Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Page By Category

Forum - Examining Freedomain/Stefan Molyneux

[ Add Tags ]

[ Return to General Discussion | Reply to Topic ]
The Burger KingPosted: Dec 19, 2013 - 19:53

I can't stop posting pictures of poop, what the fuck is wrong with me?

Level: 5
CS Original
I have been following FDR more closely for a few months now I want to examine more closely FDR and at that Stefan Molyneux and it's member base more closely. For now I'm reading through a few blogs and a websites which I will post below, if anybody can post any links pertaining to FDR/Stefan Molyneux that are good or bad towards his site I would gladly read those as well. Anybody wanting me to add to this topic contact me on my e-mail at cs2012ct at ymail dot com or hop on my mumble server

So why did I want to start examining FDR? Well I wasn't banned off the site however I was a bit disturbed when I was in the FDR chatroom and a guest posted a link towards a blog with a negative review of Stefan
Molyneux. It wasn't the negative review that bothered me I think it's a good think to have critics however what bothered me more is a individual who helps Stefan Molyneux out on his podcasts by the name of Michael or MMD (in chat) who said not to post links to troll sites. Michael wasn't the only person the member based of FDR aid similar things as well. I was bothered by that because they should examine and acknowledge outside criticisms rather than be dismissive. I see these "trolls" as having legitimate criticisms towards FDR and to not allow the attempt of honest dialogue of exchanging thoughts to occur between an opposing site but rather say it's a bad site full of logically fallacies is rather in poor taste of the perception of what FDR is all about.

I have background in examining other sites/experts such as Rick Ross cult expert, Peter Joseph, Alex Jones, Destinian, etc...

I was also referenced on ApologeticsIndex a "Apologetics Research Resources on religious movements, cults, sects, world religions and related issues". . I'd like to think I have some experience in evaluating sites/groups/people and try to give them a fair shake.

With my dealings with FDR as of now I do not think it's a bad group to be apart of. Me and Stefan align a lot in none violence, in free market and a few others things. Stefan has changed my perspective on spanking at which if I had kids I do not think I could ever spank them however I'm still prochoice when it comes to spanking. As far as the concept of defooing which in short means, "Cutting ties with your family of origin--the family with whom you grew up without having much of a choice. Often involves moving out without telling them (the family)." (, I think defooing is ok to do although is very controversial. I can relate to defooing not from biological family but more or less from old friends in my life. I think often stress and depression in ones life is a natural way your body is saying that you need to change drastically from friends to lifestyle rather than selfmedicate through pills, go to a therapist etc...

FDR lacks a structure, there are no chapters or official meetings. There are meetings conducted outside of FDR locally and virtual meetings. FDR revolved around Stefan but that's no different from Alex Jones website. I really do not see FDR as a problem group so far, I think Stefan can be overly zealous at times and a lot of what he says is very deep stuff but I do not see anything wrong with that. Often I can tell when Stefan is reregurgitating something a popular economist has said and at time it can be perceived that he came up with the idea than rather he's burrowing from others which can make him to be a lot like a guru figure to young kids maybe even adults who do not know what they do not know and may buy into his ideas on more of a emotional bases than a logical/rational bases. I think Stefan in general is a good thing as he promotes free market values but I'll be looking more into FDR and opposing sites towards FDR as well as posting my review on what I find on these sites that I think are interesting.

Anyways else is welcome to post their thoughts about FDR/Stefan as well or e-mail be at cs2012ct at ymail dot com .

FDR sites I will be reviewing so far.

Stefan Molyneux Revealed


FDR liberated

Freedomain Radio
#1 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Burger KingPosted: Dec 31, 2013 - 14:20

I can't stop posting pictures of poop, what the fuck is wrong with me?

Level: 5
CS Original
I wanted to throw down some quick thoughts on Stefan Molyneux on this topic just so the on lookers do not think I forgot about this topic. At that I also wanted to put down that I agree a lot with Stefan Molyneux on economics, parenting, spanking defooing, I only actually differ with him on politics mainly and ancap ideology. So anything I disagree with the guy or have problem with is purely political, everything else besides eliminating the government I'm almost exactly align with the guy. I don't think he's some terrible person however I do think he's very passionate about what he believes in and is trying to help people stay away from those things that are pretty much time wasters and go with what works. I do not think the guy has the ability to control peoples minds nor do I think he wants to as I have talked with several people on FDR with differing opinions some do not even agree with his concepts of a free market but are lockstep on his beliefs of parenting and not spanking.

To elaborate on the differences I particularly have with Stefan, I do not think the guy is a cult figurehead or guru (though I do not think cults can purely be based on the internet do to a lack of academic work suggesting so.). I think he appeals a bit to much to the political right for strategic purposes as mainly for attention than anything else. He says the healthcare field is broken, and isn't a free market and is the most highly regulate field in the U.S. yet he refers specifically towards healthcare insurance packages as free market insurance (or something among that nature). I strongly disagree with him on that notion using free market as a buzz word sandwich to association of health insurance is like saying open source resource based economy. Just because you say it is so does not make it so.

Health care insurance is not free market concept if it was decent insurance would be affordable to everybody and there was be competing insurance companies hence driving down prices. At that there is more incentive to buy insurance through a business than as a private person as through a business joint plan it's not taxes however as a private citizen your taxes and are ultimately paying more in for less. We can see over time the health field is getting more sophisticated and as such health insurance have developed tier structures, at which your paying the same amount and are actually receiving far less than before. This is a very complicated issue as to why this is but mainly it's a combination of to much government in the healthcare service industry from controlling licenses to, to taxes to everything else.

Ultimately the healthcare field is a mix market rather than a free market, their is no free market insurance, it's rather useless buzz words to appeal to the right to justify why obamacare to the political the right. I don't agree with the concept of obamacare however I do agree it's a natural progression to what we have now hence why I voted for it. The medical science of the medical industry is great however the medical service industry is lagging behind and not meeting the average consumer needs do to a lack of competition which would ultimate drive down prices which would ultimately benefit the consumer.

Again I see obamacare as a rational choice to what we have now if the healthcare industry was a free market I would be against this and would be more for charity but in todays market I can't justify such a thing. I know obamacare ultimately means the government takes a hold of that market and once they get ahol they don't get out, but my hope is that we loosen the leash for unregulated business ventures in the health care service industry to flourish and eventually the government gets out of the healthcare service industry again. It's wishful thinking and probably won't happen, but ultimately I do see cause as to why we need obamacare but I also see cause on why it is bad as well but in the end obamacare is justified for me.

I disagree a lot and see a lot of ignorance politically wise in Stefan when he says right good left bad. I see him trying to gain the popularity of politically right minded people while appealing to the political left with parenting and no spanking policies. Personally I think Stefan is politically inept, and should probably refrain from left right, or liberal/conservative talk. I know I will be stepping on a few toes but I disagree a lot with the left but I also disagree with the right. The people far right however often create mythologies about conservatism and those on the right often repeat them like it's fact. They only seek out material that's from the right and not even attempt to learn the left cause ti's bad. I've talked to a few on the left and far left and if their wrong I call them out on it and they soon align their position with mine so their not that indoctrinated in their belief systems. It's way easier to talk and use logic and reason from a person on the left to far left than a person on the far right.

I've consider myself a blue dog democrat libertarian and I think Stefan and a few others I know on the right recite pure political dogmatic garbage when it comes to politics and why the left is so bad. I personally don't look at things as left or right or liberal or conservative is bad I actually consider myself a independent whose consistently voted democrat. I think people who look at it as right versus left are not seeing the bigger picture, as to me it's the people versus the government, as to how can we stop government wasteful spending, reduce it's size and get all governmental interaction out of the market.

Overall I don't agree with a lot of what has said about Stefan, however I do think they have some valid claims. therefore I will be looking into this more and will be posting on this when I have the time the information I found of interest. I do not think is a troll group nor would I label such groups troll group, these are groups who have a collection of people who have legitimate concerns towards I think Stefan should try to address claims and open the line of communication for these people outside the realm of FDR show or forum. In my opinion, if Stefan is concerned with the world and is empathetic towards people he should be willing to address and sympathize with his critics as well.
#2 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Burger KingPosted: Feb 24, 2014 - 19:04

I can't stop posting pictures of poop, what the fuck is wrong with me?

