Kelsey Eichhorn-Fetterhoff: Brad Spangler’s Teen Lover Turned On Him In Her Personal YouTube Video

Kelsey Eichhorn-Fetterhoff, a Pennsylvanian millenial and former Ron Paul youth supporter, turned on Brad Spangler the week he came out with his Facebook confession by unleashing a YouTube video in which she denounced Spangler and told everyone to stop asking her questions about her “relationship” with Spangler because they were “gross,” according to her.

Kelsey goes so far as to say:

I didn’t want to be involved in this. I wanted nothing to do with this. It’s weird, it’s creepy, it’s bizarre, it’s tragic, it’s disgusting, and people are adding me [on Facebook]. A lot of people are adding me, and only a lot of people are only adding me only to message me and ask me weird, gross questions that are really gross and disgusting, and I really just don’t want to talk about it. So I’m gonna make this video, and you all can watch this, and then you all can go away and leave me alone, unless you actually want to be my friend on Facebook. That’s cool too. Whatever.

This is the same Kelsey who told me about Brad Spangler’s daughter’s real name in private. This is also the same Kelsey who told me she thought Brad “was an asshole” because he stopped talking to her and blocked her, even around the time when he didn’t want her to see his confession. She even told me that Brad backed off from her and distanced himself from her, only because he supposedly told her that she reminded him of his daughter.

It’s interesting in this video – at least I always thought it was interesting in this video – that Kelsey claims that Brad met her online when she was supposedly 15 and not 17, and Brad had lied about her age because she reaffirmed that she was 15 and not 17 (which is interesting, because she didn’t dispute Brad’s “lie” at the time she and Brad were dating at the time). She had been making YouTube videos for Ron Paul, and she at some point added Brad on Facebook.

This is what she says here:

Really, Kelsey? Why would you add that jackass on Facebook? Why would you even talk to him about pro-Liberty stuff even before he was acting creepy? Are you that dense to figure out that the man just wanted to get into your pants, considering he had – and still has – a thing for teens like you? He looked at you as if you were piece of KFC chicken breast (or thigh), extra crispy style. And you didn’t think there was something wrong with that picture?

You lied to me about your relationship with Brad if that was the case. Perhaps you were lying in the video as well, trying to not let out the real true story of your relationship with Brad from ever getting out? And you had to take it to YouTube to air your complaints? Why didn’t you call the cops on him and those people who were asking you “weird, gross questions” about you and him? Why didn’t you contact the Feds when you had the chance?

Here’s what I think. I think you enjoyed the attention as well as the sexual tension between you and him. If what you said happened to be the case, you would have told him to stay away from you over four years ago, and you would have warned the entire libertarian and anarchist communities within the libertarian community about what Brad was doing to you then.

So he wanted you to “run away from him” just for you to “live with him” and “have sex with him multiple times.” Again, why didn’t you tell your parents about it? Why didn’t you bring this matter to the libertarian community first before even bringing it to the cops? Why did you go along with “his lie” that you were 17 and had me defend you and him, considering I was the object of scorn and ridicule by Deborah Dedmon and other people?

But that’s a blog post for another day.

Behold the following posts showcasing Kelsey and Brad’s love for each other:

Kelsey Eichhorn Fetterhoff Showing Her Love to Brad Spangler in 2014 (clip) - 12-07-2015

Todd Mentions Kelsey and Brad's Relationship on Free Talk Live (Clip) - (on August 2, 2011) - 12-07-2015
Need I say more?


Ostracize The Coward Behind The “Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett” Facebook Page

The Facebook page “Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett,” which was launched sometime back on May 25 of this year, was made public and available to all members of FB in an effort to libel me and impugn and assassinate my character, not to mention violate my intellectual property for the purpose of destroying me and my reputation that I worked hard and endlessly to build and preserve for over 16 years. I knew there are some people who have it in for me, who want to see me destroyed, and believe that my endless, unrelenting honesty is somehow a calamitous threat to the libertarian movement that has come apart at the seams since the Brad Spangler and Christopher Cantwell fallouts – messes that are on them and not me.

