Help in understanding Stefan's approach

[Jot]

Couple of years ago a large portion of the call-in shows either focused on or evolved into (sometimes from seemingly completely unrelated topics) childhood talks with the callers. I found this the most powerful way in which Stefan would both connect emotionally and go to the roots of the problem of the callers. I have had many shocking insights listening to those.

 

For about a year or so now, I have noticed a significant decrease in the amount of callers and time spent focusing on callers childhood experiences.

 

This year, 2016, without claiming to have listened to all the shows I would still confidently assert that I could count the times the childhood question at least came up on the fingers...and I have no theory to why this is...

 

I could probably entertain the fact that Stefan might have shifted the focus away from this due to him considering that it is the time for more macro orientated talks rather than really personal ones, but I remember being times during the call-ins where I could not imagine any reason for why this topic did not came up...first example that comes to mind is the quite recent call where a couple was on the fence about having kids or not and from the way they talked it was so clear that they had unhappy childhoods...and if I am not wrong Stefan did not even go into the callers past for one second which was shocking to me since I remember him always doing that in the past in similar kind of situations.

 

What do you think?

[Anuojat]

I believe he shifted his position (his words not mine) dues ot the fact that what can still get us into free society is childhood being better... but to protect such conversation and ability TO reason with people he focused on feminists and women and then on immigration and then on terrorism and islman and then trump.

 

Anti child, andti even merest capacity for reason does not free society nor better parenting nor childhood make.

[Wuzzums]

Stefan was always, and still is, about giving you the responsibility of choice. Basically action has consequences and you have more power over your life than you think.

The childhood approach was excellent in determining the callers true reasons for otherwise irrational behavior. The callers and we understood why they did what they did, thus achieving self-knowledge, thus getting more control over their lives, etc.

 

In today's degenerate culture where the more of a victim you claim you are the more privilege you get, I can see how the childhood approach is just fuel for the fire for people who actively seek out victim-cred. I don't know when Stefan decided to stop going that route but to me it does seem he has successfully avoided what might have been a disaster (or a massive waste of time at the very least). 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Stefan fundamentally isn't choosing what is covered - the market is. If there is a trend where something isn't being covered as often as it was in the past, I think it's fair to assume the demand for it isn't as great.

[Jot]

Stefan fundamentally isn't choosing what is covered - the market is. If there is a trend where something isn't being covered as often as it was in the past, I think it's fair to assume the demand for it isn't as great.

 

That is interesting but for whatever reason I find it hard to believe that suddenly the viewers of the show became uninterested in this. I do not know about numbers but I assume that the number of emails Stefan gets for calling in nowadays is huge, and from all of this only a handful make it to the show. So he is the one who chooses what gets on the show, I think that he could make full shows about childhood if he wanted to since there must be so many people emailing him that from all of those some of them want to discuss this. 

 

So this was my question about...why do not they make it to the show nowadays? 

[dayna j.]

Stefan has stated that he is convinced a cultural/demographical tipping point has either been reached, or that reaching it is imminent.  I hope I am not mischaracterizing what he has said, but I believe that he sees adherence to western values as a necessary condition for peaceful parenting to effect meaningful change on the world. If you accept this premise, and it is true that those values are being aggressively eroded, then it makes sense to switch your focus to the restoration of those values so work can continue. 

 

I hope someone will correct me if I have misrepresented his position.

[dsayers]

I believe that he sees adherence to western values as a necessary condition for peaceful parenting to effect meaningful change on the world. If you accept this premise, and it is true that those values are being aggressively eroded, then it makes sense to switch your focus to the restoration of those values so work can continue. 

Those values were already being aggressively eroded. It was what made the message of peaceful parenting so necessary. That message acts against that erosion. Turning to begging the masters is the personification of such erosion. It is antithetical to restoring western values. Not arguing with YOU of course; Just pointing out why I think such a shift isn't rational.

[algernon]

People need to remember that the FDR brand is not just a podcast or youtube channel, but it is also a business, and that being said he has to go where the market takes him. If his primary goal is to spread philosophy and peace to the masses, and secondary goal is to make a living while doing that, then following what is popular at the moment will greatly increase his market share, while also reaching a broader audience. Many people that are looking for knowledge don't know what they're looking for, or how to find it. If someone is just keeping up with this reality TV show called politics, and find his messages on it well thought out and logical, that could very well open the doors to them finding the messages on peaceful parenting or other such topics, as well as shows he produces in the future while maintaining the new viewers.

 

I personally don't agree with his thoughts on voting (for Trump), or Trump actually being able to make an appreciable difference with anything, but I do understand why the focus has shifted and can appreciate that.

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

I'm a bit bored with all the election gossip. I understand it's relevant and timely, but I much prefer the call in shows. There aren't many shows I download at the moment because they all seem the same. Recap the debates, recent Wikileaks revelations, why Clinton is a witch, why Trump is our only hope, etc. It's all a bit tedious and pushing the same message. I hope after the election that there will be more variety to the show again.

[Jot]

I'm a bit bored with all the election gossip. I understand it's relevant and timely, but I much prefer the call in shows. There aren't many shows I download at the moment because they all seem the same. Recap the debates, recent Wikileaks revelations, why Clinton is a witch, why Trump is our only hope, etc. It's all a bit tedious and pushing the same message. I hope after the election that there will be more variety to the show again.

 

Yeah, I have been longing for this as well for a really long time now.

 

The overwhelming predominance of political shows over the past year made the show progressively alienating for me, especially since I am not living in the Western culture so all of this SJWs, BLM, politics, feminism stuff are like from a different planet for me.

 

When I joined the show I could relate to maybe half of the callers but now it must be 1 in 20.

 

I am also excited to see what direction FDR will go after all of this election fuss is finished.

[__2]

Couple of years ago a large portion of the call-in shows either focused on or evolved into (sometimes from seemingly completely unrelated topics) childhood talks with the callers. I found this the most powerful way in which Stefan would both connect emotionally and go to the roots of the problem of the callers. I have had many shocking insights listening to those.

 

Going to browse backwards through the archives because I think I tuned in on the tail end of what you're describing... any particular episodes come to mind? I'd love to know what stuck out for you.

[Jot]

Going to browse backwards through the archives because I think I tuned in on the tail end of what you're describing... any particular episodes come to mind? I'd love to know what stuck out for you.

Late 2013 - mid 2014. Also, most of the early call in shows.

 

You will need to check for them manually in the podcasts archive since most shows from late 13 to mid 2014 are not tagged at all and they won't be found under the call in tag, or any other tag.

[Spenc]

i have a few issues with the perceived direction of the show:

 

1.  FDR/Stef is like a particular artist or tradesman with an unrivaled talent in a particular niche of importance to many.  I think it's fine to do shows about Trump and the surrounding issues of demographics and media and feminism and so on....  However, when Stef leaves the realm of the "personal freedom" philosophy he was at the forefront of, theres nobody there to fill the void in the same manner and the whole movement behind that stalls in many ways.  Stef could easily just do his show on personal freedom and then do the weekly episodes about current events and such and point to people like mike cernovich and others he is consistently doing interviews with and sharing ideas with.  To put it in simple perspective, Stef didn't do a lot of economic/finance stuff in general before, but he would have Peter Schiff on once in awhile to talk econ and the world of the investment markets, and listeners would be able to be exposed to these issues and then branch out to Peter Schiff's work from there and find their way into those topics.

 

2.  I'm not convinced it's having a real effect in terms of bringing people to the philosophical, instead it often seems like FDR is giving way on philosophy and catering to the right wing.  For example, think of how many newer callers to the show have had statements like, "Stef, listening to your show opened my eyes and red-pilled me...." and how many of those callers went on to describe themselves as "conservatives" and right wingers and Trump supporters. So what truth and reason exactly has Stef opened their eyes to?  Trump is for a metric shit-tonne of government action in our lives, and this is what they are red-pilled to???  If Stef is such a powerful communicator, and in many ways he is, why the fuck can't the show be about principles and lead people to the beacon light of those ideas?  Why instead is the light being placed in Trump's lighthouse and guiding people there? It would seem to me the hope is that once the election is over, these Trump/alt-right people maintain their FDR subscriptions and listen to more shows and the content begins to ease back to the realm of personal freedom and also political freedom (which the alt-right/conservatives/Trump are NOT on board with at present).  I'm not sure that there is much evidence to support any hypothesis that says these people will stick around and then have their minds changed by reason as teh show shifts gears a bit.  It seems more like the show is shifting its message to cater to an audience susceptible to particular populist viewpoints, and that a portion of the audience is happy to lap up content that conforms to what they are seeking.  And why are these people good candidates to be reasoned with?

 

3.  The practical impacts of FDR.  If Stef needs to adjust his show because we are at a precipice and he can make the arguments to tip the balance in favour of Trump and away from the evil incumbents, then I'm pretty annoyed to have such a dramatic difference in treatment between ROn Paul twice and Trump now.  Stef lambasted ROn Paul for voting for the border fence in early volumes of the show, and now Trump is saving western civilization?!?  Ron Paul, who is a legitimate libertarian on principle to like the 90th percentile was treated reasonably fair at the time on the show.  But Trump who really doesn't adhere to any [libertarian] principles, but takes hard-line dogmatic stances, gets raised up repeatedly and with asinine arguments (most recently int he video/podcast to libertarians:  "hey libertarians, you say you hate the mainstream media and they are all lined up against Trump, well THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND" [paraphrasing the first part]).  In the same video/podcast he says, to paraphrase, "if you denigrate the police force, they will lose public support and have diminished resolve to do their jobs in the inner cities.  The blood of the dead children is on your hands!"   I'm sorry, but what?  The actions of the murderers and gangsters is my responsibility?  The actions of the police is my responsibility?  Because of words I say, arguments I make? 

[powder]

People need to remember that the FDR brand is not just a podcast or youtube channel, but it is also a business, and that being said he has to go where the market takes him. If his primary goal is to spread philosophy and peace to the masses, and secondary goal is to make a living while doing that, then following what is popular at the moment will greatly increase his market share, while also reaching a broader audience. Many people that are looking for knowledge don't know what they're looking for, or how to find it. If someone is just keeping up with this reality TV show called politics, and find his messages on it well thought out and logical, that could very well open the doors to them finding the messages on peaceful parenting or other such topics, as well as shows he produces in the future while maintaining the new viewers.

 

I personally don't agree with his thoughts on voting (for Trump), or Trump actually being able to make an appreciable difference with anything, but I do understand why the focus has shifted and can appreciate that.

yes, this.