Some of you may remember the Molyneux Cult topic, and as a recent question has come up about the intentions and effects, I decided to revisit the situation by going down the checklist for what qualifies a political cult as a cult, or at least what indicates cultic behavior occurring.
My answer would be “both”. There is a degree of cultyness there, and yet then again I’m not entirely sure that it qualifies as a cult. I’m not sure if it’s fair to characterize Molyneux’s intentions as if he were purposefully trying to be a cult leader. On the other hand, clearly certain regular members of his board act as if they were cult members. They seem to frame all discussion and debate in the confined/limited context of his ideas rather than a more broad libertarian analysis, show a very condescending attitude to anyone coming in from “the outside” with the slightest bit of criticism or disagreement with Molyneux and they tend to parrot him verbatum. Also, sometimes there is a tendency for people to be kicked off the board merely for expressing an opinion that Stefan isn’t comfortable with, not necessarily for actually trolling the board or anything like that. There most certainly is a cult of personality surrounding Molyneux.
What I personally find most disturbing is the constant use of psycho-analysis and the sort of Fruedian obcession with tieing literally everything to one’s family. In a discussion about politics, economics or philosophy, Molyneux and certain members will shift the discussion to a psycho-analysis of someone expressing a certain viewpoint, trying to explore wether or not or why or how their childhood experiences are the reason why they hold a certain viewpoint. The individual in question will be poked and prodded about their personal life until they are essentially guilted into making a connection between the two and admitting to what the psycho-analyzer has projected onto them. If one pays close attention, it is always Molyneux who makes the suggestion as to what the reason is, I.E. he projects onto the subject. People are kind of shamed into submitting. Now, to be sure, Molyneux’s theory about the family does make a good point. But I feel that he takes it way too far and tries to tie the family into literally everything.
It’s also important to understand his concept of “defooing”. Now, this concept is not quite as cut and dry as some may percieve it. Molyneux is not necessarily saying that everyone should completely disassociate with all non-libertarians or all people who don’t accept Molyneux’s words as absolute truth. The basic concept being defooing makes quite a bit of sense. If your family and friends and loved ones are mentally or physically abusive towards you, and if they refuse to engage you when you try to discuss matters of virtue and ethics with them, there may be a certain point by which you should disassociate from them. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that idea. However, I made a post at the board a long time ago trying to express that I think Stef is too liberal in his suggestions that people defoo. He’s far too quick to conclude that someone should disassociate from their family. And some people, particularly young people, do not possess the dependance, economic or otherwise, necessary to deal with defooing. And you’ll find that most of the people targeted by Molyneux are young and vunerable.
So, is it a cult? Maybe. It certainly does possess some disturbing cult-like features. There are some similarities to what went on in Rand’s old circle, which most defintely was a cult at one point at least. I’m not entirely sure if it qualifies as a cult though.
I submitted a reply to the original post and it was denied by a moderator. Why? The reason given was “Already another thread on same topic.” Then why allow the original post, the other reply, or the thread in general?
[Edit] hmmm this time it posted without going through a moderator. I will attempt to edit this message by adding my previous post.
I think a large number of FDR behaviors fall under the definition of a cult. I think FDR is far more “culty” now that it was 2 years ago (if it was at all, back then). Check out this thread, which talks about cult definitions and how closely FDR is.
I think he is a fruit loop. Plus, his voice really grates my nerves. I am thinking he was a Jehovahs Witness at some point. Gives me that same kind of feeling.
The guy posts here, so can we at least be respectful? I don’t want to have to moderate posts in this thread. Thanks.
I apologize for any slurs used in this thread, though I do not see where they have been used.
In any case, however, if Molyneux was to be concerned about stones, he would not have cast the first one - especially from the rooftop of his house made of glass.
I tried to be as fair as I could. Some of the accusations against him are a bit misleading (like a misunderstanding of what his “defooing” concept really means). However, I think there are some rather obvious strange tendencies going on at his board at least, and parts of his approach deserve scrutiny.
I found Niccolo’s attacks on Stef with respect to religion to be dead wrong. I’m pretty much in line with his views on religion myself. But the criticisms with respect to the cult factor, or at least the obcession with the family and psycho-analysis, I find to be pretty straight-foreward.
My comment was in reference to IrishOutlaw’s post.
The term “cult” in the sense you are using the term usually refers to an organization that is hard to leave or tries to control your life - like the state. There are some religions that I think qualify as cults in existence today. The I think certainly qualifies. They condemn psychologists and urge people to avoid them. One reason I think is that a qualified psychologist can pick up on signs of brainwashing and other trauma. Molyneux on the other hand actually encourages many people to visit a psychologist if they have had some kind of trauma. He does not have a list of “approved” psychologists either. What matters to him is that the person is qualified. If Molyneux were really brainwashing people would he be urging many of his listeners to go to a psychologist he has no control over? Probably not.
Also, I would like to point out that Freedomainradio is almost entirely an Internet phenomenon. There have been very few “meetups” of any sort and they were certainly not attended by a majority of members. It is impossible for him to cage people into some sort of compound. The only “punishment” available to him is banning a member from the boards. This is called free association.
LOL. I sure didn’t think any of that was over the top. Especially considering some of the insults that fly around on here. If he posts here (I think he just trolls and spams personally) than he is more than welcome to compare me to breakfast cereal and say I remind him of an ex-Jehovahs Witness. I can handle it.
I like Molyneaux’s writing, but never listened much to his podcast. In it he reads his essays as if he were… reading essays, and I’d rather read them myself. I’ve never been to his site, and so never fought with his listeners or been referred to a shrink. I think that makes me a fairly impartial observer. [:D]
The earlier comparison to Ayn Rand resonates with me: if anything, we’re talking about a “personality cult,” not a cult in the mind-controlled false-religion sense. Sometimes admiration reaches such a pitch that we not only imitate its object–which is the sincerest form of flattery after all–but we also judge others by their conformity. In that context, I’d conjecture that often referring people to a shrink is probably a bullying response to non-conformity.
Not that it’s wrong ever to refer someone to a shrink. I do it myself. But as an ignorant layman, one should only make such a referral with a pretty solid foundation. When I do it, I’m willing to bet money that the person has a schizo-affective disorder. Every forum seems to have at least one schizoid, but it’s doubtful that FDR has a flock of them. So most likely the accusation is based on some disagreement with the group, which is interpreted as a mental defect, and then rationalized with an unqualified diagnosis of mental illness. The whole interaction is non-aggression, but it is bullying in a passive-aggressive sort of way.
I’d take that as a good working definition of a “cult,” by the way: equating disagreement with mental defect.
–Len.
Hahaha! Qualified like Molyneux?
No, Molyneux does not have the convenience of being with a large number of people and he can only trap a few, however, Molyneux’s is a cult in its earliest stages. Jim Jones could not trap his cult members in the beginning either.
Never heard a man speak like this man before. Never heard a man speak like this man before. All the days of my life ever since I’ve been born, never heard a man speak like this man before.
You really should read Voegelin:
Basically, when people don’t believe in religions anymore, they start to believe in political religions. Marxism had every attribute of a religion: prophets, holy books, sacred symbols, dogmas etc. And for example these days Obama’s speeches are received by his fans quite like a religious experience.
Quite the opposite actually. This podcast may give you a better understanding of what it is he actually does - in a nutshell:
Faith in the state is a religion. The flag (whether rightside up or upside down) is a sacred symbol. But Molyneux does not have faith in the state. He opposes the concepts of both Earthly and divine political authority.
Yea. While I do think that many secular people make the mistake of adopting secular or worldly deities in place of the formal concept of a god (which I recently argued here), it does not logically follow that they should and it is not a universal thing that atheists do. Not all atheists fall into that trap. And Stef most certainly is not a statist, and makes an interesting connection between religiosity and statism.
Need I point out that referring others to scripture for answers smacks of cultishness? [:|]
In any case, can you sum up? I’m unwilling to invest the time to listen to the MP3.
–Len.
No he doesn’t, he just wishes for these concepts to be applied to himself - like any narcissist.
What? That faith in God equates to faith in the state?
Heh
If I were curious as to what Christians actually believe, The Bible would be a good source of information. If I were curious as to what Muslims believed, the Koran would be a good source of information. If I were curious about Mormonism I would read the Doctrine and Covenants. Likewise, if someone wants to know what Molyneux’s views on psychology are it would be very enlightening to listen to him put them into practice. This is not cultish, it is common sense behavior to go to the source to find out what someone believes rather than accepting the information second hand. It makes far more sense to go to Buddhist Scriptures to find out what Buddhists actually believe than it does to read a book about Buddhism written by a Fire & Brimstone Evangelical Christian preacher - unless your goal is to confirm what you already believe about Buddhism.
The podcast I link to is an interview with a 21 year old Objectivist. In the interview he puts his views on psychology into practice. In it you also will hear about some of the differences between his views and those of Objectivism. He also talks about his views of bullying, obedience and conformity - views very different from what you assume about him.