As I explained in detail here, I am a free speech absolutist. I believe you should be able to say literally anything you want without any government preventing you. People can certainly sue you for libel and slander, but that’s not the government. I also explained that both right-wingers and left-wingers hate free speech (though these days, left-wingers hate it more) even though they often pretend otherwise.

Last year I talked about how net neutrality will eventually limit the free speech of people on the internet who voice controversial opinions. This was just one small step in a larger direction that all of society is moving towards; that of cracking down on free speech.

A few months ago, Milo Yiannopoulos, messiah of the alt-right (yes, this man is worshipped like Jesus; alt-right pundits like Vox Day use his picture for their Twitter images, Gavin McInnes actually shaved his beard and dyed his hair blonde to look like him, etc) was famously banned from Twitter because he insulted a celebrity. Many other public figures were far more guilty of things than the ones Milo said on Twitter, but they weren’t banned, because Milo’s views are controversial.

A few weeks ago, Scott Adams discovered that Twitter had shadowbanned him, meaning that he could see his tweets but much of his followers could not. This happened because Twitter leans left and Scott talks about Donald Trump a lot. Note, he doesn’t even agree with Trump’s politics, and never endorsed Trump for president (until about a week or two ago; Scott is an erratic guy and changes his mind a lot).

Recently, YouTube created a huge uproar when they started demonetizing thousands of videos from content providers, then created a new program that actually rewards people for flagging videos they didn’t like. This program is parodied here:

YouTube will now not let you monetize (receive any money from advertising) if your video includes any of the following content:

 Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor

Make a dick joke? NOT ALLOWED!

Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism

Comment on a scene from your favorite action movie? Discuss a historical war or tragedy?  NOT ALLOWED!

Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language

Use any bad language? Say the word “shit?” NOT ALLOWED!

Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items

Talk about how you like to smoke weed? NOT ALLOWED!

Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown

Report on any news story in any way that YouTube doesn’t like? NOT ALLOWED!

Left-wing YouTube channels I like, like the Amazing Atheist, and right-wing channels I like, like Steven Crowder, have all been affected by this. As just one example, Crowder had many videos demonetized because he said the word “gun.”

This is creepy, insane shit is now becoming the norm.

I have always been planning on doing a regular series of YouTube videos, and I still will, but I will no longer plan on getting any actual income from YouTube advertising, which is unfortunate. Instead, I’ve been forced to revamp my entire video plan to ensure my videos make money by creating sales of my other products and services, since YouTube no longer allows you to make money on advertising unless you talk about…well, I don’t know. Unicorns and rainbows maybe?

Like all growing trends, this anti-free speech culture will get worse.

On October 1st, ICANN, the organization that handles domain names and internet DNS, was released from the control of the NTIA, a subset of the US Department of Commerce. This is a good thing, because free market control is always better than government control. However, in this case, it may not be a good thing, because the odds are now very high that ICANN may be put under the power of the United Nations which does not respect the free speech laws of the US Constitution. This means free speech-hating nations like Russia, China, and suicidal Europe may be placed in charge of what domains and web sites will be allowed to operate. Stephan Molyneux made some videos about this here and here.

If you hate free speech, then you’ll be very happy over the next few years as the free speech of the internet, including blogs, news sites, video sites, and social media, becomes more and more curtailed, turning the once free internet into a quasi-authoritarian happy-zone where no controversial ideas are ever discussed, where news is limited, and where education of the masses is stifled.

As I explain in my book, one of the reasons I own three businesses is that if laws change to make one or two of them impossible (or too difficult) to run, I’ll be covered. One of my three businesses is making money selling information via blogs like this, discussing highly controversial, and often unpopular topics.

It’s entirely possible, actually it’s likely, that 10-20 years from now, most of the topics I discuss on a regular basis on my blogs and in my books won’t be allowed on the internet at all. Nice. This is despite the fact that I have a readership of over a million men per year. I may have to either shut down this business, or move it do some quasi-illegal black market segment of the internet with a much smaller audience (like the dark web) which won’t help nearly as many people, and may not be worth my time and effort.

I’m not happy about this, but it’s in my long-term business plan. Such is the case when you live in a slowly collapsing society.

This is what happens when left-wingers take control of the narrative, and when you restrict free speech because your fragile, pussy ego can’t handle listening to opposing opinions.

I hope you’re going to be happy with the end result.

49 Comments on “Internet Free Speech Is Vanishing – Prepare For It

  1. Government should only step into the lives of its citizens when their personal security is threat.

    That does mean citizens that own private corporations can operate it how they see fit as long as they aren’t causing physical harm to anyone.

    If for example a white supremacist says all non whites are inferior on his own platform he has be right and no one can censor him. If he says if on another citizens platform for example YouTube they have the right to censor it as it’s not a government or citizens platform. However if that same white supremacist advocates for violence against non whites in any platform including his own the government can step in

    I believe my philosophy is Libeterian no?

  2. On Milo Yiannopoulos:

    1. The only reason he’s being worshipped as the messiah is because he IS the fucking messiah! How can anyone deny this? You’ve been such a blasphemer lately BD. How can you not worship this man? He is beyond fabulous! Virtually everything he says is 100 percent correct. I’ve only detected three flaws in his thinking so far – he’s a (cultural) Catholic, he believes in chivalry (and is therefore against women in the military, for example), and he’s in favor of male genital mutilation. But he’s only human. He’s allowed to be wrong on only three things. Three is actually surprisingly low, considering my high standards of ideological purity. He is an emergent property who is desperately needed and serves as an extremely courageous and necessary correction to PC garbage.

    How can you watch this video and NOT think he’s a savior:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7RrQ_WHLLk

    Or this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8chEy9rwL4

    2. Despite your claim, he is NOT a member of the Alt Right. The media just wants to make him a member because he shares the Alt Right’s hatred of political correctness and wants absolute free speech. He is a cultural libertarian (and an economic moderate). The Alt Right (which is a culturally authoritarian force) hates him for being gay, for being a Jew (on his mother’s side), for promoting sexual freedom, for occasionally dressing in drag, for refusing to be ashamed of his homosexuality, and for promoting a free culture (including drug legalization).

    The Alt Right viciously attacked him in this video (skip to 11:06):

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

    Milo is a cultural libertarian fighting against our two opposing cultural authoritarian forces (the Alt Right and SJWs/Feminists).

    Note: It is very likely that him and I are going to meet this January, as his rise to fame coincides perfectly with my shedding of my internet anonymity when I retire this March from the legal profession and become a full time cultural warrior. With my money and his fabulousness, him and I can combine our red pill knowledge and make an unstoppable team! And there are a lot of horny girls who want to fuck him, but he’s gay, so it’s very possible he’ll pass them my way if I become his platonic partner in crime. :).

    Alright, BD’s spam filter – don’t give me any problems with these links!

  3. The only reason he’s being worshipped as the messiah is because he IS the fucking messiah! How can anyone deny this? You’ve been such a blasphemer lately BD. How can you not worship this man? He is beyond fabulous!

    And I rest my case.

    (I really wish men would stop looking for a messiah.)

    Despite your claim, he is NOT a member of the Alt Right.

    I didn’t say he was a member of the alt-right. I said he was worshiped by the alt-right.

  4. 1. Oh come on! You know that messiah comment was tongue in cheek on my part.

    2. And you’re wrong. Not only is he not worshipped by the Alt Right, he is slandered and viciously attacked by the Alt Right. See the third video that I posted. It’s savage towards him (skip to 11:06).

  5. You know that messiah comment was tongue in cheek on my part.

    No it wasn’t. Ask anyone else here who read your comment.

  6. “Milo Yiannopoulos, messiah of the alt-right”

    A gay race mixing Jew? Most of these people go into seizures when you mention Milo, and have issued a veritable fatwa against him.

  7. I don’t get it. You lay out perfect examples of how privatization of media and communications ends up restricting the freedoms of those who use them and then lay the blame on ‘Left-wingers’?? Your conclusion makes no sense.

    I think the proper conclusion here is that unless the proper regulations are put in place (yes, by the Gub’mint) to prevent a few large monopolies from controlling industries, in this case media platforms, you will have very negative repercussions on society as competition is squelched and consumers become subjugated to the authority of corporations which have only a profit motive and perhaps select private interests guiding them and are under no obligation to answer to the will of the people or the common good.
    We see this today in many areas of commerce and industry, such as banking, agribusiness, energy, medicine, etc.

  8. On the Alt Right vs. Cultural Libertarians vs. SJWs:

    Okay, I feel we need to establish our definitions here, because they are getting really blurry:

    First: We have cultural libertarians (that’s us). We embody the libertarian denomination of the manosphere and the seduction community. We are red pill and pro-cultural freedom in all its forms. Here are the major points upon which all of us cultural libertarians agree upon:

    1. We are Free Speech absolutists and believe that the free and unhindered expression of ALL ideas is the most precious human right. Freedom of expression is the foundation of all other freedoms and jokes, comedy, humor, and laughter represent the foundation of Free Speech.

    2. We are against political correctness, as we recognize that PC is just another form of censorship and authoritarianism. PC thought policing and language policing begins with policing jokes and spreads out from there. PC is a cancer upon humanity that must be radiated out of existence,

    3. We are sex-positive. As usually (or perhaps unusually) high sex drive men and women, we believe in the maintaining of a sex-positive culture and the ending of slut shaming and stud shaming. We believe that healthy human beings should have as much sex as possible with as many people as they wish and a culture which encourages this aims at maximum human happiness. No one who gets laid a lot has ever blown himself up to get virgins in heaven, for example.

    4. We are pro-male as much as we are pro-female. We decry the female supremacist attitudes of SJW leftists who treat men like second class citizens and teach boys that masculinity is shameful, just as much as we decry the female supremacist/chivalrous views of traditional conservatives (currently embodied within the Alt Right) declaring that men are required to provide for women and women must be parasites on men’s bank accounts.

    5. We are pro-racial equality, which means we condemn the PC anti-white racism of the left and their “check your privilege” white guilt culture. Teaching white people to be ashamed of their whiteness is deplorable and racist. And making white people take responsibility for the actions of other white people just because of their superficial skin complexion is racist and disgusting. No race has the right to be bullied or discriminated against. As such, we are against affirmative action, as it discriminates against people of European descent.

    6. We are pro-heterosexuality, thus leading us to condemn the heterophobia of the SJWs and their sick campaign of changing all male heterosexuality into rape via broadening definitions. We are fine with all other sexual orientations as well, assuming they involve only non-incestuous consensual sex between adults.

    7. We are anti-Islam! Technically, we are against all culturally authoritarian beliefs (which includes most religions), but Islam deserves special condemnation, as it is the only religious ideology which threatens to end all cultural libertarianism and return us to the dark ages where freedom is a distant memory.

    8. We love humor and the sound of laughter.

    Now, let’s compare and contrast this with the two cultural forces which oppose us and each other – the cultural authoritarian left and the cultural authoritarian right:

    Second, the Alt Right: They embody the conservative (tradcon) version of the manosphere and the seduction community. They believe that freedom is a dangerous weapon used by Jews plunge cultures into chaos so that they, as a race, can have the advantage. They also believe that democracy is the main armament of freedom and should probably be replaced with some kind of military dictatorship, because “when people choose, they always choose wrong.” Here are their 8 major points:

    1. They are Free Speech absolutists who believe that Freedom of Expression is a necessary agent of revolution, and therefore, a maintainer of truth and beauty. The free marketplace of ideas is sacred and must never be taken away. Truth can only be discovered if all ideas are heard and no one has the right to silence anyone. Free Speech is the foundation of all other freedoms, and jokes, comedy, and humor are the foundation of Free Speech.

