BFP Roundtable Video- Ron Paul & His Movement: Was He The Answer?

Sibel Edmonds, Guillermo Jimenez & Pearse Redmond on Ron Paul Movement, Rand Paul & Much More!

With the presidential election seemingly looming over everything in this episode we look back at Ron Paul and his movement, and ask the question: Was he the answer? The three of us break down how all of us got involved in the Ron Paul Revolution and libertarian politics. We discuss how the movement represented a different choice to politics than the rest of the mainstream. Pearse Redmond shakes things up by asking whether Ron Paul was really about change, or whether he was about shifting the alternative community back into the Republican Party. We also touch on the nefarious individuals involved in the campaign that may have played a part in derailing the message of Paul. Later we move on to Rand Paul and break down how he represents a near complete reversal of his father. As we round out the conversation we explore the libertarian movement as a whole and discuss the near absence of women with in it. We also touch on why there are so few women in the alt-media, and the abhorrent way that they are treated by a majority community.

Watch Preview Here:

Watch Full Video (Members Only) Here:

Listen to the full Audio (Members Only) Here:

You can subscribe below to listen to this podcast, as well as all others on our site.


FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.


  1. Hi…greatly appreciated the reminder about Ron Paul and his curious former associates.

    I strongly encourage you to put an invite out to Abby Martin to join your next round table. Would be quite the conversation if she accepted the invite.


  2. Only 16 minutes in but before the though is wandering away:

    I briefly got involved with the ‘Ron Paul movement’ around summer/autumn 2005. They had a very active internet community so even as a European one could join in (and subsequently finding yourself in closed meetings with no clue who these people are, nor why you’re there). In the early days it was very enjoyable on these boards and forums. I found many like minded people and the optimism and energy was very pleasurable. This was what really set it apart. A sense of ‘anything is possible’ spirit. Highly emotional but still pleasant to let oneself be swooped away for a few minutes now and again. I think Obama’s team copied this spirit rather successfully (though empty and hollow) with the ‘hope and change’ campaign. In the early days there were many ‘truthers’ and this was no problem. We discussed for instance 9/11 like any other topic.
    Then came the voices whispering “We shouldn’t talk about these topics anymore because it’s going to hurt Ron Pauls campaign.” First gently and ever so reasonable, only wanting the best for Ron Paul, only looking out for his wellbeing. Then when they had recruited enough soft minds they began excommunicating all the ‘truthers’, silencing and banning them. This free thinking, free speech community wasn’t so free anymore. It’s amazing how easily this is done, how easily people are molded.
    With the successful purging of the heretics the movement lost all it’s attraction and spark. And really, it was purposely set on a track to self destruction. Tucker ‘hooker’ Carlson, Glenn Beck, Tea Party… No doubt all carefully orchestrated by people like Bruce Fein.

    For the short period Ron Pauls movement began to take off and the ‘truthers’ were still a major faction, it was fun and I really enjoyed the sense of (naive) optimism, rarely found among like-minded people (who among us believes in politics and changing the system through elections and so on?).

    For someone interested in how to sabotage a political movement there is enough material for several graduate theses.

  3. *that should be summer/autumn 2007

  4. Cathleen McGuire says:

    Very interesting discussion. I’ve been a leftist ecofeminist for years ( and am now also deeply committed to the truth movement. At least the left gives lip service to women. The republicans and their libertarian cousins are clueless about their sexism. I think their biggest problem is that they have absolutely no analysis of patriarchy, a 5000 year old entrenched system that preceeds the institutions of racism and classism. Through the lens of female oppression, patriarchy ultimately is about issues of power.

    Anyway, please bring a bona fide feminist on your show. May I nominate Naomi Wolf? She is a long-time feminist intellectual and activist who has become increasingly radical on many fronts. I highly recommend you watch her 2014 speech at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum.

    Thanks, and keep up the great work. Cat McGuire

    • Well, people of many other persuasions than left-ecofeminist have, many times, advanced the argument that there’s no conspiracy theory more unfalsifiable and grandiose in its claims than that of “the patriarchy.” How would you respond to that?

  5. As for the second part about why women are mostly absent:

    ” Why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that” – Barbara Bush

    First world women, pretty much the most pampered, protected, cared for, human class ever, are not going to waste their beautiful minds on matters like hidden government and deep state. Especially not when they are all hooked on feminism, or thoroughly propagandized rather. They will only show up when there is overlap with their victim beliefs. They are anti-war when it’s the evil white man that is bombing the poor brown people. There they identify themselves with true victims and stand shoulder to shoulder (though that real victim might have no shoulder nor legs to stand on anymore) against the evil white patriarchy. Then do some real activism with lots of selfies and Facebook posts.

    Really very similar as to why there are very few people of color. They are at the “black activism” meetings. And so on.

    Who in the end is left when you remove all the approved and sanctioned victims? Why, none other than your demographic.

    Are we not parttime studying how the masses are divided and ruled, how people are being led astray and seduced into dead ends, how this entire mass media complex that is the propaganda machine of the powers that be operates? Then how can we not see what is right in front of our nose?

    Perhaps I am to harsh on the women for their absentness and don’t appreciate the power of propaganda. Would I succumb if I was being offered a similar dismissal of responsibility, this modern hostia of absolution. Perhaps I would have accepted the mark of victim on my head and be off on my merry way. Free of the burden of culpability and not having to waste my beautiful mind on these matters anymore. Be a token activist in between “me time”.

    • Yes,
      in order to answer the question, why women stay away from political meetings, especially in the libertarian movement, I try to break it down to this question:

      Is it because of hostile environment for women at those meetings, or because women are less interested in getting together in political meetings for debate and organisation?

      If we take the libertarian movement (right wing), then we can consider two control groups: The mainstream parties (democrats and republicans) as a control group, next to left-wing anarchist groups as an additional control group.

      Do these control groups have the same marginal women participation issue?
      If the answer is yes, then this could be seen as an indicator for “women are not that interested”.

      I don´t know how it looks on the mainstream control group site, but for the left-wing anarchist side, I have read meeting notes from David Graeber and chat discussions of Michael Albert´s participatory economics groups. Michael Albert inspired groups could´t be set up, because they failed to fulfill a self-imposed 30% women participation.
      The group, where David Graeber was a member of in NYC in 2000, had a ‘vibes watcher’ to intervene every time sexism, racism or agism occurred, mainly to let women, gays and minorities feel more comfortable during meetings. This didn´t work out in the end, because women kept leaving the group. Graeber interpreted this as extreme hidden sexism on the male side. I think in the opposite way. If you create the most women friendly environment you can imagine, and women still not show up, then reconsider the possibility, that “women are not that interested”.

      There is also another possibility. If we agree on the fact, that women are relatively more social than men, then they could be more fearful of being excluded from their everyday social groups, and exclusion could happen, when advocating non-mainstream ideas an opinions e.g. on 9/11. When women´s only political occupation is feminism, this is maybe because feminism became mainstream (=safe ground).

      But I also had to admit, that based on Sibel´s own experience, the men in the libertarian movement seem to be a bit close minded, at least mono-thematic, when they only talked about Federal Reserve. I would think, that mother´s are interested in not letting their children die in useless wars abroad, so I strongly encourage the men to broaden the range of important topics.

      From my personal experience as a member of a peace-for-palestine group five years ago, we had almost 50% women in the group, without being hyper-sensible regarding sexism. So it´s not a complete hopeless case. Maybe it´s more topic related.

      • “But I also had to admit, that based on Sibel´s own experience, the men in the libertarian movement seem to be a bit close minded, at least mono-thematic, when they only talked about Federal Reserve.”

        True enough. When it’s about money it a given it attracts plenty of “alpha males” types. Also there is/was a large conservative leaning faction in the Ron Paul community. I always thought it to be typical American or perhaps Anglo American. I don’t reckognize this particular brand here in Europe. Not to say we haven’t got our own, the Nuclear Family is a US/English term though.

        Likewise sexism does exist, racism does exist, all these isms don’t need to be denied. My objection begins when people separate themselves based upon race, gender, sexual preference and so on. How can we possibly have any kind of unity if people start separating themselves? Designating each other as antagonists.

        When thinking back to the Ron Paul campaign and the role of women two things come to mind. Firstly “Ron Paul Girl”. I think her name was Liv. She made Ron Paul promotional videos usually wearing only panties and a t-shirt. Very empowered and liberated no?
        Secondly a group of women who wanted to help spread the word. So they came up with a calendar. Mind you, their own idea. They held a fund raiser and did some pre-sale, and when they had enough money made some “suggestive” photo’s of themselves and printed the calendar in nice quality glossy paper. I’ve got proof cause they gave me one. Signed and personalized.
        Now I’m a warm blooded male and certainly appreciate women, and feel really reluctant because I’m not questioning their good intentions, but why of all things a calendar with pictures of themselves? Of all things to use that expensive paper for, to help spread Ron Pauls ideas and stances, they came up with this. Similar to modern feminism it looks more like an excuse to act out narcissistic and exhibitionistic impulses.

        The question is not about modern feminism but about where the women are yet I think these are related. Masses of young girls are posting their breasts on Facebook to “protest the misogynic policy” and I am willing to bet not 10% could point out Syria or Iraq on a map.

        Similarly racism is a great distraction and means to divide the people. The fire is always kept warm in the US. The mass media again proving very useful. And if after another incident both sides are at each others throat again, mission accomplished.

        What better way to keep the people divided than to use existing and natural differences. Gender, ethnicity, sexual preference. Much more effective than say religion or ideology. People can change those. They can’t change their identity.

        My twitter profile says “minority of one” – I believe a good attitude to mentally arm oneself against these traps and keep oneself above these divisive issues. Works for me at least.

  6. Great show. Ideological libertarians — with whom I share many ideas and sentiments — have a fortress like, almost impenetrable logical soliloquy that they’ll defend religiously as to how the world SHOULD be and they defend it well, the only draw back being that it’s a world that has never existed and never will. A proper understanding of human nature levels the libertarian temple dream like a Pakistani earthquake.

  7. As for the pampered female of America, most women for some decades work at jobs they need for survival while being the main parent raising one or more children & serving as the main housekeeper. Fortunately this is not as universally the case as it was in the past and many fathers play a much larger role. On the other hand, most political or activist organizations relying on volunteer labor rather than Koch funding rely on female “manpower” while relying on male spokes people, male vocal participants in meetings and males to strategize and set agendas. Not such an attractive extra-curricular activity for women who already play the worker bee role to their own loveable video gamer, commercial sports fan roosters.

  8. hey yall. actual feminist here. not subscribed to FEMEN bullshit, bra burning, etc. not that i think i should have to qualify that, but indeed the movement has been heavily co-opted, with the apparently greatest feminist of all inventing “lesbianism” itself along with abortion, i guess, that being the queen spook Steinem. anyway.

    women are largely conditioned in the states from a young age that these are topics that are not for them. it really is that pervasive. look at all these industries that have really ramped up in just the last 20-30 years that tell girls as young as five or six they are supposed to be sexual objects, fixated on one’s appearance to the point of psychosis. “feminist icons” right now include Nicki Minaj and Beyonce, because they are women of color and say a few acceptable things, whose masters force them to strip on stage to be worth anything. Miley Cyrus, who is arguably the most successful product of MKULTRA to date, is supposed to represent the LGBTQ movement now after being molded as the nice girl Hannah Montana, turned into constantly doped stripper with a bunch of confused fans now entering high school. the scene is that much more psychotic after decades of telling women they aren’t supposed to think too much on the mens’ arenas of politics, foreign policy, etc.

    FEMEN and other intel sponsored “feminist” groups have aided imperialist intervention by convincing western women that they are free, and that these veiled and scarved women need saving. meanwhile western women are convinced that the cosmetic industry empowers them without recognizing their own veils.

    i feel that the effects Ron Paul’s anti-woman stances have in part driven the extremely vile and misogynist subcultures of “libertarian” men who believe women are to be their slaves. you will find all kinds of bullshit on western women being brash, butch, etc now because of the evil feminist movements. MRAs (men’s rights advocates who view Asian women as more subservient directly because of decades long US occupations of Asian countries and how these ideas were shaped in the mainstream), PUAs (pick up artists who believe insulting women is what they want in order to sleep with them), and most recently i’ve seen “no hymen no diamond” insanity. how is this not an offshoot? even among the leftish sphere that was influenced by Paul’s staunch anti-imperialist stands you see men on about abortion being a eugenics program — which don’t get me wrong, there are troubling aspects included with racist distribution of harmful contraception methods that has been a *systematic* form of eugenics within the states and that the Gates empire is now transferring to African countries in particular. in any case, we can’t take abortion out of context as this singular issue, away from even feminist components of eugenics movements along with the 20th century programs that worked to implement industrialized birth and demonize women healers who had performed abortion as taught by their foremothers who came from a long tradition of healing and medicine carried out for millennia. abortion is an important issue for working class women; it will always be available for more privileged women, but poor women who are failed by reproductive care, who have to travel hundreds of miles to receive a simple procedure because of decades of right wing paramilitary bombing campaigns, are going to be turned off by a movement that appeals to white men headed by some obgyn in his position because of the patriarchal transformation of medical care in the states.

    with that being said, who cares about Paul’s personal stances on hating women or people of color? his movement was by definition systematically racist and sexist because of its exclusion. movements are co-opted all the time and he as an individual is not as important as how the messaging works to bring in a certain portion of the population. dogwhistles with the present candidates are working on the entire political spectrum in numerous ways after many movements have been splintered multiple times. the empire he so rightly called out plans the long cons, and i don’t think he or his followers were exceptional with regard to this.

    so i want to reiterate that feminists are not all this or that, concerned with highly individualized understandings of politics. one of the most important things i was turned on to while doing a minor in feminist studies was the actual US military construction of brothels and systematic prostitution in countries they conquered. today women are trafficked by groups working directly with the US military. people have been shocked by this when i’ve brought it up, so i have started a written form and podcast series on this and surrounding issues that women and children suffer under presently. to put it bluntly: people don’t largely care because women’s lives matter so little. sex slaves trafficked carefully and out of sight are absolutely tied up with military invasions and occupations. why was this never part of a campaign or movement of understanding foreign intervention with a movement supposedly against all of empire’s misdeeds, with anti-woman themes thrown into the mix? if it wasn’t explicitly programmatic to work toward further splintering dissension within the working classes, it was still highly effective in excluding those most affected by imperialism, both domestically and abroad.

    • to be fair, i can’t say with certainty that it was “never” part of Paul’s campaigns, but it was certainly not an issue that popularized.

    • You should post this stuff on this site. Also something about the insidiousness of it would be nice.

      Also, you may want to work to undo the damage the misandry movement has done to feminism.

      I have not noticed certain things such as women not being allowed to address politics. From what I have seen everyone is pressured into toting the lie that is the political system.
      It may also be a good idea to cover the forms this misandry can take one such as the overbearing and controllung wife or gf and the whole alimony thing… Or so many other issues that I likely know nothing of even from the male perspective.

      By addressing the concerns many men have you may disarm things enough to get a message through.

      We may live in a relatively patriarchal society, but there are issues on both sides that need to be dealt with.

      And disarming the nazi’s, of whatever type, fem, war, racist, etc… Is necessary to fix the fracturing. If you have the knowledge to report on such things then you really need to cus right now people like Jones are getting the big audiences and therefore excess influence.

      • i cannot make sense of the both sides thing here. the expanse of militarized, patriarchal practices has extended to affecting mens’ lives and dominating ideas of masculinity. groups of powerful women have not decided these fates, and if they are at the front of political movements, they are mostly bitches in lipstick — well compensated female running dogs no doubt — as far as the male dominated industries and political parties they represent are concerned.

        • however it takes men and women to create, uphold, and perpetuate these systems of domination, just as the maintenance of empire is delegated to members of society who are content at batting at the carrots to secure their places. lower class women and children are the most vulnerable, there is no denying that, and lower class white men as well as men of color are portrayed as exacting the most violence. this is also patriarchal.

        • Actually, I was referring more to the victimization issue in mkre domestic matters. As in who controls the household and how. Some times it is a wife beating goon, sometimes it is a controlling female neurotic who beats her husband with metal objects and hangs alimony and child support over his head. Bad effects, different methods.

          On the larger more political scale I have to wonder. There is no way in heck I see a female run world as a solution to war. Females may or may not be as willing to actually do the killing and being killed thrmselves, but they do carry the same “human” qualities including vindictiveness, bigotry, pride, viciousness… and so on that men have.

          On that note it is interesting to consider women’s roles in upholding this man/war mentality. I mean, uniforms get ya laid, right? There is definately an attraction for many women to this paradigm. It is funny that I never hear feminists speak of getting rid of alimony. Perhaps the overall value is not unnattractive to many. And perhaps a breaking from this grunty primitive undercurrent could be helpfull in itself. It is not so much women taking control that changes this situation, but breaking themselves free from being another brick in the grunty primitive wall. This leads me to a question. What IS feminine? Being the grunty primitive brick? Perhaps breaking free of this position should not be seen as feminism, but as mental independence. I dont know what to call that.

          So three thoughts:

          1) It is sad that women do not actually offer an alternative to the war drive paradigm

          2) It is strange. In a way there is power in subservience and victimization. But also burden in playing that role.

          3) I forget what I was thinking… Perhaps this movement is biiger than “feminism”. Perhaps it could be and should be part of a non compliant mental liberation movement in which the various roles of society, including the ” feminine” role, are examined. What is the purpose of a role in society, how should we analize these roles, and how should they be altered. The dialogue created when considering these things is what will determine the answers that are created.

          • Also, I want to point out something else. In a sense the patriarchy does give men entitlement. But it also creates burden such as being the people who go to war, get blown up in the mines, burned in the fires, etc….

            This paradigm currently had is a problem, but I wonder if patriarcy, and perhaps matriarcy are outcroppings of a bigger problem. Perhaps both are just expressions of stupidity, ignorance, an over dependence on the feeling of security gained from the comfort of the familiar in defiance and willing ignorance of the actual value of the familiar. People tend to fill the void left by the discomfort of not knowing or understanding with beliefs. Pethaps this leads to the foolishness that creates ingrained stereotypical systems, in this case matriarchy and patriarchy. A program of demanding increased perspicacity and decreased ingrainment may be the only real solution to tuis problem. Any other is likely to only lead to other forms of bigotry.

          • I just thought of something. I know little of history, but I have to wonder, could it have been the mean-ness of matriarchal societies that lead to patriarchy?

            One possible scenrio

            1) matriachs get pissy with each other

            2) matriarchs realize men are better at killing

            3) they send men to go kill

            4) men see the power in this ability

            5) men take on new perceptions and take “control”

  9. Wow, so many thoughts swimming through my head out of this one. I’m really looking forward to the next BFP Roundtable and the likely subsequent roundtables that will come out of it.

    I’ve been thinking a lot about how I can / ought to create my own voice in the world of alt media, and a lot of my ideas cluster around meta-critiques of the alt-media / “Truth Movement” itself and how to get the “awake” community thinking forward and out of its own particular bubbles – in addition to some critiques I have of the meta-bubble of the “Truth” community itself and the flaws I see there. But just sticking with the subject of why the Liberty/Truth/Whatever culture is such a crackery lightly Nazi-flavored sausagefest – if Tom Secker’s in the house, feel free to run with that one – I think you’re seeing a mix of factors, some organic, some contrived and steered. I’ve racked my brain trying to assemble the fundamental common psychological denominators of the “conservative mind” and the “liberal mind” – for what steers one to the “Alternative Right” as opposed to the “Alternative Left,” for what makes someone a Jay Dyer or one an Abby & Robbie Martin. I choose those two examples because I’ve explored both their respective bodies of work pretty thoroughly, have great respect for their prosewriting and research capabilities, and am interested in the limits of their respective Overton windows. I have not had a chance to work these ideas out very well with other people, but what I see in the “Right” mind is something like – “no matter what, nobody I perceive as at or below my station in life is going to ‘get away’ with anything,” and in the “Left” mind, something like a puppy constantly checking its mothers’ face to see what the Cool Kids Are Doing. That’s incredibly simplistic and I’m totally grasping at straws, but it’s all I’ve got at the moment. As far as contrived/steered elements goes – Pearse and Tom have talked a bit about “The Secret Right,” JBS, a couple of other institutions I can’t recall off the top of my head – I look forward to more discussion on this topic – and then there’s the Frankfurt School and all the various spinoff institutions of “cultural Marxism,” which were/are very real and whose white papers make for very chilling reading for anyone with the courage to explore the ideological pedigree of their own ideas. And at this point I’m speaking directly to kariflack and Cat McGuire, because I have to say, speaking personally, as someone sort of vanilla-left and who has little good to say about “The Dark Enlightenment” that whole lunatic-y “Fascism is too newfangled, let’s restore the monarchy” crowd, personal proximity has caused me to, on an emotional level, dislike postmodernity and the cultural-studies set even more. I think there’s a fair amount of truth in Richard’s comment. In my view, white straight American men have been arguably the largest beneficiaries of the American civil rights & feminist movements, on a personal consciousness and sure-why-not: spiritual level, because these movements have forced a high degree of critical self-examination and reflection in my demographic that, frankly, these self-same movements have not produced to any comparable degree in their theoretical class beneficiaries. The change in worldview from the generation of my grandfathers to my own has been profound, and far more positive than not, but there is nothing built into these quasi-Maoist, total-war constructs of “patriarchy” and “white / cis privilege” to allow for the possibility of evolution and growth; only franchises constructed around new theories of systemic oppression that are welcomed so long as they toe the line with one another in public occasionally. This, along with the repurposing of the definitions of “racism” and “sexism” away from their common-sense definitions of something very like “prejudice” to “the ongoing operations of the monolithic white straight guy power structure,” has contributed enormously to the state of affairs we see today, where Black Lives Matter is picketing Bernie Sanders and, well, nobody else I’m aware of, and my circle of feminist acquaintances can’t estimate the amount of Southwest Asians and North Africans slain by US arms to the correct order of magnitude, but can tell you all about the evils of the ‘man-splay’ and the urgent necessity to buy Barbies and girls’ clothes for their infant sons. All these unexamined shibboleths – y’all are indoctrinated. Y’all are in the Matrix. You have no idea who your enemies are and think “we” all look, sound, and act alike. And what is the state of affairs that this produces? Precisely the most important goal of Imperial Occupation – make sure the proles hate each other for their heresies more than they hate their masters. When somebody like kari goes trotting out these buzzwords it makes my brain sizzle slightly. Mission Accomplished, Hail Hydra.

    • that’s a long winded way to tell me i’m wrong and deeply embedded within the matrix when the Sanders setup especially was completely contrived and artificial as all these “interventions” are with people and groups who can get anywhere near a political candidate without getting tazed. i would think that would be fairly apparent to someone who follows these things. in any case the backlash from white progressives not only proved the actually existing racism among that sphere, but it was manipulable for the, i guess, matrix architects.

      • No, of course that exists and is manipulated all the time – the most perfect example I can think of is the totally contrived way the media cherrypicks police shooting stories. How is it we get *sooooo* many mega-stories revolving around young-ish black men who have some minor criminal record and *sort* of seem like they *might* have *something* sketchy about them and hardly any mass media traction about ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE OF EVERY RACE, GENDER AND CREED that the cops gun down in cold blood ALL THE TIME? To manufacture consent for the police state amongst white racists, of course – I think we can all see that.

        I’m just so sick unto death of the bubble of postmodernity and the completely inadequate lenses its spinoff ideologies provide to process what we’re seeing. My hit list of the biggest still-widely-celebrated intellectual frauds of the 20th century is long, but surely Jacques Derrida has to be near the top.

        • terms i use have been around longer than the greater emergence of postmodern thought. i don’t see what’s wrong with naming these systems while at the same time understanding who the masters are who make it work — i mean, i think we’re creative enough to use all these tools.

          do white racists really need to consent that much more? their groups and paramilitaries are often referred to as being co-opted by police, but i think there are more cases of them creating them. on the flip side, most the “communists” parties with any kind of presence in the states are filled with informants or agents; during periods when they were really freaked out by the left they were more than half-filled.

          but i do get what you are saying. the delineation of whites/blacks/latinos/native americans into discrete categories by the fascist state plays toward creating a reliance on the gestapo as a way of “getting over” on one group or another. black people *are* disproportionately targeted by the modern day slave patrols, that’s a fact. and this anger is steered as well — when that Dylan Roof character was captured, many more noticeable activists of color called for police action, “this is the time it counts!” and when some of the BLM stars who are opportunists are criticized, supporters go as far as saying that critics should be put on FBI terrorist watch lists.

          • But these names are themselves totally misleading and signally, utterly fail to describe what they are and what makes them work. Do you really think the money masters, or the military-industrial complex, or the corporate state – let’s umbrella it under “New World Order” just because that’s always a fun term to use in any earnestness – do you really think the New World Order has any investment whatsoever in “whiteness” or “maleness” or “straightness?” Now, it definitely *uses* those things – the police, for instance, surely the most racist and patriarchal institution in American life, absolutely puts the Ku Klux Klan to shame – and it disproportionately victimizes the poorest and most marginal social classes in society because, well, they’re the easiest to victimize – back to manufactured consent etc. etc. – but this is all just totally pragmatic, from their perspective. Ideology is for nobodies. It’s a good way to create Sunnis and Shias, Hutus and Tutsis, but if you’re a Barack Obama or a Susan Rice or an Eric Holder, an Alberto Gonzales, a John Yoo, a Hillary Clinton – on and on we could go – and are eager to work for the Powers that Shouldn’t Be, a place will be found for you, regardless of race, gender or creed.

      • Also, yes, of course, the BLM and tumblrverse movements reek of COINTELPRO, and that’s hardly ever discussed outside the realm of commentators whose starting premise is basically that every civil rights / expansion of the franchise movement and indeed democracy itself were themselves controlled opposition, which is not a pill I’m prepared to swallow.

    • also did you miss the part about my work on american military trafficking? cuz it’s in there too.

      • I did not. It doesn’t seem like you read what I wrote very carefully – could be that you have the same brain-sizzle problem I have reading critiques of feminist language that I do reading feminist language, could be the sheer long-windedness (Sibel, can a brother get a paragraph break? One time?) but my point is this – we have to find a new way out. The Enlightenment-cum-Fabian-Fascist, Empire-of-Liberty, Scientific-Dictatorship has failed, and postmodernity and the Return of the Czar are both dead-end failures unto themselves. We need a Third Way (and good God is that term loaded.) Join me, sisters, brothers, and undefined. Let’s intuit and logic our way out of this thing.

        • i did, and you can hit enter to create a line break on here. my brain is doing well thanks; i included that since i mentioned both US military occupations in Asia and my work.

        • One concept people never consider, at least that I have seen, is that all systems are shite.

          Take the economy debate. We got gold, we got fiat, gold is fiat, we got usury, we got not usury, we got fractional reserve usury, we got whatever wierd crap the bank of england does usury, we got barter, we got bitcoin…

          You know what the underlying current is?

          They all fail.

          Perhaps a system more aware of the reality of the world we live in is necessary.

          Think of this. When economics are spoken of human nature always takes stage at some point. We have to encourage investment. We have to regulate bad behavior.

          But you know what? Whatever regulation is done, whatever encouragement is done we always in up in the same boat. And that is the people suck and they are going to find a way to sink the boat for profit boat. The human element is the biggsst issue. It is a violent, deceptive, stupid, dilusional, short sighted element with horrendously limited perceptual capacity and no ability to manage it social dialogue in a productive way for very long. It devours systems, showing each and every one to be a failure, the only “positive” result from the successive destructions and formings of systems being increased authority over the physical world, this “positive” result only having one possible outcome, from my perspective, that being the eventual responsibility required for the profitable use of the control over physical reality being so great relative to the ability of the human element’s ability to supply this responsibility that eventually this human element shall find itself made obsolete and ruined in the face of this responsibility.

          It is interesting that it is no longer nature that demands how we evolve, at least not nature of the type seen in the wild, but now it is our own creations that determine how we must change to suit the requirments of capability demanded by their destructive and fromative properties.

          I can only foresee that any solution to this issue will need to be a very deep one, and not simply a changing of the outer shell of our social systems, democracy versus monarchy, gold versus paper, or any other outwardly big change. It will need to be a change on the micro level. Our valuations of everything must change. When I see systems I notice that one can have a system, the consitution for example, but it is not that document that determines its own value, for it can be interpreted. It is the perceptions and valuea of those who would view it that determine its value.

          Increased perspicacity is definately going to be a requirement for any solution.

          • i think the “human element”, as you call it, on a larger scale outside of the psychotic ruling class is only as wild, good, bad, rapacious, or kind as systems, or social relations, will allow — for the most part at least. even a “good” society will have rapists and murderers, but i think those numbers would be greatly decreased if certain people weren’t getting constant signals that’s domestic violence is okay, that dressing your daughter up like a hooker for a pageant at age six is ok, and so on.

            this is a sort of mundane example, but think of how we have started using smart phones as a population. no one decreed this, at least overtly, outside of tech advancement behind the scenes etc. it was just a shift in the way we do things. another example can be related to civil rights legislation: for all its faults, people aren’t generally out shouting epithets at black people and shoving them to the side at a water fountain; disabled people aren’t expected to get into places with impossible entrances for them; it’s typically bad form to grab a woman’s ass in the workplace. no one announced for anyone to be a better person, it was another shift.

            so i think systems can have value, but i am with you on the way to get out of this mess. there must be more micro solutions outside of the set ones we have now. i’m very interested in this too. generally i don’t think a “political solution” is preferable, let alone possible.

          • If people behave as “allowed” by “society”, then how shall it be made that they drop dialogue and reaction with and to society and replace these dialogue and reaction with realization of the much ” larger” realitynin which they live.

            Rephrasing that butchered paragraph: if they react to society, how do you get them to drop that and react to reality? Can anyone even percieve reality?

            And if they are so maleable that the behave according to society, then how would they be imbued with the perspicacity to defy it and react in ways contrary to society when contrary ways become more sensible?

            And doesn’t this maleability only prove my view that society… the human element, is rather ill sutied to surviving reality? They are reacting to peer pressure instead bigger issues. This society based valuation will have to go.

            The only possible thing that will cause people to abandon society based valuations for reality based ones is the undeniable failure of these society based valuations.

            But given how stubborn people are in their valuations, that undeniable failure would likely mean extinction.

      • Where is your work?

        • kariflack is my wordpress blog title, you can find it there. i have done three (okay, admittedly) discussions on US military trafficking and keeping women as sex slaves. i also put something up about Hungary’s recent detentions, quotas, and claims of sending undocumented refugee children to “children’s institutions”. my focus so far has been on South Korea and also the women the military has trafficked in from foreign nations for their brothels and clubs. i will do one more on that issue next month, including how these women are smuggled into the states for use and abuse in parlors. if you don’t listen, there are sources with primary research linked as well as much more on trafficking and sexual slavery.

          • “If people behave as “allowed” by “society”, then how shall it be made that they drop dialogue and reaction with and to society and replace these dialogue and reaction with realization of the much ” larger” realitynin which they live.
            Rephrasing that butchered paragraph: if they react to society, how do you get them to drop that and react to reality? Can anyone even percieve reality?

            And if they are so maleable that the behave according to society, then how would they be imbued with the perspicacity to defy it and react in ways contrary to society when contrary ways become more sensible?”

            really i think many people perceive it, or at least some part of it. sharpened minds need to congregate to not convince to think like them, but for themselves. that is one big problem with all these fake, controlled opposition ideologies as well. all i can say for now is that people who have some comfort in speaking the truths they understand and who are both willing to speak out and listen do that in any way possible. in one of Sibel’s Probably Cause episodes, she spoke of how “everyone knows how bad things are, but what can you do”. SO there are a lot of people who know it’s all bullshit. breaking that apathy is important, if it’s not just *critically thinking*. the last bastion of property the rulers want is complete lockdown of consciousness.

  10. anacardo — i could no longer reply on that thread. these terms allow us to understand the psychology and sociology at work that others not directly of the ruling classes use to support their projects of empire. like i said before, this maintenance and subsequently submission is required on many levels. these dogwhistles and related themes and memes are employed in all sorts of media to keep minds afraid of each other for specific reasons related to misogyny, racism, class supremacy (eg, the more supposedly “thinking” middle classes having the best ability for reason). this affects how avatars that may be black, brown, male or female relate to their oppressed and exploited audiences (i *look* like you after all!). i’m sure you already get that to some degree, but this dismantling of thought as directed by the masters can be really effective, i really believe that.

  11. A Name — re:

    “I just thought of something. I know little of history, but I have to wonder, could it have been the mean-ness of matriarchal societies that lead to patriarchy?

    One possible scenrio

    1) matriachs get pissy with each other

    2) matriarchs realize men are better at killing

    3) they send men to go kill

    4) men see the power in this ability

    5) men take on new perceptions and take “control””

    that’s quite reductive and not really supported by history, even within american indian cultures and civilizations where branches of matriarchies may have flourished — even in these, in many cases they were smaller groups where women could congregate and have some amount of autonomy outside of the greater population. ie, many groups were fairly egalitarian to some degree with regard to the division of labor. Silvia Federici has done work on primitive accumulation and the capitalization on and exploitation of women’s bodies that i would recommend to anyone, regardless of their political persuasion.

  12. the half-strong who claim to oppose the state while espousing the religion of property are living out a contradiction that few women find attractive.
    Soral’s book _Vers la féminisation_ neatly summarizes the utility of feminism to capitalism; this in English–

    • I have been thinking about this for a while but have still not evolved my idea much.

      Here goes…

      I dont fully know what capitalism means. Apparently in practice it means control by the rich via means of financial hegemony.

      I dont fully know what communism means. Apparently it means control by those in control of the state via direct and blatant means.

      I see little difference between the two in practice. The time lines may be different. The titles different too.

      But in the end they are both control by those with the resources… Or more accurately, control by those with the legal claim to that power that allows them to control.

      As we come into a world where things can be printed, no big costly machinery needed what will be important to pay attention to is not the title of the system, communism, capitalism, or whateverism. It will be the means by which those seeking power can go about getting thay power. Any system provides these means by allowing those with greater understanding of the mechanisms of thay system to use them to unreasonably gain power due to the fact that many others will not recognize that means as a means and/or as unreasonable.

      If I were an evil bastard I what would I do if I had the power to do it?

      1) Obtain control over scientific and natural resources.

      2) Use these in ways to make people dependent on that which I control.

      How would this manifest?

      Possible manifestations:

      1) Pollute the environment in such a way as to cause dependence on medical technology. For example, one could create a type of pollution that self prepetuates and then create a “solution”. GMOs may produce an ideal way for this to he done. The various organ failures caused by these crops could be used as a reason to introduce the necessity of cyborgism or genetic manipulation to counter the effects of kidney and liver failure or intestines prone to rupture. An organ modified by either means could filter out the offending proteins and genes.

      2) Control the financial sphere. Control where money comes from and how people get it. If a people cannot adapt to times where labor will be nearly pointless then a vacuum is created in which a new financial governance is needed. People used to chastising and being chastised for not working hard will be unable to cope with such a reality and therefore will find comfort and security in an entity that provides a framework to manage such a world. A world that without such management would become desperate, violent and dangerous.

      3) Create confusion or exploit confusion, or both, on what is right and what is wrong. When a sense of desperation is thrown in with this confusion, the masses will welcome firm definitions on right and wrong so long as these definitions are percieved to supply them with that which they need… or want. Such a situation would provide ample opportunity to guide the concepts of what is needed and wanted and therefore wohld be an avenue of great control.

      4) Control information and perception. The situation in part 1 of this would give great opportunities to create direct control over what and how information is gathered and how it is percieved.

      5) These sections are all useful to each other’s creation.


      Get the idea? This is what we really face. Capitalism and communism are no more differentiating than are U.S. and Russia or any other superficial conflict.

      We must learn to look deeper into the actual mechanisms of control.

      • Oh, and as things become easier to produce the concepts of property are going to change and gain new significance. So I have to wonder if there will be any point in considering concepts like capitalism and communism any longer. The value of these concepts will change and production methods and other technology changes. Keep that in mind.

        Surveillance technology, that is an interesting one to consider. Imagine how it will change how we interact with governments.

  13. I see you critique Ron Paul, a kind of alternative.

    Someone who is trying to start a movement is Webster Tarpley.

    He’s mentioned rarely on the show (excuse me if he’s been a guest).

    What does BFP think of this movement: the Tax Wall Street Party?

    • If I remember correctly, a couple of years ago Tarpley got nasty toward Sibel and James Corbett.

      • After reading the Dreitser thread abkut all the bickering it is time to point out something.

        1) Peoples are unified and governed by systems… or matrixes

        2) A system or matrix is always a compromise as everyone within a system or matrix has different needs and want and therefore demands on a system or matrix

        3) This means that, at least within the confines of our current reality, and not withstanding the formation of a “non local” reality in which every person basically has their own kingdom, and with the realization that even if such a “non local” reality did exist there would probably be some idiot or group if idiots that wouldnt like the independence allowed by such a reality, there is no way to serve everyone’s needs or wants fully and that there will always be conflict due to this.

        4) This means there will always be an element of coersion and violence in any system. One is made comfortable with something due to the threat that alternative may either pose directly or threats posed indirectly by creating animosity is those who do not like the alternative.

        Perhaps a multi tiered system with minimal tax burden and freedom interference but with a real sense of inatilled civic duty is necessary? What forms shall auch a system take? A robotics and cheap manufacturing or even decentralized minifacturing techno homstead and classical homestead under-economy with a more cut throat competitive higher economy? Some speak of competing currencies. Why not competing economies?

        Thia also brings to mind that getting this “acceptable system” will require enough calamity and sorrow that those bound by it will havae little reason to argue.

        But who’s system will it be? Will there be those who engineer the events to which people react and steer the formation of the system? Or will a more sound system be formed in which people realize there are those who would attempt to steer things and said people create a new system in reaction to that.

        One thing is for sure. For a stable system to be formed a relatively unified concept of the world will need to be formed. The less based on reality this concept is the more unstable the system. But how close of an understanding of reality can people hope to achieve? It changes as knowledge changes.

        After this point things become a mess.

    • Well, it all goes back to Lyndon LaRouche, who I think of as sort of an uber-erudite mad genius who gets quite a bit right and a hell of a lot wrong in his analysis, which would be fine, were it not for the super-creepy cult of personality he built around himself with a political movement that seems to boil down to: parrot absolutely everything I say, and vote me for supreme dictator.

      Tarpley, LaRouche’s ex-lieutenant who has sort of taken the mantle now that Lyndon himself is political persona, is a tough bird for me to describe – he shamelessly interprets every event into the LaRouchian canon and talks mad shit on basically everyone who disagrees, even those who aren’t sellouts at all. Ultimately his movement is most dubious to me because it never seems to be about taking apart all of this diabolical machinery of corporate-statecraft: it’s all about *seizing* it, repurposing it to better use… somehow.

      One is immediately reminded of Frodo offering Galladriel the One Ring. “In place of a Dark Lord, you would have a Queen (Queen Webster?) not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn!…”

  14. GUYS. I had a dream about Pearse Redmond the Assyrian being super skeptical of the n00bs in the Assyrian alternative media and putting them on blast.

    “What is with these guys fawning over the Scythians. They’re just killers – their agenda is completely Tengriist – they do not honor Ashur, my lord…”

    I might be watching a little too much BFP.

  15. “Rand Paul is a different species”… Thank you Sibel. This had me laughing out loud. I love these roundtable discussions particularly your witty remarks and sense of humor. (Not to take anything away from Guillermo and Pearse.) You definitely got it right on Rand Paul. I’d say, not only did the apple far fall from the tree, but it rolled down the hill into the bushes and when they recovered it they realized it was a grapefruit. 😉

    I know probably most of this has been said, since I’m coming late to the conversation, but for what it’s worth… My introduction to Ron Paul was via his statements in the Republican presidential debates, where he pointed out the link between our reckless adventures overseas and religious extremism leading to terrorism. I couldn’t believe how boldly and unflinchingly he stated this. Particularly at a time where saying something that didn’t conform to the “they just hate us for our freedoms” and we need to attack terrorism to stay safe BS was practically blaspheme. Following that I heard other statements where he made similar arguments, including others related to violations of our civil liberties, and the fraudulent nature of the Federal Reserve. Needless to say, I was impressed and, as was stated by all, this was unlike anything I’d heard up to that point and probably still is the case.

    I agree with what Sibel said, that Ron Paul has been consistent and hasn’t back peddled on previous statements of the nature described above, therefore I’ve never been under the impression that he’s been insincere and “playing politics”. I think it’s true that he really wasn’t invested in running for president and that he did so reluctantly at the behest of supporters, as you guys mentioned here. Partly, I’d say that he understood that by not tailoring his message to become electable, he didn’t have a realistic shot at closing the deal. I think the network of shady people stepping in to manage his PR etc had less to do with any personal considerations than it was simply; “this is what the mechanics are for running for election, if so, then fine. Let them do what they do.”

    Even though I think the accusations of racism with the email scandal were a cheap shot and not a reflection of Ron Paul’s views (at least not anything that’s been backed up elsewhere), I think it wasn’t entirely irrelevant when it comes into the context of his support base. Sibel touched on this with respects to her experience attending some of the meetings, where it seemed she was the only non-white Christian male in attendance. Not that there’s anything wrong with this demographic, but it’s one that doesn’t necessarily feel particularly welcoming if you find yourself on the outskirts. Obviously the support base for Ron Paul wasn’t (isn’t) homogeneous. Nor, more broadly speaking, is this the case for the Libertarian movement (which, as noted, has shifted over time). Still, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that the demographic represented at these meetings is pretty wide spread.

    While I don’t label myself one way or another, there are definitely numerous aspects of the Libertarian movement that I identify with. At the same time, one of the problems I have with a lot of the talk within these circles though is the fact that their interest in some of the issues I care about seems only to revolve around their own financial interests and their own civil liberties. When I hear people harken back to the greatness of our founding fathers and so forth I often feel that there’s an undertone of lamentation as if to say; everything was fine until the government started encroaching on our civil liberties and so forth.

    Also, I often feel when I hear certain individuals, including Ron Paul, speaking out against our foreign policy, the outrage seems to have far less to do with any of the moral consequences than it does with reckless financial waste and corruption. My own primary concern, or at least what I think of first, when it comes to these policies relates to the ethical implications. My indignation over the finances is largely a matter of the fact that I find the idea of paying taxes to support policies that fuel death, chaos, and poverty throughout the world horrible. The secondary concern, but I suppose the “practical” concern which I share is the fact that it’s been getting harder and harder to make it in this country unless you already had enough money that the implications of this never affected you anyway. This isn’t unique to the United States, but it’s relevant with respect to the allocation of our tax dollars.

    I’ve spoken recently and often in the past about the need to figure out ways to build some sorts of alliances and find some common ground with people who may not be entirely on the same page, but share some common concerns. I don’t have any simple solutions and I don’t think the idea of political style compromises on fundamental issues is an acceptable strategy, as this is seems to be the primary method which is utilized to undermine any movement or group which legitimately poses a challenge to the status quo, but I think the differences within ranks including those I attempted to address above need to be taken into consideration and wrestled with if we want to see any positive change. Just some thoughts…

    On that note; looking very much forward to the next discussion on this subject. Great stuff guys! (“Guys”, of course includes Sibel 😉 )

    • Benny B,

      Reading your deep and thoughtful responses are always a pleasure to read. Actually, it’s more than ‘pleasure’- it provides me with the badly-needed motivation to continue this site; especially my podcast series. I am not stating this because I always end up agreeing with your views (which I do). It is ‘the way’ you articulate them … the way you contextualize it … it reflects multi-layered critical thinking, delving several layers beneath the obvious, while maintaining clarity. Does that make sense?

      Currently I’m going through one of ‘those’ phases: From status of my coming book (going excruciatingly slow) and the state of our website … bringing back the questions: “Is this totally futile?” … “Are things utterly-hopeless?” … a mixture of disgust, finding it hard to remain motivated (and passionate) … Anyhow. Then, I get to read this comment from you, and feel that energy current rekindling somewhere deep down in there (in me;-).

      Anyhow. Thank ‘you’ and much respect.

      • Sibel,

        Thank you so much for your kind words. I’m quite flattered. There’s little that I do quickly and that includes writing. So I often feel frustrated with myself when I realize that I’ve gone on what I imagine to many is a “TLDR” overly verbose detour which will inevitably fall unceremoniously in the woods.

        Regardless of whether or not what I say resonates with people, I value having a place where I can think critically and speak freely across a range of subjects without having to mentally pre-screen the subject matter to figure out whether it’s going to be accessible or not. I’ve said all this before, but I continue to appreciate the quality of the content, comments, and conversations here and the level of civility which typically defines the discourse. I have no interest in arguing just for the sake of arguing, so I enjoy being able to challenge others here and be challenged when the exchange is at least intellectually honest even if it’s not necessarily “productive”. It’s nice being able to vent somewhere where people understand why you’re vexed, but ultimately I’d like to think that BFP isn’t just a conspiracy theorist hair salon where we gossip on depressing and frustrating subjects and complain how everything’s going down the toilet (even if it often feels like it 😉 then go on with or crappy passive lives, throwing up our manicured nails in futility. =p

        I’d like to think that the discussions here lean towards being proactive. Having the sorts of critical discussions, challenging each other, and being willing to challenge ourselves, as was the case in this roundtable and in the subsequent comments here exemplifies this in my mind and I suppose that’s what compelled me to contribute my two cents to the conversation.

        So thank you once again, Sibel. I admire and value what you do here and I often feel rejuvenated and energized by your grit, perseverance, and yes, your sense of humor. I too struggle with the questions about the futility of things and ask myself whether some measure of ignorance may be better for my health, but in the end it comes down to being able to make choices about focusing on learning about these issues in a way where you’re able to do something positive, or at least proactive with that information. For me that’s often just recognizing that what I learn and discuss here provides me with a more fine tuned BS meter and intelligence analysis apparatus to make better sense of what I see going on and react differently to the extent that’s possible. But I’d say more importantly, to find a way to extrapolate something tangible which I can share which allows other people to look at things more critically and perhaps react differently in response. If this cascades from peer to peer, than all the better. Is this revolutionary action? By all means, no. But does that mean it isn’t worthwhile and positive? I’m can’t think of a non Mr. Rodgers style answer to that rhetorical question, so I’ll cut my losses here and call it a day 😉

        So not to “no, I’m paying for dinner!” you; thank you for the positive feedback and as always, much respect back at you, Sibel. 🙂

  16. With regards to why there are so few women in the libertarian movement, I think this goes quite deep into anthropology areas. I’m going to generalise however the way I see it is that women are very heavily skewed toward the authoritarian end of the political spectrum, whether its left or right. On the left, look at the feminist movement, they’re extremely authoritarian. On the right, look at the women who have ascended to power as political leaders of nations, they’re always extreme authoritarian. Why, I’m not sure its out of my field of expertise but it may have something to do with their responsibility of keeping the nest safe so to speak.

    With all the US ‘mass’ shootings (many false flags I believe), the political targets are the female vote. (I’ll attribute this particular theory to a guy called John C Dvorak, but i’m totally on board with it). The democrats arent really interested in doing anything with gun control, however much more powerful is the female vote they can attract by appearing to demonstrate that they are. On ‘gun control’ I think you’ll find the percentages on the female side are far higher. Lets face it, the female physiology is not naturally predisposed to libertarianism. Of course there are exceptions, those contrarian women who are able to see beyond their natural instinct, but on both sides these are in the tiny minority and this natural instinct isnt one necessarily dominant in men.

    Oh one more thing, Guillermo, you’re white man…this recent trend in the USA of regarding hispanics as non-white has me shaking my head. Dont marginalise yourself, even if the left-wing media are trying to do that. Once again they’re trying to capture your demographic by fomenting a victim mentality.

    • Yeah, um, there may be a hit of sexism here. Unique to their physiology? I have no evidence one way or the other. Although I have seen first hand evidence of how women are more coddled and babied by their parents and others many times.
      One example, a woman without a job is no big deal to many, while a man without is just something horrid.

      I wonder if that tendency for coddling leads to them feeling safer and therefore diminishes the development of a more defiant character. Could be that society’s tendencies are what lead to society’s tendencies here.

      Maybe the source of that tendency should be found and the chain broken.

      • I should note that people should pay attention to categorization that occurs even without overt literary labels and keep this in mind when reflecting in the points I made earlier in my categorization post.

  17. ah and Abby Martin is an idiot in my opinion and completely confused on a number of issues. There are other far more intelligent women on RT and better journalists eg Gayane Chichakyan. Of course they need to be physically appealing thats just a reality of television. both RT and Fox have realised that appealing women are more engaging to viewers than anyone, including men.

  18. Cathleen McGuire says:

    Sibel asked in the podcast why there are so few women involved in libertarianism. The postings on this page is Exhibit A on steroids. The level of opinionated cluelessness is truly astounding. To be in transpartisan alliance with libertarians requires an inordinate level of tolerance and patience. No wonder intelligent, progressive women stay away in droves.

    The responses from men on this page have been so insulting and ignorant, I’m just shocked in this day and age men are still thinking and talking this way. And so arrogant about it, as if their solipsitic, uninformed world view was The Word from on high.

    You guys have no clue whatsoever how alienating you are. I will continue to be in alliance with libertarians on important issues like 9/11, but I will hold my nose doing it.

    • Hello,
      There’s quite a difference between progressivism and libertarianism. You appear to be more of a progressive as you describe yourself. That collectivist mindset naturally clashes with libertarianism which is more accepting of open dialogue on a variety of issues. Dictating what can and cant be discussed, what views can and cant be held does speak to a more authoritarian mindset.
      Nothing personal.

    • Also, this concept of a “truth movement” is a myth. Its not a collectivist concept. There are people who swallow everything the mainstream media shovels in their faces and there are people who dont. That’s your “truth movement”. Any attempts to collectivise truth will only end in subversion and to some extent this has already happened with several social media warriors promoting various disinformation. Furthermore, questioning world events is not a political position, it has nothing really to do with a political stance at all, its certainly not libertarian. There are quite a lot of people in the libertarian party that never question 9/11 or various other suspicious events. Of course there are quite a lot that do and perhaps there is a predisposition of those who are libertarian inclined to be more open minded.
      But I digress…

    • Cathleen,

      This is very interesting to me. I came late to this conversation, but I just saw your comment and it intrigued me. Interestingly enough, although I’m missing the previous part of the conversation, I’m aware of whatever it is you must be alluding to by reading the following two comments. Perhaps it’s not fair to the participants on the other side, but I instantly feel aware of whatever that vibe is you’ve been encountering which is very condescending. I would guess to a degree which might not seem as such to them, but this is probably part of the problem.

      I read your comment and felt drawn to understand what your experience is here and in similar circles. The roundtable ended with the intention of exploring the dismal male to female ration in the circles and here you are contributing to the conversation as a voice from within that extreme minority, which I would think ought to be given a certain amount of priority here (so to speak) and the comments I observed on the heels of yours sound dismissive at best.

      Again, perhaps this statement isn’t fair without the context of previous comments, but then again maybe the point of entry is actually an asset where I’m able to observe the tone of the other comments in isolation from the rest of the conversation, so without a certain degree of bias. I’m not trying to take sides here or anything of that sort, but I feel like as a participant in a conversation of this nature Cathleen ought to be one of the members who is granted to take the floor and lead the conversation to the degree she feels comfortable and from her comment to which I’m responding to, this apparently is not happening. I guess I’m throwing my voice in as a guy, in part to thwart or at least discourage attempts on the parts of other members here who might be inclined to be dismissive of Cathleen’s comment as being “overly sensitive” or some other type of lame stereotype.

      I may look at the rest of the conversation and feel stupid or like I put my foot in my mouth in one way or another (something, unfortunately a skill which comes to me with great ease here ;-), however I think an unbiased (or at least under informed) perspective may serve as a bit of air freshener to entice Cathleen and any of the other women following but not contributing to the conversation to do so without having to hold their nose.

      It’s possible that, despite good intentions, I’m playing a similar role in dominating this conversation, but I’m open to accept that criticism should it arrive.

      Finally, since I can’t quite articulate the significance of why I’m making a fuss, I’ll leave you one of my favorite examples of the power of the proper use of punctuation to alter the significance of a passage of text:

      A woman without her man has nothing.

      A woman, without her man has nothing.

      In the context of a viable coalition, each is true to the extent the absence of the other is.
      Guess that’s all for now. Take it for what you will. I’m going to try (probably unsuccessfully) exercise some restraint and get some work done. So if I don’t respond immediately (or at all) there’s your explanation =]

    • Cathleen,

      Let me give you one real-life example:

      At the end of one of those sessions in 2007-2008, the guy who was handling the meeting/session delivered a short final ‘thank you’ speech. It went like this: We are thankful for Joe for handling the invitation e-mail/communication letters …. we would like to thank Mike for preparing the meeting agenda/topic list, we want to take John for putting together the presentation details … and of course ‘Jane’ for keeping us fed with those delicious crackers-cheese-fruit plate.

      I submitted (more than once) well-prepared topics and notes on ‘Gov secrecy, due process, gov whistleblowers …). Not only that I offered to bring in gov whistleblowers (my NSWBC members from NSA to DOD & FBI) with stellar records on topics repeatedly highlighted and emphasized by Dr. Paul. ‘They said’ thanks but not thanks.’ They found those topics not ‘urgent or priority.’ To date I’m not sure whether this was due to those topics and suggestions coming from ‘me’ or that they simply didn’t find the hottest issues/topics on liberties not ‘priority.’ After half a dozen of meetings, I saw one area where my contribution would have been appreciated: Bringing in the ‘Cheese & Cracker’

      So I stopped-I couldn’t continue even with holding my nose doing it;-)

      • After half a dozen of meetings, I saw one area where my contribution would have been appreciated: Bringing in the ‘Cheese & Cracker’ plate.

        You kill me, Sibel 🙂

        I wish I could say what you described was “unbelievable” but I’ve seen enough of that self congratulatory jocular “thanks honey for taking care of us boys” crap that it’s all too easy to visualize. What jackassess…

        Actually, I was going to say what “turkeys”, as that’s something that I say from time to time (obviously in reference to the bird), but it occurred to me that this is something that could theoretically be taken as offensive to people of Turkish descent. What’s your take? I know that may be a silly question, but I’d prefer to know.

    • I certainly don’t endorse the “well, women are just sheep; y’know” views of mike33, but *I* find it quite alienating that you and Kat just flat-out will not challenge the tenets of your own doctrine, at all. “The patriarchy” as an overarching, omnipresent control system has about as much validity as “the Jews” or “the Jesuits” or “the Black Nobility,” but to you it’s Gospel. Deconstructing programming includes deconstructing those bits of your own programming that *you* find particularly appealing.

      • *Kari, not Kat

      • Cathleen McGuire says:

        Interesting that because I reference an ideology you assume a) I am unaware that it has flaws (as do all ideologies) and b) I am a blind slave to it. I am constantly deconstructing all programming, most importantly my own.
        I come to my political beliefs not from mere opinions and bloviation, but from years of study of the human condition, coupled with engaged activism. I am 100% open to sharing further why women stay away from libertarianism in droves, but I find posting comments in a forum not condusive to quality communication. The platform lends itself to confusing, disrespectful comments like my own about having to hold my nose.
        If anyone is interested, a brief beginning toward understanding my analysis of sex, gender and power can be found on my website called Ecofeminist Visions Emerging;

        • kariflack says:

          i appreciate this comment Cathleen. this thread has gotten so toxic about the exception to every movement that feminism apparently is while i know you and i have been honest in our evaluations of its problems. it’s really so tiring. so i quit reading and commenting on most, but i’m happy to see this and look forward to checking out your work.

          • But that isn’t true. If you were honest in your evaluations of its problems you wouldn’t continue even in this very thread to mostly define things in terms of what “white men” do to “women, children, and people of color.” Delving into topics that mainstream feminism is afraid to touch, but with the exact same dogmatic analytical lens, isn’t “being honest about the problems with feminism.”

          • kariflack says:

            anacardo, i have been generous to you throughout your twisting of many things brought up here by Cathleen and myself. i talk about power structures; systems don’t ever work and it’s besides the point. i discuss how men are tossed aside as well; i am only evaluating what white men do apparently regardless of class. i have drawn on multiple sources for years, so i’m not sure how i am any more “dogmatic” than anyone else, or how these few comments on a thread are respective of all my beliefs.

          • “I am only evaluating what white men do apparently regardless of class.”

            “Y’all all look pretty much the same to me.” To hell with that. That is as racist and misandrist as mike33 has been misogynist and racist, and I will not be lumped in with the likes of him.

          • Take your ball and go home if y’all want, though – that’s noble work you’re doing.

          • kariflack says:

            dude your logic is basically “don’t use feminism at all”. so what serious conversation is to be had?

      • I take exception to your deliberate misinterpretation of my comments

  19. Yeah, I’d say that’s closer to my position than not, Kari. There’s certainly an outstanding example of that very approach overseeing these very proceedings – her name is Sibel Edmonds and she’s the kind of marvel of self-awareness, intellectual honesty and impatience with fools’ gold that gives one a little hope for humankind. If and when I ever get my own media platform off the ground, Sibel will definitely be my primary role model.

  20. Back to the subject of the Liberty Movement more generally, and my personal experiences with it – I was a long-time, heavy contributor to the biggest online poker forum on the Internet, that at the height of the poker boom was just gigantic and hosted huge discussions of all sorts of non-gambling topics. Its politics section was (in)famously repurposed as an anarcho-capitalist talking shop for some years in the mid-00s. Their faction basically never, ever discussed the immorality of Imperial foreign policy, non-interventionism, the police state, the American populace’s loss of their freedoms, or anything but government=slavery, taxation=theft, regulation strangles small business, gold gold gold.

    These were the only parts of libertarianism that appealed to them – presumably they’re all on board Team Rand now. They were almost all small business owners themselves and struck me, then as now, as people drawn to libertarianism precisely for the reasons Orwell critiques the section of British teachers, psychologists, and government bureaucrats drawn to communism – these are people who sense that here is an ideology that will put *their* hands on the whip of power.

    The whole thing was incredibly off-putting and delayed my exploration of alternative politics / my political awakening for many years; doubtless this was true of others as well.

  21. CuChulainn says:

    “these are people who sense that here is an ideology that will put *their* hands on the whip of power.”
    precisely. Orwell could be a point of reference for an effective resistance movement in the English-speaking world. i can’t think of another English-speaker saw so deeply into the future, from the point of view of common decency–which coincides, at least in his case, with the most authentic & radical communism/anarchism. but that would involve taking him seriously enough to read him.

    • I have my problems with Orwell – for one thing his pretty glaring issues with women in his personal life, for another his acceptance of the Fabian British intellectual establishment as his guiding lights – kissing the asses of H. G. Wells and Bertrand Russell? C’mon son – his ignorance of anything to do with the deep systemic issues regarding banking – I could keep hatin’, but I won’t, because of the wondrous liquid clarity of his prose (would that I could do that, lol) and his profound insights into human character. Animal Farm and above all 1984 really demonstrated that he was snapping out of his religion, too. What a loss to the whole world that he didn’t live longer and write more.

  22. WTF? I’ve been labeled racist and misogynist? On what basis?
    what is wrong with you people?

    • “I’m going to generalise however the way I see it is that women are very heavily skewed toward the authoritarian end of the political spectrum, whether its left or right.”

      “Oh one more thing, Guillermo, you’re white man…this recent trend in the USA of regarding hispanics as non-white has me shaking my head. Dont marginalise yourself, even if the left-wing media are trying to do that. Once again they’re trying to capture your demographic by fomenting a victim mentality.”

      Be real and own it, son.

      • 1. its an observation and a generalisation which I stand by. So what, its not misogynist any more than stating that women have different physical characteristics to men

        2. Guillermo referred to himself as non-white. As far as i’m concerned he is white and if he lived in Spain he’d been seen as no different to a European. I’ve witnessed a trend in media, government and particularly promoted by the left to create division by labeling hispanics as non-white and thus creating another marginalisation. This is a deliberate political tactic and it promotes racism for political gain.

        Now once again, explain to me how I’ve been either misogynist or racist?

        • 1 – “How is my prejudice not prejudice?” I dunno, bro – law of identity and shit, I guess. I guess we’ll kick it out to the ladies – hey y’all, why are you so authoritarian, which is one of the bigger insults you can lay on anyone in an alt-media crowd? My sympathies for any woman unwilling to step away from the intoxicating embrace of Team Feminism is roaring up late as a result of this convo, though – with guys like this ‘just having a friendly little conversation here’ it must really feel like whatever the lady equivalent of an Uncle Tom is to disavow feminism sometimes.

          2 – I dunnoooo man, again, let’s pass to Guillermo and see how he feels about *you* telling *him* what his ethnicity is. Who’s trolling who here?

        • On number 1, I’m not sure but number 2, yeah, that’s some pretty ridiculous business Mike. You said Guillermo self identified as being non-white. What business of yours to attempt to contradict that? Plus you make it sound as if self-defining as white is like it’s some sort of promotion. I’m sort of regretting standing up for you earlier just on principle without looking at what you already said, but perhaps the same spirit of the comment applies. So here, I’m being specific. I’m not sure how else I can explain why your comments about Guillermo are offensive at best, but at least I’ve been true to my suggestion and attempted to illustrate this. If you don’t understand why something is offensive and then make an effort, if not to apologize, to take this into account in future dealings that’s fine. But if you just take the feedback from myself and others and choose to ignore it because you disagree with it, I’d say you’ve basically forfeited your right to defend what you’ve said as not being of the racist quality others here have pointed out.

          You can object if you like, but I think I’ve stated this as clearly, politely, and reasonable as you’re going to get it. The choice is yours as far as whether you wish to “own it” so to speak, or not.

          • Guillermo can self identify with whatever he wants this was not the point I was making. He can say his hair is green if he wants I don’t have to agree.

            I was observing and commenting on a trend (which appears recent from my perspective) and this seems specific to the United States where anyone who isn’t of northern European heritage feels the need to identify as non-white.

            I’m not American, so I’ve never understood this modern trend by those of Hispanic heritage (many of whom are pure spanish/european or close to it) to regard themselves as non-white unless they’re indigenous.

            Why I shake my head is I believe this is deliberately propagated for political reasons and the public buy into it unknowingly to a point where it’s a form of social conditioning.

            You’re putting words in my mouth by suggesting I was implying being white is an upgrade. The conditioning that exists that would make you say that says more about you than me. Assumptions without an attempt to elicit clarification can only be a result of conditioning that political correctness (creeping cultural Marxism) creates. Now I’m trying to argue points I didn’t even make.

            We are talking politics here and the environment that exists – like it or not positions non-whites as naturally aligned with the liberal/progressives, specifically the Democrats, whilst the GOP are typically positioned as the privileged white party.
            (Yes I am generalising there are exceptions but this is a comment on politics which deals with the masses and stereotypes)

            I don’t have a stake in the inherent racism that exists on the American landscape. I don’t know who makes those rules but I suspect political parties have a hand in them and this also relates to modern feminism.

            My personal opinion is that the progressive mindset is one that actually preaches hate and looks out for reasons to hate individuals that don’t buy into their rules of engagement. I feel like I’m experiencing this hatred now and have been assigned a template that progressives like to assign to their imaginary demons. Comments I’ve read have aligned me with Hitler, redneck southerners (not that they’re all bad), psychos and women haters. This is a completely ludicrous assertion given I subscribe to a site created by a woman who I find interesting and agree with on most issues.

            I’m sorry I didn’t articulate my thoughts more clearly, as I’m not a writer. I didn’t expect to run into a PC assault and be attacked personally for simply making an honest observation. The topic of discussion related to the libertarian movement and diverged into why particular people aren’t attracted to it and now we’ve gone way off topic. If you would like to understand my position more clearly you only need ask rather than go on a rant against your inaccurately extrapolated preconceptions.

      • Define Misogynist: A misogynist is a person who hates or doesn’t trust women

        this does not encompass someone who recognises there are differences between women and men, physical, emotional and instinctive for whatever reasons its not the point here,
        …although modern progressives would have you believe this whole gender is fluid BS 🙂 and this is probably why anacardo’s feathers have been ruffled

        thanks for calling me “son”, nothing condescending about that

        if you continue along this line I may begin to suspect some trolling activity

      • Seriously…

  23. If ever there was evidence of the authoritarian nature of the “feminist movement” then we have several examples in this thread where personal attacks are taken against anyone who simply chooses to weigh into a discussion.

    • Feminism, in part, defines itself by claiming the right to speak forthcomingly and unapologetically on issues pertaining to anything pertaining to the female perspective with a level of authority which, at times can go counterproductively too far, but more or less it’s frequently perceived by society, particularly men, as being overbearing and bossy, largely I’d say because it’s in contrast with the social constraints women are frequently expected to and delegated to comply with.

      • Lets deal with the ORIGINAL POINT here that seems to have gotten lost in this political correctness indoctrination session…

        FACT: women have a disproportionately lower participation and rate of interest in the Liberty movement as compared to men. We’re not just talking political parties, the point was extended to encompass the entire movement, including this website.

        On one side blame is being apportioned to those horrible patriarchal white men who see women only capable of fulfilling subservient roles such as providing tea and cookies.

        We could just end the discussion there and all accept that as the answer to the posed question. That would be the least offensive way to conclude this discussion wouldnt it?

        Or we could look at other reasons such as the psychological mindset of the majority or women as compared to men. Do we want to have that discussion or not? Are we too afraid of causing offense?

        Say so now then we can all move on.

        • Going by the silence, one can only assume consensus has taken the first option.

          • I *am* sorry for calling you names, and formally apologize. That was uncalled for. This conversation jumped off in a total state of tilt and I just doubled down on a ‘a plague on both your houses!’ type position, which is not exactly productive.

            You say you’re not an American – are you British?

      • Um, be sure of what you are calling feminism. Real feminism shouldnt even be called feminism. I am not sure of what it should be called but probably something along the lines of “role liberation”. And we all play roles, at least classically anyway.

        The feminism we have nowadays is more like this bleeding while you run cuz everyone should accept it and dont take up too much space on the subway crap which IS bossy.

        Although telling someone to not expect you to make some stupid cookies on the other hand, while bossy, is obviously reasonable.

        Of course, if there is to be any kind of respect more efficient and insidious methods for undermining undesirable view point might be a good idea.

        Instead of telling other people what to do, just let them know you dont like it, in the mkst effective way you can come up with, and dont fit into the ” sexist” landscape.

        If someone tells you to make some cookies just say that you sont fell like make some stupid cookies and go about your business.

        To bitch is to beg. To do or not do is to assert. And many times bossing is effectively bitching.

        Sometimes you may have to bitch, but consider it a last resort. Maneuvering into a position which does not demand bitching and bossing is ideal.

        • A Name,

          You said a lot of things I like here. My comment above was mainly directed towards Mike’s complaint about the “authoritarian nature of the feminist movement”. Mainly I was saying that his beef seemed to have to do with the idea that he’s not used to the idea of women speaking assertively on behalf of their interests and thus interpreting an aggressive and candid critique of his responses as being an unfair attack. Part of my argument is that it’s necessary for men to humble themselves a certain extent to critique when the channel of dialog is opened up for women to express gender related grievances, in this case in the context of politics. There’s plenty that I’m already well aware of when I see it, but it’s not always so obvious and I feel that I benefit from a candid discussion. All I ask, as stated before, is that I’m not treated as though I’m somehow invested in remaining part of the problem, instead of as an ally.

          • That would be a good reason to change the name of the movement. (Real) Feminism seems to just be a small part of something larger. I think people have been sick of roles for a long time. For example, some of the reasons people came to America was to abandon the roles they had such as heretic, or pleb, and likely many other roles.

            To call this movement feminism is to distance it from others and make it an attack upon what they see as normal and not harmful. To create a more inclusive name for it, and to expand it so that it serves more peoples needs and wants creates a path for open dialogue in which people can come to understand how they’ve not only been undermined directly by the roles they’ve been put in, but also how these rolea have diatorted their own perceptions of the roles people play.

            Feminism has degraded to a base dialogue evidence by what is known as the Fem Nazi. To counter this is key. The current main line feminist movement is not about liberation, but domination and serving as an outlet for rage that is caused by many things, men just being the main easy target to blame.

            Yoy spoke of a more complex point you had to make. Perhaps you should make it.

            What man wants man wants to be measured by his ability to earn, to die in a mine for rocks? What woman wants to be measured by her ability to screw and make cookies?

            People have put a lot of effort into degrading themselves, and not a lot of thought.

            The point is there is a way to undermine the authoritarian nature of the movement by changing the language used and expanding the considerations made.

          • A Name,

            Again, you’ve made several noteworthy observations and comments here. Respect…

            I think egalitarianism with an emphasis on an awareness on the part of men and women alike to avoid the tendency for men to dominate the direction of any form of communal, cooperative, team based, participatory, conversation, discussion, etc, would be a much more useful and less divisive terminology and framework for approaching some of the issues feminism, at least at a fundamental level, seeks to address. I would suspect a certain amount of cultivation of sub genres of feminism have been either directly fostered or coopted to turn feminism into a series of abstractions, which factionalize around specific gender concepts and politics that not only alienate many men, but women alike who don’t agree with the layers of particulars which are being presented as credentials for belonging.

            The more “abstract” (although not radical) concept I meant to return to is this: While one could look at the relative male dominated patriarchal social structure which has typically dominated societies throughout history and across numerous cultures as one which is “favorable” to men, I think there’s an alternative view where one could argue that male dominance and privilege comes at the expense of everybody, men included.

            While there are obviously variations within the tendencies and particulars of each sex, it’s not unreasonable to state that there are general fundamental differences between the sexes beyond the basic anatomical variety. I think few would argue that their are definitely certain fundamental differences between men and women as groups, in terms of behavioral tendencies and so forth. I’ll avoid wading into too much specificity about what those differences are, but I think there are many feminine qualities that, were they be permitted to play a more prevalent role in our social structures, there would be great benefits for society as a whole. The common social structure of patriarchal male domination disproportionately favors men, but one might argue that it’s similar to a metaphor where the disproportionate power men wield is similar to a social currency which exists within a conceptual financial market where the very same principles that drive that favorable status are like inflation: Power that’s worth less (not worthless), since it only weighs favorably towards a social economy of superficial material goods and not a situation which leans towards a quantitative state of well being. Say spending more time with your family for instance. Instead of getting promoted to a higher paying position where you earn more money, but end up having even less time to spend with your family and friends.

            This is just sort of a snapshot and it doesn’t quite sum up what I’d like, but it’s enough to give an idea of what I’m getting at.

          • Benny – a lot of what you’re describing is mainstream feminist discourse, as I understand it, anyway. There’s a good deal of truth in it, but I also sense an easy lurking danger in the idea that we need to embrace the ‘feminine’ principle of caring less about who’s in charge – surely the people *in charge* would like very much for us to care less about who’s in charge! 😉

            I return again and again to the concept of prejudice, which is the common-usage definition of terms like racism and sexism anyway, as against the re-engineered definitions of racism and sexism as The Eternal War of White Men Against Non-White Non-Men (which in turn, of course, necessitates an eternal war *against* white men.) This leads us to apparent absurdities like ‘it’s not possible to be racist against whites / sexist against men’ that are actually internally logically consistent within this ideology. The irony is that this actually enshrines prejudice and double standards as axiomatic, as set against the real truism of statistical variance that the average differences between any individual human and another individual human are far greater than those between one demographic category of millions/billions and another demographic category.

          • I mean, men of goodwill *have* been humbling themselves for generations, and we’ve gained for it – that’s been one of the primary good fruits of feminism, in my opinion. The problem is that feminist dialogue has consistently evolved in a doubling-tripling-quadrupling down sort of way in that time, in just a changing-language, expanded-considerations way that are the opposite of what A Name prescribes as helpful. The whole theory of ‘patriarchy,’ for instance, which boils down to ‘the ancient, conscious, deliberate conspiracy of men against women is the primary source of evil in the world,’ is not really a worldview that a self-respecting man can subscribe to. Also witness the whole new wave of topics like ‘microaggressions,’ ‘manspreading,’ et cetera. It’s not really possible for a total-war, will-to-power, frozen-in-stone dialectical ideology to extend olive branches or give credit where credit might be due.

  24. And by the way, I’m in no way defending the dismissive nature of the congregation ( Ron Paul campaign?) whatever it was) that Sibel attempted to become involved in. This may have something to do with the ultra-conservative nature of what the Tea Party became and the kind of people it attracted. Political parties are quite different to the dynamics of the wider community.
    I was commenting on the more general nature of the question as to why proportionally less women are attracted to the Liberty movement. I dont understand why this conversation cannot be had without people getting personally offended, unless of course they make it personal as a couple have done – although i can take it, I dont appreciate being misrepresented.

    • Regardless of what Mike did or didn’t say, I’m sympathetic to this comment. I have more that I’d like to say on the matter, but for the moment I’ll just say this: I think having a discussion on the role of gender in the context of politics is important and I think it’s one we should be having. For the women participating in the conversation who may be getting vexed with the comments of men, just try to take into consideration this:
      Yes, men benefit under much of the social structures as they exist. There’s a complex argument I’ll put on the back burner for the moment, where I’ll present reasons why I think this is to the detriment of men and women alike. Still, most men are not somehow coveting this inequity and conscientiously making efforts to preserve the status quo. Men are often crappy listeners and have a tendency to dominate discussions, but again, this isn’t some conscientious decision. Some sexist and perhaps racist statements might appear to present themselves in this conversation. This should be pointed out, but there should be a certain amount which I think can be attributed to the fact that as a society we don’t often have the conversations. So, particularly in a forum such as this, there are bound to be misunderstandings.

      If any of you feel that Mike has made sexist or racist statements, be specific and try to explain this.Rightly or wrongly (I have no idea) it seems that this is not fair, or at least not clear. It’s infuriating to have statements labelled in this manner if you’re not even aware why you came off as such. This isn’t an excuse, but like I said, I think a certain amount of thought should be placed on the awkwardness of the conversation before accusations about the character of the comments are decided upon.

      For the men participating in this aspect of the conversation, I think we ought to try to be mindful of our collective tendency to dominate these discussions and put priority on making our point first before listening. I’m sure I’m going to screw this up myself, but I intend to make a point to try listening as stated.

      For the women participating, try to put some effort into approaching some of these topics as though this was information which will help us appreciate your perspective without lumping us together as co-conspirators with a collective interest in preserving the status quo, even if some stuff we end up saying here sounds like it.

      That’s it for now. I’m way over my quota 😉

      • another thing I’ll add is, we are talking politics here and politics is very much based on generalisations as its the majority which decide elections

  25. Please keep a few things in mind as you communicate with each other:

    1) You are limited beings with limited perceptual capacities whose concepts of reality will always be flawed.

    2) Your experinces of everything are different and therefore each you will come away from them having learned something different.

    3) You each have different needs and cognitive qualities and therefore each you will concentrate on different particulars of any event and therefore will generate views of any event that are particular to your needs and abilities.

    4) Keep in mind that the views you each form only become feared if they threaten to gain some influence destructive or restrictive over those with different views and needs.


    This boils down to: Youre all idiots whether you like it or not. You all have flawed concepts. Perhaps it would be best to form a neutral ground upon which each of you may form your concepts without the threat of them holding power over someone who does not wish it.

    As all systems are flawed, perhaps the best way to form this neutral ground is to not put so much responsibility on these systems.

    In other words, atop being so damned up tight and insecure that you each cannot discuss concepts without labeling and degrading each other.

    Remeber that the actof labeling/categorizing holds power and is an attwmpt to exert power by simplifying something into a canceptual quantitiy that will never fully represent the complete nature of the event or producer of thag event completely.

    Sometimes it is necessary to categorize as an act of self defense, so that one may identify an entity likely to be a threat.

    But realize that as soon as that categorization occurs it does limit and skew the dynamic of the dialogue between the categroizer and categorized.

    This in turn produces bigotry.

    And while bigotry towards something trully obscene such as a fascist, may he warranted morally, it also limits one’s ability to understand that entity in full.

    So, do you seek in these comments sections here on BFP to understand each other, or merely to control the views of each other?

    Be careful which you choose.

  26. And that was in reaponse to

    “I am only evaluating what white men do apparently regardless of class.”

    “Y’all all look pretty much the same to me.” To hell with that. That is as racist and misandrist as mike33 has been misogynist and racist, and I will not be lumped in with the likes of him.

  27. funny, mention the link between liberals. the feminist movement and authoritarians and a bunch of authoritarian liberals come out of the woodwork and attempt to dictate what can and cant be said.
    the irony.

    • I am not even a liberal – though I come out of that tradition – let alone an authoritarian. Nobody’s saying you can’t say it – hell, those Hitler Was Right! psychos can go around spamming links to The Greatest Story Never Told! all they like too, I suppose – just don’t expect to have diplomatic immunity from being called out on your tone-deaf bullshit. Nobody’s saying There Oughta Be A Law.

  28. To benny:

    “I think egalitarianism with an emphasis on an awareness on the part of men and women alike to avoid the tendency for men to dominate the direction of any form of communal, cooperative, team based, participatory, conversation, discussion, etc, would be a much more useful and less divisive terminology and framework for approaching some of the issues feminism, at least at a fundamental level, seeks to address. I would suspect a certain amount of cultivation of sub genres of feminism have been either directly fostered or coopted to turn feminism into a series of abstractions, which factionalize around specific gender concepts and politics that not only alienate many men, but women alike who don’t agree with the layers of particulars which are being presented as credentials for belonging.”

    Getting women to pull their britches up without becoming fem nazi and/or using label insults would be a big step forward.

    “While there are obviously variations within the tendencies and particulars of each sex, it’s not unreasonable to state that there are general fundamental differences between the sexes beyond the basic anatomical variety. I think few would argue that their are definitely certain fundamental differences between men and women as groups, in terms of behavioral tendencies and so forth. I’ll avoid wading into too much specificity about what those differences are, but I think there are many feminine qualities that, were they be permitted to play a more prevalent role in our social structures, there would be great benefits for society as a whole. The common social structure of patriarchal male domination disproportionately favors men, but one might argue that it’s similar to a metaphor where the disproportionate power men wield is similar to a social currency which exists within a conceptual financial market where the very same principles that drive that favorable status are like inflation: Power that’s worth less (not worthless), since it only weighs favorably towards a social economy of superficial material goods and not a situation which leans towards a quantitative state of well being. Say spending more time with your family for instance. Instead of getting promoted to a higher paying position where you earn more money, but end up having even less time to spend with your family and friends.”

    I need to get this out of the way. If you stop making money for the sake of time chances are they will use that as an opportunity to call you a dead beat, and then nit and pick at you until you are the most evil thing on earth no matter what you do or how you react, specially in an economy with 23% unemployment. If you are lucky enough to make money it takes a lot of time, unless you’re REALLY lucky or doing something wrong, especially if you account for how much actual wage values have ACTUALLY dropped. I have heard stories from older people about how they could work 60 hours a week during the summer and have enough to afford tuition, supplies, books, a car etc… a life, while attending university full time in the fall and spring. From my perspective that seems like a bizarre fairy tale. The current economy does not lend itself to most men being providers. I read once that there are now more women employed than men. If men did not take on such a foolish provider role, given the context of this economy, then they would not have, what are for most, unreasonable expectations put upon their ability to provide time or money to their families. Given the role they are saddled with by society it would be best for most to abandon the family concept. Because of the rigid concepts of feminity and masculinity, more productive social structure options are eliminated. And who generates this particular social structure? Women, at least in a very strong part. They demand both time and money, which is not currently a reasonable demand in most situations. And the friends will want you to have money too. Cant go out and have fun without money. I would like to clarify your stance. Men do not wield power. They wield burden. And they exploit that position created by that burden to function in the society in which they exist. And they can abuse the power that burdensome position provides. If you do not wish them to wield that “power” then take away the burden of the reaponsibility that gives them that “power”. Women need to take heed of their own roles in creating this mess. Right now they put the burden of correction on the man, “he must change”, all without taking notice of the effects of their own behavior and the ways in which it adds to the male power/burden role, which adds to this social structure that they supposedly hate so much. Which in turn leads women to demanding the benefits of change without taking on the responsibility of that change. And of course, many men seeing the futility in their efforts either dont change for reason of thinking the women ridiculous, or stop bothering altogether to deal with the issue at all. Ever see a woman say that a man shouldn’t have to have a good job that gives them plenty of free time and money? Ever see a woman who thinks we should get rid of alimony? Nope. Probably wont find many who think like that.

    As long as you give an entity burden you give it power. Look at the police. They are supposed to be servants putting their lives on the line for the good of the community. But look at how far they have fallen from that tree. Now they are spazzy little sh–s running about murdering people for telling them their headlights are too bright because they think it is the safety of the police that should be held above the safety of the public. It’s the equivelant of fire fighters that dont want to go into that big ole mean awful burning building and do their job. They could just change jobs if they are unwilling to take on the burden and danger, but no, the burden of police safety must come at the cost of the lives of those who have done nothing wrong… the safety of the community.

    The role of the police has been institutionalized and they no longer function as the instrument of public safety they were suppoaed to because of that.

    The same thing applies to the man/woman paradigm. Women and men have both put themsleves in their respective roles and unwilling to relinquish the power it gives each of them over each other by demanding they each hold sexist responsibilities while at the same time demanding that they relinquish the power those responsibilities grant.

    Stagnation within a changing environment is a sign of ingrained stupidity, aka institutionalization. People must rid themsleves of viewpoints which embrace rigid roles.

    Hopefully this dialogue is working to change the argument from being about how awful men are to an argument about how awful this dumb @$$ed paradigm is.

Speak Your Mind