My Case Is Not That Curious

I’ve been out of jail just over a week, and reading news and blogosphere coverage of myself has been quite a chore. I’ll never be able to get through it all, so I prioritized those of people with valuable opinions. One such opinion was of my longtime friend, Ian Freeman of FreeKeene.com. For the sake of those with very short attention spans, let me say now that Ian does not share my views on race or use of force. His ideological attachment to kindness and freedom, however, has allowed us to maintain a positive relationship (from my perspective, at least).

Ian published a blog post at FreeKeene.com titled “The Curious Case of Christopher Cantwell” as the world was introduced to me in the wake of last August’s Unite the Right rally. In it, Ian corrects our local newspaper, the Keene Sentinel, who said I was a blogger on his site (I wasn’t). I was however a cohost on Ian’s nationally syndicated broadcast talk radio show “Free Talk Live” until I was fired for racist commentary, and despite our disagreements, and some less than friendly behavior on my part, Ian has always been kind to me.

He briefly describes my controversial history in the libertarian movement, and his confusion about my turn towards racism. I’d like to now take the time to help alleviate my friend’s confusion.

It is indeed true that I came into the libertarian movement rather angry. In fact, I came into the libertarian movement in 2009 after browsing through a series of different extremist movements looking for violence, including StormFront.org, and being dissatisfied with the propaganda I found. At the time, I was facing 4.5 years in prison on felony DWI charges in New York for being .01% over the legal limit, 9 years and 2 days after my first DWI, in which I was caught sleeping it off in my car and refused to take a breath test. I was furious, and I still believe I had a right to be.

While researching for my legal defense in that case, I came across a website that is no longer operational. RIDL.us, an acronym for Responsibility in DUI Laws. I found there an abundance of material that caused me to call into question the very legitimacy of my government. When one studies the evidence commonly used in drunk driving cases, one realizes that our criminal justice system is far less interested in determining facts than it is in discouraging behavior. While few if any would deny that drunk driving is a serious problem and in need of legal remedy, one who bothers to understand how that is being done is, if in possession of a shred of integrity, compelled to admit that it is being done dishonestly. Thanks however to a cooperative media apparatus that disregards truth to drive hysteria, it is almost impossible to get a fair trial in such a case. I ultimately ended up pleading guilty to a misdemeanor rather than face a jury on the felony, and was sentenced to 45 days in the county jail.

Aside from the pseudo science of the supposed evidence, a number of constitutional issues existed, which I won’t bother discussing in any detail as they are beyond the scope of this post. Suffice to say, I felt that my rights were violated, and I had no legal recourse. I watched a video series by 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik titled “Introduction to the Constitution” which made me realize that the government we currently suffer under bears no resemblance to the one described in our founding documents. The United States Constitution outlines a federal government with very limited powers, a tiny fraction of those it exercises today. If one accepts the legitimacy of that constitution, then the powers exercised by the federal government outside of those limits are little more than violent crime carried out under color of law. A theory exists whereby this violent crime should be stopped through force of arms by the citizenry, and for a time I subscribed to this theory.

This is how I stumbled upon libertarianism. First that of the constitutional variety, but as I lost arguments to anarcho-capitalists I began to see inconsistencies in that train of thought. Of particular noteworthiness was a line from Lysander Spooner which reads “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

Convinced of this reasoning, I began to read the works of Murray Rothbard, took an interest in Stefan Molyneux, and other anarchocapitalist intellectuals. I had accepted the “non-aggression principle” as an axiomatic, inviolable, objective, moral truth. I began referring to taxation as theft, arrest as kidnapping, war as murder, and police as gangsters. This made perfect sense to me for a number of years, and I made a name for myself advocating for these ideas.

One thing that frustrated me about the libertarian movement however, was that people who saw the government as nothing but a gang of thieves, writ large, seemed unwilling to do anything to stop their predation besides verbally criticize them. If it is true that all initiatory violence is criminal behavior, and the only proper use of violence is to repel initiatory violence by way of defensive violence, then violence against the government is the perfectly logical next step. For pointing out this perfectly logical progression of thought, I was accused of being a thought criminal, a federal agent, and a maniac, often in the same breath.

I was never refuted in any meaningful sense, mind you, only ostracized and ridiculed. It rung quite familiar to my efforts to expose the corruption of DWI prosecutions. More importantly, it made me doubt the integrity of the movement. Libertarianism appealed to me because of its adherence to reason, and this unwillingness to follow through a logical progression to its ultimate conclusion indicated to me that the people I was surrounding myself with were not serious about solving problems.

This seemed to coincide with the infiltration of feminism into the libertarian movement, and I concluded we had a crisis of masculinity. Violence is a man’s job, and the demonization of all things masculine was well underway in the libertarian movement. Non-aggression was transformed to nonviolence, and pacifism, a perversion of the ideology.

