Perhaps is it was only a matter of time before a family member went to the press over Stefan Molyneux's bizarre ideas. This article about FreeDomainRadio recently appeared in the UK Guardian.
If there's a saving grace, it is that Molyneux's theories have become so overarching/grandiose, the word "libertarian" doesn't even appear in the article! However, interested readers of the article who visit FDR will soon make the connection.
Perhaps I'm overreacting, but given the energetic marketing and outreach he uses to attract people to his enterprise, I think he gives us all a black eye.
QuestEon: Perhaps is it was only a matter of time before a family member went to the press over Stefan Molyneux's bizarre ideas. This article about FreeDomainRadio recently appeared in the UK Guardian. If there's a saving grace, it is that Molyneux's theories have become so overarching/grandiose, the word "libertarian" doesn't even appear in the article! However, interested readers of the article who visit FDR will soon make the connection. Perhaps I'm overreacting, but given the energetic marketing and outreach he uses to attract people to his enterprise, I think he gives us all a black eye.
Yes & No to over-reacting. The emotive argument of the article will obviously win many hearts & minds, but a good deal of people will also say "well he's 18 etc. etc. etc.", or "yes, let's over-react to an 18 year old's choice that may or may not be stupid (sarcasm), waste of time etc. etc. etc.", & so on.And from the looks of it, he won't be turned into some martyr as he did not die in some tragic accident or circumstance, so that's obviously a plus.Anyways, I'm sure the Anti-Molyneux fan boys in the community will have some nice schadefreude to read, despite the young man in question being 18 years old (more or less an adult), & did not harm anyone physically, nor did he wind up dead somewhere, due to his choice. I'm someone will argue this is proof of Molyneux devious plot to destroy the traditional concept of a family with the aid of the Internet & sharks with lazer beams on their heads. Yes, it appears some of the Molyneux followers are capable of making an independent, voluntary choice with their lives. Surprise!
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
The article seems to be laden with hysteria. Who cares?
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
The article definately had a nasty tone to it. Perhaps the boy could have been more open about his feeling toward his family unit with his parents, before leaving. Besides that, the boy is 18, and should be capable of independence. The article wanted to make a big deal about "but but he's still in school", who cares?, plenty of people go to school and live without their parents at the same time
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
FDR is a cult huh? Thats wierd, a "cult" that tells it's "followers" to make their own choices in life and to have relationships based on virtue and honesty, a "cult" that doesn't force it's members to pay anything.
Whats your definition of a cult?
fezwhatley: The article definately had a nasty tone to it. Perhaps the boy could have been more open about his feeling toward his family unit with his parents, before leaving. Besides that, the boy is 18, and should be capable of independence. The article wanted to make a big deal about "but but he's still in school", who cares?, plenty of people go to school and live without their parents at the same time
I highly doubt that the young man will completely cut himself off communication wise. He probably will eventually realize, if not already, how hard this would be for his parents, if he eventually becomes one himself or as enough time passes by. I've only skimmed the article & I agree that it sadly has the usual high & mighty attitude of someone in the status-quo who thinks they know better than someone else who doesn't want to subscribe to The Fascist Weekly. I think it would be a good thing if the parents were interviewed by a sympathetic reporter, possibly from inside the libertarian movement. His parents could probably use the moral support in their challenging time of transition. Interviewing the young man would be good as well, in order to get both sides of the story.
More ridiculous than the hysterical note sent out about Walter Block's recent lecture at Loyola. Smearbunds are pretty much constant in the libertarian movement over the last few years.
If you actually listened to that podcast about "Tom", what the author is leaving out is the fact that the "boy's" step-father was extremely cruel and physically abusive to him while his mother did nothing about it. And that that went on for a very long time with no intervention from any adult figure. Now he is 18 and has left. That's pretty much the story of all of the very few people who've left their families (usually for college or new jobs that they like better than living at home doing nothing)... basically kids who were beaten or came from religious fundamentalist (like Muslim or Mormon fanatics; not just regular old religious) families. It's not like the article describes... that they didn't get enough computer time or enough hugs. Or that he just left out of the principle that parenting in general sucks. The fact that I can even remember this podcast is testament to the fact that not very many kids are "defooing." And that he doesn't run over these ideas very often. I certainly do not listen to millions of podcasts.
If they are a cult. It's news to me -- I post there. It's news to Wilton Alston, who also posts there.
This article only give the parent's side of things. What about the young man's side. I know nothing about the situation in which he grew up. I am not implying anything but only having one side of an issue like this in an article is bad journalism to say the least. Would it change your perspective if your found out he was abused as a child? I am NOT saying this happened but the folks at the Guardian should have the resources to send a reporter to the Café and interview him. Find out what he has to say.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
John Ess: More ridiculous than the hysterical note sent out about Walter Block's recent lecture at Loyola. Smearbunds are pretty much constant in the libertarian movement over the last few years. If you actually listened to that podcast about "Tom", what the author is leaving out is the fact that the "boy's" step-father was extremely cruel and physically abusive to him while his mother did nothing about it. And that that went on for a very long time with no intervention from any adult figure. Now he is 18 and has left. That's pretty much the story of all of the very few people who've left their families (usually for college or new jobs that they like better than living at home doing nothing)... basically kids who were beaten or came from religious fundamentalist (like Muslim or Mormon fanatics; not just regular old religious) families. It's not like the article describes... that they didn't get enough computer time or enough hugs. Or that he just left out of the principle that parenting in general sucks. The fact that I can even remember this podcast is testament to the fact that not very many kids are "defooing." And that he doesn't run over these ideas very often. I certainly do not listen to millions of podcasts. If they are a cult. It's news to me -- I post there. It's news to Wilton Alston, who also posts there.
Just finished reading the "article", of which the bias was disgusting to trudge through. Although, I find the respect that his mother has for his choice a bit hopeful, even if she mis-understands his position. Molyneux's psychological explanations and/or assumptions were obviously magnified & framed , but I find it's valid to object to them regardless. I'd imagine quite a number of users on FDR would find it just as hard to leave their social network of friends if they move to a different geographical location, let alone cutting themselves off from their parents. Sadly, I see this as a huge case for further nannying of the Internet, which Obama has recently laid plans for by choosing who is going to be head of the FCC transition; net neutrality is going to muck the internet down for a decade or so until a cyber 9/11 occurs & more or less kills it.
ryanpatgray: This article only give the parent's side of things. What about the young man's side. I know nothing about the situation in which he grew up. I am not implying anything but only having one side of an issue like this in an article is bad journalism to say the least. Would it change your perspective if your found out he was abused as a child? I am NOT saying this happened but the folks at the Guardian should have the resources to send a reporter to the Café and interview him. Find out what he has to say.
That's too much work for journalism these days; Integrity is a matter of framing, not a matter of hard work.
Magnus: Whats your definition of a cult?
I've come to the view that there is now about a 40-year-old body of knowledge of cults, what they are, how the recruit, and how they operate. I'd say the seminal work is Margaret Thaler Singer's "Cults In Our Midst." There have been several good ones since then.
So I don't try to define the world "cult," I try to learn about them from experts. To me, the better question is, after you've absorbed that knowledge and taken a deeply objective view of FDR, do you believe it to be one?
Nitroadict: ryanpatgray: This article only give the parent's side of things. What about the young man's side. I know nothing about the situation in which he grew up. I am not implying anything but only having one side of an issue like this in an article is bad journalism to say the least. Would it change your perspective if your found out he was abused as a child? I am NOT saying this happened but the folks at the Guardian should have the resources to send a reporter to the Café and interview him. Find out what he has to say. That's too much work for journalism these days; Integrity is a matter of framing, not a matter of hard work.
The article clearly states he refused to be interviewed.
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.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I think it was Tom's real father, not his stepfather. Moreover, in the podcast he had with Molyneux nothing was said about extremely cruel and physical abuse. His father would get very angry and smash stuff in a room (windows for example), which is bad. But at least in the podcast nowhere was it said that his father physically abused him (or the cat for that matter). Sowhat Tom talks about in the podcast is not at all the same as physically abusing somebody in an extremely cruel way.
if you listen to the podcast referenced in the article you will see how Molyneux leads Tom to a state in which he totally accepts Molyneux saying that he means less than nothing to his parents, that his mother only had him to sacrifice him to the devil (his father), that they both are complete *** of ****es , and so on.
tom was obviously in a distressed state and with childhood memories of his father's extreme anger that is understandable, but Molyneux used this opportunity to completely dehumanize and demonize Tom's parents, to tell him that his parents don't care about him at all, that he means less than nothing to them, that his mother just had him as a sacrificial lamb, all that on the basis of nothing more than his father's ourbursts of rage. Molyneux makes it seem as if there literally was nothing good at all in the relationship, not a single trace of love, kindness, etc. That may be true, but it is impossible for Molyneux to come to this conclusion on the basis of such scant evidence.
And of course he is not in it to get a balanced view. A good therapist would try to do exactl;y that so as to help Tom make sense of his thoughts and feelings. Molyneux just wants to lead him a certain way. and so on, which obivously brings him into a state of anger which is exactly where Molyneux wants him to be. And Molyneux' wife, who is a therapist, at the end gives it all the thumbs-up. it's quite sickening.
Have you ever heard Molyneux have a conversation with a listener about the latter's parents in which his conclusion was not that the listener's parents are stone-evil?
QuestEon: Nitroadict: ryanpatgray: This article only give the parent's side of things. What about the young man's side. I know nothing about the situation in which he grew up. I am not implying anything but only having one side of an issue like this in an article is bad journalism to say the least. Would it change your perspective if your found out he was abused as a child? I am NOT saying this happened but the folks at the Guardian should have the resources to send a reporter to the Café and interview him. Find out what he has to say. That's too much work for journalism these days; Integrity is a matter of framing, not a matter of hard work. The article clearly states he refused to be interviewed.
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).
Nitroadict: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).
As opposed to Molyneux, who, you know, has no agenda at all that influences his "work".
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.
I love how you pride yourself on have half understandings of things and piss poor reading comprehension skills.
GilesStratton: Nitroadict: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). As opposed to Molyneux, who, you know, has no agenda at all that influences his "work".
And the parents I suppose have no agenda at all to influence the perception of their parenting.
John Ess:If you actually listened to that podcast about "Tom", what the author is leaving out is the fact that the "boy's" step-father was extremely cruel and physically abusive to him while his mother did nothing about it. And that that went on for a very long time with no intervention from any adult figure. Now he is 18 and has left.
I did listen to that podcast. I'll go double-check, because it's been a long time, but I don't recall it that way at all. His father got mad a couple times and threw things around his office. And he screamed at the cat. The reporter listened to the podcast, too. You're accusing her of sweeping knowledge of Tom's child abuse under the rug to make her point. This is the Guardian--don't you realize the paper's lawyers listened to the podcast too and vetted the article before it was allowed to run?
John Ess: That's pretty much the story of all of the very few people who've left their families (usually for college or new jobs that they like better than living at home doing nothing)... basically kids who were beaten or came from religious fundamentalist (like Muslim or Mormon fanatics; not just regular old religious) families. It's not like the article describes... that they didn't get enough computer time or enough hugs. Or that he just left out of the principle that parenting in general sucks. The fact that I can even remember this podcast is testament to the fact that not very many kids are "defooing." And that he doesn't run over these ideas very often. I certainly do not listen to millions of podcasts.
Could you substantiate that all of his members who have left their families have been the victims of extreme abuse or religious extremists? I don't get that impression. I believe the idea of leaving one's family in pursuit of Molyneux's version of "truth" is far more frequent than you suggest.
I have never listened to his podcasts, which one was this, Conrad?
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