The Jason Stapleton Program: Tom Woods Opens Up About the LP, Nicholas Sarwark and the Future of Our Movement

88 thoughts on “The Jason Stapleton Program: Tom Woods Opens Up About the LP, Nicholas Sarwark and the Future of Our Movement

  1. dL

    Sarwark never badgered Tom Woods to sign any petition. The spat between Sarwark and Woods started w/ this tweet:

    (1) Woods then began volunteering on his own that he would not be browbeaten to sign any petition
    (2) Woods then mock whined that he was being accused of being a secret member of a nazi cabal
    (3) Woods then offered to sign the petition if those who signed the petition would sign his petition, “libertarians against cancer.”
    (4) Woods then bragged how successful he was compared to losers virtue signaling in an irrelevant LP party
    (5) Woods then mocked that the LP was paying him more than Sarwark
    (6) Woods was then joined by Molyneaux, Kinsella and a merry band of trolls in calling for the LNC to replace Sarwark

    The primary participants in the spat from the LP side were Sarwark and Sean Haugh.

    IMHO, Tom Woods should be persona non grata for any future LP speaking function.

  2. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Looking to see if Woods had made a written reply to the criticism of Deist, all I could find was this about Sarwark. http://tomwoods.com/lp-chairman-takes-a-swipe-at-your-host/

    Fans may sit through Woods’ who reply on Deist via podcast, but not those of us who skim read 40 times faster.

    Of course, was Sarwark really responding to that speech of Woods, as he alleges, or to Deist’s blood and soil speech or to Charlottesville a few days before? That’s the problem with those tiny tweets, who the hell knows???

  3. Shawn Levasseur

    Does it make me a bad Libertarian, not to have really known who Tom Woods is prior to this spat?

    Or does it put Tom Woods’ relative importance into proper perspective?

  4. Anthony Dlugos

    “IMHO, Tom Woods should be persona non grata for any future LP speaking function.”

    Agreed!

  5. robert capozzi

    Wait a second: Woods interviewed Cantwell, generally warmly, a few years ago. Both were L. Cantwell is now a notorious fascist/hater.

    Woods seems to severely lack self-awareness if he doesn’t see why it’s important for him to distance himself from Cantwell? Huh?

    I’m not THAT interested, but if Sarwark took a reasonably benign and vague Woods quote from years ago out of context, that too seems creepy. Has anyone looked into this charge that Woods is making about Sarwark? Is it true, or is it another distortion?

    btw, while it may or may not make sense to spend time and energy to appear non-extremist to the NYT, that’s not the same thing as addressing the fact that several semi-prominent former Ls are now leading fascist/haters. Immunizing against that association is nothing like being against cancer.

    It is, in short, a ridiculous analogy.

  6. paulie

    Immunizing against that association is nothing like being against cancer.

    It is, in short, a ridiculous analogy.

    Agreed!

  7. robert capozzi

    pf, on the Stapleton Show, Woods claims that he said to Cantwell that he’s glad he’s doing what he’s doing, which at the time was attacking non-NAPsters and left NAPsters for not towing the paleo line (my characterization). Cantwell had not come “out” as a fascist/hater at the time, but Woods says to Stapleton that Chairman Nick used Woods’s quote to make it sounds as if Woods was endorsing Cantwell’s newfound love of hatred and bigotry.

  8. paulie

    Sorry, can’t help with that one. I’m even less aware of those particular specifics than you are. Speaking of Cuckwell’s newfound fame, it’s at least at the moment no longer relevant to the LP, but Austin Petersen may come to regret his (in)famous “pyramid pile of pussy” remarks even more now in the context of where those remarks were made…

  9. Anthony Dlugos

    “but Austin Petersen may come to regret his (in)famous “pyramid pile of pussy” remarks even more now in the context of where those remarks were made…”

    Indeed. And if you think it will matter that said comments were made prior to Cuckwell’s decent to madness…it won’t.

    People can make fun of politicians all they want, but its a tough gig getting elected to something like the US Senate. You’re every waking move has to be decided, in part, by ingratiating yourself to as many people as possible. You gotta do the best you can to stuff any possible honest emotion you have, and assume whatever pigsty you put yourself in will only end up getting yourself dirty, and people will remember it.

  10. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    August 29, 2017 at 13:54
    pf, on the Stapleton Show, Woods claims that he said to Cantwell that he’s glad he’s doing what he’s doing, which at the time was attacking non-NAPsters and left NAPsters for not towing the paleo line (my characterization). Cantwell had not come ‘out’ as a fascist/hater at the time, but Woods says to Stapleton that Chairman Nick used Woods’s quote to make it sounds as if Woods was endorsing Cantwell’s newfound love of hatred and bigotry.”

    Tom Woods interviewed Christopher Cantwell back in 2014, which was well before Cantwell delved into his current form. Woods has interviewed lots of people, including Adam Kokesh. Taking Woods out of context from an interview from several years ago is intellectually dishonest.

    Oh, and as for the insinuation that Tom is a nasty evil racist/bigot, he has also interviewed libertarian rapper/singer Eric July, and Eric July is going to be acting as an emcee for the 1,000th episode party of The Tom Woods Show which is going to be held in Orlando, FL. Tom has also interviewed YouTuber That Guy T, aka-Taleed Brown. Eric July and Taleed Brown are both black. Tom had good things to say about both of them.

