Stefan Molyneux: An Open Letter to Corporate Reporters

Stefan Molyneux: An Open Letter to Corporate Reporters

so this is a generic piece of feedback for the reporters who are looking for me to comment on this newest theory I guess or idea that reporters have in the mainstream media to deal with the influence of social media on upcoming political events and also to take down competition that frankly is kind of doing a lot better than they are so the theory goes something like this that there are extremists out there on social media and they put out arguments or tweets or videos or podcasts that caused a rise in extremism in society and of course this is the argument against free speech right that you put out arguments and if other people misinterpret them or act badly that somehow you are responsible like if you put out a diet book and people don't follow the diet that somehow you're responsible for them not losing weight now it's kind of funny for the corporate media as a whole to be doing this because the corporate media of course for years has been pushing the Trump Russia collusion conspiracy theory that caused a huge amount of anxiety and stress and depression and what's called Trump derangement syndrome and so on and so this idea that social media personalities or figures are inciting extremism and so on it's generally on the right wing and this is kind of what happens when I get these reporters floating around so I'm gonna put out a series of statements about what it is that I believe this is useful to you if you're relatively new it's also useful if you haven't heard them kind of accordion crammed into one short package before but okay first of all I'm not I'm not right away I'm not right wing I am technically an anarcho-capitalist which means that I believe in a stateless society I accept the value and virtue of a stateless society where property rights are respected that is different from an anarchic communist who believes in a stateless society but there aren't is no such thing as property rights and it shouldn't be hard to figure this out I have books on the subject every day anarchy and practical Anarchy available for free on my website very very good books I stand by them now perhaps even more than ever so this idea that I'm some sort of right-wing extremist and so on nonsense I take what is called the N AP the non-aggression principle which is you are not to initiate force against other human beings you can respond to the initiation of force with self-defense and that's a moral thing to do but you cannot and must not and should not morally initiate force against other human beings now I don't know what you'd call that other than a consistent moral principle that we can to learn in kindergarten whether you'd call that right wing or left wing doesn't really make any sense to me it's just a moral principle and that informs and is at the foundation of everything that I do from my analysis of politics to the well first day to feminism to a peaceful parenting to my anti spanking positions it is all founded upon the non-aggression principle now with regards to this question of extremism I don't really know what that means other than if you narrow the Overton Window to a very tiny echo chamber than everything that comes from outside that echo chamber smacks of extremism I don't really know what the term means other than it's just a way of slanting or ideas slandering ideas without actually having to engage with the content of those ideas but in general extremism the way that I would work with the term is extremism tends to occur when two or more parties have essential and opposing views that they have no way of reconciling so you can think of two religious groups that have absolutist and opposing ideas how can they rationally reconcile those now you can think of scientists who can have opposing foundational ideas but they reconcile those according to the objectivity and rationality of the scientific method so how do we oppose extremism when people feel that they have to fight in order to win and that they can't be a win-win situation well the way that we do it of course is through the promotion of objective rationality with that that's how we reduce the escalation of extremism within our society so if you promote reason if you promote the universality of empiricism if you promote objectivity in the resolution of disputes then you are by definition opposing extremism if you can give people a common methodology with which to resolve their disputes then you are doing everything that you can to oppose extremism extremism is when people panic they want their way they escalate they get hysterical and they will sometimes get violent but that's because there is no way to reconcile opposing viewpoints now all those who promote reason are opposing extremism all of those who undermine reason are escalating extremism so if you look at post modernists and relativism subjectivism and so on these all foundationally attack and undermine our capacity or belief in our capacity to reason objectively they attack reason they attack reality they attack the validity of the senses they say that everything is a social construct and we all make up our own rules there's no such thing as objectivity that is a domino fall towards the escalation of extremism because we all need to make decisions individually and in a society we are either going to bully or use violence or slander or abuse of some kind or we go into reason with each other and so as somebody who from the very beginning of my career as a public intellectual I have steadfastly promoted the objectivity and universality of reason and the validity of the senses the objectivity of a rational epistemology I am in very very good conscience with myself and with philosophy with regards to opposing extremism I very much oppose it and I stand by everything that I have said regarding how we resolve disputes in society we have reason or we have force if you're promoting reason you're diminishing force if you're diminishing reason you are promoting force whether you know it or not whether consciously or unconsciously now one of the ways that the term extremism is used is with regards to anyone who was critical of masks sponsored welfare state attracting immigration and if you are critical of mass immigration into Western countries then you are considered to be an extremist now factually this is simply not true it cannot be an extremist position to side with the majority you may not be right if you cite the majority with the majority but you're certainly not an extremist so as of relatively recently there are polls that show very clearly that the majority of American voters one less than half the current levels of immigration there was a recent poll of 27 countries and the in not in not one of them was their majority of citizens that supported increased immigration and fewer than 15 percent of the median total of the 27 nation citizens supported plans any plans at all to increase immigration and those countries that have been subjected to the most mass immigration were the ones most hostile to and wishing to reduce immigration levels even further so it is a mainstream majority position to wish for or desire a reduction in immigration and again you have to be in a very narrow tiny echo-chamber bubble for this to appear radical to you and this is not just on the right but on the left as well there's a significant proportion of people on the Left who wish for desperately which for reduced immigration and so the fact that I've been critical of mass immigration does not make me an extremist again unless you're willing to go that historical route and say there's the majority of people in the West are just extremists which I guess you can say but you've just destroyed the concept extremism extremism is somewhere that's rare that is on the very outlier of some sort of bell curve but skepticism and towards immigration and a desire for a reduction of mass immigration is not at all an extremist position it is right in the center of the bell curve it's a little bit more on the right then on the left but it exists in both spheres so this idea is really really important to understand to be critical with immigration mass immigration that is generally a lot of people coming for the benefits of the welfare state a majority of immigrants in a lot of the countries that come to end up on welfare and they tend to generate for larger and larger governments so if you want smaller government a reduction in the size and power of the state then immigrants at the moment are kind of a barrier to that because they're going to vote on average again you can't judge individuals but on average they're gonna vote for larger and larger governments so that's why those who want larger government want more mass immigration and that's why those who want smaller government want less mass immigration so that is not an extremist position but it is portrayed that way so that a narrative of extremism and hostility and negativity and all of that can be portrayed as somebody can be portrayed as some sort of extremist for siding with a significant majority of people in the West it's the same thing with something that reporters never talk about with regards to me which is my focus on peaceful parenting one of the best things that I do and something that based upon my inbox has had the most positive influence on people's lives people who are parents who have either never started hitting their children yelling at their children or they've stopped and apologized to the children that's building much much better relationships in the process so I have focused very much on peaceful parenting on negotiation I've had parenting experts on the show to talk about all of this I've recommended books I have written articles on how spanking itself is a violation of the non-aggression principle I have brought in anti-circumcision arguments and experts to make that case so a parenting is very very important if we want to build a free world we have to have children who are negotiated with who are reasoned with rather than who are bullied and have the full sort of crushing historical weight of parenthood poured over them to snuff out their choice and free will if you grew up afraid of Authority then you will most likely gravitate towards Authority as an adult because you don't really know what life is like when you reason with people so the promotion of peaceful parenting of negotiating with your children of avoiding yelling and spanking is something I'm enormous ly proud of and would do nothing to change and I might have even done more of it going back in time now of course another issue that comes up is this again the term is never defined it's like extremism its I think it's purposefully not defined which is this white supremacist or or or white nationalist issue now I've done gosh I think eighteen interviews with world-renowned experts in the field of human intelligence and in general and I'll link to it below but you can visit it anytime you like its FDR URL calm /iq FDR URL dot-com /iq and yes in that there talk about differences between various ethnicities in terms of average intelligence you never judge and the individual but when you zoom out to groups there are differences in average IQ is more specific than intelligence which is G there are average differences in IQ between ethnicities and this is just a fact that we have to accept and deal with if we're going to be rational in the world and whites are not at the top of that hierarchy at all right rights and not at the top of the IQ hierarchy so how that makes me a white supremacist when dealing with basic facts that have been a bad as well established in the social sciences and particularly in the field of psychology as any other metric IQ has been around for more than a hundred years it has been tested almost everywhere in the world there is massive amounts of data for it it is about the most validated metric in the entire field of the social sciences so and you know people have talked about it widely on their shows there has just been a wide variety of conversations both from Sam Harris's show when he had Charles Murray on I did a show recently about how NBC had talked about country differences in IQ this is well accepted in certainly the professional literature it is well accepted by anybody who understands these issues and it's done any kind of research on it and how the fact that whites are kind of in the middle of the distribution when it comes to ethnic differences in IQ how that makes me a white supremacist or a white nationalist is beyond me but again it's not supposed to be anything rational it's just most we make you think with me badly and and therefore reject any exploration of my arguments to be clear you cannot want to state the society and be a white nationalist admit as a contradictory position and having other ethnicities in a geographical region is not a violation of the non-aggression principle and so the idea that I would support massive government violence to create some sort of purified ethnos State would go against everything that I have stood for in terms of the non-aggression principle and a stateless society so it makes no sense it's not something that I stand behind and what what else could I say I've never said it now one thing I guess one thing that people did pick up on is when I did a documentary last year in Poland I said at the end that Poland is an overwhelmingly white country and I was able to meet up with people without fear of violence right we just posted on social media we met we had great debates all night about philosophy and so on and I said when I go to countries that are more or try to give speeches in areas that are more sort of quote diverse well I face a lot of problems I faced violence and deep platforming and people attack my audience members and so on so I mean that's just an empirical fact that I'm processing and working with but simply stating a fact does not state a prescription it is something that I've noted but the causality is complex so people are really grasping at straws when they think that means something that it doesn't it's just a fact that I wonder I was want to be honest with my audience and that is something that it really much that I very much experience then was kind of kind of important to me so here's the thing so I promote philosophy I have put out a book recently called essential philosophy dealing with the issues of are we living in a simulation what are the rational arguments against determinism and for free will what is a great way to prove secular ethics without reference to government edicts or religious Commandments and so on and one of the earliest books I wrote was called universally preferable behavior a rational proof of secular ethics and I wrote that book because I am dead set on I'm very much mitad to fighting against extremism and I know that extremism escalates when people have absolute mantris that they cannot reconcile with others and so coming up with philosophical proofs of ethics philosophical proofs of the objectivity of a rational metaphysics and epistemology and so on this is all something that I have stood for from the very beginning of my public career and for many decades before that to focus on promoting reason negotiation philosophy and debate as opposed to violence and slander and verbal abuse and so on so by promoting philosophy I am fighting extremism at every conceivable turn by promoting science you fight superstition by promoting negotiation you fight against violence because philosophy is a discipline if you follow it that causes you to bow every single one of your opinions before the altar of reason and evidence and we can only meet and reconcile and negotiate with each other in reality right in objective Universal reality philosophy is a discipline that humbles you it is the discipline which allows you to have a conciliatory approach to other people who follow reason it is a discipline which brings wisdom and certainty and virtue into people's lives so by promoting philosophy and promoting our capacity to reason with and negotiate with each other I wrote a book called the art of the argument which helps people to understand how best to make arguments in the world and the differences between various different kinds of logic and how to use the syllogism and all of this kind of wonderful stuff because I want us to reason with each other there are some crazy beliefs out there with beliefs that I would consider extremists like a belief that says all differences in group outcomes result from massive systemic bigotry in society that's an extremist position because it's not supported by science and data at all or you could say I think it's fine to support communists and that seems to me kind of an extremist position because communism was responsible for the deaths of a hundred million people plus in the twentieth century alone that seems kind of like an extremist position I do pushback against what is traditionally characterized as right-wing extremism and I have lots of examples of this where I have discussed with a professor how National Socialism or NASA ISM was totalitarian how it was violations of the non-aggression principle it was violations of private property and free markets and so on and so yes I have pushed back against this considerably and and widely pushed back against anti-semitism considerably and widely so I don't really know what to say to the people who are trying to lump me in with some sort of right-wing extremist thing other than if they have anti rational positions they don't like my promotion of rationality and critical thinking because it may expose weaknesses in their positions so I stand by what I have said publicly and where I have made Corrections I'm happy to have done so but they're very few and far between I stand by what I have said publicly I stand by what I have said in this particular show and I stand by philosophy philosophy reason evidence empiricism universality that is their only chance to meet and negotiate with each other in reality that is our only chance to meet under the big tent our philosophy and negotiate with each other the alternative that is genuinely violent extremism and that's what I have always opposed so if philosophy is somehow relate as extremism more than extremism as one and all rational people have lost

