My Conversation With Boogaloo Bois
According to Wikipedia, The "Boogaloo Movement" (which redirects from a Wikipedia search for "Boogaloo Bois") "is a loosely organized far-right, anti-government, and extremist political movement in the United States." The mainstream press repeatedly associates the Boogaloo Bois with the far-right group "Proud Boys", an infamously racist, pro-Trump group; But on January 24th, The Jimmy Dore Show hosted "Magnus Panvidya", a self-identified "Boogaloo Boi", who expressed solidarity with the LGBTQ community, "Black Lives Matter", a resentment for police brutality, opposition to ICE detainment camps, and a recognition of the authoritarian oppression of both major political parties. I reached out to him, and a few other self-described Boogaloo Bois in a group chat; Below are the questions that I had, and the responses that followed. My questions are typed in red, "Mando Redacted" responses are in blue, "Shifty Powers" responses are in Green, "Magnus Panvidya" responses are in purple, and "FreeMenDontAsk" responses are in black.
Question: What are the similarities with, and differences with, the "Proud Boys"?
Response #1: The only thing similar between us and proud boys is passion. And that’s it. We oppose government by and large, they directly fall under a single candidate. They are authoritarian. We are libertarian, anarchist, minarchist. We don’t trust the state no matter which party is in control. The word “control” being the reason why.
Response #2: Proud boys advocate for violence against anyone they disagree with. We do not.
Question: Is it safe therefore to assume that most Boogaloos are in favor of most/all of the liberation movements that have been characterized by oppression of marginalized peoples throughout the history of said movements, or, perhaps a better wording, what is the relationship of the Boogaloo Bois with the Gay/Black/Trans/Palestinian/Labor liberation movements?
Response: The libertarian party was actually one of the first political parties to advocate for gay and trans rights, all the way back in the 70s, before it became politically convenient. So we have ally-ship with all of those movements, particularly in instances when government force is used against them for their sexuality.
Question: What are some of the most important issues that Boogaloo Bois have in common, or, What is the common thread that ties Boogaloo Bois together as a group?
Response #1: Infringement of natural rights would be the simplest answer. Although I believe everyone has particular things they hold closer to the chest.
Response #2: Yeah the basic fundamentals I would say is [that] we all agree [that] the government is overstepping and oppressing people in one way or another, that it's unfair and illegitimate, and doesn't actually represent any one of [us at] this point. The individualism comes from what we think are the worst instances of it, and our objectives towards fixing it, but we mostly agree upon that.
Question: What would be the relationship of the Boogaloo Bois movement with the drastic (and increasing) economic inequality plaguing the US? Are there shared ideas/goals to address these working-class issues within the movement?
Response #1: I don’t speak for us all, but when it comes to economic inequality, I think [my] relation to the bois at least from my perspective, is that that unfortunate current state so many face is in a direct relation to the corruption plaguing our current government. Every level of government has been essentially taken over by corporate interest instead of the will of the people which has lead to a reduction in market, and an inability to truly get paid for value you provide, versus what the government has set [with regard to] law, allowing [it to be] okay for a company to short you. I also think that there needs to be individual responsibility when it comes to finances in some regards as I personally believe your skill level and the work you’re doing should correlate to the amount you’re paid. Economically it’s a tough one given the corruption.
Response #2: Pretty much echo that to a degree The fact is the government has made several forms of charity illegal, has regulated out so many forms of assistance to the dispossessed, and made our financial system so complicated that I don't think anyone actually understands how it works anymore. It's a mess and the only people that are benefiting from it are the multi-billion dollar corporations that own literally everything and control the ears and pens of politicians.
Response #3: To add to this, even within just our own movement, we see those who favor the ideas of a shared commune, groups of people who share and work together to thrive, and those who believe in a full free market such as myself. I think the basic way to present that is like the old western trading posts. Supply and demand in a simple and visible basis. Of course, both concepts are entirely voluntary, meaning no force or implementation by the state. And I personally believe a mix of both of these would thrive for the common citizen. To echo what they said, the corporate intermingling, the garnering favors to get legislation that chokes the employee and the small business owner into submission, is the grossest abuse of power over any economic theory.
Question: Is there a consensus among Boogaloos with regard to how an anarcho-capitalist framework could be juxtaposed with private technological monopolies like Facebook and Twitter censoring anti-establishmentarian movements they do not like?
Response #1: When it comes to economics that's probably where we're the most varied, we have people from libertarian socialists all the way to anarcho-capitalists and everything in between.
Response #2: To focus for a moment: the statist attempt to blatantly silence us is making us more resolved. If you care to let them know. They might should consider backing off that. Because we are not going to disappear. The boogaloo isn’t just a concept. It’s ideology. There is whole frameworks in the culture that define what we believe. You cannot kill an idea.
Follow-up: I only wonder how an anarcho-capitalist (or from which angle) is able to make the free speech argument against Twitter or Facebook silencing your own voices without the same anarcho-capitalist argument that they are a private company?
Response #3: That free speech argument I feel stands against fb/big tech in the sense that they don’t operate free of government influence in either direction, this harkens back to the corporate corruption of American politics, and on the other end of the spectrum, all of these companies directly benefit in ways much smaller companies dont from the massive subsidies the government doles out due to said corruption. If they truly acted independently of government well then a private business argument would hold water, but because they don’t, that argument can’t be made in good faith.
Response #4: Facebook and Twitter pulled [them]selves away from free speech when they decided to accept money from the government. It came from certain political causes, and their speech is no longer free.
Question: Part of what may give people a negative first impression of the Boogaloo Bois, and initiate the knee-jerk reaction to say "fascist" is, at least in part due to the optics of showing up to protests &/or counter-protests bearing arms. Is there a goal behind publicly bearing arms at these events?
Answer: Mostly, we show up bearing arms [because] there was several instances over the course of the summer of vehicles [intentionally] trying to run protesters over, violent counter protesters, or even the police getting out of control. These were both attempts to deter these things from happening, but also instances such in Louisville where these arms had to be directly used to protect protesters.
Question: In the speech given at the state capitol, it was said that if the government continues to suppress it's people, "they will remain rational no longer". What would be the final straw that would demand an end to rationality, and justify picking up arms to defend our American liberties?
Response #1: Personally I think there's a lot of lines in the sand, if the Covid issue continues to remain totally broken, and by that I mean neither the government actually helping people or allowing them to work, that would cause a crack, [or] If the police state or surveillance State expanded rapidly once again to the point of being untenable, [or] If there was a deliberate crackdown on domestic terrorist quote unquote such as anti-fascist groups or us or any other movement in a very authoritarian way, or some form of forced gun confiscation. Those are all straws I could see that would break the camels back.
Response #2: I was shooting in a competition! But I think the line in the sand is as individual as the movement. That’s not including some egregious massive move to remove individual rights by the government. I like to think of Marvin Heemeyer when it comes to final straws. It’s very individual unless there’s a massive move that makes a ton of people move. It’s also something we don’t want to happen as it would be detrimental. But it’s a very possible outcome we all are prepared to deal with in some capacity. A true and absolute last resort, but it is a resort.
Response #3: I’m going to majority agree here. I do have my own “line in the sand” as far as the COVID and vaccine goes. If enough actual volunteers went through this, and the results showed, they could dissuade my mindset. But whole countries are pulling away from it because of death tolls. Some of the worst symptoms of COVID (sterility and nerve damage) are being acquired through the vaccine. I will not allow my sons to suffer this voluntarily. If they try to force it on my sons, they will find a very different voice in opposition.
Follow-Up: My question, more specifically, is what actions might be taken by the federal government that would justify taking up arms? The reason I ask specifically, is that we can already predict that the aforementioned actions that might "break the camel's back" are going to happen. It will happen subtly, and slowly, like the infamous analogy of the frog in boiling water. The US government will not be helping her people any time soon, and our spineless corporate-funded representatives in Congress will certainly continue to *slowly* restrict our civil liberties. How, in this political climate, do we draw the final line??
Response #4: For me, whenever they say that my parental rights to my children’s welfare becomes a state matter, I will become fully non compliant; and the measure of my noncompliance will be gauged by their level of force.
Response #5: 2A is my hill, they come to my door and, well, [rock & roll hand emoji]...
Follow-Up #2: I still wonder; Considering they are not likely to literally go door-to-door confiscating firearms, what is it, policy-wise, that is that last straw that throws up the civil liberties red-flag and signals that it is time to take up arms? Again, authoritarianism creeps slowly. I understand it may be a difficult question to answer, but I feel it is one that should be addressed.
Response #6: Really I don't see the straw that breaks the [camel's] back being something that happens instantly, I see it more as people will start participating in mass non-compliance, and mass hatred of authority. We kind-of already saw this happen in Tulsa, where the police showed up to break up a street race, and entire crowd of people surrounded the cop car and started bashing on it. I could see something similar happening [with] firearms, where if a community had multiple instances of infringement, the police will start being welcomed with rifles kind-of Bundy style.
Response #7: I see massive non compliance as the main course of action and that Tulsa example is great, we the people outnumber the state. It’s that simple, once even a fraction of us decide to take a stand, the state loses its authority.
Response #8: Devon, the difficult part is that even when they cross someone’s line in a personal manner, it won’t incite everyone at once. Our own modern “shot heard round the world” will be something totally unexpected, I’d wager. Though I can say this; Most bois are on board with [the idea that the presence of] blue helmets on American soil [meaning that] the fight has been declared.
Response #9: Yeah that's another huge unacceptable instance. If any multinational or foreign troops are deployed on US soil for some form of "peacekeeping operation", it's fair game. Even anti-fascist groups have agreed with us on that, it's our problem, no foreign interference.
Follow-Up #3: The "shot heard around the world" is the perfect example of the question I'm trying to ask. When does this rallying cry happen? When does does the frog in boiling water say "wait one fucking second here", and jump?
Response #10: You’re asking the exact correct question. The issue, is that we don’t have an exact answer. When dealing with a coalition of individualists, by the time we are all ready to fight, the Shot has passed us.
Response #11: I mean we're kinda already there; We're already in some weird multi-factional "the troubles" IRA conflict. I think it'll just keep escalating gradually. I mean fuck a dude blew up a car bomb in Nashville and no one knows why still.
Question: I suspect I know the answer to this one, but: Julian Assange - criminal, or hero??
Response: Assange. And Snowden. And many others. All should be pardoned and freed. They held true to the needs of the people.
Response #1: The only thing similar between us and proud boys is passion. And that’s it. We oppose government by and large, they directly fall under a single candidate. They are authoritarian. We are libertarian, anarchist, minarchist. We don’t trust the state no matter which party is in control. The word “control” being the reason why.
Response #2: Proud boys advocate for violence against anyone they disagree with. We do not.
Question: Is it safe therefore to assume that most Boogaloos are in favor of most/all of the liberation movements that have been characterized by oppression of marginalized peoples throughout the history of said movements, or, perhaps a better wording, what is the relationship of the Boogaloo Bois with the Gay/Black/Trans/Palestinian/Labor liberation movements?
Response: The libertarian party was actually one of the first political parties to advocate for gay and trans rights, all the way back in the 70s, before it became politically convenient. So we have ally-ship with all of those movements, particularly in instances when government force is used against them for their sexuality.
Question: What are some of the most important issues that Boogaloo Bois have in common, or, What is the common thread that ties Boogaloo Bois together as a group?
Response #1: Infringement of natural rights would be the simplest answer. Although I believe everyone has particular things they hold closer to the chest.
Response #2: Yeah the basic fundamentals I would say is [that] we all agree [that] the government is overstepping and oppressing people in one way or another, that it's unfair and illegitimate, and doesn't actually represent any one of [us at] this point. The individualism comes from what we think are the worst instances of it, and our objectives towards fixing it, but we mostly agree upon that.
Question: What would be the relationship of the Boogaloo Bois movement with the drastic (and increasing) economic inequality plaguing the US? Are there shared ideas/goals to address these working-class issues within the movement?
Response #1: I don’t speak for us all, but when it comes to economic inequality, I think [my] relation to the bois at least from my perspective, is that that unfortunate current state so many face is in a direct relation to the corruption plaguing our current government. Every level of government has been essentially taken over by corporate interest instead of the will of the people which has lead to a reduction in market, and an inability to truly get paid for value you provide, versus what the government has set [with regard to] law, allowing [it to be] okay for a company to short you. I also think that there needs to be individual responsibility when it comes to finances in some regards as I personally believe your skill level and the work you’re doing should correlate to the amount you’re paid. Economically it’s a tough one given the corruption.
Response #2: Pretty much echo that to a degree The fact is the government has made several forms of charity illegal, has regulated out so many forms of assistance to the dispossessed, and made our financial system so complicated that I don't think anyone actually understands how it works anymore. It's a mess and the only people that are benefiting from it are the multi-billion dollar corporations that own literally everything and control the ears and pens of politicians.
Response #3: To add to this, even within just our own movement, we see those who favor the ideas of a shared commune, groups of people who share and work together to thrive, and those who believe in a full free market such as myself. I think the basic way to present that is like the old western trading posts. Supply and demand in a simple and visible basis. Of course, both concepts are entirely voluntary, meaning no force or implementation by the state. And I personally believe a mix of both of these would thrive for the common citizen. To echo what they said, the corporate intermingling, the garnering favors to get legislation that chokes the employee and the small business owner into submission, is the grossest abuse of power over any economic theory.
Question: Is there a consensus among Boogaloos with regard to how an anarcho-capitalist framework could be juxtaposed with private technological monopolies like Facebook and Twitter censoring anti-establishmentarian movements they do not like?
Response #1: When it comes to economics that's probably where we're the most varied, we have people from libertarian socialists all the way to anarcho-capitalists and everything in between.
Response #2: To focus for a moment: the statist attempt to blatantly silence us is making us more resolved. If you care to let them know. They might should consider backing off that. Because we are not going to disappear. The boogaloo isn’t just a concept. It’s ideology. There is whole frameworks in the culture that define what we believe. You cannot kill an idea.
Follow-up: I only wonder how an anarcho-capitalist (or from which angle) is able to make the free speech argument against Twitter or Facebook silencing your own voices without the same anarcho-capitalist argument that they are a private company?
Response #3: That free speech argument I feel stands against fb/big tech in the sense that they don’t operate free of government influence in either direction, this harkens back to the corporate corruption of American politics, and on the other end of the spectrum, all of these companies directly benefit in ways much smaller companies dont from the massive subsidies the government doles out due to said corruption. If they truly acted independently of government well then a private business argument would hold water, but because they don’t, that argument can’t be made in good faith.
Response #4: Facebook and Twitter pulled [them]selves away from free speech when they decided to accept money from the government. It came from certain political causes, and their speech is no longer free.
Question: Part of what may give people a negative first impression of the Boogaloo Bois, and initiate the knee-jerk reaction to say "fascist" is, at least in part due to the optics of showing up to protests &/or counter-protests bearing arms. Is there a goal behind publicly bearing arms at these events?
Answer: Mostly, we show up bearing arms [because] there was several instances over the course of the summer of vehicles [intentionally] trying to run protesters over, violent counter protesters, or even the police getting out of control. These were both attempts to deter these things from happening, but also instances such in Louisville where these arms had to be directly used to protect protesters.
Question: In the speech given at the state capitol, it was said that if the government continues to suppress it's people, "they will remain rational no longer". What would be the final straw that would demand an end to rationality, and justify picking up arms to defend our American liberties?
Response #1: Personally I think there's a lot of lines in the sand, if the Covid issue continues to remain totally broken, and by that I mean neither the government actually helping people or allowing them to work, that would cause a crack, [or] If the police state or surveillance State expanded rapidly once again to the point of being untenable, [or] If there was a deliberate crackdown on domestic terrorist quote unquote such as anti-fascist groups or us or any other movement in a very authoritarian way, or some form of forced gun confiscation. Those are all straws I could see that would break the camels back.
Response #2: I was shooting in a competition! But I think the line in the sand is as individual as the movement. That’s not including some egregious massive move to remove individual rights by the government. I like to think of Marvin Heemeyer when it comes to final straws. It’s very individual unless there’s a massive move that makes a ton of people move. It’s also something we don’t want to happen as it would be detrimental. But it’s a very possible outcome we all are prepared to deal with in some capacity. A true and absolute last resort, but it is a resort.
Response #3: I’m going to majority agree here. I do have my own “line in the sand” as far as the COVID and vaccine goes. If enough actual volunteers went through this, and the results showed, they could dissuade my mindset. But whole countries are pulling away from it because of death tolls. Some of the worst symptoms of COVID (sterility and nerve damage) are being acquired through the vaccine. I will not allow my sons to suffer this voluntarily. If they try to force it on my sons, they will find a very different voice in opposition.
Follow-Up: My question, more specifically, is what actions might be taken by the federal government that would justify taking up arms? The reason I ask specifically, is that we can already predict that the aforementioned actions that might "break the camel's back" are going to happen. It will happen subtly, and slowly, like the infamous analogy of the frog in boiling water. The US government will not be helping her people any time soon, and our spineless corporate-funded representatives in Congress will certainly continue to *slowly* restrict our civil liberties. How, in this political climate, do we draw the final line??
Response #4: For me, whenever they say that my parental rights to my children’s welfare becomes a state matter, I will become fully non compliant; and the measure of my noncompliance will be gauged by their level of force.
Response #5: 2A is my hill, they come to my door and, well, [rock & roll hand emoji]...
Follow-Up #2: I still wonder; Considering they are not likely to literally go door-to-door confiscating firearms, what is it, policy-wise, that is that last straw that throws up the civil liberties red-flag and signals that it is time to take up arms? Again, authoritarianism creeps slowly. I understand it may be a difficult question to answer, but I feel it is one that should be addressed.
Response #6: Really I don't see the straw that breaks the [camel's] back being something that happens instantly, I see it more as people will start participating in mass non-compliance, and mass hatred of authority. We kind-of already saw this happen in Tulsa, where the police showed up to break up a street race, and entire crowd of people surrounded the cop car and started bashing on it. I could see something similar happening [with] firearms, where if a community had multiple instances of infringement, the police will start being welcomed with rifles kind-of Bundy style.
Response #7: I see massive non compliance as the main course of action and that Tulsa example is great, we the people outnumber the state. It’s that simple, once even a fraction of us decide to take a stand, the state loses its authority.
Response #8: Devon, the difficult part is that even when they cross someone’s line in a personal manner, it won’t incite everyone at once. Our own modern “shot heard round the world” will be something totally unexpected, I’d wager. Though I can say this; Most bois are on board with [the idea that the presence of] blue helmets on American soil [meaning that] the fight has been declared.
Response #9: Yeah that's another huge unacceptable instance. If any multinational or foreign troops are deployed on US soil for some form of "peacekeeping operation", it's fair game. Even anti-fascist groups have agreed with us on that, it's our problem, no foreign interference.
Follow-Up #3: The "shot heard around the world" is the perfect example of the question I'm trying to ask. When does this rallying cry happen? When does does the frog in boiling water say "wait one fucking second here", and jump?
Response #10: You’re asking the exact correct question. The issue, is that we don’t have an exact answer. When dealing with a coalition of individualists, by the time we are all ready to fight, the Shot has passed us.
Response #11: I mean we're kinda already there; We're already in some weird multi-factional "the troubles" IRA conflict. I think it'll just keep escalating gradually. I mean fuck a dude blew up a car bomb in Nashville and no one knows why still.
Question: I suspect I know the answer to this one, but: Julian Assange - criminal, or hero??
Response: Assange. And Snowden. And many others. All should be pardoned and freed. They held true to the needs of the people.
Fact-Check: TRUE
Social media companies do receive federal subsidies. |