I want to just talk about this asshole, because he's finally gone.

Stefan Molyneaux is the most dangerous kind of person in the world, because his brand of nationalism, xenophobia, and racism -- it exclusively caters to people who think he's actually making them smarter.

When people talk about Stefan Molyneux, they need to understand how he positions ideas.

The crux of his nationalism (née "racism") was to frame "political correctness" as... *massive eyeroll*

"Cultural Marxism" -- which is a really strange thing to even say.

First, let's rewind the tape a bit. Karl Marx was a philosopher and theorist, who critiqued capitalism and its conflict with the middle class -- during the rise of the Industrial Revolution.

He was not unique in feeling conflicted about machines outpacing the workload of people.

In fact, let's dive deeper: Context matters.

In the era of Karl Marx, machines were beginning to do the work people used to do, and there was anxiety among the emerging middle class that they were not getting their fair slice of the pie.

Sound familiar?

The reason we hear so much about Marxism today is because he's so often associated with communism, and his collaboration with Engels on "The Communist Manifesto" -- but that was far from the only work he published.

Want to take one more step back with me? Let's zoom out...

Karl Marx was a philosopher of his era. With that said, we should take his ideas, and critique them. The reason his ideas still hold value is clear today: The world is going through a second industrial revolution, with robots taking over human jobs... again.

Remember what I said about Marx writing a lot of books? Well, he also wrote one called "Capital" (Das Kapital) and it is, once again, a product of its era.

It was largely written in the context of the American Civil War, and he contrast capitalism with slavery.

This is where we find "Cultural Marxism" coming into the picture, and what it means. (It means nothing.)

The "thought leaders" of the "alt-right" (see, Nazi Lite) tend to associate Cultural Marxism with authoritarianism. Basically, it's policing speech, or something like that.

In all their vague references to Cultural Marxism, no one in the "alt-right" (I'm also talking about people like Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, etc) actually bothers to define what the fuck they actually mean. This is because, by and large, it has no meaning.

What I'm assuming the alt-right is trying to prove is that "Cultural Marxism" is authoritarian, or that in its eventual form, is reducible to being authoritarian. (It's not.)

There is actually an entire test for this, called the F-Scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-scale_(personality_test)

Molyneux is simply the "slickest talker" of the alt-right, framing his discussions as philosophy, rather than political.

Basically, Molyneux is a philosopher for people who have never read anything else, and want to confirm their own fears. He himself fails the F-Scale.

If we continue down this path, using the F-Scale to measure authoritarianism, the philosophy of the alt-right is authoritarian. First, the alt-right espouses religion as a moral basis for society. Any person without religion must therefore be immoral, and punishable.

Then, the alt right also demonstrates reluctance to change, even when irrefutable evidence presents itself. (This is the entire doctrine of Donald Trump. It's gaslighting to the extreme.) Oh the F-Scale, this tips you into firm "definitely fascist" territory.

One defining trait of fascism on the F-Scale is the use of exonyms. Exonyms are labels that have almost no meaning, but are applied to groups that fascists see as worthy of violence.

"Cultural Marxist" is an exonym. It is a phrase that is barren of meaning.

Another (hilariously ironic) exonym that is currently being used by the alt-right to promote their fascist ideas is... Antifa.

Anti-Fascists.

Of course, there is no group known as Antifa. They don't meet. They aren't organized. They are just people who don't like fascism.

Now, let's rewind and take a look at the context of what "Cultural Marxism" could mean.

Das Kapital was completed in 1867, and many of its core ideas (capitalism needing slavery to exist, etc) stemmed from the American Civil War. The US was a slave nation, after all.

If I were to take the most incredible leap of logic, and go to the very edge, I could argue that Marx and Engels saw all parts of capitalism as evil, and wanted state control of all resources, thus eliminating human suffering.

That would be an obtuse reading of Days Kapital.

People like Molyneux tend to take extreme interpretations of Marx and Engels, juxtapose modern themes, and then present those themes as the accepted academic interpretation of Marx and Engels.

Which is to say, Molyneux is full of shit, and he's just making it all up.

The problem comes when "politics bros" want to learn about political theory, and they find someone like Molyneux.

At face value, he sounds like he knows what he's saying. (The same goes for Kirk, Shapiro, Owens-- albeit less extreme.) The problem is, they are bullshit artists.

Many philosopher and writers during that same time period were anxious about the industrial revolution, and what might happen to people.

My favorite book is Frankenstein -- and it's not actually about a doctor assembling cadaver parts into a monster. It's a metaphor.

Frankenstein is a book about the middle class suddenly being thrust into an industrial world where they felt like outsiders. The "workers" of the world were unprotected, dying in factories, etc.

This was before OSHA. Dying in factories was quite common.

The reason Marx and Engels were so well received, and their ideas took such a strong hold, was because during their era, workers were unprotected from the new machines of the Industrial Revolution, and they also weren't sharing in the profits.

Historical context matters.

When Molyneux (and the alt-right) wax poetic about "academia and colleges being liberal" and "brainwashing students with Marxist" ideas, it's because many people go to school, read Marx, and think, "Oh, I get it. The wealthy exploiting the poor isn't a new concept."

The conclusions reached by Marx and Engels were not to abolish capitalism. Those were conclusions reached by former Soviet leaders, but even then... not really. Communism is it's own tenuous branch of economic theory, and it's debatable whether it's something Marx supported.

In the view of the alt-right, and people like Molyneux, the concept of "Cultural Marxism" is... okay... I'm going to make this the most charitable view I can...

People seeing some cultures as being exploited, and wanting to uplift those cultures based upon race, gender, etc.

As the unofficial philosopher of the alt-right, Molyneux, along with many others like him, view progressive ideas that support inclusion, equality and equity in society as forced and authoritarian.

We see this a lot with LGBT rights, but black rights as well.

I'm not going to do a deep dive into the many deeply-racist things that Molyneux said, but there is a good reason Youtube sought to ban him on the same day as notable Nazis David Duke and Richard Spencer.

Molyneux's brand of "alt-right" often veered into racial supremacy.

In promoting "Western supremacy" and how "capitalism made the world better" -- many figures on the alt-right come dangerously close to white supremacy.

If you don't know better, these people sound like they're making sense. (I'm not going to share the link.)

The reality is that in the video-game of life, Europeans had a great spawn point. Temperate climates, access to fresh water, and later -- abundant forests and iron ore meant the Industrial Revolution could happen. Europe could easily make steel. Everyone else? Not really.

It's clear that in pre-Columbian America, societies were large, technologically advanced, and even (somewhat) democratic. They just didn't keep great records, and their cities were swallowed by jungles during societal collapses.

The same goes for Asia and Africa.

Actually, I will link to this shithead's Nazi-lite thought process.

This shit makes me want to vomit, because it's intellectually dishonest to a surfeit. These are literally the same ideas that got Molyneux banned.

It's the same bullshit.

If you scroll up for a bit, you'll note that I noted the F-Scale rubric, and how the alt-right balances their supremacy on the foundation of "religious belief" which is code for "Judeo-Christian" -- because that's how they roll.

They are perverting both religion, and reason.

In just five minutes on YouTube, you can feel smart, just because you're white -- and that's the goal of the alt-right. Be more white. White is good. Christian is good. White and Christian? Amazing. Perfect, even.

But wait, there's more...

Western societies are strong, and modern society is founded upon "the strong subjugating the weak" -- meaning, "better" societies should teach "lesser" societies how to be like them.

This is literally the shit they say.

While waxing on his "pro-white/pro-western" screed, Ben Shapiro also takes a moment to smear Muslims, and Chinese people, just for good measure.

Basically, be rejecting Judeo-Christian beliefs, and (lol) "rejecting reason", the "progressives" taking the world backwards.

Ben Shapiro is simply Stefan Molyneux with better branding, and a bit less of the Nazi edge, because he's Jewish.

Aside from that, they're essentially cut from the same cloth. They promote white supremacy, wrapped in a "pro Western values" package.

All of this is to say: The people are the gateway into white supremacy and fascism. You start watching Molyneux and Shapiro, and eventually you end up being indoctrinated into some pretty fucked up thinking.

They're the fascists. They always have been.

/thread