A couple of days ago I came across the videos of one Stefan Molyneux on Youtube, in which he was ‘explaining’ why the UK should leave the EU. It took the form of a webcam conversation with some other guy, and they were spouting the typical right-wing, intellectually void tosh we’ve heard all before: stuff about protecting british culture from foreign influences (but oh no – they aren’t xenophobes!!) I watched about half of it, when, as usual, the old moro reflex kicking in and starting to shake with rage, I left a comment asking why these two morons should be allowed webcams when all they were going to use them for was spew such vapid nonsense over the web.

It was a stupid, facetious comment. I should have taken the time to explain why they were wrong, going through it point by inane point. But in that moment I just wanted to get something out, just to vent my anger. They were being so obnoxious and arrogant: from the way they spoke it was as if they regarded anyone who didn’t agree with them as inferior. It came across as deliberately combative, and that, to me, is like a red rag to a bull.

almost immediately, I started to get replies. Molyneux himself responded that what I said was not an argument – a valid enough point – so I flagged up what I wrote in this entry, about culture always changing, and their position reducing essentially down to a form of xenophobia. That was a mistake, as I was inundated with a tirade of abuse from others. I was even invited by one respondent to kill myself, but I stuck to my guns. Outists don’t like the folly of what they are saying pointed out, nor do xenophobes like being called xenophobes; but to frame the argument in terms of trying to protect one’s culture from those you see as ‘other’ – people whom you claim hate you – reduces down to a form of xenophobia.

In the end, though, it got too much. I was getting replies every five minutes, and I didn’t have the time or patience to try to argue my corner. There was no reasoning with them. They saw me as a liberal – one even called me a libtard – something they seemed to despise. Indeed, in one of Molyneux’ other videos he rails against what he calls ‘liberal hypocrisy, the lack of any logic or understanding hidden by the quick edits and snide, arrogant remarks. Apparently, we discriminate against white male culture in favour of minorities. Such reasoning fails to take any account of the history of oppression minorities have faced, or the considerable advantages in terms of cultural capital the white male still has. It’s an attitude i’ve encountered time and time again: as soon as anyone calls them up on their bigotry and desire to oppress, or points out the folly in their talk of wanting to ‘preserve their culture’, they cry oppression. But they do so with such arrogance and condescension that it belies the bigotry beneath: it comes across as ”i’m a white male, so I know best.”

I deleted the thread last night. It got too much; I couldn’t be asked trying to argue with these right-wing fools. They employ an inane, intellectually void type of logic which prioritises white male culture over all others, then whenever anyone points out their bias, lack of evidence or illogic, the accuse you of bias. They also claim the education system and media is biassed against them; but instead of considering that that might be because people in education and media know the folly of authoritarian nationalism, they say it’s all a big liberal conspiracy to discriminate against conservatives in favour of minorities. They seem to refuse to accept that they might be wrong, and that others might know a bit more about the world than they do.

Thus people like Molyneux make their videos, railing agains some fantasy ‘liberal elite’, spreading what boils down to hatred, acting like they are saying something intellectually coherent and getting scores of hits for doing so. They offer no sensible evidence to back up what they say, but the moment someone like me calls them up on it, the pounce, deriding the comment and demanding evidence. And the moment you supply it, they dismiss it as biassed. There is thus no point arguing.

I believe this is part of what is known as ‘the info wars’. The liberal view is in the majority, because it is logical and pluralist. Thus when conservative

authoritarianism encounters it, it considers it oppressed because it sees itself surrounded and outmatched. Rather than accepting their selves as equal to everyone else, conservative white males take to the web and start shouting their heads off, decrying things like positive discrimination and political correctness as forms of discrimination against them. They desperately want to cling to the cultural advantages that they think should be their birthright, and use the tone and style of argument they find used against them to try to do so. Tonally their videos have an air of knowing to them, but the reasoning such people use would convince only the most naive. They insist the weight of evidence is theirs, but that insistence essentially comes from their belief in their ethnic superiority; they automatically reject any more objective viewpoint questioning their superiority as socialism. To attack liberal pluralism on the grounds that it discriminates against the dominant culture boils down to a justification of their own desire to discriminate. How can you argue with someone who sees himself as superior because of his ethnicity or socioeconomic class, and demands his oppressive, discriminatory views be seen as just as valid as anyone else’s, even when they lack any form of intellectual coherence and run counter to the pluralism everyone else holds dear.