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. History tells us that anarchy always leads to the thug with the biggest and best armed supporters establishing a dictatorial regime. 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. 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.

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

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 This last one is his most extreme position, but he needs this one so he can connect the mother with blame for a problem with the father.

These templates don’t always work. In one call in therapy session, 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 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.

Molynuex doesn't really understand Ayn Rand

I found an interesting video that makes a good point about Molyneux. I am posting it here. This site is about warning people about the true nature of FDR. Part of the warning is that Molyneux holds himself out as a thinker for the ages. This is his initial attraction to the young mind.

The founding philosophy of FDR is Objectivism. This is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Moly used to be relatively loyal to Objectivism as the basis for his podcast musings. But I think he is so much of a narcissist that he believes he has to transcend Rand. At first Moly decided that he was bringing something new to Objectivism because he wanted to completely eliminate the state and Rand did not. This is kind of weak. Rand described the perfect stateless society in Atlas Shrugged. She was describing an unattainable Utopian world as a plot vehicle to help bring home the philosophy. Rand, Molyneux and anyone with a frontal lobe knows that anarchy has always and will always lead to a dictorial regime. But Moly needs to keep up the facade of a workable Anarcho-Capitalist society so he can keep the donators donating.

He seriously puts forth the idea that he has now moved all of Philosophy to its final state of being. He has come up with this simpleton idea called Universally Preferred Behaviors (UPB). Moly conveys to his members (and potential donators) that UPB solves all the problems of morality and ethics. UPB doesn't hold up to any thoughtful, much less scholarly, scrutiny. The proof of this is that when Moly is seriously questioned about the serious flaws in UPB, Moly bans the questioner from the FDR web site. Here is a small list of some who were banned from FDR

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=110589863130589378236.00000112a7461dd7bf5aa&om=0&ll=21.289374,-79.453125&spn=131.156957,320.625&z=1


These days he goes to great lengths to try and find flaws in Rand’s writings or to put down Objectivism. He says things like “In this regard I am a slave to Rand, but as regards…. I do not agree.” The then goes on to make his point of disagreement. He is very sloppy with his logic. In the link below, you will see that it is as if he has not actually read Ayn Rand. If one wants to find flaws with Ayn Rand, you have to go to Nathaniel Brandon. Don’t bother with Moly. He doesn’t really understand Objectivism. Here is a YouTube video that will prove it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8nWDFGnDxI&feature=channel

Molyneux Revealed

Stefan Molyneux and his freedomainradio FDR site have done a great deal of damage to families throughout the world. He creates untold suffering and pain for profit. Naturally he does not promote this aspect of his operation. Unsuspecting victims should be warned before they enter his dark web site. And those that are members should have a place to go to get some perspective as they are carried deeper into the isolated FDR community. That is why I have started this blog.

There is so much material that discloses who he really is, I needed a place to publish the material and make easily available to any and all interested parties.

For starters: He claims that he does not perform therapy. He says, I am just a podcaster. I don't think that is true. I think the facts and evidence strongly show the exact opposite. He actively and successfully performs therapeutic sessions with callers in public. He does this in order to persuade kids to leave their families or more often to cement their decision. In either case, he actively and effectively persuades them that their parents were evil.

He says he does not aggressively promote donations or that donations do not define levels of access to him. I don't think that is true. I think the facts and evidence strongly show the exact opposite. His only form of income is from donations to his site. He has to maintain this revenue. If he gets a kid to leave their family of origin (the FOO), they are more likely to join and consistently donate to FDR.

He says he always recommends open communications and therapy when someone is considering an abandonment of their family. I don't think that is true. I think the facts and evidence strongly show the exact opposite. I am pretty sure Molyneux invented the term deFOO. Which means departing your family of origin. The term is cute sounding but it is anything but. Young adults have been leaving their parents in anger 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. It can and does affect the most successful loving families. It is sudden and without warning. And the most sacred rule is that when you do it, there is to be absolutely no further contact with the family under any circumstances. You need to change cell phone numbers, move away, etc. You must isolate yourself. Of course Molyneux and FDR are poised to fill the new vacuum of lost love and support structure...for a fee.

