RE: How Not To Talk To People About Liberty

RE: How Not To Talk To People About Liberty

RE: How Not To Talk To People About Liberty

About a year ago, Cathy Reisenwitz and “Libertarian Girl” produced a video titled “How Not To Talk To People About Liberty“. I figured this piece of shit had been retired to the dustbin of left libertarianism’s history, along with the social justice warrior ditz who created it, until it was once again shared by liberty.me on Facebook last night.

The video goes through a number of points to demonstrate how the actors look down upon various factions of the libertarian movement, and illustrating their opinion that we should all be State negotiating social justice warriors instead. So let’s go through those points and see what’s wrong with them…

Discrimination

Cathy puts on a mustache and a hat that says “TITS” on it, and says “I don’t have a restaurant, but if I did, I should be able to discriminate against whoever I damn well please”.

I suppose this goes back to Cathy’s assertion that “American libertarians are super racist” just because we support people’s right to say what, and associate with whom, they see fit. In case you haven’t turned on a television or picked up a newspaper in the last 30 years, there’s a war being waged by the left against anybody who doesn’t care to associate with, or holds any negative opinions of, certain groups of people.

If you have anything to say that blacks, women, gays, or trannys take issue with – you have to fear for your safety in America. If due to that fear, or any other reason, you want to exclude these groups from a place or activity – you have to fear for your safety in America.

So when a court rules that the government can threaten violence against a family owned bakery for refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings, actual libertarians get pretty pissed off. We also tend to join in the disgust that non-libertarians have, for the people who cheer for this kind of deplorable violence and pass it off as “tolerance”. 

THE libertarian position – not libertarian position – not “one of the libertarian positions” – but THE one and only libertarian position on discrimination is, it’s up to the property owner. Anyone who does not support that position, works against the cause of libertarianism.

So actually, if you want to talk to people about liberty, yes you should tell people that a restaurant owner should be free to discriminate against anyone they damn well please. Perhaps you don’t do it as a hideous woman with a mustache though…

“Girls Aren’t Logical”

Again with a fake mustache, “Libertarian Girl” says “Girls just aren’t logical, that’s why there are no girl libertarians”

To the fake mustache thing, can we all try to imagine what these women would say if a white man did a video like this in black face? They would be calling it racist. There’s a common theme with feminists like Cathy, and that’s misandry. Putting on men’s clothing and a fake mustache and trying to sound stupid is her man-hate bleeding through into her content.

Next, there are a lot of female libertarians. They are vastly outnumbered by men, but they exist.

Is the fact that they are so outnumbered due to females being “just not logical”? I don’t know if it’s genetically inherent in the gender or not, but if we look at the demographics, and a little bit of history, we can see a pattern developing. Women tend to vote left, which is anything but logical. Women have been targeted by the Democratic party for many years now. They have been told that anyone who opposes being forced to pay for their birth control and infanticide is waging a “war on women”. If they buy this crap, and in vast numbers, they do, then they are not logical, and terribly unlikely to become libertarians. Your incessant whining about liberal issues only further illustrates the point.

It’s time to face reality about gender and IQ. Libertarians tend to be libertarians because they are smarter than people who are dumb enough to run to the State for answers. Most people will never be libertarians, because libertarians try to give real solutions to problems. This tends to be more difficult to understand than the empty promises of politicians. If Barack Obama says “Government will solve this problem” and our answer is an economics lesson, Barack Obama will win 98 out of 100 times.

The people who do understand what we’re saying will tend to be of above average intelligence, which largely excludes women from the demographic. Women on average have higher IQ’s than men, because men are smarter, and dumber, than women. Most men are basically built to be ditch diggers and soldiers, they don’t have very high IQ’s. A minority of men are built to be thinkers and leaders, and are blessed with superior intelligence. Women are largely built to be mothers and housewives, support staff to leader and ditch digger alike- they have IQ’s in the middle of the spectrum.

So while I appreciate the contributions of ditch diggers and mothers, I don’t spend a great deal of time wondering why they haven’t joined think tanks and rejected a lifetime of State indoctrination. Average and less than average intelligence is not conducive to figuring out the answers to all mankind’s problems. That’s why democracy is a bad idea – stupid people end up ruling the world, because they are, and always will be the majority.

Calling People Statist

LG and Cathy go back and forth calling people statist

If I had the time, I’d make a parody video where I wore a blonde wig with fake tits, and I’d go back and forth with someone else calling people racist to point out the hypocrisy of this ditzy duo.

