I’ve said this before – and I wasn’t the first to do so then, either – but if you claim to believe in a right, you’re ethically obligated to defend it even when it’s exercised by the lowest sons of bitches in all of creation. Yet any number of persons, including some whose behavior generally marks them as intelligent and honest, will fail to abide by that principle when it pertains to some person or group of which they disapprove on other grounds.
For example: I despise feminists and hold them in extreme contempt. Yet I would never argue that they have no right to express themselves. I might mock their sentiments – indeed, I often do – but suppressing the expression thereof is beyond the pale for one who believes, as Oliver Wendell Holmes so memorably put it, that freedom must include “freedom for the thought we hate.”
To appreciate the import of the above, one must:
- See clearly: to distinguish that which is tolerable from that which must be opposed;
- Act sincerely: to proceed on the same ethical basis one would want others to employ toward oneself.
To do otherwise is to betray the most important fundamental obligation any man can face: the obligation to be honest with himself.
After that rather heavy intro, you’re probably wondering what it is that’s got me so exercised. At least, you’d better be, or I’ve wasted more than two hundred words already with a lot more in prospect.
If you don’t know of Daryush “Roosh” Valizadeh, he’s a relatively important figure in the “red pill” or neomasculine movement. Without going into excessive detail, that movement is a rejection of contemporary feminism and its presumptions in preference for older standards for male conduct and relations between the sexes. It might not be perfectly accurate to describe the “red pill” man as a traditionalist, but he certainly shares a number of convictions and assumptions with the American man of a century ago.
Roosh runs two popular websites:
- A site where he posts his personal essays and reflections;
- The larger, multi-contributor Return of Kings.
Both sites are dedicated to the exploration and promulgation of neomasculinism. They promote:
- The treatment of reality as an absolute;
- Masculine self-respect and self-improvement;
- The rejection of feminist attitudes and propaganda;
- The treatment of women as what they represent themselves to be.
The first three of those ribs of neomasculinism would draw enough fire all by themselves. The fourth one has enraged feminists worldwide.
The “red pill” man strives to see past a woman’s pretensions. He infinitely prefers a traditionally feminine woman to an “I am woman, hear me roar” type. However, he will treat a woman according to her claims and her behavior. For example, if she claims to be “strong,” she can fix her own flat tire. This is sometimes called the rejection of “white knighting.”
In particular, the “red pill” man treats ladies like ladies and sluts like sluts. Roosh himself has issued several short books of instruction on getting sexual access to the latter category.
Now, it doesn’t matter whether you approve or disapprove of any of the above. They’re Roosh’s opinions and the opinions of other men who’ve flocked to his banner. That’s a substantial group of men, tens of thousands scattered across the seven continents, who like to get together occasionally for conversation and general conviviality. Indeed, Roosh has tried to facilitate such get-togethers through the abovementioned websites.
President Obama, US Department of State,
We petition to have Return of Kings, a misogynistic online community, classified as a terrorist organization. Their current work is to inspire fear in women and feminists, and they have threatened assault, rape, and cause bodily harm to any who intervene or speak against them. Their current plans are to hold world wide gatherings this coming weekend. Their leader, Daryush Valizadeh (aka "Roosh V") has said that these meetings are being held as an attempt to legalize rape, and he has already been banned by multiple countries from entering, on the grounds of his promotion of sexual assault and treatment of women.
Terrorism is most fundamentally defined as "actions designed to create fear/terror," and Return of Kings only intent is to terrify women.
Every claim of fact in the above petition is an outright, slanderous lie. It’s merely a component in feminists’ war against neomasculinism and the convergence of its adherents. The top half-dozen entries at Return of Kings tell of feminists’ most recent efforts at defaming Roosh and those who agree with him.
Nor is this the first time. Roosh’s other attempts to hold public events have been harassed and threatened with violence. Feminists in Toronto tried their best to prevent him from entering the country. When that proved impossible, they strove to disrupt the talks he’d scheduled. In defense, Roosh took to announcing the locations and times at the last possible moment, despite the inconvenience and expense that would inflict upon him and those who wished to hear him.
This has been increasingly the Left’s response to any attempt by those who differ with it to assemble or express themselves. Feminists, the “angry ugly-girl” component of the Left coalition, are among the most militant of its sectors, for a simple reason: women can get away with much more violence, vandalism, and unacceptable public conduct than any other group, with the possible exception of homosexuals.
From the above and many comparable incidents affecting gatherings of conservatives, libertarians, religious traditionalists, and so forth, it becomes plain that Western society is partitioned between those who respect the right of free expression and those who, from their conduct, clearly despise it. It’s not enough merely to note it and deplore it. Something must be done about it – and that “something” cannot be confined to mere words.
Don’t expect assistance from any level of government. Governments thrive on fear and social discord. The State avidly exploits those things to the extreme detriment of our rights. The assertion and defense of the rights to free expression and peaceable assembly must be a private, voluntary matter, even if it entails the embrace of considerable risk.
Websites and newsletters dedicated to ideas unfriendly to the Left must multiply and be carefully superintended. Attacks on them must be expected and, as far as possible, thwarted before they can arise. Hostile institutions must be identified and proclaimed as such.
Gatherings must be publicly and unabashedly proclaimed. They must be provided with security forces – armed security forces – prior notice of which will be given to local law enforcement, along with documentation of the necessity. Attempts by local “authorities” to forbid such security provisions must be countervailed. Here in the United States, we have the Second Amendment; in other countries the matter will be more difficult, but the need will remain.
Last but far from least, attempts to slander persons and associations disliked by the Left must be countervailed with facts and analysis of the reasons for such campaigns. Remember always that to accuse a man of a violation of the law, even a misdemeanor, is legally actionable. Make use of the mechanisms available for punishing such calumnies.
Will it be easy? No. Will it be safe? No. But it becomes ever more imperative as the Left strives to shred the all-important social contract on which any degree of freedom is based. Moreover, it’s most important that Americans sincere about the rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Bill of Rights stand ready to defend those rights even when they’re exercised by persons we disagree with. No other stance is worthy of one who claims to believe in freedom.