Buy VPN
corruption in libertarian movement

Kill Your Heroes: An Open Letter to the Libertarian/Anarchist Community

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 0 Flares ×

This article was written with two intentions

1. to demotivate the saplings from hero worship

2. to demotivate the full grown oaks from continuing their embarrassing behavior

 

If the State is congealed force, then the "freedom movement" is congealed ego

The preachers, the activists, the writers, the videographers, the organizers, the youtubers; I've met you all, and many of you have shaken my assumption in the good of the human being. You do not believe in freedom, you believe in exploiting fringe thought for clicks and semi-internet-fame. You throw your own allies overboard if it means more viewers, more listeners, more readers. You are sycophants, willing to do anything for a mention from your freedom superiors. You are not men; you are loud mollusks with augmented egos.

 

A distinction of character between the sexes, unique to the "freedom movement"

I don't say 'men' for poetic relevance. When I say men, I mean men. When I first entered this arena I anticipated conflict with the females. Many of us, including former myself, assume that compared to men, women are more emotional, spiteful, petty, passive-aggressive, jealous, underhanded, dramatic. So why is it when I read these adjectives, only male names come to mind? Why is it that I have not met a woman in this movement that I did not like? The solidarity is strong, and I suspect it's a reactionary solidarity because most of the men have been so anticlimactic.

Ok, it's partially a numbers game. There are more men leading the "freedom movement," so naturally there will be more bad apples that are male. But without comparing the sexes, I'd say that 90% of these guys have been disappointing in the human being department.

 

The Moral Descent

I think most started out with an honest conviction. Channeling their beliefs into action gave them purpose, and several of these individuals did achieve something. But I am not criticizing the value of their work, I am criticizing the content of their character. Yet these things cannot be fully separate, because character influences action.

What seems to happen is they become very good at what they do, acquiring a following, influence, and sometimes wealth. But if a person has a single weak vertebrae, a little bit of fame quickly engulfs any sincere sense of self. Their work no longer becomes about their vision, it becomes about the cultivation of their ego through accomplishment.

Does it matter? After all, the same results are achieved? Well no. If you preach a certain standard of values because you believe in them, you are not likely to break them yourself. Now if you preach those same values because it gets you fans and praise – because of ego – you are no longer connected to the moral foundations of your own words. Most of our "thought leaders" are experiencing a latent infantile mirror stage. This results in moral bankruptcy and intellectual impotence.

 

Advice for the Oaks

In just over a year, I have noted a range of unsettling behavior from you, our dear "thought leaders." If this is just a temporary lapse of judgment, then you should be glad to digest the following recommendations:

  1. If you don’t intend to credit people for their work, then don’t accept their help.

  2. If you’re bad at managing resources, don’t accept donations.

  3. If someone had a better idea than you, don’t steal it simply because you have a larger platform.

  4. If you’re insecure and easily feel threatened, work on yourself instead of sabotaging people in your own movement; after all, we are working towards very similar goals.

  5. Even though both you and Stacy have read the “Virtue of Selfishness,” or share a passion for private property, remember, it does not mean she should suck your dick.

  6. Do not promise female counterparts a job, social media exposure, or an interview, in an attempt to get sexual favors. It’s very unbecoming.

  7. Do not promote a female counterpart’s work in order to later guilt her into dating and/or sleeping with you.

  8. If you love someone’s work but they politely reject you in the romantic department, do not act like a butthurt teenager and cut off all contact and support.

  9. Do not steal money from your own charity.

  10. Don't make excuses for peoples' immorality just because they have a large platform.

  11. Do not tell people you will pay them, and then not pay them.

  12. If someone confides in you, let's say about an instance of sexual harassment, do not go behind their back and use it to slander them to the community.

  13. If an activist new to the scene tells you they are scared because a man threatened to rape them last night, don't turn around and tell people that "she deserves it because she lead the guy on."

  14. Don't use your fame to go on sexual rampages after your divorce while calling the women you sleep with "sluts" to your male colleagues.

