Tag Archive | libertarians

Turn the Other Cheek? Fuck that!

I don’t know very much about Islam, but that’s okay, because I don’t claim to, and so I generally stay pretty quiet about Islam and what it teaches. I know enough about it to know that it’s very close in tone to the Old Testament of the Bible, and I know that, from the point of view of an atheist, it’s pretty much just a different flavor of Christianity. So I generally don’t have any conversations about sharia or what it is, because I don’t know (or particularly care) what it is, just as I don’t particularly care to know exactly what parameters food must meet in order to be considered kosher. All religious systems have codes, laws, and layers upon layers of teachings. It’s both ridiculous and unrealistic to expect someone who doesn’t believe in the religion to know every detail–or even many details–about the layered teachings. My knowledge of Christianity is a result of my upbringing in the south, and not out of any desire that I felt at any part of my life to explicitly find out what is in the Bible.

I want to quote the Bible for a moment, though, if you don’t mind; Mathew 5:38-40:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.  And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

Now let’s get to the point.

Recently, an anti-Muslim bigot was hospitalized, and libertarian vice presidential candidate and Muslim Will Coley started a campaign to raise funds for the guy, quoting various teachings of the Quran and actions of Mohammad to show that this sort of behavior (turning the other cheek) is perfectly in accord with Islam and should be encouraged. At first, this went exactly as one would like: people saw the wisdom in the teaching. After all, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, or so goes the saying. It’s similar to things I’ve talked about before, regarding being transgender in the south–it was not whining and screaming about victimization and bigotry that caused my landlord to change his mind about evicting me; it was my willingness to shrug and acknowledge that he was perfectly within his rights to do so. There are a few other people I know of who hated transgender people and the very idea of transgenderism until they came face-to-face with me, a real person who is simply trying to exist in peace and is very much against the idea of forcing anyone to do or be anything.

Then came the SJWs. And, oh man, did they come.

Suddenly Will was their enemy, despite having the approval of many prominent Islamic figures, and the reason that Will was their enemy?

Because he’s white.

I’m not even kidding. That’s what it all boils down to. It’s often said explicitly.

You cannot defeat racism with racism.

You cannot defeat sexism with sexism.

You cannot defeat sexual orientationism with sexual orientationism.

This is the mistake the alt-right makes. They’ve attempted to meet the left’s increasing racism, sexism, and orientationism with racism, sexism, and orientationism. I’ve directed this message at leftists and rightists. I don’t care who is being the racist–it’s never going to end racism.

That’s where I went after three prominent alt-right youtubers: Atheism is Unstoppable, The Non-Believer, and Autopsy87.

Here’s where I went after the left doing the same thing:

Now, this post is more than just a way for me to collect together various applicable things I’ve made on the subject.

The bottom line is that Will held up a mirror for Christians and Muslims alike to look into, and very few of them could stomach what they saw reflected back. When faced with this situation, they had no recourse but to either self-reflect (something most people are simply unwilling to do, because so few people are willing to acknowledge their flaws and mistakes) or to attack the messenger. Enter the cries of racism and the strange remarks that Will has no business teaching anyone about Islamic teachings… because he’s white.

This is a refrain typical of leftists, sadly. In fact, it just cost them the presidential election. Did they learn anything from losing to the most reviled presidential candidates in modern American history (after all, their preferred candidate lost to Hillary, who then lost to Trump)? Of course they didn’t. If anything, the worst losers in the 2016 election (indisputably, the “progressives”) have only doubled down their hate speech and violence, the very thing that landed them in this mess in the first place.

We have to be better than this.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, and Mohammad would all be shaking their heads in sadness at what is going on, and I can only commend Will for staying on track. When I released my video about the Liberal Redneck, I faced similar criticism, though Will is obviously facing it on a larger scale (though, it’s worth mentioning, the scale of criticism that I faced for that absolutely dwarfed the attention that anything else I’ve created has received anyway), and I remember how difficult it was, when one comment after the next rolled in calling me an idiot, a traitor, a racist, a Biblethumper, and other similar things, to stay on point and not stoop to their level. In the end, I caved and pulled down the video. I really wish I hadn’t, but… c’est la vie.

I don’t think I’d cave today.

Maybe this is just meant to be a collection of other things I’ve said on the matter. Otherwise, I’d just be repeating myself. But it’s sad that podcasts that I released a year ago are equally applicable to things today because, if anything has changed at all, then it’s only been for the worse.

I recently wrote an article attacking the notion of LGBT Pride and Outright Libertarians. I’m going to repost it in the future, but not until the shit with Cantwell has died down. It’s rather similar to how I defended Gary Johnson with the “What is Aleppo?” thing. I’ll criticize someone “on my team” when no one else is, but if someone outside that team starts to criticize, I’ll have their back–assuming they’re right.

When they’re wrong, I’ll gladly tell them so. If they’re wrong and are rightly being attacked for being wrong, then I will at the very least hold off my attack until the attack from the outside is over (after all, you won’t find me defending Outright Libertarians from Cantwell and his people).

I find that I just can’t say much on this matter with Will. I’ve already said it all–and that, I think, is the sad thing, because I’m far from being the only person saying it. Jesus said it. Mohammad said it. Gandhi said it. MLK, Jr. said it. If people won’t listen to these esteemed leaders, why in the world would they listen to me or Will Coley? Christians, Muslims, Jews, and atheists alike have all had these wonderful ideas thrown at us from every corner for centuries and thousands of years. Yet we only pay them lipservice. Whether it’s Bill Hicks or Mohammad isn’t important.

And, yes, libertarians are guilty of it, too. When Fidel Castro died, many libertarians actively celebrated his death and digitally danced on his grave. Weird behavior from a group of people whose ideology is literally built on forgiveness and love.

We need less hatred in the world.

That starts with you.


Why Does the Libertarian Party Exist?

There are two main sides within the Libertarian Party these days. One side believes the party exists to win elections, and the other side insists that the party exists to spread the principles of liberty. We can definitively settle the matter right now by taking a look over at the Libertarian Party’s official website and checking out its official platform, wherein it states:

Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

It’s pretty explicit and hard to misinterpret. So if you happen to fall in the “the party exists to win elections” camp, then I’m going to have to ask you to free your mind for a moment, because you’re wrong. The party exists to set the world free in our lifetime; winning elections is one of many ways of achieving that goal. The goal is “to create liberty,” basically, to  keep things short. The method–that is, how we get from here to “a world set free”–is not explicitly defined, except in the platform that follows, but that’s more or less just a list of ways that we aren’t free. There is nowhere in the platform any suggestion that we must or, heaven forbid, should go through the state in order to achieve liberty.

That is by design.

It is entirely possible that we may one day set the world free by doing nothing more than spreading the word and making people aware of the reality of the state, and that one day we might have the numbers to simply shake off the fleas and be done with them, without ever electing someone to a political office. That so many people assume that we must go through the state simply shows how trapped in the statist mindset they are. Not only have there been countless sweeping changes throughout human history that did not go through the state, but the best changes have always not gone through the state, and have always been spontaneous creations of individuals acting in liberty, not because of a mandate.

Anarchists Versus Minarchists/Classical Liberals/Statists/Big Ls

This is closest to being honest I’ve had one of the Big L Libertarians get. I’m sure many people reading will instinctively agree with what Tristan said. However, read what Tristan said. “This is our party, and we’re going to do what we want. If you don’t like it, leave.”

It’s been my contention for some time now that when Big L Libertarians talk about “compromise” they don’t mean “with anarchists,” and they actually mean “with Republicans and Democrats.” They love talking about compromise, but when it actually comes down to it, they’re typically intransigent and seem to think that “compromise” means that they get whatever they want, and dissenters get to go along with it or stfu. Compromise is a two-way street, and it means that one side gives up something to secure something that would be tolerable, while the other side gives up something to secure something that would be tolerable. If the nominations of Gary Johnson and William Weld, of all people, didn’t prove beyond any doubt that Big L Libertarians have absolutely no desire to make any concessions–when so many superior Vice Presidential candidates were available, like Will Coley–then I’m not sure what will.

I think that’s the part that Big L Libertarians don’t get: compromise means that they have to make concessions, too. The anarchist-preferred candidate of 2016 was undoubtedly Daryl Perry. Compromising on John McAfee would have been excellent middleground between Big L Libertarians and Daryl Perry. However, they had no reason to compromise, did they? No, because they outnumbered us and have always outnumbered us. We were willing to compromise with having Daryl Perry as a libertarian (not anarchist) candidate. And “we” (I say “we” meaning “me,” but surely most anarchists would have happily agreed) were more than willing to compromise with having John McAfee as something more like a minarchist (whether McAfee is a minarchist or anarchist, I don’t know, but he is certainly easier to sell in the mainstream, simply by weight of his name). And, of course, we had already compromised by playing at all in the system that we want to destroy.

We are, and remain, willing to compromise… with minarchists.

I gladly admit that I have no desire to compromise with Republicans and Democrats. I do not compromise with people who are so blatantly wrong and whose modus operandi is force, violence, and coercion. I will not compromise my freedom to people who see nothing wrong with outlawing abortion, or to people who want to steal from me to pay for other people’s stuff. Not only am I unwilling to compromise with the people who devastated the Middle East and the people who are gleefully beating the Drums of War with Russia, but if you are willing to compromise with such people, then that throws your judgment immediately into doubt, as far as I’m concerned.

