The segment, which features Mark’s announcement of his departure from the show, is actually a recorded one, which implies that it was recorded earlier and not discussed live during the show’s live broadcast. Why Mark and Ian chose to record it earlier and not converse about it live during the broadcast stream is unknown, but I suspect that Mark didn’t want to be inundated with phone calls about why he made the chose NOT to come back on the air after last night.
Here’s the video of Edge looking at his screen at the LRN studios while the pre-recorded segment was playing live on the air.
When I confronted Mark on Facebook Messenger via Facebook‘s website yesterday, the exchange turned out to be this:
The reasons that people are less inclined to subscribe to the AMP program, not “holding steady for many years” as Mark disingenuously puts it, are many, but one reason is not necessarily more paramount than the other. It’s nice that Mark is trying to peddle this image of FTL’s AMP program “holding steady for many years,” but if that were the case, he wouldn’t be bitching and complaining about the fact that he and Ian have alienated many of their subscribers within the last few years for a variety of reasons.
Let’s iron out the reasons, shall we?
The condescending, insulting, and obnoxious “I-wanna-be-a-libertarian-although-I-am-not” asshole Christopher Cantwell. Thanks to Ian and Mark for allowing this to happen, self-glorifying celebritarian piece-of-shit asshole Christopher Cantwell destroyed the uniqueness, greatness, and distinctiveness that has made FTL an outstanding-produced live terrestrial/podcast show that once has brought people to listen to new ideas with enthusiasm and vigor. Other Internet talk radio shows, except for my show Liberty Cap Talk Live, lacked and never had from the beginning new ideas and a loving atmosphere of individuality that has always been a cultural, moral, and political tradition within the libertarian movement. Unlike the liberal and conservative shows, FTL’s refreshing perspectives created a new niche not only for libertarians but also people who were never libertarians but learned the ideas of liberty and thus evolved into natural libertarians.Cantwell effectively took a wrecking ball and demolished and pulverized the very foundation of the purity of the show that made it consistent. He effectively turned it into The Christopher Cantwell Show with Ian Freeman and Mark Edge, simply because he made it all about him. You weren’t allowed to have a difference of opinion with him. He consistently attacked the limousine Left, although I do concur with him on that. But when it came to the vile Right, he gave that team a free pass.Here’s the video to prove this:Here’s the audio of that version that should prove it more:It doesn’t even help that he had posted some negative posts consisting of racist tweets to a black Twitter user on his Twitter account, which resulted in bad publicity for him and his then-indefinite suspension from the show.That’s the biggest reason why the AMP subscribers and show listeners have felt alienated from the show and why they’ve abandoned it either in favor of other podcasts or doing something else. They hate the fact that Cantwell has destroyed every aspect of the show. They realize that Cantwell is not a libertarian, was never a libertarian, and will never be one because he’s a bitter, angry man who has an ulterior motive the size of a star becoming a supernova. Ian and Mark might as well have brought on Eric Dondero to be their co-host, considering he’s another example of a “I-wanna-be-a-libertarian-yet-I’m-not,” considering he hates Muslims
Ian’s Arrogant Attitude. It doesn’t help that Ian’s arrogant attitude, which is not all that unusual because it’s been well-known over the years, hasn’t helped the show the slightest bit. Do people remember how he treated me when I called into his show to talk about Cantwell’s letter to the Free State Project in which he objected to being kicked out of the organization for his then-support for the State, including the Police State?Here’s Exhibit A:
Choice of Co-Hosts. Finally, Ian’s choice of co-hosts ranging from asshats like Darryl W. Perry (who used to be a good friend of mine until he stopped talking to me on account of me for being a “drama queen”) have scathed FTL’s brand, not helping it at the very least. Other people who were co-hosts as well have ruined the good namesake of the show, but what’s done is done. There’s no use erasing it, because the stain can’t be removed. It’s there….for good.
Screenshots of Mark’s Departure from the Secret FTL & LRN Amplifiers Facebook Group
Yesterday, on the FTL & LRN Facebook group wall, Ian posted his blog post. This is what was posted as the following:
It’s a sad time in the libertarian movement when you have a prominent figure in the movement — one who is well-known in the terrestrial radio/podcast show circuit and has been doing it for thirteen years — bemoaning about the fact that the AMP program isn’t what he wants it to be. He tells me that there are not “less people” and that AMP has been “holding steady for many years.” It can’t be doing that when you are experiencing diminishing returns on your investment and your listener base isn’t as solid as it used to be.
My message to Mark: don’t blame your former listeners and AMP subscribers for not giving enough to the show, for the lackluster performance of FTL, and for feeling alienated in light of a former co-host who has demonized good people in the movement who are doing their best to bring the ideas of liberty to them that they weren’t available fifty or sixty years ago.
Don’t blame them; blame yourself. You want more AMP subscribers? You want more listeners? Give them incentives to start donating and listening to your show. If your show ceases to be nuanced and entertaining, that’s on you, not your listenership. Jettison this whining bullshit and get your act together! If you want FTL to be bigger, better, and very successful, you need to work for it. Don’t insult your audiences; they are the reasons why you have a show. If you don’t get that, then FTL deserves to die, and you and Ian deserve to lose your jobs and get real jobs.
Good luck with whatever you do, Mark. What you decide is up to you. I just hope that what you’ve decided to do is worth it in the long run.
Update (12/21/2015): Since the publication of this blog piece, more responses in the secret FTL & LRN AMPlifiers Facebook Group have been added.
Here they are:
I’ll continually update this blog piece if more people add their comments to this thread.
[This is a Facebook post of mine in which I explained in great detail of my view on the wrongheaded take by Judge Napolitano and the pro-Lew Rockwell and pro-Republican crowds that support him.]
As much as I passionately love Judge Andrew Napolitano, he’s wrong on the Planned Parenthood ruckus. What PP has inarguably done is donating fetal tissue for medical research. The price points would be higher if they were truly illegal.
It is, however, illegal for the organization to make a profit off of it. The revenue collected as a result of the transactions is mostly used for shipping and handling costs.
I love it when righteously indignant conservatives, most of whom are Christian and who claim to be pro-life and pro-“it’s-for-the-children” (when they are truly pro-death, meaning pro-dead men, women, and children in war-torn countries, especially in the Middle East and pro-capital punishment), claim that this isn’t a pro-life/choice matter, and yet it *IS* exactly that. They are clearly lying when they say that this has nothing to do with abortion, which is clearly about that issue, considering they are colossally obsessed with it. More to the point, they are just as obsessed with it as they are obsessed with Big Business, organized religion, and guns. (I can’t object to the latter because I’m pro-Second Amendment/pro-gun, but I used that to illustrate a paramount point of mine.)
Besides, if it weren’t about abortion or about being pro-life or pro-choice, then why even care about these transactions in the first place? I can explain that. They’re doing so to score points on the political meter and to bolster their chances of securing the White House in 2016 on Election Day, because it is a convenient campaign issue for them.
It’s funny that conservatives and, sadly enough, even some libertarians like some of the bloggers on Lew Rockwell are making an issue out of this matter when I don’t hear a peep from them constantly about how the Red Cross donates blood for blood transfusions at hospitals and other medical facilities and uses its transacted revenues to cover the costs of shipping and handling. And yet somehow that is all fine and dandy when it serves some political purpose for them entirely.
That part of the matter falls into taxpayer subsidies for these organizations and charities. Conservatives wail about the use of taxpayer funding for abortion and other services that could be completely covered by private donors. Fine, they have a point there. One third of federal funding goes to PP for its operations, and that funding should be yanked completely. So I concur with the Right that people shouldn’t be forced – at gunpoint – to fund an organization that goes against their beliefs, whether those convictions are secular-based or religious-based.
Yet only 2 percent of the American Red Cross‘s funding is subsidized by the government via federal grants. I realize that is minuscule compared to PP’s contributions, but the percent of federal grants really doesn’t matter. Why is it wrong when the PP gets a third of federal funding, and yet it’s ok that the American Red Cross gets roughly 2 percent of taxpayer funding at taxpayers’ expense. It doesn’t matter if it gets less funding than PP or what have you. Taxpayer funding shouldn’t be used for any organization, domestic or international. And yet the wing nuts turn a blind eye to that mess.
What about Catholic Charities? According to LRC blogger Laurence Vance, 65 percent of federal funding goes to that charity. Where’s the conservative outrage over that bullshit? Why are federal tax dollars being allocated to that organization which gets more money than PP does?
It’s funny how hypocrisy and demagoguery supplant ethics and morality for the needs and wishes of right-wingers who think they have cornered the market on family values and the moral fibers of communities when they really don’t.
Sadly even Rand Paul and his father Ron Paul act like they are taking the moral high ground on this uproar when they are just grandstanding and showboating in order to prove their need for relevancy.
I still say “Fuck You!” to the Democrats, but I would like to extend that sentiment to the Republicans, including the so-called “libertarian” crowd like Christopher Cantwell and all the conservatarians whose phony outrage over this issue is enough to bring about real climate change.
Here are the following posts I took from my phone screenshots:
I admit I made a mistake when I had no evidence that he took the anti-Planned Parenthood/anti-donating fetal tissue side. Thus, I was wrong. And, because I admitted to him I was wrong, I did apologize to him. That being said, at the end of the day, when all is said and done, still he didn’t have to come off as belligerent and combative about it in my opinion.
But that’s me.
*Update #2 8-01-2015: Hours after I blogged my Facebook post on here including what I wrote about Tom Woods, Woods himself, who seems to have a colossal chip on his shoulder and a massive axe to grind, messaged me on Facebook nearly two hours ago at 9:01 a.m. EST today, in which he was upset that I referred to him being “a self-proclaimed libertarian” who was “butt-hurt” that I listed him initially in my FB post in the final paragraph.
Here are the first three pics:
As I was responding to his complaint, I noticed the following:
As soon as I responded in a pissed-off fashion, he then blocks me, never letting me finish my points. I was going to say the following to him:
As for your snarky response to me, in which you sarcastically and untruthfully labeled me “a classy guy,” you want to talk about who’s truly a “classy guy”? Were you being a “classy guy” when you smeared Julie Borowski‘s critics who rightfully called her out on her “slut-shaming” of women for casual sex in her infamous “Addressing the Lack of Female Libertarians” video in your book Real Dissent? (Yes, I’m referring to Token Libertarian Girl who gave herself that name, and nobody twisted her arm and made her do it.) I suppose in your world that it’s fine and dandy to toss morality around when it becomes convenient for you and Julie to do so, but when someone calls her out on it, you have to write a ridiculous chapter about it in the form of a “pro-Julie defense” that you mounted in your book.
In your chapter “The Central Committee Has Handed Down Its Denunciation” (Really, Tom? Really? What “central committee?”), you wrote of the author of a piece on the left-libertarian blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians titled “No Girls Allowed,” “I won’t go through the whole dreary, predictable thing, which you can for yourself.” (The author of the blog piece is Sarah Skwire, and I know that you know that, so let’s drop this “the author” business, because it’s condescending and insulting to the Nth degree. I even relayed to her what was written by you on my blog on my Facebook wall at the time on December 7, 2014. She even called you “actively rude,” Tom, which is true; you were exactly that.) Classy guy, huh?
And then you wrote, “Among other things, Julie’s critics say she ‘slut shames women who engage in casual sex.’ (Shows how sheltered I am; evidently there are people in the world who use the phrase ‘slut shames.’) Doesn’t Julie know that such behavior, far from being a ’cause for shame,’ is just one of the ‘complex choices that smart, thoughtful women can and do make.’?” That’s something you would expect to hear from conservatives like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Dana Loesch, Tom, and not a true-blue dye-in-the-wool libertarian. Classy guy, huh?
You even wrote, “Julie’s critics can’t conclude their attack without unbosoming the lasting trauma of the whole episode for them; today, because of Julie’s video, they’re ‘a little too embarrassed to admit” they’re libertarians. Poor babies. To my knowledge, they have not expressed any embarrassment when libertarians have (for example) gratuitously insulted the religious beliefs of tens of millions of Americans in crude and ignorant ways. I suppose that’s designed to bring people into the fold?” Wow, you “sure are a class guy,” Tom.
No, Tom, that’s where you’re wrong on this. The reason that Julie’s critics like Sarah are ‘a little too embarrassed to admit’ they’re libertarians is not because of their inability to “conclude their attack without unbosoming the lasting trauma of the whole episode for them” or, “because of Julie’s video, they’re just ‘a little too embarrassed to admit’ they’re libertarians.” They’re a little embarrassed to be libertarians because of people in the right-libertarian world like you are politically correct just like many of the left-libertarian, mutualist, and limousine liberals happen to be politically correct. They’re tired of the unadulterated bullshit that your side pulls on women who didn’t set out to judge every heterosexual male in the real world and the entire marketplace as well as the marketplace of ideas. They’re ashamed of being associated with guys like you who sit in judgment of people, who, in your worldview, must be controlled and told what to believe, think, say, and do, because their true libertarian spirit of independence is a clear-cut threat to your brutalist libertarian ways. Still a classy guy, aren’t you Tom?
This malarkey that you spewed about libertarians “insulting the religious beliefs of tens of millions of Americans in crude and ignorant ways” is deplorable, condescending, arrogant, and pathetic. I say this because you never provided links and examples to buttress your talking points there, Tom. I don’t know that many libertarians who have “insulted the religious beliefs of tens of millions of Americans in crude and ignorant ways.” How were the “religious beliefs of tens of millions of Americans” demonized and vilified “in crude and ignorant ways,” Tom? You just made a smear against thousands of libertarians by accusing them of such things – a statement of yours which is false, because you have *ZERO* evidence to prove at your disposal. Therefore, you just wrote a baseless lie in your book, which you never exemplified and demonstrated in great detail in that damn chapter of your book.
Even if it were true that many libertarians have done such a thing, and I’ve seen no evidence in recent years on Facebook, Twitter, in books put out by many top libertarian authors, bloggers, et cetera that libertarians have committed these transgressions against “tens of millions of Americans in crude and ignorant ways,” most of the statements have been made (which have been made by a few libertarians and limousine liberals) about many religious conservatives, especially when it comes to true libertarian matters of marriage equality, the War on Drugs, and the War on Poverty. They even include conservative matters like nationalism, jingoism, anti-immigration populism, imposition of religious morality by the Religious Right (for decades), and the neoconservative foreign policy of interventionism and outright colonialism, which those “tens of millions” of “religious Americans” do support all the way. Those “tens of millions of Americans” for whom you’re sticking up, Tom, are against true freedom of religion. They favor freedom of Christianity. Any other religion, or lack thereof, does not apply.
How about Buddhists, Tom? Zen Buddhists? Druids? Wiccans and other Pagans who follow polytheism and a libertarian belief in free markets, private charity, the rule of law, and environmental protection via private property rights? Has it ever occurred to you that your side has insulted our side as well? I can think of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Americans, on the other hand, who follow those belief systems who have been insulted, demonized, and vilified in “crude and ignorant ways,” but somehow that becomes conveniently overlooked by righteously indignant and judgmental cronies in your team who must think that it is perfectly, morally, and ethically acceptable to do such things. As a practicing Wiccan myself, I’ve seen Wiccans judged, assaulted, harmed, and threatened by religious fundamentalist Christians, one of whom was a 12-year-old girl, a practicing Wiccan herself, who committed suicide in 2001 because she was bullied by her classmates in one of the government schools which she was coerced to attend. Where were the Christians on your team when it came to that? I thought so.
Self-glorifying, self-serving, self-aggrandizing, and, not to mention, narcissistic “Anarchist. Atheist. Asshole” celebritarianChristopher Cantwell recently went on a rant in a blog post entitled “Words, Agendas, and Limited Regrets” on the blog section of his website, in which he defended his racist-fueled Twitter tweet to a black American who called him an “inferior white boy” after Cantwell went on a tirade about women being noise on the talk radio airwaves (referring to M.K. Lords specifically) because she spoke about witnessing an incident in a dark alley one night a couple of years ago (all the while commenting on Cantwell’s putrid response to a similar situation happening in Keene, New Hampshire by whipping out a camera and filming it, although the participants demanded him to stop filming, and then they were about to attack him, and, considering he was packing heat that night, he nearly used his firearm on the people and also nearly killed one or more of them). When Lords was leaving a bar, she heard a couple of people screaming and arguing at each other outside the establishment, and she went to check it out although she was unarmed at that point.
As I indicated on my previous blog post, this entire clusterfuck began when Cantwell, who was broadcasting his Radical Agenda talk radio show/podcast live, May 15th after he bragged about how he handled that mess in the downtown area of Keene and dealing with a Keene police officer in a “civilized” manner (if that’s what you want to call it at that), was talking about his situation and vehemently attacking Lords and assassinating her character, referring to her as “this fucking, worthless rancid bitch.”
Cantwell in this video says the following (beginning at time index 1:42):
Lord’s detailed account of her encounter of both the man and the woman after she vacated the bar is discussed on this audio clip:
To be more precise, Cantwell stated matter-of-factly after hearing Lord’s statement on the air:
Ok, let me tell you something here. [Clears his throat] You don’t get to go into a situation unarmed and tell me that it’s similar to my situation when I’m armed. Carrying a gun and not carrying a gun into a conflict are two entirely different things that everything you say after this point would be invalid even if it was not as ridiculous as it’s going to be. [Momentary pause] When you’re carrying a gun, you have to make sure that other people don’t get your fucking gun. You have to protect the gun the same as you protect your life. You can’t…. [He ends up stammering] All right, let me continue because I don’t want any spoilers.
Of course Cantwell wasted no time playing an excerpt of Lord’s point she made during her co-host gig on the libertarian talk radio show/podcast Freedom Feens. She continues with her story in the following in this audio clip:
Here’s a transcript of what Lords and Cantwell said in the above-mentioned video clip:
M.K. Lords: And, and this is the point I wanna make with this is…..so I had an experience kind of similar to Cantwell’s a couple of years ago, and I was leaving a bar. It was at a show, um, at a, at this bar I went to, and I was leaving, and I hear people yelling and screaming. It’s an argument. I hear girls crying, guys yelling. Similar situation, and it’s, it’s around the corner on this kind of side street. So I walk around the corner. I was unarmed by the way. Totally unarmed.
Christopher Cantwell: [interrupting] Totally similar.
M.K. Lords: I walk around the corner, and yeah these guys are kind of yelling, and this girl is curled up on the ground. And, you know, upon first seeing this site I don’t know what’s going on. I can’t presume to know what’s going on, because I don’t know if she was pushed down to the ground, which was possible. I don’t know if she was maybe drunk and was laying on the ground because she didn’t feel well. I didn’t anything about this situation.
Christopher Cantwell:[interrupting] You don’t know anything about a lot of situations. You don’t know anything about … MY situation. You’re speaking in, in complete fucking ignorance.
M.K. Lords: So what I did is, da, da, the guys were kind of backed away. They, they, they were looking flustered. They were just kind of like, “Ah, this, this girl was being dramatic!” and they were, they had been screaming at her, but they were kind of backed away when they were standing by this car right next to her.
Christopher Cantwell: [again interrupting] My guys were not backing away.
M.K. Lords: [continues] So I wanted to know what was going on to make sure this girl was safe. So you know what I did? Instead of filming them and provoking them because they were drunk.
Christopher Cantwell: [again interrupting] Instead of collecting evidence….
M.K. Lords: [again continuing] I walked up to them and simply asked if everything was okay.
Christopher Cantwell: [again interrupting] Ok, so you walked up. You got within arm’s reach of these people. Let me telling you something. Look at the fucking people coming at me on that video, you fucking maniac! Do you think that you wanna get close to those people?
M.K. Lords: [again continuing] I got down on the ground with the woman. I asked her if she was doing all right, —
Christopher Cantwell: [once again interrupting] You got down on the ground with the woman.
M.K. Lords: [once again continuing] if she needed any help, if, uh, you know, everything was alright, was she in any danger. All of these things, I —
Christopher Cantwell: [finally interrupting once again, not even letting her finish her statements] got raped and murdered. Hmph [with an assholish smile]. That’s really how that story could have ended, and, you know, I’m sure you’re grateful with that’s not how it ended, and I’m, and I’m certain that um, I’m certain that people who care about you are grateful with that’s not how it ended. But Jesus Fucking Christ, woman, you think that you can fucking compare a situation where you safely walked up to a group of strangers who might have just assaulted somebody, laid down on the ground without a gun, and compare that to a situation where men attacked me, and I was carrying a handgun. This is the kind of shit [proceeds to clear his throat] that I get so fucking sick of listening to, and ladies, when you, if you’re going to talk to me about violent conflicts, you are noise. You are noise because you have female privilege. We went through a list of, uh, female privileges on Free Talk Live the other day, and let me tell you one of those female privileges. You have the privilege of having a reasonable level of certainty that you will not be beaten to death by a stranger over nothing in a bar fight. You have the privilege to walk up to a situation like that and have a reasonable expectation that men will not beat you into the fucking ground and end your life.
These fucking women, they talk about, uh, they, they talk about, you know,rape culture, and I’ll, and I’ll…uh, I shouldn’t blame that on women. I should say feminists because men are responsible for that than women are any day of the week. Men are far more likely to be the fucking victims of violence because they present a threat when they walk up to a situation like that. As, as I’m in that situation, and there’s a woman charging towards me, the woman is clearly out of her fucking mind. I do not view her as a threat to my safety. She’s a distraction to the men who are. She’s a distraction to me while I’m trying to focus on the men who I have to neutralize.
So let’s get this awfully straight. Women “have female privilege” because they dwell on this mythical “rape culture” balderdash, and yet M.K. Lords is proliferating that balderdash because in her case she chose not to use a gun to stop a woman from being “raped and murdered” according to the all-powerful, all-knowing Christopher Cantwell? And Lords, somehow in the back of Cantwell’s mind, has no business “comparing her situation” to Cantwell’s, whether or not they are similar? Women “are noise” because they are not well within their rights to talk about violent conflicts that can transpire between both sexes, can directly affect one sex over the other, or can endanger both sexes’ lives? Is that what Cantwell is driving at here? I find that highly pathetic of him to say that.
When Cantwell says on Radical Agenda that M.K. Lords “don’t know anything about a lot of situations,” who died and made him the Jesus Christ of the anarchist wing of the libertarian movement? Who is he, Marley’s ghost? What it really amounts to is the fact that Cantwell is a misogynistic, sexist, and racist bigot who’s in the libertarian movement for celebratory fame and glory. And that’s what he has — celebratory fame and glory. It’s fine and dandy that he criticizes and destroys the arguments advanced by the limousine Left and their sycophantic idiots, which is great on that front. No arguments from me on that end there.
That said, where are his arguments against the limousine Right? The Right is just as evil and mendacious as the Left, and yet the silence coming from Cantwell’s computer keyboard is quite deafening. And yet that is par-for-the-course with him.
But that’s not the issue. The issue is how he is defending his racially-charged tweets and the racist mindsets from which they extend.
CANTWELL’S RACIST RESPONSES TO HIS TWEETS ON HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT
On my previous blog piece on him, I posted his racist Twitter tweets with responses between him and @HeckPhilly, a black man who called him out for what he really was.
Cantwell tweeted the following in a predictable fashion:
@HeckPhilly, as I have indicated before, took Cantwell’s bait:
@HeckPhilly even tweeted the following:
Another tweet from @HeckPhilly added more fuel to the fire:
Then Cantwell did the following unthinkable thing that no one ought to really do: he refers to @HeckPhilly as “the N-word.”
@HeckPhilly didn’t start this; Cantwell did. Cantwell was stoking the fires by saying that women “are noise” to him and what he said to that black man on Twitter was justified. While I oppose political correctness in every single way possible and known to mankind and have done so for over 16 years during my activity in the libertarian movement and one needs to develop a thick skin if they find something offensive with what you say and how you meant it, I oppose the act of looking to offend every single individual associated with any group more whatsoever.
CANTWELL DEFENDS HIS LANGUAGE EMPLOYED ON HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT AND ONLINE IN A FOLLOW-UP ARTICLE ON HIS WEBSITE
Cantwell, in his post entitled “Words, Agendas, and Limited Regrets,” which was written and published days after he was outed for his incendiary, infuriating Twitter tweets, not to mention his steadfast refusal to apologize for what he wrote on his Twitter account, tries to justify while employing moral relativist rhetoric to support his defense. Despite his apologies to Free Talk Live‘s Ian Freeman and Mark Edge after they had discovered his racist-fueled tweets on Twitter and for putting them through an untenable compromising position, refuses to apologize to Ian and Mark for what he had written on Twitter, which would have enabled them to lift his indefinite suspension from the show itself, it’s quite clear that Cantwell didn’t have (and still doesn’t have) any intention to backpedal, retreat, and apologize for his position. After all, are we really that surprised in any way that Cantwell doesn’t have an apologetic bone in his body? Of course not. It’s devoid of that sort of thing, and we all know that to be the case; otherwise, we’re just lying to ourselves.
In “Words, Agendas, and Limited Regrets,” Cantwell writes the following:
Yes, language “is a fascinating subject” and can certainly be one. I would take issue with his claim that it is a “much tortured art form handed down from one to generation since before recorded history.” It surely can be, but it hasn’t been as such. Yes, dictatorships in the form of monarchies ruled from one nation to the next, exacting control of language in such a way that one can’t say what one wants to say in an environment free of government control, ban, and/or regulation. But what does any of that have to do with what you wrote on Twitter, Cantwell? Human beings all in due time since the days of the first human model have been evolving, and most of that correlates to language. Humans went from creating sounds with their mouths and drawing pictographs out of hieroglyphs to creating the Etruscan language to Latin, which paved the way for creating the “romance languages” and the invention of the English language.
All that said, Cantwell tries to trick his readers into believing that words are manipulated by other people, and that’s resulting from his exchange with @HeckPhilly on Twitter. Although he is undeniably correct on the first part of that point, he is sloppy and paternalistic on the second part of that point, simply because he supposedly was making a point which backfired on him anyway and resulted in him not making a point at all. He was goading people into a series of macho race-fueled baits. “Governments and religions” have employed words for many different “nefarious purposes,” but they had nothing to do with Cantwell’s racially-charged exchanges with @HeckPhilly via his Twitter account.
Cantwell at least in some despicable way honestly admits he employs the word “faggot.” What Cantwell fails to fathom is that language is *MEANT* to evolve beyond and change and expand its definitions. Words are not about so much what you say; it’s how you say them that makes the difference and in what context you use them. The word “faggot,” which he uses as an example, was once construed to mean a cigarette, or the rubbing of two sticks to start a fire.
Today the term refers to a homosexual, that is, one who is sexually and romantically attracted to someone of the same sex. However, it is a pejorative, bigoted slur, and libertarians and anarchists are not supposed to use that term in that context. It’s offensive, it’s homophobic, and it’s rotten to the core. It has no place in the libertarian movement, because that’s something politically-incorrect, hatemongering conservatives would write about. If your intent is to “anger an enemy by saying something [you] figure he will not take kindly to being called,” then it’s going to backfire on you, because people, whether you try to justify, rationalize, and legitimize it even if you are honest about it in that way, will call you out. They will make judgments about you even more so than you make about them. It doesn’t matter what your point is or why you were trying to make it a paramount point, even if, in some half-assed, deluded fashion, you were trying to get them to see your way. By being negative, you won’t “convert,” or bring, people to your side; you will alienate them, because they don’t want to associated with not only the likes of you but an entire movement that has long since compromised and concealed its true motivations.
This is what Cantwell says about his exchange with @HeckPhilly:
Cantwell is lying here. When you write a tweet with the words “whiteboy” and “cracker” in it, indicating that someone who uses those words should elicit “equal outrage from the [social justice warrior] community,” what do you think is going to happen? Do you really think that writing such nonsense construes that you weren’t fishing for “some fine upstanding black man” who was most likely going to respond? You started that war with @HeckPhilly, Chris. You’re responsible for everything you put out on the Internet, and people will react instinctively to what you say and do. Humans are built that way. What did you think people would say? “Right on, Chris!”? “Good on you for calling that black man a ‘nigger'”? “You’re a hero in our movement”? While you do have your fans who would likely agree with the examples given above, those people including your supporters in the movement rank the lowest in terms of the strength and popularity of the site.
While Cantwell admits to the fact that he called @HeckPhilly a “nigger,” he tries to pin the blame on the black individual by saying he was a “social justice warrior.” Chris, you don’t know truthfully for certainty that this guy was (and still is) a “social justice warrior,” and you have no proof to say otherwise. That being said, the black man didn’t like it when you stated outrightly that “women’s voices” were “noise” to you. You made that crystal loud and clear and emphatically. This is your fault, Cantwell. Own it. Don’t put this on @HeckPhilly when he wasn’t the one saying that “women’s voices” were “noise” to him. He didn’t call you, me, or anyone for that matter a “honky,” or a “cracker,” or any racial epithet at all.
The man could’ve been “interested in a conversation” with you if you gave him an opportunity to have one with you and if you gave him a chance in the first place, Chris. But you failed on that account. You didn’t swing him to your side; you merely pushed him further away. Was it really worth it, man? Seriously, was it? If he was just looking to blame you with something, and you allowed yourself to be his bait, then that’s on you, not on him. Nobody forced you to do that. Nobody twisted your arm to be racist here, or to be a scumbag for penning a racial slur. Nobody strong-armed you into doing this. You did this of your own volition. Take some personal responsibility for a change, Chris. Be responsible for what you say and do, and that sage advice applies to all of us. Sometimes it’s better to bow out with some dignity than to go down humiliating and ridiculing yourself, especially to a point where no one takes you seriously anymore. It doesn’t matter whether you were right and he was wrong or vice versa. You made a situation worse by taking the douche-bag approach, which has long since destroyed any morsel of credibility you ever had on your person.
My point is this — and this applies to all of us — we need to pick and choose our battles. @HeckPhilly isn’t the cause of the problems in today’s society; he’s a symptom of what’s happened to society at large. The State has become big because over 80 percent of the American populace can’t even name the states, its institutions, its politicians, and/or any of the laws that we currently have in place. If we waste over 98 percent of our time engaging in destroying each other over bullshit that is merely theatrical and all about drama, then we will never get the State out of our lives at every point now and in the foreseeable future.
You claim that the “non-white people in [your] life” don’t take @HeckPhilly’s “claim seriously.” Either you’re a self-deluding complete idiot or, for lack of a better phrase, “full of shit,” and people can see right through you. How you can sleep at night being comforted by the dumbed-down logic marrying libertarian principles and ideology with your morally relativistic thinking is beyond me.
This is what Hornberger said about the lack of ethics and morality in the Libertarian Party then:
Hornberger is dead-on target. Cantwell is part of the “values-aren’t-important” faction of the libertarian movement, although he hypocritically claims in some delusional way that they are paramount in the epic scheme of things. And that’s a tragedy right there.
More instances of unethical and immoral conduct on Cantwell’s part:
What a bombastically pompous slime ball! He has the nerve to write things like, “Regrettably, not everyone can organize their business in this manner, and my behavior has ramifications for others.” There is a half-truth here, with the first half of this sentence being completely true, but that’s merely Cantwell dodging the issue. The reason it is a half-truth lies in the second half in which he says that his demeanor “has ramifications for others.” If it has ramifications for others, then you know that what you’ve done is unethical and immoral, not to mention, wrong, Chris.
This is what I fear the most about Cantwell. He is an epitome of moral relativism. Moral relativism, in case anyone wants to know, is a philosophical concept holding firmly that no one is right or wrong about morality, and that morality is irrelevant. After all, morality must take a back seat when it comes to abolishing the State, so that we can coerce other people to live under the same model of governance (or non-governance if you must prefer). Who cares who gets hurt, why they got hurt, how they were harmed in the process, where they got hurt, and whatnot, as long as Cantwell and his minions get what they want so they can live “free.” Using the State to bring about freedom has never worked, but there has never been an instance where a non-existent State has ever survived in such a historical context.
This is what I also fear about Cantwell as well. He has appointed himself jury, judge, and executioner to the extent that he is far more righteous than any freedom activist, talk show host, author, or anyone who has been in the libertarian movement for so long. All of those things that I have mentioned are the hearts and souls of moral superiority. The hubris of it all makes me and can make anyone with a top-notch gag reflex gag constantly because of the stench of it. Oh yes, his convictions tell him that he needs to be a righteously indignant bastard who thinks he’s the savior of mankind when no one asked to be saved in the first place. But that’s Christopher Cantwell. That’s a puerile definition of Cantwell himself.
Your racist tweet has cost you a career in talk radio, Chris. You are blackballed permanently. The sad thing, of course, is that you are in complete denial of your own immorality, unethical mindset, and warped mindset. I suspect it’s because of your atheism to which you subscribe. The fact that you have the temerity to resort to name-calling when things don’t go your way show how insecure, immature, and self-destructive you really are.
When you say, “People have been trying to destroy since before I was even worthy of the effort,” that connotes paranoid delusional thinking. You think it’s a conspiracy that people want to smear you? They don’t have to do that. You did that all by yourself. That’s not on them; that’s on you.
M.K. Lords, Michael Dean, Davi Barker, Sharon Presley, Avens O’Brien, and everyone who can’t stand you have been right about you. You’re not doing what you’re doing for freedom. You’re doing it because you get your rocks off. You’re an opportunist at large and always have been.
Let’s continue with more with what Cantwell wrote here:
@HeckPhilly didn’t race-bait you, Cantwell. You did all of that with one swift stroke. Yes, you have been “suspended indefinitely” from FTL, but I don’t need to tell you what you already know: that if you apologize, you may be allowed back on the air, and that indefinite suspension will end. And I don’t need to tell you that largely depends on you. But I’m not going to waste my time convincing you of that. That suspension will be permanent, and it might as well be a permanent one, considering you don’t have it in your heart to apologize for the sin of racism on Twitter and for the sexist and misogynistic libel you made regarding M.K. Lords. You don’t have to like her, and you don’t have to like @HeckPhilly. You could have ignored them and have taken the moral high ground if you really did believe in ethics and morality. But you didn’t, and that’s something you will have to live with.
When you told @HeckPhilly to “shut up, nigger,” you meant it out of your own convictions. But that doesn’t make you any more innocent. It makes you more guilty than for which you bargained. It’s fine to have convictions; I have mine which are figured into this blog post of mine. But when you told me “to go fucking [myself], loser,” did I *really* hang myself? No. I’m not the loser here. I’ve got nothing to lose, but you have plenty to lose, even your soul. I know you don’t believe in an afterlife or the idea of a soul, but perhaps you should rethink that position of yours.
@When HeckPhilly called you “an inferior white boy,” he was right. You are an “inferior white boy,” because he stumbled upon your tweet in which you wrote that “the next time someone says ‘white boy’ or ‘cracker’ I expect equal outrage from the sjw community.” He listened to your show and thought you were a sexist and a racist. And guess what? He. Was. Right. You are of those things.
You’re not a libertarian, Chris. You’re not even an anarchist. You’re just a clown pretending to be one thing over another. You’re a statist, and private statism is just as evil and maniacal as government-sanctioned, government-subsidized statism. More importantly, you are a psychopath, and that’s what creeps me out about you the most. You. Are. A. Psychopath. Enough said on that.
You can rest on your laurels now, Cantwell. Nearly everyone has turned their backs on you, and you don’t have the audacity to wonder why that is the case. You’re a mole in the movement. You’re an albatross on the neck of the movement, and someone should toss it into the garbage where it belongs.
No one expects you to apologize, Chris. Everyone knows you won’t. You just permanently lost your job at FTL. And it’s not GCN’s fault, it’s not Mark Edge’s fault, and it’s surely not Ian Freeman’s fault, although I blame them both for hiring you to be on their talk show because, since you had been on, the show had gone far more downhill than it had previously been. You’re not the first asshole to be on that show, and you probably won’t be the last. The number of Free Talkers behind the mikes has been a revolving door for years, and new blood in the movement will come on to the show and cement their names in the show’s history.
If you don’t want to apologize, that’s your decision and your right. As stupid and foolish as it is, it’s all on you now. For you to apologize to Ian and Mark for “having inconvenienced them” but not apologizing for using racial epithets and sexist and misogynistic statements against women by painting them with a thick black brush is pathetic on your part. For you to do all of that is irresponsible and unforgivable.
LOOKING BACK ON THE MICHAEL RICHARDS RACE-BAITING SCANDAL
On November 2006, Kyle Doss and Frank McBride, two of the hecklers who were in the balcony at the Laugh Factory in Western Hollywood, California, were rudely interrupting Richards’ comedy act on the stage. Although they pretty much started it considering Richards wasn’t looking to hide behind political incorrectness, they immediately got pissed off the minute Richards used the epithet “nigger” a number of times on stage after he was pissed off at them for talking during his comedy bit.
This is what Doss and McBride said on Larry King Live (here’s a transcript of it):
KING: Remarkably racist language there. I assume he’s looking up at you two gentlemen and the rest of your party; is that correct?
DOSS: Correct. But there was a lot more before that. Someone caught that in the middle of things. He had said some things first, and then all of a sudden, then someone — then someone started filming what was caught on tape.
But, as we walked — here’s what happened. As we walked in, we sat down and started ordering drinks. And, as we ordered drinks, I guess we’re being a little loud, because there was 20 of us ordering drinks. And he said, look at the stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there.
That’s the first thing he said. And then he kept on with his bit.
And, then, after a while, I told him, my friend doesn’t think you’re funny.
And then when I told him that, that’s when he flipped me off and said, F-you N-word. And that’s how it all started.
Then, Doss’ friend McBride, when inquired about how to handle the matter, answered with the following remark:
McBride: At that point in time, when he made his first remark, a lot of us were in shock. We couldn’t believe that he had made that racial statement like that. So, a lot of us didn’t know how to react.
I looked to the rest of the people that were — that came with us, that were in our group, and there was a lot of confused and shocked faces, a lot of emotions that ran just — ran through us at that one moment.
Doss and McBride proceeded to allege what Richards said to them in front of the other members of the club’s audience. In the following comments, they smeared the comedian with the following statements:
DOSS: He even said comments like, I’m so rich that I can have you arrested. And I’m so — when I wake up in the morning, I’m still going to be rich, but, when you wake up in the morning, you’re still going to be an N-word. There was lots of stuff he said that was just totally uncalled for, totally shocking.
MCBRIDE: Nothing provoked to the point to where he should have made those statements.
KING: So you concede you might have been a little disruptive because your group was large, but nobody in the group said anything until he started shouting at you.
DOSS: Yes, correct. Yes, something like that nature, yes. Correct.
A contrite Richards apologized for what he said on Letterman, especially with Jerry Seinfeld supporting him all the way.
This is what Richards said to Letterman’s audience:
Doss and McBride arrived late, rudely interrupted Richards as he was doing his act and had no regard for his audience, and their friends and they should have apologized to Richards too. Did they do that? No, of course not.
Doss and McBride didn’t buy into Richards’ apology, calling it a “totally fake” and “forced.” Doss even said, “I feel like it was a career move. It wasn’t sincere.” So kind of solution did he have in mind? He answered quickly, “To be compensated for what happened.” Even Gloria Allred wanted to sue Richards, saying, “It’s not enough to go on television and say ‘I’m sorry.'” She went further, “We are issuing a challenge to MichaelRichards.” What was the challenge? Allred referred to a meeting between Richards, her clients, and a judge. “We want the retired judge to make a recommendation on how much MichaelRichards should pay to compensate our clients,” said Allred.
As I wrote in my piece:
Since then, after nine years of writing the piece, although I still believe Doss and McBride did cause the incident to happen in the first place, when I look back on Michael Richards, I now realize what a complete dumb shit he was, and he destroyed his own career. He didn’t have to fling the “N-word” at Doss and McBride, despite their stupid behavior.
How does this compare to Cantwell? Because Richards is a comic like Cantwell who claims to be one. (I’ve yet to hear any of his funny jokes, and so far his humor escapes me completely.) And both men used racist statements to carry their points. While one incident is different entirely from the other, both arrived at the same conclusion: Richard’s stand-up and Hollywood career is finished, just as Cantwell’s radio career crashed and burned because of what he said on Twitter.
Christopher Cantwell’s defending his racist-fueled tweets seriously does extended, irreparable damage to the libertarian movement. It does so by enabling people who have never been in the movement before (but are looking it up) to think, “Well, if this libertarian thinks that way, then all other libertarians must think that way too.” In other words, they associate libertarianism with racism. That’s not how the movement was set-up, and that’s not the way we should be seen. We should be seen as positive, loving people who want to stoke the fires of liberty in their hearts.
Cantwell fails the smell test on this issue. He’s not even good at bringing the message of liberty to people. That much is the case, and everyone knows it.
I just wish his supporters will see him for who he is, so they can take a good look at him, and then abandon him after they’re through looking at him.
As someone who is moral, ethical, and just, I would kindly ask my libertarian and anarchistic brethren to turn off the lights in the room. I won’t be doing the same for Christopher Cantwell, Asshole Extraordinaire.
Yup. That about sums it all up for me. What about you?
Self-glorifying “libertarian/anarchist” a.k.a. celebritarianChristopher 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 fidewelfare 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:
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?
CANTWELL’S RACIST TWITTER TWEETS
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.:
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:
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:
Of course @HeckPhilly posted eight other responses before that last tweet, making the above-mentioned tweet his 9th. Here are some of those tweets:
Then Cantwell unveils the ultimate tweet that reveals how truly evil and disgusting it is and how he thinks:
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:
FREE TALK LIVE’S RESPONSES AND CANTWELL’S DELIBERATE NON-APOLOGY
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:
This is Twitter user d’onna aiko a.k.a. @dmoneyinthecutt‘s response to me.
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.
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.
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.
Here’s my screenshot of what was taken on Christopher Cantwell’s Facebook feed. There’s more to his stupidity than meets the eye.
I want to thank Avens O’Brien and Sharon Presley for their outstanding insights into the lunacy of this dickhead. I’ve been warning people for months about him. And I don’t care what Ian Freeman and Mark Edge had to say about this asshat on their airwaves. They can make all the excuses they want. I will go easy on Darryl W. Perry because he has been critical of Cantwell on Free Talk Live.