Mediaboss Marketing

When Nigel Farage, the man behind #Brexit, spoke at CPAC 2017, I was pleasantly surprised. As a fan of that event myself, but not a Trump supporter, I assumed that many attached to Britains separation from the European Union might also be aligned similarly and, therefore, be less apt to associate with President Trumps more aggressive approach. So the mere appearance was nice enough, but when Mr. Farage then stuck around to mingle and chat, I was more than pleasantly surprised I was blown away.

I came [to CPAC] two years ago, Farage explained when discussing his past relationship to the event with us just outside the ballroom doors. There are a lot more young people here [than last time]. So there is more of a buzz and excitement in the air. Winning does that.

And winning is certainly something both Farage and Trump have in common. And the POTUS even promised more winning for America in his own speech that kicked off the second full day of events at CPAC at the top of the morning. That appearance, which contained a healthy mix of truth and fiction (Trump claimed that he had a line going back six blocks of fans waiting for him at the Gaylord Convention Center; he did not), set the tone as being quite cheeky. The President started things off with a joke: that if the audience never sat down, the dishonest media would likely be able to spin that into a headline claiming that he received no standing ovation. Ha.

But that rhetoric clearly works. The man got elected. And while sitting in the audience during the speech, I was involuntarily back-slapped and elbow-jabbed by an elderly gentleman to my right who kept raving about how bright he thought Trump was, and how he would wager that Trump has a lot more in common with us than with them. Us vs. them. And there it was Trumps winning formula. Not only was his a strategy of populism, but a type of populism based around the concept of the frontier of antagonism. Want solidarity? Unite against a common enemy. Except with Trump, the common enemy is everyone.

Well, everyone except Bernie Sanders. I like Bernie, Trump proclaimed at one point during his appearance.

Luckily, the trend of an open and accepting CPAC, which started one day prior, continued into this day, which saw yet another conservative minority group setting up shop and voicing their views.

This time, it was a group of black Americans who were not only pro-Trump, but adamantly against what they saw as the media-pushed idea that Trump or Republicans at large, are racist. I have always been for God, but now I am also for the Republicans, proclaimed Maurice Symonette, the group leader and administrator of the website Gods2. Symonette continued by pulling from history on behalf of the Republicans and citing failed regulation policies to disparage the Democrats: The Republicans fought to free us; the Democrats are the ones who want to keep us enslaved. The shirts worn by everyone in the group read as follows: TRUMP & Republicans Are Not Racist.

Even more surprises were found as well once one entered The Bone Zone, a booth on the show floor dedicated to taking pictures with overnight sensation Ken Bone, because of what Mr. Bone was actually doing at CPAC. Contrary to what a lot of people may thing, Ken is much more than just a meme he is currently working with a company called Victory Holdings, which is itself developing an app known as DonorDex that aims to provide a network of potential donors for small-profile and third party political candidates to reach out to with but a touch of a button. In this way, Mr. Bone hopes to raise awareness about this new service and therefore make it easier for underdog candidates to truly compete with the elite politicians they will run against. Not a bad idea, at all.

While there were some misfired attempts at humor (because Republicans), such as a sign depicting a shady looking cartoon character reaching into his pants and proclaiming lets get fiscal, the environment at CPAC was largely one of genuine chill and fun. Whispers of an exclusive party held by Breitbart on a reserved boat began circulating; certain attendees showed up who, while not scheduled speakers, were celebrities in their own right (such as Cassandra Fairbanks, a journalist and ex-Bernie Sanders supporter who very publicly switched her allegiances to Trump after Hillary got the Democratic nomination).

Whether one wants to admit it or not, modern conservatism has become cool again. And CPAC 2017 was the place to be in that regard.

This post was written by Micah J. Fleck.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading...

Read more:
CPAC On My Mind: Part Two - Being Libertarian

The Libertarian Cato Institute released a study in 2016 that actually disproves Donald Trumps theory that banning Muslims from entering the United States will save American lives. That likely wasnt the intention of Cato, but their own work proves that Trump is full of it. Ring of Fires Farron Cousins discusses this.

Transcript of the above video:

The Libertarian Cato Institute actually released a report in 2016 that incidentally happened to completely disprove everything that Donald Trump and his Administration have told us about the intended effects of their Muslim ban. Now as it stands right now the Administration is currently redrafting that executive order to make it into something that the courts are not going to rip apart. The likelihood of them being successful with that, extremely low considering the fact that these are not lawyers, these are not people who understand foreign policy. Its likely theyre going to write something thats not exactly going to pass the muster when it comes to being legal.

However, this Cato Institute study from 2016 shows that in the years between 1975 and 2015, a 40 year span, there were 20 incidents where refugees entered the United States and committed acts of violence. In those 40 years, of those 20 people who were refugees three people were killed. 40 years, 20 refugees involved in incidents. Only three people killed.

Contrast that with home grown terrorism. I mean, how many people died in the Oklahoma City bombing? How many people have been killed by right wing hate groups? I mean just this week two men were killed by one white man because he thought they were Muslims. He thought they were Middle Easterners. Turns out they were from India. They were engineers, very well respected people with huge educations, working to make things in the world better, and he murdered them in a hate crime because he thought they were Middle Eastern, as if thats some sort of justification for killing another human being. While he murdered them he was yelling, Get out of my country. No. You get out of the country. Thats not what we do here in the United States.

I bet if Donald Trump and his Administration actually looked in to the amount of terrorism being caused by white men in the United States, maybe wed have a different kind of travel ban. Its not hard to identify the problem when you look at all the variables. Now the Cato Institute Study was just trying to figure out if refugees coming into the United States were a threat or not. It turns out according to Cato that theyre not. If we want to address the real threats we have to look at all the data. We have to look at the acts of home grown terrorism being committed by white men in the United States, because those are the treats. Those are the real problems. The people who take over a wildlife refuge in Oregon, the people who have standoffs with federal officers in the SouthWest, those are terrorists. Those are people that we need to be worried about. Those are people that we should probably be afraid of. Those are people that should spend the rest of their lives behind bars because that is illegal.

Those are the people that we should be worrying about, but instead the Trump Administration, Republicans in general, theyve created these Middle Eastern boogeymen, telling us that we need to be afraid of them coming over here and trying to kill us. Meanwhile, the real people who pose a threat to our very lives are the ones around us. Maybe the crazy neighbor, maybe the guy down the street. The people that you wouldnt ordinarily think because statistically they pose a far greater threat to our lives here in the United States than anyone coming over as a refugee.

See the rest here:
Libertarian Think Tank Proves That Trump's Muslim Ban Won't Work ... - The Ring of Fire Network

Sales of both Origins of Totalitarianism, written by the German-American political theorist Hannah Arendt, and 1984, by the famous English novelist George Orwell, are soaring this year. These two books describe the most freedom hating phenomenon: totalitarianism.

It was the 4th of August 1944, the 15-year- old Dutch diarist Anne Frank was arrested in her house in Amsterdam by the Grne Polizei (Green Police, led by the German SS). Along with many millions of other Jews, she died in one of the terror apparatuses of Nazi-Germany, the concentration camp Bergen-Belsen. All of this was because she was born with the identity that would make her one of the people who couldnt avoid falling into the tentacles of the totalitarian prophet hiding in his bunker in Berlin: the fhrer, Adolf Hitler.

Jews were the most prioritized group of people to perish completely according to the Nazi-ideology; along with homosexuals, political opponents, Roma (Gypsys), prisoners of war, a-socials, and musselmnner (translated as Muslims in English, musselmnner were those who were called the walking dead. these people were in the most horrible physical and mental condition compared to all the others groups in the concentration camps. They were called Muslims because they sat in the pray-position that Muslims practice, they were too weak to stand up). These are some of the many groups that had to perish, they were all taken and owned by the terror apparatus of totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism is thus the ideology of complete ownership of the people by a state. It seeks to intervene in every part of human life and society, its tentacles can get everywhere. It destroys individualization, human dignity, spontaneity and above all: freedom of thought, economic freedom, freedom of private ownership, freedom of religion etc. Hence it destroys all the things libertarians seek and appreciate: individual liberty and the principle of non-aggression.

One could think that totalitarianism is a thing of the past because of our modernized and globalized world. We think that, because we have a globally interdepended economy, it would make it very irrational and expensive for states to be completely secluded from other states. That is just simple economic theory, we are able to trade with other countries and companies are able to compete with others all around the globe. Free trade has given us our very high rate of welfare. But the awkward thing is: totalitarianism still exists and will not be disappearing anywhere soon. Just like Hannah Arendt wrote in her book from 1975, there are states, anno 2017, who could be called totalitarian or states, ones that have one of the many totalitarian tentacles.

North Korea is the perfect example of totalitarianism, life is completely oppressed and has left very little joy to its people. North Korea can be compared quite easily to the Soviet Union led by Josef Stalin. Both states leaders execute everyone around them who they do not like or trust (including many army generals), both have (had) a collectivized economy (which is in a terrible condition, just like every other socialist state), both countries have a hateful ideology which has no sympathy left for ethnic and sexual minorities, and both countries own their people.

Totalitarian states have full ownership of their people, which means that one order could lead to ones death, or one could be deployed somewhere in a position which lets him suffer horribly, like a concentration camp. But here is the thing: owning the people is totalitarian because it has total intervention over ones life. So what is the difference between totalitarian country A which forces men to join the army and to risk their lives, and non-totalitarian country B which forces men to join the army and to risk their lives? Well the answer is: nothing.

When someone hesitates, and doesnt want to die for his country just because some men in the national assembly (or a head of state) had decided to: a) go to war and b) to force men (or women) between a certain age to fight and risk their lives for their country, then it is ought to be called a totalitarian tentacle, a totalitarian policy.

Here is where liberty-advocating people ought to come in.

First: realize that even non-totalitarian states (and modern states with free trade) can obtain power to force someone to do something which is against his core moral values, even to risk his life for the sake of mankind.

Second: use this knowledge, and every time someone advocates force which is against his morality, or a force which could destroy his most valuable object his life speak out. This is needed, even in 2017.

Freedom of expression and press is under pressure. The World Press Freedom has concluded last year that freedom of press was in decline. Authoritative leaders are back in many countries (or are going to be back), even in modern countries like America (Trump) and France (Le Pen). Many semi-totalitarian countries are still here: countries which execute homosexuals (Iran, Saudi Arabia) or imprison them (almost everywhere across the African continent) because of one of the most beautiful objects possible in a sphere of freedom, namely love.

Many countries force men (and women) to join the army, many countries imprison people for their opinion (even in modern countries), liberty-advocating people we need you!

Libertarians, liberal-democrats, and any others, whos moral and political values are based on freedom: speak out against every totalitarian tentacle of a state, underline policies, advocated by your conversationalist, as freedom-hating when they are a totalitarian tentacle which could change an individuals life. Unite with other libertarians, speak out against the evil force of socialism. Your life is more valuable than a states policy or advocated policy.

* Olaf Leeuwis is a Dutch political science student living in Leiden, The Netherlands. Advocating freedom, blues, capitalism and whiskey.

Like Loading...

Follow this link:
Libertarians' Biggest Enemy: Totalitarianism - Being Libertarian

The Complexity of French Secularism Examined

This past week, during her visit to Lebanon, the French presidential candidate, Marine Le Pen, made headlines when she refused to dawn the proper dress in order to meet with a local Islamic cleric. Many conservatives and libertarians applauded her for defiance towards, and rejection of, one of the most notorious symbols of a repressive religious ideology, the headscarf (the least concealing of a variety of head and body coverings for women in the Islamic world). The justifications for this are found in such passages in the Quran as 33:59, that states:

O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Many modern Islamic scholars will attempt to explain away this as an error of translation or that there is no specific mention of the face or head. Yet, this does not bode well when you read in the Hadith, Sahih Bukhari (60:282),

Aisha used to say: When (the Verse 24:31 of the Quran): They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms, was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces.

The face is found upon the head, and these women began to cover themselves there, and it must have pleased the Prophet for he did not correct them. Yet, I digress, Im sure defenders of Islam will say I continue to misinterpret the texts due to my bias against the religion (disclaimer: as an atheist and anti-theist I am against all religions, not just Islam). Even if they are correct, the very fact that their holy texts contain passages that can easily lead to interpretations causing such marginalization of women is another problem in itself that no amount of historical revisionism can whisk away.

Okay, now Im really off topic. Lets get back to the main point.

Marine Le Pen refused the headscarf, and many cheered her defiance of religious fundamentalism and applauded a true act of legitimate feminism. Amidst the fanfare, some raised objections. These people branded her a hypocrite because of her strict support for French secularism, known as lacit, and the use of legislation to further legally ingrain it in French society. Those who subscribe to lacit often oppose almost any form of religious expression in the public square. Lacit has been the driving force behind a law forbidding religious symbols and dress (including Islamic headscarves) to be worn by children in public schools. It has also been rumored to be a driving force behind the law that banned face concealing headwear in all public spaces in France, even though it was officially promoted for security reasons. Le Pen supports both of these laws, and even wishes to expand laws regarding religious dress in order to further legally enshrine lacit.

So, in short, she sees being forced to wear a headscarf as an affront to liberty, yet also sees no affront to liberty in forcing women to not wear one.

To those outside of France, this seems like utter hypocrisy, and understandably so, but only because we (speaking to my fellow Americans) come from a society with a much different history pertaining to religions relationship with the law. So, please, before judging her as an enemy of freedom, take the time to discover the history behind the secularisms of France and America.

French lacit in not like American secularism, also known as the Jeffersonian wall of separation enshrined in the Constitutions First Amendment, stating:

Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

American secularism is a very live-and-let-live secularism. Basically, it only limits the government, making sure it doesnt suppress a religion or give one special preferential treatment. This has left citizens free to practice and demonstrate their religion in almost any way. Yet, French lacit is much more strict and regulatory in nature.

The differences stem from dissimilar histories.

America was first settled by those who were fleeing religious persecution, and by the time it was organizing as a new nation under the Constitution, dozens of sects of Christianity had made themselves at home along the Eastern Seaboard. Therefore, the lingering thoughts of their forefathers religious persecution and the need to facilitate peace among multiple sects naturally led the framers of the Constitution to create such a liberal, free-range secularism.

In France, the history since the Revolution of 1789 had been marked by struggle against an often legally entrenched and powerful Catholic Church that acted jointly with the monarchy to suppress the French people. Its power would fall with the rise of each Republic but would return once more with the return of monarchy. For example, after the rise of Napoleon via the Concordant of 1801, he made Catholicism the official state religion once more. This was a policy continued through the Bourbon Restoration and July Monarchy until 1848, with the rise of the 2nd Republic. Yet, upon the 2nd Republics fall in 1852, Catholicism was once again resurrected as the state religion. This remained throughout the whole 2nd French Empire, and then for 35 years into the 3rd French Republic until the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and State disestablished Catholicism as the state religion and ended the churchs privileges in society once and for all.

That was a 116-year battle between the French people and legally privileged organized religion.

So, the French people, out of fear of the return of Catholicism to its former power, have since 1905 passed many laws, and continue to support many more, that place harsh restrictions on all religions in the public sphere to make sure none may rise to have political power or legal privilege ever again.

As a society, they have decided to place relatively mild restrictions on liberty with regards to religious expression so as to guard one of their societys greater liberties: freedom from state religion. This is a utilitarian approach to liberty, but an approach to liberty nonetheless. Accepting a cost, in this case, a little loss of freedom in one area to get the benefit of securing a larger freedom; the freedom from an established religion by further safeguarding their return to revolutionary struggle between church and state that plagued their nation for over a century.

So, do not cast off Le Pen as a hypocritical foe to liberty. She is simply promoting liberty as she understands it; albeit a precarious brand of it. But for France, a nation with a long and complicated relationship to such an idolized ideal, that may ever be the only way.

After all, France is the nation who prides herself as being depicted as the bare breasted Marianne. Can we really ever realistically expect her to accept her fellow women to be wrapped in veils?

This post was written by Bric Butler.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading...

Link:
Le Pen Refusing the Headscarf: Hero or Hypocrite? Its Complicated. - Being Libertarian

Being Libertarian Perspectives serves as a weekly, multi-perspective opinion and analysis piece by members of Being Libertarians writing team. Every week the panel, comprised of randomly selected writers, will answer a question based on current events or libertarian philosophy. ManagingEditor Dillon Eliassen will moderate and facilitate the discussion.

Dillon Eliassen: Please answer in the affirmative or negative, and provide reasoning for the following question: The conservative and liberty movements will benefit from Milo Yiannapolous continuing to lose access to privately owned and maintained speech platforms. Hes been banned from Twitter, his college campus tour is continually disrupted and he just lost his Simon & Schuster book deal. Conservatives and libertarians are better off with him out of the public eye; hes become a pariah and his advocacy for free speech is a mask for his desire for flamboyancy and notoriety.

David McManus Jr.: At least from my lens, what he is saying is a complete detraction from libertarian thoughts and ideals, although its quite possibly our best tool in sustaining free speech. In the day and age of the left vs right dichotomy, people are afraid of language from both sides and the right wing have been castrated and forced to kowtow to PC culture. Regardless of how you view his advocacy, it hits headlines on CNN and is starting to cloud the mainstream media with a puppet from the internet that dances on a whim of what the online communities want. As Im sure you can all agree, the online anonymity allows people to splurge their innermost thoughts all over a forum and not get arrested for thought crime (yet). So this incredible ability that Milo brings to the table to put a name, face and sense of rationality to the online hub of free speech does help to advance a free thinking society through acceptance and tolerance of other ideas. He is a pawn in a big game of chess, he learned his place, which was playing the role of the contrarian on a massive scale. It just so happened that he jumped the gun and perhaps tried to advocate for something that our culture wasnt quite ready to discuss as of yet.

Danny Chabino: On the one hand, freedom of speech is exceptionally vital to a free society. However, on the other hand, private groups must be free to select whomever they want to speak and whatever messages and ideas they wish to convey. Otherwise, it is pointless to have such organizations. I dont particularly like people who stir the pot for the sake of stirring the pot. They tend to be arrogant and obnoxious, seeking only attention for themselves. But, Milo is free to speak whatever he wishes to speak and to associate with whatever group he chooses. Is he good for freedom and for the liberty movement? I dont really know or care that much. Ill readily admit that I dont follow him too closely because I find him off-putting. The voices that put forth solidly logical thought will usually end up being heard. Im certain that if Milos ideas are found worthy, he will be heard.

Charles Peralo: I think the answer to this is simple: The roots to Being Libertarian were Being Banned From Being Liberal. Id say right now a page, thanks to Billy Bob Clinton, we just barely passed was Occupy Democrats Logic. Both pages were founded due to censorship from a group. Now, Being Libertarian has banned people. People posting spam or maybe sometimes some HEAVILY racist or bizarre stuff. But theres no Banned From Being Libertarian or no claim we deny people the power to ask a question. Being Libertarian is always open to the left or right to like us and make a point. So We have some censorship rights here and pages get the right to censor how they wish, the same as universities. The question is between denial of speech or denial of the right to ask a question. BL being at 400,000 followers and ODL being at 350,000 is kind of just proof being rude and just denying some rights to talk creates the problem from the likely reality neither groups would exist if Being Liberal and Occupy Democrats werent so ban happy. But we need to actually point out the left isnt immune to this. One of my best friends got banned from the LP page for saying in a comment You guys should just nominate Rand Paul. Also, our own special neck bearded pal from Fresno and our favorite guido with a taxation is theft hat and jersey block people left and right. So All movements do this. And Im going to stand up for Berkeley here. Rand Paul goes to speak and gets a standing ovation there, with it being the largest crowd a Republican ever got there. Milo speaks and its a riot. That shows this is not really a censorship of the right, because of economics or whatever. Theres clearly a line drawn in how they are different. And why do they stand for Rand and riot for Milo? Because Rand Paul says we need to abolish the payroll tax. He devotes an entire chapter in his book saying the criminal justice system is rigged against black people and our big government economics are making them poor. He says the TSA is bad for wrongly profiling Muslims. He says we shouldnt bomb the shit out of everyone. He had a plan to make getting a work visa much easier for immigrants. Milo runs around and says transgenders are mentally confused, black people have no real issues that are the polices fault and he does it all from the perspective and life experience of a 32 year old college dropout who gets joy from riots.

Jacob Linker: Theres a difference between saying theres a right for someone to speak and actively providing them a platform though. BL as a private entity has a total right to decide to limit input from detrimental content providers. Also I doubt weve seen the last of Milo.

Baruti Libre Kafele: The truest test of ones advocacy for the natural and constitutional right of freedom of speech is for one to convey or disseminate perspectives that may be contradictory or disagreeable to ones social and political views whether they are politically correct or not. Whether I, or anyone agrees with Milos views on pedophilia and other topics or not, he is unequivocally making history and getting crucified for all of us to share our idiosyncratic perspectives or views to the world via journalism, blogging, public speaking, etc. His flamboyancy, sexual orientation or courting tendencies should not negate that he has the right to express himself however he pleases.

TJ Eckert: I agree with Charles and Danny to some extent. Free speech is one of, if not the most important, rights to maintain. That includes the ability to pick and choose when in private groups, otherwise private groups lose part of their meaning. While I think Milo should be able to speak when invited by a group that thinks they will benefit from having him, I dont think he benefits our movement much at all. He is a provocateur, in my opinion, a narcissistic egotist, and isnt interested in helping anyone really. Like Charles said, Rand Paul can come speak, deliver a message, and even get through to some who would riot for Milo. Why? In my shooting classes we have a saying that if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. In my opinion, Milo has been playing these stupid games for a while, and hes just won his stupid prize. Were better off without him, and good riddance. The only thing he was ever even good for, if you can call it that, was pointing out how absolutely crazy the left can go to twist their own thinking. Believing that words are actual violence, and actual violence in response was just self defense. But all the baggage he brings with him isnt worth it.

Bric Butler: I think we are all in agreement that free speech is vital to protect and the only such limitations to be put on it should be in regard to private institutions deciding who they allow to use their venues. Yet this Rand Paul and Milo comparisonIm not OK with. In my shooting classes we have a saying that if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. That is overt victim blaming. Same as, Well what did she expect when she wore such a short dress? Of course she was going to get raped! Milo might be unhelpful and just being an ass, but that doesnt mean we should make even small excuses for rioters.

TJ: Im not excusing riots, nor am I victim blaming. Maybe I shouldve been clearer: The stupid prize is him being dropped from his book deal, and possibly fired from Breitbart. Him pointing out that the left will riot over words may have been his only good contribution. The riots werent justified. The case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes is not a victim blame. Much like the kids who think its fun to shoot each other with Roman candles, they dont get my sympathy when they get burned. Milo tried making a career at just pissing off anyone and everyone. Look at his Bill Maher interview. He just had to get a fuck you from each panelist, he was literally begging for it. Well, now hes getting a big fuck you, just like hes asked for.

Bric: Yeah, the Bill Maher interview really kind of finally turned me off from supporting him, before all this other stuff even came out. I think Milos problem is he got too famous too fast. Wasnt able to properly handle it.

TJ: I honestly think his pedophilia video is a planned attack on him more than anything. I just dont really feel bad for him though. Hes not an innocent victim by any stretch of the imagination. I dont know if hes the type that would handle it well even if he got famous in other ways.

Anna Trove: I used to like Milo. I agreed with him on a lot of issues and liked how he was blunt and uncompromising in the face of SJWs and feminists. However, as he got more in the public eye he just got more ridiculous. His views became giant caricatures. He started saying things like there should be a cap on women in STEM fields, and that birth control makes girls unattractive and crazy. Instead of simply using facts to dispel myths like the gender wage gap, he started promoting his own insane ideas about things. The Bill Maher interview was the nail in the coffin for me. It was painfully cringe-worthy. I absolutely dont think the liberty movement should be associating themselves with Milo. It is not beneficial for us. Did anyone else hear in the Maher segment Milo said something like Im a liber- but Bill cut him off? He has distanced himself from libertarians in the past (thankfully) and I hope he continues to.

