3 votes

Chris Cantwell: Politically Correct Libertarianism Must Die! Libertarianism Definition Hijack Rebuke 2.0!

Politically Correct Libertarianism Must Die!!

http://youtu.be/JX2qG7jS0GE
Christopher Cantwell
Published on Jul 16, 2014

The Libertarian Brutalism Facebook group was deleted today, because politically correct libertarians can't mind their own business. Well, I've got a few things to say to these people.

Indeed, I motherfrakkin' concur with this motherfrakkin' message!

.D

*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************

ADDENDUM: For reference, for those who may not be familiar, where all Chris Cantwell's angst on this issue stems from:

Misesian/Rothbardian Rebuke vs Fabian Socialists' "Brutalism/Thick/Thin"-BS Definition-Hijack of libertarianism!
Submitted by AnCapMercenary on Thu, 05/15/2014 - 09:41

The Future of Libertarianism
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
May 1, 2014

Marxists were notorious for infighting over the most trivial differences. One group would secede from another, reverse the word order of the group it had seceded from, and declare itself the new and pure group. The first group, the new group would declare to the world, was part of the fascist conspiracy to suppress the coming workers’ triumph, even though the differences between the two groups were completely undetectable even to an expert.

An informal debate taking place among libertarians these days, regarding whether people ought to be “thick” or “thin” libertarians, is of a different character. It strikes at the very heart of what libertarianism is.

The “thin” libertarian believes in the nonaggression principle, that one may not initiate physical force against anyone else. The thin libertarian thinks of himself simply as a libertarian, without labels. Most “thick” libertarians likewise believe in the nonaggression principle, but they believe that for the struggle for liberty to be coherent, libertarians must be committed to a slate of other views as well.

Both left and right are guilty
Walter E. Block
8:42 pm on May 13, 2014

This is my attempt to help temper the rancor I currently see in the liberty community. I am a staunch thin or pure libertarian. For me, the correct (Rothbardian) libertarianism is firmly predicated on the non aggression principle (NAP): the law should prohibit the initiation of violence against innocent people and their property. That is it. That is entirely it. There is no more to thin libertarianism, other than implications of this basic axiom; well, that’s quite a lot.

Of late however, many leftists have been attempting to hijack the good ship libertarian in their own direction, adding to the NAP their own pet projects: opposition to bossism, racism, sexism, homophobia, prejudice, bigotry, brutalism, etc. Some call this humanitarian libertarianism, many call it thick libertarianism, and others characterize this as “New Libertarianism” (http://www.johnmccaskey.com/joomla/index.php/blog/71-new-lib...). Whatever it is called, it is an unwarranted and unjustified attack on pure or thin or Rothbardian libertarianism.

But this isn’t simply an issue of leftism trying to envelop libertarianism. The push towards the right has been going on just as long and just as forcefully; for example, some right wing thickists urge acceptance of conservatism. This article of mine was an attempt to make the case that not one but both sides are guilty of this misunderstanding of libertarianism, and to point out errors on not one but both sides:

Block, Walter E. 2010. “Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left: a critique of the views of Long, Holcombe, and Baden on the left, Hoppe, Feser and Paul on the right.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22: 127–70; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_8.pdf; http://141.164.133.3/exchange/walterblock/Inbox/JLS%20articl...
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf; http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf

I am not sure whether or not it will temper the rancor now racing through the libertarian community to point out that not only leftists, but rightists too are guilty of thickism. I am being even handed, criticizing attacks on pure libertarianism from whichever direction they emanate, one, in an attempt to reduce hostility, name-calling, flaming, etc., but more important, because it is the truth. Both sides are guilty of making this elementary mistake, not just the lefties.

For voices of sanity on this issue other than (hopefully) my own, see anything written on the subject by Bob Wenzel, and also this magnificent essay by Lew Rockwell: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/lew-rockwell/the-future-.... Wait, here’s one more excellent essay on this topic, by Laurence Vance: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/laurence-m-vance/i-am-a-...

I Am a Libertarian
By Laurence M. Vance
May 6, 2014

I am a libertarian. I am not Democrat or Republican. I am not liberal or conservative. I am not left or right. I am not moderate or progressive. I am not a Libertarian. I am not a fusionist. I am not a constitutionalist.

I am a libertarian. I am not thin or thick. I am not brutalist or humanitarian. I am not holist or solipsist. I am not moralist or consequentialist. I am not open or closed. I am not a modal, cosmopolitan, cultural, regime, sophisticated, or Beltway libertarian. I do not have a bleeding heart. I am not a neo, second wave, or millennial libertarian. I am a plain old libertarian, one who needs no labels, issues no caveats, and makes no apologies.

I am a libertarian. Libertarianism is a political philosophy concerned with the permissible use of force or violence. It is not a political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government. It is not a political philosophy that is socially liberal and economically conservative. It is not a political philosophy that says government is less efficient than the private sector. It is not a political philosophy that says freedom can be achieved by promoting some government policies over others. It is not a political philosophy that is low-tax liberalism. Libertarianism is not the absence of racism, sexism, homophobism, xenophobism, nationalism, nativism, classism, authoritarianism, patriarchy, inequality, or hierarchy. Libertarianism is not diversity or activism. Libertarianism is not egalitarianism. Libertarianism is not toleration or respect. Libertarianism is not a social attitude, lifestyle, or aesthetic sensibility.

