Wednesday, February 22, 2023

Bring Back Shame NOW, Or Our Nation Dies - by Karl Denninger

 It is considered cancelable to "fat-shame" someone.  That is, to use the word fat is to now invite sanction, and in fact children's books are now being re-edited to remove that - including many we all know from our childhood such as the predicate works for the movies Willy Wonka and Matilda.

After comparing new editions published by Puffin to previous versions of Dahl's classics, the British newspaper The Telegraph found that the new versions removed or rewrote passages describing characters as "fat," "crazy," "ugly," and "black."

Some references to ethnicities have been removed or adjusted — "Eskimos" are now described as Inuit — and gender-neutral terms like "children" and "parents" have replaced some references to "boys and girls" and "mothers and fathers."

In other words the legitimate descriptive language was removed because it might "offend" someone.

Think closely about this, however.  Said offense, and whether it is taken, is a function of the person in question.  If they are offended then perhaps they will change behavior.  If you're fat and are offended by being called fat perhaps you will eat less and move more.  If you don't care if you're fat then you might stick up the middle finger instead, but the point here is that being fat is objectively destructive to your health and while we can argue for days, hours, months or years over whether shaming you will be of net benefit or detriment the fact of the matter is that someone offering the opinion to you, or in public, that you're fat is fact-based.

Not that it has to be, incidentally.  That's the nature of opinions; some are fact-based and some are not but that does not enter into whether they're within your right to have, hold and utter.

They are.

Why do we have so many fat people?  We had many fewer as a percentage just a few decades ago.  50 years ago the average beach was filled with beautiful men and women; the men in swim trunks and the women in bikinis.  Those who weren't so beautiful typically didn't wear such beach attire because, well, they were ugly and, while they might want to soak up some rays and enjoy the surf they knew damn well that nobody was really all interested in gazing upon their fat, ugly body.

We all (who are old enough anyway) remember that the fat kid in school got called fat and while some of said kids grew up to be fat as adults some of them decided to start playing football instead of eating another bag of Doritos and became much-less fat.  More than a few of said fat kids wound up looking pretty darn good and attracting potential partners of the opposite sex.

Yes, some sank into despair.  But did we increase or increase the despair by being truthful in public and -- more importantly -- does that matter?

Good question on the despair but this much I can tell you because it is a statistical factAttempting to ban "shaming" has not done a damn thing to reduce suicide rates.  We know this because the statistical evidence of said positive and marked change is absent while American waistlines have continued to expand to the point that for me to find a set of 30x32 jeans has become difficult as damn near everyone is wearing 40s -- or even larger.  Never mind "canceling" anyone who states, truthfully, that buttfucking is dangerous and inherently and entirely unrelated to the necessary purpose of sexual relations -- producing the next generation.  In blunt language such an act is entirely hedonistic; it serves no essential purpose.  Yes, yes, I know most sex doesn't produce another human being.  But screwing someone in the ass can never do so.

When it comes to women's clothing what was a size 10 is now sold as a 2, 4 or 6 which is crap.  Women's clothing sizing has always been some sort of goat rodeo rather than based on an objective thing -- like the circumference of one's waist.  This of course allows manufacturers to "flatter" someone in the clothing store but does nothing for the objective facts when it comes to the actual size of said woman's gut.  Why would any sane society flatter that which is inherently unhealthy and more-likely to lead you to become disabled or even dead?

The bigger problem arises, however, when well-deserved shaming is cut off for those in the public square, or even worse, those making public policy.  Take this for example -- a relatively common procedure today .vs. medication for a known cardiovascular condition.  The procedure fails on non-inferiority -- that is, it fails to provide more benefit than the non-intrusive and inexpensive drug.  Both wind up in roughly the same place in terms of all-cause mortality and dead is dead when you get down to it, so why would you advocate for the more intrusive when it provides no objective benefit?

Money.  An entire profession lives, to a large degree, on this sort of crap and lies to you in order to obtain those funds.  Theft by conversion is still theft and its supposed to be illegal.

What did we used to do to people selling snake oil that had no benefit?  We ran them out of town by shaming them relentlessly, mocking them to their face and calling them snake-oil salesmen.  They were eventually forced to leave and go somewhere else and, hopefully, find an actual useful trade rather than peddling crap.

Some didn't, of course, and just went looking for another sucker.  But what corrective action would ever be felt and applied to such a person without being shamed for it unless, of course, said behavior was illegal and prosecuted?

We have for decades lamented the practice of certain people who pop out children without a care in the world as to whether they can afford them, or even desire to have said kids and raise them.  When I was growing up if you were on reduced cost lunch at school everyone knew it because everyone else whipped out their 50 cents or brought a bag lunch to eat.  You were the kid who didn't have to pay and we all knew it.  Oh, the shame! people scream today in shielding such kid.  Really?  REALLY?  Such "shame" might motivate said kid to learn his or her times tables so as to not have THEIR children be shamed!

If you were on food stamps you actually had paper coupons worth whatever to buy the food with.  They were physically tendered to the cashier and everyone could see it.  There was shame in being on said program and everyone in the store around you knew you couldn't afford your food.  This might lead you to, oh..... attempt go to get a job (or another job) so as to not need them or perhaps you would stop fucking six different men, none of whom had any interest in anything other than 30 seconds in your pussy.  Today we deliberately hide this by making it look like everyone else with a credit card so nobody "knows" you're unable to pay for your own groceries and we deride anyone who considers pointing such out as a bigot or worse.  You can't, in short, call a woman who shits out kids sired by any actual man with a penis a whore, a horrid person, a terrible role model for children who shouldn't be able to show their face in public or any such thing without being canceled or accused of bigotry.

What do you think her children are taught?  Why, let's shit out some kids ourselves and get the cash if they're girls or, if they're boys go ahead and screw anything with a vagina and then walk away -- it's all good, she'll get paid for it!  Oh, you're not a whore or a john eh?  Like hell you're not; we just made that perfectly ok and that the taxpayer funds the fucking doesn't change a bit of it.

What you can't argue with is the fact that "eliminating" said shame and attacking those who would truthfully call out the facts of same has not led to more positive results.  The fact that the correlation runs the other way is disproof of that hypothesis.  It does not prove causation but it does prove that banning such shaming doesn't help and in fact might make the problem worse.

Since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites.

I was just handed a 12 hour Twitter suspension for stating that in my opinion Trump should commit seppuku on live TV for his pushing of "Warp Speed" and continued endorsement of that crap even though we now know its dangerous and doesn't work well at all, conferring at best very short-term protection with a hideously-high risk of severe and fatal adverse events.


There is an important distinction between what Twitter claims is "promoting or encouraging" suicide or self-harm and seppuku.  The former is typically a function of despair of some sort.  That is, while self-killing is technically all suicide there is a wild difference between doing so as a result of despair or mental illness and doing so as an act of atonement for that which one cannot apologize and make restitution for on this Earth, or even a means of avoiding doing something that would bring shame upon you and which you would be, if you continue to live, compelled to do.

I can make a pretty-clean argument that advancing suicides of despair has no redeeming value and in addition is of net harm.

This is not true for someone who, for good and just cause, comes to the conclusion that they have committed acts that cannot be atoned for on this earth and thus has brought great shame upon themselves and their family line, or is about to be compelled to do so, and as a result they rationally and reasonably choose to voluntarily forfeit their remaining life and seek immediate atonement before God.  How about the person who commits murder and then spends their last round on themselves?

Oh, this is a terrible thing eh?  Go talk to the soldiers who kept the last round in their pistol for themselves if about to be captured.  They knew damn well what was going to happen in that instance: Torture and, with a high degree of probability, they'd crack and commit treason.  Rather than face that they did themselves.

That is called honor in the context of said soldier, not "self-harm" and those who argue otherwise can fuck off.  For the jackass who just killed someone (or a bunch of someones) and self-selects that is atonement in recognition that there is no earthly suitable punishment for said crime -- and an admission of guilt.

What Trump and many others did in this regard is factually akin to advocating, promoting and even forcing self harm upon millions of Americans and many have died or been severely and permanently injured as a consequence.  I pointed this risk out -- that this was a likely outcome -- prior to mass-distribution of the Covid jabs.  I was right and that data began to manifest immediately after they were started and continues today.  Florida has gone so far as to issue a formal warning that an over four thousand percent increase in adverse event reports occurred, that is, forty times, after these jabs were introduced.  The risk by said reports to VAERS appears to be about 1 in 550 and we know VAERS wildly under-reports the true case rate because clinicians, despite language that such reporting is mandatory, refuse to consider the possibility that the event was caused by the shot and thus do not report most such incidents.  That under-reporting rate is not Covid-specific in any way; it in fact goes back decades.  We have refused for those same decades to hold clinicians criminally liable for said refusal to report despite reporting being allegedly mandatory.

Nonetheless the majority of adults, by the data we had from the first months of 2020 forward, showed that for the majority of people in America, and virtually every person under the age of 40, the risk of severe outcomes or death from Covid was well under 1 in 550.  That is even giving the most favorable read to the data the shot constituted intentional self-harm or even attempted suicide compared with the risk of the virus in those individuals as their risk of serious injury or death from Covid itself was less than 0.2% and Covid was uncertain where a shot is certain the instant you take it.

Indeed if you look at even biased studies where the funding source is wildly promotive of vaccination (e.g. Bill and Melinda Gates' foundation) you find no risk-adjusted benefit until you reach the age of 42 and that presumes you got the nastier versions of the virus prior to Omicron!  Further, if you are not subject to the known comorbidity factors we knew your odds of being felled by this virus were very close to statistical zero irrespective of act because in NY where they split it out through all of 2020 week-by-week you could literally count the non-comorbid very elderly who died on your fingers. 

It is probable that by the time Omicron emerged literally nobody had net benefit and therefore nobody has a net benefit today.

To put a number on this every one of those people advocated or worse a course of action that we now know resulted in a risk of serious harm or death that, across the entire 330 million Americans, would number roughly 600,000.  Given the roughly 2/3rds "penetration" into the American population at large who demonstrated abject stupidity or were coerced we can reasonably expect that there are about 400,000 Americans at minimum who were either screwed or dead as a consequence.  All of this came about by deliberate lying, coercion and outright force.

The VAERS under-reporting rate, by the way, has been estimated to be about 44x.  If it is just half that there are roughly eight million Americans who either have been severely injured or have or will die as a consequence of these shots.  The actual under-reporting rate is unknown with estimates all over the place -- but exactly zero such estimates reach 100%, and given the public narrative of "safe and effective" plus the threat of sanction against health care providers who counsel otherwise there is a monstrous brick on the scale with regards to this shot.

Thus the true under-reporting number is unknown but that it is material -- and might be extremely high -- is fact.

However, even if we assume 100% reporting -- which we know factually is false -- is it not fair to characterize a slaughter and permanent disability count of 400,000 worthy of shame?

For context the total number of Americans killed in WWII was approximately 420,000.  Vietnam killed about 58,000 Americans.  

Both of those were wars.

This was pure money-grubbing bullshit driven by an egomaniac germophobe and those who exploited that which Trump enabled, promoted and literally funded with billions of forcibly borrowed dollars from the entire population of the country.  Not once has he been shamed out of town or out of the public eye at any time in his career, whether in business or politics.  It's rather obvious to me on casual inspection that he's a fat bastard who attracts pretty women with his checkbook and when they're no longer useful he throws them away like yesterday's dead fish.  He's been repeatedly accused of extreme measures to gain said womens' charm too and that is not uncommon for men with a lot of money and/or political influence; Bill Clinton anyone?  He "employed" wild-eyed open nepotism in his administration as well; Ivanka (his daughter) and Jared (her husband) anyone?  Oh by the way, Jared came to prominence and got his "start" because his father was convicted and imprisoned for fraud. I don't give a wet crap about protests that the "deep state" was after Trump or anything else -- when you apply for this job you know damn well a decent part of the nation and indeed the world is going to hate you and you asked for it because unlike someone who's lottery number came up in the 1960s for the draft you not only asked for it you pursued the position with vigor.

But for Trump's bullshit zero of these jab injuries would have occurred because exactly none of these shots would have been able to get through approval as nobody would have accelerated the timeline and production without being paid in advance which Trump did and which created an enormous incentive to not  "waste" said "investment" irrespective of whether the final product worked or was safe.  Indeed the passage of said time would have uncovered the risks of severe cardiac and circulatory damage which was first outlined as spike-specific by no less than The Salk Institute in December of 2020.

In point of fact the jabs were neither safe or effective over any material length of time and that evidence is now in full force.

Again, with the exception of the very morbid for whom the odds may still be in favor of said shots nobody would have been given them but for Trump's direct actions because none of them would have met standards for approval and in fact none of them are approvable on the merits that the FDA has used to approved "vaccines" simply on efficacy in preventing active infection.

ALL OF THEM fail to maintain the REQUIRED legal threshold of protection against infection over more than a few months.


Since zero AGs have or will prosecute anyone for this and there is no private right to bring a prosecution in the United States what method other than shame do we have that does not devolve down to personal retribution by violent means as tools within society?  This damage was not limited to the United States either; as a direct result of Trump's "Warp Speed" this crap was spread everywhere and, based on this data, almost-certainly killed and maimed more people than the Holocaust on a global basis.

If there is a set of acts that qualifies as being beyond the reach of atonement in this life what Trump did absolutely qualifies.

To state openly that he should thus place himself before St. Peter on an immediate basis and beg forgiveness there isn't advocating "suicide of despair."

It is advocating that when someone commits an act of such shameful conduct and impact upon society that there is no earthly way to atone for said conduct they should do the honorable thing and voluntarily forfeit the remainder of their time on this rock to go seek said forgiveness before God.

I firmly believe this set of events is the instance over the last fifty years, above and beyond all others, where that standard should and indeed must apply if we are to ever reverse any of the rot in our society.

Yes, this is indeed an extreme example of how shame damn well ought to be brought back -- and if we hadn't banished it then it is entirely possible and indeed probable that what Trump did wouldn't have occurred at all.

I rest my case.