Rallies vs. Conferences

When should the protection of the System be reasonably expected?

There is a fundamental difference between a private activist conference and an activist rally (a category that includes [public] mass meetings), a difference which informs my opinion why police protection, etc. is appropriate for the former but not (in most cases, although there can be exceptions) for the latter.

A conference is a private affair, involving (often academic-style) discussion, that typically has no direct immediate impact on public spaces or on anyone not involved. The types of people attending conferences can include intellectuals, the middle-aged and elderly, and others who cannot reasonably be expected to get involved in “street fighting,” nor should such violence be reasonably expected at any sort of private meeting. Hence, it is quite reasonable to expect protection by the police or other authorities against crazed thugs who wish to break up your private meeting, although such conferences and various other types of private meetings may consider providing their own security to supplement that of the authorities (Type Is – make yourselves useful).

On the other hand, a rally is a public event, meant to occupy a public space, and which therefore does impact public spaces and affect people present in those public spaces. While this does not justify attacks against the rally, it nevertheless separates a public rally, and its expectations, from a private conference.  I’m not talking about legality here – from a strictly legal standpoint, a lawful rally (e.g., with a permit) should have the same protections as a private conference. However, from a practical, political, moral, social, and “public image” standpoint – a realistic standpoint – there is an expectation that attempts of a controversial (rightist) group to occupy a public space may well be met with opposition from those who wish to contest that occupation. From this realistic standpoint, activists who want to occupy public spaces should be prepared to defend themselves and their occupation, and not hide behind police or other authorities (who are in many cases hostile to the rally to begin with). A public rally is not the same as a private speech in, e.g., a hotel meeting room.  Of course, the authorities should not interfere with your legally convened rally – which they often do – but on the other hand, expecting the System to provide caring support for a rally dedicated, ultimately, to overthrowing that System is (even if legally reasonable) a bit much.

The Far Right does have one legitimate claim for police protection at public rallies and similar events: fear of selective prosecution and lawfare if they do in fact defend themselves.  This is the idea, based on some experiences (e.g., Unite the Right I), that if the Left attacks, and the Right defends itself, it will be the Right (only) that is selectively prosecuted (and possibly subject to civil suits as well), while the Left gets off scot-free. While this does not occur in every case, it does occur often enough to be a concern.  This, however, does not justify a long-term dependence on the police, not only for reasons of politics and image, but, practically, because in some cases the police and other authorities conspire with the Left to “set up” the Right to be attacked (e.g., Unite the Right I).

The ultimate solution to the problem of selective prosecution and lawfare consist of two components:

1. Rallies for which the Right plan to defend themselves need to be in jurisdictions in which there is a reasonable chance of some degree of legal fairness.  In contrast, if you enter the belly of the beast, expect to be digested. In SJW enclaves, selective prosecution, at minimum, is almost certain.

2. As I’ve said over and over again, the Far Right needs to march through the institutions, it needs followers and fellow travelers in positions of influence, in elected office, in areas that can affect public opinion and public policy.  It needs an infrastructure of dependable legal help, a committed legal team, and it needs articulate spokesmen and “connections” to get a fair hearing.  Before you say “easier said than done,” consider the endless decades of failure, the wasted millions of dollars, all of the lost opportunities.  It is not my fault that the “movement” and its “leadership” has lacked the vision and the ability to do the things that needed to be done, and that still need to be done.  You need new leadership.