Originally Posted by wdmso
Molyneux has been described as a part of the "alt-right" , Metro, NY Magazine, Vanity Fair, and CBS, and has been described as "one of the alt-right's biggest YouTube stars" by Washington Post
I don't know on what rational basis those left leaning outlets "describe" him as an alt-right star. Do they mean that he is adulated by the alt-right, or that he is himself alt-right. I suspect that leftists would like to diminish the influence of any "star" who shows how their own leftist position is dangerous to free, open, and rational thinking.
Molyneux is not a nationalist. Quite the contrary, his ideal state is community and individual self-governance, not a nation state. He is fundamentally and philosophically anti-statist. And he certainly is not a white supremacist. His reliance on IQ as a determinant of various outcomes is troublesome, "controversial" to many, especially to leftists. But it is does not lead to him being a white racist. He constantly points out that East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews (basically European Jews and their ancestors) have, by far, the highest IQs. If his reliance on IQ would determine the best governmental systems or States, then he would logically believe that China would be a model to emulate. He absolutely despises the sort of government that China has.
But he understands, and quite clearly states, that broad IQ stats are on a collective basis. So if he refers to massive immigration from countries in which the collective IQ is low, he is pointing out that such immigration is necessarily importing large numbers of preponderantly lower IQ people, which can lead to unnecessary burdens on a collectively higher IQ population. He is absolutely for immigration by individual rather than by mass migration--by individuals who would help rather than detract from our societal growth and well being, and those individuals could be of any color or national origin. He would be against importing any individuals, including white or European, if their vetting shows low IQ, self destructive or anti-social or politically authoritarian tendencies. Again, that is controversial to some, but it is not an alt-right position.
Stefan's videos are not basically about politics. Most of them deal with other subjects ranging from all aspects of human life, from personal perspectives to ultimate issues. He promotes his show as a philosophical forum. He addresses most of his broadcasts as being a philosophical application of reason and logic to the subject at hand. I don't watch a lot of his stuff. It is often boring to me because either I'm not interested in the subject or it had already been covered enough by him.
But he is definitely not alt-right. And have you actually discussed and disproven anything he has said? Or have you just pointed out how some "describe" him?
As for your sources and their opinions on Molyneux, I suspect they are not applying reason and logic, rather they are using personal prejudices to paint their picture of who he is.
keep posting fring people presenting them as experts and truth givers ...clearly you post him consistently because it suits what you want to believe. which is fine both it cuts both ways
I notice that you consistently don't critique the actual contents of his videos that I post. You always respond by posting what others say about him, how they "describe" him. Does his video which I posted on this thread show him to be alt-right?
Sorry I am not part of the of what Trumps assertion that thirty-three percent of the people in this country believe the fake news is in fact, and I hate to say this, in fact the enemy of the people." but you maybe
|