On evidence: reasoning through nihilism vs. religion in the absence of evidence.

Stuart, [a.k.a. "The Unrepentant Atheist" on youtube]

I've made a few comments on your channel raising the question of, "To what extent do we reason things through WITHOUT evidence?" because you do (so often) say that this matter of evaluating religion simply comes down to "the absence of evidence" for the existence of god, heaven, hell, etc.

When I speak to Communists, they do not hesitate to claim that their plan for utopia can work now, and that the evidence of what happened when the same plan was implemented in the past is irrelevant: they can't be talked out of their beliefs by indicating the evidence —and their beliefs are "materialistic" in a sense that explicitly religious beliefs never are.

Buddhists can say fairly easy, "The world would be a better place if everyone believed this tenet that I believe", and that may be quite difficult to refute in terms of evidence, too —whereas it is very difficult for a Muslim to argue that the world would be a better place if everyone believed in circumcision, jihad, child marriage, [the sexual enslavement of conquered enemies in war,] etc.  The arguments for or against Buddhism are unlikely to be on the basis of evidence.

Yes, insincerely, Buddhists will claim there is scientific evidence that supports the "medical" (or psychological) value of meditation.  They are not shaken out of their faith when contrasting evidence is presented, or when their evidence is debunked.

What I'm saying here —so briefly— augments (but doesn't overlap with) the critique of stupidity in my book Future of an Illusion.  Obviously, that could be a much longer book if it included a generalized critique of religion, or a nihilistic critique of faith (something that's quite easy for me to write about).

In one of the comments I already sent you, I asked about the hypothetical scenario of your older brother (presuming you have a brother) presenting you with an idea for a new business that he wants you to invest in, and you're outright hostile toward the proposal: neither side of the argument is likely to rely on evidence.  [Note: implicitly, this is an original business idea that has never been tried before, not something with "a track record" that can be appealed to as evidence.]

People fall in love and get married without evidence: we make judgements about a person's character and trustworthiness (and talent, etc.) very often in the absence of evidence —teachers, co-workers, etc., even more often than inamorata.

A boring but salient example: will my life be better or worse with the compromises that a (permanent) relocation to Japan would entail?  The answer to this question doesn't really proceed from evidence: it is in many ways just as speculative as the questions of religion are for the average ἰδιώτης.

I have more experience deprogramming Communists than Religionists: most of my experience with talking to religious people face-to-face is that they find everything I say devastating and they're deeply shaken by even a very brief conversation with me —even when I'm being affable and genial in talking about religion.  [Note: Melissa and I spoke to just one "true believing" Communist in New York at length and he, likewise, found the conversation emotionally devastating, and complained directly to me that the discussion was "humiliating" for him, along with several other synonyms for "humiliating".]  I think that if I were trying to engage with religious people I would talk about the history and philosophy of each religion in terms of the historical development of the literature: understanding Christianity as the work of authors in a particular setting and language, and understanding that literature as emerging from an earlier literature.  In this way, fiction is revealed as fiction.

Can I produce evidence that the story of Noah's Ark is fiction?  In a sense the answer is "no": in a sense you can say, "Any moron who exams the relationship between Noah's Ark (in the Bible) and the parallel precedent in the Epic of Gilgamesh must understand that both stories are works of fiction" —but this is not really "evidence" in the sense that I think you presume in your discussions.  If someone asks you to produce evidence that Shakespeare's Hamlet is fiction you may be flummoxed, although it would be extremely difficult (conversely) for someone on the other side to produce evidence that Hamlet is non-fiction.

E.M.

I rarely use the n-word, BUT WHEN I DO...

Well, look:

I didn't meet ONE good person via my research in Buddhism (Buddhist Studies, Buddhist Philosophy, etc.).

I didn't meet ONE good person via my attempts at humanitarian work in Laos, Cambodia, etc.

So I quit: from the perspective of those "movements", I'm dead —I'm gone.

What if there were a dozen good people in each one of those fields but —like you— they were cowards?

What you're describing in this email is cowardice: nothing less, nothing else.

Yes, helping me entails a kind of risk. For some professor of Buddhist to reach out and help me (many years ago) would have entailed a type of risk (I had written essays about Buddhism that were scandalous and shocking, I was willing to say things about the history of slavery (in Buddhist countries) that were scandalous and shocking, and so on). Yes, there's a type of risk. Counterbalanced to this risk is cowardice.

It's possible there were zero good people in those fields (and so on for Cree-and-Ojibwe, so on for Chinese, so on for the vegan movement, etc.) but it's also possible there were people like you: cowards? Guess what? It's the same thing: cowards are bad people. There are zero good people either way: either absolutely zero, or there are people who have some redeeming qualities but who are too timorous (too cowardly) to take a risk —too cowardly to make a difference —too cowardly to even try to help someone like me For example: me.

Talent is scarce. There will never be another man like me in the vegan movement, nor in Chinese politics, Cree-and-Ojbwe linguistics, Buddhist philosophy, etc. There will never be anyone else like me in stand up comedy, either. And the peculiar talent I have to offer in this world will go to waste because of people like you: cowards.

E.M.

----------

I suppose that is a fair criticism. You are correct. Again.

But where does that get you? I would suggest that there is so much wrong about how we (humans) are currently doing things, that anyone telling the truth comes off as "negative". We are apes. Social and political. And messed up.

Given these things, I am just sorry that you may end up shunned. Like the real Mayor. When the things you are saying are so necessary.

----------

Thanks for taking the time to write in.

I say again: I need help.

Help.

There probably are ways that you can help.

I tried to get a series of children's storybooks illustrated and published for many years. It never happened because not one person would help me. Really, that doesn't take a genius.

I'm looking for university programs even now: I can't Google everything myself. You could help me. It doesn't take a genius.

E.M.

----------

I remember you mentioning in one of your videos that you were writing a story book about an earthworm. It was a lovely idea. It also wanted to see the sky. I looked for the book to buy, but could never find it.

Is that a book from the series you are talking about?

I would say that you already have the skills and creativity to write a children's book. (You probably already know that.) I have spent many years in fiction workshops in recent years. I have a couple of books in various forms of draft. A word of caution re: your disillusionment with the worlds of Buddhism, veganism, etc: I would venture to say you will have a similar experience of the people in the arena of fiction writing. Writers are also jockeying for position and not caring about the truth. MFA's are notorious for backstabbing and pick-me behavior, imho. I have had a few very lovely experiences, but mostly learned via painful osmosis. As in: "this is what not to do".  

Writing is a solitary venture. As was scientific research (my first career). In fact, the more my career advanced, the more solitary it became.

I would be willing to talk through some of your projects with you. If you need an ear ... [The ellipsis is not my addition or emendation of the text: the original message ends with an ellipsis.]

----------

Look: I don't give a fuck.

Either you're willing to take risks or you're not.

Either you've got ambition or you don't.

This specific story: the earthworm.

Are you willing to work hard to find a great illustrator and a great publisher or not?

Are you just a fucking coward and a pussy and an excuse maker or what?

Real people do real things. This is a polite paraphrase of the rap lyric: "real niggers do real things".

Velle non discitur. I can tell you what to do: I can tell you how to help. You have to bring passion and motivation to this.

Either you care about making that publication happen or you don't. Either you care about helping me to find a home and a career and a future (and perhaps even a university program) or you don't. Either you're willing to get uncomfortable to get results or you are not.

You began this conversation by admitting that you're not even willing to risk revealing your real name. Dig deep. Look in the mirror. Figure out what the fuck you are willing to do.

E.M.

I am always 100% right about everything: fan mail… of a kind.

Hello Eisel,

I have been watching your channel for a long time. I am writing to you about videos you made earlier this year. In them, you have been asking for help and quite sure no one would reach out to you. 'Should you move to Japan? Should you learn Spanish?' You say people are dismissive and hurtful to you. Your emotion was like a wave off the screen. It actually made me pretty nervous to write to you, and I've written this draft months ago and just held onto it.

I want to explain why I did not respond more promptly. I am just a private person, not anyone special. Not an influencer. No channel. You get it. I see how you put influencers and commenters on blast. I did not want that happening to me. I am writing to you from an email that I made just for this purpose.

If I feel this way about you, why do I even watch your channel? Seems like I would just blacklist you in my mind, right? Well, your philosophies have had a huge impact on me. including veganism, pet ownership, atheism, drug and alcohol use.  All of it.

Let me tell you a story about someone I knew once. Her story as I know it resonates with what I know about you. I was on my local town council. The Mayor of that council had been serving for many years, both as a council member and several terms as mayor. I came to see that she was usually right on every issue facing the town. Like every single time.

For example, our town is bisected by a large highway, and crossing it is a hazard for town members. It also separates the town community. The good side, the bad side, etc. Every so often a new town resident proposes that the town "underground" the highway. To make a tunnel.  "It would be so wonderful" they say. "Both sides of the town could freely connect. We should form a committee."

According to the Mayor, this had already been studied twice under her various tenures and been shown to be very expensive. Far and away more than the town could afford, or even fund by other means. She was so frustrated at the thought of yet another round of proposals and research. So she broke the tie to deny the committee. In making her arguments, she publicly humiliated the new resident. The Mayor did use some very harsh language to embarrass the resident. IMO, that language was probably necessary to win the argument. That resident took it upon themselves to start an angry campaign against the mayor and she lost her reelection bid. Just one year later she moved out of the town and to a different area of the country entirely. (I was also kicked out in the same anti-incumbent fervor and because I am probably not suited to be a politician. So it was for the best.)

I feel that her story reminds me of you. Here's why: I find that you are almost always right on every issue. Even when I was 100% opposed to start.  I wonder if sometimes that "rightness" leads you to say and do things on your platform and other socials that hugely offend and anger. As I have been quietly watching your channel for more than 5 years, I am surprised that you do not have a massive following. I would be willing to dialogue with you on how to solve this. But that is not at all my reason for writing. I wrote because I feel indebted to you. 

Anyway, you do not have to answer. I am not really looking for an answer. Just to convey this story. And to thank you for the impact you have had on my thinking.

Respectfully,

__________

Y'all know the rules, we don't fuck with fools.

Please consider the quality of this guy's prose in the context of his claim to be the published author of five successful books, in some unspecified field.

Mexie is now EX-VEGAN and anti-vegan... but is still an insane Communist.

Here's Mexie herself speaking:

One of Mexie's critics replies:

Mexie speaking:

Footnote: she also identifies as autistic.

On quitting the vegan movement: my final act of vegan activism is already in the past tense.

My elegy to the vegan movement is more than two years old...

https://youtu.be/GueIxWi7vOE

My book, Veganism: Future of an Illusion, was written in response to ONE request from ONE viewer (i.e., a supporter on Patreon) as my final act of vegan activism, looking back on the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the movement in retrospect.  I understand that people who read the book are excited by it, as if it's the beginning of a new period in which I become some kind of guiding voice for the cause, but the exact opposite is the case.

Talent is scarce: the Cree and Ojibwe (language and politics) need all the talented people they can get, but they (i.e., anyone who cares in that field, not necessarily a person with power in an institution) squandered the opportunity to work with me (or to help me or encourage me) while it lasted, and they'll never have that opportunity again.

You might want to read that single sentence paragraph twice: I can say the same about research in Laos and Cambodia, or about Pali and Buddhist studies, or several other fields that I lost years of my life to without meeting a single person of any brilliance, ambition or even moral fiber (this includes the politics and language of modern China: supposedly significant to over a billion of us on planet earth, but paradoxically a smaller field than the other examples mentioned).  I'm not going to be a one man political movement: I'm not going to be a one man academic discipline.  I have to work with people, I have to work for people, and I have to work toward real outcomes: none of that is possible in veganism (nor in Chinese, etc.) so I'm moving on —and many members of my audience have disregarded the extent to which I already have moved on.  I'm not suck in 2016: they are.

I still have people writing to me saying that I'm this uniquely important voice for the future of the vegan movement. They're wrong: in 2023, I'm a uniquely important voice FROM THE PAST.  I'm part of the history of the vegan movement that's already over.

My book may be the most brilliant thing that's ever been written about vegan politics, and it may remain the most brilliant thing for many years to come.  Yeah, guess what?  Not a lot of people are writing brilliant essays about the politics of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar or even (shockingly) China.  You wanna take a look at how much talent is on the bench for Hobbema, Alberta, as the Cree language slowly goes extinct?

By sheer dint of the stupidity and self-indulgent fatuousness of my contemporaries, I could have been (and/or briefly was) the most brilliant writer in any number of fields (even if I was only involved for a short time, as with Cree and Ojibwe).  As an intellectual, I can't work FOR NOTHING and FOR NOBODY: being talented isn't rewarding for the person who has the talent, it's only rewarding for the people who lack it.  Being the most brilliant author in veganism is an utterly thankless task: it would be just as miserable to be turning out one essay after another on the politics of Laos, or the misinterpretation of ancient Buddhist texts, I assure you.

The audience has power over the fate of the author: if everyone within Buddhism is genuinely too stupid to appreciate what I have to offer (and they were, and presumably still are) then I'm not going to remain a Buddhist intellectual.  It absolutely never occurred to me that a field as enormous as Modern Chinese could be WORSE (in all these respects) than the rare and recondite areas of study I'd been in before, but it was (and is).  Most of you can't imagine the kind of sacrifice (and permanent brain damage) you endure in learning Chinese as a second language over so many years; it is easier for you to visualize the permanent harm done to my life by my involvement in veganism (i.e., very few career options are open to me now, etc.).  You tell me what's harder: walking away from Chinese, or walking away from the vegan movement?

They're both easy, because I'm walking away from you: from you utterly untalented people, who were neither worthwhile to work with, nor worthwhile to work for.  I'm leaving nothing of value behind, because I'm leaving nobody of value behind.  I will never wake up and wish I was back in Cambodia, but, likewise, I'll never wake up and wish I was (once again) eating lunch with my professors of Chinese studies, etc.

False facts endure long: Neo-Nazi "statistics" that still pollute political discourse.

 My own words are in italics, the (anonymous) commenter's words are in bold.

———

2:51 - are there still people who don't think replacement is happening...

———

The real statistics are presented here (around the four minute mark, although I recommend watching the whole thing from start to end).  Mysteriously, you'll never see Lauren or Faith presenting (or being honest about) these statistics: https://youtu.be/_xJp2mEwyeY?t=247

———

 @a-bas-le-ciel  so your argument is it's happening in USA but not in Canada?

———

No, on the contrary: the per capita rate of real immigration to the United States IS MUCH LOWER than Canada, you're just someone who has chosen to imbibe (and utterly unconvincing and statistically falsifiable) fictional narrative that makes you feel morally superior to other people (who don't believe in the same fables that you do).  Note the series of charts on screen here starting at the one minute mark: https://youtu.be/kRhZdmtw3Wg?t=63

———

Thomas Jefferson: it's possible to be racist (and a white supremacist) and nevertheless have mixed race babies.

Context:

My message to AronRa. He won't read it, he won't reply, but…

Aaron, you're a scientist, but you never studied _political science…_ and you never developed any ("scientific") background in the study of religion.  I would not lecture on the evolutionary links between "clades" of dinosaurs; but you have to be willing to recognize that you're far, _far_ outside of your area of expertise (and competence) when you talk about politics —and, to be blunt, when you talk about religion.  And you've never been willing to talk to anyone who could have helped you in these areas because (in my opinion) it would require a kind of humility from you that's unfamiliar; I am not saying you're incapable of it, just that it's unfamiliar (whereas, e.g., I have to be prepared to humble myself every time I start learning a new language (like Chinese) and I struggle to speak at a child-like level, or when I start working on the history and politics of a heretofore unknown country and culture).

This was posted as a comment below the following video:

Unsubscribe now: you may not be smart enough to watch these videos.

You say that you are an intellectual.

[The person I'm writing to here speaks English as a second language: my own style of writing —in reply— is thus significantly different than it would be in writing to a native English speaker.]

You say that you are an intellectual.

Maybe so.

You say that you are studying to get a PhD.

Maybe so.

Most of the people I have known who have PhDs are stupid, crazy and malign.

Sometimes they are just stupid and crazy, sometimes just stupid and malign, etc., but very often they are all three: stupid AND crazy AND malign.

I have known many, many people with PhDs who are genuinely insane.  I have known many PhD students (whether or not they completed their PhDs) who were insane.

How many people with PhDs were NOT STUPID?  (Very few.)  How many PhD students were NOT STUPID?  (Very few.)

I have known these people all over the world, in many walks of life.

Do you actually believe that you are intelligent enough to sit at a wooden table with me for two hours and talk about politics, to record that as a podcast, and upload it for the world to hear?

IN NINE YEARS nobody has ever been willing to do that with me, including people with PhDs, and the most frequently given reason is: "I would feel stupid sitting next to you."

[Footnote: many, many people have actually said this to me, directly, this is not an indirect inference on my part.]

Many, many times people with PhDs (including my professors) have said to me (sometimes in words that are polite, sometimes in words that are impolite), "you make me feel stupid", or "I feel stupid talking about politics / history / religion / etc. with you".

It isn't subtle.  This isn't a matter of my interpretation.  This isn't a matter of my psychological "projection".  People openly tell me, again and again, that they feel I'm too smart (or too knowledgable) to work with —or, reciprocally, they say that they are too stupid (or too ignorant).

[Footnote: and this has been in many different fields of study, including fields I had only recently switched to, such as when I'd first started on Chinese.]

Why do you think it is that after nine years I am still broadcasting TOTALLY ALONE?  Why do you think I've never had a news and politics "show" with just one other person collaborating with me, as an equal?  Why not two people or five people?  Why was it impossible for a-bas-le-ciel to expand in any area?

(Note: I could have expanded in atheist news, in Chinese news, just reviewing new books on political history, ecology… I could have hosted "a show" in so many different areas unrelated to veganism… do not presume I'm talking about veganism primarily or only.)

Why?

And now, simply, I have to ask you to calibrate your claim: yes, perhaps you are tremendously intelligent, perhaps you are an intellectual who can talk to me on an equal level, and perhaps my new friendship with you will transform my life —forever— for the better (and I should fly off to Germany just to meet you!).

But this seems incredibly improbable.

Where is your "proof of genius"?  Where is your Toulon?

I have been extremely positive and encouraging to people (like Tofu Goddess, etc.) who had no more "proof of genius" than a modest youtube channel where they expressed their frustrations.  But you, like 99.9% of the people writing to me, do not even have that.

Again: I do not say this to insult you.  I do not say any of this to insinuate that you have bad motivations.

The sun also rises; I also get fan mail. ;-)

I’m 21 years old and from _____________. I discovered your channel about 10 months ago via the video “Ashley Elise: it's shallow and it's deep at the same damn time.”  (I had searched her name, only to discover that her channel was gone) and I’ve been watching you ever since.

You have changed my life in many ways. I quit video games, started studying politics, history, languages. You are the only positive (active) influence to live like an intellectual that I have. I’ve read Future of an Illusion and I started No More Manifestos the other day. […]

[I mention that Ashley Elise actually wrote to me, requesting that I delete my video(s) about her.  He says in reply:]

I can see why she might have wanted it to be deleted. Your video really exposed the shallowness of her thinking about Tinder/sex/relationships, and her pandering. I remember being maybe ~16-17 when I first discovered her channel and thinking “Oh yeah, this is good stuff! She’s really sticking it to the shallow women who won’t give guys a chance.”, but when I watched your video criticizing her, I immediately recognized how stupid I had been. 

Your channel has been like a secret weapon in my “arsenal”. You’ve tackled so many false idols and taught me so much.

I’ve tried to show your stuff to my friends, especially the videos about quitting video games, and I haven’t had a single positive outcome from it (upon reading that, you might be thinking “think of how I (Eisel) feel”).

I’ve matured so much through listening to you talk about “real” topics, even if it’s just about nothing in particular. For me, the biggest thing I feel I’ve gained is a change in attitude (maybe “attitudinal learning”, but I don’t know if I’m using that correctly). 

[…]

Your videos have led me to try to be critical about the concept of “required reading”, but I still sometimes feel pressured to read certain “highly regarded/foundational/important/insert any vague praise” books/authors. 

Future of an Illusion, to a great extent, ruined a lot of other books for me. I had never read anything so well written, and haven’t since. I don’t know how much of this feeling is caused by me having been your fan BEFORE reading it, and having been excited to read it, but every page had unique ideas that I had never heard ever mentioned anywhere, and that I couldn’t even IMAGINE being mentioned (some of which (e.g. pet ownership, university education) I mentioned to my grandparents, who had completely negative, typical reactions). 

As for Japan, I’m ashamed to admit that all I have to offer is my sympathy, which I’m sure, to you, is worth less than nothing at this point. [Hey, it's worth MORE THAN NOTHING!!! —E.M.]

[…] I can’t help you (or don’t know how) in the next chapter of your life. I don’t know anything about moving to other countries or about university programs. […] Thank you for all you’ve done for me.

Anna Scanlon is a Scumbag and a Hypocrite.

[The first two messages, below, date from March 31st, 2017, and then we leap forward to the present day (the last day of July and the first day of August of 2023) in the ensuing messages.  I have put Anna's text into bold italics throughout, to make the flow of the conversation easier to follow.]

[2017]

Hi guys,

We've stalled in donations and I don't want the case to have to be put on hold. Do you have any ideas as to how we can re-inject some life into it?

Sent from my iPhone

———

Anna,

My opinion doesn't count for much, but I offer it.

I think you made a serious strategic error in presenting the case (initially) in terms of, "If only he would apologize, the whole case will be nullified".  That made it seem as if there were no consequences, either way: nothing to win, and nothing to lose.

I think that the videos you made presenting your case were, also, aesthetically weak: as you know, by contrast, I made some very dramatic videos (weeping on camera at least once) in the fundraising for my own court-case.

[Click on the line below, or on the title of the article above, to display the text in full.]

Violence: Peace is the Shadow of War, etc.

 Re: "At the time, Charles was living with Will and had access to guns and neither my partner or I felt safe being near him as it was obvious he was using."

I used to live in Cambodia, Anna.

I dealt with very credible death threats from powerful people in Laos, and equally credible death threats from one utterly powerless person (who nevertheless had a machete in his hands and swung it at me) in Thailand.

I've dealt with threats from corrupt police and Communist government officials in a third world country, and so on.

Can you remember a more recent situation in which I received credible threats of violence?

Can you remember me facing up to someone Durianrider directly said would beat me up, face to face, in Chiang Mai?  Depending on how you count them, I met up with at least two of those guys, perhaps four.  One was very nervous and trembling when he met me, because he was aware that Durianrider had basically promised that he'd hunt me down.  The first thing he said to me was that I was much larger than he'd imagined.

As you may recall: when Durianrider offered to meet me with a gang of thugs to beat me up, I replied by asking for the place and the time.  He was quite unprepared for that, and I didn't back down: I had a public event (in Chiang Mai) and let everyone (including Durianrider) know where I'd be in advance, and so on.

Real people do real things.

I still have all my teeth.  But I'm generous with them, these teeth.  Anyone can take them away from me.

Oh, yes, I actually have a very amusing tale of my facing down a young man who threatened to kill me here in Canada, just about two weeks ago: we were standing right next to a bridge, and the death threats went on and on, it was quite remarkable.  I assume he was high on cocaine, because I bumped into him a few days later, and he had no memory of ever seeing me before, but he was swinging his fists at me (and spitting on me) while explaining in detail that if he didn't kill me himself, I would be killed by his own father, who was supposedly some powerful person (whom he named, etc.) who had the ability to get away with murder in Canada.  I have two witnesses to the fact that I wasn't afraid.

Real people do real things.

And I am 44 years old now.  I deal with threats of violence face to face, on the streets, myself.  Even now.  At 44.

Tell me something, Anna: who has suffered less?

Who has suffered less, in trying to change the world, than you and I?

Name some revolutionary who had a more comfortable cave to live in.

If you want to do something to make the world a better place, ultimately, Anna, you have to risk your own life: all of us, each and every single one.  And some of us risk it by merely mixing ink and paper.

I've suffered.  I've suffered terribly.  But tell me: who has suffered less?

Re: "I tried to reach out to numerous people to help raise the extra money, but it wasn’t possible in the time allotted."

I was one of them, remember?

You reached out to numerous people, including me.

And I sent you replies, and you didn't want to hear them.

Oh, and please refresh my memory: did you help me with my own fundraising efforts?  At any stage, at any time?

Perhaps I don't remember: perhaps you held a fundraising party on Younow, and I just don't recall.  Perhaps we recorded a podcast together.  Perhaps you made videos about my case, and urging others to support me.  Perhaps you've helped me in innumerable ways I don't know of, because you're so shy and bashful about what a generous and supportive person you are toward others.

It couldn't possibly be that you're someone who raised vastly more money in donations than I ever did, and that you collected vastly more in donations than Hannah Chloe ever did…

…and that you nevertheless had the attitude of taking and taking and taking, while showing absolutely zero human interest (or human decency) when another person was going through a (remarkably similar) criminal defamation case "elsewhere" in the vegan world.

Oh, I'm sorry, but you're ex-vegan, correct?  So I suppose I can't quite describe "the geography" that way (as you weren't quite "in" the vegan world, hm?).

And tell me, Anna: who have you spoken to more often and more recently, myself or my ex-wife, Mireille?

And did you ask Mireille to help out with fundraising for your court case, too?  I'm sure she could have been of tremendous help.  I really wonder why you didn't ask her and her father to bankroll the whole thing, frankly.

Re: "What else should I have done? I had already exhausted my own resources."

Oh, I'm very forthcoming with good advice: look back at the email I sent you on April 5th, 2017.  For some reason, you didn't reply.

If you go back and re-read that email now… what do you think?

Re: "I’m not sure what I’ve done to make you find me untrustworthy, but in the end, it doesn’t matter…"

No no, Anna: it doesn't matter TO YOU.

It's a matter of indifference TO YOU.

Not to me.

That's why you're supposed to care about it: being a good person, you see, involves caring about others, not just yourself.

Indeed, simply "not being a bad person" requires a great deal of that kind of… thinking.  Making an effort along those lines, you know: short term, selfish thinking starts to resemble evil, with time.

Re: "[Zoom calls are] often used in court, so it was also shocking that I had was required to be there in person."

I'm an old political science major, Anna: I am not surprised that you were required to be there in person at all.  I had to testify in Thailand repeatedly in the court case against Durianrider, at great inconvenience and at great expense.  Take a vow on a stack of bibles and all that.

And tell me, honestly: if I talked to Bruce, you don't suppose I'd get a very different version of events?

The client may decide to terminate a court case for many reasons: a client may decide that the case is untenable because she can no longer afford the fees —and she may decide the case is untenable because of the poor quality of the lawyer, or for innumerable other reasons.  You have already stated that you had SOME OTHER court case ongoing at the same time.

What I know about your court case (and how and why it ended) is based on no other source of information than you, Anna: I think you're kidding yourself about what a bad job you did of communicating what happened in the court case and why.  It's quite possible that this was because you were struggling to maintain a working relationship with your lawyer (Bruce) while also trying to find a better lawyer (or a second opinion, etc.) as you've already described.

For whatever combination of reasons, you ended the case because you found it untenable: you explained that —publicly, on youtube, years ago— and you explained it very poorly.  And so it is, now, that you're writing to me with this grievance.

E.M.