I spent some time last week reading blogs and forums, as well as participating in them, about the Guardian article on the Free Domain Radio (FDR) Cult and the interview the BBC Three Counties Radio did with Stefan Molyneux after the publication of the Guardian article.
Although the reaction of Molyneux and his followers was one of pride because they were in te mainstream news, it was also one of caution and damage control. The Damage Control was made mostly On the Liberating Minds Site and on the Mises Community by some members of Liberating Minds and FDR.
I am linking here to a discussion I had on the Liberating Minds forum, a forum apparently critical of Molyneux but whose membership is largely composed of self proclaimed ex-FDR'ers (or ex-defooer*), of pro-FDR'er (or pro-defooer), and outsiders like myself.
The second link is on Karen's blog. Thanks to Karen who reproduced a transcript of the radio interview of Molyneux, the discussion extended to her blog.
My impression from these exchanges is that Liberating Minds is a complementary site to FDR. No matter how much FDR can be vehement against Liberating Minds, and no matter how much Liberating Minds can be vehement against FDR, in the end, they share many of the members (despite some highly publicised bannings), and they share the same idea of the world. Although Liberating Minds doesn't share the defooing business, and has offered nice words and advice to parents, hosting an unknown cult specialist to give them advice, and a special rubrique 'Help for parents', I still believe that the only utility of the Liberating Minds site is to offer a forum on which parents can make themselves read by their children who defooed.
Under the title 'Molyneux, the BBC, and the Truth' QuestEon, a LiMi member who is an open critic of FDR and very articulate, posted a link to an article he wrote on the interview that started the discussion. I posted the following comment on the article on the forum:
QuestEon,
As much as I liked your previous article on Molyneux on your blog as much as I dislike this one. Sorry for this but I will tell you why.The running preoccupation in your article is 'did Molyneux tell the truth'? You conclude 'Yes'. That he did not tell Tom to leave his family and that he did say it on the radio. And you end by asking if he was being honest.You spend more time developing how he told the truth and you did not spend any time telling us how he was being honest or dishonest. I think there is strong proof that he was being dishonest. First he showed no empathy for Tom's family while the rest of us and the world outside FDR did. Second he spent more time talking about Tom's family problems than about the actual question for whish he was being invited: 'what is his influence on Tom cutting ties wit his parents' and I thought that this attitude was pure perversity and the radio host was not smart enough to enforce his main subject. But when he did, when the radio host asked Molyneux if he is willing to write to Tom the words he uttered at the radio that he did not tell him to leave his family and that it is ok to try to repair relationships with his family, he balked and never said 'Yes'. Why ? because if he does, if he puts in writing what he said at the radio to make himself look like a nice family man he will loose credibility among his followers, he will never do such
a thing.So, as far as I am concerned with Truth being something matched by reality, by actual facts, Molyneux lied and he lied in a very smart way.Now the other thing that bothers me is that he presents himself and you present him as a canadian philosopher. When you google his name, the only sites you find about this 'occupation' are self referential. Molyneux proclaims himself philosopher, he doesn't hold a degree in this discipline, his publications are not peer reviewed, and nobody else from the discipline recognize him as such. He is a travesty and he is the farthest thing one could imagine away from the truth and from honesty. So I challenge Liberating Minds to have some critical appraisal of Molyneux here and to stop giving him credibility by repeating his credentials without questioning them.I am sorry for this harsh note, I liked your previous article, and I have to be honest in evaluating this one. I hope we can still continue our discussion.
No hard feelings,
Sonia
There is a protective attitude toward Molyneux, even at the LiMi forum. Harsh critiques are permitted as long as they come from 'regular' forum members. But for someone like me who dropped at the forum only less than 14 days ago, I felt that every attack on Molyneux coming from outsiders was met by a simultaneous combination of protective comments for Molyneux ( nearing justification) and attacks on my own credibility.
