Tag Archive | Muslim

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.

 

Liberals, This is Why You Lost

In the wake of a Trump victory that left virtually everyone except myself and Thomas Knapp totally surprised, I get to spend the next few months drinking the tears of liberals and, especially, Sanders supporters. Sanders supporters have such delicious tears. The only thing more exquisite than the tears of Sanders supporters right now are the tears of Johnson supporters who seem, for some odd reason, incapable of learning anything from the ass-whooping they got last night.

what

WHAT?!

I watched CNN bend over backward to avoid calling the state of Pennsylvania, even though Trump had a lead of 70,000 votes and 99% of precincts had reported in. After doing the math, it seemed that the remaining 1% would likely contribute around 20,000 votes to the totals, and that even if all of them went to Hillary Trump would still be ahead. They also neglected to call Michigan. When they finally called Minnesota, I went to bed. Something happened last night, though, that was tremendously fascinating.

Do not EVER forget that the media gave Hillary an 85% chance of winning yesterday.

Do not forget that, do not let it slide, and do not forget to factor it into your considerations moving forward.

From the start, from the moment Trump announced his campaign, the media has refused to take him seriously. First, there was “no way” he would be a serious contender. Then there was “no way” he could win the GOP Primary. Then there was “no way” he could beat Hillary. Over and over again, for a year and a half, all we’ve heard is that there is “no way” Trump can win.

Then he won.

In my tiny little circle, I blasted Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight for being on the wrong side of the data. It was disgraceful to watch. He began with virtual certainty that Trump wouldn’t win, and every single day he changed his number slightly. He didn’t see Trump winning until Cruz dropped out, and much of the media joined him. Virtually the entire media apparatus arrayed against Trump, twisting his words, taking him out of context, and lying outright about him. Trump saying that women let him do things has been routinely called “sexual assault,” to the point that a lot of liberals seem to no longer understand that if a woman lets a man do something, then it is not sexual assault.

This was how liberals reacted every time Trump opened his mouth:

This election was a thorough and complete repudiation of political correctness, censorship, thoughtcrime, safe spaces, emotions over free speech, and the astounding liberal arrogance that conservatives have been dealing with for decades. At each step of the way, liberals and the media only became more and more arrogant, until finally Trump’s supporters were “largely uneducated whites…” “largely uneducated whites…” “whites without college degrees…”

Well, I’ve got news for you, liberals.

There are not that many white people without college degrees to give Trump a victory.

But will you change your tune?

No. A CNN correspondent only doubled down last night, pulling the equivalent of this:

Yes, this is PRECISELY why liberals lost.

Yes, this is PRECISELY why liberals lost.

Why Did Hillary Lose?

She didn’t. Trump won.

We need this to be very, very clear. It does not matter one bit how many people disliked Hillary. It did not matter at all how many scandals she had, or how overblown they were. Hillary did not lose these states because she lacked enough votes; Trump won these states because he had more votes. There is a subtle, but extremely important, difference. Trump won because people voted for him. Period. End of story, end of discussion. That is solely the reason that Trump won. Absolutely nothing else could have allowed Trump to win. Once more, Trump won because people voted for Trump.

Why Did People Vote For Trump?

That is the important question, and the answer is not going to be one that liberals like to hear.

People voted for Trump because they’re tired of having women call them misogynists if they don’t bow and lick the toes of women. People voted for Trump because they’re tired of being called homophobic because they are straight and choose not to associate with LGBT people. People voted for Trump because they’re tired of being called racist because they want to control immigration. People voted for Trump because they’re tired of being called Islamophobic because they noticed a not-hard-to-see correlation between Islam and terrorism. People voted for Trump because they’re tired of hearing about Black Lives Matter in a nation where more than 50% of people killed by police are white. On this last one, I will keep it brief and say only this.

95% of people killed by police are men. Does this mean that police are inherently sexist? Does this mean that we need a Female Lives Matter movement? Does this mean we need a Male Lives Matter movement, to change it so that only 50% of people killed by police are men? Because it’s true–95% of people killed by police are men, and men make up only 50% of the population. Yet we know without even thinking about it that a Male Lives Matter movement would be absurd, that it’s a matter of record that men are more likely to commit violent crimes than women.

We had a presidential candidate call 25% of the population “a basket of deplorables,” no doubt alluding to their being racist, misogynistic, and homophobic. Can you even imagine the fallout if Trump said that black people–who comprise about 13% of the population–are deplorable? Just think about that for a moment. What would happen if Trump said that? There is zero chance he would have won. And no, he didn’t “pretty much say that anyway.” Trump has never said anything that came close to being so overtly bigoted. Yet Hillary said it, and liberals mostly just shrugged. “Yeah, they are,” said the arrogant liberals, sneering down their noses at the conservatives who dared have different values.

They’re uneducated.

They don’t live in our big cities where they can be educated and properly indoctrinated.

They’re racist, even though most of them live in states where they co-exist alongside higher percentages of minority communities than most liberals even understand.

They’re homophobic because they’re icky Christians.

They think abortion is murder.

Ew.

They’re so backward.

They’re so ignorant.

Why?

Why would you consistently say this about such a large portion of the population? Why? There’s only one reason, as Trae Crowder said in his video:

This is our world now, and you’re not getting it back.

You didn’t listen.

You were sure. You were convinced that this is your world now, and that conservatives couldn’t take it back. You were convinced of your own righteousness. “We are on the side of justice! Of Equality! Of compassion! We are right, by God! We are objectively, certainly, absolutely right! They must be forced to go along with us! They cannot be allowed to believe what they want!”

Don’t believe me?

not aloneHere is a liberal proudly saying that he is totally okay with forcing conservatives to go along with liberal values, whether they like it or not. If you want to see my long history of combating this tyrannical mindset, then click the “faux progressivism” tag at the bottom.

These are the reasons I said that Trump would win, and I outlined them over the course of the last year.

You didn’t listen.

You told me I was wrong.

You divided the country into Us and Them and then accused Them of being divisive.

https://www.quora.com/Will-there-be-a-civil-war-if-Trump-doesnt-become-president/answer/Aria-DiMezzo?srid=QLHv

https://www.quora.com/What-in-your-opinion-contributed-to-2016-candidates-assuming-you-and-Trump-running-having-highest-unfavorable-ratings-in-recent-history/answer/Aria-DiMezzo?srid=QLHv

You have been ridiculing, mocking, and deriding conservatives for the better part of two decades, calling whites, Christians, and men backward, racist, homophobic, hateful, spiteful, power-hungry, oppressive, xenophobic, sexist, misogynistic.

Because you thought you could get away with it.

You thought they couldn’t get the numbers together.

Everyone knows the demographics.

Everyone knows that white people won’t be a majority much longer. Everyone knows there are more women than men. Everyone knows Christianity is on its way out, at least as a factor in political policy. Everyone knows that LGBT acceptance is on the way. Everyone knows that a person of any color can do anything–literally become the President of the United States. Everyone knows that none of these trends are going to reverse.

You thought it was your world and that conservatives couldn’t take it back. You thought you could oppress them all you wanted and that they couldn’t fight back. You thought you had won. You looked at the numbers and celebrated:

With our coalition of women, black people, Hispanics, LGBT people, and Muslims, we far outnumber the straight, white, Christian men! They’ll never win another election! Mwa ha ha! We can do anything we want! Fuck them!

This is, of course, why it was so critical that you attempt to brow-beat everyone in one of those groups into voting for you. You need that coalition, because you know that none of those groups are enough alone. So you lied. You cheated. You spit on everyone. You demanded total obedience. You turned people into heretics if they dared not toe the party line. If anyone dared speak out, you destroyed them. I stopped being an individual; I was an LGBT person to you, and that meant I was a Democrat and would vote for Hillary. You need that, because if we dare identify as individuals instead of these miscellaneous characteristics that do not define us, your coalition of people based on those meaningless characteristics falls apart.

