Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Stefan Molyneux, Part 1: Projection Monster (Patreon)

Published:
2025-11-21 22:35:16
Edited:
2025-11-21 22:40:50
Imported:
2025-11
Tags:

Downloads

  • Stefan Molyneux Part 1.mp3

Some files exceed the archive size limit and weren't saved: 1 file. Please note these limits are in place to keep this site running long term, without costing a fortune. You can favorite the creator though, certain milestones increase the limit.

Content

Welcome back to Cult Season, where we continue our sincere attempt to make you feel a little bit worse about the world and everything in it.

This week, we turn to Stefan Molyneux, online pioneer, prolific content creator, and self-proclaimed most popular philosopher in the world. Alternatively his wikipedia entry describes him as "an Irish-born Canadian white nationalist podcaster and proponent of conspiracy theories, white supremacy, scientific racism, and the men's rights movement." Charming...

One thing is for sure: Molyneux is the only man alive who can turn literally any question into a monologue that combines demonic liberals, cutting off friends and family, and female reproductive choices. A true Renaissance man for people who hate Renaissance values.

In this first episode we take a brief tour through the Molyneux Expanded Universe™, which includes some infamous clips from his early days as the creator of an online 'philosophy' cult themed around anti-spanking, anarcho-capitalism, and misogyny. We also cover his pivot to MAGA apologetics and overt white nationalism and finally to late-stage Molyneux, where he now lurks in Twitter Spaces, berating callers and insisting the world is populated by demon-ridden NPCs gleefully urinating on their moral superiors.

Look forward to learning about his extensive rhetorical techniques, which include thin-skinned narcissism, a penchant for violent metaphors usually featuring urine and anal torture, his constant demand that listeners cut off their families and, of course, his favourite claim: that anyone who disagrees with him is a man-whore NPC who wants to kill you.

Also featuring:

A Weinstein cameo (because of course)

Chris recounting the proto–Decoding the Gurus origin story involving a Facebook post and some early Molyneux content

And a rare chance to hear Matt physically wince at a Rocky Horror cold open

If you’ve ever wanted to hear a preening narcissist berate his listener for raising entirely reasonable points... well, this is the episode for you.

Scott Adams should be careful, a new contender has emerged for his crown...

Part 2 coming soon, assuming we survive this one.

Links

Freedomain Radio 6162: The Most Frightening Fact! (Twitter/X Space)

Philosophy student reviews Molyneux’s The Art of the Argument

Michael Shermer’s amazing excuse for endorsing Molyneux

Former guest discusses Molyneux’s descent into racist pseudoscience (2016)

Guardian article (2008) on Molyneux’s online cult & “DeFooing”

Daily Mail article (2015) on a family impacted by Molyneux’s community

Daily Beast profile on Molyneux during his Trump pivot

SPLC profile on Stefan Molyneux

SPLC investigation of Molyneux’s alt-right connections (2018)

College of Psychologists of Ontario: Professional reprimand of Molyneux’s wife

Detailed profile of Molyneux’s community (archived anti-cult site)

Channel 5 documentary featuring a former member of Molyneux’s community

Stefan’s appearance with Joe Rogan (#538)

Comments

George

Thankfully this is the first time I've encountered Molyneux. But I feel conflicted about this one. Cartoonish is absolutely the right description of him. From the affected pronunciation, to the impressions. There's a genuine comic timing to some of his U-turns after painting such bizarre images of things. So much so, it's easy to just dismiss him. But what I find disturbing is that there's obviously a group of people who are taken in by it. Despite him so obviously sounding like a pantomime villain. He reminds me of Sideshow Bob at points. Even down to the accent. Yet his fan base obviously buy it. All I hear is genuine hatred and vitriol, and I find it sad that people find anything positive in following him. But maybe I'm being naive. Would love anyone's thoughts on it.

Thom

On the truth thing, I think the normal way to think about this is: - Truth = a statement that corresponds to reality - Right opinion = you believe something that's true but haven't got a good reason to do so - Knowledge = you believe something that's true and have good reason to do so (you proved it, someone with relevant knowledge told you etc.) Because Molyneux is doesn't know anything, he got himself super confused and tied himself up in knots.

collapsing

Isn’t Stephan Irish Chris? 🤣

Guy Walter

I liked the episode, but am getting a bit frustrated by Chris constantly “clarifying” Matt’s perfectly comprehensible statements. I get that it’s supposed to stop him from being misinterpreted, but it just feels like needless hairsplitting at times.

Alex H

His cadence in the initial clip sounds like Kim Jong Il in Team America.

Monica B.

Wow, what a lesson in how hating women is a precursor to sooo much bs (at best...loss of rights and life and freedom at worst). Like...it was within my mom's living memory to not be able to get a bank account, a mortgage, most jobs, and most entries into civil life without a male relative's or husband's signature or okay, but it was all her 'choice' (no shade to my dad, who is great, but they came up in a world where they had major inequality between them and very different experiences of 'choice'). There are still many parts of the world where that is true, and in my own country women (and non-men/gender non-conforming people) are currently losing rights on the regular. This is 100% why feminism benefits everyone, including cis-men. Frankly, I hope some of the men who are active on this very forum but sometimes play devils advocate or equivocate a bit when it comes to the less overt woman-hating gurus will start to see misogyny and even 'sexism lite' as a major red flag. Oh and also, by his twisted definitions of the world no one should ever, ever, have sex with Stefan Molyn-ew!

commutercomputer

There's saying that "Every accusation is a confession" and it's hard to find more fitting person than Stefan Molyneux for this.

Giant If

Wow, I'd never actually heard the voice of the guy who screamed at me on Twitter sometime in 2018-2019 for having the temerity to assert that I'd be just fine with living out the rest of my life without bearing children. It's unnerving to hear such a pill of intellectual dogshit speaking with such a lovely voice. But I guess that's where the cult part comes in! I did a cartoon of him in 2018: https://giantif.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Molyneux-smaller.jpg Also did one of Shermer getting hilariously defensive about platforming Molyneux on his show: https://giantif.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Song-of-the-Skeptic-smaller.png Btw guys, to me the caller 100% sounded like he was trolling Molyneux. Like, absolutely Socratic-methoding him. That's why he was so obsequious throughout-- so Molyneux couldn't end the call by claiming he'd been insulted. Of course I haven't heard the rest of the call yet, but, that's what went through my head every time he said "Wait, so let me just make sure I understand..." It sounded like a lawyer trying to catch a witness out.

Yummee

I can’t believe you somehow managed brainwash me into waiting impatiently for part two of Molyneux’s bullshit 😫

Ryan Booker

I don’t get the appeal, regardless of what he actually says, he just sounds like a fuckwit. How can anyone stand to even hear him.

Lucyna

Oh man…this is bringing back memories of me digging into this asshole’s content, while trying to figure out why my brother and sister in law were avoiding the family, and rewriting their childhood memories. There was no reasoning with them. I wish I could convey to people how re-wired their way of framing every conversation was.

Beel

The marriage of insane narcissism and hateful rhetoric with a hint of theatrics make him come across as a really shitty Batman villain. All he needs now is a suit like Jordan Peterson is routinely wearing.

Tim Tripp

Molyneux strikes me as an arrogant jerk.

Sam Stephenson

On the is it true if you say the earth revolves around the sun without good reasons debate. You dont even need to get into the definition of truth (and im not an expert but i think most versions of the coherentist and pragmatist and tarski-ist versions will say its still true even if that specific person has no good reasons.). You can just say “yes they have a true belief but because they dont have good reasons they dont have *knowledge* that the earth revolves around the sun”. Like the true belief vs knowledge distinction goes back to plato and is very famous phil 101 stuff. (Though platos account of knowledge, that its true belief that is justified runs into weird edge cases called “gettier problems”)

TheVogspherePoet

I’m listening to the discussion on “truth” right now and it’s bringing me back to being a young philosophy student-- and driving me fucking nuts. Molyneux is endorsing “Logical Positivism” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism) and a kind of verification criterion— i.e. a statement is true if and only if it is verifiable in principle or verified in fact. This is a literal paradox that is well known amongst logicians and philosophers of language lol. That is, if a statement is true if and only if it is verifiable/verified, then the statement “a statement is only true if and only if it is verifiable/verified” is itself false because it is neither verifiable/verified. If Molyneux took one goddamn second to familiarize himself with the literature surrounding theories of truth, this would be one of the first things he would learn. This all just speaks to how much of a blowhard, 4chan philosopher this dude is. It’s all just motivated reasoning dressed up in philosophical jargon so he can feel like a big smart guy.

Ray Sylvester

Molyneux is like a mask-off Jordan Peterson with the voice of a pretentious Elon Musk.

Jacqui Beirne

Please a break from these conceited bores. Their content is dull derivative and depressing. Let's have more classy competent and captivating content like Sean Carroll.

PaulBFB

listening to this is a good way to get ready to initiate some "fawce" against old stefan. I absolutely love the moment where matt just bites the bullet and just says what we're all thinking - the answer to all these questions is "yes". we do support all these things against stefan. had me in stitches.

Andrew Przybylski

Wow, what a spectacular fuck up of a human. Like all the dipshits we knew in high school rolled into one... I can't (can?) wait for part two. You're trolling him so perfectly.

Danielle Smith

At around 15 minutes left in this episode it goes silent for me. Is this just a glitch on my end? I want to hear the rest!

Paul Ditta

“Are you gonna cheer when I’m thrown in to a pit of anal rape?” I mean, generally? No. But for you, Stef…I’m gonna go a hard yes.

Elissa

( singing Sweet Transvestite note for note ) : “… It’s a weird movie man, I never quite got into it”

Elissa

His accent alone is worthy of a few hours of deconstruction. Irish meets poncey git meets pure Kennedy

Roderigo Borges

Molyneux gives me evil Alan Partridge vibes…

Dries T.

Aaaaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh how?! Why?!? What an absolute unmitigated 200% unredeemable asshole!! Genuinely disturbed by the prospect that part 2 could somehow be even worse.

Elissa

Here’s a simple thought experiment for you Mr Molyneux, If a tree fell in the forest, would you still be a C*#t? And if the first human writing on a cave wall wrote : SM = asshole by accident , well then it would still be true cause well, today we can prove it with this podcast. I do apologise for the language but Hell-damn it if that ain’t some accurate labelling right there. What a C - - - ! It’s not just ‘where do Chris and Matt find these people’ that’s been my inner dialogue , it’s more just how shocking I find it that there are followers. I sincerely hope that caller number 2 hears this decoding and deFOOs himself from Molyneaux for good

oli.d

Similar to the Curtis Yarvin episode Stefan triggers me in ways I can't explain.

jay tee

This guy, he sounds like a real jerk!

Isaac Rosenberg

I actually would cheer at this guy’s death…

James Lucas

Somehow when I think we've reached the bottom of the guru barrel you guys always scrape deeper. I'd rather listen to Scott Adams than Stefan anyday.

Dianna Brettschneider

Wow.... this guy is incredible, the level of hubris for someone who is clearly not very intelligent is mind blowing 🤯 . How can anyone listen to this guy seriously. Congratulations you have succeeded in destroying a little more of my faith in humanity 😂

pr

I’m way behind on this and didn’t see anything in the comments but I thought the callers question about ‘dark philosophy’ was novel. I first thought of Schopenhauer’s not being born thing then Roko’s Basilisk but am just wondering if anyone has any thoughts.

James Pulver

So Matt and Chris seem to think that it's a waste of time to be philosophical about what truth is, and that you can have a conversation without having substantially similar definitions of core words. Depending on why you're talking I think I disagree. If you're basically doing an ethnography or "modern podcaster interview" where you're just listening to someone pontificating then sure, you just need the words defined. But if you're trying to find common ground or debate or persuade each other I think you're going to unintentionally talk past each other a lot and waste time if you have core disagreement about what "being true" means. We see it all the time online in apologetics - even when both groups of people seem to understand logic and argumentation, philosophy etc - the understanding fails because one side assumes "the bible tells me so" to be divine revelation truth, the other side assumes correspondence theory of truth and now they mostly talk past each other. It's worse though because so much of life's disagreements seem to be based on what is true underlying the ideology (in politics say). For instance I follow my GPS because I think the maps and routing it has are true a high percentage of the time. Given that the benefits and convenience of the systems all combined for me to pay for it. If it turned out to usually be false - i.e. Very rarely got me to my destination, then all the other reasons to use it fall away because now the core function doesn't work. Apply the same thing to debates / persuasive conversations.

James Pulver

And Matt seems to dismiss the(obvious to me) part about why philosophy spends time on word definitions - not to be bespoke necessarily but because intuitions of definitions in common language is notoriously vague. Like most people intuitively are against murder but what that means in practice varies wildly when you talk about potential actions.

James Pulver

And of course I should have kept listening lol.

Heidi Sævareid

This guy is so terrible that I'm tempted to say that DEMONS ARE AT PLAY ....

Joe C

Btw there is some repeated audio at 58:34… this was the same audio of Chris’ response from 56:51. Likely just a minor editing mistake. But thought I would mention it.

Jack AG

His accent is so bizarre, isn't he Canadian? Is it entirely put on? Either way, what a deranged scumbag.

Trees

I put off listening to this one because of all the terrible things I've heard about Molyneux. He is one of the more despicable people y'all covered, but I have to say he's so farcical that this was a much more enjoyable listen than say Scott Adams. Or even the Besties. On to part 2! What could go wrong?

Will Charnley

This is absolutely excruciating, I love it

Liam

Slurp slurp 🤣

Liam

What a freak 😵‍💫

Joanna Mulvaney

stefan you had me at “do you believe i should be shot?”

Benjamin Curtis Chambers

The charlatan avoids responsibility; he has no real ideas. Hence he is the natural foe of precision, of intelligibility. For clarity he substitutes great heat and emphasis; he makes his pointless remarks in the most pointed manner possible. Here, in the province of word juggling, lies the chief talent of the charlatan; if his hand is quicker than his brain, as the old prestidigitator boasted, he can also say that his tongue is equally nimble. But in the flood of his verbiage there are usually some grains of truth, some half-truths. […] Through his mysterious and appealing lectures, they were guided away from the cold sobriety of genuine knowledge into the picturesque realms of pseudoscience; their feeling of doubt and discouragement gave way to a vague, baseless confidence, the mood in which the human mind becomes most easily a prey to the impostor. These fake scientific talks were indeed excitingly mystical, yet to all appearances they could be understood by the common man. —Grete de Francesco, (1939). The Power of the Charlatan (Beard, M., Trans.). Yale University Press, p. 103/124.

ValueSoup

I kind of disagree with Matt's cavalier approach to philosophy of science. Good methodology is built on the principles that arise from these philosophies about science. Many scientists can benefit from going back to the basic principles from time to time to see whether new methodologies can survive a bit of hair-splitting, and inspiration can be drawn from re-visiting some of the science-philosophical directions not taken in the course of one's career.