December 12, 2013

The Truth About Stefan Molyneux

The truth about Stefan Molyneux is that he is a right wing market extremist and a borderline psychopath. Thought I'd give you my conclusion in the very first sentence. Last week Nelson Mandela passed away and within days Molyneux came out with the video above. It's filled with condemnation of Mandela's life. A typical right wing smear tactic is to start about anything left wing or progressive and immediately associate it with a death toll. Stefan here does no different. Right of the bat he mentions that Nelson Mandela was a communist and a terrorist. I was raised with an understanding that it's not polite to speak ill of the recently departed. Apparently Molyneux has no such reservations which speaks volumes about his character.

Lets examine some of the claims Molyneux makes. Did Mandela take up violence? Yes. Was he associated with a communist group? Yes. It's all very well documented. Nelson Mandela took up arms after the Sharpeville Massacre. The only political movement willing to assist was, yes, left wing. Not so strange actually since the white South African government was of course right wing and conservative in the early 1960s. What were his options at the time? Could Mandela have joined the right wing apartheid regime and have his human rights respected by being a good capitalist and obedient black man? Would the racist government officials have said: 'we will give you a pass Mandela?' Of course such finer details are completely lost on Molyneux.

Let me rant on. While non-violent resistance is of course recommended and should be employed first is it totally outlandish to think that the South African black man was also entitled to self defense? I mean, they were regarded as second rate human beings and when they protested a bunch of them were killed in their own land. Aren't they entitled to defend their lives? Let me present another theoretical scenario. If in the United States some rampant group of African Americans or Latinos goes on a killing spree and murder dozens of white people, how long do you think it will take for the white people to take up arms and defend themselves? How long would it take for the bullets to start flying? With some 300 millions firearms privately owned in the U.S. a violent reaction would only be a matter of time. Yet when a South African black man resists Molyneux here quickly labels them as terrorist.

As mentioned previously, generalize and lumping everything together is favorite right wing smear tactic. Molyneux also makes the connection between Nazi Germany and socialism, probably to boost up the 'left body count.' I've seen others do it too while most scholars of course agree that the National Socialists during World War 2 were in fact right wing fascists. It's difficult to understand for some but a group can label themselves as something but in reality be far from that description. You can have 1 or 2 elements of socialism while the other 8-9 out of 10 are not. Fascism is described as the merging of state and corporations with a national identity. Even Hitler was supported by an industrial elite. The biggest give away? If Nazi Germany was left wing and socialist, why would they fight with left wing Soviet Union? Again, such things are completely lost on Stefan Molyneux.

Did people die in the Soviet Union? Yes, nobody is disputing that. Lenin and Stalin were dictators who   quickly perverted the higher ideals of Marx. Not so strange since both men were robbing banks even before they got into power. Do criminals make good politicians? Generally they don't. Mao and Pol Pot were also probably full blown psychopaths, but did all left wing governments produce immense death tolls? No, far from it. In western Europe many left wing parties have taken up positions in government while never regressing in to dictatorships. In South America the people in Venezuela and Ecuador democratically re-elected their socialist leaders. Things are not black and white.
But wait. Did right wing political groups kill people? Were there right wing dictatorships in history that eliminated their opposition through violence and murder? Yes... Pinochet comes to mind. Videla of Argentina. Noriega of Panama until he stopped playing ball with the U.S. The Contras in Nicaragua. The Shah of Iran who was installed after a right wing C.I.A. sponsored coup when democratically elected social-democrat Mossaddegh was overthrown. Molyneux doesn't even remotely contemplate such matters because that doesn't help his right wing cause.

How was the U.S. and Canada, home of Molyneux, founded? Basically all the land was stolen from their original owners, the Native Americans. In 1890 they did a headcount, only 250.000 Native Americans remained where once millions roamed across the continent. Most of them killed by disease and bullets. How about the African slaves that help build the U.S? Does Molyneux keep a body count there in those cases? No he doesn't.

People like Stefan Molyneux are basically con artists. They reason and pick those things that work in their favor and basically ignore or deny those things that don't help their self interest. Molyneux is an advocate of the Austrian school of economics and Libertarianism. Basically they are conservatives on meth and steroids who mindlessly blame the state for any failings of free market capitalism. So when atrocities are committed by right wing governments they just blame the construct of a state and pretend that their free market which is still based on money and profit will magically create a peaceful society. Pure bullshit. When the bottom line is money and profit you'll always have people bending or breaking the rules. People like Stefan Molyneux want to hand over democracy to private unaccountable dictators in the market place just because they want to make more money. Human needs and human rights, did Stefan Molyneux make a case for that in the video? Did Nelson Mandela in his life?


Anonymous said...

im not sure why you keep obsessing over Left wing and Right wing. "Practical Anarchy" is neither left or right, anarchy means the abolishment of government alltogether. and Molyneux's philosophical principles are based on respect for property rights and the non-aggression principle.

absolute power corrupts absolutely, just look at "the Stanford prison experiment", any system that initiates force over another person is immoral. and doomed to failure, massive human rights violations, or both.

Ed V. said...

Molyneux's philosophical principles come straight of the Austrian economics manual and Ayn Rand teachings. There's much that can be said about an unrestricted free market but if you think an anarcho-capitalist society magically creates peace when the bottom line is still money then you're beyond naive.

Force and coercion will still exist in a free market, they just manifest in different ways. Can you do anything without money in a free market? No. There's your force and coercion. Anarcho capitalism resembles a belief system. You assume many things will just work out.

And who will be in charge? The wealthy. The same ones that sponsor libertarian "think tanks" who teach people to blame the state. Owning land the size of small states such as John C. Malone and Ted Turner do, that wont give you an enormous advantage, hm? No, the free market will keep them in check. Right. The billionaire Koch brothers will magically behave in a pure free market while in today's regulated society they have criminal violations record yards long. No, these people wont seek other forms of power consolidation in a pure free market..

Molyneux is a snake oil salesman, and videos like the one above show his methodology. He isn't a philosopher, he's an anti-intellectual because everything has to conform to his an-cap ideology. Got that?

Anonymous said...

and a white supremacist too one should add, as his diatribe against gandhi and mandela prove....waxing nostalgic for the good old days of european colonialism which according to stefan 'tamed' the non-white peoples. to 'prove' this, molyneux cherry picks events such as the rwandan genocide.

he is the david duke of the pseudo-intellectual crowd.

R-man said...

I agree 100% with you. I was a fan and thought that Stefan was objective until I started noticing the pattern. Right around Martin Luther King day he put a video out on him barely acknowledging any accomplishment, and focusing on all negative and communist party ties. Then he accuses MLK of being violent by asking for the states to help to protect blacks. He has another video on slavery where he downplays slavery and makes a claim that most white people wanted to abolish slavery, but the state had laws that made it hard. He's a fraud and it needs to be spread before anyone else of darker pigment falls in the trap.

Ringo Juggernaut said...

I was introduced to the charlatan that is Stefan Molyneux this morning through a rant he did on YouTube about Jon Stewart's send-up of Fox News on the topic of Benghazi. He seems to have missed the point of the word comedy in Comedy Central!
I Googled him and watched a forty minute video about the imminent demise of the Australian economy from 2012. So much for that! Full of undergraduate silliness and quoting of suspect sources. I felt pretty angry after watching such rubbish, but have since become more relaxed as further research has revealed him to be a delusional fool with a large posse of right minded people on his case. Keep up the good work!

Robbie said...

"Force and coercion will still exist in a free market, they just manifest in different ways. Can you do anything without money in a free market? No. There's your force and coercion"...what the bloody hell are you even talking about?
In a free market if you don't have access to the preferable currency, then you can't do whatever it is that you wanted to do. This statement in and of itself sounds like it was uttered by a preschooler.
The fact that he didn't "respect the recently deceased" is highly irrelevant to the facts, and I like how you just casually pass over that fact.
The fact that his philosophy adheres to non-initiation of force and respect for property rights that are in line with an-capitalism speaks to the fact that he has a steady, unchanging approach to life and that he doesn't flip flop on different subjects.
You can shit on someone because you don't like their character all you want, to shit on facts is entirely something else and makes me think that you should probably speak to someone to help you figure out your confusion.

Zachary Guenther said...

On your criticisms on his association of Nazism with socialism, actually, no, those arguments aren't lost on him. They were directly addressed by Stefan in his podcasts "Why do we forgive socialism" Parts 1 and 2. Those are closing in on ten years old now. (Also, on the following paragraph's comment about the 'higher ideals of Marx'... You probably wouldn't like the Truth about Karl Marx then, as it shows how hypocritical and morally bankrupt Marx was).

He's also consistently criticizing both 'wings' of government in all of his works, as in his eyes (and the eyes of most anarchists, ancap or not) they're both wrong because they both initiate violence on people. That some of the violence doesn't result in death or physical injury is irrelevant.

He has actually talked about natives in the past, and the tragedy of the conflicts between the nomadic native tribes, and colonists. Check out "Idle No More? A Philosophy of Native Rights"

And the idea that capitalism is about obtaining profit, there's another really early podcast, "Capitalism and Profit - Common Misperceptions".

Ed V. said...

Actually, Stefan Molyneux is as hypocritical and morally bankrupt as they come. Check out the YouTube channels Philosophy Lines and Tru Shibes for a number of eye-opening exposes.

Elizabeth said...

Stefan is a closet racist for sure, I agreed with hes comments

Sand Pebble said...

We, I South Africa, had to live with all of this. He was a terrorist and it was terrifying having to raise children in an environment where you never knew where the next bomb would be. We also used to have rioters who took particular enjoyment in hurting and killing others. They called themselves freedom fighters, but they never knew who their enemies were. They killed randomly. All pushed from behind by the ANC.