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.

  • RandyZie

    Well said man

  • Paul Rain
  • The Frog Guy

    While listening to the Radical Agenda might, at times, give off the impression that Cantwell is an unhinged lunatic, when he writes in a serious tone, without the hyperbole (as entertaining as his over the top rants are – that’s some of the best podcast content ever produced), for an honest person, it is very difficult to find anything objectionable with the content of it.

    Most of this ought to be common sense and, I’m hopeful, most people will see it as such, even if they are unwilling to openly agree with it.

    • tz1

      Cantwell is also an entertainer, as Rush Limbaugh is, and often points out. Politics and news is the framework.
      Cantwell is also learning and figuring out what works, between apparently unhinged rants and well reasoned rational arguments – he is capable of both.

    • El Vergudo

      I get the impression he’s a fucking ignorant piece of shit and a crybaby faggot.

  • pymotes

    spot on! i hope that becomes chapter 1 of your book!

  • tz1

    Even if you don’t wish to assign something to genetics, the problem is the actual data. One can posit that if white and asian women were given the choice to have rather pleasant lives for having as many children out of wedlock as they could and going on welfare that they would do so in the same numbers, but that avoids the question about the morality – even to the kids – of having them out of wedlock.

    Death by Opiods is not a good thing either, but it is happening to whites. Somehow the color of their skin makes them responsible for the content of their character, while blacks aren’t because they are “victims”.

    That is the power, or the shattering of PC when you say “Ok, I’m an “X”, so what, lets talk about the issues”.

    Doesn’t Harvey Weinstein have some distant relative killed in the Holocaust?

    But genetics is a scientific question. Science denial? If I don’t swallow evolution – which implies eugenics – I’m derided, but if I point out it leads to Margaret Sanger’s views – I’m called a racist.

    And one thing I really hate about AnCaps:

     “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.”

    So a few pages of simple and clear prose (forget the supreme court living document obfuscation) didn’t work. So instead they write tens of thousands of pages of scholarly articles and expect what? That more parchment barriers will prove effective?

    The proper culture – WASP Christendom – will tend toward constitutional government even without a document. The rest will tend toward something else, most anathema to liberty. Don’t blame the constitution – the 10 Commandments written in stone by the finger of God was unable to make Israel righteous, only show where they sinned.

    This is like blaming a water level alarm that you hear beep but ignore for several hours for a flooded basement.

  • Patrick

    Its unfair what has happened to you Chris. One thing though. I don’t think feminism is to blame for the pathologization of aggressive masculinity. I think its more of a social class issue that goes back centuries. Psychiatry was developed by the middle and upper classes and one of the things it has done is it has pathologized working class masculinity. And so a lot of the things people blame feminism for is actually psychiatry. Psychiatry is responsible for weeding out aggressive male behaviors. Not feminism. Historically the upper classes have been fearful of physically strong working class men. This is more a social class issue. But the upper classes have historically projected a lot of brutish stereotypes onto working class men, stereotypes that are untrue. The working classes are the same as everyone else. But there has been this fear that has created a sort of therapeutic mental health state that the children have been raised in, and to be entirely honest this mental health state has been developed primarily by men of a certain social class. Social class issues do affect society.

    • Hadding Scott

      The plutocratic fear of warriors is something that Brooks Adams mentions in his The Law of Civilization and Decay.

      Feminism, however, is a byproduct of plutocracy. Since the plutocratic class does not earn its living through physical exertion the women in that class can demand an equal status.

      • Random Randomero

        Libertarianism is just a respect of private property, libertarianism can be divided into left and right, we, the /LRG/s support traditionalism, family, nation by consent. Stop the feminization of men and defend your community against the state.

        • Hadding Scott

          Respect for private property protects only those who have property. Made into an absolute principle, it becomes the negation of community.

          If you want to preserve a community, it has to be done with a doctrine that places some value on the community, not all value on the individual.

          • Random Randomero

            How the hell do you argue that? Anarcho-capitalists are not for hyper-individualism, most of us argue for small voluntary homogenous societies. It’s just a system of private property it doesn’t neglect the freedom of association at all.

          • Hadding Scott

            Aha so you like small communities but not a big community that uses the government to preserve itself, as in a nation-state.

            Your voluntary societies are at best a retreat-position from failing to control the government. The next logical step would secession and creation of your own government.

            Government is a necessity.

      • Jon Steele

        “Feminism, however, is a byproduct of plutocracy. “

        No Jews, no feminist movement, same like no Jews, no communism.

        The modern feminist movement, like all subversive movements, is the product of the Jew.

        “The objectives, activities, culture and ideals of Organized Jewry (particularly ZIONIST Jewry) HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH CHRISTIAN AMERICA: but are actually inimical to our best interests. The minority groups of Jews in every country of the world are affiliated by all possible ties and means with World-wide Jewry, and THEY WORK AS A UNIT, always and only for the benefit and advancement in riches and power, of JEWRY.”

        –Marilyn R. Allen

        • Hadding Scott

          And the Jews exert power how?

          • Jon Steele

            How? You’re joking, right?

            One can write a book on “how.”

            Simple answer: Jews have disproportionate power and influence over us in virtually every aspect of our lives. Disproportionately so. That’s a fact. You know that.

          • Hadding Scott

            The answer is that the Jews exert power through their money. They are a plutocratic people. Jewish banking, Jewish avoidance of physical labor, etc.

            So, you think that you contradicted my earlier statement when in fact you confirmed it.

          • Louis Charles

            …no. through COUNTERFEITING money. They can “avoid” all they want, but would get nowhere without their unlimited access to phony currency. Why does the 98.5% of the rest of America allow this?

          • Hadding Scott

            Thanks for your irrelevant attempt at hairsplitting.

          • Louis Charles

            What would it take to prove “relevancy” in this arena? Anything?

      • Patrick

        Thanks Hadding for mentioning Brook Adams’s book, I will have to look that up. I wasn’t sure if this issue had been looked at before.

  • Hadding Scott

    “The United States Constitution outlines a federal government with very limited powers, a tiny fraction of those it exercises today.”

    That is true, but by the same token the Constitution as originally conceived left to the states all the powers that were prohibited to the federal government. The States could regulate speech and firearms and religion. There were states where one had to be a Christian to hold public office.

    What happened was the Fourteenth Amendment, which emasculated the States. We are still seeing the implications of that amendment being worked out, with “privileges and immunities” like abortion, pornography, and gay marriage.

    But the Fourteenth Amendment is not applied consistently. If the right to keep and bear arms were interpreted through the 14th the same way free speech has been, there could be no gun laws.

    A totally unregulated society, in regard to speech and weapons and social customs, is not really tenable. It is also not what was originally set up.

    Furthermore the untenability of individual freedom increases as the quality of the population declines and the diversity of the population increases. The declining competence and morale of government officials also is a factor.

  • Edd the cat

    It’s good that Cantwell is back out.

  • Mike pHuckabee

    Good morning nazi beoches! Have you kicked your dog and beat your kids today?

  • Random Randomero
  • Sam Cru

    I also became radicalized after my DUI. RIDL was a great website. I regret not copying and saving the data posted there. For anyone not familiar with RIDL, they proved via a nationwide handcount in 2001, 02, and 03 that the NHTSA’s stat on fatalities caused by drunk drivers was overstated by about 3x.

  • Altair Zielite

    So glad to be reading your words again. Eagerly anticipating the return of Radical Agenda podcast. Merry Christmas goy

  • Jon Steele

    “The Aryan race has been the creative force in all civilisation. The modern Germans and their kindred peoples are the current bearers of this creative and civilising force (a view shared, among others, by Theodore Roosevelt and Cecil Rhodes). Southern Europe is a miscegenated chaos of the peoples, and the Jew, above all, is the eternal enemy of Aryan values and Aryan culture.”

    –Peter Peel

  • Jon Steele

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

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

    Amen to that, Chris! Glad to hear you again!

    “He who does not understand the Jewish Question, who does not study and fully understand it, will not understand the world, its development, and its battles.”

    –Dr. Robert Ley

    • Louis Charles

      Here’s the answer to the JQ…. as in “What are the Jews?”
      Objectively Exploring the Talmud

      Here is an example of the most racist people on earth. And this doesn’t even include what these evil, sadistic, child molesting slugs said about the Lord Jesus Christ.

      Only the Jews are humans, the Non-Jews are not humans, but cattle” (goyi= human cattle) [1]
      – Kerithuth 6b page 78, Jebhammoth 61a

      “The Non-Jews have been created to serve the Jews as slaves” [2]
      – Midrasch Talpioth 225

      A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.
      – Sanhedrin 54b

      “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing.”
      – Kethuboth 11b

      “Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is of three years of age.”
      – Yebhamoth 11b

      “Sexual intercourse with Non-Jews is like sexual intercourse with animals”
      – Kethuboth 3b

      “Whoever disobeys a Rabbi deserves death… Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.”
      – Erubin 21b

      “The birth-rate of the Non-Jews has to be suppressed massively” [3]
      – Zohar II, 4b

      “Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal.”
      – Sanhedrin 59a

      “Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed.”
      – Abodah Zara 26b

      Blessing From Israel with Love
      Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews. When a Jew murders a Gentile (“Cuthean”), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep
      – Sanhedrin 57a

      “Jews are Divine. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God”
      – Sanhedrin 58b

      “As you replace lost cows and donkeys, so you shall replace dead Non-Jews” [4]
      – Iore Dea 337,1

      “To box an Israeli on the ear, is like to box on the ear of God”
      – Sanhedrin 58b

      “God (Jahveh) is never angry about the Jews, just about the Non-Jews”
      – Talmud IV / 8 / 4a

      “The human (the Jew) has to pray every day three times, because Jahveh didn’t make him a goyim, not a female and not an ignorant”
      – Talmud V / 2 / 43b + 44a

      “Towards a Non-Jew the Jew doesn’t cause an adultery… Punishable for the Jew is just the adultery towards his next, that means the wife of a Jew. The wife of the Non-Jew is excluded”
      – Talmud IV / 4 / 52b

      “There is no wife for the goyim, they really aren’t their wives”
      – Talmud IV / 4 / 81 + 82ab

      “You (the Jews) have made me, Jahveh, the only true lord in the world, so I will make you the only ruler in the world”
      “Who wants to be smart shall occupy himself with money matters, because there are no corner pillars in the Thora that are more important, because they are like a sparkling fountain”
      – Talmud IV / 3 / 173b

      “Jews always have to try to deceive Non-Jews” [5]
      – Zohar I, 168a

      “Non-Jewish property belongs to the Jew who uses it first”
      – Babba Bathra 54b

      “If two Jews have deceived a Non-Jew, they have to split the profit”
      – Choschen Ham 183,7

      “Every Jew is allowed to use lies and perjury to bring a Non-Jew to ruin”
      – Babba Kama 113a

      “The possessions of the goyim are like an ownerless desert, and everybody (every Jew) who seizes it, has acquired it”
      – Talmud IV / 3 / 54b

      “The Jew is allowed to exploit the mistake of a Non-Jew and to deceive him”
      – Talmud IV / 1 / 113b

      “The Jew is allowed to practice usury on the Non-Jew” [6]
      – Talmud IV / 2 / 70b

      “When the Messiah comes, all will be slaves of the Jews”
      – Erubin 43b

      “If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there”
      – Moed Kattan 17a

      “Non-Jews are Not Human. Only Jews are human (“Only ye are designated men”)
      – Baba Mezia 114a-114b

      O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews. A Jew need not pay a Gentile (“Cuthean”) the wages owed him for work
      – Sanhedrin 57a

      “If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite…the payment is to be in full.”
      – Baba Kamma 37b

      Jews May Steal from Non-Jews
      – Baba Mezia 24a

      If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile (“heathen”) it does not have to be returned
      – (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b)

      God will not spare a Jew who “marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean…”
      – Sanhedrin 76a

      Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has “exposed their money to Israel.”
      – Baba Kamma 37b

      Jews May Lie to Non-Jews. Jews may use lies (“subterfuges”) to circumvent a Gentile
      – Baba Kamma 113a

      Non-Jewish Children Sub-Human. All Gentile children are animals
      – Yebamoth 98a

      Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth
      – Abodah Zarah 36b

      Gentiles prefer sex with cows
      – Abodah Zarah 22a-22b
      A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years “and a day” old).
      – Sanhedrin 55b

      “The Non-Jews have to be avoided, even more than sick pigs”
      – Orach Chaiim 57, 6a

      “To communicate anything with a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly…”

      • Hadding Scott

        Did you research all these yourself?

        • Louis Charles

          Do you find any precise flaw? I have been confronted in like manner since posting it about a year ago on Disqus and YT. I have been asked the exact question. in as many words… posed the counter question, and have yet to receive any contradiction. So, show us if you have discovered that which no other wants to bring forth. I especially invite jews to challenge it. ALL OVER THE WEB. Let’s air this crap out, already.

  • Dennis New

    Suggestion: Hire private security during the next gathering. The failure of the state (eg. in Charlottesville) should be seen as an opportunity for better services to replace it with.

  • J Antifa

    “Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature.”-Emma Goldman

Facebook Censorship

I’m often banned from Facebook

Can I please get your email address so we can stay in touch? If you’re not on my mailing list, our communications are at the discretion of left wing lunatics!