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

[NewRightLibertarian]

This is what SJW's do. They infiltrate, co-opt, then $#@!ing destroy everything.

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

[Cdn_for_liberty]

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...ologize-to-her

[P3ter_Griffin]

"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]

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]

SJWs carve out little holes that become bigger and bigger with each passing day. They are like termites.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

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]

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]

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]

There are some around here to this day.

[Champ]

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]

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]

Feminism is a plague.

[Vanguard101]

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

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]

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]

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?"

[P3ter_Griffin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yaaay!



Awwww....

[juleswin]

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]

^^^Distinguish between run-of-mill democrats and hardcore SJWs/feminists.

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

[P3ter_Griffin]

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?"

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]

^^^

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]

^^^

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]

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]

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 $#@!s. 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.