men who should not ever be with imaginary women ever MRA narcissism no girls allowed sockpuppeting Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux's Secret Life as a Hot Babe Who Loves Stefan Molyneux

In the comments section to philosopher-douchebag Stefan Molyneux’s review of Frozen, a self-described “attractive young woman” posts a review of his hour-long review that is so effusively positive that it almost sounds like it was posted by the man himself.

Oh, wait: he did post it himself.

Screen Shot 2014-07-10 at Thu, [Jul 10], 14 1

Can this be real? I mean, it is real; I just went and got the screenshot. But is it really possible that Mr. M tried to sockpuppet in the comments to his own video, posing as his own biggest fan? Or did some worshipful young hottie sneak onto his laptop when he wasn’t looking and post the comment? What kind of “philosopher” does that? Did Jean-Paul Sartre send love letters to himself? Did Kierkegaard leave gushing messages on his own answering machine?

I think we can safely say “no,” at least to the latter, given that Mr. K died in 1855.

But what the hell, Stefan? I eagerly await your two-hour video explaining this one.

Also, if you could explain why my cell phone keeps randomly beeping, that would be great too. It’s really annoying.

(Thanks to everyone who sent this to me.)

UPDATE: I figured out the problem with my cell phone! Oh, and I have also been told that Stef’s self-congratulatory comment was actually a repost of a comment from someone else. He wasn’t pretending to be a young hottie. He was posting a quote from a young hottie without indicating in any way that it was a quote from someone other than him. Good job! So I’ve changed “written” to “posted” in the text above.

Now, though, I’m wondering if that person also wrote the comment that Stef used to introduce his video:

Screen Shot 2014-07-10 at Thu, [Jul 10], 14 2

I mean, that has to be written by someone else, because what kind of arrogant douchenozzle would not only write about himself in the third person but also describe his own video as “must watch?” David Futrelle needs to know.


150 replies on “Stefan Molyneux's Secret Life as a Hot Babe Who Loves Stefan Molyneux”

RE: opium4themasses

If you keep going like that we are going to have to give you the cold shoulder.

Oh, it’s ON now. You think you going to freeze me out? Sun, I’ll storm your castle weather you like it or not! It’s snow big difficulty for me. I’m so cold, they call me Nanook of the North. I’m a sleet hacker!

The Freeze may not be coming, you old fogey, but I’m so cool, I bring on the Ice Age! It’ll take you down just like the rest of the dinosaurs!

Hey LBT, did you comment the other day about someone on AVfM telling a man who’d been (sexually?) victimized to man up or deal with it or something like that? Sorry that’s so vague, but if you remember it can you link me?

Dear drekking drat. That transcript is just… there’s so much wrong. And Molyneuxs hates everyone.

[ Transcript ]

Magic by definition is irrational, and thus cannot exist in the objective, empirical universe.

Sure, I get that, I’ve read my introductions to Chaos Magick, I can cite Condensced Chaos by heart. I’m with you, Mr. Molyneuxs.

Therefore it must exist within the mind, which unlike reality is capable of error, delusion, fantasy and superstition. I


And you lost me by literally the next sentence. That’s just… that’s just… Okay, it’s not what that means first of all. Let me expound on a topic I rarely get to talk about unless I’m actually playing dungeons and dragons or Shadowrun? Magical theory would state that magic is irrational, that is, not based on fact or reason because it’s fucking magic. It doesn’t care about mere things like quantum casuality and logical chains of thought and two plus two being four because to magic two plus two is YOUR HOUSE IS NOW A FISH.

Your mind being capable of error has no bearings on whether magic is rational or irrational, because rational and irrational are descriptors, not value judgements.
Some people just seem to forget that.

Reality is Rhett Butler to the Scarlet of madness – “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

Oh, how fun. I see the thread. Women are irrational and emotional and magic and men are stoic and cool.

This violent rejection of the writer’s early environment contains a base hatred against the culture he grows up in – this hatred is projected into the blackened heart of the usual arch-villain. The hero destroys the villain, because the act of story-telling must destroy the writer’s dangerous hatred of those around him. In this way, the storyteller survives his hatred of the tribe by providing entertainment to the tribe, by telling a hidden story that appeals to the bored and narcissistic desire for adventure without personal risk.

It’s like words. Only… it’s… There’s not really one sentence that flows into the next. It sort of throws in “narcicistic” without really knowing what that means. Also all writers hate everyone, and villians are actually the subsumed murderous impulses of scarred souls.

Once we understand that there is no magic in the world, we can understand that Elsa did not harm her younger sister with her fantasy powers, but rather damaged her physically or psychologically through cruelty and/or violence. My guess is that Elsa is a Hamlet character. Hamlet was a Renaissance man trapped in a medieval world: a sick displacement of premature rationality in a dusty tribe of apelike brutality.

Molyneuxs hasn’t read Hamlet, has he?
In Hamlet, the ghost of a dead king instructs the violently depressed son to murder his way through the royal court. Yeah. Rational.

The wise troll says to Elsa:
“Your power will only grow. There is beauty in it, but also great danger. You must learn to control it. Fear will be your enemy.”

Oh. So magic is always and always madness in any story ever, representing the inner triumph of a ravished mind retreating into its own little dimension, but trolls exist and that’s just fine. Either reality is immutable, or really is mutable, and it can’t be both, because if it is, it’s a paradox and that’s magic. And you just said that didn’t exist.

And I don’t know that silicate based lifeforms can naturally and easily communicate with mammals. How does their lungs work?

As usual, Elsa’s mother nods in a scared, stupid, sheepish way as her husband proceeds to outline his plans to do exactly the opposite of what the healer he respects recommends. She has no voice, because she married the ultimate alpha male, and so cannot contradict or instruct him, because there is no one for her trade up to (who dates Angelina Jolie after Brad Pitt?). Her natural hypergamy – the female desire to “mate up” – has tragic consequences for her youngest daughter Anna, who almost gets murdered pursuing the same estrogen-fuelled ambitions.

That doesn’t even begin to approach making sense. And how do you ship for stuff if you marry a king?

“Hunny, can we get these curtains”
“I don’t really the color dear”
“YES BOSS. I must take of this dress”
“What, why?”
“It’s the same color as that drape! You can’t look at that. IT’S NOT RIGHT!”

(After Anna leaves a man in charge, he does the usual socialist redistribution switcheroo of handing out blankets – the only vaguely political action in the whole movie.)

People were literally freezing to death because of the sudden giant cold front. That’s not socialist re-dstribution of royal wealth, that’s “giving blankets to people”. What the hell.

This trope only reveals the narcissism of women and the cowardice of men – imagining that you are deep and complex, but others are simple, is one of the primary signs of malignant selfishness. Men should point out that most of the deeply powerful emotional artistic works of mankind were created by men – and in fact, the root story of the movie “Frozen” was written by a man – while women generally grace us with claustrophobic emotional revelations that lead nowhere – think “August: Osage County,” “The Edible Woman,” “The Bell Jar,” and “The Stone Angel.”

What a vatjob. How do you go from talking abou malignant selfishness to pointing out that a man wrote some parts of Frozen to slamming the Bell Jar?

Sylvia Plath wrote a good book there, I like it personally, it offers an interesting view on the pecularities of her depression. And the idea of a bell jar of emotional distance is pretty fitting. How does that tie into Michelangelos David? How does that make any sense in the context?!. How does all men make one point in relation the activities of one character in on setting having one emotion? What about the trolls? TWO PLUS TWO IS FISH.

During the coronation, Elsa is terrified to hold the penis-and-testicle ball and rod, and quickly puts them back as they ice over.

So what you’re saying, Molyneuxs, is that she’s giving all men the cold finger?

When a merchant – i.e. a man who actually works for a living – bows while asking Elsa to dance, the two sisters giggle at him when his toupee flops over. This lofty contempt for and indifference to anyone who works is offensive, but is not noted in the movie because the two girls are so very very pretty.

The toupee falling off is funny. How doe this relate to Greda and Kay in the Snow Queen? What about the Devil’s Mirror? Are we raging against feminist hypergamy or are we railing against the contempt of the socialized masses against the working ubermenschen of libertarian ideologies?!

The fact that youthful female beauty is a magic and mad currency all its own is at the root of one of the movie’s main messages. (If it’s any consolation, Anna only judges a man by his looks; when she fantasizes about meeting a man at the ball, she grabs a ruggedly handsome statue to play with. When she first meets Hans, she shifts from snappy to seductive the moment she sees how handsome he is. Nonetheless, women the world over will continue to complain how men objectify their gender.)

And if she had grabbed a broom it would be a replacement penis. I see how this works now. All men are good and all women are evil and wrong.

? She sings that she does not care what people think, but she still craves the narcissistic attention of imaginary eyeballs, because in madness, there is always an audience, never regenerating solitude. The slinky drawing on the screen knows that she is in a movie theater, and that the show will never ever end.

And they can’t have desires of their own indepedent of the eyeballs of men. Of course not. Any dress anyone ever wears is only ever to make someone else stare at them.

Viewed another way, why does Anna not fall in love with Kristoff the mountain man? Why does he get “friend zoned,” even though he is good looking, saves her life several times, and is willing to push back against her vanity madness – he is shocked that she wants to marry a man she just met.

This is a cliché of romantic comedies – the woman is in pursuit of a really hot guy, is helped by a beta-male friend, who she then falls in love with at the end of the movie. “I was looking the world over for love that was right under my nose the whole time!”

The simple reality is that Anna has no romantic response to Kristoff because he is low status – he is an orphan who takes years to pay off the cost of an old sled. He is a tool to be paid – and used – in pursuit of her own goals and desires. She submits to the insanity of Hans, because he is high status – while contemptuously rejecting the sanity of Kristoff, because he is low status.

No, the “simple reality” is that in this situation, Anna met Hans first and Kristoff, on his mountain, just wasn’t a guy she was interested in, because she was already having a crush on someone else she liked.

‘Course that’d assume romantic interaction wasn’t some interchangable quality that you can summon and banish at whim and that women of all stripes didn’t just run constant cost-benefit ratio analysis of the men currently around them.

I…. Oh god it goes on.
There’s more.

I’m still stuck at the fish and the magic and the rational universe and the intriciacies of silicate based life forms and how they’re real but magic isn’t but somehow it is and Hans is an alpha man but he’s not and he is not and social transfers of wealth kings is wrong but ice sales during a winter is all right and..

oh god.
oh… my head.

RE: Argenti

Hey LBT, did you comment the other day about someone on AVfM telling a man who’d been (sexually?) victimized to man up or deal with it or something like that?

Sorry, wasn’t me! Might’ve been Howard Bannister?

RE: Ally

Please stop taking away his frozen peaches.

*throws hat* I CONCEDE.

Also, lulz magic = madness. I’m crazy and a staunch atheist, and I know plenty of sane magicians. But what do I know, I’m male so obviously am breaking this whole stupid paradigm.


Hey LBT, did you comment the other day about someone on AVfM telling a man who’d been (sexually?) victimized to man up or deal with it or something like that? Sorry that’s so vague, but if you remember it can you link me?

That was WatermelonSugar, on the “don’t help kids in distress” post:

” philosopher-douchebag Stefan Molyneux”

He claims to be a philosopher?!?!

I’ve watched a number of his videos and he does not talk about “philosophy”, what to speak of forming a “philosophy” of his own.

And another thing – after hearing him rant about how taxes are putting a gun to people’s heads and forcing them to hand over their hard earned money, i.e. “theft” – an inquirer said that the “free market” is also a kind of “force”, people are literally forced to work at jobs they’d rather not in order to simply live and eat. He gave examples of artists who work jobs they hate in order to support themselves while they are being creative (which doesn’t support them).

Moly said “You’re not ‘forced’. You can go live off the land in a forest or something.”

So why doesn’t he apply the same logic to himself? He’s not “forced” to pay taxes. He could go live in a forest somewhere as well. There’s a reality show all about a family in Alaska that wanders the forests and lives off the land and they don’t pay taxes. They even barter fish in exchange for dentistry work when they have to.

So Moly and his wife are CHOOSING to pay taxes by living the lifestyle that they are. Nobody is forcing them.

I know personally know a number of people who do not pay taxes. They grow food and what food they don’t grow they buy (and we all know groceries are not taxed). They don’t eat at restaurants. They don’t own a home (no housing or land tax). They swap clothes rather than buy them. Basically they are not buying anything other than groceries. Their lifestyles is very simple and they are managing just fine, and they have kids too.

So what’s Moly’s excuse?

Quoth the Molyneux:

imagining that you are deep and complex, but others are simple, is one of the primary signs of malignant selfishness.

The Irony, it burns.

bunnybunny | July 10, 2014 at 11:00 am

I’m trying to imagine how to use “being seen as nothing more than a sex doll” to “get over the system.” What system? The system that encourages women to be seen as nothing more than sex dolls?

– THIS! The way he wrote it was a total giveaway. “Sex doll”? Really?

cassandrakitty | July 10, 2014 at 12:20 pm

It’s creepier because the audience for Frozen was children. What is he doing, trying to groom some 8 year olds to be his future wives?

– What’s worrying is that he has a young daughter and was thinking all this wacky stuff when he was sitting in the movie theater beside her.

I note yet another manospherian pointing to Brad Pitt as the supposed uber-alpha that all women would “trade up” to in an instant, yet again ignoring that every year several media outlets publish a “World’s Sexiest Man” list winner and that Pitt’s year was several decades ago now, the title was never voted for by a quorum of the world’s women, and he got the vote purely for being eye-candy anyway – nothing to do with alphaness as the manosphere defines it (which of course is the primary reason the manosphere is contemptuous of Pitt).

So if Jolie and Pitt split, who would she “trade up” to in the dating stakes? Dozens, if not hundreds, of A-list celebrity men would be interested, I’m guessing – and most of them would view any relationship with Jolie as “trading up” in terms of enhancing their own status, a point which manospherians seem to wilfully disregard.

The whole duke/merchant/working-class thing I can’t even.

@ Fibinachi — Wow. I majored in English. I have read some bizarre and overwrought criticism in my time. But seriously? It’s just… argh!

Fictional villains are a rejection of the culture the writer grew up in? Well sometimes I guess, sure. But likewise, many villains are outsider characters who threaten the society the writer grew up in, and their defeat is an endorsement of that society. Like, say, Steven Spielberg making so many movies about the Axis, the great outside threat in his early years.

The Hamlet thing… I remember hearing that interpretation somewhere before, but can’t put my finger on where. The trouble with Hamlet is that it’s been the subject of so much criticism over the centuries that it’s hard to find something new to say that isn’t at least a bit ‘out there’. But that Moly has picked this one, extremely unlikely criticism as definitive tells us more about him than it does about Hamlet.

And laughing at toupees? Hell, there’s so much male pattern baldness in my family that I wince whenever I see a hair stuck in my comb. Even so, I snigger at guys with bad toupees and obvious comb-overs. Going bald? That’s just bad luck. But if someone would rather look ridiculous than look bald, that’s their call. And that was the point of the toupee thing — it was forshadowing of what we’d learn later. This character was not what he seemed, behind his facade he was basically a clown.

PS – toupee guy wasn’t a merchant, he was a Duke. He was trying to increase sea trade. This would have the effect of increasing his tariff revenue to his country, and increase the size of the merchant marine, meaning more skilled seamen would be available to the state in a time of war. For all sorts of reasons, the state has always played a key role in developing international trade, no matter how many libertarians claim otherwise.

Ah, if I keep going, I’m not going to stop. I’ll quit before I get to wondering why anyone outside the MRA bubble would be writing ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ tropes into anything.

What’s worrying is that he has a young daughter and was thinking all this wacky stuff when he was sitting in the movie theater beside her.

That poor kid. Can you imagine having Stevie for a parent? Ew.

“I note yet another manospherian pointing to Brad Pitt as the supposed uber-alpha that all women would “trade up” to in an instant, yet again ignoring that every year several media outlets publish a “World’s Sexiest Man” list winner and that Pitt’s year was several decades ago now”

I know!!!

What about their continuous promotion of George Clooney, who is close to 70 now, Bruce Willis and Jack Nicholson (of all people) as uber alpha sexy hotties who young women are drooling and fighting over.

Jack Nicholson wasn’t hot even when he was in the correct age range to be the stereotypical hot sexy alpha who all the girls are ignoring you, poor benighted incel soul, to chase after.

Jack Nicholson and Bruce Willis as hot?


George Clooney probably will be hot in the decade-and-a-half from now when he’s pushing 70, but I’d be surprised if many young girls, or young women, have any interest in him.

“Donate to Freedomain Radio? WHY?!?!? Does our world desperately need more of THIS? Smh and lol at the same time.”

Tell about it! These guys are having value added to their lives by people listening to them, commenting, giving them a “voice” on the web. And yet they want those same people who are giving them name and fame to pay them as well? Shouldn’t they be paying them?

The funniest part about their ongoing obsession with Clooney is that they don’t seem to understand why he was so popular, and still is with some women. It’s the personality, not the face, that draws people in – there are plenty of gorgeous men in Hollywood who were never anywhere near as popular with women.

JACK NICHOLSON? But he’s a total creep!

Also, I don’t care if Brad Pitt came and buried me in gold and elephants, I would never ditch my husband for him. Hubby > Brad Pitt by a long mile.

I’d rather not be buried in gold, since it’s cold and heavy. Elephants would at least be cute before they suffocated you.

Ditto! Brad Pitt seems a nice enough person from what little I know about him, but he doesn’t even register on my hotness scale – never has. At his sexiest, he isn’t as sexy as hubby sitting reading the newspaper.

I find Brad Pitt very attractive. More so in his Interview with the Vampire and Legends of the Fall days though. I don’t think he’s what all the young hotties desire. I’m an elderly 34 year old and loved him when I was in high school.

Oh, he was definitely hot with long hair, enough so to overcome my disinterest in blonds to a limited extent. That being said, I’m in the prime age range to find him hot. The teenage girls who MRAs are obsessed with? They’ve presumably moved on to celebrities who’re not old enough to be their dads.

LOL actually it was the hair in Interview that put me off, and I love me some long hair. Only saw a bit of Legends of the Fall but I do remember he looked good in that, at least when he had a bit of facial hair happening. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a very pretty man, but just doesn’t do anything for me – not even on the “yes I could happily watch films just to admire that face” level. Now Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Gregory Peck – them I can happily watch!

I always thought Brad Pitt and Robert Redford have an uncanny resemblance to each other.

The “Ooooh, droool” reference I have never, ever understood is Kevin Costner. Seriously? He’s as interesting as wallpaper glue, both from a beauty/charisma standpoint and from an acting chops one.

Yeah, I’d never even think of Kevin Costner as a potential Hot Actor name.