If Big L Libertarians want to compromise with Republicans and Democrats, there’s not much we anarchists can do about it, because we are outnumbered–we seem to comprise about 15-20% of the party. Obviously, they are perfectly free to compromise with whoever they want… Or are they? Does compromising with a tyrant or a sycophant not stain one’s hands? Isn’t this a bit like compromising with Charles Manson–“Okay, Charles, we’re going to compromise. You can’t kill anyone, but, I tell you what, we’ll let you torture one person every six months, as long as you don’t kill them. Deal?” How clean would one’s hands really be in such a compromise? And aren’t we all aware that the state is infinitely more horrific than Charles Manson?

Regardless, the issue is that Big L Libertarians act and speak as though what they want is to compromise with the anarchists who actually belong in the Libertarian Party. This is part of the leadership crisis that we face, but we’ve also got a major problem with collectivist thinking having infected the party. They regularly talk about how they wish that the in-fighting in the party would end, and I have to agree, but I dispute their understanding of the in-fighting. The rift is between anarchists and minarchists, or radicals and moderates, however one would like to put it, and exists because the minarchists/moderates have convinced themselves that the Libertarian Party belongs to them and that, at best, anarchists are the red-headed stepchild.

It is not and has never been a minarchist party–nor is it an anarchist party. It is, however, every bit as much an anarchist party as it is a minarchist party, and as it is a classical liberal party. Larry Sharpe came under fire recently (does the drama never end???) for making a video that people interpreted as his saying that he didn’t want anarchists in the party. Even though that isn’t what he said or meant, the whole thing still dances around the issue without actually stepping foot on it: it’s not Larry Sharpe’s party. It’s not minarchists’ party. It’s not their party to say they do or don’t want us in it.

This is my house that I’m writing this from. It belongs to me. If I don’t want you in it, that matters. But if I’m in Bob’s house and I don’t want you in it, that doesn’t matter, because it’s not my house. The very idea that Larry Sharpe or anyone else is in any position to want or not want anarchists in the party is patently absurd–this house belongs every bit as much to the anarchists as it does anyone else. It’s not Larry Sharpe’s house for him to proclaim who he doesn’t want inside, and neither is it any other minarchist’s or anarchist’s.

And the entire root of this rift is that the Big L Libertarians (of whatever variety) do think that it’s their house, and that we’re simply guests whom they allow to sleep on the couch. That… is… wrong. It is factually and historically wrong. Minarchists simply told themselves and convinced themselves that it was their party, and then they began marginalizing the anarchists. However, proclaiming something to be true does not make it true.

The Libertarian Party of the United States was founded in 1971–some of its founders are still around, and you can find them on Facebook and discuss it yourself with them (assuming they are willing). Merely three years later, the Dallas Accord was struck between the anarchists and the larger minarchist faction, wherein the two sides agreed that the question of whether a state was desirable would be intentionally avoided until such time as a libertarian society had been achieved; it was the agreement that the Libertarian Party was neither a minarchist nor an anarchist party, and this was only three years after the party was formed.

In 2006, the minarchists took control and became hostile to the anarchists, deleting most of the party platform and replacing it with things like “Government exists to protect rights…” This doesn’t make it right, and it’s an outright betrayal of the anarchist faction. It caused a mass exodus of anarchists from the party that had betrayed them so brazenly, and was dubbed the Portland Massacre. Now we have a party platform that says that a state-owned military is necessary! It was an obvious stab in the back to the anarchists, and in the years since the minarchists have not only betrayed anarchists further but have betrayed themselves and leaped right into classical liberalism and something very much like Constitutionalism.

I dread to think what the Libertarian Party would become if there weren’t still anarchists out here trying to stick it out and keep the party tethered to its principles, because it has betrayed so very many people, factions, and ideas. Now we have language that says the state should use immigration laws to “protect” us, which not only is patently un-libertarian, but it’s not even classically liberal–it’s full-blown statist, as even the Constitution didn’t grant the Federal Government the power to control immigration. In its desperation for mass approval and Quixotic quest for electability, is there any principle that the Big L Libertarians won’t betray?

Politics & Elections

As stated clearly, the party exists to cause liberty to happen. It is certainly conceivable–although I find the idea incredulous for reasons I’ll detail in a moment–that winning elections could be a valid method of achieving that goal. However, it is foolish, absurd, and narrow-minded to act like it’s the only possible way of achieving that goal, or even acting like it’s the best method of doing so. Given the results so far (widespread betrayal of anarchists and libertarian principles, schisms in the party, some Big L Libertarians even calling people like me enemies…), I’d argue that it’s not even an acceptable way of achieving that goal, even if it is possible in theory.

There seems to be this idea that we can pull a Bait & Switch on the electorate, and that we can run a “moderate Libertarian” who gets into office and enacts actual libertarian policies. This is called “deceit,” and it is generally frowned upon. It is false advertising, and it is considered to be deceptive–because it is deceptive. It’s like marrying a woman not because you love her (as she thinks you do), but because she’s a millionaire with no kids and no one to leave all her money to when she dies. It’s a clear case of false pretenses–everything about it is immoral, and that’s before we get into whether or not it would actually work.

Hint: it wouldn’t.

It is strangely denialistic to think that if you can convince Bob to legalize marijuana, then you’ll have an easier time convincing him to legalize all drugs. If there was any truth whatsoever to that, then the repeal of Prohibition in the 1920s would have prevented any further substances from being outlawed in the first place, because, in American history, Bob was convinced that outlawing alcohol was more trouble than it was worth, didn’t actually eliminate alcohol, created a black market, created gangs, and was a gross violation of people’s liberties. That didn’t stop Bob from turning around and making marijuana illegal barely a decade later, or from adding methamphetamine, heroin, and countless other substances to the list of banned narcotics.

Libertarian: “Bob, Prohibition isn’t working. We need to repeal it and just let people be free. This has done nothing but caused death and misery.”

Bob: “You know what? You’re right. Repeal Prohibition!”

Libertarian: “Alright! Let’s not make this mistake again, either.”

*Ten years later*

Bob: “We’re outlawing marijuana.”

*Seventy years later*

Libertarian: “Bob, marijuana prohibition isn’t working. We need to legalize it and just let people be free. This has done nothing but caused death and misery.”

Bob: “You know what? You’re right. Repeal marijuana prohibition!”

Here we enter Fantasy Land.

Libertarian: “Great! Let’s repeal prohibition of heroin, too! And cocaine! And crystal meth!”

Bob: “Hey, you’re right!”

… That’s so obviously not what would happen. Bob would reply, “Are you out of your mind? Marijuana is one thing, but heroin? No way! That’s something else entirely!”

That’s the flaw with the incrementalist/moderate approach. Just because you can get me to drive five miles doesn’t mean you can get me to drive five hundred miles. It’s absurdly unrealistic, and I find it hard to believe that anyone actually thinks such an approach will have any success. Legalizing marijuana won’t end the drug war; it won’t shift Bob’s position on the Drug War even the tiniest bit. I can already point to at least a hundred people I know who want to see marijuana legalized but who would recoil in shock and incredulity if I suggested to them that we should also legalize heroin.

Phase 1: Legalize weed!
Phase 2: ????
Phase 3: The drug war is over!

Phase 2 is “something magical happens.”

The “legalize marijuana” versus “end the drug war” thing is such a wonderful parallel to the radical/moderate divide, because this is true in nearly every sense. I’ve convinced plenty of people that a business owner has the unalienable right to choose the people with whom they associate, and that they therefore don’t have to serve LGBTQ people if they don’t want to. It’s not too difficult to convince people of this. But the next thing out of their mouth is always, “But what if they’re racist and don’t want to serve black people? We can’t allow them to do that!”

It’s insane. It’s either a huge misunderstanding of reality or a purposeful self-delusion about human nature. Though I’ve convinced at least twenty people that discrimination of LGBTQ people by business owners is an unalienable right, I have never convinced anyone that discrimination of black people by business owners is an unalienable right. According to the incrementalist approach, once I convince them that discrimination against LGBTQ people is a right, they should be receptive to the “more extreme” form, yes?

Except they’re not, and they never are.

A World Set Free

It should come as no surprise that the Big L Libertarian faction (which doesn’t include every libertarian, minarchist, or classical liberal) seems incapable of grasping the idea that there might be some other ways to set the world free than by going through the established political system. For anarchists, the established political system is optional–however, we do not deny that it is an option. In contrast, the Big L Libertarian faction denies that there are any other options: they know only the state, and so they only know to go through the state. But that’s where libertarianism starts to contradict itself in the first place, because anyone who follows the ideas to their logical conclusions will end up as an anarchist, since aggression is the only way that the state can do anything while still being a state.

It’s just another example of how anarchist ideology isn’t even being considered by the larger faction, and, if they’re not even considering it, they can’t possibly be able to compromise with it. It’s like that Jody guy who blocked me when he claimed to be an anarchist immediately after saying that the state should exist to protect liberty. If you’re unwilling to even learn what anarchists think, then how can you compromise with them? If you’re trying to sell something to a person, don’t you kinda have to know what they’re offering to pay? But, of course, they’re not willing to compromise–as we’ve established–and they aren’t willing to even consider anarchists enough to learn what we have to say. If they were, then they would already know that going through the existing state is most certainly not the “only” way to set the world free (and, if one follows the ideas to their conclusions, it’s actually impossible to use the state to set the world free because the state is literally what you’re trying to set the world free of).