It’s why you need sexual orientation to matter. No matter how much you say that sexual orientation shouldn’t matter, you need it to matter. If it doesn’t matter whether or not someone is LGBT, then they won’t be part of this group that identifies as LGBT. And if they’re not part of that group, then you’re not going to be able to brow-beat them into giving you their vote. You need LGBT people to unite into a group, because you need to claim their votes, and for this you need sexual orientation to matter–if it doesn’t matter, then they would LGBT people untie into a group? They wouldn’t, just like there’s no Magic: The Gathering Fanclub voting bloc, because being a MTG fan isn’t a place where the lines have been drawn. So you need all of these lines. It’s why you say shit like the people above. You need the lines drawn, and you need to twist everyone’s arm until they bow to your demands.

Don’t believe me?14457545_322724114752962_5394598635458317730_n

How many posts have you seen that says anyone who doesn’t vote for Hillary is voting for white privilege? I’ve seen people say that voting 3rd party means you’re a privileged asshole.

Yes. I’m a broke transgender atheist living in Mississippi born to a family of murderers and drug addicts. Tell me more about how privileged I am.

These are the reasons you lost, liberals.

Your arrogance.

Your sheer, unbridled arrogance.

Surely you see how arrogant you are, and how arrogant the media is. If not, here’s this to help: https://anarchistshemale.com/2016/10/01/liberal-monoliths-manifest-destinyy-v2-0/

The media doesn’t get it.

Last night, CNN’s pundits said that Trump supporters adopted the moniker of “deplorable” and called themselves “proud deplorables” because of “how ridiculous” it was.

No, you arrogant fool.

They did it because of how arrogant it was.

It’s rather like when dumbass statists call me an idiot. Being called an idiot by someone who is stupid is, for me, a compliment of the highest order. I’d be more alarmed if such people thought I was smart. This is how the Trump supporters felt. They’d be more alarmed if Hillary and liberals didn’t think they were deplorable.

“They’re deplorable” makes a clear Us and Them divide. “They” are deplorable. Obviously, this is a divisive statement, then.

This put Trump supporters on one side and Hillary and her supporters on another. It’s like the Nazis saying that the United States is deplorable. Like, “Oh, really? Well, good! I want you to think I’m deplorable, because you’re a disgusting maggot. The last thing I want is for you to like me.”

And the media and liberals simply don’t get it.

They don’t seem to be able to understand that their shit really does stink.

They firebomb Republican offices, attack free speech, demand segregated housing, shut down interstates, attack Trump supporters physically, and mock them–sexists, misogynists, homophobes, islamophobes, racists… They attack, attack, attack.

And they’re so convinced of their own self-righteousness that they are incapable of seeing how fucked up they are being.

But they are being fucked up.

Liberals, you are being fucked up. And your arrogance, your conviction that you are on the side of righteousness and justice as you commit horrific acts, as you sneer condescendingly down your nose at all the “racist, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic misogynistic deplorables” is precisely the reason you lost.

This election, you lost the House of Representative, the Senate, and the Presidency.

And what have you done?

You have doubled down on your arrogance!

Yes, this is PRECISELY why liberals lost.

Yes, this is PRECISELY why liberals lost.

Instead of saying “You know what? This is our fault for being arrogant, condescending, insulting, and vicious toward a YUUUUUGE section of the population. We need to stop being hateful, vicious, spiteful bigots because these people dare have different values than we do. We need to step down off our high horses, because we just got our asses handed to us across the board,” you instead crank the arrogant, condescending vitriol up a notch. Look at this terrible shit!

“Fuck you, white America. Fuck you, you racist, misogynist pieces of shit.”

Jesus Christ!

You racist, sexist bitch.

You cannot end racism with racism.

You cannot end sexism with sexism.

You cannot end orientationism with orientationism.

