Thursday, 12 May 2022

[From Ink to Inc.] The end of the book industry; the end of the video game industry.

From Ink to Inc., episode #1.

The start of a new series of videos on a new channel.

#booktube #writertube #authortube

Monday, 9 May 2022

Ryerson's role in Canada's Slow Motion Genocide: What Exactly Did Egerton Ryerson Say About "The Indians"?

This is Egerton Ryerson writing about "the final solution" for Canada's indigenous people (First Nations, "American Indians", etc.) in 1847.

—————

It is, therefore, necessary that the pupils should reside together.  Hence the necessity of providing for their domestic education, and for every part of their religious instruction.  The last, I conceive to be absolutely essential, not merely upon general Christian principles, but also upon the ground of what I may term Indian economics, as it is a fact established by numerous experiments, that the North American Indian cannot be civilized or preserved in a state of civilization (including habits of industry and sobriety) except in connection with, if not by the influence of, religious instruction and sentiment but of religious feelings.


[…]


The theory of a certain kind of educational philosophy is falsified in respect to the Indian: with him, nothing can be done to improve and elevate his character and condition without the aid of religious feeling.


[…]


The animating and controlling spirit of each industrial school [i.e., the establishments now known, in retrospect, as "residential schools"] should, therefore, in my opinion, be a religious one.  The religious culture in daily exercises and instruction should be a prominent object of intention… [and] sacred vocal music should form an important branch of their education.


[…]


In the contemplated industrial schools, I understand the end proposed to be the making of the pupils industrious farmers, and that learning is provided for and pursued only so far as it will contribute to that end.


[…]


[Educating them to be "carpenters, cabinet-makers, shoemakers, tailors, &c." would be too expensive and difficult to manage, therefore:] …the great object of industrial schools should be to fit the pupils for becoming working farmers and agricultural laborers, fortified, of course, by Christian principles, feelings and habits.


[…]


I think that any attempt to carry on these establishments by providing merely for secular instruction, and that any attempt to separate the secular from the religious instruction, will prove a failure; and that any attempt on the part of the Government [as implicitly opposed to churchmen, receiving taxpayers' money] to provide religious instruction will prove a failure.


[The recommended relationship between government and "the religious denominations" that would operate the schools is then described in detail.]


[…]


The religious character of these contemplated schools and the religious influences which must pervade all departments of their immediate management, in order to ____ [sic., one word missing] their efficiency and permanent success, have been sufficiently remarked upon in the former part of this communication.


[…]


It was the piety and judgement and example of the late excellent Mr. de Fellenberg more than any code of rules that rendered his agricultural school for the poor at Hofwyl [now spelled Hofwil], near Berne, in Switzerland, a blessing to hundreds of peasant youth, and a model for all similar establishments.


[In fact, the Hofwil schools were already failing and shutting down at the time this document was written in 1847, i.e., soon after the death of the aforementioned Fellenberg in 1844.  Ryerson's awareness of the reputation these schools once had is apparently several decades out of date.  It does not occur to him to compare the budget for the Hofwil school (located in an aristocratic estate, and supported by aristocratic patronage) to the paltry sums the Canadian government would provide for the average "Rez" in Saskatchewan or Northern Ontario.  There were factors other than piety and faith that distinguished the Canadian example from the Swiss —and, as already mentioned, the seeming success of the Swiss example didn't last long.]


[…]


In regard to the pupils, I think the time occupied in labor should be from 8 to 12 hours per day during the summer, and instruction from 2 to 4 hours, and that during the winter the amount of labor should be lessened, and that of study increased.


[8 to 12 hours per day of child labor?  Only 2 to 4 hours of actual education?  This was his vision for Canada's indigenous people, inspired by the Swiss model at Hofwil?]


[…]


[They should] rise at five in the summer [5:00 A.M.], attend to the police of the house, and have prayers and lessons in the school until seven, breakfast at seven, labor from eight until noon, dinner and intermission from twelve until one, labor from one until six, supper at six, lesson until eight, have prayers and retire to bed between eight and nine.  On Sunday the hours of rising, prayers, meals and retiring to bed [should be] the same as on other days.


[…]


In the intervals of public service, both in the morning and in the afternoon, they should have lessons in sacred music, the catechism, &c.


[…]


I think it would be beneficial to allow each pupil, say a penny or so per day, for work, allowing twelve hours' labor for a day's work; and paying him the sum thus earned at his leaving the school to set up for himself.


[…]


Of course, no age can be prescribed at present for the admission of pupils into the industrial schools.  In general, I think they should remain there from four to eight years…  [I cannot imagine any valid reason why the age of beginning and ending studies at such an institute would not be "prescribed"; perhaps he doesn't want to admit to himself the absurdity of "conscript labor" being applied to children at such a young age as his plan would entail.]


[…]


If I have omitted to notice any points which you think of importance, I will readily supply such omissions, and will be ready at any time to do what I can to promote the objects of these contemplated industrial schools.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

E. RYERSON


[Although I have not read the report myself, as early as 1858, allegedly, internal investigations and commissions (within "Indian Affairs") declared Ryerson's approach to be a failure.]

Saturday, 7 May 2022

YOU KNOW THE MOTTO.

Don't make excuses for people who make excuses: you're only as good as the people you make excuses for.

Monday, 2 May 2022

Correspondence with an imbecile: DiogenesofSinop.

[Most of my viewers are neither intelligent nor well spoken.  Even if I exclusively made videos about Aristotle, I wouldn't be able to expect any better from my audience.  This is something that authors, creative artists and "content creators" need to be prepared for… but we are, perhaps, born unprepared.]


DiogenesofSinop

I take it the deletion of my comment is your warrant canary kind of acknowledgement?


Eisel Mazard

No, that is neither an intelligent inference on your part, nor a reasonable one.


DiogenesofSinop

Who cares, you didn't answer my question in the comment. And if you gave any thought about it, you'd have looked up my email. So much for common courtesy these days. Don't you think good manners matter?


Eisel Mazard

Re: "Who cares…"

You do.


DiogenesofSinop

How "laconic". I don't care about how I got your attention. I did get your attention. So your reply is moot. You're completely missing the point just to make content out of this. All I wanted was "Thanks for your email". Or is that too much to ask? Why be belligerent to strangers for no reason whatsoever? 


Eisel Mazard

1.

Re: "Why be belligerent to strangers for no reason whatsoever?"

i. You are being belligerent to a stranger for no reason whatever.  You have been throughout this correspondence.

ii. I have not been.  Not yet.

Go ahead.  Re-read the messages we've exchanged if you don't believe me.  It is not a terribly verbose correspondence.

2.

Re: "I don't care about how I got your attention."

You do.

And you have to.

Because it forms my opinion of you.

E.M.


DiogenesofSinop

1.

Re: "You are being belligerent to a stranger for no reason whatever.  You have been throughout this correspondence."

This must be a terrible misunderstanding on your part. Jumping too fast to conclusions and assuming the other's stance. In no conceivable way could anything I have said be understood as offensive to any impartial observer. You on the other hand have started off with unnecessary adjectives in your first message. Instead of addressing the purpose of the message. 

Regardless, offense is taken and not given. I don't care about "not a terribly verbose correspondence" we had. My objective was to determine if you got my email. I will take the liberty of assuming you did. But you lack a sense of gratitude.

2.

Re: "You do. And you have to. Because it forms my opinion of you"

Awfully narcissistic of you to think I care about that. Again, you're jumping to conclusions.

In any case, I've enjoyed your last few videos about Sam and I hope my dollar will be helpful in education repayments. Keep up the good work. Tally-ho! 


Eisel Mazard

1.

Re: "In no conceivable way could anything I have said be understood as offensive to any impartial observer."

No no, not "offensive": the word was "belligerent".

Far be it from me to suggest that you've said a single word that was offensive.

What I pointed out is that you've been belligerent.  And you have indeed been belligerent to a complete stranger.  And you have done so for no good reason.  While complaining to that stranger that he has been belligerent to you, as a complete stranger, for no reason.

And this asymmetry continues in our still-not-too-terribly-prolix correspondence.

2.

"My objective was to determine if you got my email. I will take the liberty of assuming you did."

No, that is neither an intelligent inference on your part, nor a reasonable one.

3.

"But you lack a sense of gratitude."

I suppose you will soon insist to me that it is absolutely impossible that an impartial observer could think these words would describe your behavior, rather than mine, in this short correspondence.

This is a recurring pattern.

4.

"Awfully narcissistic of you to think I care about that."

It would certainly be impossible for someone to read this correspondence and interpret your character as narcissistic rather than mine.  Or would you like to explain this to me, as I do not think it is true?



DiogenesofSinop

Well colour me impressed by your ability of psychological projection and deflection. Not to speak of impeccable self expression!

But you have to admit that continuing all this is childish and unproductive.

You know what to do to prove me wrong. Or right. But who cares, right? I've had my dollar's worth of entertainment. Have you satisfied your ego?

Cheerio! 



Eisel Mazard

Re: "But you have to admit that continuing all this is childish and unproductive."

So… the scenario we're in right now is that YOU COULD HAVE just asked me if I'd received an email from you (that I evidently didn't receive / don't know about).

And, instead, you've sent me an unbelievably belligerent series of messages, asking "Don't you think good manners matter?", stating that I'm a narcissist, reproaching me for lacking gratitude, etc.

And the answers to your two questions (that, again, were neither stated in a manner that was intelligent nor reasonable) are (1) no, the deletion of your comment neither indicates (implicitly) that I receive a lot of hate mail (I don't), nor that my email address isn't working, and (2) no, I don't recall receiving an email from you (nor from anyone with a similar name, etc.).

(What it is that I supposedly should feel gratitude for that I'm failing to feel gratitude for is impossible to imagine at this point.)

So…

You seem to have put considerable energy and initiative into convincing me that you're a person of both very poor intelligence and very bad intent.  And you did this, in your own idiom, by being belligerent to a complete stranger for no reason.  In trying to justify yourself, you say that I used "unnecessary adjectives" in a single message (that is a single sentence long), but you find nothing unnecessary in your own absurdly truculent messages to me (demanding to know why I don't care about manners —whereas supposedly you do, in your own absurdly ill-mannered correspondence— and why I don't feel gratitude toward you, etc.).

If you want to communicate with a complete stranger, generally, or with a youtuber specifically, you have to put some effort into letting them know (1) that you are intelligent, and (2) that you are writing with good intent (otherwise, you will not receive a reply).  You have instead convinced me of the opposite.

I would recommend you spend some quality time with my old video, "90% of People Are Stupid and Malign."  You're in the 90%, old boy.  

youtube.com/watch?v=WMvwwd0shMg


DiogenesofSinop

Re: "You seem to have put considerable energy and initiative into convincing me that you're a person of both very poor intelligence and very bad intent."

That is neither an intelligent inference on your part, nor a reasonable one.

Re:"If you want to communicate with a complete stranger, generally, or with a youtuber specifically, you have to put some effort into letting them know"

No, I do not. Because I simply do not care about anyone's self-aggrandizing behaviour. If they are too asinine to read between the lines, and make an effort to become offended, they are only good for laughs. Instead, maybe you could try clarifying the situation instead of putting your considerable energy and initiative at showing your poor intelligence and bad intent. But I fully understand your behaviour, it is very typical among many narcissists. So please do not assume I am in any way offended by our correspondence. It is intriguing to see how strangers show themselves in private. 

Re:"I would recommend you spend some quality time with my old video, "90% of People Are Stupid and Malign."  You're in the 90%, old boy."

Laddie, if I cared about your opinion (or your opinion of me specifically), we would not be here in this predicament. To me your life is as unimportant as anyone else's. You are light entertainment. I am under no obligation to extend my benevolence to the likes of you. Neither are you (which you have aptly demonstrated). Your way of conducting yourself in this correspondence has been very amusingly revealing. Now I can listen to your ramblings knowing who you truly are. So carry on! Give me more laughs!


Eisel Mazard

I will remove the word "seem" from my earlier statement:

as a matter of fact, you have indeed put considerable energy and initiative into convincing me that you're a person of both very poor intelligence and very bad intent.


Re: "No, I do not. Because I simply do not care about anyone's self-aggrandizing behaviour."

Whereas you seem to presume that I would be fascinated by your self-aggrandizing behavior, demonstrated throughout this correspondence.


Re: "So please do not assume I am in any way offended by our correspondence. It is intriguing to see how strangers show themselves in private."

On the contrary, absolutely nothing about this correspondence is private.




Friday, 22 April 2022

In bringing an axe to a tree, we should not pretend to prune it.



The sandpiper does not need to be told to stretch his legs out long.  The duck does not need to be instructed in folding up his short legs to make himself even shorter.  Reproaching one or the other will not make them equal; praising one or the other will not bring them closer in kind.  In bringing an axe to a tree, we should not pretend to prune it.  It is not in the nature of the forest to be improved by being cut down.  https://www.amazon.co.jp/-/en/Eisel-Mazard/dp/B09X7QXPRF/

Sunday, 10 April 2022

Veganism: the Future of an Illusion. (Available on Amazon)

 

The digital edition is available immediately (via Kindle reader, etc.) for about one dollar (99 cents in Europe, $1.08 in the USA)…

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09X7QXPRF

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B09XLPW36N/

…the paper edition should be available within 48 hours (I do not know if it will be visible (and clickable) from the digital edition or not: this is my first time publishing anything with Amazon).

Thursday, 24 March 2022

On being Canadian (with a cameo from Michael Mahung)

A link to his video (where I posted this comment) ensues at the bottom.

Contrasting perspective.  I'm Jewish and often (not always) perceived as white (trust me, I have lived in places where everyone lets me know I count as NON-WHITE).  When I lived in Germany, I knew several black Americans who thought that people were being rude to them because they were black, and I had to talk through with them (seriously, in detail) that no: the type of rudeness they were perceiving was 100% normal in German culture (that was the same way they treated me, etc.) —and, yeah, I witnessed a few of the interactions these guys were complaining about (strangers being jerks to them, basically).  It is really easy to attribute "cause and effect" to your own appearance, and to ignore the extent to which everyone is being treated like garbage (i.e., that you might face the same cold hostility if your appearance were otherwise).  I could tell a bunch of parallel stories from Cambodia: people who thought, "I am being disrespected for this specific reason", and I had to explain to them, "If you removed that reason, these people would find a different reason to disrespect you".  I realize this will be an unwelcome challenge to a set of observations and attitudes you've been cultivating for 27 years, but I think you need to re-evaluate the empirical data with these considerations in mind.  I have never been hated and mistreated in a foreign country to nearly the same extent that I was hated and mistreated in my own: Canada.  In Canada, everyone (including government authorities, professors, etc.) treats me far worse than the people (powerful or powerless) even in Communist Dictatorships —and white Canadians do indeed perceive me as "one of their own".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB5MW3kWXKk

Saturday, 19 March 2022

[ASOIAF:] My Interpretive "Warre" With Preston Jacobs Continues.


Broadly speaking, Preston is too much inclined to offer "in world" analysis, based on his perception of what would be logical (or inevitable) given the laws of physics that he imagines operate within that world.  My analysis, instead, is based on the will and intent of the author (George R.R. Martin), with the assumption that these "laws of physics" are his playthings that do not constrain him (in communicating whatever moral or message he wishes to convey).

My comment was posted to Preston's newest video, where (in the conclusion) he invites questions (or objections?) from the audience, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYXNZVsQPIQ

Thursday, 17 March 2022

The Youtube Censorship Committee: Racism, Harassment and Hate Speech.

Hi there,

Thanks for your quick response.

I was able to read out your chat conversation with my colleague and from what I understand, your video was "categorized" as hate speech and violence. What I want to know is how this is affecting your channel? Are you concerned about the monetization status of these videos given the status that they have? Or did your channel receive a Community Strike because of that.

