There are three distinct views on what beauty is or ought to be. On the far left, the perspective is that beauty is subjective; therefore, women can be fat and beautiful, or not biologically female and beautiful, or have armpit hair or dyed pink hair. The second view equates beauty with sex appeal, as epitomized by the adage “sex sells.” This perspective emphasizes objectification and nudity, with physical attributes enhanced through plastic surgery, breast and butt enhancements, lip fillers, heavy makeup, and the Playboy magazine model aesthetic. This ideology manifests differently across ideologies but ultimately revolves around nudity. For the right, it’s nostalgia for Baywatch, hot women in bike ads, and Dukes of Hazzard. For the left, it’s drag queens, nude Twitch streamers, or Kim Kardashian lookalikes. Their concept of femininity is tied to raw sexual expression or nudity in the name of freedom. The third view holds that beauty lies in modesty. Examples include Muslim women and traditional Christian women who wear headscarves, long skirts, and little to no cleavage, embodying the “trad waifu” ideal. Due to ideological differences, these perspectives often clash.

The most prominent view of beauty propagated by the left is fat positivity, moving away from traditional femininity. This belief argues that conventional beauty standards are discriminatory, excluding fat women, disabled women, or women who refuse to shave. Critics of these standards cite mental health issues caused by unrealistic beauty ideals, like the promotion of extreme thinness in the ‘90s and early 2000s fashion industry, which led to widespread eating disorders. Body positive activists argue that conventional beauty harms young girls’ self-esteem, pushing them towards drastic surgeries and excessive makeup use.

Slate published an article titled “I’m a Little Bummed That Adele Lost Weight,” lamenting that Adele represented a body type often criticized. Despite fat positivity activism, obesity has been normalized in American culture. According to USAFacts.org, 70% of Americans are now overweight or obese, up from 13% in 1962. Despite obesity’s known health risks, including heart disease, diabetes, and various cancers, body positivity activists often claim to be healthy exceptions. Yet, they differ from sumo wrestlers, who must change their diet upon retirement and lead a lifestyle unlike the average American.

The second type of beauty emphasizes raw sexual expression or nudity in a more traditional sense, focusing on sexual poses, makeup, and revealing clothing. This perspective can be conservative, highlighting femininity through women’s exclusive attire, or liberal, embracing women’s sexuality as self-expression and empowerment. However, it often leads to objectification, desensitization to sexual imagery, and unhealthy body trends. A Wall Street Journal report from the Facebook Files indicated that 32% of teen girls felt worse about their bodies after using Instagram. The early 2000s trend towards extreme thinness also pushed many young women towards anorexia. This beauty ideal is not universally accepted, with some conservative Americans deeming risqué attire socially inappropriate.

The third category, often promoted by conservatives, defines beauty as modesty, linked to a motherly and traditionally religious figure. The “trad wife” trend emphasizes modesty and traditional gender roles, advocating against excessive makeup. Influencers like Trio Mandili, Ms. Pakistan, and Abby Shapiro exemplify this trend. However, this perspective is not without its critics, who argue that it can lead to judgmental and hypocritical attitudes, particularly within the Red Pill community.

In conclusion, beauty and fashion have become politicized, often serving as a barometer for values. However, judging someone solely on their appearance is unfair, as cultural norms pressure many women into adopting certain styles. People can change, and what matters most is their internal character, not their past behavior or current fashion choices.

The post The Politicization of Beauty and Fashion Across the Political Spectrum appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

A noticeable issue with recent US Libertarian presidential candidates is their lack of dynamism. There seems to be a lack of compilation clips showcasing Jo Jorgensen or Gary Johnson’s noteworthy moments or victories in debates. In stark contrast, Javier Milei embodies the Argentinian libertarian version of Ben Shapiro, masterfully dismantling Keynesians and socialists in debates. Consider having two candidates who share your favored policies — would you choose the one who excels in debates, the individual brimming with energy? Or would you opt for the less engaging, more boring candidate?

A shift in the approach to debates is imperative for libertarian candidates. Instead of pleading for inclusion in national debates, they must proactively engage in televised discussions with proponents of opposing ideologies. Such debates not only provide a platform for presenting libertarian principles to a wider audience but also showcase the strength of the ideas in direct comparison with alternatives. Engaging in dialogues with supporters of other candidates demonstrates confidence and competence, while also dismantling misconceptions about libertarianism. By embracing this strategy, libertarian candidates can step out of the shadows and become formidable contenders in the realm of public discourse.

Another distinction setting Javier Milei apart from recent US libertarian presidential candidates lies in his clarity of campaign themes and issues. Gary Johnson’s campaign, for instance, was built on the premise of being neither Trump nor Hillary. Although a resonant theme, Johnson’s own gaffes undermined his message. From not knowing what Aleppo was to questionable behavior on television, his effectiveness was hindered. For example, he stuck his tongue on TV while giving a response to an interviewer. When asked on tv to endorse a political figure in the world he named Shimon Peres which recently passed at the time, so the interviewer asked him to name one alive and he couldn’t. He had forgotten Vicente Fox’s name and Bill Weld saved him by naming him and named Angela Merkel. All those responses are Keynesians and neoliberals, a far cry from libertarian ideals. And Bill Weld literally said he “vouches for Hillary Clinton”.

In 2020, medical freedom, criminal justice reform, and gun rights emerged as significant issues due to the activism surrounding them. Unfortunately, Jo Jorgensen failed to effectively champion these causes. Gun rights militias were on the rise like the NFAC and Boogaloo Bois and the biggest progun rally in US which took place in Virginia of 2020 yet she didn’t take the momentum. The legacy of the party’s opposition to the war on drugs and police militarization since its inception in 1971 was scarcely highlighted.

While criminal justice reform was discussed, Jorgensen’s endorsement of the BLM movement conflicted with many libertarian values. Tthe majority of their activists voted and donated to democrats like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, who have a huge history of being anti criminal justice reform, they also promoted the destruction of private property and private businesses. Of course it drew considerable criticism and division in the party. Medical freedom wasn’t even an issue on the main page of the website campaign.

Javier Milei’s predictive insights also set him apart with his “A-ha moments” or “I told you so” moments. He accurately forewarned about certain policies and their consequential outcomes, such as those related to the central bank, inflation, and monetary policy. This capacity to anticipate and explain consequences echoes figures like Ron Paul in his warnings about the war on drugs and US foreign policy. To truly impact change, we need candidates who can prophesize potential pitfalls.

Lastly, the power of thematic repetition plays a significant role in Milei’s success. His supporters can recite his theme of what libertarianism is in unison, creating a strong sense of unity and identity. This tactic could be mirrored within the libertarian movement by emphasizing core principles like the “Non-Aggression Principle,” influential works such as “I, Pencil” by Milton Friedman, The US Constitution and even satirical pieces like “National Anthem of Libertaria” by Dominic Frisby, parody of the Soviet Union anthem. This strategy fosters group cohesion around shared ideals, distinguishing libertarians from others.

In conclusion, the triumph of Javier Milei and the Argentine Libertary Forward party underscores the potency of effective campaigning. It proves that Libertarians can win when we campaign the right way. The contrasting elements between his success and the challenges faced by recent US libertarian candidates illuminate vital lessons for the movement. Whether through compelling debates, clear issue identification, foresight, or thematic unity, there are opportunities to elevate libertarian ideals and secure success on a broader scale.

The post Javier Milei and the Libertarian Victory in Argentina: Lessons for American Libertarians appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

In “Run Hide Fight,” 17-year-old Zoe Hull fights to save herself and her fellow students when shooters hold them hostage, livestreaming their killing spree as they terrorize her high school. It is notable for two reasons: it is surprisingly better than people expected from a politically conservative news website; and, the disparity in ratings between the the audience at 93% out of the more than 1,000 viewers on Rotten Tomatoes, and a rating of 23% from 13 Tomatometer critics.

 In a review for The Spectator, Deborah Ross criticized the film as having “no psychological depth beyond offering up the occasional cliché – one of the shooters was bullied at school, for instance.”

 One of the theories of why people commit crimes is the sociological theory of crime, which says that people commit crime because of the social and environmental factors around them. Bullying isn’t a good environment for someone dealing with biological and psychological problems. The best movie line to describe this phenomenon comes from Joker: “What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash? You get what you f**kin’ deserve!” 

Film critic Jonathan DeHaan admitted enjoying the movie, but only if it could be watched without subscribing to The Daily Wire. “It’s usually pretty easy to avoid The Daily Wire but they’re in the movie distribution business now, with “Run Hide [Fight]” marking their entry in this new arena. Big deal, right? Who cares? You just want to watch a movie. But suddenly, The Daily Wire has made just watching a movie a morally complicated, politically charged act. Ughhh. …If the opportunity arises for you to see Run Hide Fight without subscribing to The Daily Wire (which, unfortunately, is the only place the film is currently available), I’d encourage you to check it out.”

In fact, that’s one of the underlying themes from negative reviewers. They don’t like that it is distributed by The Daily Wire. Another common complaint is that it doesn’t touch on mental health the way they wanted. Not only did critics not like that the movie is being distributed by conservatives, but they also don’t like what they say is the implied message—the way to solve the school shootings problem is with more guns.

In one of the more positive reviews from the Tomatometer critics, Rob Hunter headlined his critique with, “’Run Hide Fight’ Delivers the Best and Meanest ‘Die Hard’ Knockoff in Years. If you can stomach the premise and ignore the outside controversies, what you’ll find here is a highly satisfying little action movie.”

I watched “Run Hide Fight” and found the acting, plot, and themes to be surprisingly well done. Even the negative reviewers agree that the aspects of the thriller movie they liked are the acting and the story. I definitely recommend watching it, and would personally rate it 8/10. The only thing I would have changed was the ending, which I won’t spoil.

After their first foray into film, I’m excited for the latest developments with Gina Carano and what she will bring to The Daily Wire team. Now, if only The Daily Wire could buy the rights to Star Wars, then Ben Shapiro could destroy The Empire with facts. 

The post ‘Run Hide Fight’ is a Hit With the Audience, But Critics Hate Shapiro appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Strossen’s first premise is that in countries with stricter hate speech laws, there was a rise in racist hatred such as in France with Marine Le Pen and in Germany with Alternative for Germany. She disagrees with the claims made by the pro hate speech laws advocates. Her view is that these laws are ineffective and people who are racist, sexist, etc. have their ways of getting around them.

 For example, in social media, the alt-right had been allowed (by social media companies) to post about their beliefs in the superiority of the white race. When free market pressure and government legislative threats against social media companies began, the alt-right started changing their language into certain codes such as “1488” or “redpill” (different definition between the alt right and conservatives). It’s less understandable to those who don’t know the terminology but once they do, they become radicalized. They find these definitions in radicalized areas of the internet, where there is no one arguing against them because the people with ‘approved’ speech aren’t in those areas of the internet or aren’t using those keywords to debunk those arguments.

This brings me to Strossen’s second argument: hate speech laws make the situation much worse for the people who oppose hate speech. For example, Milo Yiannopoulos rose in popularity when he was banned from Twitter. Then, when he wasn’t allowed to speak at campuses, he became even more popular through Breitbart. He became the punk rock of the Trump team. When he was finally allowed to speak his mind, he repeatedly made pedo-sympathizing/ pedo-joking remarks. He flopped and lost his popularity. The only time he has made a resurgence is when he got banned from platforms like Facebook or Instagram, or when his Australia (comeback) tour was cancelled. 

Fighting hate speech with more speech is more effective than prohibiting others from freely speaking because prohibition feeds their popularity. Strossen uses a utilitarian argument about why hate speech should be allowed. She borrowed the idea which originates from John Stuart Mill’s utility argument that any policy that improves people’s overall happiness or action that benefits everyone as whole is good policy. The ends justify the means.

In the short run, there will be people offended by bigoted speech. However, in the long run, their own bigotry will be exposed. On the contrary, when hate speech laws are implemented, some would feel immediate gratification, but the majority would ultimately suffer increased hate speech through multiple alternative outlets.

Although Mill’s utilitarian argument serves to justify free speech, his no-harm principle is weak compared to Strasson’s argument about why hate speech should be allowed. Harm isn’t just physical, but also mental. To some degree, some speech by certain people can cause trauma and enhance mental instability. What if someone says something that can cause trauma? That’s why Mill’s no-harm principle by itself is insufficient to defend hate speech or free speech overall. Thus, Strasson’s efficiency of free speech or inefficiency of hate speech laws arguments are much better to defend free speech overall. 

Although hate speech laws haven’t passed in America’s legislature, social media censors certain ideas, just like laws. Social media companies unilaterally decide what is right or wrong. For example, hundreds of Instagram accounts, most of which were conservative and libertarian, were removed before the elections. Also on Instagram, many hashtags were temporarily hidden to prevent “false information”. On Twitter, a story from the New York Post about the Hunter Biden emails was taken down.

Whether it’s the government or private companies doing it, censoring speech will lead to the same results. It will push more radical thinking into the black market, producing the opposite effect of increasing hate speech.

The post Best Speech Wins when All Speech is Allowed appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

West Virginia is to become the first state to legalize online gambling on politics. In 2006, the federal government passed legislation that established fantasy sports as a “game of skill” and not a “game of chance”. Because it’s an activity where the action of one does not harm the other directly and both parties are consenting adults, all forms of gambling should be legal and should not be regulated.

 The law says online gambling is legal if it is not dependent on the outcome of a single sporting event. In fantasy sports, users set up a team using real life players. The outcome of the game is determined by how each player on a user’s team performs, which is how it’s completely legal on the federal books.

However, online poker is illegal in most states. A poker player will argue that it’s based on skill. It’s a game that requires huge amounts of calculation. For example, my uncle plays dominoes competitively. He would describe dominoes as a game of chance and a game of skill at the same time. If you don’t know what you are doing, of course your chance of winning is based on chance; but if you know how to count well, you can rely on your counting skills to win.

It can be argued that most gambling games are based on skill. People who do well at gambling are known to be good at statistics. People who are knowledgeable on game theory tend to be successful. For example, Professor Thorp of UCLA applied his theory with Manny Kimmel, a professional gambler, and he won $11,000 in a single weekend playing Blackjack. He even made a manual known as, “Beat the Dealer”. So gambling is purely a game of skill for the winners.

21, a movie from 2008, is based on the true story of a professor who set up a team of the best students from Harvard, University of Chicago, MIT, and Princeton to beat the dealers at casinos. They made ten million in winnings using the mathematical model that Manny Kimmel talks about in his book.

So if gambling and skill are interchangeable in a game, why should one activity that is the same as the other be considered illegal? Why does it matter if a person gambles their own money?

Freedom is the liberation from restraint from a higher power; independence, as defined by Merriam Webster. According to one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, “The policy of American government is to leave its citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.”

The government shouldn’t be restricting certain activities considered immoral if they do not have an action of force against another person. It’s a voluntary activity where the person who makes the decision to gamble or play the game acts voluntarily. Some might argue that a person doesn’t know the harm that can come from that activity. This logic is flawed.

A person eating a Happy Meal might have the reward of instant gratification of taste and saving money, yet will have long term negative effects on their health. Likewise, unwise gamblers have the short term gratification of the possibility of winning or living on the edge.

As presented, gambling is a voluntary game of skill based on probability and statistics. Therefore, because it is a victimless activity and relies on skill to win, it should be a legal activity. In the game of predicting political outcomes, it’s a matter of calculating the odds, much like a game of blackjack. It is an individual risk. An individual choice. An individual liberty.

The post Betting On Politics: A Game of Skill or Chance? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

MAGA Hat Smirker

In January, the media reported that bunch of Covington high school kids surrounded a Native American and mocked him. One of the videos that was going around the internet was a 2-minute clip published by Vice. It didn’t take long for a longer video to surface, showing the full incident in context, including footgage of the Black Israelites insulting the Covington kids with racial slurs. 

Nathan Phillips: The Lies So Far

Jussie Smollett

On the last day of January, it was reported that two white Trump supporters attacked Jussie Smollett in the middle of the night in a polar vortex. It wasn’t until the second half of February that the media acknowledged the truth that the ‘attackers’ were two Nigerians who worked with Jussie Smollett previously and that Smollett paid them.

Police Confirm Suspects Arrested In Jussie Smollett Hate Crime Are Black Men

Russian Collusion

In March,The Mueller Report came out and Mueller’s conclusion was that Trump didn’t collude with Russia which completely contradicted the media’s 2 year hysteria and false allegations. 

‘Corrupt And FAKE’: Trump Blasts Media Over Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory

Out of Control Amazon Rainforest Fire

In August, there was another huge internet “shitstorm”: The Amazon was on fire and the news wasn’t talking about it. Then the Mainstream news did talk about it showing their support for the Amazonia. However, the news turned sideways when it was discovered that the fires were in already deforested areas that are used in agriculture. And that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro’s policy didn’t have much effect on deforestation because it’s been decreasing significantly. 

12 Year Old’s Dreadlocks Cut Off By Classmates

In late September, it was reported that a 6th grade student was pinned down and got her dreadlocks cut off and was called ugly. In a matter of days she confessed to tell the truth that it was fake.

