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 intersest. 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 would'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 muder 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.
Total Pageviews
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Monday, January 2, 2012
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.
OR Dad can say: “Because I said so son. Let your mom sleep. I’ll make your snack.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Who is Daniel Makler and what does he have to do with FDR
Moly is hopelessly unqualified in the area of psychology. Yet his gig demands that everyone relentlessly investigate their inner selves for meaning (even though he has a podcast on the "meaninglessness of life"). Moly has said on more than one occasion that his wife is the cofounder of FDR and provides the psychological foundations for the anti-family premise of FDR (i.e we have to 'get to the kiddies' and 'it all starts with the family' as it relates to the inability of people to accept the idea of true freedom). I received this comment. It is a good one on Daniel Makler and the relationship to Molyneux and FDR. I decided to make it a full up post (with permission of the commenter). I suppose that he can't use his wife's credentials any more. This poster noticed that he now refers to a guy named Daniel Makler. The commenter is noticing that Mackler has his own 'issues.' Here goes:
Firstly I would like to say what a great resource I found your site to be! I became confused by some of the messages from Stefan Molyneux and finding a different perspective was very helpful. I found it impossible to discuss any of my concerns with the members of the FDR as anybody who disagrees seems to be attacked, ridiculed or branded evil or a ‘troll’
The Guardian started the talk of Molyneux being a cult leader. Here is one quote: Molyneux "says on the website: '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.'http://stifflerkehoe.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/the-real-life-story-of-tom-weeds/
I first became aware of Daniel Mackler through an FDR member who posted a link to his 11 situations in which it is not appropriate for you to have children. http://www.iraresoul.com/nokids.html The message seems to be that if you are a parent you are a child abuser by default and if you protest against this it’s because you cannot take the truth.
Both Stefan Molyneux and Daniel Mackler seem to send out the same dogmatic anti parent message.
I first became aware of Daniel Mackler through an FDR member who posted a link to his 11 situations in which it is not appropriate for you to have children. http://www.iraresoul.com/nokids.html The message seems to be that if you are a parent you are a child abuser by default and if you protest against this it’s because you cannot take the truth.
Point no 1 apparently goes against developmental psychology research. I started researching and found that this was written as a part of the Alice Miller critique. http://www.iraresoul.com/alicemiller_short.html
Daniel Mackler cleverly adopts the technique described in a book by Deborah Tannen The argument culture. Mackler failed to come up with ideas of his own so to gain publicity he attacked another already well established academic. http://www.amazon.com/Argument-Culture-Stopping-Americas-Words/dp/0345407512
Through further research I found out that Mackler in fact appeared on SM’s shows and even contributed to the psychology book club podcast. http://psychologybookclub.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html
A lot of DM’s friends are also fans of the voluntary human extinction movement. http://www.vhemt.org/
Viewing a child as a burden to the planet surely must have it's origins in some sort of repressed trauma - not sure what I'm not a psychologist.
Thank you for this comment. Don't feel bad about making psychological judgements without being qualified. Moly does it all the time.
Thank you for this comment. Don't feel bad about making psychological judgements without being qualified. Moly does it all the time.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
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
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
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
A defoo story
My wife woke up screaming and then crying. I woke up terrified and asked what was wrong? Between her sobs she said, “Our son is lost. We have to try and save him!” After a while, she calmed. In a voice as sad as any you will ever hear she told me that she dreamed our son was on fire. He was screaming in pain and calling for her but he was behind bars and she couldn’t get to him. In another dream only a couple of days later, he was a toddler. He came to her bed with his blanket in his hands and woke her for a kiss. After that dream she woke up crying more softly. I have similar dreams. I know our son still loves his family. His mother, sister and I love him completely. My wife and I gladly made all the sacrifices and undoubtedly some mistakes that parents make. Both of our children were raised in a safe and loving environment. My son and I had a truly wonderful relationship. Not so today.
It has been almost three years ago that I suggested that my son might enjoy listening to the podcasts of Stefan Molyneux. We both believe in freedom and have spent long hours discussing philosophy and politics. I had listened to Molyneux’s earlier podcasts and enjoyed his reflections on Objectivism. My son started listening. Molyneux became impressed with my son's grasp of objectivism and its values. Molneux was curious about his parents. My son he had suggested to Molyneux that he should interview me. Molyneux thought that was a good idea. Molyneux wanted to interview me as an example of a great dad. I did the interview. I mention this only to confirm that even Molyneux knows that, my son thought I was a great father. Molyneux took care of that situation. About six months later, my son cut all ties with us. To use the Molyneux invented term, my son ‘defoo’ed.’
“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 an axiom and a perversion. The axiom: adult relationships, including relationships between adult family members, are voluntary. The Perversion: Molyneux is quoted in the Guardian newspaper: "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 the family is a necessary step in achieving freedom. Molyneux is always on the lookout for reasons to defoo.
Before the dream, my wife and I worked through our profound sadness and agreed to leave our son to find his way. He is an adult. It is his call on how he leads his life. After her dream though, my wife had to try and reach out to him. She went to his place of work. He saw her coming and ran away. She waited. He texted the store owner writing, “I am petrified to come back into the store while she is there.” How can he be petrified??? He was writing about his mother. His mother who nursed him when he was sick. Held him always; stood up for him against bullies; went to his games and concerts; Attended every back to school night and every teachers conference. She took care of his doctors visits, emergency room visits, play dates, clothes shopping, and dances. She felt his joy in her heart and his hurt when he was sad. His mother was at his workplace to talk. She was doing what every real therapist recommends, to communicate. What sort of emotional disequilibrium would cause him to run and to be petrified? This is a thoroughly unhealthy response. It has us extremely worried. Something is terribly wrong.
This is a sad story, but it is NOT unusual. It is happening all over the world. Stefan Molyneux and his wife have a well crafted methodology for luring young adults away from their parents. It involves YouTube videos, speeches, social networking, etc. Mostly he wants you in the chat room. There, he has a crew of loyalists on the prowl for new web site visitors. They follow strict guidelines for engaging the new visitor. They embrace the new person. You will be invited to socialize with other members. At some point, someone will suggest you listen to the introductory podcast called, “But my parents were nice.” Then you listen into his Sunday show where Molyneux listens to the typical complaints of a young adult and gives them advice. The callers have lots of reasons for calling, but no matter the reason, Molyneux is always on the lookout for a way to drive the discussion to your rotten parents. He describes parents as if he knew them intimately. He will conjure up memories from his template of how all parents are. He will speak and probe until he comes across something that gets a rise. The caller is taken with his charm and charisma. You allow yourself to be taken along.
Most of us have parent complaints. I know I did at that age. What if YOU are the one on the podcast? The power differential is huge. You are nervous. Others are listening. Molyneux is in complete control. You don’t have the courage or desire to disagree, so you just go along. “Yes my parents were like that.” Then one day, with the support of your fellow members, you defoo. It is a requirement of the defoo that you completely sever all contact with your parents, giving them no chance to even discuss what’s wrong….EVER.
Why does Molyneux do it? Because once a prospect leaves their family (and friends), the loss is traumatic. There is a huge and sudden emotional vacuum in your life. It is a void that Molyneux is poised to fill. The prospective donor, naturally gravitates to the new FDR support structure. There is an upside. Your parents won’t be judging you anymore (it is true, in the late teens and early twenties is when parents do most of our judging). You feel free. You might even grow comfortable in your new community. Of course, filling the void is a service for which Molyneux expects payment. Your monthly donations aren’t mandatory, but you will lose privileges and the approval of the leader if you don’t keep them up. (see the blog on Moly's donation problem). This is a classic cult like set up. But who cares what it is called? It is a tragedy by any name. It is a con of the most insidious and vile form that preys on young people by intentionally destroying their families.
While your new friends will respond to your chat room posting, they don’t love you. If you were in the hospital across the street from Molyneux's home, he wouldn't leave his driveway to visit you. No one really cares if you are in an accident or if you are alone on a holiday. It isn’t a real family. It is an escape from real life. It is a suspension of responsibility. For anyone who is tempted by the defoo message from Molyneux, don’t be fooled. If you find yourself wanting to break from your family and friends, don't be a coward and don’t be cruel. Talk it out. Your parents will be disappointed, but remember, they are also rooting for you to be independent. For my son, defooing included dropping out of college. I have let him know that he can stay away, but I will still pay for the rest of his education expenses. If he does not return to college then the support system exchange my son has completed has been very detrimental to him. It is of minor benefit to Molyneux who is making a living by breaking up families for fifty dollars each. Hard to get more corrupt than that. So please don’t encourage him. DO NOT donate to Molyneux. Eventually, he will thank you. It just can’t be healthy staying in the house and talking to yourself all day and night. His message, once sound and even inspiring, has become hideously twisted. He needs to get back to an honest means of income for his message of liberty and freedom to be heard. Withholding donations will be doing him a favor by helping him get back to his political and philosophy roots.
Most importantly, don’t let others lead you to do self-destructive things. If you feel anxiety or anger or any problems in your family, talk about it. Insist on it. Once your parents realize the seriousness, they are likely to listen deeply to all you have to say.
To our son. We long for the day when your fear subsides and you can come home.
It has been almost three years ago that I suggested that my son might enjoy listening to the podcasts of Stefan Molyneux. We both believe in freedom and have spent long hours discussing philosophy and politics. I had listened to Molyneux’s earlier podcasts and enjoyed his reflections on Objectivism. My son started listening. Molyneux became impressed with my son's grasp of objectivism and its values. Molneux was curious about his parents. My son he had suggested to Molyneux that he should interview me. Molyneux thought that was a good idea. Molyneux wanted to interview me as an example of a great dad. I did the interview. I mention this only to confirm that even Molyneux knows that, my son thought I was a great father. Molyneux took care of that situation. About six months later, my son cut all ties with us. To use the Molyneux invented term, my son ‘defoo’ed.’
“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 an axiom and a perversion. The axiom: adult relationships, including relationships between adult family members, are voluntary. The Perversion: Molyneux is quoted in the Guardian newspaper: "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 the family is a necessary step in achieving freedom. Molyneux is always on the lookout for reasons to defoo.
Before the dream, my wife and I worked through our profound sadness and agreed to leave our son to find his way. He is an adult. It is his call on how he leads his life. After her dream though, my wife had to try and reach out to him. She went to his place of work. He saw her coming and ran away. She waited. He texted the store owner writing, “I am petrified to come back into the store while she is there.” How can he be petrified??? He was writing about his mother. His mother who nursed him when he was sick. Held him always; stood up for him against bullies; went to his games and concerts; Attended every back to school night and every teachers conference. She took care of his doctors visits, emergency room visits, play dates, clothes shopping, and dances. She felt his joy in her heart and his hurt when he was sad. His mother was at his workplace to talk. She was doing what every real therapist recommends, to communicate. What sort of emotional disequilibrium would cause him to run and to be petrified? This is a thoroughly unhealthy response. It has us extremely worried. Something is terribly wrong.
This is a sad story, but it is NOT unusual. It is happening all over the world. Stefan Molyneux and his wife have a well crafted methodology for luring young adults away from their parents. It involves YouTube videos, speeches, social networking, etc. Mostly he wants you in the chat room. There, he has a crew of loyalists on the prowl for new web site visitors. They follow strict guidelines for engaging the new visitor. They embrace the new person. You will be invited to socialize with other members. At some point, someone will suggest you listen to the introductory podcast called, “But my parents were nice.” Then you listen into his Sunday show where Molyneux listens to the typical complaints of a young adult and gives them advice. The callers have lots of reasons for calling, but no matter the reason, Molyneux is always on the lookout for a way to drive the discussion to your rotten parents. He describes parents as if he knew them intimately. He will conjure up memories from his template of how all parents are. He will speak and probe until he comes across something that gets a rise. The caller is taken with his charm and charisma. You allow yourself to be taken along.
Most of us have parent complaints. I know I did at that age. What if YOU are the one on the podcast? The power differential is huge. You are nervous. Others are listening. Molyneux is in complete control. You don’t have the courage or desire to disagree, so you just go along. “Yes my parents were like that.” Then one day, with the support of your fellow members, you defoo. It is a requirement of the defoo that you completely sever all contact with your parents, giving them no chance to even discuss what’s wrong….EVER.
Why does Molyneux do it? Because once a prospect leaves their family (and friends), the loss is traumatic. There is a huge and sudden emotional vacuum in your life. It is a void that Molyneux is poised to fill. The prospective donor, naturally gravitates to the new FDR support structure. There is an upside. Your parents won’t be judging you anymore (it is true, in the late teens and early twenties is when parents do most of our judging). You feel free. You might even grow comfortable in your new community. Of course, filling the void is a service for which Molyneux expects payment. Your monthly donations aren’t mandatory, but you will lose privileges and the approval of the leader if you don’t keep them up. (see the blog on Moly's donation problem). This is a classic cult like set up. But who cares what it is called? It is a tragedy by any name. It is a con of the most insidious and vile form that preys on young people by intentionally destroying their families.
While your new friends will respond to your chat room posting, they don’t love you. If you were in the hospital across the street from Molyneux's home, he wouldn't leave his driveway to visit you. No one really cares if you are in an accident or if you are alone on a holiday. It isn’t a real family. It is an escape from real life. It is a suspension of responsibility. For anyone who is tempted by the defoo message from Molyneux, don’t be fooled. If you find yourself wanting to break from your family and friends, don't be a coward and don’t be cruel. Talk it out. Your parents will be disappointed, but remember, they are also rooting for you to be independent. For my son, defooing included dropping out of college. I have let him know that he can stay away, but I will still pay for the rest of his education expenses. If he does not return to college then the support system exchange my son has completed has been very detrimental to him. It is of minor benefit to Molyneux who is making a living by breaking up families for fifty dollars each. Hard to get more corrupt than that. So please don’t encourage him. DO NOT donate to Molyneux. Eventually, he will thank you. It just can’t be healthy staying in the house and talking to yourself all day and night. His message, once sound and even inspiring, has become hideously twisted. He needs to get back to an honest means of income for his message of liberty and freedom to be heard. Withholding donations will be doing him a favor by helping him get back to his political and philosophy roots.
Most importantly, don’t let others lead you to do self-destructive things. If you feel anxiety or anger or any problems in your family, talk about it. Insist on it. Once your parents realize the seriousness, they are likely to listen deeply to all you have to say.
To our son. We long for the day when your fear subsides and you can come home.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Christina's professional misconduct is now official
You can’t do this [FreeDomain Radio] without me and I certainly couldn’t do what I’m doing in my own work without you.
- Christina Molyneux to her husband Stefan Molyneux in a public internet podcast
Note: Stefan Molyneux has zero credentials in the area of counseling, therapy, or psychology*
Christina Molyneux/Papadoupolos is being professionally called to task for her practices and her active participation in Freedomain Radio (FDR). Here is he specific text from the College of Psychiatrists of Ontario:
Ms. Christina Papadopoulos committed professional misconduct in making public statements and providing advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and pod casts available thereon; specifically, she:
1. failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(2) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation. This failure included providing information, advice or comment to the public in a manner contrary to section 6.5 of the Standards of Professional Conduct (Effective September 1, 2005) ("Standards"), providing psychological services while objectivity, competence and effectiveness were compromised contrary to section 12.2 of the Standards, and rendering opinions that were not based upon current, reliable, adequate and appropriate information contrary to section 14.3 of the Standards.
2. provided a service that she knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit the client, contrary to section 1(9) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.
3. engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practicing the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to section 1(34) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.
https://members.cpo.on.ca/members_search/show/19048?section=discipline#ui-tabs-12
According to Stefan Molyneux, Christina Molyneux is the founder of the FDR defoo concept that there are no good parents in the world and that you can't be free until you rid yourself of your irrational attachment to them, friends, siblings, etc. It is curious that in addition to founding the defoo concept at FDR, Christina seems to also rely on her husband for input on matters psycological.
* I picked up this obvious observation from FDR Liberated and it seems to apply here. According to Stefan Molyneux's own accounts: he was mostly abandoned by his father as an infant. He was neglected by his own mother and threw her out of the house when he was 15. He has never been on the receiving end of parental love of any kind. He has a Master’s Degree in history. He read some psychology books and went to therapy once. Molyneux has never experienced the healthy love of a parent. He certainly has never had any genuine, personal interactions with parents in the critical adolescence-into-adulthood phase. And directly quoted from FDR Liberated: "Therefore, he could not describe either of these things from his own experience any more than a blind man can describe colors. Relationships with parents are as foreign to Molyneux as the moons of Jupiter. The biggest surprise to me is how few people ever point that out."
An FDR true believer may look past Moly's lack of credentials and completely out of touch life experience and then still buy into his anti-family nuttiness. But is there any remotely reasonable explanation as to why a licensed therapist (married or not) would ever, ever, ever look to Stefan Molyneux for guidance, input or advice in the area of family counseling? Do her patients know that in her candid moments when talking to her husband her true belief is: "I certainly couldn’t do what I’m doing in my own work without you."
- Christina Molyneux to her husband Stefan Molyneux in a public internet podcast
Note: Stefan Molyneux has zero credentials in the area of counseling, therapy, or psychology*
Christina Molyneux/Papadoupolos is being professionally called to task for her practices and her active participation in Freedomain Radio (FDR). Here is he specific text from the College of Psychiatrists of Ontario:
Ms. Christina Papadopoulos committed professional misconduct in making public statements and providing advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and pod casts available thereon; specifically, she:
1. failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(2) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation. This failure included providing information, advice or comment to the public in a manner contrary to section 6.5 of the Standards of Professional Conduct (Effective September 1, 2005) ("Standards"), providing psychological services while objectivity, competence and effectiveness were compromised contrary to section 12.2 of the Standards, and rendering opinions that were not based upon current, reliable, adequate and appropriate information contrary to section 14.3 of the Standards.
2. provided a service that she knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit the client, contrary to section 1(9) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.
3. engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practicing the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to section 1(34) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.
https://members.cpo.on.ca/members_search/show/19048?section=discipline#ui-tabs-12
According to Stefan Molyneux, Christina Molyneux is the founder of the FDR defoo concept that there are no good parents in the world and that you can't be free until you rid yourself of your irrational attachment to them, friends, siblings, etc. It is curious that in addition to founding the defoo concept at FDR, Christina seems to also rely on her husband for input on matters psycological.
* I picked up this obvious observation from FDR Liberated and it seems to apply here. According to Stefan Molyneux's own accounts: he was mostly abandoned by his father as an infant. He was neglected by his own mother and threw her out of the house when he was 15. He has never been on the receiving end of parental love of any kind. He has a Master’s Degree in history. He read some psychology books and went to therapy once. Molyneux has never experienced the healthy love of a parent. He certainly has never had any genuine, personal interactions with parents in the critical adolescence-into-adulthood phase. And directly quoted from FDR Liberated: "Therefore, he could not describe either of these things from his own experience any more than a blind man can describe colors. Relationships with parents are as foreign to Molyneux as the moons of Jupiter. The biggest surprise to me is how few people ever point that out."
An FDR true believer may look past Moly's lack of credentials and completely out of touch life experience and then still buy into his anti-family nuttiness. But is there any remotely reasonable explanation as to why a licensed therapist (married or not) would ever, ever, ever look to Stefan Molyneux for guidance, input or advice in the area of family counseling? Do her patients know that in her candid moments when talking to her husband her true belief is: "I certainly couldn’t do what I’m doing in my own work without you."
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Defoo quotes from Molyneux
I keep getting posts from Molyneux true believers who all say the same thing. "I never heard him suggest a defoo." Well all you have to do is listen more. I used to skip over his nutty family rants when I listened to him. So maybe these posters are doing the same thing. The point here is that there are plenty of examples. I provide a few documented items below. Remember, that in the FDR world, abuse include almost any and all parental slights perceived or real. At FDR, it is a process. Molyneux and his Wife Christina actively try to get young adults to adopt their definition of abuse and then declare their parents as abusive. Once that is done, they push for a defoo (depart their family of origin). After the defoo, Moly wants these people to become reliable donors to FDR. This argument seems quite implausible. Until it happened to our family, I would have agreed. Moly and his wife are not particularly successful at this undertaking, but they do occasionally reel in a victim. As a result, a lot of families that would be working through the routine issues that any family has to deal with are instead sad and broken. This argument can never be conclusively proven, but there is some pretty compelling evidence so support it. Here are a few examples:
I believe the most revealing comment that Stefan Molyneux ever uttered was in one of his 'how to defoo podcasts.' It was in: FDR348: Escaping Your Family Step By Step - Part 2 (20:00 Stef gives example of his defoo talk with his family 35:00 describes the letter about taking a break from the family. Then in the course of offering up his recipe for for a defoo, he offers this bit of moral direction:
44:40 “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”
Here are few more direct quotes from Molyneux (either written or transcribed from a podcast):
The DEFOO. In podcasts outlining the step by step process for leaving your family:
FDR347: Escaping Your Family Step By Step - Part 1 (10 minutes in until end - refers to people close to breaking with families)
FDR350: Escaping Your Family Step By Step - Part 3
(How to deal with objections from family, all you need is a couple of months away, describes techniques of "fogging" or "broken record")
31:00 “Do it at their house so that you can leave.”
In a chat room where someone with a screen name of S****y was discussing some seemingly serious issues. There was a mention of suicide and throwing away his medication so he would not be tempted to deliberately overdose. If ever there was a 'go to a therapist moment' it was this one. Here was Moly's one and only post on this chat stream:
"S****y, get off the god damned fence and get rid of your family."
I believe the most revealing comment that Stefan Molyneux ever uttered was in one of his 'how to defoo podcasts.' It was in: FDR348: Escaping Your Family Step By Step - Part 2 (20:00 Stef gives example of his defoo talk with his family 35:00 describes the letter about taking a break from the family. Then in the course of offering up his recipe for for a defoo, he offers this bit of moral direction:
44:40 “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”
Here are few more direct quotes from Molyneux (either written or transcribed from a podcast):
The DEFOO. In podcasts outlining the step by step process for leaving your family:
FDR347: Escaping Your Family Step By Step - Part 1 (10 minutes in until end - refers to people close to breaking with families)
FDR350: Escaping Your Family Step By Step - Part 3
(How to deal with objections from family, all you need is a couple of months away, describes techniques of "fogging" or "broken record")
31:00 “Do it at their house so that you can leave.”
In a chat room where someone with a screen name of S****y was discussing some seemingly serious issues. There was a mention of suicide and throwing away his medication so he would not be tempted to deliberately overdose. If ever there was a 'go to a therapist moment' it was this one. Here was Moly's one and only post on this chat stream:
"S****y, get off the god damned fence and get rid of your family."
Here is th URL link to this if you want to get the context: http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/6339/50067.aspx
And of course the original:
Caller: "Sometimes my dad shouted at our cat Fluffy when he was angry."
Molyneux: "I'm so sorry you had to experience this. What a monstrous, foul beast from the depths of hell. Your childhood must have been devastating. Tell me, did he ever shout at the cat in public?"
Caller: "Uh, no."
Molyneux: "I knew it! That proves he is not insane! He truly is a hateful, satanic demon who commits these unspeakable acts on purpose. I'm not telling you to defoo, but you'd be a complete loser if you didn't."
I suspect at some point in time, Moly was doing FDR for the glory of philosophy. I just don't think that is the case anymore. These days it is much more about a business that depends on the donations of young adults who have broken with their families. Moly uses his web site to scout out routine family conflicts that occur during that period of time when the young adult wants to break away but is not quite there yet and the parent who is encouraging their kid to leave the nest but is fighting off their instinct to 'hold on and protect' their child. A defoo creates a huge emotional vacuum for the victim. Molyneux and the FDR community becomes the new source of emotional support. Moly then closes the deal by connecting the defoo victim's new loss of their family and their newly found enlightened freedom to a 'moral' requirement to make a monthly donation to FDR. This may seem like a weird way to make a living, but it isn't all that rare. The general cult business model has been in place for thousands of years. You can judge for yourself if this is a virtuous way to make a living.
And of course the original:
Caller: "Sometimes my dad shouted at our cat Fluffy when he was angry."
Molyneux: "I'm so sorry you had to experience this. What a monstrous, foul beast from the depths of hell. Your childhood must have been devastating. Tell me, did he ever shout at the cat in public?"
Caller: "Uh, no."
Molyneux: "I knew it! That proves he is not insane! He truly is a hateful, satanic demon who commits these unspeakable acts on purpose. I'm not telling you to defoo, but you'd be a complete loser if you didn't."
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Moly never fails to misunderstand parenting
Received a note from a visitor to the site pointing me to one of Moly's YouTubes on the Chinese tiger mother. The story was in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago. The subject was on the amount of discipline that a parent can/should/might use when raising their children. The tiger mom was one tough cookie. Definitely tougher than I would ever be. Anway, I went to Moly's video. Moly never fails to miss the point on parenting. The subject is discipline. But he changed the subject to cognitive development. Moly does not like to discuss discipline. So, in this case he just changed the subject to 'cognitive development.' He then went on to discuss articles on how Chinese children get depressed and suicidal because of undue pressure from their parents.
The big anecdote in the WSJ story was about how the mother relentlessly demanded that her daughter stick with practicing a piano piece so she would be ready for the recital the next day. Very tough parenting. Bullying, skipping meals, no bathroom breaks, mom lost her voice from screaming at the child. All in all quite horrifying to a 'try your best honey' U.S. style parent. The flip side was that the child did finally figure out the piece. Fell in love with what she had accomplished. Laughed and cuddled with her mother. Played the piece perfectly the next day's recital to acclaim. The daughter felt great. In this case, the seemingly very severe discipline seemed to work quite well.
Moly said that playing a piano is nothing more than a robotic exercise. And that such pressure inhibits 'cognitive development.' He offered an analogy on how difficult it would be to solve a quadratic equation while being chased by a bear. But the issue is more like, what if you had the discipline to put aside all other distractions and focus completely on solving that equation. And what if you learned the benefits of such discipline from your parents who insisted that you study, work hard, etc.
The discipline to focus on a goal and put aside all other pleasures and distractions to accomplish a goal is a uniquely human characteristic. Whether it is clearing your driveway of snow or inventing the light bulb, you need the self-discipline to focus and to get things done. If a parent neglects the teaching of the pure happiness that results from putting aside distractions and working hard to accomplish something, they are committing child abuse.
Punishment and/or ‘do it my way because I say so’ isn’t about cognitive development. Cognitive development is important but it pails in importance when compared to self discipline. In my opinion,, the simple discipline to get things done is the most important determinate to success in life and for human kind. Moly never mentions this aspect of parenting. I think Moly just doesn't understand the issue at all. I believe his own emotional issues prevent him from having the intellectual ability to face down the truth on this subject. Which is this: The world is full of really bright people who “don’t ‘achieve their potential.” If only they had the discipline to apply themselves… All good parents have a primal fear that their children will fall into that category. Moly glosses over the cuddling and joy after the ‘dragon lesson.’ He obscures the feeling of pride and accomplishment the child felt. He barely mentioned that the child performed the piece perfectly at the next days recital to glowing applause.
To bring this point home, here is the follow up story from the daughter. "Why I love my strict Chinese Mom" She isn't on the brink of depression and isn't considering suicide.
http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/why_love_my_strict_chinese_mom_uUvfmLcA5eteY0u2KXt7hM
Final point. Molyneux is completely unqualified to comment on cognitive development. As am I. But consider this. The child accomplished something under duress that she seemed unable to do without the stress of her mother's pressure. The child seemed to find the needed focus to reach the goal. Aren't there countless examples of people working better under pressure? Long story short, I think it is possible that the occasional demand that a child put aside other matters and focus on that quadratic equation whether they like it or not, helps cognitive development as well as teaching self discipline.
The big anecdote in the WSJ story was about how the mother relentlessly demanded that her daughter stick with practicing a piano piece so she would be ready for the recital the next day. Very tough parenting. Bullying, skipping meals, no bathroom breaks, mom lost her voice from screaming at the child. All in all quite horrifying to a 'try your best honey' U.S. style parent. The flip side was that the child did finally figure out the piece. Fell in love with what she had accomplished. Laughed and cuddled with her mother. Played the piece perfectly the next day's recital to acclaim. The daughter felt great. In this case, the seemingly very severe discipline seemed to work quite well.
Moly said that playing a piano is nothing more than a robotic exercise. And that such pressure inhibits 'cognitive development.' He offered an analogy on how difficult it would be to solve a quadratic equation while being chased by a bear. But the issue is more like, what if you had the discipline to put aside all other distractions and focus completely on solving that equation. And what if you learned the benefits of such discipline from your parents who insisted that you study, work hard, etc.
The discipline to focus on a goal and put aside all other pleasures and distractions to accomplish a goal is a uniquely human characteristic. Whether it is clearing your driveway of snow or inventing the light bulb, you need the self-discipline to focus and to get things done. If a parent neglects the teaching of the pure happiness that results from putting aside distractions and working hard to accomplish something, they are committing child abuse.
Punishment and/or ‘do it my way because I say so’ isn’t about cognitive development. Cognitive development is important but it pails in importance when compared to self discipline. In my opinion,, the simple discipline to get things done is the most important determinate to success in life and for human kind. Moly never mentions this aspect of parenting. I think Moly just doesn't understand the issue at all. I believe his own emotional issues prevent him from having the intellectual ability to face down the truth on this subject. Which is this: The world is full of really bright people who “don’t ‘achieve their potential.” If only they had the discipline to apply themselves… All good parents have a primal fear that their children will fall into that category. Moly glosses over the cuddling and joy after the ‘dragon lesson.’ He obscures the feeling of pride and accomplishment the child felt. He barely mentioned that the child performed the piece perfectly at the next days recital to glowing applause.
To bring this point home, here is the follow up story from the daughter. "Why I love my strict Chinese Mom" She isn't on the brink of depression and isn't considering suicide.
http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/why_love_my_strict_chinese_mom_uUvfmLcA5eteY0u2KXt7hM
Final point. Molyneux is completely unqualified to comment on cognitive development. As am I. But consider this. The child accomplished something under duress that she seemed unable to do without the stress of her mother's pressure. The child seemed to find the needed focus to reach the goal. Aren't there countless examples of people working better under pressure? Long story short, I think it is possible that the occasional demand that a child put aside other matters and focus on that quadratic equation whether they like it or not, helps cognitive development as well as teaching self discipline.
Monday, February 7, 2011
The top five arguments against this site
There are five general arguments I get from folks who like Moly. I would like to address them and put them in one place.
a: I have never heard Molyneux suggest a defoo
b: So what if he asks for money. He is allowed to do that.
c: Moly recommends therapy for unhealthy relationships
d: I know Moly hates families but I didn't defoo so what's the big deal
e: This site is just about attacking Moly.
Argument a: I have never heard Molyneux suggest a defoo
This just means you haven't heard the podcasts on defooing. There are lots. They have been thoroughly and conclusively documented here and in quite a few other places. These examples are only the ones that deal directly with the defoo. There are also the anti-family rants, Sunday call in therapy sessions where, no matter what the original subject, the discussion always turns to your poor abusive parents, his insidious rules for how to treat people who visit the FDR chat rooms, and of course, his personal efforts directly with people who are considering a defoo which are not known to the public or casual visitor to FDR.
Argument b: So what if he asks for money. He is allowed to do that.
This is not really an argument. It is axiomatic that you are free to ask for money. It is my opinion however that it is not a morally neutral event when a licensed therapist and her husband run a business based on breaking up families.
Argument c: Moly recommends therapy for unhealthy relationships
As a matter of Public Relations, this is true. In practice, Moly persuades strongly against therapy. When talking to a specific person, his (and his lieutenants on his site) attitude is much more like: "Why bother? It won't work anyway. You know your parents are corrupt. Just get out and be free." Here is the PR part of it. Moly and car dealer advertisements have something in common. The car dealer blares out that "We will NOT be undersold" or "lowest prices in the tri-state area." They hope that by the time you get to the showroom, you have bought that idea and will trust that their price is the best. The salesman on the floor will remind you "you can shop if you wish, but you will end up back here." They want to be able to close the deal while you are there. Moly discussions about therapy are in the same vein. Moly is hoping you will grant him the high ground for recommending therapy. Both the car dealer and Moly are hoping hard that you will not bother following their recommendation. Moly hopes you will simply decide to break with an 'unsatisfying' relationship without bothering with therapy or communication. In a call in podcast show I heard him tell a caller not to bother trying to repair a relationship with a parent. "You know they won't listen. Why bother engaging when you already know they won't agree to therapy." One very popular move by someone anticipating a defoo is to engage in a surprise discussion. Something like this: "I am unhappy with things and think we need some therapy." The parent is surprised and worried (maybe shocked). They say something like, "Let's talk this out first. If we decide therapy is needed, we can do that." Moly says, "Well you tried. It isn't surprising they did not go for it. For $50 a month you can be a philosopher king."
Argument d: I know Moly hates families but I didn't defoo so what's the big deal
This is kind of a self centered argument. As in: It didn't happen to me so there is no problem here. To anyone making this argument, I am glad your family is still ok, but keep in mind that it does happen to other people. These comments usually do acknowledge that Moly is against the traditional family. they seem to be saying that Moly is trying but they aren't buying. At least not so far.
Argument e: This site is just about attacking Moly
This is true and maybe a pretty good argument. I have reviewed some of the blogs. I think I may indeed be a bit too flamboyant in my criticism. I will endeavor to tone things down a little. But in the end, it is enough that anyone simply notices this site. Whether you think it is too harsh or not harsh enough, you are properly warned. You can make your own judgements on Moly's real motivations.
a: I have never heard Molyneux suggest a defoo
b: So what if he asks for money. He is allowed to do that.
c: Moly recommends therapy for unhealthy relationships
d: I know Moly hates families but I didn't defoo so what's the big deal
e: This site is just about attacking Moly.
Argument a: I have never heard Molyneux suggest a defoo
This just means you haven't heard the podcasts on defooing. There are lots. They have been thoroughly and conclusively documented here and in quite a few other places. These examples are only the ones that deal directly with the defoo. There are also the anti-family rants, Sunday call in therapy sessions where, no matter what the original subject, the discussion always turns to your poor abusive parents, his insidious rules for how to treat people who visit the FDR chat rooms, and of course, his personal efforts directly with people who are considering a defoo which are not known to the public or casual visitor to FDR.
Argument b: So what if he asks for money. He is allowed to do that.
This is not really an argument. It is axiomatic that you are free to ask for money. It is my opinion however that it is not a morally neutral event when a licensed therapist and her husband run a business based on breaking up families.
Argument c: Moly recommends therapy for unhealthy relationships
As a matter of Public Relations, this is true. In practice, Moly persuades strongly against therapy. When talking to a specific person, his (and his lieutenants on his site) attitude is much more like: "Why bother? It won't work anyway. You know your parents are corrupt. Just get out and be free." Here is the PR part of it. Moly and car dealer advertisements have something in common. The car dealer blares out that "We will NOT be undersold" or "lowest prices in the tri-state area." They hope that by the time you get to the showroom, you have bought that idea and will trust that their price is the best. The salesman on the floor will remind you "you can shop if you wish, but you will end up back here." They want to be able to close the deal while you are there. Moly discussions about therapy are in the same vein. Moly is hoping you will grant him the high ground for recommending therapy. Both the car dealer and Moly are hoping hard that you will not bother following their recommendation. Moly hopes you will simply decide to break with an 'unsatisfying' relationship without bothering with therapy or communication. In a call in podcast show I heard him tell a caller not to bother trying to repair a relationship with a parent. "You know they won't listen. Why bother engaging when you already know they won't agree to therapy." One very popular move by someone anticipating a defoo is to engage in a surprise discussion. Something like this: "I am unhappy with things and think we need some therapy." The parent is surprised and worried (maybe shocked). They say something like, "Let's talk this out first. If we decide therapy is needed, we can do that." Moly says, "Well you tried. It isn't surprising they did not go for it. For $50 a month you can be a philosopher king."
Argument d: I know Moly hates families but I didn't defoo so what's the big deal
This is kind of a self centered argument. As in: It didn't happen to me so there is no problem here. To anyone making this argument, I am glad your family is still ok, but keep in mind that it does happen to other people. These comments usually do acknowledge that Moly is against the traditional family. they seem to be saying that Moly is trying but they aren't buying. At least not so far.
Argument e: This site is just about attacking Moly
This is true and maybe a pretty good argument. I have reviewed some of the blogs. I think I may indeed be a bit too flamboyant in my criticism. I will endeavor to tone things down a little. But in the end, it is enough that anyone simply notices this site. Whether you think it is too harsh or not harsh enough, you are properly warned. You can make your own judgements on Moly's real motivations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)