A one-time drug dealer, candidate for Congress and aspiring stand-up comedian, Christopher Cantwell now hosts Alt-Right luminaries such as Matthew Heimbach, Augustus Invictus and Andrew Auernheimer, aka, Weev, on his call-in talk show “Radical Agenda,” which is live-streamed via Facebook and UStream three days a week from his home studio in Keene, New Hampshire.
On his show and in mordant essays published on his website Christophercantwell.com, this 36-year-old self-proclaimed fascist – whose style borrows from such mainstream shock jocks as Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony — argues for an Anglo ethno state free of African-Americans, Jews and non-white immigrants, save, perhaps, for the occasional exception.
In Cantwell’s world, Blacks are prone to violence and have lower IQs; Jews spread communism and can’t be trusted; immigrants are outbreeding whites; and a race war is all but inevitable.
Cantwell has called for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, and, in previous years, for the assassination of ordinary law enforcement officers and other government workers. Democrats and “communists” need to be “physically removed” from the country, Cantwell insists, and white men should consider polygamy to increase number of Caucasian babies being born.
Cantwell’s violent rhetoric and racist statements have gotten him kicked out of one libertarian organization after another, and with each ouster, he has moved further and further to the right, culminating in his alliance with neo-Nazis and white supremacists, and earning him a loyal, paying audience of haters.
“[M]y goal here is to normalize racism,” he explained to Hatewatch in one of two interviews for this profile. “I'm going to make a commercial enterprise out of saying things that people want to make illegal. I'm going to make a whole fucking bunch of money doing it. Anybody who gets in my way is going to find themselves in a very long list of people who regretted underestimating me.”
Though his hatred of law enforcement and the state has waned as he has drifted ever rightward, Cantwell’s corrosive rhetoric occasionally spills over into real life. Combined with an admitted history of alcohol and drug abuse, it makes for a volatile combination, as Cantwell’s influence expands and his participation in Alt-Right and neo-Nazi events increases.
This is like reality TV for cord-cutters. /popcorn
ReplyDeletehahaha
DeleteExcellent! Though I'd much more like to get back to the state as the enemy instead of further infighting.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. We can split hairs later.
DeleteWell of course.
DeleteBut if you get smacked in the face by fellow libertarians, it is hard not to acknowledge the sting.
Tucker, Reisenwitz ARE the state. They're doing its job. Just like the anti-bullying campaign. Don't you get it?
ReplyDeleteLike BTC. It's selected market actors doing the job via the market.
Cantwell got that right off the bat.
"Don't think you're going to make a successful business out of charging for access to leftist bloggers"
ReplyDeleteSadly, I wish this one was true.
The rest of Cantwell's list is great anyway.
Great? That's an understatement! It's hilarious!! I am seriously ROFL
Delete4. Don't write lists telling other people not to do what you just did
5. Don't write lists telling people what to do
If the order of items 4 and 5 had been reversed, this would have been so much better!!
Item 5 by itself is awesome. Why might it imply? Cantwell is one seriously cheeky character!
It failed at mises.org, because it was convoluted, unworkable, unintuitive, and people have better things to do. Solution? Charge for it!
DeleteDos and Don'ts:
ReplyDelete1) do support policies that benefit the Koch Bros
2) don't oppose policies that benefit the Koch Bros.
ex: don't oppose patent protection. do oppose environmental protection.
JW: Leftist troll.
DeleteJW: Libertarian false flag in order to make leftists/keynesians look even more stupid
DeleteI only have one "don't" and one "do" for you Jerry:
Delete1. Don't be a douchebag
2. Do go away
I'm a little bit confused here. Libertarianism is about opposing aggressive violence and coercion via the threat of violence.
ReplyDeleteSo why is so much energy being applied to oppose the ideas of Tucker & Reisenwitz? Are they advocating violence & coercion through violence? No, they are not.
Are they offering their opinion about how to market some form of libertarianism to the broadest market possible? Yes.
