Tuesday, May 13, 2014

About Cathy Reisenwitz's Sex Seminar

A friend emails:
Well, well, well. Cathy's little sex seminar at Liberty.me has suddenly been canceled. http://liberty.me/event/sex-and-the-state-with-cathy-reisenwitz/
From Liberty.me:
 Sex and the State with Cathy Reisenwitz (Canceled)
Join Cathy Reisenwitz for a seminar on the salacious topic of Sex and the State! How does the State change our perceptions of sex and sexuality? How should we approach this topic as liberty-lovers? Find out May 15th at 9:30pm EST!
Are there elements within the Liberty.me camp that are distancing themselves from Reisenwitz, following her racist charges? (SEE: Justin Raimondo Smokes Out Absurd Racism Charges Made By Cathy Reisenwitz)

Will "Chief Liberty Officer" Jeff Tucker make any statement on the Reisenwitz outrageous tweets, to help clarify the Liberty.me position on Reisenwitz's  comments? Will we learn what is behind the cancellation of her seminar?

Make Liberty.me interesting Jeff, give us some answers.


  1. He's playing dumb in private correspondence. Claims he's just a friend of hers, not someone who's promoting her or giving her a stage for her smears and idiocy. He claims to be baffled that anyone sees him as her mentor. Maintains that he's not all that familiar with her output. It's unreal.

    1. Hahaha! This guy is becoming a joke and he's realizing he needs to take a step back.

    2. Tucker was interviewed by Reisenwitz in an International Students for Lib program in Feb, 2014,

      ISL is the outfit that bashed Paul on Ukraine.
      Here is a link to the Board of Directors - Palmer, Reed, Boaz, Cowen

  2. I feel bad for Cathy. She flubbed, so what? I may disagree with her views, but I won't run her name into the ground for it. I'll simply go my way and she can go her's. These jabs back and forth aren't productive.

    1. Whatever you say, Cathy.

    2. It isn't just some piddly mistake. It's a calculated effort to redefine libertarianism and merge it with progressivism, thereby destroying any and all gains we've made over the past decade. She is a far bigger threat to the message of individual freedom and liberty than all the Barack Obamas and John McCains of the world combined. It is VERY productive to warn people about this and call attention to the scheme she is running.

      Also, it's not a "flub" when you consider her apology. She didn't say she was wrong. She didn't recant or take back her claims that the greatest libertarian minds of the past century were a bunch of racists. She just said "It was dumb of me to say that without offering proof." Presumably, she's diligently looking for the proof as we speak. I wouldn't be at all shocked to see a "Here's my collection of statements from Walter Block that I consider racist" column show up on liberty.me within the next week or so.

    3. "These jabs back and forth aren't productive." Neither is ignoring a cancerous tumor while it grows.

      "I'll simply go my way and she can go her's." She's not going her way. She's going your way...and some odd sex conference thing. Sure, she can stay and do whatever, but there's people here that aren't going to allow what is right and correctly defined to be distorted.

      "I may disagree with her views, but I won't run her name into the ground for it." She wants to run good people's names into the ground.

      "She flubbed, so what?" People that accidentally read her tripe at Reason and at Forbes (how does that happen?) do. People that get her tweet and look at the lie about somebody then having their eye twitch until they say something do. She brought it upon herself.

      "I feel bad for Cathy." I don't.

      Besides, this whole thing is funny and quite entertaining. I was laughing so hard at her exchange with Raimondo.

    4. A far bigger threat than all the Barack Obamas and John McCains? You really need to get out more if this is what you truly believe. Go chat it up with some peeps in your local establishments and I guarantee you most will not have heard of Cathy whats-her-face, nor will they care what she's preaching. From the sound of it, all the "gains" that have been made were on internet blogging platforms. I see very little fruit in the real world. Blown out of proportion.

      As for her apology, I don't care if she sincerely says she's sorry or not. At the end of the day, she's going to continue holding to her beliefs and I'm going to do the same to mine. It makes no difference. You're projecting your own value of these libertarian minds when others simply don't see it that way. Libertarians, of all people, should understand value is subjective. And if she does write a column on liberty.me citing racist comments by a gaggle of libertarian geniuses (so-called), then who cares? Agree or not, the girl's allowed to have her opinion.

    5. @AnonymousMay 13, 2014 at 12:37

      "A far bigger threat than all the Barack Obamas and John McCains? You really need to get out more if this is what you truly believe."

      I agree with Matt on this line. Obama may end up, inadvertently, being the greatest champion of liberty in US history. As one lefty blogger (I so wish I could find it now) lamented, "Obama is discrediting the state."

    6. Please recall, I said she was a threat to the message. Obama and McCain are bigger threats to our lives and property than she is (for now at least), sure. But they are powerless to do anything to the message other than strengthen it by showing people why statisim is awful. Sure, they have the power to murder people who disagree with them or whatever, but they don't have the power to co-opt us.

      Cathy does. She is being given this power by Tucker and others who desire to attract young women to the movement with no concern over whether they actually believe in the NAP or not. She has a power to affect the message by re-defining the term libertarian, which is something Obama cannot do, because even the most dim-witted dolts in the populace would never believe he is one.

      I believe Wenzel said in an earlier post that if the Cathys of the world go unchallenged, then ten years from now, Obama would be able to claim he was a libertarian and nobody would question it or stop to consider that it was a bad thing. Because the term would come to mean "someone who supports wealth redistribution, restrictions on free speech, massive taxation, and foreign wars of aggression."

    7. @Anon,

      Actually people like Cathy in the media are worse than Obama and McCain. It's easy to spot those two. They are politicians and opportunistic. They are easy to see, visible, and clearly doing wrong.

      But Cathy is a corrupter of language. She is poisoning the well of freedom at the source. The media is worse than the politicians and it is more powerful than them. It is the media which makes war possible, which distracts, which covers, which lies.

      Co-opted activism is the worst threat there is to real activism.
      That said, attacking her as a person is not right. Attack her ideas.

    8. Accusing others of racism without any evidence is a "flub"? PLEASE.

      And the LAST thing we need is a self described "libertarian" throwing around Idiot Left sound bites.

    9. My oh my, how libertarians are a rabid bunch. "We can say whatever we want about other people, but don't you DARE call us racists!!" Please. You wouldn't be making such a big deal about it if it wasn't at least partly true. You're projecting your own guilt, Mikey.

    10. @Anon 2.29 or Tucker/Cathy sock-puppet

      In both cases, THEY ATTACKED FIRST. We are defending. Capische? Obviously, you don't. It's the difference between aggression and self-defense. But you libwaps don't get THAT either. Go back and attack fattism or lookism or overpaidism or some other crap on Twitter with the kiddies and leave the grown-ups alone.

    11. Self-defense is for wussies. Be a real man and turn the other cheek. Cute that you're using "libwap" now too, just like your overlords conveyed to you. You attack people on Twitter, yet what are you doing in a comments section on a blog, oh holier-than-thou libertarian? Laughable.

    12. So if Cathy is charged with being a man hating leftist, and that feminism has strong roots in Marxism, you and Cathy will turn the other cheek and not respond?

    13. I wouldn't respond because I agree that feminism has strong roots in Marxism (and more specifically, Satanism). There's really nothing to respond to in that case. If someone leveled an accusation at me that wasn't true, I would simply state that and go about my business. This is opposed to running article after article and foaming at the mouth over said accusation for days on end. What we have in this particular case with Cathy is a huge overreaction, which is typical of the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist crowd.

    14. @Anon at 9.26

      You are completely wrong and this blog is 1000 percent right to go after her, because if you follow her comments, you will see she is repeating this stuff everywhere on important forums.

      Wenzel's comments are not only overreaction, they are under-reaction. What is really needed is for a campaign against her friends just as sustained and coordinated as the one she, Tucker and the rest have launched.

      For your information, her comments have ticked off practically everyone in the libertarian/conservative side - I have seen her denounced on dozens and dozens of blogs. The only people who are clapping their hands are left-libs feminist types.

      Wow. Some tactic.

      She smoked herself out And you have too.
      Go Wenzel, Rossini!

    15. "My oh my, how libertarians are a rabid bunch. "We can say whatever we want about other people, but don't you DARE call us racists!!" Please.

      My oh my how morons like you are a stupid bunch. Are you really THAT stupid?

      "You wouldn't be making such a big deal about it if it wasn't at least partly true. You're projecting your own guilt, Mikey."

      Is that the best you got? LOL! Little man, please read the following CAREFULLY and then maybe, just maybe, you'll comprehend it. Ok, here's what I wrote:

      "Accusing others of racism without any evidence is a "flub"? PLEASE.

      And the LAST thing we need is a self described "libertarian" throwing around Idiot Left sound bites."

      Understand now? Remember. Read CAREFULLY. You can do. Try REAL hard and you just might get it.

  3. If you are truly interested in learning something about sex, I highly recommend Rachel Carlton Abrams and Lee Holden's "Taoist Sexual Secrets." Rothbard once wrote that the Taoists were the very first pure libertarians. Full Disclosure: I was not paid for this endorsement in anyway. http://www.soundstrue.com/shop/Taoist-Sexual-Secrets/2164.pd

  4. Tell Cathy to please, please, please keep having exchanges with Justin Raimondo! It is almost as funny as the Donald sterling stuff!

    I emailed tucker on Saturday and said no real libertarian is going to sign up for a site that has some recently graduated 20 something calling us all racists, but he never responded. Maybe he realized there was something to the backlash.

    1. Cathy isn't doing anything differently than any other liberal. They all bend terms to suit their agenda. Hell, look at the number they did (and continue to do) to Christianity. According to liberals, at least 70% of Jesus' teachings don't matter; all you have to do is believe! Perhaps "Believe" makes a great inspirational poster, but it's not biblical. Anyway, this crap happens. The people who really understand remain, albeit out of the mainstream. And frankly, anarchism isn't going to be the mainstream. Smaller government, perhaps, but not anarchism. Cathy's damage to the so-called "liberty movement" is way overblown.

    2. "Cathy isn't doing anything differently than any other liberal. "

      Sure she is. She's calling herself a libertarian. Most liberals don't do that, although unfortunately, the practice seems to be getting more and more common every day...

    3. Incorrect. Cathy is attempting to do to libertarianism what the Trotskyites did to conservatism - destroy it from within by calling themselves an ideology and then running out anyone who is a threat to the state. Remember, just a few decades ago conservatives were the ones against war and intervention abroad - now they start the wars.

      She isn't doing this by herself bc she isn't smart enough, but since she is the target presenting herself, we have to destroy it to let others know what will happen if they try this garbage. The Koch Brothers and who knows else are behind this in an attempt to co opt the dramatically growing libertarian movement that Ron Paul started since it is the biggest threat to the state in a century or more. Cathy is to the libertarian movmement what Sarah palin was to conservatism - a mouthpiece repeating what the establishment told her to do.

    4. Who cares what she calls herself? Are you a self-proclaimed gatekeeper of the libertarian title? Must I sign a form and pass an exhaustive background check before becoming a libertarian? If "real" libertarians are actually, you know, acting in step with their ideology, then it's easy for anyone on the outside to see who's walking the walk and who isn't. The only time you have to worry about someone claiming your title is when you compromise your own position to the point where they're able to do that. If you feel your sacred "libertarian" title is threatened, you might want to look in the mirror and ask yourself why that is.

    5. Cathy,

      Yes, libertarianism is so dominant in American thought that they can all easily tell what is a libertarian and what isn't! I mean the American public is highly informed and educated about political thought, so there is no danger in it being corrupted. It certainly never happened to conservatism just a few decades ago or anything either.

      You seem to be the one having a hissy fit. Why are you so angry that we are exposing the lies and violations of basic libertarian thought that you bring to the table? If you are in the right, then why the teenage drama queen meltdown on here?

    6. @Anon
      at 4.52
      Obvious trolling, but nice try. Cathy is gate-keeping for the state. She's anti-conspiracy theory and anti-9/11 research, in case you were too lazy to figure that out, and she's trying to turn libertarianism into another neutered outfit run by operatives.

      You must be from the government.

      @Anon 4.46

      No overlord conveyed the libwap phrase to us. Bob uses so we use it too.

      Turn the other cheek? Why? So all you commies walk all over us? Even Jesus only kept quiet the first time around. Second time, he said he getting out his sword.
      So, when you pretend you know the Bible, it doesn't fool us.
      Go back to your Alinsky manual on how to subvert a country through sock-puppets, using dumb blondes for cover.

    7. You haven't exposed anything, nor am I having a hissy fit. Another strawman from the libertarian/anarchist court (not surprising). It's you so-called principled libertarians that are melting down about someone supposedly stealing a title you don't own, which is awfully collectivist by the way. You want people to believe the utopia you spout is possible? Then live it, despite any persecution and mockery. Take a page out of early Christian history. "But the state will just hunt us down!! Waaaaaa!" So? This happened to the early Christians, and early Christianity was even more pacifist than your illegitimate step-child called the NAP. Libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is composed of 95% keyboard warriors.

    8. So Cathy or one of her effeminate male followers/masculine female followers believe people are familiar enough with libertarians to know the difference? Here is some perspective:


      A majority of Americans don't even know what "GOP" means! 20 percent knew how many us senators exist, and only 25 percent know how long senators served in office per term. 30 percent of Americans were unable to name what year 9/11 took place in. 20 percent believe an alien has inducted a friend or family member.

      Only 51 percent could identity New York on a map! Only 1 in 7 could point out Iraq, and only 17 percent can list Afghanistan. 25 percent were unable to name the nation America achieved its independence from, and another 19 percent were unsure. 33 percent of those 18 to 29 did not know what nation America achieved its independence from.

      30 percent did not know what the holocaust was! 20 percent believe the sun revolves around the earth. 73 percent had no idea why the Cold War was fought, and 29 percent did not know who Joe Biden was. Most embarrassingly, a majority of Americans could not name more than one of the protections of the First Amendment.

