Stefan Molyneux’s business is to influence young adults to leave their families in a most destructive way and then collect their donations to FDR. This latest episode pretty much removes any room for doubt as to who he really is. Here goes:
One of the occasional by products of a young adult engagement with FDR is a rejection of academic activity. There are lots of permutations of the damage. Sometimes members spend so much time on the boards, that their studies suffer. Other times, the FDR members just drop out of college completely.
Recently on a chat room, a donator, who had dropped out of college as a result of his encounter with Freedomain Radio, wrote that he was thinking of returning to college. The donator was beginning to notice that, without a degree, there was little chance for advancement. The future looks bleak. He was thinking he should go back and get his degree. So what is the right advice for this person? Well Moly has two degrees (at least he says he does). Now it is true, Moly has failed at pretty much every attempt to use those degrees. And along with his many other problems, he seems to deeply resent how academia has rejected him. But you would think he could see past this resentment to offer some sound advice to a donator who respects him and is at a life cross road. This is a young person who was beginning to realize he had made a mistake by dropping out of college. He realized he needed to pull himself together and at least get that initial Bachelors Degree. Moly was faced with a legitimate opportunity to do the right thing. The donator could get a degree and build a life with an upside. A life that would provide options. A chance to get the education. A chance to get the degree that unlocks the potential for a rich and satisfying life. Seems obvious enough doesn’t it.
But not for Moly. Moly knew that pursuing an education might be distracting enough that the member might start missing their monthly donation. Moly kicked into gear. He asked the donator what they wanted to do. The programmed response came back. “I want to be a philosopher.”
Moly responded with his own programmed response. “You don’t need a piece of paper to do that.”
There you have it. Moly is advising a follower to NOT get a degree. He is suggesting that someone can be a “Philosopher” or pursue philosophy as a livelihood without a degree. Please let the level of depravity sink in. Rather than risk a modest monthly donation, Moly is advising a young adult to NOT get an education. And because of that advice from Moly, the poor donator will likely allow let that glimmer of a chance to get the degree fade away. The donator, who reached out to Moly for advice, will stay in that dead end job.
Now someone from FDR is going to respond to this post. It will be another high school freshman philosophy comment on freedom and such. So in anticipation of that, let’s take a moment. Yes, we all know the stories of Bill Gates and other famous success stories of those who had a burning ambition that transcended the need for a college education. We also all know those stories are remarkable exactly because they are statistically rare. Education is the most precious possession anyone can have. No one can take it from you. Its value lasts a life time. So here is the likely reality that will result from Moly’s despicable advice. What does it really mean to forgo that degree?
Well for starters, the donator thinks he is in a good state. He is working. He likes the job. He is paying his bills (sort of). This is OK. Life is not that bad. He is talented enough to avoid getting fired. He will even likely be a model employee. But life will go on. Things will change. Events will happen. His talent will not save him from the inevitable layoffs, re-organizations, bankruptcies or an argument with your boss. When these happen, he will be out of work. Or maybe worse. He will keep that job for many years to come. Of course, with each passing year, his lack of education will hurt more and more, because with each job set back, (or maybe even each job opportunity) he will have been one more year as an experienced hourly worker. He will NOT be someone who has experience in a profession that required a degree. Without a degree, he will have to endure an endless series of mind numbing schedules, tasks, boredoms, unexpected expenses, and thoughtless managers. He will have to there on time; and not leave early without permission. He will live a life from paycheck to paycheck. Maybe a promotion to “assistant manager” some day. Maybe a cost of living increase. Maybe at some point, he wants to break out and start his own business. Any funding source needed to start a new business will prefer that he have a degree. He doesn't get over the hump. He stays where he is. It is the life of quiet desperation. He won’t notice that slowly and relentlessly his energy and ambition to succeed beyond his current state will drain away. Then one day, when life has beaten the last vestige of ambition out of him, his potential will be finally and utterly lost forever.
All because at the key moment; when a word of encouragement was needed, Moly decided it was more important to secure a $20 per month revenue stream. Moly is hoping against hope, that the donator doesn’t notice this. Moly hopes the donator will be content in the belief that maintaining his status as a Philosopher King (or silver, gold, diamond) donator is enough to follow his dream of philosophy in the real world of FDR.
So here is my advice to the donator. Pay attention to things. You are responsible for your life. It is very likely that you will regret forgoing your degree for as long as you live. You can keep fiddling with FDR if you wish, but give yourself enough self respect to make your own decisions. Or to put it another way: Please notice that the man you are listening to, has a livelihood that depends on duping you into destroying your life. Do whatever you have to do to get that degree. Pick up the phone and call your college advisor. Call the admissions office. Call financial aid. Do whatever you have to do. Get a loan. Go back to your parents and ask them help. And get your life back on track.
For those who wonder what Stefan Molyneux is all about, this pretty much covers it. Stay away from the guy. Or if some sort of curiosity draws you to the site, look out for his programmed greeters in the chat rooms. I enourage you to download his free books as much as you want. They are worth every penny. Whatever you do, don’t give him a dime. Most of all, don't let him get so far into your head that you do self destructive things.
Total Pageviews
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Molyneux in the beginning
I received an interesting post from a disciple of Molyneux. Here it is:
"I accept Stefan Molyneux's underlying philosophy, Universal Preferable Behavior, which has nothing to do with families. However, one of the consequences of that philosophy is that the initiation of force or threat thereof is immoral. From that follows Molyneux's definition of abuse that you find so abhorrent.
You should start at the beginning, rather than the end."
I see three things in this post.
The First is that UPB – Universally Preferred Behaviors is an authoritative Philosophy. It is not. UPB is a disconnected, poorly framed series of bad analogies, and shoddy thinking. If anyone cares to dig into the flaws and failures of UPB, you can visit here to see that UPB really isn’t much.
http:///
The second is that Use of initiation of force or its threat thereof is immoral: Moly really believes Pacifism is an absolute. It is a zero tolerance condition. There is to be no violence…ever…..for any reason. This is so ingrained into the FDR frontal lobe that they mix threats and real force together as if they are the same thing. For example, any (I mean any) law of the state as an act of violence. Any firm form of discipline by a parent (including a firm word of rebuke) is violence. In this respect and many others, FDR is much more like a religion than a philosophy. Think Quakers. UPB puts forth a set of behaviors and insists that the followers believe. They say it is a conscious decision to believe and it is. But so is the conscious decision to be a Catholic. Also like Religion, UPB has a set of circular reasoning so any argument about its validity can be rebuked with its own self sustaining logic. It is really very much like Religious dogma.
Moly goes back and forth on self defense (and the defense of property), as a rationale for violence. But in the end, it is a problem for him. He has to maintain complete intolerance of violence to hold his position of moral superiority. I remember listening to one of Moly’s early podcasts. He twisted himself into a pretzel trying to prove that the self defense does not justify violence. He made one argument after another. He came up with analogy, after example, after anecdote. Each one was more strained and incoherent than the last. Of course he couldn't make the case. Anyone can think of countless examples when force and the threat of force is the exact correct and moral choice. Did anyone see the sickening bus video of a kid being brutally beaten. Can you think of a moral use of force? Of course you can. We look to philosophy and values that help us determine when violence is allowable and when it is immoral. What are its limits? Etc. Mindlessly calling for pacifism in all cases is an abrogation of philosophy.
Let’s simplify this with another example or two. A toddler is reaching for a $10,000 Ming vase in a store. He is going to knock it over. Mom notices just in time. She firmly says, “NO!” as she slaps the child’s hand and prevents the damage. The bank account is saved. And the child got a solid memory impression that knocking things off shelves is a bad idea. In Moly’s world of NON-Philosophy, this is an act of abuse that the child can look to and remember as the prima facie evidence of the corruption and abuse they received while growing up in that terrible home. Sometime later, the child reaches for a product on a shelf and the mother sternly says, “NO!” The child stops. No slap involved. hmmm Some would think the child is learning self discipline and beginning to figure out the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Not Moly. Moly says that the mother is threatening violence. Another example of an immoral and abusive parent. And on it goes. In one pod cast, a teenage girl was talking to him about how she felt so helpless when her mother would “not listen to her.” She would go to her room and cry in frustration. Moly could barely contain his glee. He helped the caller to understand that her mother was committing violence against her since the only logical end of an argument with a parent is violence. Therefore it is abuse. Then he goes on and says the mother did not really love her. How could she if she treated her like that. As stupid as this is, it is real and true for those who follow UPB and FDR.
I have another one. This is priceless. Did you know that faithful believers in FDR have no problem threatening the use of force? You can refer to my report on the Philadelphia Debate for the full story. When my brother approached my son to talk to him in the lobby. He was certainly did not represent any sort of physical threat to my son. Stil, a group of FDR Molypods collected around my son to prevent his Uncle from approaching him. This group was MOST CERTAINLY showing A THREAT of violence to my brother. Now in fairness, in their warped state of consciousness, they may have actually thought my brother was a physical threat. If so, I would argue they acted morally. They were protecting their friend. But that is my view of morality. Not Moly’s. (Ironically in Moly's sloppy description of UPB, they might be behaving with an end in mind and therefore they were behaving properly. Maybe I will go into this in another post someday).
Also on that day, a Molypod approached my friend who was handing out brochures and threatened him with being removed by security if he did not stop his activity. That is really rich. They are calling on the state to suppress an opposing view. It must have been unnerving that they couldn't just ban my friend's IP address from the FDR site. I wonder if banning those who dissagree with FDR dogma is an act of violence on their part?
The third item is a suggestion to start at the beginning. Let’s do that. Moly’s early writings are instructive. It is here, where he is unfiltered. He gives his true thinking and beliefs. Ever since the Philadelphia Debate, when Moly was directly and publicly challenged, he has retreated from his real beliefs. Moly has knuckled under to the pressure of being exposed for what he is. So here is the beginning. In his early days he said things like this in his essay, “Are People just Stupid.” He honestly seems to think he is the only source of real and beneficial parental practices and thinking. Here is an excerpt: The narcissism is staggering. He seems to contend that all (maybe except for himself and Christine) parent’s don’t have a clue and he refers to John Locke as the last competent philosopher as the rationale? Cut me a break. Anyway, here is Moly in the beginning. He wrote this long before he was a father.
When raising children, parents have absolutely no idea what they’re doing. Why should children obey them? Because parents are right? Hell no – ask parents why they hold their beliefs, they don’t have a clue. How could they? The last competent philosopher was probably John Locke, over three hundred years ago. The general social stream of ideas is just muck and confusion, designed by evil people to baffle and paralyze any good souls that accidentally emerge from the sick swamps of modern thought.
Average parents can no more reinvent morality from scratch than they can build a Space Shuttle in their backyards. Still, they have to get their children to obey them – how do they do it?
Oh, the usual suspects. Guilt, shame, withdrawal, criticism, bribery, bullying, manipulation – the usual crap that has passed for parenting throughout history. Guilt, shame and bullying always rush to fill the void when logical morality loses favour, because children must be taught, and if no carrots are to be found, sticks will always just have to do.
So face it: your parents were bullies, or weak curriers of favour, or manipulative emotional infants themselves. You have no respect for them, for respect requires courage, and courage requires logical morality. You do not love them, since love demands virtue, and manipulating children into blind obedience is not at all virtuous. There are only a few possible responses to modern parents:
- Contempt
- Indifference
- Boredom
- Hatred
- Empty conformity
These are usually mixed into an over-stimulating frappe of conflicting emotions, leaving family gatherings fraught with tension, alienation, dissociation and emptiness.
For more information on Moly's early foundation, visit http:///
So to the person who made this post: From the beginning Moly has had a neurotically distorted view of abuse. When you say that UPB has nothing to do with the family, I am not so sure? The non-violence messaging of UPB is the beginning, middle and end of Moly’s method for persuading young people to leave and remain apart from their families. If you look to the beginning, it appears Moly's obsession with the idea that all parents are bad is the beginning of UPB. You may want to take a moment and get some perspective. A = A. Use your head and truly evaluate your beliefs. Try Objectivism. Try anything. Just give yourself a chance to see beyond FDR and UPB. If you look at your life and you only associate with other FDR members, this may be your first clue that something is amiss.
"I accept Stefan Molyneux's underlying philosophy, Universal Preferable Behavior, which has nothing to do with families. However, one of the consequences of that philosophy is that the initiation of force or threat thereof is immoral. From that follows Molyneux's definition of abuse that you find so abhorrent.
You should start at the beginning, rather than the end."
I see three things in this post.
The First is that UPB – Universally Preferred Behaviors is an authoritative Philosophy. It is not. UPB is a disconnected, poorly framed series of bad analogies, and shoddy thinking. If anyone cares to dig into the flaws and failures of UPB, you can visit here to see that UPB really isn’t much.
http:///
The second is that Use of initiation of force or its threat thereof is immoral: Moly really believes Pacifism is an absolute. It is a zero tolerance condition. There is to be no violence…ever…..for any reason. This is so ingrained into the FDR frontal lobe that they mix threats and real force together as if they are the same thing. For example, any (I mean any) law of the state as an act of violence. Any firm form of discipline by a parent (including a firm word of rebuke) is violence. In this respect and many others, FDR is much more like a religion than a philosophy. Think Quakers. UPB puts forth a set of behaviors and insists that the followers believe. They say it is a conscious decision to believe and it is. But so is the conscious decision to be a Catholic. Also like Religion, UPB has a set of circular reasoning so any argument about its validity can be rebuked with its own self sustaining logic. It is really very much like Religious dogma.
Moly goes back and forth on self defense (and the defense of property), as a rationale for violence. But in the end, it is a problem for him. He has to maintain complete intolerance of violence to hold his position of moral superiority. I remember listening to one of Moly’s early podcasts. He twisted himself into a pretzel trying to prove that the self defense does not justify violence. He made one argument after another. He came up with analogy, after example, after anecdote. Each one was more strained and incoherent than the last. Of course he couldn't make the case. Anyone can think of countless examples when force and the threat of force is the exact correct and moral choice. Did anyone see the sickening bus video of a kid being brutally beaten. Can you think of a moral use of force? Of course you can. We look to philosophy and values that help us determine when violence is allowable and when it is immoral. What are its limits? Etc. Mindlessly calling for pacifism in all cases is an abrogation of philosophy.
Let’s simplify this with another example or two. A toddler is reaching for a $10,000 Ming vase in a store. He is going to knock it over. Mom notices just in time. She firmly says, “NO!” as she slaps the child’s hand and prevents the damage. The bank account is saved. And the child got a solid memory impression that knocking things off shelves is a bad idea. In Moly’s world of NON-Philosophy, this is an act of abuse that the child can look to and remember as the prima facie evidence of the corruption and abuse they received while growing up in that terrible home. Sometime later, the child reaches for a product on a shelf and the mother sternly says, “NO!” The child stops. No slap involved. hmmm Some would think the child is learning self discipline and beginning to figure out the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Not Moly. Moly says that the mother is threatening violence. Another example of an immoral and abusive parent. And on it goes. In one pod cast, a teenage girl was talking to him about how she felt so helpless when her mother would “not listen to her.” She would go to her room and cry in frustration. Moly could barely contain his glee. He helped the caller to understand that her mother was committing violence against her since the only logical end of an argument with a parent is violence. Therefore it is abuse. Then he goes on and says the mother did not really love her. How could she if she treated her like that. As stupid as this is, it is real and true for those who follow UPB and FDR.
I have another one. This is priceless. Did you know that faithful believers in FDR have no problem threatening the use of force? You can refer to my report on the Philadelphia Debate for the full story. When my brother approached my son to talk to him in the lobby. He was certainly did not represent any sort of physical threat to my son. Stil, a group of FDR Molypods collected around my son to prevent his Uncle from approaching him. This group was MOST CERTAINLY showing A THREAT of violence to my brother. Now in fairness, in their warped state of consciousness, they may have actually thought my brother was a physical threat. If so, I would argue they acted morally. They were protecting their friend. But that is my view of morality. Not Moly’s. (Ironically in Moly's sloppy description of UPB, they might be behaving with an end in mind and therefore they were behaving properly. Maybe I will go into this in another post someday).
Also on that day, a Molypod approached my friend who was handing out brochures and threatened him with being removed by security if he did not stop his activity. That is really rich. They are calling on the state to suppress an opposing view. It must have been unnerving that they couldn't just ban my friend's IP address from the FDR site. I wonder if banning those who dissagree with FDR dogma is an act of violence on their part?
The third item is a suggestion to start at the beginning. Let’s do that. Moly’s early writings are instructive. It is here, where he is unfiltered. He gives his true thinking and beliefs. Ever since the Philadelphia Debate, when Moly was directly and publicly challenged, he has retreated from his real beliefs. Moly has knuckled under to the pressure of being exposed for what he is. So here is the beginning. In his early days he said things like this in his essay, “Are People just Stupid.” He honestly seems to think he is the only source of real and beneficial parental practices and thinking. Here is an excerpt: The narcissism is staggering. He seems to contend that all (maybe except for himself and Christine) parent’s don’t have a clue and he refers to John Locke as the last competent philosopher as the rationale? Cut me a break. Anyway, here is Moly in the beginning. He wrote this long before he was a father.
When raising children, parents have absolutely no idea what they’re doing. Why should children obey them? Because parents are right? Hell no – ask parents why they hold their beliefs, they don’t have a clue. How could they? The last competent philosopher was probably John Locke, over three hundred years ago. The general social stream of ideas is just muck and confusion, designed by evil people to baffle and paralyze any good souls that accidentally emerge from the sick swamps of modern thought.
Average parents can no more reinvent morality from scratch than they can build a Space Shuttle in their backyards. Still, they have to get their children to obey them – how do they do it?
Oh, the usual suspects. Guilt, shame, withdrawal, criticism, bribery, bullying, manipulation – the usual crap that has passed for parenting throughout history. Guilt, shame and bullying always rush to fill the void when logical morality loses favour, because children must be taught, and if no carrots are to be found, sticks will always just have to do.
So face it: your parents were bullies, or weak curriers of favour, or manipulative emotional infants themselves. You have no respect for them, for respect requires courage, and courage requires logical morality. You do not love them, since love demands virtue, and manipulating children into blind obedience is not at all virtuous. There are only a few possible responses to modern parents:
- Contempt
- Indifference
- Boredom
- Hatred
- Empty conformity
These are usually mixed into an over-stimulating frappe of conflicting emotions, leaving family gatherings fraught with tension, alienation, dissociation and emptiness.
For more information on Moly's early foundation, visit http:///
So to the person who made this post: From the beginning Moly has had a neurotically distorted view of abuse. When you say that UPB has nothing to do with the family, I am not so sure? The non-violence messaging of UPB is the beginning, middle and end of Moly’s method for persuading young people to leave and remain apart from their families. If you look to the beginning, it appears Moly's obsession with the idea that all parents are bad is the beginning of UPB. You may want to take a moment and get some perspective. A = A. Use your head and truly evaluate your beliefs. Try Objectivism. Try anything. Just give yourself a chance to see beyond FDR and UPB. If you look at your life and you only associate with other FDR members, this may be your first clue that something is amiss.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
How does Molyneux define “abuse”
I am getting a lot of hits on the site and a lot of comments offering some thanks and appreciation for warning them about FDR. It is gratifying to have this happen. Families are being saved. That is after all why this site exists. It doesn’t hurt that the success of this site is negatively affecting Molyneux’s donations. I have received three comments from FDR members. One suggested I was lacking in mental capacity. The other two were programmatic FDR dogma. To wit:
Adult relationships are voluntary. Even your family. If those relationships are abusive you should leave them. Blah blah blah.
This is a simple minded truism. But here is the thing. If you want to persuade someone to your belief system, the first step is to define the terms in your favor. Moly does a lot of things very well and this is one of them. He does this by defining abuse to include a range of things that is far beyond what normal person would consider abusive. To normal people, parental abuse means routine gratuitous physical violence. It can also mean routine extreme verbal abuse coupled with severe restrictions and punishments for minor misbehavior. When someone says you should break from a relationship that is abusive, this seems reasonable.
The problem with Moly is how he defines abuse. His definition of abuse is truly sad and damaging to anyone who accepts his definition. So what does Moly consider abusive? Well it is pretty much anything a parent does that could be considered unpleasant to the child. So when Moly says he only encourages leaving abusive relationships, he means that you should leave any relationship with anyone who does not toe the line of his philosophy.
For example: Did your parents take you to church? Abusive. Did you tell your kid to find a policeman if you are lost? Abusive (i.e. you taught the child to trust the state). Did the parent suggest a belief in god? Abusive How about believing in your country? Abusive Did you put your hand over your heart and stand during the playing of the national anthem? Abusive (teaching patriotism). Did you ever show anger with your child? Abusive. You get the idea. If you don’t completely toe the line of FDR dogma, you are abusive. So when Moly or his followers blather on about the axiom regarding voluntary adult relationships, you need to know how Moly defines abuse. I point you once again to the very well written and sourced commentary on “Prying them loose”
http://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-prying-them-loose/
I have my own experience and I have engaged quite a few defoo’ed parents along the way. In every case, after the initial break, the son or daughter has slowly and completely severed relationships with everyone in their lives who cannot be brought into each and every facet of the FDR belief system. They keep a relationship with their sibling until the sibling criticizes Moly or disagrees with the extreme nature of the defoo. Then the sibling is cut off. Same with friends. The reason I mention this sequence of cutting off all relationships with anyone at odds with FDR dogma, is to make the point that the ‘abuse’ argument is simply the means to the end. First you break with the family; then with friends; then isolate yourself into all things Molyneux. The real goal is to create a community of codependent donators to FDR.
Once that is done, Moly has a methodology for cementing the break. Also, from the FDR liberated site there is an excellent analysis of Moly’s perverted philosophy of (un)forgiveness. Here Moly creates the perfectly crafted, self absorbed methodology for remaining disconnected from your loved ones and friends. Very sad stuff.
http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=98
Adult relationships are voluntary. Even your family. If those relationships are abusive you should leave them. Blah blah blah.
This is a simple minded truism. But here is the thing. If you want to persuade someone to your belief system, the first step is to define the terms in your favor. Moly does a lot of things very well and this is one of them. He does this by defining abuse to include a range of things that is far beyond what normal person would consider abusive. To normal people, parental abuse means routine gratuitous physical violence. It can also mean routine extreme verbal abuse coupled with severe restrictions and punishments for minor misbehavior. When someone says you should break from a relationship that is abusive, this seems reasonable.
The problem with Moly is how he defines abuse. His definition of abuse is truly sad and damaging to anyone who accepts his definition. So what does Moly consider abusive? Well it is pretty much anything a parent does that could be considered unpleasant to the child. So when Moly says he only encourages leaving abusive relationships, he means that you should leave any relationship with anyone who does not toe the line of his philosophy.
For example: Did your parents take you to church? Abusive. Did you tell your kid to find a policeman if you are lost? Abusive (i.e. you taught the child to trust the state). Did the parent suggest a belief in god? Abusive How about believing in your country? Abusive Did you put your hand over your heart and stand during the playing of the national anthem? Abusive (teaching patriotism). Did you ever show anger with your child? Abusive. You get the idea. If you don’t completely toe the line of FDR dogma, you are abusive. So when Moly or his followers blather on about the axiom regarding voluntary adult relationships, you need to know how Moly defines abuse. I point you once again to the very well written and sourced commentary on “Prying them loose”
http://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-prying-them-loose/
I have my own experience and I have engaged quite a few defoo’ed parents along the way. In every case, after the initial break, the son or daughter has slowly and completely severed relationships with everyone in their lives who cannot be brought into each and every facet of the FDR belief system. They keep a relationship with their sibling until the sibling criticizes Moly or disagrees with the extreme nature of the defoo. Then the sibling is cut off. Same with friends. The reason I mention this sequence of cutting off all relationships with anyone at odds with FDR dogma, is to make the point that the ‘abuse’ argument is simply the means to the end. First you break with the family; then with friends; then isolate yourself into all things Molyneux. The real goal is to create a community of codependent donators to FDR.
Once that is done, Moly has a methodology for cementing the break. Also, from the FDR liberated site there is an excellent analysis of Moly’s perverted philosophy of (un)forgiveness. Here Moly creates the perfectly crafted, self absorbed methodology for remaining disconnected from your loved ones and friends. Very sad stuff.
http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=98
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)