Our attention has been drawn to a statement by the Libertarian National Chair, writing on X.Com.
You can read the full exchange at https://x.com/LPNH/status/1938938703495270599 or see it here and here. In his remarks, he advocated for an ‘LP Fraternity of masculine men’ based on Jack Donovan’s Book ‘The Way of Men’. Reader interpretations of his remarks may vary.
People who come up with or support ideas for having special clubs, fraternities, maternities, or whatever, that would be exclusionary and only admit certain people, always seem to imagine themselves as being in the select group who would be admitted.
After 45 years of the LP I am just about ready to quit. Promoting the idea is not hard. It just requires sensible management and a willingness to spend some time on it. I have found out that if you email them they’ll ignore you, which tells me a lot about how they see customer service.
Since I have been in the LP no management team has provided the tools and training to do the job. What a waste of time, money, and effort.
Where I wrote “I have found out that if you email them they’ll ignore you,” I was referring to those on the LNC.
This silly idea strikes me as an extension of the Calvin & Hobbes’ GROSS (Get Rid of Slimy girlS) club.
I wonder, would they admit a masculine gay man to their club? Or if someone wanted to join the “maternal” group for women who’d never had a child?
Yeah? Who said anything bad about “girls” here? Or homosexuals? Some of the most stereotypically masculine men I’ve ever met were homosexuals. Where is the importation of comment about maternity from?
The part of the Steven Nekhaila’s post that I wonder most about is this:
“Race shouldn’t be a factor for fraternity, it makes no sense to give lesser men a group despite inferiority just because of their skin color.”
WTF? What does he think makes someone a “lesser” or “inferior” man? How would the kind of group(s) he wants to see screen them out, and why would he worry about other people he sees as outside this supposed hierarchical elite being “given” groups?
The whole thing seems simultaneously silly, as Adamson Scott writes, but also weird and potentially troubling – why does the LP supposedly need some kind of select group for men (or women) who think they’re better than others? What good is supposed to come out of that?
And, whatever happened to the “Party of Principle”??
We seem to have become the “Party of Principal”. Twice.
Principles make the man.
Libertarians need to get informed on the details of many issues and learn about free and open markets and how those markets can reduce poverty, crime, and possibly bring peace. I suggest learning about the anti-Corn Law League and the benefits of that movement.
We need a movement that will work to abolish many of the legal barriers to prosperity. Being positive about reducing poverty by repealing laws such as zoning, occupational licensing, and many others will also help the LP’s public image.
We need short 200- 250 word summaries on a number of issues that can be printed out to use as brochures for people working booths or going door to door
We also need a 1000 people who will write letters to the editor of their local papers, and people to get media releases out every few weeks.
There is no such thing as a “race”. There is no such thing as a “class”. There is really no such thing as a “gender”. There are only individuals and you can’t judge one by another. That is the only reality that Libertarians recognize.
Is it against forum policy to point out that XX and XY chromosomes exist?
No, if it si relevant to the original post, which it is not here.
Not if it is relevant to the post, which it is not.
Please confine your posts to one or two a day.
Not shocked the LNC chair doesn’t have the there/they’re/their thing down.
I’m not shocked either; after all, even at least one larger party that was fond of such things is largely ditching them on their official accounts and those of some of their leading personalities.