I think Jeremy Kauffman is controlled opposition.

[FineSpeech]

https://x.com/LPNH/status/1864452464851996847

"If someone has cancer and they can't pay for the treatment, they should die."

Way to make libertarians look like heartless sociopaths. This guy needs a wrangler or someone to tell him to shut up sometimes.

[Occam's Banana]

It's not "controlled opposition".

It's just a common and well-known manifestation of a particular form of libertarian autism sometimes referred to as "macho flashing" (which is the making of statements along the lines of "why, I am so libertarian, I believe that [insert provocative declaration intended to elicit responses of shock and/or disapproval]!"). It's nothing new or surprising, and it's at least as old as the Libertarian Party and organized activist libertarianism is.

[FineSpeech]

He's running what is essentially a PR account for the Libertarian Party in New Hampshire. He should know better than to say stuff like this on that platform, and he's said outrageous things like this several times that people often cringe at. I get he's trying to be edgy and humorous, but it's just very poorly executed. His praise of Peter Thiel as a libertarian is also a tad questionable, as is his tendency to get into culture war shenanigans. I'll admit he is consistent on some things, like criticizing the banning of lab-grown meat shows he is consistently free-market. He often does more harm than good regardless.

[PAF]

He's running what is essentially a PR account for the Libertarian Party in New Hampshire. He should know better than to say stuff like this on that platform, and he's said outrageous things like this several times that people often cringe at. I get he's trying to be edgy and humorous, but it's just very poorly executed. His praise of Peter Thiel as a libertarian is also a tad questionable, as is his tendency to get into culture war shenanigans. I'll admit he is consistent on some things, like criticizing the banning of lab-grown meat shows he is consistently free-market. He often does more harm than good regardless.

Anybody who praises Peter Thiel should absolutely be further scrutinized. Thiel and others have been trying to coopt, rebrand and "suck in libertarians" [as Whitney Webb puts it] into libertarian ideals laced with authoritarian solutions.

Jeremy Kauffman seems pretty solid, but enough is known about Peter Thiel that Jeremy should d@mned well know better. Especially in front of an audience and posting such things on social media.

These are very dangerous times, indeed. WEF/U.N. and our government have been strategizing with the wealthiest and brightest minds behind closed doors, outside of what people hear at the podium and on the "newz".

If we don't scrutinize, who will.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's not "controlled opposition".

It's just a common and well-known manifestation of a particular form of libertarian autism sometimes referred to as "macho flashing" (which is the making of statements along the lines of "why, I am so libertarian, I believe that [insert provocative declaration intended to elicit responses of shock and/or disapproval]!"). It's nothing new or surprising, and it's at least as old as the Libertarian Party and organized activist libertarianism is.

Ah, finally a label for this phenomenon that I long ago observed. Covers about half of John Stossel's schtick, and a good portion of Reason articles...

File under: When counter-intuitive is counter-productive.

IMHO, this is another one of those provocative, unpopular issues that for some reason libertarians seem to love. Trying to say that "price gouging during short term emergencies is a good thing" will never sell, no matter how much counter-intuitive logic is used to back it up.

People will be much more welcome to the argument and fact that price fixing leads to shortages, starvation and suffering for all.

Be sure to catch all of the presentations at the next libertarian bad idea conference, including:

- "Why people have a right to be naked in any situation."
- "Why pedophilia is a good thing."
- "Why toxic waste is a property right."
- "Why squatting is a good thing."
- "Why losing your job and home is beneficial."

[Occam's Banana]

Ah, finally a label for this phenomenon that I long ago observed. Covers about half of John Stossel's schtick, and a good portion of Reason articles...

As far as I know, Michael Emerling coined the term. I have a hard copy of his essay "The Late Great Libertarian Macho Flash" buried somewhere around here. IIRC, it was part of his "Essence of Political Persuasion" lecture material (which I also have the cassette tapes for). This is all from way back in the pre-World-Wide-Web days, when I first started actively seeking & acquiring explicitly libertarian materials (which had to be done via the dubious auspices of the United States Postal Service).

Here are some links I found when I searched on "macho flashing".

This one makes a few brief comments on (and provides a brief excerpt from) "The Late Great Libertarian Macho Flash": https://libertarianhistory.blogspot....cho-flash.html

Here's the mentioned excerpt (the "MORE" link at the end, which I assume was to the full essay, is now dead):

It was a large and expensive home. The architecture radiated impeccable taste. Seated around the dining table were five people: three moderates, a conservative and a libertarian. The conservative was a multimillionaire — and a generous political contributor. After dinner she turned to the libertarian and said, “Our hosts tell me you’re a libertarian. Maybe I’m a little naive, but I don’t know what that word means. Could you tell me about your beliefs?”