I will be posting along the way. In the mean time, if you have any thoughts or comments feel free to join in.

Freedomain Radio - How it works

Publicly, Freedomain Radio (FDR) is a site devoted to philosophy and libertarian thought. In reality, it is where Stefan Molyneux trades on the destruction of families. Now it is very easy to wonder how this could happen in a regular happy family. How can a guy who pod casts about freedom be able to lure college age kids away from their parents? If you have the belief, it is understandable. I had that belief. Other parents have had the belief. All are wondering how this could have happened to them. The amazing thing is how Molyneux actually makes money at this. Here is how he does it. He mainly wants the kids at his site. He starts by persuading young people to believe that that the normal anxieties and complaints of life can be attributed to their abusive parents. He does this on several levels. First via posts, chat rooms and obliging FDR members who engage the new visitors then stick with them over the course of time and encourage the abandonment. He does the most damaging work during public call in radio shows. These are unlicensed therapy sessions. Here he engages in an orgy of projection of his own issues and breathtaking manipulation. It is during these truly sad 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. 'Your father dominated you and destroyed your self esteem, your mother ignored you and witheld affection, they were abusive to you by insisting you behave in public, you were never allowed to feel true happiness.' For someone like Molyneux (actually for most people), finding and exploiting an area of vulnerability is like shooting fish in a barrel. Eventually something sticks. 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 sad childhood experience. Like all cult leaders, Molyneux is a complete narcissist. He likely believes that others need to mirror his experience to find their own freedom. He rarely comes right out and says it (though there are documented times when he has). Unbelievably, there are many (too many) who are at the right young adult age to be receptive to this sort of idea. "Why not. Let me be free. I'll do it!!"

When they do, 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 think they have no where else to go. They find themselves increasingly 'comfortable' in the FDR community. Other relationships are broken off. Now this is classic cult activity. But who cares what it is called. It is plainly horrible. Naturally Molyneux notes that adult relationships (including family relationships) are voluntary. He uses this axiom to wash his hands of any culpability. I contend that unsuspecting victims should be warned before they enter his dark web site or engage his programmed greeters in the chat rooms. Those that are members need a place to go to get some perspective before they are carried too deeply into the isolated FDR community. This is not the first site on this subject. It is just another place where his potential and current victims may be warned or find perspective.

The essence of the Molyneux Con

As a refresher for new visitors. First of all please read the post: "Free Domain Radio - How it works"

The first and most important part of the con is gaining confidence. That is how the confidence game works. You have to get the MARK to have confidence in you. You do this by putting forth a resaonable proposition. You appeal to their better nature. Then, once the MARK has confidence, they grant the con artist access to their trust. Once that happens, it is largely over. Molyneux's con starts by contending that he always recommends counseling and open communications with parents and family members. This Seems reasonable, but like all cons, it is simply not the reality. The reality is that Moly knows that open communications are the end of the line for him. If that actually happens, families will very likely stay together. Of course families staying together means fewer donators for Moly. For an indepth discussion of and emprical proof that Moly has zero interest in open communication, visit

http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=862

It is an outstanding piece that puts the lie Moly's congention that he promotes open communication. Moly only uses the bromide of open communication to set up the con.

Here is some more proof of Moly's true intentions. Let's start with the nature of the so called defoo. A Defoo is different from the occasional, young adult ‘get me out of here’ break up. Even those breaks are usually done after a lot of 'communicating.'

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: Molyneux is on the record here: "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." . With this belief system, abandoning your family is a necessary step in achieving true freedom.

The key component of the defoo that Molyneux goes to great lengths to hide and obfuscate is this. A defoo is to be done without any notice (his site has recommended wording for the note, or discussion so you can lie to your parents about why you are leaving so they won't come looking for you). Once done, there is to be absolutely no opportunity for any further communication. You are to move if you can, change cell phone and email, and do all you can to avoid all communications. It is the exact opposite of what any real therapist would recommend. And at the risk of making the obvious point, persuading someone to separate from the family and friends is also the first criteria for identifying a cult.

Now Moly is good at this. Like a slippery politician, he knows he needs to maintain one public position while working another. His true nature really comes to the fore in the chat rooms and podcasts and on his call in shows. It is here where he cajoles, persuades and otherwise manipulates any and all discussions in the direction of a defoo. Or by inference the continuation of a defoo.

Molyneux’s Moral depravity reaches a new low

Stefan Molyneux’s business is to influence young adults to leave their families in a most destructive way and then collect their donations to FDR. This latest episode pretty much removes any room for doubt as to who he really is. Here goes:

One of the occasional by products of a young adult engagement with FDR is a rejection of academic activity. There are lots of permutations of the damage. Sometimes members spend so much time on the boards, that their studies suffer. Other times, the FDR members just drop out of college completely.

Recently on a chat room, a donator, who had dropped out of college as a result of his encounter with Freedomain Radio, wrote that he was thinking of returning to college. The donator was beginning to notice that, without a degree, there was little chance for advancement. The future looks bleak. He was thinking he should go back and get his degree. So what is the right advice for this person? Well Moly has two degrees (at least he says he does). Now it is true, Moly has failed at pretty much every attempt to use those degrees. And along with his many other problems, he seems to deeply resent how academia has rejected him. But you would think he could see past this resentment to offer some sound advice to a donator who respects him and is at a life cross road. This is a young person who was beginning to realize he had made a mistake by dropping out of college. He realized he needed to pull himself together and at least get that initial Bachelors Degree. Moly was faced with a legitimate opportunity to do the right thing. The donator could get a degree and build a life with an upside. A life that would provide options. A chance to get the education. A chance to get the degree that unlocks the potential for a rich and satisfying life. Seems obvious enough doesn’t it.

But not for Moly. Moly knew that pursuing an education might be distracting enough that the member might start missing their monthly donation. Moly kicked into gear. He asked the donator what they wanted to do. The programmed response came back. “I want to be a philosopher.”

Moly responded with his own programmed response. “You don’t need a piece of paper to do that.”

There you have it. Moly is advising a follower to NOT get a degree. He is suggesting that someone can be a “Philosopher” or pursue philosophy as a livelihood without a degree. Please let the level of depravity sink in. Rather than risk a modest monthly donation, Moly is advising a young adult to NOT get an education. And because of that advice from Moly, the poor donator will likely allow let that glimmer of a chance to get the degree fade away. The donator, who reached out to Moly for advice, will stay in that dead end job.

Now someone from FDR is going to respond to this post. It will be another high school freshman philosophy comment on freedom and such. So in anticipation of that, let’s take a moment. Yes, we all know the stories of Bill Gates and other famous success stories of those who had a burning ambition that transcended the need for a college education. We also all know those stories are remarkable exactly because they are statistically rare. Education is the most precious possession anyone can have. No one can take it from you. Its value lasts a life time. So here is the likely reality that will result from Moly’s despicable advice. What does it really mean to forgo that degree?

Well for starters, the donator thinks he is in a good state. He is working. He likes the job. He is paying his bills (sort of). This is OK. Life is not that bad. He is talented enough to avoid getting fired. He will even likely be a model employee. But life will go on. Things will change. Events will happen. His talent will not save him from the inevitable layoffs, re-organizations, bankruptcies or an argument with your boss. When these happen, he will be out of work. Or maybe worse. He will keep that job for many years to come. Of course, with each passing year, his lack of education will hurt more and more, because with each job set back, (or maybe even each job opportunity) he will have been one more year as an experienced hourly worker. He will NOT be someone who has experience in a profession that required a degree. Without a degree, he will have to endure an endless series of mind numbing schedules, tasks, boredoms, unexpected expenses, and thoughtless managers. He will have to there on time; and not leave early without permission. He will live a life from paycheck to paycheck. Maybe a promotion to “assistant manager” some day. Maybe a cost of living increase. Maybe at some point, he wants to break out and start his own business. Any funding source needed to start a new business will prefer that he have a degree. He doesn't get over the hump. He stays where he is. It is the life of quiet desperation. He won’t notice that slowly and relentlessly his energy and ambition to succeed beyond his current state will drain away. Then one day, when life has beaten the last vestige of ambition out of him, his potential will be finally and utterly lost forever.

All because at the key moment; when a word of encouragement was needed, Moly decided it was more important to secure a $20 per month revenue stream. Moly is hoping against hope, that the donator doesn’t notice this. Moly hopes the donator will be content in the belief that maintaining his status as a Philosopher King (or silver, gold, diamond) donator is enough to follow his dream of philosophy in the real world of FDR.

So here is my advice to the donator. Pay attention to things. You are responsible for your life. It is very likely that you will regret forgoing your degree for as long as you live. You can keep fiddling with FDR if you wish, but give yourself enough self respect to make your own decisions. Or to put it another way: Please notice that the man you are listening to, has a livelihood that depends on duping you into destroying your life. Do whatever you have to do to get that degree. Pick up the phone and call your college advisor. Call the admissions office. Call financial aid. Do whatever you have to do. Get a loan. Go back to your parents and ask them help. And get your life back on track.

For those who wonder what Stefan Molyneux is all about, this pretty much covers it. Stay away from the guy. Or if some sort of curiosity draws you to the site, look out for his programmed greeters in the chat rooms. I enourage you to download his free books as much as you want. They are worth every penny. Whatever you do, don’t give him a dime. Most of all, don't let him get so far into your head that you do self destructive things.

Molyneux in the beginning

I received an interesting post from a disciple of Molyneux. Here it is:
"I accept Stefan Molyneux's underlying philosophy, Universal Preferable Behavior, which has nothing to do with families. However, one of the consequences of that philosophy is that the initiation of force or threat thereof is immoral. From that follows Molyneux's definition of abuse that you find so abhorrent.
You should start at the beginning, rather than the end."

I see three things in this post.
The First is that UPB – Universally Preferred Behaviors is an authoritative Philosophy. It is not. UPB is a disconnected, poorly framed series of bad analogies, and shoddy thinking. If anyone cares to dig into the flaws and failures of UPB, you can visit here to see that UPB really isn’t much.

http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomain-radio-f26/i-finally-did-ita-critique-of-upb-t1643.htm

The second is that Use of initiation of force or its threat thereof is immoral: Moly really believes Pacifism is an absolute. It is a zero tolerance condition. There is to be no violence…ever…..for any reason. This is so ingrained into the FDR frontal lobe that they mix threats and real force together as if they are the same thing. For example, any (I mean any) law of the state as an act of violence. Any firm form of discipline by a parent (including a firm word of rebuke) is violence. In this respect and many others, FDR is much more like a religion than a philosophy. Think Quakers. UPB puts forth a set of behaviors and insists that the followers believe. They say it is a conscious decision to believe and it is. But so is the conscious decision to be a Catholic. Also like Religion, UPB has a set of circular reasoning so any argument about its validity can be rebuked with its own self sustaining logic. It is really very much like Religious dogma.

Moly goes back and forth on self defense (and the defense of property), as a rationale for violence. But in the end, it is a problem for him. He has to maintain complete intolerance of violence to hold his position of moral superiority. I remember listening to one of Moly’s early podcasts. He twisted himself into a pretzel trying to prove that the self defense does not justify violence. He made one argument after another. He came up with analogy, after example, after anecdote. Each one was more strained and incoherent than the last. Of course he couldn't make the case. Anyone can think of countless examples when force and the threat of force is the exact correct and moral choice. Did anyone see the sickening bus video of a kid being brutally beaten. Can you think of a moral use of force? Of course you can. We look to philosophy and values that help us determine when violence is allowable and when it is immoral. What are its limits? Etc. Mindlessly calling for pacifism in all cases is an abrogation of philosophy.

Let’s simplify this with another example or two. A toddler is reaching for a $10,000 Ming vase in a store. He is going to knock it over. Mom notices just in time. She firmly says, “NO!” as she slaps the child’s hand and prevents the damage. The bank account is saved. And the child got a solid memory impression that knocking things off shelves is a bad idea. In Moly’s world of NON-Philosophy, this is an act of abuse that the child can look to and remember as the prima facie evidence of the corruption and abuse they received while growing up in that terrible home. Sometime later, the child reaches for a product on a shelf and the mother sternly says, “NO!” The child stops. No slap involved. hmmm Some would think the child is learning self discipline and beginning to figure out the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Not Moly. Moly says that the mother is threatening violence. Another example of an immoral and abusive parent. And on it goes. In one pod cast, a teenage girl was talking to him about how she felt so helpless when her mother would “not listen to her.” She would go to her room and cry in frustration. Moly could barely contain his glee. He helped the caller to understand that her mother was committing violence against her since the only logical end of an argument with a parent is violence. Therefore it is abuse. Then he goes on and says the mother did not really love her. How could she if she treated her like that. As stupid as this is, it is real and true for those who follow UPB and FDR.

I have another one. This is priceless. Did you know that faithful believers in FDR have no problem threatening the use of force? You can refer to my report on the Philadelphia Debate for the full story. When my brother approached my son to talk to him in the lobby. He was certainly did not represent any sort of physical threat to my son. Stil, a group of FDR members collected around my son to prevent his Uncle from approaching him. This group of FDR folks was MOST CERTAINLY showing A THREAT of violence to my brother. Now in fairness, in their warped state of consciousness, they may have actually thought my brother was a physical threat. If so, I would argue they acted morally. They were protecting their friend. But that is my view of morality. Not Moly’s. (Ironically in Moly's sloppy description of UPB, they might be behaving with an end in mind and therefore they were behaving properly. Maybe I will go into this in another post someday).

Also on that day, a Molynite approached my friend who was handing out brochures and threatened him with being removed by security if he did not stop his activity. That is really rich. They are calling on the state to suppress an opposing view. It must have been unnerving that they couldn't just ban my friend's IP address from the FDR site. I wonder if banning those who dissagree with FDR dogma is an act of violence on their part?

The third item is a suggestion to start at the beginning. Let’s do that. Moly’s early writings are instructive. It is here, where he is unfiltered. He gives his true thinking and beliefs. Ever since the Philadelphia Debate, when Moly was directly and publicly challenged, he has retreated from his real beliefs. Moly has knuckled under to the pressure of being exposed for what he is. So here is the beginning. In his early days he said things like this in his essay, “Are People just Stupid.” He honestly seems to think he is the only source of real and beneficial parental practices and thinking. Here is an excerpt: The narcissism is staggering. He seems to contend that all (maybe except for himself and Christine) parent’s don’t have a clue and he refers to John Locke as the last competent philosopher as the rationale? Cut me a break. Anyway, here is Moly in the beginning. He wrote this long before he was a father.

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.

For more information on Moly's early foundation, visit http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=1060

So to the person who made this post: From the beginning Moly has had a neurotically distorted view of abuse. When you say that UPB has nothing to do with the family, I am not so sure? The non-violence messaging of UPB is the beginning, middle and end of Moly’s method for persuading young people to leave and remain apart from their families. If you look to the beginning, it appears Moly's obsession with the idea that all parents are bad is the beginning of UPB. You may want to take a moment and get some perspective. A = A. Use your head and truly evaluate your beliefs. Try Objectivism. Try anything. Just give yourself a chance to see beyond FDR and UPB. If you look at your life and you only associate with other FDR members, this may be your first clue that something is amiss.

How does Molyneux define “abuse”

I am getting a lot of hits on the site and a lot of comments offering some thanks and appreciation for warning them about FDR. It is gratifying to have this happen. Families are being saved. That is after all why this site exists. It doesn’t hurt that the success of this site is negatively affecting Molyneux’s donations. I have received three comments from FDR members. One suggested I was lacking in mental capacity. The other two were programmatic FDR dogma. To wit:

Adult relationships are voluntary. Even your family. If those relationships are abusive you should leave them. Blah blah blah.

This is a simple minded truism. But here is the thing. If you want to persuade someone to your belief system, the first step is to define the terms in your favor. Moly does a lot of things very well and this is one of them. He does this by defining abuse to include a range of things that is far beyond what normal person would consider abusive. To normal people, parental abuse means routine gratuitous physical violence. It can also mean routine extreme verbal abuse coupled with severe restrictions and punishments for minor misbehavior. When someone says you should break from a relationship that is abusive, this seems reasonable.

The problem with Moly is how he defines abuse. His definition of abuse is truly sad and damaging to anyone who accepts his definition. So what does Moly consider abusive? Well it is pretty much anything a parent does that could be considered unpleasant to the child. So when Moly says he only encourages leaving abusive relationships, he means that you should leave any relationship with anyone who does not toe the line of his philosophy.

For example: Did your parents take you to church? Abusive. Did you tell your kid to find a policeman if you are lost? Abusive (i.e. you taught the child to trust the state). Did the parent suggest a belief in god? Abusive How about believing in your country? Abusive Did you put your hand over your heart and stand during the playing of the national anthem? Abusive (teaching patriotism). Did you ever show anger with your child? Abusive. You get the idea. If you don’t completely toe the line of FDR dogma, you are abusive. So when Moly or his followers blather on about the axiom regarding voluntary adult relationships, you need to know how Moly defines abuse. I point you once again to the very well written and sourced commentary on “Prying them loose”

http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=862

I have my own experience and I have engaged quite a few defoo’ed parents along the way. In every case, after the initial break, the son or daughter has slowly and completely severed relationships with everyone in their lives who cannot be brought into each and every facet of the FDR belief system. They keep a relationship with their sibling until the sibling criticizes Moly or disagrees with the extreme nature of the defoo. Then the sibling is cut off. Same with friends. The reason I mention this sequence of cutting off all relationships with anyone at odds with FDR dogma, is to make the point that the ‘abuse’ argument is simply the means to the end. First you break with the family; then with friends; then isolate yourself into all things Molyneux. The real goal is to create a community of codependent donators to FDR.

Once that is done, Moly has a methodology for cementing the break. Also, from the FDR liberated site there is an excellent analysis of Moly’s perverted philosophy of (un)forgiveness. Here Moly creates the perfectly crafted, self absorbed methodology for remaining disconnected from your loved ones and friends. Very sad stuff.

http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=98

Some parenting advice for Stefan.

Here is some advice directly to Stefan on Parenting.

Here’s hoping that you are like almost all humans. If so, then true parental love has found its way into your heart. And if this is the case, you will come around in time. You will come to see that your theories regarding abusive parents are tragically missplaced. You will realize the horrible things you have said and done. After the pain of this discovery subsides, you will finally make every attempt you can to repair the senseless damage you have wrought. You might want to get started on that sooner rather than later.

It is true Stefan that you are a good listen. Lots of interesting analogies, and observations. You are weak on Objectivism. The anarchy thing is as silly as it gets. But you do have your moments. But by far your most clueless area is the family. Your discussions on parenting have the sing song sound and the simplified logic of a college sophomore psychology major explaining things to her friends in the dorm room. This is likely due to your childhood and lack of children of your own, When I listen to you, I find myself bemused and occasionally curious to talk to your mother. You must have been a hand full.

The thing is this. When it comes to family stuff, and definitely parenting stuff, you are applying logic without love and clearly without any empirical evidence. You carry on about how the accident of sex and DNA do not make love and respect. You are forever carrying on about the child’s right and duty to move out from under the shackles of parenthood. You bring forth trite anecdotes that would work in a TV drama, but don’t really mean much in the real life of parenting. You rarely acknowledge the role of the parent as anything other than a tyrant and source of fear. You insist that any parent that teaches religion is committing an affront to sanity and a crime against the child. You suggest that anything that causes fear in a child is horribly sad, wrong and useless. You say that any teaching of restraint is torture. Any attempt to promote an ‘honest’ appraisal in order to teach a child how to take responsibility for their actions is abuse and only succeeds in teaching them to ‘self attack.’

When I have listened to those pod casts, It is clear enough that you are clueless on the subject. There is no book in print or a video extant that shows the depth of what happens when it is just the mother and the son or the father and the daughter. No one knows the day in and day out parenting issues and concerns except the parent. It is our own private club. You are now a member. As time goes on with your new child, you may see how your own admittedly dysfunctional childhood has led you to this place. I would not be surprised if there is a time in the future, when you have your epiphany and you apologize to all the parents and young adults you have so negatively affected. If you ever do, the parents will all instinctively be inclined to accept the apology. It is what parents do. Forgiveness is in our bone structure.

So since you are so new to parenting, allow me to fill you in. It is delightful in those moments when children are founts of uncorrupted truth and wonderment. When you see them figure something out, it is a pleasure. When you hold them and that embrace comforts them in times of sadness, your heart fills with a joy that cannot be measured. When they are happy, you feel the happiness much more intensely than any happiness you feel on your own. All of this makes up for the huge majority of the time when your beautiful children are pure hedonists in search of their next pleasure fix. They are mostly irrational, highly emotional, demanding, tiresome to the point of exhaustion and all in all very hard to live with. Below a certain age, they aren't remotely capable of reason. Below another age, they are only occasionally able to process simple logic. Our affectionate nickname for my son was Childasaurus Rex. Fortunately for any child, there is a parenting connection that is spiritual in nature. Oh my heavens. Did I say ‘spiritual’? Well; it is a state of being that defies explanation. It is always there. Maybe it is DNA survival component. Whatever it is, it makes for a lot of love and patience from the parents. You don’t spend much time on that part of it. Why would you. You don’t know anything about it. I realize that with your family background your only hope was to have a child of your own. Now you do. You may even have a glimpse of this reality by now.

The love a parent has for a child is unconditional. It does not have to be earned. You do not seek to match the values of your child. I believe a parent’s love for a child is unique in nature. Try and approach birds nest and see what the mother does to protect her babies . The term Mother Lion is not an accident. When I held my daughter and son in my arms for the first time, that love welled up inside of me like a tidal wave coming up from inside a volcano. It has been six months of parenthood for you. Do you get it yet? This is important. It is an easy question. You don’t have to explore your MECOsystem to find out. Do you feel that unconditional love for your child? Now I suppose you do. But if you don’t, look out. If you don’t feel it, I am completely serious when I say you might want to consider adoption before it is too late. If you don’t love your child to the deepest depths of your heart by now, you are doomed as a parent. And your child will be doomed as well.

When you hold your new baby daughter, you are holding a helpless human being that is the result of the DNA offered by you and your wife (and the generations before you). What has your new baby done to earn your love? What values does she possess? Would you voluntarily choose to be in a relationship with her? I am being a little silly but only a little. If you do love your child, you must ask yourself why. I am deadly serious when I suggest that you would benefit from looking inside yourself to try and understand what it is that causes you to love her. If you succeed in that endeavor, you might want to try a podcast on the subject.

Molyneux's Donation Problem

This is the kindest title I can give for this post. Molyneux has a group of podcasts designed to advise and promote the family break. They are all in an easy to find area on FDR so the member can get all the advice they need on how to proceed with the process. I have made the case that there is a connection between Molyneux's income and defoo's. If you doubt that Molyneux understands that connection, then read this.

In podcast FDR348: Escaping Your Family Step By Step - Part 2
At 44:40 minutes into the podcast on how to defoo: Molyneux says the following

Please send me a donation... it will make it a lot easier for you to confront your parents if you're acting with good integrity in your life in general

I would like to make an editorial comment, but why bother. This statement says it all. This is the exact moral equivalent of a corrupt revival tent faith healer.

For the fun of it, here is his post on the donation page from a couple of weeks ago.
June 29, 2009

"Hello, to all new and existing listeners, if you have not donated in a while -- or shockingly, not at all! -- Freedomain Radio really does need your support, for instance in helping to pay for the trip to Philadelphia for the 'clash of the titans' debate!
I can promise a special bonus to anyone who donates between now and the end of the month tomorrow -- and thank you so much for all of your continued support.

A really well conceived combination of guilt, and a cheap marketing trick. The man breaks up families and manages to get paid to do it. Can anyone come up with other figures in history or currently who hold an equivalent position of depravity? He sees nothing wrong with any of this. The level of narcissism is likely clinical.