|
In the past month [July 2009] several concerned people have alerted me to the Internet presence of Stefan Molyneux and his Freedom Radio pod cast. One article in Times On Line http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5485325.ece reported accusations of Molyneux operating a “Web ‘cult’”. This cult label has been bandied about by some alarmed families that have experienced “deFooing” (a term coined by Stefan Molyneux). DeFooing can mean simply that a young adult chooses to minimize contact and social-psychological-religious contamination by allegedly abusive parents, friends or relatives. DeFooing can mean merely to get rid of something bad or diseased, hopefully forever. We can ask the question: Are his fans being rational or does a certain charisma affect their thought process that in turn affects behavior? And if this is more about charisma than logic, then is this another personality cult or worse, a harmful cult? I may not answer those questions here but I will address some of the arguments Stefan makes that he is “not a cult”. When last winter the nasty C word accusation came around his milieu, Molyneux responded to the allegedly slanderous tone of these remarks by turning to what he called the oldest presence on the Internet of what makes a cult. He turned to Factnet.org, a site run by former Scientologists since 1993. Factnet lists eight characteristics of a cult. Molyneux could have turned to better sources but he took to this one as if it were authoritative. By dismissing all eight points in his casual way we are to accept that in no way shape or form does his Internet effort as a “philosopher” have anything to do with cult. The following three sites have Molyneux reciting his rejoinder, then you can see it in written form and finally you can read the original list of eight “warning signs” directly from Factnet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUH5GfJKoDA
http://www.freedomainradio.com/FDR_factnet_response.html
http://www.factnet.org/headlines/destructive_cult_warning_signs.html
Since he turned to Factnet as his authority on these matters, by implication he accepts Factnet’s list of “experts” in the field of cult awareness. I am listed as one of the experts. http://www.factnet.org/cris_xpt.htm
Now, I make no claim to being an expert although I have testified at least 4 times in a court of law about cult matters. Truth be told, there is no standard in social science or the courts for determining a cult expert per se. The courts can merely certify someone as expert witness in a particular case based on their training, experience and/or participation with some controversial group. In my case, people turn to me for advice or help due to my familiarity with the territory since 1980. I made my living as a ‘cult deprogrammer’ for 12 years but for the past 11 still do the occasional intervention [all legal and non-coercively] to help expand someone’s view about the controversial group, belief system or charismatic relationship they are in. I’ve also lectured and written widely on the subject as well as presented many papers at conferences—but that still does not make me an expert. For what it’s worth, anyone can see my bio here: http://home.dejazzd.com/jszimhart/cultindex.htm
Checklists about what makes a cult are a dime a dozen and do not necessarily help in all situations. For example, here is another one that criticizes Molyneux: http://catholicmarketanarchy.blogspot.com/2008/04/molyneux-and-his-cult-revisited.html Now, if I had the inclination and time for it I might make comments on Stefan Molyneux’s self-defensive dismissal of the Factnet.org eight characteristics. But why bother. His choice was illogical and facile—not worth the effort. Also, he seems to have a rather distorted view of just what bothers people about so-called cults. Twice in his monolog he mentions that he does not kidnap and lock people in the basement or imprison anyone. I have studied over 100 controversial groups and movements and have had files on 400 others—rarely has any of these groups kidnapped anyone much less locked them up. Yet they all meet my criteria for cult behaviour and are troublesome enough for a family to hire someone like me to help intervene, sometimes flying me halfway around the world to do so. What Molyneux does here is appeal to an extremist view—a straw man argument—that he easily can dismiss thus demonstrating that what he’s doing is not forming a cult. To some extent this is his approach throughout his use of the Factnet checklist. What I propose to anyone to look to for to determine whether Molyneux’s shtick qualifies as cult like or not are two other frames of reference. A. Dr. Arthur Deikman, in his book, Them and Us proposes the following from a behavioral view: http://www.deikman.com/wrong.html He states that socially problematic cultic
behaviors are: Deikman first wrote about these behaviors in The Wrong Way Home, Deikman, 1990: Beacon Press. The more extreme these behaviors in concert, the more potential for constricted behavior in any group activity or relationship. http://www.deikman.com/ I use Deikman as a reference here: http://home.dejazzd.com/jszimhart/cult101.htm
Professor Lalich proposes her four-part approach: http://www.janjalalich.com/node/8 People in such cults tend to 1. Espouse an all-encompassing belief system 2. Exhibit excessive devotion to and dependency on their “perfect” leader 3. Avoid criticism of the group, its leader(s), and its practices 4. Have an attitude of disdain for non-members
If for any reason you are one of those folks who broke with Molyneux’s influence and yet have trouble adjusting or recovering from his ideas in your head, try reading Take Back Your Life: http://www.janjalalich.com/node/19
I am not about to do your thinking for you but if you wish to study these two authors and apply what you learn to the Stefan Molyneux experience you should be able to determine for yourself if anything he is about approaches harmful cult behaviour or is merely another charismatic and controversial talking head on the Internet that captivates the attention and changes the behaviour of some people. Relying solely on Molyneux’s facile dismissal of cultic characteristics as your guide could be a huge mistake. It is your life.
You can contact me if you have any questions. Joe Szimhart
19 July 2009
|