April 23, 2016

Christopher Cantwell: An anarchist makes the libertarian case for Trump

Lauren SouthernRebel Commentator
 

One of my guests this week was Christopher Cantwell, an anarchist writer and podcaster who says libertarians should be more pragmatic and vote for Donald Trump.

If that sounds contrarian, that's not surprising. Cantwell has been banned from Twitter and Facebook thanks to his provocative views.

He and I talk about the tricky balance between purity and pragmatism that makes being politically involved such a challenge.

Cantwell says that a president's impact on a nation's culture and mood makes Trump the obvious choice, especially when you consider the options on the Democratic side.

WATCH my entire show when you become a Premium Member of TheRebel.media. It's fast and easy to join -- just CLICK HERE and get instant exclusive access to news, analysis and interviews the mainstream media won't show you!

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-04-27 19:20:23 -0400
Cantwell, the self-described “Anarchist, Atheist, and ASSHOLE” is also an ANTI-SEMITE.
commented 2016-04-25 11:08:40 -0400
It seems this site is literally crawling with political misnomers and ideological presumptions. This guy is no more an “anarchist” than Peter Griffin – if he was, he’d be a closet nihilist in his approach to change. He seems to be a libertarian theorist/extremist who tends towards the ideal of total self governance with no formal institutional governing systems – we are not there yet dude!

If you are in the demographic of people who are aware and unsatisfied with the less than stellar performance of the current crony-capitalist, crony-politics governing political cabals, vote for Trump, – simply because he is an outsider and cannot be controlled by the puppet masters of that corrupted system.

As his campaign builds momentum and broad support from the disenfranchised voters of all stripes, the ruling oligarchy must “de-cloak” and reveal its iron fist to squash this rebellion in the status quo oligarch-controlled system. We have seen everything launched at this true voter rebellion from MSM slander, party subterfuge, candidate plots, weaponized protester street violence and intimidation, to ballot and democratic system rigging by the oligarchy.

The opposition to the Trump revolution is the inherent corruption in the status quo political system laid bare. His support defies pigeonholing and political labels – it is broad spectrum voter revolt.
commented 2016-04-24 20:54:13 -0400
JOHN SICILIANO : Your entire post highlights the problem with purism using 2 examples of how it fails with opposing ideologies.
commented 2016-04-24 17:36:38 -0400
Libertarians are supposed to by their party definition be non-interventionist, for maximum free and supposed free markets but many claiming to be libertarian and advocating war are basically neocons and those wanting social conservatism instead of freedom.

Which is why the choice should be social conservatism meaning banning abortion and government control or true libertarianism which means freedom and free markets. I do not care for either one since much of it is what leads to oligarchy and racing to the bottom and a neo-feudalist model. The other meaning social conservatism is problematic as well in that it leads to rapturism and more costly wars.

Being PC is another misnomer which I find to be about talking points. One can show kindness whenever they want. Why does one have to be a jerk when talking to anyone? It is real about how one wishes to communicate. Many of these reasons do show that talking points are what they are all about, instead of allowing people to act however they want.
commented 2016-04-24 17:20:58 -0400
Tom Green :

“The US by fighting ISIS isn’t waging war, they’re defending against those who will invade us and kill us.
We fight or die!”

It is war. We have just become too accustomed to being PC, and we let the MSM redefine what we understand as normal too much to properly judge this for what it is.

This is the classic rivalry between radical Islamic despotism and the rest of the free world and it has been going on for nearly 1400 years.
commented 2016-04-24 17:15:35 -0400
The big fallacy of anarchy is that is promotes immediately after it inception a chaotic feudal society of divided and radicalised mobs. These mobs then fight, often to total war, one wins, and then we have a despotism with slavery and genocide.

It is truly sad people are embracing anarchy without considering these very obvious factors of human nature.
commented 2016-04-24 02:24:06 -0400
Do we really need to listen to some anarchists? Haven’t we put up with them enough at the post secondary level? You know, the ones that tried to convince us all that there was some kind of an anarchy utopia following some civil war in Spain?

These anarchists believe that nobody should be in charge of anything, and that is how true social equality bliss is achieved. Fucking idiots.
commented 2016-04-23 20:58:12 -0400
What Canada needs is an extreme Right Wing ‘Vlad the Impaler’. Just imagine what he could do to Trudeau.

It would sure beat Butts or Cucumbers, eh Justin
commented 2016-04-23 19:13:10 -0400
The US by fighting ISIS isn’t waging war, they’re defending against those who will invade us and kill us.
We fight or die!
commented 2016-04-23 17:28:26 -0400
I like some of what Libertarians stand for but I think the Honest, “leave us bloody well alone” part of it gets muddied up with crass immorality and Piss on you Capitalism. Freedom is a pretty important thing, and having a Libertarian around to help debate what the formula is, and a NDP’r for that matter could be a good thing. I can’t stand the Liberal Libertarian type of Gov’t where they want to take morality down to the basement, and use tax payer money to buy elections one way or another.

One of the biggest fundamental things is this public or private, competition vs. socialized Gov’t owned. But I think some times it goes beyond that. Like Banks. The whole structure of borrowing for a house and all that hasn’t really worked out well with Big bangs making billions in profit for lending what really is imaginary money. They have become a middle man, and created a Renters poor class and a buyers rich class.
This one thing costs us our lives 3 times over. Whats funny about a house and paying for it is, you can sell it and get your money back for it, and basically have lived for free. . And then there are renters who spend almost the same money, but when they move the equity is someone else’s. And lets face it, many of the big buildings are money makers for Land lords when they should be a condo. So to liberate those people, something has to be done.
I would rather have a NDP Gov’t owned Bank, even though I hate the NDP, than to see us pay Trillions to Land lords. People who pay to live should equally have that money when they sell. But Tenants who actually pay the bills get the shaft. Where is the Libertarian who will liberate those hard working paying customers. Whatever mechanism you want to use, even if its a socialized bank system,,,shouldn’t the main priority be to liberate people ???? Thats just one issue. one of the best ways to help people have a retirement savings, would be to deal with this issue. One of the best ways to deal with the cost of living would be to deal with the middle man the banks. And cut them out. Or help push the interest rate down to rock bottom and tax something else instead to get your pound of flesh.
commented 2016-04-23 16:22:44 -0400
The libertarians will continue to be fringe, or as Cantwell says, impotent, as long as they have some of their beserky views.

They talk about freedom of the individual, and all that good stuff; but then they kick into anarchy, and it’s like, ‘wooooooooooh’.

Then they start talking real estate like it’s a manifest destiny doctrine or like we’re still living in the agriculture epoch where if you work the land you get to own it.
I’m not sure how urban people work the land when they live in condos.

@climatefallacy