Hey everyone. As you know, a lot of
people on the internet hate me. And
sometimes they make videos whining about
how mean I am. When I remind them how
that's a really pathetic thing to do in
response to me exposing grifting frauds,
sometimes they throw a toddler tantrum
and double down on their whining. Today,
we deal with one of those cases. So,
let's get started. Some of you watched a
video I made recently where I highlight
the toxic gaslighting behavior of the
thousands of trolls who infest my
channel. They watch precisely none of a
particular video debunking a fraud they
worship. Hurl insults at me as though it
refutes anything I said. And when I
remind them repeatedly that they're
pathetic trolls who didn't watch the
video precisely as they deserve, they
just whine about how mean I am since
they're incapable of engaging with
anything substantive. This is a pattern
of behavior that I've been observing for
several years now. And the frustration
these cribby trolls experience at their
toxic behavior not landing because I
refuse to be gaslit by them has spilled
over into other areas of the internet.
Hence the whiny Reddit threads of
precisely the same energy and so forth.
In addition to shaming these trolls and
contextualizing their reality denial
against a backdrop of Zionist propaganda
meant to shut down those who speak out
against Israel's genocide and MAGA
behavior that targets any objective
appraisal of Trump's descent into
fascism. I also highlighted two videos
made by other creators that exemplified
this precise troll behavior by doing
nothing but whining about how mean I am.
After scolding these two for their
antics, Norbert made a half-assed
rebuttal, which was not received well.
And then he deleted both of his videos,
which honestly is about as respectable a
reaction one could expect from such a
person. An apology would be better, but
a silent admission of fault, will do
just fine, and our interaction is over.
But the other guy, this toolbox named
Metatron, had a different plan. He
decided to not watch any of the rest of
the video explaining how trolls get
exactly what they deserve from me and
double down on his pathetic whining. Oh,
and there's some slander in there, too.
Check out this piece of garbage.
Exposing Professor Dave's lies about me.
Oh my goodness. Whatever could these
lies be. What an awful lying liar I am.
We're going to get a load of this
turdfest in just a bit. But since he's
going to whine a lot about how I didn't
do any research, and I don't know
anything about him, and since most of
you probably don't either, let's dig a
little and see what we can come up with.
Yeah, looking at his most recent videos
will give you a great sense of who this
loser is. More than half of his content
is low IQ culture war slop with blatant
clickbait titles. They lied. This is
revoling. Who lied? Click to find out.
Since he's been exposing my non-existent
lies, I bet this one is a banger, too.
Also, no doubt glazing Asmin Gold, who
is a white supremacist that has spewed
hate speech against Palestinians. This
is crossing the line. Awful. What is Who
is that? Click to find out. Disgusting.
Awful. What? Click to find out. Banned
stupid jerk Hassan who speaks out
against Israel's genocide gets what he
deserves because he's a buttface libtard
complete with AI generated image of
Hassan crying. So when metamoron whines
about the thumbnail for this video, you
can all remind him what a worthless
hypocrite he is. Destiny blocked me. A
whole video on how someone blocked him
for being a troll. Own the libs. Own the
libs. Can you imagine someone more
pathetic than this? And then of course
all the thumbnails I showed you in my
previous video which were already
sufficient to know who he is. What is
there of actual substance? One video on
the Irish potato famine and another
membersonly video on ancient Rome also
with a clickbait title. This dumbass
loves arrows by the way on a thumbnail
accusing me of being a liar where my
face takes up half the thumbnail. Did he
really need an arrow pointing to my
face? Oh, right. That's the first
commandment of clickbait thumbnails.
Gratuitous arrows. It's very amusing to
watch someone who makes such worthless
bottom-of-the- barrel content act like a
smug, superior douche, as though he has
any kind of standards whatsoever. And as
though this content can possibly be
thought of as anywhere near as academic
or socially relevant as my content
undermining the assault on science
coming from official state channels or
oligarch puppets. But this is what
trolls do. They attack those who remind
them that they're pointless trolls. It's
also worth mentioning that lots of
people have commented on my channel
remarking about how sad it is to see
someone demolish his credibility by
becoming this brand of slop creator. How
he used to make decent content but then
completely caved and went full anti-woke
reactionary toolbox. And also how badly
he's projecting by calling anyone toxic
based on his own internet behavior. He's
a pointless loser and he damn well knows
it. So he lashes out in all directions
as his only recourse when called out.
Everyone is trying to destroy me. Cancel
culture. The libs can't handle my super
hot truth. It's worth mentioning that
the guy who hates when anyone uses the
word bigot, as I pointed out in my other
video, is also super racist on Twitter.
He called for a riot unless a Muslim
woman named Forgan was banned from
Twitch, which is an incitement of
violence. But then he deleted his tweet
since he knew he crossed the line and
was just pretending to not know what
riot means, even after being given the
dictionary definition. Anytime there is
any depiction of black people in TV
shows, movies, or video games, he throws
a toddler tantrum about that, too.
Here's a whole video whining about the
casting in Chris Nolan's Odyssey.
>> So, one thing I'm noticing, of course,
is there you go, Emsh Patel,
Cory Hawings, Ryan Hurst, Lupita Nyongo.
So, one thing I'm noticing is that of
course the cast is extremely diverse.
Now, isn't this set in classical
antiquity of the Bronze Age? Whatever
the heck it's Isn't it set in the oldest
like 400 BC? Uh, so how is it this
diverse is my question. Too ethnic? Of
course, there were no black people in
Europe before the modern era, right?
That would be preposterous. Multithnic
society began in 1972. Europe was for
whites only until color television. This
extends to his pageantry about academic
research as well. When archaeologists
found graves from Saxony era England
that had two bodies with up to 40% West
African DNA, Metamoron threw a fit about
that too and handwaved the data on the
grounds that they weren't black but
mixed.
>> Both individuals thus show genetically a
geographically mixed descent with an
estimated 20 to 40% ancestry
characteristic of subsaran Africa. Okay,
so basic 20 to 40%. So these are mixed
already. So you see when you go and read
the actual thing, they were not black.
They were mixed. Oh my god, they're
mixed. Like exactly what the research
said and as can be said of almost every
black person outside of Africa. This is
what he thinks constitutes a hot take
that deserves to be broadcast over the
internet. In reality, this is the most
pathetic kind of loser on the internet.
A mindless soldier for the anti-woke
infantry who couldn't tell you what woke
means with a gun to his head and who
acted like Charlie Kirk getting killed
was on the same level as the JFK
assassination. Anyone who represents the
things he hates must be silenced. And
anyone who exposes his stupidity is
enacting cancel culture. Always the
victim, no matter how obvious his own
offense is. Oh, he's also really dumb,
too. He admits to being a creationist in
this video. When it comes to me, I'm
mostly an old earth creationist. And to
be specific, I am a day age creationist.
So, to me, the seven days of creation
are not literal in the sense they did
not last one day, but I see them as
epochs of unspecified lengths of time.
>> Congratulations, Medatron. You're not
quite as dumb as flat-earthers or young
earth creationists, but you're pretty
close. I would suggest that you watch my
content debunking creationism in all of
its ridiculous flavors, but we both know
that's never going to happen, right? And
of course, what would any pseudo
historian be without a desperate attack
on Flint Dibble? Brutal, devastating,
huge red flags. Flint my mom. We
don't have time to dwell, but he fumbles
this every time, endlessly
whining over and over again about Flint
referencing white supremacists, accusing
him of being racist towards white
people. It's all he can do.
>> Here they were speaking about whether or
not this specific character had white
skin or not. I don't care honestly cuz
I'm not fixated with this kind of stuff.
He's not fixated with Flint proving that
something is rooted in white supremacy
while whining about him bringing up
white supremacy, so he skips it.
unreal. The intellectual bankruptcy is
off the charts. And it's never anything
about actual archaeology. It's all the
culture war crap. This is all this toxic
loser does. He desperately attacks
actual scholars while fumbling
absolutely everything, whining about
woke liberals and soiling himself.
Remember, all this toxic behavior is
coming from the guy who made the video,
"Professor Dave is toxic, whining about
how mean I am just because I refuse to
be gaslit by toxic trolls like him."
It's never anything but crocodile tears
from worthless crybullies who project
their toxicity onto anyone who stands as
an impediment to their toxicity being
accepted as a rational position. He's
the kind of douchebag who projects every
aspect of his identity onto serious
people, and when called out for it, he
accuses them of projection. Okay, with
all that for context, shall we dig into
this pile of horse manure? Shall we see
what this tantrum is all about? Which
horrible lies I told? Let's take a look.
>> There is a channel, Professor Dave
Explains. Many of you, of course, know
him. He posted this video 7 days ago.
This is a response to many content
creators who have over the years called
out the fact that he is toxic. Many? You
mean two? Two is many now. And is that
really what the video is about? Or is it
about the trolling and Zionism and MAGA
and reality denial in general? Making it
very broad social commentary. How do you
not even know what the video is about?
Oh, right. Your dumb face didn't
watch it. Just like every other troll
I'm mocking in that video. Sweet irony.
>> I did make a video about him. So that's
why I'm included in this whatever the
heck you want to call it in this
disgrace of a video. To be specific, I'm
included on 1 hour 3 minutes and 51
seconds in, which is where we're going
to begin. Yes, you made a video calling
me toxic for absolutely no reason. So, I
made fun of you for it in this what was
it? Disgrace of a video, but you didn't
watch it, remember? Can't explain why
it's disgraceful and won't even try.
Huh? Troll on, troll.
>> I did say that he's toxic and I said
that he's angry. That's it. I was
actually quite mild on my presentation,
particularly if you compare it to how I
have addressed other creators in the
space. I didn't call him names. and he
said he was an idiot or stupid or
ignorant or whatever the heck list of
litany of insults that he instead
normally uses to the people who disagree
with him. Nope. See that right there?
You are doing the exact thing I was
calling out for this entire video you
didn't watch. You loser trolls are
pretending that you disagree with me.
You don't. Not a single one of you are
able to muster up a substantive
objection to anything I say. You do
nothing but whine about how mean I am.
That's not a disagreement. Every single
interaction I displayed in that video
was somebody pretending to disagree with
me who didn't actually watch the video
and couldn't refute a single thing in
it. They were just having an emotional
meltdown because I exposed a fraud they
worshiped. That makes them trolls. So, I
treat them like the worthless trolls
they are. And that is exactly what
you're doing here in commenting on a
video you didn't watch that makes fun of
trolls who comment on videos they didn't
watch. You really know how to put the
meta in Metatron, don't you, dick?
>> That I just said, guys. I don't know.
The way he speaks is very toxic. Even in
the comments how he looks down on people
kind of puts me off. That's all I said,
but apparently was sufficient for him to
lose sleep. I really hurt his feelings,
I suppose. No, you're a bug under my
shoe. Your pathetic Dave is toxic video
simply fit the theme of my video you
didn't watch. Where loser trolls whine
about how mean I am simply for pushing
back on loser trolls who comment on
videos they didn't watch.
>> So from a logical standpoint, this were
you. Then you're annoyed that people
call you toxic and you want to debunk
all of them. You want to prove them all
wrong. How would you be on the video you
make? You would be
polite, right?
>> Nope. I don't owe anybody anything. If
somebody punches me in the face in order
to get me to punch them back so they can
accuse me of being violent, I'm not
going to avoid punching them back just
because they've set up this infantile
trap. I'm going to punch them back
because it's my right to do so. It
doesn't make me violent. It's called
self-defense. The first puncher is
violent and the first troll is toxic. I
will defend myself against character
assassination if I please with whatever
language I choose. This all reeks of the
precise behavior I outlined in my video.
Zionists labeling anyone who resists
Israeli terrorism as terrorists. MAGA
snowflakes having meltdowns and shouting
TDS at anyone who points out fascism and
unconstitutional behavior. This is the
reality denial that is destroying human
civilization. And he's proudly
exemplifying it.
>> Because I mean, if he wants to debunk
people who call him toxic and makes a
video and he acts
toxic,
wouldn't it follow reason then that we
are all correct about you?
>> No. because you'd first have to be
correct in calling me toxic in the first
place, dumbass. Being a toxic troll and
calling me toxic for no reason isn't an
argument. And when I on you for
calling me toxic for no reason, you
can't then call me toxic simply for
defending myself against toxic trolls.
You're bad at this. The first section is
the one where we will demonstrate
without any shadow of a doubt that
Professor Dave doesn't do any research
when it comes to the people he attacks.
So he will call you names. It will say,
"You're a bigot. You're a racist. You're
a fascist. You're a Nazi. Scientifically
illiterate. You don't know anything." He
will use all sorts of insults, but he
doesn't research you. I don't need to do
any research, If someone says
something racist, I call them a bigot.
If they confidently fumble a bunch of
science, I call them science illiterate.
I don't need to know someone's entire
life history to mock them for the things
they say. You just can't refute anything
I say when I do that. We will also
demonstrate that he doesn't do any
research when it comes to the subject
matters that he addresses from an
academic standpoint. Hey, remember when
your dumb face just said that I don't do
research on the people I debunk? Well,
you pretending that I don't research the
topics themselves is you admitting that
you've never actually watched any of my
content, which is painstakingly and
thoroughly researched, referencing
mountains of primary scientific
literature and breaking it down for lay
people. Anyone who has seen my content
exposing creationists like James Tour or
Discovery Institute or RFK and other
antivaxers or any other topic is
painfully aware of how overly researched
my long and detailed content is.
Hypocrisy much? Then section two, I'll
demonstrate that he lies, that he uses
selective editing to manipulate his
audience perception. So once again, how
much can you trust him after I prove to
you that he selectively conveniently cut
out the part where I would have proved
him wrong? You've never proven me wrong
and there is no selective editing. I
clip relevant highlights and make
commentary. Otherwise, every video would
be 10 hours long. Good luck
demonstrating this alleged deception,
dickbag.
>> I absolutely do not insult people who
point out that they didn't understand
something or asked an innocuous
question.
>> We'll get back to this.
>> You're lying. That's why you removed all
context from
>> I did not remove all context from this.
If you remember, we can rewind the three
seconds if you want, but we just watched
it. I specifically said given to his
credit people, many of the people that
he insults, they were rude to him first.
That is precisely what context is. The
removed content is on the screen,
genius. You chopped all these
interactions and showed only what I
said, not what I was responding to.
alluding and passing to what I might at
times be responding to does not negate
your blatant removal of all context. And
you made no attempt to respond to the
lie I just caught you in. You pretended
that I'm mean to people who ask an
innocuous question. I'm not ever. You
can't show that because it doesn't
happen and you're just blindly asserting
it because you're a liar projecting your
dishonesty. Two big fails rapid fire.
Sometimes some people just ask a
legitimate question or just say they
didn't like the video and he lashes out
onto them too. But I did give context. I
exactly gave that context. No, you
didn't. Because you didn't show me doing
that since I never do that. Which is why
you showing my comments and not what I'm
responding to is specifically you
removing context so that you can lie
about me. Holy you're dumb.
>> All of you crybully snowflakes that make
these videos or complain about me on
Reddit have yet to on Reddit.
Me on Reddit. Man, I think I'm already
establishing the fact that this guy
doesn't really know what he's talking
about, right? If he if he thinks that I
am on Reddit.
>> Do you have basic elementary school
level listening comprehension skills? I
said all of you trolls, meaning you and
other trolls, including the trolls who
whine about me on Reddit, which I
displayed in other sections of this
video you did not watch. You can't show
a single example because you don't have
one.
>> Okay, challenge accepted. Let's do it.
This is a debate that he had live with
James Tour and this going to show
exactly that, the thing that he says he
never does.
>> Your example of me being mean to someone
for asking an innocuous question in my
comment section is a clip of a live
debate I had with lying fraud James
Tour. Seriously? All right, you're a
creationist. Okay, throw
your tantrum. Let's see how it treats
the audience.
>> None of you people know this research.
Wow. Lies and cheers. Amazing lies and
cheers.
>> None of you people know this research
because they're agreeing with the other
speaker. Minute 124
>> that two prime linkages don't matter.
>> You're doing it again, you imbecile.
There is absolutely zero context here.
Tour's idiot church club that he bust in
to try and stack the audience was
heckling me the entire debate. So, I
shut them down. They don't agree with
the other speaker. They're science
literate morons heckling the guy
exposing their loser fraud hero. And
just like the comments of mine where you
removed all the context, this dork who
uploaded this clip removed all the
context as well. What happened right
before I said those things? Did idiots
heckle me just for citing science they
don't have a shot in hell at
understanding that proves James wrong?
Yeah, but you wouldn't know because you
didn't watch the debate. You just
desperately searched for someone else
who doesn't like me. None of you have
any capacity to read this literature.
And
>> none of none of you has any capacity to
read this literature. Brother, you have
a bachelor's degree in chemistry. You
don't have five PhDs. I don't need five
PhDs to read chemistry literature,
dumbass. My bachelor's in chemistry and
most of a masters in organic chemistry
are plenty. I can read the papers, which
I use to prove James is a lying fraud.
His idiot church pals can't. So when I
do that, they just boo me. What were
they booing in response to? What did I
say specifically that they were booing
about? Was I wrong or right? You have no
idea because you didn't watch the debate
and the loser who uploaded this clip
removed all the context. This is nothing
but you whining like a little
about my very justified behavior yet
again. You are continuing to exemplify
everything I exposed in my video you
didn't watch.
>> All right. Is that enough, Dave, to
prove that you absolutely do in fact
what you claimed you don't do that I
wasn't going to be able to find this?
