The Facebookpage “Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett,” which was launched sometime back on May 25 of this year, was made public and available to all members of FB in an effort to libel me and impugn and assassinate my character, not to mention violate my intellectual property for the purpose of destroying me and my reputation that I worked hard and endlessly to build and preserve for over 16 years. I knew there are some people who have it in for me, who want to see me destroyed, and believe that my endless, unrelenting honesty is somehow a calamitous threat to the libertarian movement that has come apart at the seams since the Brad Spangler and Christopher Cantwell fallouts – messes that are on them and not me.
The name of the community page is like this:
Of course it doesn’t end there. This is what the page is about:
I, of course, never professed to be a saint, much less the nicest and least sarcastic asshole on the planet, let alone the entire universe or even “multiverses.” (Do “multiverses” really count? Let me know about that for once, ok? LOL!) Anyway, where was I? Ahhh yes, this page was created by a clandestine individual to inform “those who wish to disassociate themselves” from Yours Truly. Oh, and here’s the cosmic gag that keeps the laughs coming: supposedly I’m a “drama queen ‘libertarian’ hanger-on who publicly outs rape victims.'” That last part really did it for me, and yet this invisible dude – or dudette – thinks he’s doing what passes for a “libertarian” movement a big favor by outing me as the evil super-duper villain of all time — yup, in the same league of the Joker, Harley Quinn, Two-Face a.k.a. Harvey Dent, Lex Luthor, Grodd….well, you get the DC Comics point anyhow. This stuff is so comical that this dude should be Bill Maher of Real Time‘s own staff writer. He’d make a really good career in Hollywood.
“Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett”‘s Laughably Ridiculous Points
Here’s more ugly libels that are lawsuit-worthy:
I’d like to respond to each and every single point that this coward has written about me, so let’s start with the most recent one that began approximately a day ago.
Yes, it’s true that I reported his page to Facebook on the grounds that the images and statements he quotes from me were employed *WITHOUT* my express permission. There’s no evidence that he misquoted me, but he has used my statements against me in such a way that I consider to be an attack on my person, my character, and well-respected reputation that precedes me. Yes, “Ostracize” (which is what I will call you from now on), I am respected by my family, my personal friends whom I’ve known for over 30 years, and many fellow anarchists and libertarians with whom I remain good friends (like Wendy McElroy and Sheldon Richman, for instance) and with whom I have built, erected, established, and preserved good rapports for many, many years — long before you knew what a libertarian ever was.
I used the “intellectual property” tactic as a ruse to draw you out. And guess what? You took the bait. I wanted your attention as much as you wanted my attention, however undivided it was, and now you have it. I never said I wasn’t fair game in the movement. Not once in my life did I ever say or imply or infer that I am shielded from the effects of public scrutiny. I’m not. However, would you like to know something? The rules apply to you too. You are fair game as well. You are not shielded from those same effects. I don’t know what your end game is, or what you want with me, or why you are doing this, but I’ve been around the block many, many times. You’re no different from Eric Dondero of the Libertarian Republicans blog.
I should also note that not all libertarians agree with each other regarding IP laws that govern intellectual property. Stephan Kinsella, an IP attorney who employs the “libertarian” moniker all the time and yet is a member of a bar association of statist attorneys and uses the State to his advantage, claims he’s against intellectual property. So does Ian Freeman (formerly, Ian Bernard) of Free Talk Live. However, not all libertarians concur with each other on intellectual property laws. L. Neil Smith (co-founder of the Libertarian Enterprise for which I have written and where I’ve published articles) and Sharon Presley support intellectual property laws because of their support for artists. (Sharon and Neil do not support corporations having full control of other people’s intellectual property though as I understand it.)
I do know one thing: you are a coward. That’s what you have been, that’s what you still are right now, and that’s what you’ll always be. A coward. A coward is someone who hides in the shadows, afraid of revealing his or her true identity and true form. He or she is afraid of unveiling what his or her ulterior motives are, which seem to be carried out in the form of a smear campaign against me. And that, sir, is you!
Yes, I’ve been writing and publishing articles long before you were a gleam in the movement’s eyes. Yet I’m not the only one who’s been doing that. Scores of libertarians and anarchists, past and present, have been doing that for years. Yes, I do run and host a radio show known as Liberty Cap Talk Live I could create a page about you that is a response to what you’ve fashioned against me, and perhaps I should, but I won’t. I’m sure someone would call it or suggest “Ostracize the Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett Page” or something like that, but then that would be even more comical and more of a cosmic gag than you or anyone in the movement have foreseen.
I reserve the right to protect my intellectual property that includes my likeness, image, and name, as well as my reputation. I have more people on my side than you have on yours. I’ve seen only 8 likes on your page, which is a really Goddess-awful non-existent number. Why is it a bad number? It’s simply because out of so many libertarians who have better uses of their time than to engage in politically-correct cheap shots, ludicrous rantings about someone (a colleague, a protege, or an ally) whom they know nothing about personally outside of Facebook, and personal, whacked-out barbs and insults that they would likely with each other over irrelevant issues that are the least of their concerns, the State remains our enemy, and we don’t have time for this inane bullshit that takes up valuable time and precious resources that could be best served nationally, state-wise, and locally to fight the real threats to our liberties.
Let me post what Brad Spangler wrote on his Facebook wall on January 22 of this year:
Of course, I will repeat a portion of what Brad said with some extra content attached to this page:
And, of course, this is what Brad also posted including some comments that were appended to his FB post as well:
Let it be on record that I’m not the only person who involved himself in this matter. I estimate that over 85 percent of the movement involved itself into the Spangler affair, and like most brain-dead humans, they forget too easily what has been posted with their names attached to that development. Many people, including Corey Moore, gleefully latched onto the event, making themselves armchair opportunists the second the news surrounding Brad’s Facebook confession came out. As the pics unveil, and I never candy-coat anything just to use it as window dressing for any pathetically particular interest or reasoning, quite a number of people responded, and they kept responding to the matter because it was blowing up on the Internet. The second Spangler confessed that he was a pedophile, that he molested his daughter (who was 10 at the time), his life in the movement for him was over.
The cops couldn’t do a damn thing about the matter because of the statute of limitations in his case ran out, although it could go on for 20-30 years *EVEN* after the victim, who was under 18 in 2004. That means the limitations ran out last year, which menas that, even if his daughter were to still file criminal charges against him, they wouldn’t stick because the law would insulate and does insulate Brad from the prosecutorial consequences imposed upon and meted out to him by the State of Missouri.
Again, yes I did involve myself in that matter, and yes I did out the victim. I took a shit-slugging heat from people who believed that I violated her privacy. The victim, assuming she hasn’t turned 21 yet but I think she already has since this incident, was 20 years old when I “outed” her. It was Kelsey Eichhorn-Fetterhoff who told me Brad’s daughter’s first name, and it was J. Neil Schulman who pointed out to me that I had a moral and legal obligation to report the facts. It’s called the First Amendment for a reason.
You accuse me of “justifying outing a rape victim” (and so call it what you will!), but you’re a hypocrite. You’re justifying outing me as a person in the form of a Facebook page as a way for you to score political points, thinking that’s somehow gonna help you rise through the ranks of the movement, and you love the First Amendment when it works to your advantage and benefit from it. But the second it makes you look bad and makes you look like a super-villain, you caterwaul over that cardinal principle when the world doesn’t go your way? When the results don’t look in your favor? Get over yourself, please!
It doesn’t help that Zoe (OMG, I mentioned her name on my blog; fire and brimstone will rain down from the sky now that I’ve done it again!) is a Facebook friend of her father, and it also doesn’t help that she’s a legal adult who could’ve contacted me anytime she wanted if she didn’t want me to expose her identity for the world to know and see. She also could’ve said that, had I not done any of those things, she would’ve filed a lawsuit against me or filed criminal charges with her local prosecutor’s office, demanding that I take down my Facebook posts for the protection of her privacy. She doesn’t need sycophants like those who have attacked me for “outing her” in the libertarian and anarchist movements; she could’ve done these things herself. But she didn’t. And it’s not because I forced her to re-live the molestation acts committed against her by her own flesh-and-blood father; it’s because she dropped the ball on that one.
She did respond to the entire ruckus with the following:
And so she should. I take issue with her “rape culture” and “patriarchal ideas to be examined and dismantled” that she floated, but beyond that, she’s right on the button on a few things. What makes it complicated is the fact that:
She’s a Marxist/left-wing statist like her father, but that’s her father’s fucked-up fault;
She says, “I want to bring attention to how we view rape culture.” There is *NO* “rape culture” of any kind in the United States. There *IS* real rape culture brewing in the Middle East, particularly in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Libya, and many Middle Eastern regions where ISIS is present, and we should condemn that. (Why she doesn’t condemn that in the Middle East is beyond me, but it buttresses my point that limousine left-liberal feminists like Zoe have concocted this imaginary world in which “rape culture” is universal, ubiquitous, and ever-present in the United States, and that all men are somehow evil and disgusting because of the atrocious actions of her own father.)and
Finally, she acts like she wants to be infantilized, because of the horrors she experienced when she was a child, and she appears to be experiencing great difficulties as an adult because of her pedophile father who didn’t just “damage” her; he destroyed her all the around.
The fact that other libertarians and anarchists contributed to her infantilization as a child by keeping her trapped in the childification maze that has been constructed for her is just mind-boggling and disgusting. Anyone with a pulse worth their salt would just wash their hands of the madness and make a quiet exit, never to discuss the matter ever again, not even anyone.
You, “Ostracize” (or whoever you are), don’t give a damn about Zoe, what happened to her as a child, what her sanity and life have been, and so on. You only give the appearance of giving a damn just to boot your Facebook visits, and that’s all about it. The same reality applies to the others who decided to take matters into their own hands and purge me from the old libertarian movement, because they wanted to destroy it, and the Brad Spangler/Zoe Sprangler incident served as an opportunity as well as an excuse to get rid of radicals who have shaped and defined what was once a very powerful movement with people who had nothing but love and compassion for it.
I think I made my point with regards to this matter clearly and expressively.
On October 4 of this year, “Ostracize” posted the following on his or her page:
And here are the screenshots:
That’s what “Ostracize” complains about! What am I talking about? I’m talking about the fact that “Ostracize” complains about the fact that I keep changing my mind about whether Liberty Cap Talk Live remains on the air or not. Yes, I have done that many times, and I don’t deny it. People can say whatever they want about that. I say: so what? So what if I keep changing my mind on whether to keep the show on the air or not? So what? My responses on Facebook are based on my mood swings, which could be on some psychiatric level, be a basis for bipolar disorder, I guess. But I don’t believe I have bipolar disorder. It’s just me changing my mind based on me cooling down after the depression kicks in, and I figure that’s all about it.
Was I really going to cancel LCTL? No. I was being theatrical about it. But then I’m an old actor, and the old actor has to play his part for the masses to see.
Am I a “drama queen”? Yes, I admit I am. So what? The libertarian movement is saturated with them. “Drama whoring” is the new sanity, and people who really cry me and everyone else a new river by simply objecting to the drama in the movement are “drama whores” as well. Even you, “Ostracize,” because you like this stuff for the kicks, the theatricality, the showboating, and the window dressing that come with all of this mess.
Well, don’t you?
I thought so.
The thing is, “Ostracize,” that I along with my fellow libertarians and anarchists (who are on my side for the most part) find your Facebook page to be both a nuisance and counterproductive to the goals, aspirations, dreams, and desires of other libertarians and anarchists who don’t kowtow to you and your minions as if they signed up for the U.S. Army.
It is what it is though. As I have told my good friend Avens O’Brien:
Look, I made a decision at the time. I’m not going to apologize for a decision I made, but at the same time, I wouldn’t do it again.
As for the drama you see from me that you so complain about, yeah, so? What’s your point? Aren’t you engaging in that drama too? You know you are. You just don’t want to admit it.
The truth is this, people: ostracize the “Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett” Facebook Page. I ask people to disassociate themselves from this nutjob-of-a-prick who’s hell-bent on destroying my life, let alone every principle and conviction I have and for which I stand. I ask that you do this because you don’t need to have a dog in this fight, and neither do I. You owe this piece of shit nothing. I don’t owe him anything. More than that, I owe no one anything except for what my convictions are, my brazen honesty, and the truth as I see it. Nothing more and nothing less. Would you expect any less of me? Furthermore, would you do any less if the shoe were on the other foot?
I hope that everyone thinks very hard about that. I do. I really do.
Turn off the lights when you’re done with yourself, “Ostracize.” There’s no need for the huge electric bill.
[Note: Immediate Update:] Before I started work on this blog piece, I filed a harassment report via the page to Facebook. Since my intellectual property violation report didn’t get through and didn’t work, I decided not to give up on the Page, on the grounds that it targeted me, and that the coward behind the page who wouldn’t identify himself needed to be reported for violating Facebook’s community standards.
What did I do? I report the “Ostracize Todd Andrew Barnett” page to Facebook, and then Facebook reviewed it. Facebook posted the following, alerting me of its decision:
And I thought Facebook would side with “Ostracize” all the way around. Wow. Don’t I feel vindicated now?
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?
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.