Gay “cultural libertarian” and Donald Trump backer Milo Yiannopoulos, who has been a very controversial figure in many prominent leftist and limousine liberal circles as well as many Democratic-supporting groups that champion political correctness, gender feminism, and the lethal social justice warrior movement, has come out to The Nation‘s D.D. Guttanplan that he isn’t really a libertarian at all. Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and anarchists have suspected this all along, and for someone like Yiannopoulos to cop to this is surprising, because up until now he has finally confessed to something that has been an albatross around his neck.
Guttanplan showcases Yiannopoulos’ answer on Libertarians and my political movement and party’s ideology by stating questions to Yiannopoulos who in return replied to him in the following:
What about the Libertarians?
What about them?
Are they not an acceptable alternative?
No. They’re a joke.
Libertarians are children. Libertarians are people who have given up looking for an answer. This whole “everybody do what they want” is code for “leave me to do what I want.” It’s selfish and childish. It’s an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness. That’s why they’re so obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking.
I always thought those were the most attractive things about them.
Maybe so, but that’s why you can’t take them seriously. It’s all introspective and insular and selfish.
Here’s the entire Nation interview with Yiannopoulos:
Let me address Yiannopoulos’s objectionable point he raised at one point during his interview, specifically the part where he claims Libertarians, and that would put me into the same column along with many of my fabulous and wonderful capital (L) Libertarians and lower-case (l) libertarians, that we are “a joke”:
Libertarians are children. Libertarians are people who have given up looking for an answer. This whole “everybody do what they want” is code for “leave me to do what I want.” It’s selfish and childish. It’s an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness. That’s why they’re so obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking.
Really, Yiannopoulos? So we’re “a joke” to you, all because we’re “selfish and childish,” right? We’re all just, according to your nihilistic and narcissistic British gay ass, “obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking”? Yes, we do want to legalize weed, and no, not all Libertarians and libertarians are into Bitcoin, although many of my ilk do like that digital currency.
Hacking? No, that’s wrong, because that would principally and cardinally be the equivalent of stealing someone’s set of keys and unlocking and going into that individual’s car and driving off into the sunset (a la stealing it) without telling the car owner what you plan to do with his or her property.
Another good analogy would be is this: that would be like taking that same set of keys and using one of the unused keys and unlocking and entering that individual’s home and stealing his or her TVs, his or her Blu-Ray players, and his or her kitchen plates. That would also include his or her Corona Light beer, most of his or her recent grocery store-bought limes, his or her clothes found in one of the bedroom closets, and his or her credit cards, checks, and cash. Then that thief would put ’em all in his or her car and driving off into the sunset after leaving the house unlocked and without bothering to tell the original owners that you were at their home.
No, we don’t hack into other people’s computers. That’s a violation of private property rights. The government’s property? That might be a different story, because the State can hack into our computers and record and listen to us all the time. But we don’t do that to people who are undeserving of that. We are better than that.
It’s an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness.
No, it’s not “an admission” of anything. We “haven’t given up trying to work out what a good society would look like” because that’s tantamount to social engineering, and we are not trying to engineer – meaning mold or model society – into whatever we want it to be. We want to free individuals from the State, and live and let live. We want people to be free – free of tyranny, free of control, free of taxation, free of regulation, free of central planning, free of the State’s never-ending spending sprees, free of state-imposed debt and deficits, and free of Keynesian economics.
It is about returning to true autonomy of the individual, true free(d) markets, true minimal government, repeal of state-imposed taxation and spending, true market regulations, true market mechanisms, and Austrian economics. It’s about allowing the individual to pursue his dreams and endeavors without the permission of the State and enabling entrepreneurs and free enterprises to flourish without their need to look over their own shoulders and see whether the guns of the State will thwart their very own-self interests. That’s what *REAL* individualism and liberty are all about, not the other way around.
In our world we don’t need order. The State leaving us alone to our own devices and allowing us to learn from our own failures and our mistakes are what make us all human in the end. It’s not our job to ensure “what a good society would look like.” Human beings are not cattle to be herded, not robots to be controlled with a remote control, and so on. We are not automatons. We are human beings with our own interests and desires to seek our own individual and own sovereign dreams, wishes, and desires.
So what if we are “selfish”? Yes, we are selfish. Human beings by their own nature are selfish organic entities. So what’s your point? You are selfish too, Milo, and you know it. You are selfish because, rather than carrying on with your life to further your own individual desires without the sheer brute power of force, you want to use coercion on other people to get and have your own way. That’s your brand of selfish. You are vain, narcissistic, and a nihilist, and that makes you more dangerous than political correctness and social justice warriors combined.
I oppose political correctness, and I despise social justice warriors. But I oppose and despise narcissistic, nihilistic, and vain people who love themselves so much that they must forcefully impose that need for adulation onto other people to get what they want. Libertarians like me are not interested in that, and we shouldn’t be interested at all. That’s not what attracts me to libertarianism.
What attracts me to that movement and to the Libertarian Party….is liberty.
Taleed is right, and Milo is wrong. We do “want to do what we want” because, as Taleed correctly notes, it’s “within the bounds of respecting individual and property rights.” Absolutely the government “should have little to no authority to dictate what person does with their own person or property.” And absolutely Brexit vote to abandon the European Union (EU) was a resounding success!
Yiannopoulos is still stuck in that quaint old British new world order school of thought which suggests that a hodgepodge of nationalism. jingoism, xenophobia, mercantilism (which also signifies protectionism), feudalism, and a vibrant, euphemistic fetishism for a blending of militarism and economic fascism are the central core of a regimented economy and society, because enterprises and individuals of all stripes must be conditioned to worship the State the Donald Trump way. If everyone subscribes to his mindset, which is just as lethal and politically correct as the left that he claims about, he would command a great deal of power of the minds of every individual than he would deserve at the very least.
The fact that he is a renowned public speaker, journalist, entrepreneur, and an uproariously offensive social media darling in the alt-right world is an understatement. It is also an understatement to say that he employs his conservesque brand of political correctness so that all individuals would exemplify the “ordered society” for which he terribly craves.
Yiannopoulos’ Ban from Twitter and the Reasons Why It Happened
What people don’t know is that Yiannopoulos either employed a fake Twitter generator and used Jones account handle @Lesdoggg to create fake tweet or shared them with everyone on the site, making it look like she was employing a homophobic tweet against Milo.
Here’s one of the tweets in question:
THIS WAS NOT ME!! OK TWITTER IM DONE!! IF YALL CAN LET THIS SHIT HAPPEN I DONT WANT TO BE HERE. I DID NOT POST THIS pic.twitter.com/CDGbuOHJN4
The reason for Milo’s Twitter ban is obviously: he did harass Jones, especially while he resorted to name-calling. While Jones herself isn’t exactly a Girl Scout herself given that she’s had a racist history evidenced on her account, she didn’t deserve the trolling and the fake account using her name bullshit which she was forced to endure.Yiannopoulos *INDEED* violated the site’s policies. How, you ask? Well, there are three rules of free speech that no one with a pulse worth their salt should *EVER* break:
Never directly threat someone via Twitter or any social media platform as it is not protected by the First Amendment.
Never slander someone on Twitter or any social media platform as it is not protected by the First Amendment.
Never libel someone via Twitter or any social media platform as it is not protected by the First Amendment.
Did Milo directly threaten Jones on Twitter? No, he did not.
Did Milo slander Jones on Twitter? No, he did not.
Did Milo libel Jones on Twitter? Yes, he did *JUST* that.
He broke one of the three cardinal tenets of free speech: you never slander anyone by falsely attributing statements that the other writer didn’t write. If anything, it’s unethical, immoral, and it’s not even protected by the First Amendment. And it’s antithetical to everything that we hold dear in our hearts.
If anything, Leslie Jones has a legal case that she can pursue against Yiannopoulos, and with that evidence available, it’s very likely that she’ll win, and Milos would have no choice but to agree to a hefty settlement. That would be a grand price to pay.
Although I initially defended Milo over his right to free speech, I should’ve realized then that he would never defend your right to free speech as he is politically correct himself and he must be defending Trump who promises to open up the libel laws against anyone who makes a truthful claim about him, right or wrong.
It’s about time Milo states that he is *NOT* a libertarian. After all, we are talking about someone who refers to Trump as “Daddy.” He is a conservative statist who wants liberty for himself but no one else.
This is Scheurer’s post zoomed in from Facebook as a photo:
This is what Tim Yow Jr. told me months ago:
The truth is this: I was a part of the problem at that time. I took sides with Being Libertarian‘s Head of Media Relations staffer Mike Mazzarone (Twitter username @MJMazzarone) and Peralo against Will on the grounds that I, along with nearly everyone else, believed them. It wasn’t until Tim Yow Jr., a Michigan Libertarian and a good friend of mine, told me (as he stated in the two-above screenshots) that Peralo lied to him. He didn’t know Mazzarone, but I was wrong to accept Mazzarone’s word as I should have looked into it more before I rendered my judgment in favor of anyone or anything. I dropped the ball on that, and I was wrong.
This is what I posted on May 29 on my timeline, and I now regret having done it since:
Here’s what everyone in the comments section on my timeline said:
Just so everyone can see, I updated that post with a 10-21-2016 statement in which I had just renounced my statement that I sent out on May 29 because of the error of my thinking and my ways.
The day I sent this post to the McAfee group, members poured in with their comments, and they are the following:
Now last night on October 21, I posted the following to the same thread. Mazzarone responded not so kindly to me as well:
To take my apology further, I was wrong to crucify Will for what happened. I should have listened to him and not to Mazzarone and Peralo. I wish Stapleton had clarified it, but he dropped the ball on that one.
I already apologized to Will tonight, and it went like this:
And that’s the truth.
(And, oh yes, I’m running for Michigan State Representative, District 32, in 2018. Be on the lookout next year and the year after that.)
I’m glad Will has come out with this revelation. Why? Let me explain.
This is the same Peralo who opposes the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), considering the NAP should not be an absolute principle that spans in and out of politics and even within and outside of the State. If he had his druthers, he would repeal the LP’s pledge that a new Party member must sign when he or she joins the Party and a renewing member must reinforce when he or she renews her dues.
Here’s Peralo’s milquetoast stand on the NAP, which is a time-honored principle (which should be treated and viewed as a directive more than anything):
The Pledge exists for a reason, Peralo. It exists because you don’t employ force or fraud against anyone who *IS NOT* violent towards you or *DOES NOT* employ violence against you whatsoever. The only defensive aggression – or force if you wish to call it – is when someone tries to be violent towards you (i.e. taking your property, brandishes a firearm and raises it to your head and pulls the trigger (thus murdering you in cold blood), engages in rape, molestation,, , and you have a natural right to defend your person.
The goal of taxation is to repeal it, because taxation *IS* theft. But, while that is true and that is the goal to end taxation across the board, cuts in taxes to the point where it can be easily repealed can be justly, morally, legally, and swiftly taken. Anyone with a pulse worth his or her salt can neither speak out against it nor see it not coming to pass.
L. Neil Smith, a libertarian who is a former Libertarian, describes the Non-Aggression Principle (which is also called the Zero Aggression Principle like this:
That’s why Charles Peralo isn’t a libertarian. He is a capital (L) Libertarian, but ideologically speaking, he’s a “Libertarian-In-Name-Only” Libertarian. That alone does *NOT* say much about him being a s0-called libertarian, but it certainly speaks volumes about his character.
As Coley succinctly put it:
[Y]our self professed new libertarian party leaders folks[.]
It’s time for the Libertarian Party to return to its principles and to preserve, protect, restore, and carry out the Non-Aggression Principle while running candidates to win. It’s time that we are *NOT* like the Democrats and Republicans. It’s time that we are a far cry from them.
That’s what we should be and what we ought to strive for, not to be a carbon copy of either the Democrats or the Republicans. What will it take for the immensely milquetoast LINOs in my Party to fathom that? Seriously!
So that’s how this authoritarian model came into being for Twitter, thanks in part to an anti-male, limousine liberal bitch who despises men, who might as well be a lesbian (not that I care either way!), and who’s lied her way via her shitty-ass book, whose TV show is nothing short of mediocrity, and whose politics is as polarizing as a polar bear.
If Twitter knows what’s good for them, the company would not piss off its user base, who can drop the site in a second.
As a private company, Twitter can do whatever it wants. If its want to be tyrannical to its users, it can do that. However, Twitter depends on its users for viability. Without it as well as the users sharing content that they see on the site, the enterprise is a dead husk. Memo to Twitter: don’t piss the fuck off your users, or they will delete their accounts and go elsewhere. Do you want to continue to be relevant? Then jettison the Trust & Safety Council. If you don’t, you will lose your Tweeters, and that’s a huge guarantee right there.
I’m considering the possibility of dropping Twitter and go to an alternative site like Quitter.
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?