Some of you may remember the Molyneux Cult topic, and as a recent question has come up about the intentions and effects, I decided to revisit the situation by going down the checklist for what qualifies a political cult as a cult, or at least what indicates cultic behavior occurring.
Molyneux and His Cult
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
My answer would be "both". There is a degree of cultyness there, and yet then again I'm not entirely sure that it qualifies as a cult. I'm not sure if it's fair to characterize Molyneux's intentions as if he were purposefully trying to be a cult leader. On the other hand, clearly certain regular members of his board act as if they were cult members. They seem to frame all discussion and debate in the confined/limited context of his ideas rather than a more broad libertarian analysis, show a very condescending attitude to anyone coming in from "the outside" with the slightest bit of criticism or disagreement with Molyneux and they tend to parrot him verbatum. Also, sometimes there is a tendency for people to be kicked off the board merely for expressing an opinion that Stefan isn't comfortable with, not necessarily for actually trolling the board or anything like that. There most certainly is a cult of personality surrounding Molyneux.
What I personally find most disturbing is the constant use of psycho-analysis and the sort of Fruedian obcession with tieing literally everything to one's family. In a discussion about politics, economics or philosophy, Molyneux and certain members will shift the discussion to a psycho-analysis of someone expressing a certain viewpoint, trying to explore wether or not or why or how their childhood experiences are the reason why they hold a certain viewpoint. The individual in question will be poked and prodded about their personal life until they are essentially guilted into making a connection between the two and admitting to what the psycho-analyzer has projected onto them. If one pays close attention, it is always Molyneux who makes the suggestion as to what the reason is, I.E. he projects onto the subject. People are kind of shamed into submitting. Now, to be sure, Molyneux's theory about the family does make a good point. But I feel that he takes it way too far and tries to tie the family into literally everything.
It's also important to understand his concept of "defooing". Now, this concept is not quite as cut and dry as some may percieve it. Molyneux is not necessarily saying that everyone should completely disassociate with all non-libertarians or all people who don't accept Molyneux's words as absolute truth. The basic concept being defooing makes quite a bit of sense. If your family and friends and loved ones are mentally or physically abusive towards you, and if they refuse to engage you when you try to discuss matters of virtue and ethics with them, there may be a certain point by which you should disassociate from them. I don't necessarily have a problem with that idea. However, I made a post at the board a long time ago trying to express that I think Stef is too liberal in his suggestions that people defoo. He's far too quick to conclude that someone should disassociate from their family. And some people, particularly young people, do not possess the dependance, economic or otherwise, necessary to deal with defooing. And you'll find that most of the people targeted by Molyneux are young and vunerable.
So, is it a cult? Maybe. It certainly does possess some disturbing cult-like features. There are some similarities to what went on in Rand's old circle, which most defintely was a cult at one point at least. I'm not entirely sure if it qualifies as a cult though.
I submitted a reply to the original post and it was denied by a moderator. Why? The reason given was "Already another thread on same topic." Then why allow the original post, the other reply, or the thread in general?
[Edit] hmmm this time it posted without going through a moderator. I will attempt to edit this message by adding my previous post.
I think a large number of FDR behaviors fall under the definition of a cult. I think FDR is far more "culty" now that it was 2 years ago (if it was at all, back then). Check out this thread, which talks about cult definitions and how closely FDR is.
I think he is a fruit loop. Plus, his voice really grates my nerves. I am thinking he was a Jehovahs Witness at some point. Gives me that same kind of feeling.
The guy posts here, so can we at least be respectful? I don't want to have to moderate posts in this thread. Thanks.
Inquisitor:The guy posts here, so can we at least be respectful? I don't want to have to moderate posts in this thread. Thanks.
I apologize for any slurs used in this thread, though I do not see where they have been used.In any case, however, if Molyneux was to be concerned about stones, he would not have cast the first one - especially from the rooftop of his house made of glass.
Inquisitor: The guy posts here, so can we at least be respectful? I don't want to have to moderate posts in this thread. Thanks.
I tried to be as fair as I could. Some of the accusations against him are a bit misleading (like a misunderstanding of what his "defooing" concept really means). However, I think there are some rather obvious strange tendencies going on at his board at least, and parts of his approach deserve scrutiny.
I found Niccolo's attacks on Stef with respect to religion to be dead wrong. I'm pretty much in line with his views on religion myself. But the criticisms with respect to the cult factor, or at least the obcession with the family and psycho-analysis, I find to be pretty straight-foreward.
My comment was in reference to IrishOutlaw's post.
The term "cult" in the sense you are using the term usually refers to an organization that is hard to leave or tries to control your life - like the state. There are some religions that I think qualify as cults in existence today. The Church of Scientology I think certainly qualifies. They condemn psychologists and urge people to avoid them. One reason I think is that a qualified psychologist can pick up on signs of brainwashing and other trauma. Molyneux on the other hand actually encourages many people to visit a psychologist if they have had some kind of trauma. He does not have a list of "approved" psychologists either. What matters to him is that the person is qualified. If Molyneux were really brainwashing people would he be urging many of his listeners to go to a psychologist he has no control over? Probably not.
Also, I would like to point out that Freedomainradio is almost entirely an Internet phenomenon. There have been very few "meetups" of any sort and they were certainly not attended by a majority of members. It is impossible for him to cage people into some sort of compound. The only "punishment" available to him is banning a member from the boards. This is called free association.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Inquisitor:My comment was in reference to IrishOutlaw's post.
LOL. I sure didn't think any of that was over the top. Especially considering some of the insults that fly around on here. If he posts here (I think he just trolls and spams personally) than he is more than welcome to compare me to breakfast cereal and say I remind him of an ex-Jehovahs Witness. I can handle it.
If Molyneux were really brainwashing people would he be urging many of his listeners to go to a psychologist he has no control over? Probably not.
I like Molyneaux's writing, but never listened much to his podcast. In it he reads his essays as if he were... reading essays, and I'd rather read them myself. I've never been to his site, and so never fought with his listeners or been referred to a shrink. I think that makes me a fairly impartial observer.
The earlier comparison to Ayn Rand resonates with me: if anything, we're talking about a "personality cult," not a cult in the mind-controlled false-religion sense. Sometimes admiration reaches such a pitch that we not only imitate its object--which is the sincerest form of flattery after all--but we also judge others by their conformity. In that context, I'd conjecture that often referring people to a shrink is probably a bullying response to non-conformity.
Not that it's wrong ever to refer someone to a shrink. I do it myself. But as an ignorant layman, one should only make such a referral with a pretty solid foundation. When I do it, I'm willing to bet money that the person has a schizo-affective disorder. Every forum seems to have at least one schizoid, but it's doubtful that FDR has a flock of them. So most likely the accusation is based on some disagreement with the group, which is interpreted as a mental defect, and then rationalized with an unqualified diagnosis of mental illness. The whole interaction is non-aggression, but it is bullying in a passive-aggressive sort of way.
I'd take that as a good working definition of a "cult," by the way: equating disagreement with mental defect.
--Len.
ryanpatgray: The term "cult" in the sense you are using the term usually refers to an organization that is hard to leave or tries to control your life - like the state. There are some religions that I think qualify as cults in existence today. The Church of Scientology I think certainly qualifies. They condemn psychologists and urge people to avoid them. One reason I think is that a qualified psychologist can pick up on signs of brainwashing and other trauma. Molyneux on the other hand actually encourages many people to visit a psychologist if they have had some kind of trauma. He does not have a list of "approved" psychologists either. What matters to him is that the person is qualified. If Molyneux were really brainwashing people would he be urging many of his listeners to go to a psychologist he has no control over? Probably not. Also, I would like to point out that Freedomainradio is almost entirely an Internet phenomenon. There have been very few "meetups" of any sort and they were certainly not attended by a majority of members. It is impossible for him to cage people into some sort of compound. The only "punishment" available to him is banning a member from the boards. This is called free association.
Hahaha! Qualified like Molyneux?No, Molyneux does not have the convenience of being with a large number of people and he can only trap a few, however, Molyneux's is a cult in its earliest stages. Jim Jones could not trap his cult members in the beginning either.Never heard a man speak like this man before. Never heard a man speak like this man before. All the days of my life ever since I've been born, never heard a man speak like this man before.
You really should read Voegelin:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Politics-Walgreen-Foundation-Lecture/dp/0226861147/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207259687&sr=8-6
Basically, when people don't believe in religions anymore, they start to believe in political religions. Marxism had every attribute of a religion: prophets, holy books, sacred symbols, dogmas etc. And for example these days Obama's speeches are received by his fans quite like a religious experience.
Len Budney: The earlier comparison to Ayn Rand resonates with me: if anything, we're talking about a "personality cult," not a cult in the mind-controlled false-religion sense. Sometimes admiration reaches such a pitch that we not only imitate its object--which is the sincerest form of flattery after all--but we also judge others by their conformity. In that context, I'd conjecture that often referring people to a shrink is probably a bullying response to non-conformity.
Quite the opposite actually. This podcast may give you a better understanding of what it is he actually does - in a nutshell:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1024_Stefs_Psych_Theories_Nutshelled.mp3
Miklos Hollender: Basically, when people don't believe in religions anymore, they start to believe in political religions. Marxism had every attribute of a religion: prophets, holy books, sacred symbols, dogmas etc. And for example these days Obama's speeches are received by his fans quite like a religious experience.
