Original article can be found here.
AUGUSTUS SOL INVICTUS
U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE 2016
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 12, 2015
Contact: Raquel Okyay (813) 445-1659, [email protected]
CLAIMS MADE BY FLORIDA LIBERTARIAN PARTY ARE FACTUALLY WRONG
Orlando – U.S. Senate candidate, Augustus Invictus, said there is enormous pressure from inside the Libertarian Party to be detached from his campaign. “They value the tactics of blacklisting and censoring over free speech and debate.”
After attending by phone conference an Executive Committee meeting with the LPF last week, Invictus decided not to submit himself to the selection committee for review, agreeing that he had not been vetted and was not a certified candidate.
The EC and Invictus had agreed to report “just the facts” to the press, yet instead LPF publicly condemned him.”The EC already knows that I did not call for civil war or violence nor did I call for a government eugenics program or state-sponsored murder,” said Invictus. “That is why my membership was not suspended.” The entire phone conference can be heard here: http://fccdl.in/xFKvWQCMe
“I have repeatedly disavowed eugenics,” said Invictus. “Several members of LPF insist on repeating a known falsehood.” He said it is obvious that the Party’s condemnation has nothing to do with civil war or eugenics; it has to do with an agenda of scare tactics having little to do with the truth.
“This is all because of the fear of those on the Executive Committee that not condemning me to the media might make them guilty by association; which is fitting, considering the claim of the pro-Wyllie faction that I am a racist because of the clients I have represented in court,” he said. Adrian Wyllie stepped down as chair of the LPF two weeks ago.
“I do hope that the new chair will correct this mistake, lest America see the Libertarian Party as an organization that throws its own candidates under the bus whenever the media hits too hard,” said Invictus. “I find it appalling that an organization claiming to value freedom of religion has allowed a media scandal to drive them into a panic.”
END.
She’s more than a bit confused about his views, then.
Raquel’s public post from 17 hours ago
“Donald J. Trump,
Keep doing what you are doing. Forget about the corporate media whores. Disregard the naysayers, the offensive. Keep calling-out the dishonest. Keep a careful eye on the GOP ~ always. They would like to tear you down to keep their own power, the way it is. I support you for President and I will give you a real chance to prove yourself once in office. Just, please, don’t take your eye off the ball. America is all about freedom. Freedom is more important than safety. Freedom is what makes America great. America is far gone from its original intention. If you, sir, when elected, can bring back constitutional principles into our daily lives, I would be appreciative ten-fold.
Sincerely, R.”
https://www.facebook.com/RaquelOkyay/posts/10154364290880606
I am going to lean to saying yes.
So is she still a Trump fan?
“This is NOT acceptable. Tampa has a large Turkish/Muslim community who are just like any of us – peaceful. We ought to judge people by their actions, not the actions of others. We don’t condemn one person for the way they looks or dresses. And, finally, we don’t love some parts of the Constitution, we love it all. ?#?MyTwoCents?”
https://www.facebook.com/RaquelOkyay/posts/10154364273555606
(Shared with: Public)
Article shared with comment above.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/muslim-woman-shot-at-and-another-nearly-run-off-the-road-in-tampa-after-leaving-mosques/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwKSYh-kEHU
Cool, received and accepted.
I’ll send you an invite.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/iprtwo to catch up on what you missed, but I think you have to accept the invite before you can see it. I could be wrong.
I don’t recall unsubscribing from it, but I may have. I can’t commit to any particular article frequency, but I’m always happy to write news pieces up if I notice them and nobody else is on it.
Provided Roger Stone or someone like that isn’t priming the pump to get them covered.
Off topic, do you still want to be off the IPR writers list? IIRC you unsubscribed from that a while back but then came back and posted some more articles later.
I won’t, but that’s just because I have enough similar comparative experience under my belt — neo-Nazis, convicted murderers, and former drug war prisoners with pot leaves tattooed on their heads running for LP nominations — to be able to look at what happens when the state chair DOESN’T resign in a huff and go do media interviews over them.
I’ll take Adrian’s word that the media were about to pick up on it in a big way regardless.
I’ve never had any doubt that Wyllie was doing what he THOUGHT was right.
But, which is the bigger story that gets more pickups and hangs around longer?
“Weird, Goat-sacrificing Idiot Seeks Libertarian Party’s Senate Nomination, Party Leaders Yawn, Scratch Crotches, Say ‘Yeah, That’s Kinda Dumb'”
or
“LP Chair, Vice Chair RESIGN, Libertarian Party in Shambles Over Weird Goat-Sacrificing Idiot”
One of those stories was the story that MIGHT have run, in a newspaper or two, on an extremely slow news day, if Wyllie had not done the “won a vote of confidence, but I’m quitting anyway” thing.
One of those stories is the story that DID run, nationwide and for days, after Wyllie handled things the way he handled them.
It certainly does cast it in a different light than many people have.
Adrian Wyllie said: “By resigning and going public with the story first, I could distance the LPF and Libertarians in general from this violent fascist. Virtually every story that ran has quoted me saying that Invictus is the opposite of a Libertarian, and his views do not at all represent us. Because of that, not one legitimate news source reported that Invictus represents Libertarians. Had I not resigned and spoken first, those stories would have been written very differently, and the fallout would have been much worse.
Under the circumstances, I believe I handled it in the best manner possible. I completely stand by my decision and my actions.”
It sounds like under the circumstances, Adrian Wyllie made the right decision.
Adrian – I’m emailing your comment to the rest of the writers here to possibly be its own story. Let me know if you want to change anything or have an objection.
I’ve been taking great strides to ignore all of this unpleasant business, and to enjoy my hiatus from politics. However, feel I should respond to the accusation that I am responsible for the media reporting on Augustus. That’s not the whole story.
At the time that I went public with this, I had already been contacted by two separate mainstream media reporters about Mr. Invictus. The first reporter was someone I had a good relationship with. I told him that Invictus was a just a typical political nut case with no chance of winning, and that we were handling it internally. He sat on the story.
I didn’t know the second reporter who contacted me. He had attended one of Invictus’ campaign events, where he spoke about war, sorcery and LSD. The reporter was already deep into his investigation, and already had much of the background information on Invictus. He was tracking down members of the religious order from which Invictus was ejected to get that part of the story. I knew we only had days before Invictus, goat sacrifice and all, became national news.
I advised the LPF Executive Committee (EC) that the story was about to break big in the media. I wanted the LPF to be out in front of the story, and be on record with a strong public condemnation before the story broke. But the LPF was deeply divided on whether I had the authority to publicly disavow him or condemn his views. And, they were equally divided on whether we could suspend the membership of a self-proclaimed fascist who promotes civil war and eugenics.
It became clear that I was only authorized to essentially say, “The LPF does not support any Libertarian candidates before the primary election.”
I’ve worked as an investigative reporter. I’ve been interviewed by the mainstream media at least 100 times. Knowing the media as I do, I knew that such a bland statement would result in the media attaching Invictus’ twisted views to the LPF, and to Libertarianism as a whole. They would spin our passive, non-committal response as tacit support for Invictus.
It would have been devastating to the party, and undermine all of the credibility and success we had worked for years to achieve. That was completely unacceptable to me.
I advised the EC that if I was asked to comment by the media, I would tell them the complete, uncensored truth about Invictus. The LPF bylaws require the Chair have the authorization of the EC to speak publicly, which I did not have. I advised the EC I would disavow him on behalf of the LPF, even though I did not have their express authorization to do so. That caused an even deeper rift between me and several EC members. The LPF vice chair resigned in protest of my bylaws violation.
As I repeatedly warned, Invictus was about to make headlines. It was out of our control. The only question was whether the media would paint Libertarians with the same brush as Invictus. At least I could somewhat control how the media reported on the Libertarian response.
By resigning and going public with the story first, I could distance the LPF and Libertarians in general from this violent fascist. Virtually every story that ran has quoted me saying that Invictus is the opposite of a Libertarian, and his views do not at all represent us. Because of that, not one legitimate news source reported that Invictus represents Libertarians. Had I not resigned and spoken first, those stories would have been written very differently, and the fallout would have been much worse.
Under the circumstances, I believe I handled it in the best manner possible. I completely stand by my decision and my actions.
I’m not particularly interested in her charges per se. I am interested in whether any of our readers know of additional links between her and Roger Stone. I suspect, but don’t yet know, that she may be the missing link between Stone and Invictus.
As I hope I would mention about anybody is that being caught with marijuana in the same place as a child often results in child abuse charges being laid.
Andy Craig (on the wrong thread by accident):
OK, I’ll work on compiling them. They are in this thread and one other. Warren did not actually say she was working for Paladino, just supporting him, and that she was an officer with NYS tea parties, Right to Life and a writer for conservative magazine Human Events, and attended the debate to support Paladino after Warren thought he worn her over and gave her a ticket or two. Next thing we know she is living in Florida, getting busted for pot and child neglect, and “trying to get back to NY” according to an entry that someone made allegedly of her writing on a hate-blog dedicated to her. And the next thing we know she is Invictus’ press secretary (and girlfriend? client? both?). Those are the facts as we know them so far. I don’t know that she would know Roger Stone, only that working in NYS conservative circles makes it more likely that she may.
“Funny how I keep pretending that people are acting like armed resistance to the state automatically equals the armed resistors killing innocent people”
There, fixed that for ya.
That’s why I would like to see someone post an article asking the question, with the conversation we had in this thread and one other, to see if any of our readers have more info. I don’t want to do it because I participated heavily in that conversation.
I’m not so sure there’s a direct connection between Okyay and Stone. Possible, but not sure.
Any IPR writers want to followup with a “questions” article about the hypothetical Invictus/Stone/Okyay connection?
“Thomas L. Knapp
October 13, 2015 at 9:51 pm
It’s not only a matter of whether or not revolution is justified, or whether or not it’s a libertarian revolution.
Yeah, the government goons do bad things and make bullshit excuses for them.
As libertarians, we don’t get to give ourselves a pass for for doing bad things, even if we didn’t mean to do them. We don’t get to just shrug and say ‘collateral damage’ or ‘but the bad guy was using them as human shields’ if we initiate force against innocents in the course of taking on the guilty. A revolution may be right or even necessary, but it doesn’t come with a moral exemption.”
Funny how people keep acting like armed resistance to the state automatically equals the armed resistors killing innocent people, when this is exactly what the state does. The state regularly kills or injures people who are not resisting. The state regularly steals and destroys property. The state regularly imprisons people who did not aggress on the person or property of others.
Sociopaths and psychopaths are attracted to positions in government like flies are attracted to fresh doggie doo. Sociopaths and psychopaths are people with whom you cannot reason. They won’t become libertarians if we make really logical arguments. They don’t care about logical arguments. The only thing they understand is force. This is why they want to build up a police state, and it is also why they ultimately desire a disarmed population.
Nope. But I did listen.
Pauilie,
Thank you very much for posting the link to the 60 minute interview titled “The Anti-Media Radio with S.M. Gibson, guest U.S. Senate Candidate Augustus Sol Invictus 10-8-2015”. I just finished listening to it. I found it very informative. I hope you took the time to listen to it as well. I hope that Augustus Sol Invictus addresses your concerns and answers your questions.
Interesting. I think we may have just unearthed the first link between Roger Stone and Invictus.
She was supporting Paladino, who Stone was working with, and now she’s Invictus’ press secretary?
Fascinating. I had a sneaking suspicion but this is the first piece of evidence besides “it seems like it would be a typical Roger Stone move like he has made countless times since at least high school” ….
I’ve been out of the loop for a while I guess, but Raquel Okyay is involved with the Invictus campaign?
I remember her from some Tea Party events in NY in 2010. Now she’s in Florida?
And who is it that hates her this much: http://raquelokyaywasarrested.blogspot.com/
She seemed almost normal to me back then. I was a little irritated because I gave her a ticket (maybe 2) to the big debate and she still supported Paladino.
Well, I’d like it to be an independent nation. It just isn’t at present.
There are Puerto Ricans that disagree with you Paulie.
With a little bit of goat thrown in?
Puerto Rico is not a foreign country.
Does he make a good salad? That is all I need to know.
I wonder when Caesar’s wife’s family arrived from Puerto Rico? Now if they were “legal” immigrants presumably that would be legal under the laws of the government that Caesar calls for insurrection against. Will Caesar deport his wife? how about his children?
I liked this one better:
==(um….um…um…)==
8. It has allowed unrestrained immigration for three generations, to the great detriment of the American people & of the land. Our forefathers came as conquerors: the immigrants of today come as parasites.
(Say what?)
that is a direct reference to you Paulie 😉
oh and my mother and my aunts and uncles who came into Michigan from Canada in the 1930’s
then again there is that word conquer. That in this case is used with no doubt the military occupation and extermination of a group of people already here in order to end up with a society that Caesar is now advocating an insurrection against.
can I borrow your expression Paulie?
Say what?
I think Steve M. makes a good point there.
Its easy for any idiot to come up with a justification for shooting another idiot. What’s difficult is to find ways to live together, have a functioning just society without resorting to violence.
Caesar, says that the government wont respect us unless they fear us and that to be brave that we must prepare for war.
I think, Caesar is foolish and that what the powers fear most is us not willing to do what they tell us, allowing for us to disarm them and find just ways to force them to let us live free. When we are faced with injustice we must find non-violent ways to upset the apple cart.
Non-violent ways worked to push the English out of India and worked to bring about civil rights in the US. While things aren’t perfect, they are in many ways are far better off then they were in the past.
If Caesar wants to cross the Rubicon let him wade cross it on his own and not as our representative.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=yfaIHFrtRU8
It’s not only a matter of whether or not revolution is justified, or whether or not it’s a libertarian revolution.
Yeah, the government goons do bad things and make bullshit excuses for them.
As libertarians, we don’t get to give ourselves a pass for for doing bad things, even if we didn’t mean to do them. We don’t get to just shrug and say “collateral damage” or “but the bad guy was using them as human shields” if we initiate force against innocents in the course of taking on the guilty. A revolution may be right or even necessary, but it doesn’t come with a moral exemption.
BTW that’s not an exhaustive list of problems with his 55 failings of the fedgov, but many of the others are somewhat redundant.
I am familiar with North on eschatology.. he is very good on that. Whacky on other things, though for a while, I was getting sucked into that whole strange fundamentalism.
Now I block theonomists on my FB feed. One strongly insinuated that since becoming a libertarian I was worshipping a god created in my own mind, thus an idolator, and that perhaps in Theotopia, I would have an appointment with some certain rocks. Unless of course I abdicated citizenship (a kind of move to Somalia argument for theocrats I suppose).
Considering that Gary North is in favor of stoning sinners and helped whip up the Y2K scare I’d take it with a grain of salt or several, but I’ll have to see the actual article; maybe he makes a good point this time.
I recently came across an article that for me as a person that grew up in the USA was very persuasive that all violent revolutions are bad ideas.
“Secession: Armed vs. Peaceful” by Gary North
http://www.garynorth.com/public/13994.cfm
Not everyone agrees, and not everyone who disagrees is necessarily OK with the status quo either. But again, it’s besides the point here, because it is abundantly clear that Invictus is not seeking a libertarian revolution.
And while you are there….
4. It has provided the illegitimate State of Israel with countless billions of dollars in financial aid, weaponry, and military force, to the great detriment of the American people and to the people of the World.
(what about all the other illegitimate states it provides billions to?)
8. It has allowed unrestrained immigration for three generations, to the great detriment of the American people & of the land. Our forefathers came as conquerors: the immigrants of today come as parasites.
(Say what?)
9. It has allowed the face of the earth to be desecrated with pollutants & artificialities, with plastics & asphalt, with strip malls & parking lots. No Government in history has profited so greatly from such reckless irresponsibility.
(I don’t necessarily disagree with the problem being posed, but posting it as a failing of the government implies that he believes there is a government solution)
11. It has allowed the Media to become a veritable Leviathan, calling “freedom of the press” what is merely the unaccountable influence of money over the minds of an ignorant public.
(OK…and the solution is what?)
18. It has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, called them “riots,” and shamed us for our “intolerance” and “lack of charity.”
(Again, please explain the proposed solution)
23. It has established laws to protect at any cost the survival of the weakest of the Citizenry, having forsaken the first duty of Government: the welfare of the People.
(As opposed to what?)
24. It has promoted with great vehemence the doctrines of mass democracy, blind tolerance, and mandatory guilt for decades upon decades, such that the individual Citizen is expected to worship the lowest of humanity and abandon any inclinations he may have toward elitism.
(um….um…um…)
25. It has abandoned its eugenics programs & elitist mindset in favor of a decadent ideology that rejects the beauty of strength and demands the exponential growth of the weakest, the least intelligent, and the most diseased.
(This was published July 23 of this year, yet he claims he has abandoned his support for eugenics?)
27. It has promoted the defamation of our country’s greatest heroes in our children’s classrooms, such as Columbus, the great mariner, a man of vision & bravery, now regarded as a genocidal maniac, and Jefferson, the polymath statesman & great promoter of freedom, known now as the degenerate slave rapist.
(Read for context: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-kasum/columbus-day-a-bad-idea_b_742708.html )
28. It has promoted in those same classrooms the idolatrous worship of a different breed of lesser men, such as Alex Haley, who made a fortune by conning the country into sympathy when he plagiarized a novel and passed it off as fact, and Martin Luther King, Jr., whose FBI files are still under seal for the embarrassment it would cause all those persons profiting from his civil sainthood.
(Different breed of lesser men?)
Are these the causes for a libertarian revolution, even if you think one is desirable? I submit the answer is no.
“paulie
October 13, 2015 at 7:38 pm
Andy,
People who try to find peaceful solutions are not necessarily OK with the injustices that are being done. ”
I never said that there is anything wrong with trying to find peaceful solutions, I am just pointing out that there is moral justification for armed revolution. There’s even a big holiday about this in this country which is celebrated every July 4th.
RTAA
Here is the fear of the Jews thing in context:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/augustus-invictus-a-declaration-of-the-failings-of-the-federal-government/
And Andy you assuming that I, for instance, have no problem with the Revolutionary War. There were people who wanted to stay as British subjects. Certainly that was their right too.
Things are not quite as clean as you make it.
Andy,
People who try to find peaceful solutions are not necessarily OK with the injustices that are being done. And any discussion of justifiable revolution needs to look at the causes posted. The 55 failings of the fedgov posted by Invictus reveal that at least some of his problems with the current regime are that it does not do enough.
Paul said: ” I’d like to find a peaceful solution”
That would be preferable, but it does not mean that there is no justification for revolution.
It shows you how indoctrinated Americans are today that we have a big national holiday called Independence Day every 4th of July which is about people staging an armed revolt against their own government, which at the time was the British Monarchy, yet the idea of doing that today sounds like some radical, out of the question, horrible thing to most people.
Most people who celebrate the 4th of July have no idea what they are celebrating.
Thomas Knapp: If it was written that late, in Greece, under the influence of the Pauline heresy, it might well have had certain anti-semitic overtones. After Paul’s falling out with James and Peter over his attempts to paganize “Christian” Judaism into a new religion …
What Pauline heresy? What falling out? There was no falling out. There was a disagreement, which was resolved, to everyone’s satisfaction, at the Council of Jerusalem, as recorded in Chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles.
In his Second Letter, Peter even endorses Paul’s teachings. (Though of course, for this reason, those who continue to oppose Paul’s teachings to this day, dispute the authorship of Peter’s Second Letter.)
Caryn
Nothing wrong with being new – we do have our own in-group references that those of us who “live” on here (I am the worst offender in this regard) take for granted, but I do my best to unpack them when asked.
“Caryn Ann Harlos Post author
October 13, 2015 at 7:08 pm
I will add one thing. My rights are violated every day. I am stolen from every paycheck to the tune of about 30%. Even if I were not a pacificist… none of that rises to the justification of lethality. I disagree with those (such as Cantwell) who say if someone steals a paperclip you can kill them to stop them. There is a heavy burden of proportionality when you take up force as your companion.”
Just because you are willing to be robbed and controlled it does not mean that there is no moral justification against fighting back against the people doing the robbing and controlling.
If a thug stops you while walking through a park or a patch of woods and says to give them your wallet, should you do it? Sure, you could just hand over your wallet to the thug if you fear getting mugged and you think that handing over your wallet will result in not getting mugged, however, you’d also be morally justified to refuse to turn over your wallet and resist the thug.
The only differences between the thug in the example above and a government official is that the government official has a fancy title next to their name, and they’ve also got a very effective propaganda network behind them which has indoctrinated much of the public, including many so called libertarians apparently, that they are “authority figures” and that people have a duty to obey them.
Root,
I am not only new here, I am a baby Libertarian. I switched on Coulter Drowning Day 9/17/14. I am aware of the controversy in a historical sense.
Caryn: Root’s Teeth (and can you explain your name? I’m curious)
I take it you’re a newcomer to these boards? That you missed the Wayne Allyn Root controversy of some years ago? I was one of Root’s many detractors. After Root left the LP, well, it had been my handle for so long, I kept it.
Vis a vis the Gospel of John No, in the context of his statement, THAT is not a Biblical use
I wasn’t referring to Invectus’s context. I don’t know how he used it. The phrase came up, and I was explaining its historical Biblical context.
Paulie, I’m a noob.
I have yet to see tangible proof that either Invictus or those railing against him will actually come up with ten grand. All these back and forth exchanges could well be for nought with no candidates whatsoever and no write in option on the primary ballot, and hence no LP candidate to replace Rubio on the ballot next fall.
It’s a well established screen name by now. Even if Root is gone, we still have Root’s Teeth.
For any of you who have never seen a real war up close and in person: it ain’t pretty and nothing you do will make it neat and clean and without atrocities, fuck ups and dead civilians aplenty on all sides. I’d like to find a peaceful solution, but even if one could not be found and we found revolution to be the only remaining way to get liberty (in which case I agree, seek that solution through some means other than the LP), the causes for revolution matter. When your causes include things like providing eugenics, embodying the principles of the fasces, getting rid of today’s “parasite” immigrants and bringing back the “conquerors” of yore such as Columbus, not “bowing to a lesser breed of men” such as MLK and Alex Haley, et tedious cetera, it is pretty safe to say that you are not contemplating a libertarian revolution.
Well,WAR’s teeth are pretty awesome. It is pretty funny to still be referring to him though so I thought I must be missing something. I like the twisted humour.
Steve M,
I am glad that you were willing to make at attempt to learn about Augustus Sol Invictus. He certainly seems like he will motivate those that find him to be undesirable to look for a better candidate. Should one be found and successfully navigate the slings and arrows of Florida ballot access it certainly seems that a great contest will be had.
Alrighty then. On this issue, go in peace friend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYOKVTaflbM
“Caryn Ann Harlos Post author
October 13, 2015 at 7:03 pm
Andy, you got all general when I was very specific.
Why do you not think McVeigh did a good thing then? ”
McVeigh was a government patsy. The OKC bombing was an inside job, just like 9/11, as in both acts were carried out by the sociopath control freaks in government.
Gawd, I have turned into such a hippy. 🙂
I will add one thing. My rights are violated every day. I am stolen from every paycheck to the tune of about 30%. Even if I were not a pacificist… none of that rises to the justification of lethality. I disagree with those (such as Cantwell) who say if someone steals a paperclip you can kill them to stop them. There is a heavy burden of proportionality when you take up force as your companion.
Andy,
not to the level that happens in a full out war. Go look at pictures of Syria if the image isn’t clear to you.
”
Thomas L. Knapp
October 13, 2015 at 7:00 pm
‘Revolution against a corrupt, individual rights trampling government in no way violates the NAP.’
Actually, that’s impossible to predict. Even if the FACT OF revolution doesn’t violate the NAP, war has a way of posing specific inline situations that result in NAP violations. ‘I didn’t mean to bomb that hospital and my revolution is justified’ doesn’t erase the fact of the force initiated, intentionally or unintentionally.”
Who says that you’d have to bomb a hospital? This sounds more like something that the current government in which we suffer under does.
Andy, you got all general when I was very specific.
Why do you not think McVeigh did a good thing then? Oh… its not just some “splat” revolt that is okay.. there are rules? Conditions? Can you just go and knock off DMV agents? Is that justified?
Hopefully you say no. If you don’t, well we are not on the same planet and there no point of commonality.
General invective about uprisings and the like will lead to NAP violations AFAIC. And as a Party we have eschewed that AS PARTY. If someone wants that, let them not join the Party. It isn’t as if this is the only avenue to freedom. It is the political means. The peaceful means.
I will leave it at this. Those who want to revolt have no ally in me. I guess I will say what Augustus’ peer said about those who saw the goat video and were okay with it okay friend, on this, go in peace. We will not agree.
The minute the Party becomes a vehicle for calling for violent revolt, I will find another means to pursue liberty.
I am committed to peace. And I take that all the way down to eschewing lethal self-defense.
“Steve M
October 13, 2015 at 6:55 pm
A lot of innocent people were hurt during that revolution. A lot of property was destroyed.”
Oh, you mean how lots of innocent people are hurt every day and a lot of property is destroyed every day by government thugs in this country.
“Revolution against a corrupt, individual rights trampling government in no way violates the NAP.”
Actually, that’s impossible to predict. Even if the FACT OF revolution doesn’t violate the NAP, war has a way of posing specific inline situations that result in NAP violations. “I didn’t mean to bomb that hospital and my revolution is justified” doesn’t erase the fact of the force initiated, intentionally or unintentionally.
A lot of innocent people were hurt during that revolution. A lot of property was destroyed.
Isaac Asmov put it this way “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”.
I see no reason or good sinking to the level of the current government.
There has got to be another way!
Caryn Ann Harlos said: “Of course, one could argue about the coherence of whether or not a revolt would in fact be the initiation of force, and I think it pretty apparent, if his calls were to be taken seriously, that they were. One can argue yes, the state is constantly exerting force and in theory force is justified in response, but I think there are other considerations when answering that question in view of the NAP.”
The government exerts force and fraud against us on a daily basis. We are taxed, regulated, and spied upon every day. People are put in jail or prison for so called “crimes” where there are no victims. The police regularly lie in their police reports. The police regularly beat people up, and sometimes even kill people without just cause, and they usually get away with it. Politicians routinely lie, and routinely pass bills that violate our rights and that line the pockets of themselves and their cronies.
Revolution against a corrupt, individual rights trampling government in no way violates the NAP.
”
Caryn Ann Harlos Post author
October 13, 2015 at 5:26 pm
Andy, not to revisit the whole “what does the Pledge mean” thing, but I think it very reasonably had at a minimum a pledge for Party members not to instigate violent revolt against the state. I think it means more than that, but I would find it very odd that this reason just appeared out of whole cloth, and supported by Nolan, with no factual basis in reality.”
The government initiates force and fraud against us on a daily basis. Fighting back against this via revolution, like the Founding Fathers did, in no way violates the NAP.
Thane,
I did start to listen to the speech. I couldn’t get past the first minute and a half of looking for freedom “down the barrel of a gun that space between freedom and death ” and later “when you look into your soul what will you find there? a longing for safety and comfort or the will to conquer.”
“the will to conquer”, I am not even comfortable with that word with respect to mountain climbing. A climber who reaches the summit of a mountain has not conquered it. he is there trespassing upon it for a brief moment before trying to get back down off of it alive.
But to conquer in a military political usage is to take control. I have a desire to live as unregulated as possible, I have no desire to impose or control others.
No, I find his message and mannerisms to be very un-compelling. Can we find a candidate who channels Gandhi and non-violent methods instead?
It’s possible. But he could also just be an actor hired by (my guess) Roger Stone.
“a fascist and anti-semite who’s trying to telegraph it without coming out and actually saying it too much, but not doing a very good job?”
I think it’s mostly this one.
Still no solid evidence, but I can’t help but think that Roger Stone may be behind it, given his long history going all the way back to high school if not further of playing similar stunts.
Caryn,
I’d like to read your commentary! I always kind of assumed that the Olivet prophecy was stuck in there to make the “synoptic” gospels seem like they were older than they actually were (“see — he predicted the destruction of the temple there! Who knew?”), but its absence from “John” is indeed interesting.
But anyway, back to Invictus — it’s hard to tell what kind of game he’s playing. Is he a fascist and anti-semite who’s trying to hide it but not doing a very good job? Or a fascist and anti-semite who’s trying to telegraph it without coming out and actually saying it too much, but not doing a very good job? Or a performance artist whose actual beliefs are concealed in favor of badly done theater with some point that I just don’t get? I don’t really know. What I do know is that I don’t find him compelling as a libertarian candidate for office.
Bingo!
If it were written that late (or any of the NT books for that matter), it would be logical for it contain a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, considering that was one of Jesus’ most startling predictions and if someone wanted to point to God’s vindication and displeasure with the religious leaders of that time, that would have been the perfect object lesson. The absence of any mention of that event is strong indication that none of the books were written afterwards. The analogy that was drawn is trying to date a book that deals with the history of New York and no mention made of 9/11.
The absence of any Olivet prophecy in the Gospel is also a good indication that whoever wrote it is the same John that wrote Revelation… which is an expansion of the Olivet Discourse. Now of course there is a dispute which John wrote Revelation and when it was written, but there is a lot of interesting evidence there as well.
(I wrote a 300 page commentary on the Olivet Discourse btw. It is somewhat my speciality and I have been invited to speak on it via interview all in several countries and was a guest lecturer in one Philosophy of Religion college class)
Caryn,
Interesting theology there. I’ve always been given to believe that the Gospel of “John” was probably written circa 95 AD, probably written in Greece, and probably written by “the beloved disciple” (probably Lazarus, who seems to have been Jesus’ wife’s brother).
If it was written that late, in Greece, under the influence of the Pauline heresy, it might well have had certain anti-semitic overtones. After Paul’s falling out with James and Peter over his attempts to paganize “Christian” Judaism into a new religion, it would not be unreasonable to expect him, and those who joined him, to not merely abandon Judaism but to condemn its practitioners.
Root’s Teeth (and can you explain your name? I’m curious)
Vis a vis the Gospel of John
No, in the context of his statement, THAT is not a Biblical use. While you are correct the phrase appears there (it is in reference of some Jewish people fearing other Jewish people for the schism in their religion—they literally were beating each other up and killing each other… with a backdrop of tensions of living under Roman oppression), that has zero to do with Invictus’ paranoid ranting about Menorahs behind every Christian display because the government is in “fear of the Jews.” That is Protocols of the Elders of Zion bullshit.
PS: Not going to argue theology with you here , but I would utterly dispute the 90s dating of John. There is no good reason to date any of the books after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 but that is beside the point. Even IF it were written later, it purports to describe events prior to that date, when the Christian faith was not separate from the Jewish faith. The phrase in the context of the Gospel was shorthand for fear of the Jewish religious leaders… a very political position at that time… from fellow Jewish people. Invoking contextual ancient inter-faith factions that had a time period and setting with justifying using it today about religious displays and government manipulation is no better than lifting out historical symbols that now are associated with fascism and playing innocent.
If there is a weakness in Libertarianism, this is it. We are stumbling over ourselves to avoid condemning anything.
PS There is a whole more wrong with that bullet point statement of his besides the “fear of the Jews.” He says the Federal government is to be blamed for “allowing” the “degradation” of Christian Rites ( because Jews of course)…. the government has zero place in being involved in religion to begin with… preserving anyone’s rites.
You got a guy with fascist symbols, represented white supremacists, has elitist racial/ethnic messages including eugenics, and mentions the government is scared of the Jews. Come on! This is not a proud day to be a Libertarian. The word “gullible” must appear in the dictionary next to the word.
We can’t help who registers as a Libertarian. We can decide to not make an utter mockery of our own Party by gong “well gee… maybe if we squint and look at it in a funhouse mirror a duck isn’t a duck.”
It’s a duck.
Andy, not to revisit the whole “what does the Pledge mean” thing, but I think it very reasonably had at a minimum a pledge for Party members not to instigate violent revolt against the state. I think it means more than that, but I would find it very odd that this reason just appeared out of whole cloth, and supported by Nolan, with no factual basis in reality.
Of course, one could argue about the coherence of whether or not a revolt would in fact be the initiation of force, and I think it pretty apparent, if his calls were to be taken seriously, that they were. One can argue yes, the state is constantly exerting force and in theory force is justified in response, but I think there are other considerations when answering that question in view of the NAP. Are you being immediately threatened? Have you actually declared secession (personal or otherwise) and were attempt ing to just live your lives when threatened with lethal violence? Were all peaceful less violent means exhausted? Is the response reciprocal in the moment? What is the imminent danger? Who is the target? When calling for civil war and attempting to justify it under the NAP there are a whole lot more conditions to be met other than state=force=revolt. And I think in the context of joining the LP it is pretty clear that one is committing to trying the peaceful political means. Otherwise there are plenty of other revolutionary (literally) groups to join.
I know I didn’t sign up for a Party that is going to allowing blanket calls for violent revolt. I want absolutely no part in that. I am in it for the peaceful solutions. The minute peace goes out the door, I go out the door with it.
When the roll call comes around for violent revolt, cross my name off the list.
I’ll go with not.
Yes. He is seeking the party’s nomination in a top of the ticket race with national implications in one of the largest states in the country, which happens to be where both the next LNC meeting and the next national convention will be. He is the only announced candidate for the race so far. He is getting more media attention than almost any other LP candidate other than maybe the presidential candidates have received, and most of it does not distinguish that he isn’t already the nominee.
I have examined all additional information, including the quote from Wasserman of OTO, the fact that he has kept the goat video password protected, the fact that he still uses symbols that evoke fascism while referring to his “fellow…fascist” less than two years ago, the fact that he has called his client the microfuehrer a great man and good friend, the fact that he called himself a White Southerner capitalized in the middle of a sentence the way only racists do, etc, etc. That’s not all from one document.
But, that document does exist, on his campaign website, and he has not explained away or disavowed the questions it raises. I am well aware that he can speak eloquently and knows how to dance around some issues when he wants to; that isn’t news to me.
Paulie,
If you are set on that one document and are unwilling or unable to examine additional information so as to have a full understanding then there is nothing more for me to say. I make no statement to attempt deflect attention from points of contention. I speak to you so that you may take what I believe to be proper consideration of Augustus Invictus. I am sorry that you feel otherwise. When a candidate seeking the support and nomination of the Libertarian party has taken the time and energy to record his speech for us to consider I think that to dismiss out of hand a helpful suggestion then I am saddened.
Well, there seem to be two different questions here:
1) Is Augustus Sol Invictus a libertarian or not?
2) Does it matter?
My answer to question number 1 is “well, not so far as I can easily tell.”
My answer to number 2 is “yes, it matters, because if you are libertarian and it’s not possible to easily tell that you’re a libertarian, you’re not a very good choice for the Libertarian Party’s ballot line for office.”
I don’t have anything at all against political campaigns as performance art, but that’s only a good way of doing things if the performance art either makes it easy to tell that you’re a libertarian the whole way through or if the performance art consists of a short routine with a big libertarian reveal.
Invictus’s campaign does not make it easy to tell that he’s a libertarian the whole way through (if he is), and if there’s a big libertarian reveal coming it’s coming way too late in the routine.
If you don’t hit the audience with it RIGHT after “sacrificed a goat and drank its blood while displaying traditionally authoritarian symbolism and using white supremacists as extras,” they’re going to go home thinking the skit was about sacrificing a goat and drinking its blood while displaying authoritarian symbolism and using white supremacists as extras, not about something else.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/augustus-invictus-a-declaration-of-the-failings-of-the-federal-government/
I’ve already read his alleged “failings of the federal government.” Among many other things. That’s not libertarian philosophy. If you can defend the portions of that which people are objecting to here please do so and not try to deflect attention from the points of contention.
Paulie you mention your concern that Augustus Sol Invictus “It sounds to me like Invictus wants to have a government that … no longer fails to round up and deport “parasite” immigrants, etc.”
I would recommend and urge you to take 16 minutes to listen to the recording referenced immediately above. I’ve listened to Donald Trump live in person (51% awful in my opinion). I think that you would find his speech informative however as Dennis Miller has often said “Now, I don’t want to get off on a rant here, but…” and end with “…of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.”
Edward L Garrett, if you are interested in the answer to the question “Is this an individual that represents the Libertarian philosophy well?” and you are willing to listen to this 16 minute recording made in Jacksonville, FL on 19 September 2015 then I challenge you to find one sentence of Augustus Sol Invictus that isn’t in line with Libertarian philosophy.
“Augustus Invictus on the Difference between Freedom & Slavery”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn6cx42dZXM
He does mention the Israel lobby but I hardly think that any reader or contributor here at IPR needs to be given a trigger warning on that group.
Well, at least something good has come out of this.
My fellow American fascist is the key. Logically, no one could be his fellow fascist, unless he himself was a fascist. This was less than two years ago. It may be more believable that he is no longer a fascist if he didn’t use symbols that were “coincidentally” also used by fascists right now.
Depends on what your causes for revolt and proposed solutions are. It sounds to me like Invictus wants to have a government that no longer fails to provide eugenics, no longer fails to round up and deport “parasite” immigrants, etc. While simply calling for these things does not in itself violate the NAP, implementing them would.
I’ve eaten goat and many other kinds of meat. I’ve hunted and killed animals. I even drank animal blood from animals that I killed while hunting. I have no problem with religious ritual animal sacrifice per se, although that is not something I have done myself. Taking fifteen minutes to torture the goat to death is a different matter. If he did not do that, why not unlock the video and silence the critics?
I agree.
So why is a Pagan using this phrase when referring to a supposed failing of the federal government to give preference to Christian symbols and holidays?
There’s also the larger context. Another one of his failings of the federal government is aiding the illegitimate state of Israel. Why is Israel any more illegitimate than any of the other regimes the US regime gives money to?
And for even larger context: today’s immigrants are “parasites,” MLK and Alex Haley are examples of a “lesser breed of men,” Columbus should not be called out for genocide even though he did it, neo-nazi Marcus Faella is a good friend and a great man, “my fellow American Fascist,” failure to provide eugenics, “White Southerner” capitalized in the middle of a sentence… all these things should be viewed in the context of the others. If it was just one or two you maybe could explain it away but I don’t see how the whole lot of these things are just coincidences.
Edward L Garrett,
I would suggest that the Florida Libertarian Party needs to find a good candidate for US Senate even if Caesar disappears.
for fear of the Jews
That phrase originates from the Bible, and is often taken out of context. Specifically, it appears in the Gospel of John, 7:13 and 20:19.
Jesus offended many Jewish leaders and their followers. (He was nearly stoned to death a few times by Jewish mobs before his crucifixion.) Thus, Jesus’ disciples would sometimes keep silent and refrain from defending Jesus, “for fear of the Jews.”
Although Jesus’ original followers were themselves Jewish, by the time John wrote his Gospel (sometime after A.D. 90) Jewish Christians had been ex-communicated from Judaism, forbidden to enter the synagogues. Unwelcome among Jews, Jewish Christians responded by thinking of themselves as simply Christians — literally, “followers of the Christ” (aka the Messiah).
And thus John, in his Gospel, refers to Jesus’ Jewish disciples as keeping silent “for fear of the Jews.”
“Edward L Garrett
October 13, 2015 at 1:51 pm
I think that it is important to make a distinction here. The case could be made that he violated the NAP with sacrificing the goat, or advocating the initiation of a civil war, or whatever.”
Did he eat the goat after he killed it? Most people eat dead animals, unless they are a vegan, in which case they eat plants. Heck, I had goat curry at a restaurant not too long ago myself. I did not kill the goat, presumably the goat was killed at a slaughterhouse somewhere.
If he killed the goat without eating it, well, that’s twisted, but this gets into the argument of whether or not animals have rights. Do animals have rights, or are they property?
Also, I don’t see how calling for a revolt against a corrupt government violates the NAP. Were the Founding Fathers of this country violating the NAP when they revolted against the British Monarchy? Not in my opinion. The British Monarchy was trampling on their rights, so they fought back, and rightfully so.
One could argue that calling for a violent revolution is not a good strategic move for a candidate for political office, and that a Libertarian Party candidate should instead focus on educating the public as to what a Libertarian is, and why they should be Libertarians and vote for Libertarians, and I agree with this, but on the flip side, I think that Libertarian candidates should also provide people with action items that they can implement in they daily lives to move the country towards more freedom that do not rely on Libertarians getting elected. So Libertarian candidates should tell people about jury nullification, and they should also encourage people to use alternative currencies, and to home school their children, and to purchase guns and ammo.
Why do Libertarians encourage the private ownership of guns and ammunition? Defending against common criminals is one reason, but the bigger reason is to stop a tyrannical government.
I am NOT a supporter of Invictus. He’s not a good candidate. Sacrificing a goat makes him look like a weirdo. The guy either has mental problems, is abusing hard drugs, or is a government plant, well, either these things, or he’s got a sick warped sense of humor and this is all a big joke to him. Whatever the case may be, this guy should not be a candidate.
Having said this, I also don’t like it when people make invalid/weak arguments.
Andy Craig
October 13, 2015 at 1:07 pm
“particularly by a candidate who supposedly disavowed his former support for Fascism.”
Andy (No last name) at:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/09/augustus-invictus-official-response-to-the-criticisms-of-chairman-wyllie/#comment-1233373
includes the only reference that Augustus Sol Invictus supported or supports fascism (that I am aware of).
It hardly seems like much of a statement in support of fascism (whether capitalized or not) as much as a statement of support of Ezra Pound. Others may disagree with my evaluation.
I have not seen any documentation of any disavowal.
paulie: microfuehrer Marcus Faella…
Microfuehrer. That’s very funny, actually.
I think that it is important to make a distinction here. The case could be made that he violated the NAP with sacrificing the goat, or advocating the initiation of a civil war, or whatever. I think that particular case is not only weak, but irrelevant, as is his logo, religion, poetry or whatever. The LPF EC has voted not to suspend his membership, so that is over.
The question is “Is this an individual who is electable & represents the Libertarian philosophy & Libertarian party well?”. The answer is unequivocally “No”. So if the only thing that can be done is to run a candidate in Florida against this candidate, then the money must be raised & the candidate must be run against him.
Jed,
Actually, I doubt that Invictus will be on the LP ballot line.
You’re correct. He was a minor matter, thus far almost completely ignored, until Mr. Wyllie resigned as chair, resigned from the party, and went to the media to “separate the party from Invictus” by, um, connecting the party to Invictus.
On the other hand, the effects have not necessarily been negative. I had a positive campaign interaction the other day, and that interaction was largely enabled by the person’s desire to be assured that I’m the not the guy who sacrifices goats and drinks their blood.
What I find so odd and unsettling in this whole situation isn’t even Augustus Invictus, it’s been the overreaction to him. Let’s face it, the LP has had its share of crackpot candidates, and has come out relatively unscathed. Yes, it’s disappointing to see a nutjob on the LP line, especially in a high profile race, but it’s not the end of the world. What drew the negative media attention wasn’t Augustus Sol Invictus, it was Adrian Wyllie’s silly overreaction to him. If you’re looking for a villain in all this, don’t blame the mentally-ill man, blame the guy who made the mentally-ill man a laughing stock in the national news.
http://web.archive.org/web/20151009104825/http://invictusforsenate.com/faq/
Q: Why are you using Mussolini’s symbol if you’re a Libertarian?
A: The fasces – a bundle of sticks with a protruding axe head – has a history that dates back to the Roman Republic and represents strength through unity. Like other symbols of the Roman Republic such as the aquila (eagle) and the laurel wreath, the fasces appears frequently in American symbols such as the National Guard Bureau insignia and the seal of the United States Senate. We have chosen to use the fasces to recall America’s heritage as a republic and to allude to its strength as a union of independent states.
In Rome, the fasces were the symbol of the lictors, bodyguards to the state elite. Hardly a libertarian symbol.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Eagle_with_fasces_modded.svg/2000px-Eagle_with_fasces_modded.svg.png
[I have no special knowledge of Augustus Sol Invictus that anybody else with access to the internet could readily obtain. I do not talk or email with Augustus Sol Invictus or his family, friends or legal clients.]
