Unreleased scripts -- now released! (Patreon)

Just giving you some previously unreleased scripts. One of them is about Pureflix, and now seems to be a good opportunity to let you know that I will probably be breaking my "no more movie videos" rule to have something on God's Not Dead 5. Apparently, it's being released this year.

HOW TO START WATCHING HORROR MOVIES

How to Start Watching Horror Movies

Summer is nearly over, and the spooky season is almost upon us. What, you don't start celebrating Halloween throughout all of September and October? Ha, nerds. Horror movies have always been a passion of mine – and so many others. It is one of the only film genres that can attract fans to a convention to celebrate it. Nobody goes to “period drama” cons or fills out convention centers for screwball comedies. Pop culture meet-ups are generally confined to horror or science fiction. In contrast, horror is also one of the only genres that many avoid altogether. “I love all movies,” someone might say, “except horror.” The avoidance generally goes beyond simple disinterest. Some people are nauseated by blood, or have suffered a trauma that makes being startled extremely uncomfortable. Nevertheless, some who avoid horror movies may still be curious about the genre. How can someone who actively avoids horror movies due to physical repulsion find a way into the fandom nonetheless? What is a good entry point movie to the genre? Rather than simply recommending the best that horror has to offer, the entry point needs to be suited to the viewer – suited to the reason why they have avoided horror in the first place. Horror movies are designed to stretch beyond limits – the limits of sanity, the limits of reality, and sometimes simply the limits of good taste.

Because of this inherent need within horror to break taboos and shock the audience, there can be a great deal of blood and gore. Slasher films, a subgenre of horror, are particularly bloody, and with each passing sequel, the kills become more elaborate to satisfy an audience that is now jaded due to the kills in the preceding entry. However, not everyone can stomach the sometimes excessive amount of blood and gore that ooze all over the horror genre. Some people become disgusted by blood or even nauseous. Nobody wants to have to run out of the living room or theater to visit the bathroom in the middle of a movie. Fortunately, not all horror is the slasher subgenre, and not all horror contains graphic death scenes and severed heads. The Babadook is the story of a mother and child who are still grieving the loss of the child's father. All hell breaks loose when the mother reads a story that seems to have a life of its own. Although it is frightening, nobody is put on meat hooks or disemboweled. [The Others] The Others is a modern take on the gothic horror. Paranormal Activity reignited the horror audience's love affair with found footage and is more creepy than gross. Psycho contains a little blood circling the drain in the famous shower scene and this fairly tame image of chocolate syrup on the detective's face, but it has nothing to make anyone nauseous. Perhaps the most obvious way to test the waters of horror for the gore-phobic is by watching classic 1930's monster movies like Frankenstein or Dracula.

All these films are fine entry points for someone interested in horror but not interested in feeling sick. Horror movies often employ “jump scares,” moments in the narrative in which everything is either deadly quiet or only gentle music is playing, then suddenly, without warning, boo! Jump scares can be overused, but if done well, they can be highly effective. There are variations, too – such as the fake-out, followed by the real jump scare. Horror movies provide the thrill of being scared without the danger of consequences. No matter how frightening a horror movie, Freddy Krueger is simply not going to come through the television set. There is nothing in the closet. There is nothing under the bed. However, sometimes that knowledge is not enough. Some people do not enjoy being startled – not everyone experiences the same moment with the same consequences. Everyone is built differently. Sometimes this avoidance of being startled is even due to trauma, or necessitated by a medical condition, particularly a heart condition. For those reasons, some people avoid horror movies. However, there are actually a great many horror movies that have no jump scares and instead rely primarily on atmosphere to build its dread, its unease. These movies are excellent entry points for those who want to experience the terror but not be unexpectedly startled. Seven has some tense moments, particularly the climax, but not many instances of someone leaping out from around a corner.

The Witch creates terror through its isolation and through its mystery. A child has gone missing, and the family begins to turn on each other. Isolation as horror can also be found in Midsommar, and The Blair Witch Project. All three are quite different from one another but employ a similar isolating dread. [Buried] Buried creates its terror through claustrophobia and suspense. A man has been buried underground and must find a way out. The Innocents is a classic horror that is effective through its atmosphere and not knowing what is real. Is there a ghost? Is it her imagination running wild? Any of these films would be a good way to start watching horror movies if the main concern is jump scares. Be warned, however, that Seven is quite graphic and would not be suitable for someone who detests both jump scares anddisgusting content. Fear is the most primal of emotions, and perhaps because of this, horror has the ability to challenge its audience in ways that other genres cannot. Although horror can reach this amazing heights, it can also be home to the depths of cinema. Horror has long been the subject of criticism for its portrayals of women, and an overall “lowbrow” vibe. This perception is not entirely unearned, as there are a number of entries into the genre might be best avoided.

It would be disingenuous to ignore the downside of horror, the negatives. Nobody should be pushed into watching content that has clearly dated itself or content that was obviously designed to upset people and cause controversy even in its own time. If someone is avoiding horror altogether because of a subsection of horror that is too lowbrow, they might enjoy something more thoughtful. Get Out is a tense, suspenseful horror movie about race. Us is an excellent companion piece to it and a provocative work on its own. Hereditary is a powerful movie about family trauma. It Follows, well, there is a lot going on there. Horror has always had high-brow examples, but modern horror has been pushing this elevation of the genre for the past ten years with some spectacular results. This is going to be a tough one! The conceit of horror is that it is meant to scare the audience in some way or another. Don't like blood? Watch a horror movie without blood. Don't like to be startled? Watch a horror movie without jump scares. Don't like to see women objectified or low-budget schlock? Watch a better horror movie. But how can someone enjoy a horror movie if that someone does not want to be scared at all but is still curious enough about the genre to give it a try?

Well, there are two ways to go about this. First, if the viewer believes they might be willing to be scared if they ease into it, the best entry point might be a horror movie that is not particularly scary and then slowly subject themselves to scarier and scarier content until they reach their limit and know what they do not do not want. The Sixth Sense is not particularly scary. Great movie, not scary. This is also true of Signs, though “great” might be an exaggeration. If neither of these movies turned the viewer away from the genre forever, they can move on to Scream or The Cabin in the Woods, which are a bump up in terms of horror but are also harmless popcorn movies that won't give anyone nightmares. Though, if someone is entirely new to the genre, some of the references in either movie might go over their heads. If these don't cause the viewer too much trouble, they can move on to A Nightmare on Elm Street and go from there. Second, if the viewer believes they will simply never be an “Elm Street” kind of fan, they can always try horror comedies instead and see what comes of that. Maybe the comedy will provide some relief between the scary stuff. Gremlins is a classic horror comedy, full of cute creatures as well as monsters. What We Do in the Shadows is far more comedy than horror – it's a comedy that simply takes place in a horror setting.

These movies might be a good entry point to someone skittish about horror altogether. Well, this is the easy one! Sometimes people avoid the horror genre because it looks imposing and they simply do not know where to start. If there are no limitations like blood, jump scares or anything else, some basic, universally-accepted recommendations will suffice. The Exorcist is widely considered one of the greatest horror movies of all time for a reason. It's disturbing, intense, and full of great performances. Alien is the absolute peak of sci-fi horror, boasts an impressive cast, and some of the best practical effects of its time. The Fly is arguably the best body horror movie ever, but it is definitely not for the weak of heart. For something more down to Earth, you can't go wrong with Misery. Might be best to look away during the hobbling scene if you have a sensitive stomach. If you run out of English language horror, there is an entire world of horror movies waiting. I could go on and on. I hope this has been helpful to anyone interested in horror but has avoided the genre for one reason or another. You don't have to dive head-first into the pool. You can dip your toes in as slowly as you want.