>> No. Since that was not an example of me
doing the thing you pretend I do, I will
eternally wait for any of you
to present somebody asking an innocuous
question in earnest where I responded
with vitriol. You'll never be able to
find it because it has never happened. I
on trolls like the ones who heckled
me in the debate and you. At this point,
it is extremely clear that you have zero
ability to comment on any of my content
in an intellectually honest manner,
partly because you're too lazy to watch
any of it. So, you just searched the
internet for other people who hate me
and are pretending they're whining must
also be valid. So, why don't we do the
same to you? Who else has been pointing
out what a disingenuous fraud you are?
Here's a guy named Freda who has also
exposed you, focusing on a video where
you had the balls to pontificate as to
whether the Nazi party, a famously
far-right totalitarian movement, was
left-wing or right-wing. This isn't how
you work with history. You don't think
your way towards an answer. You find
evidence to back up your claim. If you
recall early in this video, he said that
one problem with this is that Americans
are trying to apply their 21st century
understanding of politics onto a 20th
century European political movement. And
now he's saying that because there are
differences between Nazi Germany and the
positions of American Republican voters,
the situation is muddy and Nazi Germany
isn't entirely right-wing. Why are you
looking at it quote from the American
political perspective? Surely there must
be better criteria than the political
understanding of the median American
voter. Full offense intended to the
median American voter. All of this is of
course said with zero citations. As so
often happens, these guys pretend
they're just presenting the facts and
then they pretend to outsource that
analysis to you. A historian's job is to
provide analysis, not to say, "You
decide what happened." smiley face.
They're being lazy, dishonest, and
cowardly. And they hide behind this
veneer of objectivity to push
impressionable people who are unfamiliar
with the topic towards specific
conclusions. What do you mean a central
tenant of communist ideology, economic
interventionism in the private sector? A
central tenant of communist ideology is
the opposition to the existence of the
private sector. What is economic
interventionism in the public sector?
That's already owned by the state.
That's the public sector. He quotes
Friedrich Pollock as to why Nazi
Germany's private ownership was
functionally destroyed. And I'm pretty
certain he got this quote from the Mises
Institute, which is also where tick
history, who I covered in the past, got
a lot of his stuff from. The Mises
Institute is a right-wing libertarian
think tank. Metatron, of course, doesn't
site this quote properly. And in this
instance, that is more important than
you might think. For one, he actually
misques
out the ending of the sentence. When you
want to cut off parts of a quote that
aren't relevant, you should indicate
that you have done so. He does not. The
full quote reads, "Should be described
as the destruction of all the essential
traits of private ownership, saving one
exception. He claims to have read on the
Jewish question, but probably hasn't or
if he did, he didn't really understand
it. It was written in response to Bruno
Bowers the Jewish question, hence the
title on the Jewish question." Bruno
Bower's text is very anti-Semitic and
Karl Marx is arguing against Bruno
Bower's anti-semitic arguments. Karl
Marx himself was born to a Jewish
family. I think Metatron isn't a very
big fan of Hitler and is understandably
also not a fan of his politics and his
views being associated with Hitler,
which is why he wants as much distance
as possible from him and his movement.
Of course, no reasonable person is going
to look at the Nazis and think that they
were left-wingers. Not even Metatron
thinks that. So, his only recourse is to
say nothing and pretend like it's
nuance. I remember Metatron as a channel
that did talks on history topics, but
now it seems to largely be loweffort
react content. And I mean lower effort
than mine. I at least write a script.
And also, it seems much of it panders
towards right-wing young men who are
frustrated about video games being too
woke. Sounds like a much more highly
educated and knowledgeable historian
dunking on a clueless loser who doesn't
know how to do research. Huh? What was
Metatron's childish response? This
YouTuber slandered us, so now we are
taking him down. Cancel the libtard.
What a douchebag. Freda replied and
humiliated him again.
>> I criticized the first for not using the
work of historians in his assessment of
history. In response, he cut out my
sources and quotes from historians,
saying they were quote boring and tried
to disparage an expert historian as
quote not a historian.
>> Take your shot, Freddy boy.
>> The creators disparaged me as a liar, a
quote intellectual fraud, and more.
While clearly intentionally cutting my
arguments so as to make them appear to
say something they didn't, cutting my
evidence that contradicted them and
more. Wow, sounds like some pretty shady
tactics, Medatron. the precise kind that
you accuse me of with zero basis. Here's
another creator named Bad Empanada
reacting to his childish response to
Freda where he claimed that he was like
an academic historian when he's not. He
like took things absurdly seriously.
Like the way that he talks is so funny
and he he claimed that he has like a
team of like a dozen history academics
who make his videos with him. By the
way, the videos that he makes like react
slop, like just daily reaction videos.
So, it doesn't really make any sense for
him to claim to have a team of of
historians who work on his videos.
>> To close off this point about history
being a conduit between the past and the
present, let me quote American historian
Hassok Ch.
>> Yeah, let's not considering the fact
that he's going to use now a very long
and boring quotation to try and refute
an argument that isn't mine. Therefore,
wasting my and your time.
>> I'm going to quote an actual source
here. I'm going to quote a quote a
historian who says something that
illustrates what I'm trying to say here.
Yeah. No, boring.
Let's move on without without even
looking at the evidence that you
presented for your claim.
>> I have a team behind my production. One
is a trained historian, former
archaeologist
>> team. And to illustrate his team, he has
stock footage of four silhouettes
standing by a window.
>> Just two years of experience digging in
Syria. One is a published author. One is
an anthrop.
>> A published author. What the does
that mean? Anyone can be a published
author.
>> Apologist with a post-doctoral degree.
One is an Egyptologist PhD. I can
continue. Also,
>> where are they? Prove any of this. This
is ridiculous. This is the most
ridiculous thing I've ever seen. He
claims he doesn't need to site sources
or prove his claims because he has a
whole team of people behind who have
told him, "Yep, that's correct. Go and
say it without citing any evidence." You
have to love his complete inability to
abide by the academic rigor he brags
about and accuses his opposition of
lacking. Huh? It continues. Another
creator named Duke It Out has joined the
dog pile. But with this shift in
content, there's no facade to
deconstruct anymore. Dude is just a
right-winger now, constantly attacking
the left while making excuses for the
right and being so lazy and incorrect on
most of what he's talking about that he
could produce four videos before I have
time to write a script thoroughly
debunking a single one. But the gist of
it is that Metatron's social media feeds
are pretty much all leaning into the far
right, and it's likely been the case for
a while. I think he's shifted to the
right as a way to hide from criticisms
because he was too much of a coward and
had too much of an ego to concede on
anything. And I don't mean hiding in the
exclusive sense that he's done all he
could to ignore me and others, even
though there's also a lot of that going
on. I mean that he hid within a
right-wing fan base that is predisposed
to agreeing with him. Because this way,
he doesn't have to address the
criticisms at all. He only needs to
convince his audience that he is right
and everyone else is wrong. Generally
speaking, in my experience, there are
two reasons as to why someone would even
try to make a hit piece because it does
take some time to research them
properly, edit them together, film them,
write the script, etc. One is the most
obvious one is the monetary gain. Often
times, these videos are inflammatory in
nature. They get a lot of views. They're
very negative and people love it. So, if
you're already a monetized channel, they
can make you a huge chunk of money. And
if you're a small channel trying to
grow, it could be your introduction to
monetization. This Twitter bio.
Can he cram a couple more truths in
there? And for sake, inflammatory
reaction videos like, "Professor Dave is
toxic." Or, "Look at mean Dave who lied
about me even though, no, he didn't.
You're describing yourself." And no, my
video responding to your slander does
not qualify. You start and elevate every
single one of these beefs yourself. And
the ramifications are real. that after
all of these hundreds of thousands of
cumulative defamatory views against me,
we should see a similar pattern in my
social blade. Am I right?
Nothing. I keep going up. Nothing.
Nothing. Nothing.
No downward spikes. Nothing. Just
happened. Over 600 or 700,000 of
cumulative views in the last what month
alone? Nothing. My subscribers don't
care. Why? Because you guys are solid
and I freaking love you for it.
So, first off, I just want to point out
that right now, as of editing, Medatron
has been losing an average of 300
subscribers per day. It may not seem
like much, but he's losing more subs in
a single day than my main channel is
getting in a month. I can confirm that a
lot of people who used to subscribe to
you now know that you're a pointless
loser. How about one more from not an
expert? Somewhere in the last month,
that balance feels like it's disappeared
completely. The same voice that once
prided itself on nuance and evidence now
sounds different, harder, more
defensive. And his audience, the same
one that once loved him for being
fair-minded, is slowly becoming an echo
chamber of anger. Again, that's
literally the definition of the thing
he's condemning. It's recursive
hypocrisy. Using the fallacy as evidence
of someone else's fallacy, he defines
the sin and then commits it, proving how
seductive the fallacy is once moral
superiority enters the mix. This is an
anecdote dressed as social analysis.
People around him shifting may be real
to him, but it's still selection bias.
And when you're immersed in an outraged
audience, you'll naturally notice more
stories that confirm a shift. Right from
the start, he's using JD Vance's tweet
to reframe the entire conversation. Not
to ask how people on the right became
comfortable joking about Hitler and
genocide, but to prove that someone on
the left is worse. This is classic what
aboutism as moral laundering. The irony
is that his entire defense collapses
under even the most basic factchecking
research Metatron never bothered to do.
Obviously, this is just a sampling of
each video. Go watch them individually
if you're interested in other people
doing a much deeper dive than I'm
interested in doing here. I'm just
dunking on his pathetic hit piece. But
the point is, metamoron, it kind of
seems like the whole internet knows what
a joke you've become, minus what remains
of your dwindling echo chamber. So, I
guess desperately pointing at someone
else who's but about me exposing James
Tour as a lying fraud wasn't the win you
thought it was. A jackass. Okay, back to
your slander.
>> Then he has video tutorials on Latin. I
looked into them. I'll make a couple of
dedicated videos because the guy has
zero phonetic training and his Latin
pronunciation is terrible. So, I took
three years of Latin in high school and
that content was written by my mother
who is a classical languages scholar of
50 years. She sends me audio files
demonstrating the pronunciation and I
copy them which is very easy for me to
do since I speak Italian and the
phonetics are very similar. Here's a
sample of my mother doing that.
erit.
She knows exactly, let me repeat,
exactly how to pronounce these words as
she is a professor of Italian and
classical languages for 50
years. So, I'm sorry. Any example of you
presuming that I am mispronouncing
something is just you not knowing how to
speak Latin since you're a YouTuber with
zero professional experience and a
bachelor's degree in Asian languages,
which does not include Latin.
>> And then he has videos on Trump, how
dumb Christians are. He's got videos
against conservatives. He's got videos
that, you know, to own the chs. That's
his channel.
>> More projection. I don't have any videos
on how dumb Christians are. When I
debunk creationist propaganda, that does
not apply to all Christians. You're just
butth hurt that you're an idiot
creationist that I debunk. Plenty of
other Christians are smarter than you
and don't deny science. Also, when
people mock you for your pathetic Own
the Libs content, that does not make
them an Own the Chuds channel. I don't
post pointless videos with pathetic
clickbait titles like you do. I expose
purveyors of propaganda, conservative
propaganda among them, which you fell
for, and you can cry about it. alongside
cookie cutter own the libs videos and
he's butt hurt that I exposed the
godfather of the pseudoarchchaeology
cult Graham Hancock
>> okay so I do cookie cutter own the libs
videos once again this guy hasn't
researched me for 15 minutes
>> I don't need to research you for more
than 15 seconds that's exactly what you
do look at these titles and
thumbnails cookie cutter own the libs
content if you don't like being called
out for making this piece of
content then stop making it you
tool
>> I'm not the one doing research. I'm
referencing research. I'm not the one
doing research. I'm referencing
research. I'm not the one doing
research. I'm referencing research.
>> Okay. He's not self ad. This is a
confession. This is a confession we've
got here, ladies and gentlemen. He
doesn't do research.
Well, I noticed that when it comes to
me, you never researched anything and
spewed all sorts of poisonous vomit with
the arrogance and confidence though. So
that as I say, he doesn't research
people. I don't do scientific research,
dumbass. Actual real research, not the
colloquial meaning of research used by
lay people. That just means googling
something for a few minutes. I'm a
science communicator, so I use the
research performed by the scientific
community to expose science denying
frauds. Can you believe the arrogance of
this ass hat to misunderstand something
I said and proudly loop it as though
it's some kind of win for him? It's
beyond pathetic. But now he also stated
that he doesn't research the subjects
that he So if you think for any second,
no, but I watched a video of his and the
information was good. Exactly. It's not
his. He's paring what someone else says.
What the are you not understanding,
You're pretending that me not
having performed the research I'm
referencing somehow means that I didn't
read or learn anything regarding the
topic. How dumb are you? I read
the papers, many of them, and I use the
conclusions within them to debunk
frauds. I don't have to have performed
that research myself in order to do
that. The conclusions of scientific
research become part of the body of
scientific knowledge that everybody
uses, including other scientists. It's
not paring. It's referencing the work of
the scientific community. It's called
explaining science. Good God, you are so
bad at this. My uh critique here was
that he says that Hancock doesn't have a
degree in archaeology and so he
shouldn't talk or disagree with
archaeologists. That's exactly what he
said. So I said, "But you have a degree
in chemistry, a bachelor's degree in
scrimmage. So how can you then talk
about archaeology?" It's really not that
weird of a statement to say, but he says
that doesn't apply to him. Let's see why
>> to me. Because I'm not the one spewing
propaganda that contradicts and slanders
the entire archaeological community.
That someone doesn't have any experience
in archaeology is only relevant if that
person is mouththing off about how
archaeologists are all closed-minded
idiots who don't actually do any real
science.
>> Okay, cool. So, it's actually worse the
way he presented this because initially
I was going to say he's a he's a
hypocrite because he says if you don't
have the the degree you can't talk about
this thing. No, he says Hancock
shouldn't do it because he slanders
people and calls them stupid and
imbecile. But that's exactly what you
do. You slander people and call them all
sorts of names.
>> Nope. I don't slander people. The word
slander implies false statements. Frauds
like Graham slander people. When I
expose his slander, it's not slander.
And the insults I add on top of the
debunking are very deserved. You're just
a butt hurt troll shouting slander at
anyone who uses facts to expose frauds.
>> That's why we go with the consensus of
the scientific community genius. I
debunk the lies and pseudocience of
tenur professors. All
>> I would like to explain now because he
clearly at this point I'm going to say
back what he's going to say to me in a
minute. I think he's scientifically
literate and academically literate
because at the end of the day that's not
how it works. He is presenting a
dogmatic view that it's not part of how
science works as a method. He says
scientific community makes this
statement and you can't challenge it.
That's not how it works. Einstein was
challenged. A true scientist, a true
academic wants his statements, his
theories, his hypothesis to be
challenged. You're continuing to say
absolutely nothing. There's nothing
dogmatic whatsoever about using science
to expose frauds who lie about science.
You whined about how I exclaim that
tenur professors should never be
challenged. I proved you wrong by giving
examples of tenur professors that I've
debunked, proving that it's actually you
who did zero research about me. And now
you're pretending that there's dogma
associated with exposing pseudocience.
There isn't. I would ask you to debunk
anything I said in any of my content on
James Tour, Avi Loe, or Dennis Noble,
but you sure as can't and will
never watch a single second of them
anyway. And you're pretending I didn't
just show you that the book objectively
says what I said it does.
>> You see? So he says, "I put this
screenshot. Why are you questioning it,
brother? You're not the ultimate
authority and whatever you say is
because you say so.
The public, me included, and your
audience doesn't have to just accept
your words as gospel." They're not my
words, jackass. Do you think I wrote
this text? I am referencing summaries
and analysis of his book that can be
found by anyone on the internet. Here is
a screenshot of search results that
highlight relevant passages that
illustrate what I'm referencing. And
you're whining about people taking my
word as gospel. Do you have brain
damage? If you want to challenge the
veracity of this analysis, then click
the links and check for
yourself. Mr. I do so much research.
>> Keep in mind that he is starting the
video with a clip of mine where I say
the two problems that I have with him.
But I told you there was something right
before that that he removed. He removed
it because he wanted to make this
statement. Here it is. Generally
speaking, for what I've seen up to this
point, the quality of the information
that this person presents online is
pretty good. I said that he cut it out.
The quality on the information that this
guy presents is generally good. And I
haven't seen too many things that I
would disagree with. Although then again
I haven't seen too many things that I
would disagree with. We checked out a
handful of videos. However, there are
two problems that I
>> and that's the clip that he starts. So,
he selectively removed from the very
clip that he used. So, he saw it. It's
at the beginning of the stream. He
selectively removed the part where I
said I don't disagree with the
information. I think generally the
information is correct. Why did he do
that? To manipulate his audience to into
believing then this accusation of his
this accusation of his.
>> It's pathetic. and pretending that
should be enough to discredit the
objective facts I just provided.
>> What?
How do people even follow this? This is
slimy.
This is slimy. I thought you were all
about the truth. Why did you cut that
out? Jesus Christ. This is really
pedantic. There is nothing
selective here. I just try to be
succinct when playing clips from other
videos. I don't want to play their
entire video. that you acknowledge I'm
always right isn't actually that
relevant since your whole video was you
whining about how mean I am so I was
focusing on you whining about how mean I
am since that was the topic of my video
whiny trolls who just whine about how
mean I am then there was another clip
where you threw out the you mad bro
rhetoric so I mocked you for that too
you are really reaching here because all
I'm saying now is that to me grifter is
a red flag why well because people get
get called grifter all the time and The
reality is that they are not actually
grifters, but they just disagree with
your position or ideas. That's how a lot
of people use the word grifter these
days, and it's a fact. So, to me, the
word grifter has become a red flag.
Well, I use the word grifter to mean
grifter, And in all of my
content exposing grifters that you've
never watched, I prove conclusively that
they are indeed grifters. So either
buckle down, dig through my content, and
refute anything I've ever said to expose
anyone that I refer to as a grifter, or
admit that you're just a pearl clutching
loser who can't stand it when grifters
get exposed. We all continually point
out how Graham references white
supremacist sources, such as Ignatius
Donnelly, which I brought up just before
this clip, so he saw me do that and
probably just didn't know who that is.
>> I'll give him that. Yes, I don't know
who this is, so I'll give him that. I
don't know if this is an actual white
supremacist like he's claiming. Once
again, I don't take his word for it, but
I'm saying let's for the sake of
argumentation, let's say that this guy
was indeed a white supremacist. That
doesn't mean that you can't touch what
they say. By the way, you know that
that's another thing that I want to
point out. If we are reviewing
information, for instance, we could some
people would say that Julius Caesar was
a megalomania megalomania criminal, war
criminal who performed genocide on the
Gauls and other populations. Uh, does
that mean that we can't read his sources
to try and use them as an information?
Of course, it's fine. The guy could be a
despicable monster. I don't know. But
that doesn't make what he says false.
The truth remains objective. You're
really just humiliating yourself here.
You admitted that you don't know who
this is, which means you're unfamiliar
with his indigenous people are too
stupid and primitive to build this
stuff, so it must have been white people
from Atlantis rhetoric, which Graham
recycled for his grift. Graham doesn't
just reference him like, "Hey, look at
what some guy said once." He is pushing
precisely the same rhetoric. He is
presenting the same viewpoint. It's not
a mere citation. Get a clue. because of
your attitude of toxicity and all of
your attacks at the personum which are
usually enjoyed by the people who like
this kind of poison, then should I
consider you gullible or responsible for
the type of audience you have and the
kind of comments and they left under my
video after you made a section about me?
>> Oh, is someone upset because some
horrible radical Antifa leftists came to
your channel to remind you that you're a
hack? Stop pretending that it's
extreme to be educated and to push back
on toxic trolls. It's what you deserve.
>> It's not professor in the American
sense, meaning someone who teaches at a
university with a high level degree.
He's not a professor in that sense. But
I'm not interested in I didn't prepare a
section about that like I've seen other
people that attack him that do because
to me that doesn't matter. I think
people know I'm not the Archangel
Metatron. Yeah, you're not the Archangel
Metatron. While I did indeed teach
organic chemistry at an accredited
university and have an advanced degree,
not such a great comparison, is it Bozo?
>> Complete loss. Like he has no
credibility after this video. Zero. I
proved everything. Everything. I came
with receipts. Everything is proven.
>> Receipt for what? A sandwich. I
love when idiot trolls have the hubris
to think that they're going to take down
my whole channel when they're really
just humiliating and alienating
themselves even further. My credibility
is just fine, kiddo. Yeah, I said that
you call people racist and that's
something I don't appreciate and you
give me one example. Even if I were to
grant for discourse sake, let's say that
Jimmy Corsetti and his audience his
audience also his entire audience, but
let's say that Jimmy Corseti is racist
for whatever reason. I'm not saying it,
but I'm saying for sake for the sake of
argumentation. That's one. How many
times should we ask then does he use
this? How about we write racist
and look through his entire channel?
There we go. 22 videos. In 22 videos.
Okay, Pick one instance and
disprove my accusation of racism. Come
on, Mr. I am best researcher and always
look up everything before speaking.
pick one and tell me how I'm
wrong. Which one is it going to be? Will
you choose Jesse Lee Peterson who talks
about how slavery was cool? Or will it
be Jay Dyer whose rebuttal to me was
just whining repeatedly in a racist Jew
voice? Will it be Sabur Ahmad who called
me a racial slur during live debate? How
are you so stupid that you can't
see that you are continuing to do the
exact thing I am making fun of you for?
You are whining about me calling out
racism. People are racist. I say they
are racist and instead of condemning the
racism, you whine about me calling out
racism. Why would that be? All right,
because you're racist. You
reflexively complain about accusations
of racism because you've been called out
for being racist.
>> And nowhere did I ever say that people
with credentials shouldn't be
challenged.
>> What? We saw it twice. We saw it twice.
He said it. He said Grancock doesn't
have archaeology an archaeology degree,
so he shouldn't. Why is he speaking
about archaeologist? He's pathetic. And
then he said about me, why this ill
scientifically literate is telling
us about science. It's exactly what you
say.
>> Really eager to show off your
non-existent listening skills again, a
dumbass, you are pretending that people
with credentials shouldn't be challenged
and people with zero credentials and no
idea what they're talking about should
keep their mouths shut are somehow
verbatim the same statement because
you're stupid.
>> So in reality, what he is, he is someone
who wanted to be a science communicator,
a languages communicator. He's got a
series on Latin, but those videos didn't
get views, which I sympathize. I
struggle with the algorithm all the
time. So he saw he had a massive
incentive because he noticed that when
he vomits poison on people at a decent
constant speed, which of course means he
doesn't do any research as he said, then
those videos get a lot of views, which
translate into a lot of money. That's
fine. You get the bag at this point. But
the problem is this. You are now an
entertainer to the radical toxic left.
The reversal of reality is
astounding. He is describing himself. He
wanted to make history content. He made
no money, so he started making clickbait
own the libs content to cash in on
conservative idiots that populated his
echo chamber. All while pretending I'm
somehow not a science communicator when
I communicate mountains of science to
expose anti-science propaganda. Once
again, showing that it is actually him
who has done no research and has never
watched a single second of my content.
immaculately exposing pseudocience in a
profoundly thorough way that quite
regrettably virtually nobody else is
doing on YouTube. We will get to James
fumbling the science in a moment, but
first it is important to establish that
James is a brazen liar. This is the
dumbest straw man in history. Well, he
reveals a level of incompetence that is
shocking for someone of his stature. In
his profound ignorance, can't even read
a 13C NMR spectrum, something he should
have learned as an undergrad. The idea
that James can't do something that an
undergrad could do is astounding. And
whether his brain ceases to function
when examining this research or he is
deliberately lying to a gullible
audience with no clue what he's talking
about, his credibility is reduced to
zero with this example alone. He's a
toxic individual and pathological liar
who actively promotes science denial and
slanders diligent researchers. He made
that up like a liar. This hurt James so
badly.
>> Does that sound like a science
communicator to you?
>> Yes. Despite this pathetic attempt at
clipping dozens of random sentences out
of context to make me seem as
inflammatory as possible, it does indeed
sound like a science communicator who is
exposing a toxic lying fraud. Your
desperation is palpable.
>> Look at the question this guy has.
>> Is one thing that they admire about each
other's scientific career.
>> Let me start. This man has said multiple
times that I have called him stupid. I
have never called him stupid because I
don't think he's stupid. I have said
he's clueless on this topic. I have said
he cannot read the scientific
literature. That doesn't mean stupid.
This man has become a musician. And then
he went out and in 2015 he started an
educational site which is huge. The
stupid people can't do that. I admire
him. This is this is an educational site
and I have never called him stupid
because he's not stupid. He's not
stupid. So I admire him for his
educational site and he from what I
understand I'm not a musician. From what
I understand what people have said he's
an excellent musician. I admire him for
that as well. He his wife is here. He's
a father. He has two children. I admire
that that a man can have a wife and two
children and stay married and do these
things. Okay. So that's beautiful thing
to say at this point. Even if he was
wrong on the science, which I don't know
because I don't know chemistry. But even
if he was wrong on the science, I would
at least admire him for the intellectual
integrity. If someone says this about
you after you have insulted them for the
entirety of the presentation, how would
you react if you had even a modicum of
dignity? Let's see.
>> Says that is wonderful. That is
wonderful. I admire that.
I admire the tenacity with which you
stick to a script of lies. It's actually
quite impressive.
>> Okay, so now we have just and with that
I'm going to say, Professor Dave, your
credibility is now zero, said the loser
troll with zero credibility who has yet
again removed all context to perform
desperate character assassination. James
vomited up a completely disingenuous
response to that question, pretending to
praise me on my chemistry tutorials
after spending several years shouting on
his channel about how I'm completely
clueless and don't understand chemistry.
About 5 seconds after this, I showed all
of his quotes, slandering me and
denigrating my chemistry knowledge. He
was just pretending to praise. He
absolutely deserved to be called out for
that pathetic two-faced pageantry. But
you don't show any of that, now do you?
Nor do you show all the instances of
James acting like a pathetic toxic
toddler.
>> You don't have ANY ENZYMES. SHOW US THE
DATA. ORIGIN OF LIFE RESEARCH is a scam.
>> FULLY REPLICATED.
>> IT IS NOT FULLY REPLICATED. NO WAY.
ZERO.
>> And it's just in right here.
>> I just showed you about it.
>> You just said homocy. Oh, there's the
word.
>> And I'm showing you another paper,
>> Mr.
HERE. DO YOU WANT ME GO? YOU DON'T DO
IT.
>> No commentary on any of that, right,
Nothing to say about this
behavior. You didn't decide to make a
montage of all the times he shouted at
me or interrupted me or acted like a
complete buffoon. I wonder why.
Primarily because you didn't watch the
debate, have no idea what happened, and
have no clue who James Tour is, but also
because it doesn't suit your narrative,
desperately framing me as the toxic jerk
face you so desperately want me to be.
Whoops. And with that, we can all
clearly see what Metatron is. a firmly
audiencecaptured anti-woke loser
shouting at clouds and pumping out
culture war slop. There's no point in
digging any further. This video doesn't
deserve to be any longer than this. But
if we did, we would find him crying
about replacement theory, defending ICE,
whining about the liberal media, all the
horrible racism against white people.
His ideology is a portaotty. And
when anyone points out his toxicity, his
laziness, his dishonesty, or his
irrelevance through very deserved
mockery, he plays the victim just like
every single worthless troll I exposed
in that video he didn't watch. The ones
who think that being angry about being
shown for precisely what they are is
somehow a valid rebuttal. That's why
he's doubling down here, whining about
how mean I am, all while refusing to
acknowledge the toxicity of those who I
expose. It's just more gaslighting, more
pearl clutching, more virtue signaling,
more slander, more projection, further
embodying everything I warned my viewers
about. It's actually breathtaking to see
someone this oblivious, this eager to
dig his own grave like he's in a race to
become completely irrelevant. Isn't it
sad? I never would have even heard of
you, Medatron. You were not in my sights
at all. But just like so many delusional
egoomaniacs before you, your hubris is
your downfall. Norbert had the sense to
delete his videos, and his reward is
that episode being swiftly forgotten.
But you, you're just begging to join my
collection of punching bags. Judging
from the comments by people who used to
subscribe to you, you'd be a welcome
addition indeed. And if you're petty
enough to try and nitpick my academic
content that you're not qualified to
comment on, that's exactly what you'll
get. So that's it for Metatron, the
whiny little anti-woke baby. Honestly,
I'm at a bit of a loss for how to sign
this one off. Let's see. How did he
finish his video?
>> Because you have no decency, no moral,
no honor, no truth, no respect for the
truth, and you're just a bully with the
ego the size of a mountain.
Oh, and let me add in Sicilian,
no honor, no respect for the truth.
Pretty big words for such a pointless
loser troll. But since none of this
seems to be getting through to you,
let's put it into terms that even you
can understand.
To everyone else,
I'll see you next