Patriot Front and Active Clubs: Two modern models of white nationalist organizing

1 August 2024

By: Jacob Wagner

Key Findings

Failures resulting from the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, which included the doxxing of protestors, substantial financial penalties, and increased scrutiny on the white nationalist movement, forced leaders and groups to shift their tactics and organizational structures.

Specific organizational models, like those used by Patriot Front and Active Clubs, have been instrumental in making groups more resilient to disruption from law enforcement and perceived enemies.

Recent arrests of key white nationalist leaders do not appear to have had a significant impact on groups’ operations, which have continued unabated and may indicate that changes at the organizational level are generating some results.

Over the last decade, the organizational structures of the white nationalist movement have evolved to adapt to everchanging political and social landscapes. Groups across the broader movement have learned from their failures, resulting in restructuring efforts to make the groups more resistant to law enforcement disruption, reducing the reliance on a single leader or personality, and boosting opportunities for recruitment. The aftermath of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville represented a blow to the white nationalist movement. While many groups benefited from the increased attention, the wave of arrests, doxxings, and general exposure of group members resonated through the community and showed its vulnerability to both law enforcement disruption and measures taken by ideological opponents like antifascist groups. In the wake of this dislocation, analysts identified extremist groups discussing restructuring and changing tactics to adapt to the post-Charlottesville era of organizing. This Dispatch examines two groups in the US, Patriot Front and the Active Club network, and details how these groups have adapted, becoming harder to disrupt and more appealing to potential recruits.

Patriot Front’s strict hierarchy and the Active Club network’s emphasis on decentralization work in tandem toward their shared goals while withstanding attempts at disruption, posing new challenges for those seeking to counter their efforts.

White Nationalists Commiserate Over Legal Headaches

In February 2024, back-to-back legal developments in the cases of two of the nation’s most prominent white nationalist movement leaders garnered widespread attention within the movement.

First, on February 22, a US District Court judge in California dismissed federal rioting charges against Robert Rundo. Rundo is the co-founder of defunct white supremacist street-fighting gang Rise Above Movement and conceptual godfather of modern Active Clubs. Though the decision led to Rundo’s release from prison, an appeals court quickly stayed the order, and police rearrested him soon after.

The next day, police in Texas arrested Thomas Rousseau, founder of the neo-fascist hate group Patriot Front. The charges stemmed from his participation in the deadly 2017 Unite the Right white supremacist gathering in Charlottesville, Virginia. Rousseau paid bail and at the time of writing is out of prison, awaiting trial.

Supporters of the two men largely reacted with alternating bursts of triumph and outrage. But the criminal cases, both of which recalled events from nearly seven years ago, also prompted a sizeable number of Active Clubs and white nationalist accounts on Telegram and Gab to laud the movement’s reformed tactics, and the restructured hierarchy that had emerged since Charlottesville and the decline of the “alt-right.”^[1] “First Rundo now Rousseau, by far the two most important figures in 3.0 Nationalism,” a popular white nationalist Telegram channel mused. “However, this is not like before. You can’t simply take a few leaders off the street and decapitate the whole movement.”

The statement had some degree of truth. Post-Charlottesville, some founders of right-wing extremist movements in the US – including Rundo and Rousseau – have consciously restructured their groups to better withstand significant disruptions, such as the arrests of leaders, by devolving control to local chapters and seeking to insulate key leaders from the actions of individual members. Though Patriot Front and Active Clubs have employed different strategies, both have effectively mitigated threats to their continued existence.

Patriot Front and Active Clubs are also closely affiliated. They stage protests together, compete in combat sports tournaments, and frequently promote each other on their respective social media channels. While Patriot Front bars its members from having dual membership in other organizations, former Patriot Front devotees have been found to later join or even create their own Active Clubs. Individuals also sometimes alternate between the two groups, further highlighting the connective tissue that binds these groups together.

The ways Rundo and Rousseau have reconfigured their groups has made them more resilient, as evidenced by their continuance despite legal troubles, arrests and infiltrations.

‘White Nationalism 3.0’ and Active Clubs

Rundo first coined the idea of a ‘White Nationalism 3.0’ (also called ‘3.0 Nationalism’) in an online essay posted in December 2020. His conceptualization and terminology have appeared throughout the white nationalist movement ever since.

