Paul Stanton: Perhaps “Working with White Nationalists” Is Not the Best Approach?

 

 

 

This was sent to the members of the Libertarian Party National Committee

July 20, 2017


Subject: Perhaps “Working with White Nationalists” Is Not the Best Approach?

Dear members of the Libertarian Party of Florida Executive Committee:
We are losing good members, and the trust of the public, due to the elevation of leaders in extremist hate groups to our party leadership.  We need a new approach.  Local libertarian-leaning politicians and voters associate us with far-right extremists.  As of yesterday, my county no longer has a full slate of candidates for the Florida House.   One of the Libertarian candidates I drafted will now unfortunately be running NPA.  Yesterday, we also lost our incoming Rules Committee chair.  Previously, both our former gubernatorial nominee and our senatorial nominee (prior to me) have resigned their LPF memberships, among countless other Libertarian activists and volunteers.  A member of my 2016 Senate campaign ended her participation with the party, because her employer forbids associations with members of extremist hate groups advocating for violence. A single friend (who ceased her participation after receiving death threats) has reported that no fewer than 30 of her acquaintances have withdrawn from Libertarian Party activism due to risks to themselves and their reputations.
During my US Senate campaign, I never expected the situation that unfolded.  I expected the personal attacks, but I never expected racist fantasies about my mother, posting of personal information about members of my family, or the violent threats and sexual harassment targeting my supporters and members of my campaign.  Last month, after I introduced a motion (which was killed) to remove Florida’s member of the Libertarian Party Platform Committee for his racist statements, I was accused of wanting to kill all white people, in a “white genocide” conspiracy theory.  And now today, there have been threats that the militant hate group the American Guardmay be waiting for me in the parking lot, or harassing county party meetings.  We must have higher standards for our party leadership!
Sadly, these are common intimidation tactics among white nationalists, and there are several other victims throughout Florida.  This behavior cannot be accepted.  We cannot continue to elevate these people.  Libertarianism stands for maximum freedom for everyone, universally. We dishonor ourselves and our party by enabling liars with wildly divergent philosophies, who stand immediately adjacent to neo-Naziswhite nationalistsfascists,organized criminal syndicates, and domestic terrorists.
The situation needs to change.  There is a clear, ongoing failure of unaccountable party leadership to address the extremist, unlibertarian entryism that is occurring.
In liberty,

Paul Stanton
Regional Representative (7)
Libertarian Party of Florida

region7@lpf.org

Follow me on Facebook: fb.com/Stanton4Liberty

203 thoughts on “Paul Stanton: Perhaps “Working with White Nationalists” Is Not the Best Approach?

  1. D. Frank Robinson

    Florida is a pivotal state in presidential elections. I can understand why the LP is targeted for subversion by both Ds and Rs and others before the 2020 election.

  2. Anthony Dlugos

    “Also the author deliberately mischaracterizes White genocide since it does not mean “kill all White people” but rather destroy the White Race by race-mixing.”

    Oh, thank god that is cleared up.

    Wait…yea, still looney toons.

  3. dL

    Perhaps “Working with White Nationalists” Is Not the Best Approach?

    Yeah, but in reality it’s the other way around. The White nationalists are reassessing the proposition that working with LP 3rd party politics is perhaps not the best approach. And that’s very good news.

  4. dL

    Also the author deliberately mischaracterizes White genocide since it does not mean “kill all White people” but rather destroy the White Race by race-mixing.

    Yes, “white genocide” refers to, among other things, corrupting German polka music w/ rock n roll, jazz blues and non-familial sexual relationships.

  5. Joe Wendt

    I completely and totally agree with Mr Stanton. I was once sympathetic to their gripes about free speech, but after being threatened with bodily harm and seeing a group shouting white power at the state convention, we cannot tolerate the behavior of these vicious & racist individuals.

  6. Starchild

    Joe, do you know which individuals were shouting “white power” at the state convention? Is there video evidence of this? I would hope those individuals are identified and ostracized, and that other Libertarians will make clear to them that there is no room for such racism in the LP. That is not what we are about. If individuals who seek to act in such a manner leave the party, that is not a loss for us but a gain.

  7. Joe Wendt

    Starchild,

    The individuals in question are supports of the current LPF Chair. Although Augustus Invictus, the most prominent of the White Nationalists, has left the party, unfortunately other less prominent White Nationalists are not remaining active in the LPF, the Chair is actually giving them positions of authority.

  8. Andy

    I was about to bring up the same point that William Saturn just brought up. Wendt supported self professed Nazi Billy Roper in his attempt at getting the Boston Tea Party’s presidential nomination. I would not trust Wendt, or put much stock in anything he says.

  9. Joe Wendt

    I have been harassed and threatened by a white nationalist. I even have the screenshot, feel free to email me for it

  10. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    I can see from most recent LNC email discussions, this is not yet a topic for LNC. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2017/

    Maybe Starchild can propose a resolution, including detailing problems the LP Florida is having.

    The alt-right LP Veteran caucus helped spearhead a resolution supporting military veterans after a couple of Arvin Vohra’s anti-military rants. Despite alt-right bad behavior at past libertarian events and there being a “joke” death threat made vs. Vohra on the LP Veteran caucus Facebook page, the resolution easily passed. Ryan Ramsey and friends since have threatened chaos at the National Convention if it isn’t moved from New Orleans to Vicksburg. The don’t want the LP to “diss” the confederacy!

    I get the impression from my own complaints that the LNC thinks “ignore them and they’ll go away.” But given Mr. Stanton’s complaint above, that obviously is not happening.

    If the LNC balks at such a proposal, I’d think the hundreds of real libertarians already disgusted with these types of tactics would be delighted to sign a public petition asking LNC to denounce a laundry list of the revolutionary conservative/white nationalist/etc. viewpoints would be quite appropriate.

    What’s the best and most high profile petition site to use??

    Cc https://www.facebook.com/groups/LNCBusinessDiscuss

  11. langa

    I wonder if the whole Invictus situation has caused any of the extreme “big tenters” to rethink their approach. After all, back when many of us were arguing that Gary Johnson and especially Bill Weld weren’t libertarian enough to represent the LP, the “big tenters” constantly accused us of trying to impose “purity tests” and conduct “purges” and “witch hunts” and so on. But now, it seems that such “purity tests” and “purges” are exactly what the doctor ordered, in order to rid the LP of Invictus and his bigoted buddies.

    So, which is it? Should the LP open its doors to anyone and everyone who claims to be a libertarian, no matter how often they deviate from libertarian principles, or should we limit the LP to actual libertarians?

  12. Andy

    langa said: “So, which is it? Should the LP open its doors to anyone and everyone who claims to be a libertarian, no matter how often they deviate from libertarian principles, or should we limit the LP to actual libertarians?”

    The “politically correct” shiny badge/”respectability” caucus who supported Johnson/Weld only want to do purges when it applies to candidates/factions/people they don’t like, as in it is not about a purity test, since Johnson/Weld would not come close to passing any kind of libertarian purity test.

  13. Andy

    “Joe Wendt
    July 22, 2017 at 18:16
    I have been harassed and threatened by a white nationalist. I even have the screenshot, feel free to email me for it.”

    This is coming from a guy who support self professed Nazi, Billy Roper, and who has bounced around between supporting Ron Paul, then supporting Alan Keyes, the supporting Gary Johnson, then supporting Rick Santorum, etc… Joe went on a jihad against Adrian Wylie when he was running for Governor of Florida, but when I asked him several times right here on IPR to provide a list of reasons why he did not like Wylie, he never gave me a clear answer. He left the LP in a huff, and then came back and was acting like he was buddies with Augustus Invictus. Now that Invictus is out of the LP, he’s acting like he’s a bad guy.

    Joe is such a confused character that I would not be surprised if he threatened himself.

  14. William Saturn

    Interesting comments from Joe Wendt in 2011:

    “Just because someone has a racist view or makes a racist statement, doesn’t mean they are bad people, it’s an opinion.”

    https://web.archive.org/web/20111110192747/http://bostontea.us/node/1010#comment-4

    “So what if Mr. Roper is part of a white supremacist group. Truman and Byrd were KKK members, and look at their contributions to society. Strom Thurmond was a stauch segregationist, and look at his brilliant career. Just because someone has a belief that offends others does not mean he should be discounted from any party nomination, that is for a convention and the voters to decide. And besides, look at the platform Mr. Roper is running under:

    http://vote4roper.webs.com/issues.htm

    [. . .]

    And My Question to Mr. Perry: Why should we disqualify someone because of an un-pc personal belief? Like it or not, everyone is a tad racist; hell I dispise midgets. Shouldn’t we judge some on their actions rather then an eccentric personal belief?”

    https://web.archive.org/web/20111110192747/http://bostontea.us/node/1010#comment-21

  15. paulie

    Why are you making this about Wendt? Granted he has bounced around between parties and ideologies, but he’s far from the only person reporting harassment, threats and physical attacks from Invictus, Ramsey and their friends down in Florida. Paul Stanton mentions a number of such cases involving different people in the letter above, and only as examples.

    There is still an as yet unconfirmed report of Invictus beating, raping and threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend. He himself has written what he labelled “non-fiction” about raping a 14 year old girl in Mexico and about having fantasies about raping random women at bars in Florida. When someone wrote about throwing a pie at him as a prank he said he would put anyone doing so in the hospital and then prosecute them.

    When I published an article at IPR which factually stated that a police report about the alleged violence and death threats by Invictus against his ex had been filed, and not in any way commenting on whether the events alleged in the report occurred in my article, as well as an article previously published elsewhere about the far-ranging involvement in the white nationalist movement by Invictus and Ramsey, their response was 1) To write a letter to me and Warren threatening to sue IPR, and if you read between the lines also threatening other unspecified harm 2) Publishing articles filled with exaggerations, half-truths and lies about me and others including but not limited to:

    * That I am a terrorist and a member of a terrorist group (completely false; I had made clear in the very statement selectively quoted and many other times that I am an antifascist and not a member of any such group).

    * That I killed a dog, which is completely 100% false.

    * That I am involved in a conspiracy with Communists and Republicans to destroy the LP. Also completely false.

    * That IPR is a front for GOP dirty tricks. Completely false.

    They offered to take these articles down, which they later did (I have not checked if they have been put back up), but only if IPR retracted our stories, which merely reported facts and allegations posted elsewhere and made no allegations of our own. We have not retracted anything and stand by our reporting. In the meantime they have spread this bullshit about me and others all over multiple threads on multiple groups on facebook. Since bullshit on facebook is endless I have opted out of reposting my defense against the lies about me over and over endlessly; I already posted my answers in a prior IPR thread. But since every time you repeat bullshit more people see it, they have kept repeating it endlessly.

    So, I’ve been threatened, Paul Stanton has been threatened, Invictus’ ex-girlfriend and her friend who was helping her in the matter have been threatened, numerous people in LPF and elsewhere have been threatened. The “antifa” group that caused trouble surrounding Invictus’ visit in PA was most likely a false front group put up by Invictus, Ramsey and their sieg heiling friends.

    You do not have to take Joe Wendt’s word for any of this. He is just reporting what numerous other people have reported. Lots of people saw the sieg heiling and shouts of “white power” at the Florida convention. And yes, some of these same exact people are being promoted by the chair into positions of authority in the party. Florida’s choice for the national platform committee is another of these people that talks about the so-called “white genocide.”

    This is a cancer on the LP and radical surgery is badly in need.

  16. paulie

    Let’s also not forget about Invictus openly talking about killing leftists, left-libertarians, Jews and Muslims on any number of occasions.

    Oh yeah, and Ramsey claiming he reported me to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement electronic crimes division and threatening to report me to the FBI. For what? For publishing repostings previously published elsewhere from his and friends’ public social media accounts and their public contact info. He also falsely claimed that I threatened his pregnant wife. There is zero truth to his allegation; in fact, the very limited interaction I have ever had with her was right here on IPR and was in fact friendly.

    There are any number of people saying, publicly and privately, that Invictus, Ramsey and their friends are armed, deranged and dangerous. Numerous people have cited being threatened and intimidated by these people both publicly and privately. It is far from just being Wendt so let’s not make this about Wendt.

  17. paulie

    The “politically correct” shiny badge/”respectability” caucus who supported Johnson/Weld only want to do purges when it applies to candidates/factions/people they don’t like, as in it is not about a purity test, since Johnson/Weld would not come close to passing any kind of libertarian purity test.

    You don’t need a “purity test” to say that the LP should not be associated with neo-nazis who habitually threaten people and may have already carried out some of their numerous public and private threats of violence.

  18. paulie

    So, which is it? Should the LP open its doors to anyone and everyone who claims to be a libertarian, no matter how often they deviate from libertarian principles, or should we limit the LP to actual libertarians?

    I was not happy with the Weld nomination either, but that’s a long way from associating with white power skinheads, fascists, neo-nazis and their like.

  19. paulie

    Maybe Starchild can propose a resolution, including detailing problems the LP Florida is having.

    He already did:

    http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2017/009944.html

    Paul,

    Thank you for your message. I share your concerns about nationalism and racism, both of which are anti-individualist and contrary to libertarian values. On the other hand, it appears the Florida LP has been doing something right, as I understand that the candidate you defeated in the party’s nomination for U.S. Senate who had been the most visible LP member associated with ethno-nationalism, recently left the party and become a Republican, which in the Trump era sounds like a better fit for him. Hopefully this will result in some of the other people who left the party over these concerns returning to the fold.

    Unlike fascists however, we have not set up our party as a top-down organization characterized by “strong leaders”, and thus there is little that the Libertarian National Committee can or should do about state-level disputes, or about leadership standards, which are established in the party’s bylaws by convention delegates. But I do agree with you that we need better leadership standards to ensure that decision-makers in the LP, and people who represent the party by running for public office, hold libertarian values. I believe the party should be a “big tent” and welcome everyone, but welcoming everyone need not mean allowing just anyone to hold party office or be a party leader, just as a church may welcome anyone to come and attend Sunday services as part of the congregation, but not just anyone to preach from the pulpit or make decisions about church finances and policy.

    Some steps that might be taken include adopting stronger ideological qualifications for voting membership or other decision-making roles in your local or state LP, and seeking to get solidly libertarian members to attend our national convention and vote for such changes in our national bylaws. Members of the LP Bylaws Committee can also be lobbied* to introduce such an amendment. If you wish to write something up and run it by me, I would be happy to provide input. I’ve suggested one possible requirement to be a party decision-maker or be endorsed as a Libertarian candidate (the party generally can’t stop people from running as Libertarians, but can refuse to endorse or support them) would be to score a minimum of 80/80 on the Nolan Chart’s “World’s Smallest Political Quiz”, or better yet on an expanded version of the quiz with more questions designed to elicit a respondent’s views on a broader range of civil liberties, economic liberties, and world affairs questions. We can also adopt resolutions denouncing racism and nationalism as un-libertarian. If you have other ideas, or some specific action you are requesting the Libertarian National Committee to take in sending this letter to LNC members, please let us know.

    I am sorry to hear that you are still receiving threats and feel yourself and other Libertarians at risk for violence or harassment. I hope that you and your colleagues in the Florida LP will be brave and not allow such reprehensible tactics of intimidation to work. Thank you for standing up and speaking out, and all that you do for the cause of freedom.

    Love & Liberty,

    ((( starchild )))
    At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
    RealReform at earthlink.net
    (415) 625-FREE
    @StarchildSF

    *Right now, the page where members of the Bylaws Committee and other LP committees are listed (https://www.lp.org/lp-committees/), despite my repeatedly requesting it, unfortunately still does not contain contact info for members of these committees to enable people to reach them (except for Caryn Ann Harlos, who as a committee chair pushed for her contact info to be included). If you value transparency and accountability, please contact LNC members (https://www.lp.org/libertarian-national-committee/) and staff (https://www.lp.org/staff/), and let them know that you want email addresses and phone numbers for the rest of the committee members added to the website.

  20. paulie

    I get the impression from my own complaints that the LNC thinks “ignore them and they’ll go away.” But given Mr. Stanton’s complaint above, that obviously is not happening.

    I agree.

    I’d think the hundreds of real libertarians already disgusted with these types of tactics would be delighted to sign a public petition asking LNC to denounce a laundry list of the revolutionary conservative/white nationalist/etc. viewpoints would be quite appropriate.

    Hopefully you are correct.

  21. paulie

    I have been harassed and threatened by a white nationalist. I even have the screenshot, feel free to email me for it

    Shoot it to me if you want it posted here.

  22. Anthony Dlugos

    “I wonder if the whole Invictus situation has caused any of the extreme “big tenters” to rethink their approach. But now, it seems that such “purity tests” and “purges” are exactly what the doctor ordered, in order to rid the LP of Invictus and his bigoted buddies.

    So, which is it? Should the LP open its doors to anyone and everyone who claims to be a libertarian, no matter how often they deviate from libertarian principles, or should we limit the LP to actual libertarians?”

    As an extreme “big tenter,” I can assure you not only has it not caused me to rethink my approach, the fact that A.I. and his racist/nationalist/supremacist ilk managed to infiltrate their way to the LPFL, only confirms for me what happens when a party has so narrowly defined itself and with such utopian imagery: we are practically begging for lunatics to come here, redefine their nonsense as “libertarianism,” and use the party as a platform for their own self-aggrandizement.

    For A.I., purity tests and purges are like throwing them into the brier patch. They can argue all day that they are, in fact, libertarians. What he can’t do is tell us that people who call themselves fascists, hang out with known supremacists, and drink goat blood can win elections. What he can’t do is point to elective offices he’s won as part of some other party.

    Its an irony that the purist set throws the “shiny badge caucus” barb at big tenters like myself, but don’t stop to realize that a shiny badge is exactly what A.I., Ramsey, et al, do not have and will never get. It’s the one surefire metric they can never live up to.

    What exchanges I have had with alt-reichers are short-circuited by me quite easily. They think they are going to get into a nonsense philosophical argument, and I tell them it ain’t about philosophy in my book. I tell them they can’t win, so we have no use for them.

    Now, the reality is of course philosophy is important to me. But, coming from a professional background in asset recovery (debt collections) and sales as I do, I can smell a bullsh*tter when I hear one, and a alt-reicher who thinks their philosophy is in keeping with libertarianism is just about the most obvious bullsh*tter to come down the pike. They’re wasting my time the way a debtor who was not working would waste my time complaining about the interest rate on a debt they have no intention on paying anyway. The last thing I am going to do is waste my time discussing philosophy with an alt-reicher who want me to think they are a libertarian. You can’t win, stop wasting my motherf*cking time.

    I’ll say one other thing: rewatch Goat Blood Boy’s fare-the-well Elmer Fudd speech. Who does HE say we should have nominated in 2016? Petersen and Sharpe. Why? Because he has philosophical agreement with them? Of course not. Because, as long as Libertarians ridicule things like previous time in elective office and resumes as “shiny badges,” as long as we actually seem willing to consider the Petersens and Sharpes of the world as just as legitimate candidates as ex-Governors, we send a signal to the A.I.s of the world that they need no resume. Just make up a bullsh*t song and dance routine about how they are libertarians too, and slither their way into the party.

    Do you want to attract lunatics like alt-reichers? Define the party as radical. Their radical too! Once they are inside the tent and have turned our party into a circus that normal people leave, a philosophical debate is water under the bridge.

    Do you want to make sure alt-reichers stay away? Define the party as a moderate, centrist organization willing to take some of the best ideas of both major parties, and welcoming of Democrats and Republicans who are willing to work across the aisle, as Governor Weld said during the campaign. We have no need for racists and xenophobes in THAT party.

  23. Andy

    Because Joe Wendt popped upped on here making accusations, when he has made contradictory statements statements, such as supporting a self professed Nazi (not a former Nazi, but a person who professed themselves to be a Nazi when Joe supported him for political office, which was also after Joe had already been in the Libertarian Party, and I think he was an active member of the LP during the time he was supporting Roper). Joe has done a lot of ideology flip-flopping, and a lot of flip-flopping in who he supports within an ideology.

    I agree that there are reasons to be suspicious of this Ramsey character. I do not know the guy, but he did make several statements about Paul (who I don’t believe he has ever met) that were not true. Did Ramsey make these false statements because he had read or heard about them from someone else, and he assumed they were true, or did he know that these statements were not true, yet he made them anyway? I do not know.

  24. Andy

    When I said that Ramsey repeated false statements about Paul, I was referring to Paul from IPR, just in case anyone reading this was not clear on this.

  25. Andy

    Considering Joe’s pattern of bizarre behavior, it would not be surpring to me if Joe and Ramsey staged this alleged threat, or if Joe provoked him (remember Joe’s jihad against Adrian Wylie, which he never gave any coherent reasons for conducting?).

    If Ramsey is really such a threat to Joe, why hasn’t Joe reported this to the police, and why hasn’t Ramsey been arrested for threatening violence against Joe? Is Joe too much of a purist anarchist libertarian to call the police (threatening to violently assault somebody would still be a crime in a libertarian society), even though Joe has not shown signs of being a libertarian purist, or is Joe full of shit and just being a drama queen?

    This smells like manufactured drama to me.

  26. paulie

    Again, it’s not about Joe. Yes Ramsey threatened Joe, but he also threatened many other people, as has Invictus and their other buddies. There are numerous sources for that, including me. Yes, Ramsey has spread bullshit about me. I think he is still doing it although I haven’t checked lately. Did he know it to be false or did he just repeat what other people said? Well, he couldn’t have known it to be true since it was not true and he did not say “so and so says” he just repeated things as if they were facts and added new ones such as the bullshit about me being a terrorist and member of a terrorist groups and the bullshit about me making threats against his wife. And again, these are just examples just as the other examples in Stanton’s article are only examples.

    The real issue is that there is an ongoing pattern as reported by many different people of Invictus, Ramsey and their circle of friends issuing threats, spreading lies .. to and about many different people .. and maintaining ongoing close associations with multiple white supremacist groups and violent groups and individuals.

  27. William Saturn

    The Facebook screenshot shows a common tactic of Wendt to spew homophobic insults. That’s one thing about Wendt that hasn’t changed since 2011:

    “It sucks to be you because I’m drunk and I can rant about how much you suck and how stupid you are all night long. You really need to learn how to just simply say “I don’t like Billy Roper,” list your reasons and leave it at that. Not try to one up people and make people look bad. That just shows your an asshole. I, on the other hand can admit that I’m an asshole, hence this really long rant. But what your doing is uncool by measure. You should just admit you love Phil Davison, want to have man-love with him, and weird kinky stuff like that. And that’s why the government wants to kill smurfs.”

    https://web.archive.org/web/20111110192747/http://bostontea.us/node/1010#comment-36

    As you can see above, Wendt talks about being drunk. Therefore, it would make sense for Ramsey to warn Joe about falling down and breaking his own teeth due to inebriation. I don’t see it as a threat at all.

  28. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Thanks for sharing Starchild link I overlooked which included: “We can also adopt resolutions denouncing racism and nationalism as un-libertarian.” Of course, force and fraud to support a bigoted and statist philosophy is a more accurate description of what they are up to. Maybe it’s time to discuss drafts of resolution and of petition. For starters…

  29. Andy

    Paul said: “Well, he couldn’t have known it to be true since it was not true and he did not say ‘so and so says’ he just repeated things as if they were facts and added new ones such as the bullshit about me being a terrorist and member of a terrorist groups and the bullshit about me making threats against his wife.”

    There are lots of stories floating around about lots of people. Some stories are true, some are false. Was Ramsey doing research on you because he perceived you to be attacking one of his friends, and he read things about you, most of which was either false or exaggerated, and just assumed that they were true, and then he repeated them, or did he know that they were not true, or have good reasons to doubt that they were true (as in did he read any rebuttals to the false, and/or exaggerated claims, or did anyone tell him that most of what he said about you was false and/or exaggerated)?

    “The real issue is that there is an ongoing pattern as reported by many different people of Invictus, Ramsey and their circle of friends issuing threats, spreading lies ..”

    Is Joe Wendt a part of this circle? I recall Joe popping back up in the LP, after having left in a huff, as a supporter of Invcitus.

    Like I said above, given Wendt’s pattern of bizarre behavior, and flip-flopping, I would not consider him to be a credible source.

    Also, if all of these if all of these violent threats have been made, why hasn’t anyone gone to jail? Has anyone even gotten a restraining order?

  30. Andy

    “paulie
    July 23, 2017 at 12:04
    Again, it’s not about Joe. Yes Ramsey threatened Joe, but he also threatened many other people, as has Invictus and their other buddies. There are numerous sources for that, including me.”

    If Ramsey is threatening violence against people, why has he not been arrested?

    I think that Joe is relevant here, considering that he popped up on this threat making accusations, and given his history of bizarre behavior, making contradictory statements.

  31. Andy

    “on this threat making accusations,”

    Should read, “on this thread making accusations…”

  32. paulie

    As you can see above, Wendt talks about being drunk. Therefore, it would make sense for Ramsey to warn Joe about falling down and breaking his own teeth due to inebriation. I don’t see it as a threat at all.

    That is fucking ridiculous. Ramsey says “You were awful meek last night punk. Ill see you soon though and well see how mouthy you are” which is clearly physical intimidation. Joe is talking shit on the internet but Ramsey says he will not do it in person. Why not? Clearly due to threat of physical violence. Ramsey follows this up with “Id be more concerned with the teeth in your mouth at this point joe. Your dental plan good?” which in the context of his earlier statement is not exactly a very veiled threat. If he was genuinely concerned about Joe slipping and falling due to being drunk, which is laughable in the context of the conversation, he would not have made the threat so specific.

    And the larger context of course is that there have been many other threats, to many other people, myself as well as this publication included.

  33. paulie

    Thanks for sharing Starchild link I overlooked which included: “We can also adopt resolutions denouncing racism and nationalism as un-libertarian.” Of course, force and fraud to support a bigoted and statist philosophy is a more accurate description of what they are up to. Maybe it’s time to discuss drafts of resolution and of petition. For starters…

    I agree, that would be a good place to start. Let’s start on it.

  34. paulie

    Was Ramsey doing research on you because he perceived you to be attacking one of his friends, and he read things about you, most of which was either false or exaggerated, and just assumed that they were true, and then he repeated them

    That’s called being dishonest. Repeating rumors and lies as if they were facts without citing sources is in fact alleging that you know these things to be true. Let’s not forget that he embellished it with added inventions of his own such as that I am a terrorist and a member of a terrorist group, that I am involved in a conspiracy with Republicans and Communists to injure or destroy the LP and that I threatened his wife. All of these are lies and he did not get any of them from any previous source. He did not invent the lie about me killing a dog but he did pass it on as if it was a fact. And so on.

    did he read any rebuttals to the false, and/or exaggerated claims, or did anyone tell him that most of what he said about you was false and/or exaggerated

    He could have asked me. Or he could have checked back in IPR threads where he had posted and seen my replies. I suspect that he did, yet kept spreading the bullshit anyway.

    Is Joe Wendt a part of this circle? I recall Joe popping back up in the LP, after having left in a huff, as a supporter of Invcitus.

    Yes, he was pushing Invictus as some kind of good guy for a long while but they had their falling out quite some time ago now. I am not aware of Joe being involved in threatening anyone.

    Like I said above, given Wendt’s pattern of bizarre behavior, and flip-flopping, I would not consider him to be a credible source.

    In this case I do because all he is doing is confirming numerous other sources as well as things I have experienced myself.

  35. Joe Wendt

    To Andy,

    I have contacted the police. Since it has not progressed beyond Facebook, they told me to block him and contact them again if he continues the harassing and threatening behavior. They will be called if he threathens me again.

  36. William Saturn

    Ramsey says immediately after the teeth comment:

    “You might slip and fal[l] being so drunk and stupid.”

    If Wendt is known to have an alcohol problem (as he admitted in 2011, which seemed also to result in homophobic insults), in that context, after Wendt throws around his usual homophobic insults, it would make sense for Ramsey to suggest Wendt could then fall over in a drunken stupor and lose some teeth after hitting the ground.

    If this whole thing really was about “white nationalist” associations, why is Stanton’s faction so willing to forgive and forget Wendt’s well-publicized associations? IMO it’s because this isn’t about “white nationalism” or trumped up violent threats. It’s about immigration. This is an attempted purge of party members based on their views on immigration.

  37. paulie

    Also, if all of these if all of these violent threats have been made, why hasn’t anyone gone to jail? Has anyone even gotten a restraining order?

    Don’t be naive. Threats are not always made in a verifiable, provable form. I’ve received plenty of threats over the years, including death threats, and I have never felt the urge to go to the cops about it. What the fuck are they going to do? While they conduct their half assed investigation I may get killed or injured or whatever else. Or someone else around me.

    And one of the people that has been threatened by Invictus, Ramsey and friends made a good point. This person said that Ramsey has known contacts in law enforcement and that there are known ties between many members of law enforcement and white supremacist groups such as the ones Ramsey and Invictus have a lot of ties to. So reporting anything to law enforcement may actually be cutting your own throat if you get threatened by these assholes.

    Since when did you get such a starry eyed attitude about the police and courts and reporting shit to them? I thought you were more of a realist and skeptic when it comes to the “justice” system.

  38. paulie

    If Ramsey is threatening violence against people, why has he not been arrested?

    See above. Lots of people make threats all the time and don’t get arrested.

    I think that Joe is relevant here, considering that he popped up on this threat making accusations, and given his history of bizarre behavior, making contradictory statements.

    Not really. All he is doing is confirming what lots of other people have reported.

  39. paulie

    If Wendt is known to have an alcohol problem (as he admitted in 2011, which seemed also to result in homophobic insults), in that context, after Wendt throws around his usual homophobic insults, it would make sense for Ramsey to suggest Wendt could then fall over in a drunken stupor and lose some teeth after hitting the ground.

    Keep pushing that line. It’s horseshit, and you and anyone else reading who wants to look at the evidence knows or will know it.

    If this whole thing really was about “white nationalist” associations, why is Stanton’s faction so willing to forgive and forget Wendt’s well-publicized associations?

    Who says they are so willing? I am not seeing anything in Stanton’s letter about Wendt. Also, I am not aware of any current association between Wendt and white nationalists.

    IMO it’s because this isn’t about “white nationalism” or trumped up violent threats.

    The are not trumped up. They are white nationalists, sans quotes, and yes that is an issue as are their very real threats.

    It’s about immigration. This is an attempted purge of party members based on their views on immigration.

    That’s fucking ludicrous beyond belief. I would say that I am surprised you would say something so crazy but I’m not.

  40. Joe Wendt

    To William Saturn,

    I am not a White Nationalist. I have made mistakes with previous associations and deeply regret it. I have moved on and focused heavily on being a good libertarian.

    I also no longer drink heavily due to health reasons (gout, really don’t want to risk agonizing pain because I want to drink to excess).

    I have seen the threats and seen their increasingly provocative behavior. I’ve seen these people move away from attempting to be Libertarian to outright trying to redefine the party the home of the alt-right and nazi fetishists.

    I wouldn’t be speaking up if the state leadership would stand up to their strong arm tactics. Unfortantely, they choose to appease these people. Augustus Invictus threatens a lawsuit, they cave. Ramsey threatens people, they give him more authority. A Florida Libertarian they selected to serve on tje LNC Platform Committee makes racist statements, they don’t even have the decency to ask for his resignation. It’s shameful.

  41. paulie

    Here is a threat from Invictus against me and several other people from an email he wrote to Raquel Okyay on June 3. Just for the record.

    No one ever said Joe called the police on me in North Carolina. First of all, the ambush was in South Carolina. I am hoping this was a typographical error on your part, because I never told anyone that the babysitter was in fact in North Carolina and that the ambush was in South Carolina. The fact that anyone could know that – even you – is impossible, unless their group was in fact directly involved. Second of all, it WAS the babysitter, I said that already. Third of all, Stanton, Tesky, Wyllie, Marchetti, and Frankel are all directly responsible for that, because the babysitter called the police based off the bullshit criminal allegations being pushed by those five. It was the “news” story that caused the babysitter to call the police. Fourth and final: It never crossed my mind that Joe had anything to do with that, but if I find out that he was involved with Stanton or Tesky or Marchetti in pushing those criminal allegations, I will hang him with my own fucking hands. That entire situation is something so outrageous that I am not even discussing it. Each and every person who was involved or had knowledge of it will get what is coming to them. I never said Joe had anything to do with it, but if he’s getting defensive about it completely out of the blue, that is a colossal red flag.

    Emphasis added. So I will “get what is coming to me” (I’m sure Saturn will pop up and say it will be a nice birthday greeting card) because I reported that a police report had been filed. That’s it. Warren sent something to the email list, I called or emailed and confirmed that the police report had in fact been filed, and published the story making no allegations of our own. In other words I reported the news. That’s my offense for which this animal torturing and dismembering sicko will give me “what is coming to me.” BTW I learned of this only today.

  42. paulie

    I’ve gone back and forth about revealing my real name in online conversations. Here is a good example of why I may be foolish to be revealing it, and why screen names and IP anonymizers are a good idea and should be used more often. I wouldn’t discount the possibility that Invictus will carry out his threats and/or have someone carry them out.

  43. paulie

    Was Ramsey doing research on you because he perceived you to be attacking one of his friends, and he read things about you, most of which was either false or exaggerated, and just assumed that they were true, and then he repeated them, or did he know that they were not true, or have good reasons to doubt that they were true (as in did he read any rebuttals to the false, and/or exaggerated claims, or did anyone tell him that most of what he said about you was false and/or exaggerated)?

    I neglected to say earlier that yes, Ramsey was told directly that his lies about me were lies. I’d have to check back but I think he did comment on the same IPR stories after I said they were lies but even if he did not, I emailed LPF exec comm which he would have received since he is on it, directing to my responses and saying he was full of crap. He continued to spread the crap after that. His wife Brandi did also say that she would direct him to my responses and he continued to spread the crap after that … so yes he did it with malice aforethought.

  44. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Threats from known white nationalist organizers CAN lead to long prison terms, especially when you start threatening public officials dealing with your more private threats. Bill White tried to get into the LP of Maryland in the 1990s. After being rejected he became a Buchanan support circa 2000. The rest of his increasingly white nationalist career lead to his being incarcerated for a long-time. Both “Augustus Disgustus” and “Ryan Ram’em” are well along the bill white path. So people should report every threat. Either they’ll cut it out or they’ll start getting in hotter and hotter water, through their own making. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_White_(neo-Nazi)

  45. William Saturn

    At its worst, the initial language is ambiguous. However, the last statement, added immediately and not upon reflective regret, shows the context. It’s not an actionable threat.

    Wendt comes off poorly in the exchange baiting Ramsey with his crude accusations of homosexual activity between Ramsey and someone named Marco.

  46. Andy

    It could be that this tiff between Wendt and Ramsey is staged, as in they are both in on it. I say this due to Wendt’s pattern of bizarre behavior and flip-flopping.

    Another possibility is that Wendt actually did piss off Ramsey, Ramsey responded in anger in the first post, but then thought something like, “Oh shit, I can’t be seen threatening this guy.” So then he came back with the post about Wendt falling over drunk.

  47. paulie

    At its worst, the initial language is ambiguous.

    There’s nothing ambiguous about it.

    However, the last statement, added immediately and not upon reflective regret, shows the context. It’s not an actionable threat.

    It’s called cover your ass. People who issue threats all the time know how to do that.

    Wendt comes off poorly in the exchange baiting Ramsey with his crude accusations of homosexual activity between Ramsey and someone named Marco.

    You keep trying to shift the focus to Wendt, but you keep failing, because the fact that it is just one of many examples of people threatened (and at least allegedly in some cases more than only threatened) by Invictus, Ramsey and friends. Myself and this publication are also among many others who have been threatened by them. And had lies about us spread far and wide by them.

  48. paulie

    It could be that this tiff between Wendt and Ramsey is staged, as in they are both in on it. I say this due to Wendt’s pattern of bizarre behavior and flip-flopping.

    Wendt does flip flop a lot; so it’s not surprising that Invictus and Ramsey have come to see him as a traitor and an enemy to them. It was pretty much bound to happen sooner or later.

    Another possibility is that Wendt actually did piss off Ramsey,

    Yes, but not just in that comment.

    Ramsey responded in anger in the first post, but then thought something like, “Oh shit, I can’t be seen threatening this guy.” So then he came back with the post about Wendt falling over drunk.

    That’s more like it. But that doesn’t mean the threat was any less real. His attempt to cover his ass at the end is just as transparent as the original threat. It’s classic threat-issuing … not even 101, I’d call it a prerequisite course. For those of you who are acting like you don’t understand how that works, take out your trapper-keepers and your number 2 pencils and take some notes. There will be a pop quiz.

    ^

    If I was actually a teacher that would have been a threat.

  49. langa

    I was not happy with the Weld nomination either, but that’s a long way from associating with white power skinheads, fascists, neo-nazis and their like.

    My point is that when you make the “big tent” argument and say that the party should welcome, with open arms, anyone who says the words, “I am a libertarian”, without regard for their actual beliefs and actions, you can’t really complain about anybody. It doesn’t matter whether it’s right-wing authoritarians, left-wing authoritarians, or “centrist” authoritarians (like Weld). You have rolled out the welcome mat for them all.

  50. langa

    …we are practically begging for lunatics to come here, redefine their nonsense as “libertarianism,” and use the party as a platform for their own self-aggrandizement.

    I assume you’re referring to Invictus, but you could just as easily be talking about Weld, or whoever is the next washed up duopolist that tries to hijack the party.

    For A.I., purity tests and purges are like throwing them into the brier patch. They can argue all day that they are, in fact, libertarians.

    Sure, he can say the words, “I am a libertarian”, but those words won’t get him anywhere, unless we adopt your view that the term “libertarian” is meaningless. If we insist that LP members (or, at a minimum, officers and candidates) adhere to the LP platform, then Invictus (or Weld) mouthing the words, “I am a libertarian”, will carry no more weight than, say, Madonna proclaiming, “I am a virgin.”

    Do you want to attract lunatics like alt-reichers? Define the party as radical. Their radical too!

    Then why haven’t they tried to infiltrate other third parties? For example, the Green Party, in its own way, is just as radical as the LP. But you don’t see Invictus trying to join them, do you? That’s because, for all their flaws, leftists (or progressives, or whatever you want to call them) have an ideology, and they don’t tolerate dissent from it. That’s a fine way to run a political party. Of course, it’s not a good way to run the country, but (your delusions about “winning” aside) libertarians aren’t trying to run the country.

    Do you want to make sure alt-reichers stay away? Define the party as a moderate, centrist organization…

    Yeah, because there are no racists, nuts or cranks in the duopoly parties, right? Oh, wait…

  51. paulie

    My point is that when you make the “big tent” argument and say that the party should welcome, with open arms, anyone who says the words, “I am a libertarian”, without regard for their actual beliefs and actions, you can’t really complain about anybody. It doesn’t matter whether it’s right-wing authoritarians, left-wing authoritarians, or “centrist” authoritarians (like Weld). You have rolled out the welcome mat for them all.

    I don’t think that saying that we would welcome people who only want to move public policy incrementally in a classical liberal, socially liberal/fiscally conservative direction automatically means we should at the same time welcome racists, fascists and neo-nazis.

    At the same time I would not agree with Anthony that limiting ourselves to those who have successfully positioned themselves within the current, toxic bipartisan consensus that is bankrupting our future and destroying our freedoms is the only way to keep nazis, fascists and racists from taking over the party. That’s a false dichotomy which we need to avoid.

  52. paulie

    For example, the Green Party, in its own way, is just as radical as the LP. But you don’t see Invictus trying to join them, do you?

    There have been racists – “white” racists, even – who have attempted entryism in the Green Party. The Greens have been pretty successful at keeping them out. Hopefully, at least in the long term, the LP will be as well. It’s a hopeful sign that Invictus has left and hopefully his friends will follow him soon.

  53. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I don’t think that saying that we would welcome people who only want to move public policy incrementally in a classical liberal, socially liberal/fiscally conservative direction automatically means we should at the same time welcome racists, fascists and neo-nazis.”

    Anecdotally from my perspective, usually when someone claims he “only want to move public policy incrementally in a classical liberal, socially liberal/fiscally conservative direction,” it turns out that what he means is he wants to do a bunch of big-government crap and call it “a step in the right direction,” then whine about “purists” when anyone points out that no, it’s a step in the wrong direction.

    The case of Johnson/Weld in instructive. Even on the war on drugs, their single best issue, their position was “make hay on the fact that our party has always supported what’s happening right now long before they ever heard of us and long before we supported that, and by golly make it clear that for us it’s that far and no farther.”

    I agree with langa that the “let’s all just be a big tent and sing kum ba ya with every re-tread establishment Republican who comes along” crowd lacks standing to complain when those other re-tread Republicans with the swastika tattoos start showing up as well. Standards might be arguable, but when the argument is that there shouldn’t be any standards this week, the demand for standards next week rings hollow.

  54. paulie

    Anecdotally from my perspective, usually when someone claims he “only want to move public policy incrementally in a classical liberal, socially liberal/fiscally conservative direction,” it turns out that what he means is he wants to do a bunch of big-government crap and call it “a step in the right direction,” then whine about “purists” when anyone points out that no, it’s a step in the wrong direction.

    Unfortunately that is sometimes true. I would not say whenever though. I think on balance people who say they want to move incrementally in that direction really do, vis a vis those who don’t even attempt to make any such claim.

    The case of Johnson/Weld in instructive. Even on the war on drugs, their single best issue, their position was “make hay on the fact that our party has always supported what’s happening right now long before they ever heard of us and long before we supported that, and by golly make it clear that for us it’s that far and no farther.”

    I’m pretty sure that their drug policy if it could have been implemented would have been better that Trump/Pence/Sessions (or whoever Trump appoints if and when Sessions is forced out). I expect it would have also been better than Clinton II. Even if Clinton II would have pushed marijuana legalization, which I doubt, Johnson would have most likely been significantly better than a Clinton-Kaine (or Trump-Pence) administration on lessening spending growth and cutting regulatory red tape. Although, with the universal welfare “fair tax” scheme I could be wrong (although it is pitched as “revenue neutral,” nothing inherent in this “conversation starting point” means it has to be).

    In personal conversation Gary Johnson told me he is personally in favor of ending the drug war completely, but doesn’t believe it is politically plausible to push for ending prohibition of anything other than marijuana right now. I disagree with that approach. It’s better than electing hardcore drug warriors or those who appoint them to positions such as Attorney General, but I would always try to leave room open for going further even if we were to stress short-term policy moves above long term goals.

    when the argument is that there shouldn’t be any standards this week

    That’s not anyone’s argument as far as I know. Dlugos has his standards too; they are just…very different from ours. Both would exclude nazis, semicryptonazis and nazisymps, though.

  55. Anthony Dlugos

    As an aside, I just want to make sure you guys are aware that I am not trolling here, I genuinely believe what I am suggesting is the best strategy to make sure the neo-nazis of the world stay clear of the party.

    I can see from Paulie’s comments that he is getting where I am coming from. (Not saying anyone else isn’t). I have philosophical standards, they are just admittedly more relaxed that the typical Radical/Purist. But I think that relaxation comes with multiple benefits, not the least of which is that the party gets larger, the sort of experienced politicians, donors, policy makers, etc come to he party, and incrementalist success gets put into play.

    Let’s think about it: an open-borders immigration stance that concedes SOME role for the state hardly becomes a Bat SIgnal for nationalists and xenophobes. On the other hand, while, say, a unrepentantly anarchist platform plank on immigration is not a Bat Signal to xenophobes, an anarchist plank on the issue DOES have the ancillary effect of keeping the party small, and thus easily taken over, as we see happened in Florida.

    Does a more moderate, centrist message/platform allow more people through the filter, so to speak? Sure it does. But: 1) I’m not suggesting NO filter. and 2) there are comparatively few xenophobic nationalists in this country. A relaxed filter (not no filter) is a good thing: its gonna bring in A LOT more libertarian leaning republicans and democrats than it is nationalists and fascists. To the point where the A.I.’s of the world will see a generally open immigration party they will always be a tiny minority in. They won’t even bother trying to infiltrate.

    Think about our own Andy. Why is he in a party with an immigration plank that is to the left of the Democrats? I’m telling you its because the party message is so narrowly defined and so utopian that the party stays a small philosophical cult that he can A) exert influence in and B)make pretend in his mind that his philosophy is the “true” libertarian philosophy.

    What do you think will be a more effective way of having him and his xenophobic rants running for the hills? A more finely tuned purity test he can endlessly argue about, or a thousand more Governor Welds? I think that question answers itself. And Governor Weld’s position on immigration was not just good, it was VERY good. What’s the problem here?

    I’ll reiterate: why is it that Goat Blood Boy said we should have nominated Petersen and Sharpe? Its not for philosophical reasons.

  56. Anthony Dlugos

    “I assume you’re referring to Invictus, but you could just as easily be talking about Weld, or whoever is the next washed up duopolist that tries to hijack the party.”

    In other words, I COULD just as easily be talking about Weld. But are you telling me, from a Libertarian perspective, there is no difference between William Weld and Invictus? That’s crazy. And the irony is, that is EXACTLY the attitude that ensures the Invictuses of the world show up.

    I’ll concede there is a Laffer curve effect here: the party could define libertarianism so loosely that it has no meaning anymore, but I hardly think we are anywhere close to that point on the curve.

  57. Tony From Long island

    I’m glad I left the LP before it got infiltrated by white nationalists.

  58. Tony From Long island

    Langa

    I wonder if the whole Invictus situation has caused any of the extreme “big tenters” to rethink their approach. After all, back when many of us were arguing that Gary Johnson and especially Bill Weld weren’t libertarian enough to represent the LP, the “big tenters” constantly accused us of trying to impose “purity tests” and conduct “purges” and “witch hunts” and so on. But now, it seems that such “purity tests” and “purges” are exactly what the doctor ordered, in order to rid the LP of Invictus and his bigoted buddies.

    So, which is it? Should the LP open its doors to anyone and everyone who claims to be a libertarian, no matter how often they deviate from libertarian principles, or should we limit the LP to actual libertarians?

    Although I see your point, I think there should be a line at overt racists. Neither Gov. Johnson, nor Gov. Weld qualified for that label.

    If you want to keep the tent small you will keep your vote totals as miniscule as they have been for the last 45 years.

    Every party has members of differing levels of “purity” to that party’s philosophy. There’s a difference between Rep. Steve King and Rep. Charlie Dent. . . . .There’s a difference between Rep. Al Green and Rep. Tom Suozzi . . . there’s also a difference between Darryl Perry and Gov. Johnson.

  59. Anthony Dlugos

    well, the bad news is that the party is small and relatively easy to infiltrate.

    the good news is that the party is small and problems like this are relatively easy to correct.

  60. Thomas L. Knapp

    “[A]re you telling me, from a Libertarian perspective, there is no difference between William Weld and Invictus? That’s crazy.”

    I agree.

    Augustus Invictus is an admitted authoritarian nationalist whose campaign statements were fairly libertarian, although when he wasn’t officially campaigning he often said exactly the opposite.

    Bill Weld has always held himself out as somewhat libertarian, but his campaign statements included things like continuing the war on drugs, denying due process and 2nd Amendment rights to people on secret government enemies lists, etc.

    To put it a different way, while Invictus was personally incompatible with the party, he campaigned on the party’s platform. On the other hand, while Weld occasionally seems to be somewhat personally compatible with the party, he campaigned against the party’s platform.

    They were both severely defective as candidates, but in opposite ways.

  61. dL

    As an aside, I just want to make sure you guys are aware that I am not trolling here, I genuinely believe what I am suggesting is the best strategy to make sure the neo-nazis of the world stay clear of the party.

    Your thesis is belied by the fact the same element is in the GOP, demonstrating that the size of a party has nothing to do with keeping it out. This is a problem inherent to a fundamentally reactionary movement like conservatism, and the fact that the worst elements of it has spilled over into the LP is a consequence of libertarianism too long playing kissing cousins w/ conservatism as a whole.

  62. Andy

    Paul said: “I neglected to say earlier that yes, Ramsey was told directly that his lies about me were lies.”

    Who told Ramsey that most of the stuff that he repeated about you were either outright lies or were greatly exaggerated stories?

    Maybe he needs to hear it from somebody he trusts, or from somebody he perceives to be a neutral party.

    I agree that it was wrong for him to repeat bogus smears (or to have repeated them in the first place without doing more fact checking), especially after being sent a rebuttal, but I’m just wondering if he does not believe the source of the rebuttal, as in maybe if you are the only source of the rebuttal, he may think that you are BS’ing him.

  63. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “Augustus Invictus is an admitted authoritarian nationalist whose campaign statements were fairly libertarian, although when he wasn’t officially campaigning he often said exactly the opposite.

    Bill Weld has always held himself out as somewhat libertarian, but his campaign statements included things like continuing the war on drugs, denying due process and 2nd Amendment rights to people on secret government enemies lists, etc.”

    Weld’s policy positions were MUCH WORSE than those of Invictus. Go issue for issue between Invictus and Weld. It is not even a contest, Invictus was way more libertarian.

    There may be problems with Invictus, but I’d take my chances with him over Bill “CFR” Weld any day.

    Bill Weld is probably the worst Libertarian Party candidate ever.

  64. Andy

    Augustus Invictus said he voted for Austin Petersen and Larry Sharpe to be the presidential ticket at the national convention last year. That would have been a better, and more libertarian, ticket than Johnson/Weld (and I’m not exactly a big Petersen fan).

  65. Thomas L. Knapp

    The thing to remember about Augustus’s campaign platform is that it’s pretty much the exact opposite of what he calls for in every situation BUT the situation of being a candidate for an LP nomination and having to pretend that he’s a libertarian.

    In a situation where a guy is obviously lying like a rug — saying one thing in one place and the exact opposite in another place — it’s safest to assume that if he’s being honest in either place, it’s the place where he’s saying the worst things.

    I’ve watched Augustus Invictus praise white supremacist terrorist murderer Robert Jay Mathews when he didn’t think libertarians were watching.

    I’ve watched Augustus Invictus threaten to murder his political opponents in cold blood even when he knew libertarians were watching.

    I’ve watched Augustus Invictus tell libertarians that he had changed his mind about eugenics while continuing to indicate elsewhere that he hadn’t.

    I have found him to be a congenial person with interesting viewpoints on religion, entheogens, etc., but when it comes to politics, he is clearly a murderous anti-libertarian thug.

  66. Andy

    Email allegedly from Augustus Invictus: “No one ever said Joe called the police on me in North Carolina. First of all, the ambush was in South Carolina. I am hoping this was a typographical error on your part, because I never told anyone that the babysitter was in fact in North Carolina and that the ambush was in South Carolina. The fact that anyone could know that – even you – is impossible, unless their group was in fact directly involved. Second of all, it WAS the babysitter, I said that already. Third of all, Stanton, Tesky, Wyllie, Marchetti, and Frankel are all directly responsible for that, because the babysitter called the police based off the bullshit criminal allegations being pushed by those five. It was the ‘news’ story that caused the babysitter to call the police. Fourth and final: It never crossed my mind that Joe had anything to do with that, but if I find out that he was involved with Stanton or Tesky or Marchetti in pushing those criminal allegations, I will hang him with my own fucking hands. That entire situation is something so outrageous that I am not even discussing it. Each and every person who was involved or had knowledge of it will get what is coming to them. I never said Joe had anything to do with it, but if he’s getting defensive about it completely out of the blue, that is a colossal red flag.”

    It sounds to me like Augustus had the police called on him after somebody, apparently a babysitter he had hired, read a news story about him online, which he claims was filled with false accusations. I presume that he is referring to the story about him posted here a few months ago about him supposedly physically abusing a former girlfriend with whom he had a relationship that last a year (or something like).

    Did any proof ever surface that he was guilty of domestic violence? Has he been convicted for domestic violence? I recall that the details of this story were very shaky.

    Is it possible that he is guilty of domestic violence? Sure, but it is also possible that the story was bullshit, or greatly exaggerated (just like some of the stories floating around about IPR’s Paul are bullshit, or greatly exaggerated).

    I have been falsely accused of things myself, and I have also been arrested on false charges (all of which were later dropped, because they were completely bogus), so I can understand how maddening it can be to have people lie and spread false stories about oneself, especially if those false stories lead to being arrested, or even detained, by the police.

    I don’t know if Augustus is guilty of domestic violence or not, but like I said when the story broke a few months ago, show some actual evidence before you convict somebody. There are people out there who lie and try to smear people’s reputations.

    Regardless of whether Augustus is guilty of domestic violence or not, my guess is that somebody told him that Paul from IPR posted that new story about him, so he added Paul to the list of people with whom he is angry.

    If anyone thinks that this is a serious threat, has anyone contacted the police? If the people involved have not contacted the police, why not? Has anyone involved taken any defensive measures?

    I have received threats of violence from people online myself, including death threats, and I also had some asshole scumbag coward send out a death threat to the police which they falsely added my name to after I got arrested for petitioning in Arkansas in 2015, which landed me in jail longer than I would have been, and added the extra charge of “Making Terrorist Threats” to the list of false charges that were leveled against me (the others were Trespassing (on public property), Disorderly Conduct, and Resisting Arrest). It took a year and a half for all of the charges to get dropped, the last of which was the “Terrorist Threats” charge. I went to court 5 times and never even got a chance to speak. I’d just go in and sit there for a little while, and then they give me a piece of paper that said to come back on another date (Note that I sat in Arkansas for two months after the petition drive ended for some of these court appearances, with no work, which meant that I was just sitting around burning up expense money, and then a few months later, I had to drive from Oklahoma City, where I was working on the LP of OK petition drive, back to Jonesboro, AR, which was an 800 mile round trip, only to sit in court for about 15 minutes and get handed a paper that said to come back in January. The January court appearance got canceled, and for the next several months they kept scheduling court appearances and then canceling them, until all of the charges were dropped in the fall of 2016.).

    I do not have the benefit of knowing who it was who made death threats to me, since the cowards have done it under fake names and IP anonymizers, and I still do not know who it was who sent the death threat to the police in Arkansas under my name, since whoever did it used an email address that was not mine, and an IP anonymizer. The police have yet to reveal any information about this, but I suspect that they know that it was bogus, or else they would not have dropped the charge, and if they thought that it was real, I don’t think that they would have released me on $5,000 bail (Note that I had to pay a bail bondsman $500 to put up the $5,000 bail, since I did not have $5,000 on me at the time in order to get out of jail. The money to the bail bondsman was not refundable. This was the second time I had to spend money on bail, as the initial arrest was over the bogus charges of Trespassing, Disorderly Conduct, and Resisting arrest. They actually dropped the Trespassing charge before I even got out of jail the first time (I had been arrested for gathering LP ballot access petition signatures at Arkansas State University, which is a perfectly legal activity, and where I had in fact gathered petition signatures on past LP ballot access drives), but they still charged me with Disorderly Conduct and Resisting Arrest, so I had to pay a few hundred dollars bail for that, which fortunately, I was able to recoup after the charges got dropped, as I had enough cash in my wallet to cover that so I paid the ball directly to the jail and did not have to go to a bail bondsman.).

    If the people involved believe that they are being seriously threatened by Augustus and this Ramsey character (note that I have never met or communicated with either of these individuals, and I had never heard of this Ramsey guy until recently), at least you from where it is that the threats are coming. The death threats that came to me, and that were falsely made in my name, came from anonymous cowards hiding behind IP anonymizers (I know that Paul from IPR has also received death threats from cowards online using fake names and IP anonymizers, but whoever did this is probably the same person or people who have done it to me, and this is likely not connected with this situation with Augustus and Ramsey, unless of course one or both of them are government plants, which I suppose is within the realm of possibility, but I don’t know.).

  67. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    July 24, 2017 at 11:43
    The thing to remember about Augustus’s campaign platform is that it’s pretty much the exact opposite of what he calls for in every situation BUT the situation of being a candidate for an LP nomination and having to pretend that he’s a libertarian.”

    Since August became a figure of controversy around here over the last several months, I went back and watched a bunch of his videos to hear exactly what he has to say, rather than what other people had to say about him. After having watched a bunch of his videos, I’d say that he sounded pretty darn libertarian. He’s a minarchist, not an anarchist, but still, he’s a a pretty radical minarchist. I don’t agree with him on every detail of every issue, but like I have said here before, I don’t know if there is anyone out there who I agree with on every detail of every issue (even on issues where I agree with somebody’s stance, I may disagree with the way they presented it, or on their political strategy for implementing it).

    Regardless of any of the merits or demerits of Augustus Sol Invictus, I find him to be entertaining. There are lots of people in politics who are boring. Nobody can accuse Augustus of that. He may, or may not be, an asshole, but if he is an asshole, he’s an entertaining asshole.

  68. Tony From Long Island

    Andy

    Weld’s policy positions were MUCH WORSE than those of Invictus. Go issue for issue between Invictus and Weld. It is not even a contest, Invictus was way more libertarian.

    There may be problems with Invictus, but I’d take my chances with him over Bill “CFR” Weld any day.

    Bill Weld is probably the worst Libertarian Party candidate ever.

    The may be the exact reason why you are the worst representative for the LP (among many). That you would choose AI over ANY other human being shows a severe lack of perspective. That you would want AI representing the LP in any way shape or form really exposes yourself.

    . . . . again with the “CFR” boogey man . . . . *yawn*

  69. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “I’ve watched Augustus Invictus tell libertarians that he had changed his mind about eugenics while continuing to indicate elsewhere that he hadn’t.”

    I have watched most of the the videos of Augustus Invictus online, and he has continually said that he abandoned support for a government forced eugenics programs years ago, and that his position on the issue is that the existence of the welfare state leads to a population that is apathetic and weak, and that if the welfare state were to be abolished, that there would be a natural “survival of the fittest” which would lead to a stronger population. This is NOT the same thing as supporting a government forced eugenics program. Calling for the abolition of the welfare state is a standard libertarian position. What do you think that the effects of abandoning the welfare state would be? Wouldn’t it encourage a more rugged population, since people can’t rely on “Uncle Sam” for handouts taken through force and fraud (ie-through taxation and government inflating the money supply)?

  70. Anthony Dlugos

    “he has continually said that he abandoned support for a government forced eugenics programs years ago, and that his position on the issue is that the existence of the welfare state leads to a population that is apathetic and weak, and that if the welfare state were to be abolished, that there would be a natural “survival of the fittest” which would lead to a stronger population.”

    oh, is that all?!!? What a charming fellow!

  71. Tony From Long Island

    Andy

    “he has continually said that he abandoned support for a government forced eugenics programs years ago

    Oh! OK then. All is forgiven . . . . Andy wants to welcome Khan Noonien Singh into the LP!

  72. Andy

    Tony From Long Island said: “The may be the exact reason why you are the worst representative for the LP (among many). ”

    1) You have absolutely no idea about which you are speaking. I’m actually one of the best field outreach people that the Libertarian Party has. I have recruited new members, and/or registered lots of people to vote under the Libertarian Party’s label, and I am one of the top people in terms of generating new contacts for the party, manning outreach tables, and pamphleteering (as in handing out Libertarian pamphlets, fliers, DVD’s, VHS tapes (back when people used VHS tapes), bumper stickers, etc….). It is possible that I am the top pamphleteer in the history of the Libertarian Party. If I am not number 1 in this category, I’ve got to be high up on the list, and I’d like to know who number is if it is not me (I can think of one or two people who would also be top contenders, but I’m not sure if they have done more the I have in this regard).

    2) You are not even a Libertarian Party member. You are a person who left the LP a long time ago (if you are to be believed), who has drifted toward being a Democrat (if you were ever really a libertarian in the first place, which I doubt). Given your disdain for strong libertarian views, and given that you self identify as a Democrat, and given that you vote for Democrats, Libertarians should not care what you think.

  73. Tony From Long Island

    Yes, Andy. Libertarians should care A LOT what other people think. They should be very interested in how they are viewed by non-libertarians. If not, who are you trying to convince that you are right and everyone should vote libertarian? What’s the point of it all if you don’t care what non-libertarians think?

    Stop tooting your own horn. You would get signatures for the Communist party if they paid you. Whatever “credentials” you might have are thrown out the window as soon as you start defending trash like Augustus – and spouting conspiracy theories.

  74. langa

    What do you think will be a more effective way of having him and his xenophobic rants running for the hills? A more finely tuned purity test he can endlessly argue about, or a thousand more Governor Welds?

    Ridding the LP of Invictus and Co. — at the cost of “a thousand more Welds” — would be the epitome of a Pyrrhic victory.

  75. langa

    Although I see your point, I think there should be a line at overt racists. Neither Gov. Johnson, nor Gov. Weld qualified for that label.

    So, when evaluating prospective candidates, it doesn’t matter whether they are libertarians, but it does matter whether they are racists. In that case, shouldn’t we change the name from the Libertarian Party to the Non-Racist Party?

  76. dL

    Ridding the LP of Invictus and Co. — at the cost of “a thousand more Welds” — would be the epitome of a Pyrrhic victory.

    Invictus or Weld is a false dilemma. Anyone who argues on behalf of one or the other based on the threat of the other is selling you snake oil.

  77. langa

    Invictus or Weld is a false dilemma.

    I agree. That’s why I am opposed to the “big tent” philosophy. (Of course, having a big tent would be great, but only if all the people camped under it are actually libertarians.)

  78. Tony From Long Island

    Langa: ” . . . .So, when evaluating prospective candidates, it doesn’t matter whether they are libertarians, but it does matter whether they are racists . . . . ”

    Every libertarian on here seems to have a different definition of what a libertarian is.

  79. Anthony Dlugos

    “Ridding the LP of Invictus and Co. — at the cost of “a thousand more Welds” — would be the epitome of a Pyrrhic victory.”

    No, a Pyrrhic victory would be a purity test for an open organization like a political party. The purity test is not going to keep away extremists. Its gonna keep away people capable of understanding part of politics is appealing to voters where they are at. The suggestion that lunatics like Goat Blood Boy are worried about purity test is belied by the evidence.

    No matter how exacting you make the purity test, the Goat Blood Boys of the world will merely lie about their beliefs, suggest their beliefs are really libertarian, confirm they agree to the NAP, then go back to propounding their delusions. Isn’t that exactly what he has done?

    All this time Andy has been endlessly yapping his xenophobic nationalist rants, and no one has been able to dislodge him from his belief that HE stands for the real libertarianism. What good are purity tests when the most precise purity test in the world wouldn’t keep him from arguing he passes said test by referencing some Rothbard quote?

    But again, if you see no difference between Weld and Invictus, I doubt we are going to agree about anything.

  80. dL

    But again, if you see no difference between Weld and Invictus, I doubt we are going to agree about anything.

    False dilemma between two conservative branches(extremist vs moderate). Indeed, as I pointed out earlier, your suggestion that the LP become more like the GOP to keep out the likes of Invictus is belied by the fact that the GOP has the same problem. And given that an avowed white supremacist currently occupies the position of AG, I would suggest that the GOP doesn’t even consider white supremacism a problem. LOL. Perhaps a better suggestion for a course of action to protect against the extremist excesses of conservatism would be a party much more openly hostile to conservatism in general. Duh!

  81. Andy

    “Invictus or Weld is a false dilemma.”

    Unconventional/eccentric guy who espoused fairly strong minarchist libertarian views (Invictus) vs. conventional politician who espoused fairly unlibertarian views (Weld).

  82. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “No matter how exacting you make the purity test, the Goat Blood Boys of the world will merely lie about their beliefs, suggest their beliefs are really libertarian, confirm they agree to the NAP, then go back to propounding their delusions. Isn’t that exactly what he has done?”

    What you described is exactly what Gary Johnson and Bill Weld did.

  83. Anthony Dlugos

    “your suggestion that the LP become more like the GOP to keep out the likes of Invictus is belied by the fact that the GOP has the same problem.”

    But hold on, I’m not suggesting we become more like the GOP. I AM suggesting we become more like successful political parties in general, which means, roughly speaking, a moderate, accessible version of a more exacting political philosophy.

    I really don’t think a pro-immigrant, pro-choice, anti-war, anti-surveillance, anti-censorship anti-drug prohibition party WITH a coarse filter that lets through a lot of folks who are not perfect libertarians is in any danger of becoming GOP 2.0.

  84. dL

    But hold on, I’m not suggesting we become more like the GOP. I AM suggesting we become more like successful political parties in general

    The GOP meets every standard of the currently most successful political party. You are speaking w/ a forked tongue.

    I really don’t think a pro-immigrant, pro-choice, anti-war, anti-surveillance, anti-censorship anti-drug prohibition party WITH a coarse filter

    If Bill Weld slips through your filter, then your filter is not particularly coarse. Weld only meets 3 out of the 6 conditions above.

  85. Anthony Dlugos

    “The GOP meets every standard of the currently most successful political party. You are speaking w/ a forked tongue.”

    No, I’m not. I’m suggesting the LP is political party competing the electoral arena and needs to accept that reality. We have to meet voters where they are at, and that means moderating the message.

    “Weld only meets 3 out of the 6 conditions above.”

    That’s good enough, and its especially good enough when you consider who his opponents were in Orlando.

    That being said, I’ll concede Weld was in the centrist-libertarian area of the Nolan chart. Not only is that good enough, there’s nothing in the party platform or past pronouncements of Libertarian leaders that we have to be any more restrictive than that.

    Its a minority and has always been a minority that suggests Purity is the only acceptable standard.

  86. Andy

    Weld is not a libertarian at all. He is in the authoritarian part of the Nolan Chart. If you want to call him a Centrist Authoritarian, fine, but he is NOT in the Libertarian quadrant.

  87. Anthony Dlugos

    He’s in the Libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart.

    He’s in the Authoritarian quadrant of the Andy Chart, a chart heavily influenced by hallucinogenic drugs and xenophobic delusions.

  88. dL

    No, I’m not. I’m suggesting the LP is political party competing the electoral arena and needs to accept that reality. We have to meet voters where they are at, and that means moderating the message.

    Well, you are moving the goalposts. I thought we were debating how best to keep the extremist rift raft from the party. And please don’t try to counter with “well, getting a lot of votes means you have moderated your message, and attracting a lot of voters will serve as a bulwark against nationalist extermism.” POTUS Donald J. Trump refutes that.

    That’s good enough…

    Well, Invictus meets 3 out of the 6 as well. So, apparently, he would be good enough, too.

  89. Andy

    I have never used hallucinogenic drugs, and I do not have any xenophobic delusions. I base things I say on facts and reason.

    Weld is most definitely not in the Libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart if you break down his issue stances, and he is even more outside of it if you weight the issues (like Weld is weak on gun rights, which is an issue that I would weight as a 10, on a scale of 1-10 in terms of importance).

  90. paulie

    And Governor Weld’s position on immigration was not just good, it was VERY good. What’s the problem here?

    A significant number of his other issue positions as well as actions in office, endorsements, etc.

  91. paulie

    This is a problem inherent to a fundamentally reactionary movement like conservatism, and the fact that the worst elements of it has spilled over into the LP is a consequence of libertarianism too long playing kissing cousins w/ conservatism as a whole.

    Exactly! This needs to be corrected as soon, and as thoroughly, as possible.

  92. paulie

    Who told Ramsey that most of the stuff that he repeated about you were either outright lies or were greatly exaggerated stories?

    I did, repeatedly.

    Maybe he needs to hear it from somebody he trusts, or from somebody he perceives to be a neutral party.

    He twists facts about people all the time. He threatens people all the time. What is it that you don’t get?

  93. paulie

    There may be problems with Invictus, but I’d take my chances with him over Bill “CFR” Weld any day.

    Then you are completely insane. There is no way, shape or form that Invictus should ever be associated with the LP. Thankfully he left. Hopefully he will never be back. Hopefully his friends and followers such as Ramsey follow him out the door as soon as possible. Hopefully the people they chased off from the Florida LP will come back and join and become active in the party again. Hopefully everyone who facilitated them being accepted and promoted in the LP will sincerely apologize and sincerely promise to never, ever do anything like that ever again, and/or lose all positions of authority in LP/LPF now and forever.

  94. paulie

    In a situation where a guy is obviously lying like a rug — saying one thing in one place and the exact opposite in another place — it’s safest to assume that if he’s being honest in either place, it’s the place where he’s saying the worst things.

    I’ve watched Augustus Invictus praise white supremacist terrorist murderer Robert Jay Mathews when he didn’t think libertarians were watching.

    I’ve watched Augustus Invictus threaten to murder his political opponents in cold blood even when he knew libertarians were watching.

    I’ve watched Augustus Invictus tell libertarians that he had changed his mind about eugenics while continuing to indicate elsewhere that he hadn’t.

    Exactly!

    he is clearly a murderous anti-libertarian thug.

    Very true.

  95. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    If you don’t have any xenophobic delusions of your own, then whose xenophobic delusions are you borrowing and vomiting all over the comments section under your name at IPR on a regular basis?

  96. paulie

    Email allegedly from Augustus Invictus:

    Nothing “allegedly” about it. I can post the whole email if anyone doubts it was him (warning: it’s kind of long for an IPR comment). Anyone familiar with Invictus and his writing will instantly recognize it as him. Particularly for those who are familiar with events in LPF referred to elsewhere in the letter.

    Regardless of whether Augustus is guilty of domestic violence or not, my guess is that somebody told him that Paul from IPR posted that new story about him, so he added Paul to the list of people with whom he is angry.

    The story I posted said nothing about whether he is guilty or not. All I did was report the news. And yes, he very clearly did threaten me – for reporting the news, so stop making excuses for this nazi scumbag and his scumbag nazi friends.

    If anyone thinks that this is a serious threat, has anyone contacted the police? If the people involved have not contacted the police, why not? Has anyone involved taken any defensive measures?

    I have no idea how many people on the list have this email or if any of them have contacted the police. I have not. I already told you why not as well: at best the police are completely fucking useless. At worst they are actively aiding and abetting white supremacist groups such as those Invictus and Ramsey are neck-deep in connections with. Unlike Ramsey and Invictus I don’t go running to the cops when I get threatened – and I have been threatened, up to and including death threats, many times, both anonymously and not. The threats from Invictus and Ramsey and friends are not the first I have received by a long shot and no I did not report them just like I have not reported any of the others. Also, at least so far, at least the threats they have made under their own names have been non-specific enough that the cops will not do jack shit about them anyway. That does not make them any less real or any less credible threats though.

  97. paulie

    Invictus or Weld is a false dilemma. Anyone who argues on behalf of one or the other based on the threat of the other is selling you snake oil.

    Yep.

  98. paulie

    Perhaps a better suggestion for a course of action to protect against the extremist excesses of conservatism would be a party much more openly hostile to conservatism in general.

    Excellent suggestion.

  99. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Also, at least so far, at least the threats they have made under their own names have been non-specific enough that the cops will not do jack shit about them anyway. That does not make them any less real or any less credible threats though.”

    To date, twice when the AI combination pity party / threat machine got cranked up and I was involved in direct back and forth, I escalated from Condition Yellow to Condition Orange. This involves, among other things, making my family aware of a possible threat, ensuring that at least one person in the household in addition to myself has a loaded firearm near to hand at all times, and paying special attention to street traffic in my neighborhood (which is very low traffic so anything unusual stands out, and I have a nearby neighbor who knows to call if anything looks suspicious as well). Perhaps that’s too much caution, but when I was a teenager the white nationalists firebombed public targets in my area and burned a friend’s house down.

    That said, the only thing I’ve seen beyond heated Internet rhetoric from e.g. Ryan Ramsey is a clear willingness to bring it in a street brawl if Antifa shows up and wants to play hardball at a public event (I do not know if he has ever actually been in a situation that devolved in that manner, but he’s believable). In person, he’s generally polite and congenial.

  100. paulie

    It’s a mistake to believe that Invictus’ references to “western civilization” are anything except a transparent euphemism for “white race.” In an email that was forwarded to me yesterday from Augustus Invictus to Raquel Okyay (the same one in which he issued threats against myself and others) dated June 3 2017 Invictus writes:

    We represent a group much, much broader than the LPF, and you know this. Joe Wendt represents no one but Joe Wendt. We have not just libertarians but Republicans and independents, militant groups, anarchists and authoritarians, revolutionaries and conservatives, and a whole host of Americans who are sick to death of the corruption of the System.

    What do all these diverse people have in common, I wonder?

  101. paulie

    That said, the only thing I’ve seen beyond heated Internet rhetoric from e.g. Ryan Ramsey is a clear willingness to bring it in a street brawl if Antifa shows up and wants to play hardball at a public event (I do not know if he has ever actually been in a situation that devolved in that manner, but he’s believable). In person, he’s generally polite and congenial.

    Well, I don’t know if I ever met the man in person and it could well be that much like Joe Wendt was talking a lot of shit online but acted “awful meek” in Ramsey’s presence, Ramsey may be much more meek in person as well. But, he did claim he reported me to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement electronic crimes division and was planning to report me to the FBI for my non-existent threats against him and his ex-wife. That may have also been bullshit, but he did say that. Many other people report having been intimidated. I’ve heard it from multiple sources.

  102. Thomas L. Knapp

    “But, he did claim he reported me to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement electronic crimes division and was planning to report me to the FBI for my non-existent threats against him and his ex-wife. That may have also been bullshit, but he did say that.”

    Well, right before the LPF convention, he told me that both the national chair and the state chair were about to be arrested for hacking his computer. So I’m guessing there’s a little bit of just plain vanilla Teh Krazy going on with respect to his legal/law enforcement claims.

  103. Anthony Dlugos

    “Well, Invictus meets 3 out of the 6 as well. So, apparently, he would be good enough, too.”

    It would be. I explicitly admitted that my sort of Big Tent Libertarianism would have a coarse enough philosophical filter that it could potentially allow Invictus through just as easily as Weld. But Invictus doesn’t want a big tent. He wants a small tent he can hijack. He is the one who wants a purity test, just one that includes “Defense of Western Civilization” as one of the tests.

    My goal wouldn’t be to keep Invictus out. It would be to create a Big Tent party he wants no part of in the first place.

    I admit that such a tent would include many people with less-than-perfect libertarian positions on some issues. (e.g., Weld on guns) But I also argue that party would still be sufficiently libertarian, sufficient to move public policy in a libertarian direction, given that we would have experienced politicians with the institutional knowledge to do such a thing. Furthermore, one that holds firm on issues like abortion, immigration, and a humble foreign policy, even as a big tent, is highly unlikely to morph into GOP 2.0.

    “Invictus or Weld is a false dilemma. Anyone who argues on behalf of one or the other based on the threat of the other is selling you snake oil.”

    I agree. My argument isn’t that the choice isn’t Invictus or Weld. My argument is that the choice is argued by some to be: Perry or Weld, and a catastrophically unqualified loser like Invictus sees a party willing to entertain such a comparison as a boatload of suckers.

  104. paulie

    I should also note that as Invictus and his ilk use it “western civilization” (or “white race”) does not include Jews. I am of mostly Jewish ancestry, and the US regime considers me to be “white” but Invictus and his ilk do not. The same holds true of other peoples of Middle Eastern origin.

    A major component of “western civilization” as conventionally understood is Christianity and its roots in Judaism, and Jews in diaspora have contributed a great deal to the philosophy, art, and other things that make up “western civilization,” but from the antisemitic perspective that is embedded in Invictus’ “revolutionary conservatism” Jews and Muslims alike are a cancer on “western civilization”; he openly discusses killing both Jews and Muslims, and writes that the US government’s failings include “fear of the Jews.” And his nonsense about “white genocide” is an insult to say the least to members of the ethnic groups which have experienced actual genocide.

  105. paulie

    My goal wouldn’t be to keep Invictus out. It would be to create a Big Tent party he wants no part of in the first place.

    He wants to infiltrate the Republicans now, so….

  106. Thomas L. Knapp

    “My argument isn’t that the choice isn’t Invictus or Weld. My argument is that the choice is argued by some to be: Perry or Weld, and a catastrophically unqualified loser like Invictus sees a party willing to entertain such a comparison as a boatload of suckers.”

    On that we agree. Although as you probably expect, not to the advantage of Weld.

    “people with less-than-perfect libertarian positions on some issues. (e.g., Weld on guns) ”

    Weld’s position on guns isn’t “less than perfect libertarian.” It’s from territory bordered on one side by Adolf Hitler and on the other by Pol Pot.

  107. D. Frank Robinson

    If the the Democratic and Republican parties were actually successful they wouldn’t have to censor the ballot to coerce voters to choose one or the other and suppress competition. Censorship is authoritarian and both of the state-sponsored self-entrenched parties collude to to maintain a imperialist police state.

  108. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “Although as you probably expect, not to the advantage of Weld.”

    ‘people with less-than-perfect libertarian positions on some issues. (e.g., Weld on guns) ‘

    Weld’s position on guns isn’t ‘less than perfect libertarian.’ It’s from territory bordered on one side by Adolf Hitler and on the other by Pol Pot.”

    I agree with Tom here. Weld’s position on guns, as well as a bunch of his other political positions, definitely put him far outside the Libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart.

  109. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Re: Dealing with threats and other illegal behavior.

    Unless you see them coming to your house with a gun or whatever, or they actually attack you, it’s usually best to avoid the police. As we’ve seen too often, cops get confused about who’s the bad guy and also if it’s internet connected they may take one’s own computer and find who knows what they will like less than what the white power guys say.

    However, we have a perfect right to tell everyone and their brother just what they did, and put the details out there to warn others. And if the PoPos or Feds eventually end up using it in some way we might not necessarily approve of, it’s not OUR fault for speaking our truth.

    Fear of the popos and feds is what really motivates them to try to shut people up. Not fear of getting a bad reputation as a “revolutionary conservative” bigot. They also have to worry that they’ll attract infiltrators who will rev them up to step over the legal line and be entrapped into talking about organizing some stupid act of violence for which they’ll get prosecuted and sent up for years.

    When the Dems win in 2020 (because of Trump’s idiotic failures and all those Democrat welfare promises & assuming they don’t put a total dud up for prez), I think you can expect quite a backlash on all the white power types. So they do have something to worry about.

  110. langa

    Every libertarian on here seems to have a different definition of what a libertarian is.

    True, but the LP itself has only one definition — the one spelled out in the platform. That’s the one that LP members (or at least officers and candidates) should be judged by.

  111. langa

    …if you see no difference between Weld and Invictus…

    Actually, I do see a difference between them. Of the two, Weld is more likely to be taken seriously by the public, and therefore give the impression that libertarians are just centrist authoritarians. Invictus, on the other hand, is likely to be seen by the public as one of those nuts that all parties (even the big two) have. So, while neither of them are libertarian, only Weld stands to do serious long-term damage to the brand.

  112. langa

    [Weld is] in the Libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart.

    No, he’s not. Not even close. In addition to the gun control/no-fly list stuff that has been discussed on this thread, Weld also supported the renewal of the Patriot Act. He supported the Iraq War. He supported eminent domain, even in its worst manifestations. He supported Obamacare, including the “individual mandate” provision. He endorsed Obama in ’08, Romney in ’12, and Kasich in ’16. (Where do you think those guys fall on the Nolan Chart?) And those are just a few examples off the top of my head. I’m sure I could find at least a dozen issues where Weld’s position is literally the polar opposite of the LP platform.

  113. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    When the Dems win in 2020 (because of Trump’s idiotic failures and all those Democrat welfare promises & assuming they don’t put a total dud up for prez), I think you can expect quite a backlash on all the white power types. So they do have something to worry about.

    I think the Democrats need to start doing serious damage-control if they have any hope of regaining power. They should get rid of all their major players, and start all over. I also understand the DNC is flat broke.

    Of course I’m still hoping to have Hillary and several of the others prosecuted. I have a bit of hope tonight after yesterday’s arrest of the Pakistani IT guy at the airport (Imran Aman).

  114. Andy

    Jill Pyeatt said: “I also understand the DNC is flat broke.”

    I find this hard to believe. If true, which I doubt, they won’t be broke very long. Democrats get lots of money from unions, especially government employee unions. They’ve also got lots of other big donors and they get big corporate money, just like the Republicans.

    The Democrats aren’t going away or losing power anytime soon. Neither are the Republicans.

  115. langa

    I think the Democrats need to start doing serious damage-control if they have any hope of regaining power.

    I think you’re right, but I doubt they will take your advice. They’re too busy continuing to make excuses for why they lost. It’s hard to correct your flaws when you refuse to admit that you even have any.

  116. Andy

    langa said: “He endorsed Obama in ’08, Romney in ’12, and Kasich in ’16. (Where do you think those guys fall on the Nolan Chart?) ”

    Bill Weld endorsed Jeb Bush in September of 2015, and he said that he agrees with Jeb on most of the issues.

    It really shows you how corrupted and infiltrated that the Libertarian Party is that this obvious establishment shill won the Libertarian Party’s nomination for Vice President.

  117. Andy

    “paulie
    July 25, 2017 at 16:06
    ‘Email allegedly from Augustus Invictus:’
    Nothing “allegedly” about it. I can post the whole email if anyone doubts it was him (warning: it’s kind of long for an IPR comment). Anyone familiar with Invictus and his writing will instantly recognize it as him. Particularly for those who are familiar with events in LPF referred to elsewhere in the letter.”

    I said allegedly due to the fact the amount of identity faking that has gone on here, and with related stuff.

    “‘Regardless of whether Augustus is guilty of domestic violence or not, my guess is that somebody told him that Paul from IPR posted that new story about him, so he added Paul to the list of people with whom he is angry.’

    The story I posted said nothing about whether he is guilty or not. All I did was report the news. And yes, he very clearly did threaten me – for reporting the news, so stop making excuses for this nazi scumbag and his scumbag nazi friends.”

    I am not “making excuses,” and I don’t know any of these people. I even think that it is within that it is within the realm of possibility that some of these people are government plants.

    I was just indicating that there have been problems caused by people making, and spreading, false criminal accusations. I do not know whether the accusations against Augustus are legitimate or not, but the details were shaky, and that story came out months ago and I still have not seen or heard of any evidence that points to guilt.

    I would bet that your name got lumped in with some other people who are more directly involved in this situation and that’s all there is to it.

    “I have no idea how many people on the list have this email or if any of them have contacted the police. I have not. I already told you why not as well: at best the police are completely fucking useless.”

    I agree about the lack of effectiveness of the police when it comes to fighting real crime (although they do sometimes arrest people who deserve it), but if the threats are real, it may at least provide a clue as to who to investigate and where to look if anything happens.

    I am skeptical that these are serious threats, unless any of these people are government provocateurs, which is possible.

    If they are not, then I doubt that anything is going to happen, and even if they are, nothing may happen.

  118. Andy

    Tony From Long Island said: “The may be the exact reason why you are the worst representative for the LP (among many). That you would choose AI over ANY other human being shows a severe lack of perspective. That you would want AI representing the LP in any way shape or form really exposes yourself.”

    This from a guy who spoke positively of Hillary Clinton.

    Where did I say I wanted Augustus Invictus to represent that Libertarian Party? I never said this. I have watched most of Invictus’ videos, and I find him to be entertaining, and his stated issues stances are a lot more libertarian than some here are giving him credit for being, but I would NOT advise any candidate to talk about their religious practices, especially if they are as out of the mainstream as his, nor would I encourage any candidate to talk about running around naked in the woods and seducing strippers and doing LSD. I also think that changing one’s name to some unusual sounding ancient Roman name is probably not the best idea either for a candidate. I think that Augustus is a very good public speaker, but he speaks with an accent that appears to not be genuine, and/or is exaggerated from his actual manner of speaking, and I don’t think that this is a good idea for a candidate either.

    Like I said above, he ran on a pretty strong minarchist libertarian platform. He’s not a dumb guy, and his public speaking is good (never mind the accent, and some of the off the wall comments, the guy has good delivery).

    I’d have some trust issues with the guy (as in I still wonder if he’s some kind of actor/plant), and I don’t think that candidates should wave any of their eccentricities around, so for these reasons, he wouldn’t be one of my top choices for a candidate.

    When I said that I’d take my chances with Augustus Invictus over Bill Weld, it is because I think Bill Weld is a PIECE OF CRAP and the WORST Libertarian Party candidate ever. He’s worse than “Goofy” Gary (although Johnson is not far behind), and he was even worse than Bob Barr and Wayne Root (as bad as they were as candidates, even they did not start gushing over one of their major party rivals while the campaign was happening).

    I’d vote for Vermin Supreme before I’d vote for Bill Weld.

  119. Andy

    Somebody provide a list of political issues where Augustus Invictus was way off course from being in the Libertarian quadrant

    I have already debunked the forced eugenics claim, as he had abandoned this stance before he ever joined the LP. Incidentally, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld actually came closer to supporting a forced eugenics program than Augustus did as an LP candidate, since they came out in favor of taxpayer funding for abortion (as in taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood/regardless of where one stands on abortion libertarians always used to take the stand that the taxpayers should not have to pay for abortions), and they also supported membership in the United Nations, which pushes the population control agenda. Augustus just made the point that ending the welfare state would lead to a more rugged population, which is actually a standard libertarian position.

    Don’t bring up that he’s a minarchist, because there are lots of minarchists in the Libertarian Party, and I don’t want to turn this into an anarchy vs minarchy discussion.

    Some of the issues that Augustus Invictus pushed were a total end to the War on Drugs (unlike Johnson/Weld, who only called for taxing and regulating marijuana, while keeping the war on other drugs going), repealing all gun control laws (Johnson/Weld wanted to create a government task force that would come up with secret lists which people could be placed on for arbitrary reasons, with no trial, and be stripped of their 2nd amendment rights, and Weld said that assault weapons should be banned, and that handguns were a problem), eliminating the income tax (Johnson wanted to replace the income tax with the Fair Tax, and Weld wanted to keep the income tax as is, and promise people their taxes would not go up), abolish the Federal Reserve System (not a peep about abolishing the Federal Reserve System out of Johnson/Weld), withdraw from the United Nations (Johnson/Weld support the United Nations), and end military imperialism (Johnson supported “humanitarian” wars, and Weld has a long history of being a warmonger), to name just a few issues.

    I want to talk about ISSUES. Talk to me about actual his POLITICAL ISSUE STANCES, not about whether or not he runs around naked in his backyard and shoots squirrels with his BB gun and then offers them up to Odin before eating them. I want to focus on POLITICAL ISSUE STANCES only for this portion of the discussion.

  120. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I have already debunked the forced eugenics claim, as he had abandoned this stance before he ever joined the LP.”

    Well, except for the part where it was on his campaign web site and where he continued to stick with it any time he thought LP members weren’t paying attention. Except for that there.

  121. Tony From Long Island

    Andy, you sell your principles for the next petition seeker all the time – regardless of party. You would gather signatures for Lenora Fulani if she paid you. You aren’t in a position to question the principles of anyone else.

    ————————————-
    Andy:

    Gary Johnson and Bill Weld actually came closer to supporting a forced eugenics program than Augustus did as an LP candidate, since they came out in favor of taxpayer funding for abortion

    This is one of your more disturbing posts. You prove daily why you are not a libertarian. Abortion = forced Eugenics? Give me break! Your obsession with Gary Johnson verges on the pathological. Join the GOP. You aren’t a libertarian. . . . . .btw . . . taxpayer funding for PP does not go toward abortions. You are just much a rube as any other republican who keeps blabbering about that regardless of the facts. I’m sure you will now post some obscure YouTube clip about it.

  122. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Abortion = forced Eugenics? Give me break!”

    If you subsidize a thing, you get more of it. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that if you subsidize a thing you WANT more of it. And to the extent that forgoing that thing might put you at a comparative disadvantage (if there are more women without children, a woman WITH children might have a harder time getting a job because the prospective employer expects that a woman with children will need more time off, etc.), the subsidy creates an environment in which women might at least FEEL pressured to go that route instead of the other. It’s not exactly “forced,” but it’s certainly a foreseeable distorting consequence.

    “taxpayer funding for PP does not go toward abortions”

    A long time ago, David Letterman did a series of episodes from Las Vegas. One of the stories in his monologue went like this:

    “So I’m walking down the street and this guy comes up to me and asks me for $30,000 so that his mother can get an operation. I ask him ‘how do I know you won’t just use the money for gambling.’ He looks at me like I’m nuts and says ‘I’ve GOT money for gambling!'”

    Every dollar that Planned Parenthood receives from the government for provision of Service X makes a dollar coming from somewhere else available for provision of Service Y. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood uses a lot of smoke and mirrors to hide the extent of their abortion business. They say it’s less than 3% of what they do, but the breakdown of procedures is done so as to exclude services clearly linked to abortions — surgical prep, etc. — and include only the very specific procedure itself.

    Bottom line: Planned Parenthood is a business that receives half a billion dollars a year in corporate welfare. And as a business it is the industry leader as a provider of abortion services.

  123. paulie

    Unless you see them coming to your house with a gun or whatever, or they actually attack you, it’s usually best to avoid the police. As we’ve seen too often, cops get confused about who’s the bad guy and also if it’s internet connected they may take one’s own computer and find who knows what they will like less than what the white power guys say.

    Usually best to avoid police whenever they can be avoided. When my laptop was stolen I did report it to the police, but not because I was under any illusion that they would help recover my property (and of course they haven’t). Just in case the people who stole it or someone they sold it to would do something really bad with the computer so I would not be blamed for it. I have never, ever reported any threats to the police. It’s a waste of time at best and can backfire.

  124. paulie

    I think the Democrats need to start doing serious damage-control if they have any hope of regaining power.

    The pendulum will keep swinging between the two as it has long done. The system needs them to be roughly equivalent to maintain stability and keep people from defecting to other parties (because the results are a foregone conclusion) or checking out of the voting process in larger numbers and reducing the perceived legitimacy of those elected.

