The Bomb in the Brain – an Introduction

For more, visit fdrurl.com/bib

There is a lot of wisdom in proverbs. They are usually short in length, easy to remember, and carry a lot of information.

There was a person in the Freedomain Radio chat the other day that posted the following proverb from Confucius:

To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right.

The chatter commented that it seemed that this was what FDR was all about, querying for confirmation.

In the moment, it didn’t feel right–it felt a little like conceding this point would open the door to conceding to the Buddhists that drop by that some of the sayings in their religion also have some alignment with FDR, and I wasn’t quite ready to do that. But I couldn’t put my finger on what was wrong with it.

Fortunately (at least for me), somebody on the inside this morning let me know what was up with that proverb (and, by extension, all proverbs):

It’s a conclusion, not a methodology.

Saying that we must set ourselves right and everything else will follow is certainly something that Stef has put forward, but he is not a Man of Wise Sayings in that way. The quote from Confucius is correct (at least to a large extent), but why is it correct?

The thing about religion and even most of the lexicon of wisdom passed down through the copyings of tattered monks is that they are all conclusions. There was some methodology, but the scientific method as we know it today was not the standard of truth, if it was even practiced in such an ancient time.

It is not to say that there is no value in such things, but that a statement about reality–a conclusion–must be validated according to reason and evidence.

I’m not going to completely exhaust the analysis of the Confucian proverb above, but I will give a few reasons as to why it is correct (and hopefully, you will agree).

I’m sure there are ways that the proverb can be interpreted, but the meaning I take from it is that in order to help the world, we must first help ourselves. It is much like the saying, “Physician, heal thyself.” Or, as Stef has pointed out, if you go around preaching the cure but you have not taken it yourself (telling people how to be happy while you are miserable), you actually do more to harm than to help.

The progression of self to family to nation to world is a natural sort of social hierarchy, and I think we can classify this as a fact of reality.

But more than the argument from credibility above is this: it is a psychological fact that whatever we do not acknowledge in ourselves, we re-enact and/or inflict on the world. If I have had an abusive childhood and have never processed it, I will experience the world as abusive or as demanding abuse, and I will act accordingly. So if I do not “set my heart right” (which can be interpreted in many different ways, which is part of why proverbs can only take you so far)–which I will take to mean “process my life according to reason and evidence”–I will inflict my unprocessed trauma in my family, project it onto the nation and to the world.

I think it is safe to say that Confucius (or whoever it was that created the proverb) did not have access to psychology. So the proverb itself is an accumulation of experience, which certainly does have value. But without the methodology, it really does hang in a vacuum. You have to start asking things like, “What did Confucius mean by ‘cultivate our personal life’ and ‘set our hearts right?’” And, of course, there’s no way of knowing. Even if he did put out a whole guide on what he meant by it, if he does not include the methodology, it will be fundamentally incomplete.

Furthermore, there is always room for interpretation when dealing solely with conclusions. It is much more difficult to do that with a methodology–either it is rational or it isn’t; either it is empirical or it isn’t.

I did this mostly for my own benefit, but I hope this has been helpful to others.

Download MP3
42.5M 30:57

We celebrate a lot of holidays that aren’t really holidays. In truth, there is no such thing as a genuine “holy day,” but some holidays have some sort of objective roots, even if it is just a seasonal celebration.

The most artificial of holidays are the ones where military personnel are “honored” for their “sacrifices.” Veteran’s Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day… these holidays are all about “paying your respects” for the people that murdered and were murdered in various wars throughout the last 100 years.

There is another war holiday, however, that is observed in most countries the world over.

This holiday is Mother’s Day.

Now, I totally grant you that this is a pretty radical thing to say. We’re told that Mother’s Day is “mom’s day”–a day for mom to get whatever she wants because she did so much for us, etc., etc. I will throw out a few ideas and you can tell me if it makes any sense.

First, the origins of Mother’s Day are war-based. The first petitioners for such a day date back to the Civil War era, where the purpose was to honor the mothers who had “lost”–as if they were misplaced somehow–husbands and sons in war. This went on for several decades until it was finally codified as just that–a day to honor the mothers whose sons were off to war, or were killed while at war.

In a time when the vast majority of young men were shipped off to slaughter and be slaughtered, this would encompass the vast majority of mothers out there.

Nowadays, that is not the case as much, and hence Mother’s Day became a day to observe all mothers, not just the ones embedded in the war machine.

This holiday isn’t really about respect, however. It’s about ameliorating the guilt a mother feels when she’s sent off the fruit of her loins to become minced in the great war machine. It’s about helping the mother continue to pretend that sending her children off to war is an honorable thing.

The state of the world is such that the virtues that are proclaimed the loudest are often covering the exact opposite behavior. A man who puffs himself up about his honesty is generally dishonest. However, a man that is genuinely honest does not need to proclaim his honesty–it is evident in his deeds.

Since Mother’s Day is sold to us as a way of “honoring” our mothers, we should be skeptical. It is much more likely the case that this holiday is about covering up the most dishonorable acts that can be imagined.

When dishonorable people do not get their counterfeit goodies, they become enraged. It’s a common experience for adult children to forget Mother’s Day, and for the mother to become aggressive, using guilt, manipulation, or even outright bullying to humiliate their adult children. (From mom, for example: “Why didn’t you call? Were your fingers broken?”; alternatively, the incredulous looks from peers when they discover you’ve not “honored” your mother.)

I’m not saying that the category of “mother” is a bad thing, not at all. It can be a powerfully good thing, like most any other station in life. However, the degree to which it can be good is the degree to which it can go horribly wrong.

I leave you with this pragmatic thought: if you truly do love your mother and wish to honor her, do not wait for the day when you are “supposed” to do it. If you do not feel the desire to honor her but do not know why, then talk to her about it. Do that, and see how you feel.

This is explosive, no doubt! However, it is far better for you–and especially for your children–that you strive to put honesty into practice rather than continuing to pretend that your mother is somebody she is not.

I am certain you have heard–and almost certainly participated (100% if you’re a libertarian)–in a discussion of the form:

A: Such-and-such is bad
B: Well sure, but this-and-that came out of it

These discussions (at least, when it comes to libertarians) are usually limited to political and economic topics, especially when it comes to taxation and war.

However, I can certainly say that I have heard this same form in other areas of life:

A: My parents were bad
B: Well sure, but they fed you, clothed you, housed you…
or
B: Well, you’re alive today, aren’t you?
or
B: Whatever does not kill you makes you stronger.

Bad actions are, sort of by definition, a net negative to the world. They require repair (or else whatever they break remains broken) and restitution (though this is not always possible). One may attempt to make up for a bad action, but the time and resources lost cannot be discounted compared to the initial avoidance of the bad action.

Now, we are human beings. We will make mistakes. It would be insanity to believe otherwise. However, it is also symptomatic of a deep psychic illness that the vast majority not only believes that good can come from bad (more accurate: good happens despite the bad), but that the bad is absolutely necessary for the good.

Again, this comes up in the abstractions of government, taxation, and war, but it is ever so prevalent in our personal lives as well.

“I wouldn’t be who I am today “–a good–” if my parents didn’t discipline me”–if it involved bullying, assault, or neglect (NOT an exhaustive list), it was bad.

This is usually said by people who have not done the self-work to explore their histories and how it impacts their present and future, but those that have are so few in number that we who clamor that child abuse is EVIL are but a whisper in a sandstorm.

However…

The whisper is getting louder…

The storm is beginning to break…

The effects of evil are almost too plain to ignore…

Evil cannot be balanced. It can only be mitigated or avoided.

The good does not exist in an eternal, dualistic struggle with evil… except within ourselves.

The amazing thing about all of this is that child abuse could end in a day if people were to just stop and think…

Why am I doing what I am doing?

Do you still believe that Obama is all about change?

President Obama ‘orders Pakistan drone attacks’
Obama joins the ranks of cold-blooded murderers

He’s not been President for a week yet and he’s already ordered the murder of almost two dozen people.

digg

YouTube – True News 17: Freedomain Radio in the News Part 2.

Digg

YouTube – True News 16: Freedomain Radio in the News Part 1.

Digg

The following is a response by Stefan Molyneux to a recent request for a media interview:

Thank you for your e-mail, but I am not going to participate in any show with Mrs. Weed. I consider it reprehensible that she is openly broadcasting her son’s identity as widely as possible, and that she is blaming some podcaster on another continent for the very sad problems within her family, rather than the significant and terrifying abuse that her son suffered for 18 years at the hands of his parents. As I am sure you have heard in the podcast in question, Tom sobs openly about the terror he experienced in the face of his father’s rages, when the enormous man would kick and smash in windows, hurl objects and destroy entire rooms with horrifying rapidity. Mrs. Weed did not protect her helpless and dependent child during these extended and highly dangerous explosions.

Of course, Mrs. Weed dismisses and minimizes the brutality of this continual violence, which is the true source of this continuing tragedy — the reality, though, is that Tom would have no incentive to invent such an awful tale, and no ability to spontaneously erupt into such painful emotions after asking for my help.

I fully stand by my philosophical and moral positions, which is that child abuse is immoral, and adult relations are voluntary. If child abuse is not immoral, then there is no such thing as immorality — and if adult relations are not voluntary, then we should ban divorce, and force even those wives suffering from violent abuse to remain with their husbands until the end of their days.

It is also important to remember that out of the 35,000-50,000 Freedomain Radio listeners, only about 20 have taken breaks from abusive families, which is far below the statistical average for child abuse. I do not tell listeners to leave even highly abusive families, but rather strongly encourage them to seek out professional psychological help to deal with these tragic issues.

There are a number of parents and adult children who listen to the show together, which I think is wonderful. Many families, friends and couples have also used the philosophical resources of Freedomain Radio to help build better and closer relationships, which I am very pleased about.

Finally, I am very pro-family myself – my wonderful wife and I just welcomed our first child into the world. I am fully aware that I will need to continue to win and maintain the love of my daughter by keeping her safe, happy and secure.

The sole source for these slanderous articles about my website and show has been a little forum called Liberating Minds, where Barbara Weed and a few other abusive parents post. For some examples of the kind of thinking and communicating that goes on at this site, you might want to check out the link below – warning, the language is extremely offensive.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/liberating_minds.html

Regards,

Stefan Molyneux, MA

Host, Freedomain Radio

www.freedomainradio.com

I personally cannot understand how people can support the likes of Barbara Weed and then go to sleep at night.

Older Posts »