Young Americans for Liberty going woke & neocon?

[Brian4Liberty]

So, to me, this is more of the circular firing squad that has plagued the liberty movement for ages. You want to package the message a different way to try to attract more people?? Fine. But why feel the need to criticize those supposedly on your own side for communicating in their own manner??? It's like they understand the principles of liberty in theory, but can't put it into practice. EVERYONE takes a different path.

The way she probably should have handled that was to say that Massie is right on his principles, although she would have packaged it differently. But that's what makes liberty so unifying. We don't have to agree on messaging. Different people are open to different messaging. As long as the principles are right, we can stay in alignment.

I hate to say it, but we can often fall into this same trap, too. I prefer Massie's bold declaration over her coy persuasion techniques, but that's me. But I try to be very careful to not allow my own preference to further divide those on our side.

All that being said, if/when they start to veer away from principles in an attempt to persuade, that's where intervention is necessary. If they start advocating for anti-liberty red-flag laws or illegal foreign interventions they need to be called out. In this thread, though, all I'm seeing is messaging differences.

Lauren Daugherty
Executive Director

Lauren started her career climbing the ranks at the Leadership Institute and FreedomWorks, then becoming interim Executive Director and Director of Development at the national Libertarian Party, where she built their fundraising and operations capabilities.

Recently, Lauren served as publisher and CEO of Texas CEO Magazine, where she worked with executives from across Texas to help grow their businesses and master the chief executive role. She also owns a small business, Evergreen Wrapping. Now she serves as YAL’s Executive Director fighting for liberty!

No doubt she sees her role as directing messaging, and that would probably correspond with her personal preferences.

Looking at the top two people on the staff, it gives the impression that the main goal is increasing fund raising and growing the business. In current woke America, there is predictable direction that will go. It will be no different than any other big company that is always concerned with appearance and appealing to the woke mob.

 

[CaptUSA]

No doubt she sees her role as directing messaging, and that would probably correspond with her personal preferences.

Looking at the top two people on the staff, it gives the impression that the main goal is increasing fund raising and growing the business. In current woke America, there is predictable direction that will go. It will be no different than any other big company that is always concerned with appearance and appealing to the woke mob.

I also think it has to do with metropolitan sensibilities. Even when they hold similar principles, those sensibilities can get in the way. But I would also argue that if we're ever to break free of this monstrosity of a state, we're going to need to appeal to both the rural and city folk. So it doesn't really bother me that much when she tries to package the message in those sensibilities - even though they don't appeal to me. If they appeal to her, maybe they'll appeal to someone else. I think the important thing she (an we) need to be aware of is that not everyone thinks the same. I don't want her trashing my type of messaging and I won't trash hers. As long as she and YAL stay true to principles, I'll give them some leeway in messaging because I'm not their target audience.

 

[TheTexan]

I also think it has to do with metropolitan sensibilities. Even when they hold similar principles, those sensibilities can get in the way. But I would also argue that if we're ever to break free of this monstrosity of a state, we're going to need to appeal to both the rural and city folk. So it doesn't really bother me that much when she tries to package the message in those sensibilities - even though they don't appeal to me. If they appeal to her, maybe they'll appeal to someone else. I think the important thing she (an we) need to be aware of is that not everyone thinks the same. I don't want her trashing my type of messaging and I won't trash hers. As long as she and YAL stay true to principles, I'll give them some leeway in messaging because I'm not their target audience.

I like to think I'm a big tent guy but I can't really imagine a tent big enough to include people who think guns are "scary".

That tent just gonna fold in on itself faster than a neutron star

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I also think it has to do with metropolitan sensibilities. Even when they hold similar principles, those sensibilities can get in the way. But I would also argue that if we're ever to break free of this monstrosity of a state, we're going to need to appeal to both the rural and city folk. So it doesn't really bother me that much when she tries to package the message in those sensibilities - even though they don't appeal to me. If they appeal to her, maybe they'll appeal to someone else. I think the important thing she (an we) need to be aware of is that not everyone thinks the same. I don't want her trashing my type of messaging and I won't trash hers. As long as she and YAL stay true to principles, I'll give them some leeway in messaging because I'm not their target audience.

I'd add that there is always there is always a struggle between advocating for liberty and freedom, and advocating for the things that are done under liberty.

The best example would be drug decriminalization. Dr. Ron Paul would fully endorse decriminalization of most drugs, but he would never endorse or celebrate their recreational use.