The name of the community page is like this:

Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett Page on Facebook Part 7 - Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett (community page pic) - 12-03-2015


Of course it doesn’t end there. This is what the page is about:

About the 'Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett' Page

I, of course, never professed to be a saint, much less the nicest and least sarcastic asshole on the planet, let alone the entire universe or even “multiverses.” (Do “multiverses” really count? Let me know about that for once, ok? LOL!) Anyway, where was I? Ahhh yes, this page was created by a clandestine individual to inform “those who wish to disassociate themselves” from Yours Truly. Oh, and here’s the cosmic gag that keeps the laughs coming: supposedly I’m a “drama queen ‘libertarian’ hanger-on who publicly outs rape victims.'” That last part really did it for me, and yet this invisible dude – or dudette – thinks he’s doing what passes for a “libertarian” movement a big favor by outing me as the evil super-duper villain of all time — yup, in the same league of the Joker, Harley Quinn, Two-Face a.k.a. Harvey Dent, Lex Luthor, Grodd….well, you get the DC Comics point anyhow. This stuff is so comical that this dude should be Bill Maher of Real Time‘s own staff writer. He’d make a really good career in Hollywood.


“Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett”‘s Laughably Ridiculous Points

Here’s more ugly libels that are lawsuit-worthy:

Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett Page on Facebook Part 1 Clipping - 12-03-2015 Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett Page on Facebook Part 2 Clipping - 12-04-2015
I’d like to respond to each and every single point that this coward has written about me, so let’s start with the most recent one that began approximately a day ago.

Yes, it’s true that I reported his page to Facebook on the grounds that the images and statements he quotes from me were employed *WITHOUT* my express permission. There’s no evidence that he misquoted me, but he has used my statements against me in such a way that I consider to be an attack on my person, my character, and well-respected reputation that precedes me. Yes, “Ostracize” (which is what I will call you from now on), I am respected by my family, my personal friends whom I’ve known for over 30 years, and many fellow anarchists and libertarians with whom I remain good friends (like Wendy McElroy and Sheldon Richman, for instance) and with whom I have built, erected, established, and preserved good rapports for many, many years — long before you knew what a libertarian ever was.

I used the “intellectual property” tactic as a ruse to draw you out. And guess what? You took the bait. I wanted your attention as much as you wanted my attention, however undivided it was, and now you have it. I never said I wasn’t fair game in the movement. Not once in my life did I ever say or imply or infer that I am shielded from the effects of public scrutiny. I’m not. However, would you like to know something? The rules apply to you too. You are fair game as well. You are not shielded from those same effects. I don’t know what your end game is, or what you want with me, or why you are doing this, but I’ve been around the block many, many times. You’re no different from Eric Dondero of the Libertarian Republicans blog.

I should also note that not all libertarians agree with each other regarding IP laws that govern intellectual property. Stephan Kinsella, an IP attorney who employs the “libertarian” moniker all the time and yet is a member of a bar association of statist attorneys and uses the State to his advantage, claims he’s against intellectual property. So does Ian Freeman (formerly, Ian Bernard) of Free Talk Live. However, not all libertarians concur with each other on intellectual property laws. L. Neil Smith (co-founder of the Libertarian Enterprise for which I have written and where I’ve published articles) and Sharon Presley support intellectual property laws because of their support for artists. (Sharon and Neil do not support corporations having full control of other people’s intellectual property though as I understand it.)

I do know one thing: you are a coward. That’s what you have been, that’s what you still are right now, and that’s what you’ll always be. A coward. A coward is someone who hides in the shadows, afraid of revealing his or her true identity and true form. He or she is afraid of unveiling what his or her ulterior motives are, which seem to be carried out in the form of a smear campaign against me. And that, sir, is you!

Yes, I’ve been writing and publishing articles long before you were a gleam in the movement’s eyes. Yet I’m not the only one who’s been doing that. Scores of libertarians and anarchists, past and present, have been doing that for years. Yes, I do run and host a radio show known as Liberty Cap Talk Live I could create a page about you that is a response to what you’ve fashioned against me, and perhaps I should, but I won’t. I’m sure someone would call it or suggest “Ostracize the Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett Page” or something like that, but then that would be even more comical and more of a cosmic gag than you or anyone in the movement have foreseen.