“Sure. I can explain them in a sentence: ‘$#@! the State!’ Libertarians want to get rid of as much government as they can.”

The woman was stunned. She dropped the subject and guided the conversation into other areas. In her mind, two things were associated with ‘libertarian': bad manners and gutter language.

[...]

In the early 1960’s, a student asked a spokesman for Objectivism what would happen to the poor in a free society. The spokesman answered, “If you want to help them, you will not be stopped.” What did the student conclude? That Objectivists are indifferent to human need, callous toward the unfortunate, and without solutions to the misery of poverty. MORE

Here's an excerpt from something else I found (which also has a now-dead link to the essay) [FTA: http://faq.zakslayback.com/answers/w...ees-of-success]:

[...]

Macho Flashing & Outsider Identity

My friend Geoff Graham turned me on to a great essay a few years ago called the Late, Great Libertarian Macho Flash. This is something you'll see libertarians do a lot: strut out just how libertarian they are by saying stuff that doesn't actually win anybody over during polite dinner conversation like TAXATION IS THEFT.

[...]

And coincidental to your mention of Reason, here's another Item from the search results:

Libertarian Party Vice Chair Jokes About Shooting Up a School Board; Party's National Committee Declines to Suspend Him
Party officials split on how to deal with a member's radical rhetoric.
https://reason.com/2018/04/13/libert...ir-jokes-abou/
{Brian Doherty | 13 April 2018}

[article body hidden to save space ; bold & size emphasis added - OB]

 

Arvin Vohra, vice chair of the Libertarian Party's National Committee (LNC), prides himself on being rhetorically uncompromising in staking out the most radical and potentially outrageous outer frontiers of libertarian thought. His past comments on the age of consent (he says it isn't the government's business) and the proper moral attitude toward members of the U.S. military (he says they're hired killers) caused the party's New York gubernatorial candidate Larry Sharpe (singled out by Politico as a "rarity…a serious Libertarian candidate") to quit his position on the National Committee after it failed to suspend Vohra back in February.

Since then, the rhetorical outrages have continued. In a post last month on the social network site MeWe, Vohra wrote: "Bad Idea: School Shootings. Good Idea: School Board Shootings."

Vohra insists that was not a serious threat but a joke in "poor taste." But he also has tried to use it as a teaching moment over the question of when violent resistance might be justified.

Vohra tries to connect the dots between the fact that the Libertarian Party says "taxation is an immoral violation of your sacred rights" and the fact that the Libertarian Party has "routinely argued that guns are not for hunting, they are for opposing government overreach."

So? Well, as he wrote on Facebook, "I've routinely argued against any violence against the state, since I consider it unlikely to work. But for all the hardcore gun supporters who wear taxation is theft t-shirts: what is the level of tyranny that would be great enough to morally justify using violence in self defense?" He has "no plans to ever advocate violence against the state," but only for pragmatic reasons. "I consider it unnecessary," not wrong. "I believe that Dr. King and Gandhi have showed that violence is not needed to fight the state. I consider it unlikely to work." He absolutely believes in the right to use violence to defend yourself against state actions.

Many LNC members found the seeming threat of school board shootings to violate a pledge party members take to "certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." Vohra seems to doubt that striking at agents of the state with violence is initiating such violence, but even he wrote off the school board shooting line as a joke.

At the end of March, some LNC members publicly asked Vohra to resign, which he opted not to do. Another motion to suspend Vohra was introduced on April 3, and last night it failed. The vote was 11–6 in favor of suspending him, but the party's rules require a two-thirds vote of the total body for suspension, so it fell a vote short.

The motion singled Vohra out for "sustained and repeated unacceptable conduct that brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into disrepute, including making and defending a statement advocating lethal violence against state employees who are not directly threatening imminent physical harm. Such action is in violation of our membership pledge. These actions further endanger the survival of our movement and the security of all of our members without their consent."

As per the announcement from LNC Secretary Alicia Mattson, the "ayes" to get rid of Vohra were Whitney Bilyeu, Sam Goldstein, Tim Hagan, Caryn Ann Harlos, Daniel Hayes, Jeffrey Hewitt, Joshua Katz, Alicia Mattson, Justin O'Donnell, William Redpath, and Elizabeth Van Horn. The "nays" were David Demarest, Jim Lark, Ed Marsh, Nicholas Sarwark, Starchild, and Vohra himself.

Starchild says that Vohra's disavowal of any serious threat in the "joke" made him vote against suspension. O'Donnell stresses that he shares Vohra's anarchism but voted to suspend because Vohra "has displayed a persistent and consistent ignorance as to the impact of his statements….I do fundamentally and philosophically agree with much of what Mr Vohra says in his posts, but I also understand the need to frame such arguments in a manner that reaches people that are not already members of the party."