      Yes, these are the highly educated people about politics who are going to easily debate the NAP and thick vs thin libertarianism and all of the other abstract debates between feminist/socialists and libertarians. Clearly, the public school system has done a wonderful job of teaching political theory.

    9. Please continue with the teenage girl meltdown! This is hilarious! You think early Christians were pacifist?!?!? The same Disciples who Christ told to sell their winter coat/bed in exchange for the most advanced weapon of the time were opposed to violence? Your ignorance of Christianity is right up there with your ignorance of libertarian thought.

      Cathy has already been exposed as a liar - or did you miss her apology after Raimondo destroyed her al Sharpton style tactics on twitter? She also tries to claim that Mises, the same guy who called homosexuals "perverse" is some sort of feminist! She is a moron who is only taken seriously and supported by boys who look like girls and girls who look like boys who embrace the Marxist philosophy known as feminism.

      Keyboard warrior? Even more comedy from your meltdown! Cathy has been exposed as having the intelligence and IQ as sarah palin - double digit at best. If the people posting are anonymous, how do you know who is a keyboard warrior or not? I have seen the profiles on twitter and Facebook of Cathy's male defenders and supporters, and they look exactly like the type of people traded as currency in exchange for cigarettes in prison. The Cathy supporters are about as effeminate and sissy as it gets - but please continue with your rant!

      Do you view yourself as tough or somehow physically superior to the people posting here? You are almost as entertaining as Cathy! Keep going, please! Cathy and her defenders have made me laugh harder than I have in a long time!

    10. Yet another strawman from a libertarian. I didn't say the average person is going to debate the NAP or thick vs thin libertarianism. Frankly, most people need to be more productive throughout their day than argue over that type of nonsense. But people can very easily discern people who are living according to what they preach and the people who don't.

    11. So then feminists like you would have zero problem with someone calling themselves a feminist yet arguing that women are not equal to men when it came to sports, being a firefighter, less capable at fighting and violence in general, etc?

      Because if they would - then they are doing the exact same thing you are complaining about libertarians doing. Are you trying to say you have no problem with that?

      PS is gender a social construct? I know you can take a couple minutes away from raging and throwing an online tantrum to answer that one!

    12. @various Anons

      Most of what you typed isn't even worth a reply, but I did want to correct one very grievous error in biblical teaching:

      "You think early Christians were pacifist?!?!? The same Disciples who Christ told to sell their winter coat/bed in exchange for the most advanced weapon of the time were opposed to violence?"

      The simple answer is yes, the early Christians were absolutely taught nonresistance to evil. And the teaching is the same now as it was then, but various theologians and other opportunists have reinterpreted it to explain away their own violent tendencies over the years. However, if read plainly (as Scripture should be), it's a flat teaching of nonresistance. You missed the entire context of the passage you were trying to quote. It was yet another nonresistant teaching in the making:

      "And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" (Matthew 26:51-54)

      "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." (Matthew 5:38-41)

      "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy, but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:43-45)

      "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

      "Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:17-21)

      "See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men." (1 Thessalonians 5:15)

      See also Matthew 5:46,47; Luke 6:27-31; John 18:36; 1 Corinthians 7-10; 1 Peter 3:9; Revelation 13:10.

    13. Yes - I have long seen those arguments given - sort of like Romans 13 means the government is always right, so always obey it or the conflating of "kill" with "do murder" when looking at the King James version of the Ten Commandments - which for some strange reason conveniently forget to address why Christ ordered the Disciples to sell their essential winter coat and buy the most advanced weapon of the time that could take two or three months of a typical wage to purchase. If non-resistance to evil, aka pacifism, was taught - why on earth did Christ order them to buy the equivalent of an AR15 in those days? That is the point that those who parrot this nonsense never, ever can address.

      Larry Pratt does a brilliant job of destroying that argument, and saves me the time of having to type it all out. But fundamentally, you are confusing Christ teaching not to act in aggression with pacifism, a common mistake. Self defense is what Christ advocated, and he admonished the attack by his Disciples not because it was violent - but because it was against an unarmed man, rather than the armed guards also present.


      Lastly, do you realize the great irony in calling it a "strawman" to have people debating the NAP or thick vs thin libertarianism when your own words earlier stated that people will be able to figure out who the true libertarians are, and who they are not? So you are calling your own words and arguments a strawman.


      PS Please continue with the "keyboard warrior" theme though.

  5. "How should we approach this topic as liberty-lovers?"

    Easy, get the state out of "sex", including marriage, gay or straight.

    Why do I get the feeling dear Cathy was going to fail to reach this conclusion?

  6. For Reisenwitz, the important pillars of libertarianism are lauding porn stars as freedom fighters and complaining about old fogeys who will call her a slut if she sleeps around. If you don't believe me just take a look at her twitter feed.