Whew! I don't know what happened. I started to analyze Molyneux's response to the Guardian and the next thing I knew it was this big gargantuan thing. I gave it more of a formal intro because people may go to the article from someplace other than here.

It probably would have taken four or five or more multiple posts to get it all in here so I was forced to slap together a blog.

It's probably way too much. But at least I get a gold star for being a good little worker bee.

If you think it's lousy, let me know. Thanks.


Molyneux’s response to the UK Guardian article, analyzed

I don't know what to say Q' - the article was well written, moving and thorough.
In summary I hang on this statement of your view of Molyneux and the Guardian article:

QuestEon wrote:

Molyneux sees the article as an 'exercise in humiliation.' I see him using Tom as a shield. And I view that as an 'exercise in cowardice.'

I also hang on Tom...I finally listened to the podcast- only to hear Stef twist a conversation from a Vegan diet, to cruelty to animals to Tom's abusive childhood. Stef appearing focused on Tom is busy chatting with his mouth full of food while Tom is breaking down.

Stef trying to appear highly intuitive is simply "leading" the conversation along until finally he is pushing Tom right out the door.

Either way, you nailed it Q.
As it has been said before it's chilling and I'll add... tragic.

p.s. Thankyou for taking your time on that and sharing it with us!

Great job QuestEon.

I thought about creating a new FDR account just to criticize Molynuex's reply, but decided against it.

The only thing I would have added or suggested differently would be about the interpretation for Tom's tears. I haven't listened to the audio, but it seems to me that to assume that his tears or emotions have anything to do with his family is very suspect. You said as much in your analysis, however, I would like to suggest that maybe his tears and emotion where based entirely on the manipulation going on. For instance. If Tom were desperately seeking Molyneux's approval and attention, and Molyneux would only give his approval and attention if Tom would deFoo, then his tears were really an expression of his desperation and deep guilt. Desperate for the attention and horribly guilty over what he was doing(deFooing) to get it. I could easily see how this could bring out intense emotion and tears from anyone. This in turn makes it easier for both of them to continue the process.

Anyway, grats on the analysis again.

indeed, great job Questy.

below some particularly important bits

Quote:

The headline of the article strikes an important theme that will occur later in the response—Molyneux's diminution of FDR as "simply a Web site." To make his case, it is important for Molyneux to characterize FDR as a simple forum/podcast where people exchange ideas. The truth is, this is the first time I've heard Molyneux take such a humble view of FDR. His vision has always been grandiose.

this is so true. and it is odd because Stef is so focused on analyzing emotional and psychoklogical abuse and manipulation, how people can be psychologically and emotionally held hostage by corrupt relationships. yet here he seems to implicitly deny the entire psychological and emotional dimension of FDR in favor of the mere physical part (closing a web browser)

Quote:

Molyneux is correct, of course. The Guardian article is slanted. But is that good or bad? The reporter clearly wrote the article from a particular point of view and made no attempt to hide it. And so what? It's not hard news. The better question is what led this reporter to her bias? My perspective is the Guardian article is a result of the reporter's research. If she had rewritten a chronology of how she researched and wrote the article, perhaps the perception of bias might have been different:

indeed. the article is slanted, but it is not at all unlikely that the bias was the result of her research

Quote:

This is complete conjecture. Molyneux has no idea who Kate talked to, so his polite sarcasm here is without merit. She simply didn't use the quotes of everyone she talked to, most likely for space reasons. Reporters must edit their articles to fit a specific word count. Neither Molyneux, me, nor anyone else outside of the Guardian knows who Kate talked to or were privy to the choices made of what to include and what to cut.

so true

[quote]

Quote:

What I do know is that Molyneux consistently re-frames the parental actions he finds unfavorable using the most extreme terms he can get his hands on, as part of his persuasion. It is part of the dishonest technique he uses to bond with his members. "My parents were mean sometimes," says the member. "Mean?" Molyneux replies, "they were monsters!" So it comes as no surprise during the podcast when Molyneux refers to the Tom's father's "psychotic rage" and "his sick and disgusting rages." He calls the father a "sick son-of-a-bitch," "terrifying," "violent," "a bully," "dangerous," "psychotic," "insane," and, finally, "the devil." All characterizations come from Molyneux, not Tom. And for the coup de grâce, he tells the 18-year-old, "your mother didn't protect you from the devil--she created you for the devil."

Quote:

Patently untrue. You can be manipulated into that kind of emotion. Ask any qualified psychologist. I believe Molyneux consistently uses manipulation during the therapy sessions he provides for his followers. He plants suggestions, pushes emotions, and draws conclusions throughout to lead his subjects where he wants them to go

so true. I think it is relatively easy to lead people in a certain emotional (and then cognitive) state when they are obviously distressed, and this does seem to be Stefan's preferred technique. And this does not as Stefan would have you believe it mean that Tom is a liar. Nobody is calling Tom a liar.

Quote:

But Molyneux misses the opportunity for true healing when he mentions Tom's "genuine experience." No, it's Tom's personal experience. Molyneux's use of the word "genuine" implies that only Tom's interpretation is true. Tom's experience is no more (nor less) "genuine" than his mother's, father's, or siblings. This is the point where Molyneux's victimization of his followers typically begins. Had Tom and his mother gone together to a qualified relationship or family counselor--one who had been educated in the personality-type disconnect I mention above, Tom would not only have found a healthy environment to discuss his issues on the family, but also he and his mother would have received the tools they needed to deepen their loving, family relationship. They would have learned how to talk.

very true, although I would change 'would' into 'might' in the last sentence

Quote:

When you listen to the podcast, you actually hear that the tears begin for Tom early on, when he is speaking in general about the violence that men do, before Molyneux steers the already distraught Tom to a discussion about his parents. I believe if there was any surprise to Molyneux, it was a pleasant surprise. Leaders of therapeutic cults commonly tell their victims that they must experience the pain their "therapies" dish out in order to feel better. Molyneux himself once described the pain and depression you feel as your "old limbs reawakening."

indeed

Quote:

Molyneux completely misrepresents his role as a mere "sympathizer" for Tom. As Crazy Therapies suggests, Tom was primed prior to his Molyneux "therapy" session with hundreds of podcasts and forum conversations about evil parents. In none of these do you find him simply expressing sympathy for "child over the parent"--the subject is always child as victim of the parent. Always. When the already primed Tom showed up for his podcast therapy with Molyneux (as linked above), he was then prompted throughout until the goal of demonizing his mother was reached. Absolutely no legitimate psychologist would validate the kind of leading, guided "therapy" Molyneux conducts.

so true

more in second post

reason and evidence, FTW!
a-bloody-men!

No, really, great job! and not too long at all!

Will you analyze Tom's podcast now?

oh, and this bit

Quote:

It's slippery, but it's definitive. He maintains that if you believe in either religion or government, then you therefore must believe in violence against him. Resultantly, the only way you can reject the use of violence is to renounce religion and statism completely. As he defines these two belief-sets, there is absolutely no middle ground. In other words, to "improve the quality" of your relationship with one of his members, you must become an atheist anarcho-capitalist. And--as the atheist anarcho-capitalists who have been banned by FDR have discovered--you must actually believe in Molyneux's own particular brand of it. As his books such as "On Truth" demonstrate, this claim of "improving the quality of relationships" is all a fuzzy smokescreen. When you follow all the arguments to their end conclusion, you're either in FDR or you are not. Period.

is so fucking true. This is the way to corner Stef and show that he does believe one cannot be a virtuous person if one continues to have friendships and romantic relationships with statists. if you ask him about this he will say that you have to be curious, calm in putting forth your arguments, ask the 'against me?' question (because otherwise you are not a libertarian, see podcast #?), and if after a few conversations the other has not become convinced yet then obviously (in Stefan's view) they are being defensive and what not and do want you killed if you violate laws and then you cannot be a virtuous person if you continue to have friendships or romantic relationships with these people.

There is no third way. If Stef denis this then he is contradicting himself.

Great work, very thorough thanks for taking the time!
I enjoyed it.

my view exactly!

I think a lot of what Stef does at FDR is damaging to members, especially long time members, however I completely agree with him on DEFOOing.

The way people treat children is absolutely horrible and disgusting. Kids are violently forced to do a lot of things they don't want to, forcibly prevented from doing what they want (often because they want it), and on top of that they're told that this is "for their own good" and other similar nonsense. Most parents treat neighbors and strangers much better than they treat their sons and daughters.

IMO this destroys children's sense of fairness and individuality, to the point that most of them will never question these things again.

I think breaking away from such corrupt and harmful relationships and starting to work these things out can be enourmously helpful, and I think pretty much everybody who's DEFOOed because of FDR ends up as a much healthier person. I agree FDR is culty, but it's nothing compared to the biggest cult of all, FOO.