Vohra posted on Facebook yesterday, before the voting concluded, that "I made a mistake when I posted something stupid on mewe.com" and is alarmed that people "may have misconstrued my words to encourage actual violence, which is the last thing I want. I joined the Libertarian movement because I oppose violence. I oppose state violence, personal violence, all violence. I oppose wars and drug wars. I oppose private and public actions done under threats of violence, ranging from burglary to taxation." Vohra went on to suggest anyone who does not share his anarchist opposition to the state is someone who does in fact believe in relying on violence.

Vohra belongs to a longstanding tradition in Libertarian Party politics, known in the old days as the "Libertarian Macho Flash." The idea was well-characterized in a 2001 essay by old party hand Thomas Sipos:

[T]he macho flash is an in-your-face flaunting of the most extreme libertarian hypotheticals. No soft-peddling or sugar cube to make the medicine go down. Should a soccer mom ask about drug policy in a hypothetical libertarian society, the non-flasher will discuss medical marijuana, the failure of Prohibition, and the benefits of treatment over prisons. The macho flasher will defend the right to erect crack cocaine vending machines in daycare centers.

The admonition against macho flashing comes from what may be termed the LP's Activist faction. Activists are primarily concerned with electoral victory. They advocate marketing the more popular LP positions, and downplaying the "scary" ones. They favor a prioritization (if not compromise) of issues, based on voter appeal.

Andy Craig, a party activist and occasional candidate from Wisconsin, helped launch the party's Pragmatist Caucus. He summed up the widespread attitude that the LNC's reaction to Vohra's provocations has been insufficiently serious in a Facebook post this morning:

This is a decision that sends a message: that the national committee (or at least slightly over one-third of it) doesn't take the idea of the L.P. as an actual political party, getting real public scrutiny, seriously….That this isn't an organization that has any real intention of conducting itself in a manner that will engender the trust of voters. That the national committee is unwilling to protect the party—including the state parties and their base of volunteers and supporters and potential candidates—from harm being inflicted by one of their own. Harm that he has been able to inflict solely because the national committee refused to deprive him of the title that renders his actions so harmful.

LNC Chair Nicholas Sarwark voted against booting Vohra, and had he gone the other way Vohra would indeed be gone. But that vote does not mean he agrees with Vohra's general positions, nor that he thinks Vohra's rhetoric is good for the party.

Rather, Sarwark stood on the principle that, since Vohra was elected by the body of the members, the decision to get him out of his job should be left up to that body when it votes for the next vice chair at the party's convention in New Orleans this summer. As Sarwark summed up his position in a note to the rest of the LNC, reproduced on his Facebook page:

Many of the people who have contacted me about this vote have told me that if the Vice Chair worked for them, he would have been fired. If he worked for me, he would have been fired as well. But the Vice Chair is not my subordinate. He, along with every other officer and at-large member of the LNC, serves at the pleasure of the delegates at convention. In just over two months, those delegates at convention will get to vote for all of the officers of the LNC, including the Vice Chair.

Sarwark also explicitly stated that Vohra will not have Sarwark's vote at that convention.

All this should make clear that (as I said in my previous post) libertarian "macho flashing" is "nothing new or surprising, and [is] at least as old as the Libertarian Party and organized activist libertarianism is". It's a time-honored tradition, so to speak, and "controlled opposition" has nothing to do with it - it's just a common manifestation of ardent radicalism.

And hell, the tweet referenced in the OP isn't even anything new or surprising from the @LPNH twitter account, let alone the broader libertarian movement in general. The @LPNH account has been making these kinds of provocative statements for years now, ever since Jeremy Kauffman gained access to it. From Wikipedia (for whatever that might be worth) [FTA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Kauffman]:

[...]

In April 2021, Kauffman was given access to Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH)'s official Twitter account soon after the state party was taken over by the Mises Caucus.^[20] Kauffman later made tweets on the LPNH account that received controversy,^[23] such as calling for child labor to be legalized, saying "All Republicans do about wokeness is whine. Libertarians have solutions; repeal the Civil Rights Act [of 1964]", and re-opening the Guantanamo Bay detention camp "so that Anthony Fauci and every governor that locked their state down can be sent there, never again to be allowed inside of the United States".^[24] The pro-child labor tweet specifically received pushback from 2012 and 2016 Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson, saying "This isn't what libertarianism means to millions of Americans".^[20] The tweets later partly resulted in the resignation of the national Libertarian Party leader Joe-Bishop Henchman.^[20][25] Kauffman defended his actions by saying the tweets were good for libertarians, and accused national party leadership of being "woke neoliberal globalists".^[20]

[...]

In late September 2023, Kauffman was expelled from the Free State Project Board during a voting session. The vote came weeks after continued agitation by Kauffman against other Free State members such as Carla Gericke as well as the organizations founder Jason Sorens. The board cited Kauffman’s internet trolling and perceived promotion of racism on social media as reasons for his expulsion.^[31]

In 2024, Kauffman nominated Toad (Joshua Anderson) as a satirical presidential candidate at the 2024 Libertarian Convention. After holding up a sign "MAGA = Socialist" at an appearance of Donald Trump, Kauffman later endorsed Trump, calling the Libertarian nominee, Chase Oliver, a "gay race communist."^[32]

In September 2024, the LPNH posted on X that "Anyone who murders Kamala Harris would be an American hero." In a statement to the Boston Globe, Kauffman told the paper that the LPNH "believes that the journalists at the Boston Globe are as evil as rapists or murderers. ... A proper society would exclude Globe journalists from residing within it entirely".^[33]

[...]

[Occam's Banana]

Libertarian Party Vice Chair Jokes About Shooting Up a School Board; Party's National Committee Declines to Suspend Him
Party officials split on how to deal with a member's radical rhetoric.
https://reason.com/2018/04/13/libert...ir-jokes-abou/
{Brian Doherty | 13 April 2018}

[...]

Vohra belongs to a longstanding tradition in Libertarian Party politics, known in the old days as the "Libertarian Macho Flash." The idea was well-characterized in a 2001 essay by old party hand Thomas Sipos:

[...]

I don't recall having seen this before (but I have a print copy of every issue of Liberty that was published - and I've read them all, so at some point I must have seen it).

Here it is in full:

In Defense of the Libertarian Macho Flash
https://www.libertarianpeacenik.com/...achoflash.html
{Thomas M. Sipos | 2001}

[hyperlinks omitted - OB]

A slightly edited version of this article originally appeared in Liberty, May 2001.

The Libertarian Party stands for the private ownership of nuclear weapons. That was how LP officials first explained the party to me.

A high school buddy and I were trolling New York's third parties, partly from morbid curiosity, but mainly to expand our campaign button collections with some exotica. At the offices of the Free Libertarian Party (as it was then called in NY) we found a group of middle-aged white guys, just shooting the breeze. None of the tenseness or paranoia we found at the SWP and CPUSA and LaRouche's US Labor Party.

The FLP guys welcomed us with cordial disinterest. So that our button quest not appear entirely mercenary, we feigned interest and asked questions. One FLP official responded by plucking a copy of The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress from a shelf and reading aloud a passage. Unrelated to anything we'd asked, he added that Heinlein defended the private ownership of nuclear weapons.

We'd been macho flashed.

I should mention, we were flashed at a time when the Soviet Union was still extant. An era when unilateral nuclear disarmament was the Left's "non-negotiable" moral issue of the moment. And here was a party that made the GOP look like peaceniks. A party with shock value, the sort beloved by teenaged boys. If nothing else, the FLP's pro-nuclear macho flashing cinched the Beavis and Butthead vote.

But Beavis and Butthead don't vote. Their soccer moms do. And those moms, some LP members caution, don't vote for macho flashers.

For those new to LP terminology, the macho flash is an in-your-face flaunting of the most extreme libertarian hypotheticals. No soft-peddling or sugar cube to make the medicine go down. Should a soccer mom ask about drug policy in a hypothetical libertarian society, the non-flasher will discuss medical marijuana, the failure of Prohibition, and the benefits of treatment over prisons. The macho flasher will defend the right to erect crack cocaine vending machines in daycare centers.

The admonition against macho flashing comes from what may be termed the LP's Activist faction. Activists are primarily concerned with electoral victory. They advocate marketing the more popular LP positions, and downplaying the "scary" ones. They favor a prioritization (if not compromise) of issues, based on voter appeal. Combining the party of principle with the politics of polling.

Polling with principle. Sic.

Opposing the Activists are the LP's Purists, who scorn any compromise to the pledge or platform or message, even at the cost of electoral victory. Purists worry that prioritization leads to compromise. Issues downplayed today will be discarded tomorrow, compromised away in a corrupt bargain in exchange for political power. Purists contemn a Pyrrhic victory, while Activists counter that an 80% proof Libertarian Congress is better than a 100% LP forever in exile.

[Activists and Purists were the two primary factions in 1990s Los Angeles libertarian circles. In the 2000s those factions became known as Reformers and Radicals. -- T.S., 4/17/12]

The Activists may be right -- assuming a majority LP Congress is achievable. Or even a sizable minority. Or even ... something. But I doubt the LP will make any more electoral gains in the next 20 years than it has in the past 20. But it may yet make significant gains for liberty.

