A Running Joke Named Paul Stanton

Publisher’s Note: The following is an excerpt from Chapter VIII of Set the World on Fire, which will be published 12 August 2017.

 

The day before the Miami event, I was watching the news while writing and doing laundry. I witnessed that afternoon the most absurd “news” story I had ever seen on television: transsexuals were suing the State of North Carolina over bathroom access. That same afternoon, I was being filled in on the previous day’s announcement speech by my new opponent in the Senate race. Enter Paul Anthony Stanton.

 

His announcement speech copied two of my three main planks, took aim at non-existent eugenics programs in the United States, and declared Stanton as the “peace candidate.” I was convinced that this must be some kind of lame joke. I did not yet understand the depths to which the üntermenschen were willing to go. Immediately I penned a Fireside Chat that I broadcast that night from Miami:

 

FIRESIDE CHAT ON THE PRIMARY

08 MAY 2016

 

“Politics is a contact sport.”

– Charl-Lez Braden

 

Good evening, friends, and greetings from Fort Lauderdale. I am taking a break from the Florida speaking tour in order to discuss with you the first Libertarian primary for the United States Senate in Floridian history. I hope you will all join me in welcoming Mr. Paul Anthony Stanton as my opponent in this race.

 

Mr. Stanton announced his candidacy yesterday at a caucus of the Sixth Region of the Libertarian Party of Florida. There are three things in his announcement speech that should be noted:

 

First, Mr. Stanton declared his desire to end the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. These are two of the three main planks of my own platform, the third being the resolution of the financial crisis we face as a nation. On the one hand, this is fitting, as these are indeed two major points of the official Libertarian platform. On the other hand, it is illustrative of Mr. Stanton‘s failure to research his opponent‘s campaign before entering this race on a whim.

 

The willful ignorance of my platform that a certain clique of Libertarians shares is testament to the laziness of the modern political activist. And while this may be excusable in our fellow Party members at large, it is not for Mr. Stanton, who is now seeking one of the highest offices in the land.

 

My platform is on the campaign website for all to see and has been for a solid year now. You can read it for yourself at invictusforsenate.com. I have said in countless speeches and interviews that the three main planks of my platform are ending the War on Drugs, implementing a noninterventionist foreign policy, and fixing the financial crisis. I have even given full-length speeches on each of these three issues. But did Mr. Stanton think to research this before entering the race and trying to differentiate himself from our campaign by focusing on the same issues? Apparently not.

 

The second thing that should be noted about Mr. Stanton‘s announcement speech is that he said he wanted to end eugenics programs in the United States. This attempt at differentiation, again, demonstrates his total ignorance of his opponent‘s campaign, as I have repeatedly stated that I do not advocate state-sponsored eugenics programs. But far more importantly, it demonstrates his total ignorance of the American legal system. The fact is that there are no eugenics programs at the federal level. So God only knows what bogeyman it is that Mr. Stanton here seeks to fight as a candidate for the United States Senate.

 

The third thing to mention about yesterday‘s announcement is that Mr. Stanton called himself “the peace candidate,” citing his Army record and the horrors of war. While I thank Mr. Stanton for his service, I am obliged to point out the asininity of trying to make a not-so-subtle attempt at labeling me a warmonger.

 

Again, had Mr. Stanton paid any attention at all to his opponent‘s campaign, he might have noticed that I have consistently advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy and have outright condemned war that is waged for any other reason than that it directly affects the interests of the American people. My only talk of war has been of self-defense against the Federal Government, which has been, for four decades now, waging a literal war against the American people.

 

But perhaps Mr. Stanton can take a better shot at me later this month at the National Convention of the Libertarian Party, which will be held in my hometown of Orlando, Florida.

 

Mr. Stanton, please consider this a formal invitation to debate me at the Convention. Then, in front of God and everyone, you can explain why you are crusading to end non-existent eugenics programs and why you advocate the slavery of the American people to the Federal Government.

 

Welcome to the race, Mr. Stanton. I do hope that between now and your next speech you will take the time to actually familiarize yourself with my campaign instead of taking cheap shots rooted in yellow journalism. And I do look forward to the coming debate, assuming you have the dignity to accept the invitation.

 

Thus opened the first statewide Libertarian primary in Floridian history. The shameful spectacle that would unfold over the ensuing four months is a disgrace for all time to the Libertarian Party and to everyone who supported my opponent. In this chapter and the next, I will attempt to tell this story as cleanly as possible, which means omitting the thousands of stupid, childish messages and comments that comprised Stanton’s campaign. I doubt the Reader will ever be able to comprehend the juvenile antics, the cowardly dodges, or the disgusting slander to which Libertarians nationwide bore witness in that circus. But one thing will be clear: “disgrace” is not strong enough a word for the mockery these rodents wrought upon the national stage.

 

At the time, I could not possibly know just how fitting it was to learn of the transsexual bathroom issue on the news the same day I learned the content of Paul Stanton’s speech. Who could possibly have predicted that trannies choosing their bathrooms would become the next fraud of a civil rights movement? And who could possibly have predicted the sort of soyboy closet case the Libertarian Party of Florida would dig up to run against me? Later on, members of Stanton’s campaign team would whisper that he never seemed more at home than when campaigning at the gay pride parades.

 

Throughout the primary, Stanton and his supporters adopted the Antifa “No Platform” position as justification for his refusal to debate me.[1] In fact – and history vindicates me on this point – the reason he would not debate is that nothing would end his campaign as quickly as the world seeing us side-by-side.

 

Stanton was the opposite of me in every conceivable way. Stanton was a boy, unmarried, with no children, no profession. He had never owned a business, never had any leadership training or experience whatsoever. He was a fat, unhygienic slob who could not speak with confidence to save his life. Being unintelligent, uneducated, untrained, and unpresentable, it is no wonder his puppet master insisted that he be kept well clear of standing side-by-side with me on a stage in front of cameras.

 

But perhaps the most important point of distinction between us was how we each evoked the hostility of others. Obviously I had uncountable enemies. People who knew nothing about me but my name and the unkind words of an acquaintance wanted me dead. My mere existence created hostility because the message I spoke drove people to panic. In contrast, Stanton created hostility by his actual treatment of others. Many, many people who supported Stanton simply because they hated me started abandoning the Senate race altogether when they actually had to deal with their knight in shining armor.

 

In many more cases, his supporters outright jumped ship when they met me in person and realized that everything he had said about me was a lie. One member of his campaign team quit when she realized the character of the scumbag she was working for. She then called me to tell me that she wanted no part in the disgusting things they were doing. This became a pattern throughout the primary, with several people who hated everything I had to say going so far as to apologize to me for having been part of that farce.

 

Unfortunately, many others did not see through Stanton and his team until after the election. It was then he showed his true colors, when he continued to slander me with obvious lies long after the campaign was over, and began to attack others with the same nonsense. And aside from the people involved in the campaigns, the average Libertarian voter was either unaware of or uninterested in the several attempts by my enemies to rig the primary.

________________________________________________________________________________

[1] For those unfamiliar with Antifa tactics, this means that they give “No Platform” to Fascists. In other words, anyone accused of being a Fascist must be deplatformed: their speeches, appearances, writings, etc. must be shut down and removed from the public sphere by any means necessary. When a believer in the marketplace of ideas says, “We should debate Fascists so that we can demonstrate how bankrupt their ideology is,” the Antifa response is “No Platform for Fascists” – because no good could possibly come from entertaining such ideas.

Augustus Invictus
​Augustus Invictus is a jurist, writer, and political activist in Orlando, Florida. Publisher of The Revolutionary Conservative and Managing Partner of his law practice, Invictus is a right-wing libertarian and a member of the Republican Party. In 2016 he ran for the United States Senate in Florida as a Libertarian, and he is a former Chair of the Libertarian Party of Orange County.

Invictus earned his B.A. in Philosophy at the University of South Florida in Tampa and his J.D. at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago. Returning to his hometown of Orlando, he studied leadership at Rollins Crummer Graduate School of Business.

A Southerner and a father of eight children, Invictus contends that revolutionary conservatism requires a shift in perspective from the exaltation of abstract ideologies to a focus on our families and communities.