Sign into an existing account

If anyone disappears during this, it'll be because they were standing around outside in groups of strangers looking up at the fuckin sky. Bro, Stacy is gone. Not now, dude, we're in totality!

Also, flat-earthers, eat shit.

A census of the metaphysical beliefs of the Talk.lol population. Make your mark and be weighed against the scales of pointlessness.

Those who do not participate in increasing visibility of the thread are not penalized, but are assumed to be Haitian voodoo niggers who dip their nutsacks in pig blood to win scratch-off lotto tickets. (This actually works.)

[Clip in Question](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcKWYsa5Ds4)

I know people have been citing this pro-porn sentiment expressed by Kanye as a kind of all-or-nothing reason for dismissing Kanye out of hand. I'm not arguing *that* claim one way or another. There is more than one reason to be skeptical about Kanye.

Moreso, I just wanted to note a few general observations.

First, notice the way that Kanye behaves as he is talking about his porn preferences. There is a distinct discomfort, almost a sense of shame. I noticed that his body language and vocal tone became almost childlike. It was subtle, but he seemed to have regressed to a younger mental state, like a child that was caught doing something he shouldn't have.

The tension didn't belong solely to Kanye. Kimmel's professionalism as a comedian smoothed over the absolute awkwardness of the moment, killing it with forced casualness. But this lead to the other observation. What was he killing?

He was carrying them through a conversation, on a late night talk show, about personal porn preferences. What does this say about culture? We're supposed to live in an era of tolerance and 'sex positivity', but throughout this short clip, one gets the sense that both of them recognized implicitly that it was obnoxious. Kanye's boldness seems more like a cope for his insecurity.

Yet here we are, watching a conversation about internet porno taking place between two celebrities. When one thinks back to the Johnny Carson days or something, it's hard to imagine something like this ever airing. It would be a scandal, and maybe it's right that it should be. I'm far more concerned that this is something even possible to pass off as a normal conversation.

The interesting point is that the facts ring true. The words being said might try to communicate this is normal, but all of the other facts betray them.

These men are uncomfortable. Kanye's shame comes out in that contortion of his face, like a child that got caught eating cookies before supper. At least they both, perhaps even after the program, had to realize they just talked about a fetish site on a late night talk show inherited from the Letterman and Carson tradition.

You could imagine a parenthetical sort of thought in both of their minds (not spoken of course), like: are we really fucking doing this right now? And even Kimmel's damage control ("We'll talk about it after the show") just increases the awkwardness, i.e. we're going to 'talk porn' later.

I don't care how anti-prude you are. After this clip you perceive something unattractive about both of these guys. It's shameful. It's like two men discussing an alcohol or cocaine addiction, something every decent part of us recognizes is disgraceful for a man. Nor am I willing to tolerate the thought, well, you're holding them to much too high a standard because of their celebrity or perceived genius, or whatever. It isn't that I thought: the king of hip-hop has fallen a few levels because he revealed his humanity.

It would be as shameful for two average guys to be having this conversation. If they'd been discussing sharing their wives with other men, I think I'd have felt the same way about the conversation. Like two men swallowing shit and trying to pretend they like it. Everybody knows there's a standard for men that makes this interaction gross, while it bespeaks a really sorry decline in culture that it even occurred publicly.

The normalizing pressure wants to make this talk appear like discussing your favorite flavor of potato chip or soft drink. But it cannot do it, not completely. The truth outs at every second that you find yourself thinking, "Wow, I wish this part of the conversation would end. . .now, please."

Sometimes a very ordinary thing can remind you of an extraordinary thing. Recently, I was dealing with a salesperson who was bidding a job I needed done. He underbid (by his own reasoning), and he approached me halfway through the job to ask for more money. Mind you, this wasn't a contract job. For all intents and purposes, call it a thousand-dollar job: some shit I needed done but simply ran out of time to do as we are heading into this current season.

I thought about the concept of fairness, as in, what's reasonable to ask. When he approached me asking for twice the amount of money he originally bid, I thought it was dishonorable. There are just certain things that one person can do to another, or ask from them, which seem 'low'. You know what these things are when you think to yourself, "I'd never do X."

If X is something like going back on your initial offer and asking for an unreasonable amount extra, and if X is dishonorable, then X would be the kind of thing that you'd not want other people to know that you did. If I had been this laborer, I'd be embarrassed (and possibly financially harmed) if my customer (me, in this case) was to go around town telling other people about it.

