PDA

View Full Version : Social Justice Warriors (SJW) trying to co-opt and hijack Libertarianism in Canada!!!




Athan
07-05-2015, 10:04 AM
Censors, thought police, and authoritarians are trying to infect the libertarian party in Canada. From Breitbart:

CANADIAN LIBERTARIANS IN REVOLT AFTER PARTY LEADERSHIP SUSPENDS ANTI-FEMINIST CANDIDATE LAUREN SOUTHERN
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/02/canadian-libertarians-in-revolt-after-party-leadership-suspends-anti-feminist-candidate-lauren-southern/

The Libertarian Party of Canada is in turmoil following the bizarre suspension of Lauren Southern, one of the party’s most visible and popular candidates, at the behest of a small group of aggrieved feminist activists.

Members and candidates are now in open revolt amid concerns that the party has been co-opted by a small group of left-wing culture warriors whose socially authoritarian agendas are alien to the majority of libertarians and toxic to the general public.

Southern, a libertarian activist and commentator for The Rebel Media, rose to global prominence last month when a video emerged of her challenging feminist campaigners at a “Slutwalk” demonstration in Vancouver.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qv-swaYWL0

The footage showed her holding up a sign proclaiming “there is no rape culture in the west” and telling feminists at the protest that far from being protected, rapists in western countries tended to be prosecuted and jailed.

The activists responded furiously, calling Southern a “bitch,” physically assaulting her and her cameraman, and ripping up her placard. She later faced a campaign of online slander which she was forced to respond to on her YouTube channel. Feminists then began to email the Libertarian Party, asking them to suspend Southern as a candidate.

http://i.imgur.com/oqfyjpa.jpg

But Southern’s lone-soldier activism struck a chord. The initial video of her challenge to feminist protesters was watched over 750,000 times and attracted praise from commentators around the world.

Feminist scholar Christina Hoff Sommers applauded Southern’s activism, calling her a “fabulous young woman.” Freddy Gray, deputy editor of The Spectator, said she should be “given a medal” for her efforts.

Libertarians around the world also heaped praise on the young activist. “We need more women like Southern,” wrote Ella Whelan, a writer for the British libertarian magazine Spiked Online. “Lauren Southern – 2, Feminists – 0,” concluded Laura Meyers of the website Libertarian Republic.

Still a college student, Southern had become one of the most popular candidates of the Libertarian Party of Canada.

You would think a party that struggles for media attention and gained just six thousand votes at the last Canadian elections would be grateful for the positive press and stand behind their candidate, not least because her activism involved speaking reason to dogma and standing up for due process — two causes close to libertarians’ hearts.

But the leadership didn’t stand behind Southern. They suspended her as a candidate.

The decision shocked ordinary party members and candidates. There had been no internal backlash against Southern, who is as popular within the party as she is outside of it. A poll on the decision was immediately set up on the party’s private Facebook group, and it did not go well for the leadership.

On the face of it, it was an inexplicable decision. Southern is popular within the party, popular outside the party, and was generating much-needed press attention. Moreover, it only takes a glance at the pages of Reason Magazine to see that her objections to feminist narratives are squarely in the mainstream of libertarian thought. So why was she suspended?

The story isn’t pleasant. Ignorance of the latest trends in cultural politics, a misguided obsession with PR over principles, and ideological intolerance at the highest levels of the party came together in a series of appalling decisions that have isolated the leadership from their candidates and members.

Bad PR?

When I asked party leader Tim Moen to explain his reasons for suspending Southern, his answer was clear: she was bad for the party’s image.

According to Moen, Southern’s actions had “broken message discipline” and undermined the party’s efforts to “connect hearts and minds to the message of liberty and achieve a tipping point of 10% of the population adopting an unshakable belief in Liberty.”

But Moen’s statement is bizarre. His argument implies that people will join the libertarian movement by seeing party members punished for expressing their views on important topics. Why would any Canadian be encouraged to support values of liberty if the Libertarian party itself isn’t seen to follow them?

Secondly, the claim that Lauren Southern was undermining the party’s electoral fortunes is pure nonsense — all the evidence suggests that the precise opposite is true. No other candidate has achieved the kind of positive press coverage generated by Southern.

The video of her Slutwalk protest has just under 13,000 positive votes on YouTube. That’s more than double the number of votes the Canadian Libertarians received at the last election.

http://i.imgur.com/WZ0tiiV.png

Southern tells me that prior to her suspension, she had already begun to receive offers of support from local voters who had seen her video. Members of the public were even offering to join the Libertarian Party and campaign on her behalf.

The claim that Southern’s activism was bad for the party’s image runs contrary to all the evidence. Moen’s logic just doesn’t add up.

But Moen didn’t make the decision alone. Sources within the party tell me that he initially defended Southern and her activism, but that he was eventually pressured into removing her by senior figures in the party hierarchy.

Who are these people, and why are they hell-bent on removing one of the party’s greatest assets?

Libertarian SJWs

According to sources within the party, the new “hearts and minds” (of Tumblr?) strategy is championed by Rehan Basson, the Party President, Mark Burnison, Vice President for Political Action, and David Clement, Vice President for Communication.

These three are united by a shared affinity for modern feminism and left-wing identity politics. Despite the dire state of feminism in public opinion polls, they are convinced that championing the cause and silencing any criticism of it is a sound electoral strategy.

According to Southern, the arrival of Basson as the new President a few months ago was the beginning of the new approach. “At first I thought it was really cool for the party to be educated on LGBTQ issues. But feminist and LGBTQ issues quickly became the only thing the President talked about.”

Basson, Burnison and Clement are also said to be strongly supportive of feminist narratives around “rape culture” — the very ones that Southern received plaudits for challenging.