PUREFLIX ROMANCE

AUDIO 1

Pureflix is a streaming service that features predominantly Christian and conservative media. Exclusive streaming series starring David A. R. White, Evangelical endtimes propaganda movies such as Left Behind, and a host of other barely-watchable dreck. The service was created by the film production and distribution studio of the same name. However, in 2020, Sony Pictures – under their Affirm Films brand – bought Pureflix the streaming service, but Pureflix the studio remained independent and changed its name to Pinnacle Peak ahead of the upcoming release of God's Not Dead 4? Jesus Christ. Thus, Pureflix the streaming service is no longer related to the previous studio of the same name but still features many of its movies. All caught up? Out of curiosity if nothing else, I subscribed to Pureflix over the summer and watched such diverse fare as the firstApocalypse movie and the second Apocalypse movie. I was about to call it a failed experiment until I scrolled through the genre listing and noticed a “romance” section. What is “romance” as defined by socially conservative Evangelical Christians? What makes something a Christian romance? Is it only harmless Hallmark movie-of-the-week rubbish, or is there something more sinister or at least self-righteous in its messaging? It depends on the movie. Pureflix recommended Belle and the Beast, a Christian re-imagining of Beauty and the Beast. This time, instead of romantic love changing the Beast, it's the love of God.

[“God wants me to be happy.”] This falls into the mostly harmless category – but the other movies I watched were something else altogether. After scrolling through the romance section, I came upon a movie called Old Fashioned. Released right before Valentine's Day in 2015, Old Fashioned was believed to be positioned as counter-programming to Fifty Shades of Grey, released on the same day. Old Fashioned goes in the oppose extreme of Fifty Shades, preaching a Christian abstinence so rigid that it is actually not even mandated by the Holy Bible. Old Fashioned stars Rik Swartzwelder, who also wrote, directed and produced the movie. While some movies leave a certain amount of ambiguity in its messaging and its overall perspective, that is not the case here. Old Fashioned has a specific perspective and specific morals – reinforced by the very text of the film, in which these morals are portrayed positively and win out in the end. The film opens with an out-of-towner, Amber, meeting the owner of a local antique shop, Clay. Amber notices right away that Clay seems to be keeping his distance, and when asked, Clay admits that he must never be the same room alone with a woman unlessthat woman is his wife. [“That's sweet, I think.”] No. No, it is not. It's a red flag. There are two implications here. The first is that Clay knows he cannot trust himself to even be near a woman without succumbing to her seduction.

AUDIO 2

The second is that Clay believes Amber, who he only met a moment ago, is planning on seducing him. The Holy Bible offers guidelines on how to live in a variety ways. There are explicit, unshakable commandments that are not significantly contradicted elsewhere in the Bible. There are standards that are contradicted. There are priestly standards that can be misinterpreted as standards for the general population. And there are stories with lessons that imply a standard. The Bible is not simply a set of standards, though. It is also a narrative of a people that scholars may call mythohistorical. There is nothing, however, in the entirety of the most commonly accepted canonical books of the Bible that suggest men and women must never be allowed to be alone at the same time before wedlock. In fact, there instances of in the Bible in which this happens, including Jesus Christ himself being alone with the woman who committed adultery. He spoke to the crowd, and when they all left, he was alone with her and spoke with her. “When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” John, Chapter 8, Verse 11. With that in mind, where does this rule come from? Is it an invention of the movie Old Fashioned? No, it is a fairly modern invention called the Modesto Manifesto, named after Modesto, California where Evangelical Protestant preacher Billy Graham proposed this concept.

Though framed as a tenet of Christianity, it has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with social conservatism. Clay confesses to Amber that he does not believe in dating. He frames his objections as being pragmatic. Clay says that dating does not bring people closer and the two people dating do not learn much about each other. However, Clay also casually mentions that dating leads to premarital relations. Clay believes that men and women should not even kissbefore marriage. Does this have any Biblical support? No, and truthfully, the more common belief that the Bible insists upon chastity before marriage is disputed. Proponents of chastity before marriage often cite the Ten Commandments and the First Epistle to the Corinthians. In the former, “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery” is broadened to not committing any relations that might be offensive to God. However, creates a kind of circular reasoning. The proponent says premarital relations is offensive to God, and says the commandment encompasses any relations that are offensive to God, then says the evidence that premarital relations is offensive is the commandment, which does not say premarital relations is offensive to God. This argument is missing a step. In the latter, Paul is referring to how the Corinthians behave and suggestions for how they might behave in order to solve a problem they have been having. It is not a sermon on the mount. It is a letter to a church in Corinth, a city in Greece.

AUDIO 3

It is advice from a man to a particular people at a particular time who are having a particular problem, not a mandate from God. The Bible is a series of books and letters about sometimes barely-related topics, combined into one tome. This gives people the impression that it is an intentionally singular narrative and that everything contained within has approximately equal weight. The trouble with giving equal weight to every verse of the Holy Bible is that it removes context and relative importance. Without context, a letter written for a specific audience with specific instructions is given as much weight as a universal lesson about how all people should treat one another. Much of the debate about what is and is not permissible in terms of relations comes from the conflation of various terms and translations. The Gospels were written in Greek, and used the word porneia(Πορνεία)to refer to a wide variety of “improper” relations, even though the literal translation is “prostitution” – not premarital relations. This conflation of terms, translations, as well as varying interpretations and contradictions makes it challenging to argue for the Biblical absolutism of the prohibition against premarital relations. With this in mind, why is it such a prevalent belief? Because it reaffirms social conservatism, misogyny, and the control of women. Socially conservative Christianity views women as both inherent temptresses and pure virgins.

This means that a man must never be alone with a women, lest the man be seduced by the woman, andthat the woman's virginity must be maintained until after marriage – when their sexuality can be better controlled by the man. Amber falls for Clay and his bizarre, arch-conservative standards because he frames them as “respecting women” but he does not respect her agency, her right as an adult to make consensual relations. Instead of dating, Clay has Amber practice being a mother to their potential children, asks her how many men she had been with before him, and in his spare time, interrupts a bachelor party. Clay does not “respect” women, he confines them into his narrow definition of what women should be and what women are allowed to do. As Clay and Amber continue their non-dating, the townspeople speculate on why Clay is not like other men. A young woman speculates that Clay is gay. Amber rejects this outright, even though she only met him days prior and has no reason to believe he is or is not straight. The only other speculation on why Clay is not like other men is that he is “diseased” – suggesting “being diseased” and “being gay” are comparable. Amber's immediate rejection plays into the socially conservative perspective of what is and is not a true relationship under God. One man and one woman. Representation of gay couples are nearly non-existent in Christian films of this variety.

AUDIO 4

Christian films either have coded gay characters that are obstacles to the protagonist's righteousness, such as in Let There Be Light, or they appear only after the narrative, such as the anti-LGBT court cases listed in the credits of the God's Not Dead movies. In the end, Clay asks Amber to marry him, and before he even finishes his question, she answers “Yes.” as if marrying this man she only just met is the obvious thing for her to do. Romance movies often have to speed things along instead of showing the several years someone usually needs before they are certain their partner is someone they want to spend of their life with – but in Old Fashioned, this takes on a different dimension. Clay and Amber not only fall in love with each other over the course of a few days, they get married over the course of a few days, without seeing if they are compatible living together, without seeing if they have physical chemistry, and without seeing if they would get along in the long-run. The movie frames this as romantic and ordained by God, but it's actually pretty creepy watching a free-spirited woman get suckered into leading a completely different and stifling lifestyle because she met a bland, uninteresting antique salesmen who brainwashed her. Amber just got out of an abusive relationship, and the movie wants us to compare this to her relationship with Clay and how hewon't break her wrist, but preying on a woman fleeing abuse by offering her a new relationship while she is psychologically recovering and vulnerable is not appropriate.

It's kind of messed up. Old Fashioned does not see it that way, of course, and Clay and Amber live happily ever after – until she hopefully comes to her senses. Old Fashioned wants its audience to believe that the way Clay and Amber come together shows that there can be higher standards in romance, but these are not higher standards, they're just different standards, and based on how little these two really know about each other before getting married, these standards are not the foundation of a lasting relationship – they're only the standards of a relationship that Clay believes God expects of him. Old Fashioned is not a movie about how to have a loving relationship. It's about how to be in a relationship without going to Hell. From the perspective of the Christian filmmaker, that is more important. It's just that in order for that to be a valid concern, Hell would have to be a real place and not the invention of his religion, and that his interpretation of the Bible as it pertains to relationships would have to be accurateand notculturally biased. Fireproof is the next Pureflix romance movie I watched. It is available at the time of writing, but according to the website, it will not be available by the time this video debuts, so you missed out! Fireproof is about a married, Caleb and Catherine, who are having difficulties. Caleb believes Catherine does not respect him despite his heroic status as a firefighter, and Catherine believes Caleb is inattentive and insensitive.

AUDIO 5

After a slow buildup of resentment, Catherine asks Caleb for a divorce. Caleb's father gives his son a guide to reigniting his marriage and avoiding what the film calls an “ugly divorce.” Catherine and Caleb have no children, and neither of them are planning on doing anything underhanded to one another during proceedings or demanding more than they are owed. However, in Fireproof, any divorce is an “ugly” divorce, because divorce is an affront to God. Caleb's father tells him so – as does Caleb's co-worker. Seemingly without much build-up, Caleb says he is now “all in” on Christianity. His words. Is divorce actuallyan affront to God? Is it sinful to escape a loveless or even abusive marriage? Christian proponents of the idea that God disapproves of divorce often cite Malachi, Chapter 2, Verse 16. Although, they do so while citing only a certain translation found in the King James Bible from 1611. In this version of the Bible, it is translated, or perhaps mistranslated as “For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away...”– interpreted as God hating divorce – but every major Biblical translation prior to that translated it differently. Meaning the Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bibleand so forth. In these translations, as well as translations that came after, it is clear that it is referring a husband hating his wife. Side note, the King James Version has largely fallen out of favor among many Christians, except for Christian fundamentalists and Evangelical Protestants.

Divorce itself is not sinful – only some of the circumstances that can lead to divorce, such as infidelity and abuse. It is the divorce that rescues the injured spouse, that ends the mistreatment. In the aforementioned Corinthians, Paul allows for divorce under certain circumstances. However, since the letters were meant for a specific audience and may not be general advice, the Gospel of Matthew that quoted the words of Jesus Christ might hold more weight. In Matthew Chapter 19, Verse 9, Christ says allows for divorce under certain circumstances. This is also true in Deuteronomy. There are a number of verses that show that God does not disapprove of divorce in and of itself but disapproves of someone who dishonors their spouse and then divorces that spouse. To put more simply, if partner A dishonors partner B, and partner A demands a divorce, that may compound the sin of partner A, but if partner A dishonors partner B and partner Bdemands a divorce, that is both acceptable and righteous. Partner B cannot be expected to remain in a marriage that has been dishonored by Partner A. Now, what about no-fault divorce? Well, if both are willing, and there is no injured party, then nobody has been dishonored, and God, in turn, appears to find no fault. In Fireproof, this is not brought up. Divorce is simply sinful in and of itself. When Caleb learns his Christian co-worker was once married and got a divorce, he is shocked, and the co-worker is ashamed.

AUDIO 6

Not about anything that may have happened in the marriage but for the mere fact that the marriage ended. Throughout the film, there are several references to Caleb and his suspicious internet browser history. This is portrayed as a personal failing and practically adultery against his wife. Is pleasuring yourself a sin? No. Socially conservative Christians sometimes point to the Book of Genesis and the story of Onan in Chapter 38, particularly the part about “spilling his seed,” but that is actually a reference to Onan not providing a heir. It is not a reference to, you know, that. Admittedly, there is some Biblical support for this being a sin – lust, in general, is sinful. Matthew Chapter 5, Verse 28 goes pretty hard on this. “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” That is challenging to dispute, but it is also difficult to believe that God considers thinking about something the same as doing it. There is no “Thou Shalt Not Think About Murder.” or “Don't Even ThinkAbout Dishonoring Your Mother and Father.” A more charitable interpretation of this verse from the Gospel of Matthew is that it is a warning that lust may lead to adultery and that Christ was using fanciful language to make a point, which he often did. In other words, one could argue that lust is frowned upon by God because of what it might lead to, and Caleb is not hurting himself because of his internet habits.

In the end, Caleb and Catherine reconcile and have a second wedding. The minister says that this is now a true marriage because only now is it built on a foundation of faith. There is little in the movie about Catherine and her relationship with God, but whatever. Pureflix has dozens of other Christian romance movies, but I am being honest, I tapped out at three. Watching media with wildly different politics and philosophies than my own is one thing. I do that all the time – but the movies are obnoxious, and frankly, pretty boring, too. By comparison, Left Behind is a much more exciting film. God's Not Dead is more engaging. These movies are too dry and flavorless to appeal to people who have not already bought into its message. These movies are not converting anyone to Christianity, they are reaffirming socially conservative Christianity for socially conservative Christians – portraying people of faith as righteous heroes in a world of sin. The Pureflix description for Old Fashioned reads “A small-town business owner and young woman attempt the impossible: committing to a God-honoring relationship in a contemporary America.” What? What are you talking about? Most people in the United States are Christians, and an even more vast majority believe in God. This isn't about God, it's about conservatism. When it comes to relationships, socially conservative Christians do not listen to pragmatic advice.

AUDIO 7

Abstinence before marriage does not lead to a better physical relationship life during marriage. Abstinence education does not lead to less unplanned pregnancies. Marrying quickly and before living together first does not prepare a couple for marriage. Divorce can lead to more happiness than an unhappy marriage. You can tell socially conservative Christians all the statistics about romance and physical relations that you want, and they will still reject them because their priority is not pleasing their partner, it is pleasing God, and maintaining a hierarchy that they believe has been divinely ordained. Their primary concern is not whether or not the marriage will be fulfilling but whether or not the marriage is tainted with a nebulous “sin” – an unseen and impossible-to-quantify invisible mark upon the soul. It does not matter that contraception is better at preventing unwanted pregnancies than abstinence education – because the outcome is irrelevant. Only the sin matters, and to them, premarital relations is a sin. It does not matter that divorce is sometimes the only option for either partner to be happy or the only way to escape an abusive relationship. Only the sin matters, and to them, divorce is a sin. Socially conservative Christians cannot simply look at the data and come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with consenting adults enjoying each other, or that there is nothing wrong with separating when a relationship is no longer tenable – because to them, both are supernaturally wrong.

They cannot be dissuaded from this belief through earthly means that do not address their supernatural beliefs. That is why examining their canonical texts and showing that other interpretations exist can be more useful than all the available data. If they are not even willing to entertain other interpretations, well, thisis always going to be romance to socially conservative Christians: a relationship under the rule of invisible influence and guided through a culturally biased interpretation of writings from thousands of years ago – many of which are simply letters to churches and instructions for a specific group of unrelated people. Gooood luck with that.

PROUD BOYS

AUDIO 1

[“Two people associated with a far-right group the proud boys have been arrested in a brawl between supporters of the group and anti-fascist activists.”] [“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by, but I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what. Somebody's got to do something about antifa, and the left...”] [“A leader of the right-wing extremist group the Proud Boys walked out of federal court in Orlando late this afternoon after being arrested on some of the most serious charges yet linked to the Capitol riot.”] On September 6, 2021, Proud Boys chairman Henry “Enrique” Tarrio turned himself in to the authorities to begin his 155 day prison sentence. Tarrio plead guilty to weapons charges and vandalizing church property. Tarrio, as well as his confederates, burned a Black Lives Matter banner that they stole from Asbury United Methodist Church, a historic Black church in Washington, DC. In a letter to the judge, the church's pastor reported that the Proud Boys traumatized many in her congregation and brought back "visions of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan (and) cross burnings." Tarrio, owing to his Cuban heritage, provides plausible deniability for the Proud Boys' more overtly racist members and activities. Tarrio's five months and five day sentence is merely one headline in a number of high-profile arrests, charges, and sentences for members of the so-called “western chauvinist” gang following the Proud Boys' involvement in the Capitol riot. With so many arrests and with the Proud Boys' mask fallen completely, a casual observer might guess that the violent street gang would fall back or at least fall out of favor with the far right.

However, the opposite has borne out. The Proud Boys, feeling themselves becoming an endangered species, have pushed harder and have become even more violent, abandoning their former preoccupation with optics to recruit the “normies” for a more aggressive posture. With their spiritual figurehead Donald Trump out of power and their chairman slash useful idiot in jail, the Proud Boys have been laying a path of destruction over the summer, co-opting various right-wing causes like the anti-vaccine movement to keep themselves relevant. Who are the Proud Boys? What do they want? Where do they come from? There are two ways to describe where they come from – the philosophical origins of their beliefs and the tangible origins of the far right group itself. The Proud Boys and many other far-right groups operate under the belief that theirs is a settled morality, an objective morality, and that those outside of this morality are degenerate – deviations from a moral acceptability. This morality is not built upon kindness, compassion or other qualities commonly associated with morality but on standards – which are falsely labeled as “objective” standards – that are more charitably understood as “societal norms” rather than standards of good behavior. To the Proud Boys, degenerates are feminists, LGBT people, and anyone who “pollutes the culture” of their nation, namely immigrants and more specifically non-white immigrants.

The Proud Boys declare these alleged truths in a way that allows them to maintain plausible deniability. They do this by drawing attention to whatever is contrary to what they hate. For example, they usually don't shout “We hate women, and we don't believe they should have the same rights as men.” Instead, they say “We venerate the housewife. Our wives are happier than any of these barren career cat ladies.” They publicly glorify women who submit to men, or women who follow so-called traditional womanhood. This gives the Proud Boys' overt misogyny a baked-in defense. “How can we hate women? We love our wives!” The implication, however, is clear: women who submit to the patriarchal authority of men are more worthy of protection and status than women who have careers. The Proud Boys can claim to love women, so long as those women fulfill traditional gender roles and submit to male authority in the home. They draw attention to what they glorify – trad-wives – to more effectively hide what they hate – feminism. To the Proud Boys, feminists are “degenerates” because feminists deviate from a societal norm that the Proud Boys find comforting and morally correct. In one sense, the Proud Boys are even more extreme than other far right groups that are more commonly labeled hate groups, because those groups recruit men and women whereas the Proud Boys only recruit men – not that any woman should ever want to be in the Proud Boys.

It's merely telling about who the Proud Boys are. Although the Proud Boys were originally most commonly known for their misogyny, it quickly became apparent that they were also homophobic. Earlier this summer, the Proud Boys organized a “straight pride parade” – one of a series of reactionary events designed to humiliate and delegitimize gay people. This is nothing new, as this was the third annual Proud Boys straight people event held in Modesto, California. Witnesses said violence broke out after the Proud Boys “aggressively assaulted the counter-protesters” according to the Los Angeles Blade. Again, the Proud Boys draw attention to what they glorify – heterosexuality – to more effectively hide what they hate – homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality and really anything that is not heterosexuality. The Proud Boys say“Well, if gay people can have gay pride, then why can't straight people have straight pride?” The answer is obvious. “Gay pride” exists as a reaction to being shamed by society. “Pride” is the solution for a people who are shamed by society, telling the world that they are not ashamed and are proud of who they are. Straight people are not systemically discriminated against for being straight. Straight people are not kicked out of their homes when their parents find out that they are straight. Straight teens are not bullied at school for the sole reason of being straight. Straight people are never denied an adoption for the sole reason of being straight.

Straight people might be bullied or have bad relationships with their parents or get denied an adoption for other reasons, but the cause is never heterosexuality. “Straight pride” events exist to push back against the LGBT community, not to celebrate something that is already accepted as “the norm” in society. “All lives matter” was popularized in right-wing circles not as a celebration of all life but to diminish Black Lives Matter. Similarly, “straight pride” is not a celebration of people already celebrated in society but designed to diminish to gay pride and gay people in general. The Proud Boys are perhaps even more hostile toward transgender people. Gavin McInnes himself penned an article called “Transphobia Is Perfectly Natural” in which he tells transphobes that they are right to be transphobic. The Proud Boys are also anti-immigration, believing that an influx of “other people” from “other nations” will destroy the “culture” of the United States. Again, the Proud Boys draw attention to what they glorify – their culture – to more effectively hide what they hate – other cultures. The Proud Boys hide their contempt for Mexican immigrants by glorifying “legal immigration” but they know that legal immigration allows comparatively few to enter and remain in the United States.

By glorifying legal immigration, they are proposing keeping immigration to the bare minimum. This is particularly hostile to refugees and asylum seekers who would be completely cut off under this proposal. The Proud Boys' objectives are obvious – propose extremist politics and perspectives while avoiding the label of extremism. For a time, they were successful at this, but events from earlier this year have destroyed their plausible deniability. The Proud Boys and others with similar ideologies often use the fall of Ancient Rome as their example of what happens to a great society what it becomes less homogeneous – when it begins accepting more people, when it begins tolerating so-called degeneracy. Comparing events that took place throughout the course of ancient Rome to events in modern nation-states impacts with two serious problems. First, Rome was so many things at so many different points in history that using it as a model for success or a warning for a modern nation-state will almost always result in cherry-picking based on political bias. Rome was  encompassed a tremendous amount of territory and subsequently varying peoples, customs and religions.

Second, the premise is largely untrue, as the Roman Empire declined through a series of failed conflicts and through a larger process of transformation of political and economic systems. The more contemporary view of the “fall” of the Roman Empire is that it did not “fall” as in collapsed suddenly. History is not a narrative, but we expect it to be. We need conclusions where none exist. In truth, Roman coloni – meaning farmers tied to the land – gradually became Medieval serfs. The patron and client relationship central to Roman society transformed to the lord and vassal relationship central to feudalism. Rome did not collapse, it was transformed or supplanted at a glacial pace over the course of many, many years. This explanation is still quite reductive, but it is only important to understand that Rome did not fall because of women, immigrants or homosexuality. For the most part, women were not allowed to vote or take part in politics.Any political decisions that lead to the fall of Rome were made by men. The foreigners most responsible for trouble in Rome were invading armies, not immigrants. How homosexuality allegedly destroyed Rome is unclear except in the minds of people who already view homosexuality to be inherently dangerous in the first place.This perspective comes from the mistaken notion that a gay man is less physically capable than a straight man, and if they were too many gay men, then that must have caused the Roman armies to fail.

In addition to this being built on a faulty premise of gay men being less physically powerful than straight men, it also requires a secondary faulty idea that homosexuality is something that can spread like, at best, at fashion trend, and at worst, a disease. Laws that allow or disallow homosexual acts do not create or reduce the amount of gay people – they only affect how public gay people are about their sexuality as well as their legal rights. Sexual “immorality” did not cause the fall of the Roman Empire. Consideringthe influence of Christianity, the religion that the Romans eventually adopted, the behavior of those living in the fifth century after Christ was sexually subdued compared to the days of the old religions.The Proud Boys and others like them describe the fall and decline of the Roman Empire as a moral decline and that this moral decline had tremendous economic and territorial consequences. If it happened in Rome, they reason, then it will inevitably happen in the United States. In doing this, they hide their prejudice behind the veneer of pragmatism.

So-called sexual degeneracy has little to no negative economic impact on modern society. Feminism also has little to no negative economic impact on modern society either. Arguably, it has a positive economic impact because it doubles the workforce. Women in the workforce were particularly important in the United States during World War II. Immigration, on the whole, has a positive economic impact on modern society as well, particularly in the United States. Even if this were not true, sexual egalitarianism, gender egalitarianism and asylum for those seeking escape are simply moral goods that rescue people from discrimination, subjugation, hatred and dangerous situations. Any cold, numerical impact they might have on a society, whether positive or negative, is less important than the overall good of treating people fairly and with compassion. Frankly, even if it were true that degeneracywas the primary cause of the so-called fall of the Roman Empire and gave space to the creation of new nation-states, for that outcome to be an unassailable negative, one would first have to argue that the Roman Empire was a uniquely and definitively good institution that cannot be duplicated and that what came after the Roman Empire were definitively worse institutions.

The other implication is that humankind should return to the values of the Roman Empire, including but not limited to rigid, master-slave hierarchies. It is a value judgment that places an ancient empire built upon the brutality of its time aboveevery other form or structure of a nation-state, including modern nation-states. It also places the values of the Empire above modern values, including but not limited to the roles of women and the permissiveness of slavery. The even more sinister implication is that if marginally liberalizing the Empire lead to its downfall, then we ought to create a society that is even more rigidly hierarchical and more violent than the Roman Empire. Based on the period in history and the actions of said Empire, this is a deeply authoritarian and anti-egalitarian opinion, one held by those who co-opted the “Roman salute” both historically and in modern times. There is a reason why the Proud boys adopted the Roman laurel as one of their most prominent symbols. Proud Boys and people with similar ideologies attempt to use history to justify their prejudices, but when confronted with historical data as well as a broader and more detailed view of history, they retreat into slogans and their warm, safe ideology that tells them that they are the special people: the white, the straight, the men, and commonly all three.

The Proud Boys call themselves “western chauvinists,” but what is the west? Western civilization is not a legally defined region or super-state – it is a more loosely-defined series of regions in which the predominate cultural influences are European. This includes nearly all of Europe itself but also Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. So-called “western civilization” attempts to connect its history with Ancient Greece and the aforementioned Ancient Rome in spite of the fact that nation-states that make up western civilization are culturally diverse. New Zealand bears little cultural resemblance to Vatican City. Denmark bears little cultural resemblance to Texas. The resemblance is not cultural – it is both superficial and racial. When far right groups say “western civilization,” they are referring to nations that have a white majority. A “chauvinist” is someone who is an aggressive patriot and a common term for this is a “nationalist.” In short, when the Proud Boys call themselves “western chauvinists,” the western means white, and the chauvinist means nationalist. Gavin McInnes simply used synonyms for white nationalist so that even the most uneducated white nationalist would understand his meaning but still coded enough to allow for deniability. They may allow some non-white recruits, but their language and rhetoric makes it clear who they genuinely want populating the Proud Boys. So, why would anyone non-white man want to join the Proud Boys?

Historically, some in the minority will choose to ingratiate themselves with the majority for their own protection and their own desire to conform enough to receive the benefits of the majority. Black conservatives exist. Gay Republicans exist. Transgender “gender criticals” exist. Some men of color join the Proud Boys because their masculinity is more important to them than their ethnicity, and the Proud Boys offer safe space to be misogynist. Some socially conservative men of color to join the Proud Boys because the group offers them a safe space in which to protest immigration and align with other conservative causes. It is not particularly unusual for some in the minority to side with the majority against their own people. There are countless historical instances of this. The majority welcomes their inclusion only because it allows them to deflect criticism by drawing attention to their token allies. So long as an individual minority is working toward the goal of the majority supremacist, that individual is more useful to them insidetheir ranks than outside. He is, as white people sometimes say, “one of the good ones.” Nobody is fooled by the inclusion of Henry Tarrio. The Proud Boys often combine their “western chauvinist” label with the phrase “I will not apologize for creating the modern world.”What do the Proud Boys mean by this?

Well, to the Proud Boys, the “modern” world is western civilization. Now, for something to require an apology, there would have to be wrongdoing. What is the wrongdoing or misdeed that created that so-called western world? We can determine this by something else the Proud Boys often say, that they are not anti-black but instead “anti-white guilt.” White guilt is the feeling among some white people who recognize their ancestors participated in slavery and colonization of non-whites and that many years later, white people continue to benefit from white supremacy. The creation of the western world has its origins in slavery and colonization, and the Proud Boys that will not apologize for this or feel guilty about receiving the benefits of white supremacy in the white majority nations of “the west.” Now, some might claim that white people today and not responsible for their ancestors' misdeeds, and that is all that the Proud Boys are saying, but the Proud Boys arelaying claim to those misdeeds. They are connecting themselves with the creation of the western world, meaning slavery and colonization. They cannot have it both ways. Therefore, they are not only laying claim to these historical atrocities but also defending the atrocities because they helped create what they consider western civilization. The modern far right knows that using explicitly racist or xenophobic terms would be admonished in the 21stcentury. Armed with this information, they have instead opted for these dog whistles like “western chauvinist.”

Alt-Right figures such as Richard Spencer knew that in order to recruit into the ranks of white nationalism and to maintain plausible deniability, explicit Nazi imagery like the swastika could no longer be used. This is not a deviation of ideology from Nazism but a deviation of optics. Though, Spencer would often push right up against the line.McInnes, having worked in the media, knew that using dog whistles and  code words would simply not be enough. It is not only rhetoric that needed to change but the actual aesthetic. The ability to quickly point to someone in the ranks of the Proud Boys that did not fit the image of a white nationalist. In service of this, the Proud Boys originally claimed to be accepting of all races, religions, and sexual orientations. However, McInnes' claims were similar to Spencer's insofar as this is only a matter of optics. In reality, Proud Boys frequently espouse racist, homophobic, transphobic, antisemitic, and other bigoted beliefs both privately and in public, and are encouraged to do so both implicitly because of the foundational beliefs of their philosophy and explicitly through public demonstrations. This is not a case of the Proud Boys having a few “bad apples” – the racism, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism, misogyny and other bigotries are foundational to modern fascism. It is both tolerated and encouraged as a component of their recruitment.

The philosophy of the Proud Boys may come from earlier forms of fascism and relatively modern fascists texts, but only a handful of their leaders need to be aware of these origins. The remainder of the Proud Boys – the rabble, the mindless slogan-shouters – need only serve as foot soldiers and cannon fodder. Proud Boys tend to wear apparel that signals their beliefs rather than speaking their beliefs out loud. Proud Boys and other far right groups often wear shirts that read “Pinochet Did Nothing Wrong.” Augusto Pinochet was an infamous Chilean tyrant and mass murderer who was responsible for executing thousand of his people. When Proud Boys wear these shirts and make these declarations, they are referencing a program of extermination. Because less people know about Pinochet than, say, Adolf Hitler, it does not immediately strike people as fascist. However, some Proud Boys do reference Hitler, wearing shirts with the “6MWE” – an antisemitic slogan meaning “six million wasn't enough” – an overt reference to the holocaust and a desire for a newholocaust. To summarize, men do not join the Proud Boys because of an interest in “western civilization” in the abstract or more innocuous aspects of western civilization like the works of William Shakespeare or the boom of 20thcentury American music.

Men join the Proud Boys to “defend” western civilization from what they perceive as degeneracy, feminism and the replacement of a culture that they have concluded is both entitled to them and which they have exclusive ownership. The agents of this alleged replacement are non-white, non-Christian, queer, trans, and women uninterested in being tradwives. This means that despite their optics of inclusion, it is irrefutable who the Proud Boys fear and who the Proud Boys hate. [“I am. I am. A western chauvinist. A western chauvinist. I will not apologize. I will not apologize. For creating the modern world. For creating the modern world.”] This is who the Proud Boys are and what they believe, but what have they actually been doingfor the past five years, and what are their goals? Gavin McInnes is the racist, sexist, antisemitic founder of the Proud Boys. He uses racial slurs to refer to black women such as Susan Rice and Jada Pinkett-Smith, calls Palestinians “stupid Rottweilers,” calls Asians “rice balls,” and helped traffic the “white genocide” conspiracy theory. “White genocide” as a term may seem recent, but it is simply white nationalist paranoia connected to the topic white nationalists always shout about – the so-called fourteen words – “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” McInnes has made comments defending Holocaust deniers, accused the Jews of being responsible for the great famine in the Soviet Union, and explicitly said he was "becoming anti-Semitic". McInnes also produced a called "Ten Things I Hate about Jews" which he eventually renamed following backlash.

McInnes has even defended sexually abusing women, stating that “'No means no' is puritanism.” In 2016, seeing an opportunity to spread his politics, gain power, and mainstream extremism, McInnes created The Proud Boys, a men-only neo-fascist organization built on the foundation of his aforementioned extremist ideas about race, gender and religion. The Proud Boys immediately aligned with Donald Trump, who had announced his candidacy for president the year prior during his infamous speech as Trump Tower. [They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.] See how Trump both used rhetoric and deflected exactly like the Proud Boys. He said something unambiguously racist and xenophobic, then pivoted only slightly to provide cover for himself whenever the subject was broached. “He's not racist,” his defenders said. “He said there are some good ones.”

Trump spoke their language, and the Proud Boys became the loudest and most violent members of the MAGA movement.The Proud Boys began recruiting aggressively – predominantly 15 to 30 year old white suburban men. Proud Boys are initiated first by taking a loyalty oath, the aforementioned "I'm a proud Western chauvinist, I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world," then the prospective Proud Boys is beaten until he recites pop culture trivia, such as the names of five breakfast cereals, then he gets tattooed and promises not to masturbate, and finally, he is encouraged to commit violence "for the cause." The Proud Boys have several goals they wish to achieve through their street violence and rallies. The first is to make so-called degenerate feels less safe. To force gay men back into hiding, back into the closet. To force minorities back into “their own neighbors.” Back “where they belong.”

This is the historical purpose of far right groups in the United States. To make their targets feel less safe and feel less inclined to live openly among straight white men. The second goal is to advance their political objectives. For example, they do this by supporting Trump, wearing the red hat. The message is not only that people should support Trump, because if a violent group demands people support Trump, the implication is that people must support Trump, or else. The third goal is to mainstream their extremism. If the Proud Boys can march down the streets without opposition, flood social media with their rhetoric without being banned, and have allies who hold political office, then their beliefs are no longer fringe. The window of acceptability moves, and it moves withthem. The final goal is simply to recruit more lost young men searching for an identity and to propagate themselves to better and more fully achieve the three previous goals. Frightening people into submission, committing violence to make the population feel unsafe and unwelcome, all in the service of advancing political objectives can often be described as terrorism. On April 15, 2017, an alt-right rally in Berkeley, California was attended by the worst far right groups in the United States, including Neo-Nazi organization Identity Evropa, violent far right militia the Oath Keepers, and of course, the Proud Boys.

On August 11, 2017, the collection of far right groups banded together to hold a “Unite the Right” rally, ostensibly to save a Confederate monument, but its broader agenda being intimidation the minority population of Charlottesville, Virginia. The first spike in Confederate monuments began in the early 20thcentury around the time of the renewal of the Ku Klux Klan in the south and an epidemic of lynchings of black Americans. The second spike in Confederate monuments in the 1950's and 1960's coincided with the civil rights movement to end segregation in the south. Supporters of these monuments ignore the motivations for their creation. Everyone remembers young white men in khaki pants and torches shouting antisemitic slogans like “Jews will not replace us!” and fascist slogans like “Blood and soil!” But not everyone remembers that Unite the Right was organized primarily by a Proud Boy – Jason Kessler. Kessler is an explicit white supremacist and antisemitic conspiracy theorist. Kessler and his co-conspirators used the potential removal of a Confederate statue as cover for even more overt racist and fascist organizing. Unite the Right was not designed predominantly to maintain a single statue.

As the name suggests, the event was a broader rallying cry to the far right in the United States. The day after the evening rally, Unite the Right turned even more violent, as far right groups, including some Proud Boys, terrorized the city. A counter-protester, Heather Heyer, was murdered. Proud Boys applauded the murder, including Kessler himself who said “Heather Heyer was a fat, disgusting Communist.” In fear of bad optics, McInnes publicly claimed that any Proud Boys who attended Unite the Right would be excommunicated. However, this was later contradicted by the fact that Henry Tarrio attended Unite the Right, and he soon became the chairman of the entire organization. On October 12, 2018, after giving a speech at the Metropolitan Republican Club in New York, the Proud Boys attacked a group of protesters. Though initially unclear who instigated the physical altercation, video has since been released showing it was the Proud Boys – it's always the Proud Boys. Many were arrested, and some were sentenced to years in jail. In order to protect himself, McInnes gave the appearance of leaving the Proud Boys, though he would consistently defend them and join up with them from time to time in the following years. Leadership was briefly given to a man named Jason Lee Van Dyke. Van Dyke a racist who sends death threats and lynching imagery to his targets. He is also a common criminal. The prototypical Proud Boy.

With the media finally wising up to what the Proud Boys actually were, the internal leadership selected Henry “Enrique” Tarrio as the new face of the organization. However, the real power remained in the so-called Elder Chapter, which consisted of Harry Fox, Heath Hair, Joshua Hall, Timothy Kelly, Luke Rofhling, Ethan Nordean, and Patrick William Roberts. We were not meant to know the names and faces of the Proud Boys' Elder Chapter, but their lawyer, Van Dyke, did not redact their names correctly on a document. No picture of Patrick William Roberts could be found, but considering how Irish that name is, it is reasonable to assume that everyone who actually runs the Proud Boys is white and that Tarrio was chosen as chairman to deflect accusations of white nationalism. A copy of the Proud Boys' bylaws show that the chairman holds almost no power, does not normally vote on anything, and serves only as a tiebreaking vote. Thus, to anyone who claims “The Proud Boys are not racist because their 'leader' is not white,” Henry Tarrio is notthe leader of the Proud Boys. He is the public face and holds a position comparable to the United States Vice President. His position is a matter of optics, and anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention knows this.

In September 29, 2020, Donald Trump and Joe Biden had their first presidential debate. It was a disaster, as Trump, knowing that his back was against the wall and that he was almost certain to lose the election, attempted to be even louder and more obnoxious than he was during the 2016 debates. The media rightfully called it the worst presidential debate in history. A lowlight of the first debate was Trump acknowledging the Proud Boys. [“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by, but I tell you what. Somebody's got to do something about Antifa and the left. This is not a right-wing problem. This is a left-wing problem. His own FBI stated ... antifa is not an organization. Give me a break.”]

They believed that Trump was calling them to action, that theywere the “somebodies” to do something about the left, sold “Stand Back and Stand By” t-shirts, and prepared to deliver the election to Trump by any means necessary. On Election Night 2020, we saw what was expected. Trump had an early lead due to in-person voting being counted first. Trump supporters had been conditioned to ignore the dangers of the pandemic and vote in person whereas Biden supporters were more likely to heed the warnings and vote by mail. Biden pulled ahead. Anyone who was following election polling, election predictions, and election forecasts on when votes would be counted saw what was expected: Biden won once all the votes were tallied. Anyone who was listening to Trump misidentifiedwhat they were expecting. Trump began making this claim in May, about six month before election day, long before any evidence could even theoretically exist. Trump did not see something funny happen on election night and only then begin to weave his conspiracy theory.

He pre-packaged distrust of the election but only distrust if the Democrats won. Trump knew what he was doing. He was trying to sow enough mistrust to either remain in power past Inauguration Day or leave office while being believed to be the winner, setting up another run for president in 2024. The Proud Boys were among his most loyal believers, and even if some did not legitimately believe Trump's claims, they knew that this conspiracy theory provided them with an opportunity to attack. The Proud Boys responded to the election defeat of their spiritual leader in three ways. Internal division and mistrust within the Proud Boys, an escalation of street violence, and the January 6 riot and insurrection. First, the division and attempted coup. Kyle Chapman joined the Proud Boys in the early days of the group. He rose to some prominence in the organization by beating an anti-fascist with a stick, earning the embarrassing moniker Based Stickman. Chapman created a subgroup within the Proud Boys called the Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights, the paramilitary wing of the group. Henry Tarrio was the public face of Proud Boys, but the Alt-Knights existed to perform crimes that the Proud Boys did not want connected to themselves. Chapman lost power within the Alt-Knights due to his conviction and prison sentence for the aforementioned assault.

Chapman is a ten-time loser, an arrest record that contains various robberies, grand theft, assaults with deadly weapons, carrying concealed weapons, and in one case, he was extradited to Texas. His status with the Proud Boys by 2020 is debatable with some claiming he was no longer officially with the group and some evidence suggesting he was at least unofficially still associated. Whatever his public status, Chapman publicly excoriated Henry Tarrio and admonished the small percentage of non-white people still allowed within the Proud Boys. He wrote: “Due to the recent failure of Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio to conduct himself with honor and courage, on the battlefield, it has been decided that I, Kyle Chapman, reassume my post as president of Proud Boys effective immediately. Our logo will forthwith be changed to reflect the core beliefs of Proud Boy members. We will no longer … I am not saying that. We will no longer allow homosexuals and other undesirables into our ranks. We will confront the Zionist criminals who wish to destroy our civilization. We recognize that the West was built by the white race alone and we own nothing to any other race.” Chapman also claimed that the Proud Boys needed to rebrand as the Proud Goys. “Goyim” is the name for people who are notJewish, the implication being that the Proud Boys should not allow Jews within their ranks and that their organization should be even more explicitly antisemitic.

Although the coup was unsuccessful in the sense that Tarrio remained chairman in the immediate aftermath, the more openly racist, antisemitic and homophobic rhetoric was applauded by other Proud Boys. This is who they really are. The Proud Boys escalated street violence. Before the election, they warned that if Trump lost, they would take to the streets and commit violence in the name of Trump. Intimidation to achieve their goals, then escalation of violence if the goal was not achieved. Even though Trump was eventually forced to repudiate the Proud Boys in public, their organization still believed Trump was loyal to them in private. Proud Boys took to the streets all over the United States, sowing discord and attempting to overturn the election through sheer force of will and intimidation. On December 12, the Proud Boys descended on Washington DC.

Among the more heinous acts of violence perpetrated that day, Henry Tarrio and several other Proud Boys stole a Black Lives Matter banner from a historic black church and burned it in front of the church. On January 4, Tarrio returned to Washington in preparation for the January 6 riot. The police knew he was coming, and arrested him in connection with what was widely considered a hate crime. He was also charged with carrying illegal firearms into Washington. The Proud Boys prepared for violence on January 6. This was not spontaneous. Their so-called leader was well-armed, and their goals were all over right-wing social media platforms like Parler. The Proud Boys were not simply a few people among thousands that day – court documents and video prove that they helped coordinate the attack itself and were often the group pushing the riot further into the Capitol building and pushing the riot toward greater violence. The man seen first breaking the windows of the Capitol and first entering the Capitol was eventually identified as Dominic Pezzola. In addition to breaking and entering, the investigation thus far has revealed that Pezzola planned to assassinate Vice President Mike Pence. Joe Biggs, another Proud Boy, not only entered the Capitol unlawfully but commanded other Proud Boys to do the same. Court documents have revealed that Biggs and other Proud Boys coordinated the attack with earpieces and walkie-talkies.

In the past, Biggs has made comments on social media advocating raping women by using chloroform and roofies. He has also made violent threats against transgender people. Not only were the Proud Boys present, but their leadership was present, including the aforementioned Ethan Nordean, a member of the Elder Chapter. More than one hundred Proud Boys were present in Washington DC that day, and more Proud Boys have been arrested than any other right-wing group present that day. In addition to trespassing charges and destruction of property charges common among those arrested for their actions that day, many Proud Boys were also charged with conspiracy for plotting to obstruct the certification of President Joe Biden's electoral college victory. This was uncovered through transcripts of encrypted messaging apps. This was not a protest. It was a plot with a specific political goal and one that included a willingness to commit violence, including but not limited to assassination.Five people died either immediately before, during, or following the riot. One was shot by a Capitol police officer, another died of a drug overdose, and three by other causes. In the weeks and months following the riot, four police officers present that day committed suicide – living with the trauma of that day apparently too much to withstand. Many were injured, including 140 police officers. In the aftermath, Amazon, Google, and Apple booted Parler from their platforms, as the right-wing social media app was used to help the Proud Boys coordinate the riot and was not properly moderated.

Card processors began to freeze out companies associated with the Proud Boys and other far right groups. The Proud Boys was labeled a “terrorist organization” in Canada, and its Canadian chapters immediately disbanded. The United States has yet to label the Proud Boys a terrorist organization. This is not surprising, as US law enforcement rarely labels extremist groups as domestic terrorists. The Ku Klux Klan, for example, is still not labeled a terrorist organization. [Section VII. Recent Events] Now backed into a corner, the Proud Boys are like a wounded animal, more dangerous and desperate. On May 1 in Salem, Oregon, armed Proud Boys attended a gun rally and forcibly turned back journalists who wanted to cover the event. On May 19 in Portland, Oregon, approximately thirty Proud Boys stormed the streets and vandalized homes. On May 25 in Miami, Florida, the local Proud Boys chapter held their big annual rally. On June 18 in Oregon City, Oregon, the Proud Boys held an armed riot with many people arrested. On July 14 in Salem, Oregon, armed Proud Boys harassed and terrorized a Planned Parenthood. More and more clashes erupted in August. The Proud Boys are down but not out, as Parler has since been reinstituted, Telegram still allows them to organize on their platform, and apparently, new members join all the time.

In the midst of the summer of violence, the Proud Boys were facing a problem. Their phony “leader,” Henry Tarrio, was spiraling out and awaiting his conviction for vandalizing church property and weapons charges. The media began digging deeper into Tarrio's past, and it was soon revealed that Tarrio was a “prolific informant” to law enforcement. A snitch. A rat. Tarrio, seen here as a younger man, has a long history of criminal activity. In 2004, when he was 20 years old, he was convicted of theft but served no jail time. In 2013, Tarrio was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison for rebranding and reselling stolen medical devices, but he only served 16 months. Tarrio managed to keep himself out of prison partly through being an informant. He has denied cooperating with prosecutions, but there is a court transcript that proves he is lying. Earlier this year, faced with mounting legal fees and lack of support among his suspicious brothers in the Proud Boys, Tarrio began secretly selling Black Lives Matter t-shirts and anti-Trump t-shirts. When exposed, he had little to offer in his defense. Tarrio is a recidivist criminal and a prolific police informant. He is a right-wing stooge and a grifter of left-wing merchandise. Fascism is a cult of strength, and often is the case that fascists don't believe their own propaganda. The only believe in themselves and what allows themselves to hold power, an infantile desire to be aggrandized, even by the worst people imaginable.

Tarrio is a kind of all-purpose traitor – a grifter who believes in nothing except the grift. There was a massive push within the Proud Boys to oust Tarrio as chairman after it became abundantly clear who and what he is. According to leaked screenshots from the Proud Boys Telegram channel and the Miami Herald, on July 31, members of the Vice City chapter initiated a vote to disavow Tarrio, to potentially remove him as chairman of the Proud Boys and excommunicate him from the organization altogether. Proud Boys from several chapters called Tarrio a "rat" and a "snitch." Some criticized Tarrio for failing to support Proud Boys who were arrested following January 6. A screenshot of the poll showed that a staggering 95% voted to remove Tarrio from the Vice City chapter, but the poll was taken down after the screenshot leaked.A nearly unanimous consensus from the Proud Boys. If there were still any doubt about the fact that the Proud Boys see Tarrio only as a useful idiot, that should wash it away. However, either due to bylaws or through a concession by the other members, Tarrio received an in-person vote instead, and that vote permitted him to remain a Proud Boy. Although one can only speculate why, it seems possible that an anonymous vote showed the Proud Boys' true colors, but an in-person vote had them fear for retaliation.

An in-person vote allowed Tarrio to know who did and did not support him, and those who did not could face retribution from the well-known police informant, especially with the skeletons that Tarrio must know about. Only days prior to the vote, Tarrio had plead guilty to his weapons and vandalism charges. Tarrio could have potentially used information about other Proud Boys' crimes to his advantage. Knowing this and fearing retribution, the Proud Boys opted to keep Tarrio in the organization – but not without consequences. In response to Tarrio keeping his spot as chairman, there was a revolt in his own chapter. Days later, at a meeting on August 3, several founding members of the Vice City Proud Boys chapter voted to leave create their own chapter – creating a more comfortable distance from Tarrio.Immediately before turning himself into authorities on September 7, Tarrio and his family opened up on a crowdfund page. He is fundraising off his prison sentence. Tarrio also took this picture and spread it to the Proud Boys – a photo of him with his lighter positioned on the Capitol building. The photo is a threat – the perspective making it look like the flame is on the Capitol building.As he surrendered to the Washington DC jail, he wore a shirt emblazoned with the words “They can't kill us all!” and hashtags supporting the insurrectionists. Tarrio is proud of terrorizing a black church, proud of his boys for breaking into the Capitol and getting people killed.

His photos and shirt are a thinly-veiled call to repeat the events of January 6. Two things have kept Tarrio in relative power. First, his value as a stooge to deflect accusations of white supremacy has not been diminished. Some Proud Boys may feel that this is even more valuable now than before January 6. Second, the Proud Boys are not a centralized army, and they have never truly taken orders from Tarrio. He is a figurehead. The Proud Boys take orders from the Elder Chapter and the leaders of their local chapters. Nevertheless, now in the midst of a prison sentence that will keep him behind bars for the remainder of the year and well past the anniversary of January 6, Tarrio is – for all intents and purposes – presently without even the appearance of power. He exists as a deflection and is otherwise useless. The Proud Boys are not going away any time soon. Ignoring them does not work. Without opposition, they are able to perform greater and worse acts of violence. There was no major counter-protest on January 6 because most anti-fascist counter-protesters knew that the Proud Boys had come for blood, and understandably, they were not ready to die for Joe Biden. There was no major police presence because warnings were ignored at the highest level. These are men who believe that women must be subjugated, that gay and transgender people are degenerates, that immigrants are destroying the nation, and that non-whites are killing western civilization. Without opposition, there is no limit to what they will do. They feel justified in any action that “protects western civilization.” No amount of whataboutism and token members can change what they are. The Proud Boys are domestic terrorists and fascists, and they should be treated accordingly.