Earlier this week we found footage of Matthew Heimbach and a black woman involved in a shoving match at Donald Trump’s Louisville, KY rally. The Black Lives Matter establishment has seized on this opportunity to screech “hate crime!” and “assault!” in the feeble hopes that somebody in a position of authority will respond favorably to their cries. Violence, even immaterial shoving as being argued about now, is not a quirk or defect in the process of public discourse, it is a feature.
No matter where you look political action is accompanied by political speech. It’s possible to find political speech happening without political action, but nobody cares about do-nothing blowhards. Nobody really cares about strong political speech (no matter how provocative) until its gears start to grind and their machine starts making tracks. Everybody’s favorites radicals over at VNN (where you go after getting kicked out of Stormfront) are some of the most angry shit-posters on the internet– but nobody cares. At least, nobody cared about them until Frazier Glenn Miller came unhinged and went on a shooting spree. Then after MSM spent a good solid month or two repeating “white supremacists are dangerous” it faded into the background again. The way MSM gets “stuck on stupid” and repeats the same talking point for days, weeks, or months at a time makes Marco Rubio’s repeat-glitch during debate look petty and non-existent.
Action towards a desired goal is always a kind of speech. We say things all the time without actually saying something, and many times action is quite literally the better argument. For those who care not to speak and engage others with dialogue for whatever reason then action is going to be their top choice for communication. We see this with the anarchist, anti-fascist, and BLM communities. Frankly, their arguments are shite. They know their arguments are shite. They only have one song to sing and it goes something like this: “smash… smash… smash… smash… smash…” And you know what? They get what they want because the majority of the people they “argue” with will shut up and go into hiding after the first brick is thrown.
Activists in any side of the political spectrum should quit using the “stop trying to silence my right to expression!” cop-out every time we run in to opposition. You know, I know, everyone knows that nobody really gives a shit about “muh right to speech and assembly.” Violence and other underhanded opposition techniques are as much a part of the public discourse process as simple speech and basic or advanced demonstration methods. Police understand this, too. That’s why police don’t go around arresting people for angrily disagreeing with protesters at events. This is the same reason that you didn’t see a lot of police inside the Trump rally. The disruptions and fights at Trump’s rallies are not a quirk, they’re a feature. The violence and disruptions are a specific feature of discourse that people have come to participate in. Violence in context is protected political speech.
Political speech is not the same as arguing with your friends at church coffee hour. If you rush into coffee hour and start flipping over tables, tearing up coffee cup coasters, stealing the table cloths, and pushing people around you’ll definitely be arrested, barred from returning to church, and more than likely become a permanent social outcast in your community. If you should do the same at a political rally then you’re just an energetic person who cares about a given political issue and are taking every opportunity to make yourself heard over the noise. The police will more than likely give you enough room to “let you do you”, but if you should choose a private event (for example, say, inside a Trump rally?) you will be ejected by the event staff or guests in one or another manner.
The only thing more petty and disgusting than trying to cry and moan about how your goddamn precious “rights to expression” are being violated is to put on your toughest cop-talk and start throwing around words or phrases like assault, hate crime, harassment, intimidation, and pathetically screeching about how somebody “laid hands upon her!” in an effort to force the police to arrest your opposition. The state, of course, is obligated to respect freedom of assembly and expression (unless you’re Matt Heimbach), but this restriction is not forced upon the individual. The individual person is under no obligation to respect BLM silliness, and even less so when it is clearly obvious that a person is bent solely on being an obstinate and actually violent obstruction towards people who just want to hear a Trump speech.
With political speech the name of the game is action. If you’re not acting, performing and doing something as part of your political speech then you aren’t speaking. In fact, as I just discussed, you don’t even need to speak at all. For those who seek it, there are always opportunities to show up at a rally and simply stand in solidarity with a larger group. Silent participation is in this sense a perfectly acceptable form of political speech. There is certain value in blogging, educating others, and facilitating an environment for an otherwise positive and constructive sounding board, but we frequently mis-categorize this type of communication as political speech by virtue of the content having to do with political themes. So far as the Radical Traditionalist and the larger White Nationalist movements are concerned, we actually have only a handful of genuine political speakers. Do you think you’ve got what it takes to get in the game? Start a TradYouth or a TradWorker chapter in your neighborhood today. If you support our movement but wish to participate in a more private way please consider donating to support us in our ambitious and aggressive political speech and action.