Random observations, quotes, excerpts, and stuff

I hope you’ll forgive me for not mentioning this. You know that little article I wrote about the crazy thinking behind Molyneux’s Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness?

It occurred to me shortly afterwards that with one simple change, Molyneux could have turned it from one of his more destructive podcasts into one of his very best. Do you know what that change is? Instead of “proving” why you should make loved ones who hurt you grovel for your mercy, he should have said “this is what you should do if you hurt someone you love.”

One simple change in focus, and it transforms from a narcissistic exposition on selfishness into a loving exposition on caring for the most important people in your life. (I probably should have saved this post for Valentine’s Day. Whatever.)

He got everything right except the direction. And that is why he got it so terribly wrong and created something so sadly revealing.

---

The sad little life of Izzy, the symbol. For some time now, Molyneux has been posting countless new photographs of himself with baby Isabella on FDR. Surprising, when you consider that most FDR True Believers condemn the pride their parents showed in them as something that was selfishly motivated, something they were taking credit for. You know, just another example of parental narcissism. (Hey, I just report the facts–don’t blame me if they don’t make sense.)

True Believers have accepted with all their hearts the Molyneux revelation that there aren’t any “really good parents out there.” That is, of course, until Molyneux came along, sired Izzy, and is now blazing the trail of perfect parenthood for all of us.

And so Izzy has become a symbol. To the True Believers, a symbol of what the world might be like if everyone had really good parents. A symbol for their own lost childhoods that became instead the damaged “inner child” they must now carry around inside–the child unforgivably ill-used by their own not-really-good parents. A symbol for the children they hope to bring into the world. A symbol for the future.

Izzy has been exposed to the world enough, so I’ll just gently tiptoe around a reality, a cynical little reality almost obscured by all those symbols. By constantly posting Izzy’s pictures, using her as little more than an advertisement for himself and his own perfect parenthood, using her as part of his promotion of FDR, Molyneux is simply exploiting his poor daughter in a way his True Believer’s parents never even dreamed of.

But hey, good marketing is where you find it, right?

And so it goes.

---

So, is this “FDR II, THE SEQUEL”? FDR has been through interesting changes over the years…

…the 2006 version when it actually was a community and Molyneux actually wrote the cogent essays he later recorded as podcasts (instead of simply recording barely-focused ramblings off the top of his head and releasing them un-edited as he does today)…

…the 2007 blow-up as Molyneux became bigger-than-FDR, a number of his free-er thinking members departed, his site became his livelihood, and he began granting “Philosopher King” titles at $500 a pop…

…the media attention in 2008 from The Guardian and other journalists that ended the bold and transparent role Molyneux played in separating his followers from their parents (didn’t end the role altogether, of course, just the bold and transparent part)…

..and now the 2009+ refined FDR in which Molyneux refuses to acknowledge (but never repudiate) the foundational philosophy of FDR.

I hate to bring up Scientology (because it sounds like I’m going to use the “c”ult word), but doesn’t it kind of remind you of the way L. Ron Hubbard’s craziest notions are now carefully hidden from normal people’s view until they become deeply integrated into that “community”?

So instead of Scientology, I’ll use a Godfather II analogy. Doesn’t it seem like FDR has suddenly moved to Vegas and is trying to be legit? I’ve already noted that many of the more embarrasing “psychology” documents and podcasts (along with evidence of any involvement of his wife Christina) are being rapidly purged from the site. And now Molyneux has his web radio show where he interviews libertarians of more significance than himself (and who don’t really have a clue who he is) in an attempt to lend their credibility to his.

But his original followers? They’re quickly becoming a minority and maybe an embarrasing one at that. A greater percentage of newer donating FDR members appear to have bought into the myth (for now) that Molyneux advocates defooing only in the most extreme situations, greatly outnumbering the original True Believers–the ones who learned in Molyneux’s early essays that defooing is an essential step for every virtuous AnCap.

You know, the ones who actually built his “community.”

In my view, if you are going to have a philosophy–no matter how crazy–you should live it. And you certainly shouldn’t be afraid to say it out loud. If not, then admit you were wrong. Molyneux has never actually rescinded his absolutist views on the psychology/philosophy connection (I don’t think he can, actually). No, those ideas have simply become the crazy uncle in the attic that no one talks about. (Oops, forgot! This is supposed to be a Godfather II analogy…) They’re the bodies Molyneux left floating in the East River before FDR put on its silk suit and skipped town.

At the risk of appearing to care more about Molyneux’s members than he does…If I’m right and Molyneux is changing the face of FDR to something that appears less crazy, then what of those defooed members–the poor folks on whose backs he built FDR? They’re scattered out there, mostly friendless and unable to socialize with the people around them, believing themselves to be victims of parental abuse, ekeing out some kind of minimum wage and sending in their donations. Will he one day call “All-y all-y in free!” and send them back to their friends and families? Or will he absolve himself of them, wash his hands, and move on?

I wonder what Michael Corleone would do?

---

I’m probably some kind of genius or something. Several weeks have elapsed between the time I wrote the note directly above this one and now. During that time, FDR completely changed its home page and made everything I wrote above sound almost…prescient. (Of course, I’m the only one who knows that since I’m publishing them both at the same time, but trust me!)

