top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Molyneux and the single moms



For Molyneux consent is all—what is the ultimate act that we cannot consent to? Birth. This is why Molyneux has this idea “defoo”—the idea being that you can and should “divorce your family”. If you step away from the jargon, “defoo” amounts to the prosaic observation that people often don’t get on with their relatives—sons fight with fathers, mothers fight with daughters, brothers and sisters quarrel (you don’t want to see your aunts and uncles this Christmas).


However, for Molyneux, this constant in human affairs is elevated into a moral imperative—yet no matter what you say, no matter how much you “defoo”, you cannot not be your parents’ child. Birth is the ultimate non-consensual act (followed by its natural corollary, death). “You brought me into this world just because you wanted your fun! Now you’ve had three-minute tussle and cum in mom and I’m here and have to put up with this shit—I’ll never forgive you! Either of you! And you both enjoyed it! Bastards!” This is why the left is ultimately against the family—it’s non-consensual in essence.


Stefan Molyneux belongs to that breed of Internet personalities that had its heyday between 2004 and 2016—before the advent of Trump led the democracy to impose “counter-extremist” measures on web content. Actually, there isn’t that much intellectual diversity among these “poasters” because, by and large, what they come up with, in the political arena, is another take on progressivism—a homespun version with its own eccentricities and foibles, not neatly worked out and presented like a paper given at Harvard, but recognisable as progressive nonetheless.


Molyneux fits this mould perfectly—for all the demonisation he has received as a “white supremacist” and “misogynist” he is, at base, a progressive, albeit one with a non-standard belief system. You can tell this is so because he studied at theatre school. In other words, he’s a narcissist—and the left is narcissistic. It believes it can change the world with words—not magic words but just straight-out lies (although the person who says these things does not consider himself a liar—he’s lost to himself, lost in his narrative, so it’s just that neither truth nor lies mean a thing to him).


You can tell Molyneux is a narcissist if you watch his videos for a few minutes—it’s all melodrama and exaggerated body movements, he reminds me a little of a sub par John Malkovich in audition for the role of Hamlet at Ontario’s annual Shakespeare Festival (held at Stratford, Canada—curious place; and I should know, I’ve been there).


It’s no surprise Molyneux is narcissistic—although it must be in the blood, he has a fragmented identity himself: Irish-born and raised partially in London and then mostly in Canada. He must have had to act a lot to fit into those different environments—it’s something you often see with SouthEast Asians in the West, in the middle classes, they don’t fit in so they develop this weird act that simulates being white in a very off-putting and arrogant way.

Molyneux’s real job (well, his real job has always been “act-or”) prior to YouTube seems to have been software sales—namely, “environmental software” (sounds like progressive software to me). So what Molyneux is and always has been is a salesman—in other words, a bullshit artist. It just so happens his sales pitch is that he’s a “reasonable and logical guy” and he builds that case by basically putting dense texts from Wikipedia up next to what he says as PowerPoint slides—it’s hard to contest that level of detail. Then he pedantically takes you through it, offering slightly hysterical moralised asides as he goes along—but always couched as “rational” and “logical”.

Molyneux likes to exaggerate in his speech and become outraged—almost muttering to himself but really talking to his audience—about how people are treated. Molyneux is very into victimhood—another reason you can tell he’s a progressive. For the progressive, to be a victim is very high-status—it’s why you get these white women who pretend to be Red Indians or blacks and become Professor of Indigenous Studies at the University of Roehampton (ah—sweet, sweet victimhood).

You can see Molyneux’s progressive victimhood narrative on display here. For sure, to condemn single motherhood is generally a right-wing point—but here it’s presented in a leftist context, and the context is vital (meta). The arguments Molyneux puts forward here against single motherhood, as regards how vital a father is in a child’s early life, could equally be applied to dads who work on oil rigs, as airline pilots, on ships, as travelling salesmen (archaic), as surgeons, in the military.


In fact, the arguments could be applied to almost any male profession where the man is expected to “do what’s necessary” to get ahead (bring home the bacon), whether working long hours or working abroad.


The conceit, a progressive conceit, is that “dad must be there for the child’s early life”—hence, perhaps, the state should provide more generous paternity leave for men…However, I think the reality is that men don’t want anything to do with very young children and don’t really understand what to do with them—really, a man starts to relate to his child from ages 8-12 (i.e. when they attain the age of reason). Before that, the child is the mother’s domain.

You can tell this is so if you think about that film from the 1980s with Tom Selleck called Three Men and a Little Baby. Why is that a funny concept? Three bachelors have to look after a little baby that is dumped on their doorstep. It’s funny because men have no idea how to relate to babies and small children. So the idea that three bachelors would have to “look after baby” is inherently comical. Look, I know you can make an effort—with a rattle or with bumping them up and down on your knee…but, at base, it’s contrived; it doesn’t come naturally.

Hence the problem with single motherhood can’t be dad’s absence at a young age—the research Molyneux cites has really been created so that progressives can build the case that “dad should be like mom” (i.e. stay home and look after a young child—because it’s “critical for their development”). If you look at the research he cites, it’s all from when the child is very young—to build the case that dad should be there from birth, not to build the case against single motherhood.


His last point is that the presence of a father from a young age is crucial to create “empathy” in the child—another important progressive talking point, since everyone is meant to have “empathy” (which is itself a neologism from early 20th-century psychology that has come to mean a kind of bland general concern and sympathy for everyone without any regard to reality or judgements—it doesn’t relate to anything man has ever felt throughout history).


Even the title “role models” is drawn from early-90s media, the media Molyneux grew up on as a teenager and early adult. “Role models needed for vulnerable youths,” so scribbled some CBS journalist in his notebook at a presentation for a pop psychology book (“vulnerable youths” underlined three times—three exclamation marks after the phrase). “Role models” emerged after progressives had nuked the family—particularly the black family in America—and so began to think that perhaps some substitute, like Michael Jordan, from off the telly was required and/or was the reason for youth “dysfunction”.


If you think about it, Molyneux’s whole title is progressive. Why not: “The effects of an absent father”? But no, it’s “male role models”—very cold and scientific, no? “Dear Parental Unit, I just want to thank you for being such an excellent male role model for me. Kind regards, Child Unit X123-4-65.”


As with “empathy”, the whole problem is this scientistic thought style that Molyneux extols (“reason and logic”), even though he is not a reasonable or logical man and was trained in theatre and history—yet he knows that science, reason, and logic are high-status (so that’s the register he sells his bullshit in). You cannot just say “fathers” because Western societies are feminised—the father is low-status. So you have “male role models” instead—it’s neutral, it could be the mom’s new boyfriend (ha, ha); it could be the grandfather; it could be a teacher; it could be “that Michael Jordan off the telly”. It’s all suitably atomised and neutral and scientific—yet almost superficial, based on some pop psych craze and the idea that children will copy Michael Jordan like a man in their house.


The actual argument against single motherhood is not to do with whether or not the children of the single mothers are “victims” but rather to do with the practical point that men should own women. A father should own his daughter until she is married to her husband, then a husband should own his wife. For all his interest in private property, Molyneux doesn’t get this point—because he doesn’t really care about private property, “libertarianism” is his act.


The problem with single mothers and their children is that they are not owned and so there is no one to take responsibility for them—women cannot be responsible because their narcissism is too strong. If a woman does something wrong she will reliably say “it’s both our faults”—women naturally use “the fallacy of the middle”, and will argue that the middle point between two things is “true”. It’s because they can’t deal with disagreement, it creates strong negative affect for them—a compromise is best.


Due to the way Western decadence has developed, it is an implicit social courtesy not to point out that women cannot be (and are not held) responsible for their actions—even though men cannot hold women to the same standards as men and will, de facto, step in to take responsibility for a woman’s errors.


Molyneux has been characterised as a “Men’s Rights Activist”—a slogan, like “rights for whites”, that is really on the left. The idea here would be “it’s unfair that women are not held responsible for their actions like men”—it is unfair, but it’s reality; it’s how man is constituted. To protest against this “inequality” against men is an idiosyncratic spin on progressive values. In reality, nobody has any “rights” as commonly understood—the only “right” is how effective you are.


Molyneux thinks in this way because he is progressive in his intellectual orientation. He comes from that English Lockean tradition that eventually boils down a revolution against kings and aristocrats to the concept “consent” and, for Molyneux, “the Non-Aggression Principle” (another high-status piece of jargon, like “defoo”, that just means “if someone hits you, you can hit them”) is a paramount guide to life. Just like feminists who want “consent procedures” before sex, Molyneux wants everything to be consensual—in particular, he wishes he could have consented to be born (sex violates the NAP, as does birth).


This fascination with consent—with the contractual agreement—that was spawned by English liberalism has degenerated since the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution into progressivism as we understand it today. Despite being characterised as a “white supremacist”, Molyneux is at heart a progressive narcissist whose original narcissistic wound was that he was born without his permission—he lives in a world of hysteria, victims, and victimhood.


Indeed, “defoo” is an acronym built from “family-of-origin”, “de-” “family-of-origin”—for Molyneux, schooled in English contractual liberalism, you don’t have a family just a “family-of-origin” and, one day, you can consensually build a “new family” (presumably through feminine narcissistic manipulation). Sex, birth, death—reality is non-consensual; but to accept that, you have to accept your individual whims just aren’t that important.











156 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

Comentários


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page