Faith in the state is a religion. The flag (whether rightside up or upside down) is a sacred symbol. But Molyneux does not have faith in the state. He opposes the concepts of both Earthly and divine political authority.
ryanpatgray: Miklos Hollender: Basically, when people don't believe in religions anymore, they start to believe in political religions. Marxism had every attribute of a religion: prophets, holy books, sacred symbols, dogmas etc. And for example these days Obama's speeches are received by his fans quite like a religious experience. Faith in the state is a religion. The flag (whether rightside up or upside down) is a sacred symbol. But Molyneux does not have faith in the state. He opposes the concepts of both Earthly and divine political authority.
Yea. While I do think that many secular people make the mistake of adopting secular or worldly deities in place of the formal concept of a god (which I recently argued here), it does not logically follow that they should and it is not a universal thing that atheists do. Not all atheists fall into that trap. And Stef most certainly is not a statist, and makes an interesting connection between religiosity and statism.
ryanpatgray: Len Budney: The earlier comparison to Ayn Rand resonates with me: if anything, we're talking about a "personality cult," not a cult in the mind-controlled false-religion sense. Sometimes admiration reaches such a pitch that we not only imitate its object--which is the sincerest form of flattery after all--but we also judge others by their conformity. In that context, I'd conjecture that often referring people to a shrink is probably a bullying response to non-conformity. Quite the opposite actually. This podcast may give you a better understanding of what it is he actually does - in a nutshell:http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1024_Stefs_Psych_Theories_Nutshelled.mp3
Need I point out that referring others to scripture for answers smacks of cultishness?
In any case, can you sum up? I'm unwilling to invest the time to listen to the MP3.
No he doesn't, he just wishes for these concepts to be applied to himself - like any narcissist.
Brainpolice:Yea. While I do think that many secular people make the mistake of adopting secular or worldly deities in place of the formal concept of a god (which I recently argued here), it does not logically follow that they should and it is not a universal thing that atheists do. Not all atheists fall into that trap. And Stef most certainly is not a statist, and makes an interesting connection between religiosity and statism.
What? That faith in God equates to faith in the state?Heh
Len Budney: ryanpatgray: Len Budney: The earlier comparison to Ayn Rand resonates with me: if anything, we're talking about a "personality cult," not a cult in the mind-controlled false-religion sense. Sometimes admiration reaches such a pitch that we not only imitate its object--which is the sincerest form of flattery after all--but we also judge others by their conformity. In that context, I'd conjecture that often referring people to a shrink is probably a bullying response to non-conformity. Quite the opposite actually. This podcast may give you a better understanding of what it is he actually does - in a nutshell: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1024_Stefs_Psych_Theories_Nutshelled.mp3 Need I point out that referring others to scripture for answers smacks of cultishness? In any case, can you sum up? I'm unwilling to invest the time to listen to the MP3. --Len.
ryanpatgray: Len Budney: The earlier comparison to Ayn Rand resonates with me: if anything, we're talking about a "personality cult," not a cult in the mind-controlled false-religion sense. Sometimes admiration reaches such a pitch that we not only imitate its object--which is the sincerest form of flattery after all--but we also judge others by their conformity. In that context, I'd conjecture that often referring people to a shrink is probably a bullying response to non-conformity. Quite the opposite actually. This podcast may give you a better understanding of what it is he actually does - in a nutshell: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1024_Stefs_Psych_Theories_Nutshelled.mp3
If I were curious as to what Christians actually believe, The Bible would be a good source of information. If I were curious as to what Muslims believed, the Koran would be a good source of information. If I were curious about Mormonism I would read the Doctrine and Covenants. Likewise, if someone wants to know what Molyneux's views on psychology are it would be very enlightening to listen to him put them into practice. This is not cultish, it is common sense behavior to go to the source to find out what someone believes rather than accepting the information second hand. It makes far more sense to go to Buddhist Scriptures to find out what Buddhists actually believe than it does to read a book about Buddhism written by a Fire & Brimstone Evangelical Christian preacher - unless your goal is to confirm what you already believe about Buddhism.
The podcast I link to is an interview with a 21 year old Objectivist. In the interview he puts his views on psychology into practice. In it you also will hear about some of the differences between his views and those of Objectivism. He also talks about his views of bullying, obedience and conformity - views very different from what you assume about him.
Likewise, if someone wants to know what Molyneux's views on psychology are it would be very enlightening to listen to him put them into practice.
Of course! Except for one niggling problem: I don't actually care. Certainly not enough to listen to an MP3--which presumably would take me half an hour, though I also don't care enough to find out how long it is. I'm willing to listen to your justification of Molyneaux's psychologizing, but I'm nowhere near motivated enough to spend much effort on it.
He also talks about his views of bullying, obedience and conformity - views very different from what you assume about him.
This is a good time to repeat my request for a synopsis.
In any case, unless he's qualified to be diagnosing people, OR confines his comments to the obviously disturbed, I would take any self-justification in that area with a lot of salt. Rand would have indignantly denied that she expected conformity of her followers too--even while they smoked her brand of cigarettes and spoke with thick Russian accents. It's probable that Molyneaux similarly decries conformity yet diagnoses disagreement as mental illness. It's possible that's not what he does, but anyone offering amateur diagnoses is certainly suspect.
Len Budney: Likewise, if someone wants to know what Molyneux's views on psychology are it would be very enlightening to listen to him put them into practice. Of course! Except for one niggling problem: I don't actually care. Certainly not enough to listen to an MP3--which presumably would take me half an hour, though I also don't care enough to find out how long it is. I'm willing to listen to your justification of Molyneaux's psychologizing, but I'm nowhere near motivated enough to spend much effort on it.
I find something curious. You claim you do not care and yet you pass judgment and post about it. I do not make posts judging who I think will win the next college basketball matchup because I honestly do not care. I have no emotional investment in the matter.
Len Budney: In any case, unless he's qualified to be diagnosing people, OR confines his comments to the obviously disturbed, I would take any self-justification in that area with a lot of salt.
What is your definition of qualified? Does your definition revolve around a piece of paper issued by a government agency? If so, Freud would not have been qualified.
Len Budney: This is a good time to repeat my request for a synopsis.
Bullying, in his view involves the use or threat of force. TO be truly effective the person doing the bullying must have some sort of power whether emotional, legal or physical over the person who is being bullied. An abusive parent can have such power over a child. Parents (at least until the teenage years) are usually physically stronger and larger their children. They have the ability to withhold privileges or in extreme cases even food from the child. Bullying is possible. The person Molnyneux interviews in that podcast was apparently bullied by her step father. The state has a monopoly on the use of physical force. The state can jail people or even kill them. Bullying by the state is possible. Molyneux has no such power. The only power he has is over his own podcasts and his message board. That is it. He has no army, he has no navy, he has no court system, he has no jails.
Len Budney: Rand would have indignantly denied that she expected conformity of her followers too--even while they smoked her brand of cigarettes and spoke with thick Russian accents.
There may be some people who go to such extremes. It is possible some talk in an odd mix of British and Canadian accent (he lived part of his early life in the UK). There are also some celebrity watchers who dress like their favorite Hollywood stars. Some sports fans buy expensive shoes because their favorite players wear them on the court. Molyneux does nothing to encourage this behavior and in any case it is the choice of the imitator not the choice of Molyneux. I think we would all agree it would be both absurd and immoral for Molyneux to use physical force to stop such behavior. He does not have the ability to stop it even if he wanted to (assuming it even exists).
ryanpatgray:. . .But Molyneux does not have faith in the state. He opposes the concepts of both Earthly and divine political authority.
But he does have a Faith. His Faith is in "reason" - what he regards as logically correct thinking. His particular doctrine is as contingent on a statement of faith in No God - something that is unprovable - as mine is on a statement of faith in Jesus Christ - equally unprovable.
Logic, ego, wealth, the state, knowledge, pleasure, or a deity... EVERYONE serves a god, even if they will never admit to themselves that a god is what they serve.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall: ryanpatgray:. . .But Molyneux does not have faith in the state. He opposes the concepts of both Earthly and divine political authority. But he does have a Faith. His Faith is in "reason" - what he regards as logically correct thinking. His particular doctrine is as contingent on a statement of faith in No God - something that is unprovable - as mine is on a statement of faith in Jesus Christ - equally unprovable. Logic, ego, wealth, the state, knowledge, pleasure, or a deity... EVERYONE serves a god, even if they will never admit to themselves that a god is what they serve.
Faith is the acceptance of something without evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim. If I claim that the New York Stock Exchange is manipulated by green orks living on Venus the burden would be upon me to prove this. It would be logical for you to NOT believe this if I had no proof other than a book that makes this claim.
As for your claim that everyone serves a god I will take the ignostic approach (different from agnostic) and say that before we can have a rational argument about the existence of God we first need to define what it is you mean by "God". Some pantheists would say that by God they mean "the entire universe". I would have to admit the entire universe exists. Is this what you mean by God? Otherwise, if you are saying these other things are "little gods" the meaning of "god" is diluted to nothingness.
ryanpatgray:Faith is the acceptance of something without evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim. If I claim that the New York Stock Exchange is manipulated by green orks living on Venus the burden would be upon me to prove this. It would be logical for you to NOT believe this if I had no proof other than a book that makes this claim.
The only true thing that a person can say, without an invocation of faith, about something that cannot be disproven is that you do not know whether it exists. The natural, logical compliment to that fact is that the only true thing that a person can say, without an invocation of faith, about something that cannot be DISproven is that you do not know whether it exists.
You can say "there is no scientific evidence of the supernatural", and as far as you know be correct. But if you then conclude that, because you have never seen evidence of God, that He does not exist, you are making a statement of faith. Molyneux says "THERE IS NO GOD". That is a statement of faith, and one upon which his humanist doctrine relies heavily.
My definition of a god is something that a person consciously pursues, upon whose pursuit one bases one's principled decisions and actions, and for which a person will dogmatically defend against anything that challenges the validity of that person's pursuit of that thing.
Somewhere along the way, faith takes a role.
I don't think this is a bad thing. I think it's neutral. It is simply something that all human beings do.
MacFall: But if you then conclude that, because you have never seen evidence of God, that He does not exist, you are making a statement of faith. Molyneux says "THERE IS NO GOD". That is a statement of faith, and one upon which his humanist doctrine relies heavily..
If I say "THERE IS NO TOOTH FAIRY" is this a statement of faith?
MacFall: My definition of a god is something that a person consciously pursues, upon whose pursuit one bases one's principled decisions and actions, and for which a person will dogmatically defend against anything that challenges the validity of that person's pursuit of that thing. Somewhere along the way, faith takes a role. I don't think this is a bad thing. I think it's neutral. It is simply something that all human beings do.
Interesting. Is Austian Economics a god in your view?
I find something curious. You claim you do not care and yet you pass judgment and post about it.
If you reread my original post, I didn't pass judgment at all. I made it pretty clear that I was making a general remark about referring others to psychologists. I made it equally clear that I've never seen Molyneaux do such a thing, because I've never participated in his forum, and don't care to. There's nothing curious about my indifference: I was curious enough to read a thread on a forum I already frequent; but I was not interested enough to make a hobby out of researching Mr. Molyneaux.
Bullying, in his view involves the use or threat of force.
Reread my original post, and you'll realize I already covered that. I firmly declared his alleged behavior "non-aggressive," which means it can't be bullying in the literal sense. I then used the word "bullying," which I enclosed in quotes, to indicate that I was being figurative. In other words, referring you to a shrink, while not bullying per se, has a certain psychological effect. Similar to the effect of my telling you that you're ugly, stupid and have no penis.
Which I would never tell you, of course. But ape-descended life-forms have the damndest habit of reacting to rough talk in the same way they would react to present threats. Some humans can overcome that reaction by intellect, training and a firearm inside the waistband at 4 o'clock. Most perceive that brand of nonaggression as aggression. A perception that quote-unquote "bullies" often exploit.
Molyneaux allegedly refers people, frequently, to a psychologist. Apparently he is indeed referring to a licensed practitioner, though you suggest that I'd be blameworthy for doing the same. But in any case, that's not my definition of qualified. The term is somewhat fuzzy, but involves things like traiining, and experience dealing with the mentally ill, and a track record of actually helping them.
I'll sum up. Anyone who regularly refers others to a shrink, without suitable experience to be diagnosing mental illness like that, is assuredly exhibiting passive-aggression. Passive, because he isn't using force or the threat of force. Aggression, because he experiences a satisfaction comparable to having smacked his opponent in the jaw. The satisfaction arises from his evolutionary history, wherein "pushy" behaviors are experienced by both participants as if they were actual aggression. Thus the one referred to counseling feels threatened, and the one referring him knows that, and so gains satisfaction.
Oh, and he usually doesn't know what he's talking about. The folks he's referring to counseling may or may not need it, and usually don't need it for the reasons claimed. He's recommending a shrink as a passive-aggressive "punishment" for disagreeing with him.
Molyneux does nothing to encourage this behavior and in any case it is the choice of the imitator not the choice of Molyneux. I think we would all agree it would be both absurd and immoral for Molyneux to use physical force to stop such behavior.
Quite so. But I point it out only as an objective fact. The act of imitating demonstrates an unreasoning component in the followers' psyches. And the act of (allegedly) getting off on it would constitute hypocrisy in the personality at the center of the cult.
ryanpatgray:If I say "THERE IS NO TOOTH FAIRY" is this a statement of faith?
That's not really the same thing. There is not only no evidence that the tooth fairy exists, there is also positive evidence that it does NOT exist. The tooth fairy does not exist, but that does not mean that there can be no such thing as a supernatural creature (an angel or something like that). Or another analogy: the Loch Ness Monster almost certainly does not exist, but that hardly proves that there are no submarine leviathan creatures. Just as there exists positive evidence that particular beliefs of particular religions are false, but it does not mean that all religion is false.
Austian Economics a god in your view?
No, because Austrian Economics is not a font of principle, nor does it require an ounce of faith to believe - just sufficient understanding. A system of ethics, on the other hand, can be, though isn't necessarily.
Len Budney: Similar to the effect of my telling you that you're ugly, stupid and have no penis.
