by Virgil Vaduva

One of the most difficult things about being a libertarian is that I often find myself defending liberty in some difficult situations. Just like a defense attorney may find himself defending a client charged with murder, and who appears by all accounts to be guilty, he still gives his best defense to his client; defending people and ideas that we do not like and their rights to speak and be spoken is unfortunately a critical element of liberty. This is not easy to do as we are all subject to various paradigms and affected by them in ways that we may not even realize.

The world of ideas is very much the same. Ideas are the foundation upon which humanity builds its future or tears it down. They can be the seeds for things to come or the vehicle to effecting change in the world. Virtually everything in existence today was once an idea, and for millennia ideas have shaped the world into the place we call home today.

There is little else that I despise more than Communism and the ideas upon which that ideology was founded. I spent half of my life in a Communist country, growing up in indoctrination schools, taught that free markets were only benefiting the rich and that State control is key to good and peaceful living.  I experienced physical abuse, hunger and mental abuse at the hands of Communists and their ideas.  Now, decades letter, I understand those ideas to be false, and even though more than 100 million humans have died as a result of Communism, I still do not find it necessary to punch a Communist or a Socialist who may be peacefully passing out flyers on the street promoting his ideas. Yes, ironically, as a libertarian I find myself defending the speech of Communists, which I despise, and the speech of Fascists which I find abhorrent.

The trend of virtue-signaling we have been seeing lately popularized by the American media often encourages strangers to punch and physically assault alleged fascists or Nazis (supposed “nationalist socialists,” which is not an exactly American term) in order to stop them from promoting their ideas. “Their ideas are dangerous,” they say. The argument encouraging blatant physical assault against people advocating ideas involves the justification that fascist ideas could potentially come to fruition and give birth to violent actions.  Yes, I hope you caught the irony here: we must use pre-emptive threats, violence or even murder in order to stop ideas that could potentially give birth to more violence.

This in essence is the philosophy we find at the core of the United States foreign policy which has now been embraced at an individual level by average Americans, even Libertarians who claim to support free speech.  For decades, the U.S. government has been pre-emptively going to war with nations that had the potential of becoming enemies of the U.S. and espoused ideas considered anti-American.

Just a few hours ago, Richard Spencer, an alleged white supremacist and a fascist was kicked out of a conference called International Students for Liberty Conference (ISLC); this was apparently the result of a confrontation between Spencer and Jeffrey Tucker.  In the spirit of full disclosure, I know almost nothing about Spencer. I have never read anything written by him and other than knowing about him getting assaulted on the street recently.

Spencer was apparently invited to speak at ISLC by the Hans Hermann Hoppe Caucus and a group of conference attendees.  There is even video of Spencer peacefully speaking to what appears to be a large group of students. The audio is very difficult to make out, so it is unclear if Spencer is advocating for the extermination of all ethnic minorities or if he is discussing his love for Donald Trump, however it is clear that there is nothing extraordinary happening outside of the fact that ideas are being discussed in a peaceful fashion.

Some pieces of the conversation can be made out from poor audio available, such as Richard Spencer advocating for the use of the State to protect citizens from immigrants and his condemnation of multi culturalism and what accounts to cultural Marxism. It’s unclear why exactly these ideas are controversial considering that Spencer is openly a supporter of Donald Trump.

What we see later however, is Jeffrey Tucker entering the room and disrupting the event, forcing an employee of the venue to come and warn the participants about keeping things orderly to avoid being removed from the premises. Tucker and Spencer quickly engaged each other in a shouting match across the room full of attendees.

Tucker states: “Libertarianism is about human dignity, liberty for all, and not about fascism!”

Of course, what libertarian would disagree with this?  I am not a fascist and I don’t want libertarian ideology to be about fascism either.  Tucker was immediately triggered by the idea that a supposed fascist was espousing ideas that he disagreed with.  The spectacle unfolding on the video is incredible: a meltdown of epic proportions which ultimately leads to a total denial of the most fundamental libertarian principles, the freedom of speech and the freedom of association.

Mitchell Steffen, the founder of the Hans Hermann Hoppe Caucus and a Dominican, an ethnicity he is proud of, invited Spencer to the conference in order to have a peaceful dialogue.  Steffen said,

“It was really unfortunate how it turned out. I think the Hoppe Caucus did a good job of pushing the envelope and exposing hypocrisy though. Spencer’s ideas should be challenged with better libertarian ideas. He should not be bullied.”

Jeffrey Tucker’s emotional meltdown and virtue-signaling was a perfect fit for the young crowd of college students. At one point Tucker was surrounded by what someone called “a leftist mob:”

“A mob of leftists, who were even joined by Jeffrey Tucker at one point, were warned repeatedly about their noise-level, but refused to calm down. Eventually, hotel security dispersed the entire mob and assisted Spencer in evacuating unscathed.”

There is very little that is noble here about Jeffrey Tucker’s actions. Yes, I’ve seen countless posts on Facebook and tweets about how heroic Tucker was when behaving this way, but I fail to see the heroism in shutting down ideas and debate, especially about current events and political trends. Furthermore, resorting to “you are a fascist” calls is the easiest and laziest way to deal with an argument.

What is even worse about the entire meltdown is that race and ethnicity seem to have been at the core of Tucker’s initial statement, which is particularly ironic considering that Jeffrey Tucker was linked by The Economist years ago to a series of racist letters published by Ron Paul.  The racist letters were not written by Ron Paul himself, but by some of his staff and friends, including allegedly Lew Rockwell, Jeffrey Tucker and potentially Murray Rothbard.

The Economist even called out Tucker for the racist ghost writing, who refused to answer the question asked and pointed to the Mises website for content that he authored.

The suggestion that at some point in time Jeffrey Tucker espoused racist ideas to me doesn’t matter at all as I have never personally heard him say anything racist, but considering his close connections with the issue at hand, one would think that Tucker of all people would favor the open exchange of ideas, as long as they remain peaceful.  Someone being invited on private property to discuss his ideas and then being removed by police and State agents as a result of Tucker’s actions should be condemned by libertarians, not praised, or else there is little difference between the cultural Marxists roaming college campuses everywhere using mob mentality to shut down speech.

Mob-driven Libertarianism aimed at shutting down discourse is not virtuous, regardless of what ideas it attempts to shut down.  We need to know who the fascists among us are, so we can engage them, avoid them, ostracize them or maybe even attempt to change their minds. The same goes for communists, racists and bigots. Ideas alone do not assault people, they do not murder anyone and cannot be killed.

Jeffrey Tucker did nothing heroic here.  He violated private property rights and the right of association. He shut down a peaceful debate by inciting a mob against the people involved. He should not be praised. If anything, he should be condemned for participating in what was virtually a cultural Marxist cleansing. If we are to claim liberty for all, that includes the liberty of others to speak ideas we may find abhorrent and uncomfortable.

In the famous words from V for Vendetta, “Ideas are bulletproof.”  Only better ideas can defeat flawed ideas, not violence and meltdowns in a public forum.

Virgil Vaduva is a Libertarian security professional, journalist, photographer and overall liberty freak.  He spent most of his life in Communist Romania and participated in the 1989 street protests which led to the collapse of the Ceausescu regime. He can be reached at vvaduva at truthvoice.com.

Virgil Vaduva speaking with his family during his trial (Photo: Justin King)

The City of Xenia, Ohio made headlines two years ago when they decided to prosecute a local journalist for protesting against the city’s unconstitutional anti-panhandling ordinance.  In early 2015, journalist Virgil Vaduva asked the Xenia City Council to remove the anti-panhandling legislation from their code as it is unconstitutional and it violates the First Amendment rights of citizens, but after refusing to do so, he decided to protest the city’s panhandling ordinance by panhandling in front of the city hall and the police station in Xenia.  He raised about $42 which was donated to a local charity.

He was subsequently ticketed and went all the way through a jury trial leading to his conviction, and a 30 day suspended jail sentence and community service.

He wrote:

By dictating the nature of speech in a public space, the City of Xenia has directly violated the first amendment of the United States Constitution.  Of course, they deny this.  They are now in full damage control mode.  Less than twenty-four hours after I challenged their ordinance, they created a website where they are trying to address poverty in town by explaining why panhandling should be illegal.  Their bureaucrats are desperately trying to control the narrative by saying that they only banned “aggressive panhandling” and not all panhandling.  Of course they never explained why their police still ticketed me for very peaceful panhandling if the ordinance only bans aggressive action.

During the various hearings before the trial, one of the judges involved even stated, “there will be no mentioning of the Constitution here (in this court room).”  The statement drew harsh response from citizens across the country, including Alex Jones’ InfoWars website which discussed some of the details of the case.

But despite the lengthy and expensive legal engagement, Vaduva however won the case after an appeals court ruled that his rights to a fair trial were violated and eventually all charges against him were dropped.

Now, two years after the ordeal took place, a $1.6 million federal lawsuit has been filed against the City of Xenia, its agents and the two police officers involved in enforcing what is clearly an unconstitutional law.

The federal suit, filed in the Southern District of Ohio, names the City of Xenia and several individuals, including all the city council members who conspired to violate constitutional rights and the police officers involved in enforcing the law.  The suit demands relief for over $1.6 million under title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 for conspiring to use the color of  law in order to deprive citizens of their civil rights.

Vaduva claims that he intends to see this lawsuit through to a jury trial, regardless of how much it will cost, all in order to prevent future constitutional violations in the City of Xenia.  Furthermore, he claims that the neighboring cities of Beavercreek and Fairborn have identical anti-panhandling laws on the books, and they will be also targeted for constitutional violations in potential upcoming lawsuits. His hope is that his actions will motivate other activists and citizens in the area to engage in direct action to challenge constitutional violations and abuses of power by local politicians.

An easy but misleading comparison.

I don’t really like football. I can appreciate and admire the dedication and raw talent it takes to compete athletically on a national level, but being a spectator to the sport has fairly limited appeal for me. The same goes for pretty much all sports, actually. In this I am sometimes seen as a deviant by my friends, and certainly the rest of my family, the latter of whom I think it’s safe to say meet the bar for “football fanatic.” They watch, talk, and argue about teams, players, strategies. They go so far as to base their home decor around the priority of their team favor, dedicating wall real estate proportionally to each team.

I don’t really understand the emotional investment many seem to have in their preferred teams. Players themselves rarely seem to show a similar loyalty, and even at the college level, the role money and athletic scouts play seems to make the location and name of a given team more of a branding decision than any real representation of the people in that particular area. Yet it’s teams that are nearest to where a fan lives (or where they grew up) that seems to play the biggest role in whether a team is liked. I have to admit it: I just don’t get it.

Me irl on Thanksgiving, trying to blend in

Because spectator sports are something so well-liked, and at the same time so alien to me, its preference as a cultural pastime is something I’m really only capable of thinking about as an outsider. As an outsider to the fandom, I frequently encounter a meme that, in addition to being unfair, inaccurate, and pretentious, is rooted in a kind of unwarranted elitism that is, in my opinion, even more harmful to the cognitive potential of the person holding the opinion than the “divisiveness” caused by maintaining a rude or dismissive belief.

You’ve probably seen someone say something along these lines. “Football is the opiate of the masses.” It’s the contemporary bread and circuses of our modern-day Roman Empire, so says the supposed intellectual — even he who admittedly enjoys the gladiator bouts himself. I’ve seen the opinion spouted by everyone from well-thought activists and philosophers, to pseudo-intellectual posers, and even the arguably well-meaning but laughable walking meme factory Alex Jones.

Maybe the idea took off because it’s easy for an outsider to believe at a glance. To someone who’s not into spectator sports, strangers watching the game can become hordes of faceless sports fans, often encountered while drunk and loud at bars and restaurants, painting the caricature of a tribalist idiot more concerned with what men in tights are doing than the realities of what’s going on around them. What’s “really going on,” of course, is entirely subjective. “Imminent societal collapse,” especially in the wake of a recent presidential election, is a pretty popular one.

Assuming football is such an effective distraction, let me ask you this. What do you really think would happen if people stopped watching football and “woke up?” What would you have them do, stand in crowds waving signs every moment they weren’t watching the game? Football does literally nothing to prevent people from engaging in the political process. People aren’t so distracted by sports that they cannot take the time to get informed and vote. They’re already doing that, and all of the other things you think are helping, and it’s accomplishing nothing.

Good thing these people didn’t waste time watching the playoffs.

The truth is that sports have nothing to do with it. Even the most zealous fan is not an opium addict, and the belief that escapism is the problem — especially “their” preferred type — is a stupid and detrimental belief. It rejects the reality that many humans are capable of complex, varied, and sometimes contradictory thought in favor of masturbatory pomp. It’s detrimental because it distracts from the very realization it masquerades as: that we really are alive in an era of bread and circuses, and it has little to do with television or smartphones.

The plebs of the classical era were regularly beaten into submission, starved, manipulated, and killed for small amounts of material gain. Concepts like economic and social progression were wildly out of scope for what they could ever hope to achieve. Practically all of them suffered living conditions that are almost unfathomable to us today.

If rebellion sounded like it might net some reward, and seemed even remotely within grasp, a violent insurrection was very probable — which is why dissent in the age before easy access to information was punished with incredible brutality. It was quelled not only with barbaric treachery, or even with simple social distraction, but by providing comforts that were otherwise out of reach.

Technology has enabled unprecedented access to information, including the ability to share experience. The restriction to information as a safeguard to the patrician has been removed, and to counter, the old bread and circuses have been done away with. The new opiate is the obfuscation of violence.

Violence, especially violence against otherwise peaceful people, permeates all modern societies. Because it is rarely acted upon, the average person has stopped detecting it. Like the smell of bread in a bakery, you forget it’s even there when you’re not tasting it for yourself. Even when your friends are taxed into oblivion, unable to afford adequate healthcare, or beaten by police, you’re directed to submit written petitions asking for relief. Maybe the state will get around to it, maybe it won’t — it all depends on if the right people get the vote, right?

“is this meme dank? y/n”

It isn’t working, and you don’t need them. You don’t voluntarily pay for the things the state provides or the rules it makes, even when you think it’s a wonderful idea. You can’t escape this, certainly not by voting or protesting, and if you try to, you risk having violence used against you. This arrangement is not only unnecessary, but it keeps you the subject of a system which does not have your interest at heart. The bread and circus of the modern era is the idea that you are a part of the social contract; the opiate of the masses is the belief that you are not a pleb.

Stop shitting on football and start stabbing tyrants.

— David Neely, written for TruthVoice

A small startup that has been around for less than a year has created a free mobile app aimed at helping Americans and people all over the world resist the police state.  The app, called Cell 411 (or Cell 112 in Europe), is available in English, Spanish, Portuguese, German and Romanian, and it helps activists and people from all political shades resist government abuse with decentralized GPS-based alerts and live video features. Whether you are a gun-rights activist, an anti-Trump protester, concerned with police brutality or simply a muslim woman concerned for her safety, this app can help you build decentralized groups, or “cells” of trusted connections which you can then use to dispatch when you need help.

Because this app has been so revolutionary in its approach to building a new way to handle emergencies and the police state, it has been selected by the Victoria & Albert Museum in London to be featured in the “Future of Design” exhibit in 2018.

Think of this app as an “UBER for emergencies” or a “911 on steroids” except it doesn’t involve government, police or people  you don’t trust.  The app was created by a small group of passionate engineers, activists and people concerned with the growth of police state all over the world.  It can be used by anyone with an Android or iOS smartphone and it has tens of thousands of users all over the world.

Here is how it works: users can freely download the app and signup for an account using their e-mail address of Facebook account. Once signed up, a user can join existing public “cells” or groups in their areas, or can create their own cells.  Joining a cell allows you to send and receive emergency alerts from the members of that cell.  Let’s say you want to create a cell in your town called, “Denver Mutual Aid.”  Al users in the Denver area will be notified when this cell was created and can join the cell in order to offer each other help when the members request the help.  There are thousands of cells all over the world used by users for many reasons, such as immigration help, neighborhood watching, etc.

You can also create private cells which are only visible to you an not other users, and you can add your friends to your private cells.

The app allows you to send emergency alerts about medical problems, police abuse, vehicle problems, crime, and other issues; the alerts are tagged with your exact GPS coordinates and your friends can get turn-by-turn directions to your location, should they decide to come and offer you help.  You can stream live video to your cells and friends, and the video cannot be erased by a malicious user who may gain access to your phone.  The video can also be streamed to YouTube and Facebook and is distributed instantly to all your friends, making it nearly impossible to be destroyed.

The app was specifically designed to be resistant to censorship and government surveillance and has been used successfully all over the world to save lives and keep users safe from criminals, police abuse and many other malicious actors.

The company also created a “panic button” which is a bluetooth device that pairs with the mobile app and allows users to issue alerts instantly without having to unlock the phone or spend precious time navigating an app. Recently a “ride sharing” feature was also added to the app to allow users to offer rides to each other when they need help and accept payments for cash, Bitcoin, silver and even bartering.

You can download Cell 411 for Android and Apple devices from http://getcell411.com/download

You can also watch a quick walk-trough of the main features of this app below:

The world of ride-sharing startups is ripe with investment failures, technical failures and even some outright fraud, but one thing is certain: Uber is still the king of them all, controlling a vast majority of the ride-sharing market out there, with 8 million users, hundreds of thousands of drivers and about a million rides each day.

Many other Uber “clones” or competitors popped up over the years, with virtually all of them offering the same service model, where drivers go through an application process to qualify, their vehicles are inspected, a background check is performed and eventually they are allowed to use a mobile app to get customers while paying 20-30% of the amount of fares back to the company.  Customers almost always pay via a credit card and depending on the market, time of day and other factors, Uber or the other ride-sharing companies keep a good percentage of the fare cost.

Many drivers absolutely hate this model, and here is why: it’s completely centralized.  Drivers and riders have no control on any of the ride sharing aspects of the transaction.  Uber decides what rider is paired up with a driver. Uber decides the payment method, the amount and the fees associated with it.  Worse, Uber will not even allow drivers to operate if they drive older vehicles or specific makes and models.

Cell 411 Inc., a small startup focused on user safety and emergency management wants to change this.  In the latest Version 5 of their platform and mobile app, they introduced a fully decentralized ride-sharing option.  What does this mean?  Well, it means that their ride-sharing model is the exact opposite of how Uber and Uber-like companies do things.  There are no background checks, no requirements to drive certain year car or model.  There are no fees, and no centralized controls on pricing and methods of payment.  Literally, the users are in full control of all aspects of ride sharing.

Users willing to offer rides using Cell 411 even have full control on the pricing formula.  Drivers can edit their own pickup cost, per-minute and per-mile costs before providing a final cost to riders, thus employing a bid-like system where drivers compete for rides from various users, giving users options and encouraging competition.

With about 64,000 world-wide users on their platform, Cell 411’s user base is tiny in comparison to Uber, but their revolutionary, one of a kind model can become a real threat to Uber’s dominance.  With no “how do I apply to drive for you” questions to be answered, drivers are flocking to Cell 411 trying to avoid losing 20-30% of their fares to a central authority.  Not only that, but drivers are able to accept any payment method they wish.  There are payment methods like Cash, Silver, Cryptocurrency (like Bitcoin), Credit Cards and even Bartering.  Yes, with this model you can literally offer someone a ride in exchange for a burger or a joint!

With version 5 of their app just released days ago, the company is planning a launch party in Austin, TX on November 5, where they will answer any questions related to their future plans and how they are planning to integrate their safety and emergency response workflow with the new ride-sharing feature.

This fully decentralized ride sharing model has not been tested before because nobody else has tried it until now, but the company says that users from all over the world have reached out showing interest in participating and joining the platform.

“Most users send us messages asking, ‘Where do I apply to drive with you’ showing that many people still have a hard time coping with the full freedom they have on our platform,” said Virgil Vaduva, founder of Cell 411.  “When the answer is ‘just install the app,’ it is really incredible to see how users respond when they realize that they have the freedom they don’t have with Uber,” said Vaduva.

To increase user safety and maintain accountability, the app verifies users’ mobile phone numbers via a simple process and employs a user-review process which encourages good quality service.  The app also allows users to build mutual-aid networks allowing users to use their network of friends and family members to respond in case of emergencies and if dangerous situations occur.

Drivers also have the option to purchase a hardware bluetooth panic button which will alert nearby drivers when dangerous situations occur.

“Our users’ safety is obviously our top priority, but we also choose to treat all our users as responsible adults.  No, we will not give you a $500 sign-on bonus, we will not buy you car insurance, and we will not micro-manage your lives,” said Vaduva. “Many Uber drivers lose hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a month to Uber.  Why not take a small portion of that money and purchase the insurance you wish?  Why not buy a panic button for $20 and alert your mutual-aid driver network if you get a flat tire or need help?  Everything we’ve done puts our users back in control; there is a reason Uber lost $1.2 billion in the first half of 2016…they are a mammoth, central authority and they do not understand that the market wants freedom, not control,” Vaduva said.

Whether or not this decentralized ride-sharing experiment will be a success is to be seen, but it appears that this model is the future of ride sharing; Uber may have to get creative in order to compete in the marketplace and survive in the long run.

Cell 411 can be downloaded from http://getcell411.com

In the wake of tragedies such as the shooting in Orlando this week, the conversation turns to how society should address gun crime.  As the people of the United States recover from their shock, both sides will roll out their standard arguments: Ban specific firearms, increase concealed carry, a more watchful State.  These arguments will continue, and I agree with the authoritarians that something must be done.  However, I wish to take a different path with this argument; to envision how a free society would address gun crime.  For those interested in applying policy within the current system, I will attempt to show here that the answer is fewer laws, not more.

While each state in the US is different, all states depend as their primary line of defense on prohibitions against violence.  Punishment of violent offenders gives some closure to victims and serves to deter would-be offenders.  However, it is not always possible to punish people commensurate with the harm they cause.  Both sides of the debate agree on this problem, but offer differing proposals on how to solve this issue, usually in the form of additional legislation.

In a free society, we imagine the case of someone who purchases a weapon and goes on to misuse it, harming or killing others.  In this instance, defense agencies would take the person into custody.  After the requisite hearings, the sentence would be carried out.  On occasion, the guilty party would be able to repay his or her victims, but we must also consider the occasion where they could not.  The defense agencies would then expand the scope of their recourse.  In a free society, there would be nothing to prevent them from holding the weapons dealer responsible.

In an extreme example, someone purchases a shoulder-fired missile from a dealer and shoots down a passenger aircraft with it.  At list price, a Boeing 787 costs $265 million.  Each of the families of the victims will demand compensation, and clearing away the rubble isn’t free.  By the time everything is tallied, the damage could exceed $1 billion.  Considering that very few people have that kind of cash, life in prison or even the death penalty isn’t going to squeeze it out of them.

In the free society, the defense agencies go after the dealer because his product caused damage which they can’t recoup from the offender.   If the dealer’s assets aren’t sufficient, they go after the manufacturer, or even their suppliers.  Seeing this, other weapons dealers are faced with tremendous risk if their customers misuse their products.  So they do what is natural and they pay someone to manage this risk for them.  In fact, they don’t sell to a customer unless that customer pays to manage the risk by buying insurance.

The first thing we notice is that the amount is not equal for all weapons because the risk is not the same. The premium would vary based on the damage the weapon could cause and the likelihood it would be used in a crime. A Hi-Point might enter the market at $150, but carry a $500 insurance premium because of the probability it would be used to hurt people.  Likewise, the aforementioned MANPADS might retail for $25,000, but the risk to civilian aircraft might push the actual cost over $1 million.  The effect is to price out people who would be least likely to use the weapon responsibly.

The second thing we notice is that dealers who sell lots of problem guns have lots of claims, which makes it difficult and expensive to secure coverage. This addresses the “bad apple dealer” problem.

The third observation we make is that not all people pay the same for coverage.  Just as auto insurance rates males under 25 differently, it is a safe bet that insurers will be keenly aware of the demographics of mass shootings.  Likewise, insurers may insist on a background check before deciding the risk a person poses.

Having dealt with the abstractions of the free market, we ask what such a solution would look like in the society of today.  My proposal would consist of several legislative changes:

• Repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
• Removal of liability limits granted by incorporation (ideally for all corporations)

The former removes specific protections granted to the gun industry, while the latter removes the ability of a dealer or manufacturer to hide behind a corporation.

I don’t envision this as a perfect solution, but one that greatly reduces the risk posed by firearms without creating lists that worry conservatives or creating yet another contraband law.  Most of all, it reminds us that the best solutions lie not in restriction, but in freedom.

Andrew Slanker is a voluntaryist, engineer, and husband.  His hobbies include economics, camping and travel.

-By Jordan Freshour

A Cop Blocker in Kettering warns drivers of an OVI checkpoint

“Southwestern Ohio is the center for civil disobedience activism in the world right now.” – Mark Edge, Free Talk Live, April 1st, 2015.

Wait, what? Not New Hampshire with the Free State Project? Not in the Middle East, where protests and civil war are still erupting years after the Arab Spring? Not in DC, a Mecca for civil demonstrations and home to hundreds of national and global non-profit headquarters? Not in places like Los Angeles or Texas, where a new era of technological innovation is bursting forth?

While it’s difficult to accurately compare the efficacy of various methods used by groups to promote social change, Mark Edge did not speak out of context in lauding this specific region of the United States. In the radio segment mentioned above, he was interviewing Virgil Văduva about his own acts of civil disobedience. In particular, Văduva’s intentional violation of an anti-panhandling ordinance in the nearby city of Xenia. When asked if he agreed with Mark’s assessment, he said:

“I do agree. I have friends who live in California who complain that they are the lone activist in their large town and are unable to grow the liberty community. In essence they are alone in the middle of a crowd. I’m not sure what is causing this phenomenon here in SW Ohio, but I remember just a few years ago being the only Cop Blocker within 100 mile radius. Since then the number of activists and libertarians has exploded. While I would love to take credit for some of the growth, the reality is that there have been quite a few events in the area that served as catalysts for the message of freedom. Ohio Open Carry, the shooting of John Crawford and Tamir Rice have been huge factors in bringing new activists on board, and the recent shooting at the University of Cincinnati was another reminder of a growing police brutality problem. The police alone are responsible for the growth in the numbers of local activists. In essence they are the largest creators responsible for building our community.”

Văduva isn’t the only Ohio activist who believes the police have directly contributed to the local growth in activism. Micah David of Yellow Springs, Ohio – writer, editor, and designer for Counter Current News – shares similar thoughts:

“Yes, I think Ohio is ground zero in terms of police abuse, brutality and racism. A lot of times people will assume coastal cities, or a large midwestern city like Chicago would be the focal point of such police abuses. But Ohio has a unique history with regards to racism and injustice, as law enforcement and government reacted in very deliberate ways to the influx of freed-men and women who came across the Kentucky border. As such, many so-called minority communities know Ohio to be little more than an extension of the south, with some of the most segregated communities in the nation. On top of that, the middle-American nature of Ohio suburbs has lent to a particular flavor of Ohio activism, and reaction by law enforcement and the government, even going back to the Kent State Massacre during the Vietnam War.

So in a sense, activists come after the situation that is created sociologically in Ohio – they are borne from it. And at the same time, the law enforcement response to activism in Ohio is borne out of the sociological “Northern South” vibe that is Ohio. It is that vibe, or climate that leads to incidences such as the shooting of John Crawford, Tamir Rice and Sam Dubose, or even earlier, Timothy Thomas.”

To get closer to the target of racial police abuse, I spoke with Talis Gage (also from Yellow Springs), an activist and organizer with Black Lives Matter Miami Valley and the Ohio Organizing Collaborative. He said everything “jumped off” after the murder of John Crawford III in Beavercreek, Ohio. Talis echoed Micah’s assessment when answering if police targeting has been a catalyst for uniting the black community:

“In Yellow Springs it definitely has, because there really isn’t a black community here. So we are now all working together collectively in different ways – on the radio, on HRC [Human Relations Commission], and I was running for village council. I would say [the shooting] made different organizations more active and much more aggressive in the black communities. The Ohio Student Association was very active in getting the Beavercreek police to release the tapes from the Wal-Mart shooting. They were also outside of the Beavercreek police station for days protesting. We tag teamed with them to shut down Wal-Mart, and then the Beavercreek Mall.”

Outcry over the murder of Crawford isn’t the only response from leaders in the nearby black community. Talis went on to explain how BLM Miami Valley has quickly become a group which works with others to feed the poor and homeless, provide clothes to those in need, clean up the neighborhood, educate their neighbors, and host potlucks for the public.  “Everyone is doing all they can within their organization to wake up the black community to stand strong as the Kings and Queens they originally were,” said Talis.

“Waking up” individuals to the reality of the classist warfare waged by the government is a major challenge for activists of all stripes. Constant mobile connectivity to one another has been the single greatest tool for the nonconformist in infiltrating the minds of others with new ideas. Heather Lucas – an Awakened Cincinnatian, and council member for Unite Ohio – has worked with more than a dozen Ohio groups, linking them to each other. The Militia, Ohio Patriot Bikers, libertarian chapters, Pin Ups for Patriots, NORML, 3% Militia, and Columbus Anonymous are but a few allies. She credited social media for the success of networking and growth among like-minded people, saying:

“Activism in my opinion has become much easier for everyone due to social media. I think for one the instant access to stories, info, and causes have caused “normal” people to have to look at things they wouldn’t have normally. So they join a group, or start their own.”

Having instant access to information is vital to spreading the word about events and ideas, but social giants such as Facebook are only one element in the Buckeye dissenter’s tool kit. The effectiveness of Heather’s endeavors to unite various Ohio efforts increases with the availability of new technology designed to facilitate counter culture. Apps such as Bambuser, Wickr, and Cell 411 can be found on the smartphones of revolutionaries statewide, the latter having been developed by Văduva specifically for the use of activism. Virgil (a cryptology professional) believes advances of this kind are precisely the silver bullet for government tyranny:

“As a crypto-anarchist, it’s evident to me that technology is making the ideas of liberty virtually impregnable to government tyrants, and that’s an empowering realization. This is why I am focusing on building even more tools to empower people to subvert the state, whether it’s through adopting currencies like Bitcoin, embracing free markets, or subverting State surveillance. We are barely toddlers in this world and we are just now learning how to use technology to be truly free.”

It should be noted these kinds of technology are available across the world, but southwest Ohio has a unique environment. It is a place where innovators are focusing their implements on freedom, and the principles of the people living there are predisposed to take advantage of inventions which empower the individual. Where similar movements in other areas fragment due to infighting between egos, those in Ohio have learned how to use ego to their advantage. Justin King, journalist, and editor for The Fifth Column opines:

“Ohio’s activists seem to have adopted an informal cellular structure. There are hundreds of small groups that are self contained. Each of these groups does a great job of making the other groups aware of their actions. This means everybody supports each other. The small group sizes allow more people to have egos. If there is one large group there are only so many top positions. People of influence end up arguing. Small groups allow people of influence to abstain from an event they don’t agree with without destroying the overall movement. It cuts down on infighting because the “cells” are free to do as they choose. Nobody is jockeying for position.”

Justin has a fitting resume for a gonzo journalist, having been a military contractor, bodyguard, a “smuggler,” a federal inmate, and so on. He offers a unique set of skills for other activists. “I’ve been waterboarded, I’ve conducted counter-surveillance for activists, I’ve investigated dirty politicians for groups, and basically anything that requires a bit of playing dirty. I [..] bring tactical experience to the movement.” Justin knows to maximize his own impact, strategically aligning with specific people and events is important. “…it boils down to choosing your battles carefully,” he said. “Let’s say somebody is done wrong by a police department, but they have a massive criminal record. Ideologically it’s still an offense, tactically don’t waste the resources on a person that isn’t relatable to the rest of America.”

That last statement might be controversial in other circles of activism. But it’s not in Ohio. When activists there see a cause they like, they support it. When activists disagree about a cause, they don’t support it. And when activists think there is a better way of doing something, instead of criticizing others, they form the solutions themselves. Such is the story of Awakened Cincinnatians. Richard Brewster, an AC member, touched on this when I inquired to how the group had formed:

“Actually I started it. I loved the idea of Anonymous: How everyone can be one. I went to a few Occupy Cincinnati events and saw how they couldn’t get along – the left stayed to the left, the right stayed to the right. There was really nothing for us Awakened People, who don’t fall for the left/right nonsense. After arguing and being kicked out of the local Occupy [Cincinnati], and all the Patriot groups, I decided we needed our own. I made the group on Facebook. […] Once numbers were decent we [began holding meetings]. Ever since we have kept the ball rolling picking up new people with every event we do.”

Events arranged and promoted by the Awakened Cincinnatians have taken the Queen City by storm, attracting mainstream media attention, and the support of the most widely-known organization to focus on police accountability: Cop Block. At a recent September 19th protest – organized by AC to call attention to the murder of Sam DuBose – several Cop Block journalists were in attendance, including Ademo Freeman, CB’s co-founder. As one of the most influential anarcho-activists in the country, I was curious to his take on the Ohio brand of activism. When asked what surprised him the most from his time spent there, Ademo articulated the volume of hard-working individuals:

“Whether it be CopBlocking a checkpoint, running websites, creating videos or smartphone apps, someone in Ohio is doing it. I would say that they’ve all energized, inspired and provided hope to me in some form. From their energy, tactics and the diversity of such, it has been most beneficial to myself – and hopefully to those who view our/their work/efforts.”

Freeman is no stranger to the work being done in Ohio. Upon leaving New Hampshire a year ago to spread the message of police accountability nationwide, he made a temporary base in Cleveland in preparation for the rest of his journey. “I’ve been lucky enough to work with and meet many, some I knew before arriving – like Valerie and DEO; while others like Virgil, Micah and some of the CB offshoots (Dayton CB, Greater Cleveland folks and so on) I’ve gotten to know while CopBlocking,” he said. During his time visiting the state, new chapters were formed in Dayton and Beavercreek. Other chapters, such as Ohio Valley, Columbus, and Zanesville were strengthened by his collaboration with Columbus activist, Valerie Petrichor, whom with I also spoke.

Valerie has been involved with Cop Block since it’s inception, forming multiple chapters in and near her suburban Columbus home. Working for police accountability before Cop Block had evened formed, her efforts are reflected (in part) by a hometown which suffers far less police misconduct than cities of comparable size. I asked her a similar question as I did the others, “Is there anything you believe makes Ohioans more receptive to the message of freedom?”

“Individual thought. People who think on any level other than unique individual thought will typically not understand the need for freedom or accountability. The exception being those who believe they are part of some “movement”. Finding like-minded individuals who want to work toward shared goals is great – necessary, even. However, believing in a “movement” is just a way to continue groupthink passively and avoid truly unique thought. In Ohio we have what is probably one of the strongest, if not the strongest, [group of] activists in the US.”

Being one of the few women planted in the trenches of the fight against police brutality, I wondered if Valerie thought her femininity was a trait she considered a strength. Oddly enough, she didn’t. “It’s just a circumstance,” She said, playing down the question. “If anything, it makes what I do easier than it would be for a man. People tend to respect me and my gender is probably part of the reason. I think being female causes me to be perceived as less of a threat.” 

Though it may be true the police underestimate the strength of a principled woman, fellow Ohio activists do not. Individuals such as Heather and Valerie are not only freedom fighters in the public arena, but also in the home raising the next generation of world-changers. In wrapping up my case for Ohio being ground zero for activists, I wished to unearth that lesser-seen side of activism. Knowing where to look, I asked Jamie Văduva (married to Virgil), if she would round out my story. She obliged.

Jamie is a member of Libertarians of Southwest Ohio, artist, caretaker of her family’s farm, mother of four, and a homeschooler. Though not as visible as other activists, her efforts to promote freedom are the most selfless of type. As principled and hard-working as any liberty-minded person, she labors to raise her children as lovers of freedom and humanity, while spreading a message of love and kindness to those around. She offered the story of Christopher McCandless as one inspiring tale which shaped her values as teacher, Mom, and wife:

“I just started reading books about survival and people living simpler lives: Christopher McCandless, Henry David Thoreau, Everett Ruess and many others. Extreme stories that challenged my thinking. We gave away most of our furniture, and sold our new cars and 5-year-old house to get an old house in the country. All because God and family were what mattered. Not things, not money and mortgages, but our time together. And to be able to experience having animals and grow food, have bees, et cetera – that lifestyle goes with living a liberty or Voluntaryist life very much.”

Referencing Thoreau’s message of simplicity, only what’s truly important matters in her home. She proudly sees herself as an activist for “the little things in every day life.”  She added, “[Our kids] get to see first hand voluntary interactions between friends and acquaintances. Helping others and they help us…we have each other’s backs or do things to help because we care. Each person has something different to offer.”

Activists are stereotyped in many ways, often in a cold manner. However, those in southwest Ohio come off as the most devoted  – and caring – humans I have encountered. This may be the secret to the robust and diverse community of liberty-lovers in the Buckeye State. In closing, Jamie speaks directly to what I believe is the essence of these people:

 “I can only be myself which is someone who is drawn toward the positive. I don’t pretend everything is perfect. But my place here is to keep reminding everyone to have good hearts, and to try to bring out the softer side in people. To make them smile, and see it’s all about being free and happy with the people you love and care about. Live…just be yourself and do the things you love. Don’t be afraid to stand up for what you believe in. And remember to be a nice person. Sometimes something as simple as a smile can change someone’s world and you don’t even realize it.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

By Russell Mills for krmg.com

by Virgil Vaduva

Update (August 6, 2015):

Representatives from Ohio Students Association have contacted me and have denied any association with the individuals behind the e-mails sent to Jim Anderson. As of right now, nobody has taken any responsibility for the statements made in the e-mails sent to Jim.

Original story: 

A clear pattern of discrimination and exclusion has been emerging within the last few days regarding the organization Black Lives Matter. It started with the organization attempting to schedule an event at the same time and location as other organizations and immediately attempting to put in place rules limiting attendance, excluding members of Anonymous, members of Cop Block and members of Ohio Open Carry, all organizations which oppose police brutality and work hard to further liberty.

These actions and attempts to control the narrative and attendance to the one year anniversary demonstration of John Crawford’s shooting by Ohio police have stirred up quite a debate in various circles, prompting individuals that would otherwise work together to further the cause of liberty to take sides based on political views and other opinions.

Black Lives Matter, the George Soros funded organization, is now on full attack against Anonymous, a de-centralized organization which has been attempting to participate in exposing police brutality throughout the world for years.  The attempt on the part of BLM to limit speech and control the message at public events is not new and I have documented a number of instances where bigotry is on display by members and leader in Black Lives Matter.

Just today an activist and journalist named Jim Anderson based out of Columbus, Ohio contacted me to inform me that he was told by members of BLM that he was “too white to attend a police brutality protest.”

As early as November 2014 the leaders of Black Lives Matter Columbus have contacted Jim and demanded that he cancels his event against police brutality due to conflict (as they scheduled it after he did) and informed him that no members of Anonymous are welcome to any of their public events.  Furthermore Guy Fawkes masks were banned and white people were told not to attend and were not welcome at any planning meetings. These tactics are identical to the tactics BLM is attempting to use to intimidate white attendees in Beavercreek, Ohio planning to attend the one year anniversary protest of the John Crawford shooting on August 5, 2015.

Screenshots of e-mail exchanges between Jim and representatives from BLM and Ohio Student Association show what appear to be outright and unapologetically bigoted attitudes towards police brutality supporters simply because of their association with Anonymous or simple due to their skin color.

When Jim inquired about the confusion generated by the exclusion of Anonymous members, he was told that Anonymous members lack “revolutionary-ness” (sic) and can be threatening to people of color. The insensitivity of the language used to describe Anonymous is astounding. The BLM leaders are attempting to describe Anonymous members as violent, unaccountable individuals who show up at protests in order to intimidate people of color.

This is not the first time members of Black Lives Matter have excluded whites from their events. In an event scheduled in Dayton, Ohio early in 2015 several messages went out indicating in essence that “no whites are allowed” at their events and that white people are not welcome to participate or take part in police brutality protests. When an outraged community pointed out the bigotry of these demands the request made on Facebook were deleted and BLM leadership pretended they never happened.

In a recent video allegedly recorded in Cleveland, Ohio, another white journalist who attended a BLM meeting to support their cause was assaulted, pushed, cursed at and grabbed before he had a chance to leave the public property he was on.

When asked about the bigoted remarks, the organizers defended the behavior by claiming this was a “private” meeting, however the meeting is clearly out in public on what appears to be public property.  Not only that, but the journalist was clearly in the process of leaving, as he was asked to do, when he was assaulted and threatened. You can watch the video here.

Talis Gage, a leader in Black Lives Matter compares Anonymous members with the KKK in a Facebook post

In a more recent event, a Black Lives Matter leader did not mince words when he outright stated that “the mask is the new sheet” when criticizing Anonymous for attending some BLM events.  He stated:

“Sometimes I wonder if the mask is the new sheet and are they in cahoots with each other I know I know there is some black mask anon members but like the old days you had house negros and field negros and we are not that far from those times. I have associated in all these diff groups but I can’t say I trust them.”

Additional BLM members followed with more inflammatory comments against Anonymous:

“Both anonymous masks and guns endanger people of color…”

All these comments were removed when I warned them that I was taking screenshots, as the story would be hard to believe otherwise.

I am aghast at the idea that Anonymous is being compared with one of the most despicable and racists groups in the world, the KKK, which has lynched, burned and executed people simply because of the color of their skin. Furthermore, Anonymous has shown incredible support for the black community on the issue of police brutality. Several prominent investigations by Anonymous have led to exposing internal e-mails and comments from NYPD and Baltimore PD showing extensive racism among police officers.

When members of Anonymous contacted the BLM leaderships to inquire about the public event scheduled in Dayton Ohio in April, they were told in very clear terms, “It’s an event that’s not for anonymous members.”

The ingratitude shown by Black Lives Matter and the outright disregard for any desire to cooperate with people and groups which have supported them for the past year is very disturbing, to say the least. Exclusion, discrimination and bigotry appears to be alive and well throughout the BLM organization, and is dishonorable to police brutality causes where black Americans have been targeted by police throughout the country.

I am unsure how to encourage BLM leadership to resolve this problem, or even if they are willing to solve the problem or eliminate bigotry from their midsts, but if you want to contact BLM, you can do so by going to their website and writing them a message about the serious problem they are creating by attacking groups of people which have been supportive of the cause of police brutality well before BLM even came into existence.

Words don’t break bones, but they should certainly prompt someone to step back and reconsider their support for such organizations.

Virgil Vaduva is a Libertarian security professional, journalist, photographer and overall liberty freak. He spent most of his life in Communist Romania and participated in the 1989 street protests which led to the collapse of the Ceausescu regime. He can be reached at vvaduva at truthvoice.com.