I reserve the right to protect my intellectual property that includes my likeness, image, and name, as well as my reputation. I have more people on my side than you have on yours. I’ve seen only 8 likes on your page, which is a really Goddess-awful non-existent number. Why is it a bad number? It’s simply because out of so many libertarians who have better uses of their time than to engage in politically-correct cheap shots, ludicrous rantings about someone (a colleague, a protege, or an ally) whom they know nothing about personally outside of Facebook, and personal, whacked-out barbs and insults that they would likely with each other over irrelevant issues that are the least of their concerns, the State remains our enemy, and we don’t have time for this inane bullshit that takes up valuable time and precious resources that could be best served nationally, state-wise, and locally to fight the real threats to our liberties.

You refer to the Brad Spangler trainwreck in which you note that I involved myself in that ruckus.

Let me post what Brad Spangler wrote on his Facebook wall on January 22 of this year:

Brad Spangler Admits He's A Child Molester Clip I - 01-22-2015






Of course, I will repeat a portion of what Brad said with some extra content attached to this page:


Brad Spangler Admits He's A Child Molester Clip II -01-22-2015

And, of course, this is what Brad also posted including some comments that were appended to his FB post as well:

Brad Spangler Admits He's A Child Molester Part II Clip I - 01-22-2015

Brad Spangler Admits He's A Child Molester Part III Clip I - 01-22-2015

Brad Spangler Admits He's A Child Molester Part III Clip III - 01-22-2015


Let it be on record that I’m not the only person who involved himself in this matter. I estimate that over 85 percent of the movement involved itself into the Spangler affair, and like most brain-dead humans, they forget too easily what has been posted with their names attached to that development. Many people, including Corey Moore, gleefully latched onto the event, making themselves armchair opportunists the second the news surrounding Brad’s Facebook confession came out. As the pics unveil, and I never candy-coat anything just to use it as window dressing for any pathetically particular interest or reasoning, quite a number of people responded, and they kept responding to the matter because it was blowing up on the Internet. The second Spangler confessed that he was a pedophile, that he molested his daughter (who was 10 at the time), his life in the movement for him was over.

The cops couldn’t do a damn thing about the matter because of the statute of limitations in his case ran out, although it could go on for 20-30 years *EVEN* after the victim, who was under 18 in 2004. That means the limitations ran out last year, which menas that, even if his daughter were to still file criminal charges against him, they wouldn’t stick because the law would insulate and does insulate Brad from the prosecutorial consequences imposed upon and meted out to him by the State of Missouri.

Again, yes I did involve myself in that matter, and yes I did out the victim. I took a shit-slugging heat from people who believed that I violated her privacy. The victim, assuming she hasn’t turned 21 yet but I think she already has since this incident, was 20 years old when I “outed” her. It was Kelsey Eichhorn-Fetterhoff who told me Brad’s daughter’s first name, and it was J. Neil Schulman who pointed out to me that I had a moral and legal obligation to report the facts. It’s called the First Amendment for a reason.

You accuse me of “justifying outing a rape victim” (and so call it what you will!), but you’re a hypocrite. You’re justifying outing me as a person in the form of a Facebook page as a way for you to score political points, thinking that’s somehow gonna help you rise through the ranks of the movement, and you love the First Amendment when it works to your advantage and benefit from it. But the second it makes you look bad and makes you look like a super-villain, you caterwaul over that cardinal principle when the world doesn’t go your way? When the results don’t look in your favor? Get over yourself, please!

It doesn’t help that Zoe (OMG, I mentioned her name on my blog; fire and brimstone will rain down from the sky now that I’ve done it again!) is a Facebook friend of her father, and it also doesn’t help that she’s a legal adult who could’ve contacted me anytime she wanted if she didn’t want me to expose her identity for the world to know and see. She also could’ve said that, had I not done any of those things, she would’ve filed a lawsuit against me or filed criminal charges with her local prosecutor’s office, demanding that I take down my Facebook posts for the protection of her privacy. She doesn’t need sycophants like those who have attacked me for “outing her” in the libertarian and anarchist movements; she could’ve done these things herself. But she didn’t. And it’s not because I forced her to re-live the molestation acts committed against her by her own flesh-and-blood father; it’s because she dropped the ball on that one.

She did respond to the entire ruckus with the following:

Zoe Spangler's Public Statement Part 1 - First and Only Clip - 01-26-2015
And so she should. I take issue with her “rape culture” and “patriarchal ideas to be examined and dismantled” that she floated, but beyond that, she’s right on the button on a few things. What makes it complicated is the fact that:

  1. She’s a Marxist/left-wing statist like her father, but that’s her father’s fucked-up fault;
  2. She says, “I want to bring attention to how we view rape culture.” There is *NO* “rape culture” of any kind in the United States. There *IS* real rape culture brewing in the Middle East, particularly in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Libya, and many Middle Eastern regions where ISIS is present, and we should condemn that. (Why she doesn’t condemn that in the Middle East is beyond me, but it buttresses my point that limousine left-liberal feminists like Zoe have concocted this imaginary world in which “rape culture” is universal, ubiquitous, and ever-present in the United States, and that all men are somehow evil and disgusting because of the atrocious actions of her own father.)and
  3. Finally, she acts like she wants to be infantilized, because of the horrors she experienced when she was a child, and she appears to be experiencing great difficulties as an adult because of her pedophile father who didn’t just “damage” her; he destroyed her all the around.

The fact that other libertarians and anarchists contributed to her infantilization as a child by keeping her trapped in the childification maze that has been constructed for her is just mind-boggling and disgusting. Anyone with a pulse worth their salt would just wash their hands of the madness and make a quiet exit, never to discuss the matter ever again, not even anyone.

You, “Ostracize” (or whoever you are), don’t give a damn about Zoe, what happened to her as a child, what her sanity and life have been, and so on. You only give the appearance of giving a damn just to boot your Facebook visits, and that’s all about it. The same reality applies to the others who decided to take matters into their own hands and purge me from the old libertarian movement, because they wanted to destroy it, and the Brad Spangler/Zoe Sprangler incident served as an opportunity as well as an excuse to get rid of radicals who have shaped and defined what was once a very powerful movement with people who had nothing but love and compassion for it.

I think I made my point with regards to this matter clearly and expressively.

On October 4 of this year, “Ostracize” posted the following on his or her page:



Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett Page on Facebook Part 3 Clipping - 12-03-2015

And here are the screenshots:

Me Talking About Airing Five Last Episodes of LCTL on a September 9 Facebook Post Clipping - 12-04-2015

Me Talking About Not Ending LCTL on September 29 Clipping - 12-04-2015

That’s what “Ostracize” complains about! What am I talking about? I’m talking about the fact that “Ostracize” complains about the fact that I keep changing my mind about whether Liberty Cap Talk Live remains on the air or not. Yes, I have done that many times, and I don’t deny it. People can say whatever they want about that. I say: so what? So what if I keep changing my mind on whether to keep the show on the air or not? So what? My responses on Facebook are based on my mood swings, which could be on some psychiatric level, be a basis for bipolar disorder, I guess. But I don’t believe I have bipolar disorder. It’s just me changing my mind based on me cooling down after the depression kicks in, and I figure that’s all about it.

Was I really going to cancel LCTL? No. I was being theatrical about it. But then I’m an old actor, and the old actor has to play his part for the masses to see.

Am I a “drama queen”? Yes, I admit I am. So what? The libertarian movement is saturated with them. “Drama whoring” is the new sanity, and people who really cry me and everyone else a new river by simply objecting to the drama in the movement are “drama whores” as well. Even you, “Ostracize,” because you like this stuff for the kicks, the theatricality, the showboating, and the window dressing that come with all of this mess.

Well, don’t you?

I thought so.


The thing is, “Ostracize,” that I along with my fellow libertarians and anarchists (who are on my side for the most part) find your Facebook page to be both a nuisance and counterproductive to the goals, aspirations, dreams, and desires of other libertarians and anarchists who don’t kowtow to you and your minions as if they signed up for the U.S. Army.

It is what it is though. As I have told my good friend Avens O’Brien:

Look, I made a decision at the time. I’m not going to apologize for a decision I made, but at the same time, I wouldn’t do it again.

As for the drama you see from me that you so complain about, yeah, so? What’s your point? Aren’t you engaging in that drama too? You know you are. You just don’t want to admit it.

The truth is this, people: ostracize the “Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett” Facebook Page. I ask people to disassociate themselves from this nutjob-of-a-prick who’s hell-bent on destroying my life, let alone every principle and conviction I have and for which I stand. I ask that you do this because you don’t need to have a dog in this fight, and neither do I. You owe this piece of shit nothing. I don’t owe him anything. More than that, I owe no one anything except for what my convictions are, my brazen honesty, and the truth as I see it. Nothing more and nothing less. Would you expect any less of me? Furthermore, would you do any less if the shoe were on the other foot?

I hope that everyone thinks very hard about that. I do. I really do.

Turn off the lights when you’re done with yourself, “Ostracize.” There’s no need for the huge electric bill.

[Note: Immediate Update:] Before I started work on this blog piece, I filed a harassment report via the page to Facebook. Since my intellectual property violation report didn’t get through and didn’t work, I decided not to give up on the Page, on the grounds that it targeted me, and that the coward behind the page who wouldn’t identify himself needed to be reported for violating Facebook’s community standards.

What did I do? I report the “Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett” page to Facebook, and then Facebook reviewed it. Facebook posted the following, alerting me of its decision:

The Reporting of the 'Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett' Facebook Page to Facebook, and Facebook's Decision (Updated) Clipping - 12-04-2015


And I thought Facebook would side with “Ostracize” all the way around. Wow. Don’t I feel vindicated now?

Christopher Cantwell’s Public Relations and Political Downfall On The Heels of His Racist-Fueled Twitter Tweet, and So On

Self-glorifying “libertarian/anarchist” a.k.a. celebritarian Christopher Cantwell (also an militantly atheistic asshole to boot) never lets an opportunity go to waste. He’s a self-promoting egomaniac who, among other things, is a soulless attention whore and who has invaded the libertarian “movement” within the last few years for his own self-serving, self-aggrandizing, and self-interested reasons. Not only that, he is a bona fide welfare queen begging for and securing funds from “activists” and “supporters” in his circle and bloviate on his blog for no other legitimate, justifiable reason other than to shoot off his mouth and make himself out to be the Perez Hilton of the Anarchist side of the libertarian “movement.”

Never once in my lifetime would I encounter a self-professed “Anarchistic, militantly atheistic asshole” who is also a sexist and misogynistic and, not to mention, a racist all rolled into one. Is the act of being a misogynist, a sexist, and an asshole a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle? No, it is not. But it is unethical, immoral, and anti-libertarian in its own heart, body, mind, and soul. Are these things violations of libertarian principle? No, they are not. Libertarians who are racist, sexist, and misogynistic have a legal right to espouse such dreadful and disgusting views and are free to express those views as they are protected by the First Amendment (in which case the government has no legal and constitutional right to prevent them from expressing such abominable ideas). But just because they are not indications of the violation of libertarian principles and the NAP does not mean that, from a purely ethical, moral, and pro-freedom standpoint, we should be tolerant of these things, whether the individual in question who professes such things truly believes them to be good things or not. That doesn’t mean we *HAVE* to agree with said viewpoints, nor do we need to do such things.

And just because sexism, misogyny, and racism don’t violate the principles of libertarians and the Non-Aggression Principle doesn’t mean they should be accepted as mainstream conventional wisdom in our society. So where does that leave us with Cantwell and his buffoonish statements, given the truth that he is simply and largely a soul-sucking pinhead?

It’s no secret that Cantwell is no stranger to controversy. What makes it worse is that now he told when he was hosting his new radio show titled Radical Agenda on May 15, 2015, in which he didn’t mince any words on M.K. Lords, who is the co-host on Freedom Feens.* (*Note: I will explain momentarily here.)

Here’s what Lords described on the Freedom Feens radio show:

On his website, Cantwell posts the following:

Christopher Cantwell's Blog Post Clip 1 - Radical Agenda EP009 - Josie's Tales, Police Cooperation

On his radio show, of course, he was going to discuss an incident (which he successfully did) in which he nearly “killed someone” over an altercation on a side street, in which he claims to have been armed with and brandishing a loaded sidearm that turned out to be a .38 Caliber Revolver that featured a laser sight (meaning that, anytime you aim the gun at someone, a red dot would appear on the target’s body.

