FDRLiberated.com appears to be the most coherent collection of information regarding the “big picture” about Freedomain Radio, but judging from this “brief introduction” which I wish to respond to here, it begins to seem more like an anti-FDR web site that politely presents some rather impolite ideas about it. It is not that these ideas are impolite simply because they are critical or negative towards FDR, but because they are, at least or especially in this “brief introduction”, presented like a one sided story without much references to evidence short of a link to a mess that is the Liberated Minds forum (hosting all kinds of fragmented opinions from different people some of which I’ve addressed in part 1).

The author of FDRLiberated is quoted as saying that he “consistently [re-reads his] little articles for language [he] think is outrageous or unfounded”, but unfortunately I am beginning to suspect that these supposed advances of politeness and balanced attitude are just attempts to lend some credence to what is otherwise a thinly veiled smear campaign.

Still, given that claim one could expect that an article I am responding to right now is not gonna be the same article some time later as he continues to edit them, so I will include the current revision as a quote below, just so there is no confusion as to what I’m addressing.

He begins the article by essentially identifying his audience:

Whether you found this blog as a parent or family member wondering what happened to your loved one, or you are someone intrigued by the ideas of FDR and considering joining the community (as I once was), I offer you the big picture.

On the homepage he also identifies his audience as:

• * family member or friend who has been defooed and looking for answers
• * member of the press trying to unravel the mysteries of FDR
• * someone considering joining the FDR community

Combining this with the overall tone of the article makes it hard to not see this as anything else other than an attempt to completely sway people from even giving FDR a chance, provide some additional reason to certain parents or people who have had someone terminate their relationship with them with more reason to be mad at FDR and provide the media with some additional juicy controversy to write about. Yet the article has no references to evidence, only a story, all ready to go with all of it’s conclusions hereby branded as “the big picture”.

So the baseless accusations start with:

Stefan Molyneux has long been associated with the Libertarian community. His goal has always been to be recognized as a person of importance.

As if the author knows all of Molyneux’ motivations throughout his life. This kind of a generalized statement has no place in what is supposed to be a factual article backed by evidence, but indeed this article is not such.

Upon explaining what libertarianism is, he continues to analyze Stefan Molyneux starting with concessions to his explaining ability and brilliance and then continuing with what can easily be explained as FUD.

As wikipedia describes, “Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) is a tactic of rhetoric and fallacy used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics and propaganda. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs.”

This perfectly describes what is being done in this section which is filled with arbitrary conjecture. He first brings up Stefan’s tendency to not cite his exact sources posing questions which imply that Stefan may be “simply addicted to the accolades from his less-well-read followers”. He then proceeds to describe how Molyneux’ tendency to combine various fields which he names as politics, philosophy, psychology, economics, relationships, and religion must mean that in Molyneux’ head (as if the author knows exactly what is going on in Molynex’ head) all these areas are tied up into “one cohesive truth” that everyone who agrees to any of his ideas must accept as a whole.

Of course, this was all serving as the follow up to the conclusion that Stefan Molyneux is an accolades craving psychologizing manipulator who believes he has what the author terms as “the very key to existence” and an “unified theory of the universe (that only the leader knows and offers to his followers as the key to happiness)” which just coincidentally happens to be what “nearly every other cult leader has in common”. But no he wont tell you outright if FDR is a cult or not, but he doesn’t really have to because in so many words it is already utterly clear what he thinks and wants you to think as well.

To illustrate just how ridiculous this line of reasoning is consider his jump from tying politics, philosophy, psychology, economics, relationships and religion into “one cohesive truth” to calling this a “unified theory of the universe”. As anyone who has read anything about science knows, there are various pursuits of the unified theory of the universe and neither of them involve solely these areas mentioned and certainly cannot be without one crucial field which Stefan Molyneux certainly is not about and never claims to be: physics. So how can he possibly have a unified theory of the universe without physics?

In the second section he describes defooing and the same style of argumentation continues. He starts with a staggering statement:

Another significant Molyneux idea–one that has caused immeasurable suffering within the afflicated families–is that family relationships are voluntary.

I am almost at a loss for words on this one. Apparently it is the idea that family relationships are voluntary which is responsible for immeasurable suffering within the “afflicted families”. From such a statement one can only conclude that for such suffering to not be present such relationships must in some way be coercive or imposed. Yet this is apparently not the position he takes as he in the second paragraph and in parenthesis states that for what it’s worth he believes in voluntary family relationships.

However, the contradictions continue alternating since if he truly believes such relationships are voluntary then he would respect every choice people in such relationships make with regards to them and not imply that they have a freedom to exit such relationship only in some arbitrarily determined “extreme cases”. Of course if he would consistently take such a position his FUD campaign against FDR and Stefan Molyneux would lose quite a bit of thrust.

Instead he refers to Stefan Molyneux’ book “On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion” (without naming the whole title) to point out that Stefan apparently “tries to tell you that your parents are liars and bullies if they believe in government or religion” and that “your childhood was a prison and you are a victim of abuse”. Now it’s easy to see how this provides some rocket fuel to his ongoing flame against Stefan Molyneux. However, this is coming from a self professed libertarian, someone who believes initiation of force is wrong.

Unfortunately this hits on a sadly recurring theme in the libertarian movement, a problem that coincidentally Stefan Molyneux has been most vocal in targeting head on; and that is the consistent application of libertarian principles in every day life and to personal relationships where such application is possible (without threats of violence). (Wilton D. Alston has recently wrote an excellent piece on this topic aptly titled “Do You Really Want Freedom, Or Are You Just Kidding Yourself?”).

If you believe initiation of force is wrong you by definition consider someone who supports it to support something unethical, no matter who that was. Are parents somehow to be excluded from this? What about siblings or friends? If they are to be excluded then why not arbitrarily exclude everyone else whom we wish? How exactly do these libertarians plan on achieving their freedom if they are not only afraid, but so hypocritically hostile to even suggestions of applying the core libertarian principle to their own lives?

Instead they somehow find it perfectly fine for a son or daughter who discovers the moral problem with the initiation of violence to see their parents support of same violence as somehow acceptable. Yet these are their very own parents and their own family. The same reason why they decry the termination of such familiar relationships as somehow cruel is the reason why it is exactly these relationships which ought to be examined first with regards to the moral and other support of initiation of violence. It is in these relationships in which a person is most vulnerable.

What about religion? In Stefan’s view religious beliefs are defined as superstitions, beliefs based solely on faith towards certain revelations in certain mythical books. One may disagree with this exact definition, but this is the definition he seems to use consistently throughout his work and serves to understand what exactly is he condemning when he condemns religious parents.

Libertarians, those oh so principled libertarians, are also on about their opposition to initiation of fraud or cheating someone out of something or into something. Some of them equate the fraud offense with the force offense and some do not, however hardly anyone believes that cheating and dishonesty are virtues to be defended. So when Stefan Molyneux judges parents as abusing their children when teaching them certain religious beliefs he is referring to exactly the fraud that is perpetrated by such acts. The child is a natural explorer, like a little scientist. In its very early age (s)he truly has integrity. She does not escape expressions of what she feels nor suppresses what she senses. She thinks naturally and has no built in cultural or societal paradigms of thinking.

When such a child is then exposed to claims of truthful existence of that which she cannot possibly perceive and is asked to somehow communicate with (pray) or obey that something under threats of being considered evil and outcast not to mention the horrifying threats of hell and certain eternal death, that is not only a clear case of fraud given that parents whom teach a child such nonsense cannot provide the child any real evidence of what they claim, especially evidence that a child can understand, but it is also a case of emotional manipulation and intimidation that given it is inflicted at such early age is bound to leave lasting consequences.

Yet of course, this type of abuse is so common and widely accepted today that someone suggesting it is actually a very real type of abuse worthy of critical examination, the whole world frowns and libertarians, the very ones who are supposed to be understanding towards these types of things, join in the chastisement.

Typically, I myself may be now accused of falling for some sort of a cult manipulation for saying such things. Of course, no way that I could actually be telling what I see as an honest truth that I understood on my own volition. I must be intellectually inept and susceptible to manipulation. Everything, just don’t let me be right.

And this really seems to strike at the very core of this controversy. It is really pitifully said that there are libertarians who would rather engage in a smear campaign on the basis of these ideas considering them somehow sick and twisted rather than try to understand what is it that they are getting at.

In any case, this “brief introduction” article continues with more conjecturing telling an interesting story about a straw man he names Stefan Molyneux, a person whom, rather than for the above explained reasons, wrote the things he did in “On Truth” because he wishes to portray everyone who doesn’t believe in anarcho-capitalism as an abuser. A person who wishes everyone to break all of their relationships with anyone except other FDR members and singlehandedly guides them through this painful process. And a person who never devoted any podcasts to developing healthy relationships with your parents (yet he wrote a whole frakking book on exactly that topic; Real Time Relationships, which after identifying the problematic things about modern relationships offers a constructive framework of what truly loving relationships could and should be).

Ultimately, Stefan Molyneux is portrayed as nothing more than an entrepreneur whose goal is to manipulate people with his podcasts, books and conversations into buying his “truth package”. And apparently another piece of evidence is this hearsay I’m just supposed to take his word on, that most of this manipulation is happening, guess where? Where YOU and most people cannot see it and from where he coincidentally cannot provide much evidence. How convenient.

The final characterization of Stefan Molyneux may be most interesting of all – that he is the most loyal member of his own cult. He is supposedly somehow accidentally creating this cult without any real plan and deliberation because he truly believes in it. One could say Mr. QuestEon just “proved” his own theory wrong, for if there truly was no deliberate attempt on Molyneux’ part to create a cult that pretty much automatically blows most of the FACTnet’s cult warning signs out of the water since they depend on exactly the deliberate, dishonest and sinister manipulation.

At any rate this article is completely void of evidence and completely consisted of biased conjecture and unfounded claims. It effectively amounts to an interesting story to sell to the media and disgruntled mothers like Barbara Weed who supposedly love their children so much that they cannot respect their choices enough not to put their names and reputations through metaphorical mud that is the media hungry for the next scapegoat.

—
This article puts a bitter taste in my mouth and discourages me from addressing any of the other ones presented. However, I may still try, for the sake of being balanced. There are certain issues to be addressed and perspectives to be expressed with regards to one case to which critics have some shred of credible things to say; the UPB (not that they completely blow it out of the water).

Below is the quote of the entire article I was above responding to.

A brief introduction to FreeDomainRadio

Whether you found this blog as a parent or family member wondering what happened to your loved one, or you are someone intrigued by the ideas of FDR and considering joining the community (as I once was), I offer you the big picture.

Stefan Molyneux has long been associated with the Libertarian community. His goal has always been to be recognized as a person of importance.

If you’re new to all this, it’s easiest to think of Libertarians like the US Republican or Democrat parties–in that within each party you’ll find a range of liberal-to-conservative view points. In general, Liberatarians believe that government is never a solution to the problems that face us. Like US President Reagan, Libertarians believe the nine scariest words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

As I mentioned, however, there are a range of beliefs. On one end, you’ll find Libertarians who believe in small government (however they define that) and at the opposite end are those who believe in no government (anarcho-capitalists)–and everything in between. Some are atheists. Some believe in a Higher Power. Within Libertarianism, you’ll find many different views on economics. It’s a single word that covers a broad area of thinking.
On Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux is an atheist anarcho-capitalist. He received early notoriety as a great explainer of already existing concepts. Many of these early podcasts are downloadable from his site and from YouTube. In addition, some of his early papers are still on-line at reputable Liberatarian sites. Make no mistake, Molyneux is a brilliant man and an extraordinary teacher. He is very engaging and many people tend to connect with him on a personal and emotional level. While he has not made many original contributions to Libertarian thinking, the few he has made are typically grandiose (and usually preposterous).

Unfortunately, Molyneux often ignores the need to cite his influences or give references. As a result, many of his followers today–who came into FDR as a result of his podcasts–mistakenly believe that most of the ideas discussed originated with Molyneux. Is it plagarism? Well, Molyneux doesn’t specifically claim to be the author of those ideas. He simply discusses them–unattributed–with great passion and lets his acolytes draw their own conclusions.

This troubles me because there may be some deception or self-deception occurring here. In his passion, does Molyneux simply forget to attribute his sources? Or is he simply addicted to the accolades from his less-well-read followers?

Molyneux has a unified theory of the topics (politics, philosophy, psychology, economics, relationships, and religion) that he discusses on FDR. He expresses his views on each of those topics with great authority.

What’s important to know is that in Molyneux’s head, he has them all tied together as one cohesive truth. In other words, to accept Molyneux’s beliefs, you must accept his conclusions in all of these areas. If you do not, he typically attempts to demonstrate that some psychological flaw is preventing you from understanding the truth he is revealing. His critics often accuse him of psychologizing any detractors.

As a result of this unified truth, his followers don’t believe he’s just teaching them ideas about Libertarianism or philosophy–they believe (and he believes) he is giving them the very key to existence. Now, one can say he is a cult leader or one can say he is not a cult leader, but I know one thing–a unified theory of the universe (that only the leader knows and offers to his followers as the key to happiness) is something nearly every cult leader has in common.
Defooing and the break-up of families

Another significant Molyneux idea–one that has caused immeasurable suffering within the afflicated families–is that family relationships are voluntary. For example, you owe your parents nothing because you didn’t get to choose them. They freely accepted the positive obligation of birthing you, caring for you, teaching you about ethics, and sending you out into the world as a healthy adult.

That idea might be difficult for some to accept. (I believe it, for what it’s worth). But–in and of itself–it’s not the real problem of FDR. The problem is how Molyneux subverts it.

He has introduced into the FDR community the idea of defooing. In this case, FOO is the abbreviation of a common psychological term meaning “family of origin.” As you can imagine, a great deal of study in psychology is devoted to understanding how your family of origin shapes you.

Defooing, on the other hand, is purely a Molyneux term. It refers to completely leaving your family behind and having no further contact with them. Now, most psychologists do agree that a few family situations are so toxic, the most mentally healthy course for a patient is to separate from them. However, they also quickly point out that these are extreme cases and typically a great deal of counseling with the family is suggested before such an act.

Not so with FDR.

If you read the book “On Truth” by Molyneux, you’ll begin to understand how he truly views families, using arguments that (I believe) are without merit or substance both philosophically and psychologically. He tries to tell you that your parents are liars and bullies if they believe in government or religion. Your childhood was a prison and you are a victim of abuse.

Got that? If your parents believed in any kind of religion or government, you were a victim of abuse. Also, if your friends believe in either of those two concepts (which they nearly always do), they are corrupt and should likewise be abandoned. So, defooing really means getting rid of everyone.

He believes that the reason you struggle with accepting the truth and beauty of his version of an anarcho-capitalist society is a direct result of this abuse. You have accepted the role of slave. Only by throwing off the shackles will you find your way to freedom and happiness.

In this case, of course, the “shackles” are your current family and your current friends.

As I said before, one can say he is a cult leader or one can say he is not a cult leader, but I know another thing–convincing one’s followers of the need to separate from their family and friends and associate only with other members of the group is something nearly every cult leader also has in common.

One more thing about this defooing business. No one ever seems to pick up on the fact that Molyneux’s first two philosophy books are clearly targeted to late-teen to early twenty-year-olds. Whoever heard of targeting a philosophy to a specific age group?

Since Molyneux believes that most family relationships are bad, he’s doing his followers a favor when he convinces them to defoo. That’s the danger and destruction of FDR. If you are a victimized parent, that’s what probably led you here.

His goal has always been to separate kids from their parents, a goal made easier by the fact that nearly everyone in his target age range is already in the difficult struggle of finding his/her independent self. To many of them, Molyneux is the pied piper.

Molyneux has defooed his family and speaks often of his rage for his mother and brother. He convinced his wife to defoo after they were married.

Despite his claims of innocence, most assuredly if Molyneux removed all of his defoo “therapy” podcasts (such as the one he did with Tom) from the board and promised he would never counsel another potential runaway again, I believe there would never be another defoo.

In other words, although Molyneux’s book “On Truth” sets the hook, it is only a recruiting tool and not persuasive enough to allow him to achieve his goal of family breakup. Based on the many hours I’ve spent listening to his “counseling” podcasts, watching him interact in the chat rooms and on the main forum, I believe nearly every defoo is heavily, personally influenced by Molyneux in one way or another.

Amazingly, each of his followers who suddenly decided they were the victims of abuse believe they came to that conclusion of their own free will with no input or influence from anyone.

Sometimes Molyneux offers the weak excuse that he is only interested in building healthy families. He probably has hundreds of podcasts that are about or mention defooing at one point or another. Would you like to know how many podcasts he has devoted to developing a healthy relationship with your parents?

Zero.
The FreeDomainRadio Community

FDR is a financial enterprise and Molyneux’s sole source of revenue. He receives money in the form of contributions or subscriptions. Molyneux does not simply preach the truth–he packages it and sells it.

Despite Molyneux’s defensive responses to media inquiries, FDR is as far from being “simply a Web site” as you can imagine.

It is a complicated system of video and audio podcast outreach, on-line forum, chatroom, media library, books, and a distribution of members into a hierarchy. There is continual development of technology to allow for immediate and one-on-one counseling and discussion.

Few people realize how much of what is “FDR” takes place within the chat room and during Skype chats. It is through those means that FDR members get the personal attention from Molyneux that they crave, as well as (since many are now alone and without family and friends) the ability to socialize with others. All the necessary work of indoctrination, love-bombing, and social control gets done here.

There is clearly a social system on display: at the highest level in the hierarchy is an inner circle that enforces behavior and thoughts posted to the site. Critics of the site or Molyneux are swiftly purged.

FDR members have vacationed together, attended annual BBQ’s at the Molyneux home together, attended philosophy and psychology seminars conducted Molyneux and his wife, and more.

But above all–more than anything else–FDR members are intellectually, psychologically, and emotionally invested in a utopian worldview based on Molyneux’s unique approach to anarcho-capitalism. Even though they understand at some level that the utopian society they hope for is at minimum generations away, their investment is powerful enough for many of them to live lives in near-isolation, each one a modern-day Diogenes, hoping to find “honest and virtuous relationships” based on Molyneux’s definition of such relationships.
Okay–so is it a cult?

You’ll have to decide that for yourself. In my opinion, the answer is yes. I think of it as a baby cult. It’s relatively new and I’ve been watching it with the same fascination that an astronomer would watch the birth of a star. I don’t think Molyneux has a master plan. I think he is, in fact, the most loyal cult member of all. FDR seems to be springing up organically around his need to be revered.

In this blog, we’ll examine specific issues of FDR. I’d be very interested in your input. One of my favorite sites is Liberating Minds. Many of these issues are discussed there as well. Why not drop on by?

Tags: controversy
Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

As promised in my last article I wish to explain why certain accusations against Freedomain Radio (FDR) are unfounded. Here I explore the biggest one, that FDR is some sort of a cult.

But first I would like to expand on my motivation for writing this. If FDR was any other online community forum with a split off like Liberated Minds and I read all of the ugly stuff that has come out of it, I would have probably already decided to put all of that BS behind me and move on. I would feel annoyed, disillusioned and disappointed, but I would also eventually come to realize that I can be bigger than that and go on my own. I do not necessitate any comforting affiliations. I can create my own (especially as a web publisher with experience in building an online community). To a large extent this actually IS how I feel about this controversy.

However, I believe this to be an exceptional case and the reason is simply the amount of value that I have been able to derive from FDR and its relative uniqueness. So I am hard pressed to dismiss FDR as a complete failure for me. Instead I am compelled to look at it as a potentially great thing, but perhaps with a few glaring bugs that could use fixing. However, even if they aren’t fixed, I think it can still play a significantly positive role in liberating people’s minds and consequently changing the world to the better. Even the biggest accusers tend to concede to the positive value of at least some of the ideas promoted by FDR.

So first of all let’s just take the definitions of a “cult” from a reputable Merriam-Webster dictionary and see how they relate to FDR.

1. formal religious veneration : worship

Stefan Molyneux promotes atheism and discounts religion (as it is commonly viewed) as mythological superstition. Furthermore, formal veneration is distinct from genuine admiration in that it implies acting in accordance to a particular specifically pre-defined form (e.g. a ritual) so whatever spontaneous or genuine expressions of admiration may exist towards Stefan Molyneux, they cannot fit this definition.

2. a system of religious beliefs and ritual ; also : its body of adherents

As said above, religious belief is discouraged and no rituals exist. I am aware religion may sometimes be defined to include all spiritual tendencies and that certain philosophies meant to affect how one lives his or her life may be seen as having a spiritual dimension (how an individual experiences the world on an emotional level). However, these are scarcely the terms in which FDR discourse is held and individualistic philosophy it promotes leaves too much room for personal and private development of whatever spirituality one wishes to adopt for Stefan’s philosophical views to be seen as any kind of a specific and coherent “religious belief system”, let alone one prescribing certain set of rituals.

3. a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious ; also : its body of adherents

I think the above covers this one pretty well too.

4. a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator

FDR is hardly a “health cult”. I don’t remember the last time anyone tried to sell me some health tips there. I’d go elsewhere for that.

5. great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) ; especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

This essentially refers to a different kind of cult than what I’m trying to disprove. For example a Star Trek franchise is often described as a “cult TV show”. It has more to do with a general identification of exceptionally popular culture than dangerous cults which are the topic here. If this definition applies to FDR then it probably applies to the entire libertarian movement (devotion to the idea of a non-aggression principle, austrian economics, Atlas Shrugged etc.).

So with the caveat in the fifth definition neither of these definitions clearly describe Freedomain Radio.

That said, let’s get to the more detailed analysis of characteristics that a certain group needs to exhibit in order for the suspicion of it being a dangerous cult to be justified; the FACTnet’s Warning signs of a destructive cult. It begins by noting that “anyone could attack a group they disagree with by unfairly labeling it a destructive cult” which only illustrates the importance of this analysis.

I am aware that Stefan Molyneux already went through these warning signs in his own rebuttal of the cult claim and made a video about it, but I wish to expand on that and provide an independent and hopefully unbiased analysis.

So let’s start.

1. A destructive cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of its members’ behavior. Cults are likely to dictate in great detail not only what members believe, but also what members wear and eat, when and where members work, sleep, and bathe, and how members think, speak, and conduct familial, marital, or sexual relationships.

Next to impossible

Much of the described totalitarian controls are simply physically impossible in the case of FDR unless one would advance a claim that Stefan Molyneux has a paid gang of thugs distributed around the world who can physically intimidate FDR participants into submission to certain ways of clothing, eating, working, sleeping, bathing etc. which would be a claim without absolutely any evidence. The fact that this is an online community with members dispersed around the globe makes this next to impossible.

An example of misrepresented “evidence”

There are various things which accusers claim as evidence to the contrary and I would like to address an example for a case in point. One of the accusers claims that FDR requires an uniform basing that on the fact that FDR sells T-Shirts and that Stefan Molyneux allegedly “produced an angry rant about how cowardly the FDR members all were for complaining about the clothing’s quality and not doing their duty to FDR by buying and wearing them”. He never referred to the exact recording of such a rant and even though I tried I could not find it. However, it appears that another member recalled the podcast in question and had this to say on it:

“That podcast was not chastisement for not buying goods. It was chastisement to the individuals who were clamoring for goods to be be made available for purchase and did not buy them when they were made available. The issue was not the purchase of goods, but the lack of integrity on the part of a few individuals.”

While I cannot take this as absolutely solid evidence against the accuser’s claim since I cannot find the podcast in question, neither does it serve as any evidence in favor of the accusing claim. It does however demonstrate a method of misrepresentation which I’ve seen repeatedly used by the accusers where a given podcast or a forum thread is claimed as evidence which on further examination shows a significantly different picture than the accusers wanted to portray and thus invalidates the reference as any kind of solid evidence for their claim.

Conversations

There are also various conversations Stefan Molyneux held with certain members who have subsequently broken their relationships with parents or other people which are claimed as evidence that FDR, in accordance to this point of FACTnet’s warning signs, tends to be “totalitarian in its control of its members’ behavior” with respect to “how members think, speak, and conduct familial, marital, or sexual relationships”.

However, the worst that they could possibly claim in this instance falls a little short of “totalitarian control”.

“Totalitarian control”?

Totalitarian control implies total or absolute control of behavior, albeit not necessarily direct in the way a puppeteer pulls the strings of his dolls. It would require members to act in exact accordance to a particular predetermined fashion exclusively through suspension of their own critical thinking and deference to the leader’s instructions. This suspension and deference would have to be initiated in pursuit of a particular reward promised by the leader which is in fact not gonna come. It would also require certain sanctions to be in place should the victim fail to act in such a pre-determined manner (such as intimidation by threats of physical violence), but such sanctions would not be known to the victim until (s)he fails to follow said instructions. Only this way could control be reasonably called totalitarian.

Yet the worst claims I’ve heard are limited to someone being supposedly verbally manipulated to terminate a particular relationship and involve no violent threats against anyone who failed to terminate them. Furthermore, critical thinking is promoted on FDR (rather than their suspension) and probably emphasized more than on most other web sites.

So even if Stefan Molyneux does use certain manipulative tactics they hardly count as “totalitarian control” and thus fail to meet the criteria for this warning sign to be fulfilled. That said, does he really use manipulative tactics?

Manipulation?

According to relevant definitions from Merriam-Webster to manipulate is “to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one’s own advantage and to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one’s purpose. And unfair is defined as “marked by injustice, partiality, or deception” and “not equitable in business dealings”. The keywords to insidious are also treacherous, seductive and subtle.

The reason I am defining this so rigorously is because I wish to posit that manipulation is impossible without dishonesty of the manipulator and sincere will to harm somebody for his purposes and that manipulation is akin to fraud in that it is like selling something you do not even possess or promising results that will not happen. So is Stefan being dishonest in his conversations? Is he trying to deliberately harm the other party in those conversations and is he indeed promising results which will not deliver?

Let’s take a poster case for the cult accusations which I referred to in my part 0.

Was Stefan dishonest in his conversation? It is hard to say, both for me and the accusers, because we do not have absolute insights into his psyche during that conversation. We can only conjecture and the burden of proof is on the accusers. He was asked for thoughts about a psychological issue a caller had. He asked questions, inferred certain assessments from the provided answers and repeatedly asked the caller for confirmation or correction of those assessments. Regardless of accusers claim that this repeated asking for confirmation is just another manipulative tactic, one can hardly argue against the fact that it does offer the caller repeated chances to express his own thoughts which seems opposite of Stefan wishing to lead him in a particular arbitrary direction of his own.

Was Stefan deliberately trying to harm the caller? Well DID he harm him, since he so to speak “succeeded” in “convincing” the caller to terminate a relationship with his mother? Last I know even after his name was smeared across the media by his own mother, he remained firm in his decision and testified positively about it, had no regrets. One would think the whole media circus would have given him enough chance to ask himself if he truly made a mistake and fell victim to a cult. That he did not reconsider his decision and in fact testified to no regrets about it and an improved life seems more in line with the supposition that FDR is NOT a cult. So there is no evidence that Stefan actually harmed him, but that he helped him.

Note that this is not the only case where cult accusers “analyze” a particular conversation claiming that the caller was a victim of manipulation where that supposed victim never in fact complained nor asked for their defense in the matter. I suppose the accusers simply assume that these people are somehow brainwashed (thus implying they are susceptible to such a thing and not strong enough in their critical thinking to resist) or that they are worse off.

Was Stefan promising results that would not be delivered? First of all, the only promises, if they can even be called that, are of more personal freedom, but the true goals and the true results desired are with the caller. He is the one who defines the results he wishes to achieve. Still, supposing that Stef did promise the caller a better life, the promise was certainly delivered. You can listen to his own account here.

You can also watch Stefan’s take on this case here.

Given these facts the claim of manipulation begins to look a little weak and appears based on some incredibly ridiculous arguments.

Some ridiculous arguments

1. Colorful language.

The argument: “Stefan is manipulative because he used a metaphor which I find distasteful and are meant to make the victim vulnerable to suggestion.”

Response: I agree that certain metaphors used are sometimes quite distasteful and emotionally charging, however the caller already WAS vulnerable to suggestion which is the whole reason he called! Being vulnerable to suggestion does not immediately exclude the ability to reason for himself and thus reject the suggestion should he find it inappropriate (which is, after all, what many did). Suggesting otherwise is offensive to the caller, especially when the caller never complained.

2. He says “right?” after many sentences.

The argument: “Stefan is manipulative because he says “right?” after almost every sentence thus deceiving people into thinking he’s actually interested in their opinion.”

Response: First, if verbal habits make someone a manipulator then we’re all manipulators, including the accusers. Second, many times when he says “Right?” he actually does pause for a response. Manipulation or a chance to terminate him in order to interject with your own thoughts? Would accusers rather have his rants go on without such chances of interjection? I doubt it.

3. He makes overconfident and grandiose statements about himself.

The argument: “Stefan is manipulative because he praises himself too much expecting others to confirm his claims.”

Answer: So, someone being an overconfident a** is a manipulative tactic? Only if you truly think he is worth your confirming his claims will it be a problem for you to simply politely remain underwhelmed. Someone’s expression of overconfidence is hardly an enticement of your cooperation unless you truly believe his confidence is justified. This could in fact be anti-manipulative in that a good manipulator would wish to not make his victims feel awkward, but leave them with an impression that they’re talking to a really really nice and humble guy who will really help them, when he’s not.

4. He tells people to not associate with people who explicitly express support for them being harmed.

The argument: “Stefan manipulates people into breaking all ties from the rest of the world and thus strengthen ties to FDR members by telling them to confront people whom they have relationship with with a question of whether they support initiating violence against them (the against-me argument).”

The answer: Since these accusations come largely from libertarians I am tempted to ask what kind of a libertarian are you to have a problem with people confronting their friends or family with such a question? Do you not believe in the non-aggression as a matter of principle? No libertarian, and probably no human being, wishes to be aggressed upon. If one wishes to have a truly deep and understanding relationship with someone I would find it absolutely crucial to know if that someone would be perfectly fine with initiation of violence on me or not.

This part has turned out to be far longer than I anticipated out of my desire to cover as much as I can and due to the fact that claims of control of members behavior and claims of manipulation form the majority of all reasoning behind the overall cult claim.

2. A destructive cult tends to have an ethical double standard. Members are urged to be obedient to the cult, to carefully follow cult rules. They are also encouraged to be revealing and open in the group, confessing all to the leaders. On the other hand, outside the group they are encouraged to act unethically, manipulating outsiders or nonmembers, and either deceiving them or simply revealing very little about themselves or the group. In contrast to destructive cults, honorable groups teach members to abide by one set of ethics and act ethically and truthfully to all people in all situations.

On FDR members are encouraged to do the exact opposite of inconsistent and dishonest behavior as a core of its philosophy, even if behavior of certain members and occasionally perhaps even Stefan Molyneux himself seem to reflect an imperfect application of this in practice. It is hard to argue that a web site founded to promote consistency among its highest principles is somehow turning out to be the exact opposite. What validates this further is the fact that 90% of all content published by FDR including all inter-member interactions and conversations are public which greatly lowers the distinction between non-members and members and allows any inconsistency and double standards to be exposed immediately.

Cults usually have a far more reclusive membership core mired in secrecy and mystery which allows them to present a distinctively different picture to the non-members than they do to the members. Furthermore, once inside members find it hard to escape even if they wish so, which is simply not the case with FDR as members can come and leave as they please without feeling in any way threatened.

3. A destructive cult has only two basic purposes: recruiting new members and fund-raising. Altruistic movements, established religions, and other honorable groups also recruit and raise funds. However, these actions are incidental to an honorable group’s main purpose of improving the lives of its members and of humankind in general. Destructive cults may claim to make social contributions, but in actuality such claims are superficial and only serve as gestures or fronts for recruiting and fund-raising. A cult’s real goal is to increase the prestige and often the wealth of the leader.

FDR is set up as a donation based web site where donations are absolutely voluntary. The site merely proposes a certain way of donating with a proposed value per a certain number of podcasts. It’s donations system is technically not different at all from that of FreeTalkLive.com.

Some of the most obvious and most easily refuted claims have come from the cult accusers with this regard, severely limiting their credibility. It was claimed, for example, that FDR collects a tithe or a tenth of member’s income, which is simply and blatantly false.

Additionally, every online community is set up with the goal of growing its membership exactly because such growth increases the value that each member gains by participating (more people to interact with, more potentially useful content etc.). FDR is no different in this respect.

Where it does obviously differ, however, is that it is set up around the podcast published by a single person whom does obviously has it in his interest to increase the number of viewers of his podcasts like any blogger or podcaster may. The fact that he deals with philosophy provides further justification for the need and desire to be more widely recognized for his ideas (especially given that these ideas promote views held by a relative minority of people) which is in and of itself hardly equivalent to pursuit of some empty kind of prestige let alone a pursuit of wealth given that all of his content is available without obligation to pay.

4. A destructive cult appears to be innovative and exclusive. The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel, and instituting the ONLY viable system for change that will solve life’s problems or the world’s ills. But these claims are empty and only used to recruit members who are then surreptitiously subjected to mind control to inhibit their ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.

It is true that Stefan Molyneux claims the ideas he promotes (not all of which are necessarily those he originated, but also those he adopted) are non-traditional and to many people still novel. He also does promote those ideas as fundamental to personal freedom and social change, as do most libertarians or pretty much any political movement as well. However if these claims are empty he would have to be dishonest and not believe what he is promoting, using it solely to grow his membership and power. There is hardly any evidence that this is true and even many critics who subject him to psychological analysis of some sort claim that he has a personal investment in what he promotes which would indicate that he does believe what he says genuinely.

Accusers would often claim, however, that he does “surreptitiously [subject people] to mind control to inhibit their ability to examine the actual validity of the claims” claiming various cases of persons being banned for expressing their disagreement in particular ways which he claims were abusive or unpleasant, as evidence.

However given that these bans are public and explicit he is hardly surreptitious about it and it does not follow that such bans somehow make the rest of the members unable to critically examine the validity of the claims. They are not forced to stay on FDR nor to stop expressing their opinions on other web sites even if they are discouraged to post certain styles of critique on FDR boards themselves.

However, Stefan repeatedly invites those whom disagree or wish to examine certain ideas to talk to him in his sunday call in shows or to have a verbal debate with him. This is a practice that flies in the face of cult behavior even if such conversations do not satisfy everyone in terms of how willing Stefan may be to concede certain points or how often does he do that.

I would be further examining the issue of disagreements in my responses to FDRLiberated articles directly, but suffice it to say I do not see sufficient nor solid evidence that would make this warning sign square and fair apply to FDR, not even if the whole “banning of dissent” accusation was true.

5. A destructive cult is authoritarian in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader’s wishes. There is no appeal outside his or her system to a greater system of justice. For example, if a schoolteacher feels unjustly treated by a principal, an appeal can be made to the superintendent. In a destructive cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on all matters.

Accusers might want to point to the bans again as well as the enforcement of the forum rules, but if they do so they would effectively describe almost every internet forum. So the capability of the site administrator to ban people and give and enforce certain arbitrary rules of conduct simply cannot apply here.

I have never heard Stefan Molyneux make claims which would in any way explicitly or implicitly say that he has the final ruling on all matter concerning the lives of FDR members

6. A destructive cult’s leader is a self-appointed messianic person claiming to have a special mission in life. For example, leaders of flying saucer cults claim that beings from outer space have commissioned them to lead people away from Earth, so that only the leaders can save them from impending doom.

If he has claimed anything as prosaic as this it was in a poetic or metaphorical artistic form and/or applied to not only himself, but to everyone else who understood and agreed with his goals and desires for the world. As a voluntaryist with a desire to promote the ideas which help people live freer lives with more integrity, greater tendency to think philosophically and no violence, I would consider myself as having something significantly important to say to the world, something that I wouldn’t hesitate to describe with a metaphor involving a cure and a disease. This hardly means that I think of myself as a messianic leader.

7. A destructive cult’s leader centers the veneration of members upon himself or herself. Priests, rabbis, ministers, democratic leaders, and other leaders of genuinely altruistic movements focus the veneration of adherents on God or a set of ethical principles. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.

In the same spirit of the response above, when speaking prosaically or metaphorically, the veneration is either of a particular set of ideas or on those who have adopted such ideas. His occasional expressions of what we might call overconfidence and expectations of enthusiasm about something he seems to see as a great accomplishment is not necessarily the same thing as a set up designed to manipulate people into focusing “love, devotion, and allegiance” on himself.

If this was so then every time anyone feels that (s)he accomplished something incredible and significant expecting others around him or her to be enthused about it are exhibiting characteristics of a potential cult leader. I could think of countless examples where I’ve felt the need to talk about enthusiastically and even perhaps with a bit of an exaggeration about something I personally accomplished only to be met with a less than stellar reaction and a bit of a disappointment. I didn’t necessarily feel the immediate need to punish them for that, even if I did express a bit of friendly frustration with it.

8. A destructive cult’s leader tends to be determined, domineering, and charismatic. Such a leader effectively persuades followers to abandon or alter their families, friends, and careers to follow the cult. The leader then takes control over followers’ possessions, money, time, and lives.

Stefan Molyneux may arguably be charismatic and determined. However I would doubt that he is domineering in the sense that this warning sign is putting it. He did effectively persuade certain individuals to abandon certain specific relationships, but that was far more precise than a complete abandonment of the whole family, all friends and whole careers. The terminated relationships are with specific individuals. One may for instance cut ties with a mother without cutting ties with a father or cut ties with one friend while still having others etc. I have written about the nature of this process in response to the first warning sign above.

Taking control over possessions, money, time and lives is also somewhat resonant with the first point and the point about it being to a large extent impossible is applicable here too. All donations, book purchases or t-shirt purchases are voluntary. There are no explicit rules or demands for members to spend particularly high amounts of time participating on the FDR.

Conclusion

I realize this is a pretty large piece of text, but my intention was to cover as much as I could and express my reasoning behind extreme skepticism I have towards the claim I wish to dispute here. In a nutshell my general understanding of the reasoning behind the cult accusations is that they need to rely on a rather fragmented and weak structure of reasoning and claimed evidence.

Cult claimants tend to say that on the surface FDR does not appear like a cult and that it is required of one to really scratch deep beneath the surface and connect the dots in order to see how it really is. But such a line of reasoning already leaves much to be desired because it effectively claims that most people will not be able to see and understand the evidence and that only few, including presumably the few of those who are perpetuating such claims, were capable of this. It also begins to sound a lot like some kind of a conspiracy theory.

Yet when one takes a look at the nature of a project such as FDR it is obvious that there’s not a lot that could be so susceptible to this sort of a sophisticated cover up, or if anything of the sort even was possible it would not be an equivalent to strong evidence for FDR being a cult, but merely strong evidence that Stefan Molyneux can and is just as imperfect as all human beings no matter what kind of an ideal he aspires to and no matter what kind of an ideal some of his current or former admirers wish to ascribe to him.

More than 90% of all content is public including forum conversations, audio conversations, podcasts etc. FDR discussion is ongoing both on and off the FDR web site. If there’s anything that is somehow “hidden” and thus not obvious to those who don’t scratch deeper and beneath the surface then it is hidden in plain sight among all of the words Stefan has ever uttered. And coming up with conclusive evidence and argumentation for the claim that FDR is a cult begins to look a lot like scouring the bible for quotes that would supposedly confirm that it prophesied a particular dramatic event. In that sense I could claim almost anything about Stefan Molyneux and then seek various “interesting” and “whoa look at that” kinds of statements to support my claim considering the sheer amount of material he has put out.

That said, I am willing to respond to whichever arguments anyone can put forward in the comments as well as various “extremely objectionable” podcasts or recorded conversations to some of which I might dedicate an article all of its own. I also intend to respond to some articles written at FDRLiberated.com.

But I will not participate on Liberated Minds again and in fact regret that those who do not buy into the cult claims still do act as if they are completely fine and not more than a smear campaign. I do not wish to associate with those who advance such extreme accusations nor do I wish to be in the same group which seems to foster support for such actions as those by Barbara W. Even if I was banned from FDR for any reason, I would not come to Liberated Minds for sympathy.

Tags: controversy
Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

As a voluntaryist and someone who has a penchant for free thinking and philosophical discourse and someone who can get quite passionate about the particular ideas that I feel are important to promote or discuss I have been attracted to the material put out by Stefan Molyneux on Freedomain Radio, a web site that contains hundreds of podcasts, a number of books and a rather unique discussion board.

What attracted me is the apparent rigor and brilliance of his presentation of philosophical ideas. After listening or watching his podcasts I would often have epiphany like moments where things just clicked in my head and I feel like I’ve gained deeper understanding on the subject that I care about. It further validated and deepened my evolving understanding of voluntaryism and begun to add further context to it in form of its application to what is real in every day life, from how I personally think and feel to how I relate with other people.

I would attribute a lot of my recent thinking about things like integrity, honesty, the evil of contradictions and my relative fall from relativism to Stefan Molyneux’ influence, albeit I have taken a liberty to think them through myself and sometimes even form slightly different expressions of these ideas or perhaps adopt slight modifications of them. I certainly did not feel compelled to take absolutely every word for it from Molyneux and that seems perfectly fine by him, as this is exactly what he appears to encourage with people. So long as there is consistency in your logic and your theories are empirically verifiable, go for it! And so I did.

But then I begun learning about the controversy. The first negative thing that I heard about Stefan Molyneux was fairly benign. One of my best friends online, with whom I speak with almost daily in our IRC channel sometimes expressed his view of Stefan as a bit “insane” on the basis of his presentation style in certain podcasts where he appeared very angry. I didn’t take this all too seriously since it is merely a small percentage of podcasts and expressions of anger scarcely have much to do with the validity of the ideas presented. Additionally, I largely sympathize with the anger since I myself feel it when it comes to facing the violence of the governments, wars etc. and the ignorant and/or self-contradictory defenses put forth for it.

The worst kind of controversy however had to do with some rather extreme sounding accusations against Freedomain Radio which called it an “online cult”. Initially, I didn’t take these accusations for much and was interested in neither concluding that FDR was or was not what it was accused of being. My position was that it was basically irrelevant to the validity of ideas presented in it. This is a stance I still hold to this day. However, it is hard to stop me from being extremely curious and the more I came to admire what was being done at FDR and what Stefan Molyneux was saying the more I felt the need for some sort of a personal closure to the whole controversy thing.

That’s just the way I am. If somebody makes accusations and questions what I’ve come to admire as a good thing and even a truthful thing, either I am going to completely debunk these accusations to sky high to the point where it will be clear beyond all reasonable doubt that they’re just false or flawed or I’m going to separate the possibly valid from possibly bad and just take it at that or I’m gonna have to determine they’re actually all true and dismiss what I’ve believed previously.

And I realize that one way or another it’s not gonna end and I’m gonna keep returning to the issue, visiting the site of the critics and accusers, read the blogs, watch the videos and never be satisfied until I have my final answer.

That said, I am already, despite my silence about this process on my blog, some ways deep into that process. I have been posting on the critics forum mentioned, Liberated Minds, some months ago in an attempt to express my dissatisfaction with the way they have handled their opposition to Stefan Molyneux and his work. I argued that they have essentially exaggerated their case, used misrepresentation and supported downright disrespectful acts towards a person who made a conscious choice. For those not familiar with the issues in question Molyneux’ summary can be found here, and not to be accused of being one sided a representation of the opposing side can be found on this site.

The founder of the Liberated Minds forum and a number of people on that forum were largely behind these stories. Given that the whole issue centers on the conscious decision of one guy to break up with his mother based on what he expressed were feelings of being at least emotionally abused, I couldn’t and still cannot find the mother’s behavior excusable. It could hardly be seen as anything other than a continued pattern of abuse. Once her son decided to exercise his freedom of association and not associate with her again, she plasters his private information and private story all over the media and by calling Freedomain Radio a “cult” who somehow mind controlled him into doing it, also effectively calls him incapable of thinking for himself and acting on his own volition.

I was disgusted at the fact that this act was and to this day continues to be defended by some in the Liberated Minds community, which still serves as a home and encouragement to people like that man’s mother. I haven’t necessarily been too happy with the way Stefan Molyneux handled the controversy either, as far as accusations of him wishing the hoster of the LM forum to shut it down were true, but I’ve considered LM’s support for the above described strategy far more egregious of an offense.

In my relatively brief time there (a few days) I have been having some relatively long debates on the above sentiment upon which I posted my conclusions here. Just this weekend, tempted by a reply to my few months old response to a critical “analysis” of Stefan’s philosophy of forgiveness, I engaged them for one last time, and then left the board by deleting my account.

The reason for that is an experience of a rather recurring theme with the Liberated Minds forum which only seems to support my earlier linked and described conclusion. Certain people on LM forums seem bent on periodically scanning the Freedomain Radio boards for what could possibly be used against FDR and Stefan Molyneux even further. Even if such people had any valid points and criticism of FDR, this kind of practice dilutes their credibility and brings their honesty in the matter to the question.

For instance, they have turned a mere BBQ planning among the FDR community into predictions of them wanting to build some sort of an FDR compound where I suppose they would permanently live with each other isolated from the rest of their world. Their basis for that incredibly ridiculous conjecture is Stef’s apparent description of the BBQ atmosphere as “perfect” because it would be a meet up of like minds.

Another example is their portrayal of Stef’s debating tips video as the worst podcast ever responding with apparent shock and indignation. I’ve actually seen the thread before I’ve seen the actual video and as usual when I encounter this kind of stuff I wonder what the hell could be this bad to cause such reaction, and as usual I am let down. The debating tips in question were not the general debating tips as I would expect them to be, but tips on debating with him in which he brings out some rather benign and obvious concepts as the necessity of preparation, especially when debating with someone who has much more debating experience. Besides, given that he is effectively advising people on debating with him he is in full right to make whatever terms and conditions he wishes.

But the Liberated Minds forums are full of this kind of stuff. However, in fairness, they do have some interesting people and some probably valid points. It’s just pitifully sad that it is diluted this way and that they insist in lending voice and credence to such extreme and unfounded accusations. It begins to look more of a smear campaign than a mere word of warning to those who may have found something valuable in the Freedomain community.

How and why exactly unfounded their accusations are I will write about in subsequent articles, trying to be as balanced as I can possibly be. I will focus on the weak foundations behind their cult accusations, the failed critique of Stef’s philosophy of forgiveness, accusations of certain acts of hypocrisy (alleged legal threats), certain examples of exaggeration etc. I will however also admit where things are less than stellar as far as FDR is concerned, especially given the current stand off as far as controversy over Stefan Molyneux’ book on Universally Preferable Behavior is concerned.

I will also do direct responses to article series published at “FDRLiberated.com”.

My goal is not necessarily to be a good little defender of everything FDR or everything Stefan Molyneux says and does (as I’m sure some critics would like to portray me). I merely wish to be an independent voice in this controversy because I feel that I have some insights to contribute and for my own sense of closure.

References:

• FDR Controverys Part 1: The (flawed) cult claim.
• FDR Controversy Part 2: A “brief” misrepresentation of FDR
• FDR Controversy Part 3: Response to the “analysis” of Molyneux’ response to the UK Guardian article
• FDR Controversy Part 4: “I would like to ask you to stop posting here”.
• FDR Controversy Part 5: Response to The Promise and Failure of UPB
• Response to “Molyneux’s Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness (by QuestEon)” (7th post from top by Guest, written on April 6th 2009)
• “The Guardian and the Cult of Freedomain” (links to resources)

Tags: controversy
Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Yesterday one of the crazy ones has died too early. One of those who people who dared to be different and to be the most of himself no matter what others said, no matter the teasing and bullying, misunderstanding and dishonesty. This made him one of the most famous people in the world, albeit possibly one of the most misunderstood. He is the living proof of how powerful a human being can be if he steps out of the fold. This world needs more of the crazy ones.

Ironically, it took his death for me to realize some of the things about him and even discover one of his songs I didn’t know about. I heard his songs so many times, they were impossible to avoid, but not being a big fan of pop I always somehow took it for granted, and all of the incredible intellectual changes I’ve gone through recently, rediscovering the world changing power of Michael Jackson somehow just didn’t come around. And now I regret this.

However I am now newly inspired and motivated.

Here are a few incredible world changing songs by Michael Jackson. Let them live on.

Feel free to suggest more in the comment. And let the legend live long in our memeverse!

Tags: worldchanging
Posted in Uncategorized | 30 Comments »

What a meme this is! I haven’t seen something quite like this in a long while. First, my dad who visited us briefly in our apartment mentioned that there’s a video on youtube of an old woman singing professionally like Celine Dion. It was interesting to hear, but I soon forgot all about it. There’s all sorts of interesting stuff on youtube.

But what an interesting coincidence, or perhaps a testament to how incredibly powerful this was for so many people to the world.. I accidentally stumbled on the video in question. I was looking for reviews of a book on self improvement with introspection exercise I’m following (“How to finally find what you love to do and get paid doing it” by Brian Kim) and on one blog where I found it, one of the entries was “5 Feel-Good YouTube Videos” which claimed that “any one of them could make your day” and that “you might choke on your own happy hormones”. I was somewhat skeptical as I tend to have a general dislike of cheesy meaningless feel goods in a sense that they’re like drugs which wane away and wont make you permanently happy (knowing who you are and becoming the full of your potential would).

The image linking to the first video portrays this ugly woman (sorry..) and I clicked expecting something cheesy and perhaps boring..

Oh boy was I wrong. The video in question is of Susan Boyle achieving her dreams in a dreamy song called fittingly “I dreamed a dream” and literally helping possibly up to 100 million people in the world become genuinely inspired, hopeful and more open minded in these gloomy times of crisis. It is like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly in all its glory, a flower in the middle of the desert of cynicism, like some sort of a miracle. Well see for yourself:

That video was viewed almost 40 million times so far and there are other uploads getting millions so far. That’s just youtube though. As linked from the video’s description there are already numerous fan sites. Even Wall Street Journal blogged about her. I hear there is an album for sale, the only album she ever made, for incredible $1000 USD (due to high demand no doubt). This lady is an instant super star and is quite possibly gonna quickly become quite wealthy, as she deserves.

What’s so special about her though? When I step back I realize that she certainly is not unique in her talent in that there’s a lot of singers out there with great singing talent. What’s so special about this is that against all odds she was persistent, she applied again even after she was turned down before for talent shows like this. This shows courage and belief in yourself and unwillingness to see failure as the end. She knew what she had. She had a dream and when this chance was given to her, she achieved it in a blaze of glory. Her path towards this was probably difficult due to her looks.. which says something about the society we’re living in, but what was on the inside far outweighed what was outside. This context makes for a story that enamored millions and gave her the fame and possibly resulting wealth that she can now enjoy, in the middle of the economic depression, dispensing inspiration to others as well that no matter who you are, if you know yourself, be yourself, you can make it.

Some people say her talent is god given (or even go as far as imply that she’s an angel from heaven, human capacity for hyperbole is certainly amazing). I don’t believe that. Her talent is all her. It should be insulting to ascribe all achievements of an individual to a mythical entity and thus rob the individual of his credit and inherent worth.

Tags: inspiring, worldchanging
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

To The Governments & People of Earth:

We claim the right to exist, and we will defend it. We do not seek to overthrow anything. We do not seek to control anything. We merely wish to be left alone.

All we ever wanted was to live in peace with our friends and neighbors. For a long, long time we bore insults to our liberty; we took blows, we did what we could to avoid injury and we worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed. We no longer see any benefit in working through the world’s systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for us, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish us. We hereby reject them all. We hereby withdraw from them all. We hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity.

We now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. We will not initiate force, but we do reserve the right to answer it. We did not choose this—it was forced upon us.

To The Governments of Earth:

You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions, of our travels and even our identities. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era. Understand clearly: We reject your authority and we reject your legitimacy. We do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon us and no legitimacy. We have forsaken you. We are no longer your citizens or your subjects.

Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not. We are not merely angry young people. We are fathers and mothers; aunts, uncles and grandparents; we are business owners and trusted employees; we are mechanics and engineers and farmers. We are nurses and accountants and students and executives. We are on every continent.

This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life.

For long decades we sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. We took no actions; we suffered along with everyone else. But after having our limits pushed back again and again, we have given up on your systems.

If our fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. We will not try to stop them. We, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon us. From now on, when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. We are happy to live quietly. But if you come after us, there will be consequences.

You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do.

You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.

To The People of Earth:

We seek nothing from you. We do not want to rule you and we do not want to control you. All we wish is to live on earth in peace. As always, we will be helpful neighbors and generous acquaintances. We will remain honest business partners and trustworthy employees. We will continue to be loving parents and respectful children.

We will not, however, be sacrificial animals. We reject the idea that others have a right to our lives and our property. We will not demand anything from you, and we will no longer acquiesce to any demands upon us. We have left that game. We reject all obligations to any person or organization beyond honesty, fair dealing and a respect for human life. We will shortly explain what we believe, but we are not demanding that you agree with us. All we ask is that you do not try to stop us. Continue to play the game if you wish; we will not try to disrupt it. We have merely walked away from it.

We wish you peace.

To Those Who Will Condemn Us:

We will ignore you.

We welcome and seek the verdict of a just God, before whom we are willing to expose our innermost thoughts. Are you similarly willing?

We would stand openly before all mankind if it were not suicidal. Perhaps some day we will have to accept slaughter for our crime of independence, but not yet.

Your criticism and your malice are much deeper than mere disagreements of strategy or philosophy. You do not oppose our philosophy, you oppose our existence. Our presence in the world means that your precious ideals are false. Some of you would rather kill us than face the loss of your ideologies, just as those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human.

You present yourselves to the world as compassionate, tolerant and enlightened, but we know that your smooth words are costumes. Oh yes, we know you, servant of the state; don’t forget, we were raised with you. We played with you in the schoolyard, we sat next to you in the classroom. Some of us studied at the same elite universities. We watched as you had your first tastes of power. We were the boys and girls standing next to you. Some of us were your first victims. We are not fooled by your carefully crafted public image.

What We Believe:

• #1:
  Many humans resent the responsibilities that are implied by consciousness. We accept those responsibilities and we embrace consciousness. Rather than letting things happen to us (avoiding consciousness), we accept consciousness and choose to act in our own interest. We do not seek the refuge of blaming others, neither do we take refuge in crowds. We are willing to act on our personal judgment, and we are willing to accept the consequences thereof.
• #2:
  We believe in negative rights for all: That all humans should be free to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not intrude upon others; that no man has a right to the life, liberty or property of another; that we oppose aggression, fraud and coercion.
• #3:
  We do not believe that our way of life, or any other, will make life perfect or trouble-free. We expect crime and disagreements and ugliness, and we are prepared to deal with them. We do not seek a strongman to step in and solve problems for us. We agree to see to them ourselves.
• #4:
  We believe in free and unhindered commerce. So long as exchanges are voluntary and honest, no other party has a right to intervene—before, during or after.
• #5:
  We believe that all individuals should keep their agreements.
• #6:
  We believe that honestly obtained property is fully legitimate and absolute.
• #7:
  We believe that some humans are evil and that they must be faced and dealt with. We accept the fact that this is a difficult area of life.
• #8:
  We believe that humans can self-organize effectively. We expect them to cooperate. We reject impositions of hierarchy and organization.
• #9:
  We believe that all humans are to be held as equals in all matters regarding justice.
• #10:
  We believe that the more a man or woman cares about right and wrong, the more of a threat he or she is perceived to be by governments.
• #11:
  We believe that there are only two true classes of human beings: Those who wish to exercise power upon others—either directly or through intermediaries—and those who have no such desires.
• #12:
  Large organizations and centralization are inherently anti-human. They must rely upon rules rather than principles, treating humans within the organization as obedient tools.

Our Plans:

We are building our own society. We will supplement traditional tools with networking, cryptography, sound money, digital currency and anonymous messaging.

Our society will not be centrally controlled. It will rely solely on voluntary arrangements. We welcome others to join us. We are looking for people who are independent creators of value, people who act more than talk, and people who do the right thing because it is the right thing.

We will develop our own methods of dealing with injustice, built on the principles of negative rights, restitution, integrity and equal justice. We do not forbid anyone from having one foot in each realm—ours and the old realm—although we demand that they do no damage to our realm. We are fully opposed to any use of our realm to facilitate crime in the old realm, such as the hiding of criminal proceeds.

We expect to be loudly condemned, libeled and slandered by the authorities of the old regime. We expect them to defend their power and their image of legitimacy with all means available to them. We expect that many gullible and servile people will believe these lies, at least at first.

We will consider traps laid for us to be criminal offenses. Any who wish to join us are encouraged to distribute this declaration, to act in furtherance of our new society, to voluntarily excel in virtues and to communicate and cooperate with other members of the new society.

Free, unashamed men cannot be ruled.

We are The Free and The Unashamed.

Tags: liberty
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Philosophy can literally be defined as the “love of wisdom” since this is how it translates. Philo means love and sophia means wisdom. The word “wisdom” tends to conjure images of old bearded man confidently, calmly and benevolently spouting important sounding statements about “deep” questions. At least that’s my experience. I think it is generally viewed as a positive trait worth acquiring, eventually, given that it is so often expected to be something reserved for the old.

Wikipedia says that “wisdom is an ideal that has been celebrated since antiquity as the knowledge needed to live a good life”. Who doesn’t want to lead a good life? And indeed who doesn’t want to appear wise, regardless of whether they do lead a good life?

Every now and then I think all of us ask certain questions which go beyond the mere trivialities of life (fashionable clothing, tasty foods, small talk, gossip, partying, you name it). We ask what we perceive as “big” questions like “what’s the whole point of life” or “what happens after we die” or “why is anything true or false”… We see these questions as “big”, I would presume, mostly because they are hard to answer.

Ultimately, I think most of us form some kind of a stance on these questions. Deep down we probably know that we don’t know much about them, but if someone was to ask us what we think chances are we’ll blurt out some sort of a positive answer. Sometimes what we answer will be what we perceive the social circle we’re in wants us to answer (unfortunately, in my opinion, conformism is a terrible thing), but sometimes we’ll answer honestly without paying much attention to the fact that by doing so we are actually taking a philosophical position.

So on some levels we might all be philosophers to a certain extent, to the extent to which we ask big questions, think about them and take positions. This is enough to form a basis for further growth of our understanding and our wisdom. Unfortunately the society we are living in does not tend to foster building upon that much further. Everyone seems to be obsessed with control and regulation of each other where too much independent thought, indeed independent philosophy, is not only criticized, but sometimes violently repressed.

The dangerous result of that is a void being created in individual’s understanding of the world around as (s)he continues to experience it. This void, in absence of actively practiced philosophy and pursuit of truth and wisdom is instead filled by random superstition, mythologies or just utter nihilism (no point to anything, no truth.. we may as well kill ourselves where we stand, but why do it.. at least we can get wasted every weekend or enjoy those pitiful little pleasures.. you get the picture).

But that isn’t quite the best we can do as human beings isn’t it? Can’t anyone feel that there is a potential for so much more? My hope is to help build a new age of enlightenment with those who are already on the job so that one day every human being on Earth is a philosopher whose capacity to reason matches or exceeds the greatest philosophers in history. We can do that.

And just think of the consequences. The sole reason for the existence of ANY problem or any evil that exists in the world is nothing more than a lack of knowledge. Philosophy, combined with science, is the absolute fundamental practice to achieving knowledge.

Tags: Philosophy
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »