Critiquing Stefan Molyneux’s, “The Truth Behind Elysium”

Doesn’t Stefan Molyneux’s beautiful idea of Anarcho-Capitalism seem like a remodeled strip mall of Narcissistic-Laissez Faire-Trickle Down-Compassionate Conservatism repainted with sophistry, neurobiology, and Volunteerism with a dash of Alice Miller.  My final conclusion is that, despite the apparent virtues of nonviolence, philosophy, classical argumentation, and cutting-edge psychology, Stephan’s core fascist beliefs will be to easy to appropriate , just look at what happened to the Tea Party.


Michael Walker, October 26, 2013

It is very difficult for people to believe the simple fact that every persecutor was once a victim. Yet it should be very obvious that someone who was allowed to feel free and strong from childhood does not have the need to humiliate another person.

-Alice Miller

I just have to put this quote down because it just smacked of an insidious ideology that flies in the face of the rest of your philosophy, “Class is portrayed [in the movie Elysium] as ridged and you can’t break out of it, and the rich control everything, and you have no opportunities…It’s not true…! Class resentment is basically, ‘I’m too scared to change my station, so I want to pretend that there is no way to change my station, so I was not fearful.  I was prudent.  I was wise…’ the addiction of cowards… BEING RICH IS INNOCENT.”

You also implied that the oppressed believe, “the rich control everything.”  I don’t think any reasonable person, or a devote that has similar views as you would ever say “the rich control EVERYTHING,” but saying the small 8% of physical cash that the vast majority of the world has access to while a few elite have access to 92% of electronic money isn’t relevant to upward mobility is absurd.  To suggest that the rich do not have military, propaganda, and social complexes used to control the masses is mind numbing, and even if there was agreement that there was a powerful class of sociopaths there is still the implication that every individual person in poverty could rise above their conditioning, fear, and hyper-developed limbic system despite the pervasive oppressiveness.  I really have nothing but contempt for anyone who dispenses poisonous pedagogy by saying anyone who knows there is a quantifiable caste system is an 8 years old Marxist who has no grasp of reality.

These elites will use whatever means necessary to keep the average person in a perpetual state of exhaustion, confusion, and misery.  Your ideas about profit and markets flies in the face of ethologist’s scientific ideas of interdependence, and actually promotes competition which is the ideological outcome of cultural child abuse and the metaphorical and sometimes literal cannibalization of the species. As for those two-income households of professionals or entrepreneurs that make good money (Over $150,000.00), lumping these workers into the definition of rich is a rhetorical tactic of the élite or their tax minions.  These people are more slaves than the poor you call ignorant and cowardly.  Their so-called affluence is conditional and relies on the gatekeepers to grant them the privilege to enforce the cultural hegemony.  Tacitly accepting the current power structure and begging for a position to exploit others for gain is the antithesis of a hero and is grossly immoral.  This unconscious need to qualify for authenticity is equivalent to getting permission to become fully human, which is more absurd than rich movie stars playing poor people, even though it is assumed that actors are pretending.  Titles are the facade of the weak, while gnosis is the adornment of the liberated.

Unfortunately, anyone who decides to be human and be conscious of reality will find themselves, by default, in a revolutionary act.  I do agree with you that people who watch movies, television, or other propaganda are terribly afraid of their potential, not because of cowardliness but because of a significant force that attacks the very foundation of a person’s sense of self, your very understanding of neurobiology attest to the fact that overcoming abuse is more than a moral lack of character.  I believe that humans when conscious of their unconscious shadow can do nothing but become powerful, courageous, and moral.  This individual potency is the scourge of the Morlock enforcers who perpetuate the fantasies of the Free Market and benevolent rich people.

I think this ridiculous quote about sums up your recycled ideas of Narcissistic-Laissez Faire-Trickle Down-Compassionate Conservatism, “You should not talk about economics if you know nothing about economics.”  Tell me how this type of sentiment is different than abused children being discourage from talking about abuse because they are not adults or parents?  What is the rhetorical purpose in calling the poor (or “ignorant” as you call the poor) idiots and then qualify it with some disingenuous prose or sentimentality? I have serious issues with the movies metanarrative, but your analysis could be mistaken for Anarcho-Limbaughism.

Related articles


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s