My faithful readers. I have not updated this blog for some time. My last post was about black lives matter on 4 April 2016.
I am aware of the ramifications of this lack of posts by me. Many of you will have forsaken reading altogether in anticipation of my next update.
You may have burned your books or unsubscribed from your favourite blogs in protest, trying to spur me into action. I apologise if this has reduced your general experience and understanding of life, to not have anything available to read due to my inactivity.
Due to being suspended from twitter today and not having much else to do, I’m back blogging. (Update: I’m now back: @demotimvator)
Yes I am much #toorawfortwitter.
Many people on twitter are aware that I am an incorrigible badass, and this can have unfortunate consequences such as being suspended.
Now, I’m not one for conspiracies.
I think Hitler is currently residing in Argentina and I doubt that a plane could bring down a building (unless lizard people were involved), but…I’m not crazy.
I wonder still, could my suspension have anything to do with my harsh criticisms of one Carl of Swindon (also known as Sarcuck Of Acod, I forget) giving a butter-soft, weak sauce hug-box platform to Jared Taylor, a veteran thought-leader of the American white supremacy movement, on his hilariously named “Thinkery Podcast” (roflmao, …Thinkery).
I’m not one to “play the victim”, contrary to common perception of so-called “social justice warriors”, when something bad happens to me (like a suspension or the demonetisation of my YouTube channel).
I tend to think that maybe I actually did something wrong. I broke the terms of service, or used some language that could be fairly targetted, and it’s a good opportunity to take a break (if it isn’t a permanent ban, as I do enjoy using these platforms).
But recently, a bastion of racist toxic scumfuckery known as /pol, a trashy board on 4chan full of losers who are insecure about being white and overcompensating for it, compiled a list of left-wing and progressive YouTubers to target with false flagging campaigns.
This resulted in lefty YouTuber Kevin Logan‘s main channel going down (which he is rebuilding now), and even strikes on his backup channels.
My own channel also received strikes (over stupid things like inoffensive thumbnails), and it generated paranoia among the creators listed.
Apparently their campaign was retaliation against another board called /leftypol which I had never even heard of before.
Not long after, despite Sargon’s craven inability to refute racism substantively, he himself was flagged off Twitter while apparently fighting with the alt-right about the holocaust.
YouTuber David Sheratt‘s main twitter account was also nuked while fighting with alt-right racists.
I mention Sargon, a popular “liberal”, because I don’t believe that people like me (ideologically speaking) are the only people who get targeted and flagged for fighting with the alt-right. Other anti-social justice YouTubers such as Jeff Holiday and Kraut and Tea have both also come to blows with the alt-righters online.
By the same token, I also don’t think YouTube’s demonetisation of videos is ideologically targeted, but instead an advertiser driven blanket demonetisation applied to anything that might be deemed “controversial”, no matter where it is on the political spectrum.
So why do I bring this up? Because as my caveats about not being conspiratorial may imply, I am going to be conspiratorial.
It is conspicuous to me that my twitter suspension comes after strongly criticising Sargon of Akkad’s ridiculously pathetic “debate” (was it a debate? Seemed more like two racists mildly disagreeing about their racism) with white-supremacist Jared Taylor.
I described the interview as atrocious and was immediately met with strong push-back from Sargon’s defenders, which happens every time.
Not long after, my entire account was suspended.
Why was I suspended right about the time that I pointed out Sarcuckkad was “all but cupping Jared Taylor’s balls”?
This is a factual statement and there is nothing offensive about it, unless you are precious about criticisms of a racist named Jared Taylor, and need the internet to be a racist’s “safe-space”.
The flagging campaign and the comments section of Sargon’s interview, which is full to the brim of sycophants praising Taylor’s grace and racist intellect to the high heavens, makes me suspect that I may have been targeted for criticising him.
Of course, I have no evidence, as twitter provides none…it’s just conspicuous.
This leads me to what I was actually criticising at the time.
Self-appointed “skeptic” YouTubers, “classical liberals”, “anti-SJWs”, anti-feminists (and others with pathetic, laughable labels like these) have a “problematic” recent history with platforming, and then failing miserably to refute, hard-right racists, fascists in all-but-name, and less visibly toxic right-wingers.
Not only this, whenever one points this out, the excuses are always the same.
I will explain what such false skeptics and pseudo-liberals have been doing with the alt-right, hardcore racists, transphobes, xenophobes and others, why it is so atrocious and disgusting, and walk through how their justifications are false and devoid of substance, amounting only to excuse-mongering around their own amplification of racism.
Three Useful Idiots
Dave Rubin is an idiotic, air-headed “classical liberal” (barf along with me), who I doubt has any knowledge of what classical liberalism actually is (has he read any Locke, or Adam Smith’s Wealth Of Nations, or Henry George’s Progress And Poverty? Any of the actual theoreticians of classical liberalism? It’s inconceivable that he has).
He has been working overtime, day in and out, to make “classical liberalism” synonymous with “an inability to challenge right wing ideas” (and by extension any further implications of those ideas, like xenophobia, racism, homophobia, transphobia and others).
Whenever I point this out, I receive the same excuses from his defenders:
Dave is doing long-form interviews. Dave likes to listen, and explore ideas that he doesn’t agree with. It’s not his role to fight with the guest or refute them. He helps get the ideas out, and if the ideas are bad, the audience will be able to tell. The guests will hang themselves with their own rope.”
So I say:
If a controversial guest is not challenged, it gives them a “safe-space” to say what they want unopposed. You won’t see how toxic they often are. You’ll get a sanitised, false impression about this individual, which can only create sympathy towards them and pull people in their direction. He also only interviews right-wingers, so his entire platform is skewed in that direction.”
The defender will latch onto that last part of the statement:
That’s not true! Dave has had many liberals on! He had on Laci Green who is still a strong feminist! Philip DeFranco is on the left (?), and are you saying that *random person* is not on the left? That’s ridiculous! You hate freedom.”
No. I totally reject the idea that Dave has had on a decent amount of left-wing people. His guests appear to be overwhelmingly conservative, and otherwise only mildly on the left or hyper-critical of it. Here’s the latest guests as at 22/09/2017:
- Douglas Murray (conservative)
- Greg Gutfeld (Fox News right winger)
- Blaire White (conservative)
- Phillip DeFranco (centrist to left-ish)
- James Damore (centrist to left-ish)
- Guy Benson (conservative)
- Pia Malaney (apparently works for a think-tank funded by George Soros. So, that’s interesting. But I’m unfamiliar with her)
- Gad Saad (a man who whines about the left every day on twitter)
- Katie Hopkins (hard-right xenophobic racist)
- Bill Whittle (conservative)
- Mike Munger (libertarian)
- Eric Weinstein (Unsure, but he would appeal because he’s the guy who stood up for white people at Evergreen College, and has appeared on Fox News)
- Laci Green (former number one enemy of anti-feminists who underwent a change by “red-pilling” herself and is now dating a prominent anti-feminist YouTuber)
- Denis Prager (conservative)
- Michael Shermer (a new atheist guy)
This pattern holds true throughout much of Rubin’s channel.
From this snippet of the past 15 guests: 47% have been conservative or far-right, 20% potentially feminist or progressive (but all recently involved with some controversy against the left), 13% anti-left (Saad, Shermer), 13% center to center-left (DeFranco, Damore), and 7% libertarian.
Rubin’s channel is overwhelmingly weighted towards the right, and his safe, uncritical interviewing style has achieved nothing but a conservative hug-box and anti-left echo chamber.
The next argument from the defender is this:
Progressives and liberals don’t want to go on Dave Rubin’s show! None of them will say yes, and he has tried hard to get people from the left on. Rubin has no choice but to only invite conservatives!”
This rings hollow given that progressive commentator Sam Seder has tweeted at Rubin multiple times in a respectful manner that he would be happy to go on Rubin’s show.
Rubin’s response has been to completely ignore Seder.
Further, Rubin is a prolific blocker, and readily blocks critics (including myself and many people I know, the reason given always that we are “disingenuous” or “annoying” or “unfair” etc).
Update: since writing this article, Rubin did a particularly egregious and disgusting block of a critic.
In a recent appearance with a soft-on-the-right “journalist” Tim Pool, Rubin stated that there is a “necessary place” for Alex Jones, the insane right-winger who recently said that a mass shooting in Las Vegas which left 59 people death and 500+ wounded, was engineered by the Democrats to usher in “Bolshevik 2.0” (or the communist revolution).
This sickening and repulsive use of the worst gun massacre in modern U.S. history was condemned by sane individuals, and a twitter user decided to ask Dave Rubin how this squared with his view of the necessity of Alex Jones in the media.
This is what happened:
When the user asked Dave Rubin about this rancid video, and asking about Rubin’s endorsement of Infowars, Rubin responded by blocking the critic.
I am a fairly jaded individual when it comes to the internet, but even I was shocked at how fucked up that is.
Rubin is so averse to criticism, he will block people for asking what he thinks of the sickening propaganda channel that he described as a “necessary part” of the media.
It was simply asking “Dave, what do you think of this hideous video on a channel you described as a necessary part of the media?” There is nothing unfair about asking that, whatsoever.
Dave – *blocks user*
In his idiotic anti-“social justice warrior” crusade, Rubin has lost all perspective and any basic human decency he may have once had.
If Dave ignores messages from progressives and blocks his critics, the only logical reason is that he favours right-wing guests because he feels more comfortable in that space, dumping on the left and giving amplification to right-wing ideas and anti-left animus.
His blocking policy shows he wants his twitter to be a safe-space, devoid of any criticism or push-back.
Rubin wants his guests to regurgitate his anti-left, buzzword laden (regressive left, ctrl-left, triggered, sjw, etc.) narrative, and it shows in his guest choices, and lack of testing their ideas.
Even when he has left-wing guests on, it is to explore their concerns with left-wing “political correctness”, or “outrage culture”, which they market as “cleaning up their own side”.
One semi-exception I can think of is his recent interview with Laci Green, which was less anti-left than I expected.
Rubin’s passive interviewing style resulted in a conversation that actually tilted things towards a more left-wing point of view, because Green still has some left-wing beliefs.
But that’s the only one that comes to mind, honestly.
Despite people like Rubin interviewing a panoply of conservatives, right-wingers, and critics of the left, the concept of passively interviewing individuals with a history of toxic ideas really came to a head when popular YouTuber Roaming Millennial interviewed alt-right founder and thought-leader Richard Spencer.
Spencer had become notorious for Nazi-saluting (oh sorry, “Roman-saluting” *eyeroll*) and shouting “hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory” at an alt-right conference (the crowd responding in kind), and later, for being punched in the head by an anti-fascist activist while extolling the virtues of a cartoon frog named Pepe (many memes followed).
For years, Spencer has been extolling racist ideas and making racist comments. For example:
“This country does belong to white people, culturally, politically, socially, everything. We defined what America is.” — speech at Texas A&M, December 2016.
“I oppose the immigration of an African who waits his turn and genuinely ‘wants to be an American’; conversely, I would gladly accept thousands of ‘Swedish boat people’ who wash up on the shores.” — Radix Journal blog post, November 2015.
Roaming Millennial is a self-described “classical liberal” (sensing a trend?) who follows the Dave Rubin model when it comes to interviewing extreme right-wingers: ask easy questions detached from any controversy, don’t challenge or otherwise mildly push-back on their answers, and they will somehow expose themselves as having “bad ideas”.
After the interview with Spencer, Roaming steadfastly and adamantly rejected all criticism of her performance as an interviewer.
On twitter, she maintained that she had challenged Spencer, that if his ideas were bad the audience would be able to see that, and defended her bona-fides as an anti-racist individual.
Indeed, in so-called “classical liberal”, otherwise centrist, or “marketplace of ideas” circles, everything seems permitted except criticising this interviewing and discussion style.
Dave Rubin will block critics, Roaming will become combative in a way she apparently can’t muster with a neo-fascist on her own YouTube channel, and being milquetoast, feckless and mildly critical of toxic ideas appears as a great ideal of centrist discourse.
Anything else is “dishonest”, “disingenuous”, “virtue signalling”, and other empty words they throw out as a way to avoid criticism and defend their own vacuity.
So what exactly am I criticising here?
There’s many times I’ve received hostility for criticising the way people like Dave Rubin, Roaming Millennial and others interview toxic people, and how they then defend their atrocious performances.
But maybe it would be useful if I point out some reasons why Spencer’s appearance on her channel was so damaging, and why her conduct as an interviewer was underwhelming and a disservice to her audience.
Roaming begins the interview with this question:
I think maybe more so than any other political movement right now, there has been a lot of confusion, perhaps also some misrepresentation about what the alt-right exactly is. So in your own words, how would you describe the movement and it’s goals?”
At first blush, this is not a terrible first question.
She’s simply saying the alt-right may have had a bad rap (which, knowing about the alt-right, is a laughable idea…but ok, maybe she’s just ignorant), and asking for clarity. It’s not challenging, but does every question need to be?
Spencer answers by walking through what the alt-right is (an identity movement… *cough*… white identity) and where the term came from.
Not much to talk about so far, although Spencer describes race as “of vital importance” and emphasises his role as an “identitarian” (I would be curious to know what that means exactly?). He also says “we need a politics which is derived from a ‘racial understanding'”.
Umm. We do? Why? What “understanding”?
Spencer goes on to say that people sometimes troll on the internet, only to come to the realisation that highly racialised and racist language used in memes (about the “Jewish question” for example) actually contains the truth.
By that point alarm bells would be going off in my head.
“Race is of vital importance” and we need a politics based on “racial understanding” (what does that mean!?). We understand the truth about the “Jewish question” (a phrase literally used by the Nazis in reference to finding a way to eradicate Jews).
This would all be signalling to me: hold up a second.
This guy is using a lot of racially charged language: maybe he’s a racist? Maybe he hates the Jews, or perhaps he means something else?
I wouldn’t scream “RACIST UR A RACIST” at him (which is the strawman people go to), but I would be curious to know the reasons behind his use of racialised and racist language, and why he is so obsessed with race.
I would challenge him on that: “Why do we need a politics based on race, and what does that mean?”, “What do you mean we understand the Jewish question?”.
I would continue to drill down to the core reasons behind his use of racialised language.
How did Roaming Millennial react to all of this obviously racist language?
After Spencer’s answer that mentions the “Jewish question”, Roaming describes his answer as “interesting”, and that she appreciates the “clarity” Spencer provides. She then defends far-right anti-immigration activist Lauren Southern and insane conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson as not being alt-right (due to not being “identitarian” in her eyes).
Spencer continues, with a long answer parsing the alt-right further.
Ten minutes having passed, with a mention of the “Jewish question”, discussion of the importance of white-identity and a white movement, and talk of a need for “racial understanding”, Millennial’s push-back was… nothing. Zip.
Is this acceptable? Really? Giving somebody like this a platform and not challenging a single thing they have to say for this amount of time?
Roaming will ask “what was I supposed to do? Bully him? Yell over him? Push my beliefs onto him?” (an obvious strawman).
You are “supposed” to CHALLENGE HIM, unless you don’t care about your audience being sold a bill of goods about a racist movement. It’s not confusing, it’s not complicated.
Evidence of Roaming Millennial’s either failure or complicity is evident in the comments section, which is packed with praise for how reasonable and rational Richard Spencer seems.
If his ideas are to be “exposed by sunlight”, at least with Roaming’s audience this did not happen, serving only to boost his appeal and make him appear reasonable and non-controversial.
This reveals the fundamental flaw in this pathetic, weak interviewing style, which deserves vociferous and strident criticism.
I’m sure Roaming would claim she pushed back more further in the interview. But in my view, if you can’t call for clarity on such obvious racist language: put a fork in it. It’s done already.
Carl Of Swindon
The final example I will mention is Sargon of Akkad (aka Carl Benjamin, aka garbage human) featuring white-supremacy thought-pioneer Jared Taylor on his “Thinkery” (lol) channel.
On this channel, Carl of Swindon has on a variety of people from the left and right.
With the left-wing people, he takes on an arrogant, dismissive tone (see: his strawman-laden interview with liberal YouTuber ContraPoints), and lectures about authoritarianism, Marxists, “regressives”, and other buzz-phrases he uses to paint his opponents as insane radicals.
With the right-wing, he takes a muted and nuanced tone, attempting to parse out ways in which the left may be “reformed” and better challenge the right by being significantly more milquetoast in it’s criticisms, watering down actual left-wing values.
This muted, neutered Sargon is strongly in effect in the interview with Jared Taylor.
The thing that stood out in this exchange, was that Sargon’s criticism of Jared Taylor was always through a lens of comparing Taylor and his white-supremacist movement unfavourably to the left.
Negatively comparing things to the left is Sargon’s only method for criticising white-supremacy. Because he is so deeply indoctrinated in his myopic culture war, it’s the only tool he has available for doing so.
This means that no matter what Sargon has to say about Jared Taylor and white-supremacy, he still gives them cover by deflecting to some other, scarier boogeyman (the “SJWs” ooooohh).
After saying he sees identitarianism as a step “backwards”, Sargon then makes it about the left, saying that the democrats are “unwitting racists”, and that Taylor shouldn’t push identitarianism on white people…like the democrats do.
Sargon is entirely incapable of refuting white-supremacy on it’s own merits without comparing it negatively to the left, which is his constant go-to.
That’s why at the end of the day, Sargon is a useful tool and shield for white supremacists, nationalists and the right in general. They can always depend on him to criticise them less than he criticises their critics, and provide a gateway for an audience primed against the left by Sargon to move further to the right.
I can imagine Thomas Jefferson working on the declaration of independence and then running his work past a twitter centrist, and what that might look like:
Jefferson: What do you think of this pre-amble my good sir?
Twitter centrist: Well, you’ve written here “all men are created equal”. But why? I’m not convinced.
Jefferson: Why, it is a self-evident truth, as I have written here.
Twitter centrist: How is that self-evident? That is #notanargument. You can’t just virtue-signal and say everybody is self-evidently equal…you have to convince me.
Jefferson: Is not the suffering we have endured under the usurpations of the British monarchy sign enough, that man should be free of the dictums of imperial decree.
Twitter centrist: Men *should* be equal, you already said that, and I agree bad stuff happened I’m not denying that, but I don’t think it’s a solid *argument*. If you can’t make a better argument this whole “declaration of independence” thing is going nowhere. You can’t just virtue signal, Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson: What is objectionable about a signal of one’s virtuous intent? How else are we to make our intentions known?
Twitter centrist: Make a better *argument* than the British colonialists.
Jefferson: I have already put forth an argument, with a declaration of our rights and equality. Not only this, we are actively resisting the British monarchy.
Twitter centrist: Well, it didn’t convince me. You know, this is why slavery is still so popular.
Jefferson: Then how would you advise us to approach this?
Twitter centrist:… …I’ll get back to you. In the meantime, allow me to continue not listening and pedantically picking at your obvious statement that equality is self-evidently better than inequality.
Jefferson: Sir, are you a dotard?
When it comes to criticising people who actually take on those with toxic views, centrists are constantly in your face, telling you you’re doing it wrong and providing useless advice.
But when you try to drill down on what they actually want, you get back praise for a “marketplace of ideas” in which controversial figures say whatever they feel like (in an “ideas safe-space”), with absent or mild feedback from empty-headed nodding talk show hosts, or selective praise for arguments randomly not deemed to be “virtue-signalling”.
The issue with the approach of Dave Rubin, Roaming Millennial and Sargon of Akkad, where one interviews a person with history of controversial and toxic statements as if they are appearing in a vacuum, is that it actively softens and sanitises the individuals involved.
When he is free to express his real thoughts, with no inclination to impress upon a new, captive audience that has been taught complacency in the face of the hard right, Richard Spencer says at a Jared Taylor conference in 2013: “Today, in the public imagination, ‘ethnic cleansing’ has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so), but this need not be the case”
Jared Taylor is free to say in a 2005 article in his American Renaissance magazine: “Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization —any kind of civilization — disappears.”
Katie Hopkins is free to tweet about needing a ‘final solution’ for Muslims: ““22 dead – number rising. Schofield. Don’t you even dare. Do not be a part of the problem. We need a final solution Machester [sic].”
These comments or controversies will not come up in any appearance with these interviewers. Or if they do, the explanations will be placidly accepted, or spun as a media hit-job.
What the audience gets is a safe, sanitised, viewer-tailored and friendly version of these individuals, in a space where they are put forth in the best possible light.
You will get Spencer’s surprisingly liberal views on welfare, and a sense that he’s just a friendly relaxed chap with interesting ideas who has been unfairly smeared.
You will get an assisted narrative about Katie Hopkins being targeted for being a “fire-brand” that does satire and cheeky provocation.
You will hear that Jared Taylor’s racist ideas might not be good because being an “identitarian” makes you just as bad as “social justice warriors”, rather than being flawed on their own merits.
In some instances, such as in Sargon of Akkad’s atrocious hangout with far-right anti-immigration radical Millennial Woes, the sympathetic YouTuber actively helps the radical think about how to make the ideas more palatable to the average viewer.
Sargon literally provided marketing advice for the racist (who once said they should “torpedo” boats full of immigrants).
Who Dave Rubin, Roaming Millennial and perhaps Sargon of Akkad think they are being in these instances is Larry King. Larry King was a major news network interviewer for many decades who was infamous for not looking into his guests, reacting to their ideas in real-time.
King believed that an interviewees ideas speak for themselves, so there was little need for preparation or fore-knowledge.
The primary difference however, is that Larry King did not placidly take things at face value. If something felt off, he would say so. If an idea didn’t ring true, he would dig further. If an argument seemed suspect, he would provide a challenge.
Doing those things are only way one could claim that they are letting the guest “hang themselves with their own rope”. If you don’t give them any rope, they have nothing to hang themselves with.
In the case of the people discussed here, they seem to take the rope away, help them off the chair, and attempt to restore their legitimacy in the public eye (to help avoid any future suicide attempts).
This is not challenging them, exposing them, testing their ideas, nor even particularly exploring their actual core ideas.
This is public relations. This is handing them new fans. This is enabling and empowering them by giving them direct access to your audience with their best foot forward and nothing to counter-balance them.
Talking points about exposing bad ideas to the light ring hollow, because they appear to be doing everything they can to make these bad ideas more palatable.
If they were trying to “expose” anything, they wouldn’t avoid actually challenging these guests, and asking them to actually support what they are saying.
They wouldn’t be outraged at people very reasonably pointing out that their interview was so beyond butter soft, it was basically drinkable butter.
That’s why I continue to firmly believe that these folks are doing a massive disservice to their audiences and are all but lying to their faces.Here's my social media! Support and follow. 🙂