  15. Try not to exploit the good nature or the emotional vulnerabilities of your fan base for financial gain.

  16. Don't publish private discussions that could incriminate the speaker (all for the sake of a great headline) when you're supposed to be helping that very same person.

These people preach self-governing free market systems. They claim to have faith in a self-motivated moral humanity. They worship honesty and promote the entrepreneurial spirit…yet they act like the thugs they speak out against.

 

Advice for the Saplings

Don't worship your heroes; kill them (symbolically, surely). Do better than them. Make them irrelevant. And don't become shameless in the process.

To Note

*There are a few stand-up male "thought leaders" who I still admire (you know who you are, and you have spines so I doubt you needed this line of reassurance).

*Feel free to post your stories below, but I'm sure I've already heard them. Remember, this is still a small community.

 

Comments
29 Responses to “Kill Your Heroes: An Open Letter to the Libertarian/Anarchist Community”
  1. Here was the comment I tried to post hours ago: 

    You should name names rather than this passive aggressive "open letter to community" nonsense. If there are frauds, they need to be named and shamed; there is no use in protecting their identity. Same goes for the "few stand-up" people. Put your own repuation on the line and vouch for them publically. Better still, encourage them to get in the WoT, and rate them.

    The conversation moved to twitter due to bugs. I'm posting it here anyway because that's the golden standard.

    • bravetheworld says:

      I might. Testing the waters.

      • Jack says:

        Julia, I'm curious: what is your opinion of Jeff Berwick, specifically regarding the debacle over 'Galt's Gulch'?

        In reading your post, I kept seeing Berwick in my mind, along with Adam Kokesh and Christopher Cantwell.

        • Jack says:

          Stefan Molyneux has been riding the ego train pretty regularly these last couple years too.

        • bravetheworld says:

          Hard to judge. I was not involved. Some of my close friends were hurt, but they hold no grudges against Jeff. That’s all I can say. 

        • Nicholas Cerce says:

          Shots fired at Cantwell again? God this is getting old. I did not read anything in that post that can pertain to him. Ego yes as does every single human on the planet. Everything else mentioned to me fits more in line with the general crazy ledt and right splitting going on in our movement. I find it ridiculous that we are so close to takeing it home and literally the inly thing holding us back is this back and forth finger pointing. If we all just worked together to get these goals accomplished itd of been done a long time ago.

  2. Hunt says:

    Calling these people out doesn’t nothing to move her point forward. Naming names would only provide a benchmark for argument/disagreement. Leave as is and let it continue to be considered by those who read it.

  3. Patrick says:

    "Remember, this is still a small community."

    Do you mean the liberty movement or just the celebritarians/ego activists that you are speaking to? From your remarks on your blog/vlog it seems you are hanging out intentionally with the crowd you dislike. I do not think it is a small community, but that is relative.

    • bravetheworld says:

      I obviously do not “hang out” with them anymore. In fact, it took me less than a few days in most cases to lose all respect. 

      I make it very clear who I’m addressing. Read again if confused. 

  4. Ike says:

    Good post, I think I'm deep enough in anarchist circles to know most of the people your talking about, lolz.  Good post ; P

  5. D. Gentloom says:

    Is that list of sixteen points things you have actually experienced in the "freedom movement?"

    This post is refreshing and instills hope in me since I have found similar behaviour; though I've heard very little criticism in this vein. It appears most people think that if a commentator is speaking about freedom, then the road pretty much ends there. But personally I place little importance in what people say, until I have found out that the drive behind their words also drives their actions. I'm not sure if the "liberty movement" has a better overall moral character than any other, or general people with no real handle. Among socialists, you find a great deal of people who profess moral standards and the surrendering of ones income for the common good. Yet I find they are often selfish and mainly interested in the surrendering of other's money and the protection of their own. I think every idealogy has this issue where the preachers don't follow their own words and in some cases live in complete contradiction to them.

    Then there are people who come up with conflicting ideas and statements. I came across one self-professed anarchist who is interested in "consciousness expansion." Yet they expressed how they would love to know how to hack BitCoin, so they could get rich.

    One of my observations is that people adopt idealogies or general sets of ideas like a fascia for their phone – it covers up what they really look like. I don't believe most people have a genuine investment in their ideas or battles they have picked. I haven't fully fleshed out the drives behind this behaviour yet. But thus far I have observed that people have an expression (typically words or speech) and they have a being (their real intentions and desires); and they are not necessarily in synch. A fairly basic example is a boy propositioning a girl and being turned down. The boy then goes on to tell people, “I hate this girl.” (his expression) but his being is jealously, anger and an intention to manipulate other's perceptions of the girl. When dealing with a broad idealogy, it may become more convoluted, but I think its essentially the same thing. They use their expression to hide their being. This is manipulation. I don't think the vast majority of people even realise this. It's a reactionary behaviour.

    I don't think this is the sole factor, there will be countless extraneous variables, but I believe the above is the key underpinning of a lot of human behaviour.

  6. a Texas libertarian says:

    While I'm very sorry that these circumstances have happened to you, I feel as though you may be undeservedly criticizing the entire movement as a whole. I think naming names would be helpful especially for those like me who are completely disconnected from any relevant portion of the freedom movement.

    I suppose I would consider myself not a seedling or an oak but somewhere in the middle, as long as the metaphor applies to how developed one's political philosophy is and not what they've accomplished as a result (I've not accomplished much of anything other than refuting some poor statist arguments on various comment forums). I have my select few heroes, most of which are dead, but I don't believe any of them are infallible. I try to take the best qualities of each and apply them to my personal and political philosophy as best I can, but of course I am certainly not infallible either.

    I've done the research on my own, motivated by my own curiosity in how the world works and in what the best form of human organization should be. I don't have an educational support group or anyone providing book recommendations other than those I run into online. I really have no idea what shape the liberty movement is in right now, since I've been focusing on my own personal development in the ideas of liberty. My girlfriend is also an anarchist libertarian, but she is that way purely from an ethical point of view and thinks anarchy would be chaos. Although she is generally uninformed of many of the great philosophical and economic arguments for freedom, she is my greatest support, and my devotion to the ideas of libertarianism have never become a problem for her. She is also my first conversational opponent about anything I have learned in my pursuit of a consistent vision of freedom. 

    I am also a man, so I haven't had to put up with any of the problems with sexual harrassment or unwanted invitation, that is if I had ever met anyone else in person with similar beliefs. Not that sexual harrassment never originates from a woman, it just seems on average to occur less. I can imagine your frustration when discovering the male leaders of the movement you want to be a part of using their genitalia as a requisite stepping stone on the path toward enlightenment. Poor form for sure, but not necessarily un-libertarian.

    At long last, here's the crux of my point. Libertarianism is only a political philosophy defining the conditions under which the use of force is justified. It does not prevent people from engaging in racism, bigotry, narcism, sexism, or just general bad human conduct. In other words, you can be a perfect libertarian and simultaneously a totally reprehensible insufferable a$$hole. I think the libertarian contrasystem will be the "system" that most effectively punishes these sorts of misanthropic aspects of the human condition, rather than say enshrine them into law like governments have consistently done, but it does not prevent them with the use of force either. 

    After all, it is within one's right of self ownership to be a misogynistic d!ckhe4d, though, by this virtue alone, one will probably deprive himself of any intimate contact with the lovely (and repulsed) women he so thoroughly desires in his own pathetic way.

    P.S. I totally agree with holding the perceived leaders of the freedom movement to their word no matter their following or importance to the movement.

    • bravetheworld says:

      “While I’m very sorry that these circumstances have happened to you, I feel as though you may be undeservedly criticizing the entire movement as a whole.”
       

      Only 2 of the points i mentioned happened directly to me. The rest happened to a wide set of male and female “collegues.” And not just oncem they are applicable to almost everyone, (again both male and female), that have a voice in this movement. Therefore applying it widely is reasonable. 

  7. a Texas libertarian says:

    I understand, but shouldn’t we libertarians focus on exposing individual wrongdoings rather than making generalizations that apply to both those who are and are not guilty of the stated offenses?

    Also there was a wide spectrum of wrong in that list, from unwanted sexual invitations to outright theft or embezzlement, and I think there should be a large distinction between these two charges. One has to do with class, or lack thereof, and one has to do with criminality.

    Are libertarian men inherently misogynistic? I think if anything, libertarian men would be more respectful of women on average, since we believe in absolutely equal rights, but such questions can be left to the collectivist utilitarians; I will continue down my own path regardless, as I’m sure will you.

    • bravetheworld says:

      “I understand, but shouldn’t we libertarians focus on exposing individual wrongdoings rather than making generalizations that apply to both those who are and are not guilty of the stated offenses?”

      Hey go ahead. Get involved, get big, get a voice, encounter the people I may or may not be referencing and out them. Don’t put the burden on me. I have chosen to critique in a general way. I don’t want to “stir the shit,” I want to tell people to be less trusting of their icons. That’s my only goal so don’t tell me what would be better because telling is easy, doing is hard. 

      Also I find this interesting: “Also there was a wide spectrum of wrong in that list, from unwanted sexual invitations to outright theft or embezzlement”  why did you chose to quote those two? Do you not think rape threats are criminal? Just saying you are looking at this through a defensive male lense. 

      “Are libertarian men inherently misogynistic?” where is this coming from? I have never alluded to this. “I think if anything, libertarian men would be more respectful of women on average, since we believe in absolutely equal rights,” did you miss my point? I hoped for and assumed this…unfortunately…they are not. 

      • a Texas libertarian says:

        I accept your argument of my critique. You are completely right. Out the assholes in your own way. Saying is much easier than doing and you do much more of the latter than I may ever do. Rock on girl.

        I do still have a point of contention though, because my range of incriminations I chose to draw attention to was in relation to those you charged directly against a libertarian. In the rape threat example, you indicated, the libertarian was merely insensitive to a situation he was not apart of. Also I contend that a woman can never  justify rape on herself by behaving in a certain way or wearing certain clothing ("no" should be all she needs to say), but there are circumstances where a woman should be careful of her actions, and certain actions can draw the attention of unwanted criminality. For instance, I, being a white american male, could go to Iraq without any weapons or support and end up a prisoner of those ISIS morons, and my ensuing death by beheading wouldn't be my fault, but one could say I certainly increased my odds of becoming a victim. Is that fair? Maybe this is what he meant, but said it in an admittedly insensitive way.

        Also it seemed to me your overarching point of the article was to say that libertarian men treated women poorly, but I, being a libertarian man who treats women with respect, may have been a bit too defensive and consequently, may have missed your true point that no one should be above scrutiny and everyone should be accountable for their actions.

        • bravetheworld says:

          Fair. I’ll be very clear.

          1. The situation I was in, was a date. He was someone who was hiring my host’s son to work for him. He got drunk and threatened to rape me twice after I politely denied going home with him. I was in a public place with him. 

          2. My only point about the men was that compared to the women they act like complete immoral characters. Not all of them, as mentioned, but it was something I noticed so it was worth noting. I felt dishonest if I didn’t point this out. 

          • a Texas libertarian says:

            1. Wow what a prick (guy who threatened you). I'm not sure why your libertarian colleague said you brought it on yourself, if you were on a date in a public place, but the specifics are none of my business. 

            2. Fair enough if that's your experience. I won't speculate too much on why this may be, but I will say that beautiful women tend to bring out the sexual-aggressive side of men, and to be fair, many women reward these behaviors, even if they pretend to dislike them (in my experience). Not lumping you into the latter category, only the former. I'm sure you are used to it being around hockey culture right?

  8. Amen, ego is indeed at the heart of 99% of the conflicts in the liberty community.

    It's not easy to out bad actors but if you choose not to name names, then you're choosing to be just another celebritarian who feels their popularity is more important than their principles. Are you a person who wants other people to like them moreso than you are a person of strong principles?

    There's no need to answer because so far your actions suggest you care more about popularity than principles. I hope you reverse that course – with action, not words.

    I've been there. I outed Kokesh and company's scams in 2013 all by myself.

    http://shieldmutual.com/2013/09/adam-kokesh-longer-customer/

    Sure, if you name names, you will suffer for it. So be sure to do it right, in a documented fashion and with one fatal blow, instead of a half-dozen half-assed attempts.

    To withhold names is passive-aggressive vaguebooking that your intended audience will brush off as any one of a number of things, from jealousy to any other personal attack you can think of it.

    Let me know if you want any help.

    • bravetheworld says:

      Maybe this will help you understand: the rape example was one that happened to me, and I have spoken about it in person, to people who I expected to have my back. They did not. They chose to ignore it or even back the guy because he had a bigger platform than me. So what is my motivation? To have him slander me because I outed him? (fyi he has been slandering me for over a year anyways, maybe as a preemptive measure, trying to get me dropped from conferences etc. To do it back to him now seems childish after I wrote and politely told him to stop and grow up).

      I don’t want to have to focus on my defense instead of working on valuable projects. I wrote the article in a heat of passion. Should I not have at all? Please respect my personal choice to be somewhat vague. Has you outing of Kokesh helped? I’m happy you spoke up but don’t act like a God because you did. Did that guy who critiqued Stephan M and have his YT channel shut down succeed? Maybe. Did Tatiana “get hers” after telling people she was assaulted? Hmmm no. She had people call her a liar instead. Was it worth the stress? You do not know what is going on with my personal life. The stress is not for me. I just choose to avoid these assholes instead from now on. And I know people much deeper in this game that also have said nothing and I do not judge them for it. And I do respect those that have spoken out. Situations differ.

      Remember, we don’t owe anyone anything and people should appreciate me saying anything at all, vague or not. 

       

      • What's your motivation?

        – If you are a person of principle, then nothing more need be said.

        – To see that justice is done, at least as far as you can do it.

        – To speak the truth, a truth some bad people want to hide.

        – To hold bad actors accountable for their actions, to the best of your abilities. Liberty is powered by accountability and responsibility. If you want anarcho-capitalism or something similar to work, but you fail to hold bad people accountable for their actions, then you have a contradiction to work out.

        If your valuable projects have something to do with the liberty communities, then I submit that there is no project more valuable in these communities than speaking the truth and holding people accountable. Anything else is tertiary because you can bring a billion people into these communities but if the community culture you bring them to is corrupt, then those people will either quickly leave or will also become victims of the kinds of bad actions you knew about but chose to hide.

        And don't think the blockchain is going to magically going to work out all of these problems with people. Technology is not a cure-all.

        Please respect my personal choice to be somewhat vague

        I'm trying to show you that this choice does more harm to you than good, assuming your intentions are pure.

        Has you outing of Kokesh helped?

        It satisfied my conscience and discharged my duty to my own integrity and principles in the matter, so it absolutely did. I am very proud of what I did. I am not carrying around a burden of self-doubt or self-recrimination. I proudly look at myself square in the eye in the mirror when the incident comes to mind. I did the right thing, period, and it's done. The people who did wrong are suffering over it, not me.

        don’t act like a God because you did

        This is a ridiculous thing to say.

        Did that guy who critiqued Stephan M and have his YT channel shut down succeed?

        It was a lady and she succeeded in outing Stephan as a hypocrite, which I personally consider to be a valuable service and I know some others do as well. But your question frames the issue in terms not of principle but of expediency…

        Did Tatiana “get hers” after telling people she was assaulted? Hmmm no. She had people call her a liar instead. Was it worth the stress?

        Clearly the whole thing was a weight on Tatiana for some time and so it was a smart personal decision to finally get it off her back. I'd like to followup with her, too, and assist in holding these people accountable. I left a comment on her sociopaths video to that effect with my email address.

        Who cares that some people do not like to hear the truth? That has not stopped truth-tellers before so why should it stop truth-tellers now?

        The stress is not for me. I just choose to avoid these assholes instead from now on. And I know people much deeper in this game that also have said nothing and I do not judge them for it. And I do respect those that have spoken out. Situations differ.

        You need to recognize that by only going halfway, all you have done is stir the pot and give credence to any males out there who want to accuse you of using this as a ploy for attention. Or perhaps this is your way of cashing in some chips to get what you want from these bad actors? I don't know but by only going halfway, you open the door to speculations that cast aspersions on your own character.

        You also make yourself look like just another celebritarian who values popularity over principle. For liberty people, principle is all we have. So to renounce principle is to cut your own throat in the liberty communities. It makes no sense.

        Remember, we don’t owe anyone anything and 

        For me, this kind of thing has nothing to do with what I do or do not owe other people. It has to do with me aligning my actions with my principles and being able to look myself in the mirror in the morning knowing I did not become party to someone else's aggression, fraud or other hurtful behavior through cowardly silence.

        Aligning actions with principles is the core of what it means to be an ancap or other libertarian anarchist. Principle is what we promote. Principle is what separates us from other people. To not align actions with principles is to be a hypocrite, which is about the worst thing you can be for a libertarian.

        people should appreciate me saying anything at all, vague or not.

        Nobody owes you any appreciation. To be honest, you haven't added anything to the conversation with this post. You've only stirred the pot and stoked the gossip mill.

        If you decide to out any bad actors tho, count on me for help. I respect whistleblowing and truth-telling.

        • bravetheworld says:

          1. I have not done more bad than good. Telling people to be careful is hardly stirring the pot. Your convenient formation of reality will not work here. I have warned people to be less trusting of the leaders in this movement, That was my only intention. If my intention was to out bad actors, I would have named names. And at that point, I would have been accused of being a gossip. 

          2. Sounds like you just want names. Sounds like you are just curious and you are demanding info that you don’t have. Tough luck. I don’t owe you anything

          3. Check your fucking ego buddy. Stop moralizing and judging me. I don’t have to follow in your footsteps. 

          4. Principles? What if my principles include giving people another chance? What if my principles include having people experience things for themselves without pre-concieved notions of others? What if they include not participating in slander? 

          5. You are no better than any of them, targeting me, someone trying to help those new to the movement. I did it my way, not yours, therefore I’m wrong? There it is, ego again.  And how the fuck would you help me or Tatiana? You fancy yourself some kind of vigilante? Do some actual work that matters. And stop assuming a moral compass for me. No I don’t expect the blockchain to solve any of these problems, espeshially after this encounter. 

          6. I can just as easily accuse you of being a celebretarian. “Oh look at me! Look at me! I outed Kokesh!” 

          7. Learn to read. Of course those who yell can’t hear anyone else. My intentions are STATED at the start of the article.

          8. Lastly…I already said, I have called some of these people out to their FACE instead of hiding behind my keyboard (like you). You know what happened? They could not take even private criticism and made it their gol to slander me to even organizers. I almost lost a speaking slot because “I did the right thing.” I have called them out with other members of the community as well. Nothing happened. So why would I call them out to the mob? What do I get out of it? Peace of mind? No I’ll get attacked even more. Look, you’re supposed to be on my side right? Yet you have been targeting me…and I’ve done nothing wrong.

          I tried the best way possible, direct and personal, and got nothing. You try that and then and judge me. Ps. here’s some perspective for you…MK got incredibly harassed for naming names and stirring the pot. I’m now getting incredibly harassed for not naming names and stirring the pot. Sounds like this “community” is a bit schizo.  

          I’ve wasted enough time on this. I will not be publishing your next response. 

  9. a German libertarian says:

    While I haven't had the (dis-)pleasure of meeting any of the libertarian heroes in person, I have had a look at the libertarian "community" for several years. At first, I could not help but be impressed by several personalities and it took me some time to develop a critical attitude towards them. For example, fdrliberated.com helped me see what's wrong with one particular stage personality. 

    The preachers, the activists, the writers, the videographers, the organizers, the youtubers; I've met you all, and many of you have shaken my assumption in the good of the human being.

    Watching these videos, I assumed that these people are somehow "heroes" – Remember the Marine veteran who at one time wanted to organize an armed demonstration in Washington D.C. to kick off a revolution? I was hardly suspicious of his character until he raked in (and somehow "lost") tens of thousands of dollars without even making an attempt at accounting for them. #2 on your list sure fits him!

    Thank you for providing current and prospective members of said "community" (and onlookers such as myself) with a glimpse behind the facade of the stage personalities (and the "movement" as a whole). Apparently, a lot of people have experienced a lot of abuse (or noticed it) and shied away from talking about the issue. By contrast, you adressed the issue 🙂 .

    I don't see any point in naming specific names either. Telling the followers that their "thought leader" has flaws makes little sense if the followers immediately rush to their defense without exercising critical thinking.

    have called some of these people out to their FACE […] You know what happened? They could not take even private criticism and made it their goal to slander me to even organizers. I almost lost a speaking slot because “I did the right thing.” I have called them out with other members of the community as well. Nothing happened. So why would I call them out to the mob? What do I get out of it? Peace of mind? No I’ll get attacked even more.

    As you point out, the problem is not so much the narcissists, egomaniacs and sociopaths. It's about the rest of the people learning to see these toxic people as what they are and be less generous with our trust.

  10. Will says:

    Dude, that personal story in the comment section is fucked up.  I feel disgusted and saddened by it.  

    Looks like you decided to keep things anonymous to those without a discerning eye, like myself.  I think that's for the better.  If the personalities above are as you described them then they would probably feed on the controversy, and drain your energy pretty quickly, so to speak.  Better to cut off contact in my opinion.  Looking forward to something creative and new from you now that you're washing off the shit that monkeys sling.

    A bit of Nietzsche comes to mind: "that which doesn't kill me…", and "Twilight of the Idols; philosophising with a hammer as with a tuning fork."

    All the best,

    Will 

     

  11. Yéred Zabdiel says:

    I'm wondering how to express the deep joy I felt while reading your article whithout idealizing you, and so begins a process on why I and we idealize people in the first place. This takes my memories back to when I read my first anarchist articles, thinking "yes! there are other people out there who thing a world without domination is possible!".

    Reading well articulated ideas makes us feel we're not that original, someone not only thought the same before us, but they also wrote it and posted it first, so we should keep letting them feed us their wisdom with an open mind. This is indeed a dangerous path, because all humans are pronte to error and this might lead to accepting anti-freedom thouths our heros might develop.

    Just now I'm thinking all I wrote, you know already, and people reading the post already know it and makes no sense to publish it. But here is where I think I'm going wrong, because human lives are short, the come and go, and even if someone before me already thought this, in order for anarchists ideas to live on, I have to think of them again and build upon past experiences to make a better world.

    Therefore, instead of "I love your post!", "you're awesome" or *clap clap clap*. I believe an honest "I feel you" is enough.

  12. Ben Stone says:

    Good article.

    I disagree with my friend George, in the comments above.
    Naming names, however entertaining, only serves to fluff the ego of those named while calling in their minions to harass you even more. It certainly won't change the egomaniacs nor will it change their faithful legions. As for justice; only the victim can determine justice. No third party has the right to question the decision of the victim. Also a fair warning to the buyer to be aware doesn't mean the person warning must describe every possible bad purchase. It's better if the buyer grows up, learns the lesson as quickly as possible, and moves on.
    I spent several years and a few hundred podcasts trying to get people to learn the lesson that Herbert Spencer taught over 100 years ago; Reject The Great Man! The message still stands.
    Kill Buddha whenever and where ever you find him on your path.

    Ben Stone

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] for hero worship (and its opposite) to happen anywhere there are leaders in a particular movement. It is bad. It is destructive. It turns people into sheep and destroys their ability to think for themselves. If Ron Paul came out […]



Leave A Comment


CAPTCHA Image
Reload Image

Buy VPN