GilesStratton: Nitroadict:Anyways, I'm sure the Anti-Molyneux fan boys in the community will have some nice schadefreude to read, I wonder about whom you may be speaking? I'm in two minds about this article. On the one hand it is a silly article and an unfair one at that, on the other it just reinforces everything I already know about Molyneux, especially his anti religion, anti family bullshit. I have no sympathy for the boy, I don't really have any sympathy for his parents either. The standard of parenting has dropped significantly, as the state has assumed the role of parent in a number of areas, not to mention the countless other ways in which it has weakened the family structure. The fools at FDR don't really realise that without the state, the family would be the prominent institution. These silly Molynoids are an embarassment and just help give everybody the impression that libertarians are a childish cult who reject anybody telling them what to do, even if it is their best interest and non coercive in nature. The left libertarians need to stop conflating libertarianism with cultural marxism. In any case, these FDR folk are a bunch of silly, angsty teenage kids who seek help from an arrogant man who thinks of himself as a physchologist/ cult leader, rather than any serious libertarians. So they can live in their family free society, and thank god, as a result they should, if they're true to their own principles (unlike Stefan Molyneux, who as it turns out is having a child, of course he can be a good parent, I wonder to the Molynoids if he could be a good politician too?) die out soon and leave the rest of us in peace.
Nitroadict:Anyways, I'm sure the Anti-Molyneux fan boys in the community will have some nice schadefreude to read,
I wonder about whom you may be speaking?
I'm in two minds about this article. On the one hand it is a silly article and an unfair one at that, on the other it just reinforces everything I already know about Molyneux, especially his anti religion, anti family bullshit.
I have no sympathy for the boy, I don't really have any sympathy for his parents either. The standard of parenting has dropped significantly, as the state has assumed the role of parent in a number of areas, not to mention the countless other ways in which it has weakened the family structure. The fools at FDR don't really realise that without the state, the family would be the prominent institution.
These silly Molynoids are an embarassment and just help give everybody the impression that libertarians are a childish cult who reject anybody telling them what to do, even if it is their best interest and non coercive in nature. The left libertarians need to stop conflating libertarianism with cultural marxism. In any case, these FDR folk are a bunch of silly, angsty teenage kids who seek help from an arrogant man who thinks of himself as a physchologist/ cult leader, rather than any serious libertarians. So they can live in their family free society, and thank god, as a result they should, if they're true to their own principles (unlike Stefan Molyneux, who as it turns out is having a child, of course he can be a good parent, I wonder to the Molynoids if he could be a good politician too?) die out soon and leave the rest of us in peace.
Some of your bitterness & assumptions are somewhat of an eye-sore, personally, but I respect your right to continue to express them. I just find it a bit odd that you are calling, more or less, for the expelling of "Molynoids" from the libertarian movement out of personal preferences, however. I do agree though that the family could be a prominent institution, certainly more so without the State, but would that be various definitions of what a family is via various individuals, or just certain ones?The concept of the traditional family is not dead, but neither are objections and/or alternatives to it either. As for an objection to 'cultural marxism', I'm reminded of this:
According to Richard Lichtman, a social psychology professor at the Wright Institute, the Frankfurt School [& by proxy the concept of cultural marxism, which the school helped create]is "a convenient target that very few people really know anything about...."By grounding their critique in Marxism and using the Frankfurt School, [cultural conservatives] make it seem like it's quite foreign to anything American. It takes on a mysterious cast and translates as an incomprehensible, anti-American, foreign movement that is only interested in undermining the U.S." Lichtman says that the "idea being transmitted is that we are being infected from the outside."
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
John Ess:I love how you pride yourself on have half understandings of things and piss poor reading comprehension skills.
Oh, but I don't. So when you stop the ad homs and refute what I say, I'll taker you seriously.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
this one
about the last 1/3d of the podcast, and especially the last 20-25 minutes or so
Nitroadict:I wasn't referring to that, that was one of the things the article got right. I was referring to the underlying assumption in the article that this is a tragedy of some sorts, when the article could have done more into questioning why this was occurring, other than going to easy & lazy route of blaming some huge cult that is dead set to destroy families everywhere with political, philosophical, & psychological doctrine. I realize they could not interview the young man in question, but they could've interviewed those he knew previously and/or others in the community of FDR about how they view the situation (i.e. too much work).
My perspective is the article that you're reading is a result of the reporter's research. If she had rewritten a chronology of how she researched and wrote the article, perhaps it might have been as you suggest.
A mother calls in and complains that a Web site ate her son. The reporter is skeptical. It's far more likely that something bad has happened in the family. She begins to research a Web site--how could this influence kids to leave their parents? She's surprised to learn from the siblings that they remember a happy childhood. She talks to cult experts about the techniques of Undue Influence. She logs onto the FDR chatroom to watch Tom's mother attacked by other FDR members. She listens to the podcasts. She reads the books. She hears the many contradictions in Molyneux's claims ("I don't charge anything for what it is I do"--except FDR is his sole source of revenue.). At some she makes the conclusion it is a cult and it is a tragedy. She writes the article which is thoroughly vetted by attorneys prior to publication.
Typically, journalists are natural skeptics and I'd tend to wager that's where the research from this article began.
You or I may not agree with her conclusions, but I am inclined to think they were indeed conclusions and not her starting point.
QuestEon: Nitroadict:I wasn't referring to that, that was one of the things the article got right. I was referring to the underlying assumption in the article that this is a tragedy of some sorts, when the article could have done more into questioning why this was occurring, other than going to easy & lazy route of blaming some huge cult that is dead set to destroy families everywhere with political, philosophical, & psychological doctrine. I realize they could not interview the young man in question, but they could've interviewed those he knew previously and/or others in the community of FDR about how they view the situation (i.e. too much work). My perspective is the article that you're reading is a result of the reporter's research. If she had rewritten a chronology of how she researched and wrote the article, perhaps it might have been as you suggest. A mother calls in and complains that a Web site ate her son. The reporter is skeptical. It's far more likely that something bad has happened in the family. She begins to research a Web site--how could this influence kids to leave their parents? She's surprised to learn from the siblings that they remember a happy childhood. She talks to cult experts about the techniques of Undue Influence. She logs onto the FDR chatroom to watch Tom's mother attacked by other FDR members. She listens to the podcasts. She reads the books. She hears the many contradictions in Molyneux's claims ("I don't charge anything for what it is I do"--except FDR is his sole source of revenue.). At some she makes the conclusion it is a cult and it is a tragedy. She writes the article which is thoroughly vetted by attorneys prior to publication. Typically, journalists are natural skeptics and I'd tend to wager that's where the research from this article began. You or I may not agree with her conclusions, but I am inclined to think they were indeed conclusions and not her starting point.
Perhaps; I have a more cynical view towards journalism, so I admit I am biased in my reception to the article. I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt if a follow up were done that went more in-depth.
QuestEon: Nitroadict:I wasn't referring to that, that was one of the things the article got right. I was referring to the underlying assumption in the article that this is a tragedy of some sorts, when the article could have done more into questioning why this was occurring, other than going to easy & lazy route of blaming some huge cult that is dead set to destroy families everywhere with political, philosophical, & psychological doctrine. I realize they could not interview the young man in question, but they could've interviewed those he knew previously and/or others in the community of FDR about how they view the situation (i.e. too much work). My perspective is the article that you're reading is a result of the reporter's research. If she had rewritten a chronology of how she researched and wrote the article, perhaps it might have been as you suggest. A mother calls in and complains that a Web site ate her son. The reporter is skeptical. It's far more likely that something bad has happened in the family. She begins to research a Web site--how could this influence kids to leave their parents? She's surprised to learn from the siblings that they remember a happy childhood. She talks to cult experts about the techniques of Undue Influence. She logs onto the FDR chatroom to watch Tom's mother attacked by other FDR members. She listens to the podcasts. She reads the books. She hears the many contradictions in Molyneux's claims ("I don't charge anything for what it is I do"--except FDR is his sole source of revenue.). At some she makes the conclusion it is a cult and it is a tragedy. She writes the article which is thoroughly vetted by attorneys prior to publication.
