Author Topic: Our parents lied  (Read 18485 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Prodigal son

  • Guest
Our parents lied
« on: August 24, 2014, 07:28:08 AM »
0
And, to be clear, so did I. I've told a couple or more of complete dingers over the years and some others that I like to characterise as stretchers and a great many of that other sort that consist of forgetting to mention matters here and there.

I don't know whether everybody lies or not. I suspect most people do from time to time, but it is generally recognized in our society that a man and a woman's word is a very important matter indeed, and the more a person is honest (and therefore generous) the more they will earn actual love and respect in their community rather than the usual platitudes.

So dishonesty is a great prejudice. It is to be dishonourable, vile, despised, and a self-inflicted outcast from the society of honourable men and women.

My own dishonesty, excepting such economies and occasional slants as are oftentimes befitting when in conversation with the people in the council and the coppers, has never brought me any benefit other than temporary relief. Quite the opposite, the prejudice I sought to avoid was now quadrupled by the weight of the dishonourable act.

So if, like me, you have lied, as has Mr Molyneux - now in the public arena (although he has told many in the past), perhaps we should not clamour for penalties and prejudice, because, as we have learned, such matters automatically ensue from the very act of deception.

Perhaps we could instead wish Stefan a gradual recovery to reasonable standing in the community, a matter which generally requires some patience following very grave offence and which can only be arrived at only when the offender starts out by very sincerely recognizing and admitting the full depth of his or her iniquity - and this is a matter that does not require an audience and should instead be done in private and individually where necessary, because public affairs are very often mainly pantomime.

Alexander

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Respect: +1
Re: Our parents lied
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2014, 09:43:34 AM »
0
I don't think that when stef discusses how your parents lied he is talking about the occasional lies that an average person engages in on an infrequent basis. What he is discussing is the pathological lies that form the foundation of the child's indoctrination into the parental paradigm.

Lies are used to justify parental actions towards the child with like "for your own good" instead of "because it's convenient for me". Parents do whatever they can to create feelings of anxiety within the child as a form of negative reinforcement that incentivizes the child to obey the parents and then invent justifications after the fact. The problem with the parent-child relationship is that the child has no ability to set boundaries in their relationships and the parent has free reign to force any kind of world view onto the child.

I think if you strip away a lot of the rhetoric and hyperbole of stefs talks there is a very important message in there that few people discuss openly. That message is that after 18 years of a parent lying to their child about their right to create an anxious response in their child, the child has no capacity to set boundaries in their lives and this has a detrimental effect on the relationship between the adult child and their parent.

I think the whole defoo controversy is overblown because stefs main arguments about DEFOOing are for the adult child to start discussing how their parents used manipulative tactics to raise the child. If after years the child cannot get the parent to admit to their lies and provide emotional restitution then (and only then) should an individual start the process of DEFOOing with a trained psychiatrist.

Nobody denies that you have a right to leave abusive parents, it's just the definition of abuse that form the center of the debate. Stefs whole point that the only person that gets to define what constitutes abuse towards an individual adult is that very adult who is experiencing the abuse. If an individual doesn't have a net positive relationship with their parents it's entirely within their rights to leave that relationship without having to meet the arbitrary standards set by other peoples discomfort with the principles of DEFOOing.

When I look at the primitive state of parenting I believe that the idea of DEFOO is incredibly important. It's just equally disheartening that this important charge is being led by a lying, misogynistic, megalomaniac like stef. His nonsense really poisons the well for people (mainly women) that would benefit from his peaceful parenting message.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 09:47:49 AM by Alexander »

Prodigal son

  • Guest
Re: Our parents lied
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2014, 02:58:52 PM »
0
I will reply to the other points asap...

I don't think that when stef discusses how your parents lied he is talking about the occasional lies that an average person engages in on an infrequent basis.

I understood immediately what you were saying here, or rather that is my conceit, but the matter is problematic because a lie is a lie, and once we start classifying lies into one type or another we risk following Mr Molyneux down his rabbit hole.

From RTR:

"Most times in life, we do not even know that we are lying. We do not
know that we are failing to process reality – both inner and outer –
correctly because we are addicted to mythology, or making up stories
which drug us with the illusion of truth, rather than humbly pursuing
truth in reality."

RTR is a book about radical honesty in all your relationships. Or at least that's what it purports to be (there's even a chapter entitled "honesty is the first virtue") but since it also builds on the "against me" paradigm, we know and understand that such honesty is only to be practiced up to a point, after which deception, subterfuge or mere avoidance or refusal to speak become entirely acceptable acts of defense against threats, real or perceived. This is how he lied so glibly on TV recently. The people he was addressing, those who would even question his integrity, can be discounted as broken and beyond salvation (thanks to the "no forgiveness" paradigm) and so are not deserving of honesty because they are unable to process reality due to some traumatic event during childhood.

It's also about honesty with oneself, but that requires humility, so people given to a very high sense of self-importance are not well suited to performing the necessary rites.  As he says: "Most times in life, we do not even know that we are lying."
but the "we" performs a decorative function because he means "you" in the very considerable main, or so I believe, because he has developed a fluid and unbroken connection with his inner self, while other people lack such a connection or used to have one and threw it out, or something like that.

I think this is the sort of risk we face if we categorize honesty.

[edit: "defoo paradgim" removed in favour of "against me paradigm]
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 03:53:15 PM by Prodigal son »

AMo

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • Respect: +117
Re: Our parents lied
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2014, 04:11:54 PM »
+1
Alexander, you said,

"I think the whole defoo controversy is overblown because stefs main arguments about DEFOOing are for the adult child to start discussing how their parents used manipulative tactics to raise the child. If after years the child cannot get the parent to admit to their lies and provide emotional restitution then (and only then) should an individual start the process of DEFOOing with a trained psychiatrist."

This statement that you've made, fails to take into consideration that Molyneux actually counsels his followers how to go about the process of "defoo"ing with the use of deception.  He creates a dialogue which they should have with their parents, claiming that they need their space for a few months, even though the intention is that this is going to be a permanent separation, unless they can find a way to work it out, but, in so many words, good luck with that, because, after all, the parents were controlling and manipulative over them for so many years, that it's delusional or a state of denial to think this could happen.  He claims that it's too late.  No matter how a parent reacts, he'll twist it to it's negative perception.  If they don't outright admit all their parenting mistakes and everything they did wrong, they are in denial and can't see or admit what a terrible parent they were. On the other hand, if they admit their shortcomings and all of the mistakes they made, it is too late.  If they really cared, they would have faced up to it sooner, before they were confronted and provided the opportunity for therapy a long time ago.  In other words, there is no going back.  The relationship is beyond repair. To keep a relationship with your abusive, controlling, manipulative parents, is to ensure that you will continue to put up with such behaviours and injustices made towards you in all of your relationships at present and in the future.  In Stefan's indoctrinating messages, there IS NO WAY of repairing the relationship with your parents. 

As for the suggestion of therapy, this seems like a reasonable request which would serve to validate Mr. Molyneux.  However, the catch is that, by the time his followers are at the point of getting therapy, they are already fully enmeshed with the indoctrination of Molyneux, such that they are convinced that they've suffered through corrupt, traumatic, abusive childhoods.  They will then take this to a therapist who will respond in one of two ways.  The therapist will either work with his/her client towards dealing with the separation process, without questioning the validity of what is being thrown out on the table.  This is the outcome which Molyneux is counting on.  On the other hand, the therapist (perhaps a more thorough therapist) may question the client, dig deeper below the surface of all his/her client's claims and work towards helping that client through to repair the familial relationship.  In that case, the therapist is seen as enmeshed in the cult of family and is discredited and discounted. 

I think it's very important to keep in mind and question how many of Stefan's followers believed they were suffering through traumatic childhoods BEFORE they got involved with FreeDomainRadio, how many followers, at the time, believed that public education was a cult, and the institution of family is a cult BEFORE they got involved with FreeDomainRadio?  How many of his devout followers even gave the idea of cutting off their families a second of thought BEFORE they got involved with FreeDomainRadio and how many of these true believers have now completely cut off their families and most, if not all of their friends?  This is interesting as the premise at the face of FreeDomainRadio, the very reason why Stefan's listeners came to him in the first place was an interest in his philosophical and political views.  At the surface of Moly's rants and what he presents to the public during his appearances at Libertarian conferences, is just that.  It's only those on the inside who experience his "pseudo family therapy".  It's only once these intelligent, curious, analytical young minds have spent hours listening to Stefan's very lengthy, long-winded podcasts do they suddenly come to this new "realization" that they have been duped by the people who they thought were there to love them, guide them and take care of them. They come to this new and shocking "realization" that, in fact, not only did their parents not love them in a true sense, but they have imprisoned them as their slaves.  They have manipulated them, controlled them and corrupted them. In addition, at the very least, they believe that they have never had any sort of fulfilling relationship with them, that whatever they thought was a fulfilling relationship was purely a situation of being brainwashed in the cult of family.  In fact, they now realize how ridiculously boring their parents are, aside from the more serious enslavement, abuse issues.  Stefan's true believers live in this "new reality".  They perceive that they have awaken from a zombie-like trance and have been reborn.  They are disgusted by and feel sorry for all of those people from their past who are in denial, who can't see this new reality, this TRUTH which they have found, thanks to their life-changing philosophical leader who brought them to a place of self-knowledge and true meaning.  Molyneux tells his followers that they have "found the door".  They have walked through, but they can always go back through that door to help others see what they see, to help others come out of their denial.  (If any of you can recognize this and identify and share the video/podcast which presents these messages,  please do).  Stefan Molyneux is their saviour, and all for just a small donation of $10 to $50 per month, but only if they want to.  If they don't, however, they are made to feel like unappreciative scoundrels.

So, back to your idea that the defoo controversy may be overblown, that may seem so, on the surface, but, once you dig deeper, once you listen very carefully to more of Moly's rants to his listeners, once you speak to more and more people who have, fortunately, found their way out of FDR and had to repair the damage it caused them, you may rethink that idea.


Elucidated

  • Kallipolis Agitator
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 668
  • Respect: +213
Re: Our parents lied
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2014, 05:27:08 PM »
+1

As for the suggestion of therapy, this seems like a reasonable request which would serve to validate Mr. Molyneux.  However, the catch is that, by the time his followers are at the point of getting therapy, they are already fully enmeshed with the indoctrination of Molyneux, such that they are convinced that they've suffered through corrupt, traumatic, abusive childhoods.  They will then take this to a therapist who will respond in one of two ways.  The therapist will either work with his/her client towards dealing with the separation process, without questioning the validity of what is being thrown out on the table.  This is the outcome which Molyneux is counting on.  On the other hand, the therapist (perhaps a more thorough therapist) may question the client, dig deeper below the surface of all his/her client's claims and work towards helping that client through to repair the familial relationship.  In that case, the therapist is seen as enmeshed in the cult of family and is discredited and discounted. 

I think it's very important to keep in mind and question how many of Stefan's followers believed they were suffering through traumatic childhoods BEFORE they got involved with FreeDomainRadio, how many followers, at the time, believed that public education was a cult, and the institution of family is a cult BEFORE they got involved with FreeDomainRadio?  How many of his devout followers even gave the idea of cutting off their families a second of thought BEFORE they got involved with FreeDomainRadio and how many of these true believers have now completely cut off their families and most, if not all of their friends?  This is interesting as the premise at the face of FreeDomainRadio, the very reason why Stefan's listeners came to him in the first place was an interest in his philosophical and political views.
Great post AMo, you put this so well. 

The idea that the already unduly influenced FDR listener tells the therapist that they were abused and discusses the cut off with them from the get go is a key point so easily missed by Moly's defenders. The person seeking therapy may even use Stefan's twisted expressions about relatively normal occurrences, in a way they previously would not have done, that make it seem like abuse to the unaware therapist. 

The idea about therapists who don't agree with a defoo being no good reminds me of a thread I saw on the FDR boards some time ago, in which someone was asking for advice on choosing a therapist. At least one of the replies suggested he seek out a therapist who shared Molyneux's ideas about family and advocated cutting ties. That's like self diagnosing then rejecting all doctors opinions till you find one who agrees with you, (except therapists are not doctors, and have nothing like the same level of training / qualifications)


Alexander

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Respect: +1
Re: Our parents lied
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2014, 09:05:51 PM »
0
Good post amo, it will take me some time to digest it but I would like to address one thing

Quote
He creates a dialogue which they should have with their parents, claiming that they need their space for a few months, even though the intention is that this is going to be a permanent separation, unless they can find a way to work it out, but, in so many words, good luck with that, because, after all, the parents were controlling and manipulative over them for so many years, that it's delusional or a state of denial to think this could happen.  He claims that it's too late.  No matter how a parent reacts, he'll twist it to it's negative perception.  If they don't outright admit all their parenting mistakes and everything they did wrong, they are in denial and can't see or admit what a terrible parent they were. On the other hand, if they admit their shortcomings and all of the mistakes they made, it is too late.  If they really cared, they would have faced up to it sooner, before they were confronted and provided the opportunity for therapy a long time ago.

Has their ever been a case where the child went back to the parent and the parent was open to entering therapy or providing reconciliation but the child defood anyway? I've been listening since the 100s and I've never heard of a case of this type of catch 22 you propose. I do remember a mother son on the call in show and the mom was generally positive to stefs views. 

The bottom line is that the people calling in are adults and they are responsible for who influences them. How could it ever be possible that a functional parent who raised their with strong parental bonds and a healthy ability to set boundaries have a child that would be susceptible to being manipulated by stef? I find it hard to believe that 20 years of a great parent-child relationship could be over turned in an hour with stef. The truth is that most parents aren't that great at raising children in an honest manner and it's easy for stef to flip the child because the parent has parented in a fairly mediocre manner.

Verbal, physical, and emotional abuse are rampant as parenting tools in our society and it's not surprising that stef can engender such strong responses in people that call him up. If you can name a podcast where this catch 22 occurs I would be willing to give it a listen.

Alexander

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Respect: +1
Re: Our parents lied
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2014, 09:17:40 PM »
0
Quote
The idea about therapists who don't agree with a defoo being no good reminds me of a thread I saw on the FDR boards some time ago, in which someone was asking for advice on choosing a therapist. At least one of the replies suggested he seek out a therapist who shared Molyneux's ideas about family and advocated cutting ties. That's like self diagnosing then rejecting all doctors opinions till you find one who agrees with you, (except therapists are not doctors, and have nothing like the same level of training / qualifications)

Why would you want to go to a therapist where defoo was off the table? If you are in an abusive relationship with your parents the last thing you need is a therapist that is going to guilt you back into that abusive relationship. When trying to find happiness nothing should be off the table.

You also judge the person discussing defoo with stef as already brain washed simply because he makes arguments that they then agree to. No matter what the outcome the only one that you will accept is if they return to their parents, otherwise you judge then brainwashed. You create this catch 22 without even establishing that defooing is a bad thing. It's not that big a deal, google divorcing your parents, it's actually a fairly common idea. One that is even discussed by psychiatrists like Dr Phil.

A trial separation from your parents is only the end of the world if you are a narcissistic parent who is used to getting their way in the child parent relationship and has no ability to compromise with your child beliefs. 

QuestEon

  • Just some guy with a blog.
  • Administrator
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
  • What's your opinion? I'd love to hear it!
  • Respect: +463
    • FDR Liberated
Re: Our parents lied
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2014, 09:26:47 PM »
+1
Quote
The idea about therapists who don't agree with a defoo being no good reminds me of a thread I saw on the FDR boards some time ago, in which someone was asking for advice on choosing a therapist. At least one of the replies suggested he seek out a therapist who shared Molyneux's ideas about family and advocated cutting ties. That's like self diagnosing then rejecting all doctors opinions till you find one who agrees with you, (except therapists are not doctors, and have nothing like the same level of training / qualifications)

Why would you want to go to a therapist where defoo was off the table? If you are in an abusive relationship with your parents the last thing you need is a therapist that is going to guilt you back into that abusive relationship. When trying to find happiness nothing should be off the table.

You're conflating defooing and separating from people who are abusive, even if it includes family members.

Defooing is a brand name created by Molyneux that means ostracizing anyone in your life who believes in religion or government. No matter how many times his followers try to deny that as a definition, Molyneux wrote the essay, he said it, and that's what he believes. It is not supported by any literature in psychology, except for fringe crackpots like Mackler and Molyneux's self-published stuff. (Actually, I don't think Mackler has any kind of political spin on it; he just seems to think all parents are abusive.)

Separating from people who are abusive, even if it includes family members is an idea that has been around for awhile but mostly popularized by John Bradshaw. Virtually all psychologists recognize it as a possible solution, if nothing else works.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 09:28:27 PM by QuestEon »
It isn't about winning the debate. It's about the truth.

Alexander

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Respect: +1
Re: Our parents lied
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2014, 09:52:55 PM »
0
Can you link me to a podcast where stef advises someone to leave their family when the callers only grievance with their family was that they were religious or supported government policies?

I am familiar with the against me argument but the discussion in this thread is in relation to stefs powers of persuasion during his call in shows and specifically in regards to parental lies.

QuestEon

  • Just some guy with a blog.
  • Administrator
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
  • What's your opinion? I'd love to hear it!
  • Respect: +463
    • FDR Liberated
Re: Our parents lied
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2014, 10:56:11 PM »
+1
I am familiar with the against me argument but the discussion in this thread is in relation to stefs powers of persuasion during his call in shows and specifically in regards to parental lies.


I admit I haven't read the whole thread! Anyway, I wouldn't have claimed that Molyneux has "powers of persuasion" that he can employ over a single call. That isn't how thought reform works. For one thing, thought reform is a result of increasing immersion over time. I think it took Molyneux about 8 months to a year to convince Tom (of the Guardian article) to abandon his family. For a good understanding of thought reform technique, I suggest reading the book "Cults in our Midst." It's a wonderful introduction.

Quote from: Alexander
Can you link me to a podcast where stef advises someone to leave their family when the callers only grievance with their family was that they were religious or supported government policies?


I'd start with my article Prying them loose, which shows, in Molyneux's own words, that FDR was created expressly for this purpose.

If you don't want to read the whole thing, skim down to the heading "The absolute truth." You'll learn about Tyler--a guy who insisted he had a great relationship with his religious parents. Molyneux lays out his argument why he believes that such a relationship is impossible. When Tyler refused to submit to Molyneux's beliefs, he was banned.

It appears now that Molyneux has deleted the thread. I guess he doesn't like evidence like this lying around.

Well, good luck with that, Mr. Molyneux, because the evidence is everywhere. Here's what Molyneux says in his self-published book On Truth

Quote
The moment you realize that your parents, priests, teachers, politicians-–your elders in general-–only used morality to control you, to subjugate you-–-as a tool of abuse-–-your life will never be the same again.

The terrifying fact that your elders knew the power of virtue, but used that power to control, corrupt, bully and exploit you, reveals the genuine sadism that lies at the core of culture-–-it reveals the awful “cult” in culture.

A doctor who fakes his credentials is bad enough-–-how would any sane person judge a doctor who studies the human body not to heal it, but to more effectively cause pain?

A fraud is still better than a sadist.

What can we say, then, about parents and other authority figures who know all there is to know about the power and effectiveness of using moral arguments to control the actions and thoughts of children-–who respect the power of virtue—–and then use that power to destroy any capacity for moral integrity in their children?


Do see what he is clearly saying?  "your elders in general-–only used morality to control you" In other words, everything your parents said to you about moral behavior and being good was a pack of lies used only to control you.

Let me ask you--reading this, do you really think he has any plans for his followers other than defooing?
It isn't about winning the debate. It's about the truth.

Anarchist

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
  • Rarr!!
  • Respect: +11
Re: Our parents lied
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2014, 11:27:31 PM »
+1
Has their ever been a case where the child went back to the parent and the parent was open to entering therapy or providing reconciliation but the child defood anyway? I've been listening since the 100s and I've never heard of a case of this type of catch 22 you propose. I do remember a mother son on the call in show and the mom was generally positive to stefs views.
Well, I never really got the message that I should go back and talk to them. I got the message that, if you were unsure, to go back and talk to them, but why would I be unsure? Stefan's ideas seemed to make sense and my father was pretty intimidating physically and verbally abusive and my mother pretty cold in my early years.

I'd wanted before I came to FDR to leave my father behind, but not my mother. FDR pushed me to leave both of them though my mother wanted to reconcile. I was sure, after all. What Stefan said made sense to me, so there was no need to talk with them beforehand.

I was going off of stuff like Stef's 'turf' your horribly bad parents post, wherein he doesn't say to delay or seek therapist assistance or anything really that he claimed, starting in 2008 or so with media scrutiny, to have always said. He just says that you have no right to complain about the government unless you separate from the parents you have contempt for and so on. Why continue to be inconsistent?

Kaz

  • Ideological Gadfly
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
  • "Dangerous Liaisons" by Rene Magritte
  • Respect: +154
Re: Our parents lied
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2014, 01:31:01 AM »
+1
Quote
The idea about therapists who don't agree with a defoo being no good reminds me of a thread I saw on the FDR boards some time ago, in which someone was asking for advice on choosing a therapist. At least one of the replies suggested he seek out a therapist who shared Molyneux's ideas about family and advocated cutting ties. That's like self diagnosing then rejecting all doctors opinions till you find one who agrees with you, (except therapists are not doctors, and have nothing like the same level of training / qualifications)

Why would you want to go to a therapist where defoo was off the table? If you are in an abusive relationship with your parents the last thing you need is a therapist that is going to guilt you back into that abusive relationship. When trying to find happiness nothing should be off the table.

You're conflating defooing and separating from people who are abusive, even if it includes family members.

Defooing is a brand name created by Molyneux that means ostracizing anyone in your life who believes in religion or government. No matter how many times his followers try to deny that as a definition, Molyneux wrote the essay, he said it, and that's what he believes. It is not supported by any literature in psychology, except for fringe crackpots like Mackler and Molyneux's self-published stuff. (Actually, I don't think Mackler has any kind of political spin on it; he just seems to think all parents are abusive.)

Separating from people who are abusive, even if it includes family members is an idea that has been around for awhile but mostly popularized by John Bradshaw. Virtually all psychologists recognize it as a possible solution, if nothing else works.

Yes, this is another Molyneux bait and switchy type of label swap.  He takes something that is reasonable sounding and rebrands it as if he has invented it, while misleading people over what he actually means by it.  He keeps the "wrapper" for appearances only in a kind of manipulative and misleading dog whistling message, which has everyone talking in circles because most people are not aware over what he ultimately means by it.

I have written about this elsewhere; in the mainstream, the concept is going no or low contact.  It is a last resort and it is to protect someone from further trauma and give them the space they need to sort themselves out.  If the destructive behaviour continues, or the person's life/children are in danger then it can be permanent.

Molyneux makes it core to his philosophy instead of being a last resort and he defines "dangerous" people as people who disagree with him.  Not only that, but going no contact is also supposed to be internal as well, that is the person is encouraged to stop engaging with the problem mentally as well and it's intent is protective.  Molyneux, otoh encourages people to get angry and dwell on every injustice in a self righteous and punitive approach; an activity that is not healthy and does not lead to better functioning and is opposite to what no/low contact is actually trying to achieve.

Apologises, I have not read the whole thread; I have a lot of deadlines atm.
Just because you have left FDR, it doesn't mean that FDR has left you.

"Taking responsibility for something and self-blame are horses of two entirely different colors. The former is empowering; the latter is paralyzing." ~ John Rosemond, Ph.D

Kaz

  • Ideological Gadfly
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
  • "Dangerous Liaisons" by Rene Magritte
  • Respect: +154
Re: Our parents lied
« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2014, 01:36:51 AM »
+1
Also, if someone is truely in physical danger, then Molyneux's suggestion to have some kind of RTR conversation before cutting them off can escalate the situation, putting the person at risk.  It is well known to people who actually work in violent domestic situations that the person being targeted for abuse is most at risk when they are leaving the situation.

Just because you have left FDR, it doesn't mean that FDR has left you.

"Taking responsibility for something and self-blame are horses of two entirely different colors. The former is empowering; the latter is paralyzing." ~ John Rosemond, Ph.D

Elucidated

  • Kallipolis Agitator
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 668
  • Respect: +213
Re: Our parents lied
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2014, 03:49:12 AM »
+1
Quote
The idea about therapists who don't agree with a defoo being no good reminds me of a thread I saw on the FDR boards some time ago, in which someone was asking for advice on choosing a therapist. At least one of the replies suggested he seek out a therapist who shared Molyneux's ideas about family and advocated cutting ties. That's like self diagnosing then rejecting all doctors opinions till you find one who agrees with you, (except therapists are not doctors, and have nothing like the same level of training / qualifications)

Why would you want to go to a therapist where defoo was off the table? If you are in an abusive relationship with your parents the last thing you need is a therapist that is going to guilt you back into that abusive relationship. When trying to find happiness nothing should be off the table.

You also judge the person discussing defoo with stef as already brain washed simply because he makes arguments that they then agree to. No matter what the outcome the only one that you will accept is if they return to their parents, otherwise you judge then brainwashed. You create this catch 22 without even establishing that defooing is a bad thing. It's not that big a deal, google divorcing your parents, it's actually a fairly common idea. One that is even discussed by psychiatrists like Dr Phil.

A trial separation from your parents is only the end of the world if you are a narcissistic parent who is used to getting their way in the child parent relationship and has no ability to compromise with your child beliefs.

I'm not suggesting you should select a therapist for whom cutting off ties (ignoring the fact for now that defooing is another concept as QuestEon points out) was specifically on or off the table. A therapist who has already made their mind up either way before even knowing the circumstances is almost certainly not a good one.



AMo

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • Respect: +117
Re: Our parents lied
« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2014, 03:50:43 AM »
+1
It seems that much of what my reply would be to Alexander has already been covered.  However, I will see if I can tie up any loose ends.

Alexander, the best podcasts that I can link you to, and, of course there may be more which I haven't listened to, are the three, "Breaking with Corruption, Step by Step", #s 347, 348 and 349.  They are mostly drudgery, gobble-dee-gook to listen to, but there are key ideas he uses to indoctrinate his listeners. 

First, to address your catch-22 question, it's important to note that Molyneux, to my knowledge, never suggests to his followers that they welcome the idea of counselling for "the family".  He promotes individual counselling to help with the defoo process.  He has said on at least one occasion, accompanied by one of his signature smirks and chuckle, that perhaps you feel you can work it out with your parents and go ahead and try, but I doubt that's going to happen and good luck to you if you think it can. 

If you listen to these three podcasts, you will hear Stefan advise his listeners that, if the parents ask what it is that they can do to help fix things, that this suggestion, in essence, should be rejected because, by now, it's too late.  In Part 3, Podcast 350, at around 33:45, he responds to the idea of the parents suggesting family counselling and advises that the "defooer" reject this offer, but, instead, take a break from the family and go for individual counseling. To get a clear picture of Stefan's step-by-step advice, if you can stand it, listen to 350 in it's entirety.  Even better, listen to all 3 to see how he goes about working up to it.  Interestingly, at around 31:36 in Part 3, he admits that the dialogue he's rehearsing his listeners to have with their parents is all "bullshit", "talking your way out of a trap", "talking your way out of a hostage situation by lying".

This might make a modicum of sense in the case of actual physical abuse where there's a real fear that exists of a repercussion of such a discussion.  However, as we all seem to be well aware, Molyneux stretches his description of abuse and trauma and immorality at the hands of parents, to cover all parents in history up to the present.  That is, of course, up to the time of Molyneux and his teachings of a better world, including proper parenting.  As an aside, have you heard the video where he clearly bribes his daughter to take her swimming lesson when she said she didn't want to go because she wasn't feeling well?  Hmmm, do you see a contradiction here?

I jotted down an excerpt of Molyneux's rant in Part 2 of Breaking the Corruption, Step by Step (348).  I'll leave you with it, and would really like to hear reactions to it.  It begins at around 42:45 if you'd like to listen to it.  I'll transcribe it below:

"Most people are bad people"....  "Thinking that your parents are moral is kinda like thinking that somebody in the middle ages can be an effective scientist. The knowledge does not exist yet. It is not propogated. We're trying to do our best here but the knowledge is not out there yet."

Then, he continues with...

"The knowledge is innate to human beings which is why the argument for morality is always used by parents." (So, am I misunderstanding something here?  The knowledge does not exist, yet it's innate?)

"So, your parents are still responsible.  We're hoping to make the job of parenting easier.  We're hoping to make the job of having power easier or more beneficial and more productive and more positive, but everybody is still responsible because everybody is still using the argument for morality all the time.  Your parents may not have very effective ways of figuring out how to behave better and maybe they never did, but they certainly knew what to do to bully you. Right? And they certainly continue to make that choice now. Right? So they're actively avoiding knowledge. Actively avoiding knowledge makes you complicit. Actively avoiding knowledge makes you complicit in the wrongs you've committed, makes you responsible...."  bla bla bla

"Knowledge has been out there for quite awhile on how to be a decent parent."

Is there a contradiction here somewhere?  I'm thinking that perhaps driving in the rain is not the best time for Molyneux's rants. 

If you listen to the very end, you will have just one of the many examples of how Molyneux tries to guilt his listeners into sending him a donation. 

Finally, Alexander, to address some of your specific questions and ideas you've addressed, I will quote you:

"Has their ever been a case where the child went back to the parent and the parent was open to entering therapy or providing reconciliation but the child defood anyway?

The answer is "YES".  I actually have personal knowledge of this having happened and it makes perfect sense if you listen to podcast 350 as this is specifically according to Moly's step by step guide.

The bottom line is that the people calling in are adults and they are responsible for who influences them. How could it ever be possible that a functional parent who raised their with strong parental bonds and a healthy ability to set boundaries have a child that would be susceptible to being manipulated by stef? I find it hard to believe that 20 years of a great parent-child relationship could be over turned in an hour with stef.

As it has already been stated here, the mind cannot be influenced with a 1 hour podcast.  It takes hours and hours of listening to information and suggestion overflow to slowly transform the mind. This is not an overnight phenomenon. What you are saying seems to me to be no different than the claim that all people who get pulled into a mind reform situation are victims of bad parenting.  This is a misconception. I have links to corroborate this, or, you could just Google it.

The truth is that most parents aren't that great at raising children in an honest manner and it's easy for stef to flip the child because the parent has parented in a fairly mediocre manner.

Isn't this the same as claiming that all Black people like fried chicken and all Jews are cheap? The statement you made is very generalized and I'd question where you came up with that idea, if not from Molyneux himself.  Yes, there are certainly abusive, neglectful parents who should have never had kids, but, at the same time, I would say that the majority of parents are very loving and doting towards their children.  Are they perfect?  Of course not.  Do they make mistakes?  My answer...They're human, right?  We all make mistakes.  Anybody who would claim that he/she is a perfect parent and doesn't make mistakes, is to claim that he/she is beyond human or godlike. To be human is to make mistakes.  This does not add up to the conclusion that parents are all mediocre. Even the best, most loving parents make mistakes. Parents have a responsibility to their children to provide them with love, limits and guidance.  They are responsible to lead them on a path to independence by providing them with a structure, a structure which includes AGE RELATED choices.  They are responsible for providing them with a value structure which will launch them into a healthy adulthood.  As our children grow, they create more and more of their own individual ideas, they form more and more of their own values and become more and more of their own individual person.  This is called "individuation".  During times of transition, such as this individuation process, their minds are still very maleable and vulnerable.  Growing up is not an easy process.  The current world we live in presents itself with, in ways, greater challenges than the generation before, specifically, on a financial level.  It's during those times of change and uncertainty that young adult minds are searching for their specific path, the perfect time to be sucked in by a Molyneux who offers them the possibility of a Eutopia in a less than Eutopian world in which this person has been thrust from the dependency of childhood to the scary process of becoming a self sufficient adult. 

Molyneux equates any mistakes parents make or any imperfections they may have on a personal or parenting level as a sign of abuse.  The message this sends is that, unless you are perfect, you are inadequate and unworthy.  That's a hard act for Moly's followers to live up to, one in which, it seems, that personal defeat and resulting depression and a feeling of hopelessness would be inevitable.  In order to live in the perfect world, we must all be perfect people.  We must all trash the imperfections and start over.  This is sounding all too much like Hitler, only Moly isn't killing the imperfect people, just dumping them aside as horrible and unworthy trash of a horrible, unworthy world.  Although, he did have one video where he claimed that it's normal to have rage towards our abusive parents and to feel like we want to murder them.  I can no longer find that video.  Was that even too edgy and risky for Molyneux to leave up? 

The key to all of this is that Moly still pays his taxes, he still lives in this world and obeys laws.  In fact, since this GREAT philosopher came into existence with his messages of truth, NOTHING has changed.  In fact, Stefan admitted that any change based on what he's saying will be a multi-generational process. In fact, Stefan will be long dead.  In his theory, he is spreading an awareness of this truth which will result in a change in this world, just by everybody being on the same page.  He has no idea how this change will take place. In his mind, it just will, once we all think the same way.  So, at what point would he stop promoting the idea that he requires donations to spread this truth?  So, the end result of Molyneux's mission is that, according to Molyneux's claims, a growing world of perfectionistic Anarchists will live in a world that will be, for generations unchanged, and, all the while, Molyneux should be collecting donations until the day he dies from more and more followers, just for spreading the word.

Anyway, I digressed from the issue of your idea of all parents being mediocre....I strongly believe, based on my experiences in this world over several decades, that you are incorrect in your generalizations and that premise is a tool that Molyneux is using to promote his mission as explained above.

Verbal, physical, and emotional abuse are rampant as parenting tools in our society

...According to Molyneux and his followers, absolutely.  However, again, this is a generalized blanket statement.  Are there parents who are verbally abusive?  Of course. Are there parents out there who are emotionally and/or physically abusive?  Again, very unfortunately, yes, just as there are sick people in all walks of life....and some of these people decide to pro-create.  In my humble opinion, these children need to be taken away from their abusive parents until and if they are capable of reform. 

 and it's not surprising that stef can engender such strong responses in people that call him up. If you can name a podcast where this catch 22 occurs I would be willing to give it a listen.

What Stef engenders in people who call him up is a newfound belief that, unbeknownst to them, they have been living a traumatic existence with abusive parents because all parents are manipulative, controlling bullies.  Just listen to the call-in shows and this will become ever increasingly obvious. He engenders the belief that if they don't cut their parents out of their lives, they are cowards who are not able to be a true "Molyneux-vian".  He engenders the belief that, unless they do everything he suggests they should do, they are not committed to this so-called change to a better world and they are, thus, promoting violence and "death".

As for the podcast, I provided it above with comments.


« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 04:00:59 AM by AMo »