As footage of Southern’s protest at the Vancouver Slutwalk began to spread, these three began lobbying Tim Moen to remove her as a candidate. Basson in particular is said to “hate” Southern for her criticism of feminist narratives and pressed for her removal as a candidate as soon as she saw the video.

Moen initially refused to remove Southern. But her opponents weren’t about to give up–and quietly waited for their next opportunity.

They didn’t have to wait long. Last week, at the request of an acquaintance, Southern retweeted a video poking fun at identity politics. The video was inspired by the Rachel Dolezal controversy and poked fun at the myriad of identities that can be found on web communities like Tumblr.

Southern’s opponents used the retweet to claim she was “transphobic.”

But Southern, like most libertarians, supports rights for trans people. “I support the rights of every group and have friends in every group” said Southern in Facebook post. “Whether it be religious, LGBTQ, left-wing, right-wing, rich, poor, big, small.” But “either [all groups] are open to satire, or no-one is,” she added.

It wasn’t enough. Moen caved in to pressure and agreed to let Mark Burnison suspend Southern as a candidate if he deemed it necessary (which, of course, he did). What happened next was something distinctly un-libertarian.

Burnison told Southern to shut her mouth or be removed as a candidate.

Burnison told Southern that in order to remain a candidate, she would have to end her association with Rebel Media, apologise, and “avoid anti-feminist speech” in the future. Burnison initially presented this proposal in pragmatic language, but his mask was soon to slip.

“I can’t support anti-feminism,” Burnison said. “I’ve done my best to remain objective.” He then instructed Southern to remove the phrase “Libertarian Candidate” from her Twitter profile.

The purge was complete. But the fight wasn’t.

The party revolts

http://i.imgur.com/fIbDMZq.png

Libertarians are happy to tolerate people they disagree with — even when those people support an ideology as authoritarian and fanatical as “rape culture” feminism. But tolerating intolerance is another matter.

As soon as news of Southern’s suspension spread to the rest of the party, a backlash began. Candidates and members rallied around Southern and used an online poll to call on the leadership to reinstate her.

Another group of candidates went further, demanding that Southern be allowed to stand in the party’s elections for Deputy Leader.

Then, earlier this week, Richard Heathen, the party’s regional coordinator in Victoria, British Columbia, released an open letter, signed by a number of candidates. It called for the “immediate and unconditional reinstatement” of Lauren Southern and urged the leadership to abandon its current “hearts and minds” strategy.

“The party should not alienate people who are extremely socially liberal, just as it should not alienate people who extremely are socially conservative,” the statement reads. “There are enough political parties that pander to the middle. It’s time for an authentic party whose members embrace their diversity of opinion and lifestyle.”

Heathen’s call for tolerance of social conservatives is a direct rebuke to Mark Burnison, who recently announced that there was “no place” for socially conservative values within the party.

(I am told that Christian libertarians feel so alienated by this attitude that they are abandoning the party en masse.)

The statement also highlights the suspicion of “agendas outside libertarianism” at the top of the party — another rebuke to Burnison, Basson and their seemingly zero-tolerance approach to critics of feminism.

Unprepared for the backlash, Tim Moen has extended an offer of reinstatement to Lauren Southern — but only on the condition that she obeys “message discipline” and holds to the party’s current “hearts and minds” strategy.

In other words, it’s the same offer that was presented to her by Burnison. Shut up about feminism, and remain a candidate. Southern tells me she will not return as a candidate under those terms.

Meanwhile, the group of candidates and members gathering around Richard Heathen want the leadership to drop its current strategy altogether, and they refuse to take “no” for an answer.

The party is on the brink of a split.

A colossal blunder

Had Tim Moen known a little bit more about cultural politics, he might have been able to avert this. I am told that prior to Southern’s video, he wasn’t even aware that the erosion of due process on college campuses was even a major issue. Nor was he aware of the term “social justice warrior.”

Perhaps it’s time to bring him up to speed.

Social justice warriors are widely perceived as the cultural left’s answer to Jerry Falwell. They heckle, they bully, they coerce, and generally use any power at their disposal to dictate other peoples’ behavior and opinions.

Some of them are happy to call themselves fiscal conservatives and pay lip service to libertarianism, but this tends to evaporate when “socially progressive” statism like the now-infamous Title IX interventions on US campuses gets thrown into the mix.

Even those who aren’t focused on state power are hellbent on exerting cultural and social control over those they disagree with. Shaming campaigns and ostracization (expelling a candidate from their party, for example!) are among their chief weapons.

They are also fond of ruining their opponents’ reputations with social media campaigns. Jon Ronson just wrote a book about it.

And Jon Ronson isn’t even a libertarian. In truth, people of all political persuasions are waking up to the danger posed by social justice warriors. Everyone from conservatives to liberals to the politically unaffiliated are manning the barricades against the new political correctness.

In Britain, public figures from across the political spectrum are waging a full-scale revolt against the recent purging of Sir Tim Hunt, a Nobel-prize winning cancer researcher, over comments that were taken out of context by social justice warriors.

In the world of entertainment, comedians like Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, Stephen Merchant, Patton Oswalt and Amy Schumer, as well as actors like Chris Pratt, are raising their voices against the new era of witch-hunts.

Even liberals have joined the rebellion. High-profile columnists like Jonathan Chait, Nick Cohen and Judith Shulevitz have begun to speak out against the new class of culture warriors and their new tools of social control.

Moen has chosen to cast his lot in with the new political correctness at the very moment when the rest of society is turning against it. Some “hearts and minds” strategy!

I suspect his approach is born from ignorance. Moen just doesn’t seem that interested in cultural politics–and presumably thinks the field is still divided between those who support abortion, LGBT rights, and those who don’t.

But it’s become a lot more complicated than that. Liberals and libertarians who are 100% supportive of causes like gay marriage and abortion have become strongly opposed to their loudest advocates — the social justice warriors.