The “Corleones-move-to-Las-Vegas” maneuver is nearly complete. Molyneux continues to take on the air of legitimacy, advertising the Blog Talk Radio interviews he now does with freedom luminaries. They honestly believe he is promoting them and not using them to promote himself, poor dears.

I wonder if he mentions to his interviewees that if their parents believe(d) in government or religion they are victims of child abuse? Or that if they believe in either of those then they are/will be abusers? I’m going to take a stab and guess “no.” I didn’t hear his interview with Dr. Stuart Shankar, Prof. of Philosophy and Psychology at York University, but I wonder if he mentioned to him that he thinks academic philosophers have turned ethics into “a subjective and murky swamp”? Again, probably not.

The new home page tells us that FDR is “The largest and most popular philosophical conversation in the world.” This will probably come as a shock to the freedom-focused folks at Mises.org, Anti-State, Free Talk Live, and elsewhere. Especially because FDR has 7,000 members and they have, well, more.

Maybe Molyneux is counting the number of people who download his podcasts or listen to Blog Talk Radio (but aren’t interested enough in what he’s saying to actually join the “conversation”)?

Maybe he is referring strictly to sites that bill themselves as Philosophy forums. That’s it.

But wait. I just picked a couple sites at random and it turns out that The Philosophy Forums has nearly 27,000 members and the Online Philosophy Club has nearly 36,000. I’m crazy like this but isn’t that also more than FDR’s 7,000? I’m confused now. They promised me there would be no math in blogging.

I’m reluctant to suggest again that FDR’s proud 7,000 are mostly spam accounts but, as I mentioned in last month’s Quickies!, a few thousand of those folks seem to have e-mail addresses like putajackhammerinyourpants@sexpills.ca so I’m just not sure.

---

You know what I’d say to defooers? I had a chance to once because someone who was thinking about it asked over at Liberating Minds. It was a pretty courageous thing to do, since Molyneux tends to ban members who post on sites he hasn’t approved. (I know, I know…I guess you can only have a Free Domain if you keep your members from being “corrupted” by outside opinions, but that’s for another Quickie!)

The conversation was about a pretty knotty problem–about the feelings and motivations behind a defoo. Defooing is a painfully emotional experience. Blame can get thrown around a lot, along with accusations of insensitivity on either side.

I don’t know if the person actually defooed or is still an FDR member. Anyway, this is what I said (after I edited some unnecessary junk out and deleted the user’s name):

Hi, there!

Welcome! I appreciated your thoughtful post and I hope it is the first of many. I don’t think anyone can really understand the child who leaves his or her family until one understands what a tremendously terrifying and painful step it must have been–a desperate step people take when they believe they have no other choice, when they believe the family has become entirely insensitive to their basic needs.

In fact, I think that having a clear understanding of how everyone is experiencing the family is so important, it’s universal.

In other words, it should exist on both sides.

Unfortunately, people who become associated with FDR are given equally insensitive claims about the hurt their families experience following a defoo. These claims–and most attempts by Molyneux/FDR to extend the defoo–bring the issues no closer to resolution than ignoring the pain of the child before the defoo.

Stefan Molyneux repeatedly–as sweeping generalities–counsels defooers that the family isn’t hurt when they leave. Or if there is pain, it isn’t real or legitimate. Repeatedly, he has used clever phrases such as “you don’t defoo your family, they defoo you.” He characterizes the heart-wrenching and anguished attempts of the family to reach out to their child as simply the wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who have lost their ability to control or humiliate. He counsels defooers to cut off all communications which, not coincidentally, also shields them from seeing first hand what the family is experiencing.

Any attempt by Molyneux to claim he does this on a case-by-case basis is clearly false. In books such as “On Truth,” and many, many podcasts, he makes blanket condemnations of parents and families.

If it is wrong for parents to ask a defooed child “did you set out to hurt your family?” without really understanding what the child has gone through, it is just as wrong for a counselor to consistently claim–”go ahead and leave–your parents don’t understand you anyway and you aren’t going to be hurting them in a way that should matter to anyone.”

Because in summary, that is Molyneux’s opinion and that is his advice.

My question has always been–once the defooed child has made his/her escape, once they’ve established the separate peace they need and deserve for their mental health–what next? If hanging around FDR is the answer, then why do the closest members of Molyneux’s inner circle seem no happier today–and in fact are still posting with their same family complaints–than the day they joined FDR? (In my opinion, the longer they stay, the worse the family complaints actually become!)

Clearly, clearly there are unresolved feelings. For those who have such feelings, why not just say to their families: “I left because I felt I had to. I’m not apologizing for it and I’d be disappointed if you didn’t make an earnest attempt to understand why. However, I do have unresolved feelings. Some of them are anger. Some of them could be love. I’m willing to do the work to see if we can have a family relationship, but only if you are prepared to do the same. If so, then we all need to go into counseling together and resolve these feelings and I need your commitment that you will fully participate. This is the only available, non-negotiable, next step for us–take it or leave it.”

That seems so extraordinarily common-sense to me. Yet, in hundreds of thousands of posts on FDR and in over a thousand podcasts, I’ve never seen it seriously suggested–not once–that troubled families should seek counseling. Only separation.

Why is that, do you suppose?

I wish more FDR members were curious about that one.

Click below to e-mail or DIGG, etc., this article! As always, I welcome your comments!