Post: #126

First time I’ve seen this guy and I love his energy. Dude speaks from the heart and and with a lot of emphasis. It’s a refreshing turn from the Kevin Macdonald/Jared Taylor “let’s tackle the JQ by debating politely” shtick (which has its place but not always).

Post: #127

(04-01-2019 05:43 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Who else?

How could I forget Brother Nathanael?

Post: #128

Post: #129

The video above has some great advice for younger guys. Many of us have come to the same conclusions as Owen.

This one here is a very emotional excerpt for Owen, who's lost a close friend to post-Afghanistan PTSD, and lashes out against chickenhawk Benjie:

Post: #130

(04-03-2019 04:00 PM)911 Wrote:  The video above has some great advice for younger guys. Many of us have come to the same conclusions as Owen.

This one here is a very emotional excerpt for Owen, who's lost a close friend to post-Afghanistan PTSD, and lashes out against chickenhawk Benjie:

I could barely stand to hear it.

The next war needs to be fought at home against the warmongers.

Post: #131

I went to the Owen Benjamin livestream that's scheduled for tonight and I noticed youtube now has a thing where they put (((correct))) information in a link below the videos of people they don't like. Which is amusing considering the folks who don't believe in the moon landing are just going to react to google telling them what to think by being more paranoid.

Post: #132

Sigh, ok I'm leaning towards bipolar mania at this point. He's been ranting that the Earth can't be spinning because according to him airplanes fly above the atmosphere and don't fly backwards relative to the motion of the Earth....while calling everyone in the chat who took Physics 101 faggots.

Post: #133

I just messaged him offering to come on and explain a lot of the stuff he's struggling with. If you want me on, leave some youtube comments telling him to invite me (I'm no longer allowed on there).

Post: #134

Only got part the way through it, but must say I was face palming at the elementary physics problems.

Post: #135

Yeah; I can get pretty acoustic about that stuff. Plus, cartography is one of my skillsets. The idea of the earth being flat is ridiculous.

Post: #136

Just watched the second half. I hope hes saying that nonsense on purpose.

Makes me appreciate how infuriating humanity must be to higher beings and how a vast knowledge disparity between two people puts the fool in vulnerability.

I get wound up with this type of illogical conspiritorial drivel around scientifically proven principles.

During the podcast he skites about knowing Bernoulli's principle and "I actually know about this stuff look it up" and then goes on to say that planes are flying out side of the atmosphere. This instantly highlights how little he knows about elementry physics and why his concerns about the nature of the natural world hold no weight.

Is part of becoming a YouTube celebrity giving yourself over to your audience?

Post: #137

(04-10-2019 02:10 AM)Aurini Wrote:  Yeah; I can get pretty acoustic about that stuff. Plus, cartography is one of my skillsets. The idea of the earth being flat is ridiculous.

Yeah, but if he gets the big stuff right (Ben Shapiro being terrible) how much does the little stuff (Round vs. Flat Earth) matter?

Post: #138

He's right on the mark with this Boomer rant.

Post: #139

(04-10-2019 03:28 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 02:10 AM)Aurini Wrote:  Yeah; I can get pretty acoustic about that stuff. Plus, cartography is one of my skillsets. The idea of the earth being flat is ridiculous.

Yeah, but if he gets the big stuff right (Ben Shapiro being terrible) how much does the little stuff (Round vs. Flat Earth) matter?

It matters quite a bit because it makes him sound like a retard.

Compare it to Joe Rogan. Frequently Rogan is discussing something on his podcast that he doesn't really know anything about, but he lets the guest be the authority in that event. Owen's saying stuff that's very provably incorrect and then when the chat erupts to correct him he calls them sodomites. Same with Vox Day spending most of his podcasts yelling at the "gammas" that call him out on his bullshit.

Post: #140

Someone give his wife a tranq gun please.

When he veers off into "science" she can shoot him in the back with it.

"HERE'S THE THING THESE FAGGOTS DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT WHY THE EARTH ISN'T ROTATING..."

