Tag Archive | bill weld

Libertarian Drama

Man.

Libertarians really love drama, don’t they?

I was left speechless when sections of the libertarian party criticized Nicholas Sarwark for appearing with Glenn Beck; I was stunned that anyone would care about such a thing, and even more surprised that anyone would consider it a bad thing. From where I sit, promotion of the party is a good thing. I’ve softened my position on Sarwark considerably, and I no longer really care to see him removed in 2018–nor do I really care to see him stay. My position on him is ambivalent, and depends largely on what he does between now and then, because the Libertarian Party is having what anyone would call a “leadership crisis” if it happened anywhere else and in any other context.

The Libertarian Party is a union of classical liberals, minarchists, libertarians, and anarchists who have united together for a common goal. It’s worth reminding people here that anarchists have already compromised by even playing with the system that they want to see destroyed. Of course, this compromise gets waved away as though it’s nothing, because there is so much contention that anarchists refuse to compromise, but it is true that, by even participating in electoral politics, anarchists have compromised with classical liberals and minarchists.

Libertarianism was essentially the “meet in the middle” position. It was agreed in 1974 that these various groups with disagreements about how far liberty should go would compromise on libertarianism. And here is where the first clear example of the leadership crisis comes in. The Libertarian Party has an absolutely dire need for Sarwark and other prominent libertarians to remind the Big L Libertarians that this is just as much the anarchists’ party as it is theirs. They don’t seem to be aware of this, but it’s just as much the Anarcho-Capitalist party as it is the Classical Liberal party and as it is the Minarchist party.

I’ve seen so many calls for “compromise” and “agreement” that are little more than masked statements that “Anarchists need to just shut up and go along with whatever we say.” As one of the aforementioned anarchists, our own party has not only marginalized us, but has also called us “the enemy” on several occasions, has made us heretics in our own party, and has simultaneously called us inconsequential and the bane of their success. Just as the Libertarian Party is said by the mainstream media to be inconsequential while also being the reason Hillary lost, so does the Libertarian Party turn around and say exactly that about anarchists. We’re irrelevant, apparently, but not so irrelevant that we can’t be single-handedly responsible for Gary Johnson’s failure to gain traction.

That’s the heart of the problem: they’re looking for someone to blame, and they’ve already found their scapegoat. If this means the Libertarian Party has to condemn the vice-chair for saying on his own Facebook page what is really just “the libertarian position,” then that is what these mainstream elements of the party will do.

I was the guest on Liberty Radio Network with Will Coley and Thom Gray last night, and I said then that this larger centrist element of the party is like a high school student who is absolutely obsessed with what everyone else thinks of him. They so desperately want to be part of the in-crowd that, yes, if their friends jumped off a bridge, they’d close their eyes and leap. They desperately want to go to prom and be voted prom king, and this causes them to do anything and everything that they think will help that happen, without any regard whatsoever to other considerations.

As a transgender atheist anarchist and resident of Mississippi, I know very well the pressures in society to care what other people think, to do what other people want, and to be what other people want you to be. I know exactly what it’s like to be in the closet because you’re terrified of how everyone will react. Everyone wants to be loved, and everyone wants approval; it’s no different for political parties. And yet there isn’t a person among us who wouldn’t repeat the banality that we shouldn’t care what other people think, and that we should be worried only about being true to ourselves.

Compromise

In truth, when Libertarians say that they just want to see compromise, they’re implying, and sometimes state directly, that they’re referring to compromise between minarchists and anarchists. They do this to frame themselves as the reasonable ones who want to compromise, forever thwarted by those unreasonable anarchists who flatly refuse to. It’s, as Will Coley described last night, “Bait & Switch Libertarianism.” It’s a game in classical Transactional Analysis terms; they want to frame themselves as Adults who want compromise to convince themselves and each other (in a classic circle jerk) that they’re being totally reasonable, but the reality is more insidious: they’re taking a Parent position and demanding that anarchists take a Child position. Then, when anarchists refuse to shift from Adult to Child to accommodate this “Just shut up and go along with us” mandate, it allows the Libertarian to justify to themselves that they did everything a “reasonable” person would do, and that their only recourse is to wash themselves of us and continue demonizing us.

It’s a psychological trick that people often use to convince themselves that what they already believe is true. It’s a case of “Why Don’t You / Yes But,” where Person A says, “This is the problem,” and Person B proceeds to offer suggestions. Person A responds to each of them with, “Yes, but…” and gives a brief overview of why B’s solution won’t work. After a bit of back-and-forth, Person B will say, “Well, I don’t know, then.” This allows Person A to say to themselves, “See? It really is hopeless.” It’s just about Person A reinforcing to themselves what they already believe, and so the Libertarians end up playing TA games to reinforce to themselves that anarchists are being unreasonable.

The game is revealed to be a game by pointing out that anarchists are absolutely willing to compromise. First, many have already compromised by taking part in the Libertarian Party, though there are certainly many who refuse to do even that. That’s fine–no one is saying that we must compromise with them, because they don’t vote in the conventions anyway. On top of that, we’re willing to compromise on libertarian candidates, rather than even attempting to run anarchist candidates (even if such a thing wasn’t a contradiction in terms).

However, the centrists in the party don’t want to compromise with anarchists; they want to win elections, and that seems to be all they care about. It’s only a matter of degree, how many positions they’re willing to sell-out in order to win an election, which raises the question of why anyone who “wants to win elections” wouldn’t just go to the Republican or Democratic parties. Apparently, that would be too much selling out of their principles, but bringing in dyed-in-the-wool Republicans like Bill Weld somehow isn’t.

They state clearly their intentions, though. They want to win elections, and the reason they get so butthurt over things like Arvin’s statements as that they’re obsessed with mass appeal and “the marketing factor,” such that the last thing they want is to do or say anything that could possibly harm their ability to reach Republicans and Democrats. They criticize Arvin because his statements about the military will make it harder for them to reach alt-right people, nationalists, conservatives, and other right-wing people who worship the state.

Do you see what is happening?

They want to compromise with the alt-right people, nationalists, conservatives, and other right-wingers, not anarchists. This is problematic because libertarianism is the middle-ground between anarchism and statism. Now they want to compromise with Republican and Democrat statists. They rarely have the courage to say this directly, because they know that it’s impossible to find the middleground between libertarianism and statism while also finding middleground between libertarianism and anarchism, since libertarianism already sits between anarchism and statism.