For example, the debate initiated by the above comment was immediately directed toward his professional credentials, that was mainly defended, and my poor English spelling. Some members of the LiMi forum defended the fact that even though Molyneux does not hold a degree in Philosophy he can proclaim himself a philosopher. The discussion also pointed to the role of his wife, a licensed Psychology associate in Ontario, in the 'counseling' he gives his followers and whether she should be accountable for his 'practice' when she gives her professional opinion on what he says to his followers. The debate per se took place mainly on the first four pages on the forum. I will leave it to your judgement, the details are here.
Another feature of some LiMi members who are ex-defooers is that they debate differently depending on whether they are on the forum or outside and whether they debate a defooer or a non defooer. Read for exemple on the same topic the interventions of some members on Karen's blog:
BBC Radio Three Counties–The Long-Awaited Molyneux Interview
I am not reproducing the comments here. You can read them by clicking on this link.
Now, Conrad who is, as I learned today from reading QuestEon, the administrator of the Liberating Minds forum and an ex-defooer, is back on the topic of 'Molyneux, the BBC, and the Truth'. Suddenly, he realises that YES Molyneux did in fact indirectly tell Tom to leave his parents. How come it took him all this time ?
At the same time, QuestEon publishes today an article about 'The Defining of Liberating Minds'. Although the article is enlightening, I wish he could have come up with a more positive definition of Liberating Minds: what is Liberating Minds without FDR ?
I call all this 'Damage Control', and the Damage provoked by the public exposure of Molyneux has now necessitated some control on the Liberating Minds site. Interesting...
* defoo is the term coined by FDR meaning leaving one's Family Of Origin.
** UPDATE: This article angered some LiMi members who want to distance themselves from Molyneux's Defoo business. One of them, QuestEon, was kind enough to engage in a polite conversation with me and answer the specifics of the relationship between Liberating Minds and Molyneux . I invite readers of this article to read his comments in the comment section.
28 comments:
I think you are doing a brilliant job of showing both sides, good work.
-Sutible4livestok
Sonia, Your article appears to be your form of personal damage control. You appear hasty to dissociate with either site. When you became a member of Liberating Minds you came there for support and you received some. The forum is in support of Libertarian values and the arguments against your wanting to discredit Christian Papadopoulos and essentially ruin her career in a legal state used fashion were where the objections lied.
None the less I find your post here a grave display of cowardice and perhaps the very reason credibility was not automatically given to you.
Yes it does seem to be damage control on Sonia's part. I don't comprehend the purpose of her post other than to appear to disassociate with Limi and hail her participation as an experiment. I agree, I believe she did in fact join for support and misread a support of Libertarian values as support for FDR and subsequently Stefan Molyneux.
A degree does not mean one has more right to claim on has *insert skill here* and is a *insert name of person with those skills*
Someone studying computer science for a decade on his own is a computer engineer if not on official state documents none the less a computer engineer given that he is good at it.
A person studying history for all his life on his own is likewise a historian, with or without a university degree given he knows history.
You see, you make the mistake of thinking the degree makes you something. The degree merely shows you graduated. Nothing more nothing less.
Thanks Locke\Sutible4livestok. Your comment is very much appreciated.
Anonymous,
I did not ask Liberating Minds for support, although I was grateful for it when it came. But I have the right to know what kind of support is this and who are the people who are supporting me.
Anonymous,
I never mentioned Mrs papadopoulos name on the Liberating Minds site, although I posted a link showing that she is a licensed Psyhoclogist because the people on theforum weren't sure if she was licensed or not.
I never said that I wanted to ruin her career. That's a fabrication.
Yes you do have the right. You came to that site with out investigating it and assumed support would be provided. It was to a large extent, though it would be naive to think that there would be no objections given the premise of the site as Libertarian.
Your post does not appear objective, nor wholly accurate. I would agree it is a snap shot and a summary of the reactions to the Guardian article, as your reaction and comments on FDR were. In that case it just so happened you were right. This time though however you are wrong and antagonistic in your post.
If you feel that is a fabrication then your assumption that any act you suggested might not ruin her career is a fabrication.
Anonymous,
I did not ask for the support at LiMi. Recently I even asked LiMi to delete my name and the link to my website for FDR banned at GoogleMaps, but they refused to do so. So who is asking for the support here ?
As for Molyneux's wife, I cannot ruin her career. I think she is an intelligent person and knows that I have no ties to her as a therapist and therefore I cannot do anything against her. That accusation is totally irrational.
Precisely why I claim your post as cowardice. You now realize while you publicly discredit Stefan Molyneux and joined Limi and continued to do so you have been pulled by Stefan into a posting war of sorts that you feel you want no part of. You are and were very much a part of the snap shot.
You are a target of Molyneux's and not Limi's. I believe Stefan is targeting you as you were so willing to target his wife. That does make it "right", however it is what it is.
Now your name is plastered up on the Molyneux Missile and you want to jump off. I gather that was your intent when you asked to be removed recently.
As well you now profess to know she is "intelligent" yet you have absolutely no communication with her. Undoubtedly as you say you have no ties.
I honestly believe you are fearful of the perceived damage your own professional reputation might have due to this recent assault by Stefan Molyneux.
I suggest you stand by your word, as no harm will come to you if our word has any value.
I did not say you asked for support.
I said you "assumed" support. You thought that by the post of support it would be ready and available to you. Again it was and is to a large extent.
Anonymous,
You assume many things including me 'assuming' something that I did not know existed when I posted my comments on FDR.
I am not worried at all for my professional reputation,why should I ?
And rest assured that I always stand by my word.
It is called "smearing" and that is what Stefan is trying to do with no effect.
You are correct I am assuming in much the same way you have made assumptions about many things in regard to Limi, Conrad, other members and Christine Pappadopolus.
It's awkward when we are on the receiving end of our own medecine.
If you are going to stand by your word that is one thing. For it to have value another; that requires retraction on occasion. Not retraction of our existence on a web site rather correction in our perspective.
Hi, Sonia!
A few thoughts. I think your view that there is a tight relationship between Molyneux's and ANY other site is in error. There are a number of Libertarian sites on the internet and--because they share a general common political/economic philosophy--you'll find some similarities. When you posted suggestions that ran against that philosophy, people reacted to those specific statements. Not you.
In general, it is considered good etiquette to read and understand the general viewpoint of a site before posting. I completely understand your passion against Molyneux and the things he does, but it was your lack of awareness regarding Libertarian philosophy that caused some of the confusion. So, yes, sites like Liberating Minds, FreeTalkLive, Mises, Anti-State, etc., all share some common world views. And all seem share a general distaste for, or at least lack of interest in, Molyneux and FDR.
Among these sites, none focuses on the dangers of FDR as much as Liberating Minds. So, in that regard, they are as far from complementary as matter and anti-matter.
I re-read the debate you linked to and I just can't agree with your assessment of it. I think there was only one member who vehemently disagreed with a point you made, but he ultimately apologized. To my knowledge, everyone respected the learned insight you bring to the discussion. They reacted negatively ONLY to the idea of bringing any kind of state authority into the picture. That is as incendiary to some Libertarians as it would be if you had asked some vegetarians out for a juicy steak dinner!
There was a lesser discussion about academic degrees vs. non-academically acquired knowledge, but I didn't see any clear consensus on that.
There is some truth to your comment that some of us debate or discuss FDR differently outside than in. There's a reason for it. Molyneux has made every effort to frame criticism against him as coming from an irrational, emotional place. His critics are "dishonorable." He is attempting to do that now to you, personally, in the latest article I link to on my blog. I will absolutely not let him push me into that trap.
The best way I know how to respond to him is unemotionally, with unassailable facts (which I have spent a considerable amount of time accumulating). I didn't say it at the time, but I was surprised you had misread the article that you criticized. That article was never intended to show that Molyneux didn't lie, but that his one word response to the BBC was covering up an OCEAN of them!
It's my way not to get defensive, but consider the criticism of others and try to learn from it. As I read your response, I wondered if this mean those who spoke English as a second language might miss my point, and so I added two paragraphs to make it crystal clear. From top to bottom, that article is a complete condemnation of Molyneux (based entirely on facts and evidence) and I'm not sure I can make it much clearer at this point.
Finally, you asked what Liberating Minds would be without FDR. My answer would be "fun."
Sonia, I enjoy your participation in this conversation very much, especially the particular insights you bring to it. I think as you continue to examine the various sites involved, you'll come to view Liberating Minds differently. However, it is a site of deeply held Libertarian values and it is important to understand that going in.
Anonymous,
You said I am a coward but who is the coward here ? People know my name, my email, where I work, and probably by now my address and my telephone number while you hide behind a fake identity at LiMi. You won't even assume the fake identity you have there.
QuestEon,
Thanks for your comment.
Now just for my own curiosity and desire to know better libertarian philosophy, can you tell me what are the other things you disagree on with FDR, beside the defoo business ?
Beside, I would like you to tell me if your disagreement on the defoo thing is philosophical or just emotional ?
You see, non libertarian philosophy is about coherence, and here I see an incoherence and I am asking for a clarification. I always see your interventions as very helpful...
Regards,
Sonia
Great questions, but (whew!) requiring a long answer!
First, on coherence, it's best 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. That's why you'll find some Libertarians who believe in small government (however they define that) and others at the opposite end of the scale who believe in no government (anarcho-capitalists)--and everything in between. It's a single word that covers a broad area of thinking, just like Christian, existentialist, etc.
You ask what I disagree with FDR on. Well, I prefer to refer to Molyneux instead of FDR, because Molyneux alone produces all of the original thought there, and FDR exists to promote him.
Molyneux is an anarchist. I am not. So I guess technically that is our first area of disagreement. I still believe in a very small government (minarchist). But I have been exploring anarchy for some time and am willing to be convinced. I believe most of the people who post at Liberating Minds are anarchists.
Molyneux has not made many original contributions to Libertarian thinking, but the few he has made are typically grandiose (and usually preposterous). He got early notoriety as a great explainer of already existing concepts. In retrospect, I wonder how often he believed or wanted others to believe those were his original ideas? Molyneux almost never cites his influences or gives references.
His first notable contribution to Libertarianism was a concept known as DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations), which would serve the role in an anarchist society (police, fire, protection, legal, etc.,) that people like me think you still need a small government to do. I think that's a very solid concept and I don't disagree with him at all in principle. I also recognize that it is not completely original, either--Molyneux is building on an already known (Private Defense Agency, or PDA) concept.
After that, it gets a little crazy. Molyneux next idea is a unified theory of the topics (politics, philosophy, psychology, economics, relationships, and atheism) he discusses on FDR. In his head, he has them all tied together as one cohesive truth, and--to our good fortune--he is the leading expert in all those areas (or so he would have you believe). As a result, 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 and followers know) is something nearly every cult leader has in common. I think this is absolutely preposterous and it makes me sad that so many believe in such an idea.
The next original idea (which you already asked about) is deFOOing. I believe only in extreme cases with the help of a qualified therapist should this ever be considered, and certainly not until joint family counseling is tried first, whenever possible. If you read the book "On Truth" by Molyneux, you begin to see his reasons for deFOOing, and I think they are philosophically and psychologically without merit or substance. He tries to tell you that your parents are liars and bullies if they believe in government or religion. They have kept you in prison and you are a victim of abuse. Well, my parents believe in government and religion. I'm an atheist and may one day be an anarchist. And it turns out that I love my parents and I think they like me, too. Sorry, Molyneux.
This is one of the reasons you were asked about human development when you first came on the board. We had been discussing recent theories that genetics and peer influence have a great deal more influence on human development than parenting. If true, that idea would knock Molyneux's own parental theories into the dustbin. Privately, I believe that all of Molyneux's beliefs about the evilness of parents stems from the fact that he has never experienced parental love in any form. I hope his baby will help him find his way.
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. At some subconscious level, his goal has always been to separate kids from their parents.
Another thing no one notices, that 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, there would never be another deFOO (I believe). His book lays out the reasons for doing it, if people want to learn, but I don't believe or book or internet forum alone has that kind of influence. I believe nearly every deFOO is heavily, personally influenced by Molyneux in one way or another.
The one remaining (original) Molyneux idea I'm familiar with is Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB). It is a system for logically testing ethical claims ("Murder is bad," "Stealing is bad," etc.). Molyneux created UPB because he believes atheist anarcho-capitalists need to develop their own system of ethics (without deference to the church, state, or will of the people). So he has put forth the proposition that logic alone can produce an ethical system. Again, I think this notion is impossible. I believe his book on UPB, which he hoped would be his grandest achievement, is a complete failure.
I believe that Molyneux was building a cult and enjoying the adulation of his followers (including their uncritical acceptance of the above crackpot ideas) until the Guardian article shed light on his activities. Where it goes from here is anyone's guess!
I would call it a choice for privacy, anonymity and simple common sense. In posting anonymously my ties are no longer relevant though I see from your response yours may well be.
This choice (a choice we are all free to make) is something you might want to consider in the future.
Sonia, your analysis is interesting but I disagree with several points. FDR and LiMi are not complementary as much as they are locked in mortal combat. They may go over the waterfall together one day.
The FDR section of LiMi has been particularly active during the short time you have been observing it. I believe you are seriously mistaken to think the site's only utility is as a forum for parents to leave messages for their children to read. This section is enormously important for parents struggling to understand why their children have rejected them. However, the main purpose of the site is to discuss philosophy, politics and economics, and many other thought-provoking topics.
I am very disappointed by your conclusions but pleased that QuestEon has already given clear and detailed comments while I struggled with my computer in order to make this post.
Hi, Sonia!
I want to address your response, but I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly. It sounds as if you are suggesting that anarchist Web sites form some kind of underground network that is connected to Molyneux?
Patience,
It is your right to disagree and to be disapointed. QuestEon have answered some of my questions but I still have concern.
My concern is not for myself, it is for the parents who are on the Liberating Minds and other anarchist sites. These sites are their only lifeline to their children and parents are being kept in the dark by these sites about who operate the sites, their values, their commitments, and their closeness to Molyneux.
29 November, 2008 18:01
QuestEon,
I reformulated my answer to Barbara so you can understand what I am saying.
Thanks for your previous answer.
My critique was not directed at you but at LiMi as a whole and your answer came only on your behalf.
So my question is still the same: what are the philosophical foundations for Defooing in anarchist philosophy, if there is any, and why LiMi is against. Again here I mean by 'LiMi' the site as a whole, as an anarchist site.
Ah, got it!
If you say the word "defoo" to most anarcho-capitalists, they will have no idea what you are talking about!
The term and practice is purely an invention of Molyneux and because he is not considered a thought-leader, few people outside of FDR have even heard of it.
In fact, one of the reasons Molyneux is not considered a thought leader is due to the fact that most anarchists, like most people, find his views on psychology and family to be "creepy." (I think that's the best word for it.)
The reason that LiMi members talk about defooing is because they know FDR extremely well and most consider it extremely destructive as employed by Molyneux. To some, it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that FDR is a cult.
In no way, shape, or form is the practice of defooing a part of AnCap philosophy.
Of course, there are some individuals who have come from such extraordinarily abusive families, the only thing they could do for their own mental health is leave, but the vast majority of anarchists (like most rational people) believe that is a private and personal matter, not philosophic.
And in that case, the LAST person on the planet such people should be getting advice from is some guy in Canada with an internet connection. I think most anarchists would agree on that, too. :-)
Clearer?
What? Your now concerned that children will be harmed on LiMi? Why?
Are you concerned they may have their spelling and grammar corrected?
Common now, your starting to sound exactly like Stefan Molyneux.
QuestEon,
Thanks. I think that this is pretty clear to me what you write here. However I find the following passage confusing, and it is often talked about and mentioned in the discussion on your site; the question of abusive families:
I am quoting you here: ''Of course, there are some individuals who have come from such extraordinarily abusive families, the only thing they could do for their own mental health is leave, but the vast majority of anarchists (like most rational people) believe that is a private and personal matter, not philosophic.''
There are two things here that are confusing for me.
1- Is this is an opinion about children being abused by their parent ? In this case, I don't think anarchist philosophy is of any help. Psychology and the law are. Therefore I don't see why LiMi should give a forum to this topic.
2- If this is an opinion about adults, adults naturally leave their families, and cutting ties is a matter left to them. And adults can always sue their families for abuse they experienced as children. And also in this case I don't see why LiMi should give a forum to this topic.
Young adults who join Molyneux and defoo appear to have some problems that do not fall in the previous two categories.
One might assume that because defooers' problems do not fall in the previous two categories, and because defooers are not juvenile, and as long as their problems are not assessed by an experienced psychologist, we cannot just assume that defooing is tied to abuse in the family. I find the talk about abuse at LiMi pretty confusing. I know that it is the bread and butter for Molyneux but it is part of both FDR's and LiMi's vocabulary, it plays along Molyneux's line of thinking, and many members of LiMi are ex or present defooers.
And I am sorry here to disagree with Barbara. The Defoo business plays a big part in what LiMi is actually and even though I understand you are against, I still don't understand what is the role of LiMi here ? Do you provide support ? Do you incite people to de-defoo ? Do you have expertise, as an anarchist philosophy site, in all this ?
I just had to delete and rewrite this comment because I realized I completely misunderstood some of your questions! :-)
Here we go again....
Two things I would mention up front. I know LiMi is confusing, as any active community or group would be at first. The longer you are there and the more you know the individual people and the different ways they think, the clearer it becomes. People's points-of-view are widely varied. It is, above all, simply a place to exchange ideas.
It becomes more confusing that a number of members there are ex-FDR members. The emphasis is on EX! Some of them have defooed. I don't know which ones exactly, because I respect their privacy.
One thing I encourage you to do is take the word "defoo" and the words "market anarchist" and separate them in your mind COMPLETELY. The first is a crackpot psychology theory of Molyneux's. The second is a branch of Libertarianism. You can learn more about the latter by throwing the word "Libertarianism" into Wikipedia and reading about the various branches.
We might talk about psychology sometimes, as any other lay people might, but we don't claim to have expertise or authority, the way Molyneux does.
Here are some answers.
"1- Is this is an opinion about children being abused by their parent ? In this case, I don't think anarchist philosophy is of any help. Psychology and the law are. Therefore I don't see why LiMi should give a forum to this topic."
It was not about children. I agree with you that LiMi has no expertise, but some members who have personal expertise might pipe up in that capacity. Others may want to venture opinion. But no one is deluding themselves that LiMi itself is any voice of authority on this issue.
I do know that if you bring up the words "the law" on LiMi, you'll get a reaction! I would suggest not doing that!
"2- If this is an opinion about adults, adults naturally leave their families, and cutting ties is a matter left to them. And adults can always sue their families for abuse they experienced as children. And also in this case I don't see why LiMi should give a forum to this topic."
Agreed. (Except for the "suing" thing.) What's interesting about this comment is that the first sentence you wrote is an argument that is often used against me when I am critical of Molyneux. I believe he targets young adults at the point of individuation from their families and uses their anxiety to his own advantage. I think he uses Undue Influence (a legal term, ha!) to manipulate, plant, steer, sometimes change memories to CONVINCE vulnerable young adults they have lived a life of abuse. My question is, at the point, is their decision to severe ties really being made as a matter of free will?
"Young adults who join Molyneux and defoo appear to have some problems that do not fall in the previous two categories."
Agreed. I think most of LiMi agrees with that.
"The Defoo business plays a big part in what LiMi is actually and even though I understand you are against, I still don't understand what is the role of LiMi here?"
I don't think we have an actual role of any kind. We talk about it a lot because many of us believe that defooing typically occurs not as a natural result of "something wrong" in the family, but as a result of personal influence by Molyneux. I'd say about 80% of our discussion is in trying to determine just how he does it.
"Do you provide support?"
I don't think anyone at LiMi has the qualifications to provide anything except a kind word and empathy. There is a cult exit counselor who posts occasionally, but I don't know if anyone is messaging him personally. (They should--the guy really knows his stuff.)
"Do you incite people to de-defoo?"
I congratulate those that do. I'm happy for them because I get a sense they are experiencing a positive step in their growth. I think a lot of LiMi people do the same. But again, you are very accurate that LiMi is a political philosophy forum. No one there feels they have the expertise to interfere in people's families either way.
"Do you have expertise, as an anarchist philosophy site, in all this?"
Answered above!
Thanks QuestEon for all these answers. My concern is that we have on one hand youg people under Undue influence and their shattered families and both need help and you make it clear that LiMi is a political forum and in no way a help for both. Thanks very much, I hope parents will receive this message and seek professional help. I am not saying that parents should desert your site because it is the only contact they have with their children but in my opinion they shouldn't follow the opinions of your members, and they should seek help elsewhere. I am very concerned by this.
I think aslo that the cult expert at your site should come forward and reveal his identity to parents who seek help from him. I think parents are entitled, in the confdentiality of their rapport with the cult expert who posts on your site, to know his true identity and his qualifications.
That's a personal opinion I am giving here and parents can follow it or not.
Many thanks for taking time to explicit all these issues.
I am not retarcting my post but I am posting an update asking readers to read your answers to my questions. I may publish them in a future post on the main page of the blog if you permit it.
Hi, Sonia!
Yes, you can use my comments any way you like! I completely agree with the conclusion you've drawn--LiMi is a political site and cannot offer expert advice on matters related to defooing (and never claimed to). Parents should seek professional help.
The one thing that parents can get from LiMi is empathy and some valuable personal impressions of Molyneux from people who know him better than they would like to. (And the chance to talk to each other, too. There is strength and comfort in numbers.)
People on LiMi may express their personal opinions from time to time, just like any other place where people gather, but they do not officially speak for LiMi in any way. Only Conrad does--he is the sole owner.
The cult exit counselor posts under the name conspeclst26. I think he posted his e-mail address at one point, but I don't remember what it is. I think all of his posts are extremely interesting.
I'll include a link to a page that contains one of his posts. He lists a number of credible cult resources.
One of the resources he's included is his own group--www.freemindsinc.org
He has been helping to free people from cults like the scientologists and moonies for over 25 years.
I recommend getting in touch with him if you are interested in knowing more about cults. He has taught me a LOT. If I could, I'd take all the posts he's made to Liberating Minds and put them in one big reserve for visiting parents.
Here's the link with the entire post (It's the second one on that page):
http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/family-and-friends-of-fdr-ers-f30/conspeclst26-cult-members-in-the-real-world-t1039-30.htm
In fact, here's another page where he has offered good information. It's about the sixth post down.
http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/family-and-friends-of-fdr-ers-f30/to-parents-spouses-siblings-friends-and-escapees-t1033-15.htm
Post a Comment