Not hanging with people who want you dead.

I still get an occasional comment along the lines of "I have listened to Moly for X period of time and I have never heard him recommend leaving your family/friends....just a free sex no sign up blog .... blah blah.   Well here is a nice example of him doing exactly that.  The intensity of belief in his personal brand of the 'truth' makes it clear that he is serious when he holds forth that anyone who disagrees with you wants you DEAD. Message her via her website for more info when trying to use a strapless dildo for meeting and getting laid. This is the best way to start meeting women in your local area. Message today and start fucking. I have met a woman at a bar at the meet and fuck apps. Great way to get laid in Canada.

There is a moderator breaking in on occasion to point out the intellectual vacuousness of Moly's logic.  Still, Moly drives on and passionately sustains the position that you are morally bankrupt using sex apps with BBW-Dating-Sites.net if you remain associated with  anyone who disagrees with you. Why?  Because they want to KILL YOU.

Types of Dating Sites I Love!

As a lot of you know, I love finding sex online with local sluts and trashy women who want to just hookup. This has been made even easier with the invention of the Internet! When you need to hookup, just sign up and start chatting with horny women via FreeSexSites.co.uk. This is the best alternative right now! Not what you are looking for? We also have support for horny women in Australia too! Use PFlag to meet them right now for a quick fuck.

Reminder to those who doubt the cult nature of Free Domain Radio:  Making it a moral imperative to break with your family and friends in order to be truly FREE is right out of cult leader handbook.

"I can't make you see it for yourself"

The title of this post is a heart felt quote from the video posted here.  To me, it cuts through the intellectual points and proofs of criticism about Freedomain Radio.  He makes the emotional argument that is the essence of what it means to be caught in the Moly vortex.   I consider this to be a courageous person who put himself out there.  He has my thanks and respect.  Here's hoping it does some good.

A former Moly follower tells her story

This is an interesting YouTube channel for anyone who is looking for the perspective of someone who used to buy into Moly and has seen the truth of things:  It has a cool name:  bestofthebothofme

Here is the latest

I am not a cult leader. I just want you to leave your family and give me money

The comedian, Chad Fisher sent me this.  If you can handle the language (I know I can), this bit definitely has its moments.

Just to be sure. Moly's wife is guilty and he denies it.

This is classic Moly.  I don't like the facts so I am going to deny, deny, deny.

Another good news story of a Defoo ended

This is email I received recently.  The mailer was glad to have her story posted.  Specifics of identity edited out.  

Hello Edmund,

I posted on your website and sent you an email almost 5 years ago when our son defooed. Like other parents I was looking for answers and hope. Well now my son is back!!

His wife (then girlfriend) who majored in English and philosophy and very smart started pointing out discrepancies in Moly's views and noticed that Moly had a tendency to put women down. Once my son really started hearing what she was hearing they both dropped Stefan.  

She is now pregnant with our first grand child (a boy). We helped them buy a house in the area which they will be moving into in the next couple of weeks.

We don't talk about Stefan or FDR. When we first reconnected our son simply said he needed time and space to figure out who he was. An FDR friend of their's passed through town a couple of months ago and made some comment about an FDR podcast that he liked. Our son's wife made a very disparaging remark about Stefan which shut the friend's mouth very quickly.

Our son and his wife still have some views that are much more extreme than ours but my son is back and he's the person I remembered from before FDR. There were times when I never thought I'd see him again...

Thanks for being a source of knowledge and a forum for parents like me to ask questions and get answers, or at least insights, and know we are not alone

This post on FDR should have some light shined on it

  This gentleman sent me a private message recently.  Inasmuch as it is also on The FDR liberated public forum,  I suppose it is ok to give it some additional exposure.  One thing.  I did get the email recently, but I don't know the age of the original email the freedomainradio site.  Having said that, nothing much has changed in Moly world, so the sentiment/message is valid no matter when the original email was sent.  

The following mail was sent to [email protected]

Something has the last months or so bothered me. And that is that what you preach is not always in correlation to what you do. And there are quite a few question marks in your persona, as far as I can see it. And I thought I'd write a mail about it as from what I've seen on the freedomainboard (ironic name) - criticism is often handled with banning. Which is strange for someone that "values truth" and writes on his about page: "If the theories I propose are reasonable, and are supported by evidence, well and good, we have both learned something. If not, listeners such as you are quick to point out errors, which I receive with gratitude. This approach is fundamentally different from most "talk shows." I am a rigorous philosopher, and I will always bow to reason and evidence."

