The Mask is Our Shield
The use of masks by Nationalist activists is a repeated source of controversy. It is the most commonly mentioned item you will see debated in the comment sections and coverage of public actions by activists who use them. There are a variety of critics and criticisms of the use of masking, both of which I will address, but first I would like to explain what should be the obvious.
The primary threat to our activists is not judicial, but social. We do not live in a society where the legality or illegality of the actions of a Nationalist activist matters. The primary purpose of maintaining anonymity is not to avoid legal prosecution, but to protect from social persecution. Of course there are many examples of nationalist activists being prosecuted maliciously by the state on contrived charges, but for every one instance of this, there are 10, 20 or 100 instances of Nationalist activists being doxxed, harassed, and stalked by non-state actors, or at least, unofficial state-actors. Additionally, instances of state prosecution typically involve leaders or influential members of activist organizations who are public facing already, and so in many cases they are able to bear the consequences of these attacks better than the relatively unknown activist can bear the consequences of social persecution.
Additionally, people often forget that the technological advancements of the past 2 decades have drastically changed the landscape of political activism. Even as little as 15 years ago, cameras and recording devices were a rare thing for someone to have on their person by default, especially one of high quality. Today, everyone is constantly carrying a high resolution camera with video capability in their pocket. Doorbell cameras, dash cameras, body cameras, security cameras, traffic cameras – these are not the exception now, they are the rule. In addition to this, facial recognition technology, image search tools, and AI applications have made it incredibly easy for individuals captured in photo or video to be identified. Where once it was difficult to even capture a clear image of a political activist, it is now easy to identify them and discover their full name, where they live, who they work for, and more.
The solution to these problems is painfully obvious. A thousand digital problems neutralized almost entirely with a small piece of fabric. The mask is to the contemporary, rank and file Nationalist activist what the shield was to the rank and file foot soldier for millenia; A simple, cheap, efficient means of protecting oneself from a variety of enemy attacks. Additionally, not only does the mask negate the primary method our enemies use to attack us, it has benefits to the organizations who utilize them that go beyond protection that many Nationalists may not have considered. For this reason, I have summarized the purpose of masking into 5 categories by order of importance.
Protection of the Individual
Protection of the Collective
Uniformity and Unity
Spectacle and Controversy
Psywar and Infowar
Protection of the Individual
The mask is worn by the individual activist the way a shield was carried by an individual man-at-arms. It is their primary form of personal protection from the arrows of doxxing, harassment and social persecution. It is not invulnerable, but it is highly effective.
Protection of the Collective
We often have members who initially object to wearing a mask, who find the notion that they would “hide” indignant, and wish to proudly and boldly proclaim their views. Commendable as this attitude may be, it is not in their best interest to do so, nor is it in the interest of the collective. Our enemy’s source of ammunition is information. Every piece of information they obtain about an individual involved in a Nationalist organization is a thread that can be followed to uncover more information. This is why anonymity and masking is required for all of our members, with the exception of the dedicated public facing leaders of the organization. In the same manner that a shield in a Greek phalanx, the Roman Testudo or the Viking Skjaldborg protects not just the individual man holding it, but also the one to his side, the mask worn by the individual activist provides protection to the activist standing beside him. Every activist doxxed by our enemy gives them information that can be used to dox others. You do not wear the mask to protect only yourself, you wear it to protect your brothers.
Uniformity and Unity
Uniformity is another means of enhancing individual and collective protection. By ensuring each member involved in a public action is wearing similar clothing, headwear, footwear, and of course, masks, it makes it extremely difficult for our enemy to identify individual items that can be cross-referenced to other photos or videos and used to identify members. Masking enhances this effect.
However, beyond the practical protection provided by the mask, there is a symbolic and psychological benefit to it. When an individual dons the mask, they are symbolically conceding their individual identity, beliefs and opinions to the collective. In that moment, they are forfeiting their individual voice to the message being delivered by the club, whether it is in the form of a banner or a speech given by a member. This is a powerful act, and it is one you will rarely find among those who do not use masks. Unlike typical protests, our members are not attending as individuals who wish to voice their personal opinions about the issue at hand, they are a collective that speaks with one voice. Similar to the foot soldier in a shield-wall, our activists are not fighting as individuals, they are working as a unified entity towards a common objective and the mask enhances this unity.
Spectacle and Controversy
The primary purpose of engaging in public actions is to generate exposure that drives recruitment to the organization performing them. Anything that enhances the spectacle or controversy surrounding a public action aids in generating exposure. The use of masks does both. Firstly, it adds to the spectacle of the action because it is out of the ordinary to see large groups of masked men engaging in political activism. Secondly, it adds to the controversy surrounding the public action by instigating our opponents to attack the use of masks. The most commonly used word you will see in response to our public actions is “masks”. It is almost used in a critical context, but this is irrelevant. Every criticism to our actions assists us in generating exposure and the most common criticism is “masks”.
Psywar and Infowar
There is a psychological effect that the use of masks has on our opponents. It is the fear of the unknown. Maintaining anonymity allows our members to perform a public action and then transition back to their daily lives amongst the people who want them harassed, imprisoned and killed. Our members are all around you. They are your mechanic, your plumber, your accountant and your children’s hockey coach. You do not see us, but we see you.
This psychological effect then creates an additional problem for our enemies. Not only does anonymity neutralize their preferred means of attacking us through social persecution, it creates an information nightmare for them. Instead of being able to simply identify members and attack them with ease, they are now forced to chase digital ghosts through the internet. Every like, every positive comment, every repost to our public actions is a lead that must be followed by them. By not giving them information easily, they are forced to dig through mountains of information tediously in vain.
Addressing the Criticism of Masks
The most common criticisms directed at Nationalist activists pertain to the use of masking and anonymity in their public actions. These critics come in many forms, as do their comments about masking and anonymity, but they can be generally categorized as one or a combination of the following:
The Enemy
The Anonymous
The Moderate
The Influencer
The Outcast
I will describe and define each of these categories below, and provide examples of the forms of criticism they each tend to make regarding the use of masks, but first it is important to note why it is necessary for Nationalists activists and those who support them to understand these categories, their motivations, and how to respond to their criticisms.
Firstly, the use of masks is something that will continue to be necessary for Nationalist activism indefinitely. Many of the people currently criticizing masking among activists are those who are already ideologically aligned with them or sympathetic to them. Normalizing the use of masks in politics is going to aid our activists – it will help their numbers grow, mitigate fed-jacketing and encourage support for them. The criticism of masking cannot simply be ignored, there must be a sustained push against it built on sound logical arguments.
Secondly, understanding what category the individual making the criticism falls in will help you identify their motivations. Similar criticisms are made by different categories for very different reasons. For instance, the Enemy and the Moderate may both call activists cowardly for using masks, but the Enemy is often using masks themselves, while the Moderate does not. An example of this would be a left-wing journalist who ignores the use of masks by Antifa committing crime or violence, while calling Nationalists cowardly for using them during a peaceful and legal march. They don’t actually believe it is cowardly, they are simply trying to denigrate Nationalists, whereas the Moderate Influencer genuinely may believe using masks is cowardly, but this is because they are ignorant of the consequences Nationalists can face for their activism. The manner in which these two categories should be responded to for making the same criticism is entirely different, and in order to do so effectively they must first be identified.
Lastly, identifying the motivations behind each category in this way illustrates a pattern of behaviour among the various critics, which is that the criticism is almost never genuine. The individuals attacking the use of masks almost never believe in the validity of their criticism, it is either a means of coping or taunting. Even in instances where they are genuine, there is almost always an ulterior motive behind it.
The critics of mask use by Nationalist Activists typically fall into one or a combination of the following archetypal categories:
The Enemy primarily consists of left-wing activists, influencers, academics, journalists, and politicians, but also includes foreign diaspora populations as well as the occasional undercover law enforcement and intelligence agents. These groups have no issue with anonymity when they are using it, whether it be Antifa in black bloc, foreigners protesting with masks on, Law enforcement agents concealing their identity during controversial operations, and so on. The Enemy attacks the use of masking and anonymity purely because it obstructs their ability to attack Nationalists easily and quickly.
The Anonymous criticizes the use of anonymity while they sit behind the walls of it. Often the Anonymous is also the Enemy, but in many cases it comes from an individual who is genuinely in agreement with the Activists politically. Typically they proclaim that anonymity is something that is intelligent in a digital setting but cowardly in a public one. This is completely inverted logic. An individual is much less at risk making political statements online than an activist in an organization engaging in public actions. In most instances, the Anonymous is simply a coward who resents the Activist for doing publicly what they can only do from behind a screen.
The Moderate is someone of a right-wing persuasion who is not anonymous but only espouses views that are considered acceptable within the boundaries of contemporary, mainstream, political discourse. They are often conservatives, libertarians, civic nationalists and liberals who have become disenchanted with the extremism of the modern far-left. The Moderate criticisms of Activists using masking and anonymity come in many forms but the most common are fed-jacketing, leftist subterfuge and character attacks. Fed-jacketing is the baseless assertion that Activists use anonymity because they are actually agents of the state engaging in some form of scheme to lure nationalists into a trap. Similar to fed-jacketing, leftist subterfuge is another baseless assertion that Activists use anonymity because they are actually agents of a left-wing institution attempting to “poison the well” or “make conservatives look bad”. Character attacks are an attempt to cast doubt on the convictions, integrity and courage of Activists, asserting that “true patriots” and “real men” would never conceal their identity. Accusations of fed-jacketing and leftist subterfuge are almost always entirely baseless or formed with contrived evidence. Character attacks from Moderates originate from the delusion that they are what the system truly fears, when in reality most or all of their positions exist within the acceptable limits of mainstream political discourse. The irony of this delusion is that many of the positions the Moderate holds are those which only became acceptable in mainstream discourse through the work of Nationalist activists in the first place.
The Influencer is similar to the Moderate in many ways, with the exception that they often hold Nationalist positions and present themselves as such. An Influencer who criticizes masking among Activists is almost always doing so in bad faith. Their criticism of masking usually amounts to claims that it is cowardly or poor optics. The assertion that it is cowardly often comes from public facing influencers who are risking little to nothing even if they hold radically nationalist views, because they have developed a following that allows them to earn a living espousing those views. As such, the ramifications of doxxing do not affect them the way they would the average Nationalist activist. The assertion that the use of masks is “poor optics” that “won’t resonate with normies” or something to that effect is simply a cop out. They are not interested in actually organizing to solve the problems we face, they simply want to talk about them and anyone who is organizing effectively demonstrates this. If this were not the case, these Influencers would form or join their own organizations that reject anonymity and masking among members, but such a model would never be effective and they know it, so they do nothing and criticize those who do.
The Outcast is the least common but most straightforward critic of masking and anonymity among Activists. They are an individual who typically holds the most radical of Nationalist opinions, they are not anonymous, and they often engage in public displays of their beliefs individually or in small groups. They claim that masking is cowardly and poor optics similar to other types above, but the Outcast is unique in that they are the only one who is entirely genuine in their criticism. The issue with the Outcast is not one of ideology or courage, but self-interest. Their entire identity revolves around being the most radical, the most committed, the truest believer. They are more interested in showcasing their ideological purity than they are in actually developing institutions that would advance our collective interests. Essentially they do not genuinely care about winning, they simply want to feel good about how they lose
.
The Ferryman’s Toll’s SubstackRead More
R1
T1
