Stefan Molyneux; Two People Who Were in His Inner Circle
Stefan Molyneux; Two People Who Were in His Inner Circle.
Follow the link above to the Freedom Feens Radio (real radio) website and have a listen to the story of two people who were in the “inner circle” at Freedomain Radio (not an actual radio show).
Side commentary by Ben Stone:
Why pick on a “leader” of the movement? Why not embrace our common ground and just get along? Why is this important? Let me answer these three critical questions:
1 – Why pick on a “leader” of the movement?
The better question would be; how can an anarchist movement have a leader? And specifically how can an anarchist movement have a leader who’s actions can’t be questioned or criticized? I will have no leader and I will be the leader of none. I can and will question the intentions and the actions of anyone I wish. This is not a point of negotiation.
2 – Why not embrace our common ground and just get along?
The only common ground I will embrace is truth. When someone lies, as it has been clearly demonstrated that Stefan Molyneux has done, I have no common ground with them. This is not a point of negotiation.
3 – Why is this important?
This is important because these principles that I live by are the basis of why anything at all is important to me. THE first principle is truth. When truth is violated, everything else becomes meaningless. Stef takes damaged hurting people and uses them for his own gain, while damaging them further. If we cannot stand against this from within our community, what do we really stand for? I stand for truth. This is not a point of negotiation.
Ben Stone
August 31, 2014
The accused:
I stopped watching his videos a long time ago. He changes his narrative to fit whatever issue he's talking about. He contradicted himself so many times that I became confused about what he believes in...then it occurred to me- he believes in changing his narrative to make $$$!
Some of his early videos were good, but even his first podcasts were off-putting. Now I can see why, with the benefit of hindsight. He was building a cult of personality rather than a serious, consistent, rigorous philosophy program.
I corresponded with him briefly and even his knowledge of philosophy is sketchy (which is supposed to be his area of expertise). He studied at Toronto Univ. where Etienne Gilson taught. Gilson was one of the foremost experts in the history of philosophy...Molyneux didn't know him. He also takes a very one-sided look at the great philosophers...if you don't agree with him, then clearly you don't know what you're talking about. I think most of his audience are people who don't really have any background in philosophy, so they buy his crap. We had a brief discussion about Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic and when I pointed out how poorly he understood the concept, he suddenly stopped corresponding with me...Go figure!!!
Sounds like he needs to listen to The History of Philosophy podcast to brush up a bit before churning out more content of his own.
He gets into a lot less trouble when he stays away from talking to other people on the show. I've never given the guy a cent. Stefan is useful to me in two ways. He does make some insightful observations, and also the mistakes he makes are useful in my learning process to illustrate the types of mistakes that can be made. It's similar to finding all the logical fallacies on the front page of the American skeptics website.
I was raised in a cult. The leaders hated me. I couldn't be controlled. Stefan has definite cult leader qualities.