Forum Post: Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed in under 5 mins
Posted 13 years ago on Dec. 3, 2011, 6:41 a.m. EST by ProAntiState
(43)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed in under 5 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU
enjoy
proantistate....Here is some information on your hero from that link.......This series of articles explores the question whether it is more accurate to refer to Stefan Molyneux’s FreeDomain Radio as a cult or as a destructive cult. According to my cult-identification flowchart, we are surrounded by cults, technically speaking. Most are harmless and some are even beneficial.
However, a small percentage of cults are actually destructive to the people who join them. Is FDR one of them?
In Part One of this series, I identified the first set of troubling aspects of FDR: (1) It appears to have one set of beliefs on the surface and an entirely different set of beliefs that it actively promotes behind the scenes. (2) A number of destructive cult experts have publicly stated their concerns about FDR. And (3), there is a presence of members who appear to display cult-like behavior.
Part Two continued with the next set of troubling aspects: (1) Mr. Molyneux appears to counsel his members individually on their family problems while hiding his oft-stated belief that nearly all parents are horribly bad and should be discarded. (2) Mr. Molyneux takes on the role of learned authority on psychology, parenting, and family matters, yet appears to have less practical experience than many of the people he counsels. (3) By his own admission, Molyneux is a “salesman” who promises happiness to those who join FDR. (4) He invents practices such as defooing and RTRing, using his own followers as guinea pigs (sometimes without their knowledge), and pronounces his inventions successful when the member creates a tighter bond with FDR and less of a connection with the outside world.
ProAntistate....here's part three in the study on your cult hero......Part Three, we are now going to consider evidence of conversion. This is the darkest aspect of FDR. Have some members been persuaded into a personality change by convincing them to change their beliefs about their parents and childhood memories? If so, how is this accomplished? What role does Stefan Molyneux (and his wife) play? I’ll try to answer those questions—some in this article and the rest in an article to follow..............................k, so we’ve seen some troubling stuff. We’ve seen the concern about FreeDomain Radio from destructive cult experts. We’ve talked about the “changes” that some members of FDR seem to undergo. We’ve explored the truth behind the official FDR “story” of defooing. We’ve talked about radical psychology theories and their execution on members who sometimes don’t even know that they are guinea pigs. We’ve talked about a guru who claims to be all about logic but is secretly selling happiness.
And worst of all, I seem to have adopted some fascination for words that begin with “P.”
All of that is about to get worse.
If we are truly going to take a serious swing at the question Is FreeDomain Radio a Destructive Cult?, then, in the end, we must focus on the last box of my Cult-Identification Flowchart.
This article is all about the conversion—radical behavior changes that even the member in question would have considered unacceptable before joining the group.
The FDR forum actually has a section where members can talk about their “conversion.” It claims to be a forum to talk about their conversion to market anarchism, but in practice many members use it to discuss their conversion to the FDR “philosophy.”
Are any of those converts actually candidates for my last box?
Can we find examples? Like Dr. Yeakely, can we see the conversion as it happens?
And if we can, could it teach us anything about the true nature of FDR?.............................................nly you can provide the last answer. I do have some powerful evidence that concerns me and I’m going to share that with you. After that, it’s your call. We’ll see some actual conversions but I’ll leave it up to you to decide if these are “last box” candidates. I can tell you this much about the examples I’ve found:
I find them chilling...............................hen Molyneux was exposed by The Guardian in 2008, his podcast “convo” with Tom was at the center of the controversy. In the podcast—typical of the type of therapy session Molyneux often conducts with his members—Molyneux eventually launches into a furious, lengthy monologue comparing Tom’s relationship to his parents to that of a rape victim, tells Tom that he lives in a “fucking gulag,” yet later innocently claimed that he never actually said Tom should leave home.
It really is an amazing podcast if you haven’t heard it: [Tom’s therapy begins at about an hour and 26 minutes in. It starts with Tom saying, “Hi Stef, I have a yearning, burning, if that’s OK?” (I believe he means "yearning, burning question.")]
I strongly recommend you listen to it instead of relying solely on my transcriptions below—hearing the actual inflections and emotions in their voices is very clarifying..........................http://www.fdrliberated.com/
Do you have a link to the podcast?
http://www.fdrliberated.com/
I'm sorry. Social contract is not an us v them but over time this has become eroded. You do not have to sign a contract. You consent when you enjoy the benefits.
Freedom requires vigilance. You do not discard something because it has become too hard or requires too much work. The job is never done.
Specious argument. Completely meaningless except for his personal beliefs.
Hey ZenDog ...one day !!
I don't youtube - I have band width issues . . .
so.
Social Contract - isn't that what the Constitution is, a Contract, between and among the people and the government structures that serve them?
I'm sure its construction was way over five minutes, and it has survived - so far - much longer than that. Not that it isn't under significant pressure in a number of areas today, it is.
But five minutes?
doesn't seem credible.
The US Constitution is not a "contract", it's a constitution. lol
Try reading the US Constituion from start to finish, before you call it simply a "contract".
Yes, you have a point.
I do tend to get bleary eyed and dazed once I get past the Bill of Rights.
social contract defined and demolished in less than 5 minutes transcript
http://www.braincrave.com/viewblog.php?id=397
sorry, I've just now gotten back to this.
The argument as designed is clearly a repelican construct, one that supports repelican ideology using what I call
twisted logic.
The first thing to note is the example of the car dealership and the way in which it echos aspects of the health care debate. Repelicans do not care for the prospect of universal health care. This example was designed to bring up that association in a subtle but stark manner.
The second thing to note is that the assertion is made that
The social contract is the idea that citizens who live in the country must obey their government.
Now, any methodology which claims validity must itself must be subject to its own constraints.
The government proposes itself as the highest and sole agency of justice in the land.
This is a faulty premise underlying the whole argument and repelican ideology as well.
What we have is a government by the people, for the people.
The highest agency of justice in the land ultimately rests with the people, not the government, and the process of enforcing that authority is codified in the Constitution. Should that method fail,
and repelicans nationwide should take careful note:
should that method fail, the Declaration of Independence provides for a certain and unequivocal solution.
There are many attempts to undermine this nations social contract in circulation today. In my view, this is sedition.
This is sedition against the people.
Those who would engage in such behavior should take great care - for if the ultimate authority is indeed the people, much better it is for them, to face justice at the hands of the peoples institutions, rather than an enraged populace of Americans.
I've seen some of this guys videos before, and I don't think he would consider himself - or should be considered by us - to be Republican. He also has a number of videos on Anarchy.
That being said, I agree that his logic is tragically flawed. I understand Social Contract to be an agreement between two people or two entities. How he went from that to "I bought everyone in my neighborhood a car, pay me $30,000 or get out" - I don't know.
The Constitution is a social contract between the people of the United States, and this includes the federal government.
Whether he is a repelican or not, his advocacy fits in line with right fringe ideology and is therefore suitable to those who would do away with the Constitution to the profit of corporate oligarchy.
The Constitution is not simply a "contract". What would you call the preamble?
The Constitution gave supreme authority to law, rather than to particular individuals.
I do not currently have my copy of the Constitution ready at hand - it's here somewhere . . . .
but I would point out that within that document there are mechanisms for the public to redress grievances, some of these mechanisms include: the freedom of speech; the freedom to assemble.
In conjunction with the Declaration of Independence these freedoms ensure that if such a time arises, as it was anticipated that it might, that the government no longer governs by the consent of the people, the people have the tools to set things straight.
We have begun a process. One that has, in the past, resulted in war, on our soil.
In the past, the people have been victorious. It is not a certainty that we will arrive at a place of violent revolution. If need be, that path is clearly marked.
I would reread the DOI as well. Jefferson assumes that this all comes from Natural Law (Laws of Nature and of Nature's God). Do you know Natural Law?
Very little - from it stems the principle that each individual has the right to self defense - I think it began as a system of belief around 1600 ad.
There's so many bad interpretations of Natural Law, but if you look at the DOI you can infer much without jumping to any wrongheaded conclusions.
the Declaration of Independence is a fine document that lays out the precise steps that must be taken and conditions that must be met before anyone considers armed insurrection or open rebellion.
Definitely. Reading OWS documents today, makes me wonder how fall we have fallen. (I don't promote armed insurrection currently, by the way.)
I'm not promoting armed insurrection either.
the only way to win in such a case is with significant and intractable divisions within all levels of government.
I don't think it will come to that - but it has happened.
ProAntiState....Read what your hero really is....A cult leader.