By Proud Boy Magazine contributor Lloyd Somerset
A Western Chauvinist is a proponent of Western Civilization, someone who supports a secular government whose legal code is informed by Judeo-Christian ethics and whose origins lie in the Greco-Roman tradition of the Republic.
It’s a fairly new term, coined by Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes, and it has created a new connotation to the word “chauvinist.”
Originally, the word “chauvinist” indicated a zealous attitude, over-the-top patriotism. Over time, the word’s connotation also expanded to include bigotry or bias, particularly during the social upheaval of the 1960s. This is where we see popularization of the term “male chauvinist.”
Now that the term “Western Chauvinist” has hit the mainstream, the word “chauvinist” has developed a third distinct meaning, which I would define as a person displaying blatant or unapologetic patriotism.
When we Proud Boys say, “I am a proud Western Chauvinist,” we are saying “I am a proud and unabashed proponent of Western Civilization.”
That is it.
It has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, or even national origin.
News media outlets have displayed an elementary, perhaps blatant, misunderstanding of our usage of the term, even going so far as to imply that Proud Boys adhere to the second definition, i.e. that we believe men are superior to women.
Don Lemon at CNN has even called us “misogynistic.” In order to look directly into the camera and make that claim with a straight face, Lemon must be ignorant, incompetent, or completely dishonest.
Now that we’ve cleared clear up any confusion about what is and what is not a “Western Chauvinist,” the media have no excuse to get it wrong.
This web site is public, and so is this article.
There’s really no further explanation needed, but I provide a brief background below for the sake of argument.
1. aggressive or exaggerated patriotism
2. an irrational belief in the superiority or dominance of one’s own group or people
3. blatant or unapologetic patriotism (proposed addition)
The word “chauvinism” is a reference to Nicolas Chauvin, a soldier of Napoleon’s army. It is not clear whether he existed in real life, but more important is the legend surrounding his name, namely that he displayed an exceptional degree of service and loyalty to Napoleon.
After Napoleon’s defeat and the re-establishment of the French monarchy and aristocratic class, Chauvin’s name took on a negative connotation, firmly associating “chauvinism” with being, in short, unreasonable.
A century later, we see the use of this man’s name in a completely new context.
The first recorded use of “male chauvinism” in print was the 1935 play Till the Day I Die, by Clifford Odets. Then we saw it being used by feminists during the Sexual Revolution and Women’s Liberation.
One of the most famous feminists of that era (which we now called Second-Wave Feminism) was Gloria Steinem. It was Steinem who, according to Gavin McInnes, “decreed [men’s] clubs sexist in the ’80s.”
I’m not sure what quote Gavin is specifically referencing, but I did come across “A Bunny’s Tale,” which is a two-part account of Steinem working undercover as a scantily clad cocktail waitress in the Playboy club. The story was printed in SHOW magazine in the 1963 May and June issues.
Is Steinem expecting us to believe that the Playboy Club is a stand-in for all men’s clubs, or was an it intent to uncover something dark about Hugh Hefner specifically? (For the record, some of the male transgressions which took place within Steinem’s account were in direct violation of Hef’s explicit club rules.)
Gloria Steinem willingly subjected herself to being treated like a piece of meat by wealthy creeps for the purpose of what… demonizing male-only associations?
If you don’t have time to read her story (I didn’t), DO check out this still from the 1985 movie version of the exposé, starring Kirstie Alley as Steinem:
Look Who’s Hopping
Now, thanks to feminist movements and the subsequent culture of feminism, most people generally think “male chauvinist” when they hear the word “chauvinist.”
That could all change, however.
When Gavin McInnes describes the tenets of the Proud Boys, he clearly defines Western Chauvinist as such: “it just means a nationalist, a patriot,” i.e. “the West is the best.”
a person who advocates political independence for a country
a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors
Our version of chauvinism has nothing to do with aggression or exaggeration. We portray a normal, healthy amount of patriotism, the same that would be expected of any proud member of any nation. The difference with us, what makes us unique among patriots and chauvinists the world over, is the source of our pride: the so-called West, that thing I described up in the first paragraph.
While there are Proud Boys in Western countries across the globe, many of us feel that there is one country that exemplifies the ideal manifestation of Western aims: The United States of America.
One of the founding principles of the U.S.A. is the phrase E PLURIBUS UNUM, which is Latin for “from many, one.” These words originally referred to the 13 colonies forming one nation, but now E PLURIBUS UNUM conjures the idea of one people from many backgrounds, one nation of citizens regardless of their blood, ethnic, national, racial, or religious origins.
This concept, perhaps unique to the U.S., means that not only are foreigners welcome to come here, but they are also encouraged (and expected) to become like us and adopt our ways.
Becoming an American is contingent upon the following:
1) Become a U.S. citizen, via legal channels.
2) swear an oath of allegiance to the United States.
3) Respect and Revere our laws.
I propose a 4th rule. Every new American must watch a particular scene from the movie Moscow on the Hudson, starring Robin Williams. The scene in question features not so much the comedian but instead a federal judge (black & female, in case it matters), who says the following to a group of foreign-born and newly sworn Americans:
“Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning. Today you will become citizens of the United States of America. No longer are you an Englishman, Italian, a Pole, or whatever; neither will you be a hyphenated American. From this day you are no longer a subject of a government, but an integral part of the government, a free man. May you find in this nation the fulfillment of your dreams of Peace and Security, and may America in turn never find you wanting in your new proud role of citizen of the United States.”
Thusly we welcome people into our Western nation.
Is there anything aggressive or exaggerated in taking pride in that?
For more on E PLURIBUS UNUM, see these two videos from Prager U: