The ballad of John McAfee

Just today I came across a post from defeated Libertarian presidential candidate John McAfee via Facebook. The substance of the post is as shown below.

People are confused about about why I said ‘Shame on us” at my concession speech at the Libertarian Convention. It is simple:

If the Party’s actions matched their words, even remotely, then it would not be composed of 99.7% whites, and nearly 80% men. Yes. Shame on you LP! Shame on you! And shame on those who perpetrate this abject offense against humanity and those who support them. Stop just talking the talk. Start walking the walk. I will shine my light on your darkest corners. And, be warned, nothing will escape my light.

I can’t help but feel McAfee is taking the piss. Seriously, is he actually implicating the Libertarian Party of discrimination, or does it not occur to him that those percentages likely just reflect that most of the people who chose to join the Libertarian Party happen to be mostly white and/or male? Either way, the language seems to imply that McAfee is calling for enforcing diversity within the Libertarian Party’s ranks. In my opinion, this betrays a party that would oppose things like enforced diversity, affirmative action, and quotas because those are attempts by the state to unfairly level the playing field in order to achieve equality of outcome at the expense of meritocracy. Not only that, but it smacks of progressive social justice logic. I can’t help but wonder why McAfee would consider this sort of thing, this thing which smacks of the same progressive identity politics that would be adopted by the likes Hillary Clinton.

And there’s another dimension to this. What’s this talk of McAfee’s “light” coming soon, with nothing escaping it? Does he intend to be some kind of messiah or something. It’s clear that John McAfee is upset that he didn’t get nominated as the Libertarian presidential candidate and that he does not support the nominee Gary Johnson. When he was asked what who he would support, he said he would support himself, which seems to imply he might run as an independent candidate. When asked if he was running as an independent candidate, he said that “running” was being redefined, which to me still seemed like he had ambitions of his own after the Libertarian primaries. Honestly, I am deeply suspicious of McAfee’s ambitions at least from his rhetoric on the matter. I can’t help but wonder if he is simply a bad loser – unwilling to accept that the Libertarian party chose a guy that wasn’t him. And this talk of a revolution and a new world seems about as hyperbolic and emotive as Bernie Sanders’ talk of a political revolution, and look how quickly his “revolution” has failed.


2 responses to “The ballad of John McAfee

  1. I don’t know much about this, but I agree – if he’s going on that quotas identity politics stuff, then he is essentially illiberal, and should really know better

    • I don’t get why he supports it, considering that from what I’ve seen in the debate he’s as much in favor of economic freedom from government interference as Gary Johnson and Austin Petersen.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s