Augustus Invictus Discusses the Libertarian Party

Augustus Invictus

Augustus Sol Invictus, a Florida attorney who received extensive media coverage for his 2016 campaign for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for U.S. Senate, posted the following as the fourth newsletter for The Revolutionary Conservative.  Invictus gave IPR permission to republish.

I am proud to announce that my son, Cesare Zagreus Invictus, was born this morning in the Waxhaws, just a stone’s throw from where Andrew Jackson was born in South Carolina. On this day in history, the Americans began shelling the British in Boston (1776); Texas declared its independence from Mexico (1836); and Rutherford Hayes, who would end the military occupation of the South, was declared President of the United States (1877). Today is an auspicious day indeed, and we thank God for his safe delivery.

Yesterday morning I formally declared my opposition to the leadership of the National Libertarian Party. In an open letter to the Chair, I noted the leftward shift of the Party and the unacceptable development of the Party’s alliance with the communists. You may view the letter online and watch the Weekly Address discussing it.

The Libertarian Party has long been sliding to the Left. It seems the days of focusing on resisting police militarization at home and foreign wars abroad are a thing of the past; now we focus on LGBTTQQIAAP rights, marijuana legalization, and a host of other left-wing social programs. Ron Paul is now a racist hatemonger, a relic of an embarrassingly reactionary past of the libertarian movement; Gary Johnson and Bernie Sanders are our icons now.

One would have to be willfully blind not to see this trend in the Libertarian Party. The only question is whether Nicholas Sarwark and the rest of the leadership caused this situation deliberately – or whether they were simply ineffective at preventing it.

In any case, Mr. Sarwark came out in defense of the antifa just a few weeks ago. When this communist gang shut down a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley, Mr. Sarwark said that it was “understandable.” We are still waiting to hear whether it was “understandable” when the Antifa attacked our libertarian supporters in Portland and Vancouver last year. It seems strange that the Chair of the Libertarian Party would defend the group attacking libertarians instead of condemning them.

But enough about that. We mentioned in our last Newsletter that we would be broadcasting the first episode of Guerrilla Radio. This episode, titled “Armed Struggle,” aired Tuesday, the 28th of February, in remembrance of the raid in Waco by the ATF and FBI in 1993. An archive of the broadcast is now available as well.

We are still fundraising for Operation Leonidas, our journalistic project documenting the decline and fall of Western Civilization. I appeared earlier this week on Liberty Machine News with Richard Heathen to talk about the project. We have our camera and a few hundred dollars; we still need two laptops and travel costs. You can donate to the project or help buy supplies directly from our Amazon Wish List.

Those are all the updates we have for you this week. Until next time…

Libertas et Imperium,

Augustus Invictus, Esq.

114 thoughts on “Augustus Invictus Discusses the Libertarian Party

  1. Anthony Dlugos

    “Ron Paul is now…a relic of an embarrassingly reactionary past of the libertarian movement;”

    Thank god.

    I predict the formation of a Petersen/Invictus Self-Absorption Caucus and a subsequent attempt to win the 2020 Libertarian Prez/Vice Prez ticket. Or will it be Invictus/Petersen?

  2. Andy

    Augustus certainly has a flair for being dramatic. He should try getting into acting.

  3. Shane

    Nick’s comment was dumb in several ways. First, he was wrong and failed to research his statement. Second, even if Milo were to read off names of “undocumented” students, it does not justify violence — and isn’t that big of a deal anyway.

    As far is Invictus’ claim of the LP leaning left, I’m not sure about that. Those who aren’t leftist Libertarians may notice Gay issues more or cringe at poorly thought out stances on immigration like Sarwark’s but I’m sure the opposite is true.

    As far as a focus on the drug war, the LP, and arguably Johnson have hurt themselves by appearing to be drug positive rather than focus on the seriousness of the drug war.

    You don’t have to be a pot head to want to end the drug war. And for those who do abstain, it’s easy to think less of drug users — which means their arguments are less persuasive.

    I have come to appreciate that the LP straddles the political spectrum. It forces us to evaluate our own views to find ways to adhere to the principles of liberty while tolerating assholes like Invictus, Starchild, Knapp, me, Andy, etc.

    With all that said, Libertarians do come off as pansies quite a bit as Invictus pointed out. We focus so much on not initiating force that we fail to mention how strong we are on defense.

    I think a “Libertarians’ Guide to Violence” is due.

  4. NewFederalist

    Well said, Shane. Even a guy as (to put it nicely) unconventional as “Invictus” makes libertarians think about what they believe and why. He is too “out there” for my tastes and seems to miss some key points regarding toleration but he is at least not so PC as to be afraid to say what many might be thinking as get it out in the open for discussion.

  5. Bondurant

    @ Shane

    The LP isn’t “drug positive”. The LP is simply against the War on Drugs and government dictating what someone can put into his/her body. The party is anti-prohibition and holds the sound and reasoned principle that drugs are a health issue not solved by government.

  6. paulie

    “Isn’t this the goat blood guy?”

    Yes, but more specifically it’s the torture, dismember, kill and drink goat blood guy.

    Get this racist, fascist piece of shit the hell out of the Libertarian Party. I consider physical removal from LP events to be defensive force in his case, and I’m only half joking.

  7. paulie

    “The Revolutionary Conservative. ”

    Real libertarians aren’t conservative, but many “conservatives” are actually fascists, such as Invictus. Fascist and libertarian are polar opposites.

  8. paulie

    ” Invictus gave IPR permission to republish.”

    That’s funny. As far as I can remember he has still never answered IPR’s Q&A.

  9. paulie

    “I am proud to announce that my son, Cesare Zagreus Invictus, was born this morning in the Waxhaws, just a stone’s throw from where Andrew Jackson was born in South Carolina.”

    Why this detail? Is it because he is proud to be associated with the genocidal Jackson? Of course it is.

    “On this day in history, the Americans began shelling the British in Boston (1776); Texas declared its independence from Mexico (1836);”

    Americans moved into Mexico promising to be loyal Mexican citizens, then seceded when Mexico outlawed slavery. Another source of pride for Invictus. I sense a pattern.

    “and Rutherford Hayes, who would end the military occupation of the South, was declared President of the United States (1877). Today is an auspicious day indeed,”

    Because segregation and Jim Crow rule was established to restore white power. Pattern confirmed.

    Yes, Invictus is a racist piece of shit, and no, his opinions haven;t changed on that.

  10. paulie

    “In an open letter to the Chair, I noted the leftward shift of the Party ”

    The leftward shift is a good start, and hopefully will continue.

  11. paulie

    “The Libertarian Party has long been sliding to the Left. It seems the days of focusing on resisting police militarization at home and foreign wars abroad are a thing of the past; now we focus on LGBTTQQIAAP rights, marijuana legalization, and a host of other left-wing social programs.”

    All of the above have always been part and parcel of the libertarian message and still are. All these issues should be emphasized more.

  12. paulie

    “Gary Johnson and Bernie Sanders are our icons now.”

    Johnson is done running for office and who said Sanders is our icon exactly?

  13. paulie

    “In any case, Mr. Sarwark came out in defense of the antifa just a few weeks ago. When this communist gang shut down a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley, Mr. Sarwark said that it was “understandable.” We are still waiting to hear whether it was “understandable” when the Antifa attacked our libertarian supporters in Portland and Vancouver last year. It seems strange that the Chair of the Libertarian Party would defend the group attacking libertarians instead of condemning them.”

    Like Invictus, Yiannopolous is the opposite of a libertarian. Invictus is simply lying about his supporters in Portland and Vancouver being libertarians. His tour focused on gathering fascists and white power thugs and getting them organized and networked. Milo has been known to “out” closeted gay people, trans individuals and undocumented immigrants at his events. Like Invictus’ tour, his appearances serve as modern day Nuremberg rallies to rally and organize fascists and racists and inspire them to violence. The vast majority of those rightly protesting against the detestable Milo were peaceful.

  14. paulie

    “We are still fundraising for Operation Leonidas, our journalistic project documenting the decline and fall of Western Civilization.”

    By “Western Civilization” he means white power. Say what you mean, Invictus.

  15. paulie

    “Second, even if Milo were to read off names of “undocumented” students, it does not justify violence — and isn’t that big of a deal anyway.”

    You don’t recognize that it’s an implicit call for violence by both regime and freelance thugs?

  16. paulie

    “I predict the formation of a Petersen/Invictus Self-Absorption Caucus and a subsequent attempt to win the 2020 Libertarian Prez/Vice Prez ticket. Or will it be Invictus/Petersen?”

    Austin is almost certainly about to run for Senate as a Republican. I’m not sure he will have much constituency in the LP after that happens.

  17. Anthony Dlugos

    “Austin is almost certainly about to run for Senate as a Republican. I’m not sure he will have much constituency in the LP after that happens.”

    I wish that were the case, paulie, but I have a feeling the GOP is going to tell him to take a hike if he floats the idea for a US Senate run as a Republican. There are 33 Senate seats up for grabs every 2 years, and the Senate is split 52-48. They are hardly gonna allow that screwball to run under the GOP label.

    Sadly, he’ll come crawling back to our party with his dopey minions.

  18. paulie

    He’ll run in the Republican primary, and almost certainly lose that primary by a large margin. Regardless of the results of the NSGOP primary that will hurt any future efforts he makes to become a chair, presidential candidate or leader in the LP, assuming he does come back.

  19. Anthony Dlugos

    He’ll run in the Republican primary, and almost certainly lose that primary by a large margin. Regardless of the results of the NSGOP primary that will hurt any future efforts he makes to become a chair, presidential candidate or leader in the LP, assuming he does come back.

    Fair point. I still expect him to come crawling back to the LP.

  20. paulie

    I certainly wouldn’t be surprised. But I think he will greatly hurt his future chances in both the LP and the NSGOP by doing the back and forth thing. Even more so if he does it repeatedly, and there’s a good argument that he already has (former Ron Paul Republican campaign volunteer turned LP office staffer turned Rand Paul booster who reportedly wouldn’t even sign LP ballot access petitions in VA turned LP presidential nomination candidate now about to turn NSGOP nomination candidate himself). How many turns through that turnstile before people on both sides stop taking it seriously?

  21. Andy

    The Libertarian Party attracts people from across the political spectrum, and it is not really part of the “left vs right” paradigm, but given that Libertarians come from different parts of the political spectrum, and emphasize different issues and strategies, these “left vs. right” conflicts end up happening.

    Ideally, the party should not drift too far to the left or to the right.

  22. Anthony Dlugos

    “How many turns through that turnstile before people on both sides stop taking it seriously?”

    Given his total lack of experience in office, and even running for office, plus his woeful resume…the answer to that question is probably “very few.” He has little support outside his small faction of true believers.

  23. Andy

    If Austin Petersen wants to get elected to something, he would stand a much better chance if he ran for the state legislature. I do not see him wining a US Senate race, even if he were to run as a Republican, and he would probably get eliminated in the Republican primary for US Senate.

  24. paulie

    If Austin Petersen wants to get elected to something, he would stand a much better chance if he ran for the state legislature. I do not see him wining a US Senate race, even if he were to run as a Republican, and he would probably get eliminated in the Republican primary for US Senate.

    I think it’s US Senate. It may be State Senate. Not sure, I heard it second hand and would need to check.

  25. Carol Moore

    I’ve coined a new phrase: THE PETERSEN PIVOT.

    I think Austin wants to make it so libertarians can jump back and forth between running as libertarians and as republicans – as long as we don’t mind selling out a couple principles, starting with keeping the govt out of abortion. (KGOA – another coin of the day.)

  26. Andy

    Abortion is not a libertarian principle. If abortion is murder, and government exists, and one job government performs is arresting and prosecuting murderers, why would it be such a stretch to say that government could not go after abortionists? If government does not exist, then how about vigilantes?

    Having said this, anyone who considers abortion to be some kind of definitional libertarian issue, or a high priority libertarian issue, has some seriously screwed up priorities.

    I read something from David Nolan recently, who was pro-choice on abortion, and he did not consider abortion to be a definitional libertarian issue.

  27. NewFederalist

    “How many turns through that turnstile before people on both sides stop taking it seriously?” – Paulie

    I think he’s already exceeded the maximum number! 🙂

  28. Anthony Dlugos

    “Abortion is not a libertarian principle. If abortion is murder, and government exists, and one job government performs is arresting and prosecuting murderers, why would it be such a stretch to say that government could not go after abortionists? If government does not exist, then how about vigilantes?

    Having said this, anyone who considers abortion to be some kind of definitional libertarian issue, or a high priority libertarian issue, has some seriously screwed up priorities.”

    Dammit, Andy, you get worse and worse. Can you please consider the CP? Anti-immigrant and anti-woman. Damn.

  29. paulie

    Ideally, the party should not drift too far to the left or to the right.

    In reality, it continuously drifts too far to the right, although the times in its history when it does relatively better is when it does so less than at other times. Any drift to the left is just long overdue and inadequate counterbalance towards the middle. Libertarianism originated on the left and continued efforts at libertarian-conservative fusionism are failures, especially as conservatism drifts distinctly towards authoritarianism and fascism in the age of Trump. They should be abandoned as quickly and thoroughly as possible, to correct widespread confusion and make libertarianism more plausible and less naturally repellent to what is by far its larger, more available, less tapped and more natural constituency on its left flank.

  30. Carol Moore

    Oh, anthony, spoken like a guy who either has a wife and a lot of money to support lots of kids or never has sex with fertile women.

    I assume you don’t want to outlaw contraception too?

  31. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Austin is not going to run as a Republican. And I believe it is State Senate. I believe he will run for the LP nod in 2020 and is waiting to see what the FEC says on 4/3.

    Andy you are correct. Nolan explicitly said abortion is not a foundational libertarian issue and that he personally did not like the plank and wish the Party would delete it, and that he believed at some point, there was a rights-bearing life worthy of protection (he held to unlimited abortion in the beginning months).

    If AI shows up to be disruptive in Pittsburg, I hope he is escorted out. Removed, so to speak. If not disruptive he has every right to be there since the Party does nothing to expel members (whether that is a good thing or not is another debate).

    I support Nick.

  32. Jill Pyeatt

    No, Invictus hasn’t answered our questions. The interview offer is still open, and I would present a revised list of questions since circumstances have changed a bit since then (late summer 2015).

  33. William Saturn Post author

    I received an e-mail alert that someone with the name “You Heard Me” commented:

    “Never ceases to amaze me the blind narcissism of useless shitheads who cannot comment on a matter of substantive issues with anything but vile slanders and disrespect. Not that they do this, nor that they stack the comment sections everywhere with their insipid, pointless keyboard diarrhea, but that after all these years they still think they have something to say anyone else needs to hear and that their pathetic “voice” matters at all. When all they do is create noise and clutter where others are attempting to have actual discussion that matters on points of substance.

    “Thank you to all the latter — to all the former? Fuck off and kill yourselves. You’re a blight on existence and nobody actually wants you here.”

    I logged on to approve it and noticed it had been deleted. Why?

  34. paulie

    I logged on to approve it and noticed it had been deleted. Why?

    The comment appeared to have been spam. It shows absolutely no relation to the topic at hand, or any topic at all. It was itself insipid, pointless keyboard diarrhea, filled with disrespect and vile slanders, and did not reference anything in either the original article or the subsequent comments. It was not made by anyone who could be identified as either a real person or a pseudonymous commenter with any history here or elsewhere. It advocated suicide, and made no concrete point whatsoever, except perhaps by illustration or ironic self-reference. I’m guessing it was most likely spam that gets cross-posted by a bot on thousands of articles all over the web in the hopes that admins will approve it as something that may have some relevance to something somehow, thus giving the bot’s advertising program automatic access to spam future comments on whichever sites fall for the scam.

    Why did you change the layout back to eat up more space on the front page and throw the main and side columns even further out of balance than they already are?

  35. paulie

    Austin is not going to run as a Republican.

    My apologies then, I was misinformed.

    If AI shows up

    I think AS (as in artificial stupidity, as opposed to artificial intelligence) is a more fitting double entendre on his initials (Augustus Sol).

    I support Nick.

    Likewise.

  36. dL

    Abortion is not a libertarian principle. If abortion is murder, and government exists, and one job government performs is arresting and prosecuting murderers, why would it be such a stretch to say that government could not go after abortionists? If government does not exist, then how about vigilantes?

    Certainly not a stretch to suggest you would be the dictionary definition of a cock block…Wherever you are at brah, that is where the party is not at.

  37. William Saturn

    “Why did you change the layout back to eat up more space on the front page and throw the main and side columns even further out of balance than they already are?”

    I saw the opening statement beside the photo on my phone and there was only like one word per line and a large space beneath the photo. I thought I had done it myself by mistake. My apologies.

  38. Andy

    Idiotic statements from Anthony “I’d vote for Mitt Romney to be the Libertarian Party’s presiddntial candidate in 2020” Dlugos, and also quite hypocritical considering that he supported Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, both of whom advocated for multiple issues that were not in line with the LP’s platform and libertarian philosophy.

    I am NOT anti-immigrant, I am anti-invader, and it is perfectly legitimate to eject/deny entry to foreign nationals who are Marxists, theocrats, criminals, welfare leeches, or who have communicable diseases (like Ebola), as they pose a threat to “security, health, or property,” and in the absence of the state, there would be private actors who would serve a similar function (see my example about Disney World security). I am pro-immigrant, as in I favor the ability of PEACEFUL people crossing borders.

    Also, there Libertarian Party had had a pro-life contingent since its beginning, and abortion has always been a hotly debated issue in libertarian circles, and everyone who has been around for awhile knows this.

    Does life begin at conception? If it does, then abortion is murder. Is murder an act of aggression?

  39. Anthony Dlugos

    “I am NOT anti-immigrant, I am anti-invader…it is perfectly legitimate to eject/deny entry to foreign nationals who are Marxists, theocrats, criminals, welfare leeches, or who have communicable diseases”

    oh, that’s all. LOL

  40. This is too my real name

    Regardless of whether or not Andy’s position on immigration passes the libertarian ideological purity test, he is making cogent arguments from a libertarian world view. Several of the rest of you are just name calling and being complete assholes.

    Andy, don’t let them get under your skin. Keep up the good work of making well thought out and clearly articulated arguments about real issues that are affecting real people. You are winning the debate.

  41. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    March 12, 2017 at 18:35
    ‘I am NOT anti-immigrant, I am anti-invader…it is perfectly legitimate to eject/deny entry to foreign nationals who are Marxists, theocrats, criminals, welfare leeches, or who have communicable diseases’

    oh, that’s all. LOL”

    It is not my fault if you are incapable of distinguishing between peaceful people (immigrants in this case), and non-peaceful people (invaders in this case).

    “This is too my real name
    March 12, 2017 at 19:40
    Regardless of whether or not Andy’s position on immigration passes the libertarian ideological purity test,”

    I have not said anything that could not pass a purity test.

  42. This is too my real name

    Andy…

    “I have not said anything that could not pass a purity test.”

    I agree. Some of the other people on this site have their heads up their asses.

    Libertarians are minarchists, not anarchists or liberals. If there is any legitimate and morally permissible reason to have a government at all, it is to protect the individual rights of everyone, but especially the weak.

    So…

    the military to protect us from foreign militaries
    Missile defense to protect us from nukes
    Police, courts and prisons to protect us from criminals
    Border patrol to protect us from drug cartels, MS-13 and other gangs and violent jihadists

  43. paulie

    Libertarians are minarchists, not anarchists or liberals.

    Wrong. Many libertarians are anarchists, and libertarians are the original liberals.

  44. paulie

    It is not my fault if you are incapable of distinguishing between peaceful people (immigrants in this case), and non-peaceful people (invaders in this case).

    Exactly which means do you endorse to make such distinctions? Let’s be specific.

    Are your determinations about who is or is not peaceful always made on a case by case individual basis, or do you impose collective judgments in this regard on large groups such as nationalities, ethnicities, religious groups, “races,” etc?

  45. paulie

    As Jim asked on another thread (still not answered):

    Do you support E-Verify to prevent illegals (sic) from working in the US?
    Do you support government raids of homes and businesses to search for illegals (sic)?
    Do you support the deportation of illegals (sic) who are providing for themselves without government assistance?
    Do you support the seizure of property through eminent domain so that the government can build a wall?
    Do you support the inspection of vehicles to check for illegal immigrants?
    Do you support inspection of paperwork at airports, docks, and train stations to check for illegal immigrants?
    Do you support a tax to pay for the border patrol and/or interior immigration enforcement?

  46. dL

    but especially the weak.

    There’s no doubt that the Trumpists whiners are a weak bunch…completely incapable of competing. why they need the strong, daddy state to protect them from competition.

  47. Libertydave

    Abortion is not murder. It is self-defense.

    In the USA it is more dangerous to become a mother than it is to become a cop. Per capita more women die from complication from pregnancy and child birth than cops die while being a cop.

    My hat is off to all the women who choose to accept this danger to their lives to bring another person into the world, but in no way should any women be forced to accept this danger to her life against her will.

  48. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===“Does life begin at conception? If it does, then abortion is murder.”

    Non sequitur.===

    Tom is correct. Anyone who makes that assertion doesn’t understand the Libertarian pro-choice argument (at least some of them).

    It isn’t about whether it is a human life. It is about when a person must support another.

  49. Andy

    “Caryn Ann Harlos
    March 15, 2017 at 20:23
    ===“Does life begin at conception? If it does, then abortion is murder.”

    Non sequitur.===

    Tom is correct. Anyone who makes that assertion doesn’t understand the Libertarian pro-choice argument (at least some of them).

    It isn’t about whether it is a human life. It is about when a person must support another.”

    I’d say that it is relevant, because whether or not it is a life is directly related to whether or not “aborting” it is taking a life, also known as murder. If we were talking about a woman chopping off a hair follicle, or a toenail, nobody would care.

    Now as far as “supporting” another person goes, this depends on whether or not the act that created the fetus was voluntary or not. If it was rape, then I could see an argument for aborting, because the fetus was not created on a voluntary basis.

    If the fetus was created on a voluntary basis, I would say that there is an implied contract to deliver, much like if somebody agrees to give another person in their car or plane or boat, whether they are getting paid to do this or not, they are agreeing to deliver this person. The owner/driver/captain (of the ship or boat) could change their mind about delivering a person during the course of a trip for a variety of reasons, like say that the passenger is annoying, or is damaging property, or whatever, but this does not give the owner/driver/captain the right to throw the passenger out IF throwing them out would result in the death of the passenger, as in throwing them out of a moving vehicle or plane or ship, or stranding the passenger in a place where they were likely to die, like leaving them in the middle of the ocean, or leaving them in severe weather conditions. The only way it would be justified for a driver/captain to throw somebody out of a vehicle/plane/ship (or train) would be if the passenger was engaging in an act of aggression, say they committed, or attempted to commit, murder, rape, assault, hijacking, etc… So as long as the passenger is not engaging in an act of serious aggression (as in threatening the lives of the driver/captain and/or other crew members or passengers), the only way that ejecting the passenger would be legitimate would be to do it in a way that does not result in the death of the passenger.

    Somebody may say that the woman did not sign a contract with the fetus. When you walk into a restaurant, did you sign a contract with the restaurant owner to not serve you food that will make you sick, or cause you to die? When you ride in a taxi or a bus, or simply accept a ride with a friend or acquaintance or coworker or whoever, are you signing a contract with them to not throw you out of the vehicle while it is moving, or to abandon you in life threatening weather?

    IF a fetus is a life, then logic would follow that the only moral way to eject the fetus would be to do so in a way that does not result in the death of the fetus.

  50. Andy

    “agrees to give another person in their car or plane or boat,”

    Should read, “agrees to give another person a ride in their car or plane or boat…”

  51. dL

    If the fetus was created on a voluntary basis, I would say that there is an implied contract to deliver,

    Equating having sex w/ someone==implied contract to deliver an infant is right-wing religious fundamentalist drivel. Most human sexual activity does not have an intentional moral end of producing offspring. This type of nonsense just reinforces the argument that the “pro-life” position typically is just ad hoc religious prohibition against human sexual freedom/pleasure on the part of young females.

    There is no implied “contract to deliver.” The only contract to deliver is an explicit contract to deliver. Under an abortion on demand regime, birth is an implied contract for the child’s welfare. Otherwise, what moral obligation would a female have to care for child she was forced to have against her will? Under a pro-life regime, she’s forced to have the child. Ok, as soon she has the child, she gets up and leaves the hospital without it. She obeyed the laws of the regime not to terminate a pregnancy. But that child is not hers. It’s not her responsibility. It’s the regime’s responsibility. What libertarian argument is there for her to have to take parent possession of the child? Under a pro-life regime, I would basically have to resort to Benjamin Tucker’s view of the child as mere personal property. Throw it away if you want to.

  52. dL

    IF a fetus is a life, then logic would follow that the only moral way to eject the fetus would be to do so in a way that does not result in the death of the fetus.

    then bad logic would follow…

    FIFY.

  53. Anthony Dlugos

    “Equating having sex w/ someone==implied contract to deliver an infant is right-wing religious fundamentalist drivel. Most human sexual activity does not have an intentional moral end of producing offspring. This type of nonsense just reinforces the argument that the “pro-life” position typically is just ad hoc religious prohibition against human sexual freedom/pleasure on the part of young females.”

    Amen to that.

    Another CP-fitting shoe drops with regard to Andy, by the way.

  54. Nathan Larson

    Leftists tend to take over organizations and then purge dissidents who defy norms of political correctness. One thing I wonder, with regard to my own expulsion from the LPVA, is whether this is an isolated event, or the start of a trend. Will people like Augustus Sol Invictus get kicked out too, for “making the LP look bad”?

    I wouldn’t necessarily mind if that were to happen, if there’s potential for the outcasts to form a new, more radical party. Much as feminists have allied with leftists, I think that antifeminists can ally with white nationalists. Hitler himself was an antifeminist, so there is already a tradition of the two movements working together. If I lived in early 1930s Germany, who knows, maybe I would vote for the Nazi Party, just as a way of striking a blow against feminism. I might view that as more important than saving the lives of six million Jews.

    I don’t see the big deal about the goat blood issue. Anyone who has had a Greek salad with feta cheese has consumed goat products.

  55. Andy

    Idiotic comments from Anthony Dlugos. There has always been a pro-life faction in the Libertarian Party and movement, and anyone who knows the history of the party and movement and is honest knows and acknowledges this.

    Also, for the interim, I am not even proposing that anything be done about abortion, other than cutting off taxpayer funding for it. The American population has been bombarded with decades of brainwashing from the government and media, and given that the public is so divided on the issue, I do not think anything is going to change anytime soon, and we have what I see as more pressing issues with which we ought to focus.

    Unlike Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, I have not made any proposals that are outside of libertarian orthodoxy. Johnson/Weld made MULTIPLE proposals that were far outside of libertarian orthodoxy (calling for more gun control, Carbon Taxes, Universal Basic Income, supporting the United Nations, taxpayer funding for abortion (something even rabid pro-abortion libertarians have historically opposed), etc….), yet Dlugos was one of their most enthusiastic supporters.

    Incidentally, as Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson signed a bill that BANNED late term abortions, and he also favored parental notification if minors wanted to get abortions. Funny how Dlugos has remained silent about this.

  56. Andy

    I am NOT an abortion based voter. I am not a hardcore pro-life activist. When I first got involved with the LP back in 1996, I was even more on the pro-abortion side. I remember hearing about Libertarians For Life (a pro-life Libertarian group) back in the 1990’s, and I met their founder, a woman by the name of Doris Gordon, back in 2001. I started following Ron Paul back in late 1996, and I found out that he was pro-life, but I did not really care much about the issue. Harry Browne was also pro-life, but he did not think that it was an issue that government could solve (he quipped that, “If abortions are outlawed, men will start having them.”)

    Abortion has never been a high priority issue for me either way, but as a person who has long been involved in politics, I encountered the issue, just like I encountered many other issues, and I would listen to different sides of the argument.

    One day, around maybe 2004 or 2005, I was driving around in the San Fernando Valley in California, and I happened to stop in traffic right in front of an abortion clinic. I looked at it for a moment, and this creepy feeling hit me, and I thought, “They kill babies there. That’s messed up.” It was after this that I started to reconsider the libertarian arguments against abortion.

    It was not too long after this, maybe several months, that I had a conversation with a fellow Libertarian Party member, who presented me with an anarchist case against abortion, and the vigilante justice angle, as in that government sanctions and protects abortion (much like government sanctioned and protected chattel slavery in the past), and that in a stateless society, there could be a war between abortionists and pro-life vigilantes. I had not thought of this prior to this conversation, but I thought that it was a valid point about state sanction and protection. I later added the jury nullification aspect to this discussion myself, as in under a system of fully informed juries, neither side would get convictions on any kind of consistent basis, if at all, unless they could persuade a super-majority of society over to their position, and in this case, it would probably have to be a super-majority of around 92% (in the book “Send in the Waco Killers” by Vin Supernowicz, he brings up how somebody crunched the numbers, and found that if we had a society where jurors were randomly selected, and everyone knew about jury nullification, that laws would have to have at least 92% popular support in order for government prosecutors to get consistent convictions, and that the further you get below 92% popular support for a law, the more difficult it would be to get 12 randomly selected fully informed jurors to come to guilty verdicts).

    I think that the pro-life argument is probably the correct argument (unless science can prove that a fetus is not a life, and the evidence I have seen says the opposite), but given the political realities in which we are living under, I do not see this issue being solvable in the foreseeable future, if ever (although I think that a more robust economy and advancements in science may greatly reduce the number of abortions).

    The Libertarian Party and movement is made up of a coalition of people who came from different political backgrounds, and we obviously spend a lot of time in internal arguments over various issues (like abortion, anarchy vs minarchy, etc…), and political strategy. There is an old saying that goes, “Politics is the art of compromise.” There is internal bickering and faction fighting in all political groups, even the D’s and R’s. We are not going to get everyone to agree with us on every detail of everything in our group no matter what we do, and we can either accept this, and work together where we can work together, or we can never accomplish any of our common goals.

  57. dL

    If I lived in early 1930s Germany, who knows, maybe I would vote for the Nazi Party, just as a way of striking a blow against feminism. I might view that as more important than saving the lives of six million Jews.

    One thing I wonder, with regard to my own expulsion from the LPVA, is whether this is an isolated event, or the start of a trend.

    If they are more like you around, hopefully a trend…

    I wouldn’t necessarily mind if that were to happen, if there’s potential for the outcasts to form a new, more radical party. Much as feminists have allied with leftists, I think that antifeminists can ally with white nationalists.

    yeah, the Nazi Gay Sex Party. Man if you aren’t a walking advertisement for Marx’s famous quip re: history repeating…first as tragedy, then as comedy.

  58. Anthony Dlugos

    So you’re anti-choice and you’re vehemently anti-immigrant.

    You really oughta check out that Constitution Party.

  59. Great ideas

    I sense a common thread here. Augustus Invictus, Nathan Larson, and Andy Jacobs are all anti-choice, anti-feminist, anti-immigrant and white nationalist or allies of white nationalists. Maybe they could unite in a party with other people who share the same views such as Nathan Norman, Vernon Collowrath, Sonny Landham, David Macko, Hans Hoppe, Christopher Cantwell, Steve Molyneux, Chris Lesiak, and so on. Maybe they could all go join the American Freedom Party which seems much more in line with their beliefs than the Libertarians. Or maybe they can revive the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, although they may have to drop the Green part as they do not all agree on that one.

  60. Anthony Dlugos

    At least that has some coherence to it.

    Besides, my guess is that Andy actually has a lot stronger of a Prohibitionist position, but if he stated it, the gig would be up, the emperor would have no clothes, et tu Brute, and all the rest.

  61. Anthony Dlugos

    haha. Thats a great song.

    Note one of the other cornerstones of Andian philosophy that he just dropped in his post of 16:23.

    “The American population has been bombarded with decades of brainwashing from the government and media…”

    So typical of the conspiratorial minded: everyone’s brainwashed but me. CFR, NWO, world domination, Bilderberg, chemtrails…GIMMIE SOME COAST TO COAST AM!

  62. Andy

    Great ideas is likely a government paid troll. I do NOT endorse Nathan Larson (his women should be slaves stance is insane) or Augustus Invictus.

  63. Andy

    So Dlugos, are you denying that the CIA engaged in Operation Mockingbird, where it is an admitted fact that that they infiltrated the mainstream media?

  64. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    March 20, 2017 at 19:06
    At least that has some coherence to it.

    Besides, my guess is that Andy actually has a lot stronger of a Prohibitionist position, but if he stated it, the gig would be up, the emperor would have no clothes, et tu Brute, and all the rest.”

    Your guess here is 100% wrong.

  65. dL

    So Dlugos, are you denying that the CIA engaged in Operation Mockingbird, where it is an admitted fact that that they infiltrated the mainstream media?

    Yet you apparently operate by the presumption that the CIA/intel organs have infiltrated everything and will infiltrate everything EXCEPT for border control. Maybe Dlugos assigns the same magical powers to mainstream media to ward off the CIA that you have assigned to the border control organs?

  66. Andy

    “dL
    March 20, 2017 at 22:19
    ‘So Dlugos, are you denying that the CIA engaged in Operation Mockingbird, where it is an admitted fact that that they infiltrated the mainstream media?’
    Yet you apparently operate by the presumption that the CIA/intel organs have infiltrated everything and will infiltrate everything EXCEPT for border control. Maybe Dlugos assigns the same magical powers to mainstream media to ward off the CIA that you have assigned to the border control organs?”

    So because we know that government is corrupt, government should not maintain the roads, or put our fires, or prosecute legitimate criminals (as in those who engage in coercive acts of violence, theft, and destruction of property), and all of the other functions of government should be immediately stopped, including Social Security payments to senior citizens.

    No shit that government is corrupt. No shit that government is inefficient. I think that everyone who posts here already knows this, including the few non-self proclaimed libertarians who still post here from time to time.

    Just because government is corrupt, it does not mean that the concept of everything that government does is invalid, as in there’s still be needs for roads, fire fighting, education, etc…, even if there was an anarcho-capitalist Libertopia society, and yes, an ancap society would still have borders, in the form of private property borders (or boundaries if you prefer to call them that), and there’d still be people who’d act a “border patrols” for different areas of private property (see my Disney World security example in other threads).

    The fact of the matter is that we live in a society where government so large, and so intertwined in our lives, that getting out of this mess is not going to be easy, and enacting certain policies in isolation, could actually cause mass destruction, and some are not even politically feasible (like ending Social Security without coming up with a way to pay off senior citizens who are dependent on it, or ending military spending without the troops and their equipment home, etc…).

    So yes, I do not want the government inviting, or leaving the door open, for unlimited numbers of people from around the world to come to the land territory where I live, known as the USA, especially when we have a welfare state, mass democracy where rights can be voted away, and forced association, and if we lived in an anarcho-capitalist society, the market would certainly provide a function to keep people off of property where the owners don’t want people entering. There are currently 1 million legal immigrants coming in per year, and who knows how many illegal immigrants. If the government were to announce, “Attention people of Earth, the United States of America now has open borders. SO COME ON IN!” this land would be flooded with more people than have ever moved in from one geographic territory to another in history, especially if this was done without first repealing the welfare state, or at least passing a law that prevents immigrants (and their offspring) from getting on welfare. The government currently does a lousy job of teaching new citizens about the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, and no other group (including the Libertarian Party), is doing any effective outreach to immigrants to make sure that they understand why socialism is a bad idea. There is mountains of data that show that modern day immigrants consume welfare (and their offspring) consume welfare in super-majority numbers (above that of the native population), and that after becoming citizens, they vote for more socialism and more gun control laws in super-majority numbers (above that of the native population). Does this mean that all immigrants are bad, or that there should be no immigration? No on both counts, but it does mean that there is not serious problem, and that there are lots of people coming here who should not be coming here (as in they are non-peaceful people crossing borders instead of peaceful people crossing borders).

    It is no coincidence that opening the borders, and doing so without repealing the welfare state, is a position that is held by socialist and communist groups (like that Socialist International poster I mentioned on another thread recently).

  67. Andy

    ” there’s still be needs for roads”

    Should read, “there’d still be needs for roads…”

  68. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . . I am NOT anti-immigrant, I am anti-invader. . . . . ”

    Should read “I am anti-immigrant if they come from the south . . . if they are from the north or east, they’re OK.?”

  69. Andy

    “but it does mean that there is not serious problem, ”

    Should read, “but it does mean that there is a serious problem…”

  70. Jacqueline Passey Mason

    “I sense a common thread here. Augustus Invictus, Nathan Larson, and Andy Jacobs are all anti-choice, anti-feminist, anti-immigrant and white nationalist or allies of white nationalists. … Maybe they could all go join the American Freedom Party which seems much more in line with their beliefs than the Libertarians. ”

    I dunno why they would have to move from one third party to another when they’d fit in so well within the GOP.

  71. Great ideas

    You do make an excellent point. They are right in line with the newly Trumptardified Republican Party. Alex Jones loves Trump so they should too! Hell even Andy Anglin was calling the Daily Stormer the “#1 Republican news site on the web” after Trump won and had Reagan and Trump in the masthead, replacing the swastika.

  72. Nathan Larson

    “Augustus Invictus, Nathan Larson, and Andy Jacobs are all anti-choice, anti-feminist, anti-immigrant and white nationalist or allies of white nationalists.”

    Since when was I anti-choice? I actually had a problem getting pro-lifers to sign my ballot access petitions, because I wouldn’t agree to support legislation criminalizing abortion.

    Since I’m aware of the law of comparative advantage, I’m not anti-immigrant, either. In fact, I’m among those in the manosphere who favor bringing in women from countries that have more traditional cultures, so that American men aren’t limited to marrying feminists.

    However, I don’t have a problem allying with white nationalists if that’s the only group left to work with, after I’ve been kicked out of every other group. They have to be pro-pederasty like the Nazi SA were, though, or I have to regard their doctrine as tainted by feminism. (Although Nazis sent some effeminate gay men to the death camps, they supported an ultra-macho or “butch” form of homosexuality, and liked to have boys parade around in lederhosen or black shorts, regardless of how cold the weather might be.)

    When Republicans, or the American Freedom Party, officially endorse pederasty, maybe I’ll join them. I had thought the LIbertarians Party would be more open to pedophilia, since it had so many leaders like Mary Ruwart who made statements condoning it. But apparently, it is only Libertarian women who are allowed to voice such opinions.

  73. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    March 21, 2017 at 10:30
    Julie Borowski and That Guy T.

    yikes”

    Anthony Dlugos, Gary Johnson, and Bill Weld.

    Yikes!

  74. Great ideas

    Nathan Larson: “Since when was I anti-choice? I actually had a problem getting pro-lifers to sign my ballot access petitions, because I wouldn’t agree to support legislation criminalizing abortion.

    Since I’m aware of the law of comparative advantage, I’m not anti-immigrant, either.” Apologies for my mistake. So you are a pro-choice, pro-immigration freedom advocate of rape, child molestation, and alliances with gay, child molesting nazis. Got it. Good luck with that and I would still advise the Libertarians to steer very far clear of you.

    Andy Jacobs: ““Anthony Dlugos
    March 21, 2017 at 10:30
    Julie Borowski and That Guy T.

    yikes”

    Anthony Dlugos, Gary Johnson, and Bill Weld.

    Yikes!”

    I’m going to go with Anthony Dlugos on that one and add:

    Andy Jacobs, Augustus Invictus and Nathan Larson

    Yikes. Or actually make that YIKES!!! and add a few more exclamation points as needed.

  75. Andy

    “Great Ideas” said: “Andy Jacobs, Augustus Invictus and Nathan Larson”

    I have no connection with these individuals.

    “Yikes. Or actually make that YIKES!!! and add a few more exclamation points as needed.”

    Great ideas.

    Yikes!!!!!!!

    I have a great idea for you. Go fuck off and die.

  76. Great ideas

    Andrew Jacobs: “I have no connection with these individuals.” I didn’t mean to imply that you do.
    As far as I know Julie Borowski has no connection to That Guy T either. In fact the only connection I would draw is that Libertarians would do well to steer far clear of all of your nutty far right wing views and alliances, continue to support immigration rights, abortion choice, and the freedom of individuals of different cultures and races to mix as they wish, and to continue to oppose child molestation, slavery, mass deportations, genocide, government eugenics programs, ritual animal torture and dismemberment, border walls, immigration quotas and rape. The opposite of those positions belong in a different party, such as Republicans.

    “I have a great idea for you. Go fuck off and die.” I’m pretty sure I will, eventually, but not quite yet. Would you do us all a favor and demonstrate how it’s done? The sooner the better.

  77. Anthony Dlugos

    That Guy T.

    lol

    The “name” alone should disabuse anyone of the notion that anything legitimate is coming out of his mouth.

  78. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    March 23, 2017 at 13:44
    That Guy T.

    lol

    The ‘name’ alone should disabuse anyone of the notion that anything legitimate is coming out of his mouth.”

    That Guy T is the nickname for Taleed Brown. Why would this nickname make him any less credible?

    Should I now imply that Anthony Dlugos is a racist because of your dismissive attitude toward That Guy T, aka-Taleed Brown, as in you don’t think that anything legitimate comes out of his mouth because he is black? Don’t worry, unlike you and some others, I don’t want to stoop to that level.

    I have watched several of That Guy T’s videos, and I am impressed by him, and I don’t impress easily.

    Check out That Guy T’s introduction video for his YouTube channel:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zOB0kr2RLs

  79. Anthony Dlugos

    well, despite Obama’s faulty positions and philosophy, I noticed he didn’t try to get elected calling himself “That Boy B.”

    had he, I would have had to consider him less than ready.

    Ditto if Mitt Romney called himself “That Boy M.”

  80. Great ideas

    Anthony Dlugos makes sense on that point. Taleed Brown would be more credible if he didn’t put out videos as “That Guy T.” Of course, what would really add to his credibility is to not oppose migration freedom to begin with.

    To my last remark I should add that forced pregnancy is in a very real sense a very long-lasting and egregious form of rape. “Libertarians” for forced pregnancy makes about as much sense as, well, “libertarians” for legalizing rape.

  81. dL

    I have watched several of That Guy T’s videos, and I am impressed by him, and I don’t impress easily.

    Linking to Youtube selfies as some kind of argument is a perfect illustration of how the internet makes dumb people dumber.

  82. Great ideas

    A lot of stupid things get posted to youtube but not everything posted to youtube is stupid. But, if something is posted to youtube and Andy Jacobs likes and reposts it the chance that it isn’t stupid is virtually zero.

  83. dL

    A lot of stupid things get posted to youtube but not everything posted to youtube is stupid.

    I didn’t write “everything on youtube is stupid.” I wrote linking to “youtube SELFIES” as an argument illustrates how the internet makes dumb people dumber.

  84. Andy

    Pregnancy is only forced if it resulted from a rape. Rape would be the only moral justification I could see for abortion.

  85. Andy

    That Guy T is just a nickname. Taleed Brown is not a candidate for political office, and even if he were, lots of people have nicknames. Ronald Reagan was also known as “The Gipper” from a movie role he played.

  86. Andy

    Calling a video stupid without refuting any of the content presented in the video is stupid.

  87. Andy

    Funny how a person posting under a fake name like “Great Ideas” is criticizing Taleed Brown for posting YouTube videos under his nickname, That Guy T.

  88. Libertydave

    Andy

    The content of the videos you link to have been refuted over and over again by many different people. You just ignore them because they don’t back up what you choose to believe.

  89. Great ideas

    Andrew Jacobs: “Pregnancy is only forced if it resulted from a rape.” No, pregnancy itself is a form of rape if a woman wants to terminate it and is forcibly prevented from doing so. Likewise, rape is rape even if a woman consented to sex and later changes her mind during the act, and her partner or partners continue against her express wishes. It’s her body and she has the right to decide what goes in it, what comes out and when, whether that be a penis or a fetus or a body part or foreign object of any sort. Anything else is, well, rape.

    “Rape would be the only moral justification I could see for abortion.” The only moral justification that a woman needs to abort a fetus is that she no longer wants it in her body. But suppose we were to grant the absurd premise above. This places an undue burden on a woman to report a rape and go through the public humiliation of a rape trial, where her sexual activities are up for cross-examination in order to protect the rights of the accused. She may not have enough proof to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that a rape occurred, even if it did. Most rapes occur between people who know each other, often people who are in a relationship or related; she may have decidedly mixed feelings about prosecuting the rapist(s) and sending him or them to prison. There are many reasons why most rapes are not reported and prosecuted, and some rapists are not convicted even when they are.

    Any scheme for making abortions illegal will result in numerous rape victims being forced to carry pregnancies resulting from those rapes to term. Even in the case of a conviction, rape prosecutions take a period of time, which may well be longer than a pregnancy. It’s not clear whether there would be any practical way to have rape prosecutions take place fast enough to allow abortions and protect the rights of the accused at the same time. In fact, if we were to grant the absurd idea that abortion is murder, women would be prosecuted for murder when they have a miscarriage, with a burden to prove that they did not induce an abortion. This already happens in several countries. It’s simply a fallacy that consent to sex is consent to carry a pregnancy to term. And if we were to grant the absurd idea that a fetus is a person with rights, why would a fetus be condemned to death for the actions of his or her father? By even allowing the idea of a rape exception you implicitly admit that your arguments about abortion being “murder” are dishonest.

    “Calling a video stupid without refuting any of the content presented in the video is stupid.” As LibertyDave points out, everything you say has been refuted ad nauseum. You just continue to post it ad nauseum on one article after another as if it hasn’t been. And, it’s completely unreasonable to expect someone else to watch a video you linked, stop and pause it and refute it point by point. The chances that this would be a good use of time are virtually zero. Having watched a small segment of a few of the videos you link, or just looking at their video descriptions and the listings of other videos on the same channels that they are posted on, is more than enough to form a general conclusion that the chances of you linking a video that is worth watching, much less refuting in detail, are virtually zero. Additionally, this too has been pointed out to you by numerous people in numerous different discussion here and yet you keep repeating it as if it hasn’t been.

    “Funny how a person posting under a fake name like “Great Ideas” is criticizing Taleed Brown for posting YouTube videos under his nickname, That Guy T.” What makes you think that these Great ideas come from only one person? Maybe we are a committee of Great ideas. Perhaps, we are a computer program. There could be other possibilities you haven’t considered. Funny how your attitude about privacy has evolved; you began posting as just Andy, without a last name, and then when another Andy showed up you became “TheOriginalAndy” rather than using your last name. When it later became too well known of a fact by too many here that you are Andy Jacobs for you to care about that any longer, you became all self-righteous about people using their full legal names to comment here, even insisting repeatedly that it should be a requirement even when virtually no one agreed with you.

  90. Great ideas

    Even most people who claim that a pregnancy may be justifiably forced on a woman will concede that a woman should have the right to withdraw consent during sex and have her partner(s) stop. They will typically also grant that if she does carry a pregnancy to term she should have the right to give the child up, no questions asked, at any time after the child is born. Yet they insist that a woman must be enslaved to a fetus that she does not want for nine months or sometimes longer, a condition of non-autonomy over her own body that never exists before or after a pregnancy and does not exist at all for men at any point in their lives.

    The idea that consent to sex is some kind of implicit consent to pregnancy places a far higher burden on women than on men in consenting to sex, which is the real reason behind abortion restrictions: to control women’s sexuality, punish them for promiscuity, enslave them for being in a relationship or put them impossibly between a rock and a hard place when they are impregnated by rape, particularly by someone they are close to or in muddled circumstances. “Lifeboat” scenarios also rely on the fiction that there is a person there prior to the pregnancy that a woman owes safe passage to, even though there clearly wasn’t. Consent to have sex is consent to have sex and nothing else, and can be withdrawn at any point. Consent to raise a child can also be withdrawn. At no point during sex or child raising is slavery justified, except in a few diseased minds such as those of Nathan Larson with his ideas about enslaving women as well as those of abortion restrictionists and their fetish for enslaving women (but only during pregnancy).

  91. Great ideas

    Andy Jacobs a few days ago in this thread: “I am NOT an abortion based voter. I am not a hardcore pro-life activist. …. Abortion has never been a high priority issue for me either way…”

    Andy Jacobs last night: ““Rape would be the only moral justification I could see for abortion.”

    So it’s not a high priority issue for you, but you believe we have a legalized holocaust of millions of babies a year going on right now and you want to enslave millions of women to months of hard labor against their will based on a creepy feeling you got once when you were driving around? Somehow this does not add up. If you really believed that millions of children were being murdered every year, legally, how could that not be a high priority issue for you? If you have ever been with or around a woman as she went through a pregnancy, how could you want to force millions of women to do that against their will if it’s not a high priority issue for you? If you believe that a fetus is a child how could you be for sentencing children to death for something their father did? It’s pretty obvious that you don’t really believe abortion is the same thing as murdering a child, and just all the time you have spent arguing about in on IPR alone shows that it probably is a pretty important issue for you.

    Based on the above…It seems highly likely that you have a different agenda than what you want us to believe. Maybe you just don’t want to admit that you want to enslave and control women. At least Nathan Larson is honest about his intentions in that regard, unlike you. Betting that you are heavily into reading the sick, creepy “manosphere” and “pick up artist” propaganda just like Nathan Larson is. But, you are a less honest individual than he is. Hmmmm…wonder what else you are not so honest about?

  92. Anthony Dlugos

    Andy Jacobs a few days ago in this thread: “I am NOT an abortion based voter. I am not a hardcore pro-life activist. …. Abortion has never been a high priority issue for me either way…”

    Andy Jacobs last night: ““Rape would be the only moral justification I could see for abortion.”

    So it’s not a high priority issue for you, but you believe we have a legalized holocaust of millions of babies a year going on right now and you want to enslave millions of women to months of hard labor against their will based on a creepy feeling you got once when you were driving around? Somehow this does not add up.”

    “…and just all the time you have spent arguing about in on IPR alone shows that it probably is a pretty important issue for you.

    Based on the above…It seems highly likely that you have a different agenda than what you want us to believe. Maybe you just don’t want to admit that you want to enslave and control women.”

    Precisely, Great Ideas. My thoughts exactly.

    Please note my comment of March 20, 2017 at 19:06. There is ZERO doubt in my mind that Andy is a full-on, 100% abortion Prohibitionist, but is well aware that, in conjunction with his virulent nativist, xenophobic rants, such a position would pretty much out him as exactly what I said he was some time ago: a person better suited for the Constitution Party or the GOP as it exists today.

    I’m not a Libertarian Party purger. I am simply pointing out what appears to me to be an obvious fact: while no one agrees 100% with the platform of the party they are a member of, given what is important to Andy, he’s in the wrong party. He would fit seamlessly into a Constitution Party meeting. May not agree with them on everything, but they are primarily anti-immigrant, strongly against free trade pacts and susceptible to globalist conspiracy theories, and far more in line with his abortion position than the LP is.

    But, as I pointed out, I think he just likes to argue. Ultimately, the problem he has with the Constitution Party is that he’d have very little to argue about. For many, its no longer fun when everyone around you ALSO believes in the global conspiracy. Takes the edge off the Gnostic position he likes to prance around declaring.

    Bear in mind, he’s repeatedly suggested I am in the wrong party. An open borders, pro-choice, pro-free trade agreement Libertarian. I should be in the Republican Party. lol

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *