Booting up again in Safe Mode. Administration of strawberry ice cream is recommended.

There have been so many black-pill category events last week that if each of those pills were to be emptied into a glass, you could use the liquid to make a black-pill cocktail. But that’s one drink that’s not going to cheer you up, unless genocide is your cup of tea.

Think I’m kidding? Read on.

You already have access to the news stories, so rather than explain them to you as though I’m someone from whom people would prefer to hear about them first, I think it more expedient to link to the stories, then afterward offer my opinion.

I know that I’m not going to come off as cheerful as usual in this installment of What is Happen?, but that’s to be expected when literal genocide is among the topics.

A lawyer dressed as a FedEx driver showed up at a judge’s home and killed her son. What makes this especially interesting is that this murder occurred just days after the same judge was assigned to a case related to Jeffery Epstein. So, as you could imagine, the conspiracy theorists proceeded to do just what you might imagine they would.

To tell the truth, I didn’t actually follow the Jeffery Epstein case when it was huge news a while back, so this story had the effect of me taking notice, and I decided to start looking into it. If the purpose of this assassination were part of an unsavory effort to keep things quiet, it could be said that that effort backfired.

Epstein was a seriously wealthy individual, and from the sound of it, he may have very well been history’s most satisfied pedophile. He also had a thing for using his wealth to get close to highly influential people, including Bill Clinton and Donald Trump (though, by all accounts, those two in particular seemed well-behaved in his presence). There therefore came to be conspiracy theories that allege that perhaps Epstein had some dirt on some important people. After being convicted, Jeffery Epstein apparently “lost the battle” in his jail cell, though there is strong doubt that he did so without assistance.

So here we are. A judge was assigned a case related to Jeffery Epstein, and days later, a man shows up at her residence and kills her son. But that’s not all, shortly afterwards, the suspected killer was found, having made the spot where he was found his personal Mount Gilboa. If this were a hit as part of a grander conspiracy, that sounds suspiciously like “tying up loose ends”.

Carrying on with the theme of wacko people knowing where notable people live, Tucker Carlson has warned that the New York Times intended to reveal the location of his family’s home. During his show, Carlson warned that the New York Times wanted to publish information about where he lives in an effort to inflict pain on him, saying they are doing so because they hate his politics, and want his show off the air.

The NY Times answered on Twitter, saying that “@nytimes does not plan to publish Tucker Carlson’s residence”. Which actually sounds more specific than the broader “where my family and I live” that Carlson was initially concerned about.

The fact that this concern came up just days after a judge’s son was killed at her home shortly after being assigned a case related to Jeffery Epstein is understandable, as this represents an escalation in the trend of “doxxing”, which involves getting back at certain people by publishing their personal information such as their home address. What’s more, Carlson has seen demonstrators show up at his house before.

Could it be that legacy media is getting in on the doxxing party in an effort to intimidate those with a non-establishment viewpoint? One motivation for doing so is that Carlson has an enormously popular program, with ratings that have soared to the point of becoming the highest-rated program in cable news history. Carlson has what the ideologues at left-wing outlets like CNN and MSNBC wish they had, which is an enormous viewership. So, we’ve established a means and a motive.

But if left-wing news outlets want viewers so badly, why don’t they start expressing viewpoints consistent with the values that people actually have?

Think that’s dark? We’re now onto the really dark stuff.

I think we can all agree that Nazis were bad, and that Hitler was bad. So was the genocide associated with them, with killings numbering so high, that efforts to tally them have had margins of error numbering in the millions.

Something similar can be said about Josef Stalin, who killed tens of millions of people, apparently more than Hitler did. As bad as Hitler was, in terms of number-of-humans-killed, Stalin was even worse news.

But then there’s Mao Zedong, who killed so many people, efforts to count them have failed. But the death toll of the Mao administration may have surpassed Stalin himself.

So, communism and socialism have this thing for intentionally murdering people in enormous numbers. But one would think that we live in a more civilized world, and that places like China have become more forward-thinking, right?

See for yourself:

What did you just watch? It’s drone footage of Uyghur Muslims in China being detained and led away. But to what?

Apparently, they are being led away to internment camps, where they can be reeducated to be better Chinese citizens. In the case of females, they face a high likelihood of birth control, or perhaps forced sterilization. The act of suppression of birth makes China’s actions, if true, fall under the definition of genocide.

China’s ambassador to the UK was brought on to The Guardian for a very special reaction video in which he is treated to the footage above:

You’re likely infuriated at his attempts at diversion, and that he went on about the beauty of the region. Because the ambassador is a citizen of China, he’s not allowed to talk in such a way that would make China look bad.

One would think we could turn to the U.S. for some form of moral superiority, but seeing as it was just this month that we learned about a civil complaint about American juveniles being forcefully administered estrogen in involuntary experiments, it would seem that America’s ability to act from a moral high ground is in question.

And if it turns out that various “TIs” are right about psychotronic experiments, then we might be in for some days that somehow manage to be darker than the ones we already have.

The ideal government protects the people. A debased government is something to protect the people from.