As Rundo explained at the time, “1.0 nationalism” could be thought of as street activism from racist Skinhead groups active in the 1980s. The era of “2.0 nationalism,” he said, could be defined by the rise and fall of the “alt-right” in the 2010s. And “3.0 nationalism” referred to his vision for a decentralized but ideologically unified white nationalist scene.

Rundo’s 3.0 model relies on two specific strategies: Making groups less susceptible to collapse if leaders are compromised and boosting recruitment numbers with softer public branding. Its thinking is not entirely novel; it echoes the “leaderless resistance” concept first popularized among US white supremacists by Louis Beam in the 1980s. The concept has also been promoted by Salafi-jihadi scholars including Abu Musab al-Suri.

The emphasis on resilience likely stemmed from the break-up of the Rise Above Movement (RAM) group, which crumbled after several members were arrested in 2018. In response, Rundo rejected and shifted from RAM’s hierarchical organizing structure to a decentralized model with no absolute leaders, favoring small, largely autonomous cells that work in loose collaboration toward common objectives. These cells are also region-specific, allowing members to target local issues that are more relevant to their daily lives. This structure allows the wider network to emerge unscathed even if one cell dissolves because of legal action or infiltration.

Separate from the structural advantage, the 3.0 model also lowers barriers to entry for recruits who might be hesitant to join an extremist group. Rundo called for the use of aesthetics centered around fitness and mixed martial arts to appeal to a wider base while limiting the use of overt hate symbols, such as swastikas. He also thought simpler and sanitized aesthetics would help avoid unwanted attention from law enforcement.

Active Clubs have widely implemented Rundo’s 3.0 model with considerable success. To date there are over 40 Active Clubs in operation in the US, with dozens more in Canada and Europe. The clubs regularly partake in independent activities including hiking, physical training, and sparring sessions to build camaraderie, but they also coordinate with other regional clubs for demonstrations. Additionally, Active Clubs have attempted to distance themselves from more militant-oriented groups, with one widely circulated Telegram post reading in part: “What an Active Club IS NOT: A militia that rehearses military battle drills involving firearms. We do not condone or accept groups who do this as it is not in line with what the Active Club model is about.”

The decentralized model does have risks. By devolving control, group leaders have little ability to rein in local cells that are not coordinating with the overall group or taking action that could lead to additional law enforcement scrutiny. With limited control over who is allowed to join each cell, the admission of a recruit who later engages in serious criminal activity could elevate the network on law enforcement’s radar.

Modified Hierarchies and Patriot Front

In contrast to the 3.0 model, Rousseau’s Patriot Front is organized vertically, in the style of more traditional far-right extremist groups including the Ku Klux Klan, National Socialist Movement and Identity Evropa. But the structure Rousseau implemented with Patriot Front has also proven persistent in the wakes of shakeups.

In hierarchical groups, power is concentrated at the top. Leaders hand down edicts to lower-rank members who, like foot soldiers, are expected to dutifully implement them. Rousseau is the unquestioned leader of Patriot Front and has developed a reputation for managing nearly all aspects of the group’s operations. Communications leaked in 2022 revealed that Rousseau was directly responsible for choregraphing Patriot Front’s protests, setting strict activism quotas, dictating the vetting process for recruits, and much more.

Patriot Front’s organizational structure can be further broken down to its regional “Networks” or chapters. These are headed by self-described Network Directors who report directly to Rousseau. Although Rousseau maintains near total control over the Networks and their activities, each cluster is expected to carry out independent actions, such as stickering and stenciling, that can be turned into propaganda material for the wider group.

Hierarchical organizations have certain advantages lacking in decentralized models. Their leaders can institute a uniform brand identity for the group, which can help it deliver consistent political messaging to its target audience. In addition, leaders can establish a standardized vetting process to exert greater control over who is admitted into the organization (even though this does not always prevent infiltrators from gaining access). Another understated benefit is that leaders can mobilize large numbers of members on short notice for national demonstrations, allowing the group to cultivate greater attention from the public and news media.

Rousseau’s Patriot Front has reaped the benefits of its hierarchical model, particularly its centralized command structure, which has helped it to become the most active white nationalist organization in the US today. The group has also fallen victim to the model’s inherent weaknesses on multiple occasions; however, even after setbacks such as multiple arrests including Rousseau’s, the group has charged on, seemingly undeterred.

The 3.0 and Patriot Front Models Prove Resilient to Turmoil

The arrest of an Active Club leader in Tennessee illustrates the strength of the decentralized model used by Active Clubs.

Sean Kauffmann, who led the particularly active Tennessee Active Club (TAC), was arrested and charged in March for allegedly assaulting his partner and bruising his infant son. TAC deleted its Telegram channel and halted its demonstrations shortly after news of his arrest began to circulate. Though Kauffmann was released on bond, TAC’s capabilities appeared significantly diminished.

Kauffmann’s arrest also had very little impact on the wider Active Club network in the US, which has continued its activities unabated. In fact, ISD analysts did not observe any Active Clubs reference the incident on their public social media channels.

After a two-month-long hiatus, TAC revamped its online presence, claimed that it was “almost restored to it’s [sic] former size,” and likely appointed a new leader, although the latter claims cannot be confirmed. With no entity to seek approval from, the 3.0 model of white nationalist activism makes small groups and their leaders disposable and interchangeable. The formation of new groups can be almost effortless.

In a similar manner, despite the arrest of its leader Patriot Front demonstrated the resiliency of its own model by continuing to hold protests and spread its propaganda.

The day after Rousseau was arrested in Texas, approximately 20 Patriot Front members marched in downtown Paducah, Kentucky, to protest an unrelated local issue (the Patriot Front leader was not present at the demonstration). It showed that the group was undeterred from carrying out its planned action, which likely pre-dated Rousseau’s arrest.

After Rousseau was released on bail, he issued a video statement to his followers in which he attempted to quell any fears that Patriot Front’s operations would be impacted.

“I want to make it clear that the organization is doing well… [and] that all of our causes and all of our efforts are proceeding on track [and] on schedule,” Rousseau said in the video.

His assertion largely proved to be true. In the months following Rousseau’s arrest, ISD has tracked over 1,300 instances^[2] of Patriot Front spreading its propaganda offline. In addition to the Kentucky demonstration, members of the group have participated in numerous protests, including in Montana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and even France.

Although there’s little indication that Patriot Front’s activity is slowing down, the future of the group is unclear. Factors such as the possibility of Rousseau’s prolonged imprisonment and a pending lawsuit that seeks to bankrupt the organization could have dire long-term consequences for the group’s survival.

Nevertheless, what seems to separate Patriot Front from other hierarchical right-wing extremist groups is its skilful operation within a legal gray zone. Patriot Front leadership is careful to avoid confrontations with law enforcement, taking a commanding role in the planning and execution of the group’s riskier actions like mural defacements. The group has also been able to rely on First Amendment protections for its propaganda drives and demonstrations. It remains to be seen if Patriot Front will be able to continue its legal maneuvring in the months ahead.

Conclusion

Patriot Front and Active Clubs have employed different, yet effective, organizational structures in the post-Charlottesville era of white nationalist organizing.

Active Clubs, with their embrace of “leaderless resistance” and a decentralized network of small, yet interconnected regional cells, arguably present the most pressing challenge to law enforcement agencies as they seek to hold these groups accountable.

Patriot Front, with Rousseau at the top, has relied on a more traditional hierarchical structure. Although the group has faced several past and ongoing lawsuits, it has proved to be remarkably resilient in the face of these setbacks.

These two groups may appear similar on the surface, however they each have unique structures in place that have allowed them to become among the most influential white nationalist groups in the country today. Legal efforts and current attempts at disruption appear to have had a limited impact on their operations, suggesting that other actions may have to be taken to counter the threat they pose to democracy in the US.

End Notes

[1] The “alt-right” or alternative right was a far-right, primarily online white nationalist movement that rose to prominence in the 2010s before entering a period of decline after the Unite the Right rally.

[2] ISD analysts tracked these events through content posted by Patriot Front and media reporting.