You cannot end divisiveness with divisiveness.

Middle America has had enough of the arrogantly divisive bullshit. Clearly. They spoke loudly and clearly last night.

Liberals, last night America spoke.

It’s time for you to shut the fuck up and listen.

By the way, no, Laci. That is most certainly not “textbook Fascism.” Please learn what fascism is before you use the word.

Scan the QR Code

The LGBT-Muslim Marriage in America

One of the most bizarre aspects of American liberalism is the alliance that exists between the LGBT community and Muslim communities, despite tremendous amounts of hostility that project from the Muslim community directly at LGBT people. This isn’t to say that Islam is the problem or that Muslims are the problem–we shouldn’t even be thinking in such limited terms–but one is a fool to reject the visible correlation between homophobia throughout the world and Islam, or between terrorism and Islam. Whether we want to admit it or not, these correlations exist, and they’re not going to change simply because we refuse to acknowledge them.

I realize that liberals have already called me “Islamophobic” and stopped reading, and may even have left a nasty comment about what a bigot I am. We have to let such people go. They are lost to us, and their minds are trapped in a duality from which they cannot escape. In the world, you must either love Islam or hate Islam, so there is no room for them to even understand someone who has no feelings toward Islam one way or another.

Earlier this year I watched in absolute dismay as a Muslim terrorist swore allegiance to a Muslim terrorist group while shouting the praises of his religion as he killed 49 people in a club in Orlando. It is what prompted me to do my first “on camera” video on Youtube, a personal plea to the LGBT community to stop denying the simple fact that Mateen’s act was an act of Islamic terrorism. Instead of accepting that it was both homophobia and terrorism, they denied that it could possibly have been terrorism, instead shifting the blame onto Christians of all people. I could not begin to guess how many “Christians are the ones who started homophobia!!!1!!11one!!” posts on Twitter and Facebook I saw.

That’s right. Following an attack where a Muslim terrorist shot and killed 49 people in an LGBT club, people were jumping up and down to blame Christians for it.

It was absolutely disgraceful, and my plea was simple: for the first time in my life, there was the opportunity for the gap between conservatives and LGBT people to be closed. “You may be gay, but you’re an American first, damnit!” conservatives and Christians were saying. “They didn’t attack you–they attacked Americans, and we’re going to stand together through this! It doesn’t matter that you’re LGBT, because you’re Americans first and foremost–you are one of us.”

And petulantly–yes, petulantly–the LGBT community shouted back, “No, it matters that we’re LGBT! You weren’t attacked! Americans weren’t attacked! We were attacked, not you! Because we’re LGBT, not because we’re Americans! So fuck you!”

And then… poof. The opportunity was gone. The greatest opportunity for reconciliation that I have ever seen, vanished in the blink of an eye as liberals and LGBT people bent over backwards to avoid saying what needed to be said:

Muslims have no love for LGBT people.

In fact, the numbers are rather clear that most Muslims support the idea of sharia law. This is less true of those that I’m going to call Westernized Muslims, and this is the heart of the matter and the thing that needs to be discussed openly and honestly. Most of the world’s Muslims support sharia law because most of the world’s Muslims don’t recognize the value of the separation of church and state. They aren’t Western.

They didn’t grow up in the west, where the separation of church and state is taken as a given. In their zeal to make excuses for the state of Islam throughout the world, liberals remind us that Christianity was once every bit as bad. Yes, once it was. This led to the foundation of the United States of America and the systemic peeling back of the church in European countries who, yes, learned from the American model.

We take the separation of church and state as a given and give no thought to it. In the Middle East, they take the marriage of church and state as a given and give no thought to it. There’s no separation of church and state in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Iran, and the people of these countries reject the idea that there should be. To them, their religion is law and the law is their religion. Separation of church and state is more than just “the church can’t tell the government what laws to enact.” It is the foundational idea that the church and state are separate entities.

More than 62% of the world’s Muslim population resides in this region we call the Middle East.

