Goodbye Cuck Talk Live

For the second, and final time, I am parting ways with Free Talk Live. In case you’re unfamiliar, FTL is a nationally syndicated talk radio show which I’ve co-hosted for the better part of the last year. It airs live from Keene, New Hampshire 7 nights a week from 7-10pm Eastern on 150+ broadcast stations across the United States, as well as online and on satellite.

I had been suspended from the show a few months ago for calling a social justice warrior a nigger on Twitter. I’d have gone into more detail, but that 140 character limit doesn’t make for a good debate on the finer points of American race relations. Second chair and ad sales rep, Mark Edge demanded I retract the statement and apologize, threatening to quit the show if I remained on without doing so. I refused to apologize for the act, or retract the statement. I was suspended by Ian Freeman and then reinstated a couple of months later. Much to the chagrin of Mark and others.

Goodbye Cuck Talk Live

Goodbye Cuck Talk Live

Earlier this week, a Free Talk Live supporter by the name of Chris Morris posted a Stefan Molyneux video to the AMPlifiers group on Facebook (The Free Talk Live AMP program is a donations based support mechanism for listeners of the show, and membership in the group is a perk). The video, which I had recently seen, was titled The Bell Curve: IQ, Race and Gender | Charles Murray and Stefan Molyneux. Unsurprisingly, the mention of race and IQ in the same discussion led to baseless allegations of racism against Stefan by Mr. Morris, Mark Edge, and Johnson Rice. They carelessly lobbed these allegations despite no hateful rhetoric being uttered whatsoever, despite repeatedly stating that this was not a means by which to judge individuals, and despite Molyneux linking in the annotations of the video to another video where he discussed the opposite theory with another man by the name of James Flynn.

It became obvious to me that none of these men had done the slightest bit of research into what they were saying, and they merely smeared Stefan as a racist for daring to make an intellectual inquiry into a very difficult subject. To me, this type of intellectual cowardice, this anti-intellectual, anti-science politically correct sort of thinking is every bit as much to blame for the problems we have as a society, as is the initiatory violence of the State. If people were willing to think instead of going into knee jerk conniptions every time they became uncomfortable with a topic, we could actually figure out some problems with our brains instead of letting our guns do the talking so frequently as we as a society do today.

Unfortunately, today is not so different than yesteryear in that race quite clouds the judgement of otherwise well meaning people, and people with sinister intentions often use this to their advantage. The purportedly egalitarian racial agenda of the American left, and the more recent emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement, may serve as high profile modern examples of this. But their only separation from the racial agenda of Nazi Germany is that the faces and time frames have changed, and that we have yet to see where the modern version ends up. They both stir racial sentiment to cloud judgement and to make government policy decisions in the midst of that fog. I would posit that this is incapable of leading to anything other than death and destruction, and since the modern racial language is aimed against whites, I feel threatened by it personally.

Most white people dare not speak against it, because of course it is hazardous to one’s career, and in certain places can even land you in prison. For all this white oppression people claim is holding the black man down, it is certainly odd to see that any white person who makes any critique of blacks in response to their often violent rhetoric against whites, is quickly chased from polite society. Not by blacks, but by his fellow whites.

It is almost too obvious to mention that a black man presently resides in the White House, on his second term, or that a black pediatric neurosurgeon (who is darker skinned than the president, it’s worth pointing out)  is currently polling second in the presidential primary of the political party everybody likes to think of as racist.

This would suggest to me that the trendy liberal notion that blacks are in poverty, and filling up prisons, solely due to white racism, is quite absurd. If one were interested in resolving such demographic disparities, it would be incumbent upon such a person to determine their true cause. One of those avenues of investigation is IQ, since it is not seriously disputed that blacks fall behind whites on average in IQ tests. If an intelligence disparity correlates with disparities in economic instability and criminality, only an intellectual coward, or someone who cares not for the struggles of black people, could dare shy away from such an inquiry.

Necessarily, that inquiry leads to being called a racist. It usually goes no further than that, since calling someone a racist is the opposite of making an argument. Those who do bother to make an argument will point out that peoples of depressed economic environments, even when genetically indistinguishable from peoples in prosperous economic environments, also show IQ disparities. In the Facebook conversation that ensued, none of Molyneux’s detractors bothered to do this, they just called he and I racists. I did them the favor of pointing this out, and they didn’t even bother to pick it up.

Even if they had the intelligence to make that argument, it still doesn’t explain away a genetic origin. Firstly, the brain is a bodily organ. To deny that DNA plays a role in its development is to suggest human beings are mere blank slates upon which society imprints itself. Were this true I suppose it would come as a great comfort to people with congenital defects of all sorts, but of course it is utterly ridiculous.

If one insists on blaming whites for the struggles of blacks, then it helps to take a look back before whites and blacks were coming into frequent contact. As it turns out, despite being on a continent rich in natural resources, Africans hadn’t even figured out the wheel by the time Europeans had shown up with a mastery of intercontinental travel and warfare. One of these societies was staggeringly more advanced than the other, and if you want to pretend that intelligence had nothing to do with it, then I feel quite comfortable to say you are left with a choice of being called stupid or dishonest.

The available evidence, combined with even a modicum of reasoning capacity, shows that intelligence starts at a genetic level, and is later impacted by environment. There are epigenetic impacts as well, so as the environment improves, so can the genetic impact. The lives of blacks, despite being enslaved for quite awhile, have dramatically improved in America compared to Africans who share their ancestry. So if you want to help blacks come up out of their poverty and cesspool neighborhoods, then you first need to stop blaming whites, and compel them to address their own issues. Minimum wages, welfare statism, and white society’s reluctance to defend itself have all deterred this improvement from coming about.

I didn’t become an anarchist because I thought it would make me wildly popular. I didn’t become an atheist for love of comforting lies. So when race became a front burner topic in current events, I knew I was in for a rough ride. It’s just sad and pathetic that people with the courage to take on the modern State, are still too cowardly to take on a mere conversation about race in an honest manner.

Quoted below is an email Ian sent out to the Free Talk Live mailing list. In it, he says I’m “no longer allowed” to co-host Free Talk Live. Below that email is a copy & paste of an instant messenger discussion, where I resigned from the show prior, and I also dropped out of a speaking engagement Ian still wanted me to participate in here in Keene called Keenevention.

Ian begins the email saying that I have been “bringing up” the issue of race, apparently failing to remember that I was responding to someone else who brought it up. He also seems blissfully unaware that race comes up in discussion on Free Talk Live and elsewhere all the time. As recently as yesterday there was the discussion of Ahmed Muhammed, who brought a fake bomb to school and had the nerve to blame racism when he got in trouble for it. Ian just never notices it, because like most people he is all too happy to continue the narrative that all people are perfect equals and any problems they have are the result of racist white people, and cops in particular.

Take your pick of criminals, from Trayvon Martin, to Michael Brown, to Sandra Bland, he and all the other hosts with the exception of me, are all too happy to sum this up to white racism. If that’s what you call libertarians not caring about race, then you’re out of your fuckin mind. That’s a racially obsessed worldview that blames white people for the problems of blacks, despite the terrible behavior of the particular black people in question. That soft bigotry of low expectations is counterproductive. Trayvon Martin got shot by a hispanic man while he beat that man’s head into the concrete. Michael Brown tried to take a cop’s gun while fleeing a robbery. Sandra Bland resisted arrest during a traffic stop, and then ended her own life.

If you want to improve people’s lives, tell them to stop assaulting, stealing, and committing suicide. Investigate why they do such things in such disparately higher numbers to whites. If you want to see them continue in this awful manner, then by all means, blame me and white society. I’ll just keep on telling the truth on my own platforms. I won’t be bullied or silenced. I’ll debate any worthwhile person on any worthwhile topic.

That’s more than I can say for the cuckolds at FTL and the libertarian movement at large. So I hope you’ll consider signing up for my email list and making a financial contribution to keeping this thing going. Somebody has to say these things, and it’s not fucking easy, ladies and gentlemen.

