Wednesday, July 16, 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. Beware of Facebook!
    There is Topfree Movement that believes that the female breast is not a moral hazard or obscene. The site below aggregates stories of the Topfree community and their run-ins with the State. Facebook comes into considerable criticism

    Facebook is increasingly becoming a member of the Morals Police Force.
    Very sad.


  2. Just so people are aware, Christopher Cantwell promotes violence as a solution. He is very clever at putting out pieces that avoid any discussion on these 'strategies' yet are likely to get him published elsewhere, as is the case with the article here.

    1. No, he does not "promote violence as a solution." Either you have never read his work, you lack reading comprehension, or you are willfully dishonest.

    2. Defending yourself is not violent. If Cantwell was advocating aggressive violence against anybody, he would be in jail by now.


      His arguments are terrible full of holes. Here is a simple one:

      >Civil Disobedience
      >No one rules, if no one obeys.True enough.
      >Civil disobedience, for the purpose of
      >this paper being defined as non-compliance
      >with laws until force is brought to bear,
      >has its merits. Its advocates will look at
      >the American civil rights movement, or the
      >struggle for Indian independence,
      >to say what a wonderful non-violent solution
      >these actions are.
      >They ignore the fact that these things were
      >anything but non-violent. In both the American
      >civil rights movement, and the struggle for
      >Indian independence, countless demonstrators
      >were beaten, imprisoned, and murdered. Martin
      >Luther King, and Mahatma Gandhi were both
      >ultimately rewarded for their kindness with
      >assassins bullets through vital organs. All
      >that was accomplished in the way of non-violence,
      >was assuring that the demonstrators remained the
      >victims when the violence occurred, empowering
      >aggressors at the expense of victims.

      In this argument is an implied assumption that violent tactics would have prevented violence against the opposition, which clearly could not be the case. Further, the reasoning laid out in the paragraphs following the above two make it sound as if nonviolent tactics always fail, clearly incorrect as verified by the two examples of nonviolent resistance stated in the preceding paragraphs.

      There is no attempt to explain why Gandhi or MLK chose the paths of nonviolent resistance. Instead, he decides to blaze a trail where he must believe nobody has ever walked. A more convincing approach would be to analyze why Gandhi and MLK chose nonviolence and then counter their arguments. However, it is my opinion that such an endeavor would fail because the logic used by those two was quite sound, although I have not researched it myself.

      One thing I consider is that the cost of Indian independence from the British crown cost less in dollars, national resources, and lives than the American Revolution. Why?

      In any case, the above poster claiming that Cantwell does not promote violence is incorrect. Cantwell himself claims he is offering a violent solution, people who know and read him, such as Adam Kokesh, dispute his reasoning that violence is a solution directly with Cantwell, and in those discussions Cantwell does not argue that he is not proposing violence as a solution (in fact, he claims he is proposing violence as as solution), but rather defends his position that violence is a solution.

    4. Oh. We got another one of these I know exactly what's what " . . . although I have not researched it myself . . . " posts. Catastrophic fail. Shaddap and go learn sumthin fool.

  3. At the heart of it, barbarians like smashing things, no matter what label or garb they put on their ideology.