*thwap*

"IT's The STRATosPhERE ThAT the PLANEs"

*thwap thwap*

"ARe... meant... to be..."

*snoring sounds as thankful superchats flow in*

p.s. Someone warn him against getting goats. I don't know if they have a legitimate spiritual connection to the devil but I absolutely understand why that connection was inferred in the first place.

Post: #141

(04-10-2019 06:11 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  p.s. Someone warn him against getting goats. I don't know if they have a legitimate spiritual connection to the devil but I absolutely understand why that connection was inferred in the first place.

I get why people think that with the screaming and the horizontal pupils. But those baby goats are still awfully cute.

Post: #142

I'm talking about their preternatural ability to fuck up a homestead.

If you place a goat in a high security prison and provide it with everything it should ever desire, and you place your seedlings for the year in another high security prison then when you wake up the next morning you will still find the goat eating your seedlings.

I once asked a farmer what the best solution for fencing goats was. He told me "watch them find a bad spot in the old fence then when the first one is half way through shoot it dead."

I thought he was joking but apparently there was a grain of truth there. The're said have the reasoning capacity of a 4 year old human and they will literally equate "crossing fence = dead" for as long as that dead goat is hanging half way across the fence.

Familiar with these babies?



I had a goat that figured out how to operate one of these with its mouth. I thought it had broken it's wire run until I found everything intact and the open o-shackle lying on the ground.

Like a 4 year old (sociopath) they are entirely versed in a risk-reward mentality. I've heard that if you're extremely violent with them then they become sweet as pie and very well behaved but until that point they're pretty much the devil.

Post: #143

(04-01-2019 05:43 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Who else?

Steven Anderson

Post: #144

Interesting. The only exposure I had of OB was on Steven Crowder and on Rogan. He has an interesting anti-war perspective, which is refreshing to hear.

I'm glad he threw in that video "And I'm not a pacifist...sometimes you have to blow some people's heads off, but Ben Shapiro..."

All that said, foreign policy is something I'll never understand.

Here's Crowder and Owen going back and forth.

Post: #145

Foreign policy is pretty easy, actually.

Every few years some asshole will come to you and say, "We need to invade (Some random shithole on the other end of the planet) because (some tard reason)."
Tell that person to go fuck off. If you can work some insults about his mother's sexual proclivities in there, even better.

That's basically all you need to know about foreign policy.

Post: #146

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying a world where the U.S. didn't police the world is a very different world than today.

I tend to fall on the side of OB...how about we get the hell out of these countries and try to maintain our own.

But I also have the perspective of world-wide humanity. I respect OB for using his emotions for his friends and loved ones suffering because of wars. But then I read about tribal warfare. I read about the Gulags. The horrors of WWI. The horrors of our Civil War. The horrors of the 20th century as a whole.

I'm not sure we're creating more human suffering or preventing human suffering by policing the world. Maybe there's just a certain amount of suffering that will take place in the world, and it's like the real estate market...if we don't have little corrections over time, there'll just be one big correction later.

Again though, I think the U.S. has adopted a feminine mentality of trying to make sure people and nation-states don't do bad things out there. I'd rather just be individualist and make sure we have our shit straight here and let them fight it out elsewhere.

Post: #147

(04-10-2019 05:39 AM)Monkey Business Wrote:  He's right on the mark with this Boomer rant.

He sounds like he's describing himself at 5:20:

"That's how you go out in this world. Just unbridled resentment, entitlement, a lack of logic, don't think anything through, everything's everyone else, you're always trying to catch someone in a lie, even though you're not, and do it publicly[.]"

Post: #148

Domain relevant beliefs.

In a certain sense, someone's beliefs are only relevant to me in a certain context. I don't care if my pilot is a Christian, but if he's a flat Earther I'll question his suitability as a pilot (look up rhumb lines, the Mercator projection, and the shortest distance between two points on a map). The opposite goes for my neighbour - I'm more interested in his moral values than his physical beliefs about the makeup of the world.

And yet... at some point I do become concerned, not about any particular belief, but by the suite of beliefs. It's the point where beliefs become an identity rather than part of a rational approach to reality - and I'd prefer to have rational people around me.

Take the Conspiracy Theorists for example. Yes, I know this is a term invented by the CIA to discredit anybody who questions the narrative, but it nonetheless points towards a distinct psychology. There's a group of people who buy into conspiracy theories for the emotional validation they get from being 'woke' - but they never do anything about it, or apply an analytical approach. They believe all the nonsense in Ancient Aliens, regardless of how easily disprovable it is. They accept any and all claims about UFOs, and mistake hallucination for revelation. I point to these three specific things, because these are conspiracies I'm open to, and these morons muddy the waters.

• The human genome is really weird, and human evolution is poorly understood - was there intervention at some point? Maybe - but all that crap about Egyptians having lightbulbs is pseudo-science.
• I strongly suspect that there is something going on with the UFO phenomenon beyond Big Fish stories; however, Roswell was obviously nothing more than a spy satellite - there are about a dozen other instances where FOIA requests and declassification have demonstrated that "UFOs" were mundane - but this doesn't stop the Conspiracy Theorists from continuing to cite these examples.
• I'm very open to the possibility of revelation and miracles, but I'm also aware that if I'm drunk or high or tired I might just be imagining it. These people take such comments as a personal insult.
  

That's really the crux of this: how personally they take it. Both sides claim to be skeptics, but both sides are emotionally attached to their beliefs. The atheist/skeptic side embraces vaccines unquestioningly; the religious/right wing side hates vaccines unquestioningly. Very few are able to take a subtle approach, acknowledging that some vaccines are quite useful, while questioning the over-vaccination of young children.

When somebody incorporates a belief into their identity it shuts down reason, and if you disagree with them you become branded as an enemy heretic. In trying to protect their beliefs they'll lash out at you physically (possibly through violence, possibly through the legal system). When things devolve to this point, you have blind armies slamming against each other, both sides making scientific errors that justify the other side becoming more entrenched in their position, and nothing productive happens: just the Oranges versus the Greens, tearing apart Constantinople.

Let's say I do get a chance to talk to Owen, and explain as much of the stuff as I can (I don't claim to know everything, and am willing to admit when I don't know). Will he take in my information and consider it? Or will he accuse me of wizardry?

The latter possibility worries me on an existential level. How many humans are actually capable of reason?

Post: #149

(04-09-2019 11:59 PM)Aurini Wrote:  I just messaged him offering to come on and explain a lot of the stuff he's struggling with. If you want me on, leave some youtube comments telling him to invite me (I'm no longer allowed on there).

This is a good explanation for the moon rotating in perfect synchronicity with its Earth orbit:

Quote:The rotation of the Moon is a strange situation. It takes the same amount of time for the Moon to complete a full orbit around the Earth as it takes for it to complete one rotation on its axis. In other words, the Moon rotation time is 27.3 days, just the same as its orbital time: 27.3 days.

What this means to us here on Earth is that the Moon always presents the same face to the Earth. We only see one side of the Moon, and not the other. And if you could stand on the surface of the Moon, the Earth would appear to just hang in the sky, not moving anywhere.

Astronomers say that the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth. At some point in the past, it did have a different rotation rate from its orbital period. But slight differences in the shape of the Moon caused the Moon to experience different amounts of gravity depending on its position. These differences acted as a brake, slowing the Moon rotation speed down until it matched its orbital period. There are other tidally locked moons in the Solar System. Pluto and its moon Charon are tidally locked to each other, so they always present the same face to one another.

https://www.universetoday.com/48788/moon-rotation/


Davis I don't remember you posting much on the Flat Earth thread, where Mercenary was dabbling into FE skepticism. Like maybe 90%-95% of Americans, Owen doesn't have a strong STEM foundation and is more vulnerable to the propaganda. Flat Earth is an elaborate psyop that was actively weaponized by the deep state under the leadership of Cass Sunstein, who was Obama's information czar (official title was head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs).

The goal of this cognitive infiltration process is to separate the normies from the truthers by smearing their brand with the poison pill of Flat Earth. All of a sudden, there was a lot of very slick content being produced and pushed up in the online algorithms by people who have put countless hours into producing videos and concocting theories pushing a notion that any reasonable skeptic enquirer could debunk with a few minutes of research.

Flat Earthers ensnare people by exploiting the huge gap between the 3D world we perceive as small beings on the surface of the earth and the planetary/space physics on a macroscopic scale, which are often counterintuitive. For instance we can't feel or perceive the rotation of the earth, or the enormous force of the atmospheric pressure acting upon us at all time, which makes the notion that we are moving at a tangential speed of 500mph in relation to the center of the earth hard to conceive from a sensory level.

For Owen, I would keep things simple and propose he asks one of his Air Force buddies who might have flown a jet fighter above 50,000', where the earth curvature becomes clearly visible, that would settle the whole issue. Another approach is to look at travel times between points on the southern hemisphere, like say Buenos Aires/Santiago to Sydney.


Owen's strength is that he is very good at deciphering propaganda and lies, having been trained into the subtle arts of rhetoric and the manipulation of mindscapes by his father, who was an academic specialist and a practitioner of the art of "wizardry" and magick/persuasion. To this training, you add his natural talent as a comedian, which involves an innate skill of high perceptiveness and manipulation of the public.

That background, in combination with a solid traditional upbringing and a fearless predisposition make him what he is now, a great fighter for truth and righteousness, warts and all.

Post: #150

One of the issues is that the 3D world is highly counter-intuitive. Relatively simple geometry done in 2D doesn't translate into 3D.

For instance, ever wonder why planetary debris forms into rings, rather than remaining a cloud? It's because one of the vectors cancels out. The debris can be spinning along two axis - rotationally X or rotationally Y - and initially there will be debris going +x and -x, and +y and -y. Every so often, debris moving along opposing vectors will crash into one another, cancelling the difference, until only one vector remains - it could be any of the four, or a combination (30% +y and 70% -x).

Similarly - if you took a spinning rock, and added atmosphere (probably easier to think of it as water, since this is a more discrete fluid) eventually the rock will slow down, and the water will speed up, until they're matched with each other... except now you have the issue of planetary rings and opposing vectors. Because the circumference is moving at a different rate than higher/lower latitudes, you'll get friction in the fluid, causing the Coriolis effect.

Here's another weird effect of 3D: did you know that physical regions on the earth don't have a precise size?

Ask me what the square-kilometer size of Alberta is, and my answer will be "It depends on which map projection you're using." Traditional measurements are going to flatten then province, and give you the space of that 2D projection. Ah, well why not give its shape on the sphere of the earth? Because Earth isn't a sphere - it's what's known as a geoid, a lumpy sphere. There is one particular region in Northern Alberta that really juts out, a highland of sorts. So, in estimating the size of the province, should I include the extra area that the z extrusion demands? And if I'm going to include that, what about the mountain ranges? What about the houses? Should the height of a house's walls be included in this irregular shape?

It's like measuring a coastline - the higher your level of detail, the longer the coastline gets (presumably headed to an asymptote, but I haven't confirmed this).

So there really isn't any answer to these questions. "How big is Alberta?" includes the premise "Under ideal circumstances." How big is it if we pretend it's flat? How big is it if we pretend the Earth is a sphere? Et cetera. In practice, the answers only differ by about half a percent, so it doesn't really matter, but it challenges our simple notions of believing an acre is an acre is an acre (in reality, not all acres are equal - it depends where you're buying them, and what the government's accepted standard of map projection is - an acre of land a mile north of you might be 0.05% bigger than your parcel).

I haven't argued this stuff before because as interesting as I find it, I am utterly uninterested in arguing with people with preposterous beliefs who aren't willing to learn basic math. But seeing this catch on is worrisome to me - I agree that it is likely a psy op, to send people down rabbit trails of irrelevancy.