In numeric terms, statism is 100, anarchism 0, and libertarianism 50. Libertarians say that they want to compromise with anarchists at 25. Yet their actions–their drive to secure mass appeal, to water down the message to appeal to Republicans and Democrats, nominations of Johnson and Weld–show that they’re trying to compromise with statists at 75. And they keep telling each other through all of this that we anarchists are the ones being unreasonable, that we’re heretics and enemies because we refuse to compromise, when, in fact, they’re refusing to even consider the possibility of compromising with us, because doing so would make it impossible for them to compromise with Republicans and Democrats.

Just recently I had someone block me on Facebook (again) for commenting his status wherein he’d described the Libertarian Party’s problem as playing host to people who were “anti-state, not pro-liberty” and whose refusal to compromise prevented the party from coming together. It was a clear attack on anarchists, and he’d basically straight up said “We need to compromise with Republicans and Democrats, not anarchists, but anarchists refuse to compromise with us.” Also worth mentioning is that he said in the post he believed that the state should exist to protect liberty. When I pointed out this glaring discrepancy, he replied that he is an anarchist.

To quote John McAfee–the libertarian candidate that anarchists were more than willing to compromise on, by the way (McAfee/Coley, McAfee/Perry, and McAfee/Weiss would have been excellent libertarian tickets)–“I shit thee not.”

When I pointed out next that he’d explicitly stated that he thinks the state should exist to protect liberty and therefore is most certainly not an anarchist, he told me to stop being rude. I didn’t say it then because the words escaped me, but… Fine. I’ll stop being rude as soon as you stop being disingenuous. Stop wearing this mask of reasonable compromise when what you’re actually saying is “Anarchists shouldn’t try to have a voice within the party that belongs to them just as much as it does me.”

And whatever he has to do to justify that statement, evidently he and others will do it–even if it means describing himself as an “anarchist” who believes the state should exist to protect liberty. Obviously, that is libertarianism/minarchism, not anarchism.

I shudder to think, you know? This guy–this libertarian or minarchist–described himself, and I swear I’m not making this up, as believing the state should exist to protect liberty and as being an anarchist. I have to ask, honestly: how do Libertarians think we can compromise with them if they misrepresent our positions so badly? An anarchist is literally someone who believes the state shouldn’t exist. That’s literally the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist. But instead of even listening to us to find out what we’re saying and what we believe, he found it easier to simply misrepresent himself as one of us, though he doesn’t share the ideology that literally defines the group known as “anarchists.”

It would be like if I said “I’m a Christian who believes Jesus wasn’t the Son of God, and Christians need to compromise with atheists and accept that Jesus wasn’t the Son of God.” It’s filled with so many examples of “Bruh, that word–it doesn’t mean what you think it means” that it’s hard to know what to say. A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the Son of God. Imagine how an actual Christian would feel if they saw me say that sincerely, and then imagine that, on top of that, I’m an atheist anyway and simply claiming to be a Christian while I attempt to convince other, actual Christians that they should do whatever it is that I’m advocating.

Yeah. “Disingenuous” doesn’t even begin to describe how messed up and deceitful it is.

That’s how badly we’ve been sidelined and marginalized by our own political party. And if they’re not doing that (and, yes, this was likely an extreme case of deceitfulness), then they’re busy calling for our heads for daring to remind people what the libertarian position on something is. I have argued with so many people about what the Libertarian platform does or doesn’t say. One has to marvel that this happens, because the Libertarian Party platform is like three clicks away from anyone who has the capacity to argue with me on Facebook.

But the “facts” just don’t come into play. That “anarchist” means “someone who thinks the state should not exist” doesn’t come into play when someone instead can identify as a pro-state anarchist. The ends, evidently, justify the means, no matter how much deceit is present in the means.

And even now, after Johnson’s loss to the two most toxic presidential candidates in modern history, and even after we saw Bill “Gun-Grabbing” Weld secure the libertarian vice presidential nomination over just about anyone who would have made a better candidate, nothing has changed. I’ve seen calls for Johnson 2020, and, oh God help us, Rand 2020. Their intentions are clear: they want to continue compromising with Republicans and Democrats, because all they care about is winning elections, and they have this idea in their head that we can take an incrementalist approach (Right? Because we all know that if you can convince Bob that we should legalize pot, it is much easier to convince him to legalize heroin… Right? Don’t we all know that?).

But that’s mutually exclusive with compromising with anarchists. It can be one or the other. Libertarians can compromise with anarchists, or they can compromise with statists. The only way to do both is unabashed, undiluted libertarianism. Short of putting forward unafraid, unapologetic, and unbridled libertarianism, we need Sarwark and other prominent libertarians to remind the party that it belongs to anarchists, too, and that they’re supposed to be compromising with us when choosing the party’s candidate, not attempting to compromise with non-libertarians.

And if those Libertarians should happen to decide that, yes, they do want to compromise with Democrats and Republicans, and that they aren’t interested in compromising with anarchists, then they should have the balls to state that outright and not to pretend like they want to compromise with anarchists.

The Libertarian Party is a party of principle, not agenda. Its goal is to spread libertarian principles, not to win elections; winning elections is just one of many methods of spreading libertarian principles, but it is not the only one. Given how this disaster-ridden attempt to win elections has left the principles of the party frayed, it’s clearly not even the best method.

I Will Not Compromise

I’m a transgender resident of #Mississippi. When I first accepted this and told a few people–only a year ago–I was told that it would make me a reject. They were right, of course. I didn’t have to be told that; my family represents the worst of fundamentalists, with actual compounds for when the antichrist takes over. So I know Mississippi well.

Aside from a small percentage of people, everyone would reject and dislike me. I would certainly be fired, and wouldn’t be able to find work. Both the message and the reality were clear: if I am who I am, then it will make my life almost unbearably difficult. Best to put it aside, bury it back in the closet, and wear the mask that the masses of people would accept.

The Libertarian Party has been facing an identical crisis. The masses won’t accept “true” libertarianism. Best to shove it back in the closet and wear the mask that the masses will accept.

So the party compromised. “We’re ashamed of what we have in the closet–please don’t look!” they’ve begged for months, going from disdainfully calling us purists to radicals to extremists to enemies.

It’s lethal to live a lie. Transgender people kill themselves everyday because of it. I would ask the #Libertarian Party to stop living a lie. Be the freak that it is. Stop shoving its identity into the closet out of some misguided need to have the masses’ approval. Yeah, it made my life difficult–more difficult than most people can guess, especially since I’m an #anarchist and would never use legal channels to violate their rights to refuse me service and employment (even if Mississippi had them, which it doesn’t).

It’s remarkable how liberating it is to stop compromising with people you *shouldn’t* be compromising with. It’s absolutely liberating to tell people, “You will deal with me on my terms, as who I am, or you will not deal with me at all.”

People are sick of compromise. People are sick of politics, of “business as usual.” We have the two most despised people in America as the two major party candidates, and a ticket that is not even polling 5% against them. Maybe it’s time we asked ourselves if the compromise that everyone hates is the *reason* we’re not beating these grotesque abominations of bad ideas and worse policies.

Stop hiding who you are. Say it loud, and say it proud. “We are #libertarians, and we don’t give a damn what you think. You will accept our party on its terms, or you will get out.”

It’s not about winning elections. It’s not about mass appeal. It can’t be. If all you want is to win elections, then take your ass to the #GOP or the #Democrats. Stand up for yourself and stand up for who you are. We need that more than ever. The last thing we need is to compromise the principles of liberty.

But Muh 5%!

This is something I’ve been hearing a lot. “But if we just reach 5%, then it will all be worth it!”

Why?

It was initially for “muh federal funding,” but we “purists” dropped the hammer on that real fucking quick. Taxation is theft means exactly that. It doesn’t mean “taxation is theft until we’re getting the money.” No, it’s still theft. If the Libertarian Party qualified for funding through stolen tax dollars, then it absolutely must reject that money. Even the Democrats and Republicans don’t accept that money; we’d be the only party who accepted it, and we’re the only party with a strong, principled reason why we shouldn’t.

That there is any “libertarian” out there arguing that we need federal funding tells us exactly how very, very far from principle Johnson and Weld have taken us. It is time to put the “libertarian” back into the Libertarian Party.

The reason they’ve since adopted–once they realized what a bad idea it was to even suggest we’d accept stolen money–is that it makes ballot access easier. So? It’s not like we really have a hard time getting on the ballot in all 50 states. We’ve done it several times; this is not the first time that we’ve done it, and neither are we the only party who has achieved it. There is no political party with more grassroots activism than the Libertarian Party. If we need to go out and get 5,000 signatures, then, by god, we go out and get 5,000 signatures.

But Muh Pragmatism!

Forgive me if you’ve heard me use this analogy before.

The Libertarian Party is like a fat woman who has her eyes on a pair of jeans that are way, way too small for her to wear. To remedy the situation, she takes up a razor blade and starts cutting huge chunks of flesh, fat, and muscle from her legs, hips, and ass, hellbent on fitting in those jeans that she can’t fit in. We are reaching for her wrist and telling her, “Baby! Stop it! You looked great! You don’t need to fit in those pants to be sexy!”

“Those pants will make me so much sexier!” she insists, shakes her hands free, and continues cleaving her flesh. Then, finally, as she stands among a pile of severed skin, tissue, and blood, she tries once more to fit on the jeans. To her horror, she finds that they still don’t fit. Frustrated, she begins sawing away at her bones. She is hellbent on fitting in those jeans, because wearing those jeans will make her sexy, and that’s all that matters.

If I was even remotely skilled with graphical stuff, I would make a cartoon of a very fat woman cutting off slices of her skin. She would wear a shirt that said “Libertarian Party,” and her legs would be drawn on with a Sharpie, separating her legs into numerous sections. “End the Drug war” would be written on one section. “Stop spying” would be written on another. Then, all around her on the ground would be strips of flesh that she’d already cut off, with one of them reading “Second Amendment” and another reading “religious liberty.” Beside her would be a pair of pants that were clearly way too small for her, and written on the pants would be the words “mainstream acceptance.”

The people who laid the groundwork for libertarianism absolutely hated pragmatism–his pragmatism was the primary reason that Hayek and Mises despised Keynes. They didn’t dislike Keynes because of his ideas; they were clear about that. They disliked him because he was pragmatic. He didn’t stand by his ideas; he chose whatever was most practical to achieving his own ends. That was what they disliked.

Today we have a political party founded on their words–for all intents and purposes–that is actively, consciously, and even gleefully choosing pragmatism over principle. I’ve written too much about this folly to go into it again. I’ve done videos on the subject, podcasts on the subject, and articles on the subject. It’s been thoroughly exhausted as far as I am able, and no one cares, because “But muh 5%.”

But Muh Dallas Accord

I’m sick of having people throw the Dallas Accord in my face. The Dallas Accord was an agreement between the libertarians and the anarcho-capitalists–such as myself, though I was one with oblivion then–that the official party platform would not mention whether or not a state was necessary or ideal. It was, in effect, an agreement that anarcho-capitalists would be welcome within the party as long as AnCaps didn’t make it an anarchist party, and an agreement that libertarians would be welcome within the party as long as they didn’t make it a statist party.

dallas-accord-failureThe Dallas Accord was meant to give middleground and forge a compromise between libertarians and anarchists that both sides could be happy with. The agreement was that anarcho-capitalists would at minimum support a libertarian candidate because, as I and countless others have said, if nothing else libertarianism is a probably necessary next-step on the road to anarchism. I would be 99% happy with a libertarian state, and would throw everything I have into supporting that state and seeing its existence come to fruition. No, it’s not anarchism. That’s where the Dallas Accord comes in; it was the agreement that the anarchists would be content with libertarianism until it was even possible to step from libertarianism to anarchism.

We’re a long, long way from the Dallas Accord with statists like Gary Johnson.

It was the Libertarians who did not hold up their end of the accord. They were supposed to hold up their end of the agreement by working toward libertarianism and proposing libertarian candidates, since libertarianism is something that we ancaps will at least tolerate. At absolute minimum, the Libertarians need to nominate people like Darryl Perry or John McAfee if they want to hold up their end of the agreement.

The Dallas Accord was not a blank check for the Libertarians to nominate whoever the hell they want with no dissent from the anarchists. It was the agreement that the question of the state’s necessity would not be addressed yet.

That’s correct, modern Libertarians. We were once considered so vital to the party, and so included within its ranks, that Libertarians forged the Dallas Accord with us.

Now we’re purists.

Radicals.

Extremists.

Heretics.

Enemies.

So you tell me who violated the Dallas Accord.

Anarcho-capitalists are a vital part of the Libertarian Party, and we have been since its inception. The Dallas Accord was our agreement that we would not try to warp and twist it into the Anarcho-Capitalist Party. And we haven’t. I didn’t even know about the Accord until a few weeks ago, but I’ve been adamant in my refusal to twist the LP into the AnCap Party. I would not support or endorse a candidate who somehow ran as an AnCap–even though he is an AnCap, it’s worth pointing out that Darryl Perry is not running as an Ancap; he’s running as a libertarian. I wouldn’t expect most Libertarians to understand that.

You were supposed to nominate libertarians. We’ve been asking you to nominate libertarians. We’ve been speaking up for and advocating libertarians. John McAfee is right there. Right there.

But Muh Conformity!

The national chair released a video today talking about how ridiculous we are to ask for a recall of Weld, how “we knew what we were getting,” and how his job is to unite behind the candidates. If we don’t like it, he said, then we needed to nominate a different chair in 2018.

2015 and 2016 were awful years for me. Getting to the LNC this year simply wasn’t feasible. I had just come out as transgender and was not in any sense ready to do anything that public, and I was broke anyway. This will not be true in 2018. My reach here at Anarchist Shemale is growing every single day. My financial situation is better every single day. I’m more passable every single day. I’ll be moving to Vegas soon, where I will be able to easily get employment, and that’s assuming the agents who are reading Dancing in Hellfire right now don’t help me become successful, and assuming none of the other things I’m writing will be successful. I’ve got lots of opportunities, and the last year of hard work and investment will have paid off before 2018. So you can bet your ass I’ll be there.

And, Sarwark, I will do everything that I can to have you replaced.

What will my influence be like in 2018? I don’t know. I know that I’m on the first page of Google results for a number of liberty-oriented search strings. Between 7 and 15 people find my site every day simply through Google. Not including Yahoo, Bing, the Rational Review News Digest, Facebook, Twitter, and Google+.

no-porn-in-sightJust imagine how much traffic my work must be getting for any search string containing the word “shemale” to not contain any porn at all. When I first took up the moniker, “anarchist shemale” resulted in porn. Now there isn’t porn anywhere in sight. Once more–the word “shemale” can be searched on Google in some context and not result in pornography. Can you guess what it took to achieve that? People are finding something with the word “shemale” in it through Google and it’s not taking them to porn.

I don’t know how influential I’ll become if I continue what I’m doing, but I know my goals and my hopes. I also know that the Libertarian Party completely and utterly ignored my request to become an affiliate for my county. Despite routinely posting on Facebook about how they want people to become affiliates, they have totally ignored my email and my application form, none of which mentioned “The Anarchist Shemale.” I could understand why they wouldn’t want affiliation with me if I was pushing Anarchist Shemale as an official libertarian work, but I’m not, haven’t, and am not going to, regardless of how officially tied with the party I become. But what I do in my personal life and what I call myself is also not the Libertarian Party’s business.

Besides which–you want to get people’s attention or not? Send the Anarchist Shemale out there proudly and then just wait on the flood of liberals bitching that I dare call myself a word that they don’t like, and then celebrate as I rip apart their reasoning, because I have damned good reasons for it and the simple fact is that what I call myself has no bearing on anyone but me.

But, once more, indications are that the Libertarian Party is afraid of stepping out of the mainstream, of doing anything weird, of generating any controversy, of ruffling any feathers. So fixated on “Oh, my goodness, but what will the masses think?” that they probably wouldn’t formally associate with anyone called the Anarchist Shemale, even though libertarians are exactly the people who you’d expect to not give a damn what I call myself. And they don’t. But neither are they willing to take a stand on that, either.

Some are.

Liberty.me, the RRND, and some others have absolutely no qualms about calling me the Anarchist Shemale. Officials within the Libertarian Party, though–I can only imagine their discomfort, like a white person who is hesitant to quote an episode of The Boondocks, “And then they defined the… uh… the… the… ‘N-word’ moment… as the moment when two… uh… when two… African American men… are… uh…” I can only imagine poor Mr. Sarwark trying to reference me. “As for what the Anarchist sh… The… uh… Hm. As for the Anarchist… Uh… Aria… DiMezzio? Dimeggio?”

Grow a spine, cowards.

Now, that’s supposition. They haven’t replied to my email, but I can think of only two reasons that they would not accept me as an affiliate for my county, when my county does not have one. The first is irrelevant. I’m not a dues-paying member, but have no issue with becoming one. As I said, I only recently learned of the Dallas Accord and didn’t think the Libertarian Party would be welcoming enough of a dyed-in-the-wool anarcho-capitalist. Officially, the party is.  I made it clear that I have no hesitation regarding purchasing membership–when I can afford it–if that’s necessary. Considering that I do work actively to spread the cause of liberty, though, I’m not entirely sure formal membership would be required. And even then, they’d list me as my male name since this is Mississippi but let’s not get into that. It’s not why, anyway.

No, the reason is that I’m closely tied to the Anarchist Shemale. If you google “Aria DiMezzo,” then you will find–in addition to links to the masterpiece song from which I derived my name both because of its beauty and its translated meaning–the Anarchist Shemale right there, #Godless and #Lawless. I imagine that, before any political party formally associates themselves with someone, they at least do a Google search.

At any rate, I am disappointed. It has been at least a week now since I applied, and I know the Libertarian Party of Mississippi with all four of its members aren’t that busy. Moreoever, I know that I can coax at least six or seven friends into formally joining the party, too, since they’re all anarchists and libertarians themselves. If I was the affiliate for the party, they would do so, because the party would immediately become something that they personally knew of and understood, not some distant monolith. It would become more personal for them; it would mean more.

I said on Facebook last night:

There are two kinds of people with whom I’ve never hesitated to inform that I’m transgender:

Gamers and libertarians.

Me: “I’m transgender.”
Republican: “Ah! Satan!”
Democrat: “Oh, you poor thing! We’ll save you!”
Libertarian: “Okay. Whatever. Dafuq you telling me for?”
Gamers (to everyone): “Shut up, faggot. You’re gonna get us killed.

Me: “I’m a shemale.”
Republican: “Ah! FIEND! Malificarum! Simm sallabim!”
Democrat: “Ah! Satan!”
Libertarian: “Is this relevant to the discussion?”
Gamers (to everyone): “Shut up, faggot. You’re gonna get us killed.”

I fully appreciate that I do have to stop dropping the word “faggot” and so much profanity in my articles. I am working on that. By the same token, though, the Libertarian Party is the last group of people who I would expect to care. I do have two distinct styles–one that is official and formal, and one that is loose and sometimes profane. I am more than capable of writing formally; just check my reviews and editorials at Cubed3, or buy V2: The Voluntary Voice. So that’s something I need to address if I want official ties with the party, but, once again, it was not The Anarchist Shemale that was seeking party affiliation.

It is Aria DiMezzo.

Their silence dishonors them.

The cowardice on display in so many ways dishonors them.

Be proud of who you are, libertarians. Don’t apologize for it. Get out of the closet. You’re libertarians.

The yellow you’ve chosen for your party color has become more appropriate than you think. So tell me, Sarwark and Libertarians, are you yellow? Because it looks to me like you are, and not because I haven’t heard anything about affiliation; that isn’t a big enough deal for me to think that. That’s just one more example of what I’m perceiving as Libertarian cowardice and fear of rejection.

The Debate Invitations Have Been Sent

…and Gary Johnson is not included.

So, quite naturally, Johnson supporters are crying about how biased the Commission on Presidential Debates is, how unfair it is, how partisan it is, and how it tries to keep third parties down. In fact, there is a petition circulating now to review the PDC’s tax exempt status.

How very libertarian! “You didn’t do what we want, so the state should steal from you!”

I’m of the mind that the requirement should be halved, and that 7.5% in national polls is a reasonable requirement, but that 15% is certainly too high. We can absolutely have a discussion about the requirement, but not until Johnson supporters are ready to act like adults, instead of like petulant children running to get Uncle Sam because the mean poopy heads didn’t do something.

It should tell you how extraordinarily far from libertarianism Johnson supporters have gotten that they’d even consider such a tactic. It is wholly appalling, and anyone who signs the petition should find themselves removed from the Libertarian Party’s membership lists for violating their oath. Why?

Because the Libertarian Pledge is an affirmation that a person does not believe in using force or violence to achieve their political goals.

Asking the state to go rob someone because they didn’t do what you want is quite obviously a violation of that pledge, and this private institution has only a few requirements of its members; the most important one–no, the defining one–is that force, violation, and coercion are unacceptable methods of achieving a political goal.

The CPD made their requirements clear: a candidate has to reach 15% in major national polls to qualify for their privately operated debates.

“But they’re tax exempt!” I hear Johnson supporters saying. “So the rules are different–that makes them a political institution, so they should be unbiased!”

But everyone should be tax exempt. That’s the Libertarian position, even among the classical liberals who swell the party’s ranks these days. Taxation is theft, after all, and the state should be robbing no one. That they are free from being robbed by the state doesn’t mean they are beholden to you or anyone else. They are still a private institution, and they can run their debates however they want.

If you don’t like their requirements, you are perfectly free to organize your own debates. Should you do this, would you like being forced to include Vermin Supreme in your debate–because, if you don’t, the state will start robbing you?

It would be one thing if the CPD excluded Johnson after he reached 15%. Then you could accuse them of bias and partisanship. Johnson, however, has not come anywhere near that threshold, regardless of the data his campaign cherry picks.

_20160917_131938

Let’s think about this in similar terms. Let’s say I agree to give you $5,000 so that you can buy a car if you can get together the other $15,000 you need. After trying hard for a while, the date arrives whereupon I had to make a decision, and you only had $7,000. Regrettably, I shook my head and told you that I wouldn’t give you the $5,000.

Then you accuse me of being unfair, of cheating, of not wanting you to have a car.

Analogies are really useful, because they tear people away from the immediate situation, where emotions often run high, and present them with the same basic thing but without the personal emotions getting in the way. Here we see that the person calling me unfair because I didn’t give them $5,000 is an entitled brat, a screaming child not worthy of serious conversation.

I wanted Johnson in the debates. I don’t like him and won’t vote for him, but I did want him included. The CPD even said they’d probably accept 13%, and expressed a willingness to be lenient. Johnson didn’t come anywhere close to that, though.

Johnson supporters have drank the Kool-Aid that Johnson is serving them, and it seems they don’t have any understanding of where their candidate truly stands. For months of telling people that he’s polling higher than he really was, Johnson is responsible for this. He is, and has always been, a fringe candidate.

I understand their frustration. They put everything into the Johnson basket and the hope that he could break into the mainstream. They knowingly and willingly brought in a Republican to be his Vice President, and they cut away pretty much every libertarian position until Johnson fit in the mainstream pants. They bet everything and all the party’s principles on the foolish conceit that Johnson would be successful.

Haven’t they been saying that for months?

“Johnson is the only one who can win the White House!”

“A true Libertarian could never win!”

“Only a moderate like Johnson can be successful!”

Yes, and I’ve written about that numerous times; I’ll not do so again. They truly believed the crap they were saying, though. They genuinely believed that Johnson could secure the White House, could defeat Trump and Hillary, and could definitely reach 15%. They put everything up as collateral on that bet, even as we begged them not to and told them that it wouldn’t work.

Then the dealer called our hands, and now they’re watching as someone else grins and licks their lips while they rake in the chips. Johnson supporters bet everything on his “mainstream appeal,” and now they’re realizing that they lost that bet and now have nothing left.