48 thoughts on “Stefan Molyneux: An Open Letter to Corporate Reporters

  1. Stephan, in all your wisdom, you lack the insight to understand "them"… Perhaps now it is time to do filosophy on spirituality, powers and PRINCIPALITIES. We are dealing with possessed people. They have demons

  2. It's good he brings up the white nationalist thing. I've long considered that to be an oxymoron. You cannot be a white nationalist since the precepts of nationalism cannot work with that sort of qualifier. I've read my fair bit about nationalism and I've seen this as true. It's simply incompatible

  3. If you are committed to your ideas you should engage with all challengers and debate/defend your ideas with them. If your arguments are persuasive, you can bring them over to your own point of view. Otherwise you'll come off as an insular, scared media crank who's afraid to come out of your ivory tower. Just make sure that the debate happens in a neutral, unedited media space, so your fans can know that the debate was not edited in a partisan way.

  4. Oh wow. We all know this is in direct response to the request to “engage” by Kevin Roose for his article “The Making of a YouTube Radical” that appeared in The NY Times today. If you were sincerely interested in engaging, and not solely committed to preaching to your demented choir and ignorantly disaffected angry people, you would have agreed to comment for Mr. Roose’s article. That’s engaging. Being willing to have civil discourse with those you disagree with, however vehemently.

  5. I for one am seeing a lot of before and after adds here on Youtube these days, and I am not the only one noticing. I see a very near future when Youtube is going to go full CNN mode and put a “ticker” on the bottom of the screen that can’t be removed in order to run adds. But I somehow don’t see it stopping there. I see that the corporate conglomerates will also press to have leftist and/or corporatists dogma running in those future “tickers”/ “banners” running on and on across the screen because they cannot bear the possibility that we can think for ourselves! Anyone else see this coming?? Aloha.

  6. OUTSTANDING Mr. Stef!
    I 100% agree w. You!
    Theyre the ones who are the extremists' so what they do is call us what they really are' its fuct..theyre completely insane. Psychopathic if anything ' i say prepare for war here in the states b/c ALL signs 'unfortunately point towards a SHTF event…..
    Man. I Hope im Wrong. Cheers brother!
    What a hell of a time to be Alive! 🇺🇸

  7. Stefan. Don't bother. They're gonna call you names, no matter what. It's no use trying to appease them. Although ironically, there's every need to become a White Advocate. there's no shame admitting to that.

  8. Great presentation of simple, easy to digest, common sense and truth as most of us see it. Love the background. It would be even better if you pressed it with a little steam. Thanks for all you are doing to make the world a better place for everybody.

  9. Stef, no one gives a fuck what you think, certainly not any corporate reporters. lol get a grip u fucking psycho, it's time to log off

  10. I have a friend who is an Hasidic Jew, and he said the high IQ’s are really as a result of really PERMEATING the culture with a enthusiastic desire to acquire and master all kinds of knowledge. I tend to think culture plays a bigger part than we realize.

  11. I am a racional person and In my reasonable world view I have found no reason to not be a violente sociopathic manipulator who want to kill so many humans that less that 1 000 000 remain.

  12. Stefan, you are a fool if you think that anarcho capitalism can work. It will be destroyed by corperatism.
    Youre a fool if you think that a peaceful world is possible if you let the most violante people in the world take more and more power but dont stop them because they are not killing people right now.

  13. I tend to agree with #Charles Bates. The first part of the problem is to 'dumb down' some your terms of explanation to bring it with intellectual reach of the morons who do not see the validity of your arguments. However, even this will not help them. None as blinds as those who will not see. My theory:- these people have been so sucked into the bullshit propaganda machine that is Main Stream Media that letting go of their beliefs leaves them stranded in a world where their very existence becomes meaningless.

  14. You can simply notice that diversity is targeted at every single white country and the goal is always to transform a homogeneous white society into a multiracial one.

  15. Yes, the Chinese have higher IQ’s. That’s why they NEVER steal technology invented and developed by White men living in the USA. It’s also why everyone is clamoring to move to China because the Chinese have established such a fabulous form of government. Oh…wait a minute…

  16. YouTube is now silencing men's voices on domestic violence and harassment against men. I feel this will lead to an increase in male suicide. What do you think?
    I'm moving to BitChute. Any other video sites out there?

  17. The instant you try to reason with the left using facts and logic, they roll their eyes and let out an exasperated noise, this is not only a typical display of hubris and ignorance, it is evidence of their ears shutting and their brains closing

  18. "…I believe in the value and virtue of a stateless society in which property rights are respected." – 1:48
    . . . . .

    (☎☎ ring ring ☎☎ ring ring)
    Motivational poster printers…Line 1

    Do you also believe [in] the fact that that very sentence is a smooshed bird on the windshield of the book you wrote dealing with the art of the argument?

    Let's bust that sentence up then, hmmm?

    "I believe in (so do about about 6 billion other people believe in x, y, z, a, b, and q) the value (relative value or market value or….) and virtue (now it's almost getting too silly to even ask) of a stateless society (you don't get to jump out of state and into 'society' like magic) in which property (define it) rights (granted by who) are respected (by who)."

    Keep in mind, Mr. Molyneux, that I am playing a little game of quasi-Alinskyball.

    YOU ALWAYS – quite correctly – demand that terms be defined.

    Sir, you can whip up shit like "anacho-capitalism" all you like.
    Could it be that you're just a big, giant, hairy LIBERTARIAN with a personal identity crisis?

  19. As much as I love you Stef… You've taught me more in the last 3 years since I found you than I ever learned in public skrewel, and 6 years of "higher leaning" combined.

    I fear that your hope (and mine) that we will EVER again see a time where rational people, and rational thought prevails on a scale that is needed to turn this civilizational ship away from the giant glow in the dark rock it's headed strait for is just a pipe dream at best.

    50 years ago? Maybe? Before the absolute demolition of the "educational" system. Before the destruction of the family by the welfare state… Maybe.

    Now? It's truly and sadly unimaginable. There are simply too many sheeple.

    Barring some sort of mass awakening of mythical, biblical proportions? It ain't happening.

    I hate being such a pessimist, I do. But 48 years of real life, on the ground experience has taught me well that too few individuals are truly intelligent beings able to actually THINK, fewer still of those are rational (at all)… and that people in groups (especially large groups) are dumber than a bag of busted hammers. Nearly indistinguishable in their actions from actual sheep.

    So… I'll just be over here with my popcorn, fiddling while this shit show burns to the ground.

  20. Communists don't have sincerely held points or principles, but pretenses used to allow them to commit their crimes.

    There is no one who could have sincerely investigated Stefan and concluded that he is stupid and inconsistent enough to be a bigot. I assume anyone claiming he is would avoid doing the research, as there clearly is no basis, and seeing this would not help them carry out their agenda.

  21. I wonder how many reporters and other people will watch this, and then still not let any actual facts get in the way of some good smears.

  22. I fear your augment fails to appreciate the fundamental emotional motivations of human beings. An irrational argument can TRUMP a rational argument if its more emotionally compelling. Why? Because ultimately we are motivated by emotion.

  23. Stefan, around the 2 minute mark of this video you say youre not right wing. Could you elaberate on that. As far as i understand the political scale, leaving out being libertarian or authoritarian, being right wing is about economic freedom. Would that not at least make you right wing?

  24. Moron failed software developer for instance. One that can't get to the facts, too fucked up on silly opinions.
    Unable to write TDD tests.

  25. Have you consider rising up in heaveans… You know like Jesus … Seems like you know everything… I really think you can do it! You can do anything! I know you can. Go up to heavean and make the world a better place.. you know.. like a new great flood. I am sure you can convince God to do that again..

  26. The belief that everything is relative and that morality and objectivity doesn't exist is actually a belief that Might Makes Right. Amusingly, the weak seem to believe that this ideology will save them by erasing boundaries to their success. The truth, however, is quite the opposite. Only the strong will survive in the Satanic realm of Might Makes Right aka The Will to Power. Perhaps this is for the best. It is not compassionate or nice, but at this point, I am fresh out of fucks to give. Hail Satan, indeed.

  27. Stefan, all of you guys covering these issues should start preparing the video celebrations for when they all go down for treason. When the day arrives I would love to see the video production work from my fellow patriots immediately after the indictments. Get a head start. I don’t think any of you all would think it’s a waste of time. Can’t wait!

  28. EXTREME is wanting to open up Western welfare states to the Third World and smear, censor and criminalize anyone who points out the injustice of it, the crime that comes with it and what it will cause in the long run.

  29. Love ya, but anarcho-anything is Utopianism. When has any advanced society existed with out a state? Like the communists, you anarchists want to try some fundamentally new social configuration. There will always be states, like there will always be two genders. Even our (USA) bold leap with our Republic with absolute individual rights still had to be grounded in the reality of the state. At the risk of oversimplifying your view about aggression: bad guys and resource competitors will game NAP; and they don't care about your principals and won't follow them. First strike is a real advantage. Excluding really psychopathic stuff, it's not a sin to compete with other territories in war. It can be done honorably. Look at medieval warfare in general between Christian nations. In generally, they weren't starving opponents to death (Stalin) or genociding anyone like secularist Hitler.

  30. Mainstream news people have admitted off camera that they are actors not journalists. What they say is therefore meaningless.

  31. Can you have rational debate with non rational people? I've witnessed a mother trying to reason with a two year old having a tantrum in the middle of a supermarket. What did the toddler learn? He could get the undivided attention of his mother by acting like a monster. His chances of controlling his emotions in the future were diminished in my opinion. For me this explains the emotional incontinence of millennials and left wing extremists today. I'm not against physical punishment for kids as it can provide a basis for the necessary self control and discipline needed to develop the rational mind. However, I recognize that it is a power, like all powers, that can be abused. I received corporal punishment as a child at school. I deserved it. I'm not scared by the experience. I have also raised two wonderful kids so can claim to know something about parenting. As teenagers they are fantastic and a pleasure to be with. I convinced that it is because we set strong, clear and consistent bounderies for them as toddlers. That included the occasional smack on the arse. You don't reason with a dog, you train them. Rationality has to be cultivated in children if you want to have the dialogue you describe in your video.

  32. One can appreciate how you wish to reason with the media but it’s pointless. These people know why they are being irrational.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *