In a recent local social media exchange attempts were made to identify a number of men from the Manitoba chapter of Proud Boys. A handful were pictured with a Proud Boys banner attending a rally. Curious, I clicked on some of the links to the social media profiles of Winnipeggers who identified with this group. Down the rabbit hole I went. Exploring where Proud Boys seemed more active I ended up on a social media platform I had never heard of which promotes itself as the ‘Free Speech Social Network’. Upon registering (and without giving any ‘preferences’) I was immediately given suggestions to follow various right wing American politicians and commentators. I began to follow as many local or even Canadian Proud Boy related accounts as I could find as well as prominent American groups and leaders.

For those who don’t know the Proud Boys are a sort of fraternal organization whose basic commitment is the unapologetic belief in and assertion of the superiority of Western modernity. What does this mean? Well in the course of reading their feeds and interacting with some local Manitoba Proud Boys I learned a few things. I should say at the outset that no one should feel any obligation to start conversations or engage with Proud Boys or their ideas. Each day collects a portion of our lives so spend yours wisely. No need to spend the time or energy unless there is some personal interest or need. But for those interested here are a few things I observed.

First, the question of race is important. They claim to be ‘anti-racist’ as well as ‘anti-racial guilt’ (i.e. anti white guilt). Despite regular claims to ties with white nationalists (which I have no source or insight into) as well as Proud Boy targeting of the Black Lives Matter movement as the enemy (which is absolutely clear) what I found was that the spokesmen for the Proud Boys love to demonstrate their diversity as a defense against charges of racism. So on Proud Boy social media ‘The Left’s’ accusation that Proud Boys are racist is discredited because one of their leaders and several members are not white! They acknowledge that Western slavery was bad but it happened all over the world and it was the West who ended it! They deny the existence of systemic racism by finding clips and quotes of Black people saying it doesn’t. The shrugged off the queer appropriation of ‘proud boys’ again noting their group diversity. In this way Proud Boys use a popularized version of identity or representational politics to reject both accusations of racism as well as dismiss other accounts of racism, namely systemic racism. Again, this is also important in their consistent position that Black Lives Matter are in fact the racists inflicting more damage and violence then anything Proud Boys have done.

Reading their media I realize I had not taken Trump’s position on ‘fake news’ as seriously as I should have. Part of why I didn’t take it seriously is that I assumed most people understand media and news reports always have bias and one most take care in opinions formed. However, entering fully right wing social media I saw the blatant dismissal for any mainstream media (increasingly even Fox News is suspect) and the assertion of ‘facts’ that can only be trusted from private ‘alternative’ sources. In this feed Black Lives Matter are exposed as the real racists and terrorists. Joe Biden is a communist. And something I have never seen before was the weird and intentional mis-gendering of Democratic politicians through altered photos. It was common to find doctored photos to make Hilary Clinton and Michelle Obama look more manly and Joe Biden and Barack Obama feminine. And basically the entirety of the feed drives to complete clarity around the need for Trump’s America.

What I did find interesting was a peculiar pattern within Proud Boys narrative. Engaging with a local Manitoba Proud Boy the course of conversation yielded the following progression. He talked about it starting as just a bunch of dudes who liked hanging out together and having fun. But then they realized they had to do something when conservative female politicians were getting attacked. I inquired about this (thinking it was a Manitoba reference) and it seemed to refer to a rally at an event in Vancouver a few years back where a female libertarian had urine poured on her. He was clear that it terms of conflict you can have whatever view you want, express it and debate it. Their articulation of ‘free speech’ is one of the main reasons they proclaim that West is Best. But it is when someone comes after and attack those freedoms that they will stand up for the fight. The local Proud Boy also expressed that they could do more good in the community if they weren’t attacked by The Left (referencing a local member who apparently got ‘doxxed’ as well as a claim of threats levelled against other members).

What was strange about this conversation with a local Proud Boy was that soon after that exchange I listened to an interview with one of its founders and he articulated the exact same narrative in the course of a few minutes. This guy also just wanted to hang with dudes and have fun but then (and he actually uses the same examples) some women were attacked they needed to protect them. They are fine with the market place of ideas and won’t start a fight for that reason though again they’ll finish a fight as they are keen to say. The founder is a charismatic public speaker who is very quick on his feet and so rhetorically knows how to take advantage of a situation often provoking people to his advantage (at least the clips he airs). In any event there was a weird rehearsal of origin stories and ethos at play here. Men were innocent, wrestling with each other to keep each sharp and protecting their women when called upon and defending their way of life which they truly believe is best for everyone.

While they claim they will not start a fight it is pretty clear that they take recent events and use them to claim that The Left (namely Black Lives Matter and ‘antifa’ protests) are already violent (pinning any conflicting events on BLM or ‘antifa’ agenda). So stories like the physical attack on a female rightwing commentator, property damage from protests, and the physical conflicts that have occurred are leveraged as cause for a greater militant response. But just what are they defending? They use the broadest of strokes calling it simply The West or the Modern World. Really, though, their expression seems to be a blend of conservative patriarchy and liberal individualism. In keeping with their ah shucks origin story one of their founders (who is in his 50s) talked about the inspiration for the group coming from working with a 25 year old guy who was a virgin and okay with it. This, apparently, was unacceptable and a sign of masculine failure. In this way the group is in keeping with any number of men’s group that have been fighting the culture wars of patriarchy and feminism for decades from Promise Keepers, Wild at Heart, or those following in the wake of Jordan Peterson’s influence. Again, as a ‘war’ things like feminism and ‘antifa’ already constitute an attack for them, a call to which someone must respond. Unlike some of the earlier American manifestations Proud Boys seems to have discarded a number of the conservative morals (at least publically) so as long as you are an aggro-dudebro it doesn’t matter your colour or sexual orientation.

So while claiming to be anti-racist (again in some limited representational forms) they are explicitly supremacist. And, as near as I can tell, this is the basis of their politics. Any nuanced history of how the West required non-western influences for its own formations, despite massive critiques of western atrocities, despite countless non-western expressions that have benefited the world there is simply no real conversation to be had. How do we know West is Best? Because it won, therefore anything good is by definition western. How will the West continue to be Best? By continuing to win.

In many ways it is really not worth a thorough critique of this position. Libertarian freedoms are premised on a refusal to take seriously structural powers and constraints and so end up embracing some form of social Darwinism. I expect most Proud Boys would accept this characterization. It is typically not worth ‘debating’ because the topics and examples of global political history are thrown around in ways that are necessarily uniformed (that is, no one involved can really be expected to have a deep knowledge of these vast histories). I got into one of these conversations and tried to temper it with acknowledgements that, you know, maybe we are not informed on the range of topics being discussed but that does not stop the assertions that ‘nowhere is better to live than here’ or that ‘centralized governments have never accomplished anything’. And, expectedly, as my conversations occurred over Canadian Thanksgiving Christopher Columbus was embraced as an exemplar of their values.

As much as anything Proud Boys seem to be product of the so called ‘crisis of masculinity’. For centuries the equivalent of dudebros in America have been able to set the terms of culture and values. While challenges have occurred within that narrative for longer periods it has really only been a few decades that substantial shifts in culture and law have occurred addressing misogyny and gender based violence. This reaction of masculine frailty, having never really had to share power, should have been better predicted and perhaps prepared for (although I guarantee women have indeed been addressing this). Like race and economics there is a structure to masculinity and in the West it has emerged as that of sovereignty. While expressions of virility, power, struggle, and trial all have their place in other structures Proud Boys seems to view these forms as bending towards the singular prize of being King of the Castle for the male in the West. The West is the history of masculine Reason with the final say on matters.

It is precisely at the level of systems and structures that movements like Proud Boys need to be addressed. And it precisely here that one cannot simply focus on and isolate groups like Proud Boys or ‘the right’ more generally. All partisan parties in Canada and the US remain committed to the belief that capitalism will best serve their citizens. All parties remain committed to a sort ‘representational’ politics or multiculturalism as way of addressing (or better denying) systemic racism. This is why when I learned about the ‘diversity’ of the Proud Boys I couldn’t help think about the representational politics in the Canadian Liberal government, the way Trudeau paraded his diverse cabinet as though that in itself was the marker of overcoming an unjust system. As with Canadian ‘multiculturalism’ of the 80s and 90s these actions can be used to insulate the structure from substantial criticism or change. There are real differences among political parties that make a material impact on people’s lives but this should not distract from the structures that endure regardless of changes in office.

So have whatever conversations may seem helpful or necessary for your situation but the idea of ‘debate’ as some sort of honorable goal in these contexts will likely only serve existing structures. I was reminded of Jacob Taubes citing the talk between Martin Buber and Dag Hammarskjold who spoke at the United Nations in 1958 on peace in an age of conflict and mistrust. Taubes writes, “Think of them just speaking to one another! As if there in the eternal conversation the path to peace were already opened. That just completely misses the real powers at work here.” Or to put a finer point on it Franz Fanon when trying to justify his black existence and his place in the white world, “my unreason was countered with reason, my reason with ‘real reason’.” Or in another place, “The colonist bourgeoisie hammered into the colonized mind the notion of a society of individuals where each is locked in his subjectivity, where wealth lies in thought.” And to be clear ‘thought’ and ‘reason’ here is a western supremacist logic which functions as an enclosed system. It is the same logic as racism, misogyny, and exploitation. In many ways the evasion of explicit ‘racism’ or ‘misogyny’ really does return modernity to founding gestures in the colonization and genocide of the Americas. The Enlightenment articulation of universal Reason and a linear historicism was directly applied to ‘native’ populations rendering them as inferior allowing them to be positioned as needed whether as an intermediaries, as wards to be assimilated or as expendable when necessary. Reason and the invitation of ‘debate’ means little other than Come and get it if you can. You will become one of us if you do . . . and we still win. The making of the ‘Modern World’, the pride of Proud Boys is the crafting of reason for the ends of domination. If this is their claimed inheritance they do not get the right to also claim whatever goods have been fought for against such domination along the way.

I really can’t speak to the immediate threat this group poses as it is configured. They know how to present publicly and reasonably. On the other hand chatting with local Proud Boys there was a certain banality to it in that I find many of these views (or worse) in churches, family gatherings, and plenty of other spaces. What creeped me out in particular was the shared (seemingly rehearsed) narrative of simple origins that are activated by attacks from ‘The Left’. This was probably the most troubling part of the conversation. The narrative for Just War and delineation of the enemy now seems set and it is embedded for action with all other manner of right way expressions under Trump.

A couple of final thoughts. First we should be clear as to how close in proximity all these forms of politics function from Proud Boys to American Democrats to Canadian Liberals. The differences are important but when pushed they all finally embrace Western supremacy (because it is their foundation). This remains the pressing question for organizing both transformative politics and for the church. How will the church understand its politics and its way of being in the world? Conversations are fine if they help you clarify your understanding and will at many times be necessary but they are almost certainly not the means of change. The church also does not have the option of political neutrality. We are entangled in the forms of the world. While we cannot leave the world we can practice naming the powers as we come to know them and see them at work. With discernment we can practice supporting Individuals under threat and holding accountable those in positions of power. This leads to my second thought. Perhaps you are called to vigorous engagement with groups like Proud Boys. However, it is very easy to become determined by your enemy in the sense that it can take away from what you are seeking in life, from what you are committed to valuing. Little more needs to be said about Proud Boys then that they are Western supremacists, you need to decide what that means in relation to your values. I would simply conclude by saying that at the very least if one is invested in biblical or social justice they should give their attention to those who find themselves on the margins and exposed to abusive forces in our society. Let that be the site of your education and action. The intimacies of our lives are ultimately more important than any abstract ‘debate’. Such intimacies do not always make the right choices clear but it clarifies the lie of western (or white) supremacy.