To compromise with someone, you must first know what they want and what they believe. Judging from my person experiences, the Big L Libertarians (which, again, isn’t inclusive of every minarchist, libertarian, and classical liberal) have no idea what anarchists want or believe. Jody’s silliness was the most flagrant, but it was hardly unique.

These Big L Libertarians seem to operate solely on their belief and their idea of what they want the Libertarian Party to be, making whatever assumptions they like, and from there they seem wholly resistant to facts. This Travis person has the idea in their head of what the Libertarian Party is (and, it’s worth mentioning, that their understanding of the Libertarian Party just coincidentally is exactly what they want it to be), and nothing will shake that delusion.

To say that the Libertarian Party exists to win elections is to say that anarchists aren’t welcome in the party, because we imagine different ways of achieving the Libertarian Party’s goal (which, one will read, is to set the world free, not “to win elections, duh!”). Having our methods spit upon and waved away even as we’re willing to go along with their methods, as long as they agree to the standards that we laid down in 1974 to solve exactly this problem… We’re using our preferred method, but we’re also willing to help you and use your preferred method to get libertarians elected to office. Our method and your method are only at odds because you set them to be by saying our method is meaningless, that yours is the only method that matters–by usurping the entire party and proclaiming it to be nothing more than a vehicle for your chosen method!–and that we’re not even welcome in the party if we don’t cease our method, shut up, and meekly go along with you.

This is our party, too.

And that’s why the goal of the party is to set the world free, not to win elections. Like the liberals I’ve talked about before who associate their emotion with their preferred method, it has trapped you and left you unable to even fathom that there might be some other way of achieving that goal. After all, the liberal takes “There shouldn’t be anyone starving in America!” and links that directly to “We need to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour!” It’s the basest and most confused of human behaviors to link a given goal inextricably to one’s preferred method of achieving that goal, and then dogmatically sticking to that method regardless of whether it works (like how liberals continue to demand increases to the Minimum Wage, despite the unemployment that it has caused).

Our method is 100% as valid as yours, and the Libertarian Party is 100% as valid as a vehicle of our method as it is a vehicle of your method.

We are anarchists, and this is our party, too.

Slavktivism or Activism?

There sometimes comes a time when the voices of internet activists are so loud that they begin to effect an actual change in the real world. There sometimes comes a time when enough people shouting, “We aren’t happy!” prompts other people to ask, “So what do you want us to do about it?”

It’s true that my activism takes place primarily on the Internet. There are a few reasons for this, but it’s mostly a matter of timing, and I’ve been working through the last six months to transition that activism into the real world. Even so, I don’t think that internet activism is automatically slacktivism, because I can point to at least five people whose ties to libertarian thought originated with my Facebook posts. Five, of course, is a drop in the bucket, but I would consider the time spent writing to be well used if I’d introduced even one person to libertarian philosophy.

Something I’ve written about before is continuing to happen, though, and Arvin Vohra gives is a clear case of it within the Libertarian Party. I’ve frequently said that Black Lives Matter enjoyed the national spotlight for nearly two years and yet didn’t accomplish a single thing except to make people aware that they weren’t happy. No policies were changed, and no police were found guilty. You’d be forgiven for thinking that we hadn’t just seen interstates throughout the nation shut down by protests. It’s a curious thing that protesters could command that level of attention and organization, yet accomplish absolutely nothing.

It’s slacktivism.

The activist has goals, and usually has at least some idea of how to get from where we are to that destination. The slacktivist has no goals, and instead has only emotions. “Everyone should be treated equally!” isn’t a goal, after all–it’s an emotional statement that could lead one to formulate a goal. “The military should be dismantled entirely” is a goal, albeit one that is hard to sell to the masses. It’s an actual action with an actual outcome, not a loose guide.

Considering Arvin Vohra, the emotional statement is “You shouldn’t say negative things about this group!” while a concrete action would be “Arvin should be removed from office!”

At a glance, I’d say that the difference between activism and slacktivism is that the slacktivist wants to tell other people what to do, while the activist wants to do things that have a desired outcome. The slacktivist proposes mandates of other people’s actions, knowing that they can’t be enforced, while the activist cares little about what other people are doing because the activist is working personally for the change they want to see. The slacktivist says, “You do this.” The activist says, “I’m going to do this.”

The goal of the slacktivist is nothing better than ensuring that everyone knows how unhappy they are; the activist doesn’t really have time to wax at length about their emotional reactions to various stimuli. In Buddhist terms, the slacktivist says, “I am suffering,” while the activist says, “There is suffering.”

Everyone has goals, though–even the slacktivist. However, the slacktivist just wants everyone to know that they aren’t happy. Slacktivism obviously isn’t limited to the internet, but the internet has made it much easier for Random Joe to spread his discontent, so it’s going to be more common on the Internet. How many pointless, ineffectual petitions are there on Change.Org? Tens of thousands? That’s slacktivism in a nutshell.

Why, there’s even a petition there to remove Arvin.

When the slacktivist sets out, their goal is to make sure other people know they are unhappy, and their method is to tell everyone that they aren’t happy. They want nothing beyond that, and if their voices become so loud that it seems they could actually achieve something beyond that, they’ll strangely back off. The child doesn’t want the parent to do anything except acknowledge that the child is throwing a tantrum.

It came as no surprise to me, to see a motion put forward to remove Arvin, and to immediately have the masses of people calling for his head to say, “Oh, hold on, let’s not be hasty here!” The same thing happened with Comey just a few weeks ago–mere months ago, liberals were calling for his head, but as soon as something real happened, they flipped entirely to the other side.

It reminds me of when I ran for class President my senior year, and proceeded to Ralph Nader the crap out of it. I didn’t want to win, and it’s a tremendously good thing that I didn’t. But, strangely, that didn’t stop me from running and campaigning. I didn’t win, but I split the white vote (in a school that had a very slight white majority, and it’s a matter of record that most people voted along racial lines–yes, even the black kids) enough that the black girl who had run and lost each year actually won the election. All that said, I didn’t want to win, and I didn’t even really want to spoil the vote. But that didn’t stop me. I guess I just wanted to see if I could. I don’t know. I was an idiot high schooler who dropped out a month later.

The platitudologists among us would probably say that the slacktivists truly want to accomplish things, but they are more paralyzed by a fear of success than anything else, and that could work as an explanation of this strange behavior, but I don’t think that “fear” is the right word. They’re not afraid of success; they’re just not aiming for the goal that most people assume, and that they even express to be their goal.

They say they want Arvin removed, and I know of many people who said that, right up until a motion was made. The removal of Arvin Vohra was not their goal; however, the threat of removing Arvin Vohra was among their methods for achieving their goal. They just wanted everyone to know they weren’t happy, to give them attention and acknowledge their discontent, and to at least pretend to give a shit what they feel. Toward that end, they did two things: they bitched, and they made what they thought were mostly empty threats. Like if I said I was going to nuke Washington D.C. (Hello, NSA/CIA!) if Trump didn’t step down, that would be an idle threat that no one would take seriously. But what if some rabble-rouser who shared my sentiments agreed and sent me a nuke?

Uh-oh. I’d suddenly be in a pretty awkward position (not to mention–in Gitmo) of having to find some kind of way to avoid admitting that I was totally full of shit. To that end, I’d backpedal from my previous hard-line stance, and would probably say, “You’ve gotta give Trump a chance to comply…”

Just like people backpedaled on Vohra and, now that they metaphorically have nukes, are suggesting that he must first be given a chance.

“Full of shit” indeed.

They didn’t want to remove Arvin. They just wanted to threaten to, as a way of forcing people to take their incessant whining seriously. Without that threat, they have nothing, and can easily be dismissed. “I’m not happy!” by itself is a lulz-worthy whine. “I’m not happy! Fix it or I’m gonna…” can be a potentially serious threat.

I say we should call them on their bluff, and call them on their bullshit.

Cum Trumpsters–i.e., Libertarians For Trump

It’s a subject I’ve avoided for the most part, but one that I can’t take any longer. I know a fair number of self-described libertarians, and even a few self-described anarchists, who boarded the Trump Train, and so I felt it best to just look the other way. Many of these people are friends, after all.

But these same people still support Trump, and I’ve got to call them out on it.

First, let’s talk about the VALs (Voluntaryists, Anarchists, and Libertarians, self-professed and actual) who routinely criticized Hillary as a passive attempt to help Trump, instead of just doing it because the bitch clearly wanted to start World War 3. They didn’t want Hillary to lose; they wanted Trump to win. I wanted both to lose. I wanted everyone to lose, in fact. No one on the ballot should have been on it.

If you attacked Hillary hoping to hurt her so that Trump would win, then you’re not just “not a libertarian.” You’re also underhanded and untrustworthy. We can’t just distrust the things you say; we must also distrust your motives for saying it.

I’m not gonna sit here and lie to you. I’m biased as hell. Everything I wrote during the election was aimed at making Hillary lose and McAfee win. I avoided Trump most of the time, because so many other people were attacking him, and instead focused my Trump articles on primarily addressing hysteria–hysteria that remains more of a problem than ever. In the grand scheme of things, Hillary was probably worse, seeing as she repeatedly threatened military action against Russia, but that doesn’t make Trump any better. He’s still a buffoon.

As to the people who fell for Trump’s speeches about draining the swamp, and who have now realized that it was all bullshit, welcome back. I hope you learn from the experience what I learned from Obama in 2008: no one in the main two parties can be trusted to do anything they say. I don’t know why anyone who was an adult in 2008 didn’t know this, but it happens, I guess.

Now the biggest group: the ones who are still with Trump.

Fuck all of you.

You’re not librarians or minarchists, and you’re damn sure not anarchists. Trump is clearly just another politician. If you supported Trump because you wanted to throw a bomb at Washington, I get it. I don’t approve of your choice in bomb, but I understand your sentiment.

But Trump wasn’t a bomb, was he? No, he was just wearing a Bomb Mask.

Pictured: Trump campaigning.

Now that he’s removed the mask, nothing but doublethink and cognitive dissonance can keep those people supporting him. He’s not a bomb. He’s not challenging the status quo. He’s just another politician, and one with a scary understanding of the military’s purpose and an America-centric way of viewing the world.

I was willing to give you guys the benefit of the doubt and let you say that you fell for his con. But you’re still falling for it, even though it’s apparent that he’s nothing but a modern Lincoln. You know. Lincoln. That President that libertarians despise because he cemented the federal government’s hold on the states, suspended the Bill of Rights, and killed more than half a million Americans. Policy-wise, he and Trump are identical. “The Union first” morphed into “America first.” The only thing that remains to be seen is how far Trump is willing to go.

But if by some chance [note: it would require more explanation than I’m willing to get into right now, but my position on California’s secession has changed–I now support it] California secedes, then we’ll see first-hand how similar they are.

And I’ve no doubt that you Cum Trumpsters would continue cheerleading for him as he invaded California. Why not? You guys don’t have the credibility to simply claim you’d be against such an invasion; your credibility lies burned by the bombs that killed the 8 year old girl.

You are every bit as bad as hypocritical conservatives. You know, the people who claim to want small government, unless it’s something they want to do, in which case big government is okay. That’s exactly what you’re doing. Your biggest issue is immigration. Even though the federal government has no authority over immigration (something that you knew until Trump announced his campaign), and certainly no rational or moral justification to affect it, you’re now totally okay with the federal government dictating over all fifty states and even cities in the name of your pet issue.

Just like a conservative.

Just like a liberal.

And, just like the conservatives, you completely lack the self-awareness to realize how hypocritical you are. If the federal government wanted to allow abortion in all fifty states, you’re all “RAWR! STATES’ RIGHTS!”

But if the federal government wants to force California to use Texas’s immigration policy, you don’t see the problem, the tyranny, or the hypocrisy. Because it’s YOUR pet issue.

Conservatives blew it, as I knew they would. It’s true that I hoped they wouldn’t, but I knew they would.

They had the chance to put their money where their mouths have been, to not force conservative positions onto liberal states. And instead of beginning to build bridges by allowing liberals to continue being liberal in liberal states, they jumped right to forcing conservativism onto everyone, particularly in regard to immigration, though there are other areas.

And you’re doing the same shit. “Oh, I’m a libertarian! I don’t think the government should be telling anyone what they can do! … Unless the government is going to tell them to do what I want them to do, in which case, yeah, I’m okay with that.”



You only want liberty when you get your way. If people who disagree with you want to get their way, then you suddenly stop being libertarians.

That’s conservatives’ shtick. Get that shit out of here.

Oh, and transgenderism? There is no fucking better indicator of a Cum Trumpster than vehemence toward transgender people. It’s not ubiquitous or exclusive, but it is certainly one of the best indicators. If someone professes to be a VAL but insults transgender people, particularly by calling us mentally ill, then I’ll gladly take the bet that they’re a Cum Trumpster.

You want to talk about mentally ill? Let’s talk about the Cum Trumpsters who think that the number of brown people in the country affects their lives in any way, and who think that how brown people enter the country makes even the smallest difference.

For fuck’s sake, these “Libertarians” are for the wall. The wall! The motherfucking, goddamn wall. I’m not sure that anything can get more statist than “We need the government to put a fence around our country!”

As Ron Paul pointed out repeatedly, walls don’t just keep people out. They also keep people in. Under no fucking circumstances should the government be building walls that could one day trap us in a la East Berlin. But no, these “Libertarians” are for it! They’re for what is probably the crowning symbol of statism: border walls.

Many of these same “Libertarians” want states or the federal government to legislate that a person can only use the restroom associated with their birth certificate. Even though, you know, they clearly don’t trust birth certificates, which is why their champion Trump carried the “Obama is a Kenyan” shit for so long. Though they don’t trust Obama’s to honestly report his place of birth, they’ll trust yours to report your birth sex.

Seems legit.

They’re particularly fond of saying that liberalism is a mental illness. So is conservatism, and I just don’t see a difference any longer between them and conservatives.

And they are conservatives, clearly–they want to conserve the 1950s Leave it to Beaver way of life that never actually existed anyway. They think their way of life is somehow under threat. It wasn’t long ago that I read an article by one Cum Trumpster saying that multi-culturalism was bad. What? Coexisting alongside other cultures is bad?

No, idiots. It’s only bad if incoming cultures refuse to allow and accommodate other cultures. It’s not even about assimilation; it doesn’t matter if people assimilate. It only matters if they conquer other cultures.

And while I know they don’t understand the difference and truly believe that Muslims are trying to conquer their culture, that’s because they are lunatics who think that a transgender person demanding the state not force its gender definitions onto her is the same as her forcing her definitions onto everyone.

And I do hate to say it, but that’s certainly a side effect of privilege: thinking that not being allowed to force your way onto people is the same as them forcing their way onto you. I mean, for centuries those people had the power and ran all over everyone. Then the democrats formed their equality coalition and pushed back. Of course, then that coalition became addicted to the power and went way too far, moving the goalposts from equality to elevation of minorities. I even agree that democrats have done that.

But the solution is egalitarianism and no one forcing things onto anyone. The solution is not reverting back to the way things were and forcing conservatism onto liberals. Just like Democrats, you “Libertarians” have moved the goalposts from liberty and egalitarianism.

So kindly fuck off and stop calling yourselves libertarians, voluntaryists, minarchists, and anarchists. You’re not. You’re conservatives who want small government when Democrats want to force their way onto you, and want large government when you can force your way onto them.

Some of you criticized Johnson for not being a libertarian, too. Are you kidding me? If you’re going to criticize Johnson for not being libertarian enough while supporting Trump, then you’re an idiot and you’ve dug the principled high ground right out from under your own feet.

I criticized Gary Johnson repeatedly as the libertarian candidate. The difference is that I did so because of principles. The Cum Trumpsters appear to have simply used that as an excuse to back a terrible candidate. And yes, Trump was a terrible candidate, and he’s proving a terrible President. I don’t know why anyone expected anything else. My sister recently said, “I like that Trump is doing what he promised to do.”

Like what? Bombing little kids? It’s true, he did promise to go after families. I have a hard time accepting that anyone, regardless of what they call themselves, is okay with that, but fair enough–he did promise to do that, and he is doing it.

That doesn’t make him a good President. It makes him a murderer. A monster. A depraved, disgusting wretch of a human being with calloused disrespect for life.

Tariffs are bullshit, too. They do have some place in world trade, but their only conceivable non-destructive use would be implementing them on a plan to phase them out from the start, easing a nation into an economic change instead of taking it all at once. That’s not good by any means, and consumers ultimately pay the cost, but it’s the only non-destructive role they could play. They’d still be damaging, but not destructive.

Economics is a pretty big part of libertarianism. I know very few VALs who are economically ignorant. So the Cum Trumpsters should *know* that tariffs on China should be put in place only if the plan is to abolish the Minimum Wage, and even then should start on a system to phase them out over several years. Ditto for Mexican tariffs. And this is because we KNOW that taxes are paid by consumers.

That sales tax you pay at Wal-Mart? That’s not a tax on you buying the item. It’s a tax on Wal-Mart for selling the item. But because Wal-Mart doesn’t want to eat the cost, they pass it onto you. That’s how taxes work. Consumers are always screwed by them and by tariffs. I’ll grant that it’s conceivable tariffs could be used to soften economic blows. I wouldn’t like it, and I think it would extend the damage, but I’m not going to argue the point. But just imposing tariffs and taxes?

A libertarian should know better.

I arrived on-site at a client’s and had to get started working. I intend to add more to this.

Libertarians, Stop Feeding the Troll

In the past few days, I’ve seen an unusual amount of criticism directed at Milo Yuanwhateveris from libertarians, so I assume that Milo recently said something negative about libertarians. I’ve seen one such post, where he called libertarians “selfish,” but there was no time-stamp on it, so I don’t know if it was recent or not. Whatever spurred the recent insults toward Milo, I want to explain why this is a bad idea. No, scratch that. I want to help other libertarians figure out for themselves why this is a bad idea. So let’s sit back and run an experiment.

Step 1: Start a YouTube Channel

For the sake of this experiment, we’re going to create a Video Game Let’s Play! channel. So we’re going to record ourselves talking and playing video games, like PewDiePie or Markiplier or that Irish dude my nephew likes. Then, of course, we’re going to upload these videos onto YouTube.

Step 2: Find a Much Larger Channel, and Comment Its Videos With Insults

So now that we have our YouTube channel created and have a few videos on it, the obvious next step is to go to Markiplier’s and PewDiePie’s channels, load several of their videos, and then leave numerous comments attacking them, saying their videos are poor, their commentary is weak, and their expressed opinions are wrong. Perhaps we can even demonstrate that we are correct–maybe Markiplier hates Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on NES because it’s “a piece of shit LJN game,” and we leave a comment about how he’s wrong because it’s not an LJN game–his conclusion can’t be correct because the basis upon which it is built is incorrect. In this comment, we’re going to make it clear that we have our own Let’s Play channel, where we get our facts right.

Step 3: Count Your Subscribers

Now that we’ve done Step 2 for a few days, let’s go and look at our Subscriber count. This is multiple choice, so choose the most appropriate:

  1. YouTube deleted my channel for harassment.
  2. I gained zero subscribers, and all of my comments were ripped apart by Markiplier and PewDiePie fans who said that I was just attacking someone more popular in the hopes of leeching subscribers.
  3. Apparently YouTube’s subscriber count is an unsigned integer, and I lost so many subscribers from this crap that it caused an underflow glitch and left me with 231 − 1 subscribers, although none of them are actual people, so they probably don’t count.

Step 4: Apply This Lesson

Milo is insanely popular, and so is the alt-right. For all intents and purposes, they just won the election, so it’s fair to say that the alt-right is popular enough to make someone president (even though obviously not all Trump supporters were alt-right, in the end, the alt-right played a key role in his victory in the Republican Primary), while libertarians… managed to get a debate aired on Fox Business. I don’t mean to undercut that accomplishment, because it truly was awesome, but if we’re talking popularity comparisons, Milo could run for President and easily beat the numbers that Gary Johnson got. Milo’s books are selling better than ever, while the only libertarian selling books en masse today is Ron Paul, and his aren’t selling these days.

It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong, not in the court of widespread public opinion. Whoever is most popular is right and wins the argument; whoever is least popular loses and is likely going to be written off as some butthurt crybaby who is being a hater because someone is more popular. It doesn’t matter if that’s true or not in the court of widespread public opinion. Once an allegation is made and starts spreading, very few people look into it enough to find out who is right or wrong; they’ll just retweet and share with no research. The things spreading will be Milo’s evisceration of libertarianism, not the libertarian response. The libertarian response will spread only among other libertarians.

Step 5: Don’t Feed the Troll

Just ignore him. We’re not going to win anyone over to libertarianism by attacking Milo, or even by defending ourselves against his wild criticisms. This is why Jill Stein’s attacks against Gary Johnson came off as so contrived and weak–it seemed that she was desperately seeking validation and recognition by someone more popular, trying to bait a more successful candidate into acknowledging the existence of her campaign and treating her like a serious player. However, we know that we don’t need validation from the alt-right, or even from Republicans; the fact that they’re attacking us makes it clear that we’re a threat.

So ignore it. Otherwise you’re giving the troll exactly what the troll wants. It’s what trolls do–they bait people for reactions. Milo took Internet Trolling and brought it into the real world. Or, perhaps, it was already in the real world and Milo simply removed the mask. Regardless, we’ve all been on the Internet long enough to know how this works, and long enough to know how to deal with trolls.

How Would Americans Handle President Fuhrer?

I recently talked about how libertarians and anarchists need to draw a line in the sand with our government, and make it clear that, if that line is crossed, it will be tantamount to a declaration of war by the government against the people, and will be treated as such. Don’t get me wrong–I think that needs to happen, and I think it’s ultimately necessary for the government to be firmly reminded that we are armed and will not tolerate much more bullshit, but I also know that it won’t happen.

Calling upon the Libertarian Party to draw this line is a waste of bandwidth and the time it takes to type the sentence. This is not Sarwark’s fault, of course, or Austin Petersen’s or Gary Johnson’s; it is the party’s fault generally because, as I alluded to in the previous discussion, concerns about electability and what is a “good” political move will forever prevent the Libertarian Party from probably ever being anything like its older, principled self.

But it isn’t just the Libertarian Party that wouldn’t dare make such a statement publicly. In fact, very few people would be willing to. The reason has to do with psychology, the innate desire for acceptance, the horror that we may be seen as overreacting, and peer pressure to conform and behave as others behave. Can I back up this claim? Goodness, yes.

We recoil when we see in the news that a bunch of neighbors watched as a woman was gang raped and murdered in broad daylight, with none of them intervening and none of them even calling the police, and we tell ourselves, “Goodness, no! I would have intervened! I would have at least called the police!” And this is true–if there is no one else around. Strangely, as the number of people around the scene increases, the chances of someone intervening or even calling the police drop. It’s very peculiar, but it’s a known fact.

This experiment consisted of people being placed in a room to wait for an interview while they filled out paperwork. Smoke began to roll from the bottom of the interviewer’s office door. The results showed that, when people were alone, they were far more likely to treat the situation like it was a potential emergency. On the other hand, when the person was not alone, they were far more likely to ignore the smoke and pretend like they didn’t notice it–even as they began coughing from it. It’s called the Bystander Effect, and it’s a serious problem.

It will be the reason that almost no one does anything about President Fuhrer, whoever that president happens to be.

Even in my article, I stated at least twice that I was not making the allegation that this was about to happen or that there was any reason to panic; the same psychological tendencies exist in me, too, of course. I don’t want to sound like I’m in foaming-at-the-mouth hysterics over President Trump when there really isn’t that much to be worried about. It’s a shame that modern liberals lack this restraint, but with all their friends pushed into overreaction by the media, we all became outcasts for not overreacting to President Trump.

Just as I was insulted–heavily insulted–simply because I did not overreact to the clown sightings of 2016. It became acceptable to be hysterical, to make Facebook posts about how one would “totally shoot a clown on sight” and how a clown “better hope I don’t see one, I’ll break a bat on a motherfucker’s face!” Hysteria became the norm, and thus it wasn’t considered hysterical. Closing down schools, posts from people about how they would gladly shoot someone just for dressing up like a clown… These became acceptable, while trying to convince people they were exhibiting the same behavior that led to the Salem Witch Trials went against the grain and became unacceptable. Instead of everyone fearing to be seen in hysterics, people feared to be seen reacting calmly and proportionally.

Overreaction became the acceptable level of reaction.

In effect, measured, proportional reaction became under-reaction.

This happened again when Trump won the November election. Holy hell, people went crazy, and I can think of at least a dozen people who should be too damned embarrassed to even show their faces in public, yet instead of having any shame they’re still carrying the hysterical insanity torch proudly. That’s a hell of a thing to say, considering that my previous article said that we needed to be ready to fight an American dictator with guns and not words, but the difference is context; the difference is reaction, overreaction, or anticipation.

Shortly after the election, I had an extensive discussion with a woman who claimed to be Hispanic–though she had the whitest goddamned name I’ve ever heard, short of Wendy McFinnigan–and who claimed to be huddling in her house in fear with her children, crying and terrified. One of my clients, a doctor, closed her practice and returned to India, though she claimed it had nothing to do with the election, she sold off her equipment days after Trump’s victory, and was in such a hurry that she refused to wait and let me wipe the drives. Yes, that’s correct. She sold computers with tons of patients’ medical data on them; clearly, she has no intention of ever returning to the United States, because that’s illegal in more ways than I can count, and I can count to at least seven.

There are three large, politically active groups in the United States: conservatives, liberals, and libertarians. All of these are subdivided into various groups that range in loudness, pettiness, stupidity, petulance, childishness, horror of policy, and activism. Conservatives consist of the Tea Party, the alt-right, liberty-leaning conservatives. Liberals consist of Greens, communists, socialists, mainstream democrats. Libertarians consist of libertarians, classical liberals, minarchists, anarchists. There are other groups, of course, and more divisions within the three large groups, but none of that is really that important.

The important part is that the left overreacts to everything, which makes them pretty much The Party That Cries Wolf. They scream about racism, sexism, homophobia, misogyny, and every manner of -phobia so often that when one of these descriptive labels actually applies to an action, it’s met with the eye rolling and groaning that accompany the mundane and familiar. “Oh, Democrats are screaming about some sexist thing… again…”

Plus, their manner of doing things is to simply make a lot of noise. They’re good at getting the media’s attention, but they’ve routinely shown that they don’t have a clue what to do once they have that attention. Black Lives Matter is my “go to” example, but it’s hardly unique to that movement; virtually everything that liberals protest and demonstrate for or against gets a lot of attention but does nothing, changes nothing, and accomplishes nothing. It’s ultimately just noise. This doesn’t mean that I agree or disagree with the sentiments they’re expressing; I do not approve, however, of how they [don’t] achieve their goals. Like the Republicans now that they totally control the government, liberals in general are like the dog that finally caught the car–now that they have it, they don’t know what to do with it. “Alright! We shut down a major interstate that stretches from California to North Carolina! The country’s eyes are on us! … … … So what do we do?”

Meanwhile, Trump and the alt-right have made huge strides in getting conservatives to accept and go along with some truly horrible policies. People cheered when Trump said he would bring back torture, when he said that he’d go after terrorists’ families, and when he said that he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country. Four years ago, a Republican saying that would have quickly found his political career in shambles.

This means that the two biggest chunks of the politically active American population won’t do anything to fight against President Fuhrer. The liberals won’t, either because President Fuhrer is a liberal–President Obama showed us just how much liberals will turn a blind eye to, and their zeal to inflict violence upon people who disagree with them knows almost no bounds–or because they simply don’t know how. They’ll be the group out protesting while the U.S. military rounds up Muslims. And, surprisingly, they’ll be ignored, I think, because clamping down on protest would only exacerbate the problem and possibly motivate people to further action. As long as they’re simply protesting, they’re only making noise and accomplishing nothing, so I believe President Fuhrer would largely ignore them. People who aren’t already liberals will certainly ignore them, because liberals are always protesting and demonstrating–generating noise–and we’ve already started to filter it out.