  11. robert capozzi

    Andy,

    I agree it’s dishonest. Where did Sarwark do this?

    Regardless, who Woods has also interviewed is irrelevant. He interviewed Cantwell. They were quite supportive of each other in 14. Cantwell is now a fascist, possibly the most famous one after the much-viewed VICE documentary.

    Don’t you see the value in explicitly distancing L-ism from Cantwell? If not, why not?

  12. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    August 29, 2017 at 14:37
    Andy,

    I agree it’s dishonest. Where did Sarwark do this?

    Regardless, who Woods has also interviewed is irrelevant. He interviewed Cantwell. They were quite supportive of each other in 14. Cantwell is now a fascist, possibly the most famous one after the much-viewed VICE documentary.

    Don’t you see the value in explicitly distancing L-ism from Cantwell? If not, why not?”

    Actually, if you listen to his recent interviews, Cantwell says that he’s still a libertarian. He said that he has major disagreements with Nazis, but that he is working with some of them in a coalition because he sees immediate threats to freedom. He actually put out an article, post Charlottesville, where he praised Jewish libertarian, Walter Block, and he said something to the effect of that he still admires Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, and Ludwig von Mises, all Jewish libertarians, and that he’d have no problem with having any of them as friends and neighbors. He has also said that he still admires Walter Williams, who is black.

    I do agree that regardless of whether or not Cantwell still believes in libertarianism, that he is headed in a negative direction, and if he does still believe in libertarianism, his recent actions are not a good way to go about achieving a more libertarian society.

    The important point here is that Tom Woods interviewed Cantwell back in 2014, which was before Cantwell got into his more recent issues of controversy.

    Trying to use Cantwell as a guilt-by-association smear against Woods is ridiculous.

  13. V for Vagina

    “Don’t you see the value in explicitly distancing L-ism from Cantwell? If not, why not?”

    Andy Jacobs re: Christopher Cantwell 8/8/2017:

    “Now as far as Christopher Cantwell goes, I don’t agree with him on everything (of course, I don’t agree with anyone on everything), and I don’t like some of the direction he has gone (jumping on the Trump train, using racial/ethnic epithets, talking about throwing leftists out of helicopters (I could see a case for throwing the ringleaders out, but not the average stupid, brainwashed leftist, who are just “useful idiots”:) ), but he does have a background as a libertarian, and he still considers himself to be one.”

    Andy Jacobs 1/25/2017:

    “Christopher Cantwell would not be a good candidate, regardless of the merits or demerits of any of his issue stances, the guy has acted like a rude jerk on too many occasions.”

    Andy Jacobs 1/13/2017:

    “I have posted this video several times in the past, and NOBODY has been able to refute anything in it. Outside of the few people who have said that they agree with me, the only thing I have gotten from the critics is either silence, or comments about Cantwell’s personality. Yeah, Cantwell acts like a jerk, and I do not agree with everything he says (of course, I don’t agree with everything anyone says), but he does get some stuff right, and he hits the nail on the head here.

    Christopher Cantwell: Libertarianism Is Not A Suicide Pact”

    Andy Jacobs 1/4/2017:

    “This is probably the best video I’ve ever seen on immigration. I have posted this video here several times in the past, and NOBODY has been able to debunk it. The only comments have been about Cantwell’s less than congenial personality, which does absolutely nothing to refute anything that he said in the video.

    Christopher Cantwell: Libertarianism Is Not A Suicide Pact”

    Same day:

    “This is great! Cantwell nails really nails it here.

    Yeah, I know, Christopher Cantwell is a rude jerk, and he says mean and nasty things, but even so, he still gets some things right, like in the video below.

    The Stupidity & Ignorance of Pro-Open Borders “Libertarians” | Christopher Cantwell”

  14. robert capozzi

    aj,

    OMG. This is MUCH worse for the L brand than I thought. If Cantwell is still claiming to be L, the Poster Child of Charlottesville who marched right along side of Nazis and Klansmen with perhaps some kaka-mamey nuance rationale…this is beyond toxic.

    If you and Woods don’t get that, I don’t see how I can help you. There are no words.

    All due respect.

  15. Andy

    I still think that Cantwell’s points were legitimate in those things that I pointed out. Cantwell said a lot of things where many libertarians would agree with him. One example, he took strong stands for gun rights. Does anyone who is a self described libertarian disagree with his strong pro-gun rights stance?

    I think that Cantwell’s overall points about the current mass immigration into a democratic welfare state agenda were correct, and there are lots of people in the libertarian movement who agree with him on this, including That Guy T (aka-Taleed Brown), who is black.

    Cantwell’s point on immigration is basically the same as that of Murray Rothbard, and that is that “open borders” would not exist in a libertarian anarcho-capitalist society, where all land was privately owned, so it would be property owners who’d set immigration policies. Such a society would have no welfare state, and no democratic elections (unless they were held by voluntary associations, and the results would only apply to those who consented to the election), and no forced association laws. Pushing for “open borders” under our present conditions, without making the other changes that would be necessary in order for this to be consistent with libertarianism, would be like “giving Viagra to the state,” as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has said, that is that such policy actually leads to more government, and more initiation of force.