Level: 5
CS Original
I wanted to add some more to this topic. I've been busy with life but I managed to catch few shows Molyneux has done so far. In general I try to give everybody a fair shake. Molynoux makes great shows, I do not think what he does is horrible, actually the exact opposite there pretty good. He doesn't have mind controlling abilities to make people listen to his shows nor is he holding a gun to anybody's head to do so. I think to sum up what he does at least my interpretation of what he does is he uses philosophy not as some sort of mental game to win internet debates or to talk in semantics, but a tool that he or anybody can apply to ones life.

There are a lot of things I agree with the guy on from economics, to child rearing, to anger management, applying philosophy, logic, reason etc... I agree with him even on a more controversial topic such as dating single mothers which in my experience he's 100% right on.

So with that said I had some problems with them there not horrible actually very minor problems. I think he is definitely right leaning sympathizer for the Republican party which influences his audience to lean that way as well. I suspect though I'm not a mind reader that he wanted to get his foot in the door on the politically right market. Therefore you'll seem him constantly attack the left and say how bad the left is but yet not really touch the right. He is often very sympathetic towards people in religions or out of religions but not towards the political left. It's easier and in his own logic more convenient for him to go after the political left rather than to rail on the right. I suspect he wouldn't have the gull to rail on the right while he's doing a Peter Schiff show as well but certainly will go after the left any chance he gets.

Again not a mind reader but in general Stefan favoring politically right politics is not staying true to himself, is not in his logic living by his own personal virtues or values. It's not horrible what he's doing but it's a very obvious flaw as he's been attempting to maneuver in the politically right market for awhile. I think he knows what he's doing and I think personally he's making a mistake but it's his mistake to make. I think appealing to one party over the other will only allow for short term benefits but not gain the attention of both parties.

To prove my point and since Stefan likes empirical data I took a few minutes to look back at Stefans old and new podcasts. I searched for titles containing Obama or Bush. Before I go in to it I wanted to note that he started his shows in 2005 up until now. With that said I will post shows with obama on the title by year and Bush shows by title by year.

Bush Mentioned on FDR: 3
2008 X
2009 X
2010 X

Obama Mentioned on FDR: 31
2008 X,
2009 X, X, X, X, X, X, X, X
2010 X, X, X, X
2011 X, X, X,
2012 X, X, X, X, X
2013 X, X, X, X, X, X, X, X, X
2014 X



FDR1216 True News 12: Statism is Dead - Part 2 -
Posted: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:00:00 GMT
Play Now
The non-prosecution of George W. Bush for murder, and what it reveals about statism.

FDR1431 True News 48 - Burning Bush
Posted: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:00:00 GMT
Play Now

The real reason America invaded Iraq.

FDR1774 Obama's War Crimes - An Interview with David Lindorff about Omar Khadr -
Posted: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:00:00 GMT
Play Now

'As the author of The Case for Impeachment (St. Martin's Press, 2006), I never thought in my lifetime that I would see a president reach the depth of moral decay and depravity of President George W. Bush, but sad to say, our current president, Barack Obama, has managed to do it, and what makes it worse, as a former Constitutional law professor, he knows better.'



FDR1198 True News 7: The Truth About Voting Part 3 - Yay Obama!
Posted: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:00:00 GMT
Play Now

Soooo, you chose the brother over the granddad - and this libertarian could not be happier! :)

FDR1259 True News 18: Obama's Inauguration - The Antidote
Posted: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:00:00 GMT
Play Now

Some insulin for the candy floss of deadly rhetoric.

FDR1323 True News 29 - Obama, Corruption and Guns
Posted: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:00:00 GMT
Play Now

The view from a few months in...

FDR1341 True News 35 - Obama and the Torture of Logic
Posted: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:00:00 GMT
Play Now
Sadly, in a statist world, this is called 'progress'...

FDR1416 Sunday Call In Show 19th July 2009
Posted: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 16:00:00 GMT
Play Now

Barak Obama advocates hitting children, an unwanted child, and the geneosity of donators!

FDR1451 Sunday Show 6 Sep 2009
Posted: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 16:00:00 GMT
Play Now

Obama's school speech, anarcho-communism, and enlightened parenting!

FDR1477 True News 55 -- Obama, Vanity, Grandiosity
Posted: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 11:30:00 GMT
Play Now

Did Obama close Gitmo yet? Get the troops out of Iraq? Sighhhhh

FDR1520 True News: Obama, Afghanistan, and the Graveyard of Empire
Posted: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:00:00 GMT
Play Now

An elegy for the endless idiocies of imperialism.

FDR1578 True News: Public Miseducation and the Shame of History - Freedomain Radio
Posted: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:30:00 GMT
Play Now

Why it is sooo insane for pundits to argue that Obama is having a hard time getting things done because the electorate is sooo dumb! :(

FDR1621 True News: How to Talk to People About Obama's Health Care Bill
Posted: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:00:00 GMT
Play Now

It's really about asking questions to see if people can actually think...

FDR1622 True News: Feedback on How to Talk to People About Obama's Health Care Bill
Posted: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:00:00 GMT
Play Now

Some great feedback from FDR1621...

FDR1774 Obama's War Crimes - An Interview with David Lindorff about Omar Khadr -
Posted: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:00:00 GMT
Play Now

'As the author of The Case for Impeachment (St. Martin's Press, 2006), I never thought in my lifetime that I would see a president reach the depth of moral decay and depravity of President George W. Bush, but sad to say, our current president, Barack Obama, has managed to do it, and what makes it worse, as a former Constitutional law professor, he knows better.'

FDR1839 Freedomain Radio - Live on Truth Transmission
Posted: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:00 GMT
Play Now

The madness of Obama's State of the Union speech, Zetigeist: Moving Forward, the sociopathy of political power, the riots in Egypt and the death of statism.

FDR1966 Stefan Molyneux on the Keiser Report - The Federal Reserve is a Crime!
Posted: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:00 GMT
Play Now

This week Max Keiser and co-host, Stacy Herbert, look at gold's standing ovation for the Obama-Boehner debt ceiling theater. In the second half of the show, Max talks to Stefan Molyneux about the Fed audit and the debt ceiling. KR on FB:

FDR2057 American Detention Has Nothing to do with the War on Terror
Posted: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:00 GMT
Play Now

As the government runs out of fiat currency, it grows more fearful of the people. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantanamo Bay.

FDR2142 Barack Obama: Get Off Julia!
Posted: Tue, 8 May 2012 15:00 GMT
Play Now

Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, dissects the recent Democrat licking of the single woman's ear - the Julia slideshow! Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -

FDR2166 The Truth About Obamacare: Yes, It's Even Worse Than You Think
Posted: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 11:00 GMT
Play Now

Fact 1: There Is No Law in the US Anymore Fact 2: Obamacare Is an Admission That All Previous Government Healthcare Programs Have Failed Fact 3: Cost of Already Doubled from Initial Estimates Fact 4: 70%+ of Healthcare Issues Results from Individual Choice Fact 5: The Inability to Discriminate on Pre-Existing Conditions is an Essential Driver of Healthcare Costs Fact 6: The Fines for Noncompliance Are Destined to Rise Enormously Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -

FDR2167 A Doctor's View of Obamacare
Posted: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:00 GMT
Play Now

Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D. is a former pharmaceutical research scientist and Assistant Professor of Surgery. She has worked extensively with the disadvantaged in low-income housing and was a contender for the 1992 Libertarian Party Vice-Presidential nomination.

FDR2236 Why Obama's Healthcare Mandate Will Fail
Posted: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:00 GMT
Play Now

Most Americans will be required to have health insurance beginning on January 1, 2014. The type of insurance you have, where you will get it, and what you will pay will be determined not by you and your employer or by free choice in the marketplace, but by government. Here are the biggest problems the mandate will create. (For more details, please consult the book Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis.) - Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -

FDR2243 Laurette Lynn and Stefan Molyneux: How to Achieve Freedom
Posted: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:00 GMT
Play Now

Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, and Laurette Lynn discuss the Obama Phone Lady, the necessary steps to free the future, and the value of anger in breaking the cycle of abuse. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -

FDR2376 True News: Obama's Commencement Speech Deconstructed
Posted: Tue, 7 May 2013 17:25 GMT
Play Now

Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, deconstructs Obama's recent commencement speech. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -

FDR2391 Obama's Watergate - Stefan Molyneux on The Peter Schiff Show
Posted: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:35 GMT
Play Now

Stefan Molyneux joins The Peter Schiff Show to discuss the recent scandals which have been plaguing the Obama administration. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -

FDR2510 Obamacare and Other Lies...
Posted: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:25 GMT
Play Now

Some essential information about Obamacare. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -

FDR2515 The Truth About Obamacare
Posted: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:15 GMT
Play Now

Obamacare facts explained by Stefan Molyneux. A comprehensive look at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and it's implementation. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -

FDR2520 The U.S. Constitution is a Warning Label - Wednesday Call In Show October 30th, 2013
Posted: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:45 GMT
Play Now

Helping the free market, Obamacare as a test of the American people, the constitution as a warning label, expressing your preferences to your children, the insanity of communicating hell to children, forced into national service, the danger of falsehoods in your historical narrative, living by the rules you create and aiming to be remembered. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -

FDR2532 Doctors Say NO to Obamacare!
Posted: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 16:45 GMT
Play Now

A poll finds that 44 percent of MDs said they are not participating in the nation's new health-care plan. Another 33 percent say they're still not sure whether to become ObamaCare providers. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -

FDR2533 The Obamacare Extension - Government Without Painkillers!
Posted: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:45 GMT
Play Now

The House approved Republican legislation on Friday giving health insurers the option of extending plans through 2014 that would otherwise be canceled for not complying with Affordable Care Act standards. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -

FDR2554 Mandela, Obamacare and Intellectual Property - Peter Schiff Radio Show December 10th, 2013
Posted: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:00 GMT
Play Now

Stefan Molyneux guest hosts the Peter Schiff radio show and speaks with Stephan Kinsella on Obamacare, the Apple vs. Samsung battle and intellectual property. Stefan also discusses Nelson Mandela and the morality of taking government money. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -

FDR2567 Noam Chomsky: The Race War of Drug Prohibition
Posted: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:00 GMT
Play Now

Noam Chomsky speaks with Stefan Molyneux about the race war of drug prohibition, the prison-industrial complex, the erosion of civil liberties under Barack Obama, moral inconsistencies within government, the removal of media gatekeepers and the reinforcement of societal norms through social ostracism. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -

FDR2605 Obamacare: Too Big To Succeed? A Conversation with Lawrence Reed
Posted: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 15:05 GMT
Play Now

Stefan Molyneux speaks with Lawrence Reed about the problems with Obamacare and the future of heath care in the United States. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -


Obama 30 Bush 3, Obama wins Stefan's attention!

In all seriousness though it's pretty obvious outside the realm of these titles mentioned above more leftist Democrat bashing has been said on Stefan's show as well as on the FDR site. I mean Stefan can do as you please I just wanted to empirically show outsiders why I think the way I do. Most about Obama are very scathing titles made to appeal towards a particular market base( Michael a FDR employee probably came up with the tactic).

I mean look at it logically this way Stefan had since 2005 to talk about Bush or even mention him in his title. He had 3 years till 2008 while Bush was in office to talk about him. Not ONE mention of Bush while in office within his titles until after Bush was out of office in Jan 20, 2009 as Stefans first post on Bush was on Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:00:00 (Obama won the election on Nov 4, 2008, was sworn in Jan 20, 2009). I don't think it's incredibly brave to attack a guy whose already out of office, you had 3 years to do it and then all of a sudden you do ti when he's out of office. From my perspective it's incredibly cowardly.

In a 5 year span Stefan managed to Attack Obama 30 times while in office. The attacks have been consistent and growing on Obama. I'm not sure what's going on but I suspect you see Democrats as a easier target for you to prey upon because they won't attack you versus the republican party or you are politically partial towards the Republican party. Check the link below for someone who has the gull and is a Democrat to say it to the mans face.

Colbert Roasts Bush - 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner

I don't think your a brave person who lives by principles at least from a political perspective. I think your a bit of a opportunist in the political realm when it can benefit you. The problem occurs if you preach living by ones own personal values and virtues yet I see a contradiction to that as pointed out above. No one is perfect and this isn't a horrible thing because I actually like the show and what you have to say a lot but this is something that is so glaringly obvious to me it repeatedly hits in me the face when listening to a FDR show, won't stop me from listening but it's just a annoying thing.

On that front I read a lot of the forbidden ANTIFDR site called . I have to say the majority of what they had to say wasn't that relevant. A lot of personal attack and in general various forms of logical fallacies. However this site does have some things I find interesting enough so that I'll post them up here. I also only really checked this site since the people on this site seemed to have history with FDR. In my experience people who have history or were members of a group but are not any more have the most knowledge on that particular group as well therefore I strategically searched through members who were also old members on the FDR site. I felt the approach I took for this was adequate because the people on this site seemed to have a lot of information that I simply couldn't find anywhere else. It's basically a lightning rod for anything bad about FDR.

Before I quote posts I wanted to say that I do not know if these are factually post and I will keep the poster name anonymous it did come from but I will not link directly where at. These post will contain Stefan's childhood among other things.


I don't think anything about Molyneux is as simple as that, but I do think his explanation that he has discovered philosophical enlightment or that he is "full of treasure for everybody," as he puts it, is equally facile.

I do know that as early as college he believed that he had risen above the world and wanted to lead it out of ignorance:

(Wow--I'm really digging into the archives today, aren't I?)

So, FDR was still about 15 or more years away, but the desire to lead something was already there.

At the same time, I do believe that Molyneux is visiting his own rage at his mother onto his followers. I don't believe he consciously thinks about it that way, but--to the extent the "splitting" theory holds water--he can only think in terms of idealized parenting (which he would consider to be himself and a very few others) and evil parenting (which is everyone else, for the most part). He has tremendous unresolved anger at his own "evil" mother, which he visits upon everyone else.

As far as his brother is concerned, Stefan and Hugh had a complicated relationship for many years. But at no point through the best and worst of it--even when (Stefan claims) he and Hugh were participating in unethical business practices--did he consider breaking with him. That came only after (Stefan believes) that Hugh cheated him out of a lot of money. At that point, Stefan built a whole narrative about going into counseling and purging himself of his own corruption yada yada.

To be sure, there were other elements to this complex story, but I believe the tipping point that started Molyneux down the road he is on today was money. He felt cheated by his brother.

I think there is much more to the story of Stefan and his brother and role it played in the ultimate creation of FDR than he lets on. My guess (and it's a pure guess) that money is at the heart of it all.

Hugh was the entrepreneur and Stefan the bright, younger brother who was floundering in the late 1990's. So Hugh starts Caribou, an information management company, and hires Stefan to sit in the basement and program databases. Hugh is the marketing side and Stefan is the technical side. Stefan assumes rightly or wrongly that he's a full partner in the operation.

The company starts doing well and Stefan keeps hacking away, dreaming of becoming a millionaire. His brother brings in a CEO to run the joint. Next thing you know, the whole thing is being sold and Stefan gets nowhere near the payday he expected. He accuses his brother of colluding with the CEO to pull off a shady deal and "sell the company out from under him." (His words.)

In the end, I think all his defooing/psychology/philosophy is a post-facto rationalization over money. He thinks his brother cheated him blind and that's why he won't talk to him. Ultimately, he channeled his rage into the enterprise you see now.

Ah, but back in the happier days, they created press releases all about brotherly love. Here's an excerpt from one:


Hugh Molyneux says the brotherly bond has played a significant role in the company's early success. "Technological companies fail invariably because there are problems between marketing and technical," said Molyneux, who at 33 is the older brother by three years. "What tends to happen is that marketing looks at technical and says, 'These guys couldn't sell. The business is running because we are selling the product,' and technical is saying, 'These guys don't work for a living. They just go out and schmooze.' But we are very, very close. We have some fights, there is no question about that, and they can become very heated, but we are brothers. In the end, we are always working it out.."

wow, Hugh Molyneux is the real deal, he's a real entrepreneur, the kind that starts businesses. Now I can see how he was the Alpha male when founding the company and Stefan was lucky to be his brother. No surprise Stefan doesn't talk about his entrepreneurial experience in the software world, which took him a third of his life. He's only about childhood, teens and post-marriage years. Where did he learn computer programming, at MIT, Harvard... or during the acting classes? He's a salesperson. Did anybody get in any details with Stefan about his software skills or his "software entrepreneurial" experience? I know he mentions about it whenever he gives an interview. If you know of any podcast on this subject, please let me know, I'd be interested to listen.

Mind control techniques are fairly well documented (although still somewhat concealed) and have been used since the 1920s. Initially developed by the Tavistock Clinic - I think in the attempt to understand and treat shell shock - which was subsequently involved in the spread of psychotherapeutic practices and worked in collaboration with the British Government and military, there are various ways of achieving a tabula rasa condition of the human psyche, which can be subsequently imprinted with the subconscious suggestions required by those running the experiment. Apart from drugs and ECT, standard methods include the use of shock trauma, hypnosis, isolation from external stimuli, and repeated subliminal messages once a state of passivity has been achieved.

In my experience, everyone who becomes an FDR true believer, for want of a better definition, started the process with hours of uninterrupted listening to podcasts. Mr Molyneux has produced, conservatively, around 2,500 hours of material; once they get started, new members will typically listen fairly continuously until devouring at least 500 hours over a period of between six months and one year. The messages are often played through earphones and hence to the exclusion of other stimuli - a process that is encouraged by the speaker's suggestion that people should withdraw from their existing relationships.

With his marketing and acting expertise it is not unreasonable to assume that Mr Molyneux is familiar with mind control techniques. His hallmark style of delivery, with sudden stops, long pauses, sudden changes in emotional content, shifts between banter and tears or anger, subtle, progressive and deliberate creep in terms of subject and seriousness, is perfectly suited to someone whose final goal is to brainwash people, presumably with the simple goal of collecting funds. Listeners typically become receptive to this idea after 300 hours or so, and the podcasts (Mr Molyneux does urge listeners to tackle them in sequence) are so arranged as to draw in the newcomers, gradually weaving guilt into the message and coyly suggesting that a reasonable level of donation will help to assuage such moral culpability.

Like myself, I have heard other ex FDR members mention that they are no longer able to listen to SM's voice for more than a few minutes. Could this be a deeper psychological rejection that is part of the recovery process after succumbing to mind control? Perhaps so. Certainly, as we have seen, once the actual content of his messages is subjected to serious analysis it is fairly quickly revealed that there is no coherent set of ideas or philosophy but rather a random collection of stream of consciousness style rants containing often contradictory ideas, although somehow when we were under his influence we considered his positions to be reasoned and rational.

This hypothesis would also explain why outsiders (those who have not been subjected to mind control) struggle to understand how people can be taken in by such an obvious charlatan.

First, Derron Brown is amazing! I've watched a number of those videos in the past few years. Fascinating stuff.

Now, on to mind control and Molyneux.

First, something that Prodigal Son said is spot on and that is regarding the type of people who find themselves drawn into the community. One thing that is known about destructive cults (not that I'm claiming FDR is one) is that they do not attack a type of person but a point of vulnerability. Anyone is susceptible to a destructive cult and I tend to think the more strong-willed and independent-thinking you are, the more likely you are to be a candidate. Destructive cults seek out people at the point of individuation from their families (which is why you find so many of them at college campuses), or newly divorced, newly unemployed, newly relocated, etc.

Way back, when I first started studying Molyneux's "community," the central questions for me were: Is mind control happening?, If so, how is it happening?, If so, is it intentional?, If so, is it conducted for an unsavory motive?

Those are four very distinct questions that need to be answered, and too often people tend to run them together in their heads. I say let's run them down individually.

Is mind control happening?
Yes, I believe without question it is happening. There are simply too many obvious examples of radical behavior/thought change (and ex-member testimonials to verify them) to ignore. Many articles on my blog cite other evidence.

If so, how is it happening?
There are several contributing factors, including love-bombing and milieu control but one of the most fascinating and interesting elements to me occurs during the podcasts, which others in thread here have noticed. A cult-extraction specialist named conspeclst26, who used to advise parents on Liberating Minds, had the theory that what is happening in the podcasts is something called "Information Overload," which is a very common destructive cult technique.

It works like this. At the beginning of a typical Molyneux podcast, he often states universal truths or things that make sense while you listen with all of your critical faculties operating at optimum. As he continues, sometimes rambling or talking in streams of analogies (as Anarchist points out), your critical mind can't keep up and you often let his subsequent points seep into your mind unaware that you are no longer critically analyzing or questioning them as you had in the beginning (even though you believe you are). As you listen to podcast after podcast, the preposterous ideas build one upon the other and you are completely unaware how far you've been led from objective reality. Almost every ex-True Believer I've talked to realized that in retrospect but was unaware while it was occurring. And, of course, all of this happens in an environment where others are constantly affirm this new reality, so it doesn't seem outlandish at all. Prodigal Son's opening post in this thread captures the "podcast effect" pretty well, I think.

I think this is why Molyneux realizes (probably unconsciously) that his best convincing is done in live conversations where he can overwhelm you with rhetoric or podcasts that you listen to, unable to pause and reflect as you go. His written work is so much more easily dissected. But, once again, if you've already been led to a certain state of mind via the podcasts, the books simply reaffirm your new beliefs and strengthen them. Give On Truth to the average psychologist, however, and they are more likely to laugh themselves silly or recoil in horror.

If so, is it intentional?
This is fuzzier and harder to answer. On one hand, I don't believe Molyneux has the sophisication (or even the desire) to think "I am now going to create a podcast that uses information overload to control the minds of my followers." I think he is just a very brilliant guy who absolutely believes in his "rightness" and preaches through rambling, unfocused podcasts.

At the same time, however, he has studied NLP (that Derron Brown has perfected) and the techniques of selling. He is trying to sell you and will use all the associated techniques--including working on your emotions and unconscious--at his disposal to win you over. It's naive to think that everything happening in his podcasts, convos, listener shows, etc., is accidental.

If so, is it conducted for an unsavory motive?
No, but neither is that true for any destructive cult. No one is a bigger believer in FDR than Molyneux himself. His motives are probably pure, and if you just happen to destroy your life along the way to understand his truth, well, those are just growing pains. You'll be so happy some day, he's sure of it.

Could be. What if at some level Molyneux realizes that and that is why relationships within the community are his enemy? I admit that doesn't "feel" credible to me in this case. But Blackie's story isn't the first time I've heard about FDR couples who felt their relationship came under group scrutiny. Further, I think the only possible result of intense RTRing is the slow death of a relationship. In fact, I've noted several instances of Molyneux admitting that his primary use for RTR is ending a relationship.

I go back and forth. Maybe Molyneux feels a need to ensure that all eyes remain focused on him. Or maybe when it comes to relationships, he's simply an incompetent with a pile of fanciful, but destructive theories. I really don't know. It's interesting that relationships don't seem to survive FDR.

I look at it this way. Molyneux is always right. That must be clearly understood. If you are at variance from the way he thinks or expects you to act, then you are wrong.

The only thing that remains after that is to assign a reason for your wrongness. The most expedient options are those that are outside the argument. In other words, instead of patiently walking you through the logic (which, by the way, you are probably much too dull to grasp), it is much quicker to accuse you of being a hater, troll, psychologically maladjusted, corrupted by culture/government/religion/family, etc. The main purpose for doing this is to have an explanation that will be easily digested by the apprentices; i.e., the people on their way to becoming True Believers. (The True Believers themselves typically don't need the explanation--they knew something was wrong with the person the minute he/she disagreed with Molyneux.)

That's one of the reasons I was so amused by the episode in which bake (and Allison) destroyed Real-Time Relationships. Molyneux kept fumbling around looking for a dismiss-worthy charge to hang on bake all the while she and Allison were staying focused on the argument, beating up RTR with massive clubs of logic.

First, Molyneux seemed miffed that bake hadn't paid for his (free) books. Then he charged her with opening her post with questions about "integrity with standards." Nobody even knew what Molyneux meant by that. Then he said that bake and Allison weren't questioning him with the proper deference. (In short, you can't "question" Molyneux's logic; you can only ask him to explain what you cannot understand.) All of those charges didn't seem to fit. Finally, a True Believer mentioned to Molyneux that bake had been in the chatroom and mentioned she was drawn to RTR because she'd been through a difficult break-up and was seeking to understand it.