What are we mad about? These impostors are calling themselves libertarians!
So why are we mad? Because we're the true libertarians.
Is that what we really want, to be recognized as the true libertarians? Yes.
What about, you know, the whole liberty thing? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU THEY THINK FEMINISM IS COMPATIBLE WITH LIBERTARIANISM!
Progressives bastardized Liberalism by the same method.
DeleteThey are mad that Ticker is winning the IP battle. Wenzel will do anything to distract from his statist position on IP.
Deletelol, it's over Tucker "winning" the IP battle? You mean, like Charlie Sheen style winning?
DeleteAnonymous at 9:43 : Laugh all you want. Do a poll of libertarians under 30 on IP. I guarantee you its over 50% against. If that is funny to your side, then you really have no hope.
DeleteI think what's laughable is that you think:
Delete#1 That this debate has anything to do with IP
and
#2 That some random claim to some unknown poll(s?) that might not even exist(qualified by an age demographic none the less!) is your "proof" of winning.
That is all very funny.
"So why is so much energy being applied to oppose the ideas of Tucker & Reisenwitz? Are they advocating violence & coercion through violence? No, they are not."
DeleteThe ideas of Tucker and Reisenwitz are *themselves* oppositional to the ideas of many other libertarians. THEY are the ones that have made the distinction between "brutalists" and "humanitarians". Others describe it as "thin vs thick" libertarians. It is utterly hypocritical of you to condemn RESPONSES to the initiatory idealogical challenges made by Tucker and Reisenwitz to other libertarians.
"Are they offering their opinion about how to market some form of libertarianism to the broadest market possible? Yes. "
And why should we be happy that they, FIRST, condemn ACTUAL libertarianism qua libertarianism, and then proceed to present their "form" of libertarianism to the market as the right "form"? And why should we be happy that they are diluting what libertarianism actually stands for, by appealing to leftists egalitarian thought that has been invented in pro-state doctrines ("cultural marxism")? What the hell is a potential convert to think when Reisenwitz, as a "libertarian", whines that Bitcoin is sexist because of "white male privilege"?
"WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU THEY THINK FEMINISM IS COMPATIBLE WITH LIBERTARIANISM!"
IT ISN'T! FEMINISM IS A SOCIALIST (cultural marxism) DOCTRINE DRESSED IN PANTIES.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm3FlbUf5gA
Generally speaking, there exists a genuine reason for women's rights activism. Not this whole, oh I chipped my pinky nail, the patriarchy is to blame. In places like India, Africa and Pakistan, there exists genuine violence and injustice committed against women. Then there's issues like forced prostitution, rape in war zones, and human sex trafficking. Please don't conflate the movement to address these genuine issues through women's rights activism, with the bogus motives and pseudo reasonings that we see come from liberal arts programs pursued by those without the mental capacity to study a more meaningful field of knowledge.
DeleteTucker's list is good as is Cantwell's. They are not mutually exclusive. Cantwell doesn't refute any of Tucker's list.
ReplyDeleteRacism is just as compatible with liberty as feminism. That is all we are saying. Who's angry? I'm not.
ReplyDeleteIn trying to make libertarianism marketable, you dilute it to the point where it's no longer libertarianism. This feminist/homosexual attack on everything natural isn't just causing conflicts in libertarianism, it's affecting nearly everything in society today. Even Christian churches are bending the "word of God" to avoid offending the feminists and gays in the congregation. Frankly, I find it disgusting. Stay true to your ideology and let the chips fall where they may.
ReplyDeletethe word of God'? don't make me laugh. instead of being able to leaf through the whole stream of literature about Jesus the enforcers of the empire and the bishops selected four books and a few other add ons that suited their message (and added and edited when it suited) and consigned all the rest to oblivion and damned others, even early church fathers as heretics. Now where have I see this behavior before?
DeleteEh, not everyone is Catholic. I'm Anabaptist. Both the Catholics and Protestants persecuted my kind because we were considered heretics for following Jesus. Who knew?
Delete"Both the Catholics and Protestants persecuted my kind because we were considered heretics for following Jesus."
DeleteNo, that's not why you were persecuted. You were persecuted because of theological disagreements on HOW to follow Christ, not for "believing". And no I'm not saying persecution is justified by anyone for any reason.
I do believe cutting out the tongue, lashing, and burning a brother to death goes against Christ's teaching. In that case, I would have to question who the true "believers" were. Truth be told, Christ's teaching is pretty simple if you don't cloud it with nonsense theology.
DeleteA little advice:
DeleteReread what I posted VERY slowly then maybe, just maybe you'll understand what I wrote. Thank you.
Better advice:
DeleteDon't post about things you know so little about.
Even better advice:
DeleteFollow your own advice.
Attacking anything "natural" has nothing to do with causing conflict in libertarianism.
DeleteThe left version of libertarians are sectarian in the sense that they condemn the conservative version of libertarianism, but the conservative version is doing the same thing, by whining about things like libertinism. Neither (non-violent) conservative values NOR libertinism violate libertarian principles. Whether any one of them is "natural" is totally irrelevant.
As far as the Church goes, i don't give a damn, as i am not religious and nor does it have anything to do with libertarianism. With everything the Church has been responsible for, or religion in general as doctrines, i have no love for any of these things any more than i do for the state, anyway. Religion has been used since the dawn of time to dupe the superstitious into obeying rulers because of their alleged "divine right" to rule. States would probably have never existed without religion.
lol now that's hilarious. Atheists hold the statist banner just as much as some "Christians" do, if not more so. Their church IS the state. So misguided.
DeleteWhat's the whole beef with Tucker? He's one of the good guys. He's antiwar, antistate, and he gives some good advice to which many libertarian freaks should listen. [I agree with Cantwell too, especially number 6].
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem I have seen with libertarians over the years is that they we quite adept at eating our own. The second biggest problem with libertarians is that a number of us are dorks and social misfits. Tucker doesn't get at this in his Brutalist essay, but I think that social freakishness of a number of libertarians is a big part of the problem. I would say that the dorks, social misfits, and the untalented within libertarianism tend toward what Tucker calls brutalism, and this includes not just the people on the 'right' side of libertarianism, but also ones on the 'wrong' side. There are definitely Ron Paul dorkos out there with 'brutalist' tendencies but also folks like Eric Dondero, Randroids, and some even within Cato who are complete social misfits who fit the mode of brutalism at times. Libertarian dorkos often fall into brutalist tendencies - like failing to see valid challenges to their assumptions or failing to understand nuance when necessary - because they lack talent, they lack social competence, or they have not matured passed ideological blindness.
I'm not calling for compromise similar to the selling out done by Cato and Koch. I am calling for a little more balanced thinking, as well as a little more social and intellectual competence. Ideological purity is simply insufficient; more is needed. I think people like Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, and Jeffrey Tucker provide excellent examples for us to follow. They have moved well beyond ideological purity and have used their tremendous talent for the good of our country.
Time for libertarian dorkos to take the red pill, learn some Game, and quit being such social embarrasments. Then you can come out guns blazing and effectively defend liberty.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/
"What's the whole beef with Tucker?"
DeleteLet us all remember how this started, it started with Tucker labeling some members of the libertarian community "Brutalist".
Not only was he not clear on what a "Brutalist" is, he went on to suggest the NAP is not sufficient for libertarianism in general.
There's plenty to have a "beef" with on that basis alone.
"Not only was he not clear on what a "Brutalist" is, he went on to suggest the NAP is not sufficient for libertarianism in general."
DeleteThat's a good suggestion. NAP it is necessary, but not sufficient for libertarians to consider especially if libertarians want to engage humanity as normal human beings and not as shrill socially obtuse libertards.
"if libertarians want to engage humanity as normal human beings and not as shrill socially obtuse libertards. "
DeleteFunny, because when I read your comment I thought, "I wonder if you are self aware, even in the slightest."
The NAP doesn't suggest any of what you wrote nor does it adherence promote it, but ok.
" Ideological purity is simply insufficient; more is needed. I think people like Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, and Jeffrey Tucker provide excellent examples for us to follow. They have moved well beyond ideological purity"
DeleteDid you somehow miss Rockwell's article on "What LIbertarianism is, and isn't"?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/
You'll be quite disappointed to see it's quite "pure".
I think what you should really be calling for is less personal arrogance and pretensions, as you are writing as if you have it all figured out without providing so much as ONE convincing argument that you have, while using ad hominem at certain people within the libertarian movement (without mentioning so much as one name, by the way, akin to Tucker himself).
DeleteWe shouldn't be "eating our own", but apparently we should be calling some of our own dorkos and dumbasses and social misfits and god knows what other judgments of people you've probably never met.
"Ideological purity is simply insufficient; more is needed."
Do you think repeating a mantra from a certain section of the lib. movement, without providing any (new) argument to back it up will be more convincing this time around?
And if that is not enough, you mention people who probably couldn't be more purist, such as Rockwell and Woods.
"Time for libertarian dorkos to take the red pill, learn some Game, and quit being such social embarrasments. Then you can come out guns blazing and effectively defend liberty. "
The counterargument to Tucker is that he is NOT effectively defending liberty, but distorting it by talking about egalitarian issues which have nothing to do with liberty. Liberty means also having the freedom to be an asshole, a bigoted one at that. Is Tucker effectively defending THIS liberty? No he isn't. He is defending liberty, PROVIDED that one uses it to be a nice person who really like tolerance, feminism, equality, gay and transgendered people etc. He is "effectively defending" political correctness, not liberty.
He is taking the easy and cowardly stance by climbing on a soap box and parroting viewpoints already generally held in the mainstream, instead of doing the difficult thing (in the Voltaire sense) by defending the rights and liberties of the jerks, the bigots and the sexists.
You don't "effectively defend liberty" by taking the easy way and being acceptable to the mainstream intelligentsia; but by showing that liberty also means freedom for bastards. That is what the whole concept of freedom of speech is about as well.
"That's a good suggestion. NAP it is necessary, but not sufficient for libertarians to consider especially if libertarians want to engage humanity as normal human beings and not as shrill socially obtuse libertards."
DeleteOh? And how do you propose we engage them? As people that are right to see justification for the initiation of violence? As people that are right to see redistributing wealth as "social justice"? As people that are right to see war as a necessary means to bring democracy to the world?
Pray tell, if the NAP is not enough, how, as libertarians qua libertarians, must we engage the general population without being utter mealy mouthed hypocrites in the meantime?
Eagerly waiting your response.
Wait a minute.
DeleteA "men's rights" advocate is praising Jeff "Mises was a feminist" Tucker?
A "men's rights" advocate is praising the man who is the mentor of Cathy "Bitcoin has a white male privilege problem" Reisenwitz?
Have i understood this correctly?
@Just outed yourself too, didn't you?
ReplyDeleteMRA, filled with shills.
@feminist (?) Tucker
ReplyDeletebeing endorsed by MRA/game community (?)
Thus the circle-jerk of shills is complete.
Most penetrating observation!
Delete“It’s not lying, it’s flirting.” - The new Tucker philosophy for spreading the word.
I wonder what his wife would think of that life philosophy.
DeleteThis sounds sexy until you realize that Tucker and Cantwell would be played by a post andropausal David Hyde Pierce and a 400 lbs post coke rehab Jonah Hill.
ReplyDeleteStill waiting for Cantwell to get past:
ReplyDelete1) Realize that while "libertarian" and "self-absorbed blowhard" may not be incompatible, nor are they the same thing.