Someone asks "is it a cult?" Someone else asks "what is a cult?" Then I write some huge article. We all have our roles to play.

The C Word

Part 1--Q.E.'s cult identification flowchart

Part 2--A little history

Part 3--Caught in the wild!

Part 4--Who are you, Cult Member?

Great article! I really like the idea of using a flowchart rather than a check list, and I like what you've come up with as a starting point for discussion.

I thought you made an excellent point at the end of the article. That very issue is one that has bothered me in just about every listener conversation I've heard. Stefan claims to be well-versed in psychology, and yet I can't recall him ever trying to double-check the validity of the listeners' memories, or the scope of their perspectives. He takes whatever is said to be the whole story (well, plus a lot of embellishment from him), he holds listeners to things they've said ("But didn't you say that ....? Come on, don't fog me now!"). I know that in my own attempts to discuss aspects of my past with people who weren't present for them, it can take quite a few swings at it to give them anything like a fair and balanced perspective. My mood at the time also has a huge influence on the kinds of things I say. The fact that Stefan isn't at all cautious about this sort of thing is a mega huge red flag.


Your article also got me thinking about the differences between mainstream religions and FDR. I think an important difference is -- a few holy figureheads notwithstanding -- there is no identifiable leader of a religion. No one dude calling the shots. It's possible for a church to run independently of other churches belonging to the same religion. In this way, mainstream religion has a free market aspect to it that FDR doesn't have. If you don't like the particular church you're attending, you can go to another church without anyone telling you you're going to go to hell for it. They all attempt to adhere to the same higher principles, to the best of their abilities.

With FDR, though, as much as Stefan says that his higher principles are reason and evidence, and that he tries to keep himself in the background, it's just not true. His personal experiences color everything he says. There is no alternative to FDR that could give you the same experience -- there is no competition (my jury's still out on whether or not this was by design). I've heard Stefan say that he's on the lookout for people he could pass the torch to, but if he were to be honest with himself, I think he'd have to admit that there just aren't any. He's got a few guys who can handle technical tasks for him, but no-one else who could generate the content of the site. (There was a discussion with Nathan in the middle of the Sunday show from the 7th that touched on how he's trying -- and failing -- to do this in Philadelphia.)

I don't think what I'm saying here is a direct slight of any of the listeners, because as I said before, Stefan isn't simply adhering to some set of objective standards or higher principles. He interjects his own irrationalities into the "conversation" on a regular basis -- making what he says predictable and replicable by someone else only to the extent that they can manage to become Stefan Molyneux, in all his brilliant yet damaged glory. And there does seem to be a desire amongst listeners to achieve this. See: the listeners' sudden interest in becoming parents. (In the above-mentioned conversation with Nathan, Stefan asks him why he wants to become a parent -- a question which he has a tough time answering.)

[EDIT - As a side note, I think it might be interesting to analyze what does happen when his listeners try to predict/replicate Stefan's views on or response to a topic. I think what you see is amplifications of different aspects of his personality from different listeners. E.g. passive-aggression from some, inability to let go of the past from others, etc.]

As for listeners with the quality of independent thinking that is essential in a leader, soon after turning their independent thinking onto the subject of FDR, they identify gaping holes in it. Those for whom the holes weren't big enough to run away from, get chased away rather quickly.

The end result being that Stefan can do whatever he wants, with no competition encouraging him to up his game. Competition that, in any other context, he himself would deem as essential to maintaining the quality of the product. He claims that FDR provides the ideas that will save the world -- and yet, there is nowhere else to get those ideas. One might expect that if his methodology is so objective, someone else would be able to do it. If the fact that no-one else is doing it points to corruption -- as he claims -- does it make more sense to point that arrow at every other adult on the planet, or at Stefan himself?

If I were to conclude this by returning full-circle to the question of the c-word, I would say that this single-leader issue is something that FDR has in common with undisputed cults. But I don't think it's necessary to do that. I think we can criticize the single-leader issue from the perspectives of logic and economics.

I just rediscovered some relevant videos from aaron0883 that may have influenced my above thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmILw7SiNpw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiFVJEOsV6Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zURIe8qxBqo

I think the "Without Knowledge or prior consent" needs work. There is a moment when the victim invites Moly to make a comment, observation, etc. This is where he capitalizes. It is in that key moment when the victim is making a 'free will' offer of consent to Moly to take over. The moment is fleeting, but it exists enough that I think the "knowledge or prior consent" is there. I do agree with the last flow chart item. The one where you evaluate if the current behavior is in any sort of context with how you would have acted before you engaged with a cult. I think you properly emphasize that element over the others.

Hi QuestEon.
I have read with great interest your seemingly amazing understanding of the 'c' word.
The flow chart is an excellent guide in determining what is and what isn't.
I hope that fdr's who are inquisitive enough will read your unbiased opinions leading them to re-valuate their reasons for associating with fdr.
Young minds that are preparing for life and preparing to 'fly the nest' should be left to follow their natural course and not be pushed in any particular direction.
They should not have anyone tampering in a very emotional stage of their lives.
Good parents can provide support at this crucial stage of their lives, financially, emotionally and understandingly. All parents have their own life's experiences from which they have gained valuable life skills and knowledge which can be passed on.

Thank you for your excellent perspective QuestEon.

Wow! There have been so many great conversations going on in LiMi in the past week or so. I keep wanting to plug in, but haven't been able to...I may have to resurrect some of them pretty soon.

Arthur wrote:

I think the "Without Knowledge or prior consent" needs work. There is a moment when the victim invites Moly to make a comment, observation, etc. This is where he capitalizes. It is in that key moment when the victim is making a 'free will' offer of consent to Moly to take over. The moment is fleeting, but it exists enough that I think the "knowledge or prior consent" is there. I do agree with the last flow chart item. The one where you evaluate if the current behavior is in any sort of context with how you would have acted before you engaged with a cult. I think you properly emphasize that element over the others.

You might be right about how I handled it, although I don't believe in the situation you describe above that true informed consent has taken place. Here's what I'm thinking of.

Suppose a woman has decided that she has led a life of sin and wants to change her ways. So she sees this little church not too far from where she lives--a small church with a single minister.

She meets with the minister and says she is ready to embrace Christ and change her ways. The minister says "that's wonderful my child, are you ready to embrace all of His teachings? Are you ready to renounce Satan? Are you ready to change all of your past ways? Are you ready to do what you need to purify yourself in the eyes of the Lord?"

"Yes, yes, yes, to all of that," she replies. And so she begins down the path to her reclamation. What she doesn't know is this particular minister believes he talks to God directly. And God has told the minister that the way for a fallen woman to purify herself is through a union with a man of God.

But she's not ready to hear that yet, because she's so corrupt. So he has to begin the process of elevating his status with her as a man of God and help her embrace the guilt and shame of her past life. If all goes well, in a few months she'll become one more member of the flock that he has had sex with.

I wish I completely made that up, but that kind of thing happens. The point is, the woman did not have prior knowledge that she was a sexual target when she consented to "purify herself." As a result, her ability to consent was compromised.

If the minister had said at the outset --"we need to do a little purification, and it starts with you and me doing the horizontal mambo. Wait here while I get my chaps." (He's a pretty weird minister, that one.)

If he had done that, she would have known to give him a good kick in the yarbles and move on.

This is exactly what I see happening with Molyneux. Even today, when one of his True Believers is defending him, I see them say that he advocates defooing only in abusive situations. But I've read his essays and books. I've listened to his podcasts. For example, I have him on record at least twice saying that "you know you have abusive parents if you wouldn't want to hang out with them at a party."

What 20-year-old wants to party with their parents!!!!? I love my parents but I'm still not going to do that! I'm going to hang with my friends. (And I don't expect to see their parents there, either!)

Here's a guy who had a terrible upbringing and no possible chance for a relationship with his parents. Therefore, has no idea the complex relationship the average 20-year-old has with his or hers. He has no experience with it, can't conceive it, can't possibly understand what that is. I'll save him the suspense and let him know right now that 20-year-old "Izzy" isn't going to clubbing with her 60+ internet philosopher "daddles," either.

But right now, this man is projecting his awful upbringing onto every young adult in the world, no matter what they personally say or feel about their parents.

OK, great. Got it. If that's your belief, then rock on.

My question--my fundamental challenge to Molyneux and FDR--has always been, if you feel that way, why isn't it on the home page? Why can you get to Molyneux's foundational essay for FDR from the front page of MY site and not his?

It's because it's secret knowledge that you have to be "coached into" believing over time--no different than the minister who secretly plans to nail every hot sinner in his church. The only change in FDR in the past year--mostly due to Barbara Weed's impact--is that the secret knowledge is even more secret.

There is no "secret knowledge" in a legitimate religion or organization that you have to be conditioned into accepting over time. But there almost always is in destructive cults. Until you know it all, you don't really know what you're consenting to.

I'm not making the case here that FDR is a destructive cult, but I do maintain that when people join FDR and accept counseling from Molyneux, their ability to consent is impaired because they are unaware of his complete commitment to the belief that they were victims of abuse. They are unaware that he does not have individual solutions for everyone's individual family problems. He has one solution for everyone.

If he would simply put those beliefs on the front page and if all of his True Believers begin parroting those beliefs, then I'll be convinced that everyone joining the group is operating under prior knowledge and consent.

Another interesting aspect of that "secret knowledge" is that it's framed as "advanced topics" to the True Believers. They say things like (paraphrased): "When we're around beginners, we have to talk about basic topics, but when it's just us longtime FDR people, we can talk about advanced topics." (Reminds me of a Bible verse...) (Side note: I listened to the beginning of FDR1006 - Late Night ShytsNGiggles the other day, and it's very interesting to witness the dynamics going on between that inner circle and Stefan.)

Stefan does something else which I noticed in the aforementioned Sunday show discussion with Nathan, and that is to constantly reinforce in the minds of the people who have been around for a while (many (if not all?) of whom have defooed) that they have "gotten it." He says stuff along the lines of, "It took you 3 years to get this stuff, Nathan." I wonder how the True Believers themselves feel about this. Do they really feel deep understanding and the personal liberty that was promised, or do they just like the feeling of being part of the club, and avoid telling him that maybe they haven't fully gotten it for fear of being ostracized. Perhaps, deep down, they realize that they have learned all that they can learn from Stefan, and the next step on their path to personal liberty is to leave FDR behind. Which is kinda scary when it's become your entire social network.

First, you'll probably not be surprised that I've got a bone to pick over the "c" word page, but I prefer to get to something here first:
(oh, and I appreciate the example you gave explaining what you meant; it helped clear up for me what you intended)

QuestEon wrote:

For example, I have him on record at least twice saying that "you know you have abusive parents if you wouldn't want to hang out with them at a party." What 20-year-old wants to party with their parents!!!!? I love my parents but I'm still not going to do that! I'm going to hang with my friends. (And I don't expect to see their parents there, either!)

Well, "duh!" How anecdotal is that? And considering that, I've got a couple of friends and a cousin who indeed did party with their parents pretty well all along, seeing as how in both situations one possible/probable reason was that there was no Revelation Religion/Christinsanity indoctrination/propagation in their homes; I recall this because I was quite envious of (and perplexed by) those relationships. This appears to have allowed for easy generational partying, as typically it's drinking and/or sexual taboo that distinguishes the classes more than age, no?! [interestingly, tho further anecdotal, there wasn't much of a music or dance divide either-- in either 'direction']

More significantly, if Stefbans' theory is accurate and parents are "universally" abusive ("evil") --which fwiw, I'm inclined to believe it is, though perhaps not quite as saturated or carte blanc as he makes it with the "all" word choice/hyperbole-- then heck, a.) no wonder the "true self", lingering ever so faintly by this teen age, which includes the first dissipation of the prior power imbalance, rebels against and rejects them --or-- b.) the 'self' one now is, is abusive just like them because the "true self" has been buried via their selfishness/abusive influence with such confusion being the norm, manifests as: "Party with my parents? No way!!!!!"
Heck, it's not just not wishing to party with them, most don't want to be around them period. [granted, there's room for the independence theory as well; tho such is arguably yet another cultural/cult-oral rather than evolutionary natural matter]

[next, I would ask you to define your further validation-seeking "love"... but we needn't go there]

As an aside, Argent's post about the "inner circle" exchanges*, reminded me of one of the first of such that I heard. I was sorely disheartened, as they struck me as immature, childish, and borderline insulting and two-faced --especially and specifically, Stefban. It was one of my first Debbie Downers regarding him. It served as a clear reminder of his acting skills. And it served as a beneficial reminder of my propensity towards Authority Addiction. *[I think it was a recording of a skype chat, or maybe a recording of a meetup? This was prior to the official pay-up-to-be-"in" distinction]

I think that the flow chart idea is great for cutting out the noise.

I would like to share an experience I had when I was 16. Being interested in music, I occasionally on invitation attend a church service to hear a colleague sing.

This church was a charismatic church, holding its services in a warehouse. It had the works; hystrionics, talking in tongues and literal interpretation. During the service, I froze. I felt like an invisible shield was activated between myself and the environment and I became very rigid and reserved. This was not something that I imagined, I literally "felt" it, but it is hard to describe. Also, I did not consciously do it, nor put any thought into it, it just happened. it was as if some part of me that I was unaware of was protecting me.

After the service, I was treated to all the typical cult tricks, ie the fear mongering, the love bombing, etc. It just didn't affect me because I was protected, although at the time I had no idea over what was going on. I also could barely move. Later on, after leaving, I became myself again.

About a decade after my experience, I was talking to someone who had knowledge about who was doing what and how in Sydney and the person runnning that church was very well known for his cult, depravity and psychological exploitation.

What I found interesting about my experience is that without any knowledge or experience, I was able to unconsciously protect myself and I wondered whether other people do not have something similar in themselves? Perhaps I felt under attack straight away but if I had already, unknowingly let the sneak attack in, I would not have been able to protect myself?

Also, my singing colleague, as well as other people I had met who attended similar cults were completely dysfunctional and I decided a very unwholesome influence. My impressions over what they were doing to themselves/allowing to happen is that they were getting all worked up with the hystrionics, but the energy had no where to go, there was no outlet for it. A few months/weeks of this unhealthy state led to ill health and depression.

A small point for your article: "What are you rebelling against/Whaddaya got?" was not James Dean, but Marlon Brando as Johnny in 'The Wild One'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkdqCTcDkbc#t=38s

I go off to get married, and you guys go nuts! So much to get through here...

Thank you QuestEon for another great article. You have an amazing way of taking a mammoth and confusing subject and putting it down concisely on paper (computer).

"Molyneux didn’t invent parental rebellion as he sometimes appears to think—he simply capitalizes on it. "

My favorite line.

This is series is going in a direction I didn't plan and may stir up a bit of trouble before it's done. I'm not sure.

Part 2 is pretty non-controversial, though, and it's up!