The Honk pill (Clown World)

I had dinner with my wife and some friends last week. We went to see the friends new house which they bought at the beginning of COVID. Their house is beautiful and enormous and honestly, way too much for them. A childless couple in their 30s living in a half million dollar house with 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms sitting on a half acre. They live in white-topia out in the burbs. Your only chance of seeing someone with a duskier complexion is when the landscaping crew comes by.

When we arrived, there was actually a crew of landscapers working on their house, 4 men putting work to keep the lawn manicured and the gardens look nice because the husband is too . They were out there working in the rain.

I noticed "How to Be an Antiracist" sitting on their counter.

The juxtaposition of their actions and bougie leftwing attitudes was too much for me, but a perfect encapsulation of clown world.
It is interesting how many wealthy white people claim to support black lives matter and claim to care about poverty in the black community but won't move to the poorest black neighborhoods and start businesses there and send their kids to public schools in these areas. How many white liberals are moving to East St. Louis or Gary or Flint? These small and poor cities would benefit from wealthy liberals putting useful businesses there (not just overpriced coffee shops and bakeries). Sending their kids to the crappy local public schools and joining the PTA would be direct involvement and might improve the schools from within. Living in a wealthy suburb and joining a BLM protest and attending classes to learn why white people are racist is probably not helping poor blacks very much. Perhaps the CEOs of major companies that support BLM are looking into expanding into these areas right now and just need to complete the market research and arrange for the construction permits. I guess this process takes a long time.

Jimmy Carter is the last president that sent his kid to a Washington DC public school. He was a weak president, but I have respect for him at least doing this. He didn't just say 'we need to respect public schools and improve them' while sending his kid to some elite private school. Why weren't public schools good enough for Obama's kids but they are supposed to be good enough for the children of proletarians?

 

dicknixon72

Pelican
Jimmy Carter is the last president that sent his kid to a Washington DC public school. He was a weak president, but I have respect for him at least doing this. He didn't just say 'we need to respect public schools and improve them' while sending his kid to some elite private school. Why weren't public schools good enough for Obama's kids but they are supposed to be good enough for the children of proletarians?

NIMBY to the max.

Once people truly realize what you indicated, you'll see the false race narrative fall away and the true dichotomy of this isn't white/black, its have/have-not. The academics and intellectuals don't venture outside their bubble deep enough or frequently enough to understand that.
 

Max Roscoe

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Carter was also the last president not to wage war (I guess Trump is a grey area--he continued waging wars, and also committed acts of war by bombing Syria so I would not give him credit, though he was far less belligerent than anyone since Carter).

I believe Carter didn't even kill anyone. Haha.. how absurd is that that we've never had a president in my lifetime that wasn't killing poeple.
 

Max Roscoe

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
There was an episode of The Third Rail with Borzoi B. where someone would throw out a name and they would google "X is racist" and if they could find an article arguing the person was racist, they would play this funny Price is Right "Incredible! You are right Ding Ding Ding Ding" clip. It was hilarious. I think there was ONE name they failed to find a racist claim against.

Of course wrongthink websites are not indexed, so I can't easily search for it...

But it's true:

 
Carter was also the last president not to wage war (I guess Trump is a grey area--he continued waging wars, and also committed acts of war by bombing Syria so I would not give him credit, though he was far less belligerent than anyone since Carter).

I believe Carter didn't even kill anyone. Haha.. how absurd is that that we've never had a president in my lifetime that wasn't killing poeple.
What is even more shocking is that in your lifetime, a Nobel Peace Prize winner didn't mind using drones to kill hundreds of innocent people. When Charles Manson planned murders he was branded evil. When Obama planned them, schools and streets were named after him. Add this to the clown world (although it happened several years ago), the Nobel Peace Prize has become a meaningless peace of junk that is just given as a type of virtue signaling.

 

Godward

Robin
There was an episode of The Third Rail with Borzoi B. where someone would throw out a name and they would google "X is racist" and if they could find an article arguing the person was racist, they would play this funny Price is Right "Incredible! You are right Ding Ding Ding Ding" clip. It was hilarious. I think there was ONE name they failed to find a racist claim against.

Of course wrongthink websites are not indexed, so I can't easily search for it...

