Wednesday, April 9, 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 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.

34 comments:

  1. Murray Sabrin, you know it's true...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course, end the elections and put the Koch Bros in charge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In charge of what, Jerry?

      Delete
    2. Yes of course.
      There is so much love for the Kochtupus here.

      Delete
    3. No, smart guy, The Koch Bros. will be in charge DUE TO ELECTIONS.

      As Cantwell explained so well, this stuff flies right over your little head.

      Delete
    4. Not to mention that we will never live in a stateless society. The universe is running down, the end is near, and we were told there will be wars until the end.

      Delete
  3. Cantwell: If you had ever bothered to study the works of any of the great libertarian theorists, you wouldn’t be asking us the questions you are asking. You ask “Who will build the roads?” or “What about defense?” you tell us “There is no such thing as utopia” and a lot of other really tired arguments. It shows us that you haven’t taken so much as 10 minutes out of your miserable life to even make the slightest effort to understand what we are proposing.

    That's another way of saying what I've been saying. Even the Krugmans, college presidents and NYT reporters have not given 10 minutes (or more like 10 seconds) of thought to a) the NAP (see Walter Block); b) the nature of violent intervention and its impact upon economic analysis; and/or c) prices as essential information. And we are supposed to be concerned that these people think we are racists?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "...the goal is to turn a large enough minority against the legitimacy of the State as to make its continued function impossible"

    One could argue a great way to appear genuine while converting a large minority is to be against the very idea that's providing your livelihood. The ends may justify the means in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Agreed, read the book Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State by Gerard Casey. Great book that really shows what it's about. Given the millions of deaths caused by governments in the 20th and 21st century, I'm hard pressed to believe that eliminating non-voluntary government could do worse.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you Chris. THAT is the type of thinking a libertarian should have. I have ZERO interest in "getting people elected" to a system that is by its very nature corrupt to the core.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And a system that will never go away, no matter how much you pout about it.

      Delete
    2. When you're surrounded by idiots then, no, of course it won't disappear.

      Delete
    3. Oh right, the old "I'm the only one who isn't an idiot" bit. Please.

      Delete
    4. People who believe in initiating violence so long as the guy using it is wearing a government costume, and so long as they can find a majority to agree?
      Yes, they are idiots. And they are also scumbags.

      People who wouldn't like what government does anymore than if a random guy in the street does it, would be a morally consistent person; not an idiot and not a scumbag.

      It is that simple.

      Delete
    5. "Oh right, the old "I'm the only one who isn't an idiot" bit. Please."

      Are you really that stupid? I never said I was the only one. A FEW aren't stupid. Most are. I've got a great idea. Look at the vote tally and tell me who they're voting for. What? You mean it's either statist candidate A or statist candidate B? Yup. Like I said, I'm surrounded by idiots.

      Please.

      Delete
    6. Then don't vote. Gee, that was hard. Don't get involved in politics. Let the whole thing come crashing down on everyone's head who votes for the idiotic crap. But you go ahead and be a keyboard warrior, Mike. Lord knows we don't have enough of them. Another angry libertarian ranting at the world while the truth passes him by.

      Delete
    7. I don't. Gee that was hard.

      Yup go ahead and be an idiot and vote for Tweedledee or Tweedledum. You're under the delusion that politics is the answer pal. If truth is passing anyone buy it's you. You're a fool. And you know what's pathetic? You continue to let them fool you into thinking it's the answer. How many fucking elections have to pass you by before you'll realize that?

      Delete
    8. Anonymous troll....

      Delete
    9. @Mike 9:20

      2016: Change we can believe in! This is the year!

      Delete
    10. @Mike

      I don't vote. Try again. You libertarians are such an irate bunch.

      Delete
  7. I like this Cantwell guy...Robert, you should consider interviewing him for "The Robert Wenzel Show"

    -Montana

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this is a good idea.

      Delete
    2. I think now you have the topic for discussion: when is violent defense justified, and when is a line crossed when discussing it. Who draws it?

      Delete
  8. George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" is a good barometer of the lows to be expected in the morally high struggle for liberty and basic decency.
    Regardless, our souls win.
    .
    I toast all of ye...

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think libertarians running for office is a great idea if they are using it as a platform to further educate the public about austrian economics and how freedom works. Lets face it.. People look to politics to fix the world and by running for office you put yourself where they are looking. Ron Paul 2008, 2012 is a great example of the good that can come out of this. If we are going to fix the world and avoid the inevitable next catastrophe which might just be around the corner via stupid meddling with Russia, we need to change poeple's minds by any means necessary asap and again running for office I think is a good idea

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree but the candidate must not compromise principle in order to troll for votes. Further, the MSM seems to only take notice of us when our candidate may have an impact on the outcome of elections.

      Delete
  10. Peaceful election? No! Violent revolution? Yes! -Christopher Cantwell*

    Either way, you end up under the boot. So wtf, right?

    * Yes, C.C. encourages deadly violence as a means to political change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Troll much?

      Cantwell speaks of defending yourself by following the NAP, which allows for self defense (you don't have to be a pacifist). Not a revolution so much as increasing the costs of harassing peaceful strangers.

      For instance, Cantwell probably supports this family's right to self defense, even when it's men with government suits violating their property rights and beating and tazering them. http://freebeacon.com/issues/last-man-standing/

      I can't really speak for Chris, but I assume he envisions a society where everyone defends their property rights and natural rights and thus tyranny is almost non-existent. Today too many people just take it. I do think Chris is onto something, though of course we don't expect much from the likes of you.

      http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/04/08/top-10-reasons-libertarians-arent-nice/

      Is that revolutionary? No. It is a 180, stopping with self defense. There is no imposition of his will on anyone else.

      Delete
    2. No, "Anonymous." He advocates violent revolution. You should at least read the writings of those for whom you'd giddily carry water. Or maybe I shouldn't "expect [that] much from the likes of you." smh

      Delete
    3. The argument is a little bit more nuanced than that, Cyluk. Words have meaning and sometimes you have to think a smidge to get that. I think had you read the article, you might have picked up on that.

      Delete
    4. I think your reading comprehension needs work, "Cyluk"....

      Self defense does not = violent revolution. This would be basic understanding of meaning of language here.

      I gave examples, Chris has spoken for himself, but why don't you point to where Chris advocates "violent revolution" and not self defense? Probably because Chris would likely never advocate for revolution because that implies putting in place another government, a full revolution, get it? But please, go ahead and find it so we can discuss it, rather than making up baseless accusations and trolling someone else's productive capacity.

      Jealous much?

      PS- Chris had openly stated that though he believes in property rights and self defense, he does not believe he would actually use violence in such cases with agents of the state, purely because he wouldn't want to die, and the tool of the state is violence. That is their best weapon. Though he does make the case that it would be moral to do so, in those cases. Isn't that the basic libertarian position? That natural law and violations of the NAP do not change when government agents do it? One can make the case for self defense without actually arming up, just like Keynesianism makes the case for government agents to violently steal from others without themselves picking up a gun.

      Delete
    5. There is clearly a difference between theorizing when defensive violence is moral and advocating violent aggression...... Isn't every libertarian scholar guilty of the former? Is that a crime now?

      Delete