Gay Cultural Libertarian and Trump Supporter Milo Yiannopoulos Finally Admits to The Nation That He Isn’t Really A Libertarian

milo-yiannopoulos-on-cnbc

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.

Why?

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:

the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-1-clip-1-10-16-2016

the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-2-clip-2-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-3-clip-3-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-4-clip-4-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-5-clip-5-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-6-clip-6-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-7-clip-7-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-8-clip-8-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-9-clip-9-10-16-2016

the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-10-clip-10-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-11-clip-11-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-12-clip-12-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-13-clip-13-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-14-clip-14-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-15-clip-15-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-16-clip-16-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-17-clip-17-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-18-clip-18-10-16-2016

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.

T.J. Brown a.k.a. That Guy T of FEE furnishes his report on his friend Yiannopoulos with the following piece:

taleed-t-j-brown-of-fee-org-on-milo-yiannopoulos-comments-on-libertarians-part-1-clip-1-10-20-2016 taleed-t-j-brown-of-fee-org-on-milo-yiannopoulos-comments-on-libertarians-part-2-clip-2-10-20-2016 taleed-t-j-brown-of-fee-org-on-milo-yiannopoulos-comments-on-libertarians-part-3-clip-3-10-20-2016 taleed-t-j-brown-of-fee-org-on-milo-yiannopoulos-comments-on-libertarians-part-4-clip-4-10-20-2016Taleed 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 is not an understatement is the fact that he has had his  Twitter account @Nero’s blue badge confiscated by the company and has been banned on Twitter because he harassed Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones by calling her “a black dude” and that she was “barely literate.”

Here are some of the screen shots that chronicle what followed:

milo-yiannopoulos-attacks-leslie-jones-part-1-07-20-2016 milo-yiannopoulos-attacks-leslie-jones-part-2-07-20-2016 milo-yiannopoulos-attacks-leslie-jones-part-3-07-20-2016 milo-yiannopoulos-attacks-leslie-jones-part-4-07-20-2016Of course Jones responded:

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:

One other tweet that Milo had faked was this one (which was actually a collection of two tweets rolled into one):

milos-tweet-clip-1

Here’s another fact to point out here: after Yiannopoulos was banned from the site, conservatives and many members of the alt-right community on the site feed crafted a new hashtag: #FreeMilo.

Here are a slew of conservative and libertarian Twitter users who acted out against the company for its censorship tactics:

and finally,

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:

  1. Never directly threat someone via Twitter or any social media platform as it is not protected by the First Amendment.
  2. Never slander someone on Twitter or any social media platform as it is not protected by the First Amendment.
  3. 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.

As libertarian and Libertarian activist Avens O’Brien recently noted on Milo due to the release of the Libertarian Republic‘s published article on him:

avens-obrien-on-milo-yiannopoulos-clip-1-10-23-2016

And, as Gary Johnson and Libertarian activist supporter Krystle Berger quips:

krystal-bergers-comment-on-milo-on-my-facebook-wall-clip-1-10-24-2016

I just wish other libertarians and conservatives who flock to and love him would see that clearly for once.

 

Libertarian Party Member and Activist Will Coley Calls Out Former LNC Chair Candidate Charles Peralo for Being A Republican

Will Coley, former Libertarian vice presidential candidate 2016 and Charles Peralo, former LNC Chair candidate 2016.
Will Coley, former Libertarian vice presidential candidate 2016 and Charles Peralo, former LNC Chair candidate 2016.

Libertarian Party member and activist – not to mention former Libertarian Vice-President candidate and Muslims for Liberty founder  and current M4L National Director Will Coley has called out former Libertarian National Committee Chair candidate Charles Peralo for being a Republican, not a Libertarian, because he has pledged his “vote for 80% of Republican elections.” Coley has been a thorn on Peralo’s side ever since Peralo publicly accused him of allegedly encouraging a Libertarian activist named Mark Matthew Herd to instigate a temper tantrum because he was highly inebriated in the hallway of the Rosen Centre in Orlando, Florida on May 28 that weekend.

Keep in mind that the following video that Peralo references comes from talk radio show host Jason Stapleton of The Jason Stapleton Program posted on his Facebook wall, dated May 28, 2016.

Here are the Facebook posts chronicling what took place on May 29, 2016:

charles-peralo-on-will-coley-instigating-mark-herd-clip-1-05-29-2016-10-21-2016
charles-peralo-on-will-coley-instigating-mark-herd-part-2-clip-2-05-29-2016-10-21-2016

Here are Coley’s posts which came out the night before:

will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-1-clip-1-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-2-clip-2-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-3-clip-3-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-4-clip-4-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-5-clip-5-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-6-clip-6-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-7-clip-7-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-8-clip-8-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-9-clip-9-10-21-2016

Jason Scheurer responded to this as well, including Zach Patman:

will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-10-clip-10-10-21-2016

This is Scheurer’s post zoomed in from Facebook as a photo:

jason-scheurer-clip-1-10-21-2016This is what Tim Yow Jr. told me months ago:

tim-yow-jr-telling-me-about-charles-peralo-at-libertarian-national-convention-clip-1-06-22-2016-10-21-2016tim-yow-jr-telling-me-about-charles-peralo-at-libertarian-national-convention-part-2-clip-2-06-22-2016-10-21-2016-alternativelyThe 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:

todd-andrew-barnett-on-charles-peralo-and-his-attack-on-will-coley-part-1-clip-1-05-29-2016-10-22-2016Here’s what everyone in the comments section on my timeline said:
todd-andrew-barnett-on-charles-peralo-and-his-attack-on-will-coley-part-2-clip-2-05-29-2016-10-22-2016

On that same day, I shared my post on the John McAfee / Judd Weiss Libertarian Party Presidential Campaign 2016 Facebook group (which is a closed discussion group anyway). There I posted the following:

todd-andrew-barnett-on-charles-peralo-and-his-attack-on-will-coley-part-3-clip-3-05-29-2016-10-22-2016

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:


todd-andrew-barnett-on-charles-peralo-and-his-attack-on-will-coley-part-4-clip-4-05-29-2016-10-22-2016-alternativeNow last night on October 21, I posted the following to the same thread. Mazzarone responded not so kindly to me as well:

todd-andrew-barnett-on-charles-peralo-and-his-attack-on-will-coley-part-5-clip-5-05-29-2016-10-22-2016

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:

my-apology-to-will-coley-clip-1-10-21-2016


my-apology-to-will-coley-part-2-clip-2-10-21-2016

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):
charles-peralo-on-the-non-aggression-principle-at-www-charlesperalo-com-clip-1-10-22-2016

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:

l-neil-smith-who-is-a-libertarian-clip-1That’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!

Twitter’s Tyrannical Trust & Safety Council: The Twitter Version of ‘The Ministry of Truth’ in Orwell’s 1984


Twitter, the social media site that was launched in 2006 by Evan Williams, CEO Jack Dorsey, Noah Glass, and Biz Stone, has launched an Orwellian ruckus in which, according to its blog dated February 9, it has organized a “Trust & Safety Council” that mirrors “The Ministry of Truth” group in George Orwell‘s 1984.* (Considering my blog posts on Twitter as well as Facebook, I mention this latest action from Twitter, because what the private company is doing and employing threatens the First Amendemt-protected rights of its users.)

This is what the company says on its blog:

 

Twitter's Trust & Safety Council Part 1 - Clip - 02-11-2016 Twitter's Trust & Safety Council Part 2 - Clip - 02-11-2016 Twitter's Trust & Safety Council Part 3 - Clip - 02-11-2016 Twitter's Trust & Safety Council Part 4 - Clip - 02-11-2016

As Daniel Payne wrote about this council on his blog piece entitled “Say Hello to Twitter’s Tweet Police” via the Federalist website:

Say Hello to Twitter's Tweet Police Part 1 - Clip - 02-11-2016

Say Hello to Twitter's Tweet Police Part 2 - Clip - 02-11-2016Even Reason covers this latest development at its Hit & Run blog:

Twitter's New Trust and Safety Council Is Its Own Version of 1984s Ministry of Truth Part 1 - Clip - 02-11-2016Twitter's New Trust and Safety Council Is Its Own Version of 1984s Ministry of Truth Part 2 - Clip - 02-11-2016

 

Obviously, this is on the heels of Girls‘ co-creator and actress and author Lena Dunham who recently “quit” the site (more times than she’s changed her bra and underwear) because she felt that the site was no longer a “safe space” for her and demanded a code of conduct protecting women from “hateful and violent statements.” Translation: we need an amendment to the Constitution to protect Lena’s deeply hurt sentiments.

The Hollywood Reporter reports Lena telling Re/code Decode podcast host Kara Swisher:Lena Dunham Quits Twitter for the Umpteenth Time Quote - 02-11-2016Obviously, she’s using the “safe space” rebuke to her critics who have publicly attacked her for various reasons of which we all are aware, including her admission that she molested her younger sister Grace, accused a conservative Republican male college student of allegedly “raping” her while she was attending Oberth College, her anti-male and feminist politics including her sappy love for all things Hillary, her pathetic newsletter Lenny, her lie of her “autobiography” (given it’s been debunked and deemed questionable), and so on.

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.

This is after Twitter’s stock price diving from $69 a share to approximately $15 a share, according to USA Today in its piece entitled “Twitter faces critical moments with Q4 results“:

Twitter Faces Critical Moment with Q4 Results Graph - 02-11-2016

Here’s what USA Today’s earnings forecast says:

Twitter Faces Critical Moment with Q4 Results Earnings Forecast - 02-11-2016

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.

As Instapundit noted:

Instapundit on Twitter - Clip 1 - 02-11-2016

[*Note: The hat tip goes to Wendy McElroy, whose husband Brad pointed this monstrosity on her website.]