How would he fare against real intellectuals?

Stefan has no use for humility, but this is obviously because he limits himself to conversing with with like-minded e celebs who have books to sell and debating his own self selected flock of aimless people who apparently can't think for themselves.

A few days ago he did a video with Vox Day where Vox, who clearly wasn't as enthused about the topic (an analysis of Crime and Punishment) talked about how important it was to be humbled by truly great intellects. Stefan latter claimed that he was working on some book that would establish a new universal set of ethics or someshit and Vox's reaction was to kind of sleepily say "good luck with that."

At this point I basically watch Stef's channel for the amusing levels of cringe that come from his ritual curb stomping of his low IQ listeners. I like Stef but I'm starting to suspect that he has an overblown self-image.

Again with this?

Are you one of his donors?

He wouldn't be able to hold a conversation but chimp out like the tinfoil nutter he is

Remember, facts matter except for when it comes to Hitler and the holocaust.

I reported him to the Canadian tax authorities

He has dedicated his life to exploiting rich Americans who are too stupid to see through him. Once you've heard him boast about his acting experience its impossible to listen to his "passionate" speeches without coughing up a bit of your last meal.
Anarchist, Lolbertarian, Fascist he has shilled under the guise of all of them, where the shekels go that cunt follows

You would use the IRS like that you filthy democrat!

Good idea. I should report him to the IRS as well

D'nations

I have to agree with you, OP. I tend to think of Stef as having an over-inflated self image. He's an intelligent guy (I'd argue 120 or so IQ), but he isn't genius level by any means. He's very knowledgeable, as in he's well-read and informs himself to a great degree before remarking on a subject. However, knowledge and intelligence/intellect are separate entities.

He seems to think of himself as a genius, at least superior to the majority, which given the types of people who he chooses to speak with during his call-in shows, he definitely proves himself superior to them. But you make a good point, he isn't even remotely close to those with both the knowledge and the intellect.

I fear the alt-Right is starting to reflect the Left in this sense. We have a lot of figureheads who are seen as being extraordinarily insightful, and the vast majority of people within our ranks take these peoples words as gospel. There is no room for self-reflection. Those wishing to politely disagree with the normative rules regulating "intellectual alt-Right" thinking are shouted down as "cucks" or otherwise moronic.

Stef gains this grandiose egotism because we grant it to him. There are no dissenters (and those that are are generally less intelligent or knowledgeable than him and are likewise defeated) within our ranks, and our figureheads become slightly pretentious.

There are a few exceptions, obviously (Jared Taylor, for example).

In my opinion he's something like a better Maury. It's amazing how many fans of his show are complete the complete embodiment of everything he's tearing down.

He smart enough, but definitely not the genius he thinks he is. I can't help but believe he'd be a lot better as a 'philosopher' if he was more humble, but his attitude seems to impress low IQ retards, so it's financially sound to stay that way.

Well the alt right is still essentially an online troll movement with a very limited public manifestation. I would expect proven intellectuals who have to exist in the greater (and usually academic) cultural environment to throw their lot in with us politically. When I think of our potential though leaders I think of people who would keep us at a distance for practical as well as ideological reasons (Paglia, Land, Peterson, etc.) When I think about our political leaders I think about the usual celebs of that world (Enoch, Taylor etc) who are rightly more fixated on crafting propaganda than knowledge. I guess its a round about way of realizing that there's no figure there yet that can bridge the two aspects.

Also, I forgot to mention in my OP that I basically think of Stef as a sort of off-kilter Frasier Crane. Pompous dude with a radio show who gives advice to lost souls while being lost himself.

Sorry I meant to say I wouldn't expect them to throw their lot in with us.

The only reason I watch his videos is when he has certain guests on, for their insight on whatever topic is being discussed and, on occasion, some of his "truth about" videos. The thing that irks me about him is his lack of willingness to have those on who have differing points of view, and what I mean are those who are on his level intellectually. It's almost as if he's afraid to debate someone intelligent from the other side. I don't even bother watching any of his videos when he brings on some idiot listeners; to me, it just seems like he just does it for an ego boost.

because there was not lolocaust, amirite?

>how would he fare against real arguments?

He absolutely does it for an ego boost. but it can fun to listen to in car crash sort of way.

I'd have to agree with you there, mate. It's unfortunate to me most of this online movement can't seem to separate bantz and propaganda from real, serious intellectually based opinion.

There are those too intellectually inept to truly have an serious opinions other than those they are able to regurgitate from others who are more intelligent than them. I would like to see a greater level of self-awareness from within our ranks. I understand the Reactionary aspects that, politically and culturally, are essentially "for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction." However, we need to be more self-critical (intellectually honest) if any of us hope to improve upon ourselves, our community, and our current economic/political/cultural systems.

I think you make some great points, I'm glad to see someone else on Sup Forums with some sense of the pragmatic applications of constructive criticism.

I'm just sick of the LARP, and those too eager to yell "Quit punching Right" whenever anyone has any sort of serious concern about the way things are headed.

If intellectual honesty was that important how the fuck does the left not die off? I'm all for Shapiro's view in an ideal world but you cannot artificially weaken yourself again the left which will stoop to any level to win. If the demographic replacement happens it's all over. The will be no debates or liberties.

he would get assdevestated within the first 5 minutes.

literally sub humans pretending to debate.

If he was really intelligent he would be debating what weapons to use to cause the most damage to the encroaching army however he sits and fists himself as he masturbates to a mirror.

Anyone worth their salt in debating knows full well never to consider ones own intelligence he makes this mistake all the time thinking he is onto something.

True knowledge comes from knowing you know nothing.

He pretends to have all the answers.

Make your own judgement on him.

AND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MUSLIMS.

Much larger Threat is at hand.

He is a pseudo intellectual and a sophist that pretty much sucks at actual debate.

one of the traits of a good debater is knowing when you lose

>CUT HIM OFF CUT HIS MIC

anyone that needs to actually silence their debating opponent you probably should not listen to.

"Real" intellectuals
>No skin in the game
>Face absolute no consequences if their ideas destroy a country
>No need to please customers - that is they don't need to make ideas intelligible to the common man - just their baguette eating peers.

Molymeme is more real than any intellectual, other than perhaps Nassim Taleb.

And for his fans thats not to say all hope is lost, Help him train in debating and know that losing a debate is not a slight of ones honor.

It is merely knew understanding.

>
you forget the public isnt that bright you just need to get your point across

you need to resonate with your viewers turning someone who is a lefty is hard and theyhave biases which are hard to break down and it takes too much time better go for normies

What is a "real intellectual"?

98% of academics are fooled by extremely low-level propaganda most of the time.

The entire academic apparatus is to create mind-loops for smart(ish) people to jump through so that they can end up in the same Democrat voting line that the MTV idiot dropouts and welfare losers are standing in.

Stef is a pretty standard case study of someone who realized that whole world was fundamentally false.

That said, are his own principles sound? Not really. Yeah in a "real debate" he could get tripped up on basic stuff and get stifled in semantic brambles. Any academic in the 90th percentile could probably win a debate against Molyneux because Molyneux is stuck in his own zone with his own jargon and rigid way of arguing and caricaturing the world.

But it would be the equivalent of "Mr Molyneux, I'm rejecting your entire essay because you didn't format the citations and bibliography correctly. Come on. This is basic freshman stuff and you didn't even bother."

I like Stef and value him over almost any other smartyguy living, but he does have ego problems, gets mad at people for not accepting EVERYTHING he stands for, even though his paradigm has steadily shifted.

I understand your point, but the reason is emotion. Intellectual honesty is the only way to make progress. The Left will die off eventually, either because of cannibalism amongst their ranks (inter-sectional feminism pushing out white women now, etc.) or at the hands of those also ruling themselves at an emotional and ideological level (Islam).

The Left subjugates the meanings of words (they inflate words with emotional, positive or negative, connotations). They act out of emotional and all of their arguments are based in Ethos of Pathos. You are correct in saying there is no arguing or even having a dialectic with these people because they do not respond to Logos. But, this is what separates us from them, and this is why we will win the culture war if we focus on intellectual honesty, and hold ourselves to scrutiny. Progress is only made when you can criticize that which is holding you back in order to improve upon it. The Left criticizes, but at an emotional level, not a pragmatically logical one.

I agree with you again about the replacement aspect, and believe we must fight against that at every level, but without sacrificing self-criticism. We cannot run ourselves based on the idea that "the end justifies the means" as the sole motivational factor. That, in my opinion, is a last resort.

My point being then, it that the Left will die off through exposing truth. I've taken the Yuri-pill, I understand the cognitive traps they have placed themselves in. But we need to care less about changing their minds, and more about the normie masses on the fence only because they lack the knowledge of the truth that allows them to formulate an opinion.

I agree, actually.

I'm all for Molymeme doing wahtever it is he wants, but seriousness folks we cant let him have all the argument codes.

Agreed. Its nice to see someone not reposing to this thread with shareblue.jpg, but I also see 's point. What I think we need is the ability to be intellectually honest with ourselves without losing sight of the very real danger that we're trying to avert.

What I would say is that we need more Intellectual honesty, given that we take so much pride in having what the left doesn't (facts and real arguments) it shouldn't be too hard. What we need to do is not feed into people's ego's and cultivate a culture of debate. To be honest I'm seeing a lot of people moving toward this realization in their own way. Cantwell had a good discussion with Tara Mcarthy the other day where he tried to flesh out the problem of female thought leaders in the alt right without degenerating into juvenile bullshit (though I think he;s wrong about a few of the dangers he perceives). Yesterday one of Gavin's callers argued that the alt right and alt light should stop arguing on ideological terms but call each other out for posturing and grandstanding. So while we're still waiting for a true leader in the sense I've mentioned I think our current talking heads are getting better as this thing matures (watching Trump potentially fail might have something to do with it).

To your points, the left survives on moral outrage and we can and should do that to. But we also have to be ourselves and build norms and standards for what we value that don't elevate feelings based on the opposite of facts. I get what you mean about Shapiro and the issue there is that he simply doesn;t have the same goals that we do, not the transcendent ones. He wants conservatism for america but not natinalism for america, thus he performs this intellectual rigor routine as a way of hedging his bets against the possibility of Trumps minor successes against his ultimate failure (because his ultimate success would endanger him as a jew).

Intellect alone doesn't suffice. Step has INSIGHT and the ability to tie things together.

Stefan not step

(((Academics))) and "intellectuals" are generally a mass of self-congratulatory morons who were lucky enough to benefit from an expensive (((education))) in order to publish papers agreeing with others of their ilk.

It's a mess, there is no real intelligence within their self-masturbatory organizations. They lack the ability to be bold enough to make predictions or observations that are recalcitrant to what has already been accepted by themselves previously.

They quote one another ad nauseum. They use circular reasoning in order to achieve some sort of "proof" of their ideas being important, revelatory, or otherwise.

Stefan is doing philosophy right and UPB is a good book. Fite me IRL if you disagree.
Most of his critics have never read his book(s) and there is much more to the man (and his way of thinking) than they would let you believe.

The trouble is that he wrote the book long time ago now and is trying to shill for his agenda in practice all the way and making alliances to the point where he is becoming "le right-wing man of moral condemnation". I understand that, but I can't personally stand to listen the reiterations of same point over and over again.

I skip most of his videos nowdays. I watch call-ins because they always bring something entertaining. Was also looking forward to crime and punishment analysis and holy fuck was I disappointed. There is so much about the book to be analyzed and every point he kept on bringing on had to do with something about the "le exceptional men", "muh moral doublethink" etc. Yes, I get it but god damn I heard that 1000 times already. I don't need to hear about it for hour and a half.

Vox Day's interpretation of Raskolnikov's horse-beating dream was the only decent part of that talk.

You are exactly right

Academia is also full of fake intellectuals. A real intellectual is someone who has proven himself to have real insight and perspicuity. How you recognize that is by continually assessing their work. A real intellectual is also not some sort of godhead that can;t be disagreed with or who always BTFO's a counter argument. This is why the whole "Hitchslapped" bullshit was so noxious. Yes Hitchens was a very smart guy. He was also not the infallible figurehead that his fans made him out to be.

Yes, the thing about the horse was quite good!

Agreed, but on some points i agree with him and i enjoy listening to the train wreaks that call in for advice, like that old German guy with the young African wife and they got matching tattoos god that was cringe. But i do wish that people that slate him would pick up there balls and debate him.

Oh look, Stef's interviewing Roaming Millennial today. I wonder if he'll verbally cum all over her like he does Lauren Southern.

Because if I were the smartest and most influential philosopher in the world, I'd really want to learn a lot from Lauren Southern and Roaming Millennial and talk to them in hallowed tones of intellectual appreciation.

(Roaming is fucking hot tho...)

I fucking hate this clown.

He holds no degrees or certifications in psychology or in any medical field, yet he constantly gives out medical and mental health advice in his videos and call-in shows. He banned discussion of his manifesto "Universally Preferable Behavior" on his own forums because people were arguing too much about it and poking too many holes in it. His philosophy of blaming all personal issues on parental punishment during childhood has no basis in scientific fact and just encourages people to isolate themselves from their families and support systems (kind of like a cult...)

Bring up any of these issues to his followers and all they say is "call in to his show and talk to him", because they know he'll find a way to weasel around your points with talking fast and filibustering.

He has some interesting things to say about the current political climate, but his garbage ancap opinions and warped psychological world view render those worthless.

just ask one of his ancap supporters what's going to stop a corporation from dumping chemical sludge into the local water supply if we lived in a total anarchy like they constantly tout the virtues of.

Their fucking heads explode trying to rationalize it.

>look at all these lefty arguments I absorbed like the faggot I am

Terrible.

Stef's a very talented entertainer and communicator, but yeah, the guy definitely has an inflated view of himself. Perhaps when he starts debating people that aren't college freshmen, housewives, or immigrants that speak English as a third language, he can call himself "The World's Greatest Philosopher".

LOL at your bastardization of the "Who-Will-Build-The-Roads" argument.