A small group who identify with the political Left have spent a good portion of the last decade making every attempt to remove people they perceive as enemies from their places of employment, organizations to which they belong, and even charities to which they donate time and money. Why? Mostly for the “crimes” of “wrong think,” verboten personal associations or uttered statements the hearer perceives as “violence.” If I had typed the preceding sentence in 2010 the average person reading it would have thought I was crazy. Now? It’s a daily news story.
When most people hear these reports they think of Bret Weinstein and Evergreen College or any guest-speaker to the right of Karl Marx at U.C. Berkeley. Most would not consider the ideology of libertarianism or the Libertarian Party a target. Yet, here we are.
To make this personal, I have recently hosted guests on my podcast who riled up some who call themselves “left-libertarians,” to the point where they felt driven to contact the director of The Libertarian Institute, Scott Horton, in an attempt to have me removed from my paid position as managing editor. Some may ask, who were the offending guests? My reply is, that doesn’t matter, it’s my platform. I built this. These attempts to affect my livelihood were made by anonymous people hiding behind their mothers’ aprons.
While I said I built my platform, I must give credit where credit is due. I would not be where I am today without being given the opportunity to promote the Free Man Beyond the Wall Podcast on both Dave Smith’s and Tom Woods’ shows, as well as having the backing of Scott Horton when I was merely posting memes on Twitter. My appreciation for their support is overwhelming and I recognize that I will never be able to repay them.
I must also mention that two of the three given thanks to above, Tom Woods and Dave Smith, are constant targets of the villains that targeted me. Tom, for what I can only perceive as jealousy of his success, and Dave because, like me, he talks to people on his show that are deemed as forbidden for a libertarian podcaster to associate or find common ground with. The political left of the LP believe they are the police of libertarianism and if you break their laws you must suffer the punishment.
As Eric July (another brilliant and successful communicator these pissants hate) said on episode 508 of my podcast, where he comes from, if someone messes with your livelihood, they get hurt. I wholeheartedly agree. Some of the actions these pygmies have taken over the years, seeking to destroy people’s reputations and income, begs for them to have reconstructive dental work. If you disagree with me, you’re part of the problem.
When these ciphers are called out on their actions they inevitably whine, “can’t we have a conversation about this?” No, we can not. The conversation was to be had before attacking people’s reputations and livelihoods, if one was to be entertained. I contend they should mind their fucking business. Now is the time for them to be held accountable. Now is the time for them to become irrelevant. This has already happened, but they haven’t realized it yet. Any attacks on reputation or income in the future should result in them picking their teeth up off the floor. I believe more and more people are coming to that opinion every day.
Amen! If one doesn’t like the predominant voices of a given group, one may find another group or add ones own content to the group voices and expound on their interpretation as they see it to make the group as well rounded as they like. Stop silencing people who think everyone should have a voice and if your voice has any merit, and holds up to critical argument without someone merely silencing you, then you will know. If your voice is illogical, emotional and redundant to the point where you should seek mental health services and there’s no meat or foundation in it, uttering empty slogans ad nauseam, you won’t make enough money to stick around. Good ideas withstand criticism. These “critics” of good ideas would rather shut them up so they do not have to face their philosophical inadequacy.