UPDATE: August 18, 2017. Christopher Cantwell — an angry supposed libertarian at the time I wrote this post — has since moved into the dark world of white supremacy and hatred of Jews. This is the second time I’ve known someone to do this. It’s incomprehensible to me how someone could rush (and in both cases they did rush) from individualist to the worst sort of collectivist. All I can say is that in both cases the a**holes in question were consumed with anger even before they made the change. When I write this post back in 2015, I found Cantwell exhausting, but interesting. Now? He’s merely one more repellent group-thinker, eaten alive by his own loathing.
—–
I’ve been reading the “debate” between Young Turk Christopher Cantwell and older hand Jeffrey A. Tucker. I put debate in quotation marks because I’m not sure Tucker knows he’s being debated.
Cantwell’s “5 Habits of Highly Effective Radicals” …
… angrily answers Tucker’s “7 Habits of Highly Effective Libertarians.”
For a couple of days, I’ve been thinking about making a response of my own, particularly to some of Cantwell’s points. There is so much to say!
But I’m not going to say it.
I’ve written before about the qualities of free individuals and creating sustainable freedom in a four-parter that even now, nine years later, seems pretty good, pretty right, to me.
So I’m with Tucker, who talks about sustainability, while I also admire Cantwell’s fire and intransigence. Philosophically, I don’t think the two are as far apart as Cantwell perceives himself as being from Tucker — though attitudinally Cantwell is way, way out there. That is, out in the territory where he offends and perhaps scares even fellow anarchists.
If I were to sit down to a drink with one or the other of them, I’d choose Tucker. But I expect Cantwell’s the more entertaining YouTuber.
But OMG, the anger. Cantwell is not only angry; he promotes rage as a vital tool in an activist’s arsenal. He’s not only uncompromising; he’s intolerant of making common cause with allies who may not be fully philosophically on board. He not only advocates being rigorously well-informed; but he wants us all to have answers for every argument.
Just reading his words wears me out. While thinking about how to respond, I realized I already made my answer — nine years ago in those columns linked above. So no, I’m not going to essay an answer or answer him with an essay now. Commentariat, feel free to have at it.
I’ll just note that such fury and fierce focus as Cantwell advocates isn’t sustainable. Being driven by rage is not living. Certainly it’s not living free. Except for the rare individual who thrives on conflict (which Cantwell seems to be), that way lies burnout.
And as the angry activist goes up in flames, a lot of potential friends get singed.
Thank you, Claire, for the link to Mr. Tucker’s article. I read the headlines on Cantwell’s piece, but he lost me at “stay angry.” Been there. Done that. Nearly destroyed me. More than once.
Anger is an important signal that something is wrong. But I found that chronic anger was something wrong with ME, something I needed to fix, by focusing on what gives me joy, not on what makes me mad. No, the maddening things don’t magically go away, but I deal with them as necessary. I no longer seek them out.
Dance! Sing! Play! The Garden of Eden is right here.
What Bill St. Clair said!
“Factionalism is a major joy killer. There is a temptation to become overly embedded in a small circle of opinion, to look for differences (however minute), and to argue tempestuously.”
It took a lot of learning to get to this point.
AND
“Let us remember that when we are talking about human liberty, we are talking about the whole of what makes life itself beautiful.”
It’s taken a lot less time to reach this understanding and know what to do about it once the first point was reached.
I spent too many years getting angry. I burned out.
But Cantwell’s “tactics” look more like the work of a CI/agent provocateur than a real freedomista. (Search on Cantwell in connection with the Concord BearCat and the FSP, just to get started.) He makes us look bad by association, and advocates actions that can get people arrested or killed to no effective purpose for freedom (but just as more easily recognized terrorists do, provides excuses for more crackdowns on liberty). He reminds me of Chuck Geshlider.
Yep, what Bill, Pat, and Bear all said about anger. I spent a lot of years motivating myself via anger, too. What a dumbass way to try to live or work! The thing you hate just eats you up and OWNS you.
Far, far more important to love (and live) liberty than to enslave yourself to perpetual focus on the forces that oppose liberty. Focusing on what you hate and oppose, you become your very own personal anti-liberty force. You fight for a theoretical something — a something you deny yourself in real life.
Bear, yes I get a bit of a Chuck Geshlider vibe from Cantwell, too. BTW, there’s a link in the post to the BearCat/FSP business.
Oops. So ’tis. Mea culpa: I don’t always click all links. [grin]
I spent a lot of my life, far too much of it, angry at lots of things. I couldn’t do anything to change those things, and most people around me didn’t understand why I was so angry. It did almost kill me. When I decided that wasn’t what I wanted in life, I had to learn how to deal with that anger and make different choices myself. And all that is a very long story I may write about someday.
One of the things I discovered, seeing it from both sides in a way, is that most people who are chronically angry, who attack when their ideas or beliefs are challenged, are actually insecure in some way with those ideas or beliefs. The person I have become, and so many of the people I meet now, are secure in their own minds and principles. Most are open to discussion of them, even outright challenges, and some even manage to change their minds at times, but I don’t have or see the outright anger and defensiveness.
Mr. Cantwell has demonstrated far more emotional and philosophical insecurity than anything else for a long time. And I don’t read things written by such people anymore.
Ah yes, Chuck…. such memories. I think I need a cup of chamomile tea now.
Oh, that guy. I don’t read libertarian screeds much so am unfamiliar with both Cantwell and Tucker, though I’ll read the linked Tucker piece. But I remember hearing about Cantwell last year when he disrupted Porcfest by remote control. And I read “When should you shoot,” and even commented on it at the time. He comes across as an attention-whore who’d vanish in a fortnight if people would just starve him of what he needs.
I came away with the reinforced opinion that libertarians in general and FSPers in particular are silly people.
Sounds very Randian to me. Zero compromise, I’m right, etc.. That may play well for your purity-of-philosophy thing, but it will convince nobody to climb aboard. What good is it, then?
+1, jolly.
My first response to Cantwell is that he’s simply exhausting. (And yeah, Joel’s right; this is a guy who craves attention.) But I also wonder how C.C. can claim that such battering-ram activism is effective.
Agree with all the comments, including the wondering about whether Cantwell is a provocateur. Thanks Claire for all these links to these discussions. It’s good to have all that in one place to go over the discussion and thought process.
Constant anger makes no sense. In one sense though, I can’t quite dismiss Cantwell. There are certain lines in the sand. When those are crossed, we are at war. That’s the time for anger. I have the impression Cantwell is concerned that libertarians who are like Tucker, while perhaps more effective at bringing non-libertarians on board, won’t be able to make the transition to war when (if?) the time comes. That they will get on the boxcars along with everyone else. At that point, what good are the Tuckers of the world?
I do believe a certain amount of (measured) belligerence has its place. For example, gun control. “If you come to take my guns, I will kill you.” It’s my opinion that that is why the gun control movement is failing. Most of those who advocate gun control actually do abhor violence; they are coming to understand that to impose it is not to to end violence, but to expand it tremendously. Thus they eventually give up on the imposition.
Here are my thoughts on the proportionality of violence:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle589-20100926-07.html
If rage is a requirement, then reason has failed.
I can go anywhere and see people fly into a rage over what sports team to root for. It means nothing. If you want to convince me of something, your emotions and lack of self-control are not going to do it. If you want to convince me of something, reason and calm logic are the only tools that will work.
When someone tries to persuade me using rage and emotion, I tend to assume it’s because there isn’t enough logic to support them.
(That said, I see a slight distinction between anger and rage. Anger is an instinctive reaction to something wrong, and when managed properly it can be a constructive motivator. Rage is blind, although it tries to hide behind excuses, and is always destructive.)
Interestingly, I usually see stuff like Cantwell’s call for outrage coming from the statist left.
Outrage is a great tool for getting people to do things without thinking about why they’re doing the things they’re doing.
But, as Ayn Rand pointed out, emotion is not a tool of cognition.
Ellendra — Good distinction.
Paul — “If you come to take my guns, I will kill you.” Interesting that you’d choose that example. I totally agree that anger can be a great initial waker-upper and motivator. But you’ve also just illustrated that it’s not necessary in the long term.
A lot of us here are in the “If you come to take my guns, I will kill you” camp, but speaking for myself I can tell you I feel no more anger in saying that than I feel while saying, “The sun rises in the east.” And for the same reason; because it just is. I may feel anger or despair or frustration at some new anti-gun initiative, but when it comes to fundamentals, once the principles are clear and the decisions made … no anger needed.
Until the moment somebody tries to test the principle.
Amen, Tom. And good point. BTW, I should credit your Rational Review News (http://rationalreview.news-digests.com/todays-edition). I think it’s where I picked up Cantwell’s piece.
I for one am glad someone is saying the stuff Cantwell is saying. They’re things I’m too polite to say but they need to be said. I agree if I were going have to choose which one I wanted to have a drink with, I’d choose Tucker (although like a good Libertarian I think NOTA would be my first choice).
Interesting thread. In my ongoing attempt to manage outrage fatigue in the first place, I’m somewhat happy to say that I’m a bit distant from any of the current particulars here, and I do only know of Cantwell from the last couple of years.
Count me among those who wish to stay well away from purity pissing matches. I may be unapologetically harsh in my own self-governance, but figure that if I’m any sort of individualist, it would be pretty hypocritical of me to try and impose every nuance of that upon others.
The principal problem with preoccupation of purity (pthlefth!) is of course that it almost invariably becomes your principal preoccupation in the first place. Oh, I get that. In a world that sometimes seems fully committed to destroying the individual, it’s hard to reconcile when to stand up and agitate, and when simply to spend your time living the life you are ostensibly agitating for. That balance is precisely what makes people like Claire, Joel, and several others in this Commentariat so valuable.
Nonetheless, I’m also with those who recognize the value of those who simply cannot abide a line-less patch of sand. Sure, they may be one or more of divisive, buffoonish, impertinent, and a serious escalation risk; but they are not born of nothing, either. Personally, I consider it a service for someone to test me on what is and is not appropriate, lest I fall into complacency; and I also have a belief that it is often the outliers that can most effectively cement a much-more-general principle. (e.g., “liberty is either for everyone or it is for no one”, “who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian”, etc.)
The problem is that activism is a beast unto itself, and I would observe that it also implies a master to answer to. I’m not sure that is entirely compatible with being a freedomista. At some point, anyone trying to practice both is going to have to make a choice.
le sigh.
In the end, what makes me smile all over again is to see this topic treated this way, and the Commentariat’s response to date, here.
Thanks for that, Claire.
The central problem I have with Cantwell is lines like this one: “See the enemy, observe his strength, accept that you may fall in battle against him, and then attack anyway (ideologically that is, for now).” Yes, freedom has enemies, but Cantwell sees everyone who is not a hard-core, diehard libertarian/anarchist as an enemy, and I don’t think that’s right. Most people simply haven’t given it any thought; they aren’t so much “enemies of freedom” and neutrals in the struggle. His approach likely will convert them into enemies. I see no point to that.
[Until the moment somebody tries to test the principle.]
That’s what I meant. Yeah, I can speak the warning as dispassionately as anyone. But (I suspect – don’t have any actual experience here!) if it comes down to war and killing, it probably can’t be done dispassionately. Most of us are not professional assassins.
[Cantwell sees everyone who is not a hard-core, diehard libertarian/anarchist as an enemy]
Yeah, that makes no sense at all (unless he is a provocateur, hmmm). I nagged about this tendency here:
http://strike-the-root.com/there%E2%80%99s-no-such-thing-as-statist
There are certain lines in the sand. When those are crossed, we are at war. That’s the time for anger.
In my experience, soldiers who are angry at “the enemy” are less effective warriors than those who see war as a means to attain rational goals. Of course that takes a lot of maturity and training.
A problem with drawing a line in the sand is that you thereby cede all the ground on the other side. Ultimata have the same effect. OTOH if you can see your opponents as people who disagree with you, then you can debate calmly. In particular, if you don’t assume they will never change it opens the possibility of conversion.
Claire, I think you’re being awfully hard on Cantwell. The man is a serious thinker on libertarian issues, most importantly trying to provide (how Murray Rothbard put it), an answer to the State question. That “anger” you refer to is really just the raw frustration that many of us feel with government, and justifiably too.
What Cantwell provides, that is sorely lacking in “our” libertarian culture, is consistency. This is what Sam Konkin was screaming bloody murder about back in 1985 at Dagny’s Freedom Festival in Los Angeles. Although I think Cantwell has some misconceptions about Konkin and agorism in general, most certainly think his heart is in the right place, even when he gets intensely passionate, like we seen with the friendly constitutionalist patriot faction over the years.
Reading Cantwell’s articles is rather reinvigorating for me, and quite frankly, the only websites I read regularly anymore are yours, Cantwell’s, and Gary Hunt’s (at Outpost of Freedom). You three are the only serious thinkers and doers in this patriot/libertarian cause of ours I’ve been able to find, so me seeing you express dislike at Cantwell saddens me quite a bit 🙁
Oh, and if I were to sit down to a drink with either Cantwell or Tucker, I’d toss my drink in Tucker’s politically correct/social justice warrior face, and then ask Cantwell whether he’d like to play a game of billiards with me. I’d rather spend my time with folks who are more down to earth (like you, Cantwell, & Hunt) rather than with some hoity-toity intelligensia who overuses multi-syllabic words to obfuscate their meaning (like a lawyer) rather than communicate anything genuine. So, yeah, I don’t like Tucker very much, but at least he ain’t a statist, so that’s good, I guess.
Kyle — I also find Cantwell a provocative and interesting writer. I’ve only become aware of him recently and don’t know enough to like or dislike him. On one hand he seems to crave attention, even of the most negative sort; on the other (as a couple of commenters have pointed out), he pushes people beyond their comfort zones and gets them to think.
I absolutely understand frustration (and despair and rage and contempt) at the state. Oh lord, don’t we all. But I disagree with Cantwell in his contention that the anger should be cultivated and sustained. I see anger as a starting point, a spur to action. But maintaining that kind of fury is exhausting and IMHO not healthy.
I agree with you 100% about the hoity-toity intelligensia (OMG; hate ’em) and thank you for your good words. My biggest difference with Cantwell I think is that he emphasizes what he’s against while I think it’s more important not to lose sight of what we’re for.
[A problem with drawing a line in the sand is that you thereby cede all the ground on the other side.]
I don’t see that. It just means you are not going to grab your rifle for an incursion short of the line. You are still able to discuss and persuade, or move on, or whatever else of the more mild forms of resistance there are available.
Pretty much everybody has lines in the sand, although I’ll bet a lot of people don’t want to think about such things (so they are often not ready when a line is crossed).
http://ncc-1776.org/tle2013/tle706-20130120-04.html
One other point that occurs to me after I made my post above…
I think the question of publicizing a line in the sand is a very interesting one. The reason is that in some cases, it might only act to provoke, “kicking sand in the face of a bully”. In other cases, it might act to deter, “don’t go there” – after all most state functionaries want an easy life and a fat pension. The last thing they want is dealing personally with an angry peon, putting their own asses at risk.
To not publicize it is to end up in the same place as the story line in “Dr. Strangelove”. A deterrent can’t work if it is a surprise.
Anyway I wonder what controls how publicizing a line in the sand, is received?
I should have said a public LITS.
Anyway I wonder what controls how publicizing a line in the sand, is received?
Pretty much depends on who’s in charge.
I remember back in the cold war folks would say, “The Russian people don’t want war any more than we do.” But that was irrelevant, since “the Russian people” weren’t going to be making any of those push-the-button decisions.
The deterrence from a line in the sand depends on much the same principle. The U.S. Attorney General isn’t going to be in any danger when she sends SWAT teams to my town, the cops on the teams are taking all the physical risk. Politically there’s no way we people can put direct pressure on the AG. Deterrence involves either making it dangerous enough for those cops that they tell the AG where she can stick the warrants, or making it politically hot enough that POTUS will pull in her leash.
OTOH a LITS isn’t always meant as a deterrent. It can also be a decision point for my own purposes.
Guy in ski mask comes into a convenience store where I’m shopping, and demands the cash-register money. Let him have it, let him leave. The money isn’t worth getting into a gunfight in a crowded convenience store.
When he pulls out a roll of duct tape and says, “Now, everybody into the office,” shoot him until he’s out of action.
[Politically there’s no way we people can put direct pressure on the AG.]
Well, I think there is some deterrent, although it is not as physical as the cops face. Nobody in the ruling class wants the people to stop paying attention to them, an outcome that is very likely in the event of revolution. If it gets bad enough they may even face more serious consequences.
But anyway, someone in the chain of command is going to be locally vulnerable. Why do you think all those police chiefs have been telling legislators they won’t enforce the legislators’ gun control fantasies? They don’t want a target on their backs.