Before reading this, please understand that I am not trying to prove any major viewpoint or theory here. If I do write future posts on other (non-FDR) topics, I will be much more rigid in the use of logic and/or facts to back them up. What you will read below is my experience with (which is admittedly limited), perspective and amateurish analysis of FDR.

One might say that if you are a liberal, conservative or anything in between you have it made. There is a plethora of books, magazines, newspapers, politicians, websites, TV shows and so on that will feed your desire for material and interaction. More tellingly, if you are a liberal or conservative you really don’t have to do much at all. Vote every so often and there is a good chance that the politician who (at least expresses) your views will rise to power. Hell, even Nazis, Fascists and Communists probably have as many or more places to go for resources than the typical Libertarian and especially Anarcho-Capitalist (AC). With that in mind, it is easy to understand why every AC and Libertarian resource that is out there is extremely valuable.

This is the mindset I had about eight months ago when I started realizing that I was exhibiting the symptoms of an AC. I started doing a great deal of reading on the internet and eventually found a site called “Strike-The-Root”. I started visiting it regularly and, eventually, noticed a link to something called “Mandatory Molyneux”. For the first little while I never paid much attention to it; I noticed that the site continued to promote it so my building curiosity finally coxed me to click on it. I arrived at one of Stefan’s podcasts on YouTube where he was formulating a defence of an Anarchist society and discussed various topics such as the DRO model and the “Top 10 Criticisms of an Anarchist Society”. I wouldn’t say that it was mind blowing for me, but I thought he did a respectable job at responding to criticisms that I myself have often had to deal with when discussing these issues with people.

Not long after that, I found his FDR site and the several hundred podcasts that go along with it. From that point until now, I have probably listened to over a hundred podcasts. At first I tried to do them in order, but because I had specific areas of interest I began looking at them categorically as opposed to chronologically. Overall, if I were to assign a (very rough) rating (based on the degree to which I agree with him) to his podcasts, it would go something like this:

Politics (Government, Military, Police) – 9
Religion – 6
Economics – 9
Anarchism – 9

At one point I did notice a segment for relationships. I thought it a bit odd as my primary reason for being there was to acquire knowledge of Libertarianism, not therapy, but I didn’t think anything of it at the time. With that being said, even when sticking to specific categories, it was impossible to avoid a few podcasts that dealt with his views on relationships. Over and over I heard him bring up his mother and his childhood, and while I wasn’t put off by this, it was a bit odd. He seemed to be weaving his personal childhood experiences (and for that matter, everyone else’s) into some grandiose explanation for the current state of affairs. At the same time, I had come across (although never read) his book entitled Real Time Relationships. I must say, I have never heard a computer science term applied to human relationships before, but it was definitely a propagator of further curiosity.

I decided to investigate some of FDR’s ideas on parenting, children and relationships as this seemed to be a major theme of his. Over time, I could see two very significant premises emerging and they were as follows:

1. If a Libertarian is to experience true, personal freedom then he must end all corrupt relationships.
2. The vast majority of parent-child relationships are corrupt.

Now, it may be true that Stefan has never *verbally* advocated that anyone cut ties with their family. However, based on the above, it is the overwhelmingly likely conclusion that one can derive based on the premises that he himself constructed.

I have tried to employ a standard of searching the internet for information on new authors, books and people of interest. I was a little late in doing this with SM, but I had some concerns. Why was his board always full of people talking about their personal relationships or leaving home? Why was he so insistent on promoting his particular brand of psychoanalysis? Why was so much time dedicated on his live call-in show to discussing people’s personal issues? I was interested in politics, anarchism, economics and to some extent religion. When I go to a mechanic, I want my car fixed, not a haircut or a root canal. I understand that people can diversify, but there are limits. If a contractor comes into my home and offers to do some plumbing on the side, I may be ok with that. But if he comes in and offers to perform major heart surgery, I will quickly show him the door! At this stage, the first question that came to me was: had SM crossed that line?

Needless to say, the search opened up a whole can of worms. I found information on the Barbara / Tom Weed incident, the FDR Liberated Website, Liberating Minds and a site called “Molyneux Revealed”. I don’t need to regurgitate here what each of these sites revealed to me about FDR. It was rather frustrating for me to run into such a controversy after finding someone who, I thought, had the potential as a great resource for Libertarian thought and discussion. During this time, I have only posted to the FDR Forum twice and have never had any contact with Stefan Molyneux. It was interesting that after my first post to the FDR forum someone had responded with mention of my “abusive” relationship with my parents. I had never indicated that my parents were abusive, at least not in the way that I understand the definition of abusive, but I had put one or two lines about my conflict with their religious beliefs. Perhaps they interpreted that as some form of abuse.

I have perused the PDR Liberated website as well as Liberating Minds in great detail before actually signing up and posting. I have found both to be, overall, fair, courteous and informative. I just listened to the podcast with Tom Weed today and, via the following link (http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomain-radio-f26/introduction-to-the-dark-side-of-freedomain-radio-t1253.htm), found the podcast (#888) where Stefan introduces his UPB book. I have many questions regarding the podcast with Tom Weed, but that will have to wait for another post. As for podcast #888, I concur that there was a great deal of manipulation going on. I especially found this with James and Rodzilla. They seemed to have a disturbing, servile relationship with SM. In some respects, it was podcast #888 that caused me greater concern than the one with Tom Weed. It was here that I witnessed his manipulation tactics and inflated opinion of the UPB book. It was very apparent that James was boxed into a corner and the only out that Stefan gave him was to “recall” some past event in his childhood. As it turns out, it wasn’t that the UPB book was lacking, but rather that James was subconsciously affected by an earlier child-to-child insult about a girl not wanting to come to his party (~30:00). Naturally, this event prevented James from showing the appropriate level of enthusiasm for such a monumental work. All throughout this session I could see Stefan Molyneux employing the fine art of passive aggression and psychological manipulation. It was obvious that James’ only means of escape was by making himself vulnerable to Stefan and verbalizing superficial praise for UPB. This type of relationship, at least to me, is totally anathema to individual liberty and any form of self respect.

At FDR the major thesis appears to be that all problems start with the family. In podcast #80 (Advice to the young at heart), Stefan admonishes his listeners to use this knowledge when debating with others. He goes so far as to indicate that any attempt to debate Libertarian views necessarily involves analysis of both one’s own and the other person’s family history. I passionately disagree. I really don’t care to pry into someone’s family history when discussing core AC issues. I don’t see how trudging around in, and attempting to extract private information from, another person’s childhood would be viewed as anything less than a personal attack. This has a very manipulative and intellectually shallow ring to it.

All of this put together leaves me with some very critical questions that need to be answered. As it currently stands, I do not feel comfortable directing anyone to the FDR site. I hesitate to even bring up Mr Molyneux’s name in debates. I have considered donating the recommended 50 cents per podcast, but I have reservations in doing this as well. I stand by my positive attributions regarding his arguments on politics and economics, but it is hard for me to turn a blind eye to the things on which he is so fundamentally and tragically wrong. This is, of course, the conundrum. Do I continue to judiciously peruse FDR material and just accept that there are some significant flaws in his theories on family relationships, morality and other areas? Should I ever converse with him knowing full well his penchant for psychoanalysis and ripping into someone’s childhood? Then there is the situation involving UPB. Other than what was on the FDR Liberated site, I have not seen any other analysis of UPB, but from what I’ve read so far, it doesn’t look good; this is true for both the UPB theories and, of greater concern, SM’s reaction to the challengers. If I wanted more reason for concern, I could also remind myself of SM’s excoriation of people who do not give it the required adoration (i.e. podcast #888).

Overall my reaction to all of this controversy is one of disappointment. It gives me no pleasure to post a negative review of FDR and SM. More than anything else, I pity him. This was especially true after listening to podcast #628. He has demonstrated his ability to produce informative and entertaining podcasts. Very rarely have I ever been bored while listening to him. I have had the opportunity to listen to a number of speakers and presentations in my life, but Stefan Molyneux tops the list in those with the ability to hold my attention.

I don’t know whether or not FDR is a cult. I don’t know what Stefan Molyneux intended FDR to become. What I do know, however, is that he has demonstrated his inability to handle legitimate criticism of his work. He has positioned himself to FDR members in a way that is a great hindrance to one’s own mental health and personal freedom. When I have listened to his live call-in shows, I have yet to hear any regular FDR member (who is still a part of FDR) challenge Mr. Molyneux in any meaningful way.

So, I direct the next set of questions to the following people:

a) Libertarians and/or AC; and
b) People who have had strong concerns with the FDR operation and SM.

The questions are as follows:

1. Does SM still have something to contribute to the Libertarian / AC movement?
2. Would you have any hesitation about sending someone to (or even referencing) Stefan Molyneux when discussing AC concepts with other people.
3. Has there been any change to SM and the nature of FDR in the last year? By this I mean has he been willing to discuss the flaws in UPB, toned done his handing out of questionable advice (particularly defooing) and made any attempt to fix (or re-write) UPB?
4. All in all, is FDR / SM getting better or is it getting worse?

Thank you for your time.

PhaseEight

Sorry, my mistake. I meant to type James, but my fingers typed Tom. I have also added a fourth, more general, question.

I have continued to listen to some of his most outrageous podcasts. The most recent one being where he further isolates FDR from the entire Libertarian and AC movement. I am sure most people already know the podcast I am talking about, but he essentially rails against the Libertarian and AC movement in addition to making a host of personal attacks. At one point he invites someone named “Greg” into the discussion who, seemingly on cue, accedes to Mr. Molyneux’s disgust with the rest of the hypocritical Libertarians. In particular, he accuses the community of not willing to put the theory into practice.

There is an irony here. There has been nothing on this board or anywhere else that has given me more misgivings about FDR than the statements that have come from Stefan Molyneux’s own mouth.

...been meaning to circle back on this....

PhaseEight wrote:

Now, it may be true that Stefan has never *verbally* advocated that anyone cut ties with their family.

I'm not sure that's true.

PhaseEight wrote:

1. Does SM still have something to contribute to the Libertarian / AC movement?

I suppose, potentially. He has the power to teach and the power to draw people to him. But that is also the problem. He is no longer drawing people to the Libertarian/AC movement, but to himself. It's all about him.

PhaseEight wrote:

2. Would you have any hesitation about sending someone to (or even referencing) Stefan Molyneux when discussing AC concepts with other people.

Yes, I think I would now. I was suprised at how much your post here closely resembled my inaugural post on LiMi (to me, at least). Except that you figured things out quicker, where I am usually in a perpetual state of confusion.

But as the months have gone by and I have peeled back the layers of FDR, I have to admit my gut reaction to it all now is very close to Stewart's.

That makes it difficult because I try to write stuff on FDRLiberated as objectively as I can, which means trying to take what I see at face value. As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder to keep the cynicism at bay.

Molyneux implies that FDR will make people better and stronger and smarter but that actually can never happen because no one at FDR is allowed to outshine him, not even in a simple skype conversation. You ask if I would hesitate to send people to Molyneux and I think what would be the benefit to it? The true test of a great leader is how well he or she makes the people around them greater. My personal observation is that the closer to Molyneux people get, the weaker they become.

PhaseEight wrote:

3. Has there been any change to SM and the nature of FDR in the last year? By this I mean has he been willing to discuss the flaws in UPB, toned done his handing out of questionable advice (particularly defooing) and made any attempt to fix (or re-write) UPB?

My analogy for this point in the evolution of FDR is that it is a lot like Godfather II. He's doing everything he can now to go legit and put a nice veneer over this "community" he has built.

So, he has his new weekly radio show and he's interviewing lower-tier libertarians in an effort to lend their credibility to his and slowly climb the ladder of respectability.

But I know where the bodies are buried.

PhaseEight wrote:

4. All in all, is FDR / SM getting better or is it getting worse?

Because of #3 above, I'm going to have to say "getting worse." If I'm right and Molyneux is changing the face of FDR to something that appears less crazy, then what of the defooed--the poor folks on whose backs he built FDR? They're out there, mostly friendless and unable to soclialize with the people around them, believing themselves to be victims of parental abuse, ekeing out some kind of minimum wage and sending in their donations. Will he one day call "All-y all-y in free!" and send them back to their families? Or will he absolve himself of them, wash his hands, and move on? (Don't answer; I know.)

Molyneux has interested, intrigued, baffled, and amused me over time, but it's only when I start to think of what he's doing in the past six months or so that he begins to anger me. If you're going to have a philosophy--crazy or not--then live it. If you change your mind, say so. But don't sweep it all under the rug. Especially when you've been prattling on for years about the only life worth living is a virtuous life.

Unfortunately, all I see are big rugs and a lot of brooms.

My $0.02.

_________________
-Q.E.

Rugs and brooms..........yes.

That's what actors are good at you know.....lest we forget that SM is a trained actor. When things get uncomfortable in their lives for whatever reason, they just attempt to transform themselves into something more comfortable, or into something perhaps less controversial. Too bad in this case that the evidence can not be erased from the hearts and minds of his destroyed victims.

He's engaging is some Stalinist tactics of history editing. There's now an FDR memory hole. Weird.

Curious how in spite of all of this obvious trickery, his followers still think him to be the paragon of virtue and honesty. Frustrating.