Wednesday, 5 October 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Deplorables: Stefan Molyneux


Rarely if ever will you see on this blog the phrase “Hillary Clinton was right” – not unless it were to be concluded with phrases such as “to resign,” “to stand down,” or “to jump off a cliff” – but she was right to condemn the deplorable “alt-right” who have taken Donald Trump to their breast, about whom others such as Robert Tracinski and Stuart Hayashi had already exposed.

Stuart has also done sterling work exposing the downright racism of a one-time anarchist who underwent an “ideological transmogrification” to make himself one of the fonts of these deplorables. Tracinski gives over his own newsletter this week to Stuart, who explains as he has before that for all his fine words, Stefan Molyneux is just an old-time racist in a new guise and with new rationalisations.

When it comes to being the main apologist on the Web for Trump and his antics, Molyneux is second only to Milo Yiannopoulos. It is therefore unsurprising that Molyneux is cited occasionally in essays contributed to ‘Breitbart News’ and frequently in its comments section
    The podcaster’s latest turn as Trump apologist [however] was particularly flabbergasting for those of us in the liberty movement who have been familiar with Molyneux’s podcast for the past decade. How is it that a man who once consistently advocated “market anarchy”—not coincidentally, similar to Murray Rothbard’s—has rebranded himself as an apologist for a political candidate strongly associated with the expansion of government power to restrict immigration and international trade?

Insert here as answer Molyneux’s need for a new (paying) audience after exposure as a disgusting opportunistic charlatan.

With but a dwindling number of anarchists standing by him, it seemed that either Molyneux would have to end his podcast series or find a new target audience.
    Thereafter Molyneux drifted from one vaguely right-wing ideological hobbyhorse to another, briefly trying to make inroads in the “Men’s Rights Movement.” But by the middle of 2015 he finally found a new movement he could grab onto—the alt-right and its white nationalism.

“White nationalism.” Yes, it is as disgusting as it sounds. Molyneux surfed this wave just in time for his depiction of “modern society as a struggle between native-born whites and brown-skinned aliens threatening Western traditions” to be reflected in Trump’s campaign, making him a natural to cheer the orange-skinned man to a standstill – “even if these rationalisations were convincing to no one other than those already in Trump’s corner.”

Unlike Trump, Molyneux prefers to sound intellectual. To make his predictions of impending race war sound more compelling, Molyneux cites terribly old-fashioned racist pseudoscience.

Stuart cites chapter and verse to demonstrate that this dangerously puerile movement is new only in its terms and rationalisations, beneath which is the same racism and barnyard collectivism of old that views human beings simply as cattle.

That seems to be the popular appeal of [Molyneux’s podcast]—it reinforces prejudices that its audience would otherwise be ashamed to hold.

If it seems unimportant to address this movement and its spokesthings, it’s not, says Tracinski: We should “take seriously the recent resurgence of racism under new guises and with new rationalisations.” Says Hayashi:

Human beings have struggled with racism for millennia. It has been present, historically, in every major culture, and anthropologists theorise that racism, in some form, was even prevalent in the Paleolithic Era, when separate hunter-gatherer clans looked upon one another in mutual distrust and often lingering animosity. One of the greatest achievements of the United States in the late twentieth century was removing the stigma against other races and placing the stigma on racism itself. Open racial hostility became more of an exception, not the norm. It would be a tragedy if we allowed Molyneux and the rest of the alt-right to make brazen racism seem normal once again.

Yes. It would.

So let’s keep calling it what it is, even when both right and left wish to relabel and redefine what is they are both practising.




  2. Yes it is true He is among us always, and He has led us together and stronger.

    He has led us away from the temptation of the false prophets of progression and the messiah Mises
    who competent on property rights fell to pieces over Sovereignty.
    He has led us toward Nationhood, while the frightened rabbits around us mount a hopeless defence.
    And if He were not enough, there is the Grand Disciple whose name Black Pigeon is only spoke in whisper.
    12 Disciples in all, Disciples including the stalwart Alex Jones, and also the boy wonder Paul Watson, who will He says, take the place of the Saint Nigel Farage.
    It is to Him we are truly grateful, our opponents gnash their rabbits teeth as we courageously advance to National strength.
    His name the libertarian does take in vain.

  3. This entire article is NOT AN ARGUMENT. An argument requires reason and evidence; all you have done is call the man names and cite the opinions of people who agree with you. When you do that, what you are implying by doing so is "these people agree with me, so I'm right." You have not included a single statement that the man said himself, so you are not in any way arguing against him. At the bottom of the comments section it says "challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them," but there are simply NO FACTS IN THE ENTIRE ARTICLE!

    1. Yes, the article is an argument. The article is the argument, its links are its evidence. (That's often how posts are done on the internet, you know.)
      I invite you to follow the links presented, Anonymous.

    2. Those links are just others with the same opinion as you, PC. I know you think the Ayn Rand lexicon is gospel, but that's also just someone's opinion.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated. Links to bogus news sites (and worse) will be deleted.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say it, it's important enough to put a name to it.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.