Nima Mahdjour: Yes, conservatives & libertarians will continue to benefit from the establishments attempts to prohibit his free speech. No, I dont think theyre better off without him in the public eye, but we dont know since hes just been getting more and more publicity from the smear attempts, especially this past month.

David: Hes really just the exodus king. If you take him away from one place (Twitter), hell find another way to come back bigger and better. You take away his spotlight and you give the spotlight to another spot. He will march them all towards a new platform. Hes kind of like hosting pornography on your website, hes big business for whatever platform hes on, but youve got to deal with the morality and the consequences of hosting a provocateur. He and Trump are two sides of the same coin ridiculously offensive and for that reason theyve inspired a new counterculture, but at the same time, they are in no way libertarian. Libertarians are grasping at straws to tag their ideology onto his likeness, but within a societal context, hes doing us proud on our only shred of common ground.

John Engle: Milo has helped to normalize and propagate a brand of populist conservatism that has hijacked many of the people who would have once been found in the liberty movement. It hardly seems likely that his public censure will do much to bring all those people back, but it at least removes from that strand of thought one of its most able propagandists. Free speech is obviously fundamental. And odious though I find much of what he says (and claims to believe), Im no great fan of de-platforming. As a general thought though, this is not a classic no-platform case since the moves have been made due to revelation of new information, so in the presence of that information no invitation may have been forthcoming in the first place. That said, it is interesting how quickly so many groups moved to distance themselves from someone who has said some provocative, even hateful things. Its a decent case study of how uncomfortable provocation makes many people. Simon & Schuster was clearly desperate for a way to cut ties after the bashing they have received over the past several months and this is a face-saving opportunity for them.

Dillon: The freedom to express ones self does not exist in a vacuum. Like the Second Amendment, there is a functionality required to exercise this natural right. An individual must own a gun for his right to bear arms to have any real meaning. The First and Second Amendments are not as abstract as other entries in the Bill of Rights, such as the Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments, as those exist regardless of your behavior and interaction with others, and the application of those Amendments to you. Yes, you exercise your free speech when conversing with friends, or yelling at passers-by on a street corner, but to use your speech to effect change, tools and infrastructure are needed for your speech to be entered into the public domain. i.e. TV, radio, the Internet, printing press, etc. Milos speech will no longer be discursive since hes been banned from Twitter, hes resigned from Breitbart, hes forced to cancel his college campuses speeches, his books been cancelled, etc. Milo has essentially squandered his right to free speech by prioritizing confrontation, flamboyance and provocation; he fell into the style over substance trap and hes paying a price for it. Hes become radioactive; Milo made choices regarding how he would exercise his right to speech that caused not only those ideologically opposed to him to try to stifle him, but those normally predisposed to his beliefs are now shying away from him. In some ways, hes made it more difficult for conservatives and libertarians who can make valid arguments and have important things to say due to guilt by association. Milos reaping what he has sewn. He spent so much time portraying feminism as cancer. IRONY ALERT: Milos the cancerous entity now, having expended so much time and effort arguing that Muslims, feminists and other groups who are the subject of his ire should be forcibly removed from society, but he has proven to be the most effective in causing himself to be removed from society.

This post was written by Dillon Eliassen.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Dillon Eliassen is the Managing Editor of Being Libertarian. Dillon works in the sales department of a privately owned small company. He holds a BA in Journalism & Creative Writing from Lyndon State College, and needs only to complete his thesis for his Masters of English from Montclair State University (something which his accomplished and beautiful wife, Alice, is continually pestering him about). He is the author of The Apathetic, available at Amazon.com. He is a self-described Thoreauvian Minarchist.

Like Loading...

Visit link:
Perspectives: The Forcible Removal of Milo Yiannapolous - Being Libertarian