 

Ian’s Email

 

 

Chris Cantwell was one of the most talented cohosts we’ve ever had on Free Talk Live.  In addition, he’s a dedicated activist for liberty.  He’s known for having controversial views, and generally, that’s a good thing for talk radio.  However, recently he’s been bringing up an issue that really shouldn’t matter to libertarians – race.
As a liberty-minded person, I know that individuals should only be judged by their words and actions, not the color of their skin, where they were born, their hair color, height, gender, or any other arbitrary factors.  Even if it’s true, as Chris has claimed, that asians score higher on IQ tests than whites and that whites score higher than blacks, who cares?  If only the individual matters, what’s the point of talking about groups?
Talking about groups only divides people when we should be reaching out to people of all shapes, colors, and sizes with the ideas of liberty.
While I want Free Talk Live to be an entertaining talk show, and Chris is certainly an entertaining personality, the entertainment aspect of the show only serves to keep people listening to the principles of liberty and peace.  Chris’ opinions about race are not helping bring people to liberty and are in fact working counter to that.
Therefore, he is no longer welcome as a co-host on Free Talk Live.
Chris believes he is on some kind of quest for truth, but with so much truth to be uncovered in this world, I can’t understand why this is so important to him.  To be clear, Chris is still welcome to call into the show, just like anyone else.  Free Talk Live is open phones every night.  We’ll address this issue if it’s brought up – no one is backing down from the conversation on FTL – it’s just not appropriate for a host of the show to hold Chris’ views on this.
I won’t go so far as to call Chris a racist, but he won’t do anything to make people think he’s not, and that’s a problem.  He’s the last person I would have expected to collectivize people into groups and I hope someday he sees his error.
I appreciate the entertainment and dedication he did bring to the show and wish him the best in his future endeavors.  You can find his blog at ChristopherCantwell.com
Thank you for your continued support of Free Talk Live,
Ian

 

My conversation with Ian

 

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 00:54]
welp, I just saw the thread between you and Mark

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 01:03]
Mark’s a lit fuse right now

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 01:03]
He suggested to me he’s considering quitting again. That’s when I told him to talk to you. Instead, he’s doing this.

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 01:32]
If there’s something you can say to not sound racist, you should probably do that on that thread ASAP.

Christopher Cantwell, [19.09.15 03:15]
Ian, if Mark is going to threaten to quit every time race is mentioned, then I’m not going to be on the show for long anyway. Not much point in backing down from it.

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 12:27]
Well at this point he has suggested he might threaten to quit, but race has been more than mentioned. He’s gotten you to to give several reasons that make you sound like blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Now I am in a very uncomfortable position. Even if the evidence is true and backs your position, so what? Shouldn’t only the individual matter? Shouldn’t as a libertarian this search for truth on the subject of race be pointless?

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 13:23]
You can answer that on the thread, please.

In other news, rave tonight in Rhode Island. Want to tag along?

Christopher Cantwell, [19.09.15 14:02]
Sorry to hear you’re uncomfortable. If it helps at all I can walk from FTL, but I won’t sit there while people are smeared for an intellectual inquiry. I presented information which contradicted the positions of the cowards and fools who made those smears, and predictably all that is forthcoming are more smears. I will stand against that manner of discourse wherever I can. It would be nice to do so with the added benefit of Free Talk Live’s audience, but I’d rather lose access to that audience than participate in the furtherance of such anti-intellectualism.

Christopher Cantwell, [19.09.15 14:03]
No raves for me, but thanks for the invite.

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 14:05]
The discomfort comes not from the topic but the fact that two friends of mine have put me into a position where I have to make a decision that I would prefer not to make.

Christopher Cantwell, [19.09.15 14:06]
If you’re in that spot, I’ll make the decision for you. Take Mark as a simple staffing matter. I’m at the end of my rope and seeking an exit strategy. Your long term business interests are better served through him.

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 14:07]
I hope it’s clear to you that I was willing to take a financial hit to allow you back onto the FTL platform,

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 14:07]
But I can’t lose my salesman

Christopher Cantwell, [19.09.15 14:07]
Understood.

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 14:08]
You’re off the show as a host until further notice, but of course still welcome as a caller.

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 14:08]
And this is only business. You’re still my friend who I love and appreciate.

Christopher Cantwell, [19.09.15 14:09]
I’m resigning from the show, and uninterested in returning. It was fun while it lasted.

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 14:10]
You’re still speaking at Keenevention. You are not being ostracized by me.

Christopher Cantwell, [19.09.15 14:11]
10-4

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 14:11]
Though, I’d appreciate you confirming your speech will not be covering any race issues. I don’t want my conference to be about that. I see this search of truth of yours to be divisive and counterproductive.

Christopher Cantwell, [19.09.15 14:13]
I wasn’t going to address race in the address. But I’m going to pull out of Keenevention too now.

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 14:14]
Why?

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 14:15]
I was going to offer a discount code for your listeners

Christopher Cantwell, [19.09.15 14:19]
There are a number of reasons, but ultimately I’m no longer comfortable encouraging people to move here.

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 14:21]
This sounds drastic. You mean Keene or NH entirely?

Christopher Cantwell, [19.09.15 14:28]
My list of complaints spans clear from here to Lancaster, obviously.

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 14:29]
I’d hate to see you bail entirely. The fun’s just getting started.

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 14:30]
I accept your cancelation on Keenevention and I’ll try to find another keynote. I’ll still give you a comped VIP ticket and a discount code for your listeners if you want to stay on at least as an attendee.

Christopher Cantwell, [19.09.15 14:33]
I’m not having fun, Ian. I’m sick of this crap. I’m surrounded by rivals, cowards, liars, debtors, crazies, and fools. I’m in poverty, my love life suffered, I’m getting death threats. I stuck it out for the hope matters would improve, but losing the house to JP was my last straw, and this particular dust up simply serves as cause to invest more effort in finding a better strategy.

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 14:35]
I suspect people will disappoint you no matter where you go.

Ian Freeman, [19.09.15 14:36]
I have something for you. I’ll catch up to you about it at a later time.

 

 

 

This production is made possible by donors like you, you can also help by shopping through my Amazon affiliate link. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

[mc4wp_form id=”7723″]

 

See my final appearance on the show below

  • Max Sand

    I mean, this was inevitable, I am sure you were aware of that. Ian’s comments about collectivisism or whatever, while he all the time says “our listeners” “amplifiers” “libertarians” “police” “government” “candidates” “democrats” “republicans”…….and yet, can still treat them on a case by case basis as an individual is super hypocritical and I think he doesn’t even realize it. You can say identify groups, and trends among groups, without assuming anything about an individual and if he can’t see that here, he loses basically any credibility he had with me. Looking forward to the Next RA.

    • You hit the nail right on the head.

    • Tyler Hurson

      It’s a textbook case of not wanting to be socially ostracized. Ian is just acting in his own self interest here– the problem is he can’t see past the range of the moment when his contribution to the collective veil of ignorance that is modern society collapses and his skinny white cis male ass is the first to go.

      “You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality”

    • Giuseppe D’Andrea

      A radio show that is broadcasted so widely and have so many commercials cannot be radical nor principled and the only ‘version’ of libertarianism pushable is the generic ” we need more liberty, no restrictions to everyone down with bigotry and violence” (otherwise we will lose money, listeners, sponsors and our finance status will suffer).

      So nothing strange under the sun.

    • rudeboi

      Yeah, that’s about the same as cantdowell’s bullshit. No!!

  • Anders Hass

    About IQ I would say it matters when arguing against affirmative action since blacks and whites cannot get equal outcome. Not having affirmative action is more liberty.

  • Ernest Ortiz

    While I don’t agree with everything Ian says on the show I respect him a hella lot more than fucking Mark. I never liked the guy from the beginning. The use of force and race are two important topics and if no one wants to discuss that then, I don’t know. All I know is that I’m done with FTL now. They are not going to get any funds or attention from me.

  • marlene

    LOL – you just can’t stay out of trouble. I know you’re an athiest, but bless you anyway. I’ll be back for more.

  • Dennis Wilson

    Christopher Cantwell, [19.09.15 14:19]
    “There are a number of reasons, but ultimately I’m no longer comfortable encouraging people to move here.”

    Now THAT caught me by surprise–but perhaps it really did not. Considering what you have endured, it is overdue.

    Have you considered the OTHER Free State movement in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho? (There is a sizeable Christian element.)

    Or perhaps you will consider Arizona (where I live) which is in the top 10 in many freedom and economic surveys. I moved here when it was “Goldwater” Arizona and in spite of the obvious political shift to “Insane McCain”, Arizona seems to have a growing freedom subculture–as does most of the Rocky Mountains West.

    Food for thought. Ask for comments on your Radical Agenda.

    Dennis Wilson
    Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent

    • Tyler Hurson

      It’s happening… Cantwell is beginning to realize that liberty cannot be achieved under state rule…

  • Richard Onley

    I wanted to make a lengthy reply, but it’ll have to wait until I stop laughing over “If there’s something you can say to not sound racist, you should probably do that …”

    You bettuh awf!

  • So does this mean that alongside the final separation from Free Talk Live there will be a final separation from Ian Freeman and a breaking of friendship?

  • Adam Felix

    You follow truth without compromising and defend it in no ambiguous terms without self censorship. Not many people can say that, and I think it counts for something, but at what cost Chris?

    • Dennis Wilson

      Or perhaps: what an opportunity to move UP!

    • Michael

      The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
      ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

  • The Duke

    Wow! I have never met you Chris but I have met both Mark and Ian. I am really disappointed in this behavior by them. You would think liberty activists would understand the importance of allowing an open discussion of controversial ideas. But the reality is that if your business relies on advertising this is bound to happen. Molyneux says that his critics have no power over him because he has no advertisers to harass every time he says something negative about single mothers. Maybe that’s the one positive from this. You can’t get fired from Radical Agenda at least.

    • Max Sand

      maybe if people believe in this strongly enough, he will get a raise………#donate

  • Mr. Michael

    Is Chris now a Race Realist?

    • IRONMANAustralia

      Is that like a Real Racist?

      • IRONMANAustralia

        The post you are trying to reply to has been removed by a moderator

        See what I mean in my previous comment about moderation even on forums like this one? Hello? McFly? Thanks for all the time I wasted writing this you fucking moron. Not going to waste any more obviously – because incentives and economics and all that good shit.

        ” … Even if it’s true[1], as Chris has claimed, that asians score higher on IQ tests than whites and that whites score higher than blacks, who cares? … ” – Ian Cuckman

        Uh … science?

        See why you can’t use that argument arsehole and why it exposes how you’ve already insulated yourself against any truth you might not like?

        Google: “Argument from Final Consequences” fallacy.

        Also funny that a lot of the Leftist faggots who use this same argument are happy to shovel your tax dollars into bullshit studies that answer even less relevant questions.

        [1] Emphasis mine.

  • paendragon

    Let me see if I’ve got all this straight so far, Chris:

    “Chris’ opinions about race are not helping bring people to liberty and are in fact working counter to that. Now I am in a very uncomfortable position. Even if the evidence is true and backs his position, (that blacks are genetically inferior to whites) so what? Life is too complex to understand, so, since all “facts” are really only opinions anyway, then my entirely fact-free, subjective opinions are the diversely-opposite equals to Chris’ silly objective “facts.”

    Chris believes he is on some kind of quest for truth, but with so much truth to be uncovered in this world, I can’t understand why facts are so important to him. Talking about groups only divides people when we should be reaching out to people of all shapes, colors, and sizes with the ideas of liberty. We should only talk about the evils committed by one group – whites – because only they are intelligent enough to be blamed for being truly evil racists, like Chris.

    The rest – the swarthy animal people – are helpless before their animal instincts, and just can’t help becoming violent when frustrated and confused by the evil machinations of white people like Chris.

    Whites like Chris should stop oppressing, frustrating and confusing them with his big brain, because picking on mental inferiors is mean-spirited and unkind.

    Chris, I have to bow to the opinions of the mob because I have no backbone nor character, but I still love you. After taking a good long hard look in the mirror, I suspect people like me will disappoint you no matter where you go. Bye!”

    -Love, Ian –

  • Damn Ian doesn’t seem like the cunt I always thought he was. Mark on the other hand remains one and then some. Don’t ever lose your balls Chris. Sending a donation soon

  • FTLJohnson

    I never made a single allegation of racism so if you are going to demand intellectual honesty you should start with yourself. I think Mark’s actions are reprehensible.

    • Max Sand

      So to be clear, you were fine with having the discussion whether or not you agreed with Chris, and the “i’m taking my ball and going home if I don’t get my way” actions Mark took you disapprove of? I can actually understand that if it is the case.

      • FTLJohnson

        I think the discussion itself is silly and I don’t feel like Chris or myself or most of the people involved can make a lick of difference – and therefore only serves to embolden legislators, turn people away from freedom, and make people LOOK like racists. In this case it got Chris kicked off FTL or caused him to leave at the very least. No one is being served by this stupidity.

        I’m always willing to have conversations, but I actually tend to temper myself with respect to “present company”.

        I don’t change my beliefs for ANYONE but I will occasionally change how I express those beliefs. It’s only rational to do so if you want to actually occasionally change the mind of opposition and convince them to take your side on on issue.

        • Max Sand

          Sure but you never struck me as a guy who wants to silence opposing opinions, rather to either change them or at the very least out argue them, right? I mean, how much licks of difference have arguing about property rights made? Or discussing the nuance of taxation and force with statists? If this is pointless, surely those are too?

          We have discussions to get to the root of things, if you have contradictory data, present it, by all means shut him down. He WANTS you to on this one, you have to realize that. He has been saying for months that he wants a cogent response to this data, and “it doesn’t matter because I don’t like it” is not one, and if Ian or Mark doesn’t get that, of all people I figured you would.

          • FTLJohnson

            Oh, and I also need to clarify my last lengthy comment… (or really SIMPLIFY)

            All I am really discussing here is TACT.

            I think Mark is being dramatically over reactive merely because Chris has a tendency to be TACTLESS.

            I AM ALSO FAIRLY TACTLESS – But I tend to target my lack of tact at things that people can help… places where people have made poor choices… (you don’t choose your race)

            I would never support Chris being booted because of a few touchy advertisers. Sometimes you have to have principles and work on getting NEW advertisers that are more in line with your views.

            My comments on the Facebook thread were in regard to my thoughts that I think Molyneux hopping on the tactless bandwagon is not a good brand change for him IMHO – and I think he stands a better chance of reaching a wider audience who will better respect him by keeping a sense of decor… and I really do think that he has been affected negatively by chemotherapy… which is not an uncommon thing… and people do recover.

          • FTLJohnson

            I’m not sure how to explain this better… but I’m not doing a good job because you still are not getting it.

            I think there are better and worse venues and framing for conversations. I don’t want to silence anything, but I DO understand framing. There are WAYS and TIMES that things can be said that are better and worse that allow a conversation to be had. Let’s say you’re invited to have dinner with a black family… is that the best time to inform them that they they are probably genetically mentally inferior congoids and that they really sure are blessed to have such a racially superior white blessing their dinner table?

            (Note that I am playing devil’s advocate here, I’m not sold by the statistics on this… and generally think that the upper end for IQ for blacks can be just as high as whites… Africa can be explained by malnutrition … anyway… I also don’t fucking care… because there’s not really anything I can do about it, or anything I intend to do about it…)

            If Chris was making an issue about how we need to get on the radio and let everyone know that RETARDED people are mentally inferior, I would feel the same way. You aren’t going to change anything… They didn’t DECIDE to be retarded, and Chris isn’t going to be curing them of their retardedness.

            I think having a conversation about property rights with people who would be inspired to defend them and advance the concept is a great idea. Banging your head against the wall of some crappy bookstore or coffee shop full of anarchosyndicalists who think that the workers should own the means of production by any violent means necessary is probably a waste of time.

            However – at least these dumb asses made the CHOICE to be idiots. They COULD at least POSSIBLY change.

            I think going out of your way to offend your opposing audience can be a great way to get web traffic and get people titillated but I don’t think it it’s going to change any closed minds… You are only going to attract a certain already open minded audience.

            I share this stance about screaming from the rooftops one’s belief that killing government employees is morally justified. You might attract an audience that is already open to that idea… and you also might attract statists that want to throw you in a cage and or execute you and the people around you.

            Chris unfriended me on Facebook when I suggested that if he was so interested in violence against the police that he enact it first.

            Maybe this all makes me an intellectual coward because my goal isn’t always to go out of my way to piss people off… I generally focus on instilling cognitive dissonance in people who have made a bad CHOICE and are most likely to be able to be made to actually realize it.

          • FTLJohnson

            Oh, and I also need to clarify my last lengthy comment… (or really SIMPLIFY)

            All I am really discussing here is TACT.

            I think Mark is being dramatically over reactive merely because Chris has a tendency to be TACTLESS.

            I AM ALSO FAIRLY TACTLESS – But I tend to target my lack of tact at things that people can help… places where people have made poor choices… (you don’t choose your race)

            I would never support Chris being booted because of a few touchy advertisers. Sometimes you have to have principles and work on getting NEW advertisers that are more in line with your views.

            My comments on the Facebook thread were in regard to my thoughts that I think Molyneux hopping on the tactless bandwagon is not a good brand change for him IMHO – and I think he stands a better chance of reaching a wider audience who will better respect him by keeping a sense of decor… and I really do think that he has been affected negatively by chemotherapy… which is not an uncommon thing… and people do recover.

          • Max Sand

            As to this part, that’s all that mattered to me. So you don’t like what Chris said but you support his “right” to say it. That is a true defender of free speech, not those who only defend speech when they agree with it.

            As to Moly, You might be unfamiliar with the “Brutalism” camp and our quirks, but no one criticizes moly more than us, generally. However, it seems you haven’t followed much about his work, as he even had the guy with THE OPPOSING view on, like a month ago. The guy who said basically genetics is almost not a factor. Moly had him on first. IQ is important to Moly and his peaceful parenting schtick and so he had people come on and discuss IQ data. I get how missing the context of the first show you wouldn’t get that. Moly has his issues. He is a bit Cult-y at times. But sometimes hie is ahead of the curve.

          • Max Sand

            The thing is, there is a common mentality to blame me as a straight white male, for every problem. To tell me I should “check my priviledge” and that I should have “white guilt”. I am bringing a son(wife is 7 months right now) into this bat shit crazy world who considers HIM responsible for the insane amount of crime among the minority communities. They want HIM to pay for the welfare of people who hate him and think he somehow owned slaves or some such bullshit. So yeah, if race pimping is going to be a thing, then let’s fucking talk about race. The left has no problem promoting black supremacy nonsense as mainstream thinking. They have no problem collectivizing whites as evil, racists.

            There is some degree of racism. This I will surely admit, however, this does not mean every black person is a perpetual victim, nor does it mean even the majority of whites are racist. But it’s not enough to be not racist. You have to self flagellate with the whip of white guilt. You have to say you ARE a racist and beg for forgiveness. There are quite a few of us, sick as fuck of it. And I for one will not allow my son to be raised in a world where he was blamed for the problems of the black/hispanic/women community before he was even born because he was born a White Male(ironic that this we also cannot change, is it not?)

            You want to ignore the race pimping on FTL? I get that. It’s a hot button issue and the PC Bros will come down on you hard otherwise. I’ve worked with the LP for a long time. You know what the mainstream liberty movement thinks of you all? Basically look at Ian and Mark the way you are looking at Cantwell, as going too far, “clowns”, “children”.

            All the time I hear how FTL are a bunch of morons, “ruining muh moobment”. People being told to stay away from your show. This is from “Libertarians” running for office mind you. From “centerists” and “moderates” and basically anyone outside the fringe. So don’t sit here and act like you reach the world with the show, you reach the obsessive Talk radio fans, the obsessive liberty fringe and some dudes at work who can’t get any other radio station. You are not, however, reaching the influential people.

            Further, you want to criticize Chris’s Culture of resistance strategy? Understandable. It’s scary. There is risk involved, and the payoff if you go it alone would be nil. However, it is not a strategy made for 100% universal adoption. Neither was the American Revolution. I fear violent confrontation is inevitable to end the state. It will not go down without a fight. That doesn’t mean I am going to go out and kill a state agent and leave my kid fatherless on a whim. It means I am discussing a philosophical strategy. I feel it is far more likely the government itself fires the first shots of any “revolution”.

  • IRONMANAustralia

    Timing. I’ve been waiting for you to approve my account on the new forum just so I could make another nigger thread.

    ” … I won’t go so far as to call Chris a witch, but he won’t do anything to make people think he’s not, and that’s a problem … for me because I’m a retarded SJWcuck faggot … “

    Fix’d.

  • Tyler Hurson

    Fucking WHY did you go back in the first place. Why do I get the feeling that you just hang out with Ian and Co. because they just happen to be sort-of-kind-of on the same political spectrum as you. Man up and either go full SJW cuck or cut off your race-pimping acquaintances and accept your fate as a forever friendless, poor, sane, rational human being.

    • Your logical fallacy is: Black or white.

      • Tyler Hurson

        I wrote this in the heat of the moment when I was a little drunk so I apologize if I came off crude. I was angry at Chris for crawling back to that show when he really should have just taken his dignity and left for good the first time he was kicked off.

        I’m not saying there are only two types of people. I’m saying in an ideal world there would be only two types of people– irrational people and rational people.

        • As one of many people that has listened to Ironman call in to Radical Agenda for more than 20 seconds I assure you you haven’t even approached crude in my book. In any case, when it comes to the Free Talk Live lesson, the longer and more painful the lesson the better the lesson is learned.

  • Marll

    It is a cunty thing to do, to paste private instant messages between Ian and you on your blog.

    Yes, SJW cucks do behave like retarded freaks about race, but also too, there is such a thing as an uninformed moron who has only read some ‘racial realist’ pseudoscience. The truth is, using the results of a test that first requires you to be raised and nurtured in an optimal way, as some kind of ‘biological’ proof of inherent superiority, is garbage. There are many things wrong with minority cultures, fatherlessness, or just the culture shock of being only newly introduced to western civilization in recent centuries, etc., but nobody apart from Nazis are going to take seriously, the believer in ‘these statistics prove blacks are genetically inferior’. There are many flaws in the assumptions in the twin method, you’ve never read ‘The mismeasure of man’, or any of the numerous serious critiques of the weaknesses in the twin study model when it comes to the very complex topic of human behavior taking place in the context of a highly complex environment, you know nothing about the equal environment assumption’s flaws, nor have you faced the fact that molecular behavioral genetics has come up with nothing solid because the twin study house of cards/inferences it is built on is a fundamentally flawed ‘research’ base of pseudo-science, I think you’re just as moronic as the SJWs, a Molyneux video or two, isn’t ‘research’, Cantwell, and there does exist a moderate, sane view between AmRen neo-nazis and retard SJW race baiters. And I think your antisocial personality, is the reason you’ll gradually be driven out of any social group, further into poverty, totally alienated from your family, you’re a joke. Stick to writing about the state, its initiatory violence, and voluntary alternatives. Nobody ordered another right wing radio host with an ancap bent. You built your audience talking about how sickening cops are, not how ‘genetically inferior’ you believe blacks are. All you’ll be left with are a small cadre of neo-nazi fellow travelers.

    Far from you being an example of a master genetic race, you’re a male pattern baldness riddled, nicotine addict hot-head, who hates 99.9 percent of humanity, long-term problem drinker, former drug dealer, who made the foolish decision to make himself unemployable in mainstream society, relegating yourself to permanent membership in the underclass. Does that sound ‘intelligent’?

    I see Lew Rockwell invited you back recently. We will see what we can do to shut that avenue to you too. They are hella sensitive since the Ron Paul newsletter controversy about any AmRen ‘racial realist’ types getting a platform there. I’m drafting an email to them now, about your ‘drama’ with race. Now why would I do that? My DNA told me to.

  • IRONMANAustralia

    This is why I object to knee-jerk censorship, (even as private policy), common on forums – including this one.

    Sometimes the best response is terse ridicule and/or pretending to be the monster you’re accused of being. For example, instead of bothering to respond in length to SJW “arguments”, (that are so unrelated to what I’m saying that the person is either pants-on-head retarded or intentionally spreading FUD), I’ve started just making ‘Yo momma’ quips.

    Often the best response to “You’re a racist” is “Fuck off nigger”. Yet these kinds of comments are the first to be deemed valueless and/or “not funny” and/or “hurting the movement”, and put on the chopping block by moderators.

    Fuck that shit. Nobody can decide the value of someone else’s opinion to others, nobody is the ‘Chief Justice of Funny’, and “teh movement” is in no need of the benevolent protection of some would-be spiritual leader. Anyone using those kinds of excuses can shove it up their stupid arse as far as I’m concerned.

    I saw the exact same shit with the Atheist/Skeptic movement when it was infiltrated by Feminist cunts. If everyone had simply been allowed to say, “Get back in the kitchen bitch”, on the existing forums without getting bant, they never would have gotten the foothold they did.

    And notice how Anarchists far too easily resort to “Mah forum!” as justification to switch their brains off and ignore any kind of logic when it suits them? You don’t have to justify your bullshit to anyone. You have the right to do whatever you want with “Mah propertay!”, but don’t piss in my ear, and then try to paper over your lies, misrepresentations, dissembling, inconsistencies, and outright logical holes in your justification as if you’re some kind of Anarchist hero just walking the walk, because you’re still a witch-burning fuckhead.

    Notice these cocksuckers can’t just stand on their much vaunted property rights and take personal responsibility for making a fuckheaded decision, but instead feel the need to justify it some twisted way by throwing someone else under a bus?

    No sale fellas. Cantwell’s “racism” is not the problem. The real problem is someone who can’t tolerate another person’s opinions and wants to hold y’all to ransom because of it and the rest of you happily choking down their obviously bullshit justification like a big black dong.

    If your concern is loss of ad revenue, real of imagined, or you have your own agenda, then just have the fucking balls to own up to that instead of blaming someone else, and let your listeners decide for themselves whether they want to listen to your particular bias anymore, (the fact so many wont is what you’re really afraid of isn’t it?)

  • lowell houser

    Honestly Chris, you should move to Alaska and try this there. The FSP royally fucked up setting up shop in fucking New England. It’s cold and there is nothing going on economically. Alaska is cold but it has resources and lots of non-peopled spaces. The kind of place actual freedom can exist.

    • I don’t think freedom to live in a cave with supplies dropped by airplane is the kind of freedom Christopher Cantwell is looking to obtain. I could be wrong…

  • Bill Bochynski

    Dear CC:
    Is truth determined by how many people agree with you?
    Of course not.

    For my money, this is simple, who’s right and who’s wrong?

    Where is the conflict resolution?

    Where is the arbitration?

    Based on the information I have thus far, I rule in favor of CC, against Mark and Ian, Mark and Ian get kicked off (FTL) for a period of time for penance, CC takes over FTL for same period of time, and Mark gets a short leash.

    The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their correct name; and seeking truth leads to greater understanding which is vital to . . . salvation(?).

    You have my full support, CC; more Btc on the way; Mark and Ian . . . “no soup for you.”

    In Liberty,
    Bill Bochynski

  • IRONMANAustralia

    ” … As a liberty-minded person, I know that individuals should only be judged by their words and actions, not the color of their skin, where they were born, their hair color, height, gender, or any other arbitrary factors. Even if it’s true, as Chris has claimed, that asians score higher on IQ tests than whites and that whites score higher than blacks, who cares? If only the individual matters, what’s the point of talking about groups? … ” – Ian Cuckman

    No. You don’t get to say “who cares?” and then complain when people do talk about something that supposedly doesn’t matter either way – especially in response to other people spruiking shit about it. This is the same old “colour-blindness” argument dressed up in different clothes – you know the one that leads to reporters being able to tell you everything about the suspect including a description of his shoelaces, but not what colour his skin was? Meaning YOU actually DO care – and way too fucking much you hypocritical little cocksucker.

    You’re nothing but a self-righteous moralising faggot wrapping yourself in the Gadsden Flag instead of the Stars and Stripes.

    • Rothbardian Slip

      Good point. Ian (and Mark) only seem to care when someone tells the truth which is backed up by research. If it’s someone spending falsehood with no basis in reality, no problem. I guess Ian and Mark should let Walter Williams know he is a racist as well. At least they won’t need to kick him off the show.

  • UsedtobeaSuitBoi

    Who else saw this coming when he mentioned that nothing much’d happened to him over the previous week?

  • GOD

    I wonder if he’ll still be an keevention…

    • Only time will tell. I would guess not. At event is a reflection of those that put it on. Clearly Cantwell doesn’t find Ian Freeman and Company to be a supportive environment.

  • Coralyn Herenschrict

    Chris’s thoughtful exposition on proper methods of intellectual inquiry impresses. Just masterfully articulated.

    But this issue isn’t about that. As Ian nails squarely when he observes, “Even if the evidence is true and backs your position, so what? Shouldn’t only the individual matter? Shouldn’t as a libertarian this search for truth on the subject of race be pointless?”

    Indeed. Neither libertarian principles nor intellectual honesty demand taking up race. Racial views are a personal issue. And not every personal battle must be fought or argued to the death.

    The raison d’etre of the race issue, the reason the state elevates it to public discussion, is to inflame passions, distract the populace, and divide good people against each other. Otherwise they might be mutually tolerant and unite to focus on state aggression. This incident illustrates how distract-and-divide works to a tee. +1 for the state, mission accomplished. -1 for liberty activists, played right into it.

    Chris wholeheartedly plays along. He implicitly accepts the state’s premise that race is an issue rising to the level of public discourse, i.e. one that must heatedly debated so a uniform view can be arrived at. Chris even drags out all kinds of scientific reasoning, experts, the whole 9-yards in the search for “the truth” with the same earnest insistence of a central planner trying to come up with the best public policy.

    But another person’s opinion on race is only possibly relevant in a context where that opinion invokes the use of state violence. Otherwise it’s totally irrelevant. It’s a non-issue. It’s personal choice. Like religion or eating habits. A matter where people are free to be as stupid and self-destructive as they want to be. I find it tragic Chris doesn’t recognize that. Instead he takes the race bait and elects to die on the cross for his personal position, detonating a wonderful speaking platform for liberty in the process. What a waste.

    What would have been great for Chris, for FTL, for its listeners, and for the liberty movement, is if Chris had chosen to focus on how the race card is manipulatively played to justify _state_aggression_. Focused on how _that_ is wrong. He could have pounded the table on _that_ issue show after show with enthusiastic support from Ian, Mark, the audience, and the house cat. This is the libertarian issue. No need to delve into personal views on race. No need at all.

    No wonder Chris is “not having fun” if he feels obligated to take up personal differences as holy wars and isolate himself from every person and organization who doesn’t agree or doesn’t want to debate the topic. This is the fast track to bitter hermit-hood in a mountain shack. Ian nails it once again when he says, “I suspect people will disappoint you no matter where you go.”

    • Nilo BP

      Here’s the thing, though. Chris isn’t rolling out these arguments in favor of Jim Crow. He’s using them to attack race pimping, which is VERY CLOSELY connected to today’s PC statism.

      To say that today’s libertarians should avoid clashing with race pimps is like saying that a hypothetical libertarian in the Jim Crow south should avoid clashing with white supremacists.

      You could charitably call it “political convenience”, but to say that the issue has nothing to do with liberty vs. the State is just dead wrong.

      • Coralyn Herenschrict

        “…saying that a hypothetical libertarian in the Jim Crow south should avoid clashing with white supremacists.”

        That’s exactly what I’m saying. The only relevant issue here is state power, not racial views. White supremacists who employ no state power or other means of aggression pose no threat and must be left free to remain White supremacists. Same with Feminists, Black Panthers, Christian Fundamentalists, or My Little Brony Elitists. Absent aggression, the worst any of these groups can do is disadvantage themselves economically by excluding non-believers from association and trade. Members of each group must be free to ostracize whomever they wish as part of the practice their peculiar beliefs.

        As (thin) libertarians we have no basis upon which to condemn the personal values of others. However odious some may seem by our personal standards and reasoning. If they employ state aggression, as anti-white leftist racists currently do rampantly, we still may not condemn them for their personal values. We may only condemn them for their use of aggression to impose their values on us. This is what it means to be libertarian.

        • Nilo BP

          You’re right, from a strictly theoretical point of view.

          But you don’t have to be “thick” to see that a passion for liberty is part of a passion for truth. Chris has talked about this before. Statism and a disregard for reality go hand in hand. Rothbard too, such as in “Egalitarianism as a revolt against nature”. Hoppe also seems pretty convinced that while conservatism and liberty can and should be reconciled, leftism is inherently destructive.

          To put it simply, I believe that hysterical SJWs are a threat to sanity and truth, and thus a threat to liberty.

          It’s not reasonable libertarians who need to shut up and let the SJWs have free rein for the sake of unity in the movement. If anyone needs to shut up and let libertarians focus on the business of fighting the State, it’s the SJWs themselves.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            You seem to accept exclusive focus on non-aggression as right but imply practice of that to be wrong. I don’t understand how that can be. You seem to suggest non-aggression is not enough without saying so. And “respect for reality” is no actionable standard. Everyone, even the babbling bum on the street, believes his views respect reality.

            In my opinion, the only thing that is a threat to sanity and truth is force. Government force criminalizes peaceful competition among personal belief systems that would shake out the crazy, untrue systems in short order. Belief systems more aligned with reality will prevail, yielding more material and spiritual prosperity. This is the acid test of sanity and truth. Not your opinion. Not mine.

            Absent government to supply them with wealth, prestige, and exclusive access to monopolized assets, I know exactly where hysterical SJWs would end up. Ignored. Relegated to poverty, impotency, and obscurity. Quick to become a footnote in the history books. No evangelical social change campaign required. By focusing on removing aggression, we accomplish all this and more. We let the gravity of reality teach the necessary lessons firsthand. Aggression is the lynchpin. Remove it, and all schemes of folly crumble under their own weight.

            “It’s not reasonable libertarians who need to shut up and let the SJWs have free rein for the sake of unity in the movement.”

            That’s a mischaracterization of my position. If libertarians want to launch religious, racial, or lifestyle holy wars as individuals, they can. I’m saying it’s not cool to co-mingle such activities with their promotion of libertarianism. That’s highly counterproductive. The statists we’d like to convert are in a dreadful state of confusion, taught by the government they must associate personal choices with political choices and use force to impose both on everyone else. When libertarians promote a particular stance on sex, religion, or race along with non-aggression, others think that’s the package deal libertarianism offers. Most will be alienated by one aspect or another. They will move on, not seeing a fit.

            We are ambassadors for libertarianism. Delving into other topics like race with the same energy and attention as non-aggression undermines people’s perception of what libertarianism is about. Cultural leftists immediately despise libertarianism when they hear it bound up with Chris’s culturally conservative rhetoric. Cultural rightists immediately despise libertarianism when they hear it bound up with Sheldon Richman’s culturally liberal rhetoric.

            It is essential we not present non-aggression bundled with anything. It is essential that whatever our personal values, we grit our teeth, smile, and scrupulously welcome people with different values (even anti-white racists) insisting only that they hew to non-aggression. This is libertarianism. This is our unique selling proposition, our secret sauce. Without it, we’re just perceived as yet another bunch of opinionated discontents with an eclectic mix of Democrat and Republican positions only lacking their money or power.

            This is why I want libertarians to shut the hell up about their personal choices when on their libertarian soapboxes (blogs, radio shows, speaking events). I want libertarians to start talking about their _audience’s_ personal choices. How their audience can fully live by whatever are _their_ personal choices just so long as they adopt principled non-aggression based on private property. That’s it. That’s the only requirement. Prospects need to grasp this simple, singular focus allows for all kinds of diverse social views to peacefully coexist. Only then will they come to feel libertarianism could safeguard and empower them to live according to their own deeply held values around abortion, drugs, sex, racism, social cooperation. Not Chris Cantwell’s.

            We will no longer be victimized by SJW’s, racists, religious fanatics, etc. if we simply get aggression taken out of their toolbox. This must be the overriding goal to focus on, by any means necessary. This must take priority over such errancy as attacking people for their cultural beliefs. We must gain as many principled devotees to non-aggression as possible if we hope to achieve freedom. The bigger, warmer, more attractive, accommodation we can portray for others in our philosophy, the more likely more of them will pile on to help us achieve non-aggressive respect for private property. They just need to believe libertarianism offers a viable foundation upon which they can build _their_ vision of _their_ ideal society with like-minded people sharing _their_ social values.

            Launching a rancorous racial campaign or anti-SJW crusade blows all this up out of the gate. It reflects a sophistication of approach, a mindfulness of long-term goals, and an awareness of audience along the lines of “Squirrel!”

          • Dennis Wilson

            And THAT Coralyn, is why I keep bringing up the Covenant of Unanimous Consent. It is a brief, concise POLITICAL statement explicitly based on the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), which is a MORAL principle.

            What most “libertarians” lack is a coherent statement of their POLITICAL position, i.e. how they propose to interact with other people around them and how they propose to implement the moral principle embodied in the NAP.

            All of the problems that you mention above would fall by the wayside if “libertarians” focused on “A” single, simple, concise, coherent statement of their political views. After all, “libertarian” *IS* a political movement. They SHOULD be promoting a POLITICAL view, rather than a MORAL view.

            EXAMPLE: the fifth and final Precept from the Covenant:

            Equality of Liberty

            FIFTH, that we shall maintain these Principles without Respect to any person’s Race, Nationality, Gender, sexual Preference, Age, or System of Beliefs, and hold that any Entity or Association, however constituted, acting to contravene them by initiation of Force — or Threat of same — shall have forfeited its Right to exist;

            Now I ask you: how hard can a statement like that be to explain and defend? Actually, how does that statement differ from what you have stated above and elsewhere?

            Dennis Wilson
            Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent

            P.S. To the best of my knowledge, the Covenant was written 30 years ago by the same person who originally wrote the NAP: L Neil Smith.

            Additional P.S.
            Chris mentioned during one of his broadcasts that HE has recently signed an abridged, plagiarized version of the Covenant.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            I know you are passionate about the document, Dennis, and I don’t mean to be insensitive, but I’m afraid I can’t share your enthusiasm for it. I think the ideas, beliefs, and behaviors are what matter. I don’t think official-sounding pieces of paper proclaiming one thing or another accomplish anything.

            Looking at the text I question how certain words might be interpreted. I wonder why certain concepts are mentioned and others omitted. I start to speculate about the gaps. This document has all the same cans of worms the U.S. Constitution does. It would be equally ineffectual in safeguarding any liberties.

            I ask myself why I am relying on a piece of paper to outline for me what I can and can’t do with my person and property. From what elevated authority comes this paper. If the paper is not that, but instead is a contract, who specifically is it a contract with? Who will interpret it and enforce it and via what authority with what consequences? If it is not a contract, why am I bothering to fuss over its text and even sign it? Who else could possibly care in the slightest? What possible difference could this paper make?

            If a person doesn’t believe in the ideas written on this paper, this paper will not cause him to start believing those ideas or respect others beliefs in them. If a person does believe in the ideas written on this paper, he don’t need the paper.

          • Nilo BP

            Libertarianism is non-aggression, period. Of course we can agree on that. But nobody is JUST a libertarian and nothing more. And good thing too, because the whole point of liberty is allowing individuals to flourish in their own manner. Non-aggression by itself is barren. But I digress.

            What I’m trying to say is that I believe certain attitudes, not strictly related to the NAP, are conducive towards liberty, and others lead directly away from it. It’s a fringe viewpoint, I admit, but there are a few others who share it, including a certain “Rothbard”:

            “Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be – and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular – and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.”

            Libertarianism is a big tent, but SJWs don’t belong in it. That’s a practical truth, deriving from the fact that egalitarianism is a religious viewpoint that is directly at odds with reality. Someone who spends his time obsessing over “micro-aggression” and “white privilege”, while the State’s agents are perpetrating horrific, REAL crimes, is evidently not very big on liberty, life, and property. His real agenda is something else.

            And that would be their problem, if it weren’t for the fact that these people are trying to hijack the libertarian movement and use it to support their obsession with absurd and impossible goals. Sure, they’re not using violence to do that, but it’s not violence to call them out on it, either.

            So I don’t think Chris is wrong to pick a fight with these leftists who call themselves libertarians. I think he’s providing a vital service to the cause of liberty by helping to separate the wheat from the chaff.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            “…the whole point of liberty is allowing individuals to flourish in their own manner. Non-aggression by itself is barren.”

            Yes and the key phrase you recognize is “flourish in their own manner.” In _their_ own manner. Not mine. Non-aggression is barren, but if I attempt to spice it up by pitching it in combination with a lifestyle of, say sexual licentiousness, sexual conservatives will be instantly repulsed and run away from libertarianism presuming the two are associated. And vice versa.

            When promoting libertarianism to others, I should do no coloring of non-aggression. Or promptly provide counterpoising examples of libertarians flourishing in completely different manners to make the point of libertarianism’s neutrality. Or color in with _their_ values they’ve explicitly told me they care about, not with my values. Otherwise I will misrepresent what libertarianism is and fail to convert anyone.

            “I believe certain attitudes, not strictly related to the NAP, are
            conducive towards liberty, and others lead directly away from it.”

            I agree with that! I’ve said as much in other posts. For example, my personal values include hard work over laziness in part because I know that is conducive toward liberty. However when pitching libertarianism I am careful to say individuals can be as hard working or as lazy as they want to be so long as they aren’t aggressive. Why? I want to appeal to those who prize leisure as well as hard workers. I don’t want to bundle in my personal values with my libertarianism, and try to push others to swallow that big pill. I just need them to swallow non-aggression, a smaller pill.

            “Libertarianism is a big tent, but SJWs don’t belong in it. That’s a
            practical truth, deriving from the fact that egalitarianism is a
            religious viewpoint that is directly at odds with reality.”

            Come now, there are plenty of religious and other goofy belief holders currently in the libertarian tent. Their views are no less at odds with reality in my opinion. I don’t care as long they respect non-aggression. Libertarianism welcomes them and thrives from their energy. Yes, SJW’s who insist on using government force can’t be libertarians. But a voluntary SJW would be legit.

            You also misidentify the thrust of my point. I concur with you the practicality of a libertarian SJW is about as low as Walter Block’s infamous libertarian Nazis. Nazis don’t tend to be into non-aggression. SJW’s and Nazi’s alike are groups we’ll likely recruit very few of. But if SJW’s and Nazi’s find our philosophy inoffensive, merely impractical for their aggressive schemes, then we’re pitching it to them the right way.

            What’s important to successfully recruiting people to non-aggression is we don’t trash their values along the way. If we can show the philosophy affords genuine tolerance for people’s personal social values, no matter how bizarre, then we win. Because then we’ll definitely appeal to the vast majority of the population who is far less invested in government-scale mass aggression per se, but simply holds some firm personal convictions like “everyone ought to kick in to help the poor” and want a society where that and a few other things can be part of “the rules.” We need to be able to make them feel that’s OK and give them that. And luckily we can without compromising our principles even if we must endure the offense to our sensibilities.

            “…these people are trying to hijack the libertarian movement”

            They can only hijack it if we let them. Only if we lose sight of the primacy of non-aggression. Only if we grant them recognition as libertarians without insisting on their categorical rejection of aggression. If that happens they didn’t hijack libertarianism, we gave it to them. We never had a proper grip on it in the first place. But our weakness is no reason to ban them.

            “So I don’t think Chris is wrong to pick a fight with these leftists who
            call themselves libertarians. I think he’s providing a vital service to
            the cause of liberty by helping to separate the wheat from the chaff.”

            Agreed if he were to stick to picking fights with leftists narrowly over their aggressive actions. That would be libertarian. But he spends about 20% of his time and energy focusing on that and about 80% of his time and energy trashing their personal values. That is suicidal for libertarian activism. Moderate leftists and independents alike (i.e. the entirety of our target market) will observe Chris raging on his right-wing lifestyle holy wars against radical leftists and think, “Damn, I want no part of that hateful package Chris Cantwell is pushing. What’s that crazy, obnoxious philosophy called again? Oh yeah, libertarianism.”

    • Dennis Wilson

      Nice point!

      For “libertarians”, race–like abortion–is a red herring used to divide the movement, yet neither of those issues “focus on state aggression.”

      • 10percenter

        Race pimps are an issue of state power. This white guilt bullshit you left libertarians preach or conveniently parrot that it has no bearing on libertarianism and should be left alone by others is a pile of shit.
        Cuckbertarian fag.

  • rdrake

    You’re right on almost all your points, but Ian is right, people are going to disappoint you anywhere. The only disappointment I have is that you still promote Stefan Molyneux who you haven’t yet discovered that he’s a psychopath.

  • rdrake

    You’re right on almost all your points, but Ian is right, people are going to disappoint you anywhere you go. The only disappointment I have is that you still promote Stefan Molyneux who you haven’t yet discovered is a psychopath.

    • Tyler Hurson

      I hear this accusation a lot and I’m genuinely curious as to why people think this. Are you referring to the “inner circle” controversy or just his general demeanor in his videos? Stefan certainly is an egoist (and that can be annoying to the point where I even can’t watch his call-in show), but I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a psychopath.

      • Coralyn Herenschrict

        Agreed, psychopath is unfair. An arrogant bully is how I think of him.

  • Michael

    The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
    — Friedrich Nietzsche

  • Topher Freeman

    It seems the real issue is that Mark and Ian seem to make decisions based on the whims of the Amplifiers alone. Remember, the whole discussion started in the AMP facebook group. 99% of FTL listeners had no clue what happened until we were eventually enlightened. If Mark or Ian didn’t say anything, most would have ever really known this transpired.

  • Topher Freeman

    Perhaps if Ian hired an additional salesperson and Mark had some competition, Mark wouldn’t have such power over the show. A monopoly of power if you will. Every time Mark threatens to quit, he has Ian by the nads as Mark brings home the bacon by selling the advertising. Just a thought from a career salesman.

  • Nilo BP

    Well, for what it’s worth, I’d like you to stay consistent, and stay stubborn. Dogmatic, as bionic mosquito puts it.

    The fact that you’re having such a hard time getting along with people who are supposedly “libertarian” shows that libertarianism needs consistent people now more than ever. Keep your head cool and stay strong, if you can.

  • Antistatesman

    Damn it, man. I was looking forward to hearing you speak when the
    girlfriend and I go up there for keenevention… While I agree with
    everything you say, I will say that it behooves you to pick your battles
    a little more wisely. Losing FTL and KV as platforms is a net loss for
    you and the movement as a whole. The key is to balance principles and
    discretion so you don’t get ostracized from everything other than your own echo chambers. That being said, it’s your life to live as you choose and i do appreciate the consistency. I hope to maybe hang out when I’m up there for KV.

    • There is a certain point that Cantwell has lost FTL and Keenvention as “valuable” platforms. I think a stronger point can be made that FTL and Keenvention were not good platforms for Cantwell in the first place considering that he would have to bow to the PC elements that sway Ian Freeman. Cantwell can now avail himself of other options and instead of spending energy kowtowing to the politically correct militia he can promote his words and ideas without shackles.

      • Antistatesman

        Yeah, I agree and I admire his consistency. FTL is not a good platform for much of anything controversial because it must abide by the whims of it’s advertisers, it’s donors, and the state (and the same can be said by proxy for Keenevention to some extent). But that’s their business model. As a principled anarcho capitalist, I cannot possibly fault them for acting in the best interest of their business even if it is at a detriment to Chris. Still though, I paid $120 for two tickets to Keenevention and feel I’ll hardly be getting my money’s worth if Chris isn’t speaking. I think his cancellation there was a mistake and a knee jerk reaction based on emotion rather than reason, but that’s just my opinion and is probably worth very little.

        • The opinion of someone that paid $120 for tickets means something but I am certain that from Christopher Cantwell’s perspective Ian Freeman controls the size, scope and length of the presentation and clearly doesn’t find Cantwell and his current words and ideas to be a net plus. I say no Cantwell at Keenvention means that all people that are interested in unvarnished Cantwell have an opportunity to go direct to the source, meet Cantwell and invite him to dinner. If there is a meeting hall or meeting room in the restaurant in the area I am sure that 40 attendees willing to pay $5 per person would perk up his evening far more than spending that same time under the thumb of what Cantwell and I clearly see as the forces of political correctness.

          • Dennis Wilson

            Problem… think, think, think… Solution!!!

            And it did not even need State approval!!!

            NICE WORK!!

  • liberty lover

    If Chris wants to expound on this race issue, he should do it on his own podium and stop bitching that he can’t do it on someone else’s. I can’t blame Ian and Mark for not being enthusiastic about this issue. They are trying to recruit ALL people to the cause of liberty and that topic is a little toxic, and not even useful as far as liberty is concerned.

    • 10percenter

      You a you a stupid ho

  • Giuseppe D’Andrea

    Dear Guys,
    I’m not a FTL fan and i’m sincerely unimpressed by Ian and Mark with their generic libertarian blabbering and i’m also not surprised that Christopher had to resign for ‘endorsing’ the genetic argument that Molineux is pushing around now.
    But let’s stay to the facts, FTL is a BUSINESS and like every other BUSINESS have to knee-jerk to the morality of the day. Molineux that is becoming even more megalomaniac day by day, don’t care about controversies even because he is the guru and every word he spell is law, but Cantwell that have not achieved this ‘demigod’ status will be ostracised from everywhere.
    I don’t buy Molineux narrative about supreme races and history showed us many civilizations with much more intelligence and achievements that have been reversed and destroyed by more ‘primitive’ enemies or simply we have seen societies loosing their ability to adapt to threats or where their social cohesion crumbled leading to stagnation and impoverishment but Molineux don’t care about this long term evidences, he speaks about ‘peaceful parentood’ (very leftist argument rebrandend) and super long ‘reproductive strategy’ (’cause libertarian genes can take over the world).
    I’ve called several times to Radical Agenda and showed Cantwell that this theories are also in contrast with the Mengerian/Misesian/Rothbardian philosophical arguments and also Austrian Economics will not get along with this genetic blabbering, the only thing you will achieve in following this ‘framework’ of superior genetics is hitting the Tripwire of SocialJusticeWarriorness and being labeled as RACIST for the rest of your life.
    I like very much Chistopher Cantwell and i appreciate his style, but there are more important and meaningful subject were his talent would be fruitful, so I’ll hope he will at some point TRASH ALL THAT MOLINEUX dialectics.

    I’ll keep following, liking, sharing and financing you Chris because i believe in the content and in the person you are, but give me some ray of light.

    • When you called in and made your case did Cantwell indicate that he found it worth consideration? It is clear that Cantwell finds Stefan Molyneux to be very compelling. If Cantwell is to find fault with Molyneux’s ideas two conditions must occur. 1) Someone must point out faults with the ideas. 2) Cantwell must be open to finding faults in those ideas.

      • UsedtobeaSuitBoi

        He’s disagreed with Moly before.

        • That being so and considering Cantwell’s passion for examining an issue I would say that all that waits is someone making the case well enough, cogently enough and civilly enough for him to have the opportunity to examine and reflect. Even if he is wrong those that refuse to discuss the issue without resorting to insults would clearly hold up his ability to examine those ideas rationally. Given how common it is for those discussing race and racism to resort to ad hominem argumentation it might be quite a while before Cantwell has the breathing and thinking space to examine and reflect on his ideas, should they be wrong.

          • Max Sand

            He has been fucking BEGGING for someone to do exactly that, for weeks at least, maybe months. It wasn’t his A#1 top of the show priority, but it has come up a lot, and he has asked, numerous times, for someone to prove him wrong. The OP cuck called in, rambled on for 10 minutes and was shut down by another caller immediately after.

            I mean, where Cantwell “crosses the line” on this, on the Afterchat, we burn that motherfucker to the ground every week. If you all want to have this conversation, by all means come join us on the RA afterchat, the links will be provided day of in the RA chat. Please, come prove the prevailing science wrong. Don’t try to do it with feelz or appeals to the democratic mob, but bring some facts, evidence and be prepared for a pretty intense conversation that has literally zero boundries.

            We must have just been ahead of the curve, because this stuff is all old hat to us, glad to see Moly and Chris jumping on the bandwagon with us.

  • rudeboi

    You are a lowdown piece of shit for publishing this conversation. You deserve all the negative shit you put out to come back and smack your fuckin’ tongue out.

    And what’s up with this “cuck” shit all you righty are now using? I heard David Duke use it first in this context. Fuckin’ dick.

  • rudeboi

    You can delete my comments all day, but you are still an asshole. No amount of deleting in the world is gonna change that.

  • jneilschulman

    I have zero interest in race. I’m too old and fat to run a marathon, can’t fit my fat ass into a race car and would need a crane to get me out once I was wedged in, and horses scare the shit out of me.

    Oh, you’re talking about genetics versus environment, the debate between non-believers in human free will who think something other than our choices make us what we are?

    That discussion excludes all real libertarians and has since the Enlightenment

  • Robert Donald Bates

    Well, Chris, it looks like you’re feeling as jilted these days as I have been. At least you can call Ian your friend, as forsaken by the rest of the libertarian “community” as you may be.

    I left CA primarily to get away from that oppressive state and would have felt relieved in a number of other states. I chose NH as my destination because I had hoped to gain friends and the moral support of a like-minded community.

    So far, this has been a big mistake. I have come dangerously close to going straight-up bust multiple times. My quality of life has declined severely in every way, except that I can now carry my pistol and protect my person at all times. To top it off, I feel I am as much a part of this community as when I was thousands of miles away in CA. In fact, the only people who care that I am here in NH are my family and those few people who, in spite of their varied horrifying political views, where actually my friends. I now live unnoticed among “libertarians” and hold myself in low regard.

    • Mandy

      Robert,
      I’m terribly sorry to hear of your unfortunate experience with your move to NH. I’d be lying though, if I didn’t say that my fear of the same is what keeps me from making the leap myself. I’m more than a little apprehensive about the way certain entities have painted the NH Libertarian community as an almost Utopian society where everyone is all about eachother and sticking together. I hope your circumstances improve. There’s nothing quite like feeling invisible….

      • Robert Donald Bates

        Thanks for your words of comfort. Making friends here isn’t easier than anywhere else, although one would think it ought to be given the more-or-less homogenized philosophical disposition. I suppose I just need to try harder and keep my expectations of people realistic.

        • Mandy

          No thanks needed. I think you’re absolutely correct. Sometimes, to put it bluntly, life sucks. But we just have to take a deep breath and push forward because things will always get better. Keep your head up.

    • Coralyn Herenschrict

      The FSP has done a terrible job creating community and a support networks for movers.  Almost nothing.  By contrast, historically, religious communities have nailed this sort of thing with tremendous organization and energy, supplying newcomers with every possible opportunity, helping hand, and warm embrace into the fold.

      It seems NH libertarians have sporadic gatherings to drink beer, but otherwise each person appears left pretty much on his own after having uprooted from friends and family in another state.  Perhaps this is why so many end up without jobs and mired in petty interpersonal squabbles.  What a waste, given mutual aid, comfort, guidance, and motivation is a tremendously valuable resource most NH libertarians could be supplying each other.  Without that, NH is a cold, forlorn, isolating place with nothing going on socially or economically.  Hard work growing an amazing life in rocky soil.

      Having recognized that we should know as libertarians that each individual is responsible for his own prosperity both economically and socially.  Personal responsibility, self-reliance, making our own fate, is a key virtue.  Unlike the statists, we recognize neither the world nor other people owe us anything.  Even basic things must be earned.

      Self-Investing, doggedly working on self-improvement to cultivate the entrepreneurial skills, character development, and social skills needed to be successful anywhere we go, should be our ongoing personal modus operandi.  That will lead us to thrive and hold ourselves in high regard, no matter where we find ourselves.

  • 10percenter

    Fuck these lefties. They probably chain themselves up and beg forgiveness from the black man, while he watches mandingos gang bang his wife then lick their ejaculate out of her, hoping for a mixed baby to show off at their white guilt conventions. These dishonest shits will, at the very best, find a way to say it shouldn’t matter even if you’re righy, all the while continuing on with their leftist, white male guilt, group think bullshit. Never mind that the white male built the modern world.

  • davidinkeene

    people “take heat” for being friends with Ian…hes like the most disliked person in keene …so…he should get off that trip…also hes not the most liked person in the fsp either… whats “cuck”

    • Search for “CUCKSERVATIVE,” A DEFINITION by Alfred W. Clark” or its base word cuckold.

  • Karl Schipul

    You sound very much like Stefan Molyneux in your final episode. Dead on impression.

  • Sam Cru

    Why would anyone want to waste time with FTL when you have Radix Journal and The Right Stuff?

    • Don’t forget to mention: The Radix Podcast: Richard Spencer and guests discuss culture, politics, and society.

  • Mandy

    I’m relatively new to the world of Libertarianism. I’m learning as I go and have thus far been fairly in line with the general beliefs. I have to say, though, that I’m thoroughly disgusted with Ian’s decision to fire you. I have noticed a trend during their shows of cutting people off who have differing opinions. They seem wholly unwilling to “tolerate” anyone that isn’t on par with their viewpoint. Again, I’m relatively new so maybe I’m off base but this has been my take since I’ve started listening to them.
    Ian and Mark can make their claims of racism all day but racism works both ways. I live in the South and am frequently targeted as the enemy; being a white woman, an atheist and someone that doesn’t trust or believe in our government in general. I’ve been seriously considering a move to NH as life in the Right Wing Bible Belt has been rubbing me raw for too long now. However, after this debacle, I’m wondering if things aren’t the same everywhere… just in a different setting. Someone on a power trip decides, single handedly, to make a decision that affects another person’s life in a negative way but it’s to be accepted with no hard feelings and a sense of understanding because, well, they ARE right after all. Smh…
    I’m no longer a listener of their show. I can’t, in good conscience, continue to listen to the hypocrisy and thinly veiled hate mongering that I’ve been hearing from them. I will, however, continue to follow you. I respect and appreciate your honesty… especially in a world now that deems such an opinion as hateful, racist and baiting. It cannot be easy for you to put yourself out there, to the public, as boldly and nakedly as you do. I’m only one person and my opinion doesn’t mean much in the big picture but, I want to thank you for taking a stand. You are a beacon of hope for those of us who feel as though we have no voice.

    • Tyler Hurson

      “I’m wondering if things aren’t the same everywhere”

      I would argue that all societies are deeply sick, philosophically. Everywhere you go, people think with their emotions rather than reason. There needs to be a revolution in thinking– probably from the outside, rather than from within. Perhaps on an island somewhere. Heavily defended.

      • Mandy

        Sadly, I agree. I’d ask that you point me in the direction of said island should you ever become aware of it’s location…

  • Jim Hurlbut

    The simple fact is that property rights apply. Its not Mr. Cantwell’s show. If Ian has reason to believe that Mr. Cantwell is not acting in the best interest of his show, of his goals and values in the context of his show, then he has every right to let him go. Racism and racialism are crude forms of collectivism, incidentally:

    “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the
    notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic
    lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are
    produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in
    practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but
    by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

    Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus,
    but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character
    are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This
    is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited
    knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism
    is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of
    collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various
    breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

    Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which
    distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism
    negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality,
    replacing them with chemical predestination.”

    “A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same
    race—and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share
    his racial origin.” Ayn Rand

    • Tyler Hurson

      This is a Libertarian community; no one here is trying to argue that property rights do not apply to FTL…

      • Jim Hurlbut

        I beg to differ. Many ARE inferring that Mr. Cantwell should have been allowed to state his positions and remain a part of the show. Irrespective of the ideological grounds of their arguments, they have no leg on which to stand in light of the property rights context.

    • Coralyn Herenschrict

      That was always one of my favorite Rand passages. Just nails it.

  • Clear and Present Menger

    Chris, I’ve been following your career off and on since you appeared
    on the Tom Woods Show a few years back, and I’ve enjoyed listening to
    your contributions to Free Talk Live. While I don’t agree with you on
    everything, I’ve never doubted for a second that you are committed to
    the truth and to opposing statism, and I see no evidence for the claims
    of “racism” against you. It’s very disappointing to me that Ian has
    evidently decided to join Mark in taking the anti-intellectual position
    on this matter.

    It was ridiculous listening to them try to defend
    their actions on FTL the other night, with Ian saying things to the
    effect of “Chris may be right, but I don’t want to talk about it because
    we should only be discussing individuals.” To me, this translates to
    basically “Chris may be right, but I don’t want to talk about it because
    I may offend some leftist sensibilities.” And Mark pulling the
    mainstream cliches out of his ass like “IQ tests are culturally biased.”
    Yeah Mark, that’s why Asians perform the best at them – everyone knows
    IQ tests are chock-full of questions about pagodas and karaoke and shit
    like that… give me a break. Yes, I’m sure there are many factors at
    play in measuring intelligence, but that doesn’t mean you should just
    give up and refuse to talk about it. But again, I get the impression
    that Mark wants to shut down discussion of it because it’s not PC.

    I actually had been considering becoming an amplifier for FTL until this
    little episode happened. Seeing now that they apparently won’t oppose
    the leftist PC cultural agenda (which I feel is a significant arm of the
    statist monster engulfing America, Europe, and I’m sure elsewhere, and
    must be opposed)… well, needless to say I won’t be tuning in again
    anytime soon.

    Also, good to know before I consider moving there
    that New Hampshire is just as full of bullshit and drama as anywhere
    else. And libertarian-flavored bullshit is still bullshit.

  • Josh

    If I believe that the world has a financial crisis on the horizon, it’s not actually the world, it’s “the people.” Ian might agree with my assessment that privatized central fractional reserve banking with fiat currency is a huge part of that. And we could brainstorm about what “the people” could do to solve such a problem. No “racist.” No “well, we’re collectivizing too much” talking about “the people.”

    How is this family going to thrive? Debate and try to answer this question. No “racist.” No “well, we’re collectivizing too much” talking about “this family.” And again, we are free to actually try to answer the question.

    How do we help the black community? Racist! Collectivizing! You will not answer this question if I have anything to do with it!!!

  • FTLers are losers. They don’t understand politics at all and many of them don’t get libertarianism as a doctrine.

    As well, the Free State Project morons picked the wrong state. NH is heavily dependent upon Congress.

    And Cantwell is still doucebag.

  • Clint

    Meh, fuck them. You have a way better show anyway. Radical Agenda is the shit. Thank you for not pandering and selling out your integrity to these fucking cucks.