Total Pageviews

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”

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.


  1. Thanks for this! Just want you to know that the fdr liberated link is not properly hyperlinked. Perhaps you can fix? :)

    1. fixed. Thanks for the notice and the feedback.