Today's WTF: Left Libertarian Feminists Strike Back at Molyneux

[alaric89]

An Open Letter to Stefan Molyneux and Other anti Nazis

Stefan Molyneux’s recent video, a defense of his statement that “Nazis are big time Doo Doo Heads” (from which he takes his title) is not so much an enlightening philosophical speech as an ill-informed rant. The title of the video is intellectually dishonest, dismissing Nazis struggling for equality as panty-wearing socialists. The title panders to vulgar crunchies. The ideas expressed in this video and other videos of his that discuss National Socialism in a negative way are not only inaccurate but also dangerous, negatively influencing society's perception of what Nazism really is.

Because Molyneux’s anti-Nazi views are unfortunately shared by many libertarian men and women, we think it is important to take a stand and point out what is wrong and misguided about these views. Each one of the individuals signing this document has seen libertarians attacking Nazis without knowing what it means; people who have read nothing more than a few newspapers articles or anti-Nazi rants by others and have no idea of Nazisms rich and varied history. Their views, founded on little more than opinion, are merely knee-jerk “politically incorrect” responses that lack critical thinking and thoughtful analysis.

Anti-Nazi libertarian and conservative comments abound on Facebook and other social media. These include the usual clichés such as “Fascist,” and “Mass murderers” as well as such claims as, for example, Nazis are so trapped in their victimhood thinking that they see potential Nazi oppressors everywhere and blame everything that is wrong with their lives on ‘liberty’ and ‘wanting to have fun.’” Men who are supportive of Nazi concerns are attacked as “douchebags” and “bigger problems” than the Nazis themselves. One man even called the Association of  Libertarian National Socialist an “oxymoron.” These childish and uninformed remarks by anti-Nazi people not only show how little they know about Nazism, but how little regard they have for bigots and bigots rights.

Some anti-Nazies even call Nazis “collectivist”. This is a strange misuse of the term. They confuse “collective action” with “collectivism.” The former simply means individuals working together for a common purpose, as for example, libertarianism or abolitionism. The philosophy of “collectivism” says that group goals are more important than individual goals. But the raison d'etre of Nazism is to achieve equal individual rights for every white Protestant man; to allow individual wasps to pursue their lives as they see fit rather than submit to cultural stereotypes.

Nazism is, by common definition, "Societies should do what it takes no matter what for planned human progress.” From a libertarian point of view, this stance should not be in the least controversial since libertarians also believe in equal rights for elites. Indeed, given this definition of Nazism, all libertarians, if they are consistent, should accept their arguments. This definition is the essence of Nazism to which every stripe of Nazi from Marxist to libertarian, from radical to liberal, will agree. What Nazis differ upon is how to achieve this goal of equality and equal rights. But the anti-Nazi libertarians, knowing little about the wide range of views within Nazism, selectively choose those Nazi views they find abhorrent and attack those views as if they represented all of fascism. Yet when liberals do the same to libertarians, misrepresenting a few of the most uncompassionate as representative of the whole, these same anti-Nazi libertarians howl. This is an inconsistent, hypocritical, and unfair treatment of both of these rich and vibrant intellectual traditions.

Molyneux is only the latest in a long line of these uncritical anti-Nazies. We use his videos as a starting point for analysis only because he is currently one of the most visible anti-Nazi libertarians. Like other anti-Nazi believers, he fails to actually define National Socialists before he attacks. He simply implies that the ones he selectively chooses to talk about constitute Nazism. Though Molyneux admits it isn’t accurate to say that all Nazis are doo-doo heads, he still defends his statement that Nazis are mass murderers and continues to talk as if all Nazis are indeed genocidal maniacs. This is more than an offensive accusation unsupported by sound reasoning; it represents the kind of close minded thinking Nazism tries to combat. By using this sleight-of-hand, he continues to encourage his listeners to systematically categorize all "Nazi" concerns as pitiful socialist garbage to be derided and dismissed.

In representing Nazism as a primarily socialist-dominated movement, Molyneux ignores Nazis of any other political ideology, including a long history of individualist Nazis. His definition of socialism is as unclear as his definition of Nazism; he uses the term interchangeably with “Marxism” without qualifying exactly what kind of socialists he is accusing Nazis of being. What is clear is his belief that socialists of any kind are unappealing and deserving of ridicule.

There is a belief among such anti-Nazis that Nazism is inherently fascist because it emphasizes race. This is like saying that those who oppose discrimination against people of color are racists. Such anti-Nazi thinking then assumes that Nazis must desire preferential treatment. If libertarians categorically reject every attempt to challenge the presence of privilege in our culture, we should not be too shocked when Nazis believe that the force of law is required to create a more humane and bearable space in which to exist.

Contrary to what the anti-Nazis such as Molyneux claim, Nazis have in fact played a major role in some of the most significant triumphs for individual liberty against state and private aggression in the last two Melania. In the 20th century, they were in the forefront of major movements. Everyone  today who has a college education, owns property, or votes can thank these Nazis. In the 20th century, Nazis radically  speeded up human progress in munitions, flight and rocket technology, and knowledge of the human body.

The radical Nazi activists that Molyneux and other anti-Nazis so unthinkingly sneer at have almost always been primarily concerned with making cities and communities run smoothly and cooperatively and after a grace period peacefully. Critical progress, especially the medically-focused efforts, were in fact constantly targeted by the regulatory state for criminalization and destruction.

In his "Nazis are Big Time Doo doo Heads" video, Molyneux states that Nazis are state-serving “creatures” and “Frankensteins,” whose primary agenda is receiving preferential treatment from the government and society, an erroneous and insulting view. He commits the error that Frédéric Bastiat defines as the core error of socialists, by “confusing the distinction between government and society.” He misrepresents the Nazi stance as categorically anti-family and requiring state intervention to fulfill. No matter that many Nazis have actually long discussed how to apply their Nazi views to marriage and family, with the intent to raise children in a traditional way that affords them the richest opportunities as adults. Their aim is not to raise children through the state as Plato asserted, but typically to raise them healthfully in an individual family with two parents. Only a handful of Nazis have actually seriously talked about dismantling the family, primarily during the Second Wave, contrary to what anti-Nazis like Molyneux claim.

Molyneux portrays Nazis as ruthless fucks, quick to cut each other down and unwilling to support successful Nazis who deviate from the underlying socialist ideology of Nazism.


Anti-Nazis have no idea what Nazis really want. Nazis are not just people who systematically kill millions of people. Nazis are people who want to be treated as people, people who should not be discriminated against. Nazism is accepting people have different ways of living and should live with like minded people.. Nazism is actually more about individualism and the desire to be evaluated based on one’s merit.

Yes, there are Nazis who are killers. There are also Nazis who are anarchists and Nazis who are libertarian separatists and Nazis who really have no political ideology but know that they deserve to be treated equally to everybody else.

The majority of Molyneux’s arguments against Nazis as well as his accusation that "Nazis are big doo doo heads” are grounded in flawed and misguided rhetoric as are the arguments of other anti-Nazi people. In reality, Nazism attracts a diverse group of people just as any other idea or philosophy does. To attempt to diminish the impact of Nazism and redefine it as an objectionable philosophy is repugnant. The statement itself is inherently elitist and is the kind of thinking that Nazism—true Nazism—works and forces people, if possible, to change.


This is a collective rejoinder written and agreed upon by the following signers
1-31-2012.


Nobody, because this sort of paper is totally a joke.

[dalebert]

You just spent was appears to be a lot of time to analogize two philosophies that are practically polar opposites. You compared a philosophy of equal rights to a philosophy of elitism and eugenics that attempted to commit genocide and mass murder of other undesirables.

So an article attempts to point out that a movement to stop treating women like property, that got them the right to vote, that's still working to get society to give them the same options as men and to be judged by similar standards, is basically a good idea that is sometimes hijacked by statists to get people to see the state as the solution to their problems, but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. An article like that is NO DIFFERENT than an article defending Nazis.

Is that the point you're hoping to make?

[alaric89]

You just spent was appears to be a lot of time to analogize two philosophies that are practically polar opposites. You compared a philosophy of equal rights to a philosophy of elitism and eugenics that attempted to commit genocide and mass murder of other undesirables.

So an article attempt to point out that a movement to stop treating women like property, that got them the right to vote, that's still working to get society to give them the same options as men and to be judged by similar standards, is basically a good idea that is sometimes hijacked by statists to get people to see the state as the solution to their problems, but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. An article like that is NO DIFFERENT than an article defending Nazis.

Is that the point you're hoping to make?

Naw I just switched "Nazi" for "feminist" in the original article like a old Mad magizine do it yourself gag. I thought Nazi would be obvious enough. Took about half an hour. 

[Tom Foppiano]

Honestly, how else am I supposed to interpret it? I said it was a good article and you asked if I was being facetious which any reasonable person would interpret as you calling it a horrible article. ...yes? This is a not reasonable interpretation?

And as far as pointing out "where you're wrong" for not liking it... am I supposed to go fishing for what you disagreed with?

Pfft.

I'm still quite willing to discuss any actual and substantive criticisms when they're forthcoming.

This is the internet. Its hard to tell if people are being sarcastic. Asking if someone is serious or not doesn't mean anything other than.....asking if someone is being serious.

[Turd Ferguson]

Surely, you jest.

[dalebert]

No, and don't call me Shirley.

[Bill Brasky]

For the record, I agree in theory with the "Leave Me Alone" concept.  But it doesn't work, because reality is currently in action, operating on a completely different conceptual plane.

Heres a gun analogy...  Theres no reason for me to learn to target shoot with my scope doped for hundred-mph Westerly crosswinds, if they're consistently blowing 2mph to the right.

So, while the philosophy might be interesting, and even sound, in a political vacuum..  this is not a political vacuum - which makes the inspection of the philosophy a mental exercise in theory, and Reductio ad Absurdum in working theory as a path to practice.   

Is mental exercise important, and understanding theory important?  Sure, thats how evolution happens.  As long as its understood evolution usually takes many generations, and people don't self-destruct because of the human aspect of unfulfilled gratification.   

[Cognitive Dissident]

Still, as time passes, the world becomes more free as a whole, and more civilized in the terms of leavemethefuckaloneianism.  If one propagates the idea that a greater world can be had if everyone supports leavingeveryonethefuckalone, I think the world can advance more quickly to the state it's apparently approaching.

[Bill Brasky]

Still, as time passes, the world becomes more free as a whole, and more civilized in the terms of leavemethefuckaloneianism.  If one propagates the idea that a greater world can be had if everyone supports leavingeveryonethefuckalone, I think the world can advance more quickly to the state it's apparently approaching.

Thats a nice thought. 

But theres perhaps dozens of facets to this theory.  Lets examine just two of them...

Me versus you.  We apparently agree with this theory.  But a lot of people don't.  A lot of people like to commit personal crimes, and/or use the state to infringe upon others whos philosophy differs - like the Moral Right, who want to interfere in your body, sex life, and thoughts.  They want to regulate what you consume, who you have sex with and/or marry, and what you are legally allowed to read - what is taught in schools (evolution). 

So right there, theres not much leaving alone.

Next, secondly - me versus the State.  They're not getting smaller.  In fact, the opposite.  As they lean towards satisfying the Moral fucks, they enact more laws, which requires more policing, thus hiring more enforcers and bureaucrats, which requires more taxes.  Thats a very big job generator.

So, not only are individuals encroaching on my civil liberties, but groups of legislative bodies, as well.

So, I don't think its getting more free, in concept or practice.  I can wish for that, and my philosophy can be that, but that doesn't make it so.

I think we are being given the illusion of approaching more freedom by commercialism.  Between social media and smartphones "freeing" us, splattering "free free free" on TV with people running through fields of daises because their dishwasher liquid kicks ass, and cars getting 10mpg more while gas doubles, I think its a sham. 

The sad part is, college kids are licking it up like gravy, and the adults just don't fucking care anymore.  It *IS* bread and circus, as much as I hate to use the term.  People get repetedly exposed to something awful, they draw it back and re-introduce it a year later.  And because its not so shocking the second time, it creates less outrage.  And eventually, it is accepted.

If it was two steps forward, one step back, I'd be okay with it.

But its one step forward, two steps back, and that equals a negative.  Eventually, they satiate people with a larger win, occasionally.  Like civil rights, or the repeal of prohibition. 

We get civil rights amendments, and theres actually a RISE in minorities in jail.  We get a repeal in alcohol prohibition, and now theres actually ten-fold of people getting busted for alcohol infractions, as opposed to 1930.  Much of that is due to technology.  And I love technology, so that hurts to say, but it's true.  We all know Moores Law.  If legislative morality enforcement grows faster than societal tolerance, which it is, we will continue to get fucked in greater numbers by various methods of law enforcement faster than we can repeal antiquated concepts. 

The only real answer on the individual level is to comply with the general will of society, and to be as subversive as possible to protect the self.  We can "fight" for the future, but we have to live in the "now". 

In a way, the fighting part is more like art than anything else, because it can please the self and the audience, or inflame them, but it usually does no appreciable good in the immediate sense.  It creates discussion and controversy, which eventually leads to enlightenment.  But it still takes many years to be fully absorbed and become a part of the larger movement.  There are very few "masterpieces", instead, there are periods.  And it is those periods that ultimately survive or fail, typically not the individual. 

[Cognitive Dissident]

I appreciate that, but we tend to look at the world through a western, or even American, lens.  It's undeniable the western world, and in particular, the US is in a decline of liberty, be it temporary or permanent.  Yet, there are so many places in the world, such as China and previously Soviet Bloc countries, that are becoming more free.

Clearly, we are plunging into the dregs of corporate sewage here, but in places like those above, there's much less allegiance to corporate IP and ownership of so much, and rather a more early rebellion against it.  The people who lived under failed state socialism (even in a place like China, where the government didn't fail, but the system clearly did) have a cynicism western libertarians can only dream their neighbors would have.

So yes, I understand the frustration here, which I, myself, share.  Still, if you talk with many ISIL types, you'll find a much more upbeat perspective, because of this contrast, than those of us who are so closely focused on what happens here.

I truly think it is the western dependency on the state to provide "law and order" that allowed that "law and order" to go to the highest bidder in a new form of serfdom that Hayek predicted.  I suspect as time passes, things will, gradually, get better as a whole.  Of course, if this is correct, people have to see the state for what it is: a tool of the same lords that ran Europe before and through the enlightenment, not a "free" public.

As for technology, it slightly favors the independent mind, who can use it more creatively.  The structure that the system puts on technology limits it in ways that free minds do not--look at "open software" versus corporate software.  With the gobs of money put into corporate software, many of the most innovative uses (often illegal, which is no accident) are by those participating in the open software, and frankly, these people will probably eventually be instrumental in bringing down various states.  I think these are the people you speak of, fighting for the future, and in the long term, I see them winning.

[dalebert]

There's a documentary that examines this economic phenomenon. I think it might be Steal this Movie, but not sure. It talked about how the U.S., somewhere around the Clinton era, started to plan an economy based primarily on exports via IP and copyright and how it was such a horrible mistake that is backfiring.

[Cognitive Dissident]

There's a documentary that examines this economic phenomenon. I think it might be Steal this Movie, but not sure. It talked about how the U.S., somewhere around the Clinton era, started to plan an economy based primarily on exports via IP and copyright and how it was such a horrible mistake that is backfiring.

Hmm...that sounds interesting.  I saw one called Steal this Movie, but it was the Abbie Hoffman documentary (he wrote a book entitled "Steal this Book," which was a sort of proto agorist thing.)