These are the facts, sir and ma’am. You cannot simply call me Islamophobic or say that I’m fear-mongering, because these are the facts. They will not change because you refuse to look at them.

Separation of church and state simply does not exist in the Middle East.

Yet there are countless Muslims who do value the separation of church and state. The people that I buy gas from several times a week undoubtedly recognize the value of this separation, and would never support bringing Sharia Law to the United States. Why would they? Our entire system is built from that separation, and reuniting the two disparate entities would harm their own interests by placing them in a country that was then on the path to becoming a Christian theocracy, even if the minority of Muslims did somehow miraculously manage to impose Sharia Law for a while.

This is the crux of the matter, the one great truth that liberals dare not speak or even admit to themselves: there is a world of difference between a Westernized Muslim and a Middle Eastern one. This isn’t universal by any means. Surely, there are Middle Eastern Muslims who value the separation of church and state, who campaign for women’s rights and LGBT rights. So, too, are there surely Westernized Muslims who do want Islamic law to become state law. We are adults, though, and we don’t have to operate on the extreme ends of the spectrum, where everything is Either/Or, and where false dichotomies rule the mind.

Still, though, there is a consequential difference between the Westernized Muslim and the Middle Eastern Muslim, and it is largely a difference we would expect to find: for the most part, these westernized Muslims have assimilated our values, and chief among those values is a love for the separation of church and state. The average American couldn’t tell you why they love this separation, but they’ll tell you if you ask that they do love it. Even when their religion is the one with the majority, they value the separation, and still can’t tell you why.

To what we’re calling the Middle Eastern Muslim, all of this is heresy and anti-Islam. Surely we can understand this? There are many Christians here in the south who think that the separation of church and state, as expressed through having administrator-led prayers in schools banned, represents a direct assault on their Christian values. While few actually campaign to put such prayers back in school, they do harbor resent and do come from a place that views it as anti-Christian.

One of the great No-No’s of the Muslim faith is homosexuality. This shouldn’t surprise us, because it’s one of the great No-No’s of the Christian faith, too. And it is here that another example of liberal hypocrisy is shown for the world to see:

Liberals cheer that Canada has refused to allow members of the Westboro Baptist Church into their country because, based on the numbers, they are more than likely to be homophobic. Yet liberals react with anger vitriol when Trump proposes refusing to allow Muslims into our country because, based on the numbers, they are more than likely to support Sharia Law. As I’ve said before, I will support Canada’s decision when they show me even one example of a member of the Westboro Baptist Church killing 49 LGBT people.

So they’re okay with rejecting Christians because of their faith.

But here we have a group of people who come from a region where they are extremely unlikely to value the separation of church and state, are extremely likely to support Sharia Law, and are extremely likely to hate LGBT people, and liberals are totally fine with it. It’s madness.

Here is a man in Lebanon being sentenced to death because he wore drag.

There are, in fact, ten countries where being gay is punishable with death:

  • Yemen
  • Iran
  • Nigeria
  • Qatar
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Afghanistan
  • Sudan
  • United Arab Emirates
  • Somalia
  • Mauritania
  • …and, apparently, Lebanon can be added to that list.

I’ll give you one guess what the majority religion is in every single one of these countries–even Nigeria, though Nigeria does have a higher Christian population and may be more even with the Muslim population these days.

But that’s a moot point, isn’t it?

The people in Nigeria will continue prescribing the death penalty for homosexuality even if the population is 99% Christian. They are, of course, still burning people for witchcraft in Nigeria, and that is almost certainly the fault of Christian missionaries. And this is precisely my point:

Islam isn’t the problem. It’s not Islamophobia that compels this.

The problem is that countries in the Middle East and some parts of Africa have allowed religion to run unbridled, and they never separated it from the state. This is most easily visible when we look at the percentage of Muslims throughout the world who support Sharia Law–religious law, as it were. Whatever we want to say about the matter, the truth is relatively simple:

The Middle East hasn’t gone through what the western world did. This isn’t to say we’re more evolved or more advanced; it’s simply a statement of fact. We went through a bunch of shit, our Crusades, our Inquisitions, our witch hunts, and we eventually put that shit aside (unless you’re a clown these days). We went through torture, murder, war, and widespread immorality before we separated church and state, and we’re still working on doing it.

Oh, we’re far from perfect. Our anti-sodomy laws, which were 100% based on religion, are only a decade out from being repealed by supreme courts. We still love the notion of using the state to force our morality onto other people. We simply don’t use religion as the basis for doing that any more, and we have put some restrictions on what morality we can force onto other people.

Still, these are just the reasons for the current state of affairs. The current state of affairs is that there is a bizarre marriage between Muslims and the LGBT community, and it’s a relationship that the LGBT community needs to end. Christians are far more likely to become your ally than Muslims are, and Christians even attempted to do exactly that after the shooting in Orlando. You rejected them and blamed them for something that a Muslim did.

Most of the world’s Christians reside in the west, too, and most people in the west don’t give a shit about your sexual orientation. So if we’re going to go on averages and likelihoods, then it’s indisputable that Christians should be the ones you’re allying with, not Muslims. When was the last time a Christian stoned someone to death for homosexuality? Oh, sure, it’s in the Bible.

I’ve talked about this before–the LGBT community doesn’t seem to have any appreciation for how incredibly far Christians have come. Their holy book explicitly tells them to kill us, to punish us, and to stone us to death. They’re not doing that. Even the most extreme ones aren’t doing that! They’re protesting funerals and weddings, and we can discuss whether they are right to do that–though they obviously have the right to, this doesn’t mean that it is the right thing to do. They’re not taking over the government and assigning the death penalty to anyone who is caught being gay! In fact, I doubt you’d find very many Christians who would support such a horrific idea.

It’s not Christians who I fear, as a transgender resident of Mississippi surrounded by fundamentalist southern baptists. Most of them will leave me the hell alone. It’s rednecks that I fear, most of whom do happen to be Christian. I fear them because I know how easy it is for people to get swept up into a frenzy that they don’t want to take part in–I’ve been watching people do it for years, against Christians, against Muslims, against clowns. And invariably they find that the ball is impossible to stop rolling once it has sufficient momentum. But that they’re Christians is largely coincidental.

Just as it’s largely coincidental that the Middle Eastern Muslims are Muslims.

One thing is certain, though. If you’re calling them your allies when 62% of their population would cheer and throw stones at you until you were murdered, then you are an absolute fool.

 

Gary Johnson Has Made Us All Heretics

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I strongly dislike Gary Johnson and strongly disapprove of the “Libertarian” Party’s choice to nominate him (again) for President, just as I strongly disapprove of the direction that the libertarian party has taken in recent years. It is increasingly the party of classical liberals and liberty-leaning Republicans, and I know a lot of “libertarians” who support Rand Paul and wanted him to be Gary Johnson’s Vice President.

bill weld

I mean… What do you even say? What do you even say to people who claim to be libertarians without knowing the first thing about libertarianism?

Libertarianism: What is it?

Libertarianism is the political ideology that liberty is the best method of solving almost all problems, and that force, violence, and coercion are only acceptable to defend liberty and as a response to force, violence, and coercion. Force, violence, and coercion are the only way that rights can be violated; in fact, force, violence, and coercion instantly and by definition violate the rights of the person who is a victim of force, violence, and coercion. Libertarianism is the ideology that the state should exist only to protect liberty, and should only use force, violence, and coercion to protect liberty. I go one step further and am an anarchist, because I don’t believe that the state can protect liberty, and I hold that its very existence is counter to liberty. Anarchism aside, there is no ambiguity in this platform, and a libertarian’s position on any given matter should be easy to guess.

Does the issue utilize force, violence, and/or coercion?

If yes, then the libertarian rejects it. If no, then the libertarian doesn’t give a shit about it.

It’s really that simple.

There’s no room for disagreement on this matter or that issue, because force, violence, and coercion (collectively: aggression) can always be demonstrated, and must always be rejected. In fact, to even join the Libertarian Party, one is required to sign what is basically the Non-Aggression Pact:

I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.

Recent years have seen an influx of disaffected Republicans and liberty-leaning conservatives who do not understand that the Libertarian Party is built from principles, not ideas, and there is a difference. The Republican Party is a party of ideas, a party where issues and solutions can be discussed, suggested, picked apart, accepted, and rejected. The Democrat Party is a party of ideas, where issues and solutions can be discussed, suggested, picked apart, accepted, and rejected. But the Libertarian Party is a party of principles, and those principles are set in stone. They are not up for discussion, and they cannot be put up for discussion without violating the very core of the libertarian party: that force, violence, and coercion are not acceptable.

Take the question of marijuana, for example. Should it be illegal, should it be legal? Some people within the Libertarian Party would discuss this and have a debate about it, and that’s nonsense, because the question has already failed at the first hurdle. Does possession or usage of marijuana entail force, violence, and coercion? No. Everything else is completely irrelevant, and the government has no right to weigh in on the subject. Prostitution is another area that “libertarians” are debating. Should it be legal? Should it be illegal? Should it be legal, but regulated? Again, this is a discussion that is not warranted under libertarian principles, as prostitution (when taken out of the black market, obviously) does not involve force, violence, or coercion, and the state therefore has no right to weigh in on it.

Gary Johnson is against the notion of religious freedom and wholly rejects the idea that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds. Gary Johnson fails to realize that saying “I don’t want to do business with you or people like you” in no way, shape, or form involves aggression, and thus the government has no right to weigh in on the matter. This is just one of many areas where Gary Johnson abides libertarian principles until they’re no longer convenient and easy, at which point he rejects them in favor of his own ideas. Because he thinks discrimination is really, really, really wrong, he is okay with the government legislating against it, even though it involves no violation of anyone’s rights, and thus he has his own morality that guides him in deciding when to apply libertarian principles and when not to.

In effect, Gary Johnson wants to legislate his morality. Unless he doesn’t care about the behavior, in which case, “No, he’s a libertarian.” But if he dislikes the behavior, then he’s every bit as authoritarian as the people who banned sodomy.

Johnson’s pledge would be:

I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals… as long as the goal isn’t “to end discrimination.”

Ron Paul

I have to blame Ron Paul for all the “new” libertarians who don’t know the first thing about libertarianism, though that isn’t Ron Paul’s fault. These people were brought into the folds of liberty by Ron Paul (as was I), but they stopped with Ron Paul and assumed that he was Mr. Libertarian. They may not have ever even read any of Ron’s books. They certainly never read Mises, Rothbard, Nock, or Hayek. Their understanding of libertarianism comes from Ron Paul, and so that’s what they think a libertarian is.

Ron himself would tell you that he’s a classical liberal, though, and he explicitly wrote that in Liberty Defined. There’s a reason that Ron Paul only ran for President as a Libertarian once, and that was nearly three decades ago. I’m not knocking the guy–no one loves Ron Paul as much as I do. He was the guy who introduced me to liberty, after all. I’d also vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat, even though I disagree with him on a few things just as much as I agree with Johnson. There are more areas where I disagree with Johnson, and…

That should be a pretty big indicator of how bad Gary Johnson is. Republican Ron Paul is more libertarian than the current Libertarian Party Presidential candidate. Worse still, Gary Johnson is only marginally more of a libertarian than Rand Paul. Rand Paul. The guy who slightly leans toward liberty but is otherwise a Republican to the core. Does anyone out there really think that Rand Paul is a libertarian? Does anyone out there who knows what libertarianism is really think that Rand Paul is a libertarian?

I just answered my own question, didn’t I?

The more people understand liberty and libertarianism, the more glaringly obvious it is that neither Rand Paul nor Gary Johnson deserve the label. Ron Paul deserves the label far more than either of these two, and Ron Paul refused to accept the label. Granted, he has become more libertarian since his retirement, and he has always been a champion of liberty and libertarianism. The same cannot be said of Johnson and Rand.

But Johnson is Bringing In New People!

Yeah, and I addressed that in my podcast.

The problem is that these “new people” brought in by Johnson who think that libertarian means “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” not only outnumber us (obviously) but also pick the presidential nominee. Do you see the problem? Johnson brings in people like him who have no idea what a libertarian even is, and they nominate more people like Johnson. When people like me point out that there’s nothing libertarian about any of these people, we’re told to shut up, that we don’t know what we’re talking about, that we just don’t want the party to be successful, that we need to fall in line, and that they are what a “true libertarian” looks like, while we’re just spiteful.

Johnson literally stole the Libertarian Party right out from under us, and these endorsements he is getting by big-name Republicans is not going to help matters, and neither is the influx of more disaffected Republicans who hate Donald Trump. I think it’s great that the party is growing. But as it grows, the education must also grow, or the LP will just become the GOP. It’s already happening, after all. Look at our presidential nominee and the endorsements he is getting. With libertarian principles slain on the altar of mass appeal, what, exactly, distinguishes the Libertarian Party from a party of unhappy liberty-leaning Republicans?

Nothing.

These people must be made to understand that they have no idea what they’re talking about, and that Gary Johnson is not Mr. Libertarian. They don’t have time to read Anatomy of the State, End the Fed, Human Action, The Road to Serfdom, On Intellectual Property, and whatever else? Fine. That means it’s our job to educate them. And I don’t think any of us mind that.

The problem is that they aren’t willing to listen, because they think they know what libertarian means, and it means “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.” They think it means “Basically like Ron Paul” and “Basically like Gary Johnson” and our bemused head-shaking does nothing to reach them.

So what, in a sentence, is my issue with Gary Johnson?

Gary Johnson has made me a heretic to my own party.

And let’s not even get into the fact that he claims to be a champion of the Fourth Amendment, and wants to let in Syrian refugees–except that he wants to spy on them and monitor them based on their religious beliefs and their nation of origin, even though he has no probable cause or justification or warrant! How can this guy claim to be a defender of the Fourth Amendment?

“I defend the Fourth Amendment sometimes,” is what you mean to say, Johnson. “As long as you’re not a Muslim from Syria.”

That’s the exact mentality that gave us the Patriot Act! And you dare claim to be a libertarian? This is exactly the sort of “I’m a libertarian… unless I’m not” crap that Johnson is notorious for. One either supports the Fourth Amendment or one doesn’t. Gary Johnson wants to have it both ways. Either people have the right to privacy without being spied upon by the government until they’ve demonstrated probable cause and the state has gotten a warrant, or people don’t have that right. Gary Johnson, however, would say “People have that right, unless I think they shouldn’t.” That is not a libertarian position. And, again, by what hidden criteria does he use to determine when people should be protected by the Bill of Rights and when they shouldn’t be?

That is how badly statism has conquered the world. Even the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate uses a non-principled metric to determine who gets rights and who doesn’t.

Libertarians, I implore you: kick Gary Johnson and his ilk from the party. If he was willing to learn, that would be one thing. But he has demonstrated that he is not. He has had this glaring contradiction (“I believe in the Fourth Amendment, unless you’re a Muslim refugee from Syria”) brought to his attention, and he waves it away. He knows that he is not following libertarian principles. Why are we still discussing this “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” clown? Kick him from the party and nominate an actual libertarian. Kick Austin Petersen while you’re at it, because he openly says that the Non-Aggression Pact is stupid. That’s the VERY BASIS of the party!

What is going on? Kick these people out until they’re willing to follow the principles. The GOP and Democratic Party are what happens when you let people in who don’t give a duck-squatting shit about the principles.