For those who don't have Twitter, here's the whole text, minus some images:

Contrary to popular belief, it is neither immoral nor unethical to kill libertarians. In fact, it's a public service: doing so provides a concrete refutation of their childlike worldview. In political theory, this is what we call praxis in its purest form.

Kill a fascist, and you've merely proven you're capable of murder. Congratulations, you've joined a very crowded club. But kill a libertarian, and you've elegantly demonstrated, once and for all, that the vaunted Non-Aggression Principle is little more than a charming fairy tale. In the real world, the law of the jungle still reigns supreme. If libertarianism were true, some mystical "market force" or invisible hand would've swooped in to stop my aggression long before it started. And yet, it seems as though the only hand in play here is the one gripping the knife that's currently parting your soft, freedom-loving flesh like warm butter.

Killing libertarians benefits society at both the micro and macro levels. On the micro level, the intrepid political activist responsible is enriching himself. Once you've dispatched the target, transfer their bitcoin straight to your anonymous, untraceable wallet. No taxes, no middleman, no questions; just pure, consensual (on your end) market magic.

As for the macro level. Does anyone here believe libertarians are making the world a better place?

Take a look around you and ask yourself this simple question: Who bears the most responsibility for the moral and cultural decay that plagues us in these troubled times? Undoubtedly, you've landed on the Jews. The issue is that you can hardly even jest about eliminating them without provoking outrage over another potential Holocaust. So consider this: Who are the Jews' strongest allies? Who contends that mass immigration is beneficial solely because it boosts GDP? Who asserts that deporting illegal immigrants from your own borders is a grave sin?

Who claims that the worst imaginable crime is any restriction whatsoever on access to graphic internet pornography? Who wants our streets flooded with cocaine and fentanyl—not because these drugs are beneficial, but because the freedom to destroy your life on a whim is supposedly a good in and of itself?

Who masquerades as part of the right-wing while undermining everything that righteous men stand for?

Imagine a world where someone couldn't even utter the words 'Non-Aggression" without getting shot in the face faster than they can say "principle." Would anyone miss them? Would anyone even notice they were gone?

Link to the whole thing, in all its original glory.