There are two paths I see us going down in the future, and it really depends on the timing. There is a strong chance that President Fuhrer will be a conservative, in which case conservatives won’t resist. However, there is also a strong chance that liberals will vote in a terrible choice in 2020, who proceeds to gut the Tenth Amendment and force liberal legislation onto conservative states, particularly regarding abortion and LGBTQ issues, which is more likely than anything to send the conservative states into secession again. People who advocate #CalExit today would, of course, be opposed to this, because “If Mississippi leaves, then we can’t force Mississippi to put LGBTQ people on a pedestal! No, they can’t leave, because they only reason they want to leave is to oppress people!”

I’m sure we all know how the rest will play out.

This really only leaves the Libertarians, but they’re generally so concerned about how the public perceives the Libertarian Party that the absolute last thing they would ever, ever do is appear to be overreacting. The Libertarian Party is lately motivated by only one single concern: mainstream acceptance. The psychological tendencies that create the Bystander Effect virtually control the Libertarian Party, such that it would probably be the last group to actually take up arms against a tyrannical government. Only once most people were doing it and it was socially acceptable would the Libertarian Party do it, because they’re terrified of doing anything that will make them appear kooky or extreme.

It’s simply sad, but true, that the Democratic Party is more likely to tell Trump, “If you begin construction of this wall or impose a national registry of Muslims–or any other group–then we will take it as a declaration of war against the American People!” than the Libertarian Party is. If the Democratic Party did do that, then I’m sure the Libertarian Party would immediately leap to its feet and cry, “Us, too! Us, too! Yeah! A declaration of war!”

But regardless of political affiliations, it won’t much matter how President Fuhrer and his/her actions sit with people. They won’t do anything, because they don’t want bystanders to think they’re overreacting. And by the time it reached the point where it obviously wouldn’t be overreacting, because President Fuhrer had already declared martial law and started rounding people up, it would be too damned late to do anything about it.

So I guess we need to hope that President Fuhrer never rises, because the American People won’t do anything about it until it’s way too late.


Words Are Cheap

Libertarians and anarchists for months have been expressing solidarity with Muslim Americans, promising that we’ll do this or that when or if the time comes, and this is good, but I can’t help but notice how incredibly vague the promises are. Of the many promises that have been made, the only actual Cause/Effect I’ve seen has been that many people have sworn to register as Muslims if the government forces them to. I guess that’s fine, if you want to be a martyr for no reason, but if the government begins rounding up everyone who is registered as a Muslim, then you’ll have accomplished nothing by getting yourself arrested alongside them. On the vague ones, let’s look to the Libertarian Party’s release.

It’s a lot of nothing, a lot of words, a lot of… empty sympathy.

“We’ll speak out against it,” goes the line.

I have to take issue with that. Now is the time for speaking out. If any of these more extreme things come to pass, the time to speak out will have passed, and the time for action will be upon us. As I said, joining a national Muslim registry is well-intentioned, but it will accomplish nothing. If the Frank’s business party–I can’t recall the name–had registered as a Jew to “show solidarity,” then he would have been arrested long before he was, the Franks and… Van somethings… wouldn’t have been able to hide in the attic.

That aside, we’ve seen this play out before. We know how this progresses. Countless times this has played out. The demonization of immigrants, the marginalization of a religious minority, threats of a border wall, tighter immigration control… I’m not at all saying that Trump is “the next Hitler,” as people have been so fond of saying, but if he is, then expressing solidarity and speaking out against him will do nothing to stop him.

Nicholas Sarwark, it’s not politically acceptable. In fact, politically it’s probably a terrible move. It doesn’t matter. This isn’t the time for politics, and it’s not the time to think about the 2020 presidential election. We have a president with enormous amounts of power with a history of not thinking things through, with a history of relying on false evidence and sensationalized bullshit, and he leads a government that has systematically given itself the power to do to us “legally” exactly what we hate Hitler for doing. It’s more than a technicality that FEMA inadvertently gave the President the authority to declare a state of emergency and impose martial law. Presidents in the past have suspended habeus corpus, and HR1955 took away our right to a trial by allowing for American citizens to be indefinitely detained in prison. And, of course, the 2014?NDAA gave the President the power to assassinate American citizens. There is nothing that Hitler did in Germany that our government hasn’t given itself the authority to do.

As I wrote in “The Power Gap,” it is not a question of “if” the government is going to abuse these powers; it’s a question of “when.” Humans have never invented a weapon that we did not use, and no government ever took authority that it did not use. If the government gave itself the authority to impose martial law and put us in “FEMA Camps,” then it’s only a matter of time before it does it. I don’t know if this will be Trump or not, but it’s stupid to think that the President–whoever it will be–is going to announce it beforehand. “Okay, if you guys want to revolt, go for it, because I’m about to impose national martial law, round up all the Muslims, and build the wall to keep you trapped in.”

I’m not being hysterical; I’m being realistic. The day will come. It would be hysterical to suggest that Trump’s recent actions suggest that he’s about to go all Fuhrer on us. I don’t think he is, in fact. But he might–and, if he does, protests won’t work, no matter how vocal they are.

Through the last several years, various protests and demonstrations have demanded the public and government’s attention. Interstates have been shut down, schools have been closed, and people have been killed. Despite these disruptive actions, absolutely nothing has changed, and nothing has been accomplished. Why is this? Because these protests and demonstrations were not undertaken with clearly defined goals. It’s not something that can be compressed into a neat chant of “What do we want?!” “For the First Amendment to be properly abode!”

Unfortunately, the only conceivable “clearly defined goal” in the event of a President Fuhrer, whoever that president is, is full and complete removal of the current administration through force. “Speaking out” simply won’t be enough.

It’s time to draw a line in the sand, and to make it clear that if that line is crossed, we will take up arms and we will revolt and remove the current government. I have no doubt whatsoever that most people in Germany “expressed solidarity” with their Jewish friends and family. I’m sure that many of them told their Jewish friends, “I’ll speak out if they try to do that!”

The stakes will be high; the stakes are high. We must acknowledge that, and we must be ready to act, not with words but with weapons. Is this an anarcho-capitalistic thing to say? I would argue “Yes,” because what we’re discussing is self-defense against a tyrannical government.

If the government imposes a national registry of Muslims, there is only one thing to do.

Take up arms and revolt.

We already know what the next step of that is, and we should not–we must not–allow our government to get anywhere near that next step, because it will already be too late. With the NSA already watching everything–and probably going to be expanded under Trump–and torture probably going to make a public return, with the broad powers at the president’s disposal and his repeated statements and actions against Muslims, a national registry absolutely must not be tolerated. “Registering too” won’t work. Only taking up arms will.

Because the next step along that path is the one at which resistance becomes futile, and that’s especially dangerous given that the United States is the most powerful government in human history. On the world stage, our government far surpasses where Germany was when Hitler began the Holocaust. And stopping Nazi Germany, stopping Hitler, cost millions upon millions of lives while Hitler put people to death by the millions, with his SS rounding up dissenters and ensuring that no one dared speak out. If we reach that point with the American Government, the time for revolution will have already passed, and the only thing we’ll be able to do is wait for the Russians and Chinese to band together and hopefully defeat the Nazi Oceanian Empire.

A national Muslim registry is the last phase of the journey at which armed revolution is still possible.

If that wall goes up, it again becomes impossible. We will need the automatic weapons, drones, SAMs, and other things that will come across the southern border. We’re libertarians! We know that effective arms control requires effective border control! The only way that the UK has kept guns out of its nation is that it is surrounded by ocean, making it impossible to sneak in weapons. We need that southern border open, because if any of what people fear comes to pass, that is the only way we’ll be able to renew munitions. And don’t kid yourself. When push comes to shove, the Canadian government will fall in line immediately behind the United States. Mexico will make a show of doing so–as they’ve done about “controlling emigration.”

These are two things that absolutely must not be allowed under any circumstances. We do not need to be trapped in with a tyrannical government that has an allied government to the north. We will need that escape route for those unwilling or unable to fight, and we will need supplies to resist.

I have no delusion about how all this sounds. Again, I’m not saying any of this is about to happen, or that any of this will be necessary. But if it becomes necessary, we must be ready, and we must be willing to accept the responsibility that will fall to us. The German People were not ready to accept the responsibility that fell onto them.

As the party of liberty, no one else has the moral justification for drawing such a line in the sand.

So draw it.

If the government imposes a national Muslim registry or begins construction of the wall, it means armed revolt.

If the government imposes a national registry of any type or begins construction of a wall that will trap us in, then it means war.

We must be prepared to fight, not speak.


Defending a Previous Post: Sociology isn’t a Hard Science

I read an article earlier about how the claim that the alt-right is a response to SJWism is one that has no evidence to support it, so I wanted to take the time to defend the assertion. However, it must be observed that sociology and the study of culture are not hard sciences, and a demand for confirming evidence of such claims isn’t quite fair. Why?

Because we can’t provide any evidence to back the assertion that the Civil Rights Movement was a response to decades of racial abuse of a white majority against a black minority. “It’s common sense, though!” right? Maybe, but there’s no evidence to support the claim, and there never can be.

We can point to specific events in the lives of Martin Luther King, Jr. and use it as evidence to say, “This example of racial discrimination spurred his action,” but that’s a far cry from being evidence for our generalized statement. Similarly, we can’t provide evidence for the statement that Rosa Parks was a part of the Civil Rights Movement because of systemic racial abuses; we can only provide evidence for the statement that Parks was a part of the Civil Rights Movement because she was not happy with how buses treated black Americans. The generalized statement that she participated because of various abuses cannot be substantiated.

This is, in fact, the essence of sociology, and the reason I titled the article as I did. When discussing the alt-right, we can only point to specific individuals and the reasons those individuals give to gather direct evidence. If we then want to extrapolate from their stated reasons and generalize an underlying current, then that current, by its very nature, cannot be demonstrated and can, by the people from which it was extrapolated, always be denied.

What if MLK Jr. pointed only to specific injustices he had suffered as the reasons for his involvement, and what if Parks, Malcolm X, and others did the same? Anyone who stated that the CRM was a response to widespread abuses would be unable to provide evidence for that claim; only specific events applying to specific people can have evidence. If they denied that they were motivated by general abuses, rather than specific ones, we would be unable to prove otherwise.

So the best we can do is provide indirect evidence for the claim, and even this will be tenuous, as all soft science evidence is. Once more, to summarize, this is because sociology consists entirely of taking individual and specific examples and extrapolating patterns. This involves evaluating numerous alt-rightists and their stated reasons, and combing through those reasons for unifying themes.

This doesn’t mean that we should be ready to accept any sociology claim without scrutiny and substantiating evidence, but it tells us quite a lot about what kind of evidence even can be presented, and what forms the evidence will take. As another example, Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom is filled with allegations and sociological explanations, yet it contains not one piece of hard evidence that a society of people “falling for the promises” of central planners will produce serfdom. By its very nature, all such evidence will be anecdotal.

Sorry for the small image.

Before we continue, it has been stated elsewhere that making this assertion is “waving off” the alt-right. I disagree entirely. Just as explaining a murderer’s motive is not excusing his crime, neither is explaining a political movement’s undercurrent waving it aside. The catalysts that created the alt-right are still there and, clearly, still problems. It serves us well to know how the whole thing came about, and this passes no judgment on the value of what, exactly, came about. I could tell someone that “Bob murdered his wife because she was having an affair” without expressing any disdain over Bob’s actions or motive, and without expressing any sympathy with Bob because of his motives. The statement imparts no approval or disapproval; it is simply a statement of motive.

It’s not hard to hop on over to YouTube and find alt-right people like Mark Dice, Milo Yuanwhateveris, The Non-Believer, Autopsy87, and Atheism is Unstoppable to find out exactly why these people went from “whatever they were” to alt-rightists. Only on very are occasions will they outright state their reasons for switching political ideologies, and this makes sense: I’m not sure that I could state the clear, objective reasons that I migrated from Republican conservatism at 15~ to Democrat to Communist to Libertarian to Anarchist, either. It’s a slow process of gradual change. Nor can I point to any specific moment when I went from “agnostic”–as people say, though it’s a misnomer–to atheist. Most atheists can’t, because we sort of just notice at some point down the line that we no longer believe in any deity. There’s usually no epiphany, and no story to tell. Just a gradual series of small evolutionary changes [pun intended].

My movement from Democrat to Communist, for example, was primarily because of the great Obama Betrayal, who won the Nobel Peace Prize and campaigned on the promise of bringing us peace, only to merrily continue the wars of his predecessor and starting several of his own. Around this same time, I watched Zeitgeist, which does contain some truth [more is the pity–sorry, my close parenthesis key is broken], and happily went on to Zeitgesit: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. The proposed Communist solutions sat well with me and made sense, but something about them didn’t sit right. I can tell you exactly what that “something” was: the assertion that “people don’t care about owning a good; they only care about being able to use a good… No one really cares whether or not they own a boat; they only want the ability to use a boat.” It made this claim as a way of justifying its communal property idea, but it never sat right with me.

It is, as one might say, “utter bullshit.”

It’s almost the exact opposite of what is true. In the majority of cases, people don’t care at all about using the good in question; they just want to own it. Can I provide evidence for this statement? No, because it’s a sociological one–it’s an extrapolation of some people’s identified behavior and an evaluation of the underlying current that unites the various exhibited behaviors. My brother-in-law, for example, owns a boat that he has never used. My landlord has a boat sitting in the yard that no one has used in at least a decade. Four wheelers, backhoes, boats–even my grandmother owns a tractor that she has never, ever used as long as I’ve been alive, and neither has anyone else. I have absolutely no doubt that we can all point to people who clearly just want to be able to say that they own something, and who don’t seem to care about actually using that thing.

Similarly, we could probably point to people, per Zeitgeist‘s claims, who don’t actually care about owning the thing, and who would just like to be able to use it. What are the numbers here? It’s unknown, really. All we can do is take partial surveys, and we can attempt to eliminate as much bias as possible, but in the end we can’t poll all 7 billion people on the planet. At absolute best, we could probably poll 150,000,000, at significant expense, but even then we wouldn’t be able to provide any hard evidence that it was actually scientifically sound to extrapolate from those one hundred fifty million and assume that the same pattern will hold true for seven billion.

I can go to the aforementioned Youtubers’ pages, after all, and carefully identify their stated and unstated reasons for being alt-right, and I could provide direct evidence to support the claims of why these particular people are alt-right. Mark Dice is alt-right because he is a fundamentalist Christian who believes the Satanic Illuminati is conquering the world, and using Satanic Hollywood to push its liberal agenda onto us. I could, in fact, then say that “The alt-right arose because fundamentalist Christians believe that globalism and modern liberalism are the work of Satan.” When pressed for direct evidence of this assertion, I could only point to Mark Dice and maybe a select few other people.

This would be woefully inadequate, though. The sample size is simply too small. Extrapolating from one single person onto an entire political movement is obviously folly, like polling one person prior to the election, having that person say that he thinks Trump will win, and then releasing the report that “Trump will win with 100% of the vote!” It would obviously be folly.

Before going further, I must again point out that we are always dealing with generalizations, and that anyone who would take a generalization and apply it as though the person using it meant it absolutely is using a deceitful and manipulative tactic. I might say “Dogs are good pets,” which is a generalized statement. Someone might say, “I guess you didn’t read about the pit bull that ate six kids. lol. Idiot.” This is a very common tactic, and it’s obviously deceitful, used to make the responder look like the one who is correct by, basically, shouting the loudest. My last article on the alt-right left plenty of room for exceptions, and stated so repeatedly regarding libertarians [though it still led to someone criticizing the statement “most of the libertarians that I know” as incorrect, even though the caveat is right there–“that I know”], but I’m on the record as pointing this out previously: we are never dealing in absolutes.

When we do go to various alt-right Youtubers, we do find a number underlying trends:

Hatred of political correctness and PC culture. I myself have criticized political correctness and the demonization of hate speech on several occasions, but I’m not alt-right. Clearly, this isn’t enough to warrant someone being alt-right.

Acceptance of LGB, but hatred of transgenderism. I’m not sure that there’s actually any acceptance of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals going on; I think instead that they’re simply accepting of LGB conservatives, in the same way that Democrats and outspoken LGBTQ groups are only accepting of LGBTQ liberals. However, even accepting LGB, the alt-right still has major hatred for transgenderism, to the extent that it’s almost a dead giveaway that someone is alt-right.

Criticism of BLM. Again, I have criticized Black Lives Matter as being racist, and it’s a statement that I have demonstrated. By definition, yes, BLM is racist.

Acceptance of police brutality. “The police are good guys. If they shoot you, you must have deserved it.” This ties into the above point, especially when a white person is shot, and they immediately start clamoring, “Where is BLM speaking up for this white kid who was killed?” Conversely, they may use this examples of police brutality against white people to write off the concerns of BLM. The Non-Believer has a video that does this, by showing a lot of police brutality against white people, he attempted to undermine the claims that police use brutality with racist motives by ignoring the brutality and addressing the racist part.

Male/Straight/White Pride. This is the indicator. This is, by a wide margin, the single best identifier of who is alt-right and who isn’t. It’s not universal–I don’t think I’ve ever seen Mark Dice talk of Male Pride, Straight Pride, or White Pride. So let me clarify this point–

They play identity politics, but as white people, straight people, or male people. Mark Dice has done this, repeatedly, by pointing out that Twitter turns a blind eye to racism committed by black people while banning any white person who says something racist. He does an excellent job of documenting such actions, and I’d almost say that Mark Dice isn’t really alt-right but just kinda exists in his own political group. Instead of arguing that the speaker’s skin color shouldn’t be a factor when determining whether they said something race, Dice argues that people with black skin color should be treated the same way. Again, it’s like my MLK point; it may have the same short-term result, but “how we get there” is critically important, as the method dictates the long-term result because it keeps skin color as a factor.

It is hard to provide any direct evidence that the alt-right is a reactionary movement to SJWism, because… it’s just kinda what happened. We all saw it. I’m more shocked that it has to be explained than anything, because… didn’t we all watch it happen, live, in real time? Didn’t we all hear the same complaints raised, the same objections, the same points? Didn’t we all notice the revulsion of Political Correctness with widespread usages of “nigga,” “fag,” and so on? Didn’t we all notice the “Proud White Male” bumper stickers? Not displayed publicly, of course, on vehicles or anything. No, certainly not–in the backgrounds of people’s videos.

How shall I explain that a circle is round?

We all saw the rise of identity politics on the left. Hell, identity politics has altogether conquered the left, to the point that the left has no other argument to make for itself and its positions. All they have left is identity politics; it’s the only card they have left to play. Democrats have stopped trying to argue for their ideology–whatever it once was–and now simply call everyone who isn’t a Democrat homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, or some other kind of phobic. We all watched this happen–live, in real time. I don’t recall seeing anyone try to make an argument for Hillary Clinton in the year-long fiasco that was the 2016 election. All I saw was people saying that if you didn’t vote for Hillary, you couldn’t call yourself an ally. All I saw was people calling other people “race traitors” for not supporting Hillary.