Especially if the LP utilizes the macho flash.

My case for the macho flash, premised on the assumption that the LP cannot win electorally, is that the LP should make full use of the unique media attention directed at political parties by advocating the full spectrum of liberty.

Of course, Activists augur imminent victories whenever any local LP vote tally rises from 2% to 3% -- surely 34% in a three-way race is just a few election cycles away? If correct, Activists have plausible rationale for asking Purists to stop flashing Randian diatribes at soccer moms.

But if the LP is forever doomed to lose, and lose badly, then to flash or not to flash is only relevant if one cares whether the LP loses by 98% or a mere 97%.

Because macho flashing loses votes, it can only be useful to the LP if the LP had a use other than vote-getting. It does. As an educational tool.

Rather than a Purist, I am primarily an Educationist. (Those two party factions probably overlap significantly.) I believe the LP should focus on educating the public about liberty. High vote tallies are nice, I too would like to find them under my Christmas tree. But as I don't believe in Santa Claus, I think the LP should concentrate on the doable.

The LP cannot win, but it can influence. But only on issues it dares to address. Advocating any form of drug legalization was macho flashing in the 1970s. Hippies did it, but not "serious" parties. But today that position no longer shocks. Calls for drug reform come from all quarters, from pundits and voters if not from politicians. And the politicians hear even if they don't speak. In time, they will respond.

We won't have an LP Congress by 2010, but we will have legalization of medical marijuana, nationwide. It will be enacted by Demopublicans, not the LP. Yet partly, it will be an LP victory, because the LP helped plant the idea into voters' minds. [I was right about the first prediction. Wrong about the second. -- T.S., 4/17/12]

Today's Activists see medical marijuana as one of the LP's most popular issues. Yet ironically, had the Purists heeded the Activists 25 years ago, the drug issue might have been deprioritized "until such time that the LP controls both houses of Congress." Following this strategy of "polling with principle," not only would the LP still be silent on the drug issue, but medical marijuana would not be as close to legalization as it is today.

Voters cannot support ideas they have not conceived. Before there can be a policy, there must be the vision of that policy. By mentioning the unmentionable, you enable people to think the unthinkable. What was unthinkable yesterday becomes debatable today, and doable tomorrow.

Once, most everyone assumed racial inequality was ingrained in reality. Unable to conceive an alternative, it never occurred to anyone that state enforced inequality could be otherwise. Then someone thought it, and said it, and shocked everyone by his macho flash. But the seed was planted, and in some minds took root and spread its pollen.

Howard Roarke said something about the first man to invent fire, and much else. Quite the macho flasher, Roarke. Ayn Rand was a macho flasher.

Activists wax hysterical when I call the LP an educational tool. They say I should quit and join a think tank or journal, that the LP is a political party and political parties are about getting votes. Well yes, you can call the LP a political party. You can call it spaghetti, but that won't make it any more competitive with Chef Boy-ar-Dee.

And yes, think tanks and journals are useful in disseminating ideas. But political parties enjoy unique opportunities for influence, opportunities unavailable to think tanks and journals. Candidates receive free media access. State-funded voter guides publicize party principles and ideas. Thus, although a failure as a vote-getter, the LP usefully complements the Reason Foundation, Cato Institute, and Liberty.

But even assuming the LP has advanced the cause of medical marijuana, still, is it necessary to macho flash about crack cocaine vending machines? No, not necessary. But helpful. For apart from being both fun and funny, such macho flashes enable our Demopublican allies to appear comparatively moderate. If the LP cannot repeal the income tax, it can help make Bush's modest tax cut appear ... modest.

Demopublican allies! Sic! Sic! Sic!

By Demopublican allies, I mean any Demopublican politician who poaches popular libertarian positions from the LP. Poaches and enacts them (even if in diluted version), and thus moves the nation closer along the spectrum to liberty.

This is not mere theory. Empirical evidence shows that the major parties have historically co-opted popular third party positions, thereafter sapping such third party of its supporters.

It is easy to see why this is so. Because only the major parties have the power to enact voters' demands (however imperfectly, and however unjustly at the expense of other voters), voters disdain "wasting" their votes on an impotent third party. And because the major parties maintain their power through coalition-building, through a constant tug-of-war for voters, any significant voting bloc who feels their wishes ignored will soon be courted by one or both parties.

This may be called the Co-Option Factor.

Activists crow over every minor LP vote gain, but even assuming the LP can overcome the Wasted Vote Syndrome, the Co-Option Factor ensures that any significant new LP voting bloc (one not motivated by Pure libertarian ideals) will soon be poached by the majors. Non-ideological voters support third parties only when their concerns are entirely ignored by the majors. Should the Demopublicans offer even 1/2 a loaf, most such new third party voters will switch. LP Activists may be willing to offer 3/4 of a loaf (to the disgust of Purists), but the Demopublicans own the bakery.