But this entire phenomenon, in itself, is a very good thing. A society should have this kind of 'immune reaction' to what is dishonorable. A person who is transacting with someone else in a generally honorable community will think about his actions. He will think about whether what he is doing is honorable or not.

If you take this ingredient out of a society, things are bound to get worse.

I recall, at various times in the past, listening to people defend Jews by making sociocultural cases about their proclivity for 'haggling'. They just have balls, right. They are just cunning negotiators. They aren't afraid to push people's envelopes. The concept is generally called chutzpah, which just refers to the boldness to push people's boundaries. I thought, there's something insidious about this notion. What figment of a groups social fabric says what the floor is? What's the lowest someone can go? Does chutzpah mean you can go as low as you want, if it works? It seems like there needs to be some faculty working in a social group that acts like a self-regulator, which sets a level below which no 'honorable' person will go (else risk the consequences of being known as dishonorable).

Conflict is a fact of life. I don't mean what we typically mean by conflict (fights, politics, wars, arguments, etc.). By conflict, I mean simple differences in interest that anyone transacting in a society is forced to navigate. There are infinite interests and desires, and limited resources to satisfy them. Foundational economics. The seller wants something from me. I want something from him. If he's my neighbor, what's the right way to manage these ordinary conflicts so that, generally, we don't feel always under attack within our own society, constantly walking around with suspicious eyes and defenses activated? What preserves a sense of regularity, safety and stability as an individual, even when our society constantly involves these kinds of conflicts at every turn?

I think the answer has to be: honor.

Honor is what makes us confident that, even though there are people who properly *need* to take some things from me in this society, and there are things I *need* to get from them, that I don't have to be threatened (in the sense where I'm constantly uneasy) all of the time. Honor makes me confident that people are going to be highly conscientious about how they do things, including how we handle transactions, how and how much you ask from me, and what's respectable to reciprocate with. It does this, majorly, by determining what's off limits, i.e. what's dishonorable to do or ask for.

If you need something done and you offer to pay $500 for it, and this is a reasonable amount, it's dishonorable for someone to ask for twice that amount of money. It's dishonorable not to complete what you said you would complete. It's dishonorable to change your terms after they've been agreed upon, generally.

But we see, quite clearly, that what amounts to honor at this ordinary level (we might say at the level of the 'small') emerges as something more important, by orders of magnitude, as it scales up within a society. That is, as you begin to sum all of the small things into something much larger.

It seems to me that one aspect of culture which the Jews lack is honor. It might be the most basic (most primitive and foundational) aspect of social relations, which is utterly absent in the Jewish way of doing things.

With their principled chutzpah, it's a race to the bottom. Who can set the bar the lowest? Furthermore, this lack of basic honor at the individual level transmits to race-wide anxiety at the level of their group. It's often remarked that the Jew is very ethnocentric. Nepotism is rampant in their practices. I think this is, at best, an appearance. No Jew trusts another Jew, because they know all of their peers are mutually in a race toward the bottom. Survival of the thriftiest. There can be no mutual value for self-sacrifice in company which, recognizing the self-sacrifice of others, takes it as the stink of weakness and exploits it to crush that person. The necessary value of self-sacrifice is absent in such a crowd, because there is no honor.

Imagine that the Jews are a people huddled in a lifeboat. It might look as if the rest of us are currently fragmented as a group, each of us floating on our separate raft or plank of wood. But the mass of Jews huddled in their nepotistic lifeboat is in a precarious position because of their lack of honor. Their eyes are constantly scanning, from side to side, assessing each of his other Jews, predicting which one of them will be the first to sell the others out. Who is going to fuck me first? Their lifeboat is unfathomably tense, and their anxiety unrelenting. Such is the social effect of a society with no room for honor.

But honor is a tricky thing. It's hard to define. I'd be very interested if any of you reading this (all two of you) could try to define what honor is, leaving a comment or whatever.

Honor seems precariously difficult to preserve in a society. At least one reason for this is because honor is a two-way street. Not only do you have to shame or cast out the dishonorable, but so too you must preserve your own honor. Inevitably this requires self-sacrifice, for if an honorable person sees a dishonorable person benefitting in one instance, then to maintain his own honor, he must not associate with the dishonorable person - even if it might mean a direct benefit to him, should he associate with that person.

This seems to be the bottom which has fallen out of our society. A good deal of people might, on reflection, say some practices are dishonorable, but it's not affecting their choices. It's every man for himself. If you aren't getting punished for dishonor, because your society doesn't implicitly enforce it, then go ahead, go profit by associating with the dishonorable. Oh, that producer of porn is making a mint? Hell, who cares where you get your money. . .as long as you have it, that's all that counts. Go and see what you can make of your time with that porn-producer. Get it while the gettin' is good!

And slowly, without honor, we see that all-important *Trust* begin to wane in our society. Our anxiety grows, until we are anxious as a Jew. We no longer trust the landscape for conflict is governed by honor. We instead perceive that, even in our own nation, we are in a sea of sharks, all in a race to push us to the bottom dollar. We can't be confident that people are going to do reasonable things, and make reasonable requests from it, but rather our confidence grows that people will take as much meat off the bone as we'll permit, before we slap their hands. But it is precisely this. . .this feeling that we must always be slapping our neighbors hands, which erodes our sense that we even live among neighbors any longer.

I think that a society must have honor, and honor must be healthy and active. And a society that is to be honorable, cannot allow a group within its ranks whose narrow set of strategies all have dishonor as their hallmark. A healthy society cannot permit itself to live alongside a group for whom dishonorable practices is their stock and trade. It might feel capitalistic, and for the libertarian-minded folk, it will ring of 'free markets' and 'invisible hands'. But the real invisible hand's wrist is honor. And keeping a strong wrist is the job of each person in a society.

The invisible hand of the liberally free market wants to break its own wrist. Honor is like the other hand that holds it steady.

The Jew, by its nature as a people, thrives exclusively by a strategy of loosening the grip of the hand of honor, hoping that the wrist of your economy's invisible hand will go limp.

(For the record, I don't give a fuck about the NBA or any pro athlete.)

I'm watching in disbelief as Kyrie Irving and the Brooklyn Nets are about to pay a million dollars for offending the ADL. There's a lot of garnish being applied by the media, but let's call it what it is. Irving offended Jews at the ADL, who have the power to complain, and the only resolution to their complaint is for the offending party to pay a lot of money. Note the wave of tweets in the wake of Irving's and the Net's "resolution" to pay the money: a lot of people saying they are happy about reaching a peaceful 'solution', and a way to 'move forward'.

Imagine someone just assaults you in the street. You are heard complaining about your attacker. The attacker then makes a public outcry of defamation. Somehow you are forced to pay the attacker a large sum of money. Your employer enters the picture and says they're going to pay the attacker too, and you both release a resolution stating as much.

Then everyone starts clamoring: "So glad this could be resolved, and we can move forward now."

I don't understand how anybody can continue to listen to these people (Jews, the ADL) claim they are victims, while their complaints literally generate the public's expectation that you will hand them money to resolve their offense. No trial before a judge. No jury. A wave of pressure from everyone around you, so-called moral voices, who imply that if you don't pay, you'll be crushed in any number of conceivable ways financially and professionally.

How do you walk away from this and continue thinking, "Gee those Jews sure are victims."

Their single tweet (literally a fucking tweet from Greenblatt) generates $1 million in revenue for Jews.

Some victims.

https://twitter.com/JGreenblattADL/status/1588240416922443778?cxt=HHwWhIClydGPyIosAAAA (apologies for the Twitter link)

Look at the language used in Greenblatt's tweet. He is literally telling someone what their speech about Jews must be. "The answer is always NO."

How can you continue to create the public assumption of victimhood while you get to tell top-1%-ers what they can and cannot say. You just get to tell someone what's acceptable to say about you, with the full implication that it's a rule that must be followed.

I caught a brief segment on a news program this morning (no, I don't watch the news) as I was walking through a family member's living room. I stopped to listen, as what I was hearing almost instantly caused me to 'flip the table'.

A Sandy Hook mother, who is now leading a national gun lobbying group (and probably getting rich in the process), was discussing the effectiveness of a strategy for having armed security in schools, while consolidating the number of entry points possible to the school during the school day.

She said, roughly, "There just isn't enough evidence that such measures could even be effective. We have to preempt these mass shooting events to deter them before they can begin."

I thought about this for a moment, about whether common sense would even support that idea. There is a person with a gun who is shooting people. When that happens, either the shooter kills himself, or someone else with a gun disables/kills the shooter. Either people with guns have proven effective in these scenarios, or they haven't. The pragmatic answer is: we can think about what our most useful solutions have been and continue to be. In every case, the way such a situation is solved is to call in other people with guns - that's true without exception, and no anti-gun lobbyist would even deny this.

So why would having people with guns, hired not by the police force but paid by the school itself, not act as a deterrent to these events?

The situation at Uvalde has put gun-grabbers into a corner. Police did nothing. They stood by and actively prevented the situation from being resolved, even as they forcefully stopped parents from trying to do something about removing their children form harm's way.

So the woman on the news, the lobbyist, is arguing that staffing schools with armed guards would be ineffective. Her argument consists in pointing to how cops at the scene in Uvalde failed to do anything to stop the day's events. Therefore, armed people are ineffective preemptively at stopping mass shootings.

1. Ignores the existing evidence that armed people have stopped mass shootings, and illogically ignores that, if evidence of mass shootings is the only relevant evidence, then every shooting that was prevented by the threat of armed citizens won't be counted. If the shooting has to start for you to say that armed people can't preemptively stop it, then you've excluded every piece of evidence that would falsify your conclusion.

2. The proposed solution cannot follow from her premises. The premise is that armed police were not effective at stopping the shooter, despite being on scene (for several reasons: cowardice, confusion, incompetence, anything but being ordered to stand down).

So the only solution (according to her) is to stop such shootings with laws banning ownership of semi-autos with large magazines and certain other features that make them meant 'solely for killing'.

Think about this for a moment. The argument, at root, is saying that if the most local and specific government institution for protecting you against violence is ineffective when there is violence, then what we must do is trust in the most central (federal) and distant government function to protect us. That is to say, we must trust the law to do it.

But a law is a form of legislated agreement. The entire civic premise is that a law is something on the book, a form of authority used in judgment once a crime has been identified and the assailant has been taken into the system. The law does not enforce itself, and we recognize that it is not a law that arrests people (or stops them from hurting others).

So we are being told that because we cannot trust in law enforcers to protect us, that we should place our trust in the law itself to protect us.

Because surely, if we just ban the weapons, then there will be no criminal use of those weapons.

But, haven't we universally banned murdering people? Why wouldn't that cast an even wider net? If the law is efficacious in itself, then a ban against murder is even stronger than a ban on particular instruments of murder.

It simply makes no sense, not even on a first gloss let alone a deeper analysis.

It requires an implicit premise, which is that a legal prohibition against any thing (object, substance, behavior), actually stops the production, distribution and possession of said thing or the display of said behavior. Has any such prohibition worked, ever? We could ask this lobbyist woman, is there 'sufficient evidence' that any prohibition on paper has stopped criminals from acting?

Of course not; it can't even be true in principle. The definition of a criminal is someone who breaks laws. Since many laws pertain to illegal possessions, or to acts carried out by the use of things possessed illegally, then the existence of criminality period is evidence against universal efficaciousness of prohibition.

If a person has demonstrated that they are capable of and intending to ignore the ban against murdering innocent people, it is not reasonable to think that they'd ironically honor the ban against an illegal weapon. If one is not dissuaded from murdering by his moral compass, how likely is it that he/she will be brought to heel by a rule in a book against owning the instrument-for-killing?

The only people who will be brought to heel by restrictions on gun ownership are moral people who abide by the law. Criminals, by definition, are not caught by the net cast through legislation. This is why the police force exists. If the police cannot be trusted to do their appointed function, then the only logical answer is that individuals must be prepared in all relevant manners to protect themselves. That means each mass shooting is just another piece of evidence in the pile which supports the supreme importance of the 2A.

(All text belongs in the post titles today)

(1.) Though the message may have received words in the mouth of an ethnic Jew, the words that were spoken *transcended* Judaism and excluded Christianity from Judaism thereafter. The non-exclusivity of Christianity is what excludes it from Judaism. They are not the same. Does it make sense to refer to Americans as something distinct (as a people, a nation, and a place) from England? Furthermore, does it make sense if someone accuses American-ism of being a foreign entity, because the people who would become Americans originated ethnically in England? No.

If someone made this accusation, you would accuse them of a categorical error. America battled to distinguish its independence from England. Likewise, Christianity battled to distinguish itself from all of its points of origin.

"Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all." (Colossians 3:11)

(2.) The objects of religion, to which a true religion must point, are not creations of mankind. Pagans will protest that Christianity is not a product of Europe. "Look", they say, "there is no European to be found in Christian holy texts!" They surmise it is a grave concern, but, as we shall see, it is trivial.

Religion is not a clothing style. It is not a kind of cuisine, or a demographic item. The stuff of religion is the stuff of metaphysics, so it pertains to such concepts as: Being, essence, the nature of the world and of man, and to ultimate reality. If there is a truth about ultimate reality, then it is *singular*. There is only one way for a religion to be true, i.e. if it is true from the vantage of everything that exists.

From this we can derive three things. Any religion which is possibly a true religion and knows this about itself, must claim that it is *the* religion. Second, only one religion can actually make such a claim true. Third: religion is a oneness, not a plurality. Thus, any religion that claims to be true for a specific ethnic group, on the basis of its material connection to the history of said group, is claiming that truth about God is plural. For all men desire truth, therefore if a pagan claims the truth of his religion is contingently bound to his people's particular history, he has denied the truth of his God to others. *But a God that is true for all is greater than a God that is true for some*.

If a believer cannot say, "My religion is not my own, but is properly subordinated to the one, true God; it cannot fail to be true even for my enemy, though he does not know it", then his tradition is not the true religion.

(3.) Still, there is an undeniable repulsion in the White spirit when someone points out that the Torah was physically written down by the very people we consider our enemies.

This is an error of misattribution, for if the true enemy was *understood*, the claimant would grasp that the enemy is *sin*. The Jew is just one gatekeeper of this fundamental temptation.

Yet, imagine a world without any Jews! Do you suppose it would be a world with no strife, no backstabbing, no wars, no rat race, no resentment, no corruption? If you think so, then you have no claim to religion whatever, for you have failed to grasp it in its rudiments.

Since well after the days of Rome, the Jew has accomplished nothing militarily. The Jew has relied on permissions from the gentile at every step. Every machination is activated when and where we have said 'yes', where we have become lax, where our natural evils were prodded and we, as people of God, failed to resist temptation.

The pagan will look to the example of Nazi Germany and say, "Yes, but look at the monolithic unity of the inflamed white identity, how galvanized by this idea, we coalesced against the Jew." Does the pagan then also suppose that they were Norse gods who caused that unity? That the Norse gods were the fabric that united the White cloth?

No. This unified and radiant European identity was possible to concentrate in Germany *because* of the Jew. Could you imagine it the same way if no Jew had ever existed? Yet, before Weimar Germany, did the deities of the Druids unite all of White Europe into solidarity by themselves? They could not have, else the Jewish problem could have never become a problem!

The Jew is an ethnoreligious materialization of the common enemy of man, and the nature of the Jewish problem is similar to the nature of man's problem with infection. Wash your mouth out with antiseptic. Within seconds bacteria are repopulating. Bleach a surface. Return in an hour, and bacteria are flourishing. If man killed the Jew, the Jew would return in an even more concealed, cryptic form - as one of his own! When we feel unthreatened by our common enemy: *sin* (for example, when we identify it too strongly with something physical, and eradicate that thing), we grow weak, and the enemy's true self materializes more and more closely at our core.

In this way, ancient pagan tradition had no use for us. It might unite us ritually, but it cannot unite us in identifying our true metaphysical enemy. If we do think that enemy is the Jew, we ought to take seriously what the Jew says about the nature of ultimate reality. On the one hand, a person who does miraculous goods gives support to what he says about God. On the other hand, a person who does supernatural evil as successfully as the Jew does, must also know something truer about the nature of ultimate reality. To do good in the name of God is merely the opposite side of the coin from doing great evil against Him.

The Jew does not claim to do evil against Odin. The Jew gnashes his teeth and snarls at Christ.

(4.) If we believe that our enemy is evil, then the degree to which our faith and tradition can endure evil is a sign of its truth. Paganism could not survive in the presence of the Abrahamic faiths. It was overcome by Catholicism, but since your premise is that Catholicism is a Jewish invention to undermine paganism, pointing this out will not help me. I can also say with unshakeable confidence that Islam would have assimilated paganism equally, if not more forcibly. I can point to a religion I consider less true than my own, but truer generally, and say that my quasi-enemy would have also bowled over your pagan tribes.

Islam, too, is a great enemy of the Jews. Are we noticing a theme? The truest religions share in several key features: they identify the proper enemy, and they successfully unite people in a way that endures against that enemy.

Paganism could not do this. It couldn't then. It could not today.

(5.) Lest we forget, the absolute height (intellectually and culturally) of all pagan tradition was the Greeks. The pagan Greeks, from middle Platonism onward, recognized one God (The One). These pagans distinguished themselves from barbarian pagans to the north and west.

Catholicism did not erase the Greek tradition. It absorbed it. The Greeks prefigured and anticipated the Christian theology, and Catholicism merely united Platonism and Aristotelianism in a way that perfected the earlier pagan tradition. How quickly you forget that the Christian tradition was attacked because of its pagan origins!

Now look here, the Jew attacks Christ. The Germanic pagan attacks Christian's Jewish origins. The Protestant attacks Christianity's pagan origins and contents.

Hilariously, members of our community will attack groups like the Illuminati for their sun worship and pagan/occult aspects, then turn around and say Christianity is too Jewish, and so we must demand a return to paganism! Which is it?

Catholicism assimilated both the intellectual revelation (philosophy) of the Greek pagans together with the faith revelation of Jewish followers of Jesus Christ. It is something different from what it assimilated, and it transcends what it assimilated. Catholicism perfected the imperfections of its sources, which is just what we think proper progress does. To become more correct is to perfect one's previous errors.

Christianity is neither only Greek, or only Hebrew. Christianity is consummately Europe. It took the highest genius of the Greeks and united it to the interpretation of the most moral Being of the Hebrew world, Jesus (who reprimanded the Jewish people and stated explicitly that their religion had become the synagogue of Satan). There would be no Christianity without the Greek pagans.

"I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars - I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you." (Revelation 3:9)

(6.) If we consider why traditions in the Abrahamic category were vastly more successful than their pagan counterparts, we can point to how they ordered sexual dynamics by ordering the genders within society. How often is it remarked here that 'Islam was right about women'?

Contrast what Catholicism does in terms of civics/social order with what paganism does. No, you do not get to reverse-assimilate the benefits of Christianity to paganism! For the pagans, women were venerated, held on high with the same religious role as males in the priesthood. They were diviners who often engaged in group sex rituals in order to receive indications from God. This 'drawing down' of God into the world (really, a forcing) through her sexuality is a distinct part of the feminine aspects of occult belief, held in high esteem by Jewish esoteric groups such as the freemasons.

So you, modern pagan, observe the world and cry out "Look how the Jew confuses gender categories and blurs lines which have kept our society together!" Yet, your pagan tradition would have possessed no basis whatsoever for protesting such 'subversions'.

You want a Christian morality dressed in pagan clothes, because you wear your religion like a badge on your jacket. You'll unite nothing and nobody with these lukewarm principles. Christianity is not a foreign religion - it is Europe.

My friend's mother passed away 'due to Covid' in the early part of last year when Covid lockdowns at hospitals were at a maximum. They were preventing family members from even entering the Covid wings to visit their loved ones. In other words, people's family members were being left alone with a hospital staff (that one normally ought to be able to trust).

I learned some new details today that nearly put me over the edge. My friend has been very distraught and depressed since her mother's passing, and she did not tell me this information until today. She said that it was due to guilt - she believes this is her fault.

She gave the approval - over the phone - for her mother to be put on a ventilator. A few days later she was called and told that her mother's condition was critical. At this point she and her brother were allowed into the room. On arriving, she found her mother's arms were covered in bruises, and she freaked out. Hospital staff said her mother had fought the ventilator, and they were forced to tie her down.

You can just imagine that something was wrong with this ventilator situation if the woman fought hard enough against the straps to bruise herself like this.

At this explanation she said she calmed down, and the doctors suggested some sort of injection. She cannot remember what it was or if it was even explained to her, but she gave the okay. My friend is in tears as she is telling me this story. She said immediately after the injection she basically watched her mom die. She still has no idea what the fuck happened, but she is now tearing herself up about trusting the hospital, about being a coward, not being more discerning, etc. etc.

I'm not posting this in order to hear a lot of comments like 'stupid bitch, I can't believe she said yes to those things'. I get it. She gets it now. She has been made to feel complicit in her own mother's death, and she's struggling badly with all of this.

I'm posting this because I doubt we have reason to think this was an isolated incident. This push for ventilation as a first-line measure, combined with the lack of outside supervision of 'care' provision during the span of these lockdowns means we can probably think it has occurred many, many times. Hospitals were (and may still be) murdering people.

I can't imagine what protocol exists for forcing someone onto a ventilator who is so actively resisting it that they could bruise themselves. By necessity, that indicates that a person has the breathing capacity to not require a ventilator. Ventilators are designed for use in people who literally cannot draw a breath to save their own lives (a condition induced under anesthetics during surgery, for example).

Something is very, very wrong here. It's been hard to put a finger spot on to the *one undeniable thing* we could say to our loved ones: "LOOK. Look here! Here is the reason why you need to avoid the shots (and the hospital)." We've known something was wrong about the 'pandemic' from quite early on, and over the course of months we have articulated many of the issues. But until now, I've had no evidence from my personal life that the hospital staff were anything more than useful idiots. *This* is evidence of malevolence on the part of the ground-lvl employees and doctors - it cannot be written off as mere stupidity or line-toeing.