******************************************************************

There has been a disturbing rift in the Force...as of late within AnCap/libertarian circles.

Mainly two culprit: Jeff Tucker (noooooooooooooo! another one bites the dust?? .o( & Cathy 'Who?' Reisenwitz, a KOCHtopus beltarian/faketarian/Cosmotarian Fabian Socialist infiltrator who first 'made her name' personally attacking/name-calling sweet ol Julie Boroswki completely uninitiated:

Sex, Butts & Orgasms: A Response to Julie Borowski

http://youtu.be/a49r8iGdOJ0
thelibertarienne
Published on Jan 6, 2013

Libertarian vlogger Julie Borowski, aka Token Libertarian Girl, recently posted a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nASPjB...) where she gave her opinion on why there aren't more libertarian women. In doing so, she definitely helped answer the question, but probably not in the way she intended.

In this video I address some of my problems with her approach and offer my own solutions to libertarianism's girl problem.

If you want to read more about me, check out my blog: http://anarcho-capitalism-blog.com.

The Libertarienne Show is hosted by Cathy Reisenwitz and produced by Sean W. Malone of CitizenA Media, LLC

...in response to this video by Julie:

Addressing the Lack of Female Libertarians

http://youtu.be/nASPjBVQkQk
Julie Borowski
Published on Jan 2, 2013

Why are there so few female libertarians? It has nothing to do with our philosophy. It is because libertarianism is not yet mainstream and part of popular culture. Women are more likely to care about being socially accepted and fitting in with their peers. There is more societal pressure for them to fit in and be "normal" by popular culture standards. They are less likely to have political views that are considered outside the mainstream.

There is more societal pressure on women to fit in and conform to what is considered "normal" by popular culture standards. This does not apply to every woman (obviously.) All women are individuals.

Some libertarian blogosphere discussion about the two:

Women, Libertarianism, Paleos, Cosmos, and Cosmo
By Lucy Steigerwald On January 8, 2013


Does This Miniskirt Make My Butt Look Libertarian Enough?

by Shaunna on January 15, 2013

...and check this: Cathy had the nerve to call bitcoin "bigoted" while invoking the current ongoing latest trend of Left social engineers: "Check Your [White] Privilege!"-BS, and much, much, much more forever recorded socially engineered imbecility. Time to call out, those who need calling out; perhaps, this is why Jeff Tucker has 'amicably' left as Pres. of Mises Inst.

If Cathy is 'libertarian,' then so is Rachel Maddow, Obama, and Glenn Beck. LOL!

No seriously, Reisenwitz actually said the following, with ZERO PROOF!

'Bitcoin is bigoted!'

Cathy Reisenwitz Accuses Bitcoin of Bigotry, Loses 2 Klout Points
Cathy Reisenwitz Klout Score Drops Two Points After Accusing Bitcoin of Bigotry
by Christopher Cantwell • March 3, 2014

With left “libertarians” like Cathy Reisenwitz, it’s all about privilege. There’s basically no issue that cannot be boiled down to racism, sexism, or homophobia. Not even Bitcoin. In a hysterical twitter fit, Cathy makes the case that there is some diabolical plot causing Bitcoin to be primarily used by white males.

'Libertarians are Racist!' Actually, no, not just, but apparently: "SUPER racist"!!!

"Maybe it's American libertarians who are super racist"

Cathy Reisenwitz Says American Libertarians are “Super Racist”
by Christopher Cantwell • May 11, 2014 • 9 Comments

From Bob Wenzel at Econ Policy Journal: Justin Raimondo (Misesian) at AntiWar.com SMOKES Cathy 'Fabian Socialist' Reisenwitz PsyOp peddler OUT!

Justin Raimondo Smokes Out Absurd Racism Charges Made By Cathy Reisenwitz
Friday, May 9, 2014
Posted by Robert Wenzel at 7:04 PM

It started with these tweets by Reisenwitz:

Raimondo responded with a barrage of tweets, including these:

A sickening lie: https://t.co/wbqToCdMBC This liar needs to be called out but good.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou https://t.co/wbqToCdMBC Names, links please. u can't make this kind of accusation and just run away.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou So you throw out a blanket smear & refuse to be specific. Nice.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou U said libertarian publications regularly "bash blacks." I ask u who & where. Simple question.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@mvmustafin She said there are libertarian _publications_ that "regularly bash blacks." Asked which ones & when, she had a fit & said "bye."
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou This latest comment is confirmation that no one should take @CathyReisenweitz seriously.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou A message board is like a comments section: anyone can post anything. LvMi has no control over
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou Cathy sez libertarians racist: asked 4 evidence she points to a ... public message board.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

And so Reisenwitz makes charges of racism against Hoppe, Block, Ron Paul, Rockwell and the late Murray Rothbard. Her proof: She directs Raimondo to the Ludwig von Mises message boards, which weren't up when Rothbard was alive. And I have never seen Hoppe, Block, Ron Paul or Rockwell ever post on the LvMi message boards. Reisenwitz logic. She has done it before:

A "Humanitarian" Libertarian Considers the Hyper-Inflations of the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe "Experiments"

Cathy Reisenwitz Takes On Money Laundering Theory

Fake Apologies, or Race Pimping – Which is Worse?
by Christopher Cantwell • May 12, 2014

One thing you almost never see me do is apologize. That’s because I’m almost never sorry about what I say or do, and I tend to reserve apologies for when I’m actually sorry. This is sort of a rare feature in humanity, as you may have noticed in life. Most people will throw out an apology whenever it suits their purposes, and this makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit every time.

Yesterday I published a screenshot of tweets from Cathy Reisenwitz accusing “American libertarians” of being “super racist”. If that seems a little bit too collectivist for your taste, don’t worry, she later specifically named Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, Walter Block, and Hoppe as being racists. This isn’t actually all that unusual, except for the fact that she named names that people actually care about. Cathy has been calling libertarians and libertarianism itself racist for a long time, with her implication that not caring about race, is racist. You know, like bitcoin.

and...the very libertarian act of voluntary disassociation & shunning followed, as consequence of her exposing herself to be utterly unprincipled and definitionally clueless...and nerd hilarity ensued! lol: her "Klout" points went from 77

...to 75!

What is Klout? In Cantwell's words:

Klout is a system that aggregates a user’s social networking activity over various social networks, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Google+, etc… and returns an “influence” score of 1-100. It’s basically a measure of your ability to get a message out over social media. If people become less interested in what you have to say, your Klout score drops. My own Klout score has dropped by 5 points over the last 20 days, but that’s because I’m on a 30 day ban from posting to Facebook, where 70% of my audience is.

I certainly had no idea what Klout was/is, until this whole back & forth between Catwell & Reisenwitz.

Chris Cantwell was interviewed on this on going 'issue' on the Tom Woods Show, on the Peter Schiff network:

Libertarianism Hijacked - May 14, 2014

Christopher Cantwell joins Tom to discuss recent efforts to make libertarianism "complete" by making it into something different.

Download

Tom Woods Reacts to the Reisenwitz Apology
Monday, May 12, 2014

Following my post on the Cathy Reisenwitz apology (SEE: BREAKING Reisenwitz Issues Apology for Making Racist Charges), Tom Woods added this in the comment section of the post:

Tom Woods May 11, 2014 at 9:30 PM

To continue in that vein, she would have had to break with Tucker, and that gig is evidently too lucrative to give up.

Meanwhile, Tucker, who from his recent writing appears to be a delicate flower who feels pain at every unkind word or thought entertained by anyone at any time, couldn't spare three seconds to stand up in defense of Ron Paul, who has done so much for him, or for Walter or the others. Let's hope this phase passes soon.

Posted by Robert Wenzel at 2:07 AM

*******************************************************************

Personally I ABHOR seeing needless infighting, but when it's obviously intentional, INorganic and viciously orchestrated, one would be remiss to not call them out.

*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************

UPDATE 1: Relevant video to the fauxnarchist "libertarian brutalism"-neologism BS 'discussion'

There seems to be an ongoing trend among those who may have recently 'shunned' progressivism in favor of what they want to understand libertarianism to be, without really understanding what even the word means, or as a political philosophy what ideas and concepts it embodies.

Such as this one man, Will Moyer and his 'critique' of something that he obviously has never understood. He apparently wants libertarianism to solve world hunger, and human psychosis, and create unicorns; Stefan Molyneux provides timely p0wnage, to his former 'pupil:'

The Limits of Libertarianism - Rebutted!

http://youtu.be/EeqaRyrdcCY
Stefan Molyneux
Published on Jul 9, 2014

Stefan Molyneux responds to the article "Why I left libertarianism: An ethical critique of a limited ideology" by Will Moyer which recently appeared on Salon.
http://willmoyer.com/limits-of-libertarianism-responses/

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

LoL omg really? Again?!

More theater and more actresses showing their true colors, yet again:

Reisenwitz's Tweet:

"The movement is eaten up by racism. Hoppe, Rothbard, Rockwell, Ron Paul all have racist quotes attributed to them."

Just laughable and utterly false.

An old movie quote, from me to Reisenwitz:

http://youtu.be/jyLvkF2z0AQ

"SHOOSH!"

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Does anyone know Cantwell's pro wrestling name?

Cause there can be no other possible explanation for that black wife-beater.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

don't know, perhaps

Cantwell the WifeBeater PantsSwell.

er, that sounds more pr0n-y than WWE-y.

xD

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

updated

UPDATE 1: Relevant video to the fauxnarchist "libertarian brutalism"-neologism BS 'discussion'

The Limits of Libertarianism - Rebutted!

http://youtu.be/EeqaRyrdcCY
Stefan Molyneux
Published on Jul 9, 2014

Stefan Molyneux responds to the article "Why I left libertarianism: An ethical critique of a limited ideology" by Will Moyer which recently appeared on Salon.
http://willmoyer.com/limits-of-libertarianism-responses/

There seems to be an ongoing trend among those who may have recently 'shunned' progressivism in favor of what they want to understand libertarianism to be, without really understanding what even the word means, or as a political philosophy what ideas and concepts it embodies.

Such as this one man, Will Moyer and his 'critique' of something that he obviously has never understood. He apparently wants libertarianism to solve world hunger, and human psychosis, and create unicorns; Stefan Molyneux provides timely p0wnage, to his former 'pupil.'

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

jrd3820's picture

What about personal responsibility?

He's mad because his facebook group page was taken down, but wasn't it taken down because it violated the rules he agreed to when starting a facebook page?

I get that it is crappy that someone told on him. But he is saying whoever told on him violated contractual obligations and has the nerve to call themselves a libertarian.... Yeah, it sucks.

But wasn't he violating contractual obligations by not following facebooks policy with that kind of language.

And don't get me wrong, I don't like facebook so I don't use it, I'm not even saying I agree with facebooks policies, but once again; he agreed to those policies upon starting a page. His page got taken down because he violated those policies.

How does he not accept responsibility for it?

And as far as anyone abhorring infighitng. That is all this is. One libertarian said another libertarian is doing something they don't think is libertarian, so that libertarian says the other libertarian isn't a libertarian. He is starting some petty online wars in the libertarian world all because his groups page that violated FB policies was removed and he is blaming it on someone else.

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That'll teach you to keep your mouth shut. Hemingway

nah: his worked up angst is tertiary jump-off point to lead into

his real core issue of concern: Cathy Reisentwitz-instigated, 'niche market' on re-defining what the definition of libertarianism is, should encompass, etc., beyond the NAP, in her quest to broaden appeal to statist progressives/'liberals' by, for example: expanding, literally re-defining the term "coercion" to include verbal discomfort. As oppose to, in lieu of being a principled "brutalist" stickler toward the premise that libertarianism, as defined within AnCap circles, to only pertain to human interaction that it be based on voluntaryism and non-initiation of aggression. And nothing more, nothing less.

This seems to be a recent trend among those he recently left progressivism in favor of what they want to understand libertarinism as, without really understanding what even the word means, or as a political philosophy what ideas and concepts it embodies. Such as this one man, Will Moyer and his 'critique' of something that he obviously has never understood. He apparently wants libertarian to solve world hunger, and human psychosis, and create unicorns; Stefan Molyneux provides timely p0wnage, to his former 'pupil:'

The Limits of Libertarianism - Rebutted!

http://youtu.be/EeqaRyrdcCY
Stefan Molyneux
Published on Jul 9, 2014

Stefan Molyneux responds to the article "Why I left libertarianism: An ethical critique of a limited ideology" by Will Moyer which recently appeared on Salon.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/14/why_i_left_libertarianism_an...
http://willmoyer.com/limits-of-libertarianism-responses/

it's naggingly lengthy to trying to track two person's conflict when you're a wholly disparate 3rd party, but if you read through their comments, and the timeline where Jeffrey Tucker left Mises, to branch out and pursue his rather awesome Liberty.ME project, and his article on "brutalism," this is like any other intra-libertarian debate: honing the scope of definitions, underlying principles.

plus, sorry, Cathy basically called American libertarians as racists, and gave one of those "I'm sorry if..." faux-pologies. she ain't getting off the hook that easy.

as such, perhaps your personal responsibility question should be asked of her.

I 'get' what you're saying, but critiquing a faux-narchist and calling her and the rest out, is no more 'infighting' than you characterizing Cantwell, and perhaps me by proxy, merely mentioning it, and characterizing that as further feeding the intramural spat.

Who's to say what is or is not to be the arbiter of what is worthy of a 'libertarian' discussion. Besides, you nor me telling them to stop talking about it (not that I would, nor would anyone whom identifies himself as a libertarian would accept such dictate, other than perhaps take under advisement the suggestion to cease talking about topic x, y, z because it may feed into infighting...even though it already has fed into it. lol).

Well, suppose you can't critique something, even if attention isn't deserved (as far as some are concerned), without giving some attention TO it, to point out that...er, it 'shouldn't be paid attention to,' no?

'Tis the nature of the beast, Jen ,oD

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

jrd3820's picture

Attention is fine...

I would even agree that Cathy was way off in some of her comments and should be challenged to defend them.

Characterizing you by proxy? Those weren't my intentions.

The video just seemed like a guy mad because he didn't get his way on facebook, blaming it on someone else (when it was clearly his actions that got his facebook page taken down) and then yelling a lot about that person.

I so appreciate you added the extra because before reading all that, I was even more unimpressed with Cantwell. I'm sorry he was acting like a child who didn't get his way and blamed it on someone else. And sure, Cathy should take personal responsibility also, and so should I, and so should you, and so should everyone. But the video wasn't Cathy yelling about her page being taken down because someone told on her. It was Cantwell yelling about his page being taken down because someone told on him,

It's not you I'm trying to characterize for bringing attention to it, I just get sick of this kind of in fighting. Cathy barely has a name for herself, and this will only bring more attention to her name, if he doesn't like her or what she says; he is only giving her more of a light.

He needs to man up on the FB issue also. That is on him. That is no one else's fault.

Cathy is far from perfect, but so is he. So am I, so are you, so is everyone here. The difference is, we aren't yelling about it like children.

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That'll teach you to keep your mouth shut. Hemingway

guess his style over substance doesn't bother me, as much

as Cathy's erroneous understanding of something, yet being condescendingly preachy adamant about it, without being able to properly intellectually defend her assertions, all the while broadstroke calling Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul, Murray N. Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Hans Hermann-Hoppe, and other American libertarians as "Super Racist" without providing and ounce of proof, or if not clear cut but contentiously arguable, why she thinks x, y, z of something they wrote or said, may be "super racist" in her mind:

'Bitcoin is bigoted!'

Cathy Reisenwitz Accuses Bitcoin of Bigotry, Loses 2 Klout Points
Cathy Reisenwitz Klout Score Drops Two Points After Accusing Bitcoin of Bigotry
by Christopher Cantwell • March 3, 2014

With left “libertarians” like Cathy Reisenwitz, it’s all about privilege. There’s basically no issue that cannot be boiled down to racism, sexism, or homophobia. Not even Bitcoin. In a hysterical twitter fit, Cathy makes the case that there is some diabolical plot causing Bitcoin to be primarily used by white males.

'Libertarians are Racist!' Actually, no, not just, but apparently: "SUPER racist"!!!

"Maybe it's American libertarians who are super racist"

Cathy Reisenwitz Says American Libertarians are “Super Racist”
by Christopher Cantwell • May 11, 2014 • 9 Comments

From Bob Wenzel at Econ Policy Journal: Justin Raimondo (Misesian) at AntiWar.com SMOKES Cathy 'Fabian Socialist' Reisenwitz PsyOp peddler OUT!

Justin Raimondo Smokes Out Absurd Racism Charges Made By Cathy Reisenwitz
Friday, May 9, 2014
Posted by Robert Wenzel at 7:04 PM

It started with these tweets by Reisenwitz:

Raimondo responded with a barrage of tweets, including these:

A sickening lie: https://t.co/wbqToCdMBC This liar needs to be called out but good.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou https://t.co/wbqToCdMBC Names, links please. u can't make this kind of accusation and just run away.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou So you throw out a blanket smear & refuse to be specific. Nice.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou U said libertarian publications regularly "bash blacks." I ask u who & where. Simple question.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@mvmustafin She said there are libertarian _publications_ that "regularly bash blacks." Asked which ones & when, she had a fit & said "bye."
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou This latest comment is confirmation that no one should take @CathyReisenweitz seriously.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou A message board is like a comments section: anyone can post anything. LvMi has no control over
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou Cathy sez libertarians racist: asked 4 evidence she points to a ... public message board.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

And so Reisenwitz makes charges of racism against Hoppe, Block, Ron Paul, Rockwell and the late Murray Rothbard. Her proof: She directs Raimondo to the Ludwig von Mises message boards, which weren't up when Rothbard was alive. And I have never seen Hoppe, Block, Ron Paul or Rockwell ever post on the LvMi message boards. Reisenwitz logic. She has done it before:

A "Humanitarian" Libertarian Considers the Hyper-Inflations of the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe "Experiments"

Cathy Reisenwitz Takes On Money Laundering Theory

Don't have high regard for those who willy nilly slander & libel, least of all, one like Cathy Reisenwitz, who cannot even properly define what libertarianism is, let alone the definition of the word "coercion," which she magically deemed to encompass 'making you feel bad' as part of what coercion 'should' mean.

I'd say call out dishonest anybody, be they neoCon or fauxnarchists ,o)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

jrd3820's picture

Oh yeah...I read the bitcoin stuff

That was crazy. I don't even understand where she is coming from with all that. It makes no sense to me.

I'll admit I'm not one for his style, but I try to be objective with ppl like him anyways. I probably fall short sometimes. As I admitted above, I'm not perfect.

I just don't think from the video he is making a solid case for himself. In the video he said nothing about her bizarre comments on bitcoin. In fact this post without the video makes much more sense to me. In the video, again, I just felt like he was yelling about fb instead of talking about the issues.

Those bitcoin comments though....

Yeah, I had no idea what she was trying to get at with all that. And Cantwell could have really taken her down with some of those instead of crying about his fb page.

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That'll teach you to keep your mouth shut. Hemingway

which would be why I refer

to her as a "faux-narchist." xD

It's one thing to be wrong about something (as a truly enlightened individual is a constant work in progress, and would readily go Socratic cruise-matic admit that all one is certain about, is that one does not know...anything, in the finality), but it's wholly another to be downright preachy condescendingly arrogant, call others names to the likes of Julie Borowski who never said anything mean to her in the least, along with slandering/libeling Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul and his fellow libertarian scholars/intelligentsia, not 'just' "racist," but "SUPER racist"!! LOL.

Which, is directly out of the SPLC playbook, with ZERO proof as usual, and uses a wholly intellectually dishonest baseless premise to build her whole public persona around it, especially within the definition stickler-y-obsessed libertarian nerd-vana, dang it! A perplexing move, to be sure.

,D

Plus it'd be one thing, if her baseless critique was once or twice honest misunderstandings, but this seems to be her de facto modus operandi.

Please observe the following; mind you, this is daughter of legal scholar & AnCap Butler Shaffer, Bretigne Shaffer, an accomplished libertarian/AnCap intellectual in her own right & a published author, rebutting Cathy Reisenwitz, correctly:

Cathy Reisenwitz Remains Confused
by Bretigne Shaffer
Friday, July 11, 2014

Last January I wrote a piece for EPJ on “Libertarians and Privilege” in response to an online debate between Cathy Reisenwitz and Julie Borowski on the topic of “privilege.” In it, I argued against Reisenwitz’s position that libertarians ought to not only oppose the initiation of force, but should also be concerned with “...the cultural attitudes, ignorance and prejudices that form the basis of (the desire to preserve unearned power)” I also reiterated my rejection of the term “privilege” as she uses it, and explained my reasons for rejecting it. Yesterday, LewRockwell.com re-posted my article and Reisenwitz responded here.

Reisenwitz starts off by chiding me for focusing on this particular debate but failing to cite her contribution to another online debate - a contribution she wrote some five months after my article had appeared. She then takes me to task for claiming that she failed to address the criticism she had received regarding her claim that shaming is a form of coercion. She writes:

“...the first mistake Shaffer makes is to claim I failed to address criticisms to my “shaming is coercion” article that I actually did address. In the follow-up article.

“...Also funny: When writers don’t do their due diligence. In fact I clarified that although I do acknowledge that shaming can be a form of coercion (something I’m not the only writer to assert) that fact doesn’t justify using even more coercion to punish it.”

In fact, I did read Reisenwitz’s follow-up article. Far from “addressing” the criticism she received, she simply redefined the word “coercion” to make it appear that there was no problem with what she had said. She writes:

“In my mind, this is the key difference between coercion and persuasion: persuasion is pointing out the natural consequences to another person of possible courses of action for them. Coercion is creating those consequences.”

So, while you and I may have grown up believing that “coercion” refers to the use of violence or the threat of violence to get others to do what you want them to, in Cathy-Land, coercion means “creating negative consequences” for actions or behavior.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I also ...

"motherfrakkin' concur with this motherfrakkin' message!"

yup; apparently ol Cantwell must have ruffled some feathers...

here, too.

I actually used to not care that much for his stuff...that is until I read up a bit more on his works/statements/videos/writings,etc., and learned to discern his public avatar vs. his actual thinking processes, which are made bare, public, to all. Dig his bluntness! xD

Especially on him ferreting out faux-narchists like Cathy Reisenwitz:

Misesian/Rothbardian Rebuke vs Fabian Socialists' "Brutalism/Thick/Thin"-BS Definition-Hijack of libertarianism!
Submitted by AnCapMercenary on Thu, 05/15/2014 - 09:41

The Future of Libertarianism
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
May 1, 2014

Marxists were notorious for infighting over the most trivial differences. One group would secede from another, reverse the word order of the group it had seceded from, and declare itself the new and pure group. The first group, the new group would declare to the world, was part of the fascist conspiracy to suppress the coming workers’ triumph, even though the differences between the two groups were completely undetectable even to an expert.

An informal debate taking place among libertarians these days, regarding whether people ought to be “thick” or “thin” libertarians, is of a different character. It strikes at the very heart of what libertarianism is.

The “thin” libertarian believes in the nonaggression principle, that one may not initiate physical force against anyone else. The thin libertarian thinks of himself simply as a libertarian, without labels. Most “thick” libertarians likewise believe in the nonaggression principle, but they believe that for the struggle for liberty to be coherent, libertarians must be committed to a slate of other views as well.

Both left and right are guilty
Walter E. Block
8:42 pm on May 13, 2014

This is my attempt to help temper the rancor I currently see in the liberty community. I am a staunch thin or pure libertarian. For me, the correct (Rothbardian) libertarianism is firmly predicated on the non aggression principle (NAP): the law should prohibit the initiation of violence against innocent people and their property. That is it. That is entirely it. There is no more to thin libertarianism, other than implications of this basic axiom; well, that’s quite a lot.

Of late however, many leftists have been attempting to hijack the good ship libertarian in their own direction, adding to the NAP their own pet projects: opposition to bossism, racism, sexism, homophobia, prejudice, bigotry, brutalism, etc. Some call this humanitarian libertarianism, many call it thick libertarianism, and others characterize this as “New Libertarianism” (http://www.johnmccaskey.com/joomla/index.php/blog/71-new-lib...). Whatever it is called, it is an unwarranted and unjustified attack on pure or thin or Rothbardian libertarianism.

But this isn’t simply an issue of leftism trying to envelop libertarianism. The push towards the right has been going on just as long and just as forcefully; for example, some right wing thickists urge acceptance of conservatism. This article of mine was an attempt to make the case that not one but both sides are guilty of this misunderstanding of libertarianism, and to point out errors on not one but both sides:

Block, Walter E. 2010. “Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left: a critique of the views of Long, Holcombe, and Baden on the left, Hoppe, Feser and Paul on the right.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22: 127–70; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_8.pdf; http://141.164.133.3/exchange/walterblock/Inbox/JLS%20articl...
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf; http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf

I am not sure whether or not it will temper the rancor now racing through the libertarian community to point out that not only leftists, but rightists too are guilty of thickism. I am being even handed, criticizing attacks on pure libertarianism from whichever direction they emanate, one, in an attempt to reduce hostility, name-calling, flaming, etc., but more important, because it is the truth. Both sides are guilty of making this elementary mistake, not just the lefties.

For voices of sanity on this issue other than (hopefully) my own, see anything written on the subject by Bob Wenzel, and also this magnificent essay by Lew Rockwell: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/lew-rockwell/the-future-.... Wait, here’s one more excellent essay on this topic, by Laurence Vance: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/laurence-m-vance/i-am-a-...

I Am a Libertarian
By Laurence M. Vance
May 6, 2014

I am a libertarian. I am not Democrat or Republican. I am not liberal or conservative. I am not left or right. I am not moderate or progressive. I am not a Libertarian. I am not a fusionist. I am not a constitutionalist.

I am a libertarian. I am not thin or thick. I am not brutalist or humanitarian. I am not holist or solipsist. I am not moralist or consequentialist. I am not open or closed. I am not a modal, cosmopolitan, cultural, regime, sophisticated, or Beltway libertarian. I do not have a bleeding heart. I am not a neo, second wave, or millennial libertarian. I am a plain old libertarian, one who needs no labels, issues no caveats, and makes no apologies.

I am a libertarian. Libertarianism is a political philosophy concerned with the permissible use of force or violence. It is not a political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government. It is not a political philosophy that is socially liberal and economically conservative. It is not a political philosophy that says government is less efficient than the private sector. It is not a political philosophy that says freedom can be achieved by promoting some government policies over others. It is not a political philosophy that is low-tax liberalism. Libertarianism is not the absence of racism, sexism, homophobism, xenophobism, nationalism, nativism, classism, authoritarianism, patriarchy, inequality, or hierarchy. Libertarianism is not diversity or activism. Libertarianism is not egalitarianism. Libertarianism is not toleration or respect. Libertarianism is not a social attitude, lifestyle, or aesthetic sensibility.

******************************************************************

There has been a disturbing rift in the Force...as of late within AnCap/libertarian circles.

Mainly two culprit: Jeff Tucker (noooooooooooooo! another one bites the dust?? .o( & Cathy 'Who?' Reisenwitz, a KOCHtopus beltarian/faketarian/Cosmotarian Fabian Socialist infiltrator who first 'made her name' personally attacking/name-calling sweet ol Julie Boroswki completely uninitiated:

Sex, Butts & Orgasms: A Response to Julie Borowski

http://youtu.be/a49r8iGdOJ0
thelibertarienne
Published on Jan 6, 2013

Libertarian vlogger Julie Borowski, aka Token Libertarian Girl, recently posted a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nASPjB...) where she gave her opinion on why there aren't more libertarian women. In doing so, she definitely helped answer the question, but probably not in the way she intended.

In this video I address some of my problems with her approach and offer my own solutions to libertarianism's girl problem.

If you want to read more about me, check out my blog: http://anarcho-capitalism-blog.com.

The Libertarienne Show is hosted by Cathy Reisenwitz and produced by Sean W. Malone of CitizenA Media, LLC

...in response to this video by Julie:

Addressing the Lack of Female Libertarians

http://youtu.be/nASPjBVQkQk
Julie Borowski
Published on Jan 2, 2013

Why are there so few female libertarians? It has nothing to do with our philosophy. It is because libertarianism is not yet mainstream and part of popular culture. Women are more likely to care about being socially accepted and fitting in with their peers. There is more societal pressure for them to fit in and be "normal" by popular culture standards. They are less likely to have political views that are considered outside the mainstream.

There is more societal pressure on women to fit in and conform to what is considered "normal" by popular culture standards. This does not apply to every woman (obviously.) All women are individuals.

Some libertarian blogosphere discussion about the two:

Women, Libertarianism, Paleos, Cosmos, and Cosmo
By Lucy Steigerwald On January 8, 2013


Does This Miniskirt Make My Butt Look Libertarian Enough?

by Shaunna on January 15, 2013

...and check this: Cathy had the nerve to call bitcoin "bigoted" while invoking the current ongoing latest trend of Left social engineers: "Check Your [White] Privilege!"-BS, and much, much, much more forever recorded socially engineered imbecility. Time to call out, those who need calling out; perhaps, this is why Jeff Tucker has 'amicably' left as Pres. of Mises Inst.

If Cathy is 'libertarian,' then so is Rachel Maddow, Obama, and Glenn Beck. LOL!

No seriously, Reisenwitz actually said the following, with ZERO PROOF!

'Bitcoin is bigoted!'

Cathy Reisenwitz Accuses Bitcoin of Bigotry, Loses 2 Klout Points
Cathy Reisenwitz Klout Score Drops Two Points After Accusing Bitcoin of Bigotry
by Christopher Cantwell • March 3, 2014

With left “libertarians” like Cathy Reisenwitz, it’s all about privilege. There’s basically no issue that cannot be boiled down to racism, sexism, or homophobia. Not even Bitcoin. In a hysterical twitter fit, Cathy makes the case that there is some diabolical plot causing Bitcoin to be primarily used by white males.

'Libertarians are Racist!' Actually, no, not just, but apparently: "SUPER racist"!!!

"Maybe it's American libertarians who are super racist"

Cathy Reisenwitz Says American Libertarians are “Super Racist”
by Christopher Cantwell • May 11, 2014 • 9 Comments

From Bob Wenzel at Econ Policy Journal: Justin Raimondo (Misesian) at AntiWar.com SMOKES Cathy 'Fabian Socialist' Reisenwitz PsyOp peddler OUT!

Justin Raimondo Smokes Out Absurd Racism Charges Made By Cathy Reisenwitz
Friday, May 9, 2014
Posted by Robert Wenzel at 7:04 PM

It started with these tweets by Reisenwitz:

Raimondo responded with a barrage of tweets, including these:

A sickening lie: https://t.co/wbqToCdMBC This liar needs to be called out but good.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou https://t.co/wbqToCdMBC Names, links please. u can't make this kind of accusation and just run away.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou So you throw out a blanket smear & refuse to be specific. Nice.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou U said libertarian publications regularly "bash blacks." I ask u who & where. Simple question.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@mvmustafin She said there are libertarian _publications_ that "regularly bash blacks." Asked which ones & when, she had a fit & said "bye."
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou This latest comment is confirmation that no one should take @CathyReisenweitz seriously.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou A message board is like a comments section: anyone can post anything. LvMi has no control over
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou Cathy sez libertarians racist: asked 4 evidence she points to a ... public message board.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

And so Reisenwitz makes charges of racism against Hoppe, Block, Ron Paul, Rockwell and the late Murray Rothbard. Her proof: She directs Raimondo to the Ludwig von Mises message boards, which weren't up when Rothbard was alive. And I have never seen Hoppe, Block, Ron Paul or Rockwell ever post on the LvMi message boards. Reisenwitz logic. She has done it before:

A "Humanitarian" Libertarian Considers the Hyper-Inflations of the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe "Experiments"

Cathy Reisenwitz Takes On Money Laundering Theory

Fake Apologies, or Race Pimping – Which is Worse?
by Christopher Cantwell • May 12, 2014

One thing you almost never see me do is apologize. That’s because I’m almost never sorry about what I say or do, and I tend to reserve apologies for when I’m actually sorry. This is sort of a rare feature in humanity, as you may have noticed in life. Most people will throw out an apology whenever it suits their purposes, and this makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit every time.

Yesterday I published a screenshot of tweets from Cathy Reisenwitz accusing “American libertarians” of being “super racist”. If that seems a little bit too collectivist for your taste, don’t worry, she later specifically named Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, Walter Block, and Hoppe as being racists. This isn’t actually all that unusual, except for the fact that she named names that people actually care about. Cathy has been calling libertarians and libertarianism itself racist for a long time, with her implication that not caring about race, is racist. You know, like bitcoin.

and...the very libertarian act of voluntary disassociation & shunning followed, as consequence of her exposing herself to be utterly unprincipled and definitionally clueless...and nerd hilarity ensued! lol: her "Klout" points went from 77

...to 75!

What is Klout? In Cantwell's words:

Klout is a system that aggregates a user’s social networking activity over various social networks, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Google+, etc… and returns an “influence” score of 1-100. It’s basically a measure of your ability to get a message out over social media. If people become less interested in what you have to say, your Klout score drops. My own Klout score has dropped by 5 points over the last 20 days, but that’s because I’m on a 30 day ban from posting to Facebook, where 70% of my audience is.

I certainly had no idea what Klout was/is, until this whole back & forth between Catwell & Reisenwitz.

Chris Cantwell was interviewed on this on going 'issue' on the Tom Woods Show, on the Peter Schiff network:

Libertarianism Hijacked - May 14, 2014

Christopher Cantwell joins Tom to discuss recent efforts to make libertarianism "complete" by making it into something different.

Download

Tom Woods Reacts to the Reisenwitz Apology
Monday, May 12, 2014

Following my post on the Cathy Reisenwitz apology (SEE: BREAKING Reisenwitz Issues Apology for Making Racist Charges), Tom Woods added this in the comment section of the post:

Tom Woods May 11, 2014 at 9:30 PM

To continue in that vein, she would have had to break with Tucker, and that gig is evidently too lucrative to give up.

Meanwhile, Tucker, who from his recent writing appears to be a delicate flower who feels pain at every unkind word or thought entertained by anyone at any time, couldn't spare three seconds to stand up in defense of Ron Paul, who has done so much for him, or for Walter or the others. Let's hope this phase passes soon.

Posted by Robert Wenzel at 2:07 AM

*******************************************************************

Personally I ABHOR seeing needless infighting, but when it's obviously intentional, INorganic and viciously orchestrated, one would be remiss to not call them out.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I like

the expanded OP. Even though I have been a strong critic of recent debates, I can work with a statist like Jan Helfeld any day of the week. Jan acknowledges he has zero problem with libertarians seceding to form their own free market society. One can not ask for more than that from a statist. I can work cooperatively with any statist that 1) acknowledges libertarians also have an inalienable right of self determination to secede and from their own free market society, or 2) sets an ultimate end goal of voluntarism/free markets that is openly acknowledged while working towards reducing the size or scope of existing governments. It is "motherfrakkin'" posers I can not or will not work with. Politically correct types who only want a certain size or scope of government, who would have no objection imposing their government upon you against your will or consent if realized, and only want to use libertarians for their votes or dissent to achieve political goals.

RE: "I actually used to not care that much for his stuff...that is until I read up a bit more on his works/statements/videos/writings,etc., and learned to discern his public avatar vs. his actual thinking processes, which are made bare, public, to all. Dig his bluntness! xD"

Even Ron Paul was a bit of a firecracker when he was younger (ie. Morton Downy clip) although not to the language extreme Chris implements in his public persona. Maybe he will tone down the language at some point and implement more wit like a Tom Woods. Tom's good use of wit and language can make the same point without the profanity. I am certainly not going to hold cussing against him because the state is completely off the chain. Hell I cuss and use profanity. I have a George Carlin view about words ... it's all about context!

ditto that.

ach. som spice ist gut for sie soul.D

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul