Luke Ford

01:00 What are real moral categories vs fake moral categories (racism, imperialism, sexist)
02:00 Tucker interviews Steve Sailer, https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1805648013362188518
07:00 Dooovid joins, https://x.com/RebDoooovid
21:20 NYT: Israeli Military Must Draft Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Supreme Court Rules, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/world/middleeast/israel-military-ultra-orthodox-jews-supreme-court.html
39:00 Elliott Blatt joins with a juicy story
1:05:00 Love removes our defenses and shows who we really are
1:24:00 Will a Hereditarian Revolution Defeat Wokism? With Noah Carl, https://substack.com/home/post/p-145927666
1:35:00 Male vs female morality
1:45:00 Revolutionary War and the Development of International Humanitarian Law, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=155888
1:48:00 The excesses of female morality (childless women with no suitable target for nurturing focus instead on hapless groups in society).
2:03:00 Men are less willing to express controversial topics around women.
Complete transcript: https://lukeford.net/blog/?page_id=155896

Podnotes AI generated summary: I want to discuss moral categories, distinguishing between genuine ones like respect for parents and sexual discipline, and pseudo-moral categories such as racism. I want to research traditional morals, favoring time-tested methods over newer concepts.

Steve Sailer analyzes the impact of movements like Black Lives Matter. He suggests they’ve indirectly led to an increase in black deaths not just by police but mostly within their own community through violence and accidents. The discussion shifts towards group identity and protecting one’s community members from harm, emphasizing a sense of extended family within a group.

Dooovid joins the conversation but diverts into academic theories of identity rather than directly addressing points made about in-group dynamics during conflicts such as those witnessed outside a synagogue during political protests.

They touch upon Israel’s Supreme Court ruling requiring Haredi Jews to be drafted into military service—a significant development both had different levels of awareness about—and briefly discuss whether mandatory public service could work in the U.S., which David doubts due to differing national identities and purposes compared to Israel.

Finally, loneliness is highlighted as more than personal struggle; it’s seen as a national security issue because it makes people susceptible to manipulation via scams or extreme ideologies.

You’re waiting for someone to complete you, right? Psychos prey on that. They make you feel good and then exploit you. Our diversity means we often have little in common with others, leading to loneliness. Smart people might be doing okay, but many are lonely and at risk of extremism or scams.

Natalia, an online security expert, was laughed at by old school Bureau agents when she warned about the national security threat posed by loneliness. Lonely individuals like David Franklin Slater—a retired lieutenant colonel—can fall prey to foreign influence because they crave attention and want to feel special.

Intelligence agencies target the lonely for information. Even Americans have been caught leaking classified details out of a desire for connection or importance.

Elliot joins the show to share a personal story: I know Joe, someone who’s a bit of an under earner yet intelligent and competent. He brings women over; they’re not attractive. He seeks approval through association with me.

One day he brought over a stunning woman—educated, multilingual—and everything changed for me. She left baked goods at my door later; this kind of thing doesn’t happen every day! Her mother began texting me about her stock trading method; it seems there’s some angle here where they think I have money. It’s hard to stay rational around such beauty despite knowing better—it feels like a scam from a novel plotline.

I’m puzzled—how does she know Joe? There’s this quasi-supermarket in my neighborhood, known for cheap wine and groceries. It attracts people from all walks of life looking for good deals. But it’s also a place where some men find drug-addicted women to exploit.

San Francisco isn’t just needles and feces like many assume; residential areas are quite normal. I live in the lesser part of one of the city’s best neighborhoods—it’s like being at the bottom tier but still within Sea Cliff.

Joe once brought a woman into my apartment against my wishes. He misled her into believing he was wealthy, thinking it would help him seduce her. Now I can’t stop checking if she texts me. It’s tempting to believe things aren’t as bad as they seem, even when you know better.

This situation could ruin your life financially and emotionally, yet it draws you in irresistibly. We deceive ourselves about our needs and vulnerabilities until someone exposes them.

