone, like tears in the rain. All they did was collect money for the fat cats at the top.

Hewitt Moore

Thanks for resurrecting the piece I penned some 13 months ago, Buhls! I’ve slept once or twice since then so I needed a refresher, but I would like to assume that if one deemed the piece worthy of reference after said time lapse, hopefully they would have took more from it then what you posed (i.e. movements move, “active activists,” etc). The premise was elementary – “Is White Nationalism Real”? But, like most things, the complexity can be increased with analysis. In simplistic terms, I suppose you’re right – identifying as a “White Nationalist” makes the concept “real” and the movement active. Which ultimately reverts us back to the original question I asked in the piece: Is “White Nationalism(ist)” a desired euphemism or a viable movement? Is logging into the virtual world and posting regurgitated thoughts merely a rung on the ladder to an all-white homeland, or does it just sound better than “racist”?

Thomas Buhls

Well, you know, it’s strange how some articles catch my eye. While regurgitating thoughts into the blogosphere is a start, we do more than blogging here. We’re a “full package” advocacy and activism group here. We educate, agitate, and pontificate more or less on a constant basis.

Richard Hutchinson

“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.”

Um… Just want to point out, the people that rule over us, used precisely those methods to take over and they have used them to suppress Whites for decades. So these methods clearly work.


“So these methods clearly work.”

They certainly do. There are so many advantages to the Mantra that listing them all would require a book, but I’ll mention a couple.

The Mantra approach doesn’t rely upon the anti-white media being anything other than what it demonstrably is: anti-white. The BUGSers don’t “appeal” to the media, they instead force their message. Plaster the internet, put up a billboard, hang a banner, etc. The anti-white media then has two basic choices: they can either cover the message or not. If they choose to ignore it, then pro-whites can spread the message unmolested. That’s a win. But if the system covers it, then the message gets out even further (the story is the message). That’s another win. The BUGSers have basically turned a hostile situation into a win/win scenario.

Mantra terms and concepts are also perfectly suited for going up against anti-whites in general. As anyone who has debated these clowns knows, the anti-white will make absurd claim after absurd claim, tell blatant lie after blatant lie, and throw smear after smear.

There is no reasoning with these people in the traditional sense, and those who have tried to do so inevitably find out that the old saying is true: a lie can get around the world before the truth can get its boots on.

But not anymore. With the Mantra approach, the truth can get around the world very, very quickly. If someone stays on message and uses the right language, they have a powerful antidote to the lies and smears. It’s a game changer.


I stopped reading Hewitt’s piece halfway into the second paragraph. It struck me as a waste of time. Much (not all) of the criticism of white nationalism is confused and ill-informed. In particular, any claims about “no movement offline” that do not put the main (not exclusive) blame for this outcome on constant organized attack against whites by the power structure, including professional subversion in the online dissident right, are not worth bothering with.

White politics aren’t moving anywhere fast anywhere in the world mainly (not, again, exclusively) due to every form of repression being brought to bear on activists, writers and leaders except jail or execution. Jail or the threat of it are realities in Europe. The repression is systematic on large and small scales. The global assault on white South Africa is an example of the former, Richard Spencer being charged with terrorism in Hungary the latter.

Leave a Reply