Great Video by Questeon

For those who have visited here before, you know that I have a great deal of admiration for www.fdrliberated.com  It is much more robust and has much more indepth analysis of Moly and FDR.  I particularly like that he properly categorizes the types of visitors to freedomainradio.  And how he properly explains Moly as a teacher (good), philosopher (below average at best), and then as a family counselor (deeply misguided, dangerous and cult like).

Here is the video



I hope you will visit FDR Liberated and the associated forum.  I also hope Questeon will offer up more video content like this.

Family relationships are more than just another adult relationship

Without a doubt the most asinine comments I get involve the observation that   “Molyneux isn't against the family.  He is only about voluntarily ending unhealthy relationships.” 

I have a question for those commenter's and anyone else who thinks that is “all Moly is saying”.  If the only thing Moly puts forth is this simpleton axiom, then why are you listening to him on anything related to the family? 

I suspect that the answer is because that is NOT all he believes.  Like all con men, he starts with an obvious truth and then corrupts it.  He drones on and on, as if he had a clue, as to what a healthy parent child relationship is about.  In the course of his never ending pod-casts  he offers one seemingly obvious but totally incorrect message.  Moly and his wife try to get you to believe that your relationships with your parents are no different than any other “adult” relationship in your life.  He claims that you should have the same standard with your parents as other relationships.  As reasonable as that sounds at first, if you take any time to consider it, you have to find that it is a truly silly construct.   

A healthy relationship with your parents is nothing like other adult relationships.  It shouldn't be.  A healthy relationship with your parents involves lots of things that would never exist anywhere else in your life.  If you are doing well and you are happy, your parents are happy right along with you.  No one else in your life cares about you in that way.  If you are screwing up, your parents will likely speak up.  If you have a brain, you will at least give their opinion some consideration.  If you reject their advice, they will take it in stride and wish you well.  In what other relationship in your life, can you just show up at their home and be welcomed in no matter what.  Your parents are planning on how they can give you their estate when they die.  Is there any other ‘adult relationship’ you have that involves estate planning?   Or how about simple table manners.  Your parents provided you with food, security, shelter and love for the first 20 years or so of your life.  They endured all your bad behavior and peccadilloes and still supported you and loved you.  As a matter of morality and ethics, you should return the favor and forgive them their transgressions.  Anyone can come up with countless additional examples of why the healthy family relationship is, and should be, fundamentally different from 'other adult relationships.'  

If you think differently, feel free to get a grip.   

Justice is served

Justice is served when those who willfully hurt others are punished for their acts.  When I started this blog, parents routinely contacted me looking for help.  It has been months since that has happened.  And where before, it was hard to find an example of a defoo victim returning, parents are now telling me their children are re-connecting.  I think this worm has turned.  I think Moly is now completely cowed by bad publicity over the defoo thing.  I also think because of that, very few now take him even a little bit seriously as a source for libertarian thought anymore.  His under educated wife is now officially and properly identified by her profession’s licensing body as having engaged in “professional misconduct” related to her unethical counseling during a freedomainradio call-in show.  A web search on Christina Papadopoulos (or Christina Molyneux) would turn up a therapist who is weak willed, naive  over matched, and a devoted follower of her cult leader husband.  It will show that she is guilty of professional misconduct.  It will show that she has counseled people she did not know via an internet call-in show sponsored by her husband. And that she advised those people to cruelly break with their families with no warning and no opportunity for communications or counseling.  I have to think that the Molyneux family business is suffering.  In short:  Justice is being served.  

So what now?  After justice is served, redemption often follows.  If Moly publicly and convincingly disavows his idiotic, simpleton and destructive family views, that would be a good start.  If he successfully seeks out each and every one of his defoo followers; then gets each and every one to return home with a true conviction in their hearts to find reconciliation with their parents and loved ones, then I will declare victory and take this site down.  

I won't hold my breath on this.  Still.  It has to be burdensome to Moly's mental health to know that he has been engaging in such morally reprehensible and damaging behavior for so long.  Doing the right thing could be a good thing for his general mental health.  I bet redemption would lift a large burden from his heart.  A burden that he doesn't even know exists.  Until then, he can work on getting used to the new normal.    

Christina Papadopoulos - Guilty of Misconduct

Well this has been a long time coming.  The College of Psychologists of Ontario has finally faced the obvious truth that Christina Papadopoulos guilty of professional misconduct.  Here is the article from the Toronto Globe and Mail.   

Some excerpts and my thoughts (in bold):

Excerpt:  In another podcast, the couple discussed a listener who wrote a letter describing how he cut ties with his family and rerouted his mother’s daily e-mailed pleas titled “We love you” into his junk mail folder. “She’s trying to push your buttons. She’s trying to appeal to your guilt,” Ms. Papadopoulos said. “The best thing to do under those circumstances is just not to engage. …The moment you respond back, she knows she’s got you.”            -  Wow.  That is some serious professional therapist advice.  The callers mother is reaching out to offer her love and Christina acts like a teenager advising her BFF over how to handle her latest rival.  "That will teach her to make fun of your outfit.  Just ignore her.  If you call her out, she will get the upper hand. "  

At Tuesday’s hearing, Mr. Osborne said, the perception of Ms. Papadopoulos’s objectivity was compromised because her husband’s website solicits donations.   -  Ya Think?  

Ms. Papadopoulos didn't speak at the hearing, except to enter her plea. In the statement of facts, she said “she was, with the benefit of hindsight, naive about the use and possible misuse of information distributed via the Internet.”  
                       -  Isn't that special.  Poor me.  I'm naive:  The woman was actively presenting herself as a licensed therapist and  trying to get people to break with their families in a most horribly cruel way. And she succeeded.  But she asks that she be excused due to naivety.  What about the victims?  If Christina had the capacity for a normal amount of shame, she would commit herself to trying to undo the damage she has caused.  Here are some concrete things she could do.  How about her own podcast on FDR disavowing their outrageous family belief.  Apologizing.  How about persuading her deeply deranged husband to get over his beliefs and do the same sort of podcast.  How about reaching out to all those who have deFoo'ed and counsel them to  seek out their parents, family and friends.  To seek out reconciliation.  If Christina did that, perhaps she would find redemption in her own heart.  If she did that, I would be inclined to forgive her as well.  
  

A Suicide Caused by Stefan Molyneux and Christina Papadopoulos and FreeDomainRadio

I use the pseudonym Edmund Burke because he is credited with the saying: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.  I am posting here a profoundly sad story from a stricken parent.  I have spoken directly to the father and have independently verified the facts. This post is true.  

Here is a father's story:    

            I am a father of one fewer children than I had before.  My son was stolen from me by wolves in sheep’s clothing—wolves named Stefan Molyneux and Christina Papadopoulos.  Together these two and their destructive worldview  warped my son’s heart and stole everything he held dear, until he found himself isolated and hopeless.  My son killed himself as a result of their destructive influence on his life.

            We’ll call my son Sam.  Sam was in his young adulthood, only three years into life on his own, with his own job, own car, an apartment with a buddy, and enjoying life.  His childhood was idyllic—safe environment, loving family, raised in Christian love yet given freedom to think for himself, and not abused in any way.  After graduation he joined the Army—a childhood dream of his—and was living in the south.  While away he maintained strong ties with family and many friends in several states.  He kept in contact with them regularly and even visited numerous times despite being half a continent away.  He even drove across the country for his mom’s birthday!

            Within a two month period, that all changed.  He went from, “I’ll be praying for you” or “I can’t wait to see what God has in store for me”, to “I have no faith” and a total excommunication of Christian family and friends.  He even shunned and quit communicating with his three siblings, whom he loved dearly.

            Many of us tried to find out what was going on in Sam’s life.  The one thing he mentioned was studying the teachings of Stefan Molyneux, Christina Papadopoulos and their blog minions at FreeDomainRadio.  While this organization has some appealing features and draws people in with their fresh and exciting podcasts and blogs on politics and philosophy, under the surface is a worldview that is destructive to those who become immersed.  Sam was swept up by it.

            The worldview preached by the Molyneux cult is a combination of extreme libertarian politics, atheistic religion, and a warped psychology that believes parents are the root cause of all a person’s problems.  In their view, there is no such thing as a good parent.  They clearly counseled Sam to distance himself early from parents and Christians.  It initially started with a lack of the usual responsive communication, then to “de-friending” on Facebook, to “leave me alone,” and finally to a scathing “goodbye-forever” letter, all within the period of a few months.  The letter is too painful to quote from, filled with crazy jargon and phrases, evidence of brainwashing by the Molyneux wolves.

            We saw that coming.  We did our research on the Molyneux cult and learned of other families that had been ripped apart by the infamous “DeFOO”—Departing the Family Of Origin.  That’s exactly what Sam did to us, and then some.  He completely burned his family and Christian friend bridges.  Not only didn’t it solve his problems but rather contributed to his self-destruction.

            There is much written elsewhere about the religion of atheism versus following Jesus Christ or any other deity.  It might seem an oxymoron, but atheism is actually a religion too—that of the self being the only high authority in life, a sort of self-worship.  As one gets to know oneself more, however, he comes to the realization that focus on self is a short, dead-end trail that leaves one utterly disappointed.  I believe Sam reached the end of that trail, and in his mind he had no family and support structure to turn back to, even though we would have welcomed him home with open arms and a party of the grandest designs.

            After finishing his service to the Army—less than six months after the DeFOO--Sam set off on his own to find a new career, new home, a new identity as a free man.  Only seven days into his journey he found himself sitting alone in the car he lived in, with no one to turn to who could see the root cause of his suffering and offer him help, and no hope in his heart for redemption by a loving and forgiving God.  Sam shot himself in the head and died instantly.

            We all hurt for Sam, for ourselves, and for those who also miss him.  It was painful enough to lose him as a result of DeFOO, but we thought there would come a day when he would come back to us.  There was always hope of his return.  Now Sam has been ripped away forever, and the wound is deeper than before.  We will never on this earth have a chance to tell him again how much we love him, grow closer as he matures, or play with the children he never had.   

Chalk one up to Molyneux and Papadopoulos, The Destroyers.  May it never happen again.

A few final thoughts from Edmund.  
It was and continues to be inevitable that the evil perpetuated by  Stephan Molyneux and his wife Christina Papadopoulos is lethal.  I have observed that when a defoo succeeds (success is defined as anyone who defoo's and then becomes a reliable donor to the FDR cult), it is extolled as a triumph of Moly's will.  But when a defoo goes bad (as it always does), it is never because the victim bought into the Moly's destructive anti-family asininity.  Molyneux followers will contend that the decision to defoo has nothing to do with the efforts of Moly and his expert therapist wife with her Bachelor's degree.  It is always something else.  
But isn't it possible that the victims took the advice of Molyneux and isolated themselves from their family and friends because Moly and his followers work hard to persuade people to do exactly that?  Isn't it possible that when the defoo victim becomes sad and depressed; when the interminable suffering and sadness comes to be; when the inevitable does finally occur and a good man dies, that a contributing factor was an involvement with FDR?  I think the FDR community makes no effort to consider this as even a possibility.  They defend Moly with rationalizations and all the standard FDR sanctioned bromides.  "It was the parent's fault after all."  Or " you can't blame Moly for something like this."  For those who feel this way, I continue to beg you to find the truth in your heart and in your mind.  

The End of a Defoo

Got this comment from the 'Family business' below.  I think it is worth an upgrade to it's own post.  Here is the comment:  


"Edmund, I am happy to report that after almost 4years my daughter has resumed contact with family and friends. The nightmare has finally ended for us, for all the parents out there who are still waiting, your kids will figure it out they will come back it's just a matter of time. Thanks so much for this website Edmund it helped me through alot of tough times. Keep the faith."

As for me, I offer this on behalf of all parents who are waiting for our children to come home: 
You are welcome to return at a time of your choosing.   If' or when that day comes, you will receive a warm smile and a hug.  Probably a meal will be involved.  It can be for a visit or you may want a place to crash.  It is 'home' after all.  
Do know that while we hope you return, more than anything else, we wish you happiness in your life.  

Freedomain Radio - A family business

Stefan Molyneux and his wife Christina Papadopoulos run an internet site called Freedomain Radio. Families end up in ruin, but not to worry. It is nothing more than a voluntary decision to discontinue adult relationships.

Stefan Molyneux runs the site full time and generates revenue from donations. His wife is a licensed therapist in Mississauga, Canada (a Toronto suburb). She practices as Christina Papadopoulos. Ms. Papadopoulos is the source of Molyneux’s foundational beliefs and exhortations that there is a strong and convincing connection between psychology and philosophy. His early essays are clear that her insights on the family and relationships created the intellectual wellspring for his psychology/philosophy connection. He often refers to his wife as the ‘brains of the operation.’

Molyneux originated as an acolyte of Ayn Rand (author and philosopher who invented the philosophy of Objectivism). Molyneux moved on to what might be considered the final stop on the Objectivist train line. Molyneux believes he has figured out how to have a utopian state of free trade and property rights with zero government. This is often called anarcho-capitalism. He used to podcast from his car on his way to and from his job as an Information Technology worker. I used to listen to these podcasts. I found them to be engaging and entertaining. I looked at them the same way you would if you were having a party with some good friends and the discussion moved to a thought experiment. Hey guys, what would it be like if there were no police or courts? How could you make a stateless society work?

Molyneux is making a serious suggestion of an answer to these questions. He contends that when society finally falls under the weight of debt, corruption, etc, the Moly version of an anarcho-capitalist utopia will rise from the rubble. On some level, Molyneux certainly knows that anarchy is unworkable. There are certain examples from history where anarchy works, but it is almost always in the context of benign neglect (e.g. Hong Kong) or some remote part of a country where the govt is there buy does not have any presence.  Because it is part of a soverign country, a thug can't establish providence over the area, so the locals have to figure out a way.  They have private property.  Freedom. A cultural agreement on rule of law.  When it happens it is a beautiful thing.  Mostly though, history tells us that Anarchy comes after a people throw off the shackles of an oppressive state.  And shortly after that period of anarchy, the inevitable result is horror and suffering that comes from the breakdown of society.  Shortly after that, there the second inevitability.  A dictatiorial thug with the biggest and toughest armed supporters takes over.   Once the new thug is in charge, the state is back with a vengence.  Now the real atrocities begin.  The bolsheviks over threw the Czar in the name of freedom.  Whoops.  The Russians got four generations of death by the millions and a morose totalitarian regime that sucked every bit of huma joy imaginable out of life.  Molyneux does try to describe a way to address the problem with Anarchy and history. For an intelligent and idealistic young adult, the Molyneux version of anarcho-capitalism can have a lot of appeal.

Alas, there is more to FDR than anarcho-capitalist musings. Molyneux spends a lot of time discussing his childhood. He says his father left when he was young and his mother was relentlessly abusive. He further contends that he and his brother kicked their mother out of the house when he was fifteen. Somewhere along the way, Molyneux broke with his family forever. I have received posts from people who knew Moly as a child and knew his mother.  Suffice it to say, Moly may be overstating his horrible childhood.  After they were married, his wife Christina broke with her parents. In a podcast some time ago, Molyneux described a discussion he had with his wife. In it he describes the revelation that they both had. The family structure was at the root of people’s INABILITY to find complete and true freedom. The thinking can be encapsulated like this:
· People reject anarcho-capitalism for psychological reasons (as opposed to empirical historical analysis or simple logical reasoning).
· Nearly all parents are corrupt child abusers
· Naturally their psychology is messed up by their parents
· The best way to repair the psychological damage done by your parents and be truly free is to abandon your family
The public reason for the emphasis on Psychology is so people will be more willing to accept anarcho-capitalism. But in the parlance of the con man, that message is only the tale. Here is an early essay from Molyneux. It is so thoroughly out there that it is hard to take seriously, but he really believes what he wrote here. This essay discloses the basis for all that is FDR today:
Therapists generally consider that a patient who is terminating a multitude of long-term relationships is acting in an impulsive and self-destructive manner. In particular, breaking off relationships with family members is considered only a last resort, usually reserved for physically abusive parents or spouses. Everything else is supposed to be ‘worked out.’
Of course, quite the opposite is true. Of all the relationships in your life, your relationship with your parents and siblings is by far the most likely to be completely screwed up. Not only that, but you also have absolutely no power to improve these relationships.
Harsh? Not at all. Merely logical.

When raising children, parents have absolutely no idea what they’re doing. Why should children obey them? Because parents are right? Hell no – ask parents why they hold their beliefs, they don’t have a clue. How could they? The last competent philosopher was probably John Locke, over three hundred years ago. The general social stream of ideas is just muck and confusion, designed by evil people to baffle and paralyze any good souls that accidentally emerge from the sick swamps of modern thought.

Average parents can no more reinvent morality from scratch than they can build a Space Shuttle in their backyards. Still, they have to get their children to obey them – how do they do it?

Oh, the usual suspects. Guilt, shame, withdrawal, criticism, bribery, bullying, manipulation – the usual crap that has passed for parenting throughout history. Guilt, shame and bullying always rush to fill the void when logical morality loses favour, because children must be taught, and if no carrots are to be found, sticks will always just have to do.

So face it: your parents were bullies, or weak curriers of favour, or manipulative emotional infants themselves. You have no respect for them, for respect requires courage, and courage requires logical morality. You do not love them, since love demands virtue, and manipulating children into blind obedience is not at all virtuous. There are only a few possible responses to modern parents:

- Contempt- Indifference- Boredom- Hatred- Empty conformity

These are usually mixed into an over-stimulating frappe of conflicting emotions, leaving family gatherings fraught with tension, alienation, dissociation and emptiness.

You are told to repair things with your parents, but that is an impossible task – a complete waste of time that will also make you crazy. Since they hurt you when you were young, you cannot fix the relationship. To make the point with an extreme example, if you are raped by a man, you cannot cure him of his desire to rape. Maybe someone else can, but you cannot. Since your parents bullied or bribed you into blind obedience, you cannot help them become better people. Maybe someone else can. A therapist perhaps. But not you. You have no hope, since their guilt about how they treated you will always muck up any attempt at honest communication.

And really, it is impossible to forgive someone who has bullied a child. Forgiveness is for repairable events, like being distracted or breaking a vase. A bad childhood cannot be repaired or returned intact. Where restitution is impossible, forgiveness is impossible. Don’t even try.

Does this sound too radical? Do you think it extreme for me to say that almost all parents are horribly bad? Perhaps it is. However, if you look at the state of the world – the general blindness and the slow death of our liberties – the challenge you take on by disagreeing with me is this: if it’s not the parents, what is it?
Either the world is not sick, or parents are. Because, as my wife says, it all starts with the family. If you want to perform the greatest service for political liberty, all you have to do is turf all of your unsatisfying relationships. Parents, siblings, spouse, it doesn’t matter.

- Stefan Molyneux

So if you are following this: All parents are bad. So are siblings and spouses. All family relationships are bad and can’t be repaired. If you think you love them, you’re sick. They all have to go.
So how does FDR work in practice?
When a new visitor enters a chat room or forum, there are the obliging FDR members who engage the new visitors then stick with them over the course of time. When the new member begins to join into the anti-family culture that is FDR, the other members encourage the conversation. And then they start promoting the abandonment of their family. Molyneux posts on the forums but he does his most damaging work during public ‘call in’ radio shows (and in personal conversations with potential donators who are on the brink and need the final push).
The Sunday ‘call in’ shows' and the ‘ask the therapist’ call in show’ where Christina participates are simultaneously mesmerizing and deeply sad. This is where Molyneux is fully engaged in the argument for ‘freedom.’ This is where Molyneux does his best to persuade kids to leave their families or to cement their decision. It is here where he actively and effectively persuades them and the call in show listeners that their parents were evil. These are unlicensed therapy sessions where he engages in an orgy of projection of his own issues and breathtaking manipulation. It is during these truly infuriating sessions when he picks out some routine complaint and in a manner that would make Barbra Walters proud, he gets the poor caller to a state of sadness and vulnerability. Everyone has some sort of issue that can be exploited. Even if he can't find an issue, he confabulates one. His favorites fall into these areas:

· Your father dominated you and destroyed your self esteem
· Your mother ignored you and withheld affection
· Your parents were abusive to you by insisting you behave in public
· Your parents never respected it when you had your own thoughts or beliefs
· You were never allowed to feel true happiness
· Your parents took you to church. i.e. it is abusive in the extreme to suggest to a young child that there is a mystical non-existent god that is all knowing and all seeing.
· Your mother only had you so you could be delivered to your father for abuse 
Moly uses this last one and the 'religion as abuse' to connect the mother to the abusive parent narrative.  Father's are often the disciplinarian in the family.  It is relitively easy to come up with stuff on dad and why he was a corrupt bully.  Mom isn't a pushover, but she is mostly  quite loving and saintly in how the kids are treated.  This creates a real challenge for Moly to rationalize why a young adult should engage in such cruelity towards their mother.  

These templates don’t always work. I got a link to one of his therapy sessions on a call in show.  He could not get the caller to bite on any of the standard stories of parental miss behavior. Molyneux kept probing. But the caller’s parents were pretty easy going. The caller said he was allowed to have his freedom. They never engaged in physical discipline. Molyneux was frustrated. He seemed to realize that everyone on the call was listening and he was failing to make his point. Eventually Molyneux said to the caller, "They didn’t even care enough to hit you.”  I am serious.  I heard him say that myself.

But most times, it is easy for Molyneux (actually it is easy for anyone), to find and exploit an area of vulnerability. In one session, a young female caller was upset because she had an argument with her mother and her mother finally sent her to her room.
The caller said, “I remember feeling so angry and upset that she would not listen to me.”
That was all Molyneux needed to confirm the her mother was corrupt and abusive. The caller ended up in tears. Eventually something creates the emotional reaction that puts the caller in a state of acceptance of Molyneux's main message. That message is always the same:
Your parents were abusive and your best chance to find true freedom is to abruptly abandon your family.
This is consistent with Molyneux's own alleged sad childhood experience. As a complete narcissist, Molyneux likely believes that others need to mirror his experience to find their own freedom (i.e. leave your parents like I left mine). He tries to control himself, but there are well documented times when he has overtly called for the FDR member to make the break. He has a series of podcasts on how to make the break, etc. Sadly, there are some who are at the right young adult age and in the right state of mind to be receptive to this damaging concept. "Why not? Let me be free. I'll do it!!" When that happens there is another broken family and another donator to FDR.
In the FDR world the family break has a name. It is called a DeFoo. FOO is the Family of Origin. DeFoo means departing the FOO. A Defoo is different from the occasional, young adult ‘get me out of here’ break up. A DeFoo is a Molyneux invention that is based on one truism and one perversion.

The truism: Adult relationships, including family relationships, are voluntary.
The Perversion: practically all parents are abusive and corrupt in the Molyneux world.

Once he persuades the young adult that these two things are true, he and his minions start working hard on the defoo. When they finally succeed, this sudden event is traumatic for all concerned. The victim did not realize how much this loss would affect them. They have “voluntarily” abandoned the love and support of their family. There is a huge emotional vacuum. Molyneux is poised to fill that void....for a fee. This is how he makes his money. He gets locked in contributors who have nowhere else to go. They find themselves increasingly 'comfortable' in the FDR community. Other relationships are broken off. 
Moly aggresively seeks donations. There is a graduated fee structure: silver, gold, diamond etc. The top donator status is the Philosopher King. That one requires an initiation fee plus $50 a month. The main differentiating aspect of each donator status is the level of access. His wife does bring in revenue from her family therapy practice, but his only form of income is from donations to his site. If he gets a young person to leave their family of origin (the FOO), they are more likely to consistently donate to FDR.

On occasion, Molyneux does put out a purely PR comment encouraging therapy, communications, etc. But in nearly 1,500 podcasts there have been NO PODCASTS about ‘Re-joining Your Family after the Break.’ That is because a defoo isn't taking a break. It is intended to be permanent. To find true freedom/enlightenment, etc, you need a complete separation from everyone forever. This includes friends, because they're also corrupt. That is unless you can recruit them to become an FDR member and then a donator. In private chat rooms the facts and evidence strongly show the true nature of FDR. Molyneux tightly controls his messaging by way of his members. He has very specific instructions for his members on how they are to treat new members. The instructions are designed to avoid communicating the true nature of FDR. Molyneux warns the members that he often arrives as a new visitor to test their behavior. He assures them that any deviation from his requirements will cause them to be banished from the group.
Young adults have been angrily leaving their parents since the family unit began. Usually it is after many attempts to communicate or at the end of a trail of dysfunction. A DeFOO is different. First of all, the most sacred rule of the DeFoo is that it must be abrupt and without warning. There is to be absolutely no discussion or communication prior to the break other than a lie you are to tell your parents so they won't come looking for you. The member is supposed to suggest that they just need some time, but that the break it temporary. Since the parent loves and respects their child, they respect the request for some space. The second rule is that once done, there is to be NO further contact with the family under any circumstances. You are advised to take the time you have before your parents catch on, to change cell phone numbers, move away, etc. You must isolate yourself. The parents and family members are left in a state of despair and sadness. So is the FDR member. No therapist would recommend anything so destructive. Except, of course, the therapist wife.
The parent-child relationship is unstable in that period of time when the child is transitioning to adulthood and independence. There are a lot of conflicting emotions and life dynamics for all concerned. For Stefan Molyneux and his wife, Christina Papadopoulus, this is their moment of opportunity. They have developed a money making system that makes the most of this critical stage in a family relationship. They are successful if they are able to insert themselves into the mix at this critical stage and help the family break apart. Don’t worry about the shattered lives and unrelenting pain. It is just an independent adult decision to break with The good news is that FDR can generate a few dollars a month from a new donator. This essay was written when Molyneux was unguarded. He wrote it before he felt the need to maintain a public position of encouraging therapy and open communications. There is another rather famous Molyneux quote from an article published in the Guardian “You’ll never see me again.” Here it is:

"Deep down I do not believe that there are any really good parents out there - the same way that I do not believe there were any really good doctors in the 10th century." - Stefan Molyneux

Molyneux and Feminists

As someone who is in constant state of awe whenever I reflect on the nature of women (especially my bride), it has often occurred to me that Feminism is a natural place for libertarian sentiment to flourish.  I say that because at its core, Libertarianism is about freedom of the individual without prior restraint or government restrictions or societal bias.   It always seemed to me that this could easily be consistent with the best parts of Feminist goals and objectives.  It turns out there is an organization that believes this as well.  It is the Association of Libertarian Feminists.  It seems that Moly has put out a podcast that is entitled something like, "Feminism is Socialism in Panties."   With a such simpleton title (not to mention insulting) it is no wonder that Moly followed on with an equally simpleton analysis on the subject.  The aforementioned association has posted an open letter in response.  It is here.  I think you can sign the open letter.

If you are a woman and a fan of freedomainradio, I would not presume to offer advice.  You make the call on the nature of Molyneux and his level of respect for women.  If you are a man, who likes women, and has had occasion to interact with  freedomainradio in any way, I am glad to offer some advice.  Destroy all evidence on your computer, smart phone, laptop, tablet that you have ever visited the site or had any correspondence with FDR or Molyneux.  Un-friend him on Facebook.  Delete his twitter account.  Clear out your cache and browsing history.  Once you have done this avoid the subject of FDR and Stefan Molyneux at all costs.  But...If the subject of Molyneux comes up in a social situation get in front of it right way.  Stand up before anyone has a chance to remember that you used to listen to Moly . Say the following in a clear and strong voice while making pointed eye contact with every woman in the room:  "I denounce the depravity and wanton pandering stupidity of this foolish and sad man called Stefan Molyneux."

Molyneux as a Narcissist - Part 2

Ran across a good article on FDR Liberated.  It notes the remarkable consistency of Molyneux's writings, podcasts, call in counseling sessions with 'splitting.'  Splitting is a hallmark diagnostic indication of Nacrissistic Personality Disorder.  FDR Liberated is a much better site than this one for understanding the nature of FDR and Stefan Molyneux. 

As a reminder to my dear readers, I used to listen to and enjoy Moly's podcasts.  As I read the FDR Liberated article I remembered when I first started to lose interest.  It was when he offered up sympathy for the 9/11 truthers (i.e. the belief that the U.S. government knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and let them happen).  He said something like.  "I wouldn't put anything past a government as corrupt as this."  I remember thinking, 'OK. This guy is a little off his nut.'  As I read the article at FDR Liberated, I realized this was Molyneux doing a splitting thing.  There was no room for a inefficient, badly run, over reaching government.  It had to be totally corrupt. All bad.  No possibility of any redeeming characteristics.  So corrupt that it would murder thousands of its own citizens as a matter of course. 

Anyway, do please visit FDR Liberated if you care to get further thinking on the subject.  

Parenting and musings

Any morality based on reason dictates that the Molyneux’s should admit that what they are doing is wrong and has had terrible consequences. They should shut down their family business. But before they do, they should urge those that broke with their families to return home to the welcoming embrace of their loved ones and friends. Here’s hoping that happens.  

That is the theme of this site.  It is not about parenting or child psychology.  It is about issuing a warning call to the corrupt business model of the Molyneux family business.   Mission accomplished.  If a parent notices that their child is listening to the droning on of Moly and wants to check out what is going on with their kid in the room; or a young adult sees a Moly YouTube video and wants to learn more; they can search FreeDomainRadio, Molyneux, and about five or six other search strings and this site comes up at third or fourth on Bing and Google.  That is pretty much all I have wanted to do here.  Lots of folks have been warned about the true motives of Stefan Molyneux and his wife Christina Papadopoulos. Families have been saved. Young adults are reading this site and then looking at FreeDomainRadio with a wary eye. They can judge the FDR messaging and make an informed decision. There hasn’t been much need to add to the content.  

Now what.  Well Parents occasionally message me in a state of shock and sadness after a defoo.  They naturally feel as if they have failed in some way.  Of course they haven't.  Still.  It is a really helpless feeling.  FDR true believers occasionally message me with suggestions that I look at myself and find the truth in my crappy parenting.  Until now, I message back the parents and ignore the trolls.  However, since the primary mission is on track, I am going to wander off and discuss parenting.  It is not directly on point, but it is related. Sort of. It is my site. I guess I can post what I want. Here goes:  

The parent as a parent: The Child is heading to danger. Parent first protects then teaches about danger. That is the majority of parenting. From infancy to adulthood, that is the process. Whether it is a hot stove or peer pressure, or driving or drugs or misunderstanding the value of education to their life’s happiness, it is the same general process. Protect and then teach. 

Suppose a (pre speech) toddler manages to slip away from your hand hold and is suddenly running straight onto a busy street.  He doesn’t move very fast.  You catch up to him easily before he reaches the curb.  You gently pick up him up; hold him in comfort and security; then point out the passing cars while showing interest and curiosity?  You gently tell the child, “You need to stay with me sweet heart.  You must not run into the street.”  Then you nuzzle your child’s neck to elicit giggles as you both watch the cars and trucks speed by.  This parental behavior causes the toddler to associate the activity of pulling away from Dad and then running into the street as a delightful moment of fun and wonderment.  Their impression is this:  The colorful cars, and sounds are not only mesmerizing, but I get a nice hug and cuddle from Dad.  Of course, giving a toddler this sort of positive reinforcement for such a dangerous bit of behavior would be parenting malpractice.    

The correct action is to catch the child from behind in a brisk and forceful manner and gruffly bark out the word “NO”? If you do it right, you will frighten the child and it will be unpleasant for him. The child will pick up on the forceful physical treatment and the tone of voice. Likely the child will cry. You take the child away from the danger with conviction. Once you are away from the dangerous road, you re-establish the safety and security zone. It is now ok to comfort the child. Hopefully, in the mind of the child the Road side will be vaguely remembered as an unpleasant place that is to be avoided. You have used force and intensity of emotion in the proper way. 

Moly believes that any use of force by the parent causes irreparable harm to a child’s psyche. But Moly also allows for the safety exception for the use of forceful discipline. So here is the question for all you amateur child psychologists. Does a toddler, who can’t speak, know the difference between the use of parental force to protect them from danger (good force) and force to cause them to avoid bad behavior (bad force)? Of course they can’t. The toddler cannot make the distinction regarding the parent’s motive in the teaching of discipline. The child doesn’t know that the parent is using force for good (i.e. the child’s physical safety from a hot stove, road side, etc.), or for the purpose of teaching the child that a certain behavior is outside the limits of acceptability. What if the child breaks the hand hold and runs towards his friend in the sand box to play. The child has done something he shouldn’t by breaking away. But this time he is not heading to the road. He is heading in the right direction.  He is going towards someplace safe and delightful. I would tend to let that ‘hand-break’ go without comment. Then run with him to the sand box as the child explores the new limits and expands his area of freedom and independent thought. 

So much for the analogy. My point is this. Parents must first protect and also teach. Teaching often means enforcing discipline. Whether it is teaching a toddler to stay away from the road side or insisting that a teenager reconsider a decision to quit high school to work at Wal-Mart, the parent has the responsibility to raise their children. Here is how I see the general continuum of the development of discipline in the parent child dynamic over the course of protecting and teaching a son or daughter.  It starts with the three principles for parents to follow as they deliver on their solemn duty to raise their children.

Principle 1: The parenting discipline: Self-discipline is what saves people from that life of quiet desperation. It saves them from that empty and vague feeling of unhappiness. Parents have a duty to promote self-discipline.  To do this, they also have to be disciplined themselves. The prime directive in this regard is this: Never discipline from a place of anger. Children make you mad. That is the truth. The tough part is that they are making you angry because they are misbehaving.  When they are misbehaving, you need to decide if discipline or teaching is needed. The Parent has to have the self-discipline needed to separate the anger from the ‘teachable moment.’ This is easier said than done. All parents are subject to human weaknesses. If a child is misbehaving, a parent can do a few things. Not worry about it and just let it go; make a gentle gesture of disapproval then drop it; make a concerted effort and insist on correcting the behavior. Any one of these and other options could be the best choice. Of course, the preferred way to approach a misbehaving child is with patience and an appeal to reason. You make every effort to talk them through it. Listen to them. Explain why the behavior is bad. Persuade the child to prefer better behavior. Now here is the thing. Explaining things to children is tedious and frustrating. It only occasionally works. It is way easier to just go to old reliable. Which is the world famous parenting line: Because I said so

Parents know they need to guard against relying on ‘Because I said so.’ It is very easy to get into a pattern of commanding their children to STOP!!! or command them to do something without taking the effort to explain things. The worst form of this is commanding the child to do something unreasonable and then demand absolute obedience no matter what. Example:

“I don’t care if you have homework. I said, Rub my feet!”

Moly and the true believers tend to think all parent/child interactions are in this vein of a bullying tyrant.  Moly builds a lot of his anti-family nuttiness on this proposition. His contention is that it is never acceptable for a parent to say, “Because I said so.” It is impossible to argue with a true believer who holds this belief. Their contention is that you should always be honest with the child.  Take the time to explain. Reason with the child. That all makes sense and sounds fine because on a lot of levels it is true.  But it is not nearly complete when it comes to children and parenting.  I would like to posit an additional way of thinking about honesty with your child.  Sometimes, “because I say so” is the best way to be honest with the child. For example:

Dad: “Don’t disturb Mommy.”
Child: “Why? It’s time for my snack.”
Dad could say: “Well son, to be honest, Mommy has cancer. She is going through treatments that cause her a lot of pain. If she makes it through this round of treatments she has a very good shot of surviving. It is more likely that Mommy is going to die very soon.”

OR Dad can say: “Because I said so son. Let your mom sleep. I’ll make your snack.”

The Dad could make up an excuse, but that would be lying.  "Because I said so" isn't a great way to handle a situation, but it is not a lie.  Somewhere between a mandatory foot massage and protecting a child from devastating news is where parenting happens. Always deciding, balancing and hoping to get it right. That is the parenting discipline.  Parents have to put forth the never ending effort to try and get things right. Most parents have a very high batting average.

Principle 2: Mens Rea: Mens Rea is Latin for“guilty mind”. In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. If the child does not have any comprehension that they have done something wrong, disciplinary action is either needs to be handed out very thoughtfully or not at all.

Principle 3: The judgment call: Each individual case is unique. One situation can be a case of misbehavior. Another is just a misunderstanding. Lots of times kids can teach themselves from their own shame or embarrassment or something else. They discipline themselves. I love it when that happens. But as much as you like it, Parents also need to guard against this situation. It is so easy to let things go with a wave of the hand and the belief that they will ‘figure it out eventually.’ As much as we like to allow our children the freedom to teach themselves right and wrong or how to succeed in life, it can be a trap that allows us to avoid our responsibility to teach our kids that, in real life, actions have consequences.

So what are the permutations and what do you do as a parent if the child is misbehaving. (E.g. hitting another child, willfully pouring food on the carpet, magic marker on the wall, knocking things off shelves in the market, refusing to get into a car when you have to leave, etc.). Now in the FDR world, Moly endlessly posits that a child that is ‘acting out’ is doing so because of some form of prior parenting failure. The corollary is that a ‘good’ parent can monitor and control the events that determine the outcome at any given point in time in the life of the child.
To this I say: AAAAARRRRRHHHH!!! Ahhh. I feel better now.  You dear reader may ask: Why the frustration? Because I get a posts from FDR true believers on this site who totally buy into this absurdity.  For the record, it is my opinion that children are the beginning, middle and end of ‘free will’ proceeding without any relation to cause and effect. You have no way of knowing what is going to happen next. As a parent, you just hope you are strong enough to take on whatever happens and do the right thing.

Musings and wonderings on the stages of a child’s life from toddler to adulthood.

Your child can move: We thought the sleep deprivation of a new born was tough. Hah. Now the kid can move about. You think that first step is magical? Well it is….. but still. Physical movement usually comes well before language. The parent is in a constant state of alert now. We need and want the child to have the freedom to learn and enjoy life. But we have to pay constant attention. Now we have poop dripping out of their diapers and onto the carpet as they ‘cruise’ around the coffee table. Now they really do have the ability to run into traffic. They can eat that cool looking bug on the floor or pull a book shelf down on top of themselves as they climb up the front of it.

The child now understands language (or so you think): The road side example above assumes a pre-language toddler. Once the Child is old enough to understand some language, everything from here on out, is a matter of judgment. As the child grows, a parent will have to teach their child about other dangers of life. Before language the only way the child has of communicating is to cry and fuss. So why are they crying? Check the diaper. It’s clean. Now what? Might be hot, cold, hungry, tired, pacifier, a crick in their neck; perhaps they want affection; maybe the child just wants to cry. How the hell to I know!!! You go through the sequence every time. Pick them up. Check the Diaper. Feed them? Distract them? Play some music? Dance with them? Sing to them? I think both our kids loved dancing and singing (especially my daughter: Van Halen and Crosby Stills and Nash) but maybe we were just scratching an itch in their back. I think it is likely that in the history of human kind, no parent has ever known for sure why their kid is crying and why they stop. All you do is continue to keep guessing, and trying, and hoping to solve the problem.

Then there is that magical point in the child’s development. They point to the formula bottle or reach for that nice soft area on mom’s chest when they are hungry. That is a big moment. The parent knows what to do without any crying!!!  Eventually they begin to understand some language. The words eat, food, bed, booboo, and bath come to mind. They learn to look at you when you call their name. Then they even come to you when you show them a big hug is waiting for them. They sometimes respond when you say “Don’t eat that!” as they are about to put an unpleasant item in their mouth.

Language is a developmental process. Everything they learn comes and goes. Today they can say ‘cup’. Tomorrow they forget until they learn it again. This is very frustrating for Parents. We thought we had it. And now it is gone. When you have a toddler that barely understands a little language and can move around, discipline is never easy or certain. No one knows the exact right way to do it. The experts seem to agree that the best way is to set limits and enforce those limits consistently.  Allow the child to be completely free within those limits. And then move those limits outward as the child grows and matures. I agree with that approach, but it isn’t an answer. The parent still has to constantly decide what those limits will be and then how to enforce the boundaries. I have said this before. It is a miracle of society that in unbelievably large percentages, parents do a fine job of it. The fundamentals are to provide a secure, loving environment and not be afraid to teach your child that there are limits to their behavior.  Now for the two key stages beyond the toddler.

The child matures: Physical discipline of any sort fades into the past once a child is in full command of language and can reason even a little. If the brother hits his baby sister, you might sit him in a corner. As he cries and frets, you take every opportunity to remind them that the reason he is there is because he hit his sister. Once you are sure they have connected their behavior to the punishment, you can let them up. Later you send them to their rooms, restrict TV, etc. At some point in their teen years, you try to lay out the limits and the consequences in advance. Missing Curfew equals ‘you can’t go out on the next Non-school night’. A bad grade equals the need for mandatory study time. Etc.

Adolescence  Ah yes. Adolescence.  At some point, you are largely done with ‘raising’ a child. You then enter the adult training time of life. This subtle change in your parent child relationship is fraught with peril. Compliance with what mom and dad say is open to interpretation now. Raging hormones contribute to the turmoil. I found the key to making it through was to lay out general rules of the house and well defined expectations for behavior and/or achievement. Yes it is our house. We require you to wash regularly, put your dirty laundry in the hamper and keep your room habitable as a condition for living here. You have to focus on your studies and get the grades that match up with your abilities. If parents treat it like it is just a few reasonable requirements and make the case for why they insist (e.g. we don’t want the house to smell), that works best. This is something like adult relationship training. It is similar to the relationship you have with your employer or business partner or investor or with your best customer or your significant other.  You don't necessarily have to do what you are told, but there are consequences to actions.  It is exceedingly rare to get the most out of life without finding the right way to live with or work with others.  If the child understands the limits, they learn how to deal with the inevitable limits that life puts in front of you.  Successfully managing those limits is a key contributor to a happy and enjoyable life.  That includes learning how to remove limits you don't like without self destruction.  When the adolescent inevitably wants to assert their individuality in an aggressive way, it can be painful. When parents make too much of the control thing, that too will lead to unhealthy conflict.

The general rule for my wife and me, was that we talked things out.  The kids routinely persuaded us to their position.  However, like all families, when talking was done, if there was no resolution , we made the call.  If the decision was ‘unpopular’ with the kids, we would say something like: “I know it sucks to have someone else in control of your life. In this instance, mom and I have the control and what we say goes. When you move out, you will be free to live as you wish…. But don’t get too filled with anticipation. It is very likely that no matter how long you live, you will always have to deal with other people controlling parts of your life.” 

Young Adulthood / College College represents that final contract of an adult parent with the adult child. As parents we agree to help financially during the transition to adulthood. In return for that financial and emotional support, the young adult has an obligation to commit to getting their degree. Parents have an obligation to STOP giving unsolicited advice. The children have an obligation to learn to take care of things on their own. This stage is not without conflicts, but the conflicts are no longer parent to child. They are adult to adult.  We always promoted independent thinking for our children.  That independence increased gradually as our children grew up.  Makes sense doesn’t it?  On this line, I will say this with total confidence and conviction.  From the moment both of our children headed off to college, they were free from any parental requirements or demands on their lives. It did not matter where they were. At the college or at home, they had zero restrictions on their travel, life style, work ethic, or anything else. When they were home, the only thing we might have asked was that they be quiet if they came in late. We never had to even ask that. They were polite enough to do that on their own. My wife and I were there if they needed us. On those occasions, we were glad to help them. There were several apartment moves. We arranged for groceries. There was that traffic accident the day after I got out of the hospital. I decided it was best if I went on down to North Philly on that rainy Saturday night to help out on site rather than leave it to my son ‘deal with it.’ We did some consoling after some bad days. There was that occasional academic challenge where some support was in order. There was also rejoicing over good grades and other triumphs. It was a good time. We had a relationship with our adult children. We were now more like friends than anything else. We talked routinely. We laughed and were genuinely interested in how each other’s lives were going. This was a very good and happy time for all in our family. That is still very much the case with our daughter.

It was at this time of general family contentment and complete freedom from his parents, that my son started listening to Stefan Molyneux.