On his show, Cantwell says bluntly, condescendingly, and snarkily in a drab fashion:

But what you’re about to hear is the reason that to me in no small shortage of instances, a female voice is nothing but noise. There are certain things you’re never gonna be able to understand, and that’s perfectly fine. I don’t expect you to understand them. Uhhh, I hope you never do understand them, because for you to understand them would be that we live in a terrible, terrible awful place that, that I would, uh, I would absolutely abhor. I, I think it would be absolutely sick if you understand, uh, what this woman is speaking in ignorance of, so let me play this clip and we’ll go from there.

This is what he stated on his horrible, God-and-Goddess-forsaken radio show in which he called Lords “this fucking, worthless rancid bitch.” How insulting this little prick can be!

It’s amusing to see how much regurgitation of his bullshit he spews on his show on a daily basis, as if it’s supposed to mean something genuine, thought-provoking, palatable, witty, poignant, and intriguing. All the same it’s ridiculous. In this episode, he says he “won’t mention the show” – meaning, he “refuses” to reveal the name of the show to which he listens daily and “the people in it” – meaning, the woman who serves as a co-host on it (but we all know it’s Meghan Kellison Lords), but it becomes more idiotically laughable as it proceeds.

He then says that he has “a clip from Freedom Feens” that he’s “going to play,” and it features “a woman by the name of M.K. Lords.” Wait a second? Just a second ago, Cantwell, you said you wouldn’t “mention the show” but you end up doing so anyway? You said you wouldn’t “name the people in it,” but you just mentioned Lords’ name on the air? Are you kidding me? Do you have a screw loose? Are you that vapid and stupid, for the Gods’ sake? Really? Really?

I don’t know about anyone else, but this man is both a textbook head case and a freak if he thinks he say one thing, and then not contradict himself a few seconds later like no one in this universe wouldn’t notice it. Yeah right, Cantwell, give me a break!

When he says that ladies have “female privilege” and that they are “noise,” he is showing his sexist and misogynistic colors right there. Ladies don’t have “female privilege,” and they aren’t “noise.” Their concerns about violence in the real world in which we live are valid too. Who is he is dictate this to? Does he have to resort to the level of douche-baggery and set the bar so low that libertarian women like Lords and everyone else have to ignore this crap that is highly pervasive in society and in the libertarian movement – that is, crap dictating how men and women should live their lives and how they should deal with situations in a politically-correct Cantwell style sort of way, that it’s permissible to treat women and men like dogs just because they happen to disagree with him?


The racist-fueled tweets were reflected in his blog post on his blog following his “indefinite suspension” from Free Talk Live over the postings of his Twitter tweets which were racist entirely.:

Christopher Cantwell's Blog Post Clip 1 - Radical Agenda EP010 - My Anthony Cumia Moment

Now Cantwell is lying here. A black man didn’t take issue with his sexist response – at least not initially. He took issue with a Cantwell-inflated politically-correct statement in which Cantwell stated the following:

Christopher Cantwell's Racist Tweets on Twitter - Whiteboy or Cracker Tweet - May 19, 2015
He was goading black Americans into attacking him on Twitter, thus trying to get them into a Twitter tweet war. What was Cantwell trying to achieve here? What’s his major encore? Standing outside of Lords and this black individual’s cars and pouring sugar and salt into their gas tanks? After all, what is simply wrong with him?

What did he think he was trying to accomplish with that crack of his? By saying “whiteboy” and “cracker” and that he “expected equal outrage from the [social justice warrior] community,” he opened a Pandora’s box which he can’t ever close at all. He invited racism into the talking discussions, and that solves nothing. The only thing it accomplishes is that it exposes Cantwell’s collectivistic, “I’m-superior-next-to-you-so-take-it-like-a-man-or-a-woman,” State-worshipping, social engineering, statist mindset of which he will never be rid.

Then a black individual responds with the following racially-charged statement, taking Cantwell’s bait:

A Black Man's Response to Cantwell on Twitter - May 19, 2015

Of course @HeckPhilly posted eight other responses before that last tweet, making the above-mentioned tweet his 9th. Here are some of those tweets:

A Black Man's Responses to Cantwell on Twitter Part 1 Clip 1 - May 19, 2015

A Black Man's Responses to Cantwell on Twitter Part 2 - Clip 2 - May 19, 2015

Then Cantwell unveils the ultimate tweet that reveals how truly evil and disgusting it is and how he thinks:

Christopher Cantwell's Racist Tweets on Twitter - Part 2 Clip 2 - May 19, 2015

Well, if you’re gonna be a race-baiting, sexist-baiting, and misogynist-baiting asshole, at least be honest about it. But it seriously damages the movement entirely.

As Wendy McElroy recently told me about her sentiments about Cantwell in a private exchange via email:

My Chat with Wendy Elroy Via Email Snippet


Of course, Cantwell didn’t waste any time going on his show justifying why he did what he did, and this is AFTER he was “indefinitely suspended” from Free Talk Live. That’s what he’s been doing this whole time. He’s not apologetic about what he’s said. Here’s what he says on his show:

Then FTL’s Ian Freeman and Mark Edge responded to the entire situation. In fact, they’ve discussed this on their show on May 20, 2015.


This is Christopher Cantwell’s public relations and political downfall in the worst possible light. He makes himself look so bad that he has no business being in a political movement that embarrasses libertarians like me in the worst possible way.

This is what I wrote on Twitter to weigh in on this travesty:

My Tweets on Cantwell Part 1 Clip 1 - 05-22-2015 My Tweets on Cantwell Part 2 Clip 1 - 05-22-2015 My Tweets on Cantwell Part 3 Clip 1 - 05-22-2015 My Tweets on Cantwell Part 4 Clip 1 - 05-22-2015

This is Twitter user d’onna aiko a.k.a. @dmoneyinthecutt‘s response to me.

d'onna aiko's Tweets to Me - 05-22-2015

Today, Cantwell decided to level a couple of slams against me, which d’onna and a Twitter follower named Independent Actor (@GummyNerds) decided to retweet and favorited on their ends.

Christopher Cantwell's Twitter Attacks Aimed Against Me Part 2 Clip 1 - 05-24-2015 Christopher Cantwell's Twitter Attacks Aimed Against Me Part 1 Clip 1 - 05-24-2015


This is what Cantwell is referring to. I made the mistake of calling him, because at the time I was taking his side on the recent Brad Spangler ruckus in which he molested his daughter in 2004, a matter which he revealed on Facebook and, for the longest time, became persona non-grata. I’d rather not go into detail over that mess, because the libertarian movement was at war with itself, and I had been the subject of colossal scrutiny, which I’d rather not discuss now and in the foreseeable future.

Here’s the voicemail to which Cantwell referred, in which I offered an olive branch. I tried to reach out to him and be civil to him, only that he decided on his end to take that olive branch, snap it into a shitload of pieces, and throw them back to me like they didn’t matter.

Of course, this was before I found out what a racist scumbag this maniacal dipshit was, but I should’ve known better. It was a one-shot deal. And now it’s been rescinded.

Remember, we are discussing the same Cantwell who not only argued for killing government agents, but also was kicked out of the Free State Project. This is the same Cantwell who said last year that Michael Brown deserved to be shot and deserved to die by the hands of Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. Cantwell, while labeling former Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) co-founder Brad Spangler as a “lefty kid toucher” because of his confession of molesting his daughter when she was young and inappropriately used politics as the ends to justify his own means to further his “what popularity?” popularity in the “movement.” When Brad’s daughter read Cantwell’s piece, she responded vehemently and angrily, wrongly (although understandably) blaming her father’s actions on “rape culture” and “the Patriarchy.”** (**Additional Note: I was attacked for naming the victim, but she was an adult, not a child, and, because of her age being an adult, she no longer fit into the parameters of not naming the victim – ones that entail protecting the identity of a victim who was underage, and Brad’s daughter no longer fit that profile. Childifying a problem isn’t going to solve it; it’ll send a message, saying that you are now and always a victim, and you will go to your grave as a victim.)

As soon as she responded to Cantwell’s piece, Cantwell replied, attacked her for being a loony leftist on Free Talk Live, solely on the basis of her “anti-rape culture” and “anti-Patriarchy” screeds that she put out. Incidentally, that was the same day M.K. Lords chided Cantwell for writing about her. I believe it was an ill-advised move on his part, but he’ll do whatever he wants to do.

Cantwell is a disease to humanity. Worse, there’s nothing human about the man. And maybe this exposure of his true colors for what and whom he really is what we all need to see.

And maybe….just maybe we can heal from that all of that.