    2. They are against political correctness, as they recognize that PC is just another form of censorship used by the ugly, the jealous, and the losers to wage war against the beautiful, the mature, and the winners. Not to mention against truth and light. PC is a cancer upon humanity that must be permanently radiated out of existence.

    3. They are sex-negative. As tradcons, they believe that sexual freedom is the most dangerous of all freedoms. They believe that civilization depends upon monogamous marriage and (ideally) virginity until marriage. Anything less than this destroys (or at least dilutes) the traditional/monogamous family unit, which in turn, destroys all civilization and sends us back to sub-Saharan Africa. To avoid this, women must be viciously slut shamed while men are given a free pass to fuck as many women as they want because men are heterosexuals, whereas women are just hypergamous asexuals, or prostitutes, who go with the winner and fuck him for his resources. Women should be prohibited from working, thus forcing them to choose men for purely non-sexual (parasitic) considerations, thus allowing all betas to get laid and maintain civilization by guaranteeing beta motivation to work. All sexual liberation is a Jewish plot to enslave non-Jews to Jews and should be abolished. They are pro-stud, but anti-slut.

    4. They are female supremacist chivalrists. They believe in a so called “high trust society” in which neighbors observe neighbors and we are all a close knit community (thus making sexual freedom impossible). All women should be parasites on men’s bank accounts and labor. In return, men should give these women special privileges in the form of exemption from all non-house related work and other chivalrous behavior (opening doors for women, treating them with a Disney level of naivete after they are resocialized into being the pure and respectful virgins they supposedly used to be before the Jews created the sexual revolution, etc,,,) All women should be literal prostitutes (known as housewives), while reserving shame only for the cheap prostitutes (street walkers). Females who are actually heterosexual (have sex for sex) shouldn’t be acknowledged as existing, or should be denounced as sluts, even worse than the street walkers who at least get paid something.

    5. They are anti-racial equality: They believe that racial equality is a complete myth and that the white race is superior to all other races. As racial separatists, they believe that non-whites should be deported back to their non-western countries and whites should be the only ones here. As such, they condemn the PC anti-white racism because they want racism against the minority races instead. For this reason, they condemn affirmative action as cheating and would prefer deportation of all non-Europeans as a superior solution. Their biggest hatred is for the Jews though, believing that the Jews have a superior IQ to everyone else and that they are enslaving non-Jews. As such, they want all Jews deported to Israel so that things like the sex-positive movement and cultural freedom can never happen again.

    6. They are pro-male heterosexuality and anti-female heterosexuality. They believe that all men should be studs while all women should be virgins until marriage. During marriage, women should have sex only to please their husbands and to reap material benefits, not because women are heterosexual or enjoy sex in any way. They are also deeply homophobic and against all non-heterosexual orientations, thus intending on criminalizing them.

    7..They are anti-Islam. Despite being equally totalitarian, they don’t want Islam to take over the West because Muslims are typically non-white, and therefore, will destroy western culture, including Christianity. They want to protect Christianity and European culture, thus necessitating the deportation of all Muslims and other cultural non-conformists from white lands. They believe the only way to protect ourselves against Islam is to take away all freedom from America (especially sexual freedom) because freedom makes people weak. As such, they want to mimmick Muslim tyranny and sexual squeamishness in order to protect the West from Islam. They also want to match Muslims in their breeding patterns and make every white woman have 8 or 9 kids.

    8. They love humor and the sound of laughter (especially children laughing).

    And finally, the other equally authoritarian culture – the SJWs (social justice warriors). They embody all mainstream culture today (dominating the media, Hollywood, and the higher academia). They believe that freedom hurts people’s feelings and should therefore be completely abolished. They believe in a white cis-gendered (that means normal) heterosexual patriarchy that is oppressing everyone and hurting their feelings, so it must be overthrown, enslaved itself, and get its feelings hurt as payback.

    Here are their 8 major points:

    1. They want to abolish Free Speech! They believe that Free Speech is emotional violence and emotional abuse. As such, they wish to treat emotional injuries the same way they would treat physical injuries – by criminalizing the perpetrators. Every single opinion which they disagree with needs to be legally banned as “hate speech” and a “micro-aggression.” Only their opinions should be legally acceptable to express in public. Everyone with contradictory opinions should be jailed and then “reeducated” in their indoctrination camps, or colleges. The United Nations recently stated that an emotional injury is just as serious as a physical one as it taxes one’s “emotional bandwidth,” thus justifying forcefully deleting from the Internet anything which hurts the feelings of fragile snowflakes.

    2. They love political correctness. They believe that PC is just another term for human decency, or not being pure scum. PC should be enforced by police officers and “safe spaces” should be erected that ban all non-PC speech. Eventually, the entire world needs to become a “safe space” where all PC people are literally above criticism, like third world dictators with smartphones and Starbucks lattes. Emotional injuries (such as criticism) need to result in jail time for the “micro-aggressor” and trigger warnings should be given before any material is discussed that might traumatize the sensibilities of a fragile snowflake/dictator.

    3. They are sex-negative. Although they are pro-sex that isn’t heterosexual, they believe that all heterosexual sex is rape on some level because “power differences between men and women in a patriarchal society make women not politically strong enough to consent.” Until this changes, all heterosexual intercourse should be legally criminalized as rape, unless it is first prefaced with autistic verbal procedures known as “affirmative consent.” Outside the extremely narrow and legalistic confines of “affirmative consent ” – which requires a verbal yes before and continually during a sexual encounter – all sex should be considered criminal rape and all expression of male heterosexuality should be criminalized as “misogynistic objectification of women.” While females may be heterosexual, all males must be asexual, except when given the explicit verbal consent of a woman for a specified time. Males shouldn’t be allowed to choose who to have sex with. If they refuse to have sex with fat or ugly women, they should be shamed as fat shaming misogynists and objectifiers of women. If they refuse to have sex with trans women (men got a sex change, or who still have penises), then they are trans-phobic bigots who should be ashamed of themselves.

    4. They female supremacists. Men have no right to exist, except with women’s permission. Men have no right to demonstrate any type of behavior that is distinctively manly or masculine. Females can show sexual desire towards men and even initiate sex (in which case, the men MUST comply), whereas males must be asexuals, as the slightest flirting or heterosexual expression (even verbal expression) immediately marks a man as a shameful misogynist. All male heterosexuality is hate. Only women can enjoy themselves sexually. They are anti-slut shaming but very pro-stud shaming.

    5. They are anti-racial equality. They believe that all white men are scum! Whites are the lowest and most despicable race who should “check their privilege.” Whites can’t even be SJWs. They can only be allies to, or “house niggers” of, the SJW cause. The Oppression Olympics dictates that the most oppressed race should lord it over all the other races, women should rule over men, non-heterosexuals should rule over heterosexuals and trans-gendered people should rule over normal people. SJWs love judging people by how they were born, except in an opposite manner from the Alt Right.

    6. They are heterophobic. Men must be asexuals or non-heterosexuals. But heterosexuality should only belong to the woman. And even then, the woman must be at least a little bi-curious in order to avoid the label of bigot. All male heterosexuality is rape and all male heterosexual expression is sexual harassment, objectification of women, and hatred of women which should be criminalized.

    7. They are pro-Islam. Despite Islam wanting to literally kill all the SJWs’ protected groups, Muslims are considered a protected group because they are hated (and therefore, oppressed) by white people and all people who love freedom. All hostility to Muslim cultural authoritarianism is shamed as Islamophobia and women should be covered up anyway because dressing sexy triggers fat women and is hate speech. They believe that if a white woman is raped by a non-white man, it isn’t rape, but a “temporary suspension of her white privilege.” They believe that Islam is a religion of peace, love, and flowers and all acts of terrorism are simply acts of defense against white male oppression.

    8. They hate humor or the sound of laughter because they believe that all jokes are inherently disrespectful and offensive to somebody and triggering for victims of trauma. Thus, criminalizing humor is believed to be the first order of business for a decent society that respects and values one another.

    ***

    Points of agreement between cultural libertarians and SJWs: 0

    Points of agreement between cultural libertarians and the alt right:4 (1,2,7,8)

  9. Goddammit, I didn’t even post any links this time! Damn spam filter. BD, you really need to fix that thing. Or tell me how short my comment has to be to avoid the spam filter.

  10. I don’t get it. You lay out perfect examples of how privatization of media and communications ends up restricting the freedoms of those who use them and then lay the blame on ‘Left-wingers’?? Your conclusion makes no sense.

    Correct. Businesses managed by left-wingers.

    I think the proper conclusion here is that unless the proper regulations are put in place (yes, by the Gub’mint) to prevent a few large monopolies from controlling industries

    I have already said that I am for laws that prevent monopolies.

    Goddammit, I didn’t even post any links this time! Damn spam filter. BD, you really need to fix that thing.

    Haha! Then stop writing book-long posts that overwhelm WordPress, butthole.

  11. Having freedom of speech , gives you the right to be a bigot.? Settling a libel lawsuit ,does not admit to guilt. What do you read
    into PC, do you bare some responsibility for present and past slaughter, pillage and domination. Once again the American Indian has
    no constitutional rights, however white settlers are allowed to take over and party for 41 days in a Federal building .
    White privilege continue to be re enforced through the lethal force of government.

  12. On the danger to Internet speech:

    BD: You wrote: “I have already said that I am for laws that prevent monopolies.”

    Actually, the fact that anti-monopoly laws are on the books is precisely the reason why Internet Free Speech is on its death bed. In 1990, ICANN was a private company assigning IP addresses to all individuals who use the internet and domain names to all websites. But thanks to these horseshit anti-monopoly laws campaigned for and signed into law by socialist asshole Teddy Roosevelt, the U.S. Supreme Court told ICANN that’s it’s not allowed to exist because it has a monopoly over internet domain names and IP addresses. Since the nature of the internet makes any other arrangement impractical, the U.S government shielded ICANN from socialist asshole Teddy Roosevelt’s law by declaring ICANN an “instrumentality of government,” thus exempting it from these bullshit anti-trust laws! The U.S Supreme Court responded by saying, “Okay, but if you’re now an instrumentality of government, you must obey the First Amendment, and therefore, give full Free Speech to all Internet users in America.” To which ICANN responded – Ok!

    Now that ICANN has been released from the grip of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (thanks to another socialist asshole – Obama), the anti-trust laws passed by the former socialist asshole (Roosevelt) are, once again, in full effect! So ICANN has no right to exist anymore unless it is once again sheltered by a government! And the SJW UN is volunteering.

    ICANN would be fine as a private monopoly. The Internet is so decentralized that it would have been too much of a headache for ICANN to censor speech. But now that ICANN is going into the hands of the UN – THANKS TO THESE SOCIALIST ANTI-TRUST LAWS – the UN will force it to censor un-PC speech, or “crime think.” The UN has already announced that ICANN must now follow the United Nations Charter, including its “Declaration of Human Rights,” which, among other things, declare Free Speech a human rights violation if it hurts anyone’s feelings (especially the feelings of women and Muslims).

    Bottom line – socialist anti-trust laws have killed Free Speech on the Internet!

    The problem isn’t private business. The problem (as usual) is government (in this case, the UN and the traitor Obama).

  13. Having freedom of speech , gives you the right to be a bigot.?

    Yes. Bigotry in the free market (not government) is allowed in a free country.

    What do you read into PC, do you bare some responsibility for present and past slaughter, pillage and domination.

    I bare no responsibility for something I did not do, or happened before I was born.

    Once again the American Indian has no constitutional rights, however white settlers are allowed to take over and party for 41 days in a Federal building .

    I 100% agree with you there. The government does indeed treat white people better that certain other races in certain scenarios, and they shouldn’t.

    In 1990, ICANN was a private company assigning IP addresses to all individuals who use the internet and domain names to all websites. But thanks to these horseshit anti-monopoly laws campaigned for and signed into law by socialist asshole Teddy Roosevelt, the U.S. Supreme Court told ICANN that’s it’s not allowed to exist because it has a monopoly over internet domain names and IP addresses.

    I agree with this decision. ICANN should not be a government agency, nor should it be under any government-like international body like the UN. It should be a 100% free market entity.

    The problem isn’t private business. The problem (as usual) is government (in this case, the UN and the traitor Obama).

    Well yes, that’s pretty much always the case.

  14. CJ’s view of the youtube heroes thing sounds a bit paranoid. Its not being taken seriously at all. This video explains it pretty well:

  15. Caleb, you seriously need to start making videos on youtube. It doesn’t matter that some of your videos are gonna be demonetized. They will still gather a good amount of following and you can use that platform to forward people onto your blogs. You won’t be censored if you’re calm and rational like you are here. Just avoid putting certain “Offensive” tags on your videos (so the bots doesn’t pick it up) and going too controversial. Don’t make response videos to SJWs so you don’t make any enemies (Who will flag your contents).

    There are a lot of controversial content creators that bend some of these rules and still make a living out of it. Trust me, I’ve been following the youtube crisis for a long time and know a lot of atheist/anti-SJW channels that had to deal with this shit throughout their career and learned a lot about the going ons of youtube. You are seriously MISSING out. Just start today and put your podcasts on youtube. For sure, you will gain a lot of subscribers immedietly. Then you will start making it on the recommended page for people who are searching for content similar to yours.

  16. Forgot to mention, The Amazing Atheist still advertises on his videos as you probably know. At the start of some videos he talks about puppy merchandise for example…

  17. CJ’s view of the youtube heroes thing sounds a bit paranoid.

    and then…

    This is a post after krauser’s twitter got suspended

    Exactly. His head’s in the sand. Just this morning Steven Crowder (a conservative YouTube channel with half a million subs) reported that:

    1. Google has taken him off top rankings because of “gun imagery”

    2. He’s banned from YouTube’s restricted mode (for kids, libraries, etc) even though they’re FCC complaint and never use swear words, while the Young Turks, a left-wing channel that says fuck and shit constantly, is still there.

    3. If you search for “Steven Crowder” on YouTube, he doesn’t come up. Other channels do(!).

    But there’s nothing to this and I’m sure I’m just being paranoid.

    Caleb, you seriously need to start making videos on youtube.

    I will. I’m just going to have to advertise my own stuff on there harder than I was planning, and I’ll have to double-host them in places outside of YouTube (in case they get flagged or taken down), which is going to be more work and logistics than I was planning on. Pain in the butt, but I’ll still do it.

    Don’t make response videos to SJWs so you don’t make any enemies (Who will flag your contents).

    I’m not going to do those because I find those SJW vids boring and predictable. However I’m still going to get haters. It’s a reality of being a content provider, particularly one like me with anti-SP opinions.

    But as usual, haters are okay in the long run, because they make me money.

    Just start today and put your podcasts on youtube.

    They’re already there. (YouTube search BlackdragonVids.) I just haven’t directed any traffic there.

    I’m going to do videos so don’t worry. You’ll have to be patient though, since I’ve still got 3-4 more important projects that need to get done before I focus on that. Putting up videos (and doing it RIGHT) is not something you can just whip up in a few hours. It takes time.

    Anyway, coming soon.

  18. What do you think about the Bitcoin database technology named Blockchain? This database can do much more than just providing a platform for money transactions. These two videos show other possibilities:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSP-taqLWPQ

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

    Do you think the Blockchain could replace the internet if the latter gets censored too much? Or is the Blockchain thechnology too limited?
    And even if it is much better than the internet, there is also the fact that man is a creature of habit. A few years ago when YouTube started with all the ads and restrictions, I thought that would be the end of it and people would shift to Vimeo or something similar. But it never happened. The service has to become really shitty to make the crowd move.

    As a side note: can you please implement the comment functions you have at the BD blog? (quote, bold, italic etc.) You are using the quote function so it is definitely in this blog too, but the button doesn’t show up. And if you update the blog can you also implement an archive? I always just bookmark the archives of the blogs I read, it’s way easier to search for specific posts.

    Caleb Jones says:
    “3. If you search for “Steven Crowder” on YouTube, he doesn’t come up. Other channels do(!).”

    That’s strange. Here in Germany it works perfectly fine and his channel is the first one in the search results on YouTube.

    And I’m also looking forward to your YouTube videos. Just subbed to your channel.

  19. 1. Bigotry in the free market, allowed in a free country.? What if your klan, is replaced by a bigoted fat clever

    brown racist and only prefers his type. Freedom of speech, what is the difference between an act of terrorism and a hate crime?

    Dylan Roof a white man and nazi sympathiser, slaughtered 9 blacks in an American church charged with a hate crime

    Was it terrorism when a kuwaiti shot dead five americans yes.

    Terrorism is defined as the unauthorized use of violence and intimidation to pursue political aims. And yes Nazi are a political aim.

  20. Of course haters make you money, that’s why those atheist channels have switched to making anti-SJW content despite its risks (also, I suspect that your last invitation to the manosphere was more about the traffic than a sincere discussion lol).

    I know you plan on it but I’m just urging you on since it’s seems like a wasted opportunity. Just like the election, you gotta milk youtube dry before it collapses on itself (which it won’t anytime soon because a lot of the best content and biggest content creators on youtube bend pretty much all the rules and youtube is okay with it so it’s not like these rules will change much)

    Just subbed, here’s to you beating Pewdiepie. Looking forward to those gaming videos… 😉

  21. Bigotry in the free market, allowed in a free country.? What if your klan, is replaced by a bigoted fat clever brown racist and only prefers his type.

    Perfectly fine. Bigotry and racist viewpoints in the free market should be allowed in a free country.

    Free speech laws are meant to protect hateful speech, not speech everyone already agrees with with. Otherwise you wouldn’t need free speech laws.

    It’s called freedom. You should be able to say whatever you want without the government cracking you on the head.

    Freedom of speech, what is the difference between an act of terrorism and a hate crime?

    Terrorism is murder. Murder is immoral and wrong and should of course be illegal.

    I don’t believe in hate crimes. Hate crimes modify the punishment for crimes like murder based on the thoughts that were in the perpetrator’s head at the time. That’s stupid. Murder is murder, and it should be illegal and harshly punished, regardless of what the murderer was thinking when he did it.

    Dylan Roof a white man and nazi sympathiser, slaughtered 9 blacks in an American church charged with a hate crime

    Was it terrorism when a kuwaiti shot dead five americans yes.

    Terrorism is defined as the unauthorized use of violence and intimidation to pursue political aims. And yes Nazi are a political aim.

    Correct. That’s all violence. Violence is illegal and should be.

    Saying words with your mouth or typing them on a web site is not violence. You’re equating two completely different things.

    Of course haters make you money, that’s why those atheist channels have switched to making anti-SJW content despite its risks

    I still find those videos boring and predictable, therefore I won’t do them.

    (also, I suspect that your last invitation to the manosphere was more about the traffic than a sincere discussion lol).

    You don’t have to suspect. That’s exactly what it was. Everything I do here is to create more traffic for me so I can make more money.

    And that’s my objective: make a certain amount of money without getting too much fame. If my primary goal was to get famous in this space, I would do a “Scott Adams” or “Mike Cernovich” and go 100% Trump and alt-right topics with everything I talked about. Within a few months I’d get 50,000 Twitter followers and be invited on shows like Dave Rubin.

    But my goal isn’t to be famous to an angry mob. It’s something quite different.

  22. Do you think the Blockchain could replace the internet if the latter gets censored too much? Or is the Blockchain thechnology too limited?

    Maybe not blockchain specifically, but yes, if the “normal” internet becomes censored to the point where only politically correct, left-wing happy thoughts are allowed to be discussed, then yes, you will definitely, 100%, see some kind of non-governmental, semi-encrypted alternative gain traction, where people are actually allowed to air their views and converse like adults, which is what America (used to be) all about.

    And I’ll definite be there.

    can you please implement the comment functions you have at the BD blog? (quote, bold, italic etc.)

    Yeah I keep putting that off but it’s coming very soon.

  23. Laughing at some idiots is entertaining for a few moments but that gets boring too. I can’t imagine having to do that for a living.

    Pretending to lend an ear can be very profitable. It gets people to emotionally invest in you (and create traffic). All those years of dating girls taught you well.

  24. @Daryl:

    quote
    Having freedom of speech , gives you the right to be a bigot.?
    End quote

    Yes! If you think Free Speech gives you the right to speak out against bigotry, then it also gives people the right to be bigots. Or do you think that only your point of view should be legal and everyone who disagrees with you should be in jail? Do you know what freedom means?

    quote
    What do you read into PC, do you bare some responsibility for present and past slaughter, pillage and domination.
    end quote

    No. But that’s what PC people believe, sadly.

    quote
    Once again the American Indian has no constitutional rights,
    end quote

    Correct. American Indians have no constitutional rights, because the Constitution applies only to the United States. Indian reservations are legally recognized as their own foreign countries. As their own separate sovereign lands, the Constitution doesn’t apply to them, just like it doesn’t apply to Canada, Russia, China, or any other foreign country.

    quote
    however white settlers are allowed to take over and party for 41 days in a Federal building.
    end quote

    That case was adjudicated and they were found not guilty for the things they were charged with.

    quote
    White privilege continue to be re enforced through the lethal force of government.
    end quote

    Typical SJW racist. Instead of collectivizing people based on the color of their skin, why not judge people only as individuals? There is no such thing as “white privilege.” There is only green privilege. Once you grow up and realize that money controls everything, you will see that the only color that matters in this world is green. Fuck your racism!

  25. Continuing with Daryl’s rather limited understanding of freedom of expression:

    quote
    Bigotry in the free market, allowed in a free country.?
    end quote

    LOL! Are you in elementary school? If bigotry wouldn’t be allowed, then it wouldn’t be a free country. Again, you seem to think that only your point of view should be legal. That’s not a free country. That’s a third world dictatorship. There’s a reason we call SJWs like you the regressive left.

    quote
    What if your klan, is replaced by a bigoted fat clever brown racist and only prefers his type. Freedom of speech,
    end quote

    Correct. That would also be free speech. In fact, we already have black racists who only prefer their type. They’re called Black Lives Matter.

    quote
    what is the difference between an act of terrorism and a hate crime?
    end quote

    An act of terrorism is real. A hate crime is a socially constructed fiction designed to send people to prison for their inner thoughts, like they do in North Korea.

    quote
    Dylan Roof a white man and nazi sympathiser, slaughtered 9 blacks in an American church charged with a hate crime
    end quote

    Which is terrible. He had no business being charged with a thought crime in a free country. He should have only been charged with murder.

    quote
    Was it terrorism when a kuwaiti shot dead five americans yes.
    end quote

    Yes.

    quote
    Terrorism is defined as the unauthorized use of violence and intimidation to pursue political aims.
    end quote

    No. Intimidation could mean anything you pull out of your ass. There is no terrorism without physical violence. I have a sneaking suspicion that you want to criminalize Free Speech by defining it as “intimidation.” You represent everything that is wrong with the SJW left. You equate Freedom of Speech – a guaranteed human right – with physical violence and murder, which means you want to repeal the First Amendment for the same reason I want to keep murder illegal. Fuck off with your censorship!

    quote
    And yes Nazi are a political aim.
    end quote

    But are they physically violent? If not, they are protected under the First Amendment guaranteed human right to disagree with you! Get that through your head.

  26. You know, as much as I lean towards free speech absolutism, sometimes I think those who want to put some limits on it have a point. Some people are simply so sensitive to words that they might as well have been hit in the face or worse. I always go back to the example of a sadistic asshole who figures out a way to talk so harshly to a child, or to a depressed/stigmatized person, that the heartbroken person commits suicide or otherwise puts herself in harm’s way. As much as I would like to retort “people shouldn’t be pussies, only physical harm can count”, it feels off. Now *I* would NEVER demand for law to interfere with verbal violence done to *me*, but there’s always a situations where a type of speech, directed towards especially fragilized people, indeed feels like physical violence and you feel strongly compelled to physically prevent the asshole from continuing the verbal bullying. You can all imagine a psychologically compelling example of verbal cruelty I think.
    The problem is that SJWs would take this idea and expand its definition to the max (just like they do with the def of rape and sexual assault), thus turning it totalitarian (any butthurt pussy would be able to restrict your speech). Any thoughts ?

  27. CJ, my comment won’t show up and it wasn’t long or anything. Is there something wrong with it ?

  28. @BD:

    quote
    I agree with this decision. ICANN should not be a government agency, nor should it be under any government-like international body like the UN. It should be a 100% free market entity.
    end quote

    I think you misread me. The Supreme Court in 1990 told ICANN that it precisely does NOT have a right to exist as a private entity because of Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-monopoly laws (which you claim to support). So the only way to save ICANN’s existence was to put it under the auspices of government (which led to the side effect of the entire Internet being protected by the First Amendment). But now that Obama has released ICANN from the Department of Commerce, the UN MUST take over in order for ICANN to, once again, be shielded from these socialist anti-trust laws.

    So the problem which caused this whole mess are the anti-trust laws you claim you support. And yet, you say that ICANN shouldn’t be bound to the U.S government, or the UN, but should be a fully private entity. I agree. But the only way to make that a reality is to repeal all of the anti-trust laws that you claim to support, passed originally by socialists like Teddy Roosevelt and FDR!

  29. The Supreme Court in 1990 told ICANN that it precisely does NOT have a right to exist as a private entity because of Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-monopoly laws (which you claim to support)

    And I disagree with that Supreme Court decision. ICANN clearly should be private, regardless of monopoly laws.

    Now if the Supreme Court decided to break up ICANN into a bunch of little baby ICANNs, all to compete with each other in the free market, that would be cool with me. But saying it doesn’t have the right to exist as a private entity is clearly more big government bullshit.

    Fuck the Supreme Court. They’ve sucked ass for decades.

  30. BD – I responded to Gil Galad and it didn’t show up. I’ve posted responses on your BD blog way longer than this one, and they showed up over there. Weird.

  31. @Jack: the filters must be based on “trigger words”, for example my first comment must’ve been initially deleted because it had “sad**tic a**h*le” in it, most likely. Just insert some asterisks when you use words you guess will be caught by the filter.

  32. Update to my comment, until Jack’s is displayed: my main point is that we should judge violence based on its results more than on what it just *is*. Physical violence is illegal more because of its results than because “it’s physical”, when you really think back to how and why it was outlawed in the first place: it was outlawed because it can kill, cripple, compromise life in various senses of the word. Therefore, if SOME forms of speech in SOME very particular circumstances are capable of causing physiological/neurological harm comparable in severity to what physical violence can cause, then in *those* circumstances perhaps they should be outlawed, too (see, I refused to use the word “psychological” because to me it’s an artificial mind/body division that makes things more confused, not less). Morality should be fact-based and define the status of actions (permitted/forbidden etc) based on their results, non on what they “are” in essence or something.
    I know I’m in slippery terrain here, but like minarchists have a point against anarchists in that “just because regulation is bad doesn’t mean we should suppress ALL forms of law and regulation”, the drawbacks and slippery slopes of free speech limitations (I’m talking about VERY slight and specific limitations) don’t prove that they should absolutely be avoided like the plague. I’m open to discussion here: I’m just testing my current brainstorming, not expressing a definitive opinion I don’t have yet (in fact I wouldn’t have commented if I were more confident: I need the feedback and disagreement). Ethics are a bitch, lol.

  33. “@Jack: the filters must be based on “trigger words”, for example my first comment must’ve been initially deleted because it had “sad**tic a**h*le” in it, most likely. Just insert some asterisks when you use words you guess will be caught by the filter”.

    Fuck that! I’m not going to censor myself just to accommodate the “family friendly” fascism of WordPress! But you’re an anti-free speech SJW, so I see how you would make such an anti-testosterone suggestion.

    BD needs to fix this issue, or at least talk to Word Press about their censorship.

  34. Jack said: “I’m not going to censor myself etc”
    My suggestion was only pragmatic, I never said you *should* censor yourself: fuck that, as you said. I too want this problem fixed; I’m just saying that in the meantime, asterisks will allow you to bypass WordPress’s filters. T’s’all.

