Angela Keaton: ‘Anarchist Bitch’

LNC member and Liberated Space host Angela Keaton has started a new blog: Anarchist Bitch. She has decided to make all of her LNC correspondence public at the blog.

Her first post-convention blog entry alleges that Shane Cory manipulated fundraising results:

I was the second highest fund raiser last time. I realize that I was listed as third but that’s because Mr. Cory gave the points to Mr. Carling who claimed another’s fund raising solicitation as his own. Of course, the LNC does not require much of its members, such as upholding ethical standards.

In her second post, Ms. Keaton says that the Libertarian “faction in power” expects “collegiality, civility, neutrality, ‘professionalism’ and obsequiousness” from the radicals, but isn’t always willing to offer it in kind.

Under no circumstances will I be an apologist for any officer or staff member who harangues volunteers who don’t tow the current neo-libertarian line. I did enough of that for our last executive director who apparently had plans of his own.

Remember, for those of you who support the results of Denver, the burden is on you to perform. Not me. These are your candidates, your platform, your bylaws. If you can’t accomplish your goals this time, no amount of carping about Hogarth’s bitchiness, Ruwart’s child porn collection or my doing blow off of Starchild’s ass is going to bail you out this time.

Read more at Anarchist Bitch.

43 thoughts on “Angela Keaton: ‘Anarchist Bitch’

  1. Gene Trosper

    Anarchist and bitch…that’s like peanut butter and chocolate put together.

  2. Pingback: Back from the Rally for the Republic « disinter

  3. Third Party Revolution

    I always keep wondering why do anarchists join the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is supposed to represent libertarianism, not anarchism. Can’t the anarchists leave and form another political party?

  4. paulie

    Libertarianism and anarchism are overlapping categories: Some anarchists are libertarian (or “propertarian”); others are syndicalist, etc; and some libertarians are anarchists, while other libertarians are minimal-statists AKA minarchists.

    The term “libertarian” originated with anarchists.

  5. Mik Robertson

    Maximum individual liberty is the eventual endgame of libertarian philosophical progress. If that can be achieved through anarchy that is fine, but I have seen no evidence that it can be.

  6. Mik Robertson

    “…my doing blow off of Starchild’s ass…”

    Can Starchild confirm this is true?

  7. libertariangirl

    starchild looks like he lives at the gym , very fit , i bet his ass is super firm and sqeezable:)

  8. C T Lostaglia

    I just graduated college, started a new blog, and fired my daughter’s daycare provider…oh and found this site…oh…and am thinking I’m a libertarian…then I come across this Angela Keaton character, read the report about her…eh…behavior isssues…then saw she’s going to run for president? Life is a crazy little thing aint it?

  9. Robert Capozzi

    pc, I’d like to see your evidence that “L” was coined by anarchists. But, even so, does that “prove” that “L-ism” = anarchism?

    Anarchism was developed in the 19th century, before missiles, aircraft, and WMD. In isolation, it’s an interesting theory with severe practical challenges.

    Has an anarchist theorist ever addressed the realities of modern weaponry? Are we to believe that insurance companies will somehow dismantle all these weapons?

    Things have gotten WAY too complicated for one sentence axioms, IMO.

  10. Paulie

    I’d like to see your evidence that “L” was coined by anarchists.

    For example, see wikipedia. The earliest political uses of the term were clearly with anarchists:


    The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[9] Libertarianism in this sense is still encountered in metaphysics in discussions of free will. The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to “necessitarian” (or determinist) views.[10][11] Metaphysical and philosophical contrasts between philosophies of necessity and libertarianism continued in the early 19th century.[12]

    [edit] Political usage

    The first anarchist journal to use “libertarian” was Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social[13] published in New York between 1858 and 1861 by French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque.[14] According to the anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the first use of the term libertarian communism was in November 1880, when a French anarchist congress employed it to more clearly identify its doctrines.[15] The French anarchist journalist Sébastien Faure, later founder and editor of the four-volume Anarchist Encyclopedia, started the weekly paper Le Libertaire (The Libertarian) in 1895.[16]

    In the meantime, in the United States, libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism had begun to take hold. The anarchist communist geographer and social theorist Peter Kropotkin wrote in his seminal 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article Anarchism that “It would be impossible to represent here, in a short sketch, the penetration, on the one hand, of anarchist ideas into modern literature, and the influence, on the other hand, which the libertarian ideas of the best contemporary writers have exercised upon the development of anarchism.”[17] Various left or socialist anarchists around the world have used the term in the last 100 years.[18][19][20]

    Socialist anarchists like Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward and others state that most of the world uses the term “libertarianism” to refer to socialist anarchism and that it refers to the free market view predominately in the United States.[21][22][23] However, pro-property and free market libertarians have been spreading their ideas worldwide through think tanks and political parties since the 1970s[24][25] and around the world libertarianism is often thought to refer to those ideas.[26][27][28]

    [edit] Usage by pro-property movements
    See also: History of classical liberalism

    Enlightenment ideas of individual liberty, constitutionally limited government, and reliance on the institutions of civil society and a free market to promote social order and economic prosperity were the basis of what became known in the 19th century as liberalism.[29] While it kept that meaning in most of the world, modern liberalism in the United States began to take a more statist viewpoint. Over time, those who held to the earlier liberal views began to call themselves market liberals, classical liberals or libertarians.[30] (Some limited government advocates still use the term “libertarianism” almost interchangeably with the term classical liberalism.)[31][32] While conservatism in Europe continued to mean conserving hierarchical class structures through state control of society and the economy, some conservatives in the United States began to refer to conserving traditions of liberty. This was especially true of the Old Right, who opposed the New Deal and U.S. military interventions in World War I and World War II.[33][34]

  11. Paulie

    Has an anarchist theorist ever addressed the realities of modern weaponry?

    Many times, but I don’t have time to search for the links again just now. Perhaps others will oblige.

  12. Paulie

    Are we to believe that insurance companies will somehow dismantle all these weapons?

    Are we to believe that governments will?

    If there is any type of organization that I would vote most likely to bungle anything and everything, it would be a government. Having government bureaucracies in charge of things that can end human life altogether is not a very comforting thought.



  13. mdh

    What I believe it comes down to, in my opinion, is that there’s not a person alive who can be trusted with the level of power imparted unto mere humans by being a part of a “government.” That level of fiat authority will inexorably lead to corruption and power-tripping, and I just don’t think anyone can be trusted with it.
    Instead, anarchism puts every sovereign individual on a level playing field in terms of authority over others.

  14. mdh

    So you take a group of a few thousand people and call it a government and give it nukes.

    Then you take a group of a thousand people, say, the residents of a specific apartment complex and give them nukes.

    Why is the one called a government somehow more trustworthy with those nukes? Are they really less likely to use them than the average people living in a random apartment complex somewhere in suburban Denver?

  15. robert capozzi

    pc, ok, so a communist/anarchist first used the term L politically. What is the implication of this fact?

    Yes, modern weapons are frightening in anyone’s hands. Since they exist, it appears we have to deal with it. It’s a given, kinda like gravity is a given.

    I don’t see the point of the anarchist construct, since it seems (virtually) impossible and profoundly unworkable.

  16. Paulie


    ok, so a communist/anarchist first used the term L politically. What is the implication of this fact?

    At a minimum, that anarchists can be libertarians, and vice versa. That was really all I was responding to. Rehashing the anarchy/minarchy debate was someone else’s idea, not mine.

    I don’t see the point of the anarchist construct, since it seems (virtually) impossible and profoundly unworkable.

    I disagree, but I don’t see much point in arguing about it.

    I just read Ed Clark’s 1980 campaign book, _A New Beginning_. I didn’t find much at all that I disagreed with in terms of short or medium term policy proposals (the only one I think may be counterproductive is tuition tax credits, because I think they may be a back door to government control of private schools). The book was well written, and had many good proposals.

    There is a lot of work to be done long before we get to the endgame Matt refers to. Why spend so much of our time/energy discussing the endgame among ourselves rather than laying the groundwork to make such an endgame possible in the first place?

  17. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I don’t see the point of the anarchist construct, since it seems (virtually) impossible and profoundly unworkable.”

    Then how is it that you manage to remain alive? Apart from your personal choice to be involved in politics, chances are that 90%+ of the things you do every day are inherently anarchistic (unruled by the state). If anarchism was “unworkable,” then humanity would either be a) extinct or b) living under totalitarianism.

  18. robert capozzi

    tk, strikes me you’re talking two different observations. how we individually maneuver through our daily lives is not a matter of State control, thankfully!

    the social order, however, is a network of institutions, some influenced or offered privately, some by the State.

    simply because individuals survive without being told what to do does not imply no State is workable. to do so seems to deny the institutional frameworks that individuals operate in.

  19. Erik Geib

    The debate over anarchy reminds me of the debate over religion. Everyone has a different view of what constitutes ‘God,’ just as everyone has a different view over what constitutes ‘anarchy’ or ‘libertarianism.’

    I’d hesitate to say anything is unworkable, just as I think professed atheists are silly in denouncing the idea of ‘God’ when virtually anything can be ‘God.’ [Please, oh please, let’s not get into a religion discussion now, btw]

    While I personally think short-term advocacy of anarchy isn’t practical or politically savvy, it’s hard to argue that it isn’t both 1.) the long-term end result of moving in a libertarian direction, and 2.) the philosophical backbone of libertarianism necessary to analyze each advocated policy thoroughly.

    I like to view anarchy through the lens of ‘individual sovereignty.’ If all the governments of the world somehow ceased to exist tomorrow, and you could freely associate with any one group like you currently do a social club, which groups would you join? Many might choose to join several clubs that perform the many modern functions of government today but, without the guns of government, they wouldn’t be forced to stay in one club or another if they didn’t like the way it was being run. Some may choose more collectivist organizations and some may not, but it would be their free choice to be a socialist or not.

    Now, that all being said, I do not consider myself an anarchist. As I’ve stated to many before I consider myself a ‘libertarian incrementalist’ domestically, though I’m much closer to the top of the Nolan Chart philosophically. I just don’t believe we can untangle the web of statism overnight in the United States, and feel that the success of but a few libertarian solutions can generally push others towards being more openly accepting of the more ‘radical’ ideas we have.

    Granted, if we were all given our own land to start a new society tomorrow (sort of like what the government did to make the Mormons go away, or like the Odonian Movement for those of you who have read ‘The Dispossessed’), I think a radical nearly-anarchist experiment could work, but it would take the willing commitment of those who chose to live there. Sadly, I think a lot of people in this country today would have trouble choosing against statist solutions, and the precedent-oriented framework to overcome is daunting (hence my incremental advocacy).

    I still struggle to answer what our concern should be for organizations that are hard to coordinate on a small-scale (such as federal highways), defense that is bound by laws (particularly the notion of a greater defense, or ‘national’ defense, as I’d hate to have to boil it down to localized or personal defense) and entities that are large by nature, but not driven/protected by trade or homesteading (such as space exploration). Now, I think space exploration could be accomplished by what we think of today as charity, but I’m not so sure. I’d certainly like to see the results of a medium-sized anarchist experiment before I became a full-blown advocate of charity for short-term-unprofitable science.

  20. Thomas L. Knapp


    You’re trying to change the premise.

    You wrote: “I don’t see the point of the anarchist construct, since it seems (virtually) impossible and profoundly unworkable.”

    To which I replied to the effect that not only is anarchism “workable,” it is in fact the default human condition and “works” constantly in most people’s daily lives.

    Now all of a sudden you’re attempting to retroactively present my argument as responsive to your claim that “simply because individuals survive without being told what to do does not imply no State is workable.”

    Make up your mind.

  21. robert capozzi

    tk, when I used the term “anarchist construct,” I was referring to a stateless society.

    I find the idea of a stateless society unworkable, certainly for large and wealthy territories.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp


    I’m just making a technical quibble here.

    Your original argument was that a stateless society seems unworkable (actually a sub-argument of that, but never mind).

    I responded.

    Then you replied not in terms of a stateless society being unworkable, but a state being workable.

    The two propositions are not necessarily tied together in some “one must be true, the other false.” It could be that both stateless societies and states are “workable” or “unworkable,” depending on the parameters one sets in defining “workable.”

    My anecdotal take on the state is that its “workability” correlates inversely with its size, power and pervasiveness. As long as it confines itself to the interstices of social interaction, it may be “workable.” The more it intrudes into everyday life, the less “workable” it becomes both in terms of efficacy (if the goal is to improve human life) and sustainability (as it becomes more prone to acts of atrocity, it becomes more vulnerable to being overthrown).

  23. robert capozzi

    tk, agreed. and of course workability is subjective and relative, too. a critical mass tipping point can be reached in either direction: statelessness or totalitarian regimes.

  24. Erik Geib

    Maybe the real answer lies in the fact that the states of which we think are too large and too corrupt to be anarchistic. Their libertarian development would first and foremost require a massive dismantling of the super-state in favor of more localized and individual sovereignty, working together only for larger goals (if at all) such as defense. We would have to set aside our notion of making society work across a ‘nation,’ and focus more on controlling ourselves instead of others.

    What harm would it really do to anyone if an area roughly the size of a county or two went without government and without taxes? So long as it didn’t ask for aid in return for freedom, where’s the problem?

  25. mdh

    Robert says that anarchism is particularly unworkable, especially in large territories. Territories are a political construct and hence would not exist in a stateless society. There would only be “mine” and “not mine.” Everyone would presumably have some home of their own, and the world is certainly big enough to support that as of now. As people overpopulated it, those families which grew the most would outgrow their share and have problems sustaining themselves, causing a natural ebb in their populations.

  26. Rachel H

    I’ve never found RC’s “people can’t own nukes” argument to be of much value.

    But RC, it is now possible to buy a nuclear power plant that I could site in my back yard. Will fit in a 10′ dia hole in ground, sealed, no maintenance, fuel for 30 yrs.

    Probably same amount of fuel as a warhead. So it’s now possible to buy a nuke. :o)

  27. Robert Capozzi

    mdh, yes, territories are constructs, too, as are mine and not mine. But the fact is those with the REALLY big weapons have a lot invested in maintaining the territorial construct as an institution. They don’t even want impoverished Somalia out of the territory construct.

  28. Eric Sundwall

    Citing weaponry as the practical reason to the inherent argument that anarchy can’t ‘work’ avoids the question about whether or not anarchy is fundamentally right.

    Individual states exist in an anarchic condition. There is no over riding authority to rule each one. If Pakistan and India decide to go at it with a couple dozen nukes we’re all adversely affected. The same would be true for individuals in possession and use of such weaponry. If anything, that ‘states’ in this case are the worse actors than the any theoretical individual in possession of such weapons. The only solution by a Capozzi standard of control and practicality would be one world state.

    Thus the conclusion I would reach is that nuclear weapons already exist in an anarchic environment in terms of geopolitical reality. The fact that some states are willing to act in concordance to bully and disrupt others from doing so is no evidence otherwise.

  29. Robert Capozzi

    es, actually, Eric, I’m questioning the very idea that there’s such a thing as “fundamentally right.” It seems obvious to me that there is NOT such a thing. Right and wrong are concepts. Most have a sense of right and wrong, but there’s never unanimity on those concepts generally, and there’s surely no unanimity on every single “moral” question.

    Beg your pardon, but I do not advocate “one world state.” Instead, I advocate lessarchy asymptotically toward anarchy. And I advocate peace. In my judgment, those are virtuous opinions, but I recognize that mine are just opinions, as I recognize yours are as well.

    I find your idea that the geopolitical reality is an “anarchic environment” a twisting of the word “anarchic” as I understand it. To me, anarchy is no State. We’ve got many, many states, which do lots of aggressive things to each other and to those in their territories. They claim their monopolitistic actions justified within their borders and necessary to their interests across their borders. Hardly anarchy in my book.

  30. mdh

    So Capozzi is really advocating for globalist governance like what Alex Jones talks about? Interesting to come to understand that even an LP’er would be in favor of that!

  31. Robert Capozzi

    mdh, seems we posted simultaneously. Nope, not for global governance.

    Speaking of Alex Jones, is there any evidence that von Brunn was a fan?

  32. mdh

    I’m not sure who von Brunn is. I don’t really follow Jones, he’s entertaining now and then but I generally put him on the same level as a Limbaugh. Entertaining at times, but not really worth much of my time. Still, I won’t deny that he’s good at what he does (as is Limbaugh) and draws a sizeable audience.

    I do find it interesting that you admit in so many words that governments and their interests solely as political entities are what do all of the aggressing. I think without them, we’d not have much if any of that going on! Of course, people being people, I’m sure there’d be some. And without the power of a State to back the most corrupt people, I think it would be vastly less severe than modern warfare between States.

    (Please note, Robert, that I’m perhaps ragging on you more than you truly deserve just because I find such banter to be enjoyable.)

  33. Robert Capozzi

    mdh, yes, I enjoy the banter as well.

    von Brunn is the Holocaust Museum shooter. He’s apparently a Truther, among other things.

    No, I don’t admit that governments “do all” the aggressing. It’s hard to say how small it’s optimal size is….0, really tiny, or just tiny. If 0 led to chaos in the streets and a marked increase in private violence, I’d not be for 0. It needs to be tested gradually to find the most sustainable balance, IMO.

  34. mdh

    I heard dailykos connected him to Ron Paul because some guy bought a website from him once who was dating a girl who was a Ron Paul supporter. They called that a connection to the Paul campaign. What a crock of retardation.

    What if 0 led to an increase in private violence, but that was vastly offset by the lack of deaths due to warring states? I think it’s possible that private violence may increase a bit, specifically in certain regions, but I don’t think it would ever overshadow the deaths and injuries due to state-sponsored political warfare.

  35. Robert Capozzi

    mdh, certainly less death and violence is preferable. I’d question anyone’s ability to make such a prediction, mostly because my contention is it’s virtually impossible to test the scenario.

    Of course, there are qualitative factors as well. Say we have anarchy in Manhattan. As there’s no monopolistic peacekeeper, people are free to walk the streets with machine guns. A few random, stray shootings, I predict, would make most people avoid going into public in Manhattan. I suspect most would flee over time.

    Or some Ls believe that there’s a right to carry on jetliners. All you’d need is a few mid-air shoot outs to drive people out of air travel.

  36. Paulie

    s there’s no monopolistic peacekeeper, people are free to walk the streets with machine guns.

    Quite common in some places, such as Peshawar. By the way, there’s very little violent crime there compared with, say, Manhattan, on a per capita basis. This was according to “60 minutes” several years ago; hardly a pro-gun rights source.

  37. Paulie

    Anyway, why all the focus on the anarchy/minarchy debate? I thought the whole point of “big tent” libertarianism was to be inclusive and mutually tolerant of both, not to run off one half of the party or the other.

    One might also be forgiven for presuming that “pragmatic” Libertarians would draw more overall votes for the party, or increase its membership, or its funding, or the number of candidates it runs, or the number of candidates it elects to office, or perhaps the average percentage of the vote Libertarian candidates receive. It seems all the trends point in the other direction after several years of supposedly pragmatic, big tent leadership.

    Here’s a great article I read today in the paper. I think the LP should be pointing out the hypocrisy and cowardice of the Democrats in failing to bring the Bush-Cheney gang to justice and in continuing their evil policies since Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al. have been in office.

    If LPHQ fails to call the Democrats to task, perhaps we could see something on this from the state parties, presidential candidate(s), CLIPR, etc.

    What’s up with Dick Cheney?
    McClatchy Newspapers
    Published: Friday, Jun. 5, 2009 – 6:48 am

    If former vice president Darth Cheney had been arrested for any of his multiple felonies, he might remember the most important of the Miranda rights that the arresting officer would have read to him: You have the right to remain silent.

    These days, you can’t turn on your television without finding Cheney’s doughboy face on the screen, alternately repeating old lies, mouthing new lies or defiantly confessing to yet another criminal act.

    It’s enough to make me yearn for the old Dick Cheney, the one who ventured out of his “undisclosed location” behind a locked door in the vice presidential residence on Washington’s Observatory Circle only to make a speech at some buttoned-down military base.

    Most of his unindicted co-conspirators – George W. Bush, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and their assorted consiglieri and mouthpieces, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Alberto Gonzalez, John Yoo, William Haynes II – have mostly had the good sense to keep their mouths shut.

    So what’s up with Cheney?

    The things he’s been saying are easily checked against his previous public utterances and a growing encyclopedia of investigations and shown to be bald-faced lies. Check out the story ( by two of my colleagues at McClatchy Newspapers, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel.

    It almost begs the question: How can you tell Dick Cheney is lying? His lips are moving.

    Then, this past week, he went and broke new ground by telling the truth for once. After seven years of insisting otherwise, the voice from the Dark Side finally admitted what most of us knew all along: There was no meaningful link between Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda’s attack on 9/11.

    Back when Cheney was insisting otherwise, telling that whopper over and over, he was working overtime to drag America into an unnecessary war in the wrong place, at the wrong time, against the wrong people.

    Now he confesses that he was lying about that one little thing in his eagerness to take our country into a war of choice that so far has cost the lives more than 4,200 American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were caught in the middle when Cheney and his friends loosed the dogs of war on them, and has already cost American taxpayers a trillion or so dollars and another billion dollars a month.

    Obviously, then, this is a man who needs all the national airtime he can get to continue defending the indefensible, attempting to rewrite the sorry history of an administration that’s already been consigned to richly deserved oblivion, and confessing to international war crimes and serial violations of our law, international law and God’s law.

    Cheney already has confessed that he approved of and helped formulate the White House-run operation that collected and promoted bogus intelligence from Iraqi exiles and unleashed illegal torture and abuse on suspected terrorists. He also said he still believes that detaining innocent people without trial and waterboarding terrorists produced good information, and that the end justifies the means.

    It’s fairly obvious that if he or many of the others named above ever set foot outside the United States, they’re likely to end up like Chile’s Augusto Pinochet or worse.

    That begs the question of why men such as Cheney and his friends are still able to thumb their noses at the law, public opinion and our Constitution with impunity here at home, in the land of the free and home of the brave?

    That question comes to my mind every time I see President Barack Obama sharing the airwaves with Cheney; every time I see congressional leaders who have the power to investigate the criminal behavior of these men; every time I hear Dick Cheney on the Sunday news shows or the evening news.

    I hear testimony that one of the al-Qaeda high-value targets who was subjected to waterboarding more than 80 times in less than a month was tortured after he’d already given up everything he knew under normal, legal interrogation.

    I also hear testimony that the highest-ranking terrorist we ever got our hands on was subjected to waterboarding eight times a day for a grand total of 183 sessions of near drowning, near-death.

    While Cheney proclaims that such actions helped keep us safe from terrorist attacks, there are others, who were either present in the room or read the transcripts, who say we got nothing of actionable value. Nothing worth a pitcher of warm spit.

    If Dick Cheney has so much that he wants to confess, then why doesn’t somebody on Capitol Hill subpoena him to testify under oath before an investigating committee or a truth commission. Or maybe we need a special prosecutor who can put him in a chair in front of a grand jury.

    Enough already.


    Joseph L. Galloway is a military columnist for McClatchy Newspapers and a former senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers; he is co-author of the national best-seller “We Were Soldiers Once … and Young.” Readers may write to him at: P.O. Box 399, Bayside, Texas 78340.

  38. Michael H. Wilson

    Good points paulie. There is a lot we could be doing besides this anarchy/ B.S debate.

    And the McClatchy papers have done an excellent job of covering a number of issues that others have ignored.

  39. Pingback: Sapphic Salon: The Death of a Feminist Publication, The Rise of the Fake Alternative Media

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.