Sunday 28 May 2023

The case of the Incel Anthem: how censorship at youtube works (and how it doesn't work)

The controversy here is the categorization (and blacklisting) of a comedy video "as hate speech" —and youtube's own implicit definition of hate speech (or a series of examples illustrating it) is quoted in the ensuing conversation below (and my video does not deserve to be censored by this definition!).


4:56:28 PM Eisel Mazard: Hello Juvia.

4:56:38 PM Eisel Mazard: I am writing to you about the censorship status of THIS VIDEO:

4:56:39 PM Juvia: Hi there!

4:56:40 PM Eisel Mazard:

4:56:45 PM Juvia: I hope you are doing great

4:56:55 PM Juvia: thank you for the video URL

4:56:57 PM Eisel Mazard: ^ This video is categorized as "hate speech".

4:57:38 PM Juvia: Oh. I am sorry to hear that it was flagged as hate speech

4:57:43 PM Eisel Mazard: There is nothing racist about the video.  There is nothing hateful about the video.

I have written to youtube previously, asking for this decision to be overturned

4:57:59 PM Eisel Mazard: The responses I received from Youtube in the past were totally surreal.

4:58:06 PM Juvia: I understand how you feel. No worries, we are here to help

4:58:45 PM Juvia: Let me pull up your channel first

4:59:07 PM Eisel Mazard: My prior conversation is recorded as: YouTube Support Request [1-6283000033845]

4:59:47 PM Eisel Mazard: The person I spoke to was strangely incompetent… I had to repeatedly explain the problem, but what he (or she) requested I do made no sense (and the conversation ends in a totally baffling way)…

4:59:48 PM Juvia: thank you

5:00:02 PM Juvia: I am sorry if you feel that way

5:00:06 PM Juvia: I will do my best to help

5:00:14 PM Juvia: Can you please give me 5 minutes to check?

5:00:18 PM Eisel Mazard: Look, I just want to say right now:

5:00:27 PM Eisel Mazard: the definition of hate speech at youtube needs to be considered…

5:00:31 PM Eisel Mazard:


• Statements intended to disparage a protected group or imply/state its inferiority, such as “all people from this country are disgusting”.

• Non-educational content featuring racial slurs or derogatory terms.

• Promoting, glorifying, or condoning violence against others.

• Inciting discrimination against protected groups, such as stating “you should hate all disabled people in this country”.

• Promoting hate groups, hate symbols, or hate group paraphernalia.

• Malicious shaming or insulting of an individual or group.

• Singling out an individual or group for abuse or harassment.

• Denying or glorifying that tragic events happened, framing victims or survivors as crisis actors.

• Malicious personal attacks, slander, and defamation.

• Portraying ideologies or beliefs in a malicious way by generalizing or disparaging.

• Negatively characterizing individuals, groups, ideologies, or beliefs, such as stating “all feminism is sick”.


5:00:38 PM Eisel Mazard: ^ The video DOES NOT say anything like that.

5:00:48 PM Eisel Mazard: The video is a song.

It is a satirical, comedy song.

5:00:55 PM Juvia: I understand. Kinldy hold on so I can check

5:02:06 PM Eisel Mazard: The video is very short (3:34 long).

I can ask: where exactly in the video does it say something racist?

At what time-stamp does it say something hateful?

5:02:41 PM Juvia: I am not able to answer you yet because I need to pull up your channel so I can check

5:04:53 PM Eisel Mazard: The conversation under [1-6283000033845]…

the behavior of the youtube employee is very strange

he does not believe me that the video is censored as hate speech, and he asks me to prove that the video has been categorized as hate speech by sending him a screen shot (April 22, 2023, [1-6283000033845]).


This makes no sense.

What he says next in the conversation also DOES NOT make sense.

And then the conversation ends, and my original complaint / problem is never addressed.

5:05:08 PM Juvia: I understand that you want me to check this for you

5:05:12 PM Eisel Mazard: Youtube made a mistake, and the complaint needs to be escalated to a higher level of management to be addressed.

5:05:34 PM Juvia: Kindly give me 5 minutes to check so I can investigate

5:06:07 PM Juvia: I am not able to answer you yet since I dont have the data and your channel

5:06:08 PM Eisel Mazard: I will give you 5 minutes, and I will give you 50 minutes.  As many minutes as you desire.

5:06:16 PM Juvia: thanks

5:06:20 PM Juvia: Please hold

5:11:28 PM Juvia: Thanks for waiting.

5:11:40 PM Eisel Mazard: I am happy to wait.

5:12:28 PM Juvia: Thank you

5:13:22 PM Juvia: I understand that this video has a limited ad because it is flagged as not suitable for most advertisers

5:13:52 PM Eisel Mazard: Please note the reply I received from youtube on April 25th, [1-6283000033845]

5:14:05 PM Juvia: I also tried to make an appeal for this based on the information that you have provided, however, the appeal has been done and not allowing me to move forward.

5:14:25 PM Eisel Mazard: The replies I have received make no sense: the youtube employees ask me to prove to them that the video is categorized as hate speech… and when I send them a screenshot showing that this is indeed the problem… their responses after that are totally nonsensical.

5:15:34 PM Eisel Mazard: [1-6283000033845] April 25th, the youtube employee writes to me:


Hi there, 

Thanks for your prompt response. 

I get your point and I'm trying to have the full grasp of your questions since this video did not violate the hateful and derogatory content but it did violate our controversial section. Therefore, I can't answer your question since that's not the policy that was placed on the video in question.

The screenshot you've shared with me isn't enough to confirm that the video in question is the same as what was discussed above. That's why I'm asking for you to share with us a screen recording showing the video in question and the finding of the human review. 

If this is a different video, simply share the video URL to further review. 


5:16:14 PM Eisel Mazard: ^ This really makes no sense.  The youtube employee is complaining, "The screenshot you've shared with me isn't enough to confirm that the video in question is the same as what was discussed above."

The messages back-and-forth afterward are even more nonsensical.

5:16:27 PM Eisel Mazard: The actual problem I complained about (and that I am complaining about now, today, again) is never addressed.

5:16:30 PM Juvia: thank you for letting me know

5:19:02 PM Eisel Mazard: [1-6283000033845] April 26th:


Please go back and re-read the prior correspondence:

I am not asking for the video to be monetized (as opposed to demonetized), I am asking specifically to challenge and overturn the categorization of the video as racist hate speech.

And I am asking you, specifically, AT WHAT TIME STAMP does the video violate the hate speech policy?

Escalate this question to management:

if the video contains nudity, you can provide a time stamp for that, if the video contains violence or curse words, you can provide a time stamp for that...

WHEN EXACTLY does this video say anything related to racism?  When exactly is this "hate speech" violation, in the midst of such a short video?


5:19:06 PM Juvia: As the community guidelines is very vogue topic and our internal team are the one reviewing it.

5:20:42 PM Eisel Mazard: Either the video contains racism or it does not.  This is a simple, binary question.  Either the video contains hate speech or it does not.  This is the same as nudity: if you tell me the video contains nudity, I can ask, "At what time stamp does it contain nudity?"  Either the video is racist or not.

I repeat: I am not complaining about money.  I am not complaining about monetization.

I am complaining about the video being (incorrectly) blacklisted as racist hate speech.  There is nothing racist about the video.  There is nothing hateful about the video.

It is a song.  It is a satirical song.  It is comedy song.

5:21:34 PM Juvia: I also understand that you want it to know what are the timestamp of those flagged words or anything on your video, however, as there's a department having this concern review, I have a limitation and I dont have an option to over turn the process

5:21:47 PM Eisel Mazard: [1-6283000033845] May 5th:


I still do not have a single reply from you.

Earlier, you asked, "The screenshot you've shared with me isn't enough to confirm that the video in question is the same as what was discussed above."

FOR THAT REASON, a second screen-shot was sent to you, clearly showing that the video in question (with the "hate speech" decision) is indeed the same as what we'd discussed above.

Inexplicably, you replied with the complaint that I had sent you the same screen-shot as before: no, the difference between the two screen-shots is precisely that one shows you more than the other —and the more recent screen shot does indeed show EXACTLY what you asked me to show you (i.e., the relationship between the censorship decision and the video being decided upon).

