Molyneux tours Australia and New Zealand July - Aug 2018

[money detonator]

He's doing a speaking tour with Lauren Southern July - Aug

https://axiomatic.events



"best-selling author"? 
$750 for dinner w/ them 

"The precise venues in each city will be advised via SMS or email to ticket holders only 24 hours prior to each event."
 

[summa logicae]

Nothing reeks of "intellectual fraud" more than charging 750 dollars for someone to sit at the same table with you to eat, particularly when you're already a millionaire like Molyneux.

[money detonator]

As of today, tickets still aren’t available for the August date in Aukland, NZ.   That suggests to me they were unable to workaround or change the ban Aukland’s mayor imposed on them.  They had a hard time getting visas approved for Australia, which only came through 2 days ago.

Far-right pair banned from speaking at Auckland Council venues - Phil Goff
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/361220/far-right-pair-banned-from-speaking-at-auckland-council-venues-phil-goff

at the end of the article:

Mr Molyneux heads the organisation Freedomain Radio, an online group that was described as a cult.
 

It seems no matter how many times he tries to reinvent his image, his reputation follows him.


Australian government declines visa for right-wing activist Lauren Southern ahead of speaking tour

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/australian-government-declines-visa-for-rightwing-activist-lauren-southern-ahead-of-speaking-tour/news-story/7b9a15a56981e4508e5305887f85c0e3

flyer:

[The Observer]

"best-selling author"? 

   Hilarious.  Selling a few hundred self-published books on Amazon does make you a best selling author. 

[Lupus]

You know, I'm all for free speech, I don't think Molyneux or absolutely anyone should ever be prevented from speaking, anywhere, if there's an audience who want to hear them - but I can't help laugh at all this, it's great to see Molyneux finally climb out of his tiny stay-at-home-mom bubble and experience, for himself, some of the shit he's been stirring up for years. 

I bet he was livid seeing himself so relegated - in both the above linked articles - to little more than a footnote to Lauren Southern, one article describing the world's best ever 'philosopher' as "commentator Stefan Molyneux". 

[money detonator]

You know, I'm all for free speech, I don't think Molyneux or absolutely anyone should ever be prevented from speaking, anywhere, if there's an audience who want to hear them - but I can't help laugh at all this, it's great to see Molyneux finally climb out of his tiny stay-at-home-mom bubble and experience, for himself, some of the shit he's been stirring up for years. 

To be accurate, their visas were approved, so, they are free to physically go where they want in the two countries, and to spout what they want.  They aren't prohibited from speech; They are prohibited from using their venue of choice in Aukland.

The Aukland mayor, at the request of many of his constituents, would not allow them use of an "Aukland Council venue".  They could find another venue to speak if they wanted.  It's not that they are forbidden to speak, or forbidden to go to Aukland.

Tweets by Mayor:

.@AklCouncil venues shouldn't be used to stir up ethnic or religious tensions. Views that divide rather than unite are repugnant and I have made my views on this very clear. Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux will not be speaking at any Council venues.

https://twitter.com/phil_goff/status/1015056094945611776

Let me be very clear, the right to free speech does not mean the right to be provided with an @AklCouncil platform for that speech.

https://twitter.com/phil_goff/status/1015069949700665345


I might be a tiny bit more sympathetic if they weren't claiming the same right themselves as the mayor.  In the "Terms of Service" on the ticket sales page of the Axiomatic, they themselves reserve the right to refuse entry to ticket holders:

Terms & Conditions
1. The promoter, Axiomatic Media Pty Ltd, its agents and servants (we) reserve the right to refuse entry to anyone.

I bet he was livid seeing himself so relegated - in both the above linked articles - to little more than a footnote to Lauren Southern, one article describing the world's best ever 'philosopher' as "commentator Stefan Molyneux". 

I got that same impression while reading about the whole controversy.  It almost feels like Molyneux's a chaperone.   Even though he gets his name listed first and on top, it doesn't seem quite right.  He's riding on her coattails and barely hanging on in sharing the spotlight. 

it's great to see Molyneux finally climb out of his tiny stay-at-home-mom bubble and experience, for himself, some of the shit he's been stirring up for years. 

I think he hid behind the camera because he isn't very charismatic in person.  His early podcasts were mostly about how no one liked him and everyone (esp. women and co-workers) kept rejecting him, and how he concluded that it must have been because they envied his intellectual and moral superiority.  People who've met him at Libertarian gatherings say he's withdrawn and not impressive.  After he gave the speech at Amsterdam (hilarious to listen to because you can hear a pin drop after he tried to crack jokes), he complained in his podcasts that at the mixers no one would talk to him or listen to him talk about his Masters degree and thesis (LOL!).  I think he's more at home (literally)  talking at a safe distance in front of a camera with complete control to browbeat or hang up on insecure callers, and performing for self selected adoring fans he can keep at a safe distance online, where he can hit the ban button if anyone bothers or challenges him.

[Lupus]

To be accurate, their visas were approved, so, they are free to physically go where they want in the two countries, and to spout what they want.  They aren't prohibited from speech; They are prohibited from using their venue of choice in Aukland.

Thanks for the clarification.

I might be a tiny bit more sympathetic if they weren't claiming the same right themselves as the mayor.  In the "Terms of Service" on the ticket sales page of the Axiomatic, they themselves reserve the right to refuse entry to ticket holders

Lol, well what's new, Molyneux has always been a terrible hypocrite, you name the edict he's issued to his audience and the wider world and it's usually trivial to find multiple examples of him doing the very opposite.

[Lupus]

I think he hid behind the camera because he isn't very charismatic in person.  His early podcasts were mostly about how no one liked him and everyone (esp. women and co-workers) kept rejecting him, and how he concluded that it must have been because they envied his intellectual and moral superiority.  People who've met him at Libertarian gatherings say he's withdrawn and not impressive.  After he gave the speech at Amsterdam (hilarious to listen to because you can hear a pin drop after he tried to crack jokes). . . .

Do you have a link to that - or a title to search for . . . ?

he complained in his podcasts that at the mixers no one would talk to him or listen to him talk about his Masters degree and thesis (LOL!).  I think he's more at home (literally)  talking at a safe distance in front of a camera with complete control to browbeat or hang up on insecure callers, and performing for self selected adoring fans he can keep at a safe distance online, where he can hit the ban button if anyone bothers or challenges him.

Yes, I also suspect this need to control the conversation is also the reason he doesn't tend to engage people at any length in written formats, even something as straightforward and accessible as the comments section of his own videos you'll rarely see a post from him longer than 'not an argument', he's long abandoned his own forum . . . . in a written/typed exchange you can't easily browbeat, you can't interupt or talk over someone, you can't say what can and cannot be discussed or how it should be discussed, all your emoting and theatrics and face palming and shouting and dead eyed starring at the camera are lost in a written exchange . . . basically Molyneux's approach relies on a spoken exchange (or to be more precise a largely one-way 'exchange' with the caller acting as a springboard for Molyneux's long monologues and opinions), if he had to debate someone in a measured written exchange then all his tedious asides and analogies and anecdotes and self-aggrandisement would soon show themselves up as the irrelevant filler material they are, attempts to derail a debate that's not going in his favour would also be much more difficult, and when he's really struggling and turns to personal insults, attacks and amateur psychologising of his interlocutor, what works in a heated exchange simply wouldn't work in a written exchange. Molyneux needs the control bubble of him and a caller, with the caller licking his arse and Molyneux's finger on the mute button.

[money detonator]

I think he hid behind the camera because he isn't very charismatic in person.  His early podcasts were mostly about how no one liked him and everyone (esp. women and co-workers) kept rejecting him, and how he concluded that it must have been because they envied his intellectual and moral superiority.  People who've met him at Libertarian gatherings say he's withdrawn and not impressive.  After he gave the speech at Amsterdam (hilarious to listen to because you can hear a pin drop after he tried to crack jokes). . . .

Do you have a link to that - or a title to search for . . . ?

https://youtu.be/joITmEr4SjY

[Lupus]

I think he hid behind the camera because he isn't very charismatic in person.  His early podcasts were mostly about how no one liked him and everyone (esp. women and co-workers) kept rejecting him, and how he concluded that it must have been because they envied his intellectual and moral superiority.  People who've met him at Libertarian gatherings say he's withdrawn and not impressive.  After he gave the speech at Amsterdam (hilarious to listen to because you can hear a pin drop after he tried to crack jokes). . . .

Do you have a link to that - or a title to search for . . . ?

https://youtu.be/joITmEr4SjY

Thanks, I'll a look.

[Lupus]

https://youtu.be/joITmEr4SjY

Quick question for the North Americans, when you say 'graduate level' do you mean degree level, is Molyneux's claim at the start of the video that 'I’ve studied philosophy at ‘a graduate level’ a claim that he did a degree in philosophy ?

I'm not 100% sure how education qualifications are graded in North America.

This claim sort of caught my attention, because it's well known that he didn't study for a degree in philosophy, he's said so himself many times . . . example: "not one of us (here at FDR) has a degree in philosophy" (FDR 3162).

?

[The Observer]

https://youtu.be/joITmEr4SjY

Quick question for the North Americans, when you say 'graduate level' do you mean degree level, is Molyneux's claim at the start of the video that 'I’ve studied philosophy at ‘a graduate level’ a claim that he did a degree in philosophy ?

I'm not 100% sure how education qualifications are graded in North America.

This claim sort of caught my attention, because it's well known that he didn't study for a degree in philosophy, he's said so himself many times . . . example: "not one of us (here at FDR) has a degree in philosophy" (FDR 3162).

?

Graduate-level just means masters level in America (same as postgraduate in England).  I believe he did take a class on Aristotle while in his masters program, but he completed a History maters, not Philosophy.  So he's stretching the truth a bit by saying that.

[The Observer]

Someone made a video today saying that Southern had her vis revoked.  I can't confirm if it's true, but I would hope that they would not do this.  I may not like someone's opinions, but that shouldn't stop them from speaking.

[money detonator]

https://youtu.be/joITmEr4SjY

Quick question for the North Americans, when you say 'graduate level' do you mean degree level, is Molyneux's claim at the start of the video that 'I’ve studied philosophy at ‘a graduate level’ a claim that he did a degree in philosophy ?

I'm not 100% sure how education qualifications are graded in North America.

This claim sort of caught my attention, because it's well known that he didn't study for a degree in philosophy, he's said so himself many times . . . example: "not one of us (here at FDR) has a degree in philosophy" (FDR 3162).

?

So many exaggerations and inaccuracies within the first few minutes, then it gets worse from there when he starts trying to spin economics to sound like he knows anything about cryptocurrencies besides getting them as donations.

"Millions of people" didn't listen to him.  He usually had 30-100 listeners when he streamed his live show at that time.  Each YT video only gets in the tens of thousands of clicks, and his YT subs were less that 500K at that time.  He had millions of downloads, but each download isn't a unique person, since each person can download/stream hundreds or thousands of podcasts, and the same ones many times, if they listen to a few minutes here or there streaming at different times.

Also, he wasn't "running a radio station".

His Masters and undergrad degrees are in History.

This is him saying he was scared of taking philosophy and "didn't want anything to do with it", and his desperation in finding any kind of success:

https://youtu.be/_h6Dp56FMvM

[Lupus]

Graduate-level just means masters level in America (same as postgraduate in England).

So that would be a master's degree . . . . essentially saying you've 'studied X at graduate level’ is a claim to have done a master's degree ?

I believe he did take a class on Aristotle while in his masters program, but he completed a History maters, not Philosophy.  So he's stretching the truth a bit by saying that.

Yeah, it looks like he's attempting to suggest he has a degree in philosophy, which is not the case, to most casual observers you'd think you'd just been told that he has a master's degree in philosophy.