Society, (both coercive/state and non-coercive/private portions of it) is hierarchically-structured, due to human variation in intelligence that includes many stupid/"unphilosophical" nodes (people who do not think about the ways in which they interact with social structures; people who do not concern themselves with social feedback systems).

Because it takes more effort to make men into individualist philosophers who have rational-high-level goals, there will always be a vast number of "followers." You don't have to like this fact, but denying it simply means that pure sociopaths will work to win those followers over, and the libertarian movement(already weak and pathetic as it is) will simply have one fewer "voluntary leadership node."

All this leads me to believe that Adam is as good an activist as reasonably can be expected. Why? ...Because his comprehension of the basic principles is good, his activity level is high, and he is not entirely lacking in strategic awareness. He has at least an idea about what the average man on the street is thinking (which libertarians definitely do not). Adam and Larken both say giant amounts of things that are so strategically unintelligent they make me cringe, but Adam has at least figured out that it makes no sense to alienate "sufficiently radical enough to make a difference" minarchist voluntaryists or "classical liberals." (Even if one believed such "classical liberal" individuals to be insufficient, it would make no sense to have them work against libertarianism.)

I'm really happy Adam is around. I view him to be, on the balance, a force for constructive change, in spite of his rather foolish designs on running for president in 2020 (which he intends to discredit the office of the presidency, but which I believe are unlikely to do so with the type of people who vote).

I also don't believe that using sexual relationships as a litmus test for "organizational value" is wise, for many reasons:

1. Past agents for change have often had unusual/abnormal sexual relationships, but still dramatically benefited society. (Gandhi, Thoreau, MLK, etc.)
2. I've had relationships that were loving and others that were purely sexual, and several in-between. The fact that the state can exploit all bad relationships (but will ignore good ones) means that the good relationships (worth keeping private, and protecting one's loved one) will be "silent" and not speak to the activist's good, and the bad ones will be selected and publicized. If the state can scare away "follower nodes" due to sexual controversy, then the state will do that. The freedom movement then will be defined by the state's exploitation of every thought leader's worst relationship, or best-paid "honey trap."
3. Those who complain about mental abuse in a relationship inherently only tell their side of the story unless they have corroborating evidence/video/etc. Even then, a careful orchestration could provide such evidence. It's also unknown to what extent weakness, miscommunication, or failure of effort and circumstances plays with every breakup or personality conflict, as opposed to the malice attributed by one party.
4. "Taking a side" in any conflict weakens the value of the "leader" to the movement, because it drives away less-philosophically-aware, more judgmental followers. ...Yet there can never be enough information to legitimately take a side.

For all of the prior reasons, it makes zero sense to publicly take a side in any messy breakup. Also: taking sides in such breakups means that inserting "honey traps" into the liberty movement is a very good idea for the central bankers, FBI, etc. Edward Snowden's WIRED magazine interview revealed that the deep state already has plans to discredit freedom activists and dissidents by revealing their porn viewing habits. Here's the quote:

Another troubling discovery was a document from NSA director Keith Alexander that showed the NSA was spying on the pornography-viewing habits of political radicals. The memo suggested that the agency could use these “personal vulnerabilities” to destroy the reputations of government critics who were not in fact accused of plotting terrorism. The document then went on to list six people as future potential targets. (Greenwald published a redacted version of the document last year on the Huffington Post.)

This can be done even if said "honey trap" is unwitting, via manipulation of electronic communication.

I believe Larken Rose is a dishonest-to-the-core debater (this is my personal belief, from having "debated" him on Facebook. In 100% of the exchanges, he formulated a straw man argument out of my actual argument, and then proceeded to derisively batter it down), but he also has provided immense amounts of value to the liberty movement: I just personally dislike his personality and find him incapable of honest argument at a high level. (At a low-hierarchical-level, he's brilliant. His "When should you shoot a cop?" video is excellent. By saying "low-hierarchical-level," I do not mean "unimportant," I mean "the bottom level of a pyramidal hierarchy, the level closest to interfacing with atomic/granular/single physical details." See: https://steemit.com/hierarchy/@jacobcwitmer/thoughts-on-ray-kurzweil-s-2010-speech-the-power-of-hierarchical-thinking-from-the-h-summit-harvard# )

In any case, I think that activist's personal lives should be "off limits" to criticism from people who agree with them, and people who do not. The fact that Ayn Rand probably had a henpecked husband, and probably pressured Branden into sleeping with her when he was a young and impressionable dipshit does nothing to diminish the propaganda quality of her books: they remain many people's first look(and often first attempt) at "consistently applied" individual freedom.

When someone's sex life becomes a messy train-wreck, as so many do, I just look the other way, and say "None of my fucking business." The same is true when someone's death ends in dementia and sickness. None of their worst statements takes a single thing away from their best statements, because they only put themselves out in the public domain based on their confidence in their best statements.

As Norbert Wiener wrote in "The Human Use of Human Beings," the skills of a scientist are far different than the skills of a detective. Applied to himself, he noted that every time he returned to mathematical formulae and his prior scientific accomplishments in the domain of physics, he was able to, at his best, slowly build on his prior achievements, however, when he played the cybernetic game of chess, his careless mistakes were exploited, and he regularly lost games to people who could not hope to replicate his scientific work. This differentiation of systems that are not defined by adversarial, goal-driven-intelligence and ones that are, is the core feature differentiating politics from "the hard sciences."

Perhaps the best way of dealing with such controversy is illustrated by John McAfee, who has a policy of agreeing with all slanders and accusations made against him, even exaggerating them to the point of absurdity. Then, when the cameras are on him, and everyone is saying "Did you really do that?" He calmly explains what really happened (or at least what he believes the public has a right to know).

The best defense is a good offense. The antidote to "bad press" is an order of magnitude more press.

If we take the side of those in the press who are trying to destroy our "heroes" and "leaders," we may be successful. We will then find that all of our leaders and heroes are "sitting on the sidelines," making no move to diminish the harmfulness of malevolent man-made-systems that prey on all of us (mainstream, "sociopathic" politics; pathocracy).