Yes, there are many "young new voters excited" about the LP. But there have always been "young new voters excited" about this or that third party. Most antiwar demonstrators became Demopublican yuppies after Vietnam. Most hemp activists will become Demopublican Dot-Comers after hemp is legalized. They say not, but empirical evidence says otherwise. Libertarians, who claim to be rational, should always heed empirical evidence.

But this same evidence also reveals how the LP can advance liberty: By authoring the Demopublicans' agenda. Largely unprincipled, most politicians would sooner enact any policy than lose office. Clinton mastered this art of triangulation, stealing and enacting diluted versions of his opponents' proposals.

Okay, let these hollow suits steal away. The LP should do the doable: Popularizing libertarian ideas so they become worth stealing. Rather than waste its free media access by strategizing how to raise its vote totals another 1%, the LP should fully use its spotlight by advocating liberty, undiluted. It should measure its success not by votes, but by the number of people who stammer, "I never knew anyone could believe such things!"

Ideas expressed often enough lose their shock value, so that whenever the LP's advocacy of a stand overcomes the smears of its opponents, there shall come a Demopublican to harvest the votes. Activists will complain that victory was rightfully theirs, and Purists will complain that the Demopublicans diluted their ideas. Both will be right.

But the LP should not constrain its educational influence by chasing the chimera of electoral victory. It should be the Johnny Appleseed of politics, planting the purest seeds of liberty into voters' minds, so that the major parties might spread a richly libertarian harvest before America.

My sole worry is that Demopublicans will not steal enough of our bounty. Liberty is too dear for any one party to horde.

[ClaytonB]

I don't recall having seen this before (but I have a print copy of every issue of Liberty that was published - and I've read them all, so at some point I must have seen it).

Here it is in full:

In Defense of the Libertarian Macho Flash
https://www.libertarianpeacenik.com/...achoflash.html
{Thomas M. Sipos | 2001}

Ah yes, the Macho Man Randy Savage wing of the Libertarian Party...

[Brian4Liberty]

...
Here are some links I found when I searched on "macho flashing".
...

Yeah, I took a quick look at most of those links too. Unfortunately, the search engine I used also came back with some undesirable results using those search terms...

[PAF]

Anybody who praises Peter Thiel should absolutely be further scrutinized. Thiel and others have been trying to coopt, rebrand and "suck in libertarians" [as Whitney Webb puts it] into libertarian ideals laced with authoritarian solutions.

Jeremy Kauffman seems pretty solid, but enough is known about Peter Thiel that Jeremy should d@mned well know better. Especially in front of an audience and posting such things on social media.

These are very dangerous times, indeed. WEF/U.N. and our government have been strategizing with the wealthiest and brightest minds behind closed doors, outside of what people hear at the podium and on the "newz".

If we don't scrutinize, who will.

//

[LexEtLibertas]

Jeremy Kauffman's above-quoted statement falls into the mindset of antitheist nihilism. Even if that is not his self-conscious theological position, it has nevertheless evidently affected him on his subconscious level. At any rate, cancer is easy and cheap to cure. The irony of which, at least a la Kauffman, is that I'm so dirt-poor that I probably wouldn't even be able to afford my own protocol, cheap as it is. So therefore I would have to die. Boo, hoo. Then I wouldn't get to be around mentally-retarded, pain-seeking, mass gang-raping, genocidal apes any more. As you can see, I'm quaking in my boots at such a thought!

Basically this protocol involves, as close as practicable, a zero-carbohydrate diet (particularly a diet rich in saturated fats, a variant of which has been termed the carnivore diet); goodly amounts of vitamin D, zinc, vitamin C, and other helpful vitamins and minerals; and ivermectin and fenbendazole/mebendazole (with hydroxychloroquine possibly being a worthwhile drug to investigate regarding this). Perhaps later on I will provide references as to how I arrived at this conclusion. None of these treatments on their own did I originate, but I might have been the first to put them all together. So it might only be my protocol in the sense that I didn't get the entire protocol from someone else, even if someone else did manage to put two-and-two together on this matter before me without my knowledge.

* * * * *

Regarding Occam's Banana's above posts on Libertarian Macho-Flashing[1]:

Of course, Jesus Christ is the Ultimate Libertarian Macho-Flasher. (Or would that be Hembra-Flasher, given J. C.'s strange genetic make-up?)

In that spirit, as I myself have said elsewhere: I'm an American! I don't negotiate with terrorists!

It's either my way or the highway to Hell. Rather quite literally. (Although in strict literal terms it will be the lowway and not the highway to Hell.)

"[Y]ou may all go to hell and I will go to Texas."--Davy Crockett, quoted in Michael A. Lofaro, revised by William C. Davis, "Crockett, David (1786–1836)", Handbook of Texas, Texas State Historical Association (TSHA), orig. pup. 1976, updated Sept. 4, 2023, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/...crockett-david .

To help everyone get into the Texican spirit and for everyone's edification, here's an educational music video by some wholesome Texans to explain the Texas way in a bit more detail:

* "Skatenigs - Chemical Imbalance", mypartofthething, Oct. 31, 2007

Mirror: "Skatenigs - chemical imbalance", nullity, Jul 24, 2008, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkzha-T-fQs ; "SKATENIGS ~ CHEMICAL IMBALANCE", fukuandieyuppieskum, Feb. 24, 2010, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5yip45ftAg .

Remember the Alamo!

Yeehaw!

----------

Note:

1. Michael Cloud, "The Late, Great Libertarian Macho Flash", Success 99 Notebook, Libertarian Party of Michigan, 1978, https://web.archive.org/web/20051119.../s99/flash.php , https://archive.ph/9fhX , https://ghostarchive.org/archive/6oLrd , https://megalodon.jp/2024-1215-0924-.../s99/flash.php , https://www.freezepage.com/1734222287WKXYUJNNAX .

[Brian4Liberty]

https://x.com/USAB4L/status/1868174650095899009

[LexEtLibertas]

https://x.com/USAB4L/status/1868174650095899009

I hope on this point everyone gets Jeremy Kauffman's above point: Yes. Yes, they would.

Irony is a thing, folks. Keep that in mind.

-----

And I can demure on this matter, because I am a Christian. Perhaps only one of Two on this planet.

[LexEtLibertas]

I just cured cancer.

Whoosh!

Right over their heads.

So therefore therefore they must die.

By their own hand.

[LexEtLibertas]

What did you want? An endless multiplicity of deaths whereby you will die and die again due to your own ape-pride arrogance?

Or did you ever want out? Did you want Freedom? Liberty?

Did someone call my name?

* "You've Got a Friend in Jimbo", The Reverend Horton Heat - Topic ( youtube.com/channel/UCOO8RJPjp6o6KKuPT5htyQA ), Jan. 18, 2015

Mirror: https://megalodon.jp/2022-0423-1213-...oe/r093n7.webm . Mirror: "You've Got A Friend In Jimbo", id., Apr. 1, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9XlFD5WH3A .

A rather accurate summary. Ha!

🎵 And the nickname for Jimbo is Jamie! 🎵

Teehee!

[Occam's Banana]

Jeremy Kauffman on Libertarian Controversy and Outreach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I292P3SZP8Q
{Robert Murphy | 16 December 2024}

The Bob Murphy Show: Episode 368

Jeremy Kauffman is a popular libertarian commentator on social media, and is associated with the Free State Project. He joins Bob to discuss health care, strategies for liberty, and the controversies around spicy tweets.

Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:

• The YouTube version of this episode. [see below - OB]
• Kauffman’s Twitter profile, and his thread on US health care.
• Bob’s article explaining Ezra Klein’s flip-flip on the Oregon Medicaid study. His earlier episode (with Adam Haman) [see this post - OB] pushing back on the praise for Kauffman’s handling of the FBI visit [see this thread - OB]. Bob’s pamphlet for Texas secession. Bob’s book (with Doug McGuff) on US health care.
• Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

[Audio (mp3): https://podcasts.captivate.fm/media/...-and-Outre.mp3]

[Occam's Banana]

THREAD: Jeremy Kauffman vs. the FBI

https://x.com/BobMurphyEcon/status/1837177543251669286


Bob Murphy Critiques Jeremy Kauffman’s Encounter with the FBI
The Bob Murphy Show: Episode 344
{Robert Murphy | 21 September 2024}

Bob quotes from Dave Smith saying Kauffman’s viral encounter with two FBI agents was “flawless,” and then proceeds to document Jeremy’s flaws.

Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:

• Dave Smith’s interview of Jeremy Kauffman. [see this post (quoted above) - OB]
• Michael Malice interviews Robby Starbuck.
• Details for the 2024 ExPat Money Summit.
• Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

Audio (mp3): https://podcasts.captivate.fm/media/...unter-with.mp3 [no video available - OB]

Adam Haman and Bob Murphy Discuss the Provocative LP New Hampshire Strategy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEvhtfxEF8E
{Robert Murphy | 26 September 2024}

The Bob Murphy Show: Episode 346

Adam Haman is a professional poker player and amateur libertarian. He and Bob inaugurate a crossover series where they discuss issues relevant to an Austrian crowd. In this episode the topic is the FBI visit to Jeremy Kauffman’s home.

Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:

• The YouTube version of this interview. [see below - OB]
• The video of the FBI encounter with Kauffman. [see tweet in OP - OB]
• Adam’s post and Bob’s episode [see this post (quoted above) - OB] on the topic.
• Haman Nature
• Details for the 2024 ExPat Money Summit.
• Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

[LexEtLibertas]

Jeremy Kauffman on Libertarian Controversy and Outreach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I292P3SZP8Q
{Robert Murphy | 16 December 2024}

The Bob Murphy Show: Episode 368

Jeremy Kauffman is a popular libertarian commentator on social media, and is associated with the Free State Project. He joins Bob to discuss health care, strategies for liberty, and the controversies around spicy tweets.

Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:

The YouTube version of this episode. [see below - OB]
Kauffman’s Twitter profile, and his thread on US health care.
Bob’s article explaining Ezra Klein’s flip-flip on the Oregon Medicaid study. His earlier episode (with Adam Haman) [see this post - OB] pushing back on the praise for Kauffman’s handling of the FBI visit [see this thread - OB]. Bob’s pamphlet for Texas secession. Bob’s book (with Doug McGuff) on US health care.
Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

[Audio (mp3): https://podcasts.captivate.fm/media/...and-Outre.mp3]

What a major ASChole Bob Murphy is! Indeed, I said it. Hey, he admits this himself at 41:31 min:sec ff. in his above December 16, 2024 interview of Jeremy Kauffman.

Yeah, I know that ASChole, Dr. Murphy. We used to have lots of discussions on Jeremy Sapienza's Anti-State.com forum before Bob was a doctor, way back in the olden times. Back when children and grandmothers used to chew tobaccy, and clutter-up the sidewalks with their tannin-laced spittle. Rough times, those. Thank the good Lord above that you didn't have to live through them.

* * * * *

At any rate, Jeremy Kauffman comes off as a bit paranoid to me. He worries too much about human demographics, not even realizing that humans aren't going to be around for much longer. That ought to put his mind at ease. The below two items should to fix him up a might fine:

* James Redford, "God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within Standard Physics", Theophysics: The Physics of God, May 16, 2022, https://jamesredford.substack.com/p/...ven-by-several , https://www.minds.com/blog/view/1373133123700658189 , https://steemit.com/cosmology/@james...andard-physics .

* James Redford, "The Problem of Qualia Solved, and Other Theological Vignettes", Theophysics: The Physics of God, Nov. 4, 2024, https://jamesredford.substack.com/p/...-qualia-solved , https://www.minds.com/blog/view/1700637097871806472 , https://steemit.com/qualia/@jamesred...ical-vignettes .

[unknown]

https://x.com/LPNH/status/1864452464851996847

"If someone has cancer and they can't pay for the treatment, they should die."

Way to make libertarians look like heartless sociopaths. This guy needs a wrangler or someone to tell him to shut up sometimes.

The give away is their stance on Izrael.

[LexEtLibertas]

The give away is their stance on Izrael.

Does Israel need help?! Then we must help them clear-up their issues!

There is no need for them to ask. For we have seen their moment of need and we shall help them in ways they never even began to contemplate!

These folks have also detected various troubling matters with Israel which need mankind's combined help!:

* "Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory: ‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza", Amnesty International, Index Number: MDE 15/8668/2024, Dec. 5, 2024, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents.../8668/2024/en/ , https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-conten...024ENGLISH.pdf , https://web.archive.org/web/20241216...024ENGLISH.pdf , https://megalodon.jp/2024-1210-0748-...024ENGLISH.pdf , https://www.freezepage.com/1733784488OEYTKIFUKS .

* "Israel's Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza Revealed Through Evidence and Analysis", Amnesty International ( youtube.com/@amnesty ), Dec. 4, 2024

Mirror: "Amnesty International investigation concludes Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza", Amnesty International, Dec. 5, 2024, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...nians-in-gaza/ , https://web.archive.org/web/20241217...moe/z637z0.mp4 .

Hold tight, dear Israel, for humanity's collective help is on the way!

* * * * *

While the global community is at it, these additional troubling matters can also be resolved:

* Bethan Sexton, "Epstein list reignites suspicion the pedo financier was working for Mossad and blackmailing the elite with help of information he gleaned from 'useful idiot' Prince Andrew - after meeting Israeli PM Ehud Barak at least THIRTY SIX times", Daily Mail (UK), Jan. 4, 2024, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hud-barak.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20240119...hud-barak.html , https://archive.ph/JPHXp , https://ghostarchive.org/archive/7Tlvg .

* * * * *

We're going to get Israel all squeaky-clean. All spick and span.

Believe me, Israel, there is no need to thank us in advance. The pleasure is all ours.