The 3 Foundations of FDR

1. The essential idea behind FDR. (Your parents are bullies and you don't love them.) The Foundation of FDR

2. Why FDR was created. Molyneux says it's merely to pry you away from a belief in the "inherent virtue of family." That is, until you dig deeper. It's all in Prying Them Loose

3. How the theories of a well-known psychologist are used by FreeDomain Radio: The Rape of Alice Miller


If you decide to leave the FreeDomain Radio "community"...

Sorry folks, snark takes a holiday.

This post is from the heart and is directed to people who may be hurting right now. I'll be back with more fun next time!

If you decide to leave...


Is FreeDomain Radio a destructive cult?

In which I aggressively and fearlessly sidestep the big question, head on!

Part 1: The journey into FDR

Part 2: The three persuasions of Stefan Molyneux

This post is about three questions. The first question is pretty easy to answer, for me, at least. However, it was damn hard for Stefan Molyneux of FreeDomain Radio.

We’ll get to all of that in a minute.

That first question is going to lead us to a second one. That one will be really hard to answer.

But not as hard to answer as the corkscrew of question #3. In fact, answering that one will be almost impossible if you’re a devout True Believer in the FreeDomain Radio “community.”

Ready for the challenge?

I wrote about the first question in the article Prying Them Loose. Here it is:

“Does Stef advocate dissociating with statists and theists?”

Molyneux’s himself took a crack at answering it and this is his reply:

I do think that it is important to talk to a statist patiently and with curiosity, and help him to understand that when he wishes to use government to achieve his ends, he is advocating the initiation of force against you.

In the same way, a Christian or Jew or Muslim all worship the morals in a holy book that commands death to unbelievers, promotes slavery and rape and other heinous crimes.

If people are willing to reject the use of violence in dealing with others, I think that is wonderful!

I don’t think that it is particularly honorable to remain ‘friends’ with someone who is unwilling to renounce the use of violence against you, but that is everyone’s decision to make of course…

OK, hold it right there. Every time someone answers a simple “yes or no” question with a convoluted response that includes neither the word “yes” nor “no,” two little antennae rise up out of the back of my head and start signaling the mothership.

There’s just something here that’s not right.

Most of the time, it means the respondent doesn’t want you to know the real answer.

In this case, I’ll say something in Molyneux’s favor. He actually does give you the answer. There is a “yes” or “no” hidden in there but it’s almost as if he’s OK if you don’t get it.

Call me crazy, but it’s almost as if his principles are telling him to say one thing but his sense of self-preservation is jamming the frequency. That is purely speculation on my part, though.

Anyway, let’s look at his argument in plain language:

  1. All statists and/or theists personally advocate violence against you.

  2. Before dissociating with them, you should talk to them with patience and curiosity.

  3. If they are willing to reject violence against you after your talk, that’s wonderful.

  4. But based on argument #1, that means they must reject statism and theism.

  5. If they do not, and you remain friends with them, you are dishonorable.

You see, the actual answer to the original question is one word: Yes.

Yes, Stefan Molyneux advocates dissociating from statists and theists. When you put his argument in plain language, absolutely no other interpretation is possible. That’s the black-and-white, bottom line, etc.

What is not so obvious is Molyneux’s need to obscure his meaning, to twist and hide the truth behind the words.

Is he ashamed of his true beliefs? Or simply waiting until you’re far enough into “the community” to accept them without question—far enough in to leave your parents, family, and friends on the basis of this argument alone?

No? Well then what is it, then, that prevents him from simply saying “yes,” right now, when that is clearly his answer?

We can have endless debate about the fine points of Molyneux’s logic, 29-page vivisections of UPB, in-depth analyses of RTR—whatever you want.

But right now, we’re just talking about first principles, essential truths, and virtue—all the stuff that is supposed to be the foundation of Stefan Molyneux’s philosophy. And we’re also talking about a manwho then uses slippery rhetoric so you won’t see what he truly believes.

Which all leads to Question #2:

When a man uses words willfully to hide his true meaning and fundamental beliefs—isn’t that simply a variation of lying and manipulation—exactly the kind of the Stefan Molyneux abhors?

And if that’s true, (leading into Question #3)…

Doesn’t that knock everything he says after that into the dustbin?

Answer that honestly, and I wouldn’t be surprised if everything suddenly does become black-and-white.