General

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

JAlanKatz — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:21:45 GMT

It is because we live in a crazy society with an abusive government that psychology is so dangerous. In a crazy society, it is the job of psychology to make the sane, insane. The sane are those who have functional problems living in a crazy society, those who don't "get it." These are also the people who will be diagnosed insane, and sent to a psychologist - who must then numb their brain (or refer them to a psychiatrist to do so) and give them the tools to be insane.

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

Inquisitor — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:09:25 GMT

I found this video amusing.

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

QuestEon — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:30:28 GMT

All points very well taken. A couple thoughts...

Nitroadict:
Also, I feel the Rand comparisons, while helpful, give this Molyneux far too much credit, as posting videos online & having your own radio site can more or less shield you from outward criticism (and effectivley create a mini-universe, which would certainly help foster growth of a cult of personality).

I believe you have described what is currently happening. Within the mini-universe, Molyneux can (and does) now interpret and contextualize for his followers any external criticisms received, to his favor and without fear of clarification from the critic.

Nitroadict:
I would also point out that this Molyneux debacle is a perfect example of the inherent abuse a hierarchy presents itself, aside from the more obvious cult of personality implications.

I've described that as the most delicious pardox of the Molyneux "miniverse." One wonders, after the anarchy revolution he anticipates, how Molyneux will fit into a community he cannot control.

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

Nitroadict — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:50:16 GMT

I'm half-surprised that it seems whether or not this Molyneux is manipulative is being debated (within the overall topic of whether there is a cult involved with him); despite not reading and/or viewing his material or community, I've gotta say it sounds like ye old hat stuff to me, something that wouldn't be out of place over at the DailyKos, or at other various message boards, where some sort of cult of personalities develop a rag-tag hierarchy of sorts, which can either lead to or feed this collectivist event.

I'll give one thing for Freud though; when it comes to manipulation, his psychology is second to none, especially considering that he is a household name, driven by watered down & poorly understood (in most cases) portrayals (of his concepts & the man himself) in popular media.

Despite given said credentials regarding theory, especially with defooing (while I largely ignore Freud, I think he was on to some interesting things late in his career before he died), the man still sounds like a salesman to me, which doesn't surprise me in the least bit regarding his tactics of an "unspoken bias towards an emerging personality cult & congruent hirearchy that encourages censorship for the good of the collectivists involved".

I would not absolutley prevent myself from viewing anything he says (that has interesting ideas or merit), but the guy sounds like he has a bit of a less then honest agenda, to me.

Also, I feel the Rand comparisons, while helpful, give this Molyneux far too much credit, as posting videos online & having your own radio site can more or less shield you from outward criticism (and effectivley create a mini-universe, which would certainly help foster growth of a cult of personality).

Rand had the gumption & character to publish out in the open (granted, the internet wasn't around), & activley engage critics, despite having an 'inner circle', which to my knowledge, eventually disassembled due to relationships within said circle.

Finally, I found the event of a falling out between the father & daughter most disgusting; that such psychological mind games would tear apart a family, especially considering it was largely externally influenced (and at some point, encouraged) by Moly & Co., is disturbing.

I would also point out that this Molyneux debacle is a perfect example of the inherent abuse a hierarchy presents itself, aside from the more obvious cult of personality implications.

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

QuestEon — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:58:44 GMT

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.

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 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.

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.

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

Len Budney — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:08:34 GMT

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.

--Len.

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

MacFall — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:05:39 GMT

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.

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.

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.

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

ryanpatgray — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:56:56 GMT

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.

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

Len Budney — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:50:00 GMT

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.

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

ryanpatgray — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:07:08 GMT

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.

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

ryanpatgray — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:02:47 GMT

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.

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

Brainpolice — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:50:37 GMT

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.

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

Len Budney — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:28:30 GMT

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.

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

ryanpatgray — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:15:09 GMT

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.

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.

Re: Cult: Yay or Nay?

ryanpatgray — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:13:13 GMT

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.