This is when I began taking an interest in gender, and before long my ideas started being featured on the pages of A Voice for Men. This syndication was short lived however, as my greater hostility toward the government and leftists caused me to come into conflict with other bloggers on the site.

As anyone who has lost faith in the so called “Alt Lite” can attest, delving into the biological realities of gender, leads inevitably to the biological realities of race. Women are underrepresented in the military, science, and mathematics, for the same reason blacks are overrepresented in the prison population and welfare roles – biology. This was first presented to me by Stefan Molyneux in a video he did with Charles Murray about his book, The Bell Curve. Honest people will be less than shocked to hear that blacks on average have lower IQs than whites.

The brain, as it turns out, is a bodily organ. Like all of our bodily organs, the characteristics of it are transmitted to us by the DNA of our parents. Intelligence is not a mere matter of accumulated knowledge, but rather the processing power of the organ. This is why IQ test results remain relatively stable over the course of one’s life, regardless of education level. Put simply, IQ is highly heritable, and so the IQ disparity between blacks and whites is genetic in its origins.

This is not to say that environment has no impact, of course. A white child can be born to genius parents, be malnourished, or abused, or neglected, and his brain development would surely suffer. We are all however born with a certain degree of genetic potential, beyond which no environmental factor can improve. This is not limited to intelligence. Two men can go to the same gym and do the same exercises on the same schedule and one of them will reap greater rewards than the other based on their genetics.

This is not to say that all whites are smarter than all blacks, anymore than it is to say that all blacks are better athletes than all whites. To say either would be to ignore massive piles of evidence readily available in the course of everyday life. Nor is it to say that any individual is inherently more valuable than another. All it does is explain socially significant phenomena in our society, like disparities in wealth and prison population.

The sad fact of the matter is, roughly half the country is freaking out that whites are outperforming blacks in just about everything our society values other than athletics, and the only socially acceptable explanation for this is to blame white racism. When one understands that IQ is about the single most salient factor in nearly all things pertaining to success, and that blacks are genetically predisposed to have lower IQs than whites, the statistical disparity makes more sense and one can stop screaming about racism. In fact, when one controls for IQ in the statistics, the disparities actually reverse, owing in no small part to the preferential treatment blacks are legally granted by race hysteria.

Being in possession of this information does not make one incapable of seeing the individual, as Ian suggests. Nor does it mean the bearer of this bad news hates people on the basis of their skin color, as the common smear tactic goes. Quite the contrary. One who refuses to see groups is not being an individualist at all, but rather he is grouping all of mankind into a singular category, and ignoring the characteristics that comprise the individual. If you cannot see the difference between white and black, it is difficult to imagine seeing the difference between Chris and Jamal. This is one of the primary reasons why communists frequently assert themselves as “anti-racists”. It is also the reason they have caused more death and suffering than any other political ideology in the history of mankind. They ignore human nature, make political decisions based on demonstrably false information, and violently do away with all who speak the truth.

When one understands this pattern, it is difficult for a man of any worth not to become violently angry. If the people now shouting “Black Lives Matter!” gunning down cops, and burning down pharmacies and pizzerias are not stopped, they will do to the United States what the Bolsheviks did to the Soviet Union. If a man has any purpose in society at all, it is to defend his civilization from just such a downfall, laying down his life and the lives of others if necessary. It is not a question of violence or nonviolence, because violence ensues either way. It is merely a question of who will use violence to what end. Those who deny this reality are not peacemakers or neutral parties, they are in fact granting license to the communists, and thereby driving up the future body count.

This is not to say that the violence at issue need be of the criminal variety. Police, and if necessary, military, can handle this in rather short order if permitted. When communists riot in the streets and call it a “protest” the authorities should stop them, by force. For a recent example, compare two incidents in Charlottesville, Virginia this summer. The July KKK rally where police arrested and tear gassed leftists, and the Unite the Right rally in August where Chief Thomas said “Let them fight”. Tear gas and arrests are violent acts, however legal and necessary they may be, but they serve a legitimate purpose by preventing exactly the sort of outcome that ensued the next month, when Heather Heyer and two cops died, and countless felony assaults took place in broad daylight on camera.

By refusing to apply force proactively, much greater violence ensued. None of this had to happen. So while it is true that I made my way into the political scene furious with law enforcement and even seeking the overthrow of my own government, I was made to see the folly of this train of thought by becoming racially aware. The purpose of the State is the forcible maintenance of the societal organism, that is to say, the race. Were an individual’s body to permit any foreign element to enter it and wreak havoc within, the individual would die. Likewise, when a government ceases to defend its borders and quell rebellions, the society dies.

The people who want open borders, and chaos in our streets, are not trying to liberate us.

(((They))) are trying to kill us.

Chris

Christopher Cantwell is a former political prisoner, and current host of the Radical Agenda. The most entertaining podcast of the Alt Right.