That is Demonstrably False

Oh. Wow. Is this delusion or confusion?

omfg

That rather delicious comment was posted as a comment to my latest video, 7 Reasons To Vote For Gary Johnson:

Even though I addressed this guy’s comment literally in the video that he commented, I’m going to do it again, because I enjoy banging my head on brick walls that I know will break my skull before I penetrate the barricade. So, without further adieu, what the fuck is this guy talking about?

Gary only polling at 10% because Gary Isn’t a True libertarian is also speculation same as McAfee polling at 40% because he is a true Libertarian.

Yes, I pointed that out in the video. That was seriously the entire point that I was driving at. I explicitly said in the video that it’s just baseless speculation to say that McAfee would be polling at 40% by now. This is not the first time I’ve had to tell someone in the past few days that I’m a few steps ahead of them, but yes, dude, I’m a few steps ahead of you here. I said that. I explicitly said that. You’ll find it in Reason #5. Your attempt to undermine my statement is null, because I already undermined my own statement.

McAfee would have been put away by the media as a crazy nut job even worse then Ron Paul was you must know that right?

What an interesting thing to say in an election cycle that gave us Donald Trump, who has spent the better part of the past year being crucified by the media and social media. Hardly a day goes by that we don’t see stories from the media about how crazy Trump is, and it’s been going on for a long time now. Trump has been compared to Hitler ad nauseum, has been derided as juvenile, has been mocked as infantile, has been criticized as naive, has been insulted as a megalomaniac, and this has been going on for a year. Donald Trump has faced criticisms far worse than anything that McAfee would face.

Yet Donald Trump is polling around 40%–four times higher than Gary Johnson. You assert that the media would write him off as a crazy nut job if McAfee had won the nomination. So? Donald Trump has proven, beyond any doubt, that if you propose ideas that people like, then the media cannot derail you. And while it’s true that the media mocked Ron Paul, it was not the mockery that hurt him. As I and others have explained, it was that the media ignored Ron Paul that hurt him. In so many ways, neglect is worse than contempt, and Donald Trump’s success has roundly proven that to us.

So this statement may be true, but is completely irrelevant.

I think you are wrong about the Libertarian party being the Next Republican party.

Well, I think I’m right.

As I explained in the video, without libertarian principles, there is nothing that distinguishes the Libertarian Party from being a Republican Party that actually walks the walk that it talks. The GOP has long been criticized for wanting small government unless the government being big will help their causes, at which point the principle of small government is discarded. I’ve written about this myself. If the Republican Party actually adhered to the ideas that it has been proposing, rather than partially adhering to those ideas, and then ignoring them in their desire to push their morality onto others, then the Republican Party wouldn’t be in this mess.

Now we have a Libertarian Presidential Candidate who demonstrably wants to push his morality onto others, but who otherwise wants small government when he is indifferent toward something. The only difference here is that the majority of Americans are okay with discrimination being illegal. I would remind you, however, that might is not right, and that it doesn’t matter of 99.99999999% of humans are okay with criminalizing discrimination; it would not make it morally right to do so. Morality is subjective, and libertarianism demands only that people abide one basic moral maxim universally:

It is morally wrong to initiate force, violence, and coercion.

That is the only moral maxim that libertarians are required to abide. Everything else is up for grabs, and you will find libertarians who disagree greatly on what is morally good, what is morally bad, and what is morally neutral. We have Johnson’s preference for outlawing something that is subjectively determined to be morally bad (discrimination), but outlawing something that is subjectively morally bad is a violation of the universal moral maxim, because the only way to outlaw something is to use force, violence, and/or coercion to put a stop to it.

I would redirect you to my remarks about groups and individuals, particularly to my podcast on businesses, because you must remember that there is no such thing as discrimination.

What we are actually talking about here is an individual choosing with whom they associate and with whom they do not associate. They may choose not to associate with another individual, or they may decide that they don’t want to associate with people who have x characteristic. It is not our business what criteria someone uses to determine who they want to associate with. Someone may not want to associate with red-heads, with transgender people, with homosexuals, with Muslims, with black men, with fat people–it’s not our business, and it is not our place to tell other people who they should associate with, or what criteria they should use in determining who they associate with.

I say this quite a lot, but that I have to explain this simple thing to a self-professed libertarian is truly… truly horrifying.

If a woman was repeatedly abused by bearded men as a child and teenager, and goes on to own a business where she decides that she doesn’t want to do business with bearded men, this would, in your worldview, be an act of discrimination against bearded men. You would tell her that she is not allowed to do that, that she is not allowed to choose who she associates with and who she shuns. You would tell her that she must associate with bearded men, whether she likes it or not, and you will put a gun to her head and force her to do what you want her to do.

I am stunned that you don’t see this travesty as a problem.

If, however, you do see a moral outrage in the previous paragraph, I would urge you to replace “bearded men” with any other group or category of people, and replace the reason with literally any other. The type of discrimination should be irrelevant to your worldview, as should the reason. Regardless of why someone wants to discriminate, and regardless of who they want to discriminate against, you must hold that it is wrong of them to do it, and that they must be forced to not do it.

Otherwise you are being sexual orientationist, racist, misogynistic, misandristic, or sexist. How?

If you would allow bearded men to be discriminated against, but not LGBT people, then you are placing LGBT on a higher pedestal than bearded men; you are treating them differently based on their sexual orientation. To treat someone differently based on their sexual orientation is, of course, sexual orientationist. It follows that if you are against LGBT discrimination, you must be against discrimination against bearded men.

know Gary Johnson isn’t a 100% true Libertarian but we are all hoping a moderate candidate can make way for a True Libertarian running in the Future.

Holy fuckballs, I’m tired of hearing this one.

I’ve addressed it… so many times… including in my most recent video about Gary Johnson:

There is a clear failure to think in this argument. As I’ve explained repeatedly, the people who are impressed by Gary Johnson and “becoming libertarians” because of him are not learning about libertarianism. They interpret “libertarianism” to be the warped mess of “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” bullshit that Johnson is peddling. Four years from now, these same people will be on the Internet, at the LNC, on the news, etc., talking about what a great libertarian Gary Johnson is.

If people were coming into the Libertarian Party and being universally encouraged to learn about its principles, to be exposed to people like myself, to Thomas Knapp, to John McAfee, to Daryl Perry, etc., then it wouldn’t be a problem. Johnson, however, is the one informing them of what a libertarian is, and he is not telling them what libertarianism is. They are learning what libertarianism is from the Libertarian Presidential Candidate.

It seems obvious, right?

Assume that you know nothing about the Libertarian Party, and then suddenly you see Gary Johnson talking his “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” stuff, and you think, “Wow! That’s perfect!” Just like that, you’ve come to believe that a libertarian is someone who is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.” Imagine that you then go on to join the Libertarian Party, and four years later you are presented with five or six choices of who to nominate for the party, so you apply what you know of libertarianism, and you choose a candidate who is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal,” probably Gary Johnson himself (Good god, do I hope not, but I’m starting to wonder if we’ll have another Johnson candidacy in 2020, and that would cause me to give up hope on the party), or someone like Rand Paul.

In a very real way, Gary Johnson is the face of the Libertarian Party. To the masses, Gary Johnson’s policies are the policy of the Libertarian Party. Their education on what libertarianism is begins and ends with Gary Johnson. The more popular Gary Johnson becomes, the further away we get from ever being able to nominate a “true libertarian.” This… is… obvious. Because the same people we’re talking about will still be here four years from now, eight years from now, twelve years from now… and they’ll still be outnumbering us and refusing to listen because we’re chastised, mocked, derided, insulted, and considered heretics for pointing out that this “moderate” shit is un-libertarian.

I don’t want to argue with you, Ronald, because you know that I’m correct. Your contention is that it’s necessary to choose pragmatism over principle. I dispute that, but don’t make the mistake of thinking I don’t understand it. I fully understand it. I fully understand why you and others have done it. My gripe is not necessarily with you.

My gripe is with the people who don’t know that I’m correct. My argument is with the people who say that Johnson is a libertarian. My contention is directed at the people who think I’m a lunatic for saying Johnson isn’t a true libertarian. My issue is with people who say that I’m wrong about libertarianism. My ire is directed at people who say I don’t know what I’m talking about when it comes to liberty. My arguments are directed primarily at the people who say that I don’t understand libertarianism, who came into the party as former Republicans and believed Johnson’s spiel is libertarianism.

You and I both know that Johnson is not a libertarian. You assert that we must use him as a stepping stone to having an actual libertarian. I dispute that, too, don’t get me wrong. I certainly argue against that idea. But my ire is not directed at you. You and I have a difference of opinion. I and those people who think libertarianism is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” have a difference of fact. And, most dangerously, they adamantly refuse to listen, and they will not entertain the possibility that they are wrong, because, as I’ve said, they think they know: they think they can “feel” their way to libertarianism, they think that it’s common sense, and they think that they know what they’re talking about.

It is, once more, the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Gary will just warm the American people to that idea.

But… he won’t. He isn’t, he hasn’t, and he won’t. This is… demonstrably false, man. This is completely untrue. The stuff that Gary Johnson is warming people to is not libertarianism, as you yourself know and admit. We “true libertarians” (a phrase that I don’t care for, to be honest, because one either is a libertarian or one is not) will continue to be outliers, looneys, and heretics. Our own party is currently calling us crazy lunatics, treating us like heretics. I’ve seen “libertarians” say that people like me should be thrown in the Gulag! While the person was obviously being hyperbolic, the fact remains that “people who disagree with me should be thrown in prison” should never come out of a libertarian’s mouth, even as a joke, and we all know that there was some underlying grain of truth to his “joke.” The statement “it was just a joke” does not mean there is no nugget of sincere belief behind it. After all, my grandfather makes lots of racist jokes, and he could say “They’re just jokes,” too.

Imagine how the rest of America is going to treat us “true libertarians” if our own party is calling us crazy lunatics.

On top of that, read my previous points and watch my videos. Johnson is not warming people up to libertarianism, because libertarianism is not what he is exposing people to.

And even Rand paul son of the Great Ron Paul knew he had to sell out many of his ideals to be electable.. Try to see the big picture…
No, no, sir. I am asking you to see the big picture. I think the problem here is that you are only seeing a very small picture. You are not looking at how this is going to affect libertarian principles moving forward, how “libertarianism” is being redefined by Gary Johnson and his supporters. The ideology is being overwritten with Johnson’s “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” inanities, and the Johnson supporters who loudly and explicitly refer to us as raving lunatics, cry babies, whiners, and sore losers are participating in the destruction of libertarianism. It has been usurped and replaced in the eyes of most people by the ideas of Johnson. And with more and more “libertarians” refusing to admit that we’re right about libertarianism and instead asserting that they are the ones who are right about it and that we are crazy outliers, how do you justify this contention that the big picture is being helped?
Quite the opposite: the big picture entails the destruction of libertarianism.

On an Entirely Different Note
Seventeen-year-old YouTuber Amos Yee is being tried in Singapore for offending religious people. Yes, for speaking out against Christianity and Islam on his Youtube Channel, Amos Yee has been charged with eight offenses. I would certainly say that he needs our help, but there is nothing we can do. I would love to begin a petition at Change.org, but that would have no effect beyond showing solidarity, and I think something like this would be more effective. This young man’s life is being wrecked by his government because he refuses to abide the horrors committed by these religions on children and throughout the world.
Consider this a Call To Arms to spread awareness of his plight in Singapore, and how he is highly likely to be sentenced to 1-3 years of prison for speaking out against religion, and for “offending” religious people. This is absolutely atrocious, and we might like to think that something like this could never happen in the United States, but… it happened in Australia. Similar things have happened in European countries–it is illegal in Germany to question whether the Holocaust happened, for example. We like to think that we’ve “evolved” past stuff like this, but we are never more than a single mistake away from falling back into it.
We must stand together here. #FreeAmos
It seriously bothers me that the editor at Breitbart Milo can be banned from Twitter, at which point “FreeMilo” will trend for days, but when a young man is arrested and charged with offending religious people by exercising his inherent right to free speech, mum is the word. So there is your tag: #FreeAmos. Put it everywhere. Raise awareness. Just maybe we can build enough awareness that someone with the authority to do something actually does something about this tragedy.

How Does Liberty Handle the Syrian Refugee Crisis?

Two people are dragging a large, heavy box by chains. One person wants to go northeast; the other wants to go northwest. They each agree to just do their own thing, to not impede the other, and to walk the direction they each have chosen. So the first person walks northeast, the second walks northwest, and the box is dragged northward.

That is the essence of liberty.

Did either person get to drag the box in the direction they wanted to go?

No, but each person was allowed to walk in the direction they wanted, and that is what matters. They do not have the right to drag the box the direction they wanted to go, because the box did not belong to one person alone.

That is a follow-up to my video about Gary Johnson:

28 Dead Civilians

President Obama has added North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to a U.S. sanctions list, and cited human rights abuses as justification. Of course, this caused the retarded dipshit in North Korea to start blustering, and they’re saying that they view it as an act of war, but I don’t really care about that. Realistically, he’s not wrong, and Ron Paul pointed this out years ago: sanctions are not an alternative to war. They are a prelude to war.

Anyway, what strikes me as amazing as that this is quite clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I don’t know if Mr. Obama has noticed, but he has quite a lot of blood on his hands. In fact, I would wager that Obama has more blood on his hands… than Kim Jong Un has. We know that Obama has personally ordered airstrikes that killed as many as 64 people, and the figure as of July 1 was 64 to 116, but most other governments (read: not the Obama Administration) place the number much higher, at around 900. I don’t know about you, but I don’t expect the Obama Administration to tell us the truth about how many civilians it has killed.

Some people say this makes me paranoid. I say that makes them stupid.

We have Obama saying “No, look, I only killed like 116 people, tops.”

Then we have other governments saying, “No, he killed more like 900 people.”

Are you seriously so naive that you think Obama is likeliest to be telling the truth here?

We can also add 28 dead innocent people to that list, as a drone strike in Syria has killed twenty-eight civilians.

I just don't want any more people to be murdered.

I just don’t want any more people to be murdered.

“Casualties,” they call them, as though there is something casual about the unjust murder of 28 people, a crime for which Obama will never be held to account. Let’s take a moment to remember and appreciate the fact that Barack Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize. The man who authorized a drone strike that killed 28 civilians in an area that we had killed civilians in the week before–that man has a Nobel Peace Prize. The man who authorized a drone strike at a wedding that killed 12 civilians in Afghanistan–that man has a Nobel Peace Prize.

If the Nobel committee cannot retract its prizes, then this should serve as a stern reminder that they should never give out Peace Prizes in anticipation based on what they think someone will do. I was an Obama supporter in early 2009, but the only promise he kept was to end torture; he didn’t fulfill any of his other promises, and thus I stopped supporting him. When he received the Nobel Peace Prize, I was still a supporter, but even I was shocked and embarrassed that it had been given to him. It was such a transparent and gross political statement, and now look what we have. The man who is responsible for the murder of 28 innocent people… has a Nobel Peace Prize adorning his mantle.

Today’s family members of civilian “casualties” are tomorrow’s terrorists.

Women and children were just murdered in Syria by American bombs guided by American aircraft piloted by Americans, and the attack was authorized by the President of the United States. Whatever delusions people harbor that allow them to persist in their insane belief that we have some sort of moral high ground must be fully jerked out from under their feet.

I would not ever make the foolish and false argument that “we” are the government and thus “we” are responsible for what Obama and his military have done, but it is time that we took a serious look at examining our Commander-in-Chief and impeaching him. If this was an attack that killed 28 Americans, how would we react?

Not nearly as kindly, I think, and Republicans would be screaming impeachment. Yet because they’re not Americans, we’re not going to hold our President to the same high standard, and that’s messed up. These were people, human beings, innocent men, women, and children. They are now dead, and they are dead by our President’s hands.

It is not fearmongering to say that Hillary would be even more liberal with authorizing drone strikes than Obama; Hillary is a well-known hawk when it comes to foreign policy, and I would urge anyone who supports her to take a look at what she and Bill did to Haiti, Sudan, and Rwanda. Neither Trump nor Hillary will solve this problem in any way that would satisfy a just and compassionate heart.

yemen-drone-strike

All I want… is for the United States to stop murdering people.

People are so fixated on things happening within the United States. Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, feminism, wage gaps, education costs, health care, immigration, unemployment, inflation, racism, police brutality… And I’m as guilty as anyone. Most of my content in the past three months has been directed largely at one of these issues.

Part of the problem is that our media doesn’t spend much time talking about the civilians left murdered by American bombs. The murder of innocent people has just become… a casual matter. Our media will tell us about it, and the headlines will have the front page for a few minutes, but then Trump will tweet something, Kim Kardashian will set a wine glass on her fat ass, or police will shoot someone, and everything will get pushed to the side as the new story is brought to the front. The story of the 28 dead civilians is pushed into the background, and no one hears about it.

28 people had their lives mercilessly, brutally, inhumanely, viciously, and barbarically cut short by the United States, its military, its drones, its bombs, and its President.

That is a statement that should not be pushed from our minds by something trivial.

The murder of 28 innocent people should be the primary factor when people determine for whom they will vote, and they should all look at the matter objectively, accept the facts, and be honest with themselves. After all, lives are on the lines. Lots of them.

And the truth is that Trump is unlikely to be very restrained with the drone strikes. Trump would surely be more liberal with the attacks than Obama, but probably attack less frequently than Hillary. Between Hillary and Trump, Hillary is by a wide berth the most hawkish. Trump is no non-interventionist, but he does have some non-interventionist policy running through him, and it comes out on occasion.

I can’t say that I would trust Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate, on foreign policy matters, either. The official Libertarian answer to Isis is not a particularly good one–“Leave them alone and stop bombing the Middle East” is essentially the Libertarian Party’s position on the matter, and that’s not really applicable to this situation. Isis is not Al-Queda, and treating them as though they are will leave us weaker. Al-Queda was a rebel group resisting foreign occupation and using religion as a front. Isis is a religious group; Islam is more than a front to them, and it is their primary motivator.

Finger-quote-wink-wink “Liberterian” wink-wink-finger-quote Gary Johnson has other problems anyway.

To be honest, the only one who I’d really trust (other than McAfee) to handle Isis would be Jill Stein. This is because of her character, and not because of any particular policy. Alas, however, a candidate like that doesn’t exist.

Trump and Hillary are our de facto choices.

Let the oceans boil red with the blood of the innocent.