So if we give Lauren Daugherty some leeway here, we could believe that part of her issue here is the liberty of guns vs. the glamorization and advocacy of guns. Hopefully she does fully believe in the 2nd Amendment and a "shall not be infringed" interpretation. I think we can agree that Massie was engaging in both a "shall not be infringed" interpretation, plus a bit of hobbyist enthusiasm for guns.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

https://twitter.com/realTJRoberts/status/1490793512249536514

I'd like to respond to this:

I know Thomas to be a very decent person who wants the absolute best for anyone in the world and his Christmas card was not appreciated by everyone I forwarded it to. That doesn't change the fact that it's always good to show what you are proud of and to show what you believe and know to be normal. As soon as you stop being proud of who you are and what you believe, it will become less normal, then it will become fringe and before you know it, it will be illegal.

I'm not very fast in calling for these things, but, she should resign. I have no idea why someone spouting such language would be in a liberty organisation. I don't see any actual empathy in it either, it's only strategy. Whereas 'we' should care about the principles and truth in this world, and find ways to make the image better or to change peoples views. Not to bow down to public culture and water down our ideals.

I'm really ashamed by this. I've been supporting Ron Paul and likeminded individuals such as Massie in whatever capacity I could reasonably offer being a foreigner... But this hurts, coming from an organisation so close to the ideals of Ron.

Truly shameful.

Lucky.

P.S. Nuances do matter but sometimes you just have to say; This is who we are, we stand by it, fuck you and if you disagree, we'll talk about it, thank you. That's the only real freedom there is. Defend it with everything you have because there's no other fucking place to run to anymore. Thanks.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

I'd add that there is always there is always a struggle between advocating for liberty and freedom, and advocating for the things that are done under liberty.

The best example would be drug decriminalization. Dr. Ron Paul would fully endorse decriminalization of most drugs, but he would never endorse or celebrate their recreational use.

So if we give Lauren Daugherty some leeway here, we could believe that part of her issue here is the liberty of guns vs. the glamorization and advocacy of guns. Hopefully she does fully believe in the 2nd Amendment and a "shall not be infringed" interpretation. I think we can agree that Massie was engaging in both a "shall not be infringed" interpretation, plus a bit of hobbyist enthusiasm for guns.

We don't have to agree on anything.

Does Massie have a right to do what he's doing ? Yes, then we support his right to do so, even if we don't like it. Period.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Persuasion is a waste of time. You have lost the moment you concede that you must persuade your enemies of anything.

The enemies of liberty will not be persuaded by any messaging, no matter how artful it may be.

Massie's "message" is one of bold declaration, not coy persuasion - and we need more of that, not less.

We sure has hell don't need more namby-pamby "but, but, think about how other people might interpret it" blather.

So long as other people "interpret" it as a clear "go to hell" to the gun-grabbers, that is all that is needed.

Anything else beyond that (such as anyone being "persuaded") is just a bonus.

Outstanding.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

We don't have to agree on anything.

No, you don't have to agree on anything. But the only reason I used that word is that there is no question that Thomas and family were displaying their collection. This is more of a fact than anything you need to "agree" with.

Does Massie have a right to do what he's doing ? Yes, then we support his right to do so, even if we don't like it. Period.

I don't believe that anyone has said that Massie doesn't have a right to send out that picture, even Lauren Daugherty.

I support his pic, and like it at the same time. I have no problem with it. I'd go out shooting with him.

 

[devil21]

Oh look, another org co-opted by the CFR. This is what spawned from the tossing out of the old YAL leadership structure in the wake of their #MeToo scandal a while back. Power and leadership vacuum was left and obvious globalist plants like Daugherty and Steinhauser installed. All you have to do is look at the Wiki for that Institute of World Politics. Total CFR-MIC-INTEL group. Ah well, twas fun while it lasted I guess. 14 years ain't a bad run. Hopefully their young volunteers see through leadership's fakery and adhere to the organization's founding principles instead of becoming foot soldiers for neocon globalists.

(eta: having hard time confirming Steinhauser as a YAL employee so that may be FUD. Fwiw, I heard directly from internal YAL staff previously that the co-opting by fake libertarians like the Kochs had been ongoing for a while.)

 

[TheCount]

Persuasion is a waste of time. You have lost the moment you concede that you must persuade your enemies of anything.

The enemies of liberty will not be persuaded by any messaging, no matter how artful it may be.

How did they become the enemies of liberty?

 

[acptulsa]

How did they become the enemies of liberty?

Is this a psychological question? Or do you mean, what makes him think they are?

 

[Occam's Banana]

How did they become the enemies of liberty?

By adopting, defending, supporting, and implementing anti-liberty positions rather than pro-liberty ones.

They cannot have been "persuaded" by someone else into doing so despite their own presuppositions (and/or sensibilities, inclinations, temperament, self-interest, etc.), but only because of them.[1]

And the same is true of those who adopt, defend, support, and implement pro-liberty positions rather than anti-liberty ones.

The only person who can "persuade" you of anything is you. Everything else is just grist for the mill, to be ground as you see fit (if at all).



[1] Otherwise, who "persuaded" the "persuaders"? And who "persuaded" them? And who "persuaded" them? And so on ad infinitum ...

 

[Okie RP fan]

I actually think she has a point in her email. Messaging is important and the art of persuasion, you have to think about how other people interpret your messaging.

This is all great and fine and applies to... 2007. Or 2012. Or even 2016.

Not in 2022.

We're done with persuasion at this point. The war is being waged. If our spheres, such as YAL, are doing stuff like this, then they need to be cast away OR TAKEN BACK OVER BY OUR TYPES.

Liberty folks, by nature, don't like taking over things; we don't like force, etc. Unfortunately, that has led us all to being bent over the table and gagged and here we are.

It's time to get mean about this stuff.

 

[CaptUSA]

This is all great and fine and applies to... 2007. Or 2012. Or even 2016.

Not in 2022.

We're done with persuasion at this point. The war is being waged. If our spheres, such as YAL, are doing stuff like this, then they need to be cast away OR TAKEN BACK OVER BY OUR TYPES.

Liberty folks, by nature, don't like taking over things; we don't like force, etc. Unfortunately, that has led us all to being bent over the table and gagged and here we are.

It's time to get mean about this stuff.

I would argue that it's time to unify over principles rather than divide our ranks even further over messaging. The simple principle that the government has overreached and is clinging to this stolen power is unifying and has broad-based appeal. Let's stop taking shots at each other over how we're talking about things. Let them use their messaging technique and we can use ours. Hell, even Jimmy Dore, Bill Maher, and Russell Brand are helping the cause. I don't agree with any of them on their points of view, but they can speak to people who won't listen to us.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Rather disappointed. Hopefully the people that are pushing wokeness and neoconservatism will be pushed out of the organization.

 

[TheTexan]

I would argue that it's time to unify over principles rather than divide our ranks even further over messaging. The simple principle that the government has overreached and is clinging to this stolen power is unifying and has broad-based appeal. Let's stop taking shots at each other over how we're talking about things. Let them use their messaging technique and we can use ours. Hell, even Jimmy Dore, Bill Maher, and Russell Brand are helping the cause. I don't agree with any of them on their points of view, but they can speak to people who won't listen to us.

Unifying over principles is an absolute non-starter. Give me one time in history where people united over principles. It's probably 0.

Unifying over a common cause? That is more reasonable.

Unifying over a common enemy? This is historically most common.

But principles? Pretty much never.

We need to separate. And the only way that happens is if people get angry.

So let people get angry. Fuel their rage, on both sides.

Piss people off. And do not apologize for it.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Unifying over principles is an absolute non-starter. Give me one time in history where people united over principles. It's probably 0.

Unifying over a common cause? That is more reasonable.

Unifying over a common enemy? This is historically most common.

But principles? Pretty much never.

We need to separate. And the only way that happens is if people get angry.

So let people get angry. Fuel their rage, on both sides.

Piss people off. And do not apologize for it.

CNN and the MSM for the past 20 years:

We need to separate division. And the only way that happens is if people get angry.

So let people get angry. Fuel their rage, on both sides.

 

[TheTexan]

CNN and the MSM for the past 20 years:

On that, I consider them an ally, as I am in complete agreement.

Keep in mind - that the more that this country is divided into two, the more united each side becomes.

Division builds unity.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I would argue that it's time to unify over principles rather than divide our ranks even further over messaging. The simple principle that the government has overreached and is clinging to this stolen power is unifying and has broad-based appeal. Let's stop taking shots at each other over how we're talking about things. Let them use their messaging technique and we can use ours. Hell, even Jimmy Dore, Bill Maher, and Russell Brand are helping the cause. I don't agree with any of them on their points of view, but they can speak to people who won't listen to us.

In Lauren's memo about Massie's photo, she states that "given that we are in the business of advocating for the 2nd Amendment".

Not sure whether that sounds like commitment to a principle, or a business direction that could be changed at any time.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

On that, I consider them an ally, as I am in complete agreement.

Keep in mind - that the more that this country is divided into two, the more united each side becomes.

Division builds unity.

"Division builds unity."

"War is Peace".