Harvard Shames Women With Endorsement Of Sexist Austin Petersen’s US Senate Campaign

in Politics by
   

Any young woman who has organized conservatives or libertarians on campus can tell you first hand that sexism is a lingering problem. Dealing with young males emboldened by this toxic culture is hard enough, but leadership figures exhibiting blatant misogyny is over the line. And it is what I experienced first hand from perpetual candidate Austin Petersen.

Petersen is running a Republican campaign for the U.S. Senate in Missouri right now, and I was never expecting him to gain much traction. That is what was so shocking about seeing the Harvard Political Review, of all places, essentially endorsing Austin Petersen’s candidacy for the U.S. Senate as the way to “Make Libertarianism Cool Again.”

“Petersen is neither stuffy nor old. In an age of increasing polarization between two parties, he has a serious shot at making libertarianism appealing,” Laura Nicolae wrote in the Harvard Political Review. “His centrist positions could strike a balance between the parties, providing a voice of reason in the senate that motivates Americans to vote for compromises they support, rather than against candidates they oppose.”

Petersen may seem vaguely passable reading prepared talking points from a script, but the facade breaks down from there. Any woman who has been subject to his direct messages over social media know exactly what kind of creep this man is. As evidenced from his deceptive profile on a quasi-prostitution website, Petersen is not above misleading women for the purposes of manipulating them into his bedroom.

During my time working directly with Petersen, he stated frequently that he was devoted to building the Libertarian Party for the long haul. He said he wanted to help Libertarian Party activists build something for the future. He lied to all of our faces, and then proceeded to harass the few women involved in the operation. Boundaries are not something that Petersen is known to respect, and his own words show that clearly.

Petersen also appeared on a podcast with the shameful white supremacist jailbird, Christopher Cantwell, to discuss libertarianism and women. The fact that Petersen would associate with a man this disreputable is bad enough. But somehow over the course of the exchange, Cantwell sounded like the moderate voice of reason comparatively to Petersen, who displayed a sickening amount of disdain and contempt toward the opposite sex.

“You know, Christopher, all the time I get women sending me naked photos, they do it so voluntarily and immediately and it does strike me as a little bit strange,” Petersen said to Cantwell. He would later boast to Cantwell that he “could not even approach one quarter of the pyramid pile of p-ssy that I swim in on a regular basis, and it is because I have class, motherf-cker!”

Is this a man who represents the values of Harvard University? The Harvard Political Review needs to do a better job of vetting the individuals they promote through their publication. The fact that someone like Petersen was practically endorsed by the publication is unacceptable. They should retract this article, inform their readers about Petersen’s true character, and be far more careful in what they choose to publish in the future. Unless they want people to think that their organization supports intolerance.

NOTE: The author wrote this article under a pseudonym, fearing reprisal from Petersen and his army of online trolls for publishing this testimony.

  • This is an unfair attack. You are criticizing him for appearing or calling into Cantwell’s show, but you’re leaving out the fact that he did so prior to Chris becoming a white nationalist which only happened recently.
    This is very unfair.

    • Zigman

      Their is nothing Pro-Liberty or Conservative about this site.

  • The Liberty Conservative is still as reprehensible as we are!

  • Who cares? Not me.

  • “During my time working directly with Petersen, he stated frequently that he was devoted to building the Libertarian Party for the long haul. He said he wanted to help Libertarian Party activists build something for the future. He lied to all of our faces.”

    There it is, this is what this is really about.

    • He also has sexually harassed women on multiple occasions. It got so bad that there is a fb group with 70-100 women that have been on the receiving end but when they come forward with screen shots, their met with hostility from his “ninjas”

  • Jonathan Hart

    The GOP and DNC may be awful people, but when it comes down to it, they support their guys, however awful those people are. Petersen is a huge advocate for liberty, yet he’s not who the LP or GOP want him to be.

    Then again, listen to Sarwark talk about his target audience on the Jason Stapleton Program. It’s very clear that the Libertarian Party is moving slowly to the left in the sense that they reject those who they naturally agree with (since many right-leaning individuals hold some form of liberty as a primary value) and try to conform to those that they don’t, altering their support to incorporate that shift.

    As for this site, attacking a liberty minded candidate is shameful in of itself. It uses the fact that he appeared on a white nationalist podcast as it’s primary evidence, which makes zero sense as he clearly isn’t a white nationalist. In addition, the link to his “sexist webpage” is faulty evidence at best. Any sucker could create a page on that site, find some photos on the internet, and say it’s Petersen. To claim it’s “verifiably him” based on an “anonymous source” it bulls**t. I could claim half a dozen things about people based on an “anonymous source” if I wanted. That make it true? For all I know, that “anonymous source” could be this site itself. Until they are willing to give more information on the verifiability of their claims, this logic is clearly flawed at best, and untrue at the worst.

    For a site called “The Liberty Conservative”, you are fairly narrow-minded in your thinking, and have problems understanding basic logical conclusions, instead opting of “muh feelz” over overwhelming logic that Petersen is pro-liberty. Source?

    “During my time working directly with Petersen, he stated frequently that he was devoted to building the Libertarian Party for the long haul. He said he wanted to help Libertarian Party activists build something for the future. He lied to all of our faces, and then proceeded to harass the few women involved in the operation. Boundaries are not something that Petersen is known to respect, and his own words show that clearly.”

    First, to point out, there is no actual “source” here. The only “verifiable” thing is that Petersen said he wanted to build the LP. Then we have Sarwark bashing Mises, Tom Woods, and a few other people and it becomes painfully clear why Petersen was fed up, on top of the fact that the LP consistently dismissed Petersen as “child-like” and “immature” (as made clear by this article, among others). The second thing is the claim that he “harassed a few women in the operation”. Where is the source for this? What this dude says? It’s clear he is biased against Petersen from the get-go, so it’s not a very reliable source. You can’t make a claim and use yourself as the only evidence – any law major understands this (in fact, anyone _should_ understand this).

    Lastly: “NOTE: The author wrote this article under a pseudonym, fearing reprisal from Petersen and his army of online trolls for publishing this testimony”. What kind of “fear” is he worried about? A real man or woman with actual information would not have a fear of “internet trolls” as “internet trolls” can be turned of by clicking the power button on a computer or phone. So not only is the source anonymous, the author is as well. Those two facts along put up some serious red flags.

    All in all, to conclude, this whole argument is BS. I could go on, but I think my point is clear, though if anyone is confused, I have plenty more to respond with.

    In addition, here are a couple sources for the statement that many in the LP made fun of AP:
    * https://alibertarianfuture.com/famous-libertarians/libertarian-candidates/libertarians-for-trump-walter-block-retracted-endorsement-austin-petersen/
    * https://alibertarianfuture.com/big-government/propaganda/glenn-becks-office-confirms-not-endorsed-austin-petersen/

  • What a load of typical leftist, utopian horseshit.

  • This is bull

  • CaptainJim

    You can’t call someone a sexist without providing evidence. Your vitriol is illuminating.

  • June Genis

    If “Shawna” is a pseudonym might “she” actually be a he? Petersen was not my first choice for the LP presidential nomination but this piece is pure slander and guilt by association. It is further evidence that the main purpose of the the Liberty Conservative is to promote conservatism over libertarianism.

  • Jonathan Hart

    EDIT: My original version of this was removed by someone who has permission to remove comments. For someone who values “liberty” they clearly are closed-minded to opposing viewpoints.

    The GOP and DNC may be awful people, but when it comes down to it, they support their guys, however awful those people are. Petersen is a huge advocate for liberty, yet he’s not who the LP or GOP want him to be.

    Then again, listen to Sarwark talk about his target audience on the Jason Stapleton Program. It’s very clear that the Libertarian Party is moving slowly to the left in the sense that they reject those who they naturally agree with (since many right-leaning individuals hold some form of liberty as a primary value) and try to conform to those that they don’t, altering their support to incorporate that shift.

    As for this site, attacking a liberty minded candidate is shameful in of itself. It uses the fact that he appeared on a white nationalist podcast as it’s primary evidence, which makes zero sense as he clearly isn’t a white nationalist. In addition, the link to his “sexist webpage” is faulty evidence at best. Any sucker could create a page on that site, find some photos on the internet, and say it’s Petersen. To claim it’s “verifiably him” based on an “anonymous source” it bulls**t. I could claim half a dozen things about people based on an “anonymous source” if I wanted. That make it true? For all I know, that “anonymous source” could be this site itself. Until they are willing to give more information on the verifiability of their claims, this logic is clearly flawed at best, and untrue at the worst.

    For a site called “The Liberty Conservative”, you are fairly narrow-minded in your thinking, and have problems understanding basic logical conclusions, instead opting of “muh feelz” over overwhelming logic that Petersen is pro-liberty. Source?

    “During my time working directly with Petersen, he stated frequently that he was devoted to building the Libertarian Party for the long haul. He said he wanted to help Libertarian Party activists build something for the future. He lied to all of our faces, and then proceeded to harass the few women involved in the operation. Boundaries are not something that Petersen is known to respect, and his own words show that clearly.”

    First, to point out, there is no actual “source” here. The only “verifiable” thing is that Petersen said he wanted to build the LP. Then we have Sarwark bashing Mises, Tom Woods, and a few other people and it becomes painfully clear why Petersen was fed up, on top of the fact that the LP consistently dismissed Petersen as “child-like” and “immature” (as made clear by this article, among others). The second thing is the claim that he “harassed a few women in the operation”. Where is the source for this? What this dude says? It’s clear he is biased against Petersen from the get-go, so it’s not a very reliable source. You can’t make a claim and use yourself as the only evidence – any law major understands this (in fact, anyone _should_ understand this).

    Lastly: “NOTE: The author wrote this article under a pseudonym, fearing reprisal from Petersen and his army of online trolls for publishing this testimony”. What kind of “fear” is he worried about? A real man or woman with actual information would not have a fear of “internet trolls” as “internet trolls” can be turned of by clicking the power button on a computer or phone. So not only is the source anonymous, the author is as well. Those two facts along put up some serious red flags.

    All in all, to conclude, this whole argument is BS. I could go on, but I think my point is clear, though if anyone is confused, I have plenty more to respond with.

    In addition, here are a couple sources for the statement that many in the LP made fun of AP:

    * https://alibertarianfuture.com/famous-libertarians/libertarian-candidates/libertarians-for-trump-walter-block-retracted-endorsement-austin-petersen/

    * https://alibertarianfuture.com/big-government/propaganda/glenn-becks-office-confirms-not-endorsed-austin-petersen/

  • Dallas Sampsel

    This site has to be controlled opposition. A hit piece on Petersen using leftist talking points about toxicity and leftist tactics like guilt-by association.

Latest from Politics

Go to Top

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox. 

Send this to a friend