But it's true:

Haha indeed. It also reminds me of this video from 2015 (!):

 

budoslavic

Owl
Orthodox
Gold Member
0e2279485538d109.jpeg
 

The Penitent Man

Kingfisher
Cool - now let's see that movie done in reverse. Let's make a "horror" movie about an idealistic white couple that moves into a black neighborhood only to find themselves dealing with constant break-ins and burglaries, random assaults, drugs, gang violence, drive-by shootings, being robbed at gunpoint, etc.
Better yet, how about a movie about a diverse, ill-intentioned group of people who is welcomed into a posh neighborhood in Hollywood and starts making hateful propaganda against the local population for the express purpose of inciting violence against them.
 
A similar thing could be applied to pornography regulation. Raise up barriers, social shaming and so forth. The reason people have learned to control prostitution is because people have adapted to its existence. Porn is relatively new and so like probably the heyday of prostitution it would probably be similarly devastating.

Porn is a development of prostitution into a more high tech form. Its inevitable given technology and human nature.

Nonetheless its sub-optimal and the solution remains confining such activity to wedlock as much as possible. There is nothing about provisions of legalized prostitution in the Bible for such a reason.

And no we shouldn't choose the lesser evil if even better alternatives exist. Its not going to have to be an either/or option. If we end up understanding how addiction works we can work to reduce prostitution even more than it had been done in the past.

Any problems with marriage will have to be worked on so as to render prostitution unnecessary.

Its not real progress if it is not being progressively eliminated.

Tolerating prostitution because society has tolerated it in the past doesn't mean the eros spent on it shouldn't still be squeezed into the marriage bed as much as possible. With the goal of wiping it out entirely even if such a thing isn't achieved completely before the 2nd coming.

And I believe that no such practice will exist in the Millennium because of Christ's perfect rule.
I grew up in society where prostitution and pornography and also homosexuality was illegal. That was in USSR. But all three things existed anyway - people were doing them secretly, even under fear of being arrested.
For example- almost every family man had some erotic/ pornographic pictures or some magazine hidden somewhere in house. Children, of course found them at some point.
When USSR collapsed, everything turned upside down in short period of time. Prostitution and pornography everywhere.
So- I experienced both systems.
And I think- it all can be legal, but it needs to be kept in control. And society needs slut shaming and strong marriage and other traditions. I wish good luck to Hungary at this point, with their new laws.
 
I grew up in society where prostitution and pornography and also homosexuality was illegal. That was in USSR. But all three things existed anyway - people were doing them secretly, even under fear of being arrested.
For example- almost every family man had some erotic/ pornographic pictures or some magazine hidden somewhere in house. Children, of course found them at some point.
When USSR collapsed, everything turned upside down in short period of time. Prostitution and pornography everywhere.
So- I experienced both systems.
And I think- it all can be legal, but it needs to be kept in control. And society needs slut shaming and strong marriage and other traditions. I wish good luck to Hungary at this point, with their new laws.

I agree. Nonetheless the more we can squeeze eros into marriage as much as possible the better. If this improves things:

That and a strong religion.

I'd rather have that than prostitution and pornography. That and the lack of subsidies for the negative consequences of those actions as you mentioned.
 

KantPost

Sparrow
And I think- it all can be legal, but it needs to be kept in control.
The point of making something illegal is not to magically make it disappear from the society. It is to make a statement of intent about your nation and that this is a standard which similarly moral people strive to attain. There will always be reprobates and degenerates. However legalising a vice only increases its preponderance.
If a government really wanted to get rid of pimps or drug dealers, it could be done easily. Institute a three-strike rule. Get caught three times in the activity and you will be shot at dawn the day after your third trial. 95% of the crime would disappear within a short space of time.
Of course, to have such a nation, (((they))) would have to be expelled.
 

The Penitent Man

Kingfisher
The point of making something illegal is not to magically make it disappear from the society. It is to make a statement of intent about your nation and that this is a standard which similarly moral people strive to attain. There will always be reprobates and degenerates. However legalising a vice only increases its preponderance.
If a government really wanted to get rid of pimps or drug dealers, it could be done easily. Institute a three-strike rule. Get caught three times in the activity and you will be shot at dawn the day after your third trial. 95% of the crime would disappear within a short space of time.
Of course, to have such a nation, (((they))) would have to be expelled.
Exactly. As soon as you ramp up the cost of an unwanted behavior, whether social or legal, you’ll get less of it. Formalizing it in law simply makes punishment more orderly, so that the costs are codified and publicized, and less subject to vigilantism. As you said, it sends the message that a society doesn’t tolerate said behaviors.
 
It is interesting how many wealthy white people claim to support black lives matter and claim to care about poverty in the black community but won't move to the poorest black neighborhoods and start businesses there and send their kids to public schools in these areas. How many white liberals are moving to East St. Louis or Gary or Flint? These small and poor cities would benefit from wealthy liberals putting useful businesses there (not just overpriced coffee shops and bakeries). Sending their kids to the crappy local public schools and joining the PTA would be direct involvement and might improve the schools from within. Living in a wealthy suburb and joining a BLM protest and attending classes to learn why white people are racist is probably not helping poor blacks very much. Perhaps the CEOs of major companies that support BLM are looking into expanding into these areas right now and just need to complete the market research and arrange for the construction permits. I guess this process takes a long time.

Jimmy Carter is the last president that sent his kid to a Washington DC public school. He was a weak president, but I have respect for him at least doing this. He didn't just say 'we need to respect public schools and improve them' while sending his kid to some elite private school. Why weren't public schools good enough for Obama's kids but they are supposed to be good enough for the children of proletarians?

Shhhh you can't virtue signal to other whites of your moral superiority if there are no other whites....
 

Towgunner

Kingfisher
It is interesting how many wealthy white people claim to support black lives matter and claim to care about poverty in the black community but won't move to the poorest black neighborhoods and start businesses there and send their kids to public schools in these areas. How many white liberals are moving to East St. Louis or Gary or Flint? These small and poor cities would benefit from wealthy liberals putting useful businesses there (not just overpriced coffee shops and bakeries). Sending their kids to the crappy local public schools and joining the PTA would be direct involvement and might improve the schools from within. Living in a wealthy suburb and joining a BLM protest and attending classes to learn why white people are racist is probably not helping poor blacks very much. Perhaps the CEOs of major companies that support BLM are looking into expanding into these areas right now and just need to complete the market research and arrange for the construction permits. I guess this process takes a long time.

Jimmy Carter is the last president that sent his kid to a Washington DC public school. He was a weak president, but I have respect for him at least doing this. He didn't just say 'we need to respect public schools and improve them' while sending his kid to some elite private school. Why weren't public schools good enough for Obama's kids but they are supposed to be good enough for the children of proletarians?


A couple of things. First, there is a push to get more diversity into the more white towns/suburbs. I've seen only one YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard - racial diversity) sign where I live, but, its the direction the liberals are taking us, regardless of whether or not, the white liberals ultimately approve. YIMBY means, worse schools and lower home prices. It also includes things like more violence and crime. None of those are desirable outcomes and no matter what the extent of liberal cultists brainwashing, a white liberal will start to take notice when these things happen.

A white liberal is the most hated of all groups. Conservatives hate them, mostly, because we've learned that they hated us first. This, plus the ever debauched and selfish and absurd demands white liberals "ally" with. But, who would have thought that the very groups that white liberals support also hate them. Blacks hate white liberals for the same reason why a KKK member hated blacks. Because of this hate and because of the subterfuge that disguises the real agenda, which is revenge, we'll see more and more anti-white rhetoric and actual policy.

Second, wokeness has infested corporations. People often say, there hasn't been a backlash because the richer whites haven't been impacted. Well, this is changing and changing quickly. You see, D.I.E. is now the goal of practically every corporation. DIE, is exogenous to profitability, which is an understatement because in practice, DIE conflicts with profitability because that condition demands merit. Therefore, competency and merit are now secondary considerations, if a all. This means HR will continue to hire diversity over more experienced and competent people. Those people tend to be white, Asian and Indian. This is all leading to a paradigm where the trains don't run and the planes fall out of the sky. But, even before that will be a purging of whites from the workforce. Its happening right now as we speak. That alone will change the Zeitgeist in a profound way.

So, the white rich liberals are not at all insulated from what's coming. They'll learn a hard lesson, but, I think it will be a good thing because it will change their attitudes. As stated in another post, I've come to see white identitarians rising out of pure necessity.
 
Top