There is, unfortunately, a stigma attached to seeing a psychologist in some quarters. There should not be. I would say this is far more similar to telling someone to go get an annual checkup from his or her physician. If the doctor tells you are fine, that's great! You obviously have been taking care of yourself, getting plenty or exercise and eating your Wheaties. However, if you have something physically wrong with you it is a good idea to know what it is.
Len Budney: Oh, and he usually doesn't know what he's talking about. The folks he's referring to counseling may or may not need it, and usually don't need it for the reasons claimed. He's recommending a shrink as a passive-aggressive "punishment" for disagreeing with him.
Again, if the psychologist says there is nothing wrong with you that is great! I think it is absurd to have a stigma attached to seeing a psychologist. I think we would all agree human society is insane right now. We receive mixed messages about what is right and wrong. We are told that stealing is wrong (unless it is someone employed by government who does this). We are told we shouldn't be peeping toms (but it is OK for government to spy on you.) We are told it is wrong to kill (but it is OK for government employees to do this.) There is bound to be a widespread psychological effect from all of these mixed messages.
ryanpatgray:Molyneux does nothing to encourage this behavior and in any case it is the choice of the imitator not the choice of Molyneux. I think we would all agree it would be both absurd and immoral for Molyneux to use physical force to stop such behavior.
Len Budney: Quite so. But I point it out only as an objective fact. The act of imitating demonstrates an unreasoning component in the followers' psyches. And the act of (allegedly) getting off on it would constitute hypocrisy in the personality at the center of the cult.
Whenever you have a sufficiently large number of people in a movement of any sort you will have at least some unreasoning people who are or who claim to be a part of that movement. The larger the movement the more such people exist. There is a thread active at the time of this writing revolving around the issue of racist libertarians. There probably are some racist libertarians. By no means are they anywhere close to the majority but they probably exist in some number. Would the existence of racist libertarians nullify the validity of libertarianism in general? Does the existence of the Christian Identity Movement in-and-of-itself invalidate Christianity?
MacFall: That's not really the same thing. There is not only no evidence that the tooth fairy exists, there is also positive evidence that it does NOT exist.
There is not only no evidence that God (as described in the Christian Bible at least) exists, there is also positive evidence that he does NOT exist. There are numerous factual errors, contradictions and absurdities in the Christian Bible. If you want to describe God in some other way (i.e. the Pantheist example I use earlier in this thread) that is another question. But as for the God described in the Christian Bible there is positive evidence he does not exist.
MacFall: No, because Austrian Economics is not a font of principle,
Carl Menger would disagree.
http://www.mises.org/etexts/menger/principles.asp
MacFall: nor does it require an ounce of faith to believe - just sufficient understanding. A system of ethics, on the other hand, can be, though isn't necessarily.
The philosophical conversation Molyneux is holding does not require an ounce of faith to believe - Just sufficient understanding. His system of ethics does not require an ounce of faith to believe - just sufficient understanding.
MacFall: ryanpatgray: If I say "THERE IS NO TOOTH FAIRY" is this a statement of faith? That's not really the same thing. There is not only no evidence that the tooth fairy exists, there is also positive evidence that it does NOT exist. The tooth fairy does not exist, but that does not mean that there can be no such thing as a supernatural creature (an angel or something like that). Or another analogy: the Loch Ness Monster almost certainly does not exist, but that hardly proves that there are no submarine leviathan creatures. Just as there exists positive evidence that particular beliefs of particular religions are false, but it does not mean that all religion is false. Austian Economics a god in your view? No, because Austrian Economics is not a font of principle, nor does it require an ounce of faith to believe - just sufficient understanding. A system of ethics, on the other hand, can be, though isn't necessarily.
ryanpatgray: If I say "THERE IS NO TOOTH FAIRY" is this a statement of faith?
I have replied to this post but (probably because I included links) it is "pending moderation".
Edit: This reply has now been posted. It is posted earlier in this thread than this post.
There is, unfortunately, a stigma attached to seeing a psychologist in some quarters.
Yep. And I assure you, anyone who goes around referring people to psychologists knows of this stigma, and is intentionally invoking it to belittle those with whom he disagrees.
I'll have to add that, yes, I don't trust most shrinks. I find them to be in a position that can easily be used to manipulate people and project onto them. The subject of the psychologist may be too easily suggestable. The psychologist is in an easily abusable position of power over their subject. As for psychiatry rather than psychology, I have even less trust in psychiatrists than psychologists, as I see them as being little more than state-licensed drug dealers who's job is to find something to put you on and make a diagnosis regaurdless of wether or not one is truly merited. The incentive is not to accurately ascertain the patient's problems and suggest a real solution, but rather, to invent problems where they might not exist, label the patient and quickly put them on some obscure drug in order to pacify them.
Brainpolice: I'll have to add that, yes, I don't trust most shrinks. I find them to be in a position that can easily be used to manipulate people and project onto them. The subject of the psychologist may be too easily suggestable. The psychologist is in an easily abusable position of power over their subject. As for psychiatry rather than psychology, I have even less trust in psychiatrists than psychologists, as I see them as being little more than state-licensed drug dealers who's job is to find something to put you on and make a diagnosis regaurdless of wether or not one is truly merited. The incentive is not to accurately ascertain the patient's problems and suggest a real solution, but rather, to invent problems where they might not exist, label the patient and quickly put them on some obscure drug in order to pacify them.
As for psychiatrists I agree with you for the most part. But psychologists only have as much power over you as you give them (unless they are working for a court system or something of theat sort). If you feel uncomfortable with a psychologist you can just walk out.
Len Budney: There is, unfortunately, a stigma attached to seeing a psychologist in some quarters. Yep. And I assure you, anyone who goes around referring people to psychologists knows of this stigma, and is intentionally invoking it to belittle those with whom he disagrees. --Len.
Let us suppose that we lived in a society where there was a huge stigma attached to women having mammograms. And (hypothetically) you knew that women in your family were far more likely to die of *** cancer than the general population. You also (hypothetically) knew that they will not get a mammogram or even do a self exam unless prodded by you (no one else is willing to prod them). Would it be responsible or irresponsible for you to urge them to get a mammogram? Would you call this punishment?
Edit: I note that yet again I was censored. In case you cannot get it from the context the stars refer to a commonly used word for human mammary glands. The word starred out starts with the letter "B". This is not a bad word to most of humanity.
Let us suppose that we lived in a society where there was a huge stigma attached to women having mammograms.
None of your remarks changes the fact. Whoever goes around habitually referring people to psychologists is NOT a crusader for mental health. He is intentionally invoking the associated stigma against those who disagree with him. Rest assured.
So far I've refrained from saying that Mr. Molyneaux does this. Since I'm not interested in visiting his site, I have no idea. But it's interesting that rather than deny it, you attempt to justify it.
Len Budney: Let us suppose that we lived in a society where there was a huge stigma attached to women having mammograms. None of your remarks changes the fact. Whoever goes around habitually referring people to psychologists is NOT a crusader for mental health. He is intentionally invoking the associated stigma against those who disagree with him. Rest assured. So far I've refrained from saying that Mr. Molyneaux does this. Since I'm not interested in visiting his site, I have no idea. But it's interesting that rather than deny it, you attempt to justify it. --Len.
It is not because people disagree with him that he refers people to psychologists. He refers many people who DO agree with him. He himself has been to a psychologist. We live in a crazy society with an abusive government, abusive public schools and far too many abusive parents. If you lived in a war zone your chances of being physically injured at some point in your life would be quite high. We live in the psychological equivalent of a war zone.
ryanpatgray:There is not only no evidence that God (as described in the Christian Bible at least) exists, there is also positive evidence that he does NOT exist
As some believe He exists (those who believe that the Bible is literally true, word-for-word, which many Christians including myself do not.
...as for the God described in the Christian Bible there is positive evidence he does not exist.
Assuming that the Bible (specifically the Old Testament) is literally, factually true and not allegory and poetry, which much of it certainly is.
MacFall: No, because Austrian Economics is not a font of principle, Carl Menger would disagree. http://www.mises.org/etexts/menger/principles.asp
And I don't agree that Menger's ideas about it are necessarily correct. Even though I believe in libertarian ethics as being morally correct, I believe in Mises's idea of wertfreiheit when it comes to economic theory.
Not true at all. Molyneux's doctrine is dependent on the non-existence of diety and the supernatural, which is a very broad and very bold statement of faith.
And a complete waste of time. Libertarians are mighty thin on the ground, to go around alienating roughly half your allies.
In my view, whether Molyneux is developing a cult or not is beside the point. (I don't think he is, for what it's worth.)
What is more to the point (to me), is to what degree becoming successful selling one guy's philosophy changes that philosophy. Molyneux receives 100% of his earnings from donations to freedomainradio, sales of his books, and sales of freedomainradio "gear." Theoretically, fine. But there are plenty of Web sites for people to talk about philosophy, economics, etc. Within that group, how does one create a Web site that generates enough revenue from one guy's intellectual output to support Molyneux and spouse and (I believe) an employee?
Part of the answer is through force of personality and salesmanship, which Molyneux has mastered in his prior jobs as salesman. The other part is continually re-crafting the Web site to increase its apparent value. By necessity, any first-time visitor must encounter a league of FDR cheerleaders who positively talk about how FDR has changed their lives, which hopefully will encourage the visitor to join and begin donating as well.
At the same time, those cheerleaders negatively diminish any criticisms that may appear on the board. One of the reasons that you find few people criticizing Molyneux's core view within FDR is that they are almost immediately IP banned after posting such criticisms. It is not because the criticisms are without merit. In a site that pursues the truth, they would be welcome challenges that enable the refinement of thought. But at FDR, they simply tarnish the perceived value of the site and must be swept aside as flyspecks on a shopwindow.
As a result, the Molyneux philosophy (if there is one) becomes no longer a single-minded pursuit, but a transactional product. He's not writing screenplays or fiction, ala Rand, he's running a community of people that he must keep engaged, happy, and donating. How can this not have a deleterious impact on the original objective--the unfettered pursuit of truth?
One thing it does do is set into motion some of the more creepy elements that give FDR a cult-like feel.
Brainpolice: What I personally find most disturbing is the constant use of psycho-analysis and the sort of Fruedian obcession with tieing literally everything to one's family...The basic concept being defooing makes quite a bit of sense. If your family and friends and loved ones are mentally or physically abusive towards you, and if they refuse to engage you when you try to discuss matters of virtue and ethics with them, there may be a certain point by which you should disassociate from them. I don't necessarily have a problem with that idea. However, I made a post at the board a long time ago trying to express that I think Stef is too liberal in his suggestions that people defoo. He's far too quick to conclude that someone should disassociate from their family. And some people, particularly young people, do not possess the dependance, economic or otherwise, necessary to deal with defooing. And you'll find that most of the people targeted by Molyneux are young and vunerable.
What I personally find most disturbing is the constant use of psycho-analysis and the sort of Fruedian obcession with tieing literally everything to one's family...The basic concept being defooing makes quite a bit of sense. If your family and friends and loved ones are mentally or physically abusive towards you, and if they refuse to engage you when you try to discuss matters of virtue and ethics with them, there may be a certain point by which you should disassociate from them. I don't necessarily have a problem with that idea. However, I made a post at the board a long time ago trying to express that I think Stef is too liberal in his suggestions that people defoo. He's far too quick to conclude that someone should disassociate from their family. And some people, particularly young people, do not possess the dependance, economic or otherwise, necessary to deal with defooing. And you'll find that most of the people targeted by Molyneux are young and vunerable.
The basic concept of defooing makes sense, for the cases of extreme abuse where there is no chance for a healthy relationship. But it is being employed by an amateur psychologist who has stated on his site: "Deep down, I believe there are no good parents out there." All you have to do is hang out on the site for a number of months and listen to a ton of podcasts. After awhile, you piece together the truth that Molyneux believes just about everyone who accepts the principles of FDR should defoo from their statist and/or Higher Power-believing families.
And yes, tragically--most of the people he targets are young and vulnerable.
ryanpatgray: He does not have a list of "approved" psychologists either. What matters to him is that the person is qualified. If Molyneux were really brainwashing people would he be urging many of his listeners to go to a psychologist he has no control over? Probably not.
He does not have a list of "approved" psychologists either. What matters to him is that the person is qualified. If Molyneux were really brainwashing people would he be urging many of his listeners to go to a psychologist he has no control over? Probably not.
He does suggest asking prospective psychologists about their position on Alice Miller. But once again, the practice here rarely follows the preaching. Pick almost any podcast in which Molyneux interacts with a listener. He's the one doing all the psychoanalyzing.
Len Budney: ...None of your remarks changes the fact. Whoever goes around habitually referring people to psychologists is NOT a crusader for mental health. He is intentionally invoking the associated stigma against those who disagree with him. Rest assured. So far I've refrained from saying that Mr. Molyneaux does this. Since I'm not interested in visiting his site, I have no idea. But it's interesting that rather than deny it, you attempt to justify it.
...None of your remarks changes the fact. Whoever goes around habitually referring people to psychologists is NOT a crusader for mental health. He is intentionally invoking the associated stigma against those who disagree with him. Rest assured.
You are correct; Molyneux employs this technique exactly as you suggest, and frequently. Examples of this are many and easy to find on the site. One that immediately comes to mind was a post from a father of a Molyneux patient/follower/victim. Despite the fact that she had achieved a normal adult relationship with her father, she defoo'ed in what has become the typical way for members, without a single word. No fight. No warning. Just gone.
When her father realized what had happened, he composed a post entitled the "Parent's side of the equation." He laid himself bare all in the hopes of having a single conversation with his daughter, pleading "I know I made many mistakes, but if there was any indication of abuse, there would have been serious action taken...I don’t know what to do. I am lost."
If he had known the site better, the father would have been aware that they seem to take a little pleasure in the parent's thrashing around like that. Molyneux summed up the guy's reasoning, incorrectly, and ended it with: "I can only suggest to you -- very strongly -- that you get yourself into some therapy immediately, so that you can begin to examine some of the difficulties you have understanding your family history, and your daughters experience of it. Please understand that this is not a debate. Please do not post here again until you have spent some months at least in therapy."
It's a very common way to dispatch dissenters on the site.