    I agree with these points, and I have been saying this for many years (well before I ever heard of Cantwell).

    I made the analogy here several times that disassembling government is like disassembling a bomb, that is, pull the wrong wire out at the wrong time, and it blows up in your face. If you declared an end to Social Security, but you had no plan in place to pay off the people who are currently dependent on Social Security, you’d have a big disaster on your hands. This is just like if you declared, “open borders,” anyone can show up in the land territory known as the USA, and you left all of the common spaces and infrastructure and other government services in government hands, as is, and you did not repeal the welfare state, and you kept forced association laws on the books, and you kept the current voting and naturalization system in place, you’d have a disaster, and it would actually go against the interests of those who want a libertarian society.

    Cantwell ran for office as a Libertarian Party candidate for US House in New York several years back, I think it was in 2010, but he failed to qualify for the ballot. Any potential he had as a candidate has been thrown out the window, and I’d say he threw it out the window well before his most recent actions.

  16. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    August 29, 2017 at 15:22
    aj,

    OMG. This is MUCH worse for the L brand than I thought. If Cantwell is still claiming to be L, the Poster Child of Charlottesville who marched right along side of Nazis and Klansmen with perhaps some kaka-mamey nuance rationale…this is beyond toxic.

    If you and Woods don’t get that, I don’t see how I can help you. There are no words.”

    I do get it, and I actually agree with the point you are making here.

  17. paulie

    Fortunately, “libertarian fascist” is as incoherent a mishmosh as anyone could possibly come up with. The cognitive dissonance it must take to maintain something like that is truly staggering, and its popular appeal doesn’t amount to a mosquito turd. Unfortunately, it can still be used as an association smear against libertarians. Which is why we need to explicitly dissociate.

  18. Andy

    The only people who support so called “open borders” are radical leftists/Marxists, globalist New World Order types, and naive libertarians who don’t fully understand their own philosophy, and/or who are strategically inept.

    Saying that it does not matter in which order or how you go about dismantling the government is absurd, and it is even more absurd when you consider the fact that out of the thousands of local government boards that exist in this country, libertarians have failed to gain a majority on even one of them. Libertarians have failed to get even one small town/city or one low population country that is libertarian. The only things even resembling a libertarian society are Porcfest, and the Jackalope Freedom Festival (aka-Jackfest), and they are merely “tent cities” that last for a week. So it seems rather absurd for libertarians to pontificate about how they want to rip open the US border and allow unlimited numbers of people from around the world to enter this country with no questions asked, when these same libertarians can’t seem to figure out that the reason that they do not have a libertarian society now is because most of the people that they live around are not libertarians, and do not want a libertarian society. Most libertarians completely fail, or don’t even try, when it comes to talking their English speaking neighbors who come from the same culture as they do into becoming libertarians, yet some of them think that if the US border opened up to unlimited, no questions asked, immigration from all over the world tomorrow, that this would somehow increase the percentage of libertarians in the society in which we live, when there is still a welfare state, forced association laws, and democratic elections where the political enemies of libertarians, who are much better financed than libertarians, have every incentive in the world to use a super-majority of the immigrants to bring down what is left of freedom in this country, as all of the current voting trends indicate that super-majorities of them vote in favor of expanding the welfare state and passing more gun control laws.

    The current mass immigration is not supported by most of the population. It is not only most white people who oppose it, as it is also opposed by most black people (when I worked on a couple of petitions in California to prevent illegal immigrants from getting welfare benefits the group who most enthusiastically signed this people was black Americans). Even among groups that are more greatly represented among more recent immigrants, not all of them support the mass immigration agenda. My Mexican American friend from California (note that he is 100% Mexican, but was born in California) vehemently opposes it.

    Here’s what That Guy T, aka-Taleed Brown, who is a self identified anarcho-capitalist libertarian, had to say on this subject.

    Open vs Closed Borders | What’s the Libertarian Position?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qWaJKAQfek

  19. Anthony Dlugos

    “Most libertarians completely fail, or don’t even try, when it comes to talking their English speaking neighbors who come from the same culture as they do into becoming libertarians, yet some of them think that if the US border opened up to unlimited, no questions asked, immigration from all over the world tomorrow, that this would somehow increase the percentage of libertarians in the society in which we live, when there is still a welfare state, forced association laws, and democratic elections where the political enemies of libertarians, who are much better financed than libertarians, have every incentive in the world to use a super-majority of the immigrants to bring down what is left of freedom in this country, as all of the current voting trends indicate that super-majorities of them vote in favor of expanding the welfare state and passing more gun control laws.”

    wow wee. Every so often, Andy’s racist xenophobia peeks its ugly head through his diatribes.

    And by every so often, I mean frequently.

    I’m gonna enjoy it in New Orleans 2018 when we make that immigration plank so unrepentantly in favor of free migration that not even Andy will be able to mistake it for anything else.

  20. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    I’m pretty sure anyone could find things about Hitler, Stalin, or Mao that we might agree with. Yet anyone with common sense and decency would not march with Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

    Woods has his own black marks in his past (League of the South), which IIRC he has distanced himself from as a kind of youthful mistake. This I can buy.

    However, if he won’t explicitly disassociate himself from Cantwell in a lay-up move, he allows us to connect the dots in ways that do not reflect well on him. Couple that with his revisionist history books, and it’s hard not to conclude that he harbors at least some sympathies for fascist haters.

    This interview does nothing to lead me to think otherwise.

    My most charitable interpretation is that he’s both stubborn and profoundly tin-eared.

  21. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    RE: Austin Petersen “pyramid pile of pussy” remarks

    Wouldn’t that be Gay Male Pussy???

    Just to clarify… I thought he was and out and out gay. Or is he a closet Bi?

  22. paulie

    What makes you think he is gay or bi? I’ve heard of him dating women. If he dates men it’s on the downlow, but this would be the first I heard of it.

  23. Andy

    So what if Woods interviewed Cantwell 3 years ago, before Cantwell embarked on his more controversial route.

    Lots of people have talked to lots of people who have said or done things with which they do not agree. You also can’t be held responsible for a person’s future actions.

  24. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    Responsible? No one is suggesting that.

    The idea is that if a prominent L becomes a fascist, it IS the job of the remaining prominent Ls to disassociate, repudiate, and otherwise distance their ideas from the fascist. Why? Because, fairly or unfairly, we would not want onlookers to associate in their minds Ls with fascists. It is a basic question of optics.

    Woods’s refusal to participate in the effort to immunize Ls from fascists and racists is at minimum bad form. Given his history, I’d say it’s worse…at minimum it’s poor judgment. His explanation on this show for why he didn’t sign I found weak and unconvincing. He made that worse by concocting the “cancer” analogy, making his positioning on this all-the-more questionable.

  25. Andy

    Tom Woods has dedicated his life to spreading the message of liberty. His record should speak for itself.

  26. Andy

    Why don’t you all ask black (aka-African American) libertarian rapper/singer Eric July what he thinks of Tom Woods? You will find him in attendance at Tom Woods’ 1,000th episode party for The Tom Woods Show, which is coming up soon in Orlando, FL.

  27. paulie

    Why? If he has black friends he must be A-OK? And it makes him right that there’s no specific need to dissociate ourselves from racists and fascist right now? I don’t think so.

  28. robert capozzi

    “Some of my best friends are [black/Hispanic/Jewish etc.]” defense has been sufficiently exposed as non-proof for quite some time.

    Get with the program, AJ.

  29. Anthony Dlugos

    rcapozzi,

    re: Tom Woods.

    I just finished listening to this podcast.

    The cancer analogy was so weak, such a lead balloon, it forces me to conclude this is not just bad form. He’s way too smart for such inanity.

    At some level, there’s some kind of sympatico. maybe it isn’t wholly philosophical. I don’t know.

  30. robert capozzi

    ad,

    Intellect and wisdom, I’ve found, are very different things. Woods’s cancer analogy could be explained by his lack of wisdom overruling his intellect.

    But, yes, he’s hiding something. He did himself no favors in this explanation; rather, he inflamed an already tarnished reputation.

  31. dL

    RE: “Libertarians against Cancer”

    Well, if you could show me two decades of lympho-libertarian advocacy and recent “Carcinoma and Sarcoma!” speeches, well, yes, perhaps then there might be cause to pen, “Restating the obvious, Liberty Against Cancer.”

  32. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Pauli wrote: “What makes you think he is gay or bi?”

    Duh… I guess cause I know so many gays. Because he talks a lot about gay issues OTHERS (inaccurately) have said he was gay over 2016. Maybe they were just bigots who felt merely by saying it they were turning people off to him.

    So I just interpreted him as being gay. Some might see him as acting a bit gay, like Jeffrey Tucker. Geez, don’t tell me he’s not gay either?

    Discerning lgBts like me always like to know….

  33. dL

    dL,

    Has Cantwell been “restating the obvious”?

    He does chant, right at the outset, “Jews will not replace us.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg

    Andy reports that Cantwell is STILL claiming to be L.

    This doesn’t present a problem for you? Really?

    Bob, obviously, there was a failure of communication in my comment. I have no idea how you are drawing that conclusion.

  34. robert capozzi

    dL,

    You used the term “restating the obvious,” which is Woods’s argument, i.e., L-ism is the opposite of fascism, of course Ls are not fascists.

  35. Anthony Dlugos

    “Well, if you could show me two decades of lympho-libertarian advocacy and recent “Carcinoma and Sarcoma!” speeches, well, yes, perhaps then there might be cause to pen, “Restating the obvious, Liberty Against Cancer.”

    Indeed, part 2.

  36. paulie

    Carol, “acting gay” is a bias, and not reliable. I’ve known people that I presumed, incorrectly, were gay based on the way they acted. And there are lots of gay people who “act straight” so if you think you have gaydar…it just does not work all the time. I don’t know about Jeff Tucker. As far as Austin goes, I can in fact personally confirm that he has dated women, and second hand that a couple of people told me they walked in on him having sex. With a woman. If he also has sex with men, that’s news to me.

  37. paulie

    You used the term “restating the obvious,” which is Woods’s argument, i.e., L-ism is the opposite of fascism, of course Ls are not fascists.

    No, it was part of the title of the letter I signed, which Woods bragged about not signing.

  38. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Paulie. If I run into the rumor again (or chance upon past rumors in my archives) I will inform the rumor monger!

  39. dL

    You used the term “restating the obvious,” which is Woods’s argument, i.e., L-ism is the opposite of fascism, of course Ls are not fascists.

    “Restating the obvious” was the title of the libertarian anti-fascist petition

    https://libertyagainstfascism.wordpress.com/

    Obviously, “Restating the obvious” is a rhetorical device in this instance to indicate that which should be obvious to all is no longer so obvious to some. Thus, the petition lays out the position that there is no role, absolutely none, for libertarianism in the alt-right space. The necessity of having to restate this position was b/c there were a number of former libertarians headlining the Charlottesville rally who might give the impression that there is such a role. Got it?

    Woods’ “Libertarians Against Cancer” rejoinder was a specious, “no true scotsman” response. Logical fallacy. Obviously, the real petition established there are such scotsman roaming about. And Woods, rather than disassociate himself from that element, used that as opportunity to instead publicize himself as a victim, a typical tactic for the victim-identity peddlers.

    I rarely listen to Woods’ podcasts, but I do occasionally do read his commentariat. I would estimate 75% of them directly sympathize w/ the likes of Cantwell or believe Cantwell was the one victimized(or acting in self-defense) at Charlottesville. So, draw your own conclusions RE: Mr. Woods.

  40. dL

    RE: Austin Petersen “pyramid pile of pussy” remarks

    Wouldn’t that be Gay Male Pussy???

    Just to clarify… I thought he was and out and out gay. Or is he a closet Bi?

    Who cares…Personally, I’ve found the female’s gaydar detector to be quite flawed and biased. When I was younger, i used to get asked that all the time by women, particularly when my hair was shorter. It was b/c of my looks. More or less equivalent to the blonde==ditz stereotype,

  41. paulie

    Of course that must mean that he is correct and we don’t need to dissociate ourselves from racists and fascists, even though people all over the place are associating us with them right now. But look, he talks to black folks!

  42. Anthony Dlugos

    At around 5:30 in the podcast, Stapleton gets into a couple minute discussion with Woods about what his mission is. Stapleton asks him if he sees it as an intellectual exercise or an activist political movement.

    Woods CLEARLY responds by indicating his mission is an intellectual exercise, designed to “get people thinking in a libertarian way,” and give people the ammunition that they can then use in any way they see fit…run for office, start a blog, debate liberals, etc. Woods drives home the point by saying he does occasionally vote for people he deems worthy…from the perspective of delivering his version of the libertarian message, NOT because its someone who might be able to affect change in the political arena. Of course, he brings up Ron Paul as someone worthy of his vote.

    Later, Woods points out that its easy to publicly be for pot legalization, harder to take on the luminaries of the New York Times intelligentsia on their p.c. positions and the bigger issues of the day, like the war machine and the Fed and so on.

    The point is, Woods makes it abundantly clear his mission is not a political one. Its an educational mission. Whether that mission is deliberately or inadvertently tinged by right-wing fascism and neo-confederate thinking is really besides the point. He’s free to be a Woody Woodpecker instigator for his variety of libertarianism. But that instigation is unconcerned with political ramifications, and thus of no use to a political party.

  43. Nicholas Sarwark

    The point is, Woods makes it abundantly clear his mission is not a political one. Its an educational mission. Whether that mission is deliberately or inadvertently tinged by right-wing fascism and neo-confederate thinking is really besides the point. He’s free to be a Woody Woodpecker instigator for his variety of libertarianism. But that instigation is unconcerned with political ramifications, and thus of no use to a political party.

    Non-overlapping magisteria, if you will.

  44. Anthony Dlugos

    NSarwark,

    I’ll take that description. Now, the question is, how do we convince the other authority that the two domains are non-overlapping? They seem to gloss over that reality.

  45. dL

    Later, Woods points out that its easy to publicly be for pot legalization, harder to take on the luminaries of the New York Times intelligentsia on their p.c. positions and the bigger issues of the day, like the war machine and the Fed and so on.

    One, libertarians(well, most of them) are for full drug legalization, not just pot legalization. Not any easy issue. In contrast, taking on “NY Times PC” is an easy issue, as Fox News has so aptly demonstrated. Lastly, associating anti-war and end the fed with paleo “blood and soil” peckerwoodism(i.e., white christian supremacism) marginalizes those positions to the point of impossibility.

  46. dL

    I’ll take that description. Now, the question is, how do we convince the other authority that the two domains are non-overlapping? They seem to gloss over that reality.

    The two are not non-overlapping. That should be obvious.

  47. Anthony Dlugos

    dL,

    With regard to the drug legalization issue, I think Woods was referring to the tendency to moderate the drug legalization message to a pot-only position for political purposes. He, of course, would argue for full drug legalization. What he bristles at, in my opinion, is the process of attempting to meet the electorate where its at. I think we have to do that. He finds it beneath him, which is why he refused to sign the “Libertarians Against Fascism” document. I commend his principled stance. Now I gotta run him out of the party, because its politically brain dead dumb. It may be educationally brilliant.

    Even with the anti-war/end the fed positions he later talks about, his point was that he WANTS to take on the hardest issues. Its in his blood. Its shot through just about every comment he makes in this podcast. In fact, he even says…explicitly…that the whole idea that he “MUST” sign the Libertarians again Fascism” makes him not want to sign it. That’s fine. He’s probably a delightful curmudgeon. But I have to run him and anyone who thinks like that out of the Libertarian Party, proper. Because its political suicide.

  48. Anthony Dlugos

    “The two are not non-overlapping. That should be obvious.”

    It should. Its not to a lot of people. Its not to Tom Woods and its not to Jason Stapleton either.

    Its at the crux of our of inelectability.

  49. Anthony Dlugos

    “He’s an LP member? Didn’t know.”

    Well, immunize the party from that sort of thinking may be a better way to put it.

    But, here’s the thing: Stapleton and Woods, who are not in the party apparently, both talked forebodingly during the podcast about a “purge” going on. Its funny how they think there’s a purge of a party they admit to not being members of.

    In any case, I’m okay with that. If they are unable to make the distinction that they should be making between magisteria, I’m not going to argue with them about it. You’re being purged, don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

  50. Anthony Dlugos

    Stapleton also seems to have some sort of wildly inflated belief about how important/popular the Mises Institute is.

  51. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    dL
    “Personally, I’ve found the female’s gaydar detector to be quite flawed and biased.”
    Cm: Being a libertine I’ve had several bisexual boyfriends and others come on to me. But to protect oneself a girl likes to know in advance. There are various techniques to find out, including asking of course. 🙂

    In any case, I would not have bothered to think about Petersen except a couple guys asserted it last summer on some FB group or other.

    So their gaydar evidently wasn’t too good…

  52. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anthony D wrote: “The point is, Woods makes it abundantly clear his mission is not a political one. Its an educational mission. … But that instigation is unconcerned with political ramifications, and thus of no use to a political party.”

    Actually, it’s useless to any libertarian or libertarian group that wants to do outreach to anyone who isn’t white! It doesn’t take much to say “racism is stupid.” It isn’t even giving in to politically correctness. I think good Christians do it and they are a bunch of Christians.

    And is it so hard to say “blood and soil” is a racist/NAZI slogan – as chanters proved in Charlottesville. And is it so hard to mention that Deist suggesting that every libertarian man? women? whomever have 3 or 5 or 7 kids to create an “army” of a hundred million (white “blood”?) babies is a laughable idea?

    And Woods really thinks that Deist and crew spouting these white supremacist-sounding ideas can somehow INSPIRE the 85 odd percent of the planet that is NOT white to join a libertarian revolution? If so the lot of them are DELUSIONAL!!!

  53. dL

    Cm: Being a libertine I’ve had several bisexual boyfriends and others come on to me. But to protect oneself a girl likes to know in advance. There are various techniques to find out, including asking of course. ?

    knew a lot of buy-sexual guys 🙂

    RE: females, probably should have clarified I meant civilians, i.e, those not in the adult ent biz, who would ask me questions like that.

  54. Andy

    Carol Moore said: “Actually, it’s useless to any libertarian or libertarian group that wants to do outreach to anyone who isn’t white! It doesn’t take much to say ‘racism is stupid.’ It isn’t even giving in to politically correctness. I think good Christians do it and they are a bunch of Christians.”

    Did you miss the links I posted above where Woods interviewed Eric July, and That Guy T (aka-Taleed Brown), both of whom are black? They both have a positive opinion of Tom Woods. And fyi, That Guy T recently completed a summer program at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

    “And Woods really thinks that Deist and crew spouting these white supremacist-sounding ideas can somehow INSPIRE the 85 odd percent of the planet that is NOT white to join a libertarian revolution? If so the lot of them are DELUSIONAL!!!”

    Anyone who actually paid attention to the Deist speech, and who is actually a rational person knows that it was a speech about decentralization of power.

  55. dL

    With regard to the drug legalization issue, I think Woods was referring to the tendency to moderate the drug legalization message to a pot-only position for political purposes. He, of course, would argue for full drug legalization.

    The LP platform is not limited to marijuana repeal only and other than the Johnson/Weld, it’s rare for LP candidates to try to “moderate” the drug legalization issue to just pot.

    What he bristles at, in my opinion, is the process of attempting to meet the electorate where its at. I think we have to do that. He finds it beneath him, which is why he refused to sign the “Libertarians Against Fascism” document. I commend his principled stance. Now I gotta run him out of the party, because its politically brain dead dumb. It may be educationally brilliant.

    I don’t think Woods is a member of the LP. Nonetheless, my original comment above was RE: his LP speaking appearances. And that had everything to do w/ the insults that he and his trolls were hurling at the LP on twitter.

    RE: education vs politics, I think might be helpful to actually review Woods’ bibliography.
    http://tomwoods.com/books/

    There’s church and western civilization, church and capitalism, Austrian economics, attacks on left-wing PC, american history. I would contest that Woods bristles at meeting people where they are. The raison d’etre of paleo-libertarianism is to meet people where they are. For paleos, where they are==christian, culturally right-wing. Woods’ bibliography suggests that he largely follows this program.

    Now, in and of itself, I could give a rat’s ass about cultural conservative outreach. However, the paleos, under Hoppe, take this a number of steps further. Hoppe took the Rothbard paleo strategy as a starting point for a right-wing version of Frankfurt School postmodernist critical theory.
    (1) Strategically, culturally right-wing is the only viable mass libertarian outreach program
    (2) Praxeologically, cultural right-wing is the only possible moral foundation for libertarianism
    (3) Practically, NAP is a self-defense justification for a state dictatorship of the cultural proletariat.

    It’s why I scoffed at the idea of a Non-overlapping magisteria. And if you think I’m being hyperbolic, just take a look at the commentariat at Woods’ website.

  56. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    DL wrote: “RE: females, probably should have clarified I meant civilians, i.e, those not in the adult ent biz, who would ask me questions like that.”

    So non-sex workers wait til marriage to have sex?

    Bisexuality is a question women who have sex with men need to figure out or ask. For detecting STDs it’s easier to see if they have needle marks all over their arms/toes/whatever than to know what their sex practices are.

    Of course, now that you bring it up, having frequent sex with sex workers is another question that should be answered, since if only 1 out of 20 a guy sees doesn’t use protection it also could have STD consequences.

  57. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Andy. Re: the decentralization issue my widely distributed comment is:

    “As a long-time libertarian decentralist promoting subsidiarity, nullification, self-determination and secession by communities of common interest, I was disappointed by Jeff Deist’s sloppy and off-target presentation relevant to the topic. He doesn’t seem to understand the difference between the right to be parochial in your self-determining community vs. some deluded view you have to be parochial to create a libertarian society!”

    Sure, a large proportion of people the world want to secede into smaller entities. But that doesn’t mean we merely appeal to their most parochial and even paranoid and authoritarian tendencies as Deist does by his “blood and soil” nonsense. It means we encourage decentralization even as we encourage decentralists to have more libertarian governmental (or non-governmental) systems so that no entity starts the large nation state and even empire building process all over again.

  58. Anthony Dlugos

    Carol,

    for what its worth (and that’s not much), at first blush I thought Austin might be gay. Then again, I had the same thought about GovJohnson, and I’ve had a few people tell me they thought I was gay/bi, so I’ve pretty much concluded my gaydar is for sh*t, even if the thing does exist.

  59. dL

    DL wrote: “RE: females, probably should have clarified I meant civilians, i.e, those not in the adult ent biz, who would ask me questions like that.”

    So non-sex workers wait til marriage to have sex?

    Bisexuality is a question women who have sex with men need to figure out or ask. For detecting STDs it’s easier to see if they have needle marks all over their arms/toes/whatever than to know what their sex practices are.

    Of course, now that you bring it up, having frequent sex with sex workers is another question that should be answered, since if only 1 out of 20 a guy sees doesn’t use protection it also could have STD consequences.

    Carol, I have to chuckle a bit…you sound like my HS sex ed teacher w/ the STD stuff…and, um, ppl paid me, not the other way around 🙂

  60. Andy

    This is for the irrational, hysterical, overreacting people out there who are stupid enough to think that Jeff Deist gave a “Nazi speech” when he used the phrase “blood and soil” at the end of a speech that was about decentralization of power.

    Hitler admired Abraham Lincoln (I believe that Karl Marx was also a fan of Lincoln), and opposed the concept of states’ rights, that is, decentralization of power.

    Lincoln or Lee? What Would Hitler Say?

    https://www.unz.com/imercer/lincoln-or-lee-what-would-hitler-say/

    From the article: “CNN’s Brooke Baldwin will be shocked—OMG! kind of shocked—to know that in his Mein Kampf, Hitler ‘expressed both his support for Lincoln’s war and his unwavering opposition to the cause of states’ rights and political decentralization.’

    Hitler vowed that in Germany as well, he and his National Socialists “would eliminate states’ rights altogether,” political decentralization being the greatest obstacle for all dictators.”

  61. Andy

    Carol Moore said: “Sure, a large proportion of people the world want to secede into smaller entities. But that doesn’t mean we merely appeal to their most parochial and even paranoid and authoritarian tendencies as Deist does by his ‘blood and soil’ nonsense. It means we encourage decentralization even as we encourage decentralists to have more libertarian governmental (or non-governmental) systems so that no entity starts the large nation state and even empire building process all over again.”

    The point that Jeff Deist was making was that too many libertarians ignore human nature. Deist pointed out that things like religion, family, and culture are important to a lot of people, even if they are not important to some libertarians. So rather than libertarians wasting their time trying to get people to abandon religion, family, and culture, libertarians would be better off encouraging these people to accept the concept decentralization. Small states that don’t interfere with other states is preferable to large states that do interfere with other states.

    I would like to see a society with as much liberty as possible. The only way that this may be realistically possible, is for libertarians to move to the same area and form their own community. This falls inline with decentralization.

  62. paulie

    We’ve already been over this. Once again:

    Blood and soil was an explicitly nazi slogan. And the statues were not put up to celebrate decentralization – they were put up to celebrate the restoration of white supremacy under Jim Crow, the rebirth of the KKK and the struggle by the southern elite to stop desegregation. They still represent the racial tilt of the criminal injustice system today. Hitler, like the antebellum south and the modern prison-industrial complex alike, ran a slave empire. As for decentralization Hitler was a situationist. Had he won the Bavarian Beer Hall Putsch, he would have led a secessionist Bavaria out of Germany. Once he seized central authority of course he did not want local authority in conflict with his. One thing that stayed consistent with him was “blood and soil.”

    Would Deist have not known the origins and meaning of “blood and soil”? I don’t see that as likely.

  63. paulie

    Carol Moore said: “Actually, it’s useless to any libertarian or libertarian group that wants to do outreach to anyone who isn’t white! It doesn’t take much to say ‘racism is stupid.’ It isn’t even giving in to politically correctness. I think good Christians do it and they are a bunch of Christians.”

    Did you miss the links I posted above where Woods interviewed Eric July, and That Guy T (aka-Taleed Brown), both of whom are black? They both have a positive opinion of Tom Woods.

    So what? A few exceptions don’t disprove Carol’s point, which was entirely valid.

  64. robert capozzi

    Haters, too, use exceptions to construct a plausible deniability as a form of misdirection.

  65. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Andy wrote that Deist is saying: So rather than libertarians wasting their time trying to get people to abandon religion, family, and culture, libertarians would be better off encouraging these people to accept the concept decentralization.

    As I also wrote in my longer analysis: Where’s the proof libertarians are trying that hard to do it? He gives none.

    Sure various people have views they are espousing, and some do undermine the above, but that’s what liberty is all about. There’s no coordinated plot to destroy religion, family, and culture.

    Liberty WILL undermine all of that that is held together only by force, of course. Not something libertarians should be upset about!!!

  66. Andy

    Carol Moore said: “As I also wrote in my longer analysis: Where’s the proof libertarians are trying that hard to do it? He gives none.”

    Where’s the proof that most libertarians are doing anything productive? I don’t see much of it.

    I have long advocated that libertarians get more involved in spreading information about jury nullification, yet you barely hear a peep about jury nullification from most libertarians, and the national Libertarian Party has remained silent on this important issue.

    I have long advocated that libertarians focus on electing a libertarian to the office of Sheriff (note that I’m using a small “l”, because I don’t care if the person does this as a Libertarian Party member or not, I just want it to get done by somebody who is philosophically in the Libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart), and that once elected, this libertarian Sheriff appoint libertarians as deputies, yet nobody does this.

    I have long advocated that libertarians focus on taking over city/town councils/boards and/or county commissions/boards in low population areas, where they actually stand a chance to win, so that libertarians can show what they can do when they “take over” a local government board, yet nobody does this.

    I have long advocated that libertarians focus on winning seats in state legislatures, because outside of a city or county office, this is about the highest office that libertarians actually stand a realistic chance of winning, yet the Libertarian Party has not won a state legislative election since 2000, and the party has not won a state legislative seat where the person who won served out their entire term as a Libertarian since either 1996 or 1998.

    “Sure various people have views they are espousing, and some do undermine the above, but that’s what liberty is all about. There’s no coordinated plot to destroy religion, family, and culture.”

    I don’t think that Deist’s point was that there is a coordinated plot to destroy family, religion, and culture, although I think that there is to an extent, although libertarians are not really the ones doing it, his point was that a lot of libertarians do not think that these things are important. There are a lot of libertarians who are atheist or agnostic, and there are a lot of libertarians who are not married and/or who don’t have kids, and there are a lot of libertarians who act as though culture is not important, or that cultures are interchangeable. Some libertarians act as though these things are not important, but Deist points out that they are important to a lot of people. So Deist is suggesting that libertarians try to influence these people to accept the concept of decentralization of power.

    “Liberty WILL undermine all of that that is held together only by force, of course. Not something libertarians should be upset about!!!”

    I don’t think that Deist is disputing this. I think that his point is that trying to get people to agree with radical anarcho-capitalism is a difficult sell, and that ignoring things that are important to these people for whom it is a difficult sell, namely, family, religion, and culture, is not going to help win them to the side of liberty. I think that his point is that if large nation states broke up into smaller states like Leichtenstein, that the world would be an overall better place.

  67. V for Vagina

    Let’s be real. His point was “blood and soil”. It’s like as if he took a non-accidental shit on stage at the end of his speech and then wanted to pretend that the speech was about anything else. It wasn’t.

  68. Anthony Dlugos

    “Let’s be real. His point was “blood and soil”. It’s like as if he took a non-accidental shit on stage at the end of his speech and then wanted to pretend that the speech was about anything else. It wasn’t.”

    Very likely correct.

  69. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    OMG: “Let’s be real. His point was “blood and soil”. It’s like as if he took a non-accidental shit on stage at the end of his speech and then wanted to pretend that the speech was about anything else. It wasn’t.”

    Makes me want to make a THIRD meme about Deist’s speech. 🙂

Leave a Reply

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