me thinks so too.
she's talked to quite a few people, including FDR'ers and Molyneux himself, listened to podcasts, read (parts of) the books, and so on. But the thing is exactly that the deeper you research Molyneux and FDR the scarier things get. Less research would have done Molyneux and FDR more good than more research.
'cept when it concerns all things government of course
Nitroadict:As for the FDR, let them run off the cliffs like lemmings, if that's how you view them. Maybe some will eventually realize they don't need to live, breath, & sleep the FDR & move on with their lives.
QuestEon: Nitroadict:As for the FDR, let them run off the cliffs like lemmings, if that's how you view them. Maybe some will eventually realize they don't need to live, breath, & sleep the FDR & move on with their lives. I do think about that--I thought about it before I started this thread. Maybe that's why I started this thread, to discover if that's the more rational approach. You see, I don't really know where Molyneux stands among Libertarians today--if he is waxing or waning. In his view, he is the AnCap thought leader. But I don't really know if FDR is a significant movement or a curious little backwater. I do think his strength is in explaining known Libertarian concepts. His own ideas rarely stand up to much scrutiny, I think. To the extent that he is a well-regarded "thinker" within the movement, I feel more embarrassed than anything else.
I view the FDR largely as a curious backwater that leads into the bigger & possibly more relevant towns, to continue the metaphor. Regarding marketing, Molyneux is definitely a well-regarded thinker; it's a feat of his marketing skills that those who listen to him regard him as some great "thinker" in the overall movement. I wouldn't be surprised if those who thought that were, in the majority, new to FDR or libertarian/anarchist philosophy itself. I think he gives a good example how the libertarian/anarchist movement has de-centralized groupings and/or sub-movements that do not necessarily reflect the overall movement itself. Of course, abusing such for political opportunity & generalizing such thoughts & attitudes in the FDR community is ripe for execution, but political opportunism against the libertarian / anarchist movements is nothing new, either.
Think about it philosophically. Not everything is so scientific....
Do you believe that a future population of people who don't live like slaves will also have to drastically different views than the booboise do today about "duty" and "family" (not to destroy them but to make them reflect dignity and not guilt over mere concepts alone)? So many people today waste their time being exploited. Nietzsche once said that people should think of the eternal return -- imagine you have to live this life over and over again. Imagine all the time you waste in bad relationships or with spouses you loved without loving yourself. Life is too short, really. Even if the psychologists are not saying what is right for you to do in life (as if any here have ever asked one). Or the church has no answers. It doesn't mean there is no deciding. You should figure out what is right anyway. Some people will live like slaves and others will not (people "lean" on Molyneux's philosophy, he says, as he did with Rand in the past... Tom no longer even "leans"... he's out in the world not with Molyneux). Probably the people who are religious think time is infinite and that Tom aught to spend it how he "supposed to" (or probably prefer this because, they've wasted so much time thus far themselves).
The left libertarians need to stop conflating libertarianism with cultural marxism.
Left-libertarians don't conflate libertarianism with cultural marxism and by and large are not cultural marxists. This in a straw man. Just because one is not a cultural conservative does not mean that one is a cultural marxist. Both cultural marxism and cultural conservatism are incorrect viewpoints from my perspective, because while they work at cross-purposes they both are naive about the effect of political power structures on such cultural relations.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: if anything they are cultural libertarians.
Whatever that means.
It should be noted that the starter of this thread has his own creepy anti-FDR internet forum here:
http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomainradio-f26/
Notice, how the thread starter tries to act like he's being more objective (like he just read a book about cults and is totally all of a sudden concerned). When he's probably been talking about this same subject on like 50 different "ancap" boards for months now. Waiting for the right moment to spring forth to score points with us cool kids at mises, obviously!
If there's anything I find funny it's puke-y faux-sanctimony. Someone should start a forum about how concerned friends and family are for anarchists who have been driven away from the loving hands of the state -- who dehumanize poor helpless politicians. With their Militant Anarchism that budges for none of them. Spoil sports of tradition! Who don't take part in the time honored traditions of voting and voting tailgate parties. Who denigrate nationalism and the slave-holding of Jefferson! And re-vise the stories of Abe Lincoln's glorious feats! Who aren't even true to their (public) schools! Who don't have all action mediated by professionals. That don't derive all knowledge from statistics and scientism. That listen to a guy like Lew Rockwell that "ONLY has a bachelors degree, man!" and other non academics (and not Paul Nobel Laureate Krugman, PhD). Next they're gonna say Joe the Plumber is a real plumber and that the military... sucks. Maybe they don't even eat chips and watch sports! Ooooh Our condolences! Someone should come looking for us. Someone needs to save us from ourselves!
Enough talk about Molyneux. I know I know. We have to get back to theory talk.
John, I don't know you very well, but my impression of you from this thread isn't favorable.
I am disturbed that you consistently attempt to deflect any perceived criticism of Molyneux by lying. I wish I could use a better word for it, but I think that's the most accurate one.
First, you lied about the content of the Tom podcast. The account given in the Guardian is accurate.
Next, you lied when you said that only a few people have defooed and those that did were all victims of beatings or religious fundamentalists. (But, produce the numbers, names, and proofs of your assertion and I'll apologize to you.)
Now, you are lying about me:
John Ess: It should be noted that the starter of this thread has his own creepy anti-FDR internet forum here: http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomainradio-f26/
I have no internet forum on any topic anywhere, nor am I a co-administrator, moderator, etc. (Further, in order to lie about me, you have also insulted the adminstrator of that forum and other members who post there by lying about its intent. You deceptively linked to one of the sub-boards of that forum, not the main forum. Shame on you.)
And you've lied about my intentions:
John Ess: Notice, how the thread starter tries to act like he's being more objective (like he just read a book about cults and is totally all of a sudden concerned).
Notice, how the thread starter tries to act like he's being more objective (like he just read a book about cults and is totally all of a sudden concerned).
On 04-14-2008, on this very board, I was taking the position that Molyneux is not a cult leader.
QuestEon: 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.)...
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.)...
I admit that I have been very interested in Molyneux, first in his philosophy and later in him. I came to my conclusions slowly and (I hope) in a scholarly manner. I read a number of books on cults and and actually had several conversations with a cult exit counselor before reaching the conclusions I hold today.
I would be more insulted by your comments if they weren't so easily shown to be completely fabricated by you.
John Ess: Enough talk about Molyneux. I know I know. We have to get back to theory talk.
Fair enough. Molyneux believes that to pursue a philosophical life, you must constantly strive for virtue and honesty. Those are the first two qualities you happily set aside to defend him.
What's your theory on that?
QuestEon:John, I don't know you very well, but my impression of you from this thread isn't favorable.
Don't even both, from what I've seen he reacts this way when his almighty one is challenged.
That kid is pretty lost. I'm not very knowledgeable about Molyneaux so correct me where I'm wrong, but isn't he just supporting the voluntary rejection of family if you are under conditions which only weaken you as a person or create a difficult life? What exactly makes him a cult leader? I've seen some of his videos, but they usually are just normal marker anarchist talk.
-----
Take it to the "FDR Liberating Minds" forum. And take Giles Stratton with you. You'll get no complaints out of me. You two can investigate Molyneux and save everyone's life. Tom needs you two now more than ever. Maybe Giles can bring him to God once he gets "enough room in his life for God" by getting Molyneux out. Whatever the case, you can curtail your anxiety at the very least.
Don't consider yourself a market anarchist, though, if you think big bad bald guys on the internets can take money and time from people with mind control whereas large corporations are "honest" and are driven by rational economic actors. It's a dead give away that you do not believe what you say.
Now, back to discussing Austrian economics and not the supposed "threats" from philosophers.
John Ess: QuestEon: Fair enough. Molyneux believes that to pursue a philosophical life, you must constantly strive for virtue and honesty. Those are the first two qualities you happily set aside to defend him. What's your theory on that? Take it to the "FDR Liberating Minds" forum. And take Giles Stratton with you. You'll get no complaints out of me. You two can investigate Molyneux and save everyone's life. Tom needs you two now more than ever. Maybe Giles can bring him to God once he gets "enough room in his life for God" by getting Molyneux out. Whatever the case, you can curtail your anxiety at the very least. Don't consider yourself a market anarchist, though, if you think big bad bald guys on the internets can take money and time from people with mind control whereas large corporations are "honest" and are driven by rational economic actors. It's a dead give away that you do not believe what you say. Now, back to discussing Austrian economics and not the supposed "threats" from philosophers.
QuestEon: Fair enough. Molyneux believes that to pursue a philosophical life, you must constantly strive for virtue and honesty. Those are the first two qualities you happily set aside to defend him. What's your theory on that?
This is coming from someone who claims to be one the "cool kids" on Mises. (Your term, not mine.) Are you really one of the cool kids here?
Unfortunately, you can't ban me here simply for disagreeing with you, though it appears you wish it were so. I have been civil to and respectful of you and will continue to be so.
Civility notwithstanding, however, there's no overlooking the facts. I pointed out five (5) obvious lies you've told on this thread. You've chosen to respond with the same unfounded character assassination you have used from the beginning.
There's only one difference between your last post and this: before, you were a bald-faced liar.
Now you're an unrepentant bald-faced liar.
Is that what the cool kids do here, John? Really?
I find your definition of "cool" confounding, John.
QuestEon: John Ess: QuestEon: Fair enough. Molyneux believes that to pursue a philosophical life, you must constantly strive for virtue and honesty. Those are the first two qualities you happily set aside to defend him. What's your theory on that? Take it to the "FDR Liberating Minds" forum. And take Giles Stratton with you. You'll get no complaints out of me. You two can investigate Molyneux and save everyone's life. Tom needs you two now more than ever. Maybe Giles can bring him to God once he gets "enough room in his life for God" by getting Molyneux out. Whatever the case, you can curtail your anxiety at the very least. Don't consider yourself a market anarchist, though, if you think big bad bald guys on the internets can take money and time from people with mind control whereas large corporations are "honest" and are driven by rational economic actors. It's a dead give away that you do not believe what you say. Now, back to discussing Austrian economics and not the supposed "threats" from philosophers. This is coming from someone who claims to be one the "cool kids" on Mises. (Your term, not mine.) Are you really one of the cool kids here? Unfortunately, you can't ban me here simply for disagreeing with you, though it appears you wish it were so. I have been civil to and respectful of you and will continue to be so. Civility notwithstanding, however, there's no overlooking the facts. I pointed out five (5) obvious lies you've told on this thread. You've chosen to respond with the same unfounded character assassination you have used from the beginning. There's only one difference between your last post and this: before, you were a bald-faced liar. Now you're an unrepentant bald-faced liar. Is that what the cool kids do here, John? Really? I find your definition of "cool" confounding, John.
If you are done insulting people on this forum, you can take a look at this: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1210_Guardian_Sunday_Call_In_Show_Nov_16_2008.mp3
It's your favorite podcaster, defending himself against the accusations that some of you trolls here and the guardian have made against him. Listen to it and then reply.
Magnus:It's your favorite podcaster, defending himself against the accusations that some of you trolls here and the guardian have made against him. Listen to it and then reply.
So anybody who disagrees with him, is a troll?
Cute.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap