Ann Barnhardt
December 11, 2012
JESSE POWELL writes:
The persona of Ann Barnhardt has always grated on me. It always seems aggressive and hyper-masculine, way more manly than any man actually is. When I see her in action I always think, “Why is a woman behaving this way, it should be a man instead, why does this culture always seem to produce aggressive women with men in the shadows?” Well, it seems like Ann Barnhardt completely agrees with me on the incongruity of her role as tax evader and resister. She agrees men would be better at it.
In this interview, she states:
The thing that I would hope for and what this nation needs is that it needs a man! It needs a Man stepping up and doing this. I can only take it so far, I can only be a masculine example to a certain extent. There’s only so much that a woman can ever do in that role and it’s always going to fall short and it’s always going to be incomplete. What this culture desperately desperately desperately needs is Men who would act like men. And, you know, pray for that, pray for that because that will be the only salvation. People are saying “Oh, just turn the whole thing over to the women, the women are the only ones standing up for anything.” No, that’s not going to work, that’s not good enough, because you Have to Have masculinity in a culture. Authentic masculinity. I don’t want to say that my masculinity is a faux masculinity, it’s just incomplete. It can never be, it can never be a full masculinity. Boys and men need to see other men acting like men. They don’t need to see an endless stream of Women acting like men, that’s totally disordered!
—- Comments —
Laura writes:
Aside from being brave in her actions, Barnhardt can be refreshingly to the point in her blog posts. See her latest Dec. 9 post on homosexuality at her site.
Terry Morris writes:
One needs to realize that Miss Barnhardt is full of bull to a certain extent. For example, she often claims that she fully expects to be living out of her car in short order. But she won’t be living out of her car unless it is by her own choice. If we are to take her at her word, she has no friends or family to turn to in the event the federal government siezes her home. While that is not utterly outside the realm of possibility, I very highly doubt it to be truth.
I therefore conclude she’s full of it on that particular point. I also believe her in-your-face style is a chosen, conscious strategy to place herself in a position of strength against the federal government. I agree that she is brave. She is also smart.
Buck writes:
Mr. Morris asserts that “Miss Barnhardt is full of bull to a certain extent.” Why only to “a certain extent”? Everyone must be full of bull to a certain extent. Ann Barnhardt doesn’t mince words. Mr. Morris, “to a certain extent,” does. He claims that she won’t do it; “Unless it is by her own choice,” “While that is not utterly outside the realm of possibility” he doubts it – “on that particular point.”
Mr. Morris then asserts that Ann Barnhardt consciously chooses to take a strong stand against the federal government, as if that was a question and not HER OBJECTIVE.
She is either lying or she is telling the truth.
Mr. Morris presents no evidence that she is not telling the truth, that she will betray her stated intentions and commitment. What evidence is there that proves what Ann Barnhardt expects or would accept from whatever friends and family she may or may not have, or intends to turn to, except for what she may have said? Making dismissive speculations while offering nothing of substance is ad hominem fallacious. What has Ann Barnhardt said or done and then backed away from? If Ann Barnhardt is a fraud, I’d like to see some evidence. If she is a fraud, obviously we’ll learn about it eventually. Why denigrate this remarkable woman now? No one. NO ONE else is putting their money where their mouth is.
Laura writes:
I’m not sure what Mr. Morris means when he points out that Barnhardt’s in-your-face style is a conscious choice. Of course, it is a conscious choice. Isn’t that the whole point?
As for Buck’s comment, I would agree with Mr. Morris that Barnhardt is probably exaggerating when she says she will be living out of her car. I don’t think this exaggeration discredits her.
I am not a close follower of Barnhardt’s public statements, but I admire her courage. I emphatically disagree with Buck’s comment, however, that she is the only one putting her money where her mouth is. Many people make serious financial sacrifices to live outside the mainstream and to resist it.
Buck writes:
By “putting their money where their mouth is,” I mean all of it. She, if she’s not lying, is pledging her life, her freedom and her fortune – all of it. She’s not just making a serious financial sacrifice to live outside the mainstream and to resist it, she’s pledged to go to jail or to die. I know of no one who is doing that.
Mr. Morris writes:
I take it Buck has misunderstood me, and perhaps you too. My point about her “in-your-face” style is that I think she is purposely drawing a lot of attention to herself in part because doing so, to my way of thinking, has the potential of protecting her from having to serve prison time for tax evasion. If she’s as smart as I give her credit for, there is a method to her madness that perhaps people aren’t seeing. Indeed, she has said on her site that the best way to fight an enemy is to neutralize his strengths and exploit his weaknesses, albeit in another context (her staunch opposition to Islamism), but it nonetheless applies all around.
As far as Buck’s disapproving comments go, I was simply pointing out what is fairly obvious to me, namely, and as you put it, that she is probably exaggerating when it comes to this idea that she expects to be living out of her car in the not-too-distant future. She has said that in spite of her closing her business she is still generating income (see her latest video). I take her at her word on that. But I’m still wondering why she would be relegated to living out of her car in any event. I’m just not seeing it, given the reasons I’ve already stated, and regardless of whether she is still generating income or not. (I might very well lose my house, but I won’t be relegated to living out of my vehicle as a result, I can assure you of that.) But in any case I wasn’t trying to discredit her. My opinion is that she shouldn’t be making these claims about being forced to live out of her car because they appear to me to be a little dishonest, which can do nothing but harm her credibility.
But I support what she is doing, and hold her in high regard. And in point of fact, if you truly hold someone in high esteem, why wouldn’t you be critical of that person when you believe they are discrediting themselves? As I wrote to Mr. Auster the other day, I think she’s right on principle, but a little too unforgiving towards others whose circumstances she does not share. I doubt that she would be so apparently eager to go to prison if she had a family to think about. But perhaps I’m wrong about that …