If it winds up that these sorts of measures were taken, and human lives were treated as just collateral, for a hospital to make $X more dollars in revenue, then our situation is very dire. We are dealing with an evil that has precipitated from above, down to the very groundwork of our society. Like a Stanford Prison Experiment where nurses could not even protest as they watched this go on, instead gathering with their fellow psychos to TikTok-cope with the horror by dancing it all away. It's like a dystopian fucking nightmare.

A particular area of a nearby metro region became the topic of a conversation I had with a coworker, who I know happens to lean quite liberally. As a matter of principle, I tend to find ways of communicating my political and ethical views that are difficult for liberals to spaz about. It's not that I avoid irritating people; rather, it's that I tend to offer zero rope by which to hang me. If I can't do that, I leave the conversation/s.

When it came to discussing this part of town (a predominantly impoverished and black neighborhood that has been in an economic and demographic free fall for decades), I simply said: "It's a bad part of town." I anticipated the possibility that this person might respond negatively, in a way similar to how woke idiots responded to the 'unjust blanket claims' of Trump when he insulted Haiti (calling it generally a 'shithole'). Surprisingly, this person agreed without the slightest sign of discomfort, and not even an indication she might have considered her agreement to imply her assent to something politically incorrect or racially insensitive. After this, I began to pay attention and noticed this more and more. Here we have a low SES black neighborhood filled with the so-called victims of white oppression, yet when I denigrate this place in a specifically-worded way, even the woke agree.

This got me thinking, what about this makes it acceptable to these people? When we say of some place, "It's a bad area", what do we mean? If it tends almost always not to offend liberals, but instead to refer to some objective fact/s, what are they? It cannot be that the area is bad because of its racial makeup. That would be offensive. It cannot be bad just because it is poor, because that fails to designate what we actually mean here (which is not that a bad area = a poor area). Instead, it has to refer to some level of danger that both sides of the political aisle accept is a fact of being in that area.

The liberal must implicitly accept that what makes this area bad is that it is unambiguously dangerous to be there - at least sufficiently more dangerous on average that it justifies being called 'bad' relative to other places. This is an interesting kind of peek into the mind of the liberal. In any case that the conservative person says this, we can be reasonably sure that he/she is using politically correct language to say less than he/she might prefer to. What's interesting is that this blanket statement *is* politically correct, because it doesn't offend even the most woke. The judgment that it is a bad area must refer to a danger level. Therefore it must refer to crime (we don't say an area is a bad area because it is challenging, side-scrolling Mario level). If it is a more dangerous area because of crime, and the area is predominantly black, then we also mean the area is bad because we understand it to stem from the threat of *black violence*.

So, even the liberal who acknowledges this judgment without blinking is really agreeing to a general distinction. The distinction is a subtle one. It becomes apparent only when we recognize that communities of poor whites are never referred to in the same way. We never hear someone - even the most smug, affluent, and woke idiots - refer to a poor white neighborhood as a 'bad area'. I challenge you to think of a time that you've ever heard someone refer to a rural hick town as a 'bad area'. It simply doesn't happen. I'm interested in what this language implies about people's actual beliefs.

Now, we might hear other complaints about the impoverished white neighborhood. We might hear people say, "That's a backward place", or, "...that's a redneck town." But neither of these specifies the same thing. These complaints don't act as warnings against going there, or that you would be in greater danger being there. They aren't things that are spoken to travelers or professional drivers to warn them to 'watch their ass' while being there. Instead, these complaints mean something like, "They don't agree with us there." Or, "those aren't your people." But never do you hear such broad claims made as "those are bad areas", to indicate the danger level we all agree exists in 'bad' black areas.

Our language, even between political opponents, agrees with this. And in a situation where the rubber meets the road, per se, such as when a business (with liabilities to its employees) has to discuss sending staff into such places, nobody can avoid the brute fact that we mean literal danger. Literal danger from predominantly black regions due to unambiguously higher rates of violent crime. Are such caveats ever discussed when a business has to send its employees to a 'redneck town'. Say, for example, do utilities companies ever require getting local police escorts to go into the 'hick town'. No. But they do this frequently in the 'bad areas'. And where are the liberal protestors chasing these police escorts, shouting things like, "You don't follow the power company into Hickville, USA!" There are no such complaints, because everyone knows what 'bad area' means. And when we don't think we stand to gain any internet points for speaking up, we find that nobody does. It's just accepted.

Suppose that someone had desired to protest this...oh, wait. Protesting this would mean white liberals would need to go to those 'bad' areas. And they don't. Because they know that these judgments are true, and their avoidance acts as confirmation.

So what is it that distinguishes the bad black area from the backward white area? The former becomes bad because it's dangerous. The latter area is sometimes treated like some vaguer kind of danger because it is culturally different. My question is, if both areas tend to be below the poverty line, why can't liberals attack such white areas for being actually violent? Well, because they prove not to be on average. Instead, we find that congregations of the respective races congregate for completely different reasons.

Why do impoverished white areas tend mostly to be rural and not urban? A simple answer is clear: because when white people get together with an urban philosophy, they don't form drug-addled impoverished slums. They make cities. The cities that become bad black areas were the products, originally, built by whites with a tendency to urbanize. Such whites have one value set, which probably involves entrepreneurship and wealth-seeking. Contrast this with poorer white rural communities.

Poor white communities are disadvantaged in terms of wealth (in relative terms), but this does not equate with poorer white folk desiring a change. The reason white people have enduring less-affluent communities is because they have an enduring value set that resists urbanization. There are many explanations. Lack of education. Skepticism about a variety of things. A value for privacy, for space, for land ownership, for a connection with nature, a love of farming or the inheritance of an agricultural tradition. There may be religious factors at play as well. None of this is meant to account for the issue of poverty or to explain it (this is not an economic argument).

The claim goes something more like this: poor white communities tend not to be 'bad' because most of these whites do not feel trapped. They possess the intelligence to grasp their own situation, and if things had been bad enough, they would adapt and change. The poorest whites in the industrial revolution did go to cities, and with the rise of unionization, better work conditions (and so on), whites found a way to establish a new equilibrium in a new metropolitan kind of habitat.

Why are poor white communities often clustered in rural settings, relative to bad black communities being urban? Because blacks cannot escape urban environments. Violence tends to be a response to a lack of all other means to adapt. What this suggests is that if the situation for blacks in urban environments is so adverse as to lead to gangland 'bad' areas, then they would leave and find other opportunities if they could not make ends meet there.

I am thinking now of the poorest white people I knew growing up. I was raised in a small, rural town of poor-ish white people. Even the worst off held jobs, made steady incomes and could afford to house themselves, buy groceries, basically lead a life. Were they living high off the hog? Absolutely not. But they did not require tax-funded welfare programs. Even the least educated of the men I knew there could secure jobs on farms, or in construction. I knew men that had begun as roofers and went on to start their own independent businesses. These were not smart men by comparison. There may have been plenty of room for the critical person to say, "This business would be X% more productive if he'd get his shit together." Regardless, that roofing-company owner went home each night to a home that he could keep lighted and heated, and a family that he could feed by the sweat of his brow.

Some of these people may have possessed no chance of escaping the hard life and 'making it' in the city (even if they'd wanted to). One thing that appears to distinguish these poor whites from poor blacks is a general self-consciousness of their situation, their lot and their place in the hierarchy. Whereas this white roofer would budget his money to make his life work out, his poor black counterparts in the city, supported by tax-payer funded welfare, would spend their money on extravagancies to present themselves to the world as something different than what they are. A fantasy of becoming professional athletes, rappers, or lottery winners, fueled by welfare, subsidized by even the income of the poor whites, all resulting in a generational cycle of failure to adapt to the actual world.

To be sure, there is no longer today any shortage of the lowest denominator of urban whites who are now mimicking this behavior. It's funny how if you make such ways of adapting available to people, you not only encourage those strategies, you actually create classes of people for those strategies. I'd be willing to wager that the class of poor whites we think of as city trash, or 'wiggers', those who seem to us to be like their black counterparts, didn't arrive on the scene until sometime after the welfare state became reality in the 1960s. Every so often, we'll see a news story about a poor white couple who committed murder or a robbery. This is almost never in small-town America. Typically, these individuals who look so freaked out and wired in their photos, are a product of hard drug addiction - finding their way into urban or metro environments like parasites, precisely because those environments and their social programs facilitate their survival.

Poor whites, for the most part, learn to adapt themselves, their values, their attitudes, and their strategies to the facts of life. That might mean a skeptical attitude toward 'city folk'. It might mean a 'backward' way of life. It might mean a higher religiosity and some behaviors that more educated and affluent people think of as 'regressive'. Whatever criticisms you'd issue, it must be acknowledged that this way of life represents a strategy. Even if it isn't fashionable or desirable for you. It might result in making country bumpkins.

But it never results in 'bad areas'.

https://poal.co/s/AskAOU/335074