You can support a cause while also recognising that its most radical champions, given the chance, would be just as intolerance as their opponents. And that’s what an increasing number of people have come to believe about socially liberal causes.

This is the cultural and political arena that Tim Moen has blundered into. If he truly doesn’t know what a “social justice warrior” is, he’d better find out soon — because it is they, not Lauren Southern, who are driving “hearts and minds” away from the party.

Sola_Fide
07-05-2015, 10:28 AM
Social Justice Warriors are in the liberty movement in America too. Some on this forum are social justice warriors. The recent homosexual ruling brought them out into the open.

JK/SEA
07-05-2015, 10:32 AM
Social Justice Warriors are in the liberty movement in America too. Some on this forum are social justice warriors. The recent homosexual ruling brought them out into the open.

2 sides to that coin...

Athan
07-05-2015, 10:33 AM
Did you read the article? Are they PC censors as well? Are they trying to silence candidates who don't share their world view? Again, please read the article.
There is a difference between a libertarian "live and let live" and "you cis genders need to check your privilage."

tod evans
07-05-2015, 10:39 AM
I made it about 2 min. into that video...

Good grief there are some fucked up women out there..

Why would any self respecting man subject himself to that BS long enough to be accused of any more than delivering an appropriately placed boot?

Athan
07-05-2015, 10:43 AM
And those misandrous characters who also are generally statists are now embedding themselves in the libertarian movement.

Sola_Fide
07-05-2015, 10:48 AM
And those misandrous characters who also are generally statists are now embedding themselves in the libertarian movement.

That's been happening for a long time.

Sola_Fide
07-05-2015, 10:51 AM
2 sides to that coin...

What do you mean? I am a consistent libertarian who is against coercion in every sphere. These neo-libertarians are feminist PC statists.

Athan
07-05-2015, 10:52 AM
Yes, they were initially called what they were. Statist shills trying to co-opt our movement like the tea party was. Just because a new insidious species of shill has more fluffy tail doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out as a rat.

SneakyFrenchSpy
07-05-2015, 10:57 AM
Really unhappy to read this. We dont have too many options up here for supporting liberty-oriented politics, and even the ones you thought you could count on appear to be rotting from the top with PC-bullshit. Well back to Rand, UKIP & Wildrose for me (in that order).

Ronin Truth
07-05-2015, 10:58 AM
I'm not Canadian. Let Canada take care of and resolve their own crap. MYOB!

euphemia
07-05-2015, 11:03 AM
It would be very helpful if libertarians in general would choose some principles and let those things be the foundation of their message. I'm sick to death of having extremists on both ends trying to run everything. One of the first principles should be about restoring equal protection under the law. Everybody enjoys protection and nobody gets preference.

tod evans
07-05-2015, 11:06 AM
It would be very helpful if libertarians in general would choose some principles and let those things be the foundation of their message. I'm sick to death of having extremists on both ends trying to run everything. One of the first principles should be about restoring equal protection under the law. Everybody enjoys protection and nobody gets preference.

I've seen how that law thing works..

Fixing that might be a good first step before imploring it.....

Ronin Truth
07-05-2015, 11:08 AM
NAP?

Sola_Fide
07-05-2015, 11:17 AM
It would be very helpful if libertarians in general would choose some principles and let those things be the foundation of their message. I'm sick to death of having extremists on both ends trying to run everything. One of the first principles should be about restoring equal protection under the law. Everybody enjoys protection and nobody gets preference.

I don't recognize that as a libertarian principle. A libertarian principle would be that all people naturally have liberty apart from any law or government. Laws usually destroy liberty.

euphemia
07-05-2015, 11:56 AM
I've seen how that law thing works..

Fixing that might be a good first step before imploring it.....

It's what the Constitution says. There is a uniform standard for all to enjoy justice. The government is required to protect that standard.

AuH20
07-05-2015, 12:04 PM
Sounds like Neil Peart libertarians?

P3ter_Griffin
07-05-2015, 12:17 PM
Social Justice Warriors are in the liberty movement in America too. Some on this forum are social justice warriors. The recent homosexual ruling brought them out into the open.

You don't even back up your stance in the threads on the subject. Why muddy other threads by attempting to goad people who disagree you into responding to which you wont even respond anyways? Are you even consistent in your position? Where do you stand on medical marijuana licensing? Is it not better than outright prohibition?

Origanalist
07-05-2015, 12:22 PM
They say a picture is worth a thousand word, I don't think you need that many.

http://i.imgur.com/oqfyjpa.jpg

acptulsa
07-05-2015, 12:28 PM
Calling themselves sluts and a female candidate a bitch--and trying to torpedo her campaign specifically, though I'm sure that party has male candidates who feel the same way--in the name of gender equality.

Am I the only one unclear on this concept...?

NewRightLibertarian
07-05-2015, 12:28 PM
The Students for Liberty astroturf organization is doing this bullshit as well. If it isn't related to Ron Paul and his friendlies, libertarianism has been compromised and turned into a fucking joke.

steph3n
07-05-2015, 12:35 PM
"Social Justice Warriors" are some of the most stupid shills around. I haven't been on these forums in a long time signed in, I read from time to time, but this SJW crap invading LP of Canada just shows what the LP has been up against. I've tried to be a part of the Republicans back in 2008/2009 and LP since then but the LP of Texas, and the US is not just in disarray but totally inept and clueless.

tod evans
07-05-2015, 01:50 PM
It's what the Constitution says. There is a uniform standard for all to enjoy justice. The government is required to protect that standard.

I understand that but "The Law" has been twisted and perverted beyond what our forefathers ever envisioned.

I just think cleaning house relevant to laws, lawyers and kops would be a wise move before looking to invoke it...

euphemia
07-05-2015, 01:56 PM
I don't think we are far apart on this, tod evans. I'm looking strictly at the Constitution and saying libertarians need to pick those principles and talk about those and let the extremists (meaning extreme social liberals and conservatives) apply them however they want without trying to kick people out. The bell curve applies. About 10% will be on either extreme with the other 80% falling somewhere on the continuum. The principles of liberty, as stated in the Constitution would be the talking points and all the rest is noise.

Sola_Fide
07-05-2015, 02:03 PM
You don't even back up your stance in the threads on the subject. Why muddy other threads by attempting to goad people who disagree you into responding to which you wont even respond anyways? Are you even consistent in your position? Where do you stand on medical marijuana licensing? Is it not better than outright prohibition?

No, I don't agree with the licensing or regulation of any drug. I am a consistent libertarian.

P3ter_Griffin
07-05-2015, 03:21 PM
No, I don't agree with the licensing or regulation of any drug. I am a consistent libertarian.

Fair enough, I think it is an illogical position, I think there are many more principles in play here than 'is licensing and regulation wrong', and I think liberty would be better served if you just choose to abstain from such licensing and regulation instead of attempting to shape government such that other individuals could not benefit from the relaxations in force, but if you can only see the world through black and white I can respect your position.

P3ter_Griffin
07-05-2015, 03:36 PM
Maybe not seeing the world through black and white is the definition of a SJW. If that is the case I will wear the SJW flag proudly, while condemning these fools in Canada.

Sola_Fide
07-05-2015, 03:51 PM
Maybe not seeing the world through black and white is the definition of a SJW. If that is the case I will wear the SJW flag proudly, while condemning these fools in Canada.

"Social Justice" is a code word for coercion. It is not libertarian or freedom-oriented in the slightest.

NewRightLibertarian
07-05-2015, 05:03 PM
Maybe not seeing the world through black and white is the definition of a SJW. If that is the case I will wear the SJW flag proudly, while condemning these fools in Canada.

SJW bullshit is incompatible with libertarianism.

DFF
07-05-2015, 05:07 PM
This is what SJW's do. They infiltrate, co-opt, then fucking destroy everything.

NewRightLibertarian
07-05-2015, 05:22 PM
This is what SJW's do. They infiltrate, co-opt, then fucking destroy everything.

Bingo. And some libertarians are so fucking stupid that they are rolling out the red carpet for them to do so. In fact, I think it's being deliberately pushed to destroy us. I suspect that's why the phony scumbags the Koch bros are funding Students for Liberty, and Jeff Tucker got paid god knows how much to spew his asinine bullshit about 'humanitarian libertarianism.'

Cdn_for_liberty
07-05-2015, 05:25 PM
The petition to remove Lauren as a candidate is being surpassed by the petition to reinstate her as a candidate.

https://www.change.org/p/libertarian-party-of-canada-reinstate-lauren-southern-as-candidate-for-the-libertarian-party-of-canada-and-publicly-apologize-to-her

P3ter_Griffin
07-05-2015, 05:46 PM
"Social Justice" is a code word for coercion. It is not libertarian or freedom-oriented in the slightest.

Going by that definition these feminist are not SJW. It was poor leadership that sounds to have made the decision to suspend this candidate, not coercion.

NewRightLibertarian
07-05-2015, 07:47 PM
Going by that definition these feminist are not SJW. It was poor leadership that sounds to have made the decision to suspend this candidate, not coercion.

The point is the SJWs and feminists both want coercion. Which is why they are infiltrating libertarianism to destroy the movement.

AuH20
07-05-2015, 08:00 PM
SJWs carve out little holes that become bigger and bigger with each passing day. They are like termites.

ThePaleoLibertarian
07-05-2015, 11:32 PM
I knew something like this would happen. Any movement that is not properly right wing will inevitably become infested with leftism. It was only a matter of time, and if you think it's only a Canadian problem, you're going to be very surprised. This is what SJWs do. They invade a subculture that neither has nor wants them, demand said subculture conform to their narratives, claim any resistance to them is bigotry and harassment, then proceed to destroy everything that made the subculture good in the first place.

Just look at what they're trying to do to the world of videogames. Look at the damage that feminists like Cathy Reisenwitz have caused already to the libertarian movement. Do not let these people in, do not give them one inch, not one centimeter! They will eat everything if you let them in, like the termites they are. They're coming for the liberty movement, and most libertarians are woefully ignorant about just how destructive these people can be.

ThePaleoLibertarian
07-05-2015, 11:35 PM
Going by that definition these feminist are not SJW. It was poor leadership that sounds to have made the decision to suspend this candidate, not coercion.
Coercion is not the main goal of the SJW. Instead, the want to create a culture where any opinion or narrative other than their own is shouted down, and the people who hold those views are berated and shamed into silence, and their lives are ruined if they refuse to pipe down. The fight against social justice is the front line of the culture war.

RPfan1992
07-06-2015, 01:24 AM
Coercion is not the main goal of the SJW. Instead, the want to create a culture where any opinion or narrative other than their own is shouted down, and the people who hold those views are berated and shamed into silence, and their lives are ruined if they refuse to pipe down. The fight against social justice is the front line of the culture war.

The trouble with some libertarians is that they sign up to a lot of positive rights based nonsense,, which allows them to be co-opted by the left wing.

Mach
07-06-2015, 02:21 AM
There are some around here to this day.

Champ
07-06-2015, 09:35 AM
There are some around here to this day.

Yes, and not just here, in nearly every circle of libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, and tea party libertarian groups. As long as you are aware, you can quickly spot SJW speech and respond accordingly.

P3ter_Griffin
07-06-2015, 10:19 AM
I knew something like this would happen. Any movement that is not properly right wing will inevitably become infested with leftism. It was only a matter of time, and if you think it's only a Canadian problem, you're going to be very surprised. This is what SJWs do. They invade a subculture that neither has nor wants them, demand said subculture conform to their narratives, claim any resistance to them is bigotry and harassment, then proceed to destroy everything that made the subculture good in the first place.

Just look at what they're trying to do to the world of videogames. Look at the damage that feminists like Cathy Reisenwitz have caused already to the libertarian movement. Do not let these people in, do not give them one inch, not one centimeter! They will eat everything if you let them in, like the termites they are. They're coming for the liberty movement, and most libertarians are woefully ignorant about just how destructive these people can be.

That is an interesting take. R3v seemed to imply, and maybe his implication is wrong or maybe I misunderstood, in the 'mapping ideologues of RPF' that if you are a non-authoritarian you should check 'cultural left'. If this movement is indeed about freedom, then it would seem it is actually the cultural right that are the 'termites'. Ron often talked about the end goal of a free society, how synonymous is authoritarianism with a free society?

RonPaulIsGreat
07-06-2015, 11:23 AM
Feminism is a plague.

Vanguard101
07-06-2015, 01:23 PM
Bingo. And some libertarians are so fucking stupid that they are rolling out the red carpet for them to do so. In fact, I think it's being deliberately pushed to destroy us. I suspect that's why the phony scumbags the Koch bros are funding Students for Liberty, and Jeff Tucker got paid god knows how much to spew his asinine bullshit about 'humanitarian libertarianism.'

You don't know much about students for liberty.



LOL she got fired? Wow the LP is trash in Canada. The egalitarian libertarians are pretty annoying.

r3volution 3.0
07-06-2015, 01:51 PM
Fascinating story, thanks for posting.

I'm afraid something similar is happening within the American Libertarian Party; the cancer may not be as far advanced, but it's there. It's one of the reasons that I will have nothing to do with the LP going forward; the final straw being the Sarvis catastrophe in Virginia two years ago.

There's clearly a divide now between the LP/Beltway-Libertarians and the Paul faction, left and right. It's all well and good to say that, if we all accept the NAP, and don't wish to impose our social views by force, that we're on the same team. That works in academic debate, but not in practical politics. In politics, you have to make hard choices, you have prioritize. The left libertarians care more about social issues, the right libertarians care more about economic issues. If/when a choice has to be made between them, we'll split - and that's exactly what happened in Virginia.

...and this is not to mention that there are many alleged "left-libertarians" who really aren't libertarians at all, but Trojan horses of the left.


Some of them are happy to call themselves fiscal conservatives and pay lip service to libertarianism, but this tends to evaporate when “socially progressive” statism like the now-infamous Title IX interventions on US campuses gets thrown into the mix.

Bingo


But it’s become a lot more complicated than that. Liberals and libertarians who are 100% supportive of causes like gay marriage and abortion have become strongly opposed to their loudest advocates — the social justice warriors.

You can support a cause while also recognising that its most radical champions, given the chance, would be just as intolerance as their opponents. And that’s what an increasing number of people have come to believe about socially liberal causes.

Yep. At one time, in the distant past, it would have made sense for libertarians to support certain elements of the cultural left - when there actually was legal inequality on the basis of gender or race. But that day is long gone. The pendulum has swung the other direction. Now the cultural right stands for legal equality (more or less), while the new generation of cultural leftists violently attack it, pushing for all kinds of new legal privileges and restraints. Libertarians can and should explain the uniquely libertarian solution to these cultural divides, but I think we all know that isn't going anywhere anytime soon; and when it comes right down to it, and we have to make a practical choice, we must side with the right.

N.B. When you look at history, you'll often find that the minority-side in great cultural or religious struggles tended to be the most libertarian; because they're not able to impose their will on their opponents (being in the minority), they profess opt for tolerance and legal equality instead. In the past, the left was such a minority, and so it made sense for us to support them. Now? The right is the minority, and it's only natural that they're now the ones advocating tolerance, and we should be supporting them.

r3volution 3.0
07-06-2015, 02:04 PM
Coercion is not the main goal of the SJW. Instead, the want to create a culture where any opinion or narrative other than their own is shouted down, and the people who hold those views are berated and shamed into silence, and their lives are ruined if they refuse to pipe down.

But that's only the beginning...

No libertarian should be thinking "ah well there's nothing inherently unlibertarian about exerting non-coercive social pressure, so I guess the SJWs must be okay..."

The same could have been said of the Bolsheviks before the shooting started.

Just because they're using non-aggressive tactics now to build their movement doesn't mean that they won't use aggression once they get the chance.

r3volution 3.0
07-06-2015, 02:12 PM
That is an interesting take. R3v seemed to imply, and maybe his implication is wrong or maybe I misunderstood, in the 'mapping ideologues of RPF' that if you are a non-authoritarian you should check 'cultural left'. If this movement is indeed about freedom, then it would seem it is actually the cultural right that are the 'termites'. Ron often talked about the end goal of a free society, how synonymous is authoritarianism with a free society?

What I meant was this..

The sort who decline to identify as either left or right, preferring some third label like anti-authoritarian (as the poster to whom I was responding was doing) tend in my experience to actually be of the left. The very idea of rejecting both labels implies belief in an equivalency ("each wants to impose its own brand of authoritarianism, so what's the difference?"), which is a sign that this person does not understand the nature of the modern culture war, is unaware that the left is nowadays both far more powerful and far more authoritarian in its thinking, and is therefore (at least unwillingly) on the left.

Put another way, if you aren't explicitly on the right you're probably on the left.

P.S. I might add, some of this tendency to see a false equivalency between the excesses of the right and the excesses of the left is due to latent leftist sympathies, but some is also due - I think - to an unfortunate tendency among many libertarians to see everything in black and white: an ideology either permits aggression or it doesn't - with no room for different degrees of aggression. By way of (slight) hyperbole, suppose you're presented with a traditionalist movement to ban divorce, on the one hand, and the Bolsheviks on the other. Some libertarians are going to say "ah, well, they both advocate aggression...so who cares?" :rolleyes:

P3ter_Griffin
07-06-2015, 03:03 PM
But that's only the beginning...

No libertarian should be thinking "ah well there's nothing inherently unlibertarian about exerting non-coercive social pressure, so I guess the SJWs must be okay..."

The same could have been said of the Bolsheviks before the shooting started.

Just because they're using non-aggressive tactics now to build their movement doesn't mean that they won't use aggression once they get the chance.

Hey, we agree, the only way to make such tactics 'scary' is to couple them with an illogical slippery slope. ;)

dannno
07-06-2015, 03:25 PM
lol.... the footage at 4:18 is priceless..

One of the girls says that a bunch of them want to withdraw consent from using their footage. Lauren said it was legal to use because they were in a public space. The other girl said that she had interviewed some girls earlier, and Lauren said that they had consented to the interviews. The girl explained that they now wanted to withdraw consent.

Lauren then brilliantly turned that around and asked if it was ok to withdraw consent later, and the girl said that it was ironic that they were at this event and these girls wanted to withdraw their consent and she wouldn't do it, like they were being raped. Lauren asked her if she consented to have sex with a guy one night, then felt guilty the next day and decided to withdraw consent the next day and say he was a rapist if that was ok... I think the girl MAY have gotten the point..

ThePaleoLibertarian
07-06-2015, 05:22 PM
That is an interesting take. R3v seemed to imply, and maybe his implication is wrong or maybe I misunderstood, in the 'mapping ideologues of RPF' that if you are a non-authoritarian you should check 'cultural left'. If this movement is indeed about freedom, then it would seem it is actually the cultural right that are the 'termites'. Ron often talked about the end goal of a free society, how synonymous is authoritarianism with a free society?
That's not what was meant by "cultural left". The cultural left is far more authoritarian than the cultural right, with their fetish for state enforced equality. Generally speaking, the cultural right refers to tradition, hierarchy, aristocracy and the like. The cultural left refers to egalitarianism,democratic modes of organization, and tearing down social norms. Leftism is not conducive to a society built on private property, markets and free association.

ThePaleoLibertarian
07-06-2015, 05:37 PM
On a side note, you ever notice how libertarian and right wing women tend to be very attractive young ladies, whereas these leftist feminist slags are often these slovenly, unappealing pigs? I understand why they love to call themselves "sluts". If they weren't giving it up, no one would go after it.

acptulsa
07-06-2015, 06:38 PM
On a side note, you ever notice how libertarian and right wing women tend to be very attractive young ladies...

Describes Margaret Thatcher and Ayn Rand to a tee.


...whereas these leftist feminist slags are often these slovenly, unappealing pigs?

Must be how Hollywood got to be full of them.

Are you sure it's not a universal truth that the placard in the ancient movie Intolerance applies to all women? 'When a woman is no longer appealing to men, she becomes a social reformer' (or words to that effect).

Reminds me of the Wodehouse novel Full Moon. A niece is locked up to keep her from eloping, and starts talking about how nothing is left for her but to devote her life to doing good works. Her uncle, Lord Emsworth, immediately goes into a deep depression, because every time a niece is incarcerated in his mansion and starts talking that way, his study gets tidied up, and he can no longer find anything.

Smitty
07-06-2015, 06:55 PM
Describes Margaret Thatcher and Ayn Rand to a tee.



Must be how Hollywood got to be full of them.

Are you sure it's not a universal truth that the placard in the ancient movie Intolerance applies to all women? 'When a woman is no longer appealing to men, she becomes a social reformer' (or words to that effect).

Reminds me of the Wodehouse novel Full Moon. A niece is locked up to keep her from eloping, and starts talking about how nothing is left for her but to devote her life to doing good works. Her uncle, Lord Emsworth, immediately goes into a deep depression, because every time a niece is incarcerated in his mansion and starts talking that way, his study gets tidied up, and he can no longer find anything.

,..and you're the guy who attempts to shout people down by hollering "stormfront" at them.

r3volution 3.0
07-06-2015, 07:02 PM
Yaaay!

http://i.imgur.com/KxGrW.gif

Awwww....

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w441/Krellkneen/rachel_maddow_a_p_zps9df9755d.jpg

juleswin
07-06-2015, 07:20 PM
On a side note, you ever notice how libertarian and right wing women tend to be very attractive young ladies, whereas these leftist feminist slags are often these slovenly, unappealing pigs? I understand why they love to call themselves "sluts". If they weren't giving it up, no one would go after it.

They are all in college and they are lots of them too. They are young, shapely and cute as hell. Sadly, conservatives don't have a monopoly on cute young activists

r3volution 3.0
07-06-2015, 07:23 PM
^^^Distinguish between run-of-mill democrats and hardcore SJWs/feminists.

...the latter mostly look like Maddow (of both genders).

P3ter_Griffin
07-06-2015, 08:06 PM
What I meant was this..

The sort who decline to identify as either left or right, preferring some third label like anti-authoritarian (as the poster to whom I was responding was doing) tend in my experience to actually be of the left. The very idea of rejecting both labels implies belief in an equivalency ("each wants to impose its own brand of authoritarianism, so what's the difference?"), which is a sign that this person does not understand the nature of the modern culture war, is unaware that the left is nowadays both far more powerful and far more authoritarian in its thinking, and is therefore (at least unwillingly) on the left.

Put another way, if you aren't explicitly on the right you're probably on the left.