  125. paulie

    I said allegedly due to the fact the amount of identity faking that has gone on here, and with related stuff.

    As I said, it’s obviously him, which should be apparent if I post the whole thing. It’s long, so do you need me to post it?

    I am not “making excuses,”

    Sure comes off that way.

    The threats against me, just like the threats against Wendt and Stanton, are far from the only ones. They have threatened a lot of different people. What is so hard to understand about that?

    You keep nitpicking “Ah it is Wendt so maybe he’s in on it” or “Well maybe the email from Invictus was faked” … no, those are just two examples out of many, many others.

    . I do not know whether the accusations against Augustus are legitimate or not

    It doesn’t matter whether they were or not. He threatened me for reporting the news, as I made no claim of whether the claims were true or not in the story – only that they exist. And more importantly, just like Wendt, I am just one of many other examples of people they have threatened.

    I am skeptical that these are serious threats, unless any of these people are government provocateurs, which is possible.

    They may well be government provocateurs. The racist movement, which they are neck deep in, is crawling with those. But even if they are not, they could very well be dangerous and crazy, or connected with people who are. After all the regime does not actually have a monopoly on violence, even though it tries to. And it is also known that they have law enfarcement connections, as white supremacist groups in general have a lot of. If they do carry out their nonspecific threats it may be with law enfarcement help. That’s another reason why I am not so eager to report them to law enfarcement.

  126. paulie

    his stated issues stances are a lot more libertarian than some here are giving him credit for being

    It depends on where he is doing his stating. You have to listen to recordings of his live speeches to crowds, podcast appearance on racist programs, etc, etc to get the whole picture. You have been provided the links to do that many times.

    When I said that I’d take my chances with Augustus Invictus over Bill Weld, it is because I think Bill Weld is a PIECE OF CRAP

    Invictus is a bigger, smellier piece of crap, and is most definitely a floater.

    I’d vote for Vermin Supreme before I’d vote for Bill Weld.

    So would I. Supreme is actually pretty good.

  127. paulie

    “I have already debunked the forced eugenics claim, as he had abandoned this stance before he ever joined the LP.”

    Well, except for the part where it was on his campaign web site and where he continued to stick with it any time he thought LP members weren’t paying attention. Except for that there.

    And yet Andy says he is not defending Invictus. ROFL.

  128. Anthony Dlugos

    “I’d vote for Vermin Supreme before I’d vote for Bill Weld.
    So would I. Supreme is actually pretty good.”

    The job isn’t court jester, or even libertarian spokesperson. Those are potentially useful endeavors. If you are talking about the presidency or vice presidency, its a specific executive position & voters want to see some relevant experience. So much so that an unqualified funny man like Vermin just won’t get covered by the needed media outlets, thus negating the idea that its okay that no one would vote for Supreme, because its the message that’s important. He’d be a tree falling in the woods with no one around. Well, with only some of the already-converted around.

  129. paulie

    Somebody provide a list of political issues where Augustus Invictus was way off course from being in the Libertarian quadrant

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/05/chuck-moulton-lp-conventions-avoid-alt-right-white-supremacist-event-speakers/#comment-1606612 to take just one example you have been given many, many times. That’s just one month of his antilibertarian activity. Or go back and re-read the discussion of his “failings of the federal government” and other past Invictus articles here. The guy is literally a former card carrying member of the National Socialist Movement who still speaks at their meetings along with many other such meetings. How blind and intentionally ignorant do you have to be?

    whether or not he runs around naked in his backyard and shoots squirrels with his BB gun and then offers them up to Odin before eating them.

    Try dismembers and prolongedly tortures animals to death, threatens people habitually, writes “nonfiction” about raping children and various other rape fantasies, and stands accused of repeated domestic violence, rapes and death threats by his ex. Among other things.

    Yeah, Weld has endorsed and befriended a bunch of establishment politicians, and was one himself decades ago. Invictus has endorsed, spoken in front of, joined, organized for, befriended and any other thing you can mention, any number of racist, fascist, neo-nazi, white supremacist groups, individuals, gatherings, and broadcasts. You think all that is just a coincidence?

    “Wendt is this and that” and “Weld is so and so” is no excuse in any way shape or form for the likes of Invictus and Ramsey. Why do some people keep making implicit excuses for them by way of comparison while insisting at the same time that they are not making excuses for them?

  130. paulie

    The job isn’t court jester, or even libertarian spokesperson. Those are potentially useful endeavors. If you are talking about the presidency or vice presidency, its a specific executive position & voters want to see some relevant experience. So much so that an unqualified funny man like Vermin just won’t get covered by the needed media outlets, thus negating the idea that its okay that no one would vote for Supreme, because its the message that’s important. He’d be a tree falling in the woods with no one around. Well, with only some of the already-converted around.

    Sometimes only a jester can make the court of public opinion aware of some things, and Vermin is pretty damn good at getting media attention. The present white house occupant belies the notion that a candidate always has to take the issues seriously to gain traction.

  131. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Why do some people keep making implicit excuses for them by way of comparison while insisting at the same time that they are not making excuses for them?”

    Because that’s the job description for COINTELPRO operators sent out to discredit organizations and movements.

    “9/11 Inside Jobbism” didn’t get the job done, so he switched tacks to …

    “Mass Shooting False Flaggism,” which didn’t get the job done either, so he switched tacks to …

    “Let’s pretend that authoritarianism is libertarianism.” That’s not working, so now he’s segueing to …

    “Openly avowed authoritarian racialist nationalists aren’t really authoritarian racialist nationalists, they’re libertarians.”

    And when that’s played out, he’ll find some other way to try and make the LP look like a bunch of whackjobs.

    Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy actions. And “Andy” has pulled this shit at least four different times and in at least four different ways that I can think of at the moment.

    I suppose it’s possible that he’s employed by some non-state anti-LP organization rather than by e.g. the FBI. But there’s just not any real reasonable doubt left as to what his true intentions are.

  132. Anthony Dlugos

    The present white house occupant does not walk around with a boot on his head. (funny as it is). In any case, Trump is an outlier, perhaps the all-time outlier in terms of presidential elections, and had 40 years at the head of a billion-dollar corporation. The voters in this case deemed that as sufficient for the office.

    Libertarians have the sad tendency to fall in love with their product and not their customer. As a consequence, they don’t comprehend how quickly the average voter tunes us out. I don’t care how compelling a spokesperson for libertarianism Perry, Petersen, Supreme, McAfee, or Invictus is. The voters will tune you out permanently inside a few seconds if you are not speaking to their concerns, I don’t care how badly you want “a world set free in our lifetimes.”

    Is there any doubt that Trump’s campaign strategy was high on connecting to the voters and low on philosophy/policy?

  133. paulie

    The present white house occupant does not walk around with a boot on his head. (funny as it is).

    His toupee may as well be a boot.

    Is there any doubt that Trump’s campaign strategy was high on connecting to the voters and low on philosophy/policy?

    Attention getting connects with voters. Follow that up with good issue stances. One without the other is not very good, but better than neither. We aren’t remotely likely to win no matter what we do, at least not soon. But we can influence the range of acceptable debate, gather new supporters, mobilize new activists and future candidates, and so on. It’s taking a frustratingly long time but we are making gradual headway.

  134. D. Frank Robinson

    Headway?
    Does anyone know if voters care whether their votes matter? Who is asking? Ballot rigging is deeply ingrained as a value above even the free speech. What party will take voters by the shoulders, shake them and yell “wake up” in their face? Libertarians? Greens? The “Anti-Progressive Party” is a niche waiting to be explored.

    Don’t look. Don’t tell. No headway.

  135. dL

    If you subsidize a thing, you get more of it. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that if you subsidize a thing you WANT more of it. And to the extent that forgoing that thing might put you at a comparative disadvantage… the subsidy creates an environment in which women might at least FEEL pressured to go that route instead of the other. It’s not exactly “forced,” but it’s certainly a foreseeable distorting consequence.disadvantage

    Of course, that is not exactly a complete analysis, given that restrictive regulations and such in the US artificially raise the price of abortions way above the free market price. Mexico, which has legal abortion for the 1st trimester, gives a fairly accurate proxy for what free market pricing would look like. $50.00 for Mifepristone and ~ $150.00 for same day surgical abortion service. So, at those prices, there wouldn’t be much need for state medicaid reimbursements of abortion services for the qualifying poor(the policy ~ 17 states).

  136. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Of course, that is not exactly a complete analysis, given that restrictive regulations and such in the US artificially raise the price of abortions way above the free market price.”

    Yes, you’re absolutely right. Pretty much everything is a tangled mess in the United States as we know it, because the United States as we know it is a tangled web of regulations, prohibitions, mandates, subsidies, etc.

    All I am saying is that ceteris paribus, a subsidy is an incentive, and that incentive can create skewing effects that make not accepting the subsidy and engaging in the subsidized activity problematic with respect to other things.

  137. dL

    Is there any doubt that Trump’s campaign strategy was high on connecting to the voters and low on philosophy/policy?

    You keep moving the goal posts. Half way up the page you were doggin on the inability to run a serious campaign for serious adults. Now you are doggin on the inability to run a substance-free spectacle like Trump. It’s like playing the old electric football w/ you.

  138. dL

    Yes, you’re absolutely right. Pretty much everything is a tangled mess in the United States as we know it, because the United States as we know it is a tangled web of regulations, prohibitions, mandates, subsidies, etc.

    Agreed…

  139. Andy

    Once again on Augustus Invictus on the government forced eugenics thing, I looked into this, and he was NOT promoting government forced eugenics (ie-forced sterilization and/or forced abortions) while he was in the Libertarian Party, nor has he promoted it since he left the Libertarian Party. He repeatedly clarified that his stance was that the welfare state should be eliminated, and this would lead to a more rugged population. THIS WAS HIS ACTUAL POSITION.

    Most people who are in the Libertarian Party today once supported bad issues, like a militaristic foreign policy, and/or the War on Drugs, and/or socialist wealth redistribution, and/or gun control (or victim disarment laws), or etc…

    Let he who has never supported a bad issue in their lives cast the first stone.

    I originally assumed that Augustus was in favor of a government forced eugenics program while in the LP, which I do not like either, but later on when I started looking into him further, I found out that this was not the case, as he was talking about the welfare state making people weak and lazy and apathetic, and how ending it would produce a more rugged population.

  140. paulie

    Andy, “not” defending Invictus:

    and he was NOT promoting government forced eugenics (ie-forced sterilization and/or forced abortions) while he was in the Libertarian Party

    When you post failure to provide eugenics as one of the failures of the federal government to your US Senate campaign website … that means you want the government to provide eugenics…while in the LP. Stop parroting his transparent excuses. His “letter to the peoples of Europe” which he said is still relevant as of this year also supports eugenics. He talks about killing Muslims, Jews and leftists this year. It’s not just “bad issues” and it’s not in the past. He is a fucking nazi, simple and plain. You can’t deny it any more plausibly than you can deny the nose on your face.

  141. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Once again on Augustus Invictus on the government forced eugenics thing, I looked into this, and he was NOT promoting government forced eugenics”

    So are you lying about having looked into it, or are you lying about what you found when you did? It’s one or the other.

    At the same time that Invictus was telling LPF that he no longer supported government-forced eugenics and that that had just been a thing he wrote a paper on in college, his campaign web site included a list of “failures” of the federal government including, among other things, its abandonment of forced eugenics.

  142. Chuck Moulton

    For a long time I thought Andy was just spewing this garbage because he was ignorant of refutations of his positions. Now I am forced to believe either a) he is a complete fucking idiot, b) he cannot read, and/or c) he is actually a Nazi white supremicist trying to infiltrate the Libertarian Party in order to undermine it. I have watched Paulie (someone he knows well) directly post refutations and post links to direct evidence contradicting Andy’s claims hundreds of times. Andy never even acknowledges them, let alone critically responding to them. It’s pretty sad.

    Augustus Invictus is a Nazi. Augustus Invictus supports government enforced eugenics right now (not just in the past). Augustus Invictus and his compatriots routinely threaten people. All of those are facts, not opinions.

    At this point I feel pretty supid for voting for Andy for LNC at-large. He had me fooled into believing he was a real libertarian with a few whackadoodle ideas.

  143. Andy

    Paul said: “When you post failure to provide eugenics as one of the failures of the federal government to your US Senate campaign website … that means you want the government to provide eugenics…while in the LP. Stop parroting his transparent excuses.”

    I am not parroting transparent excuses. I am just telling you WHAT AUGUSTUS SAID HIS POSITION WAS ON THIS ISSUE. He said MULTIPLE TIMES that he does NOT support government forced eugenics, but rather a repeal of the welfare state which would lead to a natural form of eugenics, as in no government welfare means that people will have to be more rugged.

    THIS IS WHAT HE SAID HIS POSITION WAS. Now you can claim that he was lying, but I have watched most of his videos, and I NEVER heard him advocating in favor of forced sterilizations and forced abortions.

    ” His ‘letter to the peoples of Europe’ which he said is still relevant as of this year also supports eugenics. He talks about killing Muslims, Jews and leftists this year.”

    I will go back and listen to his “Letter to the people of Europe” again, but I do not recall him saying anything about forced sterilizations or forced abortions. He has talked about revolting against government, and possibly violent conflicts with leftists (who have apparently already attacked him and threatened him and/or people who have gone to events where he was speaking/whether this was staged or not I do not). I have NEVER heard him advocate for violence against Jews or Muslims at random (he has actually OPPOSED the US military attacking Muslim nations).

  144. dL

    Perhaps he or I need to struggle a little harder to understand Wagner before pretending to understand Invictus.

    lol. yeah, well, “whoever wants to understand National Socialist Germany must know Wagner” is an apocryphal Hitler quote that perhaps best illustrates the principle of “the more you repeat own bullshit, the more likely you will come to believe it.”

  145. Andy

    “wolfefan
    July 27, 2017 at 01:06
    You don’t need to listen to the speech again. He’s posted a transcript. I don’t think that we should forcibly expel people not of pure European blood from our country, but if Andy think that’s libertarianism then that’s his choice.”

    Inivctus is talking about expelling the Muslim migrants from Europe who are sucking up the welfare money and committing lots of crimes. There is nothing that is unlibertarian about physically removing non-peaceful people. These people have no property rights or legitimate claim to this land. These are latecomer welfare parasites with a hostile ideology and a lot of them have penchant for committing crimes (rape rates and other crimes have exploded across Europe due to mass migration from Muslim countries).

  146. Andy

    What does Israel do with African migrants in Israel? They throw them out!

    So if the Israelis can expel foreigners from their country, why can’t the French, the Swedes, the English, the Germans, etc….?

    African refugees purged in Israel as ‘infiltrators’

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLaBTC_mdzs

  147. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    Breitbart?

    oh, brother.
    —–

    Presumably whoever is financing Andy’s attempts to discredit the Libertarian Party and libertarian movement thinks that linking the party/movement to Breitbart advances that goal. I agree.

  148. Tony From Long Island

    Oh . . OK. Even I – who despises Andy – am pretty sure that last post was NOT from Andy. If it was, he’s even weirder than I thought.

  149. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    Oh . . OK. Even I – who despises Andy – am pretty sure that last post was NOT from Andy.
    —–

    Define “Andy.” It’s a pretty generic name. Which is why he uses it as a identity camouflage so that people won’t connect it with his full name elsewhere, e.g. in Google search results. He probably particularly doesn’t want it noticed by people who hire petitioners that that “Andy Jacobs, petitioner” is probably just his long-term cover, the pretense under which he maintains a closer connection to the LP so as to make his COINTELPRO work easier.

    Of course, he does at least occasionally break cover a little by using his petitioner bona fides in sabotage attempts, e.g. his vocal support of another petitioner forging Social Security numbers on voter registration forms, his attempt to take down the LP’s political director, etc.

  150. dL

    is probably just his long-term cover, the pretense under which he maintains a closer connection to the LP so as to make his COINTELPRO work easier.

    Way too much credit…

  151. wolfefan

    Hi Andy –

    Invictus refers to pure European blood. He makes clear throughout the piece that it’s not about welfare or rape or any of that other stuff. It’s about blood. Race. Non-Europeans. Non-westerners. That is obvious. When you say he’s talking about welfare leeches you are just making stuff up that is not in what he actually said.

  152. paulie

    Invictus refers to pure European blood. He makes clear throughout the piece that it’s not about welfare or rape or any of that other stuff. It’s about blood. Race. Non-Europeans. Non-westerners. That is obvious. When you say he’s talking about welfare leeches you are just making stuff up that is not in what he actually said.

    It’s blindingly obvious. Someone has to be intentionally ignorant to miss this and all the other evidence.

  153. paulie

    Why would any Europeans want to toss the Muslim migrants out of their country?

    When you become the owner of a country, let me know. You do realize we are talking about a lot of people who were born in Europe, who have children born in Europe, who have married people born in Europe, etc, etc?

    Europe’s Rape Epidemic

    How many times has this been debunked here now? I’ve lost count. This is what people mean when they say you are spamming.

  154. paulie

    What does Israel do with African migrants in Israel? They throw them out!

    So if the Israelis can expel foreigners from their country, why can’t the French, the Swedes, the English, the Germans, etc….?

    I don’t understand your question. If one regime gang, the Israeli regime, commits crimes against liberty and humanity, that justifies other regime gangs doing the same?

    “If Australia can ban guns, why can’t the Swiss, the Americans, and…”

    “If the Phillipines can execute thousands of alleged drug users and dealers without trial, why can’t the US, the French, the Swedes…”

    There’s no end to the fucked up policies that can be justified using such “logic.”

  155. paulie

    Inivctus is talking about expelling the Muslim migrants from Europe who are sucking up the welfare money and committing lots of crimes.

    No, he is talking about expelling all Muslims from Europe, including those who were born there, those who have never committed amy crimes, and those who are not on welfare. He is also talking about non-“whites” in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    Since when is collective punishment and ethnic cleansing libertarian? Oh wait, it isn’t. Not even close.

    There is nothing that is unlibertarian about physically removing non-peaceful people.

    So every Muslim and every Middle Easterner or person of Middle Eastern ancestry in Europe regardless of religion or lack thereof is non-peaceful? Don’t get high off your own supply.

    These people have no property rights or legitimate claim to this land.

    Also ridiculous. Plenty of them do own property, and even if they don’t, it’s hardly justification for ethnic cleansing. I don’t own any real estate either, I wasn’t born in this country and my distant ancestors came from the Middle East. Is that justification for deporting me in your mind?

    Now, if you want to talk about entities that have no legitimate property rights and no legitimate claim to any land, I’d start with regime gangs. The same ones that would be doing all these roundups and deportations of how many millions of people?

    These are latecomer welfare parasites

    Watch it with the generalizations. People here are already getting the impression that you are a bigot. I can only tell them that I have never seen you act in a bigoted way in real life so much when they see you write horseshit like this day after day after day with their own eyes.

  156. paulie

    I don’t think that we should forcibly expel people not of pure European blood from our country, but if Andy think that’s libertarianism then that’s his choice.

    It’s obviously incompatible with libertarianism.

  157. paulie

    I am not parroting transparent excuses. I am just telling you WHAT AUGUSTUS SAID HIS POSITION WAS ON THIS ISSUE.

    In other words parroting his transparent excuses. And cut out the all-caps already. I’m going to start deleting that shit. I think I’ve asked nicely enough times already. Learn some basic HTML tags, it’s not hard in any way.

    Now you can claim that he was lying,

    Of course I can, and I do, because he says different and contradictory things in different places.

    but I have watched most of his videos,

    In case you missed it earlier, he speaks in a lot of other contexts than just his videos.

    I have NEVER heard him advocate for violence against Jews or Muslims at random

    Listen to the Sunshine Fascists broadcast. I have given you the link enough times now.

    But it’s nice to know you are not defending him.

  158. paulie

    For a long time I thought Andy was just spewing this garbage because he was ignorant of refutations of his positions. Now I am forced to believe either a) he is a complete fucking idiot, b) he cannot read, and/or c) he is actually a Nazi white supremicist trying to infiltrate the Libertarian Party in order to undermine it.

    He is not an idiot. He knows how to read just fine. And I don’t think he is actually a bigot. That’s never been my personal experience with him in real life. Honestly, I think he is a victim of thorough self-brainwashing by propaganda put out by bigots who has internalized it and is spreading it without realizing what kind of crap he is spewing and the fact that its sources are in no way shape of form reliable, and what their motives actually are.

    I have watched Paulie (someone he knows well) directly post refutations and post links to direct evidence contradicting Andy’s claims hundreds of times. Andy never even acknowledges them, let alone critically responding to them. It’s pretty sad.

    Yep.

    Augustus Invictus is a Nazi. Augustus Invictus supports government enforced eugenics right now (not just in the past). Augustus Invictus and his compatriots routinely threaten people. All of those are facts, not opinions.

    Exactly.

  159. paulie

    “Once again on Augustus Invictus on the government forced eugenics thing, I looked into this, and he was NOT promoting government forced eugenics”

    So are you lying about having looked into it, or are you lying about what you found when you did? It’s one or the other.

    At the same time that Invictus was telling LPF that he no longer supported government-forced eugenics and that that had just been a thing he wrote a paper on in college, his campaign web site included a list of “failures” of the federal government including, among other things, its abandonment of forced eugenics.

    Yes, there are none so blind as those who will themselves to not see.

  160. Andy

    “paulie
    July 27, 2017 at 22:38
    ‘For a long time I thought Andy was just spewing this garbage because he was ignorant of refutations of his positions. Now I am forced to believe either a) he is a complete fucking idiot, b) he cannot read, and/or c) he is actually a Nazi white supremicist trying to infiltrate the Libertarian Party in order to undermine it.’
    He is not an idiot. He knows how to read just fine. And I don’t think he is actually a bigot. That’s never been my personal experience with him in real life. Honestly, I think he is a victim of thorough self-brainwashing by propaganda put out by bigots who has internalized it and is spreading it without realizing what kind of crap he is spewing and the fact that its sources are in no way shape of form reliable, and what their motives actually are.”

    I’m not a “victim” of anything when it comes to philosophy. I engage in rational thought and fact based reason.

    I have been studying this stuff for over 20 years now. I am not some uninformed newbie. I am well versed in politics, philosophy, history, economics, and what is going on in the world (I follow this kind of stuff almost every day). I don’t claim to know everything (if I don’t know something and it comes up, I frequently look things up), but neither can anyone else, at least not truthfully.

    I do not bow down to political correctness of any variety. I don’t go around kissing ass and trying to only say what is popular to say (I have noticed some in the LP who try to do this, which comes off as patronizing). If people like something I say, great, if not, well that is just too bad. I’m NOT going to alter what I say to please anyone, and I’m also not going to “blow smoke up people’s asses,” as in I’m not the guy who is always going to tell you what you want to hear, I’m also the guy who is going to tell you the things that YOU DO NOT WANT TO HEAR. I’m also the guy who is not going to BULLSHIT people, like some do. I call things as I see them, and I give it to people straight.

    If you are involved in politics, expect to get attacked, and if you are not being attacked, it is a sign that you are not very effective.

  161. paulie

    Once again you ignore all the mountains of evidence that refute your uninformed position, and will repeat the same exact bullshit in this thread and other future threads as nauseum. You’ve been pounding bullshit into your own head for over 20 years and now you want to pound it into everyone else’s as well. I’m beyond tired of it, as is almost everyone else here. I don’t expect you to examine the logic, arguments, links and evidence that have been posted in this as well as prior threads to refute your “not” defending Invictus. After all you never have before so why change now? But, I do expect you to stop typing whole strings of words and sentences in ALL-CAPS, because I am going to start actually enforcing that soon since asking is about as useful as giving you links, logic, etc.

  162. Andy

    Murray N. Rothbard was one of the most prolific libertarian writers, and he remains one of the most influential libertarians, ever.

    So Rothbard, one of the most prolific and influential libertarians ever, agreed with me on this issue.

    Pure libertarian anarcho-capitalism does not mean that anyone goes anywhere, it means property rights. If there was unclaimed land, sure, people could homestead there, but in a world with over 7.5 billion people, there would not be many places like this.

    The world is presently organized into nation states. Given this reality, people crossing into different nation states is always going to be a political issue, as long as governments and politics exists. Even if government did not exist, and we lived in an anacrho-capitalist society, it STILL would not mean that anyone goes anywhere, because if people wanted to migrate/immigrate to some place, they’d have to do so with the consent of the property owner, or owners, unless it was unclaimed land, in which case, after this unclaimed land were homesteaded, it would no longer be unclaimed land. Some land owners may chose very open policies on who can enter, while others may come up with policies that are more restrictive, some, even more restrictive than what exists with most governments today.

    So given that we live in a society that has a government (as does everyone else in the world), with 1) public common spaces/infrastructure, 2) a welfare state, 3) democratic elections, and 4) forced association laws, who enters the land territory is quite relevant, because it leads to 1) more and different people using the public commons/infrastructure, 2) more people on welfare (statistics indicate a high percentage of modern day immigrants using welfare), 3) the swinging of elections (statistics indicate a high percentage of immigrants voting to increase the size the welfare state and restrict firearms), and 4) people being forced to associate with those whom they may not wish to associate, who crosses borders is going to remain a political issue, and that’s just all there is to it.

    If you want to talk about abolishing coercive government, that’s great, but not only is this a far out concept for most people to grasp, it is also far from our present reality. Libertarians have shown an inability to “take over” even one local government, or to establish to even establish a libertarian community anywhere (the closest thing is Porcfest in New Hampshire, but this only lasts for one week/and note that it is on private property (the Roger’s campground), and that is has a fence around it/Porcfest is a temporary libertarian community, because the people who attend it are libertarians, if a bunch of non-libertarians started attending Porcfest, and they outnumbered the libertarians, it would no longer be a libertarian temporary community).

    So considering that libertarians have FAILED to “take over” even one local government (if not through gaining an electoral majority some place, libertarians have also FAILED to do through jury nullification and mass non-compliance with laws that violate libertarian principles), and considering that libertarians have failed to put together even one year round libertarian settlement (Porcfest only lasts for one week), I find it to be “putting the cart before the horse” for any libertarians to act as though there should be anarcho-capitalist migration policies, as in migration controlled by private property owners, when this anarcho-capitalist society DOES NOT EVEN EXIST.

    The fact of the matter is that we live in a society that has a government, and that government is doing lots of different things, some of which there would be no use for in a libertarian ancap society, but others would still exist in a libertarian ancap society, they’d just operate on a voluntary basis rather than on an involuntary basis.

    Even the most hardcore libertarian, in our present reality, is likely to want the government fire department to come over to their home to put out a fire if it catches on fire (Is anyone really going to sit there and say, “I will just let my house burn down, because there is no free market fire department, and I refuse to use the government’s fire department, since it is funded via taxation, and taxation is theft”? I think not.). Libertarians use the government roads. Libertarians use the government courts. Libertarians think that those convicted of victimless crimes, or who were otherwise falsely convicted, should be released from jail or prison, but most libertarians do NOT believe that murders, rapists, and other serious criminals should be released (even in a libertarian society, there’d have to be a way to deal with legitimate criminals), and if any claim that they do, I’d like to see how they’d react if somebody said, “Hey, we decided to start making cuts in government, so we have released some serial killers and rapists from prison, and we are letting them loose in your neighborhood.” A lot of Libertarians and small “l” libertarians even engage in electoral politics. This may be as an act of self defense, but even so, it means having to comply with the government’s election laws.

    So trying to pretend that we live in a society without a government, even though the concept of government is a myth, is not realistic.

    Attempting to disassemble government, something which libertarians have FAILED to do, even at the local level, is like trying to disarm a bomb. Pull the wrong wire out at the wrong time, and it is going to blow up in your face. Most libertarians will acknowledge this when it comes to some issues, like Social Security. If Social Security were completely ended, but there was no mechanism put in place to compensate those currently dependent on it, then there would be a DISASTER. Most libertarians will acknowledge that if you want to end Social Security, in order to avoid a disaster, you’d have to do it in a way that pays off those who need it. Libertarians have made proposals to phase out Social Security, and to pay off those who need it by liquidating other government assets, but of course to do this, you’d have to be able to get people who are in positions of power, either by electing libertarians, or by influencing those who are already in positions of power, to take these actions.

    It is funny how the very same libertarians who will acknowledge that if you end Social Security without having a way to pay off those who are dependent on it, that it would cause disaster, will FREAK OUT at anyone who dares to suggest that there ought to be an “order of operations” in place if you want to eliminate state restrictions on immigration.

    The very same libertarians who cheered when the government stared issuing state marriage licenses for gays, which should be viewed as nothing more than an INTERIM way to handle the situation of government being too involved in people’s lives, not as a great libertarian victory, as the REAL libertarian solution to the problem is to eliminate state marriage licensing (I’m not saying that I’m opposed to this INTERIM solution, but I also know that it does not address the REAL problem, as in that the government is too involved in people’s lives, and that it is not the REAL solution), will FREAK OUT if one dares to suggest that foreign people who are Marxists, theocrats, welfare seekers, criminals, or carrying communicable diseases, ought to be kept out of the country, and/or discouraged from coming here even though if we lived in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, this is EXACTLY what would happen (as noted in my Disney World Security example I have mentioned on other threads) when non-peaceful people crossed onto somebody else’s land where they were not there by the consent of, and/or following the rules laid down by, the property owner, or by the association of property owners.

    These people act like everyone on the planet is entitled to enter a country, regardless of whether they are Marxists or theocrats, or if they hold some other destructive ideology, regardless of if they are welfare seekers, or outright criminals, regardless if they are carrying some kind of communicable disease, and regardless over how much of the existing population wants whatever people to enter (after all, the people who pay the taxes that support the public infrastructure don’t matter, the only thing that matters are that everyone on the planet should be able to flood in and use that public infrastructure).

    It is funny how the same libertarians who have FAILED to take over even one local government, and who have FAILED to create even one libertarian settlement/community, and who are, for the most part, TOO FREAKING LAZY to do any large scale public outreach (beyond maybe putting up a blog post or posting a video to YouTube, and some of them won’t even do this), think that they are going to be able to convert every foreign person who crosses a border to their way of thinking, WHEN THEY CAN’T EVEN CONVERT THEIR EXISTING NEIGHBORS TO THEIR WAY OF THINKING. If you can’t sell your neighbor, who was born and raised in the same country as you, and who speaks the same language as you, and who is of a similar ethnic background as you, to adopt your libertarian ideas, then HOW IF THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT TO DO THIS WITH SOME PERSON WHO COMES FROM A RADICALLY DIFFERENT CULTURE, AND WHO SPEAKS A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, THAN YOU? The average libertarian is big on talk, WHEN IT COMES TO TALKING TO LIKE MINDED PEOPLE (they spend hours upon hours preaching to the choir, or debating among others who are in the Libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart), but they are SHORT ON ACTION WHEN IT COMES TO ANYTHING ELSE. Jury nullification is a big issue among libertarians, but how many people know about jury nullification? Maybe 1% of the population, but probably less. Why do so few people know about jury nullification? BECAUSE THE AVERAGE LIBERTARIAN IS TOO FUCKING LAZY TO GO OUT AND PROMOTE IT. You barely hear a peep about jury nullification from Libertarian Party officials and candidates. So the same libertarians who have FAILED to take over even one local government, who have FAILED to establish even one libertarian settlement/community (outside of Porcfest, which only lasts for one week), who have FAILED to promote jury nullification, think that unlimited numbers of foreign people should be able to enter this land territory, regardless of what their ideology is, and over the objection of many of the present occupants, and that the existence of the public property/infrastructure, the welfare state, democratic elections, and forced association laws, and any negative consequences that result, should just be ignored.

    The fact that I am even having to point these things out illustrates why libertarians are not more successful.

  163. Andy

    Anyway, here’s what Murray Rothbard had to say on this subject.

    “This is from Murray Rothbard’s Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State. It was published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1994.

    Full quote & context below.

    IV. THE PURE ANARCHO-CAPITALIST MODEL

    I raise the pure anarcho-capitalist model in this paper, not so much to advocate the model per se as to propose it as a guide for settling vexed current disputes about nationality. The pure model, simply, is that no land areas, no square footage in the world, shall remain “public”; every square foot of land area, be they streets, squares, or neighborhoods, is privatized. Total privatization would help solve nationality problems, often in surprising ways, and I suggest that existing states, or classical liberal states, try to approach such a system even while some land areas remain in the governmental sphere.

    Open Borders, or the Camp of-the Saints Problem

    The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increasingly swamped. I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.

    However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

    Under total privatization, many local conflicts and “externality” problems-not merely the immigration problem-would be neatly settled. With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area. While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it would at least provide a “second-best” solution that most people might be willing to live with.

    If you haven’t read Raspail’s “The Camp of the Saints” that Rothbard referenced, you should at least read about the book to understand what influenced him and what he was referring to:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints

  164. Andy

    I listened to this video from Augustus Invictus last night where he addressed his comments about eugenics and civil war.

    The video below was posted online on June 1st, 2015.

    If you listen to what he actually says, he clarified his position, saying that he had ABANDONED his support for a government forced eugenics programs years before he was in the LP, and that he recognizes that it would lead to big abuses of power/civil liberties violations, and that he regrets having once holding this stance. His actual stance on this issue, as I pointed out above, is that the welfare state leads to a populations that is lazy, apathetic, and weak, and that eliminating the welfare state would naturally create a more rugged population. One may not like the way he presented this issue, but his actual stance was certainly within libertarian principles.

    I, like others here, ASSUMED that Augustus did support a government forced eugenics program while in the Libertarian Party, but after I went back and did further investigation (and I only did this over the last several months, I should have done this sooner rather than having jumped to a conclusion), I found that this was not true.

    If you are going to criticize somebody, at least get your facts straight. I have now watched most of the videos of Augustus online, and I have yet to hear him promote forced sterilizations or forced abortions (which is what forced eugenics would entail).

    So here is Augustus Invictus, on June 1st of 2015.

    Fireside Chat No. 2: On Eugenics & Civil War

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-gMxyGlbw0

  165. Andy

    “NewFederalist
    July 28, 2017 at 10:50
    Andy- What was Harry Browne’s view on the subject?”

    I assume you are talking about immigration. Assuming so, he said to eliminate the welfare state so that freeloaders are no longer attracted to come here. He did not really get into what to do if the welfare state were not eliminated.

    Harry Browne, although I believe that he was a philosophical anarchist, never got really got into promoting the hardcore anarcho-capitalist private property society (a la Rothbard, Hoppe, etc…). He talked about rolling government back as much as possible, and then renting out a large arena/stadium where we could all get together and debate how to go about further reducing government, or how much more could be cut, or whether or not it should be completely eliminated).

    Now I’m sure somebody will say something like, “Well Harry Browne thought it was OK for unlimited numbers of immigrants to flood in under the present set of circumstances, so it must be a good idea.” My response to this, is Harry Browne is no longer alive (I used the quote above from Rothbard, who is also no longer alive, but I could have just as easily quoted somebody else, but I quoted Rothbard because he is one of the most well known, and influential libertarians ever), so we can’t ask him to clarify his position, but regardless of what his response would be, it is not relevant to anything I have said.

    I think that Harry Browne did a great job as a candidate, and he was an excellent writer and speaker, but I do not mindlessly follow anyone, be it Harry Browne or Murray Rothbard or whoever.

    Like I have said here before, I could probably find something with which to disagree with everyone. There is no perfect candidate or perfect libertarian guru who has all of the right answers on issues, philosophy, and strategies for success in the political realm. If I threw a temper tantrum and “took my ball and went home” every time I disagreed with somebody, I would not have anyone I could support or vote for or with whom I could work.

    I could rattle off a list of libertarians who I think have done good work, and Harry Browne and Murray Rothbard would both be high up on my list, but there is nobody with whom I agree with 100% or every detail of everything.

  166. Andy

    “he regrets having once holding this stance”

    Should read (in post above about Augustus Invictus), “he regrets having once held this stance.”

  167. Anthony Dlugos

    As I have noted before, Andy is far better suited for the Constitution Party, or even the GOP.

    He’s irrationally xenophobic/nationalistic and has made several bigoted comments. This is in addition to his assertion that his position on immigration is not only the only Libertarian position, but also a non-negotiable issue. Toss in his tacit approval of the state inserting itself into womens’ uteri, and I’m telling you that his disagreements…on public policy positions…with members of the CP or GOP would be comparatively minor, relative to what he would agree with them on. He could make a name for himself in the GOP with his xenophobic rants alone. He would be a pariah at an LP convention via those same rants.

    The question then arises…why is he in the LP?

    My opinion is that Andy is in the LP for the same reason that a producer of a snuff film is a defender of the First Amendment. There’s no belief in the principles of pure libertarianism, nor is there an argument that a pragmatic approach would be more likely to result in positive incremental change. Its simply a handy tool that allows him to indulge his darker, abhorrent impulses. Its libertarianism devoid of a soul. He’s not attracted to libertarianism because of its benefits to the individual; he’s attracted to it because he sees it as a tolerant venue for believing lunacy like grieving parents in Newtown, CT are actors. He’s not a Republican because, even though he goosesteps with them on immigration and abortion, if not other positions, he knows damn well they’ll throw him out on his ass when he deep dives intro Trooferism.

  168. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    July 28, 2017 at 11:37
    As I have noted before, Andy is far better suited for the Constitution Party, or even the GOP.”

    And as I have said before, you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

    If anyone is better suited for the Republican Party, it is you.

    I am a philosophical anarcho-capitialist/voluntaryist. This means that I don’t really believe in the Constitution or any form of coercive government. I do think that if government is to exist, that the people living under it are better off if that government follows a Constitution that puts limits on government power (but we have all seen how well that has worked out in our present society), but even so, I still think that the concept of a coercive government is not legitimate.

    I believe that all taxation is theft. This means that I don’t really support tariffs, duties, or excise taxes, which are authorized by the Constitution. If tariffs, duties, and excise taxes are to exist, they ought to be low, but my ideal, is for no taxes. There are some in the Constitution Party who favor jacking up tariff rates, and I am not on board with that.

    I am for legalized gambling, prostitution, pornography, and drugs, and I think that gays should be able to marry. This would put me at odds with some in the Constitution Party.

    I am for freedom of religion, but I also do not care for mixing religion with politics, and this would also put me at odds with some on the Constitution Party.

    There is a more libertarian leaning wing of the Constitution Party of which I am more sympathetic than I am with their more conservative wing, but so what, there are libertarian leaning Republicans and independents with whom I am sympathetic as well.

    I have only voted for Constitution Party candidates twice, once was this last presidential election, where I voted for the Constitution Party’s Castle/Bradley ticket, which was MORE libertarian than the LP’s ticket of Johnson/Weld (who were not really libertarian), and one time for a state office where there was no Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot, and the only other alternatives were Democrat, Republican, or Green (I decided to vote for the Constitution Party candidate over the Green in large part because of gun rights, which I consider to be among the most important issues).

    I put principles over party, which is why I voted for Castle and not Johnson last year. Blind loyalty to any organization is a bad idea, because organizations can become corrupted or just do things that are foolish.

    There is really nothing in libertarianism where I disagree with it.

    I supported Ron Paul’s runs in the Republican presidential primaries in 2008 and 2012, and I even cast a write in vote for Ron Paul for President in the 2008 general election (no way I was voting for the Barr/Root ticket. This does not make me a Republican. I may have voted for the Constitution Party’s candidate for President in 2008, Chuck Baldwin, but he was not on the ballot in the state where I voted. He was an official write in candidate, but I figured there was no point in me writing in Chuck Baldwin for President when I could write in Ron Paul for President, since some Ron Paul supporters had gone through the necessary hoops for Ron Paul to be an official write in candidate in this state.

    I wrote in None Of The Above for President in 2012. I was not going to vote for Gary Johnson, and the Constitution Party’s candidate for President sucked in 2012 as well (Virgil Goode).

    I enthusiastically voted for Harry Browne for President in 1996 and 2000, and for Michael Badnarik in 2004.

    I don’t know what I am going to do in 2020, since we don’t even know who the candidates are going to be, but if the Libertarian Party nominates more water-down phonies like it has done in the last three presidential elections, and if the Constitution Party nominates a ticket with libertarian leanings (like Darrell Castle), then I may vote Constitution Party again, if I vote.

    Anthony Dlugos is one of the last people who should be lecturing people on libertarian purity and telling people that they should go to other political parties.

  169. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “The question then arises…why is he in the LP?”

    Why is Anthony Dlugos in the Libertarian Party?

    My answer is that he’s here to water the party down, so it can nominate candidates who are not really libertarians, like Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, Bob Barr, etc…

    Anthony knows that he’d be a little fish in a big sea in the Republican Party, so he can be a bigger fish in a smaller sea in the Libertarian Party.

    Anyone who’d seriously consider Mitt Romney for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination, as Anthony Dlugos has, is NOT somebody who has the best interests of libertarianism, or the Libertarian Party, in mind.

    Not too long ago, I asked Anthony to clarify his comments about Romney by asking him if we were at the 2020 Libertarian National Convention, and the choices for President were Mitt Romney, Adam Kokesh, and Larry Sharpe, that he’d vote for Mitt Romney, because he’s got the right job experience.

    Anyone who’d vote for Romney over Kokesh or Sharpe and is a member of the Libertarian Party, IS IN THE WRONG PARTY.

    Anyone who’d vote for Bill Weld to be the LP’s candidate for Vice President, and then defend this post-campaign, and say that Bill Weld is a libertarian, and that the LP should nominate more candidates like Bill Weld, IS IN THE WRONG POLITICAL PARTY.

    Anthony should go to the Republican Party, where “shiny badge” worshiping and lack of principles are the acceptable norm.

  170. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Anthony Dlugos:

    “The question then arises … why is [Andy] in the LP?”

    Because someone is willing to keep him on payroll long-term to try and come up with stuff that discredits the LP.

    It’s the only plausible explanation that’s consistent with the facts. I considered the possibility of just plain Teh Krazy, but that doesn’t fit. If he was really as crazy as his political writing seems to indicate, he would already be wearing a straitjacket and receiving hourly doses of thorazine after being discovered living in a feces-smeared room with 80 cats and a busted radio for the aliens to talk to him through.

  171. Andy

    “paulie
    July 27, 2017 at 22:39
    ‘Once again on Augustus Invictus on the government forced eugenics thing, I looked into this, and he was NOT promoting government forced eugenics”

    So are you lying about having looked into it, or are you lying about what you found when you did? It’s one or the other.

    At the same time that Invictus was telling LPF that he no longer supported government-forced eugenics and that that had just been a thing he wrote a paper on in college, his campaign web site included a list of “failures” of the federal government including, among other things, its abandonment of forced eugenics.’

    Yes, there are none so blind as those who will themselves to not see.”

    I’m not lying about anything. I have no vested interest in any of this. I was never even a supporter of the campaign of Invictus. I just like accuracy. Augustus CLARIFIED WHAT HE MEANT on this issue on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, including a video that was posted on June 1st of 2015.

    If a person clarifies their issue stance, and they do not say anything that goes outside of what they said that their stance is, then I give them the benefit of the doubt.

    If Augustus had said something like, “I supported a forced eugenics program at one time, but I no longer support this, because it would be a mass violation of civil liberties and abuse by government officials,” but then in another interview or speech after this said something like, “I think that there should be mass sterilizations, and forced abortions, and I’m going to propose a bill for this if elected,” then I’d agree that he was supporting government forced eugenics, BUT I HAVE NEVER HEARD HIM SAY ANYTHING LIKE THIS (and I’ve watched most of his videos at this point).

    Augustus DID not go around saying that there should be government forced sterilizations, or government forced abortions, he said that his position was that if the welfare state was eliminated, the result would be a more rugged population. THIS IS WHAT HE SAID. HE ALSO SAID THAT HE KNOWS THAT A GOVERNMENT ENFORCED EUGENICS PROGRAM WOULD LEAD TO MASS CIVIL LIBERTIES VIOLATIONS, WHICH IS WHY HE OPPOSED IT.

    You can call him a liar, but this does not erase what he said when he was asked to clarify his stance.

    It is obviously easier to stick one fingers in one’s ears and go on witch hunts rather than allow a person to clarify their position and listen to what they say.

    If Augustus had gone on the campaign trail and called for forced abortions and forced sterilizations, I’d report it here, and I’d condemn him for it, but after watching most of his videos, I have not heard him say this.

  172. Anthony Dlugos

    “Because someone is willing to keep him on payroll long-term to try and come up with stuff that discredits the LP.”

    That’s possible. If its not true, the irony is that his nuttiness is probably what drives him to do the grassroots work that he does.

    In any event, I may have posted this before, but I’ll post it here again anyway. The great Christopher Hitchens describes Andy to a “T” in the first 3:26 here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTXXmVP7djw

  173. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    July 28, 2017 at 13:56
    ‘Quoth Anthony Dlugos:

    “The question then arises … why is [Andy] in the LP?’

    Because someone is willing to keep him on payroll long-term to try and come up with stuff that discredits the LP.”

    This is complete HORSESHIT.

    Oh yeah, I’m on a “payroll”. This is why I’m driving a car from 2003. What an absurd statement.

    First of all, I am not always petitioning for the LP. More often than not, I am NOT petitioning for the LP. Last year, I only worked on one LP petition drive, for about 4 weeks. This means out of 52 weeks last year, there were 48 weeks WHERE I WAS NOT PETITIONING FOR THE LP. I did not even have to work on that LP drive, as there were plenty of other petition drives on which I could have been working, so it was not like I really needed to work on that drive.

    Second of all, MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY HIRES TO WORK ON PETITION DRIVES ARE NOT LIBERTARIANS. So whether one is a philosophical libertarian, or a member of the Libertarian Party, HAS NEVER HAD ANY BEARING AT ALL WITH THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY HIRING THEM TO WORK ON A PETITION DRIVE. I am one of the only people who has said that the Libertarian Party should be hiring actual libertarians to work on petition drives instead of non-libertarian mercenaries. If I did not give a shit, or if I was just out for money, or if I was trying to “discredit” the Libertarian Party, I would not do this.

    If I didn’t give a shit about the Libertarian Party putting out an actual libertarian message, or if I was just out for money, or if I wanted the Libertarian Party to put out a non-libertarian message, I would have supported the last three LP presidential tickets, INSTEAD OF OPENLY SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THEM, AND TRYING TO BLOCK THEM FROM BEING NOMINATED AT THE LAST THREE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONVENTIONS.

    If I was just out for money, I WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY AT ALL, NOT EVEN TO WORK ON AN LP PETITION DRIVE.

    If anything, my involvement with the Libertarian Party has caused me to have LESS MONEY, nor more money. Why? Because I there have been times where I have TURNED DOWN higher paying work to work on LP stuff, and I HAVE SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MY OWN MONEY MAKING COPIES OF LIBERTARIAN PAMPHLETS, FLIERS, ETC…, TO HAND OUT TO THE PUBLIC, AND ALSO IN GOING TO LIBERTARIAN MEETING/CONVENTIONS, AND IN DONATING MONEY TO THE LIBERTARIAN AND/OR TO LIBERTARIAN PARTY CANDIDATES.

    Also, I was a dues paying member of the Libertarian Party for 4 years BEFORE I ever gathered any petition signatures.

    Really, when I think about all of the sacrifices I have made for the LP, which include financial sacrifices, doing numerous hours of unpaid volunteer work, standing out in awful weather for hours and hours, being one of the top people in the party for gathering contacts from interested members of the public, handing out LP information to the public (not just when petitioning, I’ve just gone out and done it without any petitions, and there are also times I have done it while gathering signatures on initiative or referendum petitions), etc…, Tom’s ungrateful attitude pisses me off. I bet that I’ve done a hell of a lot more to build the party and the movement than Tom has.

    Really, anyone who knows me personally would know what a laughable statement this is from Tom.

  174. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    July 28, 2017 at 14:32
    ‘Because someone is willing to keep him on payroll long-term to try and come up with stuff that discredits the LP.’

    That’s possible. If its not true, the irony is that his nuttiness is probably what drives him to do the grassroots work that he does.”

    So says the guy who has discredited the Libertarian Party by supporting Bill Weld.

  175. Tony From Long Island

    For once, I don’t have to say a word about Andy. People are beginning to see what I’ve known from the moment I read his first post.

    Have a good weekend everyone – except Andy.

  176. Chuck Moulton

    Andy wrote:

    […]

    TR;DR

    Andy wrote:

    […]

    TR;DR

    Andy wrote:

    […]

    TR;DR

    Andy wrote:

    […]

    TR;DR

    If anyone can condense Andy’s remarks to novel length, perhaps I will read them.

  177. William Saturn

    Tom Knapp said: “Because someone is willing to keep him on payroll long-term to try and come up with stuff that discredits the LP.

    “It’s the only plausible explanation that’s consistent with the facts. I considered the possibility of just plain Teh Krazy, but that doesn’t fit. If he was really as crazy as his political writing seems to indicate, he would already be wearing a straitjacket and receiving hourly doses of thorazine after being discovered living in a feces-smeared room with 80 cats and a busted radio for the aliens to talk to him through.”

    This comment reflects poorly on Tom. It shows he believes people who disagree with his views on immigration belong in a mental hospital.

  178. William Saturn

    Andy says: “Tom’s ungrateful attitude pisses me off. I bet that I’ve done a hell of a lot more to build the party and the movement than Tom has.”

    Tom sure seems to spend a lot of time unfairly criticizing and tearing down other people, especially libertarians.

  179. Thomas L. Knapp

    William,

    No, it doesn’t “show” any such thing. I get along reasonably well with any number of people who disagree with me on any number of issues, including immigration, and I don’t believe that Andy belongs in a mental hospital because I don’t believe that Andy actually believes the shit he says. Rather, I believe he is either a COINTELPRO-type saboteur, hired either by government or by some quasi-private entity with an interest in keeping the LP small and marginal.

    It’s not just immigration with Andy. At any given time, if you pick an issue that’s trending and that the LP has the correct position on, you’ll see Andy doing his damnedest to portray the LP as either 1) wrong on or 2) crazy as a shithouse rat about that issue. Immigration is just the latest iteration. His previous efforts to discredit the LP include, among other things, 9/11 “inside job” nuttery and mass shooting “oh, they just hired actors and faked all that” nuttery.

    I had a private communication today from someone well-known in LP circles, based on my comments yesterday, that went something like this (I’m re-writing it so as to obscure any language that might reveal the person’s identity, but remaining true to the content):

    “I always assumed that Andy’s weirdness with e.g. supporting the fraudulent falsification of Social Security numbers on voter registration forms, his constant claims that the LNC was cheating him on money, his attempts to torpedo particular individuals associated with our ballot access efforts (Sean Haugh, Scott Kolhaas, et al.) were unfortunate personality quirks, not indicators of poisonous intent. Your comment on IPR has me considering the possibility that he’s actually been playing us like a Stradivarius for years. Like you said, three times is enemy action. Heck, when you think about it, although I think the word of Paul Frankel, Andy could have started associating with him specifically because of his criminal past, on the bet that he might have an opportunity to use Paul to make the LP look bad at some point.”

  180. William Saturn

    From what I can remember, Andy seems to have been more upset and vocal about Virgil Goode and the Constitution Party allegedly cheating him on pay.

  181. Andy

    Tom. I can assure that I believe everything I say, and instead of going on conjecture, ASK ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY KNOWS ME. There are plenty of people in the party who have known me for a long time.

    Your accusations are absurd, and given your chummy relationship with Eric Dondero-Rittberg, and your former military status (the military is one of the places from which the CIA and FBI likes to recruit), you are certainly not above suspicion yourself.

    Also, what exactly does Tom do for a living? He can’t be making much off of his internet stuff like Rational Review, or whatever it is called. He seems to spend an awful lot of time sitting on his ass not working, or barely working.

    Oh yeah, supporting “open borders” and a welfare state fits right in with the United Nations agenda, and Socialist International.

  182. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    I’m not the one who kept saying that there were likely government moles in the LP. You were. Over and over, day in and day out. And as my friends from the ’60s antiwar movement, as well as other friends involved at various times in drug trafficking, etc. have told me, the undercover cop almost ALWAYS turns out to be the guy who was constantly warning people that there might be an undercover cop around. Which, here, is you.

    Do I know that you are COINTELPRO? No, I don’t. But since you insisted not only on opening up that question over and over, but then turning around and accusing people who do the same thing you do (use a pseudonym to troll IPR) of being that, I examined the question and concluded that IF there is a COINTELPRO mole in the LP and at IPR, you are a very likely suspect.

    Of course I’m not above suspicion myself. But it’s odd to cite my “chummy” relationship with Eric Dondero as evidence of that, since said relationship was pretty much exactly the same as my relationship with you, the exception being that I actually did meet the guy a couple of times.

    As far as what I do for a living, yes, I do Rational Review (reader/donor supported), and the Garrison Center (reader/donor supported), and I do various mundane tasks for Antiwar.com, and I do some political consulting and ghost-writing. I don’t make a whole lot of money at it. My wife is the family’s main breadwinner (she is an administrative professional working for a university professor). The stuff I do now was the stuff I did for more than a decade while being a house-husband and raising/homeschooling two kids.

  183. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Actually, several of the parents at Sandy Hook were actors. It takes just a few minutes of research to find that out.

    Then it’s up to each person to decide whether that means there were or were not any children since, of course, actors often have children.

    You seem like a smart enough guy, Anthony, but, unfortunately, anyone using the made up word “troofer” will forever be ignorant to me,.

  184. dL

    Do I know that you are COINTELPRO?

    Way too much credit. The only potential cointelpro would be the off chance that the “fake Andy “(aka Nathan Norman) and the “real Andy” are actually two different people.

  185. Pingback: Joe Wendt for US Senate: “New LP of Florida Chair undermines Libertarian principles in favor of white nationalists” | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

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