YouTube drama

I just watched this video by Cogent Canine where he comments on a livestream featuring Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux. For those not familiar with the cast of thousands who make up the YT commentariat, Stefan Molyneux is the self-appointed leader of the cult of Molyneuxism. He is/was an actor, a self-titled philosopher, owner of Free Domain Radio in Canada, writer, general life guru and advocate of Anarcho-Capitalism. Lauren Southern is a political commentator who focusses on stories about herself - Lauren with Antifa, Lauren helping some Euro ethno-nationalists prevent immigrants from leaving Africa in boats, Lauren turning up at some feminist protest to protest against feminism, etc. She asked Molyneux a simple question which needed only a Yes or No answer and Stefan's brain exploded. "In Stefan's An-Cap Paradise, should you be allowed to sell heroin to a 5-year-old?"

Now if you are familiar with Molyneux's Libertarian and An-Cap ravings this question should require no thought at all: Yes! of course you should be allowed to sell heroin to a 5-year-old because any other answer would involve some external perversion of the free market and would require some institution or organisation to enforce the prohibition, a definite No-No in Molynistan. Even more so, the maintenance of this organ of coercion would require some form of popular contribution and, like a good An-Cap, Molyneux has repeatedly told us that taxation is theft.

His answer: 5 minutes of squirming, dodging the question, attempting to change the subject, attempting to add extra dimensions to the question - like "Compared to what?" - and he still couldn't come up with a Yes or No answer. Ironic that he has just released his latest book "The Art of the Argument."

I'm not up to date about all the latest YT dramas but there have been a couple of interesting ones lately. The Candace Owen/Red Pill Black story where Candace, after unsuccessfully attempting to use a Kickstarter campaign to establish a doxxing site, Social Autopsy, seems to have re-invented herself as a dreaded Alt-Centrist, or radical fundamentalist Centrist or whatever name they are using for themselves these days. (I'm old so I remember when these people were just called conservatives or right-wing reactionaries.) After being denounced for her doxxing site, which even encouraged users to identify minors for using "hate speech," "bullying" or "harassment" online by nearly every YT creator who knew about it, Candace has returned 6 months later as Red Pill Black, conservative gladiator in the culture war.

Naturally her YT profile has exploded since her metamorphosis. Who, in the Alt-Centre, doesn't like an attractive young black woman spouting the usual mindless grab-bag of Fox News talking points. In fact she has even appeared on the Watters show on Fox as well as on Infowars and the Dave Rubin show. Her channel statistics are astounding: On 17 August 2017 she had 1,800 subs. By 23 October, she had reached 147,000 and she picked up 10,000 subs on one day in September.

Recently she has been the subject of at least 10 videos questioning her sincerity, given her amazing 180° political turn. At the same time she has been strongly defended by Paul Joseph "Conservatism is the new punk" Watson, one of Alex Jones' running dogs. (While I'm on this point I'm reminded of the recent video where Alex was waving a piece of paper which he claimed to be a leaked document "from one of his CIA informants" about Hillary or Uranium One or something. (It's Alex Jones, so specifics have never mattered before. Why start now?) Watson, on a video link, kept avoiding eye contact, seemingly trying to keep his mouth shut so he wouldn't blurt out, "Please don't make me appear to agree with you on this horseshit."

Anyway, if you're interested in following the Candace Owens/Red Pill Black story, check the videos by Critical Condition, Tree of Logic and a couple of others.


The other story is Mouthy Buddha and his alleged descent into, and awakening from Race Realism, Alt-Right, White Ethno-Nationalism, whatever you want to call it. Pick your euphemism. Nobody calls themselves a Nazi these days, they just agree with 95% of the policies but "that doesn't make them fascists or anything." I'm not going into any great detail here. I'm trying to write a longer essay on how to deal with the Race Realists and part of that strategy is precision in language. It's this lack of precision in language which defeats so much of the Skeptic™ Community or, at least, the laziest sector, the Anti-Fem, Anti-SJW, pwnage sector. I'm also trying to write an essay on the sort of precise language we need to use to progress beyond the state of anti-stuff to stating a positive agenda.

Social media are cutting their own throats. With their willingness to ban anything and everything, Twitter banned the New York Times World account for "hate speech" after it tweeted a story about Justin Trudeau apologising to the indigenous people of Labrador and Newfoundland. Here was the entire text of the Tweet:

"

Left out of an apology a decade ago, native people in Newfoundland and Labrador get an apology from Justin Trudeau nyti.ms/2zAoGd6 

2:37 PM - Nov 25, 2017


Twitter's new policy on banning accounts will come into effect on 18 December when they will start banning people based on any and all activity, whether on Twitter or not.

The battle between Kraut and Tea and the Race Realists drags on. It's an interesting debate although the drama surrounding it is getting tiresome. For me the central issues are:

- Can we tolerate science denial if the science gives us an unpalatable answer?
- Should racial science be a central factor in social planning?

I'll start with the second question first. If science could demonstrate that particular ethnic groups were substantially lower in intelligence or had some medical conditions which would affect their ability to contribute to a society, what should we do about it? Well, we already know the answer. Before the invention of the polio vaccine we regularly had thousands of polio victims who ended up with a range of permanent disabilities. We didn't euthanase them. Every day we have people born with disabilities like Downe Syndrome or Foetal Alcohol Syndrome but we don't euthanase them and we don't establish apartheid states to separate "them" from "us."

Of course the hot button issue is IQ. Firstly, consider the "Flynn Effect." Here's the simple definition from Wikipedia:


What this means is that all our societies, from the roads to the sewerage plants to the basic telecommunication systems to our systems of Government and business were all constructed by people who probably had lower IQs than we do. To me, this suggests that even if an entire ethnic group had lower IQs than an existing dominant population, there's no reason to assume their inability to contribute to a society. We should also remember that even Race Realists only claim IQ to be 75-80% heritable so the lower-IQ populations will improve with access to better education.

Another issue related to IQ is the distribution within any ethnic or racial population. 50% of white people have IQs which are average or below average so we end up with white people well below the African average and well below the Asian average. If IQ was a central convincing reason to separate black society from white society, wouldn't it be an equally compelling reason to separate the dumbest white people from the rest?

As for the first question, is science denial acceptable? No, never. I don't accept it in relation to religious mythology. I don't accept it in relation to climate change. When science tells us about the correlation between Jamaican sprinters and the prevalence of fast-twitch fibres in muscles we don't denounce it as racist, although it shows a clear genetic superiority in one area.

I was just posting something about the social media attempts to ban and block "hate speech" on another site. Every social grouping needs a central theme around which to coalesce. Maybe it's playing football, or joining a religion or protesting against tax increases. When that social group loses its raison d'etre, sometimes the only thing left to distinguish "us" is that we are "not them." People like Fox News or Milo Yiannopoulos or Nazis ultimately achieve their highest social function by being "not us" to the feminists and SJWs. If all the "not us" are silenced and banished from the public arena, the "we" would then be forced into introspection (well, more introspection than is normally tolerate within a group.)

As they sit in the wreckage of their own dismantled talking points they may discover that "we" no longer need to exist and that so much of our in-group appeal relied on "not them." So, what next?

It's all Yin and Yang. Ain't no Yin? Then we don't need no Yang.

I'm not going to go into the Kraut and Tea shitstorm - there's way too much material and I just don't care enough to bother.
I'm just going to post a few links and you can chase it up for yourself if you want. You could try Braving Ruin or Jean Francois Gariepy's YT channels. I'm sure they will have plenty to say.




Some further information has come to light. You notice there's a line separating the 3 columns on the left from the other columns. The three columns on the left are the people who were there at the time. The other people listed were invited to the Discord server and had joined at some time but they weren't there during this session and may never have been there. As I said, I don't care enough to go through and sort them out.

This is Hi, I Think I'm Real's video claiming he dindu nuffin: He's probably telling the truth although he does say something about how he thought it would be good to go on the Discord to talk to some "real" scientists. That's odd considering he's a University student.


Anyway, Kraut's channel is, literally, dead. Well, his channel's still there but all his videos have been deleted.