About

Christopher Cantwell is a writer, videographer, and talk radio personality.

  • TheLoneDissenter

    You forgot to mention “lame douchebag”. It’s important to list all of the facts about yourself.

  • Linda

    There are a few adjectives missing: misogynist, ignorant, soulless bottom feeding, scum sucking, intellectually minimalist, content free, whey faced, raisin eyed, standard one inch fascist ideologue who can only use stereotypes to understand the world. You are known by what you leave behind, and your legacy is a pile of smelly stupid shit,

    • Chris

      Shut up, whore. LOL

  • Noah

    One of the best satire sites IMO.

    • gwhosubex

      it’s more like straight prose than satire.

  • anarchyisGood

    Bundy is an asshole who wants special privileges

  • Gina Bertarelli

    That’s what I am! Anarchist, Atheist, Asshole! We need that box on the ballets before I ever vote again.

  • Danielle Ni Dhighe

    “Anarcho-capitalist”? Capitalism is inherently hierarchical and oppressive.

    • Jeff Berwick

      How is the free trade of materials or labor oppressive? Put down the Kommunist Manifesto and start thinking.

      • dave hug

        “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”-thomas jefferson You have no idea the capabilities of corporate greed do you, as if the current state of our republic is not a clear example. tell ya this government isn’t making companies poison our food and environment while buying or disposing of any potential competition or threat.

        • Seth Derrick

          Tell ya this…corporations, at least the massive global ones that seem to be the ones most leftists bitch about, almost certainly couldn’t exist without state protection.

          • Jeanne Deaux

            They’re also the primary reason you can’t have a fully free market. They don’t want the competition, so they do whatever they can to shut you out. Government is just a tool. Depending on the form it takes, if we didn’t have corporations it’d have to find something else to do, like actually look out for citizen interests. I would imagine we are never going to see that happen with a large representative democracy permitted to take bribes from corporate lobbyists. But hey, “money is speech”, right?

          • Rocky Racoon

            You don’t know your a from a hole in the ground never mind left from right.

      • Marcos Woelz

        Please don´t oversimplify, dude. Capitalism is not only free trade. It´s destruction of environment forcing people to engage industrial economy to survive. It´s not as free as it is said. I´m not communist, but we have to create something better.

        • Seth586

          Capitalism’s private ownership puts value on sustaining the environment. Socialism destroys it. Google “Tragedy of the commons”

          • Marcos Woelz

            Google “Elinor Ostrom’s 8 design principles for managing commons”. If “capitalism puts value on sustaining the environment”, explain why illegal deforeatation of tropical rain forests is still so profitable everywhere from the Philipines to the Amazon basin? Read “Collapse” by Jared Diamond.

          • John Coleman

            Explain why much of Africa has been reduced to desert with no capitalism present. Explain why countless semi capitalist nations operate sustainable private wood for paper businesses.

            The logging you talk about occurs when governments offer business the rights to cut timber, but not the right to own the land the timber is on. This creates a profit now incentive with no pay off for replanting.

          • Jeanne Deaux

            People abuse things they own all the time. Slave owners anyone?

          • Jeanne Deaux

            That’s hilarious considering people destroy their private property all the time with the excuse of “it’s my property and I’ll do with it what I like.”

          • Rocky Racoon

            The spoliation of the church’s property, the fraudulent alienation of the State domains, the robbery of the common lands, the usurpation of feudal and clan property, and its transformation into modern private property under circumstances of reckless terrorism, were just so many idyllic methods of primitive accumulation. They conquered the field for capitalistic agriculture, made the soil part and parcel of capital, and created for the town industries the necessary supply of a “free” and outlawed proletariat.

      • Rocky Racoon

        freely compelled or else starve some choice.

        • Matthew John Hayden

          This means you want to be allowed to do nothing for anyone else in return for the means to have things yourself…

          Oh dear. Well, why not become a robber then.

          • Rocky Racoon

            well they criminalize the poor who are poor because they are expelled from the workplace due to technology why do we have to depend on wage slavery to live why can’t we have full employment and reduced work hours why are we still at 40 hours a week as the standard for the past century when we have so many unemployed youth in the world you wonder why young people in the middle east and Europe turn to terrorism? That is a class struggle in disguise of course the ptb won’t tell you that but Warren Buffet said “there was a class war going on and his side was winning” He gets it a few more university professor’s should get it too!

          • Matthew John Hayden

            I’d go off on a spiel about;

            monetary inflation –> increased house prices (even after factoring for inflation, which is almost unique in the world today) –> increased cost of living at source…

            But you’d never believe it anyway so I’m not going to go through all that. If you fancy comparing monetary inflation rates, house price changes, and cost-of-living changes from 1800 to the present day in detail the Social Sciences Research Network is an excellent launchpad.

          • Rocky Racoon

            No I am not interested in surface issues. I am interested in the macro-economic laws of capitalism it’s internal contradictions, rational and irrational aspects of capitalist mode of production and why crisis and war are inevitable as a result. Not interested in make work programs for coopted academics.

          • Jeanne Deaux

            No, you want to be allowed to own anything you want with no thought to the people you shut out simply by dint of the fact you got there first. And you don’t even need most of what you own.

          • Matthew John Hayden

            Need? What does that mean? Biological need, or psychological need?

            Speaking in terms of biology almost nobody has ever ‘needed’ most of what they own.

            What you need, biologically speaking, is only just enough food and shelter that you don’t starve or freeze or burn to death before you pass your genes on.

            Psychological need, on the other hand, is the very same thing that economists refer to as want, and also cannot be a metric cos if a murderer wants to murder me… well, I hope you’re cool with no murder.

            Also, if not the person who claims something, then who exactly? The fifth? Specifically only people who don’t claim the thing in question? Do the identities of the persons taking actions in the world not matter? Murderers, rapists and thieves will be delighted.

      • Jeanne Deaux

        Free trade of labor and materials is not capitalism. It’s just paid labor. Pick up some Adam Smith and start thinking. While you’re at it look up the dictionary definition of “capital”. Not the bit about cities.

    • ssgncng

      That’s actually quite funny. Do you get all of your political ideas from bumper stickers and protest placards?

    • John Coleman

      Capitalism (minus the state) isn’t inherently hierarchical or oppressive.

      • dave hug

        yea right because having the ethics of a prostitute( only objective is profits) is exactly what society needs to grow. speaking of growing and killing but somehow being considered safe without government how is Monsanto again? oh that’s right companies on their own have no power unless of cource they hire XE type mercs which they are currently beginning to do. or enforce policies like LAWS.Does it really matter if the men that kick in your door have a law enforcement badge or a corporate security badge? things li e IP theft would be punishable by death lmao. yea goos luck selling your devoid of logic ideology.

        • John Coleman

          Life is immeasurably better with the application of capital to technical innovation. It drove the industrial revolution that lead to greater agricultural productivity and the development of medicines and other beneficial technologies. The desire for greater material wealth is demonstrably a social good.

          The absence of law present in our society is a direct result of the state destroying the preceding kritarchy.

          • dave hug

            The industrial revolution had a different culture with a much bigger sense of common good and virtue It had its greed but it was far more transparent then, Society hated Robber barons. Now not only are they idalised they are far more dangerous as they control the very institutions who are meant to regulate them. Government rests impotent as any oligarchy does when subject to bribery. The only purpose government poses is permitting fascist corporate fictions to commit their illegal conduct by giving them exemptions to the law. If the only role of government is to stand a side while companies ruin our nation and destroy society for profits then its not the government or state’s volition it is the companies. You can not say a group of powerful men heavily founded with no law/republic would be left to the mercy of the market, You have any idea how easy it is to control peoples buying impulses 95% of American population is completely brainwashed because of industrial propaganda The NSA could only wish to have the abilities to track, influence and brand peoples mind like most advertizing firms, and data miners. To think a powerful man would not want world domination, or a group of rich men would not do corrupt things to secure their foothold is naive. No checks and balances, no rule of law, just make profit from the market, so long as you can rule it nothing would be better only hired thugs wearing a corporate security uniform instead of a sateist one. the entire ideology stinks with flawed logic. I think it is all because of a misunderstanding that current state is what a republic or rule of law is and in fact I am talking about the intended role of government for this nation which is only to protect freedom of individuals not extort or do anything outside of preventing one sovereign individual from harming another.

          • john smith

            agree. based on all the known evidence and knowledge of history and economics (and philosophy) the best known way of providing goods and services to the most people in the most efficient manner of resource allocation is a free market system in which there is no ‘government’ intervention – government being that institution that has a monopoly on the initiation of force to achieve goals.

          • Rocky Racoon

            how the political economy of capitalism came into being:

            Karl Marx. Capital Volume One

            Part VIII: Primitive Accumulation

            Chapter Twenty-Six: The Secret of Primitive Accumulation

            We have seen how money is changed into capital; how through capital surplus-value is made, and from surplus-value more capital. But the accumulation of capital presupposes surplus-value; surplus-value presupposes capitalistic production; capitalistic production presupposes the pre-existence of considerable masses of capital and of labour power in the hands of producers of commodities. The whole movement, therefore, seems to turn in a vicious circle, out of which we can only get by supposing a primitive accumulation (previous accumulation of Adam Smith) preceding capitalistic accumulation; an accumulation not the result of the capitalistic mode of production, but its starting point.

            This primitive accumulation plays in Political Economy about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past. In times long gone by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. The legend of theological original sin tells us certainly how man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to whom this is by no means essential. Never mind! Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work. Such insipid childishness is every day preached to us in the defence of property. M. Thiers, e.g., had the assurance to repeat it with all the solemnity of a statesman to the French people, once so spirituel. But as soon as the question of property crops up, it becomes a sacred duty to proclaim the intellectual food of the infant as the one thing fit for all ages and for all stages of development. In actual history it is notorious that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great part. In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from time immemorial. Right and “labour” were from all time the sole means of enrichment, the present year of course always excepted. As a matter of fact, the methods of primitive accumulation are anything but idyllic.

            In themselves money and commodities are no more capital than are the means of production and of subsistence. They want transforming into capital. But this transformation itself can only take place under certain circumstances that centre in this, viz., that two very different kinds of commodity-possessors must come face to face and into contact; on the one hand, the owners of money, means of production, means of subsistence, who are eager to increase the sum of values they possess, by buying other people’s labour power; on the other hand, free labourers, the sellers of their own labour power, and therefore the sellers of labour. Free labourers, in the double sense that neither they themselves form part and parcel of the means of production, as in the case of slaves, bondsmen, &c., nor do the means of production belong to them, as in the case of peasant-proprietors; they are, therefore, free from, unencumbered by, any means of production of their own. With this polarization of the market for commodities, the fundamental conditions of capitalist production are given. The capitalist system presupposes the complete separation of the labourers from all property in the means by which they can realize their labour. As soon as capitalist production is once on its own legs, it not only maintains this separation, but reproduces it on a continually extending scale. The process, therefore, that clears the way for the capitalist system, can be none other than the process which takes away from the labourer the possession of his means of production; a process that transforms, on the one hand, the social means of subsistence and of production into capital, on the other, the immediate producers into wage labourers. The so-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production. It appears as primitive, because it forms the prehistoric stage of capital and of the mode of production corresponding with it.

            The economic structure of capitalist society has grown out of the economic structure of feudal society. The dissolution of the latter set free the elements of the former.

            The immediate producer, the labourer, could only dispose of his own person after he had ceased to be attached to the soil and ceased to be the slave, serf, or bondsman of another. To become a free seller of labour power, who carries his commodity wherever he finds a market, he must further have escaped from the regime of the guilds, their rules for apprentices and journeymen, and the impediments of their labour regulations. Hence, the historical movement which changes the producers into wage-workers, appears, on the one hand, as their emancipation from serfdom and from the fetters of the guilds, and this side alone exists for our bourgeois historians. But, on the other hand, these new freedmen became sellers of themselves only after they had been robbed of all their own means of production, and of all the guarantees of existence afforded by the old feudal arrangements. And the history of this, their expropriation, is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire.

            The industrial capitalists, these new potentates, had on their part not only to displace the guild masters of handicrafts, but also the feudal lords, the possessors of the sources of wealth. In this respect, their conquest of social power appears as the fruit of a victorious struggle both against feudal lordship and its revolting prerogatives, and against the guilds and the fetters they laid on the free development of production and the free exploitation of man by man. The chevaliers d’industrie, however, only succeeded in supplanting the chevaliers of the sword by making use of events of which they themselves were wholly innocent. They have risen by means as vile as those by which the Roman freedman once on a time made himself the master of his patronus.

            The starting point of the development that gave rise to the wage labourer as well as to the capitalist, was the servitude of the labourer. The advance consisted in a change of form of this servitude, in the transformation of feudal exploitation into capitalist exploitation. To understand its march, we need not go back very far. Although we come across the first beginnings of capitalist production as early as the 14th or 15th century, sporadically, in certain towns of the Mediterranean, the capitalistic era dates from the 16th century. Wherever it appears, the abolition of serfdom has been long effected, and the highest development of the middle ages, the existence of sovereign towns, has been long on the wane.

            In the history of primitive accumulation, all revolutions are epoch-making that act as levers for the capital class in course of formation; but, above all, those moments when great masses of men are suddenly and forcibly torn from their means of subsistence, and hurled as free and “unattached” proletarians on the labour-market. The expropriation of the agricultural producer, of the peasant, from the soil, is the basis of the whole process. The history of this expropriation, in different countries, assumes different aspects, and runs through its various phases in different orders of succession, and at different periods. In England alone, which we take as our example, has it the classic form. [1]

            Footnotes

            1. In Italy, where capitalistic production developed earliest, the dissolution of serfdom also took place earlier than elsewhere. The serf was emancipated in that country before he had acquired any prescriptive right to the soil. His emancipation at once transformed him into a free proletarian, who, moreover, found his master ready waiting for him in the towns, for the most part handed down as legacies from the Roman time. When the revolution of the world-market, about the end of the 15th century, annihilated Northern Italy’s commercial supremacy, a movement in the reverse direction set in. The labourers of the towns were driven en masse into the country, and gave an impulse, never before seen, to the petite culture, carried on in the form of gardening.

        • Seth Derrick

          “having the ethics of a prostitute( only objective is profits) is exactly what society needs to grow”

          Strawman much? Have you ever run a business? Do you know anyone who runs a business? Are any of your friends freelancers, effectively running a business of one? Of course profit is important but every business owner and freelancer I’ve ever met (and I’ve run my own businesses as well) understands that service and honesty and integrity are immeasurably valuable assets. Take a scan through Yelp and watch any business that treats its customers like ATMs get pilloried and then watch how long they stay in business. The state sanctions and protects and supports the very behavior you are against. The market is the control mechanism that actually governs predation. You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

      • john smith

        agree john coleman. emphatically. check out Austrian economics and the Mises Institute and Tom Woods.

        • John Coleman

          I read Mises Socialism, but does praxeology trump empiricism? (I put some of Toms talks on my watch later.)

      • Marcos Woelz

        Show me a single corporation that is non hierarchical and fully meritocratic. I´ve never seen any yet. I agree on Mises that comunism is a disaster, but that doesn´t make capitalism egalitarian in any way.

        • John Coleman

          But corporations are legal fictions created by the state.

          Basically capitalism, as envisaged by Smith, requires private ownership of the means of production and a free market. That is not inherently hierarchical, or non-hierarchical.

          Unless of course you think ownership is “hierarchical” in which case there are some challenging realities to deal with.

          • Marcos Woelz

            Still haven´t seen any “private owned business” fully meritocratic. I would love to live in Adam Smith´s fairy tales, but I don´t. Future generations deserve better from us: rethink our economic and political structures. If Adam´s market principles are part of the solution, why not? But something sure is missing.

      • Marcos Woelz

        I still would like to see practical examples of that. If you can show me stateless (or at least a non disturbing state) capitalism with fully meritocratic mechanisms at work, than I believe you. So far haven´t seen any of it anywhere.

        • John Coleman

          Stateless societies existed historically and to some degree presently. I don’t know that any society is “fully meritocratic”, what does that even mean? Who decides what is worthy of merit?

      • Jeanne Deaux

        I’ll just repeat what I said upthread.
        —–

        Capitalism is the use of money or property in order to generate income. It distinguishes itself from labor which is the use of work to generate income. In order to utilize property or money to generate income, normally you need to have employees or some other arrangement with other human beings in a subordinate position to you so that you can skim off the wages they earn through labor. That’s how capitalism is inherently hierarchical.

        There’s one way I can think of that you could have a capitalism-type scenario without directly employing people, and that’s investing in government bonds. But you’re still skimming off other people’s taxes, which of course libertarians find objectionable on principle. If you don’t like having to pay taxes and don’t like the idea that someone could earn bond interest off said taxes, why is it any better to have, say, The Limited skim off your wages working at their stores?

      • Jeanne Deaux

        And while we’re at it, forcing people to earn money so that they can obtain the necessities of life when they could just work directly to obtain those necessities instead is inherently oppressive whether you’re introducing capitalism into the equation or not. If you MUST have money to live, you’re automatically coerced into earning it. I would rather be forced by natural consequence to take care of my own needs, so my life isn’t hanging in the balance if someone with more power than me decides to cut my job.

    • oscar

      i know, those two words dont belong together. They dont look right together

    • john smith

      can you explain how capitalism is inherently hierarchical (and then, if you do so, continue with how it is oppressive).. I think you are confusing capitalism with corporatism.

      • John Coleman

        I think capitalism is hierarchical in so far as factories have workers and managers and the managers tell the workers what to do and not vice versa.

        I don’t have a problem with “hierarchy” so long as it doesn’t come at the end of a gun barrel. I tell my child what to do, and my clients tell me what they want me to do for them.

        • Marcos Woelz

          Oh, but there are lots of gun barrels on capitalism. Very often workers know better than managers what is wrong in the factory, and are kept from saying it for fear of the consequences. I´ve seen too many companies go bankrupt exactly because of too many hierarchy. Non meritocratic hierarchies are massive troubles guaranteed at all levels.

          • John Coleman

            In a free market, companies run by fools are competed out by ones run smarter.

          • Marcos Woelz

            I really wish it would solve the problem, but it doesn´t: imagine a worker X of company A is right about something and faces his manager, losing his job. Company B is runned by smarter managers and gets all the market share of company A (bankrupt). Will worker X get a job at company B? Or will the work market still treat him as a “trouble maker and disobedient”?

          • Jeanne Deaux

            Not necessarily. You can be a fool about human interaction, say for instance, but not a fool about delegating human-interaction tasks to a lackey so that you can get back to thinking up ways to increase profit, which is what a lot of CEOs do. Actually interact with them in person and you will marvel at how they ever got rich. Elon Musk is an example. When it comes to human interaction, he’s an a**hat. If he had to earn his money all by himself he’d be out in the street begging.

        • Jeanne Deaux

          Being forced to work for wages because without money you would die is the same as living at the end of a gun barrel.

          Do away with the need for a money economy and make work for wages entirely optional and we’ll revisit this issue.

          • Matthew John Hayden

            So facing the possibility of death, no matter what the cause, is magically somebody else’s fault.

      • Marcos Woelz

        Please explain the difference.

      • Jeanne Deaux

        Capitalism is the use of money or property in order to generate income. It distinguishes itself from labor which is the use of work to generate income. In order to utilize property or money to generate income, normally you need to have employees or some other arrangement with other human beings in a subordinate position to you so that you can skim off the wages they earn through labor. That’s how capitalism is inherently hierarchical.

        There’s one way I can think of that you could have a capitalism-type scenario without directly employing people, and that’s investing in government bonds. But you’re still skimming off other people’s taxes, which of course libertarians find objectionable on principle. If you don’t like having to pay taxes and don’t like the idea that someone could earn bond interest off said taxes, why is it any better to have, say, The Limited skim off your wages working at their stores?

    • Fern Queen

      LOL

  • dave hug

    ok so i see you have some good points but I always have a clear argument for those “anarcho-capitalist” and “libertarians” as I am a naturalistic constitutionalist. if no state and unlimited corporate power is such a good idea then please explain the stamp act, or our current political crisis it is the financial system that corrupts government and the fascist neo-capitalists drive that corruption. If there was no government or state we would simply live under policy as LAW with military factions and corporate espionage it would essentially be exactly the same as being ruled by rivaling mob families with no ethics. After all with no chains and the ethics of a prostitute what is stopping corporations from simply crushing competition before it even sprouts or buying it out. how men can walk the earth and see people need rule of law and only need a small government to defend freedoms that should also have chains but give no rule of law or chains to commerce is beyond ignorant people blame religion for wars when it has always been about greed and fear. I recommend reading up on Thomas Jefferson’s Aristocracy of Corporations and maybe do some research on how anarchy doesn’t ever exist for long. without a republic (aka rule of law) which is what America was intended to be their can be no freedom.

    • John Coleman

      The state is the definition of unlimited corporate power.

      • dave hug

        I agree they are both toxic, but We must have commerce. We must have
        an
        establishment to protect the rights of individuals. With no rule of law
        the individual can have no freedom, If there is no freedom they can not
        engage in commerce. There is no issues except the missing restrictions

        of corporations and the very limited bill of rights on the state with the overly burdened laws
        for the people.

        Any person can be corrupt and seek world domination and
        it is undoubtedly inevitable any group of people, be it government or
        corporate would seek those same ends. As long as humans inhabit the
        earth they will seek to dominate it. The cure is
        accountability, transparency, freedom, Law, commerce, and government at
        the most limited capacity with the people having the most freedom.

        • John Coleman

          Somehow it seems you are convinced that government is necessary for a lawful society. This is not only historically false, but since government demands a different set of rules for the governors and the subjects, then government is lawless by definition.

    • Harold Rehling

      The corporation as we know it is a legal fiction created by government fiat. It exists to empower the business to serve as a tax collector and offers the owners protection from liability as compensation.

    • Phil J Malloy

      I think alot of it has to do with crony capitalism. Many of these companies you complain about never would have gotten to where they are without the help of the government.

  • jpor

    He is just a coward that does not even have the nuts to go out and do the things that he promotes!

  • Daveland3d

    Hi. I’m an Voluntaryist-Anachro-Capitalist-Romanian-Canadian-Jew with Hindu-Taoistic-Budhism tendancies. Can you tell me how I can get my own Gold and Silver Depository up and running. I would like to take advantage of all the lost souls who are quickly loosing faith with democracy and Capitalism and are desperately looking for an alternative to the current corrupt banking system. I see a real opportunity to take advantage of these lost souls before they realize its just another scam.

    • Rocky Racoon

      buy non perishable dry goods they will be worth more than gold soon enough.

  • This is all satire then. Ok now it’s funny.

  • Stu

    hello

  • Stu

    Sorry about the pc Libertarians. Freedom to be an asshole is everyones right

  • Ethan A. Singer

    Christopher Cantwell is a douchebag who is a low-life, subhuman piece of shit. Why? Because he’s entitled to his free speech but no one needs to read this shit about Cpl. Dickson that he wrote. No one. So I for one wish Chris Cuntwell a his own personal sniper to take him down and when that happens- I know the police will STILL protect his sorry, pitiful ASS.

  • Clint

    Fuck you people calling Chris a coward. He has the balls to say the shit he says and put not only his face but his real name behind it. This guy is basically black listed from many things because of this. That is the opposite of being a coward. And a lot of the people saying this are hiding behind a fake name and profile. Fucking keyboard warriors. He is easy to find and contact because he doesn’t hide his information. How about you stop being the fucking coward and go fight him. Naw, much easier to call people names on the internet.

  • Eric Parker

    chris are you alive? isn’t like you to go a week with no shows

  • Alt Celt

    Good seein ya at the Ba in Auburn, mafucka!