Jul 07.

Stefan Molyneux

83 comments

WHAT I BELIEVE: Stefan Molyneux

Note: I was promoting this essay on Twitter, and was about to publish it, when I was banned without warning. It’s not hard to understand why powerful people might not want you to read what I wrote below.

Video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/a0GzcUWa2RFD/

To learn the truth about other misrepresentations of my work, please visit The Untruths about Stefan Molyneux…

For my 2-year interview series on human intelligence, visit Human Intelligence (IQ) – Stefan Molyneux Interviews 17 World-Renowned Experts in the Field of Human Intelligence

There are times when it behooves a philosopher to lay out his case carefully and in great detail, summoning from first principles all the syllogisms and evidence that build a solid case.

This is not one of those times.

If you want to know more about the detailed reasoning behind the beliefs outlined below, I recommend my free books and podcasts at www.freedomain.com.

Philosophy is the greatest intellectual discipline in the realm of human thought.

Philosophy can teach you about the nature of reality, the nature of knowledge, the nature of truth – but you can explore these various disciplines through biology, physics, geology, or any other natural science.

Philosophy’s core discipline is ethics, since that is the one area of study that no other discipline can effectively address.

I am now going to tell you all of the major beliefs that I have developed over almost 40 years of studying, practicing and teaching philosophy.

I have written this essay in part to push back against the various narratives being spread about me – that I am a cult leader, a white supremacist, a eugenicist, and so on.

Let us get started with the facts.

Reality

Objective reality exists, and we receive information about it through the evidence of our senses. Reality is rational, and thus any ideas we have that claim to be “true” must pass the tests of reason and evidence. Evidence is always superior to ideas that describe reality, since ideas can only be considered “true” if they accurately describe reality.

Virtue

Virtue is Universally Preferable Behavior.

We own ourselves and we own the effects of our actions. From self-ownership, we derive property rights – the first being the protection of our own bodies. Morality must be universal, since it can be imposed upon others, unlike aesthetics. A woman has the right to decide against having sex, and she has the right to use force to defend that right. A man has the right to keep the fruits of his labor, and he has the right to use force to defend his property, just as he has the right to defend his body.

Property rights, the right of self-defense, and the non-aggression principle form the foundations of rational morality. My theory of ethics – universally preferable behavior – condemns rape, theft, assault and murder.

The State

Philosophy does not recognize geography, costumes, or mere beliefs as characteristics that can alter the nature of reality. The laws of physics do not change from one country to the next, or from one costume to another.

The same applies to laws of morality. You cannot morally initiate the use of force – no matter how many law books say that you can, or how many people believe that you should, or what costume you may be wearing.

Slavery was a universal human institution, finally recognized as immoral and banished throughout most of the world in the 19th century.

The same applies to the state. People calling themselves the “government” claim the moral right to initiate force against others.

They do not possess this right, any more than slave owners had the right to own other human beings.

A moral society is a stateless society, just as a moral society is a slave-less society.

Race

The major human races diverged tens of thousands of years ago, and had to adapt to very different environments – from brutal Siberian winters to the lush dangers of the tropics.

These varied environments posed unique challenges to our evolution, and gave each race its particular characteristics. Some people refer to these as “strengths” and “weaknesses,” but I strongly oppose such judgments.

Evolutionarily speaking, the words “strengths” and “weaknesses” are mostly meaningless – especially when talking about different environments. All creatures strive their best to adapt to their local environments.

I do not believe that any race is “superior” or “inferior.” I accept the biological facts that some racial differences exist, because philosophy teaches us to accept facts – even if they make us uncomfortable. (The virtue of intellectual courage is only required when contemplating uncomfortable facts.)

Philosophy also teaches us to avoid judging individuals by group averages – although women may be shorter than men in general, you can never prejudge any individual woman as being shorter than the average man.

I would love nothing more than to live in a world where we treated people as individuals – Martin Luther King’s dream of judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin – but there is a growing group of people who claim that all differences in outcomes for various groups result from (usually white/male) bigotry, and that is an unjust and incorrect claim.

Although there are many talented Chinese basketball players, we would not expect the majority of professional players to be Chinese, for various historical, cultural, and physical reasons.

Average tested IQ levels vary among different ethnicities – again, we must never judge individuals by group averages, but group averages nonetheless exist, and play at least a part in social and economic outcomes.

I have always believed – and taught – that human beings can only resolve conflicts via reason and evidence. We can only meet and find peace in reality – not in ideology or fantasy or wish fulfillment or rage or, strangely enough, in the racial prejudice that results from denying average group differences.

I talk about these issues because I wish to help de-escalate increasing ethnic tensions and hostility, so we can have a reasonable conversation about these issues without coming to open violence, which will be our inevitable destination if these conversations continue to be suppressed.

I believe in equality before the law and reject any and all laws based on race. No race should “rule” or dominate any other race.

Eugenics is a government program that uses force to control people’s reproductive choices and is utterly immoral.

I am not an “ethno-nationalist” but an advocate for a stateless society. In a truly free society, people can live however they choose, as long as they do not initiate the use of force. The violence required to create an “ethno-state” would be a monstrous violation of the non-aggression principle, and should be utterly condemned.

Men and Women

Women and men have faced different evolutionary pressures – just as in the case of race, this does not make either men or women “superior” or “inferior.” Women have evolved based upon the preferences that men have for mates, just as men have evolved based upon the preferences of women. We are the shadows cast by the sexual choices of our combined histories.

I oppose ideologies that strive to pit women against men – for most of human history, we were all mostly just struggling to survive. All beliefs that undermine our capacity to fall in love, pair-bond, and raise families are anti-life and ultimately a nihilistic dead-end.

Women faced particular burdens throughout history – as did men. Women suffered through childbirth and were economically dependent; men suffered through dangerous hunting and war, and their genes died out if they were rejected by women.

We have more liberty and wealth now to pursue our love for each other – it is particularly tragic that, at such a time, sophists are trying to turn us against each other, often with great success. Men and women complement each other, and need each other for the unique characteristics they bring to a relationship.

Naturally, I oppose all morals and laws that create unjust advantages for either men or women.

The Family

The moral ban on the initiation of the use of force applies first and foremost from parents to children.

Children are unique in society in that they do not choose their family. Adult relationships are mostly voluntary: husbands choose wives, people choose jobs, and you can leave the country of your birth.

Children should be treated with the highest moral standards because they have the least choice in society.

Hitting children violates the non-aggression principle, as does circumcision and confinement. Verbal abuse can easily turn into a form of torture, harming the trapped child’s personality.

When they grow up, adult children are not morally obligated to continue spending time with relentlessly abusive parents.

The logic of this is simple.

If it is considered immoral for adult children to reject the unchosen relationship with their parents, then it must be far more immoral for anyone to reject the relationships they chose – yet we usually applaud people who leave abusive marriages.

We accept that it is usually a good thing for people to leave an abusive relationship that they voluntarily chose to enter.  How can it be a bad thing to leave an abusive relationship you never chose in the first place?

When people choose to raise a child, they are required to provide quality parenting. If they are persistently abusive, adult children are no more required to spend time with them than you are required to continue to eat at a restaurant that serves unpleasant and dangerous food.

Free Will

Human beings are not mere “atoms,” since no atom is alive, yet humans are alive. An “emergent property” called “life” exists – just as an emergent property called “free will” exists. No atom in the human brain has free will, yet our minds do.

“Free will” is our ability to compare proposed actions to ideal standards such as science or morality or abstract truth.

Arguing against free will requires that abstract truth be a standard to which we should choose to adhere. It is a self-defeating argument.

Conclusion

Of course, not all of the above are self-contained arguments, but they are brief sketches of what I believe, and what I’ve argued for during my many years as a public intellectual.

There are those who hate these arguments and, rather than engage with them, simply smear and attack me.

I don’t expect this brief article to change their minds, but for those of you who are curious about what I believe – and why – I hope that these intellectual flares shot above the roiling smoke of hysterical attacks will guide your curiosity to the most fertile delta of the human mind: philosophical thought.

More people than you imagine are waiting here for you to join us.

Addendum

After promoting this essay on Twitter, I was banned – as I have been recently from a variety of other platforms.

I was on Twitter for over a decade, on YouTube for over 14 years, and these accounts were deleted without strikes, warnings or communications.

I have always worked hard to create a middle ground where people can meet to discuss reason and evidence. Society – and in particular politics – has become increasingly polarized over the past few years.

I’m sad about these developments, but I have always counselled accepting reality, and would not want to fail at following my own good advice.

De-platforming is not a debate, not a negotiation – de-platforming is not an argument.

The greatest immediate good I have achieved is reminding people how to apply philosophy to their daily lives, through my call-in show.

I will continue that.

I also love creating presentations that remind people of the powerful lessons of science, philosophy and history.

I will continue that.

I have been asked countless times to write a book on parenting.

I will, I promise.

Politics?

I am retiring from political commentary. Although I’m sure there is still great value to be had in political conversations, I am going to spend my energies elsewhere.

Thank you so much my friends.

To learn the truth about other misrepresentations of my work, please visit The Untruths about Stefan Molyneux…

  • Excellent

    Vicky / 9:50 pm /
    • Our rights to embody ideas were suppress ed in 1913 white the taking of our property .

      bk / 9:50 pm /
    • Although I do not agree with a couple of points due to presumptions that may be included, I agree with you on the majority and applaud you for voicing.

      Matt Carney / 9:50 pm /
  • na

    sean / 9:50 pm /
    • Hi Steph. Thanks for aall the content you provide, also…how can you be sure atoms aren’t alive?

      Luke / 9:50 pm /
      • They are. Stefan doesn’t understand that we are living in God’s paradoxical matrix. The world is an illusion. Only God is real. The world is God 🙂

        Todd / 9:50 pm /
        • This is what YouTube and Twitter was hoping to be gifted after throwing you down the rabbit hole. I hope this is more of a mental break from politics, instead of completely walking away. Conservatives will certainly miss what you’ve brought to the table.
          “Politics?
          I am retiring from political commentary. Although I’m sure there is still great value to be had in political conversations, I am going to spend my energies elsewhere”

          Caldo / 9:50 pm /
        • Following your postulate: God is an illusion?

          Morgie / 9:50 pm /
  • Brilliant.

    David Standal / 9:50 pm /
  • Twitter is such BS

    Kevin / 9:50 pm /
  • Thank you for speaking facts and truth.

    Sue Daia / 9:50 pm /
    • The beauty of logic and philosophy in a few paragraphs. Thank you Stefan please keep going. We love you.

      Raffy / 9:50 pm /
    • No, he’s a hypocrite. It’s bad if he gets his voice silenced, there can’t be debate, he says… Yet he blocked ME on Twitter for disagreeing with him. I said nothing abusive, he’s simply a hypocrite.

      Tonia Hall / 9:50 pm /
      • You believe that he’s a hypocrite, yet you come to his site to stir up trouble. That makes you both a PITA and a POS.

        Equality7-2521 / 9:50 pm /
      • That isn’t hypocrisy, Tonia. You’re comparing apples to chalk. Being blocked only means that one person out of billions has no interest in seeing your tweets. Being suspended means that nobody can see them, whether they’ve any interest in seeing them or not.

        ZombieRand / 9:50 pm /
      • Technically, the word “hypocrite” simply means somebody who claims to respect moral standards that the person actually doesn’t respect. If you don’t claim to respect the standards then you aren’t a hypocrite. Does Molyneux make claims about himself, or does he simply describe moral ideals that he says all people ought to live up to? Isn’t there a difference between saying “Here are some moral standards that in my opinion everybody should live up to” and “I assert that I have myself always lived up to those standards in every interaction”?

        Given the limited length available for a message, Twitter might not be an appropriate venue for a serious debate.

        If you had been debating with Molyneux on Twitter for 14 years, and then suddenly he announced that you have always been violating the rules, and that all of your content will be removed, then you could compare how Molyneux treated you with how YouTube treated Molyneux.

        K Williams / 9:50 pm /
      • Tonia, nobody is required to talk to, debate with or listen anyone else. That isn’t being a hypocrite. You are not entitled to anything from anyone. Not their time, not their thoughts, not their reactions to what you say. It’s called freedom.

        Sean Michael Bearly / 9:50 pm /
      • I’ve had disagreements, he hasn’t blocked me from anything. There is a difference in being individually blocked, and there is being removed entirely from the platform. You do recognize this gargantuan difference, no?

        Matthew Timm / 9:50 pm /
  • Great work

    Nat Rattazzi / 9:50 pm /
  • Thank you for your explanations.

    Dan Kearney / 9:50 pm /
  • Perfectly stated. Social media is becoming the ultimate echo chamber for sophists. Keep fighting the good fight my man. We need this now more than ever!

    Luke N / 9:50 pm /
    • I was surprised to find that I believe many of the things you stated. In fact, all of them

      Laura C / 9:50 pm /
      • Thank you, Stephan, for inspiring others to seek non-violent, peaceful discourse and facts over propaganda or emotional reactivity. Always remember you are not a victim, merely a target, because what you say opens minds… and that is what our rulers fear most.

        Arlen / 9:50 pm /
  • This is beautiful Stefan. Without you my life would have certainly spun off into an ever contradictory mayhem. You have tought me how to think, argue, and compress my points which has inturn made me a better husband, father, and leader. I’m forever grateful for your work and my children will remember you as one of the most influential philosophers of my time. Thank you.

    Nestor E. Ledon / 9:50 pm /
  • Hey Stefan, I’m a mature 4th year engineering student. Can you recommend a good place to start studying philosophy? I often struggle with understanding what is truly a fact. What is evidence and how to prepare and judge a collection or facts to come to a logical conclusion. Perhaps those comments would help narrow your recommendation.

    Vain / 9:50 pm /
    • Hello Vain,

      Stefan is here dealing with ethics. Sounds like you’re interested in epistemology, logic and persuasion.

      A few recommendations:

      1)Mortimer Adler’s “How to Read a Book” – the 1972 edition. The section on Analytical Reading, in particular, will help you enormously in reading/writing for understanding.

      2) Euclid, Elements Book 1. Sir Thomas Heath translation. This will give you logic (and deep mathematical beauty!)

      3) Follow Scott Adams and read his books. He will take care of persuasion for you

      4) Stefan’s own book Art of the Argument.

      I hope the above helps.

      Paul / 9:50 pm /
    • I graduated Engineering 6 years ago. I took a philosophy couse before graduating.
      Logic: logical forms are well established, such as Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens. These are in the set of Deductive reasoning, and are establishable.
      Evidence: can be questioned. Standards for evidence/proof vary widely. Scientific evidence generated by hypotheses and testing is always in the inductive reasoning category: it can never be proven definitely true, but can be proven false. Based on probabilities and repeated experiments in different conditions, we come to accept some things as likely true.

      If you look at deductive arguments, if they are based on likely true scientific statements, the logic can be valid, but the assumptions in the arguement can be questioned.

      The best logical arguments use the standard logic formats. The assumptions can be questioned, as well as showing inconsistencies if the reasoning is developed further.

      Jen / 9:50 pm /
  • I was dismayed to see you blocked on twitter. God be with you. I stand by you rejecting racism.

    M D / 9:50 pm /
  • Very interesting article and worth a read.

    Barbara Eastham / 9:50 pm /
  • Thank you for sharing.

    Jayl Quinones / 9:50 pm /
  • Very useful article, thank you for prudence.

    Ahat Polatov / 9:50 pm /
  • […] WHAT I BELIEVE: Stefan Molyneux […]

    The Process of Deplatforming – DVS Press / 9:50 pm /
  • Consistent with what Stefan has said over the years and concisely stated. We need to build a movement.

    Mark / 9:50 pm /
  • Anyone who has ever spent any time listening to you speak on philosophy knows without a doubt that everything Twitter and YouTube says about you is a lie. Thanks for continuing to fight the good fight against unjust censorship.

    Ignota Femina / 9:50 pm /
  • Based and redpilled.

    Anon / 9:50 pm /
    • You claim it is immoral to use force and only a stateless society is just, yet as John Locke talked about, when one joins a society they give up individual freedoms in order to get along in society. One can always leave a society to join another without force, but at some point force is required to solve difference. That force can be as simple as the threat of force, or exile to death, depending on the differnce. A stateless society is a society of the individual, and not a society at all.

      D smith / 9:50 pm /
      • John Locke was mistaken then. The state isn’t society; it’s a structure that is often built on top of society. You and I are talking now, so we have a society, yet neither of us is transgressing with violence so we don’t have a state.

        ZombieRand / 9:50 pm /
  • Brillant! It’s more of the same with Twitter, ban a man who has rational thought and poses a threat (in their mind, anyway). They work to hide the facts, instead of engaging in meaningful discouse.

    Summer / 9:50 pm /
  • I have listened to your podcast a few times and I have to ask you how you would rectify a stateless society with other societies, e.g. the CCP, that are very hostile and are willing to harm others to achieve their goals?

    Chris Rhee / 9:50 pm /
  • Just expressing my support Stef! You are one of the sanest voices around in these times of increasing sophistry and uncertainty. Like you’ve said, they only shoot at you when you’re over the target. Stay strong brother!
    John.

    john a bertenshaw / 9:50 pm /
  • Beautifully written, thank you Stefan. Maybe there is still hope.

    Andrew / 9:50 pm /
  • It’s so sad as a listener of 5+ years that he has to do this. What he forgot to mention was his call I shows where he’s saved marriages, lives and given some of the most profound guidance and wisdom to people I’ve ever heard.

    Doplem / 9:50 pm /
  • This should be taught in schools…

    Råååålen / 9:50 pm /
  • If you weren’t being banned then you would be doing something wrong. Evil fears the truth. Take some pride in that these sites will eventually fall into dismay; no system ever operates on a long-term basis without feedback.

    Joseph / 9:50 pm /
  • Great essay! I’v been following you for a few years now, so this isn’t aimed at me and already got the gist of what you believe, but this is a great write up and summary that will hopefully knock some sense into people about you.

    Tom / 9:50 pm /
  • Great summary. Wish it could be shared.

    Rasmus Møller / 9:50 pm /
    • What happens if we all share this link in twitter?

      Hank Morgan / 9:50 pm /
  • Truth has no censor.

    Pip Santos / 9:50 pm /
  • I have followed you for for some time and have very much enjoyed the vast majority of your content. Truth to power Stefan. We are in challenging times.

    Jay Arce / 9:50 pm /
    • You claim it is immoral to use force and only a stateless society is just, yet as John Locke talked about, when one joins a society they give up individual freedoms in order to get along.

      D smith / 9:50 pm /
  • Stefan, you apport immense good with your brilliant knowledge. You are much loved and admired.
    Grateful please keep the great work and hang in there .
    Gold Laurels for you.

    Biserka / 9:50 pm /
  • Dear Stefan, what they’re doing to you, a coordinated censorship is despicable, a big injustice, but at the same time is proof of how dangerous you are to the censors.
    I’ll do my best to support you. subscribestar.com/freedomain is working ok? it is stable?
    PD: There’s a typo, where it says: “Philosophy does not recognize geography, costumes, or mere beliefs” I guess you mean “Philosophy does not recognize geography, customs…”

    Hank Morgan / 9:50 pm /
    • It’s unlikely to be a typo. Read the full context:

      “Philosophy does not recognize geography, costumes, or mere beliefs as characteristics that can alter the nature of reality. The laws of physics do not change from one country to the next, or from one costume to another.

      The same applies to laws of morality. You cannot morally initiate the use of force – no matter how many law books say that you can, or how many people believe that you should, or what costume you may be wearing.”

      K Williams / 9:50 pm /
    • He meant to write costumes – as in costumes that police wear,and other ‘officials’

      Brett W / 9:50 pm /
  • Thanks Stefan. Nothing but positivity and truth in this essay. The censorship has to stop.

    Nathan / 9:50 pm /
  • The truth must be getting to them. Keep at it, good sir! o7

    XObme / 9:50 pm /
  • Lol wot

    Molymeme / 9:50 pm /
  • I like your philosophy thanks for glaring your thought

    Jonathan / 9:50 pm /
  • Hi Stefan,

    You closed with these words:

    I also love creating presentations that remind people of the powerful lessons of science, philosophy and history.

    Politics?

    I am retiring from political commentary. Although I’m sure there is still great value to be had in political conversations, I am going to spend my energies elsewhere.

    Maybe you can write about the “philosophy” that promotes the “science” of revolution throughout “history” and how history is being repeated today, specifically the ANTIFA and Black Live Matter “protesters” who are not protesters but are foot soldiers of the marxist revolution.

    As Diana West has written on her books, her blog, and her twitter account the issue of the day (race, statues, etc.,) is NOT NOT NOT the issue. The “issue” is ALWAYS the internationalist, globalist, revolution.

    Youtube and Twitter do NOT care what you think, what you wrote, what you “intend”, or what you say to clear your name and reputation.

    As with the marxists, the issue for Google/Youtube and Jack “Twitter” is NOT the “issue” of you the person. The issue is their own ideological “revolution” which can’t compete with your “liberty” mindset.

    As the marxists have said for decades:

    You can jail the revolutionaries
    But you can’t jail the revolution
    Why?
    The issue is not the issue.
    The Issue is the revolution

    Art

    Art Telles / 9:50 pm /
  • I’m overjoyed to hear you’re retiring from political commentary! It was clearly a drag on you, and has gotten us nowhere – as you argued it would only 5 or 6 years ago. Here we are with everything political worse than it was in spite of enormous effort to “get the right guy in charge.” Time to go back to living in spite of the state and thinking about how to improve our own lives and the lives of those we care about. The world doesn’t need saving. It’s not going anywhere. As for the people on it… well, they seem to be getting what they’ve been asking for.

    I hope you’ll keep writing and speaking on the apolitical (or really, anti-political) topics you’re so good on, but if this is a soft retirement that’s great too. You’ve earned it.

    A Humble Bit-Rancher / 9:50 pm /
  • Dear Prof. Molyneux, I knew nothing about You before (via GAB) I heard about your ban on various platforms. I disagree with many pillars of your philosophical beliefs, but I’d like, if You grant me Your permission, to make a video reading this text (or, even better, to translate it in Italian language) for my audience; just to fight against censorship and to show You the support You deserve. Thanks in advance. Let me hear at my email. Best wishes, be strong and do not abandon the aristotelic “Politics” aside. Do not surrender: keep the speech over politics.

    Prof. Furio DETTI / 9:50 pm /
  • I must have been a closet philosopher all my life and not known it. I agree with most everything here, except for your evolutionary theories, and have lived my life according to these principles. Keep speaking the truth Stefan.

