On October 28, 2018, I published a blog post about how alt-right podcaster Stefan Molyneux whitewashed the Holocaust. He told an immigrant caller on the podcast that the Nazis were merely defending Germany against “Jewish-led communism,” and that what Nazis did to Jews was an “overreaction” to this “Jewish-led communism.” The idea behind Molyneux’s comment was that in the conflict between Nazis and Jews, it was the Jews who started it, but, in their self-defense against “Jewish-led communism,” the Nazis just went too far when they rounded up six million Jews into death camps, starved them, enslaved them, and then murdered them.
The day before I uploaded my blog post on Molyneux’s attempted minimization of the horrors of the Holocaust, an unhinged alt-righter went to a Pittsburgh synagogue and murdered the people there. That atrocity was not what reminded me of Molyneux’s antisemitism; that was a tragic coincidence. But on same day on which I posted about Molyneux’s whitewashing of the Holocaust as an “overreaction” to “Jewish-led communism,” Molyneux uploaded a bizarre video purporting to address the Pittsburgh shooting rampage. In that video, Molyneux claimed sympathy toward Jews, but did not exhibit that as much as he demonstrated a desire to continue scoring “political points” against his usual targets.
The first half of the video contains a very awkward tirade disparaging Jews who marry gentiles, with Molyneux calling such marrying a “dilution” of the purity of the Jewish community and “a silent Holocaust.” Then he stresses very vehemently that he cannot be an anti-Semite because he thinks he was ideologically influenced by such Jews as Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, David Friedman, Ayn Rand, and anarchist Walter Block. Nowhere in this video does Molyneux acknowledge his own stereotyping of Jews as communists. He conducts the whole video as if he never said that.
Here I want to comment on something else from the video, as it merits its own discussion. Near the end of the video, he says something especially interesting — interesting because the words themselves are very true and yet ring hollow when coming from Molyneux, as they contradict what has been the consistent message of his podcast from at least as early as 2016. He says tearfully,
If you disagree with people’s ideas, make better arguments. Reason better. Study harder. Learn how to speak more eloquently. Compel the attention of the world with the power of your rhetoric and the force of your analysis. That’s called civilization, and that’s all we’ve got between us and the well-armed beasts we can descend to like that. [*Snaps fingers*.] You disagree with a religion? Argue against its premises. Argue against its arguments. You don’t go into a church, a mosque, or a synagogue and gun people down in cold blood. Arguments are the civilized handshake of mental interaction. Arguments are all we have. The alternative to arguments is war.
The words themselves are very true. And, for someone unacquainted with Molyneux’s past —including his very recent past — his voice cracking and his eyes watering must make his statement seem powerful. I would be emotionally moved by this if only the words came from someone whose actions over the past two years had lived up to them. But someone who has regularly listened to Molyneux’s podcast for the past two years has received a very different message — usually implicit, but sometimes explicit. That message is that Molyneux does indeed condone the use of violent force against people primarily on the basis that they disagree with his opinions on politics or religion. In a video from December of 2015, he very specifically told one caller onto his podcast that if his neighbors disagree with Molyneux’s political opinions, those neighbors are not worth saving from a mass shooting (that will be the final topic of this blog post before the conclusion section).
Here is a video montage containing everything from Molyneux that I have quoted in this very blog post you are reading, starting from “If you disagree with people’s ideas...”
This video is 9 minutes, 40 seconds long.
Stefan Molyneux For Deporting Those Who Disagree With Him Politically (They Sympathize With the U.S. Democratic Party)
First, I want to remind the reader that for the past two years, Molyneux has consistently stated that the majority of immigrants from Central America or North Africa disagreeing with his right-wing politics is sufficient reason to support legislation that blocks their entry into the West, meaning Europe and the English-speaking countries. I understand that most people don’t psychologically classify the enforcement of such legislation to be violence, especially not violence comparable to a mass shooting. But as I shall show below, Molyneux himself has publicly stated that he considers legislation and law enforcement to be forms of potentially lethal violence, and that Molyneux himself has publicly stated that he recognizes his own advocacy of immigration restriction to be a form of potentially lethal violence that he wants for the State to threaten against aspiring immigrants.
In the January 9, 2016 episode of the podcast, FreeDomain Radio podcast 3174, Molyneux made this statement about how there should be laws blocking immigrants from Central America and North Africa on the basis of these people disagreeing with him ideologically.
When there wasn’t massive migration of millions of Muslims on the march — and Islam is not exactly gentle toward its children, to put it as mildly as possible — and importation of Central- and South American cultures, which are also quite harsh on children, to put it mildly, that has shifted the time frame a little bit [how much time Molyneux believes he has to save the world with his ideology], in fact it has shifted the time frame a lot, because there are more people coming in who are harsh on children than I can possibly convince to be less harsh on their children. [ . . . ]
Of course, the solution isn’t going to come through politics directly, but since I require, or insist upon, the necessity of child-friendly people to get to a free society, if there are child-hostile cultures pouring into, let’s just say, America — I don’t live in America, but let’s just say that for the sake of argument, since he’s [Donald Trump] not running for prime minister of Canada — so if the path to a free society requires child-friendly parents, and if there are pouring into America hundreds and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of child-unfriendly or child-hostile cultures, then if Donald Trump can put a stop to that [by stopping immigrants at the point of the federal agents’ guns], that buys some time to convince people closer to the child-friendly paradigm to change their behavior so that a more peaceful society can come about.
Recall that in the 28 October 2018 video, Molyneux states that instead of applying force against people with whom you disagree, you should talk with them and persuade rationally. But in this 9 January 2016 podcast, Molyneux states that he cannot realistically be expected to change the minds of so many immigrants who disagree with him, and therefore that process has to be bypassed, replaced with governmental action against these immigrants.
At the 17 minute, 58 second mark of his video “Are Libertarians Wrong About Immigration?”, Molyneux states clearly that he thinks Latino immigrants side with the Democratic Party, and that this is a good enough reason to justify distrusting Latino immigrants in general:
You have Obamacare because of immigration, not for any other reason. Because of immigration. Mitt Romney would have won that [2012 presidential] election if not for immigration. In other words, if ethnic demographics had remained the same in the late 2000s as it was in 1980, he would have won by as big a landslide as [Ronald] Reagan. So you got Barack Obama because of immigration and, as a result, Barack Obama is cranking up immigration. Half of the immigrants to America over the past eight years have been Muslims. I have not seen a single Muslim at a libertarian convention. It would be shocking to see a single Muslim at a libertarian convention.
Yes, When Molyneux Says the Federal Government Should Deport Poor Nonwhite Immigrants for Being Democrat, He Says He Acknowledges That There’s the Risk of Lethal Force Against the Immigrants
It is clear that Stefan Molyneux wants the federal government to stop immigration from North Africa and Central America based on such people having ideas — political and religious ideas — with which Molyneux disagrees. However, someone wishing to have a charitable interpretation might counter that Molyneux does not recognize that the federal government’s immigration restrictions are enforced at the point of federal agents’ rifles. Someone wishing to have a charitable interpretation of Molyneux might say that she does not acknowledge that the enforcement of federal immigration laws against peaceful poor immigrants counts as the use of violence. After all, the vast majority of times that I point out that laws are ultimately enforced at gunpoint — and that laws micromanaging someone’s peaceful behavior amount to the violent threats against a peaceful person — most Americans respond with incredulity. They say that someone has to be crazy to interpret laws that way, especially immigration laws.
However, Molyneux is not like those people. From the years 2006 to 2010, before he switched to the promotion of white nationalism as the main topic on his podcast, he gained a popular following on the internet by pointing out that governmental action, by its nature, is backed by the threat of violence. In the very same video as the one I quoted directly above, where Molyneux says that Latino immigrants ideologically agreeing with Obamacare is a valid reason for having federal agents block them from entering the USA, he acknowledges that this is the threat of violent force against people for their mere political opinions. From the 21 minute, 33 second mark:
People say to me as you say: “Well, it’s the initiation of [violent] force [by the State] to have [immigrant] people not live in the country.” It is. It IS. And it is to prevent a greater initiation of force, because if they come into the country, then, statistically, they are going to cause a greater initiation of force by massive consumption of the welfare state and dedication to a [political] party [Democrats] that is itself dedicated to expanding government to the Nth degree, which is the leftists. [Emphases Molyneux’s.]
We see that Stefan Molyneux does agree that it is only through threatening violence against the noncompliant that a government can enforce its laws. But does Stefan Molyneux recognize that if this happens, the government agents may have to draw their guns, and that lethal force might be used? He has publicly acknowledge this as well. That is indicated in the video “Does Angela Merkel Want to Destroy Germany?”, starting at the 1 hour, 0 minutes, 4 seconds mark:
Molyneux: “So the only way to have prevented this migrant crisis [in Europe] would have been to enforce the laws. To enforce the laws. And what would that have looked like? I ask you that seriously. What would have happened if they had enforced the laws not allowing the migrants in?” [ . . . ]
Molyneux: [*now at the 1 hour, 1 minute, 55 second mark*] “You already have laws. The [law] books didn’t march down to the beach [where the Syrian refugees were landing] and do anything.”
Caller: “Enforcement of the laws.”
Molyneux: “Which means what?”
Caller: “Which means having people [Europeans] turn the boats back, physically.”
Molyneux: “And how do they do that?”
[*The caller hems and haws on this for 37 seconds, to Molyneux’s visible frustration and annoyance, until he finally tells her what he is getting at.*]
Molyneux: [*now at the 1 hour, 2 minutes, 48 seconds mark*] “So the guns would have had to come out. See, all you’re talking about is, and again, you know, I respect and love you for it honestly, but what you’re talking about is everything but what it is, which is the guns would have had to come out, and people might have to get shot, because that’s what laws are. Laws are ‘comply or die.’ And it’s every single law on the books: ‘Comply or die.’ Comply, or we’re going to escalate violence against you until you either do comply or you’re dead, because if you resist the escalation of State force that is designed to ensure your compliance. If you don’t pay your taxes and you ignore the letters and you ignore the court dates, and eventually the police are going to have to come to your house to take it away, and if you defend yourself, they’re going to shoot you. The guns have to come out. And again, this is something — the gun in the room — I’ve been talking about it for a decade, and people don’t want to see the violence of the State. They do not want to see the guns come out because they are so dependent on it.”
The same applies to immigration. If I invite an Ecuadorian to lodge on my land, and then the Ecuadorian to tries to cross the border into the USA without a visa, armed federal agents will try to apprehend him, even though the Ecuadorian did nothing violent, breaking the law only by not having a visa. And if that Ecuadorian resists, that can escalate to point where lethal force is used.
As I have written about Mexican immigration before, it is the case that from 2010 to 2016 (under the Obama administration, long before the Trump administration) the Border Patrol killed Sergio Hernandez Guereca and thirty-two other persons who were trying to cross the border. James Tomsheck, the chief of internal affairs at U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) was fired by the federal government. The Obama administration said the reason for this is that Tomsheck lazily refrained from investigating those casualties. Tomsheck replied to NPR that the real reason for his termination was that he did investigate the first twenty-eight shootings in that time period and then reported that at least seven of these were under troubling circumstances that merited further investigation. On May 23, 2018, Claudia Patricia Gómez González, a nineteen-year-old from Guatemala, was killed in Rio Bravo, Texas, by a border agent. She was apparently part of a throng of undocumented border-crossers using blunt objects to fight off the border agents (here and here).
To review, Molyneux has stated that the prospect of immigrants from Central America and North Africa holding political opinions he abhors —especially if they encourage voting for Democrats — is a good enough reason to support federal agents blocking them from entering the West. And he has also stated that “for a decade,” he has explained that “every single law on the books” (again, those are his exact words) are “comply or die.” The conclusion to this syllogism is that Molyneux does condone the government using force against someone for trying to be in the USA while having political opinions Molyneux dislikes, and Molyneux is fully cognizant that such government force can escalate into something lethal.
Molyneux Telling a Caller That Americans Don’t Deserve to Be Saved From a Mass Shooting If They Politically Disagree With Molyneux (Dec. 6, 2015)
This also reminds me of a conversation Molyneux had uploaded onto YouTube on December 6, 2015, about which I have previously written here. As of my writing this October 29, 2018 blog entry, the official copy of the video that Molyneux uploaded onto his own official YouTube channel has mysteriously — and, for Molyneux, conveniently — disappeared from the official channel.
 |
| The upload in question should be around here on the YouTube channel, but it is gone. |
But here, and embedded right below, is a pertinent excerpt from it.
The caller, who identifies himself as “Nick,” is a man living in the Bay Area, south of San Francisco. He initially complains that all of his neighbors are very left-wing and politically correct, and that they do not like his idea that it is his right to own a gun for self-defense. He calls it the “liberal soup.” He tells Molyneux, however, that he fears that a mass shooter might target people in his neighbor and, in such a case, it would be best for him to have a gun to defend his neighbors. Molyneux’s reply was chilling. This is of special pertinence because the hypothetical mass shooter that this December 2016 caller imagined is not unlike the real-life madman who engaged in the mass shooting at the Pittsburgh synagogue. This is the exchange:
Caller: “I mean I do understand that me dying from a terrorist attack is just as likely the Chinese coming in and invading the [California] coast, which probably is not going to happen. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. But I just cannot shake that feeling that if this situation arises where I am somewhere where I should not be hearing gunshots, and I hear them, I cannot be the one who runs away. I can’t.”
Molyneux: “Why?”
Caller: “Because that’s what pussies do; damn it! Real American men who are armed and ready and trained are not pussies, OK? We’ve done a lot to make sure.”
Molyneux (laughs derisively): “OK, OK. I get it. I get it, G. I. Joe. But let me give you a push back here. See if this makes any sense, all right? [*pause*] WHO are you gonna be saving?” [Emphasis Molyneux’s.]
Caller: ‘My fellow Americans. That’s who I’m going to be saving, whether I agree with them or not.”
Molyneux: “You told me you’re in liberal soup land [this is the California Bay area].”
Caller: “Yeah, but that doesn’t mean they deserve to die, because they—”
Molyneux (smiling): “You’re not killing them.”
Caller: “I know.”
Molyneux: “You’re not killing them. Are you going to go and risk your life to save a bunch of socialists [he means California Democrats] who are going to hug their killers if they get half a chance?”
Caller: “Yes.”
Molyneux: “Why? Don't you have any pride in your [Caucasian] genes, in your life, in your future, in your children-to-be?”
Caller (sighs): “They’re Americans and that's what you have to do as a real American. You have to stand up if—”
Molyneux (interrupts): “You don’t have to do it. Don’t give me this appeal as if it’s a philosophical argument. Make your case.”
Caller: “Look, it’s as simple as the fact that without people who are willing to stand up to evil in communities around the world, we won’t be a nation anymore.”
Molyneux: “I get that, but can you stand up to evil when you’re six foot under the ground? The conflict is not you throwing yourself in front of some fat government worker who’s going to bleed you dry of pension money all she can get. That’s not the courage you need to fight evil. [ . . . ] What you need to do is talk with people and confront people and speak truth to power. That’s how you fight evil. It’s not you taking a bullet for somebody who’d have you thrown in jail for following your own conscience. [Again, this is California they're talking about]. For some statist!”
Caller (groans)
Molyneux: “I’ve gotta re-orient you. [ . . . ] But the chilling reality is that you could seriously risk your life, get shot, get killed, get wounded, be put in a wheelchair for your life, get your balls shot off and be unable to bear children, to save a bunch of people who will then vote to take away your gun — that’s my issue — or vote to increase your taxes. I get the big blob of goo in your brain called ‘America,’ but America is not chock full of people like you anymore.” [Emphasis Molyneux’s.]
Caller (sighs in agreement): “Yeah, I guess so. It didn’t use to be this way. Shit; I remember when I was a kid it wasn’t this way.”
Molyneux: “Oh, my God, in America in the 1950s and the 1960s when it was still — what? — 90-plus-percent white, kids could take guns to school for target practice at recess. Nobody cared.”
If you want to hear the exchange, it is, as of this writing update (12 November 2018), still available on Stefan Molyneux’s official website. It is FreeDomain Radio Podcast #3144, and the title on the official page is “The State of Modern Science – Call In Show.” The conversation begins at the 0:25:30 mark, and it is available on SoundCloud.
 |
| Screen shot 1 of 2 of this disturbing podcast on SoundCloud, screen shot taken 12 November 2018 (click for enlargement of image). |
 |
| Screen shot 2 of 2, of this disturbing podcast on SoundCloud, screen shot taken on 12 November 2018 (click for enlargement of image). |
Again, so that you can hear it for yourself, here is that exchange:
Conclusion
Molyneux has stated that he wants the governments of Europe and the English-speaking countries to obstruct immigration from Central America and Africa based on people from these regions having political opinions different from his. And among the political opinions he has classified as anathema are support for the U.S. Democratic Party. And he has also stated that he recognizes that such immigration laws are enforced with potentially lethal force against anyone trying to cross the border without a visa, including nonviolent border-crossers.
The logical conclusions to deduce is that, contrary to Molyneux’s parting words in his “Pittsburgh Massacre” video, he has indeed regularly recommended, for the past couple of years, the use of violence against people primarily for their having ideological and political opinions different from his own, regardless of their not having actually engaged in violence. For him, a prospect that an immigrant might one day [as a naturalized citizen] vote a specific way is justification enough for Molyneux to recommend force against that immigrant — force that Molyneux has admitted might escalate into lethal action. And in December of 2015, when one caller discussed the possibility of one day finding himself a witness to a shooting rampage — describing something similar to the shooting rampage at the Pittsburgh synagogue — Molyneux told that caller that he should not be concerned with saving the lives of potential shooting victims who were Democrats, as those Democrats disagree with Molyneux politically.
By his own definition of potentially lethal force, Stefan Molyneux has indeed publicly expressed approval for the use of potentially lethal force against people on account of their disagreeing with him on politics and religion.
This video is 9 minutes, 40 seconds long.
NOVEMBER 12, 2018 Corrections and Changes: Prior to 12 November 2018, I erroneously said in this post that the podcast in which Molyneux denied any sympathy for mass shooting victims who disagreed with his politics was from December 2016; the podcast was from December 2015. On 12 November 2018, I made that correction, and also added the information that that podcast is still available both on Molyneux’s official website and on SoundCloud, including the links and the pertinent screen shots. On this day, I also added the screen shot to indicate where the “Death of Terrorism” YouTube upload would have been on Molyneux’s YouTube page if that upload were not rendered unavailable for YouTube.