Why have none of my questions been answered?

Why has NOTHING happened?

YOU made this request, and then you apparently forgot why you'd requested it.

You can see very clearly from your end what the video is and why it has been censored: I still have no indication whatsoever as to why it was categorized as hate speech.

Reminder: this is a comedy video, categorized as comedy.

Absolutely nothing in this video qualifies as hate speech: it does not express hate for anyone, it does not express hatred toward any category of people.


And today is May 28th.

5:22:51 PM Eisel Mazard: Juvia, you say, "…however, as there's a department having this concern review…"

Can you send this conversation to them?

This conversation we had today…

…can you send it to management / to the department that is (still) reviewing this concern?

5:23:04 PM Juvia: I understand how you feel about it I tried my best to make an ppeal for this. Hence, its not allowing me to do so

5:23:55 PM Juvia: Technically, the yellow dollar icon on your video showing limited ads and not on your all videos. 

5:24:33 PM Juvia: It is not a strike, it's not affecting your channel standing, only that video is affected by community guidelines.

5:25:11 PM Juvia: those are the internal department that where your form has been sent. When you make an appeal,  it will be delivered and review by them

5:25:23 PM Juvia: We dont have an option to get in touch to them personally

Saturday 27 May 2023

What 2,000 views means to me: a look back at the lost avant garde of season one

[From my email correspondence with a viewer.]

This video just came up in an unrelated conversation: it is an utterly boring video with an utterly boring title, "Veganism 2.0".

It is just 24 minutes of me speaking into the camera (intensely) talking about the theory and practice of veganism —and, again, there's nothing entertaining about the title, the thumbnail or anything else. 2,300 people clicked on a video titled "Veganism 2.0" just to hear me give this utterly boring lecture on the ethical implications of killing bears that break into your house, etc. 

Now my point is this: the video can't be any more successful.  It can't be.

That is really the upper limit of the tiny audience anyone can hope to reach (with "serious" vegan content of this kind).

Many of the people who watched that video will be the same people who listened to even more boring lectures by Gary Francione.  And those people have a limited appetite for listening to morality lectures, as you can imagine.

The hardcore vegan activists are a very small audience in the English language, and it is an audience I know very well —and I had already exhausted the patience of that audience (with my even more puritanical message, reproaching them for being not pure enough, etc.) circa 4 or 5 years ago, when that video was made.

Again, I am not upset about this, and, on the contrary, it's something I'm entirely comfortable joking around about.

I do realize that it's implicitly hilarious that my role has been to reproach other vegans for not being vegan enough.  And that is something I've been quite willing to make comedy videos about, i.e., ridiculing myself for.

It is not the case that there's a larger audience that I'm failing to reach: the metrics of what is possible if you want to be "the next Gary Francione" are very clear (and please note that Francione had millions of dollars at his disposal, a position of institutional privilege as a law professor, and he was willing to spend more decades doing this than I ever will, etc.).

Just a few thousand people on the whole globe (speaking English) are interested in this stuff (e.g., "Who is more vegan, Peter Singer or Gary Francione?").  And I had already saturated that small market circa 4 or 5 years ago.

So, again, I am not boasting: this is a very small subculture in which everyone knows everyone else.

I was much more surprised when people in the polyglot subculture told me that everyone there knew my work, but apparently that is an even smaller subculture, that is even more tightly knit (again: everyone knows everyone else, etc.).

Tuesday 23 May 2023

Veganism and the often ignored potential for total, calamitous failure.

"Tattooed Chef", a case study.

Hot tub on the moon, flying Virgin Galactic.

Those of you who have read my book(s) will already know what I have to say about this: generally, I have never shared the optimism of some vegans (and ex-vegans!) that a small elite of Elon-Musk-esque millionaire impresarios were going to render the ethical and political struggle of veganism redundant through their sheer technological innovation and free market "savvy".  Veganism is not a new cellphone: it is not going to "win" by rendering the competition obsolete in this sense.  (And, again… if you're interested… read the book.)

Sunday 21 May 2023

Dept. of Hate Mail (Laoshu505000, etc.)

I actually receive remarkably little hate mail. 

This is a man who refers to himself as the brother of Laoshu505000, but I do not know if they are blood relations, or if they were just close friends —but, alas, their friendship eventually turned sour —and an impossible-to-summarize controversy ensued both shortly before and shortly after Laoshu505000's death.

He ("Deception Stoppers") posted this same comment ten times on ten different videos.

I sincerely doubt he despises me half so much as Nina and Randa do —but hey, they can all get in line to shake my hand (and/or assassinate me) when I'm signing copies of my book at the Hoover Institution.

Wednesday 17 May 2023

Neither Determinism Nor Free Will: Some Clarifications.

I have made a playlist of videos on this topic that most people seem to find very profound and mysterious, but that I (for whatever reason) find very plain and simple.

I can only surmise that determinism is a kind of modern religious dogma that is not perceived as religious by the people who believe in it —whether they are secular or members of any number of faiths.

And I will say further that this dogma has a peculiar effect on the ego, as atheists take pride in believing it, feeling that it somehow distinguishes them from the hoi polloi, and (in my direct experience) they seem to be humiliated in having their faith in it challenged.

Linked to above: The Critique of Categorical Reasoning (not just Determinism vs Free Will)

[Manan Goenka:]

I use a very simple argument that uses the same language that determinists use (but which is also consistent with what you're saying but approaches the issue from the opposite end): That everything is determined is a claim of existential fact that hinges on the logic of causality (chains of cause and effect) being *true*. Therefore, you need to prove 'the logic of causality' to be an existential fact (which it is not, it is a logical tool, a way of looking at things, an explanation, like you described) to establish determinism. seeing everything as chains of cause and effects is a way we look at things for certain purposes, to do certain things with that explanation, but there is no evidence that things as a matter of existential fact operate through chains of cause and effect. The mistake is, like you described, treating a conceptual tool as being more real than reality

[Eisel Mazard / à-bas-le-ciel:]

You say this is "a very simple argument".  I would bet that nine out of ten people you explain it to can't understand it —even if they partly "can't" because they won't really make an effort to do so.  I'd be surprised if you could whittle it down to eight out of ten.

[Manan Goenka:]

@à-bas-le-ciel  when retorting I'd just say "Prove to me that causality is true/is a fact". A couple people have understood it but yeah i take your point, those people were already highly motivated to think about the question.

[Beer Boots:]

I agree that causality is not an existential fact in so far as nothing can be known to be 'true'. But doesn't this mean that all philosophy is pointless? All arguments are made from cause and effect. Not knowing with certainty that cause and effect are an all-determining law of reality completely undermines any idea about anything. A person can make all sorts of insane arguments when causality is thrown out the window as an underlying presupposition. And they can't be disagreed with, because without causality ALL possibilities are feasible. 

So categories, while limiting and reductive in a sense, seem like a necessary evil for us humans with confined frameworks for observing, understanding and debating reality. As long as we can include the acknowledgement of existential limitation in small text beneath our arguments, isn't it the best we can do to assume that causality is a necessary point of reference to argue from?

[Manan Goenka:]

@Beer Boots  Just because a rock helps me break open a coconut doesn't mean I ought to worship the rock. There is no 'necessary evil' needed here.

@Beer Boots  can you prove to me that causality is real in the same way that you can prove to me that Eizel is real?

[Beer Boots:]

@Manan Goenka  I'm sorry, I think my response was unclear. I agree that the assistance a rock provides in opening a coconut does not justify the leap to a completely unrelated conclusion. I agree that I cannot prove to you that causality is an existential fact in terms of being a law of reality. But I can prove that causality functions in the physical universe according to scientific measures of 'proof' (observe, predict, repeatability) and by logical conclusion - outcomes without effect have no basis for occurring. As soon as they do, that basis is definitionally speaking, a 'cause'.

But we can only observe outcomes from a human-centric perspective, within the sandbox of the physical universe. So logic may not be a category that all things are limited to outside of that sandbox, or even inside it (given how little of it we have explored). 

The problem I am trying to bring up is that if we can't accept logic as an existential necessity, then arguments have no value. Philosophy becomes pointless because it's all about presupposing the value of logic to justify conclusions.

The solution I am trying to suggest is that we accept the limitations we have as a species and agree to work with the best information we have. For example, the idea that the category of logic is probably an existential fact. What follows from this is that logical conclusions such as causality are also probably an existential fact. If we cannot presuppose those concepts to be 'fact', then how do we argue anything? 

[Manan Goenka:]

@Beer Boots  Just Because I refuse to be beholden to/worship the rock that breaks open a coconut, does not mean that I stop using it to break open coconuts. 

What is the point of philosophy? Why do you think philosophy is important? 

[Beer Boots:]

@Manan Goenka  If I understand correctly, this rock is the category we refer to as causality. But what specifically are the coconuts?

Philosophy is important because it is an integral part of our experience. We understand and critique our experience of reality through the lenses of philosophy, whether we intend to or not. Thus, the point of philosophy is to enhance our experience by means of understanding it and actioning that understanding to affect changes to our experience. 

[Eisel Mazard / à-bas-le-ciel:]

You're both too dim to handle the argument: the attribution of cause and effect is an analytical judgement, just like the attribution of beauty and ugliness, which is to say, it exists in the eye of the beholder and is subjective —thus I experience indigestion and can only speculate as to what caused it, etc.  The point here is neither to prove "causality exists" nor that "causality does not exist", just as we do not need to prove "beauty exists" nor that "beauty does not exist"; the nature of the thing we are describing is a subjective judgement only —and so it exists in this limited sense.  To combine the examples: we can never say that a man falls in love with a woman because of her perceived beauty (perhaps he loved her for her wit, perhaps for her money, or perhaps he prefers fat women and doesn't perceive her as beautiful in the same way that you do, etc.) —in that sense, causality is an absurdity.  And it is indeed absurd, likewise, to claim that what we see in dreams "is determined" with a billiard-ball-like causality, and it is even more absurd to claim that we are mindless automatons when we "dream" (while awake) of what we will do in the future, and innovate, and come up with new plans, new solutions, etc., as if this were the effect and result of some compulsion (like one billiard ball impelling another forward).

[Again: to me the problem is neither mysterious nor profound.  The solution, for you, may be both.] 

Linked to above: Determism vs. Free Will: Pseudo-Science vs. Pseudo-Philosophy.


Tuesday 2 May 2023

What we all need now is another hundred Voltaires.

[Youtuber "the Unrepentant Atheist" writes in:]

You need to work. We all need to work.

The Soviet's had one thing right - everyone works. Many people sat around in sham jobs - true - but everyone had to get out of their flats and go into work. 

I would feel a horrible sense of moral degradation not doing actual real work and being necessary.

What you are doing on youtube is not work. You are using it as a vehicle to project yourself. You do not get anything like what can be described as a proper salary

People need me - they need the stuff I sell. I know that. They come to me for help and in return I get paid for that. I get satisfaction from this and it gives structure to my day. I have work time - I have leisure time. When I start to feel exhausted from work. Then I excercise - or read - make you tube videos.

If all I had was my youtube channel - I would be depressed. 

You have skills - find an actual real job. Melissa too. I am sure your lives will improve.

Alex also does not work even though he makes good money. Him, Matt - you can see how youtubers are degrading. All of them leading useless lives. Nobody needs their you tube bullshit - and nobody needs mine - or yours.

I won't degrade because I do actual real work. I pay VAT and tax to the government out of my sales. I am making a contribution.

This idea of living on inherited money. The soviets put an end to it but it's a disease here in the modern world now. It protects people from the essential human need to work. Don't be a parasite on money earned by others. Make your own bread.

You said it yourself - being a youtuber for 10 years has made you an old man.

You know I am right - no more excuses - get out and find a job. 

[And my reply:]


> You need to work. We all need to work.

Oh no, Stuart, that's where you're mistaken.

> I would feel a horrible sense of moral degradation not doing actual real work and being necessary.

You should have that looked into: sounds like a diagnosable condition.

Now tell me, honestly, if you can set this passive-aggressive, defensive-offensive posturing aside: do you not think there is something EVER SO SLIGHTLY PATHETIC in finding your only source of "being necessary" in the earning of money?

You mean to tell me that you, for example, in re-distributing goods on Ebay, find in that the "necessity" that justifies your existence?

Now here is a scenario even less hypothetical: a gentleman of precisely my qualifications, education and experience volunteers for a job at a hospital at the peak of the Coronavirus crisis.  Two jobs, in fact, neither one of which even requires a high school diploma: one is collecting laundry from the beds of the ill (i.e., exposing yourself to disease) and the other is similar to being a roustabout in the hospital's main lobby.  Allegedly they're desperate to hire.

Why do you suppose it is impossible for me to get these jobs?  I will tell you why, Stuart: it's because I'm over educated, and Canadians (1) are deeply nepotistic, and (2) are terrified of intellectuals, for all the same reasons that vampires fear the sun (although they've never seen it).

Now let's take a step further with this barely hypothetical scenario, as I lived through this myself up to a point: do you suppose the world would have been a better place if that hospital had hired me, in either of those positions I volunteered for?  Obviously, the money is immaterial: I did this for humanitarian reasons (as I formerly did humanitarian work in Cambodia and Laos, etc., not motivated by the money) and we may summarize my mix of motives as "doing the right thing just because it's the right thing to do".

If I had done that job at the hospital for one year instead of doing all the other things I actually did (such as writing No More Manifestos and Future of an Illusion —both books that get rave reviews on Goodreads, I'll have you know) please ask yourself, really: would the world be a better place?

Would the world be a better place if I'd never done humanitarian work (or, more accurately: if I'd never TRIED to do humanitarian work) in Cambodia and Laos?

Would the world be a better place if I'd never studied the Cree and Ojibwe languages (or, more accurately: if I'd never TRIED…) and —here's the plot twist— ask yourself, also, if I would be a better person, if I had never done any of these things (that were NOT motivated by money) and if I had instead spent my time and attention earning money?

Now, it would be a little too easy to ask, "Would the world be a better place if I hadn't uploaded any of these youtube videos (and had instead been earning money)?" —and it would be a little too easy to ask "Would I be a better person if I had never created and uploaded these youtube videos?"

A harder question is this: what if I had ONLY uploaded the videos that earned money.  Some did: generally, they're the worst and least meaningful of my videos, whereas many of the most meaningful have earned no money whatsoever.

So I've asked if the world would be a better place, and I've asked if I would be a better person, etc., but now let's scale it up: what if EVERYONE on youtube were ONLY making videos that earn money, and NOBODY were motivated (as I am) to do the right thing just because it's right.  That's pretty easy to imagine, isn't it?  If 100% of uploads to youtube were narrowly profit-motivated.  Conversely, what if everyone on earth shared my mix of artistic and charitable instincts, even in something as simple as uploading youtube videos: does that sound like a better or worse world to you?

> What you are doing on youtube is not work.

Politics is not work.

Art is not work.

Dissent is not work.

Education is not work.

I wasn't working when I was studying Cree and Ojibwe, was I?  I wasn't working when I was studying Chinese, also.

You've constructed a sort of pseudo-philosophy to justify your existence as someone who isn't an artist, isn't an intellectual, isn't a dissident, isn't actively engaged in research, in working for his own education —and, also, as someone who hasn't really lifted a finger to change the world politically (and as someone who takes no responsibility for the political problems in the world, let alone the ethical ones).  So it is hardly surprising that you find some great source of redeeming values in this thing you call earning money.

Do you suppose Voltaire would have more in common with you, or I?

> You are using it as a vehicle to project yourself.

And you find this shameful because you're ashamed of who you are, and you imagine that you'd be ashamed to do the same.  I wouldn't be, because I actually have something positive to share.

> You do not get anything like what can be described as a proper salary

Unlike Voltaire, right?  That guy was writing books as a wage slave, right?

> People need me - they need the stuff I sell.

No, they don't need you: what you do can be done by someone else.

What I do cannot be done by anyone else alive.

You can be replaced, Stuart: at your job, you're replaceable.  And if you retired, I doubt that very many of your customers would mourn you, as they proceeded to buy the same stuff from another anonymous seller on eBay.

Do you suppose there's anyone else who could have written No More Manifestos?  Do you suppose there's anyone else who could have made my last video about Aristotle, or the next one?

And the irony is this: I would be absolutely delighted to find that there was someone else on this earth who could replace me.  It would be wonderful to discover that there's a dissident intellectual who renders me redundant in at least one of the "sports" in which I'm "the greatest to have ever played the game".

> I get satisfaction from this and it gives structure to my day.

I notice that you haven't asked me about what it is that I get satisfaction from, by contrast, hm?

> You have skills - find an actual real job.

You know, I volunteered to join the army back when the war with Isis was just starting, and when it seemed like it would be a long term, large scale war (in fact, it fizzled out relatively soon thereafter).

There are several videos related to my application process to join the army (I took the formal intelligence test, for example: quite a lark).

Now tell me, honestly: do you think the last five years of my life (to use a round number) would have been better spent in the Canadian military?  And, if so, is the mere fact that this would have earned money enough for you to make this judgement?

Do you think nothing would have been lost —in the last five years— if none of these youtube videos had been made, and these various books hadn't been written, and I hadn't studied these languages, and these various periods of history, politics, etc.?

Perhaps you do think that, but a great many people, looking back at the last five years (and, in truth, it's more like seven years by now) would say that it would have been a great shame if my peculiar portion of talent had been lost to military bureaucracy.

> All of them leading useless lives. Nobody needs their you tube bullshit - and nobody needs mine - or yours.

And that, old boy, is where you're wrong.

People need another Voltaire.  They need ten, they need a hundred more.

And right about now, my apartment is motherfucking discount Voltaire mass manufacturing clearinghouse.

Stuart, very simply: I've got something you ain't got.  You can never be another Voltaire.  I'm like three or four Voltaires stuffed into one tracksuit.

A Shark Amidst the Manatees.

[Youtuber "the Unrepentant Atheist" writes in:] 

I have been checking around.

You seem to have - outside of your own channel - virtually no support.

All I can find is allegations of questionable behaviour towards women - and a lot of hate against you - not due to your actual stance - but your hostility and general insulting and abusive rants etc. You have achieved notoriety so congratulations for that. 

Now I am not saying I believe allegations - (thought I did see 1 vid where you were hating on two young female vegans saying they are not good looking enough to be models - and I wonder why it was relevant to say that???)

It seems the distaste for you personally - is very strong.

You must have a very thick skin indeed. 

[And my reply:]

Re: "You seem to have - outside of your own channel - virtually no support."

Oh, you'll find I'm doing much better than my rivals.

Including precisely the people who tried (in soap operatic terms) to destroy me.

Different people are playing different games by different rules, Stuart.  And in my particular sport, I'm the greatest to have ever played the game.

Re: "All I can find is allegations of questionable behaviour towards women…"

All of which are fictional, and resulted in many thousands of dollars being raised (in donations) to pay for a court case in Chiang Mai, Thailand, i.e., pressing criminal charges for defamation against the (self-identified as) autistic man who made them up —and who later admitted that they were false (and he deleted his videos containing the allegations, and vaguely said that I was actually "a good guy" for both related and unrelated reasons).

Re: "Now I am not saying I believe allegations - (thought I did see 1 vid where you were hating on two young female vegans saying they are not good looking enough to be models…"

You have to admit: it doesn't sound like you actually watched the video, does it?  It sounds like you're repeating something that somebody else said about the video on a Reddit forum, hm?

Re: "It seems the distaste for you personally - is very strong."

Oh?  And you suppose there aren't signs of very considerable appreciation?

You don't suppose, for example, you've ignored the fact that many of my videos have been translated into foreign languages —and, in fact, both of my books have been translated into foreign languages— by volunteers from the audience?


Russian, Japanese, Greek, Finnish and several other languages:

And, most recently, Spanish:

This is just one sign among many (you've seen them, and you're pretending that you haven't seen them in this particular email) that I have had a profoundly positive impact on a significant number of people.  It's there for you to see, if you're willing to see it.

Re: "You must have a very thick skin indeed."

I am a shark amidst the manatees.