    Jack / 9:50 pm /
  • […] his website, Molyneux said he was promoting an essay in which he outlines his beliefs, but “powerful […]

    Stefan Molyneux Permanently Banned From Twitter - LaCorte News / 9:50 pm /
  • When reason is unreasonable, when thought is thoughtless, you have Stefan Molyneux. The Stefan Molyneux statute on both Twitter and YouTube have been taken down. As will others. I’m I disappointed, only George Orwell knows for sure.

    Orville / 9:50 pm /
  • Eine Fackel ist verloschen. Sie brannte für die Freiheit aller Menschen. Danke für Deine Arbeit, Energie und Lebenskraft.

    Ellis Wyatt / 9:50 pm /
  • Thank you. I am a new follower. I will continue to follow.
    Twitter is for twits.

    John / 9:50 pm /
  • Wow. Devastating news. You have an uncanny ability to analyze and articulate issues in politics and current affairs like few others can. I find it sad and tragic that you will no longer offer opposing views on some of these volatile topics that are occurring. I have always enjoyed your philosophical podcasts, but can only hear about free enterprise/capitalism versus marxism so many times. The news changes daily and provides more variety and that is what has appealed to me. I think it’s safe to say that I speak for many when I appeal to you to reconsider. I can’t stress enough how important it is to have rational views and arguments presented to counter what comes out of the neurotic left. So many voices have been silenced. Don’t allow FDR to become yet another. Thank you Stef.

    Wayne R. / 9:50 pm /
  • Please accept my deepest thanks for everything you do Stefan – you’ve had such a positive impact on my life, and many others. I have a loving wife and beautifull 9 month old daughter, and your hard work and wisdom helped to make that happen. I am a monthly subscriber for years now and I will be with you till the end. There is a saying that its darkest before the dawn, so dont loose hope! We are almost there.

    Jiri Bok / 9:50 pm /
  • You’re a spineless, brainless fucking cuck, Stef. Absolutely pathetic.

    Alexa Newsey / 9:50 pm /
    • Yep, dude. I am saying that all the time.

      Milo / 9:50 pm /
  • I am having a hard time finding anything controversial in this essay. It was beautiful and simple. Love it.

    Lisa Watten-Contreras / 9:50 pm /
  • I am sorry, but this Molly’s essay sounds more as an excuse, or if you want, trying to peace both sides, something that is impossible to achieve. Sitting on the fence surely won’t bring you both points from both sides that you desperately want to be part of. Stefan, you shouldn’t apology. To no one.
    And what’s it with stateless society? What good will bring that to people? Free will? More and more I am convinced that such anarchic approach, at first desirable, ultimately it would lead to destruction of society. Finally, Stef, problem with us humans is that we tend to reject or deny our flaws (denying sounds more appropriate), instead of fully embracing them in order to be complete people. Another problem with humanity is that we are no equal and are much divided; trying to artificially change that also leads to destruction of society. Men are being put down, women are being put down, but if look behind, who was the motor behind mankind “progress” so far? Men. White men.

    Milo / 9:50 pm /
  • You said nothing that warrants deplatforming from any media organization IMHO. It is my belief that the left is attempting to eliminate all influencers that promoted Trump.

    Bear / 9:50 pm /
  • I’m gonna miss you, Stefan. I hope you come back to political commentary. Your bravery touched my heart. And inspired me. I’m worried for the future of the West and people of European descent. Every other group is allowed to protect their own except us. It doesn’t hold up to reason. I’m deeply worried about the future. You were a rational voice amidst the noise. Perhaps I’ll dig through your writings in your absence.

    Julian Mykytiuch / 9:50 pm /
  • Stefan, pearls before swine comes to mind when people like you bring such inestimable value to society in these dark times. The controllers of these platforms are afraid of the light cast by the pravda you share, because it will prevent their immoral life hating agendas from manifesting their selfish evil plans.
    They drive the masses with their cheap bread and circus without real values and people awake enough will walk away and leave these platforms with nothing but bells and whistles for the dying.
    I truly appreciate all your stimulating, rational, wonderful content and reminders for us all to keep the light of truth burning to help lead and keep humanity on a golden path of beauty, peace, kindness, compassion, patience, value creation and civilization. One Love :)))

    Leon Kovalyov / 9:50 pm /
  • Stefan that was epic, inspiring, clear, and powerful, i wish someday have your habilities to write. also the ideas are perfectly rational and good for mankind. you are a very smart man, thanks for everything you do, and fuck youtube

    Lukas Meza / 9:50 pm /
    • Stateless society? Non-violent methods to children (which probably disavows spanking), and general pissing on everything he talked and wrote before? Not very good if you ask me.

      Milo / 9:50 pm /
  • Eloquently put, to the point and an accurate reflection of my experience with Stefan’s content. Well done.

    Matt / 9:50 pm /
  • Imagine being so confused in your thinking that you still advocate for a stateless society while at the same time advocating for immigration restrictions across government borders based on racial group.

    Imagine being so confused in your thinking that you claim to still believe in individualism, yet devote an inordinate amount of time over roughly the past half decade to looking at people through collectivist lenses.

    Imagine being so confused in your thinking that you refuse to support Ron Paul (who by any sane ancap/voluntaryist’s account is the closest person to our ideology to have ever graced a major presidential primary debate stage), but then put your full, enthusiastic support behind someone who has no principled philosophical beliefs to speak of…and then triumphantly sing the national anthem on YouTube in response to him winning in 2016.

    The level of cognitive dissonance in your head must be excruciating. I honestly hope it is, because it would be beneficial for all parties if you eliminated it as soon as possible. And by that, I mean: stop pretending (to yourself and the public) that you still believe in the NAP/anarcho-capitalism/voluntaryism. The views you’ve developed over the past several years are antithetical to the aforementioned philosophies, and your perceived association with them is a stain on their reputations.

    Jon / 9:50 pm /
  • It doesn’t look like a typo if you read the following consecutive sentences together in their original sequence:

    “Philosophy does not recognize geography, costumes, or mere beliefs as characteristics that can alter the nature of reality. The laws of physics do not change from one country to the next, or from one costume to another.

    The same applies to laws of morality. You cannot morally initiate the use of force – no matter how many law books say that you can, or how many people believe that you should, or what costume you may be wearing.”

    K Williams / 9:50 pm /
  • Stefan your thoughts go deep lets bring them to the foundation.
    GOD is love and GOD created everything out of what GOD is; love.
    This is the ONLY truth and shows to be the foundation of your listed beliefs however not stated.

    Field Walker / 9:50 pm /
  • He meant to write costumes – as in costumes that police wear,and other ‘officials’

    Brett W / 9:50 pm /
  • I have been an avid listener for over 10 years. I have listened to absolutely hundreds, probably thousands of hours of your podcasts and videos – I love your early podcasts by the way. We even spoke once when I called in about veganism (I’m not a vegan anymore though, haha)
    You never commented much on current political affairs until the last 4 years if I remember right. But you came into it like a lion, and you made a huge impact to uncountable people by sharing your views on the current political affairs. Your tenacity and bravery have been absolutely inspirational. I am so disappointed that YouTube has deleted all your excellent content. But.. If those motherfuckers think they can beat the Stefbot – the Big Chatty Forehead… – the loudest and most articulate voice of reason in the world today, then those fools underestimate you. I know these may be tough times for you, but I also know you can overcome this. And I will never stop supporting you and enjoying your work. Thank you for so many thousands of hours that you’ve absolutely enriched my life. I will stand by you. You have a loyal friend here. And I know my kind are many in numbers. We will not go away! So fuck YouTube! They can go to hell. Stay strong Stef and thanks for everything you’ve done and will hopefully continue to do!

    Brett DW / 9:50 pm /
  • Comments are closed.

Sign up for the Freedomain Newsletter to receive previews of upcoming shows, exclusive presentations, invitations to private call in shows and much more!

Please enter a valid email address
That address is already in use
The security code entered was incorrect
Thanks for signing up