Pride and Passion Part IV - The Finale: Liberalism, The Republic, and Violence

Pictured: Gavin McInnes appearing live on Louder With Crowder Photo courtesy of Steven Crowder, CC BY 3.0,

Pictured: Gavin McInnes appearing live on Louder With Crowder
Photo courtesy of Steven Crowder, CC BY 3.0,

In the original example, who is right and who is wrong? Was Clodius the only problem for starting all that mess, or does Milo bear some responsibility for not only responding with violence, but accelerating it? Isn’t it safe to realize, as responsible people all aware and realizing the principles of liberalism and following them, that both men directly lead to the destabilization of the Senate and Peoples of Rome to the point that open and direct military violence was the ideal solution? How many of you back then would have seen Clodius reformist thugs roaming the streets and decided that it was a good idea to jump in with the other faction for stability? For political similarities? Despite political differences? How many of you would have been willing victims for either faction?

Perhaps, and just perhaps, if more people had a voice. There were no police in Rome that could handle an armed band of mercenaries. We do not live in Rome. (Unless you do, in which case, sorry about the Mafia bosses that are your government.) We live in, as Mr. McInnes is so often seeing regurgitating out of his mouth, ‘the West’. There was also very limited direct ability for the Romans to defend themselves. Swords were illegal, and still were, even as the mercenaries employed by each side used them to slaughter each other, and even innocent men, women, and children. In various ‘Western’ states, you are given the means to protect yourself. And in those small areas you are not, the police and possible state intervention is high. You are not defenseless, there are concepts and institutions in place to prevent a mob from taking your life or livelihood. If the exact same circumstances as 57 BCE were happening today, it simply would not and cannot. It will never fully devolve into a mob-ruled city or state.

I live in a state which recently saw the first instance of a ‘flash rob’, a variation and far-less-legal version of the ‘flash mob’ of innocent frivolity long past. A group of people stormed into a store, looting many small items, about 100 people total. Shortly thereafter, a couple months later, a second ‘flash rob’. This time during a 4th of July/USA Independence Day celebration. The police response? A direct announcement that all major metropolitan police departments will now begin carrying riot-deterrence gear. Tear gas grenades, riot grade canisters of pepper-spray, additional tasers, and helmets and other pieces of riot gear. True? Doesn’t matter. If ‘the West is best’ then someone should have some faith in the West’s ability to resist falling.

Within the principles of Liberalists (see also: Liberalistism) are three major principles I have decided prevent the Proud Boys, their allies, and similar organization from being seriously considered as allies, and in fact might be considered to paint them as inherently anti-Western culture.

‘A constitutional democracy is the best way for a free citizenry to maintain a state and resist tyranny.’ Forming a public, street-level militia, is inherently anti-democratic. No one has asked the Proud Boys to act on their behalf, and in fact the Proud Boys constant antagonistic behavior at Anti-Fa rallies and protests has led to a near constant negative interaction with them that sees the public safety in the area disappear. It creates a climate in which a state free from the threat of tyranny cannot exist as the inevitable result of escalating your efforts of ‘self defense’ against Anti-Fa will make military control, and further militarization of the police an inevitable measure that needs to be taken. We have already seen measures taken that ban ‘masks’ from being worn at protests, which has been called ‘Anti-Fa ban’, but more realistically I think the reader of this article, if unaware, should be looking into how often the Proud Boys/Alt Knights recommend ‘breathing gear’ or ‘anti-gas bandannas’ at these events.

‘People posses agency and should be treated as such because treating people like victims becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.’ I will admit, I have not yet demonstrated this clearly in my article, but in my research (all of which can be made available to the reader) the Proud Boys are fanatics at maintaining the victim narrative. The irony here should not be overlooked as they will go out of their way to decry victim culture present within the left, but insist they are never in the wrong… They will give lists of their wounded and show how they were just arrested for ‘self defense’. Indeed, the victim narrative of the Proud Boy seems to be a charter concept as it drives the message home that ‘Western, White, Cis-Gendered Men are under attack’. Crazy, I know. To refuse victim culture, but then cloak yourselves and indoctrinate yourselves in it. Not the sign of a rational mind.

‘Everybody is free to practice their religion, or not, as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others’. Anyone even vaguely familiar with McInnes and his in-group of friends, cronies, and former employees should be aware of the near violent level of anti-Muslim rhetoric they regularly spew out, all under the blanket protection of saying the word ‘extremist’, ‘violent’, or ‘Islamist’ in front of it. But, that doesn’t prevent them from speaking out or showing their hand when their guard is down. Let me just give you this quote from Based Stickman himself, the founder and leader of the Alt Knights and directly under McInnes in leadership and rank, as well as under McInnes legal protection. (Sources available.)

The Intercept film showed Chapman speaking to an audience in Southern California, claiming, “Whites as a group have done far more for this world than any other group.” To wild applause from the crowd, he celebrated hate crimes directed against Muslims in Eastern Europe. “One Muslim steps wrong in one of those countries, and every Polish, Ukrainian, Czech man on the streets will put that son of a bitch in check in two seconds,” he roared. “And that’s how it has to be here.” He proclaimed that the white race has been “targeted for destruction” and invoked a “war on whites,” imploring his audience, “You must sacrifice, you must bleed, and some of you may have to, at some point, die.”

If that didn’t make your Liberalist/reasonable human spine curl up a bit, I am not sure what will anymore. Or for that matter, anyone who has read ‘Mein Kampf’, even as a joke.

My Personal Conclusions And Advisement

Whether you sympathize with the sheer amount of media misrepresentation, of which their organizational structure is partly to blame (as well as previous alliances), the Proud Boys support an inherently un-democratic, and anti-republican mentality that shows little to no regard for those not involved in their political goals.

Their leader treats them, and indoctrinates them and encourages them on a pseudo-terrorist cell structure, but also not unlike an adult anti-masturbation cult of ‘He-Man Woman Haters’ club willing to engage in riots and political violence. What is worse, even if you discount my personal assessment on this, their structure makes them incredibly prone to infiltration and influence from the Alt-Right and various degrees of White Nationalism, requiring constant purges of membership and repeated statements of values to distance themselves from other extremist/more extreme groups.

Their organization wreaks of incompetency, or malice. And I am not sure which is worse. Individual chapters are given independent functionality until they mess up, at which time they have a media platform to perform damage-control and legal protection of certain members. Whether through ineptness or intentionally deceptive behavior, what group of principled individuals that value an open and direct organizational structure wish to ally with the Proud Boys? If the Wisconsin group of Proud Boys are willing to openly insult a female member of the press and attempt to indicate she would only get an interview through an exchange of sexual congress, will the New York chapter choose to behave and not give Bronx-Stomps (multiple men kicking someone until unconscious) or Brooklyn-Hickies (cigar burns on the neck or face) to anyone in a Che Guevara t-shirt? Will the London chapter steal a bus to get the event?

The Proud Boys claim to stand for similar principles and Western values, such as ‘freedom of speech’. But both in practice, and through methodology, they have no concept of what Western values need to stand for. They want to protect their way of life, or secure a future for it, under the guise of defending Western values but at the same time constantly subverting them.

And the final nail in the coffin for me… As mentioned far earlier in this article… Was an initial willingness to ‘ally’ with White Nationalists to further their own agenda. If we have already proven that any racial identitarian group is fundamentally illberal and against Liberalist principles, then we must accept that any group willing to ally with them (as long as no one gets killed) must be considered equally repugnant, and I will advocate thus as a Liberalist.