A look at the bad and good of Stefan Molyneux: the world's first accidental modern unintentional RevTrad.

So let's talk about who is potentially the first modern RevTrad ever: Stephan Molyneux, and why that is both a very bad thing and a very good thing.

What he is most known for negatively is a "creepy therapy thing" where he spends time with a viewer of his on the phone and psychologically digs into them without a formal therapy license. He then gets blamed for these people voluntarily choosing to leave their families. It's very weird and enough to not want to associate with him honestly, but I will say, I don't know if he's breaking up more families that don't need to be broken up, or if he is preventing suicides. The math on that might work out to a net positive actually.

I will say if it is immoral it only requires social dissociation and no force should be used to stop it, but it is kinda enough to not want to associate with him in my book.

I am an anarcho-capitalist, Stefan Molyneux is NOT the person who sold me on anarcho-capitalism as a libertarian or even got me on board with dozens of other libertarian stances, but Molyneux WILL go down in anarcho-capitalist history as the person who coined the phrase "dispute resolution organization" and fleshed out the concept in papers, and I do think Practical Anarchy and Everyday Anarchy are really good reads. And yeah, he's mostly sold me on being anti corpal punishment personally with the hard data he presented.

But I think UBP has problems, I think any proper libertarianism needs to view value as subjective, and I don't see how that is compatible broadly with behavior being "Universally preferable." And it's been a while but I'm pretty sure, UBP contains a "rape is worse than murder" bit right at the start, that contradicts the USA's supreme court in Kennedy, and it contradicts classic Randomercam.

And I don't think his book on "Real Time Relationships" is based on any real research or evidence into how relationships work, I think you might be better listening to normie psychologists producing random relationship books honestly.

He is a borderitarian who told people to support Trump when 8 years earlier he was telling people to not vote at all as an anarchist protest. I just don't like calling closed border libertarians "racist," I disagree with them but lots of people with otherwise very good heads on their shoulders are closed borders.

Then I suppose there was his racial realism? I understand people were freaking out when he went on the Rubin Report and said different races have different brain sizes. Yeah, that's no good but it's potentially a stupid-but-not-evil-moment.

Now he claims there are studies where you can close the racial wage gap by normalizing for IQ? I don't believe it until I see but I would be interested to see that as someone who thinks the gender wage gap is a total lie. I don't think I could be sold on some crazy racial stuff with one study, don't get me wrong, I would just like know what the logic is.

But yeah. that's mostly enough to not really ever recommend him without a "disclaimer" in my book. There's more and some of it is very bad, some of it is totally bogus. I don't think he's a crazy white supremacist, but he is a human, and humans are flawed.

Also, he has shit on MGTOW, claiming it's "so insulting" instead of finding a "good woman." True RevTrad is not MGTOW but it is supposed to respect it, because some men choose RevTrad for their own protection, like some men choose MGTOW for their own protection.

So how is he the first RevTrad?

He is a stay at home father to a working mother, but he has a red pill beliefset instead of a blue pill one, which is what a RevTrad is. He is in fact an MRA, just one of the very very few examples where the guy is kinda a dill, as demonstrated above, and actually calls himself an MRA, he doesn't get falsely labeled by others as an MRA for *being* a dill like Andrew Tate or Elliot Rodger or a dozen other people.

I think what I'm going with, is that when he pushes his questionable views on race and the border, and if he exploits vulnerable people psychologically, he is not acting in the capacity as a RevTrad when he does that, the mechanism by which he is a RevTrad is not causing him to do that.

What he does in the capacity of being a RevTrad is: he is a really fantastic father to his daughter, as evidenced by his podcasts where he reviews movies and plays games with her. And he is able to focus on more productive work, such as well, the things he has gotten damn right to me, like DROs and at least two books that aren't crap to me. He has an obligation to his family but he also simply has more time and freedom to do autonomous productive things.

The only argument that to why he might not be a true RevTrad is if his podcast etc involves him raking in more money than his wife, so I will have to do a bit of research on that.

But everything else would in fact make him the first RevTrad ever, unless you can cite a stay at home dad or breadwinning woman who partly followed or supported E Belfort Bax. Which you probably could, that's like a hundred years, we've only just begun as a formal label.

So I think, I wanna say, he could be a ok-enough role model for RevTrads, you simply have to separate the good from the bad, like in hundreds of other examples of people in history who were horrible bastards in some areas but achieved great things in other areas. It's never to excuse the bad, it's just saying you don't have to listen to it, and it's not hard to get whatever value you can from Molyneux without supporting him financially.

The true answer is of course always in thinking for yourself. But that's the point.

If anyone else has a better example of "The first RevTrad who didn't call themselves one" cite them below, I definitely don't want this to remain an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian exclusive movement, if you can cite anyone on the right or the left or even a full blown communist you think is a better candidate, discuss below.

(And now *I* feel like I'm in a cult with how many times I've said "RevTrad" unironically, but no one cares.)

If you would like to see people saying negative things about Molyneux, try at least listening to pro-men people who have a problem with him, because they are smart enough to argue against him with reason and don't have to resort to painting him as a full blown klan member:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7YjEUBEwZw

If you want to see him not be a total crapbag, look up "IZZY AND STEFAN MOLYNEUX GO FLYING," reddit keeps auto deleting this post and I think it's because I keep trying to directly link to Molyneux's bitchute account.