P.S. I might add, some of this tendency to see a false equivalency between the excesses of the right and the excesses of the left is due to latent leftist sympathies, but some is also due - I think - to an unfortunate tendency among many libertarians to see everything in black and white: an ideology either permits aggression or it doesn't - with no room for different degrees of aggression. By way of (slight) hyperbole, suppose you're presented with a traditionalist movement to ban divorce, on the one hand, and the Bolsheviks on the other. Some libertarians are going to say "ah, well, they both advocate aggression...so who cares?" :rolleyes:

I guess the only thing you can take from such groupings, as with probably most all groupings, is that you can't take anything from such groupings. You are both a self ascribed authoritarian and a cultural rightist, if you will, and I am a self ascribed non-authoritarian and a cultural leftist, which if we only held a 'cultural left' and 'cultural right' sign before us, and went by your description, we would not reasonably come to that conclusion. And I find in general that it is often the paleos or what I perceive as the cultural right who do advocate for authoritarianism in border security and in maintenance of a military and the need for a coercive state to do so. So maybe that definition works at some other forums, but I don't think it applies to well at RPF.

I will surely give merit to the notion that some aggressive actions are worse than others. But as you mentioned above in another post, there is indeed a line in the sand or a black and white matter which will eventually lead to the authoritarians and non-authoritarians having to split ways. If we continue on the current trajectory that will not be for a long time. But I think there is no time like the present, and that we should push for voluntary association with this government right now, which obviously quickens the pace with which we are at odds.

r3volution 3.0
07-06-2015, 08:18 PM
^^^

The right wins - worst case scenario, they restrict gays to civil unions, ban late term abortion, and allow prayer in schools in some states.

The left wins - worst case scenario, they abolish all rights of free (dis)association, universal censorship, send us all to reeducation camps, kill the dissenters.

The old right is fighting a sad holding action. They're harmless. The left is a violent revolutionary force.

#perspective

P3ter_Griffin
07-06-2015, 08:45 PM
^^^

The right wins - worst case scenario, they restrict gays to civil unions, ban late term abortion, and allow prayer in schools in some states.

The left wins - worst case scenario, they abolish all rights of free (dis)association, universal censorship, send us all to reeducation camps, kill the dissenters.

The old right is fighting a sad holding action. They're harmless. The left is a violent revolutionary force.

#perspective

What about best case? Just for perspective, I hadn't heard these terms before the past few days.

Brian4Liberty
07-06-2015, 08:56 PM
According to sources within the party, the new “hearts and minds” (of Tumblr?) strategy is championed by Rehan Basson, the Party President, Mark Burnison, Vice President for Political Action, and David Clement, Vice President for Communication.

This is perfect real-world test of a well used hypothesis. Is smaller better? Is smaller "government" more controllable?

It seems that the Libertarian Party of Canada has been hijacked by leadership who don't reflect the membership. A parallel of the US GOP and Democrat Parties. Boehner, Cantor and McConnell can do what they and their sponsors want, and tell the common voter to go pound sand. Reid, Pelosi, Hillary and friends can be just as corrupt and crony corporatist as anyone, actively working against their ignorant constituency.

What will the members of the Libertarian Party of Canada do? Is there recourse within a small organization? Even within the GOP, Cantor was thrown out on his pompous ass (albeit under the radar of all of the activist networks). What will happen? Will this prove that smaller is better? Or will it prove that no matter the size, it's the same old story?

ThePaleoLibertarian
07-06-2015, 09:11 PM
Describes Margaret Thatcher and Ayn Rand to a tee.
I'm talking about modern women. Also Thatcher was British. They're not an attractive people by and large.





Must be how Hollywood got to be full of them.

There are definitely attractive feminists/SJWs out there. Laci Green and Jessica Valenti are good examples. Both relatively attractive, both malignant cunts. I've been on several dates with appealing girls, when it becomes clear they're SJWs and then I want to put a bullet in my brain.

However, the ratio of unattractive feminists to attractive ones is at least 3-1, and the real hardcore activists are almost always horribly ugly.

ThePaleoLibertarian
07-06-2015, 09:12 PM
They are all in college and they are lots of them too. They are young, shapely and cute as hell. Sadly, conservatives don't have a monopoly on cute young activists
I know that, but the young women who gravitate toward the right wing are far more attractive than the women who identify with the left.

AuH20
07-07-2015, 08:32 AM
^^^

The right wins - worst case scenario, they restrict gays to civil unions, ban late term abortion, and allow prayer in schools in some states.

The left wins - worst case scenario, they abolish all rights of free (dis)association, universal censorship, send us all to reeducation camps, kill the dissenters.

The old right is fighting a sad holding action. They're harmless. The left is a violent revolutionary force.

#perspective

Summed up succinctly. The left is generally anti-human at it's core, constantly unnerved by the maddening variables of the natural world. Their thirst for emotionally based change on a whim can never truly be quenched. Their checklist of goals is virtually limitless and everchanging. That's why they will destroy themselves (along with us) in the end.

acptulsa
07-07-2015, 08:58 AM
,..and you're the guy who attempts to shout people down by hollering "stormfront" at them.

If the shoe fits, I'm happy to make them wear it.

What does that have to do with what I said? Are you trying to say that, 'When people can't get laid they find other things to occupy themselves with,' is somehow racist or sexist or something?

Do you, in short, have a point?

Smitty
07-07-2015, 09:03 AM
If the shoe fits, I'm happy to make them wear it.

What does that have to do with what I said? Are you trying to say that, 'When people can't get laid they find other things to occupy themselves with,' is somehow racist or sexist or something?

Do you, in short, have a point?

My point is, you display the classic characteristics of an SJW. I doubt that you're intentionally trying to be subversive, however. It's just who you are at a semi conscious level.

acptulsa
07-07-2015, 10:28 AM
My point is, you display the classic characteristics of an SJW. I doubt that you're intentionally trying to be subversive, however. It's just who you are at a semi conscious level.

No matter how often you call me paranoid, no one here is going to believe for a second that nobody is out to get us.

DFF
07-07-2015, 01:39 PM
Great video that explains who SJW's are and why they think the way that they do.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B3WQPdqTNs

P3ter_Griffin
07-07-2015, 09:35 PM
Summed up succinctly. The left is generally anti-human at it's core, constantly unnerved by the maddening variables of the natural world. Their thirst for emotionally based change on a whim can never truly be quenched. Their checklist of goals is virtually limitless and everchanging. That's why they will destroy themselves (along with us) in the end.


I'll ask again, what is 'best case'? My guess is, going on what I have before me:

The left wins: a free society

The right wins: 'they restrict gays to civil unions, ban late term abortion, and allow prayer in schools in some states.'

And what of the 'race realists'? Is that not a culture right issue? I have seen at least a few race realists who advocate for policy based on race in a non-voluntary government. I think r3v was quite nice in his 'worst case' for the cultural right.

r3volution 3.0
07-07-2015, 10:32 PM
I'll ask again, what is 'best case'? My guess is, going on what I have before me:

The left wins: a free society

The right wins: 'they restrict gays to civil unions, ban late term abortion, and allow prayer in schools in some states.'

....wut? :confused:

You are aware that the left has already contributed a great deal to our currently unfree society?

Affirmative action, the civil rights act, hate crimes, etc.

...with virtually every advance of Leviathan in the past couple decades justified in the name of protecting ?

And they want to go further, much [I]much further.

What in the hell makes you think that the triumph of the violent Marxist scum as currently inhabit the left will result in freedom?

P.S.

Q: Have you ever attended a liberal arts course in an American university?

Q. Do you know what they teach?

NewRightLibertarian
07-07-2015, 10:53 PM
I knew something like this would happen. Any movement that is not properly right wing will inevitably become infested with leftism.

Hey now, it's not like there aren't Glenn Beck and Mark Levin types trying to do the same to libertarianism that the SJW and Feminazis are trying to do. We should be concerned with all threats to liberty whether they are from the left and right, and be careful to maintain our distance to both sides.

With that being said, libertarians clearly have much more in common with the right than they do with the left.

P3ter_Griffin
07-07-2015, 11:25 PM
....wut? :confused:

You are aware that the left has already contributed a great deal to our currently unfree society?

Affirmative action, the civil rights act, hate crimes, etc.

...with virtually every advance of Leviathan in the past couple decades justified in the name of protecting ?

And they want to go further, much [I]much further.

What in the hell makes you think that the triumph of the violent Marxist scum as currently inhabit the left will result in freedom?

P.S.

Q: Have you ever attended a liberal arts course in an American university?

Q. Do you know what they teach?


Why say 'cultural left' instead of modern day leftist? The conversation as a whole makes more sense now, but your explanation as to why an individual must belong to one or the other much less so.

ThePaleoLibertarian
07-08-2015, 12:23 PM
Hey now, it's not like there aren't Glenn Beck and Mark Levin types trying to do the same to libertarianism that the SJW and Feminazis are trying to do. We should be concerned with all threats to liberty whether they are from the left and right, and be careful to maintain our distance to both sides.

With that being said, libertarians clearly have much more in common with the right than they do with the left.
Neither Beck or Levin are what I'd consider to properly right wing.

Athan
07-09-2015, 08:55 AM
Going by that definition these feminist are not SJW. It was poor leadership that sounds to have made the decision to suspend this candidate, not coercion.

Your argument is circular. They instigated the move to silence her. The leadership being inept to SJW is a secondary issue.

NewRightLibertarian
07-09-2015, 09:01 AM
Neither Beck or Levin are what I'd consider to properly right wing.

I understand you. I'm a Birch Society member and like what is considered to be the 'Old Right.' I just wanted to make it clear that there are infiltrators and snakes coming from every angle, and libertarians have to watch out to maintain their independence from both rotten sides of the aisle.

Ronin Truth
07-09-2015, 10:48 AM
I understand you. I'm a Birch Society member and like what is considered to be the 'Old Right.' I just wanted to make it clear that there are infiltrators and snakes coming from every angle, and libertarians have to watch out to maintain their independence from both rotten sides of the aisle.

True libertarians say SCREW THE AISLE and everything associated with ALL of it's rotten sides.

wizardwatson
07-25-2015, 03:40 AM
Feminism is a plague.

Compensating with masculinism like the Traditionalists only exacerbates the problem though. Solution is natural balance.

RonPaulIsGreat
07-25-2015, 09:21 AM
Compensating with masculinism like the Traditionalists only exacerbates the problem though. Solution is natural balance.

I'm not a traditionalist. I'm for removing all female privilege enforced by the gov. Social Security (women pay less, and collect more), Medicare(same as previous), Obamacare(same as previous), Alimony(same as previous), Women getting lighter sentences for the same crime, etc.....

If calling Feminism a plague is masculism, then so be it. I've zero care for what a feminist thinks, or feels, they are pro female-entitlement at male expense. That's it in reality. Being a male feminist is equivalent to being pro your own subservience to the infinite female throng of hurt feelings, and imaginary injustice.

All of that is US centric. Yeah, in 3rd world hellholes I'm sure it's different, but that isn't what US feminists are going on about, they go on about false issues, like the wage gap, rape culture, etc..., which don't exist outside their deluded minds.

I for example do not care if a woman is a "slut", as long as I do not have to pay for her "slut" health insurance, or "slut" offspring, or slut retirement. I also don't care as long as she keep her "slut" logic out of the schools. I use the term slut, as you can see in the picture the feminist leader at that particular feminist rally writes it on her own chest, proudly displaying it to the whole of the world, presumably she wants to be known as a slut, they even have slut walks now.

Feminism is a plague. Don't agree well feel free submit to your female superiors.