Thursday, April 10, 2014

Christopher Cantwell

From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

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, 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.


  1. @Wenzel,

    Cantwell is a funny guy and the posts you put up are fine, but then, when nosing around on his site, I come across this:

    "My proposal, and in all honesty, I’m still working out the details, has been to resort to force. For free men and women to forcefully defend themselves against agents of the State. To kill government agents who would otherwise use force against them, until their jobs simply become so dangerous that they seek other lines of work."

    Now, is he saying that if law enforcement shoots at your, you should shoot back, or in some way convey that your are armed?

    I have to say that this might not be the brightest suggestion. Law enforcement often shoots under the pretext that the person is armed, even when he isn't.

    Also, by promoting him, without commenting on this first and clarifying, it gives the chance for trolls (or finks) to suggest that the word "brutalist" actually does apply.

    Please clarify and make it clear what Cantwell is advocating here.
    I get that it is NOT armed insurrection but self-defense, but it needs to be clarified.
    This sounds very much like provocateur- type language.
    I liked his other piece, so I hope I'm misreading this.

    1. Hi Lila,

      If I had to comment on all the digressions from my point of view that other writers feature, I would be doing little else. That said, I agree that armed resistance is obviously a very important topic and Cantwell does say he is still "working it out," which I think means he isn't completely 100% with the idea or how it should definitely be approached, so I am giving him a little slack. But it is why I limited quotes from Cantwell on that particular essy to what I agree with rather than running it in its entirety.

      I think I make clear at EPJ regularly enough that direct confrontation with the government generally makes little sense. But you are correct that this must be emphasized and I will put out another commentary on it.

    2. Lila, why are you asking this site to clarify what another author has written? Why don't you read the entirety of that article and perhaps engage Mr. Cantwell about his ideas, reasoning, etc.?

    3. I noticed some of those things as well. I think it's important to understand we all have a piece of the puzzle and no one has all the right answers.

      Hopefully discourse will sort that out.

      If some of us have screwy thoughts on certain topics, it shouldn't necessarily negate the areas in which we are right on the money.(and that goes for Tucker, Richman, Rockwell, & Rothbard too!)

      Purely from a strategic standpoint, our government is well armed and has a plentiful amount of young, indoctrinated people that would shoot at almost anyone if ordered. With government war making technology at their disposal and the people with the will to carry it out they are an incredibly formidable enemy.

      There's also probably a good chance that Cantwell doesn't have kids(I can't tell from his bio), so the risks/ramification of him taking the governments continued violence against all of us to the next level of self defense via violence probably doesn't have the weight to him as it would many of us.

      It's an uncomfortable topic for sure Lila! But let us remember that Cantwell is promoting self defense that entails violence as a response. Even though I think that's folly strategically, logically speaking it's sound given the circumstances, though uncomfortable for all of us adhering to the NAP to discuss.

      Nobody wants to hurt anybody, but no one wants to be a punching bag either. Most men probably had their father tell them at some point to "punch the bully". It's a normal stance,but in this case the doing so would be the equivalent of trying to punch 10 bullies surrounding you...which might be insane strategically! lol

      You can argue that "we", meaning the american population, "outnumber" them...but we there are actually very few people that are willing to fight back, let alone a unifying and organized leadership capable of doing so. So strategically it's a difficult(impossible?) proposition at best currently.

      Btw, it seems he's suffered for that particular viewpoint as well:

      Regardless, I think he still makes good points on other issues.

    4. @Bob

      Of course. Not a criticism of you at all. Just trying to forewarn because some one at the end of Cantwell's other post was trying to assert that we were all carrying water for violent revolution because we liked his writing.

      So thought I'd quickly make the criticism before some govt troll makes it....

    5. They do not seek other lines of work when their job becomes dangerous. They get higher pay and more people desire to do the job because it's dangerous, gets higher pay and has more status. Cantwell can't relate to that since he has no balls. He's just a mouth. He'll never pick up a gun and point it at someone else who has a gun.

    6. "Cantwell can't relate to that since he has no balls. He's just a mouth. "

      The irony of your comment, coming from you on an anonymous basis, is pretty funny.

    7. Why not have Cantwell on the podcast to hash it out on this?

    8. The notion that Wenzel has to take responsibility for what another author believes is absurd.

      It's like quoting a wonderful speech by Ron Paul and then saying: "oh by the way, Ron Paul is pro-life and here is why he's wrong."
      It has no bearing on the speech quoted whatsoever.

  2. What makes the posturings of poor delusional Jeff Tucker even more extraordinarily frustrating is that he HAS studied the works of the great libertarian theorists, yet still he engages us in pointless and divisive debate on topics that should be blindingly obvious to anyone with even a casual understanding of the great works.

    It's as though he wants to cultivate a gladfly persona similar to Walter Block's, but he refuses to acknowledge that being such an influencer requires a ruthless (brutal?) adherence to one's core principles. One cannot compromise just to curry favor with political allies whose core beliefs are antithetical to one's own.

    1. Obviously "gladfly" is a typo, but perhaps in this context "GLADDfly" would have been appropriate.

    2. There are no great libertarian theorists.

  3. Who will build the roads? The Koch Bros.

    What about defense? The Koch Bros.

    Who will fuck your daughter? The Koch Bros

    Everything is set. Just kick back and enjoy your liberty.

    1. Wow, this guy has become super troll-today.

      Interestingly no one here carries water for the Koch Bros. That has been explained to you before....

    2. Tom Woods is right, the quality of JW's comments (never stellar to begin with) has precipitously deteriorated recently.

    3. I think the Koch brothers are paying for Jerri's idiocy. Why? To annoy Wenzel.

    4. Interesting theory on JW being a Koch sucker.

    5. @Mic, that makes sense!

    6. A peak inside Wolfgang's lunatic mind.

      An obsessive Koch brothers fever dream.

  4. It is indeed frustrating. On issue after issue (and even non-issues like "global warming"), I just want to shake everyone I know and say "Quit being manipulated by politicians! Quit being ignorant and naive on EVERY DAMN THING. Read an economics book, you boob!"

    But I don't, because they freak out even if you try to correct them gently.

    1. "But I don't, because they freak out even if you try to correct them gently."

      That's why I spend most of my time just mocking and ridiculing their stupidity. They prefer being brain dead idiots so why not just laugh at them? They're not good for much else.

      Hell, I remember asking this chick if she'd be "ok" with the TSA forcing her to strip naked. She replied, "As long as they keep me safe I don't care". I asked her several questions along these lines and all I ever got was the same answer. It's like they have Stockholm syndrome while looking at their Masters as mommy and daddy at the same time. There are idiots all around me! (and the few around the country that bother to do any thinking at all).

    2. "She replied, "As long as they keep me safe I don't care"."

      See, there was a moment where if you were on your feet you could have said, "I'll keep you safe."


  5. Robert, I love this selection from Cantwell. I mean, anyone who's ever done sales knows this feeling!

    "We already know what the proper response to your propaganda is, and we already know that you are going to act irrationally when we respond. This is extraordinarily frustrating, because we’ve actually put a great deal of effort into this, and these repetitive arguments are tiring, especially when they yield no results."

    The more entrepreneurial thinkers that become Austrians, the more success we will have in the marketplace. And of course it's a difficult product to sell, people are well trained to expect an inferior product!

    1. Most people are comfortable in their chains. Most of them are just too lazy and cowardly to even be bothered to pick up a book on economics. Hell, these days all you have to do is point-and-click with a mouse button for crying out loud, but they won't even do that!