Luke: As for international humanitarian law discussions—they’ve evolved significantly due to wars like Vietnam and conflicts involving groups like Hamas challenging traditional distinctions between civilians and combatants. The rise of guerrilla warfare has prompted new laws that protect fighters who don’t conform to conventional military norms.

These shifts reflect broader societal changes, including increased female participation in these fields influencing policy directions toward human rights concerns—a trend unlikely to reverse anytime soon.

The 1907 Hague Convention mandates that combatants seeking protection must always be identifiable, carry arms openly, follow a responsible command, and abide by war laws. Yet Palestinian fighters don’t adhere to these norms. Article 2 of the regulations grants prisoner-of-war rights to those who bear arms openly and respect war laws before occupation. However, once occupied, resistance against occupiers isn’t allowed; attacking vital lines of communication is forbidden since an army relies on them.

Civilians are protected only if they remain peaceful; any aggression forfeits their safety guarantees. The 1949 Geneva Conventions didn’t significantly alter these rules but emphasized recognizable insignia for organized resistance members. Guerrilla warfare was well-regulated long before the 1970s—the law clearly required combatant identification for Geneva Convention protections.

Civilians outside structured military involvement risk execution while others face reprisals. Protection mainly exists in Article 25 of the Hague Convention which bans undiscriminating bombardment unless enemy forces occupy such areas—then it’s permissible.

Attackers should warn besieged cities prior to bombing if possible—a tactic Israel uses in conflicts like Gaza wars where religious buildings and hospitals should be spared damage when feasible despite civilian exposure to warfare’s effects.

Aerial warfare has historically targeted civilians with efforts to limit this failing repeatedly throughout the early-to-mid-20th century—it’s tacitly accepted as part of conflict dynamics now.

The Geneva Conventions offer limited protection for passive civilians during wartime but allow measures against them if dictated by military necessity or security reasons—including total evacuation or control over a population deemed necessary due to war conditions.

These conventions have shaped strategies separating civilians from combat zones forcibly or voluntarily—as seen historically in various global conflicts aimed at isolating guerrillas from popular support networks through relocation programs into camps or constructed communities like South Vietnam’s strategic hamlet program under American influence.

Despite conventional views on orderly uniformed soldiers versus subdued citizens, alternative revolutionary models emerged throughout the 20th century—exemplified by Vietnam War tactics adopted by Palestinian movements embracing communist ideologies promoting people’s wars without clear distinctions between civilian supporters and armed forces.

This blurs traditional separations mandated by international law favoring active engagement over passivity within oppressed populations fighting imperialism—an inherent human condition where more powerful groups naturally exert influence over weaker ones according to some perspectives challenging moral categorizations based on differences among peoples’ abilities or outcomes resulting from them.

The ideology that colonialism is a major evil has gained traction, particularly in the United Nations where decolonized nations are increasing. Resolutions have labeled Zionism as racism and affirmed the right to self-determination—except for some, like those under “alien domination,” a term coined for Palestinians. In 1970, UN Resolution 2649 supported Palestinian rights but excluded Jewish self-determination. Later resolutions deemed colonialism criminal and legitimized armed struggle against it.

This shift branded effective countries as criminal and justified opposition means, including guerrilla warfare and terrorism. After the Munich Olympics incident where Israeli athletes were killed by Palestinian terrorists, discussions at the UN shifted to include underlying causes of terrorism such as misery and despair.

An ad hoc committee on international terrorism further legitimized national liberation struggles like Palestine’s fight for recognition which peaked in 1974 when Yasser Arafat addressed the General Assembly.

Critics argue there’s no clear divide between politics and law; narratives influence both. They worry that this perspective undermines traditional international law by politicizing issues like war legitimacy or terrorist actions’ legality.

Amidst debates about Israel’s counterinsurgency tactics being disproportionate or unethical, concerns grow over their impact on democratic values and potential escalation into genocide-like responses from those labeled imperialist powers.

In conclusion, discourse around conflicts now heavily favors anti-colonial views while challenging conventional understandings of lawful warfare—transforming civilian protections into paramount considerations during combat situations.