Dire Threat of Mass Shootings at The Joker Movie

Also, in late September and early October, there were warnings about the Joker movie inspiring white supremacy and incels. There were also warnings that there would be mass shootings because of the film, like the one in Aurora, Colorado. Anyone who saw the Joker knows that he is not an incel, nor a white supremacist. No mass shooting happened and the previous mass shooting wasn’t inspired by the Joker. This was a debunked claim that had made a resurgence. In addition, there was a picture circulating of a sign in a theater, stating that individuals would not be allowed to attend the movie alone. And even I fell for it. I thought a theater actually banned single males from watching the Joker. It turned out to be a prank. I guess I learned my lesson that day. 

The Joker Isn’t an Incel Nor a White Supremacist

Video of Turkish Forces Slaughtering the Kurds

In October, ABC news published a video of the Turkish forces slaughtering the Kurds after Trump’s move to bring back the troops from Syria. Except for the fact that the video was of a Kentucky gun range show and that the video was edited so the lower part of the shot wouldn’t be seen. Whether they knew or not that the video was edited or whether they had edited it is unknown.

Collusion Round Two

Remember the Trump Russia collusion? It’s back. Now false allegations have come up that Trump is colluding with Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. And Hillary accused of Tulsi Gabbard of being groomed by the Russians. The media is throwing out the same debunked allegations of Trump working with Putin. The Quid Pro Quo stuff hasn’t been debunked but the allegations have been made with no proof. So it’s basically like debunking the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

Trump’s Role in Home Alone 2 Was Cut for Political Reasons

In December, a story about Trump being edited out of Home Alone 2 was even shared by Donald Trump Jr to say that the libs  are so triggered they can’t even look at Trump without going on a rampage. Except that this was done even before Donald Trump was running for office. So Trump Derangement Syndrome isn’t at play here. On the contrary, it’s pro-Trump fanaticism that spread this fake news.

How Do We Stop Fake News?

Fake news can’t be simplified into just Trump Derangement Syndrome because it happens with both liberals and conservatives. In any case, the pattern is a photo or video without context, or purposely edited to change the context. Then everybody is talking about (and sometimes they talk about the fact that no one is talking about it even though they are). Then a ‘new’ piece of information comes out and the fake news dies down. The media makes a small time apology compared to the amount of time they spent spreading that fake news. Fewer people see that apology and keep thinking that the original news was true. 

We can all fight fake news. The solution to fighting fake news is to sit on the story. Wait before giving an opinion or rant. Look for the original video or the original context of the photo and spread it once you find it. For example, spreading the 1 hour video clip of the Covington kids. Many liberals I know personally (friends, family members, teachers) changed their mind after seeing the video before the mainstream news even made their apology. The way to stop the spread of fake news is not just by saying 

 It’s by spreading real news.

The post 2019: Fake News Year In Review appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

In this video, I discuss with Jon his trip to Hong Kong, the politics of the protesters, why the protesters are for Hong Kong independence, the abuses of the Chinese government against the protesters, the situation at Poly University, and the medical help he provided to the people of Hong Kong. The recent Hong Kong elections proved that the protesters are representative of the majority of  the people in Hong Kong.

The people of Hong Kong tirelesslessly continue to fight not only for their freedom, but also for the lives of others suffering under the tyranny of the Chinese government. America should continue to shine a light on their struggle for liberty and help in any way we can.

Image: Studio Incendo (CC BY 2.0)

The post A Libertarian Activist’s Journey to Help #FreeHongKong appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Since the media labels this movie an incel white nationalist manifesto, I went to see the movie to see if they were partially telling the truth, because most of their mistakes are events that they either misrepresent or not in proportion to reality. When it came to the movie it was absolutely 100% misrepresented. Arthur Fleck who becomes the Joker literally has a crush on a single black mother. That goes against the white nationalist and incel lifestyle.

Various commentators have had completely different political interpretations of the movie.  From what I saw, it’s a mix of everything.

Tim Pool interprets the movie as being left wing.

The Joker’s followers hold signs that spew anti-capitalism, and the plot surrounding the Joker was about high wealth inequality in a city. He compares the Joker followers to Antifa. They are all masked, protesting for left wing causes, and they are doing it violently. 

However, Tim Pool says that the Joker character is apolitical because the Joker even states it in the movie. But then he says that the Joker can give off a nihilistic, social outcast vibe because the character is pretty much a social outcast. 