Again, all I can do is point to specific occurrences, and I’ve done so in the past, so I won’t do so again. Infowars brought us the video of a [white, it may be worth mentioning here] Hillary supporter calling a black man a race traitor for supporting Trump. They threw away all pretense of trying to argue for their candidate; instead it was, “We’ll just call everyone else names.” This isn’t uncommon.

We all saw it, right? No, it wasn’t universal and unanimous, but, generally, it was definitely true. And this is just the worst; it has been going on for a very long time. It was predicted, in fact, that there would rise a white, male, straight, Christian identity group to combat the left’s identity groups. I made the prediction in 2012 as I Over E, though that site has long been gone. Anyone watching should have been able to figure it out; it was right there, as plain as day. Why would people expect anything else to happen?

It is the same underlying trend that caused me to predict Trump’s victory as early as December 2015, and the same underlying trend that caused me to predict an upcoming civil war. I’m sorry to say, but it’s all right there, plain as day for anyone to look. There’s no hard evidence, no, because it’s impossible to provide hard evidence for generalized statements that were extrapolated from specific instances. Such is the nature of sociology. The writing is on the wall; one either sees it, or one doesn’t.

Gary Johnson Sounds Like a Pot-Smoking Republican

So I watched Gary Johnson’s livestream from Sacramento on Facebook, and I went into it hoping that I could be persuaded to support Gary Johnson. I hope on an almost constant basis that I can have it shown to me that my issues with Johnson have been blown way out of proportion and that he isn’t really as bad as I think he is. Three days until the election seemed the perfect time to give him one last chance. I just want you to understand the context, because I did want to be convinced. Of course I want to be convinced. The Libertarian Party is practically in love with Gary Johnson–still–and I sincerely doubt that he’ll be going anywhere, and suspect we’ll be dealing with him again in 2020. It would certainly be great if I could at least tolerate this guy.

Of the speakers, Brando Eaton nailed it. He spoke of libertarianism, and it was wonderful. He spoke of the positivity, about how we should all be free to be ourselves, and how we should never hide who we are. I wholeheartedly agree. Brando stated that he is new to libertarianism, and I suspect that, as he explores it further, he will look back on this day and regret that he favored Johnson.

Listening to Gary Johnson speak makes it clear that he is not a great orator. This isn’t inherently a problem; not every politician is going to be a Martin Luther King, Jr. or a Barack Obama. Johnson trips over himself a lot, fumbles around a lot, and hearing him prepare to launch into why our country isn’t a democracy was absolutely painful. He fuddled around for a few seconds, trying to collect his thoughts, and something became very, very clear–inescapably clear.

Gary Johnson sounds like a pot-head. Worse, he sounds like someone who has smoked way too much weed in his life.

I know this is going to make marijuana advocates angry. Look, I’m against the drug war. I think it’s cute that you want to legalize marijuana, but I think you’re fundamentally missing the problem. That marijuana is outlawed is a symptom of the illness, not the illness itself. If you legalize marijuana, you are basically giving someone cough syrup to treat the coughing that is caused by their lung cancer, while ignoring the lung cancer. You could make the argument that before we treat the lung cancer we have to get the coughing under control, but I would point out that if we treat the lung cancer we will, by extension, get the coughing under control.

The drug war is the problem. Given how ubiquitous marijuana is–yes, it will help a lot of people to legalize it and to release non-violent offenders. But cocaine remains illegal. MDMA–one of the best things ever synthesized–remains illegal. We’re still picking and choosing our substances, forcing our morality and standards onto others, and telling people what they can and can’t do. And, again, you could say that repealing prohibition against marijuana is the first step on the road to legalizing all drugs, but I would reply that…

You’re full of shit to make that argument.

No one has made any moves whatsoever to even discuss the eventual legalization of all drugs. Even if we totally and completely legalize marijuana, it will do nothing to end the drug war. Why do I say that? Well, look around. Alcohol has been legalized, and the drug war persists. Taking one drug or another out of the drug war will not end the drug war. Allowing people to drink alcohol has done nothing to help the legalization of marijuana, to further the legalization of heroin and foxy, to pave the way to the eventual legalization of methamphetamine. Taking one drug off the list will do nothing to eliminate the list.

It was dismaying to hear Johnson speak about the legalization of marijuana and to hear the crowd’s loudest roar of the evening. I don’t mean to be harsh here, but… Who cares? If you’re over 25 and you’re still smoking weed regularly, then you need to re-evaluate your life. Look, man, I’ve been there. As I said, I consider MDMA to be the greatest of mankind’s achievements. I’m not exaggerating when I say that. From 18 to 21 or 22, I did a lot of drugs and smoked a lot of weed, though I always avoided blow, crack, meth, and heroin.

But there comes a point when it’s time to put the bong down.

So let’s make this clear–inescapably clear. Being for the legalization of marijuana is not the same thing as being against the drug war. Ron Paul was against the drug war. He stood on a Republican stage and advocated the legalization of heroin in New Hampshire, and he explained that we don’t need the government telling us not to do drugs. This is not in any sense what Gary is doing, or what Gary intends to do. Gary wants to legalize marijuana, not end the drug war.

And this is why people accuse us of being pro-gay, pot-smoking Republicans. It’s what Gary Johnson sounds like.

Then he said that he wanted to end Washington gridlock. What? He may be the first Libertarian I’ve ever heard who wanted Congress to be effective. He wants the government to get stuff done. Again–what? This is directly at odds with the whole of libertarianism. Dude, we want the government to be gridlocked, because that means they aren’t screwing everything up.

He described the election as a 6-lane highway, with Clinton on one side and Trump on the other, and then added that the Johnson/Weld ticket is a middle path. And he’s not wrong. The Johnson/Weld ticket is a middle path. It is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It does take the small government ideas of the Republicans and put them with the socially liberal ideas of the Democrats. However, if the Republicans actually kept to their small government ideas, then they would also be socially liberal, because “small government ideas” mean they wouldn’t be using big government to force their morality onto others.

See why it’s pot-smoking Republicanism?

I have said in the past that Libertarianism is what would happen if Republicans actually practiced what they preach, and that is more true than ever. If you’re for a small government, then you’re automatically against using big government to force your morality onto people. Republicans, of course, are viewed in the eyes of the masses as for small government. We know this isn’t the case, and that they only want small government when it protects their morality, but most people don’t see it that way. Most people think “Small Government = Republicans.” And it’s true… If Republicans actually believed in small government, then they would be against using the government to force Christian morality onto everyone.

So… How is Gary different from a pot-smoking Republican?

There have been plenty of Republicans who have spread the message of small government, and even many who wanted smaller government than Johnson. I would suggest that Cruz’s government would probably be smaller than Gary Johnson’s, and I know that Castle’s would be–though Castle is a Constitutionalist.

I lost interest when Johnson’s daughter began talking about how hard her father worked. It was depressing. Why weren’t we talking about the stuff that Brando talked about? That is the message of liberty! That is the message that resonates with people. Ron Paul proved that. Instead, we got to hear what was almost certainly a lie about how they wake up at three in the morning and don’t stop until midnight.

Why isn’t the Libertarian Presidential candidate talking about how he dreams of a world where I am free to be me, where you are free to be you, and where no matter what you think of me, no matter what I think of you, we leave each other the hell alone if we don’t want to be friends. I dream of a world where we stop shouting at each other, where we agree to live and let live, where we accept that “I’m not hurting anyone. You’re not hurting anyone.” is all that matters.

That is the essence of libertarianism. You be you and do your thing. I’ll be me and do my thing. If our things overlap, great–let’s work together and build something positive. If they don’t, hey, no biggie, we can agree to disagree, which in itself is a positive thing. I don’t care if you’re a hard worker. I don’t care if you’re lazy. I don’t care if you smoke weed. I don’t care if you are gay. I don’t care if you are trans. I don’t care if you’re straight. I don’t care if you’re white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or anything else.

That’s what freedom is. It’s not about how hard of a worker our nominee is, or how hard he campaigns. It’s about whether or not he wants to stand up and tell everyone, “Hey! Start minding your own business, and leave everyone else alone.” If that is not the Libertarian candidate’s primary message, then something has gone very, very wrong.

Why isn’t that our message? Why is “Trump and Hillary are really bad, aren’t they?” our message?

We have such a powerful, positive, and beautiful message to share–one of freedom, of people laughing and smiling and getting alone, of people leaving each other alone, of liberty, of friendship and cooperation–and our presidential candidate is not saying a word about it. And even when our Vice Presidential candidate isn’t bending over backward to lick Hillary’s butt, he isn’t saying anything about this spectacular message.

Can’t we all just get along?

Yes. Yes, we can. The reason that we can’t is that we have this gigantic state that pits us against one another and gives other people a way to force their standards, views, and opinions onto us. This pisses us off, so we attempt to take the initiative and force our standard, views, and opinions onto them before they can do it to us. We don’t have to do it. The other people are not bad guys. They are not evil tyrants-in-waiting. They are not itching to destroy your freedom or to tyrannize over you. Just leave them be, and they’ll leave you be.

Then we can all relax, be ourselves, and freaking live.

Why isn’t this our candidate’s message?

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!”


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.





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.