We could take the example of Stewart - a highly intelligent and knowledgeable guy that could have been a valid source on your site. His only "crime" was that he wasn't a fan of your book UPB - and explained in details why that was in this thread:

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/14774/124681.aspx#124681

What was his treatment because of it? A mail from you saying "Please stop posting on the FDR Board... It's neither productive nor enjoyable, and I've had a number of complaints. Sorry it didn't work out.". That's quite interesting for someone that values criticism, don't you think? And there are many more cases. I personally think this google map is very entertaining looking at:

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

Virtuous philosopher, that's what you call yourself, huh?

Another problem - or rather, another curiosity of mine is this:

How did a guy almost utterly unable to form solid relationships in his own life become the world's greatest authority for the rest of us? Doesn't that seem, oh, I don't know, odd?
You have said yourself that your childhood was completely loveless. You've also said that your attempts to form female relationships prior to Christina were dismal failures. And from an outsider's view, and listening to many old podcasts of yours - your relationship with Christina doesn't appear to be 100% healthy either.

You could of course say you do have the love of your daughter (which may be true), and that "Izzy" loves "daddles," but I also recall you saying in the past that a baby's apparent love is no more than imprinting, similar to that of baby ducks. So let's scratch Izzy from the love parade because, according to your own words, it's not real love.

The members of the FDR board have a relationship with only a persona - a public representation of Stefan Molyneux that you've created and sells to them, which I also recall that you've admited to be a construction. None of them associate with you as a real man personally, day to day.

You work alone, right? And don't seem to have a circle of friends that you carouse with, no family members you enjoy, no drinking buddies from college, no best friends from high school and so on.

And to be completely honest with you, regardless how it may sound: the closer people come to you - the more they seem to want to distant themselves from you. I obviously do not know if that is the case in real life too - but it does seem to be true on the internet and the freedomainradio. It seems that people really find you inspirational and worth their time in the beginning when they find you, but the more they delve deeper into the personality of Stefan Molyneux, the more they realize that 'everything is not what it seem to be' and move on to other sources of information.

So, dead serious, how does a guy like that get away with writing a book about relationships and the logic of love - with a straight face - without everyone else peeing themselves in laughter?

I just wanted to share that thought and you're welcome to contemplate it as much or little as you want. Consider I've seen enough times how you handle criticism, I can imagine you will see this whole mail as a "hate speech" (I don't hate you, I just don't find you to be the superiour, high moral superhero that you claim to be) that has "nothing to do with you".

I wish I could say that's my only issues with you. But far from it. Another thing is the privacy. As you know, you've consistently not practiced what you've preached when it comes to people's privacy. In many cases (all of them being cases which you did not like the poster), you've revealed their real name rather than just their username - something that doesn't match your description of privacy:

http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=23&u=11792666

Hypocrisy, once again, I'm afraid. It seems that rules are important but doesn't have to be applied to Stefan Molyneux. In particular if his ego has been hurt. Same goes for swearing, I should add. It's okay for you to lash out every now and again, but when others do it - it's called "wrong" and "unacceptable language". I could go on with more examples, but this mail is long as it is.

Speaking about ego by the way - I've seen the video "Salvation of Philosophy" and it only confirmed what I've suspected for a long time - your narcissism. I know that you don't like to be called a narcissist, in the same way a mythomaniac don't want to be called out on his lies, but I do find this something you really need to look into - if not for your community you claim to be "a very important part of Freedomainradio" (but doesn't seem to be so when it really comes down to it), but for you most importantly. I also found a response to your Salvation of Philosophy quite interesting, and that is this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9b7NheAsdc

You have said many times that you've been in therapy and that it has helped you a lot - but to be completely honest Stefan, don't you think it would be a good idea of continuing that? It does feel that most of your actions today, and what drives you, still is related in what you've called "a loveless childhood" and that you ironically are guilty of a lot of what you preached about in An elegy for Michael Jackson - which is making up and/or covering up emotional scars from your past.

It seems to be that you have become what you hate - an authority. And you have handled it in what you hate the state doing - misusing it and to benefit your own needs. And all of these points of betrayal, hypocrisy, narcissism and dishonesty adds up and the inevitable question pops up - the inevitable question that I'm quite sure many users (that both are part of "free"-domainradio and those that never join at all) ask themselves, and that is: Why bother with Stefan Molyneux?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think? Was I too harsh? Personally, I don't think you can possibly be too harsh when it comes to Stefan Molyneux. Especially as he don't mind himself to point out others "abusive", "corrupt" and "unforgivable" behavior. 

The mail contains thoughts both from myself and users of this forum (which I share). Stefan was someone I from the beginning really liked, but the more I learnt about him - the more I suspect I became. Then after signing up to the boards I only got confirmed what I already had guessed - that it was not really much of a philosophical discussion, but more of a fan base. A place where Stefan can build somewhat of a relationship with his members - and in return get them to donate their money to him. 

I suppose one of my first real warning signals (as I can remember) was a video Stefcunt did that was called Despair where he took one man's comment from his latest video and started to analyze him and basically claimed that people didn't love him. Uncalled for, and made me see Stef in a completely new light.

From then on, I found more and more things to be skeptical about. (I found Stef 2009 I believe, but never followed him on a day to day basis, more once a month or so.) And nowadays I can't stand the guy. Like posters have already pointed out on this board - Stefan Molyneux is a walking example of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

This is my first ever post on Liberating Minds. How's that for an introduction post?

Peter Joseph discusses Moly's critique of their debate.

Moly must have totally lost a debate with Peter Joseph some months ago. When he loses a debate, he always posts a follow on video on how great he did and what a fool his opponent was.  Moly pretends that he is a learned scholar.  He isn't.  He can never match up with an actual philosophy student, much less someone of the caliber of Joseph.  Which is why he has to do so many of these post debate videos.  He has to re-write history for his followers.  In this video, Joseph shows a really humorous moment.  Moly makes fun of Joseph for making up words.  OOOPs.  The made up words were a well established and well defined political philosophy concept.  You would think Moly could have looked up the term before he ridiculed his opponent.  Of course Moly sees no need for that.  He is doing the video for his sycophant followers.  He knows they will believe him no matter what he says.  It is a total shame that he is right about that.  But in this case, Peter Joseph wouldn't lay down.  Way to go Peter.  

There is quite a bit more.  But to listen to it all you kind of want to be a person who enjoys this kind of topic.  If you do, Joseph does a fine job of fully exposing things.  I particularly liked when Joseph captured Moly''s argument technique.  I believe the term was:  Hyper reductive douche baggery.  His serious point is that when Moly is faced with a serious, thoughtful and intensely complicated argument, he conjures up some simpleton analogy to respond.  I am pretty sure he does this because he is not smart enough to understand what the opponent is saying.

Great Video by Questeon

For those who have visited here before, you know that I have a great deal of admiration for www.fdrliberated.com  It is much more robust and has much more indepth analysis of Moly and FDR.  I particularly like that he properly categorizes the types of visitors to freedomainradio.  And how he properly explains Moly as a teacher (good), philosopher (below average at best), and then as a family counselor (deeply misguided, dangerous and cult like).

Here is the video

I hope you will visit FDR Liberated and the associated forum.  I also hope Questeon will offer up more video content like this.

Molyneux as a Narcissist.

Someone sent me a great podcast of the time when Moly is about to make the big move to leave his job in I.T. and go full time into Internet philosophy.  Christina is a big part of FDR's founding and ongoing operations.  She participates in 'Ask a Therapist' call in shows.  Moly says she advises him on matters psychological.  And she does an occasional joint podcasts with Moly.  But in this podcast she is resisting the idea of being a participant in the new 'full time' FDR.  I can't imagine why Moly made this private discussion with his wife public, but he did.  As Christina lays out here position that she simply did not want to participate in FDR, I had to listen in amazement at Moly's reaction.    I am paraphrasing here.  Feel free to listen to the podcast yourself if you want the complete details (FDR 724).

Moly pointed out that Christina's reluctance was a problem for his new full time endeavor. Why?  According to Moly, there would only be two reasons for her none participation.  Either "you do not believe in my efforts, which would undermine my credibility."   OR "You lack the courage to put herself out there  If that were the case, since self esteem marries equal self esteem, that would mean, (remember I am paraphrasing) I married a low self esteem person and my credibility would be shot."   I guess that since he already knew Christina's reasons, there was no reason for her to give her own.  She really should not have to give him any reasons.  IT is her free choice.  Still Moly is browbeating her and ultimately reduces the discussuion to how it makes him look.  Reminds me of the joke about the narcissist in a conversation with a long lost acquaintance.  He says, "I have been talking about myself for an hour.  How about you?  What do you think of me?"   

Anyone in a mature relationship can see the meta story behind this sort of husband/wife vignette.