I am going to make a post describing some specific items relating to FDR as a cult. This post is designed to provide some resources and references to people who are curious. The actual word ‘cult’ does not really matter. What does matter is this. Molyneux sustains the default condition that all parents are bad and you should break with your family. He does this to cement the long term loyalty of donators. He actually isn’t very good at it since he is willing to engage in outright begging and transparent marketing tricks to get money. If his offering was a good one, he wouldn’t have to engage such sordid appeals for money.
The thing is this. Yes Molyneux is a low level huckster. Yes, he is an identified liar and hypocrite (See the other posts on this site or countless other examples throughout the Internet for all the proof you need on that front). But his relative smallness doesn’t matter to the families he has damaged. So here is some real material from real experts on what is and is not a cult.
Let’s start off with the easy proof of things:
Ian Haworth, of the Cult Information Centre, has been following Freedomain Radio. He says that one of the first signs of a cult is that it cuts people off from their families. . This is Moly's starting point for any FDR member. He has a series of 'how to' defoo podcasts. He takes almost every 'call in' show subject to the evil parents and why the health of the caller is in jeopardy if they don't DO SOMETHING to remedy the horror of their life.
But to be fair, the following three sites have Molyneux reciting his rejoinder as to why FDR is NOT a cult:
Molly himself carrying on about things
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUH5GfJKoDA
The written response from Moly:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/FDR_factnet_response.html
The originating factnet site with the measures of how to define a cult
http://www.factnet.org/headlines/destructive_cult_warning_signs.html
Since he turned to Factnet as his authority on these matters, by implication he accepts Factnet’s list of “experts” in the field of cult awareness. One of those experts is Joe Szinhart. http://www.factnet.org/cris_xpt.htm
Here is his bio: http://home.dejazzd.com/jszimhart/cultindex.htm
Here are some of Mr. Szinhart’s observations.
Checklists about what makes a cult are a dime a dozen and do not necessarily help in all situations. For example, here is another one that criticizes Molyneux:
http://catholicmarketanarchy.blogspot.com/2008/04/molyneux-and-his-cult-revisited.html
Now, if I had the inclination and time for it I might make comments on Stefan Molyneux’s self-defensive dismissal of the Factnet.org eight characteristics. But why bother. His choice was illogical and facile—not worth the effort. Also, he seems to have a rather distorted view of just what bothers people about so-called cults. Twice in his monolog he mentions that he does not kidnap and lock people in the basement or imprison anyone. I have studied over 100 controversial groups and movements and have had files on 400 others—rarely has any of these groups kidnapped anyone much less locked them up. Yet they all meet my criteria for cult behaviour and are troublesome enough for a family to hire someone like me to help intervene, sometimes flying me halfway around the world to do so. What Molyneux does here is appeal to an extremist view—a straw man argument—that he easily can dismiss thus demonstrating that what he’s doing is not forming a cult. To some extent this is his approach throughout his use of the Factnet checklist.
What I propose to anyone to look to for to determine whether Molyneux’s shtick qualifies as cult like or not are two other frames of reference.
A. Dr. Arthur Deikman, in his book, Them and Us proposes the following from a behavioral view:
http://www.deikman.com/wrong.html
He states that socially problematic cultic behaviors are:
1. Compliance with a group
2. Dependence on a leader
3. Avoiding dissent
4. Devaluing outsiders
Deikman first wrote about these behaviors in The Wrong Way Home, Deikman, 1990: Beacon Press. The more extreme these behaviors in concert, the more potential for constricted behavior in any group activity or relationship. http://www.deikman.com/
I use Deikman as a reference here:
http://home.dejazzd.com/jszimhart/cult101.htm
B. The other book I propose is Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults by Professor Janja Lalich (who I count among my friends)
http://www.janjalalich.com/
Professor Lalich proposes her four-part approach:
http://www.janjalalich.com/node/8
People in such cults tend to
1. Espouse an all-encompassing belief system
2. Exhibit excessive devotion to and dependency on their “perfect” leader
3. Avoid criticism of the group, its leader(s), and its practices
4. Have an attitude of disdain for non-members
If for any reason you are one of those folks who broke with Molyneux’s influence and yet have trouble adjusting or recovering from his ideas in your head, try reading Take Back Your Life:
http://www.janjalalich.com/node/19
I am not about to do your thinking for you but if you wish to study these two authors and apply what you learn to the Stefan Molyneux experience you should be able to determine for yourself if anything he is about approaches harmful cult behaviour or is merely another charismatic and controversial talking head on the Internet that captivates the attention and changes the behaviour of some people. Relying solely on Molyneux’s facile dismissal of cultic characteristics as your guide could be a huge mistake. It is your life.
You can contact me if you have any questions.
Joe Szimhart
jszimhart@dejazzd.com19 July 2009
1 comments: