[ad_1]
Gavin McInnes sells a highly marketable product.
According to the right-wing provocateur and founder of The Proud Boys, he is simply a defender of normality and old-fashioned male camaraderie, whereas what thrills his cause is violence.
McInnes enjoys a media moment. After delivering a speech in front of the Metropolitan Republican Club in New York City, an institution usually held on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, his Proud Boys fought in the street with Antifa members in a publicity stunt.
The group was denounced by Governor Andrew Cuomo and the video footage of this clash is irresistible. The New York Times duly described McInnes the other day ("Proud Boys' Founder: How He Got From Brooklyn Hipster to a Far-Right Provocateur").
McInnes may have more lasting power than the other marginalized far-right figures who have briefly gained importance in recent years, such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer. He is scandalous and weird, yet funny and intelligent.
It obviously tries to preserve some credibility, or at least a plausible denial. His membership on the right is quite clear – he was writing for rancid websites such as VDare and Taki magazine – but he avoided the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville and said his members were banned from the Proud Boys.
The group bears the indisputable imprint of his torn vision – McInnes is like Abbie Hoffman of the right-wing fighters. A level of initiation is to be hit while shouting the names of five breakfast cereals. All this sounds like an elaborate joke, but the commercial side of the Proud Boy is serious enough.
McInnes is open about his glorification of violence. In a speech explaining Proud Boys, McInnes described a clash with Antifa on the sidelines of a speech at NYU last year: "My guys are left in the fight. And here is the crucial part: we do it. And we beat them. He recounted what a proud boy who was arrested told him later: "It was really, really fun. According to McInnes, "Violence does not feel good. Justified violence feels good. And the fight resolves everything.
He then mocked feats of antifa fighting: "They are easy prey"; "You feel sexist to hit them, because when you give them a punch, you feel like a girl"; "It's fun to beat the first three."
Then, true to his position that the Proud Boys are simply a return to groups that once played an important role in American civil society (you know, like the Shriners), he said the Proud Boys were "normal." to have children, to live in the suburbs and to love America.
But the patriotic dads of the suburbs have better things to do than roam the streets of Manhattan arguing with members of the left dressed in black, it is also not an activity conducive to the meeting of a nice girl and at his installation.
The atavistic impulse of the Proud Boys comes straight from the film "Fight Club", in which a group of violent men represents a revolt against a modern society banal and excessively feminized.
In his big book on football hooliganism, "Among the Thugs," Bill Buford recounts how he began by believing that there must be an economic or social cause behind the gangster. Then he realized no, the chaos itself was the problem.
"Violence is one of the most intensely experienced experiences and, for those who are able to engage in it, it is one of the most intense pleasures," writes Buford. According to McInnes, his Proud Boys are in complete agreement.
The violence of the Proud Boys has an added attraction for a certain audience right now. It can be described as a mere defense against Antifa's banditry (which is tolerated in leftist jurisdictions like Portland, Oregon, to a shocking extent).
It is simple and does not require any effort of argumentation or persuasion. He is considered a symbol of strength – the Proud Boys are always expected to win their battles.
Needless to say, all of this is toxic. You can oppose Antifa without fighting – a crowd does not justify another. Violence outside the law is always wrong. We have a democratic policy so that political and cultural conflicts can be resolved without the use of firearms – or firearms and bombs.
If conservatism is to represent law and order, it must anathematize and exclude defenders and practitioners of violence.
Gavin McInnes surely believes that he has a growth product, and he may be right. All the more reason to resist his call to the violence of the siren, which is neither normal nor malicious nor justified.
Source link