We can start on a blank slate so that perhaps you can explain to us better on what really is going on or we can continue from here.

I hope to hear from you soon.


All the best,

Cy


—————


(1) My concern is not demonetization: my concern is the stated reason for the demonetization.  In other words: my concern is the categorization of the video as hate speech.


(2) Please note, for context, that I have had this problem many, many times before with youtube: one video was categorized as "racist hate speech" against French people, and I wrote in to point out that (2.1) my first wife is French, (2.2) my daughter is French, (2.3) my last name is seemingly French (Mazard) and (2.4) the name of my youtube channel is in French, and (2.5) the video shows me discussing my life when I lived in France, so therefore (2.6) it is extremely unlikely that the video is racist against French people.


EVENTUALLY the censorship of the video was ended, precisely because I wrote to someone like yourself to complain (again and again).


The other examples are equally absurd.


I do believe the fundamental problem is that the people employed in this process of review (1) do not speak English as their first language, and (2) do not actually listen to the videos: they respond to transcriptions of isolated keywords out of context (e.g., they just see, "this guy is saying something bad about French people", without any concern as to whether or not that qualifies as racist hate speech).


(3) It is not a trivial thing to have videos categorized as racist hate speech: this does, indeed, blacklist your channel.


(4) It is not a trivial thing to have videos categorized as harassment: this does, indeed, blacklist your channel.


(5) If there is some other reason to demonetize the video (e.g., categorizing it in another way, that is factually valid) then I would not object to it being demonetized.


What I object to, as you have seen in my earlier correspondence, is the following categorization:


———

Hateful & derogatory content

Hate, disparagement, or harassment towards a group or individual


Hate or harassment towards individuals or groups.

———

Violence

Situations showing hurt, damage, or injury


Raw footage focused on violent law enforcement; graphic dead bodies in a non-educational video; edited video gameplay that primarily focuses on graphic violence; domestic violence.

———


Both of these claims are factually untrue.


You cannot provide a time-stamp for even a single moment within the video in which I say something hateful, disparaging or harassing towards a group or individual.  You cannot provide a quotation (in context or out of context) that would have any such racist meaning whatsoever.


This is not a trivial point: this is of tremendous importance to recognize, and then amend the censorship decision accordingly (in keeping with both the letter and the spirit of the regulations).


With the second claim about "violence", please notice the specific assertion that this video is "non-educational".


The video reads aloud a police report, showing the evidence of a police investigation on screen, while explaining the contrast between the specific findings of that police report and what had been inaccurately reported by news organizations (and other youtube channels).


Is that "non-educational"?


The video is educational.  The video is both non-racist and anti-racist.  The video does not contain any scenes of violence whatsoever, and the slightly disturbing subject matter must be evaluated in the context of serious political discussion (i.e., a critique of the inaccuracy of journalism) that is indeed educational.

Thursday, 3 March 2022

Dept. of "Where are they now?" Soycrates in 2022.

As a footnote to a footnote to a footnote to the history of the à-bas-le-ciel youtube channel…

I'd just observe that Soycrates has (recently?) become an occasional co-host assisting a hideously fat video game youtuber (and Twitch streamer) named Esfand…

(I dot not know if they have a personal relationship, or if it is a purely professional relationship)

…and the two of them have appeared together on HasanAbi's show.

Example: https://youtu.be/qeXXyLnUAK4?t=479

This would seem to logically entail that she's currently living in Los Angeles… which is… kind of inconvenient for me…

I mean…

I guess I could move back to Taiwan, just to put an ocean in between us… but…

Dept. of "Where are they now?" Izzy Davis in 2022.

The strange fate of the formerly famous Isabella Davis (a.k.a. "Izzy Davis" and "Izzy D")…

…it is very strange to see her "leveraging" her past experience as a vegan activist as a claim to some kind of credibility in her new career…

…especially when you're aware that she subsequently became ex-vegan, and then went further to become anti-vegan (as you can see in an interview she provided to "Drew Morg" that, unlike the vast majority of her content, has not been scrubbed/deleted from the internet).

Saturday, 26 February 2022

Go ahead, sue me.

[Here's my "statement" to the floppy police:]

This is the most clearly protected form of freedom of speech (qua "fair use") under American law and youtube's own policies: short quotations from a primary source are juxtaposed for the purposes of political critique.  Court transcripts are quoted aloud, with quotations from interview videos (that are very much on the public record and involved in a high profile court case, etc.) for the clear purpose of political and ethical discussion.  At a glance, it will be immediately apparent that this use of short quotations (in the context of commentary) qualifies as "transformational content" by youtube's standards, and that it could not possibly violate the standards of fair use (i.e., it could not replace the purchase of the original film quoted, etc.).


The principle that has stood since 1841 (Folsom v. Marsh) in the United States of America is that a "reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism."


If we did not have the right to quote the people we would criticize (or disagree with), freedom of speech in politics would cease to exist (along with discussions of religion, morality, science and many other fields) .  This is not a trivial matter.


Correspondence with Charles Debarber demonstrates that he is aware his copyright claim is neither legally valid nor morally coherent: he has cynically threatened to follow up this (false) copyright claim with allegations of harassment and doxing (that are equally false) "if" his first claim should fail to get my videos banned.  You may read both sides of that correspondence here:

http://a-bas-le-ciel.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-strange-case-of-charles-debarber.html

Friday, 25 February 2022

The strange case of Charles DeBarber (WHO IS NOT A LAWYER) from Phoenix Advocates & Consultants


Good afternoon!

My name is Charles DeBarber and I am a Senior Privacy Analyst for some of the survivors of the GirlsDoPorn Human Trafficking Ring.

I have put forward a copyright strike for your 2020 video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQdG_BNSSiw

All GDP footage belongs to its victims as of a 2019 and subsequent 2021 judgement.

I have already discussed the situation with the survivors that appear in your video and they do not wish to have their faces blurred - they want all content from GDP removed.

Would you remove the video immediately? If not, I have a copyright strike pending.

[image.png]

If you remove it before the processing is complete, it will not affect your channel. If you are unable to take it down in time, I can recant the strike if you agree to never post any footage of or personal information of anyone that appeared on GDP.


Thank you,


—————


I would advise you to read youtube's policies.


This is the most explicitly protected form of freedom of speech, both under American law, and under youtube's own policies.


Re: "All GDP footage belongs to its victims as of a 2019 and subsequent 2021 judgement."


Yes, but you see: Warner Brothers owns the Batman movies… this "ownership" does not mean that they have the legal right to prevent me from criticizing their film.  Mere ownership does not mean that they can prevent me from quoting their film in the process of criticizing it.  This legal tradition does not exist for the sake of artistic criticism only.  The protection of freedom of speech is even stronger when the purpose is political critique and commentary (and the videos I have created are very explicitly of a political character: they're practically morality lectures, you will find, if you actually watch them).


E.M.


——————————


Mr. Mazard,


You are free to make any argument you wish regarding fair use. Their images and likenesses are their property and we'll follow through with YouTube's processes to the fullest extent and they will make a call one way or the other.


I welcome you to counterstrike if you wish, but our position is the survivors of a human trafficking ring have been exploited enough. The ringleaders of that ring are in prison or awaiting trial.


Should copyright strikes fail we'll move to harassment and "doxxing" strikes too. YouTube may not look kindly on content creators who show the faces of Jane Does of an ongoing criminal sex trafficking case.


I mean you no disrespect, but our position isn't negotiable on our end. I am going to put forward further copyright strikes for GDP content owned by my clients on both of your channels.

https://www.youtube.com/c/ActiveResearchInformedOpinion/

https://www.youtube.com/c/A-bas-le-cielBlogspot/


I have added 3 additional copyright strikes for GDP content.

[image]


Should you remove the content, I will recant the strikes.


Thank you,

Charles DeBarber


——————————


Re: "I mean you no disrespect, but our position isn't negotiable on our end."


Your position is, also, morally and legally wrong.


You will find that I have videos dealing with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, too, and discussing allegations of serious crimes (of a sexual nature) against Donald Trump.  Neither Donald Trump nor his victims are in a position to silence me and demand the deletion of those videos (although they may be emotionally distressing for Donald Trump himself, or for the women who made the allegations, who may (hypothetically) want "to get on with their lives" and have that part of their past forgotten).  That's not the way the law works.


You know this.


On some level, you know why this legal and moral standard exists, too: the journalistic freedom to criticize Epstein and Trump specifically, or to discuss moral and political issues connected to the pornography industry generally, is protected by the American constitution, by innumerable federal laws, by youtube policy and by clear precedent.


E.M.

——————————


Mr. Mazard,


Receipt of your message is acknowledged.


Charles DeBarber


——————————


If you would like to talk to me (via Skype, or via old fashioned telephone) I'd be pleased to discuss the issues with you, i.e., including the moral dimension (the sorrow of the victims, etc.).


You may, indeed, ask your clients if they'd approve of an interview along these lines (it is possible they'd see it as a positive aspect of promoting their own case, or giving voice to their own perspective).


Again, if you take the time to actually watch the videos you're complaining about, you'll find that they are neither pornographic nor exploitative: they are really political and philosophical discussions of the implications of the court case.  They are discussions of the ways in which our own culture is changing and will continue to change in the 21st century, precisely because of the long term implications of the decisions people make on the internet (pornographic or not). 


My university degree is in Political Science.


I have about 8 years of experience in this field, and I have gone to court before to deal with the implications of defamation on youtube (indeed, I have one ongoing case in court right now).


I have received requests from people begging to have videos criticizing them removed from my channel (even within the last few weeks) on matters that do not involve pornography or sexuality in any way, and I do not have a heart of stone: I take the time to explain to them the political and moral significance of what's going on, and why youtube policy works the way it does.


Very often, people are upset, and they need some time to realize that freedom of speech really is "for the greater good" even in cases like this (and even in the case of allegations against Donald Trump, etc., even if it later should be discovered that the allegations were untrue, etc.).


I, also, do not have the right to censor other channels, just because I own the videos they're quoting (in the act of criticizing me, or even in the act of defaming me… which has happened!), nor because I own the rights to my own face.


The youtuber Jaclyn Glenn made an insulting video about me that reached over 100,000 people, and that did not serve any political purpose, but I have no grounds to stand on if I were to claim that it is (1) a violation of my copyright, or (2) harassment or (3) doxxing.  It would be totally spurious for me to say that I own the video she quoted, or for me to say that I own the rights to my own face.  That is legally spurious, morally spurious, and has no validity under youtube's own policies.


Thank you for your time and consideration,


I would say again --genuinely-- that I'm available to speak to you by Skype (or equivalent) if you'd like to discuss this further (and you will find that I'm neither rude nor combative in discussing these things).


E.M.



——————————


Mr. Mazard,


I appreciate your feelings on the matter, but I've made our position clear. I'd recommend taking the down videos and removing the content owned by our clients. You have plenty of open source material to use with the case itself. Videos and images owned by my client are unnecessary. I have no opinion on the content outside of respecting my clients intellectual property.


I respect all content creators. In return I ask you to respect what is owned by my clients.


Remove the videos and I'll recant the strikes. That's our position and it isn't negotiable.


Thank you,


——————————



My offer to speak to via Skype (or any equivalent telephone service) stands.


I would again say that you can ask your clients if they'd approve of you (publicly) giving interviews or discussing the matter.


You already know that your copyright claims are invalid (and will be rejected by the youtube system and legal department as a matter of course).  And, indeed, that is why you followed up with the threat of (cynically and untruthfully) claiming that the videos constitute harassment or doxing.  All of these efforts will fail, and you know it.


Just a few weeks ago, my channel received a procedurally identical complaint from the ex-wife of Matt Dillahunty (the latter is a famous name in the atheist movement, he can be easily googled if you wanted to know more).  I am sure that she sincerely believed the same line of reasoning that you've presented here: that she owns the rights to her own face (etc.) and that I could therefore be punished (with a copyright strike) for quoting her video (that, again, she owns the rights to) in the context of a political discussion on youtube.  No matter how much she may claim she suffers because she's quoted in that video, it can never validate a copyright strike (to silence the video).


The whole line of reasoning is invalid.


What's interesting about it is this: it isn't just legally invalid, it's also morally wrong.


The legal case you're involved in raises important political and ethical questions: that's why it's so important that I have the freedom of speech to quote primary sources and engage in a discussion of them (on youtube and otherwise).


Again, if you'd like to discuss it (even if your purpose is just to give voice to your clients' perspective) I would be entirely willing to host the discussion, and allow you to state your own moral argument in your own terms, although I disagree with it.


With thanks for your time and consideration,

E.M.


——————————


[Believe it or not, there were a few other emails (all in the same day) that are not included in this blog posting, i.e., just for the sake of concision.] 


Mr. Mazard,


I'm a YouTuber too. I have a whole 68 subscribers to boot. ;) If you ever need content that will put you to sleep let me know. The wonders of the history of industrial beekeeping isn't the most entertaining topic outside of a handful of enthusiasts. My videos also showcase my poor woodworking and even worse editing abilities.


The IP claim is legitimate. You have videos and images owned by my clients in your videos. As I said before, our position isn't negotiable. 


I had joined your Patreon to see if you posted any of their intellectual property there and submitted DMCAs to Patreon to have two postings of the YouTube videos I flagged earlier today.


As I said - my only issue is with my clients' intellectual property in your videos. It isn't necessary to discuss the topic to show them. The harassment/doxxing complaint is another route we will pursue as both complaints are legitimate. 


Our position won't change.


The best I could offer you as a compromise is doing an interview for you discussing a topic separate to GDP if you take content down immediately and do not repost it in the future. I have a number of topics regarding exploitation, digital privacy, and combating online stalkers.


Thank you,


Charles DeBarber



——————————



Let's talk again after the copyright strike process has concluded.


I do not know why you imagine you'd succeed with such blatantly false claims under any of the three headings (copyright, harassment or doxing), but if you do succeed, you will have only succeeded in doing something that is both illegal and immoral.


Re: "The IP claim is legitimate. You have videos and images owned by my clients in your videos. As I said before, our position isn't negotiable."


You seem to be ignoring the fact that I have never offered to negotiate it: instead, I have explained to you (very clearly, with examples) that your claim is false (legally, morally and under youtube policy).


I have already explained to you that "ownership" does not negate the legal significance of "fair use", on the contrary "fair use" doctrine exists precisely to overcome the limitations of private ownership; it is precisely because Warner Brothers owns Batman that we have legal definitions of "fair use" to ensure that critics can use excerpts of the source --and this same doctrine applies to Abraham Zapruder's film of the JFK assassination (a recording that has a storied history of being privately owned) or even security camera footage of a bank robbery (i.e., a film that the participants did not consent to appear in).


I understand that you have a technical background in the military, but you're either insincerely pretending to misunderstand the rules and regulations here, or else you genuinely don't understand them.


Earlier, you dismissed arguments about fair use as if they were irrelevant.  On the contrary, the one and only issue at stake here is fair use.  It is fair use that overcomes private copyright precisely to ensure that journalists and political commentators can use excerpts of primary sources in this way.


Again, if you glance at the front page of my youtube channel right now, you might well imagine that Erin Janus could offer an argument very similar to your own, if she wanted to try to force me to delete the videos I have that include her face, etc. --but she would lose an appeal under any of the same headings, i.e., copyright or otherwise.  I really do have the right to quote the people I'm criticizing, or to quote the contrasting sources involved in a given political controversy.  And this is an important right, even in deeply disturbing cases.


Genuinely, I'd encourage you to take a moment to hear this video about Donald Trump's alleged involvement in underage prostitution / statutory rape (i.e., this is an example close to your own professional interests).

https://youtu.be/1wwj2pN1kyU

^ This is the Katie Johnson case (it was really poorly covered by the American press: the basic facts of the case are almost impossible to figure out from newspaper articles).


Re: "As I said - my only issue is with my clients' intellectual property in your videos. It isn't necessary to discuss the topic to show them. The harassment/doxxing complaint is another route we will pursue as both complaints are legitimate."


You have never replied to that portion of our correspondence: you never actually discuss how these videos could possibly qualify as "harassment" or "doxing" --and, again, I really am familiar with youtube policy and precedent in this area (I've been on both sides of disputes).


Sometimes, Youtube does make wildly irrational and incompetent decisions (e.g., I've had my own videos censored for racism when their intent was anti-racist, due to sloppiness on the part of the employees in the censorship division, etc.).  So, yes, it is possible the videos will be deleted, or that my whole youtube channel will be deleted, but (if so) it would only be as an act of gross incompetence on youtube's part, contrary to both the law and the company's own policies.


E.M.

Sunday, 20 February 2022

Stop sleeping with idiots: "cerebralist" sexual morality.

[Below is a reply to a Patreon supporter who I am leaving unnamed here.  I am also leaving the philosophy that he presented to me largely up to your imagination.]


I will tell you the truth.  Whether or not you are horrified is up to you.


Everything you're saying is a lie.


Everything.


If you say these things to yourself, you're lying to yourself.  You're ruining your own life.


If you say these things to others, you're lying to others.  You're ruining their lives.


The most fundamental delusion in your system of lies is this:


[Paraphrasing your position:] "I don't need to be married to an intelligent woman, because I can talk to my cousin or my sister: she's an intelligent woman."


If you can't realize how stupid this is, you can't realize the extent to which your whole world-view is based on a series of (ever more perilous) self-serving delusions.


Let us remove the aspect of gender and sexual attraction, and perhaps you can see how dishonest you're being.


What if you instead had said: "I don't need my boss at work to be intelligent, my brother is intelligent, if I want to talk to someone intelligent, I can talk to him instead."

What if you instead had said: "I don't need my colleagues at work to be intelligent, my brother is intelligent, if I want to talk to someone intelligent, I can talk to him instead."

What if you instead had said: "I don't need my professor at university to be intelligent, my brother is intelligent, if I want to talk to someone intelligent, I can talk to him instead."

What if you instead had said: "I don't need my own students to be intelligent, my brother is intelligent, if I want to talk to someone intelligent, I can talk to him instead."

What if you instead had said: "I don't need my own employees to be intelligent, my brother is intelligent, if I want to talk to someone intelligent, I can talk to him instead."


No: the fact that your brother or cousin is intelligent is totally irrelevant.


If your co-workers are idiots, every day of your life will be a struggle to get them to behave like intelligent people.


If your boss is an idiot, every day of your life will be full of disappointments, frustrations and struggles, because you can neither expect him to behave like an intelligent person, nor can you compel him to behave like an intelligent person.


If your professor is an idiot, every day of your life is a struggle.  If, instead, you are the professor, and your students are idiots, every day of your life is a struggle.


It is a delusion to pretend that because your brother is intelligent (and you could talk to him if you needed someone intelligent to talk to) none of these other people's stupidity or intellectual development would matter.


The delusion hangs on one word: need.


Imagine a human being with the brain of a dog.


A human body with the mind and behavior of a dog.


If your wife were a human being (no matter how beautiful) with the mind of a dog, every single day of your life would be a horrible struggle in trying to compel her to behave like a human being.


There would be absolutely no consolation in the fact that your brother, sister, cousin, or anyone else happens to be an intelligent human being.


The misery of sharing your apartment (or house) with an idiot is far more intense than sharing an office with an idiot (whether it is your boss, your subordinate or an equal co-worker).


The fact that you have intellectual respect for someone else (your brother, etc.) is utterly irrelevant to the fact that you have no respect for the woman you're trying to love.


The fact that someone else (your brother, etc.) has intellectual respect for you (and understands you, etc.) will never compensate for the fact that the woman you love doesn't respect you (and can't understand you).  Never.


I think you really cannot imagine the misery that your system of values is set up to vindicate.


No matter how beautiful a woman is, or, for that matter, how attractive my boss might be, my professor might be, my co-worker might be, etc., that can never, never, never compensate for the denigration entailed by living with an idiot.


Even if you think you can accept them "as they are", and that you won't try to change them (you won't try to educate them, etc.) the reality of your daily life will be that you're constantly trying to motivate them to stop being an idiot --again, like trying to compel a dog to behave as if it were really a human being.


Many people do find themselves in these situations with their employers, their professors, or even their subordinates, and they are compelled to accept such unequal relations due to economic or political circumstances beyond their control.  Nobody has to accept this in their love lives: nobody has to fall asleep next to someone they intellectually despise, nor someone who despises them back (and again, be clear: it is very easy for stupid people to despise those who are more intelligent than them, in part because it is difficult for fools to appreciate intellectual qualities that are beyond the scope of their own foolish imagining).


I know that you have not written to me with bad intentions.  I know you're not trying to hurt anyone.  However, I am telling you, as sternly as possible, that you've elaborated a whole philosophy that is based on a lie, and it will bring real harm into people's lives, including your own, if you believe it.

Thursday, 10 February 2022

Unpopular politics in the age of the internet: a practical philosophy of telling people things they DON'T want to hear on youtube.


[At this point, I think absolutely no imagination is required, on the reader's part, to conjure up the email I'm replying to.]

[…]

[Daniel,]

You seem to be really incapable of understanding how counterproductive your attempts to emotionally manipulate and "guilt trip" me really are.  You steadfastly refuse to get the point of what I'm saying, again and again.

Notice that you've dropped the pretense of pretending that I'd want videos criticizing me deleted, if I were in Erin's position (or if I were in Onision's position, or if I were in some political leader's position, big or small: Bernie Sanders or Gary Yourofsky).  I replied to you, very clearly, "No, I really (positively) value this kind of critique when it is directed toward me" —and that has always been true, and always will be true.

To quote myself:

"I would be delighted if other channels cross-examined, critiqued and discussed my political views in the same way that I discuss Erin Janus, or in the same way that I discuss Bernie Sanders.  I would be delighted if other youtube channels talked about my personal life in the same way that I talk about Erin Janus, or in the same way that I talk about Onision.  I really offer substantive, well-intentioned videos on all of these people and more (who I am not "name dropping" in explaining this to you, but offering as parallels, to help you understand)."

Do you notice how that line-of-reasoning has disappeared from your attempts to cajole me?  Now, instead, you try to convince me that I'm being a bad therapist --and when I say I've never agreed to be Erin's therapist, you repeat the same argument with a change of nouns, to suggest that I'm a bad friend.

[I'm here implicitly quoting myself or "recycling" content from a recent email with Durianrider for a few lines:]

I think of myself as a political dissident.  I'm an author, an intellectual, a zero-budget filmmaker... but in every instance, a political dissident.

A life without ambition can have very little suffering in it.  Men with tremendous ambitions endure tremendous suffering, and enlist others to volunteer in suffering along with them.

The path I've chosen is neither quiet nor safe, and I feel no need to pretend that it ever could be.

We don't choose to be loved.  We don't choose to be hated.  We choose to be known or unknown.  I choose to be known.  Innumerable enemies and conflicts ensue, from this decision alone.

I embrace that.

You can't understand this because you're a weak person: you assume that people like yourself (and Erin) should spend their whole lives hiding in the shadows.  I don't live that way: I really, genuinely, accept everything that "comes with the territory" in being a political dissident, and a political philosopher.

They killed Socrates, you know.

My political philosophy is extremely unpopular, in every society on the planet: the advice I'm giving is advice that people don't want to hear.  When the government of France announced that they'd rebuild the Notre Dame Cathedral, I'm the one person willing to say, "No, burn it down, leave it in ashes".  That's my role.  And who benefits from it?  Those who CAN benefit from it (this is the same thing I said about my recent videos with Erin Janus in the title).

You have the (hilarious) delusion that you can manipulate me by making me feel ashamed of precisely what I'm proud of, in this equation.  This conceit of yours is fascinating, in its way; but, ultimately, it's just another kind of stupidity.


Re: "I’m aware you haven’t agreed to be her therapist. You say you know her. You are clearly not her friend. Friends don’t do that to friends."


Am I Bernie Sanders' friend?  Am I Donald Trump's friend?  You say you don't recognize the other names, but I could mention other leaders in the vegan movement here, in parallel: Gary Francione, Gary Yourofsky, etc.

There is a sense in which I am being a good friend toward Gary Francione, Gary Yourofsky, and even Bernie Sanders.  There's a sense in which I'm really helping Sanders (and all of his followers) in explaining that what he's said about economics is not true (that it is both misleading and wrong).  There is a sense in which I can say —honestly— that I wish I had friends like that (certainly, I wish I'd had more friends like that in the past, when I was younger, and I was wrong about many things, but had to discover for myself how wrong I was).

Again, you can't imagine this, but it's really true of me.  And that's why you can't understand the extent to which I really am being "a good friend" to Erin Janus —and I'm helping her in the same sense that I'm helping Bernie Sanders, if he's willing to listen, or I'm helping any of the followers of Bernie Sanders, if they are willing to listen.  And, of course, I've already had fan mail from people other than Erin Janus who said to me that they've been through something similar themselves, and they feel that the advice/discussion applies to struggles they've had in the past / struggles they're going through right now.

That's the way this works: the critique of a particular person ends up helping innumerable other people (through imperfect parallelisms, in their own politics and in their own lives).

You just refuse to accept the clear logic of what I'm saying to you, again and again.

What I'm doing in criticizing these people is positive, as I said in one of the earlier messages I sent you, it is important "both for the history and the future of the vegan movement".  I'm not her therapist AND YOU AREN'T EITHER.

You have your own delusions about your own moral superiority and your claims to be helping or healing people.  I do not have ANY of those delusions: I'm not providing therapy for Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump.  However, are these videos "cruel"?  No, they're not.  What's written on my Tumblr, is it "cruel"?  No, it isn't: it really helps people, though the mechanism I've explained above (imperfect parallelism, etc.).  The youtube channel has helped many thousands of people, or a few million people by now, in total.

Who will it help?  Those who can be helped.  Those who are willing to listen.  Who will be willing to listen?  Those who can.

If only one person in a hundred is willing to hear such a horrifying political message as "DON'T REBUILD the Notre-Dame Cathedral" ("NE RECONSTRUISEZ PAS Notre Dame de Paris") there is nevertheless an important political function in my pressing that case, and setting forth these "truths too terrible to tell".

This is my song to sing.  Some find it alarming, some find it beautiful.  Some find it alarming, but nevertheless recognize the beauty in it.

It is a very spare art form.

E.M.

Wednesday, 9 February 2022

You know, I have a playlist of videos titled, "Stop treating women like infants".


[You may well use your imagination as to what it is I'm replying to here.]

Please just re-read the emails I've already sent you.

Yes, I understand you may have been skimming them in haste (you may not be semi-literate or an imbecile)… but you seem to be genuinely unaware of the extent to which I've already answered the questions you're raising here.

Or, in light of the answers I've already given, you may be unaware of the extent to which your questions and arguments are utterly absurd.

And if you are, instead, insincerely pretending to be unaware of the answers I've already given, then my advice is the same: please just re-read the messages I've already sent you.


Re: "You have a questionable perception of what you feel people need. You don’t know what they need, because you aren’t them."

Yes, you know, I received similar messages from supporters of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders when I criticized them, too.  You can hardly imagine what an emotional wreck Donald Trump was after I put together that video about those allegations of statutory rape.


Do you see the absurdity of discussing these things with me as if I had ever agreed to be Erin Janus's therapist?

My role here is neither to be Erin's psychiatrist nor her nursemaid, not any more than I'm here to give succour to Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump.

I could now go back to the earlier messages and provide block quotations of all the things I said before, and all the things you ignored before, that stated this quite well.


———[Block quotation begins]———

I stated very clearly that I regard the critique of Erin Janus as important precisely because she's a public figure and an important leader in the vegan movement (JUST LIKE Paul Bashir, Gary Yourofsky and Durianrider).  The critique of Erin Janus is, in this sense, important.

You're trying to make this about psychology and obsession, because that's how YOU think about her, and that's how YOU see this situation.  I neither think of Erin Janus as a sexual pawn nor as a psychological plaything.  I talk to her as an adult, and I talk about her as an adult: I treat her with the dignity that any public figure who has taken on a leadership role in a political movement deserves —and I criticize her just as harshly as I've criticized Bernie Sanders…

Would you like to argue against this point?

Would you like to argue that the MORAL thing for me to do is engage in a conspiracy to cover up the reality of who Erin Janus is?

Perhaps you also think it would be MORE ETHICAL for me to conceal who Durianrider really is, who Paul Bashir really is, and who Gary Yourofsky really is?

Perhaps you think it would be emotionally healing for Gary Yourofsky if I were to delete the video clips I have of him talking about holding people at gunpoint (etc.)?

You see, you think you're helping, but you're not: you think you're doing something morally positive, but what you're actually doing here is evil.

And I mean that in the strictest sense of the term evil.

Daniel, think about it: it is genuinely evil for you to try to censor me in this way.  It is genuinely evil for you to try to entice me into joining in "a cover up".

And it would be for any other political figure in any other political movement, too.

And that's what Erin is: she's a public figure who is (or was) one of the most prominent (and well funded!) leaders the vegan movement ever had.

Just like Durianrider, Gary Yourofsky and Paul Bashir.

It is really important (REALLY) that people know the truth about Erin Janus.

It is really important (REALLY) that I don't delete those videos.

———[Block quotation ends]———

You're asking me to infantilize Erin Janus.

You're asking me to treat her as if she were a child, instead of an adult.

Do you suppose I get email of this kind in relation to any of the male youtubers (male leaders in the vegan movement, or male political figures unrelated to veganism) that I've criticized?  Some of them have been committed to mental institutions, too.  Do you suppose you'd feel ashamed of yourself if you were offering the same arguments on behalf of the hurt feelings of James Aspey, for example?


Perhaps this is worth thinking about for you, perhaps it isn't.

Really, the only thing you need to know is that you've long since lost this debate, and you're not making any progress with these maudlin and emotionally manipulative tactics.

Indeed, this next sentence I quote from you is another tragi-comic example of just that (maudlin and inept attempts at emotional manipulation, tut tut old chap).


Re: "Poor Eisel is more concerned about his channel and being censored than a persons life."

You say these things as if I'm motivated to have an olympian struggle with you, to establish who is the better person, of the two of us.  You say this with the assumption that I've been trying to "pull myself up" to the moral high ground.  On the contrary, I've been trying to drag your abstractions down to the earth, and show myself as being "grounded" here at the very bottom.

Indeed, it suits my purpose for you to believe I'm a tremendously evil and malevolent force in this world.

You really can't imagine what a terrible person I am, Daniel.

I'm really someone you should keep your distance from.  You seem to be unaware, for example, that I've already shared all of this correspondence publicly.*

* [This is untrue: I've arbitrarily chosen to respect his privacy, and have only shared my replies to his messages, disclosing very little of what he's said about himself and Erin (in part because I have no reason to believe that anything he's said is true!).  My purpose here is to get him to desist from his moral crusade against me, which is indeed pointless.  He'd have an easier time getting me to convert to Mormonism.]

E.M.

Friday, 4 February 2022

Is James Aspey Flat Broke, or What? The Strange Case of Tacocat & "EWT" (Energy Web Tokens)

 


This is imperfectly parallel to the case of Brian Turner.  Both Turner and Aspey claimed that they put a tremendously large portion of their money into just one, special financial opportunity (although they were different opportunities, in the cases of the two men)… and then had remarkably little to say after that financial opportunity proved to be a tremendous failure.



Wednesday, 2 February 2022

Durianrider: New Dirt. (Defamation and Consequences, etc.)

[I'm using bold italics to distinguish the two speakers in the dialogue for the sake of simplicity.  As you'll soon surmise, the pattern of the conversation is not always one message from one side, followed by one message from the other.  Conversely, I suppose, the difference in vocabulary and rhetorical style is striking enough that you could guess who "the speaker" is, for any given message, even if I didn't use the bold italics.]


[I have left the misspelling of "Crohn's disease" intact, so that the emails aren't modified in any way.]


—————

[Tue., Feb. 1st, 2022]

As Ive always offered jump on my podcast/livestream bro if you want to share your opinion on things.

I dont appreciate your slander and defamtion of me in the past but I DO APPRECIATE you having my back when others have tried to slander me. 

—————


Did you see the new video?

https://youtu.be/TuyvB83P_TI

You need to state --clearly and definitively-- that the stories you made up about me were nothing but lies.

Every single claim you made about my sex life was a lie: I wasn't romantically involved with Julia Boer, and I wasn't romantically involved with anyone else --young or old-- either.

I never was a pedophile.  I never was a predator.  Those are lies you made up about me, out of the blue: they didn't have any basis in fact whatsoever.  Even Richard said, simply, they were just stupid stories you made up about me.

Julia didn't make them up.  Lauren (the anorexic in Scotland) didn't make them up.  You did.

I never scammed anybody.  I never committed fraud against anybody.

Everything you said about my sex life, my education, my career, my marriage, my divorce, my daughter AND MY MOTHER was a lie.

You must* made these things up to hurt me.  And you know it.

* ["Must" is an autocorrect error for "just".  The message was written on a mobile phone, while I was at the gym.]

And you know it was wrong.  And you know it would have hurt you, if I'd said any of those things about you.

And I never called you a rapist, I never called you a sexual predator, I never called you a pedophile --not even when Norvegan and two of your ex-girlfriends carried on a campaign against you, claiming all of these things.

Harley, more than one million people heard the lies you made up about me.  A huge percentage of vegans heard those lies.  People who live in this apartment building heard them, and believe them.  It has fucked up my life, it has made it impossible for me to get a normal job again.

You need to say, clearly, in a YouTube video, that it was all false: it was nothing but a bunch of lies.

You know: I never did anything like this to you.  A disagreement about the cure for Chron's disease is nothing like claiming you've got proof that somebody is a pedophile, and then threatening to beat them up, and drag them to the police station, to show the evidence.

You did that, Harley.  You did that to me.  And I never jumped on Norvegan's bandwagon against you.

I did the right thing, just because it was the right thing to do, at every stage.

You have had YEARS to take the initiative, figure out what the right thing to do is, and then try to make this right.  There are hundreds of thousands of people like "Fruit Angel" who still believe those lies you told, and they need to hear from you, "this guy is not a creep, he never did anything wrong with any 16 year old, nor with any other woman, of any age, it was all a lie."

And they need to hear it again and again and again, to reverse YEARS of defamation, that came at the height of your fame.

E.M.


—————

I never called you anything bro but I do remember you calling yourself a pedo etc I think.

You have made this all up for clout bro. Can you point to one video etc where Im calling you a pedo etc? Exactly you can't because I never did. 

I mean REAL footage not some troll account that you or someone made up to defame me like you have done for views hehe.

I dont have any hate towards you bro. I honestly dont.  When you came to CM to fight me in 2016 then sure I was pretty pissed after all the shit you said about my gf at the time but past is the past and I forgive you. I think you are a good dude because you have displayed good qualities I admire and I hope we can work as a team because you trying to war with me means we just lose time and energy and look like drama queens to anyone of value dont you think? I mean how old are we? hehe.

I mean look how many vids you have made about me? It is clear as day you are doing this all for views and clout. A better way would be if we did colabs talking about chicks, thailand, vegan stuff yeah? How many vids have I made about you? I can't see any at all.

https://www.youtube.com/c/A-bas-le-cielBlogspot/search?query=durianrider

What should our first podcast topic be about?

—————


You don't have amnesia.  Amnesia as it's depicted in soap operas doesn't exist.

I don't believe you're "in denial" and, frankly, I don't believe that exists outside of romance novels, either.

I think you're aware of when you're telling lies.

You know exactly what lies you told in the past, and you know what lies you're telling now.

Well, that's what the court system is for.  It's for people like you, Harley.

That's what jail is for.  It's for people like you, Harley.

I guess you're never going back to Thailand again.

And Harley, you know: we're less than six degrees of separation apart. I've talked to men who were your closest friends, and I've talked to women who were your lovers. And I've never used anything they told me about you --privately-- to defame you. But you know: I'm aware of what you've said on and off camera, on and off the internet.

You get to decide only one thing, Harley: you get to decide what kind of person you're going to be.

You don't get to decide who loves you and who hates you.  You don't get to decide who trusts you, and who refuses to believe you.

You just get to decide what kind of man you're going to be.  You get to choose the code you live by.

You know I lived by a code.  I didn't lie about you, and I didn't lie to you.

You've become the very thing you hated the most: you've become "a fake", no different from Vegan Cheetah, Richard, Norvegan and Bonny Rebecca.  You, also, are living a lie.

E.M.


—————

Bro you did lie about me and defame the fuck out of and still do to this day lol. 

Looks like we will be cell mates! I reserve top bunk and wifi from 6am to 9am.

Dont be a hypocrite hehe. Remove your slander videos about me back in 2016 etc please.

Im back in a few weeks. Just waiting for the quarantine to ease up. Are you still there? 

Want to be on my podcast? What days times work best for you?


—————

Because you are taller you can be big spoon btw.

—————


Can I ask some questions about your allegations boss?

Did you ever contact a 15 year old girl with initials JB in 2016 about her trip to my event?

Did you ever ask her where she was staying?

If someone sent me cached links and screenshots of something like that from a young girl with the initials JB would they be true or false?

—————


The court case is real.

The evidence has been submitted to the court (showing exactly what you said, etc.) and there is absolutely no doubt that you'll be found guilty.

It really doesn't matter if you now want to pretend you have amnesia: what you said (and what you did) has already been entered into evidence on the court record (etc.).

Your opinion doesn't matter.  Your memory doesn't matter.

You have two options: hire a lawyer and show up in court (something you've never been willing to do), or else run away, never go back to Thailand again, and assume that the crime won't result in your extradition from Australia.

So far, your strategy has consisted of (1) running away, (2) pretending the problem isn't real, and (3) loudly and repeatedly defaming me, claiming that the fundraising I did was a scam (claiming the court case doesn't really exist).

Yes, people who know you personally have described to me how ("in real life") you tried to insist the court case was unreal, even when they knew it was real, and told you so (face to face).

I don't think you have amnesia.  I don't think you're hallucinating.  You're aware that you're lying.  And you're lying to yourself and others.

You never have watched the videos I made criticizing you: none of them lie about you or defame you in any way.  If you'd watched them (or if you took the time to watch them now) you would know this.

The videos I made defending you (against Norvegan, and against Cheetah, BTW) also did not defame you in any way —on the contrary, they defended you against defamation (that was a long time ago, and you probably didn't watch those videos at the time, but I actually defended you against defamation from Cheetah, even long before the Norvegan scenario started).

Here's an example (under 10 minutes long) that shows me defending you against (unfair) allegations about your sex life:

https://youtu.be/rdX0eE4OnlY


That was BEFORE Norvegan: at that time, people were saying YOU had sex with Julia Boer.

I had nothing to gain from defending you against these allegations: in that video, I did the right thing just because it was the right thing to do.

I have always said, "Do not do to Durianrider what he did to me" —i.e., just because Durianrider defamed me doesn't mean it would be morally acceptable to defame Durianrider back.

If you go back and listen to what I said about Chron's disease (etc.) you'll find that I'm truthful and reasonable and fair in those videos, too, when I'm criticizing you.

I said in my most recent video: you and I agree about many, many things (for example, we're both anti-marijuana, anti-video-game, and anti-anti-depressant, etc.).  There are other people I've criticized much more harshly than you, believe it or not.  (I am much more cruel to Jaclyn Glenn, for example: if you watch some of those videos, you'll see what I'm like when I'm really being savage --and I never spoke that way about you.)  My critique of you has always been balanced and reasonable; you don't know this, because you've never watched the videos.

Conversely, what you said about my mom: was that fair and reasonable?

Were your motivations "good" when you said those things?

What if I had said the same things about your mother?

When you said that I was "asking teenage girls for money", was that fair and reasonable?  (Still to this day, I have no idea what you were thinking with that statement: you claim I'm a multi-millionaire, but apparently I have to beg teenage girls for money?)

When you claimed that I have "…tried to manipulate underage girls AND in the community we have built…" that indicates that you know of some plural number of girls who were, in your words, "underage and they are in Chiang Mai".  That is a very specific allegation, but you did not know about even one underage girl, anywhere in the world, and you did not know about even one underage girl in Chiang Mai, and you clearly did not have multiple complaints from multiple underage girls who were in Chiang Mai.

That was a total fabrication on your part: that was a lie, or an elaborate fantasy that you invented, along with the claim that you had enough evidence/proof to take me to the police station, right at that time.  When I offered to meet you at the police station, inexplicably, you were NOT interested.

Imagine how you would feel if our positions were reversed: what if I had said those things about your sex life?  You know how devastating Norvegan's campaign against you was.  You know how devastating (to your career and reputation) it was for that one teenage girl (the fat, blonde one) to make a youtube video complaining about what a lousy boyfriend you were (even though she was not underage, and there was no allegation of rape).

The reality is, that was a woman you really had sex with, and she has the right to complain that your relationship was lousy; I think Norvegan's campaign against you was dishonest and malicious, but he wasn't inventing fictional relationships out of thin air.

That's what you did to me: you invented a completely fictional sex scandal, claiming that I was involved with multiple, under-age girls, all in Chiang Mai (who were all vegan) simultaneously.  You have never had a single shred of evidence (not a single email, etc.) to back up these claims.  None of those women ever existed; none of those complaints or allegations against me ever existed --you just fabricated and imagined them.

And then you made everything worse by inventing lies about my education, my career, my situation with the fundraiser to pay for the lawyers, and lies about my family (my mother, my wife, my daughter, etc.).  If you watch every single video I made about you, never once will you find me engaging in this kind of defamation.  I do not say anything like that while discussing your claims about curing Chron's disease.

If you really can't remember what you said in Chiang Mai, at the start of this controversy, this is a three minute video (you'll have to press pause to read it all) showing the screen-shots of exactly what you said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRLbgCzJHyM

If you want to claim that you can't remember saying these things, or claim that "it was a troll account", etc., that's irrelevant: the evidence has already been vetted as admissible in a court of law in Thailand.  Whether or not you believe it (or anyone else believes it) the facts of the case have already been established (at a level of certainty sufficient to secure a criminal conviction).

The details about Julia Boer, and the lies you told about her, and the further lies that other people invented, on the basis of your lies, you'll find summarized (with screenshots) in this video, that's fully 22 minutes long, but is relatively entertaining to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3D-KPV5p8I


Durianrider: actions have consequences.

Some people have integrity, some people don't.  I was writing to offer you the choice, and the option: what kind of person do you want to be?  Evidently, you've made your choice.

You pushed around a lot of people for a long time, and you thought you could get away with it.  I am not Brianna Jackson.  And I am not Jack Francis, either.  This time, you were fucking with the wrong guy.  You said that I kicked the hornet's nest, but you were wrong: it's you who kicked a hornet's nest when you decided to fuck with me.  And there's nothing for you to win anymore: your career, already, is over.

You were discredited by your own words and actions.  You are never going to be an influential voice in veganism again.  Everyone knows that you are (in your own terms) "fake as fuck", just like the people you reviled and hated on youtube for so many years: now, you're just another Brianna Jackson, you're just another Bonny Rebecca, you're just another Vegan Cheetah.  Because.  You can't.  Tell.  The truth.

E.M.

—————

Bro I appreciate your help. You know that.

Jump in my podcast like I've offered and share what you rent to share. Why not? 

You started all this man. Didn't you turned up to CM and offered to fight me right?

Seems like you don't want to find a solution and just want to make things worse for both of us by creating more drama?

Imagine if you never made bad videos about me and where in support of me from the get go. We are on the same page bro. Jump on the podcast and say your bit man.

All you are doing now is inviting one of my fans to dig up screenshots about you and post them up everywhere and I don't think that's going to make you look good in my opinion. You are poking the hornets nest again now lol. I'm not going to do anything but I strongly suspect someone could make a video series or website about you etc and that's impossible to defend against. I've had it done to me after I pissed off someone. Because I'm a bad boy it didn't matter that much but for a professional like you I don't think it would be good for Google SEO etc. Right now you're Google searches are good yeah? Let's both work together to keep them that way. Lots of crazies in my fan base with to much time on their hands lol


—————


(1) There are no screenshots of me flirting with underage girls to be dug up: this is a fantasy of your own invention.  There never was any evidence to support your defamation campaign against me before, and there still isn't any now.  And you know this.

The problem isn't what you reveal about me, but what you reveal about yourself, in the process of fabrication, framing and defamation.  In your years of denouncing me, the public learned very little about me, but they learned who you really are: they saw you reduced to a ranting nutcase, sitting on the kitchen floor, making up one crazy story about me after another.  And for them (the audience) that's who you'll always be.


(2) I am very open and honest about my sex life on the internet (as you also claim to be, but aren't).  Anyone who watches my YouTube channel knows about every woman I've slept with, and every woman I've ever flirted with / every woman who ever flirted with me.

There are no skeletons in my closet, Durian.  On some level, you know this.

Not even my ex-wife has any interesting gossip about me.  And you know this, too.


(3) You didn't have any crazy fans to back you up in Chiang Mai in 2016, and you don't have any crazy fans to back you up now, either.


(4) I do think you'd feel better about the whole situation if you actually listened to what I said in my videos criticizing you, instead of just imagining I'd said the worst thing possible (or assuming that I'd say the kind of things you say, when you're criticizing someone).

Really, even the meanest things I ever said about Freelee wouldn't offend you.  Most of them you'd agree with (for example, you've criticized her for getting plastic surgery and lying about it yourself).

There's a difference between criticism and defamation.  If you listen to that video about Crohn's disease again, you might start to get a feeling for how different the style and substance of my critique is.


(5) Re: "Because I'm a bad boy it didn't matter that much but for a professional like you I don't think it would be good for Google SEO etc."

Nah, man, I actually live my truth and don't care who finds out about it.  You made up all kinds of bullshit about my divorce, but you never realized that there were already way more honest descriptions of what happened on my blog (etc.) precisely because I'm not ashamed of any of that stuff --nor am I embarrassed about it.

And, no, I don't really regret that I'll never be an English teacher again.

I'll send you my C.V. as an attachment to a separate email (I'm at the gym now, typing on my phone).

I think you've probably never seen that, either (just the basic list of what education I've had, what jobs I've done, etc.).


I don't think of myself as "a respectable professional".

I think of myself as a political dissident.  I'm an author, an intellectual, a zero budget filmmaker... but in every instance, a political dissident.

And a whole lot of people are going to have broken hearts and hurt feelings, if any of us are serious about trying to change the world.

A life without ambition can have very little suffering in it.  Men with tremendous ambitions endure tremendous suffering, and enlist others to volunteer in suffering along with them.

The path I've chosen is neither quiet nor safe, and I feel no need to pretend that it ever could be.

You don't choose to be loved.  You don't choose to be hated.  You choose to be known or unknown.  I choose to be known.  Innumerable enemies and conflicts ensue, from this decision alone.

E.M.