Paulie and Thomas as far as fasces go a snapshot of his recent web page with the answer can be found at:
https://archive.is/wTbSX
It appears that the InvictusForSenate web site is being worked on. If I had realized content was going to disappear or be moved around I would have copy/pasted the question and answer which I now do below.
“Q: Why are you using Mussolini’s symbol if you’re a Libertarian?
A: The fasces – a bundle of sticks with a protruding axe head – has a history that dates back to the Roman Republic and represents strength through unity. Like other symbols of the Roman Republic such as the aquila (eagle) and the laurel wreath, the fasces appears frequently in American symbols such as the National Guard Bureau insignia and the seal of the United States Senate. We have chosen to use the fasces to recall America’s heritage as a republic and to allude to its strength as a union of independent states.”
Thank you for reminding me of the “lesser breed of men” comment, I keep forgetting that in my rants. The “fear of the Jews” one is the one that really stuck in my craw. Also remember his constant calls to feed an “elitist” spirit.
Gawd. I would have voted so hard to throw his butt out.
I don’t know why it’s done, but his answer (per the internet archive) is to handwave about how eagles and fasces have historical uses in American imagery. Which is true, so far as that goes, even though it would still be weird to use a fasces today, particularly by a candidate who supposedly disavowed his former support for Fascism.
What I’m talking about, is the eagle on his logo is literally copied from Mussolini’s flag. It’s the same eagle, taken straight from a rendering of the emblem used by the Italian Social Republic 1943-45. All he did was paste the laurel off the UN flag on top of it.
It would be like somebody using the SS’s Totenkopf emblem, while ranting against “the Jews,” and then pleading it’s just a skull and skulls have all sorts of not-Nazi-related symbolic meanings.
I’ve seen the answer before though. It’s because of his affinity for ancient Rome. But really, how gullible do you have to be when he wrote in November 2013 “my fellow American Fascist…” (salutation the third). And then when you add “failings of the federal government” (July 2015) such as failing to provide eugenics, today’s immigrants “come as parasites,” “..for fear of the Jews,” MLK and Alex Haley as examples of “a lesser breed of men,” et tedious cetera, the fascist symbols aren’t exactly mysterious. You know, just like with his “good friend,” “great man” and client, jailed American Front microfuehrer Marcus Faella…
I get an 403 error, forbidden access, but that’s close enough.
To save everyone a bit of time, the answer is “ERROR 404: NOT FOUND!”
Seems like a pretty cryptic answer to me.
Andy Craig @ October 13, 2015 at 12:02 am
“and really does use the emblem of Mussolini’s post-1943 Nazi puppet state as his campaign logo.”
If you sincerely want an answer to your question you will find an answer to “Why are you using Mussolini’s symbol if you’re a Libertarian?” at:
http://invictusforsenate.com/faq/
” The end of slavery. The civil rights movement. The end of bans on gay marriage. ”
I don’t get the impression that Invictus considers any of these to be good developments.
Augustus in his speech hasn’t renounced these words that he will “begin it”. Listen starting at about 10:51 into it. No thanks, staring an uncivil war “all against all” (about 13:56) is not what I support. I also won’t be your slave Augustus. In many ways this country is the freest it has ever been. The end of slavery. The civil rights movement. The end of bans on gay marriage. And we are bringing the marijuana prohibition to an end. The start of the end of the drug wars. Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden have demonstrated that no government secret plan to enslave the population can go unpublished.
thesaturnalian.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/augustus-sol-invictus-departure-memo-explanation/
“I have prophesied for years that I was born for a Great War; that if I did not witness the coming of the Second American Civil War I would begin it myself. Mark well: That day is fast coming upon you. On the New Moon of May, I shall disappear into the Wilderness. I will return bearing Revolution, or I will not return at all.
War Be unto the Ends of the Earth,
Augustus Sol Invictus
Orlando, Florida, USA
XX Aprilis MMXIII Satvrnvs”
There are lots of nazis who have never violated the NAP. Maybe even his friends in the American Front. If Augustus wins the case and has their leader released from custody does that make the American Front leader Marcus Faella a libertarian? What about members of the Revolutionary Communist Party…have they personally violated the NAP?
Barack Obama is a libertarian because he never killed anyone, he even has a Nocel Prize
I have heard there is a goat that would make that claim if it could.
Yes that was somewhat facetious in that if it were a humane killing… well, I would find it odd but that is his business. But if the reports of what happened on that video are correct…. well I think the goat has case.
Joe,
I will assume that by “they,” you mean the LPF’s executive committee. As you point out, the “they” did not vote to suspend Invictus. Therefore, “they” are saying that “they” did not find a “violation.” Or, to put it a different way, they’re agreeing with you. Is there some reason you dislike being agreed with?
As far as “violating the NAP” is concerned, what precisely do you mean by that?
In at least one respect, Invictus has ADVOCATED the initiation of force (his proposal in a law school paper for forced eugenics). He points out that he has “disavowed” that advocacy for the initiation of force several times. He conveniently leaves out the fact that he was still advocating it — or at least slamming the federal government as bad for not having done it — very recently.
So if you consider ADVOCATING the initiation of force to be a violation of the NAP, then he has done so multiple times and his claims to have disavowed that advocacy are rather suspect.
I am unaware of anyone claiming that he has himself initiated force, although I suppose it’s possible that someone has claimed that.
If they couldn’t provide substantive evidence that Augustus had violated NAP, to prove that NAP was violated and therefore deserves to be suspended, then how did he violate NAP? Talking about a controversial subject isn’t a violation. Having an unpopular opinion isn’t a violation. Using metaphors and hyperbole isn’t a violation. Performing a religious ritual isn’t a violation. So, where is the violation.
“Augustus hasn’t violated NAP. Otherwise he would have been suspended.”
Nice logic ya got there.
“Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. Otherwise the Senate would have convicted him.”
Augustus hasn’t violated NAP. Otherwise he would have been suspended. The only evidence that was presented against him were along the lines of “if it walks like a duck…,” “I don’t not see Nazis,” “his speeches scare me,” & “Nazis like Roman symbols.” People should be extremely concerned about the willingness of people to grasp at straws to attempt to suspend a party member.
Andy beat me to it. Yup. He would have had to “repeatedly disavow” eugenics programs if he hadn’t repeatedly avowed them.
He has repeatedly disavowed eugenics. He has repeatedly endorsed eugenics. Both statements are true.
He also really did call for a government eugenics program, and really does use the emblem of Mussolini’s post-1943 Nazi puppet state as his campaign logo.
commenting to subscribe