Some Observations on the Claira Janover Fiasco, Cancel Culture & Sociopolitical Polarization

For those who don't know who Claira Janover is and have not yet seen her videos which have garnered international attention I recommend you watch Viva Frie's (mostly correct) commentary on the situation on @Bitchute here. 

1)  Despite her later attempts to say she was only joking.  Neither her tone, her phrasing (including a racial slur against white people), nor the broader social context (of rioting and looting being the excused by many people because of the sociopolitical issues she's talking about) in which she placed herself and her statements in the video, in anyway indicate that she was speaking metaphorically, hypothetically, or theoretically.  With her syntax, vocal tone, and aggressive gestures she threatened politically motivated violence.  US law defines violence committed with the intent of forcing political change as terrorism.  It is disingenuous or idiotic to attempt to maintain that she shouldn't get fired for saying she was going to start committing terrorism every time she hears a phrase she doesn't like.

2)  Perhaps this is trivial but in my opinion her body language, in particular her facial expressions, in her video crying about her "firing" from her short term internship just scream that her reaction is fake and staged, and utterly fail to conceal the pleasure at the pile of new victim cred and virtue points she just wracked up.

3) Almost daily one or more of the sociopolitical commentators l follow online decries Cancel Culture and says that people shouldn't be getting fired for politics and jokes (as Viva Frie does in the link above).  While I respect their ability to agree-to-disagree and willingness to find common ground and work along side people they disagree with about many things, I have to disagree most strongly that we can or should cancel Cancel Culture.  One of the very few things the Marxist "Progressive" Left is correct about (though as always they unevenly apply the use of this cudgel in their sociopolitical power games) is that Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from social consequences, only freedom from government persecution.  This is because Natural Rights always supersede Civil Rights, and the Natural Right of Self-Ownership encompasses the Natural Right to own our labor and the proceeds of it, and our Natural Right of Freedom of Association, and that means that we have the Natural Right to discriminate against anyone we want to, for any reason we want to, any time we want. However morally repugnant any individual or society at large may find any particular act of discrimination the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all other "civil rights" laws that prevent discrimination based on race, religion, sex, and sexuality, etc are all violations of our Natural Rights.  People have a Right to self-sort as "birds of a feather" according to any combination of characteristics they so choose, and that includes the freedom to exclude people from your in-group just as much as the freedom to self-select to join any particular in-groups which is willing to take you into their midst.

I personally think racism and many other human behaviors are both stupid and morally wrong, and therefore harmful to the individual practicing it as well as society as a whole, but the philosophy of Natural Law our nation and its system of (supposedly) limited government was founded on - which states that the purpose of government is to protect our Natural Rights from bullies who would claim 'might is right' and trample out rights with their greater wealth and power by bringing justice to those who dare to so aggress against others' rights - clearly shows that no matter how many other people in our broader society agree with me that racism is repugnant, we have no authority to violate the Natural Rights of racists by legally prohibiting them from having racist company policies, and likewise Progressives/Marxists running some employee owned co-op should not be prevented by law from firing or refusing to hire an avowed Objectivist Libertarian who believes Black Markets are the only true Free Markets, and Radical Centrists and Classical Liberals should be free to attempt to have a company where people of any political or religious ideology are encouraged to work side by side towards a (supposedly) common apolitical goal.  It is only obvious sense that if you hate the Second Amendment and advocate for the banning of all guns you shouldn't think you have a right to be given a job by the owners and management of Smith & Wesson or Black Rifle Coffee Co. (because they may have to worry about you sabotaging their operations for political reasons), just as someone who hates the idea of gay marriage shouldn't think they have a right to be given a job by the owners of a gay bar or Ben & Jerry's. 

If an employment agreement is an "at will" relationship which can be terminated by either party at any time because the agreement does not contractually obligate a continuance of that business relationship for a specified duration of time, then firing someone from your business because they express ideas with which you disagree, or because they participate in a social movement which you find repulsive, with is your Natural Right and should not be prevented by so-called Civil Rights laws, however rude or unkind broader society may judge that firing to be.