If one supports the State, or even just fails to oppose it, they are a statist. Nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. “Statist” is, and should be considered, the worst insult one can pay to a person. Shaming people for bad behavior, while perhaps not the best of introductions, is as libertarian as gun ownership.

On the other hand, there’s plenty wrong with calling Ron Paul, Walter Block, and Lew Rockwell “super racist” because that assertion is completely unsupported by fact.

Reforming Entitlement Spending

The duo mocks people who call taxation slavery in response to “entitlement reforms”

If by reform you mean “make less of” then one might say you were working towards a more libertarian society. Unfortunately, when left libertarians talk about reforming entitlements, this isn’t usually what they mean. Instead, you usually end up with lunacy like Matt Zwolinski’s “Libertarian Case for a Basic Income” which just plain gives cash to whoever asks for it.

They might make the case that this would cost less, but Democrats said the same thing about Obamacare. Making government handouts more appealing and less complicated will only increase the demand for them. It’s not as if the welfare State reaches a point of satisfaction and ceases to grow. If you give people a basic income guarantee, the next step will simply be to redefine “basic” to increase the amount paid. It’s as predictable as the plot of “24”.

White People Can’t Be Discriminated Against

Cathy mocks white people who aren’t happy about being targeted by government

In keeping with her “check your privilege” hatred of all things white and male, Cathy again dons male clothing, this time using her mustache as a unibrow. She says “I just feel like nobody is paying attention to the way white dudes are discriminated against, man”.

Thanks to people like Cathy, being a white male in America is not exactly this pinnacle of privilege they would make it out to be. Try to form a white student union, or hold a conference on men’s rights, and you will be bombarded with death threats. Anything pro-white is considered racist. Anything pro-male, is considered misogynist. There’s an ever increasing effort to make anything labeled racist or misogynist illegal, and yeah, we’re pretty pissed off about that.

Believe the 9/11 Commission Report and Pretext for the War on Terrorism

Donning tinfoil hats and shirts, the duo asserts that “fire can’t melt stuff”

Demonizing “conspiracy theories” is hardly uncommon in libertarian circles. Neither is completely miscategorizing what “conspiracy theorists” are saying. So our team of estrogen enriched entertainers are hardly alone on this one.

While claiming that conspiracy theories are hurting teh moobment, these idiots actually prove the exact opposite. The reason people feel so strongly about conspiracy theories, for or against, is because programs like Alex Jones bring more people into this movement than anybody would like to give them credit for.

If you want to undermine the State, I can hardly think of a better way of doing that than convincing millions of people that 9/11 was a lie.

Don’t Prepare for Disaster, That’s Crazy

LG holds a gun and a bow, bragging about the MRE’s she bought off the Alex Jones show.

Go back to sleep citizen, Zwolinksi’s guaranteed income is right around the corner. The government will take care of you. Stop listening to alternative theories about what the government tells you. There is no chance that the Federal Reserve note will crash, or that America’s belligerent foreign policy will have disastrous consequences here at home.

The Government Is Not Violence

Cathy points a gun at LG, saying “This is what the government is, this is what it does to people”

Pointing out the violence inherent in the system? You can’t teach people about liberty that way! You should instead repeat Hillary Clinton’s talking points, and hate white males. That’s the only path to freedom. Pointing out the violence inherent in the system will prevent our “entitlement reforms” and forced integration policies from being passed in the legislature!

In Summary, The Entire Thing Is Pro State Propaganda

Just like everything else I’ve seen come out of Cathy, this video was pro-State. It attacks libertarianism at its core, and chips away at all its factions, while replacing it with social justice warrior nonsense. It is anti-white, it is anti-male, it provides no alternatives or solutions, it does nothing to explain or advance the philosophy. All it did was attack libertarians and libertarian ideas.

If you think that’s helpful to advancing liberty, then you’ve been duped by an intentional leftist effort to undermine the work we do.

Please bookmark this link and post it in the comments wherever you see someone sharing this video.

I am in desperate need of money. So if you appreciate the work I do, please consider donating, or advertising here.

Follow me on, UStream, YouTubeFacebook, Twitter, and Google+.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

[mc4wp_form id=”7723″]

 

  • That was a great video, thanks for sharing it. I hadn’t seen it before, it was completely hilarious. I passed it along to all my friends.

    As for your bloviated screed … I didn’t get past the headline.

    • Dr. Weezil

      Oh hey look, an asshole.

    • Isaac Clarke

      “Didn’t get past the headline” just tells me:

      “I don’t like to read things that disprove my beliefs with logic and reason, because I’m an child in an adult’s body.”

      • It’s “a child” not “an child”. See you generally only use the article “an” when the following word starts with a vowel.

        • Isaac Clarke

          That’s nice, dear. Run along now.

          • Run along now is a sentence fragment.

          • AnarchyPrime

            No, it isn’t. “Run along now,” is a complete sentence. The subject “you” is implied, obvious in its context, and need not be stated explicitly in order to complete the main clause. In fact, it’s standard in English usage to drop the “you” in an imperative sentence.

          • Isaac Clarke

            Don’t talk to my son like that. He’s a retard. He can’t help it.

          • Isaac Clarke

            Isn’t that precious? You are my little special snowflake, aren’t you?

            Who’s a big boy? Yes you are! Mommy loves you!

          • You think you’re my mother?

          • Isaac Clarke

            Oh my little oogie boogie. What’s wrong? You must be getting cranky.

            Do you want mommy to put you down for a nap? Hmm? Is that what my special baby wants?

            Who’s my special boy? You are!

          • I’ve heard of penis envy, but vagina envy is a new one. Are you a post op or a pre op?

          • Isaac Clarke

            Oh my goodness! My little booger is using such big words! I’m so proud of you! Where did you learn all those words?

            Who’s my little special boy? You are!

  • Jim Ro

    Fuck those two bitches!

  • Zbyszek

    Well, I haven’t seen this video for a while now, so maybe I’m remembering something in a different way, but I believe you do not give justice to this video. Yes, discrimination is compatible with libertarianism but for most people it has bad connotations. So if someone asks you what this whole libertarianism is all about you can say it’s about freedom of association instead of saying it’s about allowing for discrimination. And then when someone has a better understanding of libertarianism you can point out those less “popular” aspects of libertarianism. It’s about selling a product and when you do it, you try to appeal to the positive (even if faulty) connotations first.

    That being said, I find this video one of the most condescending, stereotype ridden, straw man packed piece of shit. It annoyed me to no end at that time.

  • Chuck Suter

    I read more of what you write than just about anyone else. Bravo sir!!!

  • Coralyn Herenschrict

    Pshaw. If no-holds-barred racial comedy is good fun, and people should get over their political correctness hang-ups, then huffingly taking this video seriously is hypocritical. Comedy is exaggerating the unusual behaviors of other groups and mocking them for it. If it’s OK to give, it’s OK to receive.

    Can’t we step outside ourselves for a moment and laugh at how crazy we must _seem_ to other people who are still inside the statist matrix? Come on, of course we look ridiculous and incomprehensible to them. Aren’t we big enough and smart enough to realize this and not take comedic lampooning, especially coming from fellow libertarian types, as some face value attack and instead just laugh at its truthiness?

    Statements by the videomakers elsewhere notwithstanding, the only message I took from this particular video is that libertarians shouldn’t pitch liberty to others in a style _others _perceive_ to be shocking, crazed, or obscure. I understand this approach is the opposite of the brutalist approach, but it’s not unreasonable. Selling anything to a customer usually requires not only grabbing his attention but also making the product appealing to him. Otherwise he simply won’t buy.

    As long as the bottom line political message remains the same: strict non-aggression backing property rights, I’ll cheer any number of approaches that get that message accepted by others.

  • aw3som3

    lmao. i mean i think it’s pretty simple logic to ‘get’ that if i ‘open up a shop in the public domain’, say ‘times square’ or whatnot, then i can’t be all: ‘hey ‘btich, git the fuxx out my fuxxn shop. i don’t want yer dagn ‘fish smelling infidel unislamic c you en tee in my shop’… duh? of course you can’t shun and single out individuals in the public domain from making use of a shop or service you set up there. of course if you live in an already long and well established ‘african american’ community, for example, if i relocate to an african american community, and get treated like crap by the locals there, me having known very well which part of town i moved to, if i open up a shop there, i am pretty sure my numbers will reflect that no one is going to bring money to my store, and it will probably be broken into and vandalized. if the ‘community’ that has established itself does not approve of my presence. if there is a long established islamic community, i would be damned to have the liberty to open up a pork chop shop there. or a brothel or gay bar next to a church (this has actually happened, and ‘they demanded their right to remain next to them). and remember this good ol sign that applied to everyone? well since when does this rule (law???!) no longer apply? it says: ‘refuse THE RIGHT to refuse service’. TO ANYONE. when did this ‘law’ change? silently, i assume. the way the communists (liberal left) likes it. discrimination is a heinous crime. to think that you can, as stated in the intro paragraph, simply ‘rid yourself of female patrons’ by using vile sexism IS A CRIME. AND SHOULD BE PROSECUTED VICIOUSLY. but don’t ask them leftists harvard attorneys to back you on that.