  35. Quote___”You’re an anti-free speech SJW”
    And you’re an absolutist who never distinguishes shades and spectra and prefers to classify everything in “you’re my friend/you’re entirely wrong and part of the problem” terms. If you were a dictator, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’d reward everything with either a $1000000 prize or death penalty. Please be less angry and acknowledge degrees in ideology, or let’s admit our Nth failure to have a good discussion.

  36. I’m not posting another word until BD restores my comment. Most of my explanation for why I believe you’re an SJW is in there.

  37. Jack I don’t see any comments that were filtered from you. If you insist on writing novel-length comments, I suggest you do what I do when I write comments on blogs or forums: write your comments in Word and save them for 24 hours so you know they post.

    And Gil, there are no swear word filters on this blog (unless some update changed that without me know). See look: fuck shit piss cunt.

  38. CJ said
    “there are no swear word filters on this blog (unless some update changed that without me know). See look: fuck shit piss cunt”
    hahaha! Alright, I don’t know then. At first my comment didn’t show up, then it showed up with the mention “awaiting moderation”, disappeared again, and now it’s displayed normally. WordPress must be going through weird shit.

  39. WordPress must be going through weird shit.

    Yeah these updates are very annoying. Not as bad as Microsoft, but close.

  40. 1. Google has taken him off top rankings because of “gun imagery”

    2. He’s banned from YouTube’s restricted mode (for kids, libraries, etc) even though they’re FCC complaint and never use swear words, while the Young Turks, a left-wing channel that says fuck and shit constantly, is still there.

    3. If you search for “Steven Crowder” on YouTube, he doesn’t come up. Other channels do(!).

    Touche. Holy shit, never thought the left today was gonna be like the right in the 80s and 90s when it came to censorship. Worse even. Only a matter of time before anarchists like myself get silenced for good. I wonder what George Carlin would be saying about this kind of stuff if he were alive?

  41. @joelsuf: it’s problematic to debate you on ethics because (no offense) whether or not you give a damn about ethics isn’t always clear. If you reject the proposition “the wellness of humans is a value that should be defended”, then of course anarchism is entirely valid, but it’s ‘valid’ because anything goes. So you’ll need to clarify to me whether you’re saying zero regulations is your preference because “morality is void”, or it’s your preference because it really does maximize human wellness.
    That being said, the idea behind my two comments is that yes, once you start with regulation you’re on very slippery ground, but *if it is possible to avoid slipping*, THEN limited regulation might be better than none. Maybe I’m wrong and those things inevitably degenerate, making free speech absolutism the better option.

  42. “whether or not you give a damn about ethics isn’t always clear.”

    Ethics aren’t clear in nature. Neither are morals. Ethics and morals are subjective in nature and not only differ from group to group, they differ from person to person. These are very basic precepts from Nietzsche and other existential philosophers who argue that those who want to impart their morals and ethics on others is just as immoral as breaking all the established “rules.”

    So no, I don’t give a shit about ethics. Or morals for that matter. Civilized people in the 21st century generally have a clear sense of what is right and what is wrong. If murder, assault, rape, theft, and child porn were all made legal tomorrow I still wouldn’t partake in any of them, because I know those same things could also be done to me and since all of those generally suck, I wouldn’t want them done to anyone else. I’m pretty sure I can get the same answer from virtually anyone else I encounter in my life.

    Temporary chaos in a society with no laws or regulation is preferable to permanent manufactured chaos delivered by the powerful (no matter who they are).

    So to me zero regulations are my preference not only because morality is void, but also because people generally know this, it will also maximize human wellness after some time passes. When a room is cleaned, it usually is messier in the beginning and the middle of the process.

  43. @Joelsuf:
    Quote [those who want to impart their morals and ethics on others is just as immoral as breaking all the established “rules.”]
    Fine, but the solution would be to dissolve countries (or maybe, an in-between solution, go back to city states. Google Dunbar’s number). But when you live in a state, you’re de facto accepting that in here, people impose a certain code on other people. You’re justified in getting around the system if you don’t like the system, but we’re talking about what laws or absence of them you want to impose, not about your individual behavior. I am myself against countries and tend to think there should be myriads of micro-states/tribes (or sthg similar) with the possibility to move at will till you find your preferred legal environment (idea open to revision).

    Quote [Temporary chaos in a society with no laws or regulation is preferable to, etc, When a room is cleaned, it usually is messier in the beginning and the middle of the process]
    I’m not aware that we know that for a fact (the first part), or that we are indeed in a situation that will obey the same rules as a room to be cleaned. So that’s a question mark for me.

    Quote [Civilized people in the 21st century generally have a clear sense of what is right and what is wrong. If murder, assault, rape, theft, and child porn were all made legal tomorrow I still wouldn’t partake in any of them]
    See, when you do this, you are actually doing ethics, and not of the best kind: let’s list all the things modern people all admit are unacceptable, and there you have your Thou Shalt Not chart. We know that this breaks down at the first timid thought experiments (you don’t need me for that, I’m sure!) where, confronted with a dilemma, the person will inevitably start coming up with new ad hoc rules to find the right choice to do. And now we’re neck deep into ethics, whether we like it or not.

    PS: if only to read chapter 16 alone, I strongly suggest you get your hands on Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, by Dan Dennett (the pdf is free). We’d understand each other much much more and Dennett talks about Nietzsche A LOT.

Leave a Reply

To leave a comment, enter your comment below. PLEASE make sure to read the commenting rules before commenting, since failure to follow these rules means your comment may be deleted. Also please do not use the username “Anonymous” or “Anon” or any variation thereof (makes things too confusing).

Off-topic comments are allowed, but Caleb will ignore those.

Caleb responds to comments in person, but he only does so on the two most current blog articles.

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search.