I quite like Matty Rose’s content. He’s an Aussie nationalist who’s involved with XYZ, as is Adam Piggott.
Matty fancies himself to be a bit of a thinker, and he does a fine job. But sometimes, I wish he’d think just a little bit harder. During today’s XYZ livestream with David Hiscox, Matty said several times that he thinks protesting with one’s face covered should be illegal.
This is prompted by the latest confirmation that Antifa continue to operate with violent impunity in parts of the USA (and Australia), targeting and physically attacking people who opppose them by peaceful means of pen and camera. Meanwhile the forces of law and order demonstrably stand-by and let it happen. Only when those attacked start to fight back do the police get involved. This in-spite of the fact that US federal agencies now consider Antifa to be a bona fide terrorist organisation – which you would think might warrant a robust official response to Antifa violence.
The Antifa M.O. could be characterised as cowardly. They attack in swarms, with their faces covered, then they disperse and melt into a crowd. Cowardly or not it’s a classic guerilla warfare tactic, the likes of which have been used by America’s enemies against it with great success.
The police – naturally and inevitably driven to promulgate a self-justifying narrative – say that their problem is with identifying attackers so as to pursue justice. The best lies, like pearls, are built on a grit of truth.
Matty falls for the line and pronounces that protesting with ones face covered should be illegal. I’ve heard that demand before. From leftists 10 years or so back, when UK libertarians attempted to start a street protest movement under cover of the ‘anonymous’ face masks from V for Vendetta (amongst other places).
We are already in a place where it is expremely imprudent for a non-progressive person to speak frankly on-line. The list of people whose careers and lives have been derailed by the online offence archaeologists is so long that DuckDuckGo gives pages and pages of examples. It is a fact of life.
So it’s not a matter of cowardice when a person with reponsibilities (family, home, job etc) chooses to operate anonymously or pseudonymously online. Many of the great derailings have not been because of a comment ever meant to be controversial, but because of something said 5 or 10 years back, that raised not so much as an eyebrow at the time. The old comment can be freshly exhumed by an offence-hobbyist and put on display next to your name, address, photo and work details.
In an age where the Overton Window moves on a daily basis, the kangaroo courts can and do prosecute retrospectively, and the actual courts, politicians, police and civic society are taking their lead from these marsupial muppets, who the fuck would write under their own byline unless they are one of the very few who can monetise their agitations?
As technology advances, facial recognition and its potential to be used and abused by the authorities is very much on the minds of civil liberties types. At least as concerning is the fact that a great deal of the technology and the platforms for providing mass facial recognition was invented and is owned by Google, Facebook and academia, who are all on the same progressive side. And that means that it’s not the police using facial recognition that you need to worry about. It’s the Antifa mob who have you tagged in a photo from the Brexit rally. It’s the HR drone assessing your job application who has you tagged at a UKIP conference or in a traditionalist church amid an all-white congregation.
As society further degenerates and decent people become more desperate and inclined to push back against the rot, the right to cover one’s face will become cherished. It is at THAT point that the government will make it illegal to do so, and all we’ll have left is a lament. The only thing standing in the way is the likely outrage by and on behalf of advocates of Islamic face coverings. Not that this will be an obstruction in the end – plenty of precedent for religious exemptions from various laws.
In France they are in the process of putting such a ban in place, in response to the Gilets Jaunes. It ought to be an article of faith that if the French government think it’s a good idea, it almost certainly isn’t. The Gilets Jaunes are not a right or left wing movement as such. There are various factions for sure – it’s a movement of the people against the globohome elites and the vested interests. It is analogous to the Brexit movement in the UK. And when Boris Johnson fails to deliver on 31st October, we’ll be needing to take to the streets.
So I cannot agree with Matty on this proposal at all and I wish he’d remember the bigger picture and the long term consequences of giving the government powers to use against the other guy today, that they’ll inevitably turn against you tomorrow.
Quite apart from anything else, the primary issue is not the face coverings. It is the demonstrable fact that the police are not preventing the violence. As Tim Newman says, the police and their overlords are the problem. There are valid claims that police have repeatedly used their crowd-management techniques to make confrontations inevitable. At best they are institutionally complicit by their inaction, much to the frustration, I’m sure, of many frontline officers.
Our polity is so corrupt, so immoral, so vested in the status quo, so far removed from ordinary society that I see no prospect the situation being recovered. But when the calls come to curb freedoms, it is not the fucking time to ‘agree and amplify’.