Aha! Now Molyneux could charge her with "acting out" her anger at the break-up by criticizing RTR. Problem was, all the while Molyneux was fumbling around looking for that magic reason to send bake away, Allison stabbed RTR in the heart about 3 or 4 million times. (That may be an exaggeration.)

To Blackie's opening question, yes, it is the ultimate hypocrisy for a "community" that (1) is essentially based on child abuse, (2) has two or more Facebook pages on child abuse (that seem mostly designed to feed new recruits into FDR), and (3) is operated by a man who can't stop talking about his own childhood trauma to treat people the way you noted.

Reflecting on this, here is a passage I found about Narcissist Mothers. It seems like a more sophisticated understanding about narcissists and their apparent lack of empathy. See any similarity to what you describe about Molyneux's behavior and the following?

(Disclaimer--just pointing something out, not diagnosing...)

I look at FDR Liberated as a project with a direction or aim that developed over time.

At first, there was no aim to FDR Liberated. I had written a post that was too long for the Liberating Minds forum. I was tired and I didn't want to try to break it up to fit, so I got a free blog and posted it there. (It was The truth behind Stefan Molyneux's response to the UK Guardian.) As a writer, I thought I should learn more Web stuff, so I moved the blog to another free site with more control and then finally to a self-installed Wordpress setup on a cheap host. That worked out great because since then I've become fairly comfortable with HTML and know a smattering of CSS. I didn't have a lot emotional connection to what I was doing. I was just writing about some strange guy on the internet.

The second phase of the blog did have a direction, inspired by a simple ethical question from Kaz: "If you knew there was a bully down the street, would you tell people about it?" For me, the answer was yes. I knew there was a bully who could damage people with his psychological teachings. Instead of muscles, he had a quick mind and eloquence, but he hurt people just the same. That carried the blog forward for a couple of years.

I became more emotionally involved when I started to receive contacts from people who were being pulled into FDR, but began to question everything when they read my site. I got a few other contacts from siblings who were in the process of losing someone and hoped I could explain what was going on. I told them what I could, but for some of them I never knew what happened after that. At least they were informed. Until that point, I never thought of the blog as a force for change.

That (and my growing understanding of the mindset of people in groups such as FDR) led to the third direction change for the blog--my version of "the domino theory." I have no illusions that a True Believer would ever read this site, immediately slap his/her forehead, and jettison FDR.

Instead, I believe that nearly all True Believers live in an FDR world they want to believe in completely but can't help seeing instances of illogic, bullying, manipulation, and hypocrisy. At first, they try to wish them away. But, at some point, something happens that they can't overlook and they ask themselves their first hard question about FDR. That's the domino. Then they start asking other hard questions. Ultimately, they question themselves out of the group altogether. So, this site isn't intended to convince them. Probably no other outside influence convinces them. Once the first domino falls, they work it out all on their own. My blog isn't designed to preach to mind-numbed robots. It offers unassailable bits of reason and evidence to smart people. Every post is intended to be someone's domino.

The point is, at some point I did become emotionally committed to the blog and what it can do. I just think it needs to be there, like a lighthouse, maybe.

Again, I had no aim for the forum except that there needed be something to replace Liberating Minds, a place where people could talk freely about Molyneux's ideas/activities without being censored or banned. I could never have anticipated the people who would join this forum and turn it into what it is today--something I consider far more powerful than the blog. I often wonder how many True Believers scan through the forum and what they make of all these people, some of whom they know, serving up all this truth.

I love the fact that everyone brings their own aim to the forum. It will become whatever we all turn it into.

For me, it's also frustrating that I have been buried under so much of my real-life work for many months now, because this forum gives me an aim to do more stuff. We're slowly starting a wiki and I would like to do some YouTube activity as well. I think about Facebook. We'll see...

Somewhere embedded in all of this is the subject of how Molyneux relates to women in general.

The vast majority of time, Molyneux's observations about women in any context sound odd to me. I think there's something significant there, but I don't have enough evidence to speculate what it is, exactly. Perhaps his childhood experience with his mother played an unfortunate role in the development of his views on gender issues, along with his self-identified lack of success in establishing healthy, adult relationships with women prior to Christina.

Sometimes it seems to me that his understanding of women never really progressed beyond adolescence and adult women, to him, are completely alien life-forms. But I don't know. I do think there is something interesting there, however.

Apparently, while he was in therapy, Molyneux kept a journal that he later titled "Crazy Talk." It is reportedly stream-of-consciousness reflections, some of which I'm sure are embarrassing and some rumored to be misogynist, etc. He has shared it only with a trusted few in the inner circle. I'd be very interested in taking a peek at it.

I suspect the existence of the journal drives him crazy. On one hand, it likely has some pretty embarrassing stuff in there. On the other hand, he probably believes it also contains some valuable insights into the greatness of his mind that would make it required reading for everyone. What to do? Release it or keep it private? In the meantime, he seems able only to share it with the treasured few.

My journal is terribly embarrassing and reflects poorly upon me in many parts, because it's accurate. It stays private until I'm dead, or if a subpoena compels me to reveal it for some reason.

Stefan shares his journal as I understand it because he believes it reveals his path to enlightenment. His time in therapy, for him, was like Mohammed's time in the cave with the angel Gabriel. According to Stefan, he's neutralized his unconscious (he's said that he doesn't dream anymore -- which would be remarkable if true), as he's 'completed his self-work.'

I don't think it contains any special secrets, but it is the foundation of his psychological teachings. He believes that through following his path, other people can transcend their childhood trauma. However, he believes that many people, particularly former believers who have left the faith (like some of those on this forum), are too heavy with sin for their ~unconscious~ to forgive them, or for the bombs in their brains to be defused.

The determinism issue is a hot button for him, because he argues that childhood trauma removes the capacity for free will from people to a large degree. The degree to which you have 'healed' from trauma is the degree to which you have free will. So, Stefan, his wife, and perhaps no one else other than his child have free will. His closest followers (until they're purged) have some degree of free will. Forum trolls are deterministic animals, and should be purged unless they begin traveling down the Stef-fold sacred path.

This is also the source of his arguments about enacting political change. He essentially says that statists are deterministic animals, so they must either be convinced to follow the sacred path (to gain the power of free will) or out-bred in the long term through peaceful parenting.

In this way it's a lot nastier than Christian theology, which purports that, while inherently sinful, man is free. Stefan says that not only are you burdened with sin, but the further burdened with sin you are, the less free you are, and the less capable you are of behaving in a manner more pleasing to God -- err, sorry, a manner more pleasing to rational ethics.

In this way it's a little more like a lower budget Scientology. In Scientology, the further you advance in the OT levels, the more magical powers you gain ('everyone knows everything'), the more heavy the responsibility of rescuing the world from sin rests upon you, and the less prone to sinning that you become.

Once you're free, according to Stefan, it's not possible for you to sin -- to commit crimes or violate the conclusions of UPB ethical evaluations. Your soul is pure and your actions are also sanctified, because your brain has been purged of whatever damage [citation needed] was caused by the raised voices your parents used against you.

Quote from: Disillusioned on May 06, 2013, 11:08:11 AM

Also, I'm sorry if my speculating about Stef and Christina's relationship made some people uncomfortable. I tried to make it clear I was only speculating. More than anything, I was just noting how secretive he's become and how we likely wouldn't know if she left or reconnected with her family. I think pointing this secretiveness out could potentially help TBs see the deception.

It veered toward uncomfortableness (is that a word?) for me only because I know how quickly and easily critics (or an entire forum) can be dispatched by Molyneux as haters and slanderers whenever the conversation gets into personal areas. However, it is sometimes impossible to avoid! So we just have to careful (and thoughtful).

As you've seen on YouTube, FDR TBs won't hesitate to call an entire forum "weirdos," and consider that to be acceptable comment, but Molyneux's critics don't seem to have that same luxury.

At any rate, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the reason for the lack of Christina mention is related to something else entirely. It's quite likely that following Christina's embarrassment by the College, the two of them decided that her name would not be associated with FDR at any time, including any of his podcasts.

My sources sometimes have his mother's first name as "Christa" or "Christie."

Christie and Thomas had two children, Hugh and Stefan. They were divorced when Stefan was an infant. Stefan's father re-married and had a daughter. I heard somewhere that she was born mentally challenged. Molyneux rarely speaks of his half-sister.

I have information and a few pictures of the Molyneux family, including some dates, maiden names, some contact information, etc., I've done a fair amount of searching for more information on Christie, but have found nothing. I'm no longer even 100% sure if both parents are still alive.

UPB is basically a tool for exposing moral hypocrisy by applying scientific rigor to the realm of morality.

He fails, however, to ask some fundamental questions:
- What is "morality"? Is it a real/useful concept?
- Is it valid to apply the scientific method to morality?

The questions above are the hard ones, so I can understand why he avoided them. But without a clear understanding of those issues (personally/on the part of his listeners) he gets to more or less arbitrarily decide when/how UPB does/doesn't apply.

It seems those decisions are based more on personal benefit than some sort of rigorous thought process, so it's completely understandable that even longtime listeners haven't been able to extract a set of general principles from UPB. It's pretty much impossible to do so while simultaneously holding the belief that Stefan knows what he's talking about and is acting in good faith.

For me, UPB only comes into clear focus when viewed as a rhetorical tool of convenience for Stefan. If it's based on a first principle, that principle is WINNING. That's why critics are so threatening to Stefan and must be denounced/disposed of. Once a listener realizes how much more sense everything makes when taking a cynical view of Stefan--it's not just that they're too stupid to "get" UPB--it's very hard to come back from that.

UPB is a methodology for testing which ethical theories are valid and true. UPB is also a name for the one theory that passes that test. UPB is also the name for the behavior described in that theory. UPB is also the name of the book that contains the argument for all this.

The argument very quickly seems to be this:
- ethics is a theory (not an art or a skill or something)
- ethics is a theory about behavior/actions (not about motivation, character etc.)
- theories, both scientific and ethical, are to be tested for logical consistency and conformity with empirical evidence
- only theories that pass both tests are valid and true
- universal is the same as logically consistent
- so ethical theories need to be universal
- so an ethical theory that says that a certain action is good or bad says (or should say) that such an action is good or bad always and for everyone (unless there is a morally significant difference in different cases)
- good actions should be possible actions
- because it should always be possible to be good it should always be possible to do good actions
- so when a theory says that rape is good the theory is invalid because it is impossible for two people in a room to be raping each other at the same time
- the only ethical theory that passes the universality test is the theory of UPB which basically is the theory of the non-aggression principle.
- the theory of UPB is also confirmed by empirical evidence in that people everywhere abide by it generally
- the UPB argument is the greatest intellectual achievement in the history of mankind

s I've begun to write a short overview of UPB elsewhere, I've begun to get the following impressions.

Stefan hates the state (and other unchosen relationships) and has over the years come up with various arguments he thinks disprove various supporting arguments for the state. UPB is a cobbled-together collection of those. For instance, he doesn't think the state should be able to force others to do things, and so he includes his completely ridiculous coma test to try to disprove the justness of that.

Because his purpose has nothing to do with living a good life or anything else 'morality' generally refers to, you'll see definitions very limited in scope (when you see any definitions at all...). So, 'morality' is redefined so that it's essentially only the topic of when it's alright to inflict violence on people who don't want it. This leaves out discussion of personal virtues, what you should do when nobody else is around, how you should live your life to get the most happiness or ideas that you're a good person, and so much more that's generally included in morality but that doesn't strictly involve interpersonal violence.

It also strictly focuses attention on arguments that support the state and other unchosen relationships. You won't find proofs against wasting your life away in gambling, but you will find proofs against the special rights of the police and so on, because only the latter are topical.

Everything has one aim: destroying justifications for the state. UPB is a random grab bag of that.

Universal Morality: A Proposition - by Stefan Molyneux

Here's my basic understanding of UPB:

It is true (I agree with this) that, given a particular set of desires/preferences/goals, there are certain actions which are better for reaching those goals, objectively, than other actions. For example, if your goal is to become a great basketball player, practicing basketball is objectively better for reaching that goal than, say, starting a SuperSizeMe Diettm.

That part is fine by me: given a preference, some behaviors are objectively better than others.

But of course that stance in itself is a fundamentally amoral stance. "If you goal is to be a great basketball player, you should practice," in that moral framework, is not MORE moral than "If your goal is to have John dead by 3:30 tomorrow afternoon, you should purchase a gun and shoot him." They both follow the formula: you have a goal, and the best way to achieve that goal. Nothing about morality there.

But then, they take that and they start adding arbitrary extra rules to it to try to make it vaguely resemble morality. But, if you look closely, these rules are just very ad-hoc. "You shouldn't violate the NAP" becomes a rule somehow...even though certain goals and preferences you could feasibly have would require you to violate the NAP. So, UPB is "You should do the action that is best for your goals, except in these specific circumstances that I've made up ad-hoc to make my ideas resemble conventional morality."

The most useful use of UPB has always been:

Alright, so you are telling me I should do x (e.g., stop yelling at you), and you know what, that is a rule you are making for me; therefore, you have to follow that same rule.

Great! Fine.

It is useful, but not always. Stef extends this to preferences (e.g., I prefer truth), therefore that is a rule that everyone should follow only because it can be construed a rule...
...or else you are baaad, bad, bad, hypocritical, etc.
Because truth can be preferred, it must be preferred by everyone else, or that would be a catastrophe! Where else will I get my virtue ethics then? But wait, this is where I hook you in: not only is it possible for people to prefer truth, but it is an inescapable fact that they do prefer truth, because xyzfiddlesquid. And anyone who tries to disagree will be dismissed, because they obviously don't prefer truth, so everything they say is nonsense or a lie!

And anyone else who isn't following that arbitrary rule <x> which I proved is valid for every form of sentient life that can read this sentence using my coma test is bad or wrong. Even if they've never heard of UPB. But let's face it, even a child the age of 2 gets UPB: that's why they're always seeking exceptions to the rules because they're such little geniuses. And psychopaths do the same thing, seeking to create exceptions for themselves to moral rules, and that makes them evil. Such little geniuses!

UPB tries to create restrictions on bad behavior and justify good behavior by arbitrarily trying to universalize everything, but in so doing, makes a mockery of personal preference. A perfect example of this is when, in a relationship with an FDRer, you ask them to be a bit more empathetic, and then they in turn point out that you (for one reason or another) are not being empathetic yourself (e.g., in the way you asked it), and then angrily or coldly deny your request, which you deserve because you were obviously "creating a rule" that you were not following, which is narcissistic/psychopathic/evil or unvirtuous/unfair.

You can apply this to anything. Honest, empathetic, nonviolent...

So when I, in my excruciating needy-ness and loneliness (the pain of which actually surpassed the pain I felt of being trapped in a household where I was brutally beaten and shouted at by my parents) wanted someone in FDR to listen to me so I could talk about all the pain I was going through, I was flat-out told that I have created a rule that people should listen to me, but do not deserve it because it would only be fair that I should listen to everyone else's problems too (and fulfill some kind of quota?) before I can even hope to deserve to burden a sympathetic ear. And this is after I donated upwards of $200 to Stef, but of course I took it back because I needed it to deFOO. And of course wouldn't I, in that state, make such a wonderful listener and helper? And if I can't do that... Well, shit, I've got bags of money from this minimum wage job (which I was also guilted/moralized into taking after 6 months of laying in bed severely depressed after having left my parents), and inability to accept money from my corrupt and evil parents, haven't I? (Why don't I have heat or electricity and am late on rent? No reason.) I can just go buy the time of a corrupt therapist for $100/hr who doesn't know what deFOO is and isn't statistically likely to agree with the idea that I should never forgive my parents. I'm just too lazy to do any of this, that's all, just like my parents said, just like Stef said. I'm too lazy and bad. I just need to pull my socks up!

Did I pass the coma test? Yes, at ≥18 years (because all people at the non-arbitrary age of ≥18 years old are fully functioning adults of the same capabilities), and with a "brilliant" mind, I am fully or at least mostly responsible and all those things Stefan advised me on using UPB were perfectly just, weren't they? After all, it came from the man himself, the man I admired and looked up to as my hero!

Now that you understand UPB, you can go forth and become the Champion of Justice, bringing ethics and philosophy back up from the underworld and protecting innocent victims of child abuse everywhere! Oh wait...

Continued in next post
#3 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Burger KingPosted: Feb 24, 2014 - 19:55

I can't stop posting pictures of poop, what the fuck is wrong with me?

Level: 5
CS Original

Before I quote posts I wanted to say that I do not know if these are factually post and I will keep the poster name anonymous it did come from but I will not link directly where at. These post will contain Stefan's childhood among other things.


Quote from: Anarchist on October 26, 2012, 07:59:24 PM

Quote from: Argent on October 26, 2012, 11:30:57 AM

I wish I could say I wish her well, but what I wish for is a thorough investigation. I hope they have the podcasts (hard to find since they were purged from the site years ago) and have listened to them.

My overall read on Christina is that she lets Stefan push her around. In the Ask A Therapist podcasts I heard, it was mostly him giving his amateur advice, and her parroting it. Fine, she's stopped doing the podcasts, but I really wonder what goes on in their home. Does she discuss client cases with him? Does he fill her with his theories, and does she then feed his theories back to her clients? I unfortunately cannot imagine that this is not happening, in which case they should be taking a serious look at her fitness to practice.

As far as that goes, if anyone knows some great representative podcasts, the contact information of the people holding the hearing lists a few different e-mail addresses that look applicable.

Christina and Stefan actually discussed Christina's fears that the psychological community would revoke her license due to her involvement with Freedomain Radio in podcast 724 (Christina's Resistance to Freedomain Radio), starting around 8:10, coming to the conclusion that the fears are irrational assumptions springing from unpleasantries in childhood:
Quote from: Christina Molyneux

Yeah, and I think the war or the conflict within myself is that I have this capacity to do great things and I don't want to accept it...and that's my history. You know--I mean, every time I tried to speak the truth or tried to say something that was worthwhile, I got ignored or I got attacked and so I have this fear of speaking out.

I have this fear of speaking out that if I speak up--I have this association in my mind that the world is hurtful, and of course that's mistaking my parents for the world, which is not the case: my parents to my community. My community was incredibly stifling--you know--incredibly stifling and filled with a bunch of second handers to use a term out of Ayn Rand.

So anyone who dared to be not just different--because you know they like 'different' for the second hander quality that that allows them, but--anyone who dares to speak the truth or dares to speak honestly and question things was quickly put in their place--and so--and harshly, harshly, harshly put in their place, so I mistake because I had--that was my existence when I was a little girl and growing up even through my teens and my early twenties when I was involved with the Greek community, when I was involved more heavily with my family, that any time I tried to do anything, I was stifled, and it was a scary place.

I don't want--I have this fear now that the world is going to attack me for speaking out. I have this, I think--I'm not sure if we ever talked about it on a podcast or not, but--certainly this fear that, if I come on air and start talking about psychology, that the psychological community was going to come after me because I'm saying something out of line or...

Quote from: Stefan Molyneux

Your licensing organization was going to attack you and take away your license and cripple you economically and so on?

Quote from: Christina Molyneux

Oh, absolutely, and these are of course irrational fears and they're borne out of my past and my history, but now it's affecting Freedomain Radio.

Quote from: Stefan Molyneux

And another aspect that I think is interesting which we talked about was that women are allowed to feel fear.

Quote from: Christina Molyneux


Quote from: Stefan Molyneux

Men generally are not encouraged or allowed to feel fear--it's not that women are encouraged to feel fear, but--it's an acceptable emotion for a woman to feel caution, to feel fear, to feel small in that way.

Quote from: Christina Molyneux

Oh yeah. Yeah, and you know it's also--I mean many women are small. Right? So...

...and she goes on to talk about how women want men to help them to not be afraid all the time and further conclusions.

Amazing. It's really just Stef talking through her. She has internalized the whole narrative that Stefan constructed for her re her worries about losing her license. I mean, she had legitimate fears that she might run into professional problems and then when Stefan is done with her she has come to 'realize' that those fears were irrational, that they were caused by childhood trauma and by a different kind of fear, namely the fear to be great, and that by not standing up to this fear she is endangering Stefan's project. (and his 'logic', when he tries to show that her not joining in on Freedomain Radio somehow, is so flawed and so Stefanian. He gives two and only two options, both of which supposedly demonstrate his point)

You can just tell that they had this conversation with each other before and that Stefan constructed this narrative in it and for her and that she now has it rehearsed so much that she can talk about it (almost) as if they are her own ideas. But truly, one can virtually *hear* Stefan talking through her. This narrative is so typically Stefanian. Hell, she even uses a friggin' term from Ayn Rand ('second handers', a term I'd never heard of) which makes my theory that Stefan constructed this narrative for her even more plausible). And notice that she says 'harsh' three times. I think the repetition was necessary because it's untrue. This is something Stefan has had to make her believe, something he had to imprint on her, and now by repeating it twice she is sort off signalling to Stefan that yes, she remembers to say 'harsh', knowinfg that if she hadnt explicitly said that, he would have called her on it somehow (either during the podcast or afterwards). Also, at some point he does his typical grinning 'nononono...' when correcting her.

She has been so totally and utterly manipulated and bullied by him (and allowed herself to be). One of the sad things is that she was simply right (about her fear re licensing). I wonder how he is or has been rationalizing all this to her ever since the first news of the hearing.

(to be sure, and as discussed earlier and elsewhere, I strongly disagree with the ethics of the whole hearing thing and that she could lose her license for this)

[speculation]I think Stefan was in therapy when he was in his early or mid 30s and I think it was roughly in or after this period that he broke off contact with his family. One of the things he did in his therapy, IIRC, was journaling and also writing down his dreams.

Well, a couple of years ago a book was published in Holland written by a girl who said she was forced into prostitution by her boyfriend at age 12 and then worked as a prostitute and in a criminal organization until she was about 18. She appeared in a lot of TV shows, did a lot of interviews and the book was a huge bestseller.

But then some journalists and others (such as some of her friends from that time who said she was in school with them rather than skipping school, doing drugs, working as a prostitute etc.) began to question her account, and it quite quickly became clear that although it was likely that she had suffered some form of trauma at some point in her life, pretty much everything else in the book was just false, just made up.

I was watching a documentary about this affair and one of the people interviewed was a professor in legal psychology who said that when in therapy people are aksed to write down their stories (as, I think, this girl was also aksed to do (though, to be sure, she was hardly passive in this and clearly had a strong drive for self promotion and need for attention and a lively imagination), authentic memories might be mixed with falsehoods so that/until the narrative becomes plausible, at least for the person him/herself. Over time this new story including the falseboods then takes on the form of real memories, the falsehoods acquire the characteristics, at least the emotion characteristics, of real memories, and this is one of the reasons that it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, for people to later recognize/admit to the falsehoods in the story.

Now this is probably not that surprising or anything, but it got me thinking about the role that therapy and journaling may have played in Stefan's life. IIRC he did therapy in his early or mid 30s. Especvially for somebody like Stefan who, like the girl who wrote that book, has 1) such a strong narrative drive and imagination, the need to tell stories (I mean this neutrally, not that this drive necessarily involves untruths), 2) a strong sense of the importance of morality, 3) a strong sense of the importance of himself and his abilities, such writing exercises may result in his there and then creating or recreating the narrative of his life that he has since internalized and presented to the outside world and based many of his ideas on or bjuilt them around. And that narrative was especially important because in this period in his life he was not successful, he may have felt like a failure, not haviong achieved what he thought he was going to achieve, having failed in academia, in his professional career, in his relationships etc. This was not a good time for him and he needed an explanation for that fact.

And then basically the narrative that he constructs comes to revolve around the central themes that that the people around him had always done him wrong and not recognized him and his talents for what they truly are, that he, with some minor exceptions, had always been the moral one, that he was surrounded by corruption and that this was what had always held him back, internally, in his own mind, and externally, in the world out there. Then once he recognized in himself and admitted to himself that his only failure lay in not recognizing that it was not he who was the failure but the world around him, he started his way up and woukld soon be thinking about how only he could save the world. He didnt need or get any more therapy after he had had roughly this insight and he got this insight because it was at least in part through the writing exercises in his therapy that he got to construct or reconstruct the narrative of his life. I dont think he talked explicitly about this narrative in the therapy, with his therapist, though. I think it was important that the therapy sort of gave rise to some more independent, self-directed self-therapy where no feedback and constraints presented by another person could get in his way. Or it may be that his therapist sort of enabled or even directed him, in the way that this happened in a lot of the 'false memories' affairs, but I think his mind works too independently for that to happen. Either way though, his therapy may have been a turning point in his life because it gave rise to a new, self-serving narrative of his life that has formed the basis for his later self and self-presentation.[/speculation]

A simple overview of the timeline (did he do his therapy before, during or after he broke with his family, for example) might refute or at least undermine some or all of my speculations though.

nteresting post! Some related thoughts:

Stefan's sense of morality doesn't require a repeated pattern of abuse in order to label someone as immoral. He's happy using a small handful of examples of elevated aggression as proof that one's parents were bad people, didn't love their children, etc. So, in the extreme possibility that there is a wide gulf between Stefan's believed characters of his family, and his family's actual characters, he wouldn't have needed to create hundreds of false memories in order to make that leap. He'd just need to focus on a few examples and extrapolate to what those mean about his family members as people. From there, it's a straight line to deFOO.

You touch on the emotional aspect of memories, and I think that is important. From what I've learned about memory, the "emotional coloring" of memories is rather volatile, and can easily be altered during recall. So if you can get someone into an upset emotional state and then have them recall memories from their past, those memories can be altered to seem more upsetting than how they were originally experienced. This type of memory altering doesn't involve the altering of externally-verifiable events, but rather the person's subjective beliefs about the events.

Recall that Stefan used to harp on "your emotions are valid, and no one can tell you what to feel or how you felt". If we grant that, as well as the volatility of the emotional coloring of memories, then Stefan should be handling his listeners' pasts (and, indeed, his own) with a lot more care. With his current brash approach, it could be that he is having the effect of telling his listeners how to feel about their pasts--the very act he supposedly opposes. On the contrary, I think he sometimes goes so far as to instruct his listeners to alter the emotional content of memories, because 'your parents suppressed your True Self when you were a child, and didn't allow you to feel emotions.'

Quote from: Elucidated on November 25, 2012, 07:08:44 AM

Quote from: Conrad on November 25, 2012, 06:44:23 AM

note also that:

1. according to Stefan, I think, the great majority of people have experienced trauma in their childhood, so he can use this strategy of dealing with criticism by attributing it to childhood trauma a lot,

2. somehow agreement with Stefan is never explained away as the result of childhood trauma, it's only criticism that gets this treatment.

So if you agree with Stefan it's because he is correct and the fact that you probably experienced trauma in your childhood is irrelevant, but if you disagree with him it's because of that childhood trauma.

That leaves the set of people who have suffered no trauma in their childhood but still disagree with Stefan. That set would be either empty (possibly by definition) or would tend to be empty as such people whose mind is still pure will, even though they might initially somehow disagree with Stefan, almost immediately become convinced of the truth of Stefan's arguments when they hear them.

Exactly its a catch 22, and the biggest, glaring great hypocrisy of the whole thing is that if he himself suffered childhood trauma, how is it that he able to see the truth when childhood trauma prevents others from doing so?

no, i don't think you understand. Remember rule #2 that I mention above: if you agree with Stefa, then your childhood trauma is irrelevant. Because Stefan agrees with Stefan, his childhood trauma is irrelevant, so you can't use that against him.

Only if he disagrees with himself, if he is internally conflicted, can one attribute it to his childhood trauma. And this is exactly what he does: when he feels (or felt in the past) internally conflicted about something it was because his false self, the self that was the result of his childhood trauma, got in the way, tried to make him feel afraid, vulnerable etc. That was his former environment, his mother, his brother, his teachers and so on trying to project their own damage on to him, trying to make him feel as damaged and afraid and corrupt as they were, trying to hold him back.

But once he overcame his false self he achieved certainty: because there is no internal conflict anymore and when there is no internal conflict he cannot disagree with himself and when he agrees with himself, rule #2 mentioned above comes into play.

See, it all makes sense.

FDR and Stef are being discussed at

odcast #920: Stef insults listeners for not buying T-Shirts

J. P. and Stefan Molyneux


I do not know Stefan Molyneux personally, I actually think he's a pretty good person from when I did listen to him. He's certainty not perfect by no means and as above I have pointed out some things of interest. If the info on his brother is true I had suspected that Stefan wishes he could be like his brother to be a self starter like him to be brave. Stefan has said his mother has seen him as the star, and his mother often has given him praise but I think that praise went to his other brother Hue when he became successful. Stefan rebelled by excommunicating himself from his mother, and use logic and reason to do so so he would no longer subject himself for the lack of praise she once gave Stefan that now goes towards his brother.

Stefan essentially wants to be who is brother is a success. Hue has started up many successful entrepreneur business yet Stefan has never really mentioned this individual. This would suggest undealt with anger and resentment towards him. Stefan is upset because he does not get the praise he deserves and I suspect to get similar praise he must start a community to fulfill the void that was no longer there. Again this is just speculation and I'm not saying Stefan is wrong or right if this is the case or that I'm wrong or right for speculating. My speculation is entirely based off the above statement above and the readings I read on and .

Therapy is designed to help people coupe with problems. A therapist will never tell a person they are wrong or right on how they cope with it but will suggest that do it in a none destructive manner. This means Stefan coping method is strictly for himself, that it may not actually be right per sey but it's the only way he can get by to deal with the day to day bump and grind of life. It's not really meant to be applied towards everybody else but Stefan yet his approach is like that. I'm fine with his approached actually some of the things he says I actually agree with and am trying to adopt into my thinking as well, but I mean i do this for other people as well such as Milton Friedman or James Rhandi etc...

I think Molynouex is doing good things but I do think he has a lot of problems he has yet to deal with. I do not think Stefan is the greatest at reading people. He seems perplexed at reading general social ques. To deal with this he has developed a philosophical system based on logic and reason to interpret these social ques. I suspect his most troublesome areas is with woman. When I hear on his show, "Woman won't date me cause I'm ugly", I sort of laugh. Yes pretty people do get more of an advantage but life is in fact not fair when your born out of the womb my friend. I agree the people in this world can be better including myself, but there are other factors besides the pretty factor as to why people will listen to someone. Milton Friedman, or Ludwig von Mises is someone I enjoy listening to, he's by societal standards not the most attractive person but it's not about what he looks like but rather the argument he raised, the logic he uses. I can't speak for everyone but I simply do not buy stuff because a person is pretty.

Sure society as a whole may buy to much into looks but there are other factors such as logic and reason and if a person can present them on the internet in written or verbal form in a compelling way that's all that matters.

At that I wanted to touch upon Stefans throat cancer. I sympathies greatly about anybody that has cancer but I got to say I've never heard someone talk about fighting death and being at deaths door so much. I get it, you had cancer you got rid of it but you make it look like you deserve a gold medal or something. You lived that's great lets move on. Cancer is a horrible thing, there are no guarantees in life, we're getting back to life is unfair theme, I'm not telling you what to do but it gets annoying after listening to you so many times with your fight with cancer and how you had to put theory into practice. It's again so glaringly obvious why you are the way you are, why you need praise. What happened is you were not a hero you had a lump someone in the throat the Canada's doctors had yet to determine if it was cancerous, you panicked and said oo my I need to look at this now. You ran to the U.S. to get it checked out since the U.S. has the best cancer research facilities and treatment in the world (government funded research). You got it cut out there and then found out it was cancerous which made you even panic more. You didn't fight the Canadians health care system because U.S. health care service industry is not a free market. For sure it's a traumatizing event, you did a rational thing, you did something basically anybody else would in your shoes would of done.

Again I think but cannot confirm that Stefan resents his brother a lot. I think he wants to be like him to be a success in some way to make a impact. As much as Stefan preaches about being a entrepreneur I don't think Stefan was ever actually a entrepreneur as it was more his brother and Stefan sort of tagged along with him. Stefan can't do this through entrepreneurial ventures because he's not good at that so he's trying to what he thinks make a bigger splash through wanting his works to stand the test of time. I think Stefan is doing a great job of making very compelling and passionate works but he has a lot of things in his closet he doesn't want to let out either. I could go on but for now I'll sop here.
#4 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]