Just made me think of Ken Branagh in his younger days. He was rather appealing, especially in his Hamlet get-up. The moustache hid the fact he’s got no lips. 😉

Pitt looks like he could be Redford’s son. It’s freaky. Pitt did look a bit silly in Interview, but considerably less so than Tom Cruise, who looked so ridiculous that I was embarrassed for him (let’s not even talk about his acting).

Not to mention Antonio Banderas. Or Kirsten Dunst’s insta-perm when she gets turned. ::snicker::

Only thing I can say about that film is I disliked it marginally less than the book … though I remember it being OMG SO BORING.

My favourite looks for Newman and Redford: Newman in The Sting, Redford in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. (Why yes they did each have moustaches in those roles, why do you ask?)

Antonio Banderas as Armand has to be one of the worst casting decisions of all time.

I just worshiped Interview in 9th grade. I agree that Antonio Banderas was weird casting. The book version of Armand was an auburn haired teenager. How did he come to mind as the best choice?

That was what got me, WWTH! Armand, short, fifteen (give or take a coupla centuries), curly auburn hair, wore 15th century black doublet and hose iirc … how the heck does that translate to what they had in the film?

I can understand the need for an older actor to play Claudia; that’s not a role a real five-year-old could manage. But this? Weird.

I think the idea of eternally angsty teenage boys was part of what put me off about the book. I was in my thirties when I read it and felt like telling ’em all except Marius (was it him – the Roman dude?) to knock off the emo stuff and get a life. Or an unlife.

Even a twinky-looking 20 something I could have lived with as Armand, but macho hairy very much adult Banderas? It totally undercut the tragedy of the character and messed up the characterization.

I’ve never read the book (Rice is not my cuppa), but I did see the movie. I had no idea who Banderas was at the time. The scenes with him in it seemed oddly overwrought, like there was a whole storyline being hinted at, but not included in the movie.

I think the idea of eternally angsty teenage boys was part of what put me off about the book. I was in my thirties when I read it and felt like telling ‘em all except Marius (was it him – the Roman dude?) to knock off the emo stuff and get a life. Or an unlife.

If I read the Vampire Chronicles for the first time now I would probably feel the same way. Although Pandora, one of the other old ones is cool too.

However, I read them as a teenager and loved them. Because teen girls + angst = <3
I still have a soft spot for them and the movie. Not the Queen of the Damned movie though. That was horrid.

(I still maintain that for all their flaws they’re far, far less harmful to readers than Twilight. And also free of the horror that is vampires playing baseball.)

Oh yeah, I’d probably have felt very differently about ’em if I’d read them as a teen, no doubt. I certainly don’t see them as harmful, just sooooo not my thing – never liked Rice’s style and the given names of two of the main characters, being the same as two chaps very important to me, was a consant irritant (“Stop being such wimps, you two! Live up to your names!”) 🙂


My life has been spared so much horror by not reading that stuff.

The vampire baseball may actually have offended me even more than the unhealthy relationship dynamics. What’s next, having the werewolves pluck their eyebrows?

I was most offended by vampires glittering in the sun instead of bursting into flames. No. Just no. Can not deal.

I do recommend the Riff Trax version of the Twilight movies though. Those movies are such Mystery Science Theater material.

RE: Kittehs

Just made me think of Ken Branagh in his younger days.

Oh lord, Kenneth Branagh. I swear to god, they couldn’t have found a better casting choice for Gilderoy Lockhart had the dude got up and walked out of the pages Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.


I do recommend the Riff Trax version of the Twilight movies though.

OMG YES. We watched the Twilight Rifftraxx at me and hubby’s bachelor party and it was GLORIOUS. Also created catch-phrases for the rest of our wedding (“you can’t be one of us! You’re not pretentious enough!” and “sit down, have some plaid!” among others).

Rule 63 Sock Puppet!

“I am me
And he is she
And we are all
Rule 63!”

All I can say is if you use the words “Twilight” and “Sparkle” in the same sentence, you’d better be talking about a purple unicorn who lived in Ponyville Library.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.