Tim Pool concludes the reason the mainstream media hates it is because this a movie of all villains. The Joker is apolitical, nihilist but his followers represent the far left. The Joker was anti-establishment of any kind. Pool gives it a 9.9/10 if not a 10/10.  He also mentions that the movie, when premiered in Venice, was given a standing ovation of 8 minutes.

Paul Joseph Watson interprets the movie as mostly anti-establishment with leftist elements.

“The reason the establishment is so afraid of this film is because the Joker points a finger at the true reason why our society produces the diseased minds responsible for mass shootings. Because our entire culture is bathed in atomizing consumerist celebrity at all costs nihilism. Because it creates a breeding ground for loneliness and despair that shames men for being men.

It points at the Hollywood woke media. The Joker, Arthur Fleck, is motivated to kill his comedy idol because he was humiliated and canceled culture by the media. It challenges the media’s narrative that every mass shooter is a random sicko with a gun who snapped, or that they are just born evil.”

Actual Justice Warrior sees the movie as centrist.

Steven Crowder, only talked about the media hysteria of this movie causing mass shootings. Fortunately, the media was proven wrong, and that the critics calling it a white supremacist movie were completely wrong.

Here’s where I think the movie lines up. It’s right wing populist masterpiece.

Tim Pool proves my point when he said, “It was given an 8 minute standing ovation in Italy”. In Italy, the current  government is made up of a left and right wing populist coalition. Right wing populists tend to have some leftist economic tendencies but they mostly care about the culture war. They mostly care about social issues. They are mostly anti social justice warriors.

When it comes to the film, the messages are anti-elitist, anti-celebrity worshipping, and anti-outcasting. Some of the lines from the movie are literally sentiments coming from 4-chan, Clown World.

Like the Joker, most right wingers just want to make jokes and want people to smile, but people are offended at their jokes and make fun of them. They accuse them of being white supremacists just like the Joker movie, and most of the accusations have been against regular people who don’t follow the leftist culture.  They are just like Arthur Fleck before being pushed by these celebrity worshiping NPCs, and elitist cult following. Arthur Fleck was radicalized to become a murderer, a monster.

 Movies, books, and video games do not cause the creation of psycho killers. This movie shows how these shooters are created by illustrating how the media and society treat these social outcasts. One of the lines that reveals the Joker’s motive for killing Murray Franklin, the smug elitist comedy night show host, is “What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash?.. I’ll tell you what you get: you get what you f**king deserve!” The Joker points a gun at Murray and kills him live on tv.

Based on the film without its political messages I give it a rating of 10/10. I never felt like any scene was unnecessary or irrelevant. The amount of fictional realism still confuses me about what scenes are in Arthur’s imagination and what’s real beyond any movie I’ve seen.

I know many dweebs and Joker fans who hated this idea, but they love this movie because it managed not to debunk the main Joker theories and still keeps the Joker’s origin a huge mystery. This film was better than Endgame and I think it could win an Oscar for Best Actor. 

The post The Joker Isn’t an Incel Nor a White Supremacist appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

It’s a modern internet phenomenon where a person is ejected from influence or fame by questionable actions, according to the most popular definition on Urban Dictionary.

We have seen many conservative or MAGA supporting entertainment stars, businesses, and pundits affected, such as Roseanne, Chick-fil-A, Covington Catholic High School, Milo Yiannopoulos, Kyle Kashuv, Alex Jones, and Infowars.

In August, the art of cancel culture, created by the left, took a 180 degree turn when some on the right decided to act outraged and succeeded in cancelling the movie The Hunt by Warner Bros following the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton.

Donald Trump tweeted:

Guy Benson: “To have a movie, even though it’s satire, that depicts Americans hunting and killing Americans, I think that’s maybe not an image people want to see at the moment.” In which he also said that the movie shouldn’t be cancelled completely but the studio should see the sensitive moment we are in right now and they should pull back their marketing.

Even Tim Pool: “One character says, ‘Did anyone see what our [expletive] in chief just did?’ A second responds, ‘At least the Hunt’s coming up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen deplorables.’” He says, “this is one of the lines they thought it was appropriate to come out right now, especially with everything that happened, pull the movie”.  He then goes back on his stance and states, “I’m not saying the movie should be pulled necessarily. I’m not saying that because offended by it. I’m saying it because I think it’s gonna make people, it’s going to escalate everything. You know what, don’t pull the movie. I have no idea, I have no idea. Let the movie happen, I feel like it’s dominoes falling over everything we’re seeing, just can’t be stopped… crazy people take this seriously.”

And as always, the entertainment industry caves:

“While Universal Pictures had already paused the marketing campaign for ‘The Hunt,’ after thoughtful consideration, the studio has decided to cancel our plans to release the film… We stand by our filmmakers and will continue to distribute films in partnership with bold and visionary creators, like those associated with this satirical social thriller, but we understand that now is not the right time to release this film.” 

However, finally the director, Craig Zobel, stood for his work and argued, “My hope would be that people will reflect on why we are in this moment, where we don’t have any desire to listen to each other… And if I’m lucky, some of us will ask each other: How did we get here? And where do we want to go moving forward?”

I proudly agree with the director. Not only does a movie like this get us to talk about today’s issues, but the fact is that crazy people will act how they act no matter what they see. The “person” who killed John Lennon and “person” who attempted to kill Ronald Reagan both were inspired by Catcher in The Rye.

In calling for the cancellation of The Hunt, conservatives did the very thing they criticize the left for. Both sides are guilty of practicing “cancel culture” when it serves their purposes.

[RELATED: TRIGGERED AMERICA: Dave Chappelle’s ‘Offensive’ Comedy Is Just What the Doctor Ordered]

Image: screenshot of “The Hunt” trailer, YouTube

The post Conservatives Are Guilty of ‘Cancel Culture’, Too appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

These were some of Hunter’s last tweets before being banned on Twitter. It got him into a huge debate with a few traditionalist populists.

The discussion is – are Conservatives, or the Republican party, becoming more open to the LGBT community? Or have the Liberals and Democrats lost their monopoly?

There is no doubt the left is losing their grip on LGBT voters. There are more and more conservative /classical liberal /libertarian activists who are part of the LGBT community. 

Dave Rubin

Dave Rubin is the host of the Rubin Report and former contributor on the Young Turks. Dave Rubin isn’t strictly a conservative, but he is widely accepted by conservatives, invited to speak on campuses by Turning Point USA, and praises many of the principles that conservatives promote such as smaller government, liberty, freedom of speech, etc..

Milo Yiannopoulos

Milo Yiannopoulos is a former editor for Breitbart and the Telegraph, and part time performer. He is one of Trump’s biggest fans. Milo has spoken on many college campuses, and is known as the most banned gay man on social media platforms, and certain countries and campuses.

Tammy Bruce

Tammy Bruce is a Fox contributor, President of Independent Women’s Voices,  and Washington Times Columnist.

Guy Benson

Guy Benson is a Fox News contributor, host of the Benson show, and political editor of Townhall.com.  He came out as gay in his book, “End of Discussion:  How the Left’s Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun)”.

“What defines me is my values and my sexual orientation is more like a footnote.”

Brandon Straka

Brandon Straka is the founder of the #WalkAway movement, which is a movement encouraging people leave the Democrat party. He now identifies with the conservative label, but was a former liberal, like Dave Rubin. 

“For years now, I have watched as the left has devolved into intolerant, inflexible, illogical, hateful, misguided, ill-informed, un-American, hypocritical, menacing, callous, ignorant, narrow-minded and, at times, blatantly fascistic behavior and rhetoric.”

Blaire White

Blaire White is a YouTuber, trans model, and political commentator. She was assaulted by an anti-Trump protester for wearing a MAGA hat on November 11, 2017. The anti-Trump protester threw a drink at her and she broke her nail when she tried to recover her hat from the ground.

Some in the Republican party and the conservative movement have welcomed the gay community. As shown in Pew research, conservatives have increased their support for gay marriage. Ten years ago, the support for gay marriage by Republicans was at 21%. This year, the support for gay marriage among Republicans is at 44%.  In addition, Donald Trump is the first incoming president to support the legalization of gay marriage.

In a CBS interview, he responded when asked about gay marriage, “These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And I’m — I’m fine with that.” 

The Trump administration also launched a global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality in other countries. It is clear that Trump and other Republicans are trying to change the traditional Republican anti-LGBT stance. They are now following the principles of freedom that they preach. The resistance to Republicans opposing the gay conservative movement is slowly fading away like the Dixiecrats.

The post Are Conservatives Becoming More Libertarian on LGBT Issues? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.