Free Software Foundation pushes back

I am a fan of the Gnu development environment, ./configure && make && make install, and a subscriber to the Free Software Foundation.

And for a long time my emails from the Free Software Foundation have had only the most superficial connection to free software, and are primarily about the fact that everyone like me is evil and need to go because we oppress women and nams. Also my hatefulness causes blacks to attack Asians.

So I figured that that development environment was going to die as the Star Wars Universe died, and I should move away from it. Shaniqua loves to make software developers suffer, as Star War’s writers love the tears of the fans.

And then, suddenly strangely, and surprisingly, I started once again getting emails from the Free Software Foundation about Free Software. (that is “free” as in “free speech”, not “free” as in “free beer”.)

And not long after that, I saw a spray of outrage from converged and extremely unfree free software organizations, whose software projects are dying of bitrot under Shaniqua’s curation, about the Free Software foundation.

All of the organizations listed are actually one organization with a variety of sock puppets and letterheads, an organization with absolutely no interest in software, and which is distinctly hostile to software developers, viewing them as white male deplorables.

Rather, the progressive priesthood noticed the existence of another priesthood among software engineers, and vigorously attempted to converge it. Since convergence was having insufficient success, not in that the software priesthood espoused red pilled views, but that they failed to view knowledge of the latest shibboleths for sexual perversions as higher status than the latest shibboleths about software, the progressive priesthood proceeded to use more vigorous and aggressive measures, similar to those it has been using against “nazis” and “fascists”. The existence of high status shibboleths that it had not deemed high status enraged them.

To which attack, the software priesthood responded like a wet noodle. I was shocked and outraged by the feebleness and gutlessness of ESR’s limpwristed pushback when a bunch of sockpuppets in his comments section set to doing to some other man in the free software movement what had earlier been done to ESR.

The Software Priesthood is still saying “we are progressives too”, but this has not been working for them. The only thing that is going to work is identifying and purging the enemy. And since they made no attempt to identify and purge the enemy, I figured that they were a lost cause.

Well, the Software Priesthood are showing signs of life. And the enemy is becoming more visible and distinct as the enemy, shedding its “hail fellow engineer” disguise. The enemy just does not like Western Civilization, nor any of the things that Western Civilization in its greatness created, because what Western Civilization in its greatness created makes their mascots look like plains apes.

This may well turn out to be merely another Comicsgate, which was rapidly conquered by enemy entryists, but the people running the entryists against Comicsgate were smarter than the fans. They are nowhere near as smart as the people they have been purging from the Free Software movement. We shall see what happens.

What I am seeing the Free Software Foundation doing is trying to keep a low profile and focus on free software “Hey, we are non political. We are not interested in politics.”

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. The real Free Software Movement are coming on board, very quietly and very reluctantly.

432 Responses to “Free Software Foundation pushes back”

  1. Cloudswrest says:

    Roosh on the holiness spiral.

    https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/1381810512124608514

    • Cloudswrest says:

      My thought/impression was VP poster “Imwill” was some sort of shill or hasbara. He is way off the “Hertzsprung-Russell diagram” of typical VP commenters.

    • RMIV says:

      i tested those waters on Social Galactic with that 4chan poast of Charlie & Eunice Johns delineating the multicultural AoC trap that gifts hymens to Juan, Tyrone, and Mohammed.

      predictably there were no few hysterical responses. others came at me with their slanted Bible justifications for their purple/blue pill’d position. most simply said something to the effect of “any man sniffing around my teenage daughter gets shot.”

      pointing out that many if not most girls are obviously fucking by 14/15 proved futile. they never engaged that point per se but only staunchly implied that they would not approve. how bold.
      Question: if a man’s daughter is fucking around without his blessing is that a form of cuckoldry? because i floated that idea and the losers in that thread further lost their minds. many a You Have Been Blocked and all that.

      interestingly, my primary supporters in discussing the subject were women, several of whom seemed to think getting married ever younger would have saved them no end of trouble and anguish as well as being both Biblical & healthier.

      i noticed the men ignored these women, never inquiring of them on these points even once, and continued to question my allegedly compromised virtue until i tired of the exercise

  2. RMIV says:

    ignoring the implied Trump-gushing Q-tardery,

    y’all find any merit to the theory laid out in this poast?

    https://greatawakening.win/p/12i4DJq8k2/many-are-asking-about-what-the-d/c/

    • jim says:

      Saw it happening in front of me. One of the many spokes Trump hurled into their wheels.

      “It is an emergency”, says Trump, and proceeds to rip the bureaucratic obstacle course out by the roots under emergency executive powers.

      Now if only he had declared a similar emergency on ballot box stuffing.

    • onyomi says:

      It’s an interesting question: namely, most of the right wingers assume the vaccine is a power play to make everyone submit to Bill Gates, big pharma, creeping surveillance via medical records, etc. but maybe it really is plan B?

      • jim says:

        It is not either or.

        Our enemies are making hay with it. But they would have made more hay if no vaccine.

        • onyomi says:

          Yeah, I don’t think in terms of grand plans so much as elites who follow their incentives to take advantage of situations that emerge. But it’s a good point that, although I’m unhappy about pushes for e.g. “vaccine passports,” it arguably could have been worse if the vaccines hadn’t come along (though arguably it also could have been better if people had finally just gotten fed up, but the willingness of large segments of the population to go along with this seemingly interminably so long as uber eats is still running is shocking).

  3. TyrantOfTangent says:

    Jim, why don’t you bring up the example of Mormons to buttress your point about breakdown in sexual relations already setting in in 19th century?

    Reading 1883 book on American cities and the author is constantly whining about these degenerate, evil Mormons imposing their lust and polygamy on naturally chaste women. But then he’s constantly trying to explain why women are flocking to Mormonism despite that (3/4 church membership female in 19th century, ratio even more skewed in conversions).

    Two quotes to give you that Jim feeling – J.W. Buel Mysteries and Miseries of America’s Great Cities (1883):
    “The full enormity of this vassalage system will be better understood when the further fact is given that there are no laws in Utah against rape, incest, or oppression … Furthermore – and it is one of the most important considerations in considering the crimes of Mormonism – there are no coroners in Utah.” p. 446.

    “Mormonism, instead of advancing by liberal footsteps, has gone back into the ancient ages and become like the church of Moses, Abraham, and the old patriarchs who lived under revelation just as the Mormon church does to-day. They have literally accepted the Old Testament as their code of ethos and live under it, by which we may see an existent society identical with that described in the Pentateuch.”

    Sounds based to me. What am I missing on the Mormons?

    • jim says:

      I have not read that book. Added it to my already lengthy reading list.

      Of course women converted to Mormonism. Always looking for a strong man backed by a strong tribe. Mormonism supplied the strong tribe. We need to supply the tribe. Trouble is that the instant we come out of cover, will be crushed as the Mormons were crushed.

    • The Cominator says:

      The problem is the mainstream Mormon church has become the progressive Mormon church.

      The Mormon elders are only a few years away from marching in pride parades and slutwalks.

    • Tom says:

      I’d opine they have some major weaknesses, for the fundamentalist/trad ones it’s glaringly the idea that more women = more holy. For the mainstream ones it’s the fact that they caved on their core values when the American fed pressured them. Mainstream mormons ought to be better on the race issue and woman issue than others, but my experience indicates they are often worse and do extra virtue signaling to offset their doctrines. The most anti-polygyny folks I’ve encountered are mainstream mormons.

      As to FLDS and mainstream mormons of old: they’ve always had a feminism issue. They have more than enough ‘strong horse’ traits to offset it and be desirable, but they have more ‘in house’ problems than mainstream protestant polygynists. Especially in terms of jealousy problems.

      Utah was the first state to give women the right to vote. Predictably they strongly favored keeping polygamy. The fed was blindsided by this and promptly revoked womens right to vote. But the mormons have always been eager to signal how good they are to women, and how they’re just like the rest of society, and how they’re real true progressive people. Obviously they’re not progressive people, to their credit, but they try to signal it way too strong.

      But if we’re not talking esoteric theology issues, the mormons core issue is just this: they view having more women as being more holy, and that implies all sorts of socially destructive things.

      • TyrantOfTangent says:

        Link to hathi trust citation page for book (which has link to full book) for anyone interested (the title of this one is Sunlight and Shadow because the same book was released twice, second time under this name in 1889): https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102286888 . Salt Lake City section is only interesting part as the rest of the book is just him complaining about women being corrupted by bad men in the big cities.

        There is a bit on the marriage ceremony that also aligns with Jim’s perspective – “… he (the priest) tells the man that he must look to God, but the woman must look to her husband as her god, for if he lives in his religion, the spirit of God will be in him, and she must therefore yield him unquestioning obedience, for he is as a god unto her, and then concludes by saying that he having authority from on high … seals the man and woman for time and all eternity.” p. 436.

        Tom – thanks for that analysis, I haven’t spent much time interacting with Mormons and that fills me in on some of the details. Feminism issue comes through a bit in the book where LDS seems to deny or keep secret some of their own ceremonies in order to avoid being seen as regressive.

        To Tom’s point:
        “A man’s or a woman’s glory in eternity is to depend upon the size of the family; for a woman to remain childless is a sin and a calamity … her husband’s rank in eternity must greatly depend on the number of his wives, and she will share in that glory whatever it is.” p.444

        Also seems plausible that Mormons kind of needed to adopt polygamy considering their excess female population. But then once fixed as a core tenet, can become a problem.

        • Tom says:

          The poly thing existed pre migration, so it seems to be a facet of Mormonism being founded by a small set of very alpha men. I respect that in and of itself. The tying of holiness to wives makes sense in the context of a first generation of very alpha pioneer men showing off their status. It leads to some obvious and some counterintuitive problems when that alpha philosophy became an intergenerational religion.

          Obvious problem 1 is the supply problem. They’re not a war-culture that raids for women, but they are pretty good seducers (which made them enemies more than polygamy itself did). But the quantity-> holiness teirs demand way too much supply. Muslims cap wives at 4, but 4 for mormons is just getting into the upper teirs of holiness, with 7 being a more desirable number. If their numbers were more like 1 is holy, 2 is extra holy, 3 is max holy, they probably could have made a better go of it.

          2nd problem is that it ties holiness to women, which is always, always a bad thing. This is mitigated a lot by the fact that the only holy woman is under a man. It’s still a problem though.

          3rd problem is that saying ‘the supreme alpha decrees that all our men are alpha enough to have many women’ is, well, that it isn’t true. The supreme alpha seems quite happy to let some men be terrible with women and others great, and to let nature take it’s own soft eugenic course. Early Christians had concubines, the preisthood scolded them but it was otherwise tolerated. It was tolerated all the way to the lateran councils of the 1200s, and even past that to the council of Trent in the 1500s. Christianity has a place in it for the eunich and the alpha. And the alpha getting some scolding isn’t even a bug so much as a society-level shit test to make sure the man with more women is the kind of man that can handle more women.

          Mormonism 1.0 doesn’t have a place for men who are bad with women. And that’s most men. I can’t help but wonder if the mormon preisthood of the day wasn’t eager to hear the US fed overturn polygamy.

          I agree with Psudo-Chrysosotom in a way. It’s better than wives = holiness. But I think Christianity 1.0 had it better: if you want sex, you get a wife and have children. Or you just don’t have sex. There is no need to promote fecundity, God made sure it would come naturally. You just need to ban avoiding children. There is no need to make naturally infertile couples 2nd class, but there is a need to make intentionally infertile sex 2nd class or worse.

          • Tom says:

            For disclosure Im a Christian that owns a couple women, and I know a variety of FLDS and protestant polygynists as well. My women behave well, and I have no doubt that most people on this blog could maintain multiple women without trouble, probably with less trouble than I have (I never was anything like a PUA).

            But I would not reccomend polygamy to the overwhelming majority of men. They would have an endless stream of shit-tests. Mormon ‘God says I should have more women’ is a strong stance. The prot polyagamists say ‘I choose to have more women and Gods fine with it’ is stronger.

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            It’s a single sentence, so obviously there will be more nuance than can be fitted within a single sentence.

            An implication of rampant bastardry can sound shocking to a civilized mind, but quite evidently, successful reproduction doesn’t actually take place *except* if there is patriarchal marriage, anyways – most especially with higher order species of humans.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        Need to view having more children – or more grandchildren – as more holy instead.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          Random thought this provoked; theological writings unsealed only after your death (ie, not writing that will benefit your status now).

  4. Dee says:

    I am fairly new to Jim‘s blog and reactionary thought in general. My knowledge of real history is very little which is why I was wondering if Jim would be willing to provide a list of essential reading.

    Thank you

    • jim says:

      “The True History of the American Revolution”
      by Sydney George Fisher

      Short of it was that the American Revolution was treason – by English whigs against English tories – like the fall of China to communism and the Vietnam war was a proxy war for a power struggle fought in Washington, the American Revolution was a proxy war for a power struggle in London.

      English Society 1688-1832: Ideology, Social Structure and Political Practice During the Ancien Regime

      Reveals the centrality of the state Church and heretical entryism to politics.

      I don’t have any good books for pre-1820 sex and marriage, for marriage 1.0. I much need one.

      • suones says:

        …the American Revolution was treason…

        Amen.

        GNON knows how many tradcucks I’ve triggered by that hate-fact, but the fact remains that the only Patriot in America was Benedict Arnold.

  5. onyomi says:

    Jim: “All women will forcefully resist the trad wife role, All Women Are Like That, but they all love a man who successfully compels them to adopt it, and they all really enjoy being compelled to adopt it.”

    Just want to say this comment from an older thread is a real lightbulb for me because, when I met my wife, she was a feminist who said her career was very important to her and that she didn’t want kids. As I gradually got her to accept a more traditional role, it’s been obvious each step of the way that she’s been happier, yet I’ve often wondered if I shouldn’t have just started with someone more naturally inclined to a trad role rather than marrying a feminist and slowly changing her.

    If Jim is correct, as I suspect he may be, then my mistake was in thinking that my wife was resistant to the trad role I could tell she’d be happier with due to bad social programming from her liberal parents and pop culture. Rather, it could be that all women inherently, ironically resist accepting the trad role that will make them happy, but without a culture of patriarchal authority to make it happen, the individual father and/or husband bears a lot of the burden of well, taming her, so to speak?

    • orochimaru says:

      yes. she will always resist.

    • jim says:

      Emperors with authority to execute any of their concubines for any reason or no reason, with concubines raised completely for the role, have had empire ending women troubles.

      Woman are like that so that in the ancestral environment, they will wind up in the trad wife role as the property of a strong man, not a weak man.

      Unfortunately our environment makes all men weak, so large numbers of women fail to accomplish what they are seeking, and wind up as cat ladies.

      The solution is to boldly be strong, a course of action which is unavoidably dangerous.

      There is no legal way to have marriage 1.0.

      Christians keep trying to find a “good” woman. But no woman are good by blue pilled measure of a good woman. Hence the black pill.

      All women are good under the thumb of a strong man. However, a woman who has banged too many men will only be good under the thumb of General Butt Naked.

      • onyomi says:

        It sounds too obvious put this way, but it seems a blind spot in many men’s mental model of women may arise due to the fact that we cannot know our mothers before they were mothers. I also never had an older sister or any older female cousins, etc. I saw frequently.

  6. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    On an incidental note, people who wear helmets are more likely to get head injuries.

    • suones says:

      [citation needed]

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        The joke is about nominalistic thinking, and or how factums and statums will be unintelligible to persons possessed of such modes of thought – especially when purposefully used disingenuously.

        It is literally true that ‘people who wear helmets’ are more likely to get head injuries… because people wearing helmets tend to be people in situations where they could expect a danger of head injury in the first place.

        ” A WITTY statesman once said, you might prove anything by figures. We have looked into various statistic works, Statistic-Society Reports, Poor-Law Reports, Reports and Pamphlets not a few, with a sedulous eye to this question of the Working Classes and their general condition in England; we grieve to say, with as good as no result whatever. Assertion swallows assertion; according to the old Proverb, ‘as the statist thinks, the bell clinks’! Tables are like cobwebs, like the sieve of Danaides; beautifully reticulated, orderly to look upon, but which will hold no conclusion. Tables are abstractions, and the object a most concrete one, so difficult to read the essence of. There are innumerable circumstances; and one circumstance left out may be the vital one on which all turned. Statistics is a science which ought to be honourable, the basis of many most important sciences; but it is not to be carried on by steam, this science, any more than others are; a wise head is requisite for carrying it on. Conclusive facts are inseparable from inconclusive except by a head that already understands and knows. Vain to send the purblind and blind to the shore of a Pactolus never so golden: these find only gravel; the seer and finder alone picks up gold grains there. And now the purblind offering you, with asseveration and protrusive importunity, his basket of gravel as gold, what steps are to be taken with him?—Statistics, one may hope, will improve individually, and become good for something. Meanwhile, it is to be feared the crabbed satirist was partly right, as things go: ‘A judicious man,’ says he, ‘looks at Statistics, not to get knowledge, but to save himself from having ignorance foisted on him.’ With what serene conclusiveness a member of some Useful-Knowledge Society stops your mouth with a figure of arithmetic! To him it seems he has extracted the elixir of the matter, on which now nothing more can be said. It is needful that you look into his sad extracted elixir; and ascertain, alas, too probably, not without a sight, that it is wash and vapidity, good only for the gutters. “

        • suones says:

          Got it, haha. I mentally extended your statement to read “people who waer helmets are more likely to get head injuries, compared to people who do not wear hlemets while engaged in tasks prone to head-injuries.” But you did not say that.

          Thanks for the lesson in logic, friend. 🙏

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      This was a reply with 20:35 down below.

  7. onyomi says:

    Random question: I think Jim has suggested the peripheries of the Chinese and/or Russian empires might be good places to wait out whatever’s currently brewing in the US and/or maybe Western Europe. Any thoughts on periphery of US empire, e.g. Puerto Rico, assuming one’s extended family is still in the continental US? If you had a job offer in Hong Kong and a job offer in Puerto Rico, which would you take?

    • linker says:

      Islands just seem wrong. Not sure why. If civilization collapses you will be stuck on that island. That seems like a fucked up situation to be in. If on a continent you can travel between cities on foot if need be or escape into the wilderness. Maybe this is not rational? I would choose Hong Kong over Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico could be a staging ground for some atrocity the empire cooks up. Look at what they are doing to St. Vincent today, refusing to rescue unvaccinated people before a volcano explodes. Kamala could just do some random shit to Puerto Rico like kill every white person to save the locals or carpet bomb it because their corona numbers are too high. They are going to make it a state soon. I’m not sure why you think it would be safer. If anything it is the perfect target because its under complete control of the empire, but far enough away that Americans see it as an irrelevant island of browns. Kamala will nuke it and leftists would be like AAAAA LOOK AT THE POOR BROWNS THIS IS WHY WHITE PEOPLE AND COVID ARE BAD, and conservatives would be like WOW DEMONCRATS ARE THE REAL RACISTS, IMAGINE IF THE OUTRAGE IF THEY DID THAT IN THE US??? THE HYPOCRISY OF DEMOCRATS KNOWS NO BOUNDS!!! Also you know how it’s supposed to be risky to live in major cities? The main reason for that is that if anything happens you can’t leave! The same thing sort of applies to an island. I’m sure it’s filled with FEMA people and military bases too, which is not good.

      I choose Hong Kong 1000%.

      I’m uneducated on this topic, but it’s something to think about.

      • onyomi says:

        Thanks for the thoughts! Tend to agree.

      • yarr matey says:

        Boats are a thing.

        A 30-ft sailing yacht is completely affordable, small enough for one person to handle and big enough to travel pretty much anywhere in the Caribbean or coastal US you want, assuming you’re willing and able to put in the time and work to maintain it. If you live in an island environment, you’d better.

        If you’re living somewhere as a remote-worker IT drone with the boat as a luxury toy you take out less than once a month, then you’re not taking the vehicle seriously and should be continental. Take it out on a near-daily or at least weekly basis, barring bad weather, for a year or so, and you’ll be ready to pick any island you want. But you have to train yourself into knowing how to use it and knowing what to expect.

        • jim says:

          Boats cost a great deal of space, time, and money. A boat capable of fleeing a collapsing empire needs a group that regularly uses it, not one man that regularly uses it, because it really is not practical for one man to regularly use it. A thirty foot sailing yacht is not capable of fleeing the US empire, while still sucking up one hell of a lot of maintenance time, energy, and money.

          • Starman says:

            If you can cross the ocean, you can flee the US empire. The ocean covers 70% of the Earth’s surface.

            https://youtu.be/CiZKvDxeLeg

            • Pooch says:

              Pirates are going to be an obstacle, particularly around Africa. Make sure to bring plenty of weapons and ammo.

              • suones says:

                Pirates are a problem, but not the problem. The Indian Navy routinely fucks their shit up. The main problem is the US Fleet[1]. Good luck escaping that in a boat.

                [1]: https://www.c7f.navy.mil/Media/News/Display/Article/2563538/7th-fleet-conducts-freedom-of-navigation-operation/

                • Pooch says:

                  Very true, if we are assuming the US Navy is still operational during the time when you flee I would not want to run into them without valid documents, but than again if you have no Navy protection, pirating is going to turn from a small problem into a big problem especially around black territories. History is littered with black pirates causing problems against small merchant fleets. They will not be tremendously combat effective though. You may be able to repel them with precision rifle fire.

                • Pooch says:

                  I should say African pirates in general not necessarily black. Plenty of Arab pirates causing problems.

                • Starman says:

                  Sending a billion dollar destroyer commanded by captainess Shaniqua to go after a single sailboat is Ever Given tier retardation.

                  That said, during the Bronze Age collapse, people whose homes were mobile (boats and tents) or who were rich Phoenician merchants were at a significant advantage than those whose homes were fixed to the land.

            • jim says:

              I do not advise crossing the ocean on a thirty foot sailboat. It can be done, it often is done, but it is tough.

          • Mike in Boston says:

            A boat capable of fleeing a collapsing empire needs a group that regularly uses it

            More unvarnished common sense. A buddy of mine has that sort of 30-something foot sailing yacht and I should call him up and quote “a 30-ft sailing yacht is completely affordable” because hearing his uncontrollable laughter for a few minutes would be pure gold.

            Granted his annual cash expenditures are just barely less than outlandish, but in order to keep them that way he does most of the maintenance himself, something that would be completely infeasible were his kids not grown and out of the house.

            So bug-out by boat is revealed as yet another problem that requires effective coordination that excludes entryists and enemy agents.

            • Starman says:

              @Mike in Boston

              Does your buddy live aboard his 30’ yacht?

              • Mike in Boston says:

                @Starman

                Nope. Hawaii, this ain’t.

                • Starman says:

                  While a 30′ yacht has more items to maintain than a house… But for some people, living aboard is easier than finding nigger-free housing that would stay nigger free in America. And others don’t have the kind of business people connections or people-skills to find the right kind of nigger-free housing in South-East Asia, but instead might have the equipment maintenance skills for maintaining a liveaboard yacht.

                  There used to be a working app called “Sketch Factor” where you can see where the nigger undertow is and can monitor its rate of change, to find the nigger-free house. But then BuzzFeed and the NYT complained and called it racist (even though it only tracked crime, not race), and thus Sketch Factor got neutered.

                  So a man can get a 30′ yacht or just have a backpack with a tent folded up inside to evade the nigger undertow.

                • Pooch says:

                  Good point. Best to build a small fleet of like minded exiles like the exiles of Troy who supposedly founded Rome and head for remote territory. Even if you land in hostile territory would not take but 10-20 organized armed white men to clear an area of savages.

                • Starman says:

                  @Pooch

                  As noted up thread, those whose houses were mobile (boats and tents) had an overwhelming advantage over those whose houses were fixed to the land during the Bronze Age Collapse. Packing and unpacking boxes from house to house in the state of Georgia gets old after awhile. Living aboard a 30′ blue water sailing yacht sure beats buying an expensive $350k house in a neighborhood that then turns into a niggerhood (see Buckhead GA).

            • Anonymous 2 says:

              “It’s like standing under a cold shower tearing up five-pound notes.” (Ted Heath)

              But it can still be enjoyable to some.

              • jim says:

                Yes, but something expensive goes wrong with a yacht at frequent intervals. If you are trying to cross the Pacific on a yacht, and something goes wrong …

                When Captain Cook and his men got shipwrecked, they had the resources and skills to make major repairs to their ship – because they were continually rebuilding it en-route.

                Sailing on long journeys, need a large team with a broad skillset and lots of spare materials and parts.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Which is why I think any manned trip to Mars need send a fleet rather than a dingy.

    • jim says:

      Puerto Rico is US empire. Hong Kong is a little uncomfortably inside the Chinese Hegemony, but if they decide they don’t like you, will likely throw you out rather than do you harm.

      A lot of states in the Pacific were formerly US empire, and are now quietly hedging their bets. If everything goes pear shaped, will likely be nice places to wait it out.

      • onyomi says:

        By formerly US empire Pacific states do you mean like the Philippines, or?

        • jim says:

          Japan is showing small signs of independence, Malaysia has pretty much revolted, Singapore is piously swearing allegiance to both sides, Thailand has revolted, Burma is going its own way – the list goes on.

          • orochimaru says:

            I wonder when west europe will find its balls.

            • Atavistic Morality says:

              I believe western Europe will slowly change its allegiance to China with increase influence from Russia. At least that is what you can see in the latest behavior from Germany and France.

              If Xi Jinping wants to reestablish the Mandate of Heaven then I believe it’d be a very good thing for us Europeans. Confucianism, or a form of it, is a real and viable social technology especially when compared to the insanity and destruction of progressivism.

              • orochimaru says:

                well France is rearming, which is a good sign.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  I was talking about the latest trade agreement, all three nations publicly chummy in a video-conference to the chagrin of the State Department.

              • suones says:

                If Xi Jinping wants to reestablish the Mandate of Heaven…

                This is the crucial step. Hitler failed at this, Stalin also, and Putin, and Mao. There is no reason to believe Xi will succeed, or even if he understands why it’s necessary. One doesn’t pick the Mandate of Heaven, it is Heaven who gives one its Mandate to rule as the Son of Heaven.

    • Oog en Hand says:

      Which language is harder, Spanish of Cantonese?

      • According to the Foreign Services Institute–which has decades of experience training diplomats in a wide variety of languages–Spanish is one of the easiest languages for English speakers to learn and Cantonese is one of the hardest.

        Spanish is a category 1 language, which require about 600 hours of study to achieve “General Professional Proficiency” in reading and speaking.

        Cantonese is a category 5 language, which require 2,200.

  8. Pooch says:

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2021/04/09/another-tripwire-crossed-pentagon-orders-updated-screening-of-military-to-identify-extremist-outlooks-in-preparation-for-what-is-to-come/

    Good breakdown on what’s happening with the military by Sundance. I agree with him that signs are starting to point to the regime making preparations for military invervention/Insurrection Act (they already have the word “insurrection” in the mainstream now) in red states that will inevitably ignore/nullify increasingly insane federal law. He points to continued covid compliance or state elections as possible triggers for military deployment.

    They do seem aware that their fighting force is mostly white southerners though. The question is how long do they wait to purge and replace them (if they are even able to) before they are deployed against the citizenry.

    • onyomi says:

      Disturbing developments, though I must say I was pleasantly surprised to see the Biden WH backing down on the “covid passport” issue, seemingly in response to Florida, Texas, and other states preemptively passing laws against them. One could argue they simply realized they would be a logistical nightmare, but that they could have realized before announcing support for the idea not too long ago. Seemingly strong state-level opposition was what made the idea non-viable.

      You could say it’s too early for them to carry out such plans, but they are also racing against the clock wrt the media’s ability to keep covid hysteria at the fever pitch necessary to potentially justify such a move.

      • Pooch says:

        Yes I agree that was a white pill. Although they only backed down from government-enforced vaccine passports. They are still suggesting that vaccine passports enforced by the private sector are totally fine. To me it looked more like a probe to test the resistance level of the right and could be revisited later.

    • Ace says:

      They do seem aware that their fighting force is mostly white southerners though. The question is how long do they wait to purge and replace them (if they are even able to) before they are deployed against the citizenry.

      There’s 2 styles of purges: Slowly and all at once. All signs point to an all at once purge incoming. The recent stand downs and indoctrination sessions identified anyone who might show leadership in fighting back. The rank and file purge will come later or simply by them not re-enlisting. Anyone being put through critical race theory Maoist struggle sessions isn’t going to re-enlist.

      I think Sundance is wrong about COVID used at the justification. COVID’s a spent force thanks to Trump’s vaccines. I think they’re going to have to go the false flag/foreign war route.

      BTW, got some conformation of what happened with COVID. According to Crenovich Bannon recommended that Trump get ahead on COVID and blame it on China and the Democrats while outflank them on it. Jared recommended downplaying it to keep the stock market up. It wouldn’t shock me to learn that Jared was working for the Dems.

      • The Cominator says:

        Trump didn’t downplay it enough he should have tried to use force to prevent lockdowns and prevent mail in voting EARLY ala Orville Faubus. It was the Chinese fault but it was always at worst a bad flu.

        • Ace says:

          Trump didn’t have enough control of the Government to stop it short of a coup, he wasn’t capable of thinking in those terms. Trump should have come down like a ton of bricks and used COVID to remove Democrats from power on an emergency basis for delaying COVID relief and for murdering people in nursing homes. When you foe sets a trap for you, the best thing you can possibly do is trigger the trap on them. Bannon was right about it.

          • The Cominator says:

            Yes he was too weak because he had not stacked the government with his own people, this was always his problem he was bored with adminstrative details and it blew up on him. Removing governors for nursing home murder would be a good move but he also to some extent at least initially believed in the covid hoax and this was his other great error… yes the virus is real but it was never the terror it was made out.

            • Jehu says:

              The Republicans wouldn’t even let him do recess appointments (the Senate never adjourned until like 2020 to prevent exactly this). So I don’t think you can lay Trump’s failure to stack the government at his feet, because the Republican’s absolutely would not confirm any actual Trumpists.

              • The Cominator says:

                The solution was to have a succession of acting agency heads who would confirm orders in transmittal under a series of permanent white house “czars” who would exercise actual authority over the agencies.

                Trump needed to insist above all on rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies, this is one of the first principles of politics and you NEVER compromise on it.

                • Pooch says:

                  Trump thought the Republican establishment would be willing to work with him after it became obvious their electoral future depended on Trumpism. In hindsight, it was obvious they wouldn’t because they are not of the class that Trump represents and honest elections don’t matter.

              • Starman says:

                @Jehu

                ” The Republicans wouldn’t even let him do recess appointments (the Senate never adjourned until like 2020 to prevent exactly this). So I don’t think you can lay Trump’s failure to stack the government at his feet, because the Republican’s absolutely would not confirm any actual Trumpists.”

                Trump was piss poor at personnel selection. His direct personal appointments (such as his legal team) revealed how terrible Trump was at this. Those appointments didn’t require Congressional approval.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes he was a genius at mass persuasion debate and policy but incompetent at administrative details. He should have left that entirely to Stephen Miller imho…

                • jim says:

                  Not seeing that he was incompetent at administrative details, though he trusted hostile lawyers too much.

                  What is the evidence that Richard Stallman was incompetent at administrative details?

                  The accusation that he is autistic and spergy is obviously absurd and a lie. Why should we believe the accusation that he was incompetent at administrative details.

                  I see no end of highly competent CEOs getting in trouble through an uncontrollable and dangerous legal department. It is a hard problem that frequently creates difficulties for very good administrators.

                • Pooch says:

                  His major flaw. He had a knack for selecting people to jobs that would stab him in the back.

                • jim says:

                  Progressive. But progressivism moved on, and he did not.

                  Progressives get stabbed in the back – I have frequently remarked that a communist was a lot safer under Hitler than Stalin.

                  Getting stabbed in the back reflects on progressivism, not on Stallman, and letting the legal department get away from him reflects on our legal system, not on Stallman.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Never said he was autistic he was the opposite of autistic. But appointments and administrative details were clearly something he was terrible at.

                • jim says:

                  Is it clear?

                  Not seeing it. Who sees it, and how do they see it.

                  The legal department got away from him, but that is a huge problem even for very competent administrators.

                • Pooch says:

                  I’m not seeing him being incompetent at administrative details but I think his personnel selection is valid criticism. Then again I don’t think it was unreasonable to assume, at the time, he could fill positions by leveraging the existing Republican party apparatus instead of starting from scratch with the assumption they would work with him in good faith. Not so reasonable a position now.

                • Starman says:

                  Trump sucked at personnel appointment, period.
                  Rudy Giuliani, the day drunk.
                  Sidney Powell and her stupid kraken lawsuit.
                  The unhinged Lin Wood.
                  Pat Cippollone (Trump referred to him “as a friend”! LOL).

                  Now contrast this with how Elon Musk does personnel management: “every employee is responsible for whom he recommended for hiring.” In other words, if a SpaceX employee is bad and needs firing, whoever hired him or recommended his hiring gets fired also. Then everyone who was hired or recommended by the fired hirer/recommender gets canned too! (And you can check the Starbase/Boca Chica LabPadre livestreams to see if this policy is still in effect).

                  Imagine if Trump fired everyone recommended by Reince Preibus and General Kelly?

                • Starman says:

                  Just to be clear here, this specific comment sub-thread is about Trump’s hiring practices, not Stallman.

                • Pooch says:

                  If we ever get power back, the only criteria for a position should be loyalty. Every single appointee to anything should resemble someone like Mike Lindell regardless of qualifications or experience.

                • jim says:

                  It is the only way to win.

                  Alfred the Great won because you could not get anywhere in his administration, except you were a good Christian – within the Royal definition of Christianity.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Rudy Giuliani, the day drunk.”

                  I have to defend Giuliani. Giuliani’s arguments from what I heard were factual, had hard evidence and they were well layed out. The problem Giuliani had was the judiciary and lawyer class in general including the federalist cucks just decided (corruption or cowardice) they were going to let Biden have it and they weren’t touching it.

                  There was not a single evidentiary hearing.

                  Not disagreeing with your main point.

                  “In other words, if a SpaceX employee is bad and needs firing, whoever hired him or recommended his hiring gets fired also.”

                  The rule probably isn’t THAT absolute but it probably most likely leads to you getting fired if you recommended a bad employee and if not it will be a blackmark against you.

                • Starman says:

                  @Cominator

                  I have to defend Giuliani. Giuliani’s arguments from what I heard were factual, had hard evidence and they were well layed out. The problem Giuliani had was the judiciary and lawyer class in general including the federalist cucks just decided (corruption or cowardice) they were going to let Biden have it and they weren’t touching it.”

                  FUCK Giuliani. Guiliani said, “If only we had another month” (after repeatedly ignoring General Flynn for months and ignoring the General’s speaking while fiddling with a bunch of phones). A big FUCK YOU to Rudy Giuliani. General Flynn already had a plan and loyal troops in place to deal with the ballot steal attempt, right at election night, but Trump’s piss poor personnel choices lead Trump to choose Giuliani instead.

                  Giuliani wasted people’s time. More importantly, Rudy Giuliani wasted MY TIME. Fuck Rudy Giuliani with a razor-bladed anal plug. He is the reason that I will no longer trust and wait for authority to protect me or trust the string of words from a wordsmith (I either see it myself or “it’s livestream / visual evidence or it didn’t happen”).

                  I’m through with “Trust the Plan.”

                • The Cominator says:

                  Flynn’s plan was half assed too…

                  He wanted a coup that wasn’t a coup.

                  The 1st thing you do in a real coup is PHYSICALLY ELIMINATE all alternative heads of state you don’t do it half assed.

                • Starman says:

                  @Cominator

                  “Flynn’s plan was half assed too…

                  He wanted a coup that wasn’t a coup.

                  The 1st thing you do in a real coup is PHYSICALLY ELIMINATE all alternative heads of state you don’t do it half assed.”

                  You didn’t read the link I posted (I can tell, because it takes a lot more than a couple of seconds to read it, and you responded immediately to my post against Day Drunk dumb-ass civilian, Giuliani)

                  Giuliani didn’t have a half-assed plan to do something. He did nothing. He had no plan and he did nothing. It was all fake.

                  Giuliani did nothing.

                  The fact that you didn’t bother to read the link before responding is more vindication for me that people who don’t have callouses on their hands cannot be trusted at their word… even if they’re redpilled. A RedPilled wordsmith is still a wordsmith, a word-thinker.

                • Pooch says:

                  The Flynn plan was not a coup. It was doing what would have been necessary to win the election.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Giuliani foolishly thought the courts would allow evidentiary hearings based on overwhelming evidence he had… he was wrong but his case was good.

                  I agree there should have been a coup, but the coup plan Flynn had could not have been successful because it was like the coup against Chavez where they didn’t kill him.

                  There should have been a coup and I said there should have been a coup, but it should have not been a half assed coup.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The Flynn plan was not a coup. It was doing what would have been necessary to win the election.”

                  It was a half measured coup trying to be democratic that was absolutely doomed to fail… when you use violence you have to be willing to use violence.

                  There were three alternative heads of state based on Democrats winning I don’t want to elaborate beyond this but… to seize power successfully they all had to go. Followed by Trump being installed as speaker of the House before the 20th…

                • Starman says:

                  @Cominator

                  “There were three alternative heads of state based on Democrats winning I don’t want to elaborate beyond this but… to seize power successfully they all had to go. Followed by Trump being installed as speaker of the House before the 20th…”

                  Trust Da Plan! LOL

                  Maybe Q will finally save us… any day now. Just wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait…

                  Yeah the “trust other people plan” isn’t working, I’ll just do it myself. Speaking of which, there’s a sub-thread about sailboats here.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You know (at least I think you are R7 rocket) I’m not a Qtard dude…

                  Flynn otoh apparently (I can only assume hes lost mental capacity) was at least after his legal troubles ended…

      • Pooch says:

        All signs point to an all at once purge incoming.

        I don’t know if they can just purge all the white males yet. They still constitute the majority of actual warriors with diversity being in logistics at least for now. If they are smart they’ll just wait for the Hispanics to eventually replace the whites that don’t re-enlist. Maybe they’ll encourage some whites to become loyal by upping their pensions/combat pay to a high enough amount where it becomes worth it to sit through the struggle sessions and mindlessly enforce the regime’s edicts like cops.

      • Pooch says:

        I think Sundance is wrong about COVID used at the justification.

        I could see state elections being used as the trigger. Would not shock me for Biden to do what we all wanted Trump to do, invoke the Insurrection Act during an election that a Republican wins using “voter suppression” as the justification.

  9. Anon says:

    I have some crypto opsec questions.

    Over the years I’ve bought crypto through KYC exchanges. Bounced through different wallets, exchanges (including non US exchanges even though I’m a US resident), exchanged to different coins, etc. Never reported on taxes except answering yes to the question (paraphrasing) about “have you bought, sold, exchanged, or acquired crypto”. Current portfolio value is high 5 figs.

    I realize now that this is an opsec fail. My current plan is to:
    – Move all crypto to existing account on a non KYC exchange.
    – Convert all crypto to monero.
    – Send monero to personal wallet.
    – From personal wallet send monero to fresh account on a non KYC exchange using vpn/tor.
    – Convert monero on exchange back to original different coins.
    – Send coins to fresh hardware wallet.
    – In future only buy crypto with fiat via p2p such as local bitcoins, and clean trail of custody such as through monero again, btc tumblers, coinjoin, etc before moving to hardware wallet or exchanges for trading.
    – If every questioned by gov, say I lost everything and have no records.

    I’m a bit worried that despite this I may have some problems down the road. Is this a good plan? What are my potential risks, and how bad are they?

    Jim your blog is pure gold thank you.

    • jim says:

      Good plan.

      Except for the back onto a KYC exchange part. Try Bisq – although you are probably going to wind up doing Bisq equivalent of KYC in order to do transactions over distance.

      They are endlessly tightening up, and people are endlessly finding new ways around, and it seems to me that the people finding new ways around are winning.

      The government has a record that you purchased crypto currency. Generate a record that you sold crypto currency as quickly as possible, in a manner difficult for them to verify. Pay taxes on the purported sale.

      If that is a lot of taxes, well then, you just lost the key to your wallet, and mislaid or failed to record the wallet master secret. Happens all the time. Seems that remarkable amount of crypto currency has been lost.☺

      If you had crypto sitting for a long time in a KYC exchange, then move it off the exchange, say you sold it, and pay taxes.

      • Anon says:

        Thank you Jim.

        Yes after washing everything through monero I plan to never use KYC exchanges again. I didn’t hold on KYC exchanges for any substantial amount of time.

        It would be quite a lot of taxes as most of the present portfolio value is from gains, and I might have to pay short term capital gains. I can’t think of a way to report a smaller sale that would hold up to scrutiny and therefore pay less taxes. Also I have previous sales on KYC exchanges that I was supposed to report and pay for years ago which I didn’t, as well as dex and non KYC sales to other coins that may show up in blockchain analysis, so it seems like I shouldn’t attract more attention.

        I’m hoping it will be enough to just not report anything, and if anything comes up in the future say I lost my keys, don’t have any records, and don’t remember anything. Hopefully worse case the IRS says I owe a few grand from those previous sales with late fees and I just pay up. The potential future risk doesn’t seem to outweigh the the lost time and money I’d incur for trying to do everything by the book. It seems like you would agree.

        • Pooch says:

          And remember, as the law requires today, you only have to pay capital gains the tax year you convert your crypto into USD. As long as your hodling crypto (which could be forever) I don’t see a problem with taxes unless they add some sort of wealth tax or something down the road (which they very well might do).

          However, the problem is going to come when you need to make a big purchase in USD (like a car or a house) where a large sum of USD magically shows up in your bank accounts from selling crypto.

          • Anon says:

            It is my understanding that you are also supposed to pay capital gains when you exchange one crypto for another, ie trading bitcoin for ethereum on an exchange. Or USDT or whatever.

            Yes taking out into USD will be difficult, but I expect this to get easier over time.

            • Pooch says:

              I’m not sure if that’s accurate. A tax accountant I talked to said that’s not the case. Buying means converting from USD to crypto and selling means converting from crypto to USD. Converting from crypto to crypto is not tax relevant according to him. I suppose he could be wrong.

              • Pooch says:

                But if during the conversion process you are converting to USD temporary in order to buy more crypto, than that would be considered taxable.

    • Humble Acolyte says:

      >If every questioned by gov, say I lost everything and have no records

      This will work for now if you have to deal with the taxman.

      But in an expropriation scenario the boating accident story will get you tortured. So much the worse for those who actually did lose their coin. In the long run we are marked, and should prepare accordingly.

  10. notglowing says:

    Unsurprisingly, some leftists are trying to make this dead 100 year old man bad by digging up a few mildly controversial quotes by today’s standards, and mildly based by our standards.

    https://twitter.com/feebux/status/1380528901542273025

    I knew nothing of this British royal before, but now I almost like him.
    Most of these quotes are just kinda funny. Even most people who disagree with them would probably not find them bad enough to cancel him, and this is the worst they could find of a man who lived a century and was a public figure.

    • onyomi says:

      I’m kind of curious when, if ever, Lincoln will get seriously cancelled. Some statues have already been taken down, but that was because he was looking paternal toward a slave or something. Obviously he’s got all kinds of statements that sound problematic by today’s standards, including having committed the crime of being a white man, but he also feels like such a linchpin in the normy’s narrative of US history that you can’t take him out without a bunch of Jenga pieces falling over.

  11. suones says:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-is-ahead-in-union-vote-as-tallying-set-to-resume-11617960604

    American proles say no to agitation (even in a black-majority town). Anglin is right that blacks, while unable to help being violent, are not natural leftists. There is hope for America yet. A small town in Alabama has established co-operate-co-operate, even if for a while.

    PS: “AmaZOG is bad” is a fake and gay Leftist attack. Amazon has shaken down Vaishyas like anything, and Bezos is an arch-Vaishya himself — incredibly rich (high status in Vaishya terms) but lacking memetic sovereignty (thus vulnerable to Brahminical attacks). “Mom and pop” nonsense — that fight was lost to Walmart. Now that it is established that Mom and Pop are no longer in the picture, it is just competition with Walmart, one that Amazon is winning.

    • nils says:

      An interesting analysis from a old rhodie i read recently, paraphrased, the offering to the african gook(nigger am.) of the vote in their future, was in itself a revocation to the supremacists right to rule (Kings mandate of heaven in east/west tradition) that it was a rebuke of the intrinsic might is right. A strong horse begets a strong horse(secretariat was a conspiracy i was raised in, he had no right to be the beast he was, heart weight, but he was bred because he might be.) I don’t mean to criticize a good man, but the wallmart fight is not lost, my small yankee! town from upstate ny was beset by a wallie bid in 2007ish. and it was obliterated. Small town “jurisprudence” and old anglish strength of the county, still exists. Even here in deep blue hinterland, as far as wallmart, the saratoga lads dgaf what anyone says, we make deals with old family banks that are barely hanging on and damn the rest of them. So no, wallmart doesnt own it all, and mom and pop aint beat, we got frontier vio’lence that would put any cuck to shivers, maybe in most places, but local is stronger then you’d think(by a load that’d get you in the slammer), the capital bs dont cutt here except in the budget, and thats second to blood and old families. plus we control the budget still, even with quomos bid for dom, we own the purse. and the state can suck cock and tweek off. fuck em, they dont own us yet, and having been privy to a few confi. convos they aint gonna, we make plans based on water and sewerage that have us bulletproof when the loosers come to town. so dont cuss middle america out yet, Levit’ town is as fake as it were, us old amerikaners are still here even in neu jorvik. I cant speak to any union but the pilots, but most around here who is poor are not keen to unions or the union, they got shit on just like the 1st iraq war, and they know a union aint no differnt then a comintern.

    • linker says:

      Can you elaborate? I don’t understand how this union is leftist agitation or how this is white pilling. I admittedly know nothing about unions.

      Regarding Bezos- Being hyper-vulnerable to leftist attacks seems nearly as bad as being a leftist himself. It’s a stretch to even say that he’s not a leftist! He owns the Washington Post for gosh sake!! Amazon also took down Parler when the coup was happening. They also censor right wing books. Being the richest man on Earth and not putting up any resistance to the people threatening the human race indicates extreme levels of ignorance and malice. At least Elon Musk puts up a feeble resistance.

      I am trying not to sound rude, but it’s not self evident how this is a white pill and it’s not self evident how Bezos is not a leftist.

      • The Cominator says:

        Probably operating under glownigger coercion.

        • linker says:

          This sounds like Alex Jones tier rationalizing that the enemy is not as bad as they seem.

          >You see when a mother cuts her sons penis off, you can’t blame the mother you know cause she is just doing what the media is telling her to do, and the media is totally controlled, their scripts are controlled by Jeff Bezos, but Bezos has no choice because the CIA controls him, the CIA agents are not bad people, you know they just signed up to protect their country, the rank and file is not bad, but their bosses were installed by George Soros, George Soros isn’t even the top guy though, he’s just doing what he was PROGRAMMED to do by people you haven’t even heard of, a secret society of demons and vampires, and their boss? The illumnati. I don’t think the illuminati is the top of the pyramid, there’s some evil force at the top ??????????.

          Basically claiming that every human is a good person and simply misguided even though they are demonstrably not, just shifting blame around to progressively more obscure people until you get ?????????? demonic force who is in charge of the illuminati and you aren’t allowed to wish harm on anyone or label anyone has an enemy (which conveniently protects Alex Jones from getting sued into oblivion).

          It seems to me that Jeff Bezos would not arbitrarily be under more glownigger coercion than Elon Musk. who is now richer, and has always been slightly hostile to leftists, even though that hostility is very feeble, consisting of promoting crypto and posting slightly politically incorrect memes, and also Elon Musk does not own a Top 5 Leftist Propaganda outfit like Bezos does. I would say that a *reasonable benchmark* to claim that Jeff Bezos is not evil would be that he does less evil things than Elon Musk.

          • The Cominator says:

            No its obvious the owners of major media companies have no influence over them as they speak with one voice its not rationalization its the only thing that fits the facts.

            • Pooch says:

              They absolutely do have influence over them, but Bezos only owns the Washington Post so it doesn’t attack Amazon. He likely also heavily incentivized them to push pro-lockdown stuff because it helped Amazon. He has no incentives to influence anything other than that.

            • Pooch says:

              Suppose for a moment Bezos was actually an ultra based right-wing shitlord. What prevents him from turning the Washington Post into a major right-wing publication? Magically, Amazon comes under antitrust threat from the DOJ with every other media outlet calling for Amazon to be broken up and Bezos to be deplatformed and banned on everything.

              • The Cominator says:

                Zuckerberg started having bad things happen to him when he wanted to keep free speech on Facebook.

                Yes Bezos is allowed to prevent WaPo from attacking Amazon but he can’t exercise any editorial control on political content.

                • Pooch says:

                  Yes Zuckerberg gets attacked relentlessly by the press (and potentially the courts) if he gets out of line. Moldbug went over this in one of his namefagged posts that was actually good.

                  Bezos could absolutely exercise editoral control. There’s nothing stopping him from firing all the faggot journalists and replacing them with frog anons if he wanted. But the second he does that, Amazon is instantly under massive attack from the DOJ for antitrust and he becomes an hit piece target for the rest of the press. There is a massive stick keeping him in line. He has nothing to gain and a lot to lose for attacking the elite.

                • linker says:

                  Where is the failing communist fake news rag burning a hole in Elon Musk’s pocket? Why are Bezos and Zuck the cuck under glownigger coercion but not Musk? Or is Musk just this Herculean hero who is the only man strong enough to fight off the deep state? If all of these guys are so secretly based, why does Nick Fuentes not wake up one day and see a million dollars in his Monero wallet? If that happened I’m sure he would keep it a secret. Maybe it has happened already. Do you think Nick Fuentes is secretly ultra rich from all of the money Bezos, Musk, Thiel, and Zuckerberg send him? Or maybe Zuck the cuck is, in fact, a cuck! What seems like the simplest explanation to you?

                • linker says:

                  I never claimed that Bezos was very powerful. I never denied the existence of the carrot and the stick. I read that Moldbug piece. Just curious why Bezos does far more to aid and abet the communists than Elon Musk. Is Elon Musk super powerful? Does the deep state just like Elon Musk a lot more?

                  And I still don’t understand why the nignogs voting against a union is white pilling.

                • jim says:

                  Elon Musk disengaged from targets of primary interest to social justice warriors before targeting space.

                • Pooch says:

                  Elon Musk doesn’t control anything of any interest to the left. He has a faggy car company and is testing rockets. He has no stake in PayPal anymore so nothing he controls is much of a worthwhile target. Musk is smartly flying under the radar in order to get into space.

                • Pooch says:

                  If Bezos really was a man of virtue he would give up his holdings in Amazon like Musk in order to eliminate that as an attack vector. He’s just another faggy rich billionaire groveling at the feet of the elite for status.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Elon musk doesn’t own an msm media organ.

                • linker says:

                  I don’t believe you. I think Elon ENRAGES the left and I don’t see him lying low at all. He just got in trouble for posting a Ben Garrison cartoon today. I think you are looking for facts to fit your narrative.

                  I can make the case that Tesla is a massive power leak. Controlling a network of self driving cars and the a network of satellites that let people live in the middle of the woods and have high speed low latency internet would be extremely powerful, not to mention the sci-fi stuff he intends to get to like neuralink and space travel. He is basically trying to become the Emperor of everything from the city streets, to outer space, to dissident hermits living in the middle of the woods, to your own consciousness with wires poking around your brain. Maybe right now Amazon is more powerful, but it’s not self-evident that Amazon is so much more powerful that they consciously chose to give Bezos a short leash while giving Elon a long leash despite his constant jabs, jestings, and provocations.

                  I repeat that I believe you are trying to rationalize your narrative here that Bezos dindu nuffin wrong and that he is just a normal dude who wants the best for everyone. I totally disagree. I think he is a morally bankrupt NPC at best and less narcissistic form of Bill Gates or George Soros at worst. Maybe that’s what an arch-Vaishya is. I don’t know. I don’t see any reason for all this simping for Amazon and Bezos.

                  PS how do you do the indent thing to quote someone on here?

                • linker says:

                  >Elon musk doesn’t own an msm media organ.

                  I say that Bezos is a leftist because he owns the leftist WaPo. You say that WaPo is only leftist because of the CIA. I say that Elon Musk does not own a leftist newspaper and that the CIA does not force him to own a leftist newspaper. Pooch says that the CIA forces Bezos to own a newspaper because Amazon is more powerful than Tesla. Cominator says that the CIA ignore Elon Musk because he does not own a newspaper.

                  Occam’s Razor indicates that Bezos is a leftist.

                • Pooch says:

                  I can make the case that Tesla is a massive power leak. Controlling a network of self driving cars and the a network of satellites that let people live in the middle of the woods and have high speed low latency internet would be extremely powerful

                  Self-driving cars are not happening Jim has gone over this before. Tesla is just a scam to distract the elites while Elon gets into space. The satellites may be an attack vector for the SJWs in the future, but until it actually exists, they aren’t likely to know or care about it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Everything enrages the radleft but msm outlets are a more proper target for gleichschaltung.

                  Our point is not that Bezos is good our point is that he isn’t making the decisions.

                • Pooch says:

                  Pooch says that the CIA forces Bezos to own a newspaper because Amazon is more powerful than Tesla.

                  Not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying while Bezos still has his net worth tied up in a high-value target like Amazon, the elites have him by the balls. Because Must doesn’t, they don’t.

                  But it obvious that Bezos is blue-pilled and Musk is red-pilled.

                • Pooch says:

                  Our point is not that Bezos is good our point is that he isn’t making the decisions.

                  Exactly. Despite his billions, he’s not of the elite so there’s not a whole lot he can do to actually change things.

                • linker says:

                  Sorry guys but this all seems like narrative fitting to justify why Bezos does not have free will but Elon has free will. So leftists are not attacking Elon because they don’t know that space travel is powerful, because they erroneously think that self-driving cars are powerful? We are approaching the point of unresponsively talking past one another and your arguments are flying away from Occam’s Razor at escape velocity.

                  Maybe you are misunderstanding me? I am not saying that Bezos is the ringleader of the communists or The Devil, I am stating that contrary to what suones seemed to be saying, he is an actual bona fide leftist and that being the owner of the Washington Post proves this. Musk is not a leftist. This is proven by him posting Ben Garrison cartoons, vaccine test skepticism, going on Joe Rogan, and other dog whistles, as well as the lack of leftist holiness signalling, and the fact that he does not own a leftist media company like the Washington Post.

                  Hit me with a link to Jim talking about self-driving cars if you can find it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Tim Cook, Jack Dorsey and Sergey Brin are definitely doctrinaire leftists at least to some degree with Dorsey at least likely being a far and zealous leftist. Bezos seems an apolitical or centrist operating under coercion there would need to be a full trial under a right wing regime to determine this. Amazon only started acting in accordance with gleichschaltung very very late (unlike say Twatter).

                • linker says:

                  I sense subterfuge from Dorsey. He is constantly promoting crypto and he says he is working on turning twitter into a decentralized open protocol with the Twitter corporation as just a front end. Maybe he is just blowing smoke up right wingers asses with this? I think it would be less dangerous to tell right wingers to fuck off you insurrectionist nazis than it would be to blow smoke up their ass. I suspect he is blowing smoke up left wing asses just like Jim suspects Charles Hoskinson is blowing smoke up their asses with his “Cardano will save the starving African children!” act. I don’t see *anything* good coming out of Amazon or Bezos.

                • jim says:

                  The government program is regulated KYC crypto. He, therefore, will be producing regulated KYC crypto.

                  The Chinese government violently dislikes US social media giants, and is deeply concerned about the Chinese social media giants. They are worried they have too much power. Xi wants to run the priesthood. He does not want the priesthood running him. He sees what has happened in the US, and does not want a re-run in China.

                  The social media giants are not so much answerable to the US government as answerable to Harvard – you can see this in Wikipedia.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Twatter established gleichschaltung earlier than anyone and zealously and went beyond what they were being pressured to do at the time. Hes a zealous leftist.

                  Government’s eventually want to establish state digital currency…

                • linker says:

                  >Twatter established gleichschaltung earlier than anyone and zealously and went beyond what they were being pressured to do at the time.

                  Couldn’t this just be because of a power leak? Facebook seems way more zealous, or equally zealous now, taking your word for it that twitter was first.

                  >Hes a zealous leftist.

                  I don’t see it. His underlings are zealously leftist, but what are you gonna do, tell HR to hire less leftists for the min wage content moderation shit? It looks like he zealously cooms, watches youtube videos, tweets about bitcoin, and smokes weed.

                  >Government’s eventually want to establish state digital currency…

                  I don’t understand what point you are trying to make with this. What does this have to do with twitter? Isn’t USD already a digital currency?

                  You are unresponsive to the fact that Jack is seemingly sowing the seeds of twatter’s destruction with his open protocol thing. So the guy that constantly promotes bitcoin and is constructing a way to evade the twitter censors is a staunch leftist, but the guy that owns the washington post and tweets about climate change and lizzo is just an innocent centrist who is enslaved by The Cathedral? No way. I don’t believe it unless you present additional evidence.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You need to make your case not me since almost everyone else here thinks Dorsey is a zealous leftist and sees Bezos as someone who at worst bends with the wind and is interested mainly in preserving and possibly expanding his own wealth.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The social media giants are not so much answerable to the US government as answerable to Harvard – you can see this in Wikipedia.”

                  My theory is the command and control is at least pseudo linked with the CIA. Its an extension of the old Operation Mockingbird. The CIA is the derp state government and it is also Harvard and the Ivy Leagues as it recruits very heavily out of Harvard and other Ivy League schools.

                • linker says:

                  Guy #1: Owns a top 5 ultra-leftist newspaper that loses money hand over fist. CEO of a leftist corporation
                  Guy #2: Promotes crypto, posts slightly politically incorrect dogwhistley funny stuff. CEO of a non-leftist corporation.
                  Guy #3: Promotes crypto, CEO of ultra-leftist corporation, but apparently has a plan to morph it into a decentralized protocol that is censorship-proof.

                  Ok so we agree that guy #2 is probably a little bit right wing or very right wing and hiding his power level. That’s Elon Musk, but the contention between us is about guy #1 and guy #3. You are telling me that guy #1, despite owning an ultra-leftist newspaper that loses money hand over fist, is a CENTRIST. And you have all sorts of mental gymnastics to basically say that ultra-leftists FORCED him to buy an ultra-leftist newspaper that loses money hand over fist. However, you say that guy #3, who seems to me to be a secret agent and/or useful idiot who is doing things to help the right wing, is in fact, definitely and ultra-leftist, and your evidence for this is that the corporation he manages is ultra-leftist. Not only is this totally contradictory because the reasons you say that guy #1 are forced to be leftist apply tenfold to guy #3, you are saying that guy #3 and his ultra-leftist cronies are the actual people who forced guy #1 to purchase an ultra-leftist newspaper.

                  You are saying that Bezos was FORCED to purchase the Washington Post, yet Dorsey decided to censor right wingers out of his own volition, he totally has monarchical control over his own corporation and if he was a centrist like Bezos, he could have hired a centrist HR department who would have hired centrist content moderators for minimum wage and twitter would be less censorious than Facebook. Say “Psych!” please! What strain of weed you are smoking to come up with this stuff?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Dorsey has never done anything to help the right nor does he plan to, he is nearly always the 1st to do leftist things and hires only far leftists. Dorsey is likely interested in mark of the beast KYC crypto because like Engels he is a rich guy who believes in communism.

                  Amazon’s tepid and VERY LATE cooperation is entirely explainable by acting under state duress. Nothing you say refutes this view. Amazon did nothing leftist until I think at least late 2017.

                  You can’t say exactly why Bezos bought the WaPo but other than keeping them from criticizing Amazon he clearly has no power over its editorial content and if he tried to exercise that bad things would happen to them. Its entirely possible he was told bad things would happen to him (and certain favors would be granted if he did buy) if he didn’t expend a small fraction of his wealth to buy it.

                  Dorsey has displayed leftist zeal on his own initiative, what people say doesn’t show their beliefs what they do does. Bezos does not show initiative in doing leftist things he did it late and seemingly without much zeal. He does not personally virtue signal prog or socialist platitudes either.

                  You seem to be arguing that Bezos has real editorial control of WaPo and keep repeating this. No one here believes this because all MSM organs despite seperate owners (Murdoch used to be an exception but increasingly not, my theory is that tabloid man Murdoch had blackmail information on powerful people and possibly a dead mans switch which insulated him from behind the scenes coercion) speak with one voice. Some big Time Warner shareholders wanted to fire Jeff Zucker of CNN and run it profitably as a real news station to maximize ratings. Nothing came of this. The state (some covert organ of it) controls the MSM and the owners don’t. Bezos owning Wapo proves nothing. Repeating that he owns WaPo proves nothing.

                • Pooch says:

                  I am stating that contrary to what suones seemed to be saying, he is an actual bona fide leftist and that being the owner of the Washington Post proves this.

                  I see him as worshipping money, not worshipping left-wing pieties. He owns the Washington Post simply because it strengthens the position of Amazon.

                  Now for the record I believes he’s a bad person not for being a leftist, but for being complicit in the looting of the middle class during the China Flu lockdowns. The Washington Post pushed lockdowns hard and he magically ends up with billions more in net worth while small businesses go under as Amazon flourishes. That is a big problem for me. I would have him tried on that.

                • Pooch says:

                  And of course it reflects poorly on Bezo’s character to own a leftist rag like WaPo (Musk would never do this), but my point is he’s only doing it to make more money for Amazon not because of leftist zeal. With or without Bezos ownership, WaPo would be putting out the same filth. The only thing different would be Amazon be criticized or not. Other than that, his ownership is irrelevant to the readers.

                  Like I said before if Bezos truly was a man of virtue he would be using his fortune to do something good for the human race like Musk. Instead he uses his fortune to gain more fortune with the hope the elite will notice him and let him into their club. He’s pathetic.

                • Starman says:

                  Jeff Bezos is just a businessman, a very skilled businessman.

                  He responds to priestly attack the way a good merchant would… take actions that protect his bottom line.

                  StarProphet Elon Musk’s behavior, on the other hand, is strikingly similar to Muslim Prophet Muhammad’s behavior when Muhammad was still in Mecca. Eventually, Muhammad had to flee Mecca for Medina… and there, Muhammad’s prophetic career took a different turn.

          • linker says:

            One of the main problems with right wingers is that they will never hold people accountable for their actions, even when that person has absolutely zero coercion on them. Basically they are denying free will. If you actually evaluate people’s actions with clarity you will realize that 90+% of the white population has to be enslaved or exterminated. And if you acknowledge this, it’s hard to make friends and people call you an edgelord.

            Take circumcision for example. You are under no coercion to circumcise your children besides getting hassled by nurse. You won’t lose your job or your reputation or anything like that. Another would be voting for Trump. About 40% of white people did not vote for Trump. There is zero excuse for this as votes are totally anonymous. Some people will just never admit that most white people are subhuman evil pieces of shit, and that’s how you get ridiculous theories like the illumnati or wignats blaming Jewish mind control rays for things that muh angelic innocent white people do out of their own free will.

            Leftists are very good at this “holding people accountable” thing which is what causes their holiness spiral. I pray that I am not just becoming a crypto-leftist here. I am not advocating scorched earth kill all circumcisers no mercy Khmer Rouge style. I am saying that the prevalence of circumcision and of white race traitors logically proves that most white people suck and therefore it’s a mistake that they have any power over human affairs. And the least you can do is simply *say* that circumcision is wrong and *say* that a white person who votes against Trump is as bad as any kike. Another distinction is that leftist holiness spirals are based on hatred and resentment while I think my non-holiness non-spiral is based on logic and the desire for human civilization to continue.

            (TLDR on circumcision is that it has no benefits and it lower IQ and increases neuroticism (= literally the cause of leftism), so you are making it more likely that your son becomes a leftist or cucked RINO republican and making it more likely that your grandson gets circumcised and so on. Now you know.)

            • jim says:

              > One of the main problems with right wingers is that they will never hold people accountable for their actions, even when that person has absolutely zero coercion on them.

              Everyone engaged in business, or who is participating a publicly traded corporation, has massive coercion on him. They are all terrified. Capitalism is collapsing under pressure, which is why we cannot have nice things any more.

              Simultaneously, there is a massive propaganda offensive against ordinary people to delude them.

              When someone blue pilled hears truth from someone in person, he surprisingly likely to agree with it, particularly after a few beers – but he is never going to be the first person to say it, or even think it.

              • linker says:

                With all due respect, where is the coercion to not secretly vote for Trump? Even though the election was fake, at least 30% of white men voted against Trump. Even though there is a massive propaganda offensive to do this and there is massive coercion not to counter this propaganda, I also attribute this to extreme levels of stupidity and malice in these white men.

                To these white “men” I would say: If you think a man can become a woman with pills and cutting their dick off, or that IQ is not real, or that white men should be oppressed more, or any of the other countless and absolutely ridiculous leftist shibboleths, you are either a Moloch worshiper or borderline too retarded to tie your shoes. Things have gone way too far into clown world territory to attribute all of this to people being misinformed or tricked or peer pressured or victimized by jewish mind control rays. As Jim says you are terrified by an invisible monster. There is an insatiable invisible monster terrorizing you, terrorizing your sons, and your grandsons, and to fight back, all you have to do is to anonymously check a little box for Trump in the privacy booth and you don’t do it? You would vote for your son to pay 50% of his income in taxes then go to jail over a false rape accusation and then get shanked by niggers or get shanked by the aryan brothers for being a “chomo”? You would vote for your daughter to be a serial coal burner? You would vote for a senile guy and an Indian psychopath female who want to launch nukes at Russia? Race traitor! Traitor to humanity! Enemy of the good, the beautiful, and the true as Vox Day says!

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  There wasn’t any coercing to not secretly vote for Trump, but most of those white men were urbanites, they’ve been indoctrinated and manipulated since they were children and made to believe that voting for Trump was like voting for the Grim Reaper.

                  According to your logic the kulaks with one cow that supported the Trotskyites to kill the kulaks with two cows and eventually wound up in a gulag themselves were intent on and very happy with the result, it doesn’t compute. We are not talking about magic, we are talking about things that are observable, measurable… the kind of stuff the CIA researches and uses because it works.

                  You’re capable of recognizing the facts because you’re actually aware of the facts, while they’re under the influence of a delusion reinforced by the authority figures in their lives, considering that they live isolated in a social bubble without any real first hand contact. Even if they had contact, they’ve been taught to re-interpret reality to fit the delusion.

                  Where you say paying a robbery of 50% income taxes they see piously supporting the holy leaders who will guide them to utopia. Where you say false rape accusation, they say this is impossible, as women would never do that and the holy leaders have assured them about it. Even if one of two did it, it is unfortunate but it’s worth it because it will bring utopia. Where you say shanked by niggers they say those niggers are falsely incarcerated and would absolutely never do such a thing. Where you say aryan brothers they agree they are dangerous and evil, which is why they must pay 50% income taxes, to fund the efforts of the holy leaders to suppress the evil white supremacists. Where you say serial coal burner they see the beauty of female emancipation and the love of interracial relationships. And like this every single thing you’ve said and every single thing you’d be able to argue.

                  They do not have the ability or do not find themselves in the circumstances that allow them to recognize or acknowledge reality, like the men in Plato’s Cave.

                  I think jim is the absolute best reactionary opinion leader when it comes to describing leftism possibly because when he was younger he himself was a leftist so he understands its inner mental traps the best. He was manipulated and indoctrinated, he himself felt the grip of psychosis on him when he went to China and saw the reality of what he was taught about communism, if I remember right the story went something like that.

                  Besides, whether they voted for Trump or not it makes no difference, or did you miss the massive electoral fraud? In truth there isn’t a way to truly tell who voted for who.

                  Reactionaries don’t deny free will and don’t refuse to hold others accountable, but if you were middle management/floor level and mostly unaware or mostly coerced or both in a criminal enterprise, no judge would convict you.

                • The Cominator says:

                  In the age of trannyism and feminism and white males are the devil we should not make excuses for leftist only those operating under direct coercion who did no more than the minimum. Anything beyond that gets the helicopter if we get the chance. They made a choice to reject the truth.

                  I can sort of understand being a communist in the age of child mine laborers working for subsistence but not now.

                • jim says:

                  That would require executing nearly half the population. And it would require executing just about everyone with administrative experience. Which is a rather big job, and job likely to leave chaos in its wake.

                  The greatest social order in history, that gave us empire, science, and the industrial revolution, was founded by demanding that people in priestly occupations re-apply for their old jobs, and during the job interview, promise to conform. Which of course Havel’s Greengrocer cheerfully did, and quite a few entryists that proved troublesome did.

                  That worked for 150 years. Havel’s Greengrocer, finding himself empowered, ridiculed the entryists and rendered them impotent, and mostly they gave up and got real jobs, or went to America to found Harvard and plot to take over the world.

                  The most drastic successful purge seems to have been that applied by Suharto in Indonesia. Which worked very well for a short time, but is now a large part of the way to being replaced by Cathedralized Islam, with lots of Brave Stunning Empowered (but strangely loveless and childless) women telling Muslim men what Islam really is. (Hint: It is not what Mohammed thought it was.)

                  The Indonesian purge was successful not because they were cheerfully willing to kill lots of people, but because they had a live state religion ready to roll, and plenty of Paladins with which to kill lots of people. It was the adequate supply of Paladins that made the difference, and I think the same result would have been accomplished without actual killing, merely purging.

                  Killing lots of people permanently fixed the Communism problem, but it has not protected them from Communism’s big brother.

                  If Charles the Second had killed lots of people, we would not now have the Harvard problem. But chances are we would have a very similar problem. To prevent the problem we now have, need to have enslaved William Wilberforce for heresy and apostacy, and sent him to Jamaica.

                  The problem was that Socinians and related sects found a formula where they could sneak past the thirty nine articles. That experience indicates that you have to update your antibodies from time to time to deal with the antigens of new entryisms.

                  The affirmation of faith I demand from commenters with the more-Christian-than thou frame is specifically designed to keep out not only demon worshippers, but also Gnostics and Socinians. Its strange effectiveness indicates we still have a live Socinian problem. (Which I find surprising, and flat out demon worship now seems to be the bigger problem.)

                  If Charles the Second had purged the Church of England Indonesian style, well that would have prevented Harvard, and American history would have been very different, but it would not have done diddly about the Socinian problem.

                  To prevent stuff like Socinianism and the Church of Reason, you need, not a Indonesian type purge, but an inquisition with authority to adjust the affirmation to exclude the biggest and most immediate threat from entering the state and quasi statal apparatus, because there are always going to be new faiths practicing entryism against the official faith.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think about 30% of men…

                  Nits make lice.

                • jim says:

                  Eliminating people on that scale has been in practice only accomplished by chaotic means, which left a mighty big mess.

                • Aidan says:

                  The first stage is outrage at what they’re doing to the poor agencyless peasants. The second stage is outrage at the moral iniquities of the peasants, complicit in their own destruction. The final stage is aristocratic contempt for the agencyless peasants, and inner peace. Most men are followers and they will even follow the devil right into hell. That’s just reality.

            • Bilge_Pump says:

              Trump was a scam. Ive never voted in an election because i think democracy is retarded. Any vote you make can be erased by Shaniqua, if her owners decide its what should happen. Trump was an entertainment president, and most of his promises were fake and gay. You must be suffering from hopium withdrawals to say all that crap about white people.

              • The Cominator says:

                Trump was not a scam he at least held back war with Russia. Trump’s policies were all for the best but he was a normalcy biased boomer who was administratively inept.

                • Pooch says:

                  Trump was not a scam he at least held back war with Russia.

                  And held back the infinite migration over the southern border like we are seeing now.

              • linker says:

                ok wignat

  12. RMS is as extremely high functioning autist. Easily the best living software designer / developer, but I think not suited to a leadership / management role. He is bad at dealing with people, and I don’t mean it in the offends sensitive snowflakes sense but more like even for an entirely normal man having dinner with him in a restaurant is a challenge full of WTFs, I think someone wrote a hilarious article about it way back. He should design software, not lead people.

    Obviously not meaning it in the sense of agreeing with the SJWs in any way, just pointing this out.

    • jim says:

      RMS seems to have successfully led the Free Software movement. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

      • Aidan says:

        Often the case that some autistic men can communicate effectively and even lead over email, when they have no interpersonal skills in face to face conversation.

        • jim says:

          I see Richard Stallman on Youtube. Does not sound like there is anything wrong with his interpersonal skills. Sounds like a charismatic leader with good interpersonal skills to me.

          Interacts in person with the interviewer. Seems like a leader in person. Speaks directly to the common man, which a lot of techies cannot do.

          • Aidan says:

            Yeah, not bad at all. I’m biased against computer guys because of my generation, but the older generation seems a lot better.

    • suones says:

      St IGNUcius is not only the Founding Father of Free Software but has led the enterprise hugely successfully over more than three decades. From the apocryphal story about the printer driver that started it off to GNU/Linux today (which I’m using to write this screed), Stallman has led it through everything. Even today his capacity, although mellowed by age, is undoubtedly more than any current competitor. Even Linus has proven to be a coward and cuck.

      I’ve yet to see evidence of how Stallman is somehow not a good leader of people when he has inspired, and continues to inspire, fanatical dedication. This gayfake attack “not a people person” is retarded and stupid.

      • OK that is a very good point, I forgot about the part of “he has inspired, and continues to inspire, fanatical dedication” because what little involvement I had in FLOSS was on the side of ESR’s “open source” and more libertarianish attitudes like saying the GPL is not even necessary anymore, and people in there were not at all that fanatical about RMS than RMS’s “free software”, more leftish, GPL lawfare kind of folks are.

        • suones says:

          RMS was right, GPLv3 was and is right, TiVo-ization has become a massive problem in SaaS-land, ESR was stupid and wrong and “open source” is just a cancer from Mammon.

          All this is in hindsight, of course. I was ambivalent about GPL till 2003 or so too.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      RMS is as extremely high functioning autist. Easily the best living software designer / developer, but I think not suited to a leadership / management role.

      Heh, clearly he’s a charismatic figure (in spite of being somewhat bizarre) but technically … not in the top 100 or top 1000. Top 10,000? Perhaps. Was he in his heyday in the top 100 at the MIT AI lab? Perhaps. Yet far more of a classic cult leader out of the deserts of the middle east, I’d say.

      • nils says:

        Red russian when asked, how can a monarchist be a communist(under peaceful interrogation)? replied. The communist will more surely find the absolutism of autocracy then the white russians with their delusions of republicanism, derived from their anglophilia. 10 years later Stalin took power totally. And that red soldiers prophesy of the reds being stronger monarchists then the romanovs was proven, at least to my mind, make your own decision. worth comes from the fruit, by which you will know them.

        • The Cominator says:

          Communism and leftism in general always at least theoretically has “collective leadership” which means insecure power.

          Stalin’s worth was that he wiped out 90%+ of the communist true believers in order to make his “collective leadership” without “factionalism” secure. It did not become a monarchy as “collective leadership” returned after his death although without genuine leftist belief.

          • nils says:

            Van Rensburg was the hardest reading I’ve ever struggled through, to this day, it is a major component of my Christianity, I am terrified of the lords’ Angels and their prophecies. Honestly, the Russ’ suffering on the volga, is pathetic. In comparison to the significance of the Lord”s Will over the West. The Volgograd, and Varangian Guard are insignificant in regards to the western war in the pines. Stalin suffered from the same insecure inheritance as all dictators.

    • alf says:

      To what extent is ‘autism’ an anti-concept? I have searched on youtube for poster boys on autism, all I could find was Rain man, and some kid peppermint once linked. In both cases, ‘brain damage’ is a much more accurate term. In all other cases it was just people telling me they or their children were autistic based on seemingly arbitrary characteristics.

      Autism is
      – likes stuff
      – is good with stuff
      – is not glib
      – likes order, sorting stuff
      – doesn’t know social mores
      – doesn’t make eye contact
      – does not listen
      – but not necessarily.

      Which seems to bith arbitrary and applying to a very large chunk of men. Autism seems the kind of thing that is fun to call your friends, but an anticoncept for a psychiatrist to call men.

      • The Cominator says:

        I have mild autism (what used to be called aspbergers) believe me its real enough.

        One aspect of it that is very concrete is we are slow to grasp even the concept of deception… sperg children when we speak say whatever we are thinking for a lot longer than most children.

        • Why do you think I hate lying/manipulation so much… suck at detecting them. Too easily pwned. Hating having that vulnerability. Literally like a security bug in a system hackers can exploit. Like when women do sadfishing. That is such an exploit.

          • The Cominator says:

            In the modern west now as far as women go…

            My advice FOR MY FELLOW SPERGS is to fuck strippers (unless you can go out of the country but the covid bullshit makes that harder), I did a long post on how to do this and you don’t need to be adonis for it to work (the reason being a lot of strippers not all but a high % are nymphomaniacs who are at least subconsciously frustrated at working themselves into semi sexual situations that nearly all of the time don’t progress to full sex).

            https://blog.reaction.la/uncategorized/fixed-privacy-leak-in-avatars/#comment-2713334

            Its not hard and its far less expensive and less scammy than regular escorts. It won’t be totally free but you can find really beautiful girls who will enthusiastically (far more so than escorts) fuck you for regular lap dance cost so if you make good money not expensive. You may even be able to progress to free but I don’t recommend this… not for us. If you think they will be cold and robotic all the time when they do this… I swear its not the case.

            We’re not good at larping as violent thugs unless we really want to become professional violent criminals and surveillance and forsenics (yes Jim is right that cops don’t care about doing their jobs too much but if you really regularly commit crimes you’re chances of being caught dead to rights increases to near 100%) and unless you have a job that attracts groupies game in the West now is larping as a violent thug. Spergs larping as violent thugs will either not sell it well and be laughed at or do it in such a way that they will be arrested or severely beaten or killed (mouth writing checks your ass can’t cash).

            I suppose the only downside to this is you increasingly lose interest in regular Western women (at least in the US, maybe Continental European women are very

      • jim says:

        I am the opposite of autistic, and Stallman is even more the opposite of autistic.

        RMS is plenty glib.

        During his interviews he repeatedly makes eye contact and engages in good non verbal communication. He tends to talk at length and is difficult to interrupt, but what he says is responsive to what the other guy says – he does not have to think before answering. He answers instantly, reflecting instant understanding and appropriate response to what the other man is saying.

        When the other guy uses manipulative techniques, such as hidden assumptions, he instantly spots the deception, instantly gets angry.

        This is not autism. It is the opposite of autism. People get upset because he cannot be manipulated by that technique. They get upset because his social skills are very good, not because his social skills are very bad.

        I can do that too, but it is hard, and I struggle. What happens when someone deceptively slips in a hidden presupposition is that I get a bad feeling, and have to stop and think for a moment to figure out what is going on. It does not get past me, but my response is slower than Stallman’s. Stallman realizers something is wrong as fast as I do, but figures out what is up, spots and calls out the deception a bit faster than I do.

        He also calls out the deception more fluently than I do.

        In every way, this is the opposite of the official definition of autism. It is hard for the interviewer to get a word in edgewise, but when the interviewer does get a word in Stallman responds relevantly and appropriately, which is a lot better than most interviewees do. And his handling of deception is very very good. I think I am very very good, but he is better.

        • RMIV says:

          would ya kindly point to the Stallman interviews you referenced? i am suddenly interested in this man’s inter personal talent. it’s hard to get into the computer stuff when one is a math idiot and can operate computers in only elementary ways.

          • jim says:

            I cannot give you the links. I just did a search for Stallman interview.

            He is a hard man to interrupt, but makes good eye contact and appropriate non verbal response. He responds swiftly and relevantly to whatever the other man says, and if the other man says something with a subtle deception at its core, instantly gets cranky when deception is attempted, and in due course analyzes the deception.

            • RMIV says:

              no problem, Jim. my curiosity got the better of me and i watched a few. you were right; anyone imagining Stallman is spergy must be judging the book by the fat cover.

              he seemed incisive and steel-spined to me

      • onyomi says:

        I think it’s a useful concept; it’s just that, like most mental disorders, it’s not a binary like pregnancy or covid-19 infection but a suite of traits everyone has to some degree and it only becomes a problem if they manifest in an extreme degree out of balance with the rest of the personality (depression, mania, obsessive-compulsive disorder, etc. are similar).

        It used to be “autism” just referred to those in whom this group of stereotypically male traits was overdeveloped, seemingly at the expense of faculties like theory of mind, ability to pick up on social cues, etc. Colloquially it now just refers to people with a lot of those tendencies, like Scott Alexander.

        Some people with a lot of some such trait can be quite successful: Donald Trump (mania, OCD), Vitalik Buterin (high functioning autism), etc. sometimes because they’re just inherently balanced within their overall personality and situation and sometimes because too much of one thing can compensate for another. I think “game” is basically slightly autistic people compensating for the fact that seduction doesn’t come naturally to them by trying to figure out its moving parts.

        Steve Sailor likes to harp on the high coincidence between highly intelligent, driven, disagreeable men and mtf trans (Bruce Jenner, Wachowski Bros., Donald McCloskey). My personal theory is that, lacking a strong sense of self, they have difficulty distinguishing between what they find attractive in others and what they find attractive in themselves.

        • jim says:

          Autism, in so far as it exists at all rather than being an anticoncept, is a weak theory of mind.

          And I am seeing a lot of weak theory of mind around.

          • The Cominator says:

            Its a big part of it but its also a very weak ability to read so called social cues. You also tend to go through periods of obsessive interests with random subjects.

          • How do you interpret the idea “theory of mind”? Have some easy example at hand, a frequent failure at that?

      • In my case it was being very literal-minded, all dictionary denotation, words with strict definitions, not getting connotations exist. Like when I was a teenager and someone told me “This band is the best in the world” I was pulling a Dwight Schrute and asked shit like “Are you basing it on MTV ratings?” when real just meant “I like them a lot.”

        This literal-mindedness is very useful in STEM. A computer is very literal-minded, only those who can at least switch into literal-minded mode can learn to code. I suppose other STEM might work similarly, its gotta be precise.

        As these are typically male occupations, this literal-mindedness is sometimes called extremely male brain. But I don’t think it is just yet another case of shaming men for being men, for rhethorics or poetry are male things too, so getting connotations does matter.

        Also consider the package it comes with. Autistic boys are kicked to the bottom of the hierarchy, often end up insecure and shy. I did the no eye contact thing when I had low confidence and was insecure about people judging me, then when I gained confidence and I was caring far more about how I judge people than how they judge me, I started making eye contact in way people sometimes called uncomfortably piercing.

        Similarly, I thought I have social anxiety, which is also part of the package, until I realized I don’t, I just flat out don’t like most people and the anxiety came from faking liking them, faking interest in them. Once I got really down I do not care about the stupid shit most people talk about and I do not care anymore about explaining things to them that just go woosh over their heads, all that anxiety was gone and was replaced basically by something like cold politeness with a hint of contempt in most cases.

        Social mores… used to be clearly defined. There were books of etiquette. Easy peasy. And etiquette courses for the dumber. Now you are supposed to intuitively “get” them and indeed it does not work as well. But really because there is something in the brain that finds them difficult, or more like because deep down I don’t give a shit about the social mores of dumb cattle? In normal places, like here, where being polite and responsive and suchlike are the mores, I have no trouble with them at all. This place could be an IRL club and I would have no social more problems at all.

        Finally, there are autistic women, like my daughter who freaks out when people make the smallest mistake, as in: not even angry, just really really afraid. She has very rigid concepts of how things are to be done, of course, she got those concepts from me, her mother, and from teachers, but absolutely does not get that there are things like exceptions and people aren’t robots to do things 100% the precisely right way all the time. And when they don’t she feels really afraid because she feels lost, does not know what to expect.

        I find for the autistic brain, it is hard to get out of binary, yes/no mode, things always have to be 100% or 0%, hard to get that more probablistic-statistical way of thinking. It took me a while.

        But it is not a lifelong disability. I learned myself out of and will teach her out of it. It is that one learns these kinds of things much slower.

        For example I understand the concept of God only now in my forties. It is not when God literally exist or does not exist, like an object. There is an objective world out there, but our brains are not 100% objective, all kinds of stuff in the subconscious, so metaphors can be real for us. They can be super powerful, realer than reality. Things can be real without really existing. Hamlet and Frodo are real without ever having existed, as in, it is valid to ask what would Hamlet or Frodo do. The world is objective out there, but in our minds we do not view the world as a bunch of objects, but as a story. It is meaningful to say the story has an Author, God. This does not mean a literally-existing-Author-object. And it took me 40+ years to get it because autism.

  13. The Cominator says:

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2021/04/07/united-airlines-announces-they-will-no-longer-hire-the-best-pilots-n1438258

    United airlines declares a massive increase in future plane crashes is a small price to pay to pretend women and lower IQ blacks and hispanics can be pilots.

  14. The Cominator says:

    I’m wondering what is about the precise point of time when the Cathedral went from wanting to maintain some level of credibility to when the Cathedral adopted full blown gaslighting and making people agree with obvious lies…

    I would say somewhere between 2010-2012 they adopted Senator Roark’s speech as gospel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1DqgQkxjIg

    • jim says:

      point deer, make horse, 指鹿为马

      Senator Roark in “Sin City”
      “Power don’t come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big and getting the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you’ve got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain’t true you’ve got ’em by the balls.”

      They are sons of the father of lies, and their shibboleth is always a big lie.

      So we need to make our shibboleth a big truth that contradicts one of the big lies. The biggest and most shocking truth: That the sexual nature of women is maladapted to emancipation, that emancipation prevents them from reproducing and makes them unhappy. That as individuals, and as a society, need to make women property again.

      Each man must be King under his own roof.

      As King and high priest under my own roof, I make everyone sit and make everyone listen to grace before they start eating. This frequently requires physical coercion on badly behaved children who do not want to sit, even briefly, and vigorous social pressure on women, who want to keep conversation going during grace. Men, however, instinctively play along. Since I am compelling obedience in order to give thanks, I am, for that brief moment when I function as high priest under my own roof, claiming that as top alpha under my roof, I am backed by the supreme alpha of the universe.

      I keep it very short, because I am hungry and want to dig in. I have seen some men drone on forever. I don’t know whether that works or not, but it always looks to me like weakness. Whether it seems like weakness to women, I do not know. The local alpha who is confident in the backing of the higher alpha does not drone on and on about the higher alpha – sounds like a mother saying “wait till your father comes home”.

      Well, that is what it feels like to me. I have insufficient observational evidence to ascertain whether that is what it feels like to women and children.

      And we need a national sovereign, and a national high priest, that backs the sovereign and high priest under every roof.

      • Mike in Boston says:

        some men drone on forever

        The most common Orthodox Christian grace is pretty short:

        Lord Jesus Christ our God, bless the food and drink of Your servants, for You are holy indeed, now and ever and forever. Amen.

        My father, who is one of the most alpha men I know, prefers an extemporaneous grace, but his never come out any longer than the above.

        • jim says:

          I think an extemporaneous grace that briefly acknowledges the particular blessings of the moment is better, because people tune out what they have heard before far too many times, and because it better demonstrates alpha – that you are making a decision and taking initiative on behalf of the top alpha of your tribe, hence you look more like a lieutenant of the big man acting within the sphere of authority he has granted you. Also it is easier to get women to shut the #*@& up if you actually have something say.

          If there are two fertile age females at the table, they are likely to shit test you and God by trying to keep on talking.

          And because you have to actually think about the blessings you have received.

      • onyomi says:

        It seems a lot of this stems from the catastrophe that is The Pill. The more obvious problem everyone worried about when it was invented/accepted (I think it was actually illegal until recently in Japan, maybe still is elsewhere) was that it would lead to female promiscuity, which it probably has. The less obvious problem is that it gives even married women too much control over the form her marriage will take.

        That is, when sex unavoidably leads to pregnancy for most women, most women have three choices: nun, single mother, wife and mother. Among these three, three is obviously the way to go for most. But the pill introduces options like:

        Whatever those Sex in the City ladies are trying to be and married career woman.

        These are superficially appealing because being pregnant and having babies is hard and makes you physically dependent on others/cramps your ability to pursue your “passion.” Of course, most women’s actual “passion” is being a mother, but that is strongly discouraged by the current culture, to which women are more strongly attuned, typically, than men.

        • onyomi says:

          Some might say the pill merely levels the playing field because men always had three options:

          incel/priest, deadbeat, pater familias

          with “deadbeat” being more attractive than “single mom,” but this ignores the ways in which the original game was weighted in females’ favor, namely that dick is always in greater supply than pussy.

          Most men did not have and do not have an equivalent to the female “Sex in the City” option, something of a “have your cake and eat it too” scenario (until menopause hits and you realize you wasted your life).

          • Pooch says:

            Male equivalent is being a player.

          • The Cominator says:

            The main difference is erosion of patriarchy and on top of that (in the West but not in most of Asia or Russia) artificially high female status and western consent culture (as Jim has said women really hate explicit consent while most of them probably don’t want to be bonked in the head and violently raped in an alley, and some do want this, most like an element of coercion at least the first time you cross each base… they like to feel to some degree that they are being taken and have no choice).

            Before paternity testing women had the option of passing their bastards off as their husbands sons (as long as the father’s weren’t too too different in appearance) if they could avoid being caught. With the era of the automobile and men working away from home they had a greater scope to sneak around and not get caught. There were also pretty effective ways of inducing miscarriages that go back to ancient antiquity. Roman and medieval prostitutes did not get pregnant and stay pregnant every month. Much is made of infanticide in Imperial Rome but as bad as women can be its not something most women will want to do to healthy baby of theirs that they carried to term and they are still out of work for a number of months.

            From what I heard the pill initially lead to a period of rampant female promiscuity but females were deathly afraid during the aids crisis (more so then men who realized it was mostly a faggot disease) and then as that passed the cathedral started boosting female status far above men… leading to women not wanting to fuck most men. Then many also started getting fat and larping as lesbians most of the time… leading to very few easily fuckable women compared to men. So the effects of the pill on female promiscuity in the west were temporary. A normal man would probably have a FAR better chance of picking up a girl in a bar in the 1950s before the pill then they would now. Women don’t like thinking about consequences too much when it comes to sex (men will take risks too) and sometimes they find the risk of very negative consequences a turn on.

            So to sum up I don’t think you can blame the pill… though a lot of modern women are medicated in very negative ways that makes them fatter and tends to kill their sex drive.

            • onyomi says:

              I think maybe invention of new technology often begets a “grace period” during which we get to enjoy both the superior social technology adapted to the state without it and the technology itself. But once the material conditions that necessitated the social technology are gone the social technology erodes.

              For example, in addition to contraception, probably part of the motivation for women’s lib was the fact that household gadgetry and public schools, etc. made running a household a less than all-consuming task. For a little while this merely resulted in housewives with more time to Martha Stewart the home, look nice when hubby gets home from work, etc., but eventually this gave way to many women believing they could “have it all.”

              • The Cominator says:

                “For example, in addition to contraception, probably part of the motivation for women’s lib was the fact that household gadgetry and public schools, etc. made running a household a less than all-consuming task. For a little while this merely resulted in housewives with more time to Martha Stewart the home, look nice when hubby gets home from work, etc., but eventually this gave way to many women believing they could “have it all.”

                This indeed enabled modern feminism (it just wasn’t possible before this) but modern feminism wasn’t a necessary consequence of it…

              • Atavistic Morality says:

                There was no motivation for women’s libs except that women always try to walk the extra inch. Before women’s libs the elite weren’t yet degenerate traitors so they always told them what you ought to tell them, “shut the fuck up”, but eventually they became degenerate traitors and started to use women’s libs to plunder and destroy their fellow men like they use niggers, Climate Change and Coronavirus and whatever excuse they can come up with that becomes the flavor of the day these days, that increasingly makes the bureaucracy stronger and richer and everyone else weaker and poorer.

                Notice that there’s little time difference between women’s libs and the founding of the Federal Reserve and a few years after you get the Great Depression, signifying the process of further plundering. It all goes hand on hand, the whole thing is the bureaucracy/priesthood/Cathedral toppling apple carts and plundering society, piece by piece.

                • onyomi says:

                  It makes sense that the timing may not have been right for e.g. women’s lib to cause the income tax and federal reserve, but then the question is why the elites became degenerate traitors?

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  Human nature, life… everyone has heard the story of the self-made rich father with the worthless drug addict son. The children of the virtuous elite have completely different circumstances to their forefathers and so do their grandchildren.

                  Jim always points out that the FF themselves were already engaged in holiness spiraling to a degree, which technically isn’t really wrong, but then again you could always claim that an elite is holiness spiraling at any point like every human is technically “dying” at any point. But in practical terms they built an aristocratic republic that worked absolutely perfectly fine and easily top two society in the history of mankind. And those very same men were aware of what would eventually happen, as Jefferson said, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time.

                  Why do humans believe they can build a perfect permanent society that never decays? In truth everything in this universe constantly changes and it either improves or decays, but never stays the same. And history proves that the same applies to societies.

                  In that sense, reactionaries are just the mechanic figuring out what the fuck is going on with the car and how to fix it. How naive is it to think that there would never be destructive rulers? As naive as it’d be to think that there would never be a destructive human.

                • suones says:

                  Why do humans believe they can build a perfect permanent society that never decays? In truth everything in this universe constantly changes and it either improves or decays, but never stays the same. And history proves that the same applies to societies.

                  We know we can’t “stop” decay. We just want to decrease the rate of decay. Hopefully by an order of magnitude or two.

                • Pooch says:

                  but then the question is why the elites became degenerate traitors?

                  Degenerate state religion (Holiness spiraled Puritanism). Although it can be argued that Republics by their very nature always trend toward decadence and degeneracy of the elite over a long enough time scale.

                • jim says:

                  Yes. Gaming the state religion is only one form that internal elite conflict takes.

                  In a Republic, there is no one to keep the elite in line. And over time, it is apt to get out of line, one way or another.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  @suones

                  Accelerationism is not jim’s position though, but sure, whatever your preference is. But you’re definitely not a representative of most humans, who in fact seem to believe or are made to believe that society is not decaying but rather “progressing”, at least in the west. I have no idea what your people say on the streets.

                  @Pooch

                  You can say the exact same about anything else, it’s not a valid argument considering you can’t find a single instance of a political system and an elite that haven’t decayed over a long enough time scale.

                  Republics are far more stable forms of government considering their record, compared to monarchies. It is difficult to build a virtuous elite but it’s also more stable, while monarchies constantly flip flop between complete fucking disasters and mediocre kings, with the somewhat rare good monarch. But it’s also true that when there’s a good monarch he provides a more effective leadership than a good virtuous elite in a Republic.

                • jim says:

                  > Republics are far more stable forms of government considering their record, compared to monarchies.

                  Oddly, historians writing under the rule of Monarch drew the opposite conclusion.

                  Republics with a virtuous elite are as stable as that elites virtue, while with Kings all too frequently a lion begets a jackass.

                  So historians who did not worry too much about the occasional jackass correctly drew the conclusion that monarchy is stable, Republics unstable, because, on the longer historical timescale, the virtue of elites is unstable, and on the short historical timescale, a Republic without a virtuous elite is unstable.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Republics are far more stable forms of government considering their record, compared to monarchies. It is difficult to build a virtuous elite but it’s also more stable, while monarchies constantly flip flop between complete fucking disasters and mediocre kings, with the somewhat rare good monarch. But it’s also true that when there’s a good monarch he provides a more effective leadership than a good virtuous elite in a Republic.”

                  Republic’s are stable IF they are small and have a virtuous elite. No Republic that has expanded beyond being a regional power has lasted very long. Big powerful republic’s decay like picked fruit left in the hot sun.

                  Rome’s social decay got very bad after the second Punic war and America’s got very bad after WWII (whereas before societally we survived a 10 year quasi communist administration).

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Autocracy carries the possibility of bad rulers.

                  Demotism carries the guarantee of bad rulers.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  @jim

                  I disagree, I don’t think they were correct at all. As a matter of fact, the two most remarkable civilizations the west has built in terms of scale and success were born as republics, Rome and America. And what about very successful free cities like in ancient Greece and Italian Renaissance? After the fall of Rome, there’s also a big difference between the late absolute monarchs and the early monarchs who worked and needed the explicit support of the nobility. In what historical context has a monarchy proven more stable than a republic? Perhaps you’re talking about China, I don’t really know its history. Rome was a lot more stable as a republic, and the farther away from a republic and the closer to the necessity of a monarch the more restless and bloody. And then after Augustus you don’t really get that stability, instead you get degenerates like Caligula and Nero. The problem is that well, after all the republic did fall and a monarchy was indeed needed, but the monarchy didn’t do so well and soon fell as well.

                  Republics seem scarce, finding a virtuous elite seems a sort of fortuitous encounter born out of specific circumstances, but once they are established the virtue of the elite is more stable and durable than the ticking bomb of the lion begetting the jackass, consistently, repeatedly.

                  @The Cominator

                  Republic’s are stable IF they are small and have a virtuous elite.

                  That is what it seems, but you don’t have better examples in monarchies when talking about stability. You do have better leadership and imperial efficiency in very specific monarchs while they were alive, but you also have some who spread absolute death and misery all the same, so you have cases where the grandfather creates the first empire where the sun never sets (Fernando I de Aragón) and luckily the grandson (Carlos I de España) continues his labor faithfully, but you get like a 100 years and afterwards not stable and rarely again successful in the same manner. How about England? How long a record?

                  Also, I’m not sure that size is necessarily all that dooming for a republic, it’s just that a regional power requires time to grow into something more and this time is long enough for the virtuous elite to decay. Using the same example, it’d seem that while Spain was “smaller” it was doing better, but in the end it all boiled down to the monarchs, not really the size.

                  @Pseudo

                  Republic as in aristocratic republic, democracy is insanity.

                • jim says:

                  > I disagree, I don’t think they were correct at all. As a matter of fact, the two most remarkable civilizations the west has built in terms of scale and success were born as republics, Rome and America.

                  You are mixing up cause and effect.

                  Republics happen when you have a virtuous elite, Rome being the classic and extreme example. Need a virtuous elite to have a great civilization.

                  When you don’t have a virtuous elite, need a King.

                • Pooch says:

                  The virtue of the founding American and Roman Republic elite came about from the social technology enforced by their monarchical predecessors.

                • monarchist says:

                  “monarchies constantly flip flop between complete fucking disasters and mediocre kings, with the somewhat rare good monarch”

                  Which imaginary fantasy-novel monarchies do you have in mind, here? Because it certainly isn’t the English or French monarchies, nor from my limited knowledge does it fit the Spanish. The truly bad kings were exceptional in that they were so unusual. Even then many of those had their redeeming qualities – Edward II of England was a competent enough administrator in everyday matters, and John II of France’s bad reputation is based largely on his losing at Poitiers, which was a very near thing, much more so than the English commonly admit. Charles VI’s madness is one of the few clear-cut cases, and Louis XVI is guilty primarily of being too nice. Much more common is a run like France’s Philip II, Louis VIII and IX, Philip III and IV – five kings of consistent ability and dedication who provided stable and wise government for more than a century. Even then the trend breaking wasn’t inevitable – Louis X was starting to get the hang of really being a king when he died, and his brother Philip V could’ve been one of the best if he’d lived longer. Covering a similar period, the English kings through the Hundred Years War were some of the best leaders history has ever seen, making the best of an extreme imbalance in power and population to nearly pull off a successful union of the two most dynamic and productive European peoples. The English monarchs through the 1600s and 1700s continued that track record – the overwhelming influence of English in the world today is largely the result of policies and actions taken then. I could go on, but the plain fact is bad monarchs are extremely and consistently rare. Of course that’s on a national level; I say nothing about any given individual’s personal interactions with them. But I wouldn’t want to invite Vladimir Putin to my house, either, regardless of the fact that he’s easily the sanest person on the world stage today.

                  To have a virtuous elite, you first and foremost need parents who know how to teach their children what is important. The European aristocracies had figured that out, and the result was a thousand years of steady improvement. and incremental national cohesion With a republic – especially a republic where “the people can and should shoot the government from time to time”, is one of the founding principles (and it is a principle with which I agree in theory but still await practical observation) – the virtuous elite must consist of a majority of the electorate, a majority which consistently maintains itself. There is much less margin for error, much less margin for temporary societal decay, much less ability to recover from mistakes. Repubics are inherently fragile, with such fragility scaling upwards the more interaction they have with the rest of the world.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Nicholas II of Russia is probably the very worst monarch in history being personally responsible for WW1 the greatest disaster in the history of western civilzation. Phillip II of Spain is close. Charles the bewitched since he couldn’t function was less worse than those two.

                • jim says:

                  If anyone is personally responsible for World War I it is King of Serbia Peter I of the House of Karađorđević, who could neither make peace nor war, being unable to control those engaged in warlike acts against the Austro Hungarian empire.

                  So Austria issued an ultimatum, demanding peace or war. He was too weak to comply with that ultimatum.

                  So, war seemed inevitable. And then Nicolas II announced his intention to protect Serbia against invasion by Austria. And then Germany attacked everyone.

                  Serbia did not have to engage in warlike acts against Austria. Austria did have to respond to low level war with flat out war. Nicholas II did not have to promise to fulfil his treaty obligations to Serbia. And, having promised, he might well not have done so very effectually.

                  And, because it is quite likely Nicolas II would not have protected Serbia very effectually, or might have protected Serbia and then installed a Serbian government capable of making peace, Germany did not have to attack everybody.

                  Serbia to be able to engage in warlike acts against Austria and get away with it was intolerable, and something needed to be done, but the man who actually did something about it was the Kaiser, and what he did was to invade France, which was clearly not the best thing to do about it.

                  Something needed to be done about Serbia, but invading France is not the greatest way to do something about Serbia.

                • Pooch says:

                  I suppose the question is, given a virtuous elite, is a Republic superior to monarchy?

                  We know given an unvirtuous elite, a Republic leads to insanity and thus monarchy is the only viable option.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “So, war seemed inevitable. And then Nicolas II announced his intention to protect Serbia against invasion by Austria.”

                  This is where I blame him, he triggered the alliance system to protect a terrorist state.

                • jim says:

                  Yes he did. But it clear that neither he nor anyone else foresaw the consequences.

                  A short while ago, the figurehead president of the USA promised the Ukraine the full support of the US.

                  Ukraine are attempting to re-occupy Donbas by means short of naked force. To which the locals are responding with naked force. If the proverbial hits the fan in Donbas, there will be dreadful civilian and military casualties, which will likely lead to Russian intervention. If Russia intervenes, the US will likely intervene. If the US intervenes, we will likely discover if our nukes still work.

                  But if it turns out that that presidential declaration leads to world war III, its full idiocy will be obvious only in retrospect.

                  And that Nicolas II was triggering the alliance system into total war was evident only in retrospect.

                  Other outcomes were possible, and pre hoc, more likely. Austria could have responded to low level Serbian warfare with full on warfare, then Russia could have intervened in Serbia, then Germany could have intervened in Serbia. How is pre-emptively invading France a bright idea, or even anything that could have reasonably been predicted?

                • The Cominator says:

                  “But if it turns out that that presidential declaration leads to world war III, its full idiocy will be obvious only in retrospect.”

                  Its quite obvious to both of us NOW not in retrospect.

                  Nicholas II’s stupidity in supporting the Serbs when there was an alliance system in place would have been obvious to me then.

                • jim says:

                  > Its quite obvious to both of us NOW not in retrospect.

                  It is a possibility, a possibility that is gravely under estimated.

                  And the possibility that supporting Serbia would lead to World War was gravely under estimated. Did anyone, except a handful of people like ourselves, say “This is going to lead to World War”?

                  On the other hand, that invading France was definitely going to lead to World War was entirely obvious.

                  So if anyone, other than the weak King of Serbia, that is to blame, it is the Kaiser.

                  If the fracas in the Ukraine leads to World War III, then in restrospect any of the stages in the escalation could be labeled THE crucial step – but it will have been only one of sequence of stupid actions by people accustomed to long peace who fail to appreciate the fragility of peace and the horror of war.

                • The Cominator says:

                  France was always going to attack Germany if it ended up at war with Russia… lots of fanatics who wanted Altace Lorraine back.

                  Possible Germany could have avoided British involvement by not going through the lowlands.

                • jim says:

                  The obvious solution was for someone to forcibly install a government in Serbia capable of making peace or war, rather than both simultaneously. The threat of war could have been ratcheted up relatively slowly to increase pressure for this solution.

                  Instead, with war looming, Germany decided to attack everyone first.

                  With war looming, one can obtain deals not otherwise obtainable, and put attacking everyone first on the negotiating table.

                • suones says:

                  Just to add my 2c. Nicholas II’s fault was that he was not an autocrat at heart. As Imperator and chief of the Orthodox flock, he was personally responsible for the actions of lesser Kings, like a father unto his wayward children. Just like negligent parents fail to discipline their children early on, so the Tsar failed to discipline the wayward children in power in Serbia.

                  He was right that Austria had no right to intervene in Serbian matters. But he himself should have intervened, ensured that justice was served, and made it obvious that the Tsar’s justice was swift and fair, which could potentially have decreased tensions with Austria.

                  His attitude was like that of lower-class “parents” who leave their children out to play on the roads, but immediately try to mob up if a passing motorist faces an accident due to the children. If Nicholas II didn’t feel himself up to the task, he should have nominated a worthier successor rather than abdicating in favour of Jews.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Austria had to do something state backed terrorists assassinating the imperial heir was intolerable.

                • jim says:

                  Yes.

                  Had to threaten to invade Serbia, to force someone to clean up Serbia, on the threat that they would clean it up if no one else did.

                  And before they got started on cleaning it up, German invaded France, which was jumping the gun.

                • The Cominator says:

                  One event during the July Crisis highlights how inexcusably stupid Nicholas II was to me…

                  He could have gone to the Archduke’s funeral and talked personally with Wilhelm and Franz Joseph (who both attended) and tried to work out a solution without the government war factions getting in the way… he did not.

                • jim says:

                  Weakness leading to weakness: Sovereigns need to work together to bypass and dismpower their dangerously powerful servants.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  @jim

                  You are mixing up cause and effect.

                  Republics happen when you have a virtuous elite, Rome being the classic and extreme example. Need a virtuous elite to have a great civilization.

                  When you don’t have a virtuous elite, need a King.

                  I don’t see how anything I’ve said is different or contradicting with this. I simply point out that when you do have a virtuous elite, it’s far more stable in the sense that the republic will be overall better throughout a longer period of time, while with kings you’ll get instability in the sense that throughout the same period of time the regime will be more variable and wave between good, stagnant/mediocre and bad.

                  @monarchist

                  Which imaginary fantasy-novel monarchies do you have in mind, here? Because it certainly isn’t the English or French monarchies, nor from my limited knowledge does it fit the Spanish.

                  I agree your knowledge is limited when it comes to Spain, the amount of terrible and traitor kings we’ve had far outnumber the good ones, I’ve never met a Spaniard who didn’t agree, from all walks of life and all political leanings.

                  I’ve never been too interested in the general long history details of English and French monarchies so I’ll not argue with you in this point, I’m not interested in pulling out history and arguing about technicalities and details and start counting kings one by one. But simple logic indicates you must be wrong, since we have the hindsight and we can point out the lack of results. Good kings become world famous because they are very rare and when they do exist the results are extremely remarkable, and I’m talking world changing remarkable.

                  And bad kings are so incredibly destructive they are responsible for human disasters like the French Revolution. This is possibly the worst calamity Christendom has ever suffered and a French monarch is the one responsible for it. The Cominator has his own list apparently, but WWI would’t have ever happened without the French Revolution initiating the obliteration of Christian social technology to begin with.

                • jim says:

                  > I simply point out that when you do have a virtuous elite, it’s far more stable in the sense that the republic will be overall better throughout a longer period of time,

                  Sure, a Republic is better, assuming a reasonably high level of elite virtue.

                  How do you get a reasonably high level of elite virtue?

                  Historically, the answer has always been a reasonably sane, but rather intrusive, state Church under a virtuous monarch.

                  Virtuous monarchs are, of course, no sure thing, and sane state Churches are no sure thing, but a King with a son has incentive to worry about the future, and the power to do something about that future, so virtue is more likely than in other forms of governance. If you have one man responsible, you have at least a chance he will actually be responsible. If many men responsible, no one responsible. So a Republic is likely to lose the virtue that made it possible. (And Kings with short life expectancy and little prospect of their sons following them are worse.)

                  > And bad kings are so incredibly destructive they are responsible for human disasters like the French Revolution.

                  Louis XV said “after me the deluge”. Louis XVI inherited a problem that only a King could solve, and only a great King. Louis XV and XVI were not bad, merely too weak for the task at hand.

                  Louis XIV had a big problem with over mighty nobles. He drastically solved this problem. Thoroughly, completely, and totally. A little too thoroughly, completely, and totally, with the result that he then had a new problem, which problem rapidly worsened during the reign of King Louis XV, and came to a head under the weak hand of King Louis XVI.

                  Republics cannot solve the problem of holiness spiraling. If King Louis XVI had held memetic sovereignty, would have crushed the holiness spiral. If no King, no solution.

                • alf says:

                  I lean towards monarchy over republic, since a monarch can fight civilisational entropy better than a republic. At the same time, plenty of impressive republics; golden century Netherlands got its start as a republic.

                  And bad kings are so incredibly destructive they are responsible for human disasters like the French Revolution.

                  I reason this the other way around: the king is responsible for stopping leftist singularities such as the French revolution. Only when he was gotten rid of did the French terror get into full swing.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  This kind of superficial thinking is typical of the gnostic throughout history.

                  ‘The king is in charge of politics, and i see here we have political problems (that i may or may not be causing myself in the first place); therefore, if we get rid of kings, we will get rid of political problems!’

                • suones says:

                  If King Louis XVI had held memetic sovereignty…

                  This is an extremely big demand. Warriors generally lack memetic sovereignty, which is a Brahmin trait. Kings possessing memetic sovereignty are the ones who establish Empire and Religion. Samrat Ashoka the Great and Tsar Peter the Great come to mind, but they were really exceptional Kings. A “good” King merely keeps the system put in place by his fathers and maintains it. Louis XV and XVI were both “good” Kings, but they simply didn’t have what was needed.

                  PS: Paladins can come from warrior or priestly classes. Eg: the longest surviving Hindu Empire was led by Peshwas who were literally Brahmins who took up the sword.

                • jim says:

                  > > If King Louis XVI had held memetic sovereignty…

                  > This is an extremely big demand.

                  Yes it is an extremely big demand, but for a King to satisfactorily perform his job as the fount of all honors, mortal and divine, (which is to say run the status system so that status is awarded for prosocial, rather than anti social, activities) he really needs memetic sovereignty.

              • Atavistic Morality says:

                @jim

                How do you get a reasonably high level of elite virtue?

                Historically, the answer has always been a reasonably sane, but rather intrusive, state Church under a virtuous monarch.

                Historically I don’t think the state Church is necessarily involved in the development of the elite virtue, but rather the elite virtue develops on the image of the virtuous monarch, his actions, his behavior and the guidelines he is setting up for the organization that prove successful. And from there, the state Church forms and is a feedback.

                Virtuous monarchs are, of course, no sure thing, and sane state Churches are no sure thing, but a King with a son has incentive to worry about the future, and the power to do something about that future, so virtue is more likely than in other forms of governance. If you have one man responsible, you have at least a chance he will actually be responsible. If many men responsible, no one responsible. So a Republic is likely to lose the virtue that made it possible. (And Kings with short life expectancy and little prospect of their sons following them are worse.)

                Republics always have leading figures, precisely because if many men responsible, no one responsible. There is always a de facto opinion leader and among the virtuous elite someone always take the initiative, it’s the way of the world. Republics lose their virtue and Kings lose their kingdoms, I don’t understand where this argument is leading. If Kings were infallible and clear cut better than Republics, which it seems to be the point your ultimately trying to make, the world wouldn’t be the way it is today, the lineage of Kings would be eternal.

                Louis XV and XVI were not bad, merely too weak for the task at hand.

                An ineffective leader is a bad leader, this is also the way of the world: the leader is the greatest figure and takes the greatest credit and holds the greatest power, but he must also bear the disgrace, suffer the wort of the consequences and be condemned the most. The monarch is responsible for whatever happens in his kingdom, if there is a problem it’s his duty to fix it, no excuses.

                Republics cannot solve the problem of holiness spiraling. If King Louis XVI had held memetic sovereignty, would have crushed the holiness spiral. If no King, no solution.

                Agreed.

                @alf

                I lean towards monarchy over republic, since a monarch can fight civilisational entropy better than a republic. At the same time, plenty of impressive republics; golden century Netherlands got its start as a republic.

                If this were true the two most famous western revolutions wouldn’t have happened under the watch of monarchs, and the two most successful western empires wouldn’t have been born from republics. If monarchs alone could fight civilizational entropy, today you’d be under a king.

                Have you ever known anything in this world that was permanent? Nothing is forever, social decay is inevitable, just like your car breaking down is inevitable, everything is subject to entropy, nothing is perfect in this world. We should adjust what we do to what is needed to solve the issues as they happen, today we need a King, tomorrow a Republic might be better.

                Jim always says that man is a fallen creature living in an imperfect world, so why insist that a perfect political system exists? Well, history proves that this is obviously untrue.

                I reason this the other way around: the king is responsible for stopping leftist singularities such as the French revolution. Only when he was gotten rid of did the French terror get into full swing.

                Of course, that’s why it’s his fault, you said so yourself, its his responsibility.

                No one sane would make excuses for the engineer that builds a bad bridge that collapses and in the process kills many people. Why make excuses for the king? This thinking and this line of argument doesn’t persuade towards monarchy, it sounds tyrannical and destructive. Kings have to pay for their failures with redemption or death, if redemption remembered as redeemed, if dead as a failure.

                Who supports bailing out bankers and businessmen when they fuck up? No one, and they don’t deserve to, they have to pay for the consequences of their actions or their inaction, this is both the privilege and the duty that comes with position, and its the way of the world. That’s why the market economy works, the failures are cropped. That’s why all successful societies were patriarchal, the rest were failures and were cropped.

                • jim says:

                  > No one sane would make excuses for the engineer that builds a bad bridge that collapses and in the process kills many people

                  No one sane would abolish engineers and bridges because a bridge falls down.

                  King Louis XIV created conditions that permitted a holiness spiral, because the problem he was dealing with was unrelated to that problem. He was not worried about entryism into the State Church, because the entryists truthfully enough indicated French nationalism and independence from Rome, and Rome was hostile and difficult.

                  King Louis XV failed to do anything decisive about the holiness spiral, which towards the end of his reign had become obviously dangerous and threatening. King Louis XVI tried, like our friend from the Debian foundation, to skate below the radar, trying to appease and accommodate, a tactic that can never succeed.

                  OK, they failed. But if there had been no King, there would have been no one who could have succeeded.

                  > If this were true the two most famous western revolutions wouldn’t have happened under the watch of monarchs

                  Present conditions are very similar to those preceding the Russian Revolution. Instead of overthrowing a King, they are overthrowing a race and a civilization.

                  You are blaming the fall of applecarts on the existence of applecarts. It was King Louis XVI’s applecart. Now it is my applecart, and I have no King to lead an army.

                  > Historically I don’t think the state Church is necessarily involved in the development of the elite virtue

                  Alfred and his family created England from chaos with a state Church. The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. In the days of Roman virtue, Roman generals would invoke the bodies of the troops’ fathers and the temples of their gods, a practice that we mainly know about through the ridicule it attracted during the decline of Roman virtue.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  ‘Well getting my leg chopped off was a pretty uncool experience… but if i chop my arms and other leg off too, then i wont have to worry about getting my limbs chopped off anymore!’

        • Fred says:

          The more obvious problem everyone worried about when it was invented/accepted (I think it was actually illegal until recently in Japan, maybe still is elsewhere) was that it would lead to female promiscuity, which it probably has.

          This is a commonly-encountered opinion in red pill circles, but it’s obviously false: if it were true, female promiscuity would be higher in countries where the pill is available OTC (eg. Latin America).

          As Jim keeps pointing out, the cause of female promiscuity is high female self-esteem and/or high female social status (some clarification on these would be appreciated).

        • jim says:

          > It seems a lot of this stems from the catastrophe that is The Pill

          We have had effective contraception since the early bronze age, and had effective abortion up to the dark age following the decline of the Roman Empire.

          There is no indication that this makes much difference. The pill was effectively illegal in Japan until quite recently, but disaster set in immediately McArthur’s emancipation of women became effective, and has been rapidly getting worse ever since.

          • onyomi says:

            I’m not convinced separating pregnancy from sex hasn’t gotten a lot easier and more reliable in the past several decades, nor that the hormones so many women are now taking regularly aren’t affecting society in some subtle but possibly profound ways, but I take your point about the timing (and by disaster I assume you mean falling birth rates, especially? Because the conservative, patriarchic attitudes remained for some time, to some extent are still present, at least compared to the US and Europe).

            Still, while not any sort of technological/material determinist, I do strongly suspect that certain social developments may become, if not inevitable, then highly likely when particular material circumstances obtain, and that, so long as they obtain, one may be fighting strong headwinds.

            Do you have any thoughts on Robin Hanson’s “Forager vs. Farmer” theory? https://www.overcomingbias.com/2017/08/forager-v-farmer-elaborated.html

            I am pretty convinced by it, including the corollary that it is hard to avoid patriarchic farmer morality degenerating into a kind of neo-forager-ism once technology succeeds in meeting peoples’ basic needs with comparatively little input.

            • Ace says:

              >Individuals who saw a norm violation could tell others, and then the whole band could discuss what to do about it. Once a consensus formed, the band could use weapons to enforce their collective decision. As needed, punishments could escalate from scolding to shunning to exile to death. Common norms included requirements to share food and protection, and bans on violence, giving orders, bragging, and creating subgroup factions.

              The article is already full of shit almost from the git go. Group enforcement is rare in hunter gathers, rather someone that violates the rules too strongly is simply murdered by one of the group that he or she pissed off.

              I read about a glutton who refused to hunt or fish that was part of a Maori in New Zeeland. People looked down on him for it, but whenever he demanded part of the the days hunt or fishing he was always fed by the tribe. One day he demanded part of the fish that one of the men had caught and the man he demanded it from simply killed him. Everyone in the the tribe agreed that the glutton was someone who needed killing and that was the end of it. Collective action isn’t norm as this writer forces his progressive beliefs on peoples he’s never studied.

              In the 20th century a shocking discovery was made: Female chimps mated with every member the band pretty close to equally, but 50-75% of the children were sired by the alpha male. The only logical conclusion is female chimps can somewhat control who’s sperm they’re getting pregnant from. Since Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor and both have unusual behaviors like warfare it’s likely that our common ancestor females also had this ability and it was passed down to all human women.

              Thus if you consider the idea that women can subconsciously control who’s sperm gets them pregnant, things like the sudden decline in the American and Japanese birth rate after men’s status is reduced far below that of an alpha male makes a lot of sense, pill or no pill.

              • jim says:

                > In the 20th century a shocking discovery was made: Female chimps mated with every member the band pretty close to equally, but 50-75% of the children were sired by the alpha male. The only logical conclusion is female chimps can somewhat control who’s sperm they’re getting pregnant from. Since Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor and both have unusual behaviors like warfare it’s likely that our common ancestor females also had this ability and it was passed down to all human women.

                The Cervix and Rape

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  There are a few interesting hatefacts along this line that also relates to the SIDS discussion earlier. There is a study I read a while back that showed that “aggressive intercourse” increases the amount of luteinizing hormone in semen, and that helps make a pregnancy more likely. However, a woman’s immune system is more likely to attack the fetus if she is not getting fucked by the father on the regular. The microchimerization that comes from insemination helps attune her immune system to the presence of foreign genetic material.

                  Then you get into the fact that semen contains a bunch of hormones and neurotransmitters, and that women who have no sex or sex with a condom have a significantly increased rate of mental illness over those who have sex bare. Women go crazy when they aren’t getting sex because their brains are not wired to produce everything they need. They are physically incomplete without a man.

            • The Cominator says:

              “nor that the hormones so many women are now taking regularly aren’t affecting society in some subtle but possibly profound ways”

              This is somewhat important more so than pregnancy effects (women in a sexual mood really don’t think much about consequences anyway and potential negative consequences tend to turn them on) but what is more important is a lot of women are on psychiatric drugs which tend to slow their metabolism (making them fat) and kill their sex drives.

              We do not have a promiscuity epidemic, quite the opposite.

            • Aidan says:

              Hanson is missing a very important group; pastoralists. Pure foragers are almost all niggers, irrelevant when talking about history, and pure farmers live in a state of Gaea worship and redistributive socialism, but pure farmers no longer exist; they were long ago conquered by semi-nomadic pastoralist barbarians who became the warrior and priestly elite of those settled societies.

              Farmers versus Cowboys. Patriarchy was a cowboy invention, property was a cowboy invention, and organized warfare was a cowboy invention. My cows, my women, cattle raid with my boys. Pastoralists had “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s ox…”, and primitive farmers all had socialism. The cowboy ethos was transplanted onto farmer society when cowboys conquered farmers.

              We are not devolving into neo-foragerism, we are devolving into neo-farmerism; what BAP calls the “longhouse”. The malnourished male, the tyrannical rule of the grandmother, the grain cult that wants you eating beans and vegetable oil instead of meat and milk. Resembles quite a bit what we have today. The forager, despite being a nigger, is individually an impressive specimen, fit, competent at least at hunting, woodcraft, survival, even if totally lacking the skills to function in civilization.

              • nils says:

                It has struck me for a while that the assumption of evolution in man should be that the surviving “hunter gatherers” should be assumed to be a poor representation of the civilized populations origins, they mostly look like they are adapted to disease and heat resistance more than anything. The muh abos argument is dumb, the abo are a dead end and havent changed in a million years, they are obviously not the same as aryan/proto schythic peoples 30 millenia ago. Its to bad all the technical evidence is wrongthink and memory holes for the origins of europeans out of the russian lands prior to the greek world.

              • onyomi says:

                Hmm… this makes a certain amount of sense; certainly in Chinese history (the one I happen to know best) there are three distinct groups: the horse-riding pastoralists (Huns, Jurchens, Mongols), the farmers (most Han Chinese), and the foragers (most of the southern minority populations, who were probably driven onto crummy land by farmers).

                The historical tendency is the pastoralists are better warriors and periodically conquer the farmers (Han), but they tend to “farmerize” after a time of settled living, and, eventually, to be kicked out once they lose touch with their warrior heritage.

                I’m not entirely convinced, however, that it’s the pastoralists and not the farmer who bring patriarchy and civilization. The non-mobile farmers build city walls and grow grain for their wine. These they use to enchant Enkidu-types (a pastoralist warrior?) and bring them into the fold. But Gilgamesh was the king.

                The founders of the Zhou Dynasty may possibly have been pastoralist-ish warriors relative to the Shang rulers they conquered, but I have no reason to believe the Shang were not primarily farmers, as opposed to pastoralists.

                I suppose it’s possible the best combination is farmer settled civilization with periodic injections of pastoralist nomad warrior ethos to keep them from devolving into socialist matriarchy, but I thought BAP’s “longhouse” was more about foragers like North American Indians? I would consider the Iroquois to be foragers with some pastoralist warrior tedencies more than farmers lacking an injection of pastoralist patriarchy.

                • jim says:

                  > three distinct groups: the horse-riding pastoralists (Huns, Jurchens, Mongols)

                  Jurchens were not horse riding pastoralists. They were grain farmers who were culturally assimilated to the patriarchal Mongols, but retained their own language and farming technology while adopting Mongol social technology.

                  So it was the Mongol social technology that mattered.

                  Pastoralists have property that can wander off, or be herded off, so successful pastoralists develop or adopt a social technology that discourages rustling and cattle raiding, creating a social environment where cattle that wander off are likely to returned. (And if they are not returned, trouble ensues.) They apply this same social technology to control women, giving women essentially the same legal status as cattle, though of course higher social status. Then they conquer their decadent neighbors.

                  The invention of barbed wire contributed to our loss of this social technology, which will have to be reinvented around an environment where every woman carries a smart phone, and the man with proper authority over her can at any time see where she is and what she is doing. (And Facebook cannot.)

                • Ace says:

                  Civilization in the true sense of the word, IE cities is created by mass religion. Religion allows a group to overcoming Dunnbar’s number and enables widespread farming and city building.

                  Patriarchy, IE fathers rule appears to be innate. When people stop practicing it they’re quickly conquered by their neighbors who do practice it. Civilizations who abandon it just take longer to fall and be conquered because civilization when they are patriarchal unstoppable war machines destroying most of the local competition not of equal power.

                • onyomi says:

                  >Civilization in the true sense of the word, IE cities is created by mass religion.

                  Typically I view early cities as the result of farmers needing walls to protect their grain stores and immobile fields. I have heard the theory that maybe the earliest fixed settlements, like Gobekli Tepe, were religious meccas like Uppsala (or well, Mecca), but I’m not sure those necessarily formed the nucleus of the earliest cities.

                  I guess the question is, is causality: religion->cities->farming, or farming->cities->organized priesthood

                • The Cominator says:

                  Aidan explained it.

                  Religion (and conquest) -> farming -> cities.

                  People who were formerly independent hunter-gatherers did not want to become unfree farmers. Priestly and warrior compulsion by conquering pastoralist who became the elite had to come before agriculture because taking up farming was not generally voluntary.

                • jim says:

                  > people who were formerly independent hunter-gatherers did not want to become unfree farmers. Priestly and warrior compulsion by

                  People who were independent hunter gatherers seldom became farmers.

                  Farming expanded primarily by genetic replacement.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Farming expanded primarily via enslavement.

                • jim says:

                  The early Romans and Greeks were primarily grain farmers, and had little use for slaves.

                  The Angles and Saxons were primarily grain farmers, and had little use for slaves.

                  It does not look like any early farming society of which we have good knowledge had more than one third slaves.

                  Large scale slave plantations replacing free farmers was later economic development.

                • Ace says:

                  >Typically I view early cities as the result of farmers needing walls to protect their grain stores and immobile fields. I have heard the theory that maybe the earliest fixed settlements, like Gobekli Tepe, were religious meccas like Uppsala (or well, Mecca), but I’m not sure those necessarily formed the nucleus of the earliest cities.

                  Cities predate farming and Megalithic religious temples predate cities. All cities were built with a religious structure at their center and were almost certain ruled by a priesthood.

                  Jericho the oldest city we’ve discovered had a religious tower at it’s center:
                  https://youtu.be/1BrhZBMOS8U

                  Jericho was probably also the earliest known site where religious holiness cycle caused the place to be abandoned for a couple of thousand years.

                  Sumer the oldest mass civilization that we know of was ruled by priests for all of it’s early history. Cities started off as religious temples. The small farming villages spreading everywhere were a biproduct of the city people leaving their cities as they got to full and spreading out.

                  These small farming villages continued to spread but large cities almost always spawned around religious centers or colonies from cities.

                • jim says:

                  The Bible tells us that the first city was led, and perhaps founded, by “a mighty hunter”, implying that cities predate agriculture.

                  We have increasing evidence that all the early cities were built around temples, and the temple came first, then the city.

                  I conjecture that the temples represented a divinely commanded moral order than enabled men of different male lineages to meet peacefully for religious festivals, during which festivals they could exchange goods and exchange sisters for wives without getting killed too often.

                  Eventually it came to pass that there was a permanent population of priests at festival site, and soon a permanent population of tradesmen. Which led to farming, which led to granaries, which led to city walls. But farming came later and the walls came last.

                • suones says:

                  I conjecture that the temples represented a divinely commanded moral order than enabled men of different male lineages to meet peacefully for religious festivals, during which festivals they could exchange goods and exchange sisters for wives without getting killed too often.

                  This is how Mecca was founded (around the Temple), and why Muhammad preserved the central Temple even as he condemned “idolatry” in general. The Meccan Temple is the only Temple Muslims worship at, and all prayer anywhere in the world is to be done while facing in that direction. Visiting the Temple in person is how Muslim elites (who might be otherwise mortal enemies) get to meet on neutral ground. Muhammad knew good social technology when he saw it.

                • Ace says:

                  Jim you have a different view of religion than I do. I think that tribal shamans or witch doctors got together to form a priesthood that then commanded the locals to build the temples in the name of the gods for the priesthoods own gain. The megalithic temples were the original conspiracy of a priesthood fooling people into doing their bidding. Even things like studying the stars was used to predict when a solar eclipse would happen so the priesthood could control the tribes.

                  The amount of labor that went into these megalithic sites was massive. Parasitism soon turned to symbiosis as religion wared against religion and the priesthood began improving the lives of the people they were extracting resources from if for no other reason than to survive attacks from hostile religions. Göbekli Tepe was probably burred by the a hostile religious group that conquered it.

                  The number of priests at such temples was always limited because without agriculture there was no way to sustain people in large numbers who didn’t spend their time hunting and fishing. Once agriculture got started temples quickly turned into permanent cities as the priesthood realized the power to directly rule people instead of indirectly through the gods. Of course living off mostly grain was hard for hunter/gathers people. Took some genetic changes to enable it.

                • jim says:

                  > I think that tribal shamans or witch doctors got together to form a priesthood that then commanded the locals to build the temples in the name of the gods for the priesthoods own gain.

                  Well of course they did. But they could not gain anything unless people showed up from time to time, and not too many people would show up if members of different male lineages kept killing each other.

                  So, like a stationary bandit, their interests were not entirely in conflict with the interests of their congregation.

                  > The amount of labor that went into these megalithic sites was massive

                  If you can build a big complex project, you can mount a big complex war effort. Similarly, if you can land a man on the moon, you can land a nuke on Moscow.

                  Thus building a megalith can enable you to obtain diplomatic advantages without the potential inconvenience and hard feelings that would result from actually killing people.

            • jim says:

              > I’m not convinced separating pregnancy from sex hasn’t gotten a lot easier and more reliable

              Yes, it has gotten a lot easier and more reliable. But its easier for the Taliban also.

              Looking back at past based societies and debased societies, contraceptive technology does not seem to have made much difference.

              Bronze age women who did not want to get pregnant could insist on condoms and sodomy, or apply infanticide. Or apply the more convenient modern form of infanticide where a women fails to pay attention to what happens to her babies when her latest lover drops over.

              Societies that emancipated women somehow mysteriously failed to reproduce, despite the non availability of the pill. Societies that did not emancipate women, Taliban, Timore Leste, continue to reproduce despite availability.

              We saw an abrupt collapse in birthrate when women were abruptly emancipated in Japan. The introduction of modern contraceptive technology does not have a large enough impact to be break the noise floor. Looking at the past, the pill does not make a substantial difference. What we are seeing now, we have seen before many times.

              Looking at the distant past, many many societies have been debased, and being debased, failed to reproduce. And looking at the recent past, lots of societies initially restricted the pill, and eventually changed their minds, and you just cannot see any significant impact in the data.

              Japan emancipated women suddenly. Big impact. Japan legalized the pill only very recently. No noticeable impact.

              The pill has substantial side effects, because it messes with women’s hormones, and for this reason a lot of places initially restricted it. No difference ensued between places that restricted it, and places that did not.

              The sexual revolution began with the rejection of the divorce of slut Queen Caroline, took an abrupt turn for the worse immediately before the start of World War I (which is odd, I would have expected such a turning to happen immediately after World War I, rather than before). There was a reaction against the 1910 sexual revolution in the 1930s, which gave us the relatively conservative period of the 1950s, and then we had a major shift to an even more radical sexual revolution in the 1960s.

              The 1960s revolution came after the pill in some places, before the pill in others. Does not seem to have had noticeable impact.

              • Atavistic Morality says:

                It just dawned on me, the simplicity of it all.

                Emancipation of women is telling them that their job and duty is not to have children but instead do whatever the fuck else that has nothing to do with the fact that they are women.

                If you tell a bricklayer that his job is not mainly laying bricks, he won’t. If you do acknowledge and remind the bricklayer that his job is in fact to lay bricks, he will, regardless of anything else he might do to help. This is a legitimate simplicity which can be observed in every business, people only effectively do their job and stick to it when they are specifically, and some times repeatedly, reminded that they are responsible for it.

                • onyomi says:

                  In Chinese history, at least, and at certain times, at least (the antiquity to 1000 AD period actually more liberal than the 1000-1900 AD period in this regard), unmarried and especially widowed women had a lot more legal and financial freedom than married women. Yet, unlike e.g. modern Japan you wouldn’t get significant numbers of women putting off and putting off marriage just to enjoy more autonomy.

                  Feminist histories of premodern China (including those taught in China) often describe women as “appendages” of their husbands (or male relatives) with a strongly negative implication. What is not mentioned here is that being e.g. “minister’s wife” was a very high-status thing for a woman to be, much more so than the employment possibilities open to an unmarried woman, like cook, waitress slut, or matchmaker.

                  Today the sky’s theoretically the limit for a woman to pursue any path she wants, but it also seems like the status of “doctor’s wife,” “lawyer’s wife,” etc. have gone down?

            • yewotm8 says:

              Women find themselves forgetting to take their pill when having sex with men who are dominant or otherwise have high genetic quality. You are still making the mistake of thinking that the rational part of the woman’s brain is in charge when making a decision as important as reproduction, and all signs point to that being false. It’s false in terms of who they have sex with, why would it not also be false when determining who to be impregnated by? Just because birth control pills require a conscious action, as opposed to the cervix function as posted by Jim earlier, does not mean that the decision to take them is made consciously.

              • The Cominator says:

                If you’ve ever had a girl begging you to cum inside her (and thanked you profusely for not listening to her when she came to her senses) you’ll know the truth of this.

                Women’s ability to think when it comes to sex is limited and the more they are into the sex the more the rational part of their brain (such as it is) shuts down.

        • suones says:

          It seems a lot of this stems from the catastrophe that is The Pill.

          No. Blaming “The Pill” is as retarded as blaming “ThE jEwS.” This is another one of the ineffectual attacks favoured by proles who do not understand the enemy facing them and lash out at his external trappings. In India, Govt basically pays women to have fewer kids (funded by UNICEF and Catholic Relief Services), and you can’t sell contraceptive pills in rural areas at all — because no one would buy them. Elites favour contraception, all right, but that’s because of feminism, not the other way round.

        • Aidan says:

          Do we have to have this debate again? The pill changed nothing. Pulling out your cock is almost 100% effective- not to mention that we have had effective contraceptive technology since the late bronze age, and medical abortion since Roman times. The problem is not a new problem caused by new technology, it is an old problem caused by female emancipation. We have had effective abortifacients since medieval times- but the women who brewed and distributed them to girls were known by a word that starts with a W, and you are well aware of how they were treated.

          Many women are quite happy to kill unwanted children after birth as well- “sudden infant death syndrome” is a medical coverup for infanticide by the mother. The problem is an old problem and the solution is an old solution.

          • The Cominator says:

            To be a historical nitpicker.

            Witch burning was a renaissance phenomena it almost never happened in the middle ages and on the very very rare occasions when it did it was the equivalent of a mob lynching with no legal pretext at all. The chances of being executed for witchcraft before the 14th century were almost zero.

            This was because Charlemagne was very very anti witch trials… Charlemagne’s law on witches said that the person who accused another of witchcraft was to be burned not the alleged witch.

          • The Cominator says:

            “Many women are quite happy to kill unwanted children after birth as well- “sudden infant death syndrome” is a medical coverup for infanticide by the mother.”

            While this does happen most women are not exactly happy to kill healthy non deformed children of theirs. Most rather get it taken care of early in pregnancy and there have been ways of doing so since ancient antiquity.

          • onyomi says:

            >Pulling out your cock is almost 100% effective

            Who controls the cock?

            That said, I’m willing to believe that the social breakdown precedes the free availability of contraception rather than the other way around (I recall a period drama set around turn of century Britain in which pharmacist is scandalized at an unmarried young lady’s attempt to purchase a condom; not sure how accurate it was).

            >Many women are quite happy to kill unwanted children after birth as well- “sudden infant death syndrome” is a medical coverup for infanticide by the mother.

            This strikes me as a grotesque caricature of female and human nature. Infanticide was certainly more horrifyingly common in the past than we can imagine today, but so were famine and extreme poverty. Like cannibalizing or selling your children into slavery, it’s an act of desperation, not remotely equivalent to picking up a pill pack each month at CVS.

            I’ve also read that SIDS is a coverup for about two or three other [insert pet theory like vaccination side effects] here, but given it happens more often when parents have been drinking, my guess is it’s a coverup for “heavily inebriated parent falls asleep on baby and suffocates him and/or is too far gone to respond to a baby in distress of some kind.”

  15. suones says:

    jim said:

    My analysis is that back in the day status came from code, good code, and clever code, and now status comes from loudly announced sexual or racial identity and superior holiness.

    Notice how in both cases status is coming from some form of holiness, where one is constructive holiness (based on creative output — loading up more apples) and the other on destructive holiness (upsetting apple carts). A classic example of a Brahminical feud. Two groups of Brahmins are clashing here.

    If your religion has been converged to the state religion, it is as dead as the Roman Catholic Church,…

    Our religion has been converged, as in the leading priests are converged (Linus) or under attack (Stallman). But a lot of us are simply submerged. Most monks have no idea how to fight wars, and tech-priests are no exception. Remember the iceberg-principle though. If one Debian dev is willing to post anonymously, there exist ten more who’re just lurking. This particular “dev” may be a fake/troll/fed, but I’m disinclined to think he is, because I often encounter this kind of person IRL too.

    Debian Dev said:

    jim said:

    How does my analysis sound to you?

    It’s above my head, unfortunately.

    This is the tell-tale of a monk. My only advice to you, brother, is to lie low and git gud. Become a paladin if you can. We cannot stay cocooned in our monasterycode forever. St IGNUcius may be martyred, but victory will be ours, in the end.

    Debian Dev said:
    By the time I joined the Debian Project in the early aughts, the personality of Stallman was vaguely out of favor with the Debianistas,…

    By the early aughts there was a concerted effort by tech Vaishyas to somehow hitch Free Software to Mammon. After they got BTFO they formed a competing org called “Open Source Cucks Inc,” probably using IBM funding. ESR was a big culprit there. The success of VA Linux and the amazing success of Red Hat later brought Debian under immmense pressure to comply. Stallman was the target of a concerted whisper campaign, and got seen as outmoded (for not cucking to Mammon). However, Mammon is merely the harbinger of Moloch, and so VA Linux is now underground, and Red Hat is within IBM, Linus has now cucked to Moloch, and there only remains St IGNUcius.

    • jim says:

      > This is the tell-tale of a monk.

      Christianity has had plenty of fighting monks, other faiths rather more.

      The trouble is that the Christian monastic rules tended to be inappropriate for warriors, so the traditional solution is the Paladin, which works better. In any holy war, you need paladins.

      The Christian paladins in the US army got war crimes charges. The trials went on for ages, because they would find endless things to charge them with, and nothing would plausibly stick, so the prosecution would keep on coming with another story, and another story, and yet another story.

      A holiness spiral usually runs into civil war before the end. Sometimes the very holy lose the civil war, terminating the holiness spiral early with a few hundred or a few thousand executions. Usually they win, and the holiness spiral goes all the way to Stalin, sometimes all the way to Zhang Xianzhong and Pol Pot.

      The reason they usually win is that you have to bring a gun to gunfight, and a faith to a holy war. In a civil war resulting from a holiness spiral, the less holy are, almost by definition, short on paladins.

      If this one goes to civil war, as likely it will, our side will not be short on guns, but in past similar civil wars, steel alone proved insufficient.

      The obvious candidate for a counter faith against Woke is the faith of the paladins in the US army who got war crimes charges: Old type Christianity. Not much of it around.

    • Debian Dev says:

      Yeah, I saw the suggestion that I were a fed. To debate that proposition would be pointless, so various readers can believe what they like.

      Much as I disagree with the SJWism, those developers are still good friends to whom I owe a burden of loyalty. I am unwilling to blow off goodwill slowly built up during hundreds of hours of enjoyable collaboration to prove a point.

      My opinion is that it would be simpler if they would all just say, “Buzz off, dame! We’re coding.”—and then, after the women had been shown out of the room, maybe swap a few genial locker-room tales. I said so, once, years ago, and paid a price for it (it cost me about a year’s worth of goodwill), so I’ve not mentioned it again. But my friends mostly don’t see the problem the way I do—despite that they’re observably happier and more relaxed when the women are absent.

      Women are for marrying and making families with. It’s great if you have a good wife like I do, but women are not for paling around with while you develop free software.

      In case anyone cares, we’re voting on a General Resolution regarding Stallman right now—which is unprecedented as far as I recall. If the Debian Project has in the past voted on whether to censure a developer who is not even a member of the Project, I cannot remember the occasion.

      • jim says:

        > Much as I disagree with the SJWism, those developers are still good friends to whom I owe a burden of loyalty.

        Maybe. You know them, I do not know them.

        But social justice is a large collection of rationales and justifications for defecting horribly on friends and family, for defecting on near, for defecting on whom the good book calls “your neighbor”.

        Don’t take on the burden of loyalty to people who are unlikely to reciprocate.

        Leftism is characterized by one way friendships and one way alliances. Don’t participate in one way friendships and one way alliances. You will be betrayed.

        People who are terribly concerned about the welfare of far frequently perform conspicuous effort and make substantial sacrifices, on behalf of far, but this work and these sacrifices are invariably strangely ineffectual in benefiting far, and often catastrophic for far, as for example the response to the Ethiopian famine, where much of our very holy elite were complicit in horrifyingly brutal mass murder, the conflict in the Congo, where they were complicit in the genocide of the Tutsi, and the response the Haitian earthquake, which response inflicted far more damage on Haiti and Haitians than did the earthquake itself.

        The fruits of these endeavors reveal that they people lack real motivation to benefit far. What is the actual motive?

        The motive is almost invariably to cover for damage done to near.

        The only time one of these operations actually benefit far, is when one of these people actually goes out and meets some far people in order to benefit them, and those far become to him, near, and he then acts to benefit those particular near, rather than they faceless group of people that they belong to and represent. But, in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake, the do gooders generally stuck to their hotels, and never met the people whose lives they so thoroughly destroyed, and to the extent that they actually met any of the people they were destroying, it was deemed unethical to benefit particular individuals, so they had no motive to do things that might actually benefit any Haitians.

        > In case anyone cares, we’re voting on a General Resolution regarding Stallman right now

        If you don’t vote as directed, you will be destroyed immediately. You friends will cheer as the tumbril drags you to the guillotine.

        If you refuse to vote, you will be destroyed eventually.

        If you do vote as directed, you are endorsing your own eventual destruction.

        Under these circumstances, where all outcomes are bad, choose the outcome that gives you dignity in defeat. Women are happy enough with losers who keep their dignity and remain unbowed.

        Were I in your shoes, I would pull the temple down on my own head.

        • Debian Dev says:

          If you don’t vote as directed, you will be destroyed immediately. You friends will cheer as the tumbril drags you to the guillotine.

          Well, we’ll see.

          I have not voted as directed. I have made no statement, but have not voted as directed. Since this is not the election of the Project Leader, each Developer’s vote is a matter of permanent public record, associated with the Developer’s real name; so whatever happens, happens.

          No one has ever been hounded out of the Project merely for casting an unpopular vote as far as I know, but nothing would surprise me any more.

          • jim says:

            You will not be hounded out merely for casting an unpopular vote, but for traumatizing female and nam members of the development environment by endorsing the rape of female children.

            Which hostile work environment causes the unmentionable underperformance of women and nams.

            Recollect that HR threatened the board of Google that if James Damore was not fired, the CEO and board would be sued for hostile work environment (which of course they would have been, lawsuit organized by the Human Resources Department of the company in collaboration with the Feds.)

            Get your exit preparations in place, and see if you can make the rubble bounce on your way out.

            • Debian Dev says:

              For what it’s worth, for readers whom it interests, some relevant drama is suddenly brewing on the debian-private email list. Since I am still receiving the confidential emails and since my name is not mentioned in them, the matter does not appear to involve me for now; yet, surprisingly to me, the development so far is running roughly consistent with Jim’s projection.

              Of course I will not detail confidential emails here. It’s petty homeowners’-association-tier politics, in which it is more interesting to count the homeowners who say nothing and keep out of it then to count the hotheads. The details are not all that interesting, anyway, except insofar as they relate to the topic that heads the thread.

              The one piece of information Jim lacked regarding me is that, though I have been a Debian Developer for a long time, I am not, never have been and never wanted to be a big player in the Project. Moreover, fortunately, I am pretty broadly liked in the Project; so if any Reactionary can skate through this Terror unscathed, that would be me. On the other hand, the Project’s women are to some extent aware that I discreetly avoid them. So we’ll see.

              Whether the denouement appears in public view or stays hidden remains to be seen.

              • Debian Dev says:

                s/then/than/

                A one-man blog cannot do everything, but if a facility that allows a user to edit already-posted comments happens to present itself to you, Jim, and if it’s easy to implement, that might make a good blog even better.

              • orochimaru says:

                “fortunately, I am pretty broadly liked in the Project; so if any Reactionary can skate through this Terror unscathed, that would be me”
                who wants to tell him?

              • jim says:

                > if any Reactionary can skate through this Terror unscathed, that would be me.

                skating through is not an option. If it turns out to work this time, will not work next time.

                The question is: Is code, good code, and clever code high status, or is official victimhood and loudly proclaimed victimhood high status?

                The free software movement has been trying to thread the needle by pretending that both of them are high status.

                If one is high status, then the other must be low status, for by a strange coincidence, most victim classes cannot code.

                Funny thing that. I wonder why🙃

                So if code is high status, women and nams are not, because their inability to code suggests they not victims. Conversely, if women and nams are high status, code was stolen from black warrior women in sub-Saharan Africa and you are a no good thief stealing the credit that properly belongs to sub-Saharan women.

                And the more and better code you write, the more you will be punished for your no good thieving. Every line of code you write, every bug you fix, is an act of violence against women and nams. It is is a continuation of the horrific theft and enslavement committed against the black warrior women of sub-Saharan Africa.

                Natural selection tightly shaped women’s minds and bodies for the most important job in the world, and when they march into the male sphere, they ruin everything.

                Women belong in the kitchen, and plains apes belong in the zoo. Because progressivism cannot tolerate the free software movement, the free software movement dare not tolerate progressivism.

                Skating through might work for you this time, though I doubt it, but it did not work for the entirely progressive RMS.

                Skating through is not working for the Free Software movement or the Open Source movement. GNU is your Cathedral, and if you let them, progressives will make of it what they made of Liverpool Cathedrals.

                Progressives do not like any cathedrals except their own.

                • Debian Dev says:

                  Dammit, Jim, you have a point. I hate it, but you do.

                  The question is: Is code, good code, and clever code high status, or is official victimhood and loudly proclaimed victimhood high status?

                  I had never asked myself this particular question, but in view of traffic on Debian mailing lists right now, the answer would probably seem to be: official victimhood and loudly proclaimed victimhood.

                  That’s the way the arrow is pointing, at any rate. It didn’t used to be this way.

                  If I asked your simple question on debian-private, all hell would break loose. Fortunately, the question is not mine to ask.

                  I mean stubbornly to stick it out and to try to prove you wrong, for it’s easier for you to give the advice than for me to walk away from my stake. However, if I claimed that my confidence were solid, I would not be telling the truth.

                • jim says:

                  > I mean stubbornly to stick it out and to try to prove you wrong, for it’s easier for you to give the advice than for me to walk away from my stake.

                  Advice is cheap and easy to give. And advice from afar is apt to be unreliable. But since it is cheap and easy, giving it anyway.

                  You have a stake that you want to preserve. I don’t think you can, or if you can, the price is unlikely to be worth paying. But I am far from the belly of the beast, as far as I can get, while you are there with your ear to the ground, it is your stake, and you know what is happening.

                  The trouble is that your enemies, many of whom you mistakenly think of as friends, do not actually want code to be written. They think that good code, good rockets, and good silicon foundries just grow from the earth spontaneously in the African jungle, and white robbers come and steal them from brave and stunning black subsaharan warrior women. As Obama said: “you did not build that”

                  Under these circumstances, I advise that even if you are planning to do your best to preserve your stake, you should also make contingency plans for exiting after the fashion of Samson in the temple, should it be necessary.

                  A quiet exit is a victory for your enemies. If they are going to destroy your Cathedral, you can at least make sure that some of the wreckage lands upon their heads.

                  Just vengeance, even small vengeance, is better than money, better than anything except ownership of pussy.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Saw this apropos meme a couple of days ago.

                  https://twitter.com/Ariesdominus/status/1379939287135834112/photo/1

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  >If one is high status, then the other must be low status, for by a strange coincidence, most victim classes cannot code.

                  >Funny thing that. I wonder why🙃

                  People who say ‘might doesnt make right’, seriously underestimate how difficult might actually is.

                • Debian Dev says:

                  Saw this apropos meme a couple of days ago.

                  Indeed.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Well the meme is technically incorrect in that, as Jim has stated, they wont stop even after “she’s” dead as they purity spiral onto other targets amongst themselves.

                • suones says:

                  Another one of my questions just got answered — why are high-functioning tranners so prominent/notable?

                  The question is: Is code, good code, and clever code high status, or is official victimhood and loudly proclaimed victimhood high status?

                  When prog Brahmins have equal or more power than tech-Brahmins, but do not dominate completely, there develops a hybrid culture where clever code and official victimhood are simultaneously high status. Progs are not completely powerful (yet) so they have to give at least lip service to code quality, while tech-priests grudgingly give “status” to official victims if they just keep out of their way. This stalemate gives tranners, a special class of people who have both quite high coding ability and official victimhood, great power. Cue Coraline Ada Ehmke. Also wannabe Leah Rowe.

                  I believe this phenomenon extends to other fields as well, whether Bruce Jenner or Donald McCloskey or even the Wachowski brothers. In fields where progs are completely dominant you won’t find many tranners, but rather Shaniquas. At that level actual competence has long ceased to be a requirement.

                • jim says:

                  > a hybrid culture where clever code and official victimhood are simultaneously high status

                  Yes, but this arrangement is transitory.

                  “I have changed our agreement. Pray that I change it no further”

                  Shaniqua swiftly destatused Coraline.

                  Danger Will Robertson

                  The Free Software movement has to understand that if they grant victimhood high status, they are going to lose status.

                  The arrangement has to be transitory, because if victimhood is high status, then good code, silicon fabs, and rockets spontaneously emerged from the fertile soil of subsaharan Africa, and was stolen by white male rapists from the brave and stunning black warrior women.

                  You just cannot let the enemy make victimhood high status. You have to pile onto loudly proclaimed victims and cruelly and brutally demolish their victimhood status claims. There is no alternative. It is a zero sum game. You have to fight or lose. You cannot skate through. You cannot fly under the radar. There is no win/win. If you win, they lose. If they win, you lose.

                  If you lose, you will be emasculated and will not get pussy.

                  If you are a white male with good technical skills, and you try to skate through you are going to lose. And if you are a white male transsexual and chop your dick off, you are still going to lose. It is just that the other white males are ahead of you in the lineup for the guillotine.

                  In the end, Coraline could not skate through, because of the brave and stunning warrior women of subsaharan Africa that she was raping and enslaving by stealing the code that had spontaneously came forth from the fertile African soil.

                  Even if a man has cut his dick off, he is still going to have his status destroyed unless he counter attacks the victimhood claims of less competent and qualified official victims.

                  Obama said “You did not build that”. So Coraline did not build that either. She stole it, because everything about white civilization was stolen, and was punished for her crimes against the brave and stunning warrior women of subsaharan Africa.

                  Coraline, as much as any other white male, needed to push back, and was destroyed because “she” failed to do so.

          • The Cominator says:

            Vote against the bastards anyway… you won’t starve. Do not give into leftists ever fuck em… trust that the lord/gnon/your own intelligence… whatever you believe in will provide.

            I can’t condemn a man for giving into leftists if he has children and they threaten them or to take his children away… but anything short of that those who cuck to leftists are in my humble opinion MORE culpable than the true believers. The true believers are insane and possessed by demons their mind is so fucked up they know they are doing right.

            People who go along with them knowing they are creating hell on earth are even worse. This is why I have little sympathy for Havel’s Greengrocer if they go beyond a certain point…

            • Pooch says:

              It all comes top-down from the satanic elites. If we get Caesar, he can’t make the same mistake of allowing them to live because they have every incentive to cooperate to re-gain power.

              • The Cominator says:

                The willingness of people to follow them makes a difference as well and at a certain point I put some blame on the followers.

                Hierarchy may be the will of gnon but there comes a point where a good soldier has a DUTY to shoot a bad officer in the back whenever he gets an opportunity.

                • Pooch says:

                  Hierarchy may be the will of gnon but there comes a point where a good soldier has a DUTY to shoot a bad officer in the back whenever he gets an opportunity.

                  Impossible when the evil elite have full institutional control of the entire state. Any individual dissident gets immediately crushed. The best a good man can do now is what Jim says, get far far away from the belly of the beast. Don’t help the enemy build and operate things that inevitably will be used against us.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I was using that as an analogy for when doing something that is normally very bad can become a duty…

                  One probably cannot Brevik the entire Democratic party elite or their accomplices in the permanent government or the cathedral but one can refuse to worship the cult’s demons and promote an attitude of extreme distrust and cynicism towards them…

                  Above all mock the cult’s demons at every opportunity…

                • Pooch says:

                  I put some blame on the followers

                  Who are, just as they were in Rome, the slave races. Most normie white males with any type of stake in the future are just keeping their heads down trying to avoid being bludgeoned by the slave class battering ram of the elites.

    • Debian Dev says:

      By the way, @suones, I have carefully read your entire message. Your message neatly closes the circle, so to speak, so there isn’t much I can add to it except my thanks for the kind sentiment.

  16. Encelad says:

    About lockdowns:
    The Cathedral can milk covid as long as it wants. However, now that there are vaccines and things are winding down, I am afraid that they will try to use Climate Change for a new round of lockdown insanity. I did a bit of research, and there are indeed bureaucrats already mentioning this, like in this UN organization:

    https://www.wbcsd.org/Overview/Panorama/Articles/Avoiding-a-climate-lockdown

    Now the narrative is “How to avoid the climate lockdown”. But everytime they say “how to avoid X” they actually intend to do X. Or they genuinely don’t but they eventually get there through holiness spiral, I don’t know. But the idea is:

    “Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling. To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently”

    I don’t think we will be able to feed people if they force oil companies to stop drilling. But that’s probably a feature, not bug, right?
    Also, there is a link to a leftist British newspaper that explains what does it mean doing “capitalism differently”, and the answer is, as you probably would have guessed, socialism:

    “This requires a rethink of what governments are for: rather than simply fixing market failures when they arise, they should move towards actively shaping and creating markets that deliver sustainable and inclusive growth”

    Climate Change is an excellent excuse for inflicting perpetual suffering on people: the causes that affects climate are still not well understood and the weather itself is unpredictable enough that priests can spin it the way they want with ease. A perfect doomsday cult.

    • Pooch says:

      Yes this is what I imagine whenever the elite mention “Build Back Better”. Although I don’t know if the China Flu lobby is going to go away quietly. Plenty of apple carts to knock over by instituting infinite vaccine boosters, vaccine passports, and the like. Seems like there are multiple factions fighting over which god to sacrifice to and which apple carts to knock over next.

    • Aidan says:

      Right now, the climate change bullshit is an excuse for old-school socialism, which the left-elite still wants. The “great reset” is just socialism rebranded. However, it’s holiness spiraling; “sustainability” is now a high-status idea, and when they say “sustainability”, they mean murdering you and your family when the high-tech sustainable utopia fails to materialize.

    • Dave says:

      I hope so, because passing the Green New Deal and shutting down fossil-fuel production is the only realistic way to make the USA a white country again. A shack in El Salvador is more attractive than an unheated Section 8 apartment in Minneapolis.

      I haven’t heard much GND talk lately, so I assume it was just a ruse to collect greenie votes that the Dems no longer need.

      • The Cominator says:

        Don’t be a stupid wignat they will never let that happen. They will just murder whites and some antiwoke minorities.

        • Dave says:

          They let it happen in Texas. Every day, dozens of executive orders issue forth from the Oval Office. Neither the people writing those orders nor the man signing them know anything at all about the production of food or energy, but they think they know everything because progressive ideology is never wrong. What are the chances that they *won’t* horribly bungle something?

          • The Cominator says:

            Blacks will be allowed full heating and fuel privileges as will California Mexicans (but probably not right wing Florida Cubans who will probably be classified as white) whites especially badwhites won’t.

            If they cause illegals to leave the country its because they cause economic collapse Venezuala style (which will happen probably eventually) but their pets are not going to be subject to GND and great reset rationing the way whites will be.

            • Dave says:

              Oh absolutely, blacks will be allowed to burn all the heating oil they want. But limiting production of this vital resource “to save the planet” while letting some people consume vast quantities at public expense is sure to cause a Venezuela-style collapse.

              Five minutes after the furnace shuts off, millions of chilly niggers will plug in space heaters and collapse the electric grid too.

      • Pooch says:

        I haven’t heard much GND talk lately

        They’re just jamming a lot of it into the “Infrastructure” plan.

    • Bilge_Pump says:

      Lol, “governments are for creating markets”. Imagine Plato writing about the necessity of gibs and mystery meats.

  17. Fred says:

    Mrs Moldbug died (RIP; apparently “hereditary cardiomyopathy”).

    • Mike in Boston says:

      Also relevant to this site: memorial donations are requested to the Delancy Street Foundation. This is a self-help facility for ex-cons, drug users, etc., which implements social technology for male-female relationships that they feel compelled to ritually denounce as “archaic”, perhaps to insulate themselves from criticism from Globohomo over the hatefact that they are different and better than than those of liquid modernity:

      Most of the women, in addition to whatever else they’ve done, have also been prostitutes… Most of our male residents, like Gerald, have never slept with a woman without being loaded and have never gone out on a real date before they arrive here. So, we have all these archaic rules. You have to court each other, like in the olden days…. They go for walks in the park, ice cream, movies… You have to state your intentions… [a]nd they must be honorable!

  18. nils says:

    Does anyone else remember the early 2000’s when colleges were marketed as architecturally beautiful places where young men and woman hooked up? now i get endless adverts for utah colleges, full of fags and lesbos, its pathetic, and the usmc can sod off with their schpiel of you dont have gang tats and you can lift, my parents told me when i was a lad, school nonsense was something you lived through, nu huh, it was the future i would live in, just as corrupt and dumb as the losers running the show in elementary. at least they are cowards easily swum passed.

  19. Pooch says:

    Well when the vaccine passports inevitably start at the airports, maybe not flying isn’t such a bad idea anyway…

    https://twitter.com/united/status/1379426304857141250

    • Ace says:

      This trend has been underway for a while now with female pilots. It’s going to get a hell of a lot worse if they actually implement it.

      From what I gathered about the 737-MAX, that plane was an attempt to compensate for the declining ability of the increasingly diversified pilots with automation. Unfortunately, such automation is both close to impossible to do right(see the many failed attempts to idiot proof software) and was implemented by Boeings diversity team.

      • nils says:

        “Unfortunately, such automation is both close to impossible to do right(see the many failed attempts to idiot proof software) and was implemented by Boeings diversity team.” as i understand it, the diversity team was a bunch of indians that fucked everything up, and then had to be “fixed” last minute by “contractors” . Having worked with “programmers” who shit on the floor because toilets were too much for their lectin brains, fuck boeing, fuckem, they are a swamp monopoly that raped honest engineers and they deserve to burn in hellfyre for their faggotry. Their autopilot was bullshit designed to hr sell their GE engines, thats it. they destroyed their industry because of our “elites” corruption. fuck em. and if they keep going as a commie sock puppet then they deserve it. The graph on american aviation companies(verboten) says it all, boeing doesn’t understand jack about flight. that the modern jet theory is literally the old jet theory but bigger says everything, they dont deserve the efficiency their ndt blades, supersized, make.

        • Aidan says:

          The noticeable inability for many members of the darker races to use a toilet is not an IQ thing (I can train my cat to poo in the loo) but a spiritual thing. The lower orders of humanity are comfortable in filth and offended, probably even disgusted, by hygiene.

          If you work in an office with many more intelligent minorities, the bathrooms are going to be in an appalling state, and if you go into a gas station bathroom in West Virginia with no minorities within 200 miles, that run down gas station bathroom will be spotless.

          • jim says:

            The reason you can train a cat to use a toilet, but you cannot train a nigger, is that cats just don’t like poop, and even less do they like other cats’ poop. If you have two cats, need three litter boxes.

            It is physically difficult for a cat to use a human toilet, but he wants the poop gone. Cats prefer litter boxes, so that they can bury the poop. They like it buried.

          • suones says:

            The lower orders of humanity are comfortable in filth and offended, probably even disgusted, by hygiene.

            This is the reason why Dharma shastras recommend that we must all live in our own environments and not mingle with different folks more than absolutely necessary. Too bad “Christian” holiness spirallers didn’t get the memo.

      • suones says:

        …implemented by Boeings diversity team.

        Nah, it was an Indian contractor[1] called HCL Infosystems. The general consensus about this company is that if you hired them to do a job, you absolutely deserve what you got lol. Indian companies operate on the older British system: if you want a good job, hire the professionals yourself. This applies to engineers, lawyers, accountants, you name it. Too bad Indian Govt acts like a massive IQ shredder. Jio networks, for example, has its entire engineering in-house, and purchases components directly.

        [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/designed-clowns-supervised-monkeys-internal-091851980.html

      • Pooch says:

        Even if the automation was implemented correctly I would be surprised if diversity pilots would be able to operate it competently. I thought I had read an Ethiopian pilot crashed the first 737-MAX just from being unable to understand the new controls.

        50% diversity is a massive number (I believe they are at 20% now). If they get anywhere close to that even domestic flying is going to carry significant risk. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a crash every other month or so (which the media will quickly memory hole).

        • Pooch says:

          I will say though the comments on that Twitter post are gold. Normies are noticing the accelerated wokism.

    • nils says:

      hey pooch, after being molested by some sodomite fag who pulled me out for being a masculine lad and wand’ed me uncomfortably, i determined that the tsa gets the bullet if they ever force themselves into my christian way of life again, its all road travel from here, tsa is bullies without a leash, and negro skidmarks to boot. its served me well, one awkward propellant hand wipe down and i learned my lesson, if anyone tries that with my wife im going to rip them apart.

      • Pooch says:

        They are giving us lots of reasons to not fly.

      • yewotm8 says:

        The machine at the airport seems to detect an anomaly in my crotch nearly every time I go through it, no matter what pants or underpants I wear. The 50 year old white male TSA agents (who still have TSA pat-down jobs…) don’t seem to mind the excuse to feel me up, and I suppose that’s why nothing is done about it.

        In our current culture, the high-status thing to do around gays in public is to act flattered rather than violent. Nobody can pull off anger towards gays in public.

  20. Debian Dev says:

    You dislike namefags, Jim, and maybe you’re right about that, so I won’t try to prove that I am what the handle implies; but I see little to no evidence of the emergence of a new attitude or a thaw in the Debian Project.

    I am on the Debian Developers’ private email list (though I mostly remain silent there)—which is indeed private, so I’ll divulge no details—but if anything it’s worse there than in public-facing communications.

    The German upstream developer of one of Debian’s many software packages has recently associated himself with a team whose web page reads, in English (I give it from memory), “Code of Conduct: none. SJWs are not welcome here.” So that is promising. On the other hand, I can no longer find the web page: it may have disappeared. Not promising.

    Would you like to tell more about where else, specifically, you find the thaw? I do not especially follow FSF, so your notice about FSF is news to me.

    Now, assuming that Debian interests you (which is for you to say), you might judge that the very fact that a Debian Developer would be commenting at Jim’s Blog were evidence of a thaw. Maybe it is, but attending the annual Debian conference, my impression if anything is that the freeze is freezing harder than ever before. I was nearly as politically incorrect a decade ago as now, but the difference is that I now keep my mouth shut even tighter when sensitive subjects come up. Back about 2005, I remember a couple of Debian Developers that were earnestly proselytizing some quirky Calvinism at the conference, and there was a notorious incident in Mexico in 2006 (I wasn’t present that year, but knew the persons involved) in which one Developer pulled an elaborate stunt in which he set up HP’s attractive female representative to the conference to be believed by other Developers, when she appeared at the banquet in evening dress while the Mariachi band played, to be a high-priced call girl; but that Developer got booted from the Project and nothing like it has happened since.

    Now, one need not to pull hard-edged practical jokes to thaw the attitude, so my anecdote proves nothing by itself, but my point is that I just haven’t felt the thaw. I could tell one or two hair-raising stories regarding women who have taken over administrative roles in the Project and, especially, have taken over roles with respect to the organization of the annual conference; but to relate the details would be disloyal to fellow Developers, old friends of mine. You can accept or reject my word for it, as you wish.

    The thaw may exist. I just haven’t felt it.

    I have long thought Debian Developers too masculine to fall for SJW nonsense. One is (well, probably, used to be) a semiprofessional rugby player, but even he is on board with the SJWism, despite that I can see no benefit he derives from it. Even after all these years, I do not really understand why they fall for it, but fall for it they do; and many of the most influential among them will tolerate no dissent.

    • jim says:

      > I can see no benefit he derives from it.

      The benefit he derives from it is the capability to destroy those close to him.

      If a male social justice warrior drinks a few beers, he is still on same social justice team he was before he drank those beers, but he no longer affects to believe the justifications for being on that team.

      He probably believes about blacks what he believed when sober, because he has never spent any time with blacks, but if he has spent any time with women (which a lot of male social justice warriors have not) he no longer believes about women, sex, and sexuality, what he believed when sober.

      • linker says:

        That’s an interesting phenomenon. So some high IQ men can be brainwashed on a deep level to believe things that are totally irrational if they have no personal experience with the subject. But if they do have personal experience with the subject, then they have to exert energy to engage in deception. Made me remember this antifa who got arrested and exposed as a Google engineer.

        https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/76954960/#76955639

        >1. He’s without a doubt the best programmer that I know. That’s the only good thing I have to say about him.

        >3. Despite being socially retarded, homeboi had not one but TWO girls at the time I knew him. One of them he was married to (but divorced shortly after), the other was his “girlfriend” but she has the same last-name as him due to some cousin marrying another cousin or something. He swore up and down to me that it wasn’t incest but I never believed him. He left his wife and last I checked is still with his cousin-girlfriend. That cousin-girlfriend is also an engineer at a top company, but I know that he does all of her work for her (he’s told me this too!)

        >High IQ low EQ the person. I’m amazed he’s made it at google because despite his marxism he hates PC language and PC culture. I’m surprised that he hasn’t gotten thrown out for saying something “based”. He’s unapologetically sexist as fuck. He’d fit in well on 4chan cus he watches moe shit anime though.

        • Debian Dev says:

          High IQ low EQ the person.

          Yes, that is the type. Nor am I an exception to the rule.

          Jim: due, undoubtedly, to the aforementioned low EQ, there’s a lot going on in this matter that I do not understand. My wife of 20+ years is high-EQ but the topic is hardly the sort of topic one discusses with a wife, so I am at a bit of a loss.

          The benefit [the Debian-developing semipro rugby player] derives from it is the capability to destroy those close to him.

          I do not know the specific Developer in question well, so you might be right; but if I understand you, it is generally less cutthroat than that in my experience.

          Do you remember Branden Robinson? That was a long time ago, but you go far enough back, you just might recall. As the X Window System’s chief maintainer for Debian, he used to lead the fiercest flamewars. The general consensus was that Branden had earned the right to flame by dint of expertise and hard work, and that if you couldn’t take the heat, then Debian development wasn’t for you. You could say just about anything in those days.

          My, how that has changed. Now the schoolmarm is always lurking over your shoulder. The flamewars of the early aughts were not very pleasant, but they were more honest and were almost exclusively male—and more got done.

          • linker says:

            EQ is a myth. The thing that business school type PMC women describe as EQ is real, but it is not emotional intelligence, it is simply submissiveness. Whenever someone talks about EQ, replace EQ with submissiveness and it will make a lot more sense. Emotional intelligence is not a real thing. There is a near-perfect correlation between IQ and understanding other people’s emotions and motivations. Same with sports intelligence or musical intelligence or whatever garbage pop-scientists brewed up to make intelligence seem more diverse and multidimensional than it is.

            Or maybe slavishness would make even more sense. It’s more like execute Herr Kommandant’s orders to a T than it is to make a good sandwich for your husband. I think there might be a distinction between authoritarian slavishness and submissiveness, but maybe there isn’t and it’s just what circumstance these women find themselves in.

          • jim says:

            My analysis is that back in the day status came from code, good code, and clever code, and now status comes from loudly announced sexual or racial identity and superior holiness.

            But you are in the belly of the beast, while I am as far from the belly of the beast as I can get, so you should be able to see better than I.

            How does my analysis sound to you?

            Free Software is a religion, whose high priest was Stallman, and whose Cathedral was Gnu.

            The state Cathedral does not like competing religions.

            If your religion has been converged to the state religion, it is as dead as the Roman Catholic Church, even if its letterheads and facilities continue under new management. The Pope is a Harvard muppet, and by and by they will not bother with the muppet in the Vatican, but just have the ExCathedra letterhead in a filing cabinet in Harvard. The Roman Catholic Cathedrals will become museums, as the Anglican Cathedrals already have. And in due course the museums will update, they will improve all that old art by covering it with more modern art and exhibitions about this and that, much as Gnome2 was improved into Gnome3. The traditional invocation ./configure && make && make install will be improved to work like Flatpak, and it and Flatpak will be improved to work like the Microsoft Store.

            The only way your religion can survive is if it adopts a position of active hostility to convergence, like the more red pilled Latin mass Churches. Read Vox Day’s corporate cancer series.

            Unless, when a female contributor unnecessarily and irrelevantly informs everyone she is female, she gets called a slut and a whore, and is told that she is seeking special treatment on account of sex, and is not going to get it, your faith is not going to survive.

            Absent resistance, unless you purge the entryists, your future is going to resemble Anglicanism at Liverpool Cathedral.

            • Debian Dev says:

              How does my analysis sound to you?

              It’s above my head, unfortunately.

              You are a creative thinker. That is why I read your blog. I lack the discernment, for my talents lie in other areas; but you are right that something has gone wrong.

              I shall just answer your questions. Whether my answers imply the conclusion you wish to reach is something you must decide.

              Free Software is a religion, whose high priest was Stallman, and whose Cathedral was Gnu.

              By the time I joined the Debian Project in the early aughts, the personality of Stallman was vaguely out of favor with the Debianistas, a bit like the personality of Richard Spencer is vaguely out of favor here: still respected, but best not talked about too much.

              You did not know that because consensus among Debian Developers and among FSF developers is and always has been that an open rupture between Debian and FSF would not be in the interest of free software/open source. So we don’t talk about it. As a practical matter, at the lower levels where the actual work gets done, FSF and Debian developers coordinate technically just fine.

              Priests and cathedrals are your domain. I would defer to your analysis.

              If your religion has been converged to the state religion, it is as dead as the Roman Catholic Church, even if its letterheads and facilities continue under new management.

              At least partly true. Maybe more than partly true.

              Part of it though is probably just that many of us are older than we used to be. More stability, less creativity. Still, Debian still has a core of wicked smart programmers, including some young blood.

              … much as Gnome2 was improved into Gnome3.

              I happen to prefer Gnome3, but it’s a matter of taste.

              Unless, when a female contributor …

              The female contribution to the Project, in a technical sense, is essentially zero.

              I would likely get kicked out of the Project if I said that out loud at the annual conference or on the mailing lists, though, because it’s too blatantly obvious to be allowed to be discussed.

              … unnecessarily and irrelevantly informs everyone she is female, she gets called a slut and a whore, and is told that she is seeking special treatment on account of sex, and is not going to get it, …

              Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha! I would love that. That is precisely and exactly accurate.

              Not in a million years.

              Fortunately, since the females don’t do any actual technical work to speak of, they’re pretty easy to avoid for the most part. You learn not to say anything that pricks their antennae as it were.

              … your faith is not going to survive.

              That’s too bad. It’s a hell of a lot of work to see go down the drain.

              • jim says:

                > The female contribution to the Project, in a technical sense, is essentially zero.

                The females contribute the immensely more important stuff of writing text and graphics for humans, and supervising the low status merely technical work. Thus, they deserve all the credit for the stuff their insignificant, interchangeable, and replaceable merely male minions do🙃

                They also make important design decisions like whining “Why is this not like Microsoft Store?”

                Reflect on Amelia Earhart, who received a ticker tape parade and presidential medal of honor for being the first woman to fly across the Atlantic. In fact she was flown across the Atlantic by a male pilot in a plane designed, built, and maintained by males as if she was a sack of potatoes, and when she tried to fly a plane herself, soon killed herself, and destroyed the plane which was a great deal more valuable than she was.

                Similarly Ada, supposedly the first woman programmer. No one remembers the man who actually wrote the code. Everyone remembers Ada publishing curiously similar code.

                And what did the first man to fly across the Atlantic get? He did better than the man who wrote Ada’s code, but was not honored the way Amelia Earhart was and is.

                Expect similar treatment for the first woman on the moon.

                Who today remembers the heroes who won the Crimean war? Everyone remembers Florence Nightingale, the whore who made the nights of numerous junior officers more comfortable in those cold Crimean nights.

                Everyone today remembers the wife of the man who discovered radium because she washed the bottles in the three person team. No one today remembers the man who discovered radium, and many more important things. Before the discovery of radium was attributed to her, we have a bunch of photos titled as depicting the actual discoverers of radium, and her position on the team is the bottle washer in the background, and the team leader, the great scientist who discovered radium, having previously discovered many far more important things, the man the newspapers of the day called the discoverer of radium, was Pierre Curie. And he got the radiation burns to prove it.

                • nils says:

                  Hey jim, do you remember black Jack Pershing burying mohammedans up to there necks and dousing them in pig fat for the ants to eat, through the eyes. A well known fact my father remembered, and in 2016ish that was the wiki entry i read, now the google result is a snopes fact check saying his personal diary was a mere boast and there was no such punishment of mohammedans in the philippines, My friend recently asked me to find a tucker carlson debate with shapiro rat and it was memory holed off everything including bitchute, many trump speaches have been too, I am noticing that in the last 2-3 years massive memory holing has been occuring on internet archives including curious changes to the archive sites, this is having an odd affect on the empires ability to perceive its periphery, what ever happened to the rohyingia? I think burma is operating outside the empire in a substantial manner today and the weird protest propaganda martyrs there the last weeks are reinforcing my perception of large parts of afrika and south east asia going there own way.

                • jim says:

                  The past is always changing, only the future is certain.

                  Things are going down the memory hole ever faster.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  I don’t know about ants, but I heard that he rounded up all the clan chiefs in the middle of the jungle, dug a big pit, shot a bunch of pigs, then all the Mohammedans but one. He buried them, and told the last chief he was going to get the same treatment if he didn’t control his people. And then the attacks stopped. Indicating that the chiefs had the ability to stop the attacks, but were willing to let them continue until it came home to bite them.

              • alf says:

                Richard Spencer is, round here at least, not vaguely out of favor; he is actively distrusted. He was memeable at start, but has, since the ‘heil hi… I mean hail victory’ thing and other suspicious activities, moved on to ‘probably glows in the dark.’

                • Ace says:

                  I thought there was something very wrong with Spencer after that punch a Nazi incident. The guy who hit him should have been beaten to a pulp by his guys or never allowed to get close enough to hit him. His reaction too it signaled very odd form weakness. Everything since then screams fed.

                • alf says:

                  In a rare moment of unity, we all enjoyed Spencer getting punched.

                • Debian Dev says:

                  Then my analogy to Richard Stallman has overreached. I withdraw it. Stallman is respected.

                • Debian Dev says:

                  In a rare moment of unity, we all enjoyed Spencer getting punched.

                  Fellas, I see that I have inadvertently involved myself in a dispute that is none of my concern. Please pardon. I like Spencer. I like Stallman. I respect both, though for different reasons. If I have ventured into criticism of either, it was probably a mistake.

                • alf says:

                  Nah the mistake is mine. ‘I’ enjoyed Spencer getting punched, which is to say, I assume that he is in cahoots with the feds until proven otherwise, so that I find him getting punched by presumably his own allies to be a good twist of fate. But that is not an assumption I should make on behalf of others.

                • The Cominator says:

                  If you can’t tell Spencer is probably a fed and if not a fed some other kind of enemy agent (ie on the Soros payroll, though this is far less likely the haircut background and the area of Virginia he lives in screams fed) there is something wrong with you.

                  Even if Spencer is not a fed he is a corona Karen and a socialist.

                • Pooch says:

                  Spencer is so obviously glowing that anyone who says they “like Spencer” I am suspicious of being a fed.

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              Ah, that eternal refrain, ‘Tits Or GTFO’.

              The internet truly was a ‘wild west’ up until about 2007. Those orphaned children of modernity, even though divorced from the Tradition that should have been their birthright, never-the-less instantly sensed, on an atavistic level, the stereotypical, archetypical, tendencies of the personalities around them.

              • nils says:

                I was on the internet in 14-17 and going from libertarian(not NA principle cuck) to alt-right, the freedom that existed then has been crushed, jims is the only real place left i know which is busy with the real analysis of history and present events. Thanks Jim. I miss the good old day of r/alt right, it really gives me an appreciation for what teh nerds in cali built starting in the early 90s

            • Pooch says:

              The only way your religion can survive is if it adopts a position of active hostility to convergence, like the more red pilled Latin mass Churches.

              The Pope apparently has been restricting and suppressing the traditional Latin Mass in the Vatican. Would not be surprised if he eventually moves to ban it which would piss off a lot of priests performing it (who would likely just ignore his order). I wonder if that would force a serious schism movement among traditional Catholic clergy.

      • Debian Dev says:

        By the way, I have not ignored your point regarding the beers. I avoid drinking while abroad and coding and drinking don’t mix for me, anyway; so I’ve never sat next to the developer you mention while he’s enjoying those beers. I can’t comment.

  21. orochimaru says:

    in the previous thread someone asked if the use of vaccine passports would actually be enforced. my response:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA75bNw0R5c

    we are screwed.

    • Ace says:

      COVID related stuff is mostly being used as a club that one group uses against another. Hence the spear chuckers who make up the staff of Spirit airlines using the lack masks on very young kids as an excuse to kick off Jewish and White families from the planes. The morale of the story, is don’t be around blacks.

      It’s also extremely tribal. I live in the border between a liberal areas and a Red areas. You can immediately pick out which group everyone is a part of by masking up or not. I blend into to both groups by wearing or not wearing a mask depending on which area I’m in. The only time I seriously mask up is if I’m going to a medical facility, which seems like a likely location to catch COVID, or the flu, or a whole host of diseases because they don’t fucking keep those places clean these days and they’re often swamped with illegal aliens.

      If COVID passports become in a thing, it’s only because it’s being used as an axe to grind at one group or another. In which case, one could hypothetically walk into an Indian Pharmacy, sign up for a vaccine, slip the guy a small bribe and have him sign the card that you got your shot. You’ll be duly vaccinated per official systems. Or you could just get the milder vaccine and not worry about it.

      • Pooch says:

        It is interesting that blacks seem to be the most mask compliant. Probably because Their low IQ really allows them to be brainwashed easily by the media.

        As far as vaccine passport I am going to resist it as much as I can. Yes I could bribe someone but I’m making a semi-stand here to let my friends and family know that getting out a vaccination card or app to go places is not normal and the people implementing it are sick and insane. Worse case scenario – I don’t have to go to boring family obligations.

        • Ace says:

          That’s a good point. Though by my math the entire adult US population will be vaccinated in about 7 weeks and COVID will be long gone. The crisis is about to go to waste and the Feds don’t have the necessary IT staff to make vaccine passports a reality before the crisis is over.

          • Pooch says:

            To the extent it is worse than a yearly flu, It has been long gone for some time now. I don’t believe their fake graphs and numbers. They’ll manufacture whatever fear they need in the media to keep it going, it’s part of the state religion now.

            The private sector/big tech is going to implement the vaccine passports initially for things like flights, concerts, stadiums, etc. How much resistance they get will determine if it is able to progess all the way to the local McDonalds. I am seeing aggressively anti-Trump progressive members of my family voicing increased concern of the vaccine passports though so it is a hill worth defending as a means to convert people against the regime.

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              >They’ll manufacture whatever fear they need in the media to keep it going

              Which they’re already doing. ‘New variants’, ie less morbid mutations, ‘outrunning the vaccines’, ie evolving into their own vaccine, as is the usual course with rhinoviruses. Less morbidity, higher contagiousness.

    • jim says:

      I am pretty sure I was the one who coined the phrase “blood diamonds attack”, in response to a post by Yarvin that described the same attack as the ten percent attack, in response to a post by jurbed describing this attack.

      But I preferred “blood diamonds attack”, because we saw the successful demonetization of uncut diamonds by this attack. History matters, we have lots of history and everyone keeps getting blindsided by events that they should have seen coming.

  22. orochimaru says:

    https://edition.cnn.com/videos/opinions/2021/03/12/royal-family-uk-role-mxb-lon-orig.cnn
    what exactly is the endgame here? is murdering the royal family on the table?

    • Pooch says:

      Nah. Just making official that they are completely irrelevant.

    • Ace says:

      Just more apple carts to tip over and loot. I doubt the they fear the royal family after the most king like prince in ages was so easily co-opted by the progressives.

    • suones says:

      Regicide is only a grave crime and a sin if you fail to establish your own dynasty. Unfortunately, Judeo-Bolshevists applied a different template, that was implemented most recently in Nepal, and may happen in Thailand.

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        Regicide followed by the successful establishment of a new dynasty is barely even regicide. The divine right of kings means that the king rules by the grace of God. If the king is deposed by another king, it is the will of God, made manifest in the victory. That necessarily means that the old king was an illegitimate monarch.

        • suones says:

          This is one of those weird points where intra-Semite struggle is most evident — Arabs and other Ishmaelites view Divine Right Monarchy as the only legitimate form of government, where the Momin bows before the Sultan who bows to the Caliph who is the Supreme temporal representative of Muhammad the Apostle of Baphomet. This system has worked well for them for a millenium, and has enabled them to establish world power far out of proportion to their average IQ and ability (hint: elite fertility is quite high and increasing). It is completely intolerable and inscrutable to their cousins the Israelites, who prefer rule by Talmud, i.e., Rule by Judges/priests.

          I have no explanation for why Muhammad ordained such a form of Govt, but it must have been Divinely inspired (by Baphomet, who is their Father). This is why I’m a cautious optimist regarding the emergence of a true Caliphate in the Middle East — which would have already happened if it hadn’t gotten Jews so scared. Yes, their means are brutal, but every blow struck by Boko Haram or Al Shabaab is a blow against Moloch. ‘Tis best to not interrupt when two of your enemies are fighting. However, I’m hopeful that we’d be able to work out and entente with the Semites once Moloch is destroyed. Taliban rule has shown that Baphometans are considerably less crazy and more pragmatic than progs.

  23. ABC says:

    Jim, I’ve read your crypto whitepaper drafts, fascinating stuff. Look forward to your Gitea instance coming up.

    • jim says:

      I regret that it is taking longer than expected.

      My code needs to be in condition that other people can usefully add to it.

      • Ron says:

        What skills/languages would you want someone need to study beforehand in order to be useful? This question isn’t limited to code

        • Oog en Hand says:

          ZX Basic

          Z 80 assembler

          Esperanto

          Chinese

          Arabic

        • Virtus says:

          Asking which software language to learn for x is a newbie mistake– most of the time. Do you know *any*? If not, pick up python, c/c++ and javascript. These will get you the broadest applicability range. I recommend problem-based learning. As Jim says, you don’t learn to be an engineer except by practicing engineering. Exercism.io is a really cool place to start. Afterwards, pick up a working software package and play with it. Follow the dev tutorials, then apply your own ideas.

          I would then recommend checking out substrate.dev. They give you a ton of boilerplate tools for making these cryptographic constructs. Solidity by example is also a good place to check out. Even if what Jim ships is not exactly like these specific packages/platforms/whatever, these will give you some good intuition on cryptography-based development platforms.

          For more targeted knowledge on this tech, this series will get you up to speed relatively quickly https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxVihxZC42nF_MCN9PTvZMIifRjx9cZ2J

          I can’t really help with the ‘not limited to code’ because that is a giant scope. Try and narrow down for more concise and useful answers.

          • jim says:

            I am using Libsodium with Ristretto25519

            Any cryptographic software that has been touched by the enemy is contaminated.

            They don’t generally put in flat out backdoors, but they do put in subtle and unobvious flaws, difficult to detect, when detected complicated to explain and non trivial to exploit, that make it overwhelmingly likely you will use it in a subtly incorrect manner. It is not that the cryptography is flat out broken, though sometimes it is. But it is likely that in a complex system, doing complex things, you are going to wind up falling into a trap.

            Not so much back doors as such, as inexplicable and mysteriously over complicated aspects of the api, that will likely result in you using a secure algorithm in a subtly insecure way, though they have quite frequently been detected flat out backdooring elliptic curves.

            Any cryptographic software that has been touched by the enemy is booby trapped.

            • Virtus says:

              What platforms do you consider as the enemy? Eth stuff has never seemed converged, and substrate is an extension of the polkadot ecosystem head by Gavin Wood.

              Or was that just meant as general advice?

              • jim says:

                That was meant as general advice – but most stuff seems to have been booby trapped, and it is profoundly difficult to detect.

                I don’t want to call out entryists, but I am rather calling out loyalists. Libsodium seems to be fine, but there is no end of stuff that is not fine. Anything with “IETF” on the label, anything with the acronym of a government or quasi governmental organization on the label is booby trapped, and there are a lot of entryists around.

                I cannot see anything wrong with Polkadot, other than insufficient paranoia and excessive trust, but I have not looked into it to any great extent. Eth is pozzed, and academia is pozzed, so I am routinely suspicious. Gavin Woods seems like a good guy. He wants to decentralize the web, as do I, so cryptography that he blesses is likely to be good.

                A blockchain is a massively distributed ledger with an immutable but potentially discardable past. You get trust by massive distribution – that lots of people can and do verify the books are good.

                The fundamental problem that the blockchain addresses is scaling trust without a single sovereign that you have to trust at swordpoint.

                He is tightly focused on the sharding problem – that if you have everyone in the world verifying the transaction ever time someone purchases a chocolate bar, it does not scale.

                So he wants to distribute and federate trust, a federation of blockchains, each of which keeps its own books, which is obviously a good and necessary idea, and one I have not attempted to address in anything like the depth that he has attempted to address it.

                Trust is hard. Federating trust is harder. And you need a paranoid, hostile, and suspicious approach to the problem. You need a moralistic approach to the problem. You need to think about power, money, and decision making. You need to be greedy, and need to think about people being greedy and also less scrupulous than yourself.

                So I think his approach is too damned nice, and he is playing ball with some bad people, but he gives every indication of nonetheless being on the right side. He also is failing to address the consensus bandwidth problem. He is not worried about consensus bandwidth, because he thinks to solve it by federated trust, lots of relatively low bandwidth blockchains that add up to a lot of bandwidth. I think you need mighty big bandwidth in at least one big central blockchain, and worry about the sidechains later.

                You want to be able to have transactions that connect random people on one side of the world to another side of the world, but if you have a set of transactions that are in some sense local, between a small network of people that have relationships with each other, you don’t want a requirement that that transaction has to be flood filled over the entire world before it is settled. But you still want transactions that do need to be flood filled over the entire world.

                But I think he is a good guy, and he is attempting to solve the same problems I am attempting to solve, with less confrontational solutions.

                Let’s make everyone happy he thinks.

                No. Lets make the bad guys unhappy. To have trust, you have to exclude bad guys.

                Everyone in the blockchain business is in the trust business. We are trying to create protocols that will enable large numbers of people to mass produce large scale trust. But the production of trust, requires distrust.

                The trust business attracts a flood of conmen and scammers, and chief among these conmen and scammers are governments and quasi governmental organizations who want to force people to trust them. I am happy with Gavin Woods intentions, but I think his solutions need some sharper edges.

                • RMIV says:

                  i am glad that you are who you are, doing what you do, thinking in sharper edges

                  we need the Gavin Woodses of the world, but i know their type does not long survive without men like you

                  they seldom seem cognizant of that fact

                • Mike in Boston says:

                  Thanks Jim, this is immensely helpful.

                  While on the subject of sharding, is zilliqa (whitepaper PDF) anything interesting, or just another shitcoin?

                • jim says:

                  It is not a shitcoin. It is a pile of excellent proposals for addressing the scaling problem, but I get the feeling that all these excellent proposals were thrown together in a great big pile without worrying too much about how to fit them together.

                  “We assume that the mining network will have a fraction of malicious nodes/identities with a total computational
                  power that is a fraction (< 1/4)" The fundamental sharding problem that it is not clear that they address is that all the malicious nodes are likely to get into one shard. In order to assume a sufficient proportion of honest vertices, you need to think about the incentives facing the owner of the computer. And as soon as you go to scale, you are going to have different computers focused on different activities, and you need to think about the incentives and powers of factions and individuals. Rather than simply assuming a sufficiently small proportion of honest nodes, you need to ask about power, money, secrets, and lies. " However, it is non-trivial to design a secure and efficient state sharding scheme, as cross-shard communications arising from state sharding may outweigh the performance gains. More research needs to be done to address such additional complexities." I would have more confidence in a crypto currency that proposed to implement one of these excellent proposals for solving the scaling problem, and claimed it would be possible to bolt on no end of other excellent proposals later.

                  They propose sharding, which is a good idea, but whenever I think about sharding, I find that I have multiplied the possibilities for conspiracy by evildoers, and my solution is always of the form of limiting the damage, and in the worst case, forking.

                  When you think about a defection in a blockchain, you have to think hard about incentives, as Satoshi did, and when you think about defection in a sharded blockchain, you have to think really hard about incentives and monitoring.

                  However they also propose a method for consensus that uses proof of work for only operations requiring relatively low consensus bandwidth, and then leveraging the results of that proof of work to operate an algorithm with much higher consensus bandwidth.

                  Their consensus algorithm may well be great. I have not thought about their algorithm too hard, but on the face of it, way better than Bitcoin’s. Leveraging POW to construct Byzantine Fault Resistant Consensus seems doable, and is going to be a whole lot faster than POW by itself.

                  And their sharding algorithm may well also be great, but I have been thinking a great deal about sharding, and it is not obvious to me that they have addressed the issues. Assuming a supermajority of honest vertices does not cut it unless you ask “why?”.

                • jim says:

                  The zilliqua model is that if at least three quarters of the peers are perfectly agreed on what should be done, then the whole pile can act as single gigantic supercomputer that can do anything a single gigantic supercomputer can do.

                  But whether three quarters of the peers are agreed is going to depend on what the computer is doing.

                  I think the zilliqua gigantic supercomputer is too monolithic, and lacks considerations of incentives, knowledge, secrets, and power. But zilliqua is composed of a great big pile of good technologies and clever ideas. Perhaps too big a pile and too many clever ideas.

                  Proof of stake, done right, has a fundamental advantage over proof of work, because whales have an incentive to make the currency succeed, and little to gain by defection. Also, secrets are far more conveniently mobile than big number crunching power, and harder to steal by state violence, so whales are harder to pressure. I think in the very near future, all successful crypto currencies are going to come under a great deal of pressure to comply with regulation that will become ever more onerous.

                  So, now betting on proof of stake currencies with efficient consensus algorithms. Because everyone important is hitting the scaling limit, and everyone is being bitten by regulation.

                • Mike in Boston says:

                  zilliqua is composed of a great big pile of good technologies and clever ideas. Perhaps too big a pile and too many clever ideas.

                  Thanks again, Jim. I will at least keep an eye on zilliqa, then while eagerly awaiting your gitea.

            • Oog en Hand says:

              I recommend FUTHARK adjusted by CAESAR.

    • Nicodemus Rex says:

      Where can the drafts be found? Would love to take a look. I would understand if you didn’t want to share them here for privacy reasons though

  24. eternal anglo says:

    Your 2029 Huawei buzzes and you put down your chopsticks. You accept the contract within the allotted 12 seconds; you barely have time for another mouthful before an AliExpress courier drone descends from the bright Bali sky and deposits a long thin cardboard package in front of you. You withdraw the katana within, swivel on your stool and drive it into the ribcage of the transsexual US Securities and Exchange Commission agent next to you. A heartbeat later his head splits open – an explosively formed jet of supersonic molten zinc. By the time you spot the expended projector, a chunk of printed nylon, glowing from its thermite destruct charge and melting its way in a cloud of smoke through a table on the other side of the room, its wielder has already vanished into the crowd. You drop a few plastic keychips for your meal and make yourself scarce. Your phone vibrates again; 450 milliJimcoin, the world’s premier proof-of-stake blockDAG currency, have been deposited in your account via the Lightning Network. As you board the monorail, leaving the street behind, you breathe a sigh of relief. Another victory for Open Source Software.

  25. Anonymous says:

    The leader of the Libreboot project defended Richard Stallman, explained how this was an attempt to subvert the Free Software Foundation and expelled an entryist. Said leader was promptly censored by the Silicon Valley and smeared by the entryist.

    • Anonymous says:

      How indignant he is about the removal of all references to democratic project governance.

      • jim says:

        Libreboot is a dead project. The only reason they care about ownership and “democratic governance” is to steal the credit from those that created it.

        • Ron says:

          What skills/languages would you want someone need to study beforehand in order to be useful? This question isn’t limited to code

    • Mike in Boston says:

      Russian names are very heavily represented among signatories to the pro-Stallman open letter. Russians have seen this movie before.

  26. linker says:

    Any red pilled tips for someone learning programming (to make money)? Also how to stay sane while coding for hours. Something about coding and interacting with tech bug men is depressing me, but you have kept your clarity and vitality.

    (Curious phenomenon I have noticed: There’s this type of alpha software bug man I have noticed, seemingly masculine, intelligent, competent, into cool tech masculine stuff like crypto. But also a narcissistic blustering inveterate liar who defends leftist shibboleths to the death. Prime example Chamath. Also Nassim Taleb, though he’s not a software guy. Basically people who have the trappings of virtue and philosophy but are really just masters at defecting.)

    • Suweeee m'boss says:

      You mean an Indian/Arab guy? Because that’s what they are all like online

    • jim says:

      I did not learn programming to make money. I learned programming the way I learn everything. Because I found it interesting.

    • European Mutt says:

      The bug men sure are annoying, I have the same problem currently. Make sure you have enough personal contact with sane people outside the bubble. If you are surrounded by corona scaredy cats who refuse to meet in person, find some people who aren’t.

      A few tips:

      – Do not learn Python. It’s dead, a skin suit worn by SJWs. And it was never that great a language. Many questionable design decisions, both in the language and the interpreter. Any other popular choices for first language, especially C, Java, C#, ES6 Javascript are all good. ‘C++ for beginners’ tends to be largely C in practice, so that is pretty much fine too.

      – Learn both higher and lower-level languages. If you started out with Javascript, learn C, and the other way around. When you’ve reached a comfortable skill level, take a look at assembly language/machine code too. It will give you a much clearer perspective on what your code is actually doing.

      – Don’t watch/read too many tutorials. Try to implement a small project yourself, preferably something you actually find useful/fun. If your code sucks that’s still better than if it’s 100% pasted from tutorials. Clean coding is something that comes with practice, it can’t really be learned from books. Much better to get tips from an experienced coder (but again there pay attention to whether he’s really knowledgeable or just a narcissistic bugman like you described). But practice is key.

      – OOP (in its strict form) is overrated. It’s fine for some applications and parts of some (usually client-side) code bases but really mostly it’s a cult. Nowadays most people understand that implicitly though, unlike say 10 years ago. Relational DBs and functional programming have been around for ages and refuse to die. Because they work. And procedural is much better than its reputation, as anyone who has written device drivers or similar will tell you.

      Dividualist recommended Spolsky’s blog, I’ll recommend it to you too (his pre-2008 or so posts at least, did not know when/how he became a raging SJW, was under the impression he became pretty quiet actually unlike Atwood)

      [no longer rolling for a cat, that one’s fine]

      • jim says:

        > And procedural is much better than its reputation, as anyone who has written device drivers or similar will tell you.

        All useful code is procedural. And I despised Haskell because it piously claimed to be a purely functional language. And then, to my considerable surprise, I found that an actually useful program, Pandoc, had been written in Haskell.

        So I did a tiny bit of Haskell, to figure out what was happening. I could not believe that one could do anything useful in a purely functional language.

        And was unsurprised to find that Haskel was procedural. It calls procedural code “monads” and “impure functions”. And your hello world Haskell program is all monads.

        You can do a lot, and should do a lot, with purely functional programming, as with SQL.

        You can, in principle, do anything in purely functional code that you can do with procedural code. Haskell compiles its monads to the purely functional subset of Haskell, and then compiles the purely functional subset of Haskell to purely procedural object code. But it is a practical necessity. When you do some things, quite a lot of things, in purely functional code, (such as “hello world”) it is incomprehensible and easy to get wrong.

        It is in fact possible to write “hello world” in purely functional Haskell. But no one ever does..

        This results in somewhat strange tutorials, since the first tutorial is all monads and nothing but monads, which syntax and semantics they completely fail to explain until tutorial umpteen, when they finally get to monads.

        • ABC says:

          I write quite a bit of Haskell, and as you say it’s hard to get up to speed with the tutorials. A good strategy when coding is to separate the imperative (monadic) parts with the functional. Try to get most of the logic in purely functional form, and push the effects (the interfacing with external environment) out to the edges. Combined with the great type system you can catch lots of errors at compile time (which is pretty slow unfortunately).

        • f6187 says:

          > It is in fact possible to write “hello world” in purely functional Haskell. But no one ever does.

          Here is that program in Fexl (Function EXpression Language):

          say “Hello world.”

          The “say” function (routine) takes one argument, performs a side effect, and returns the identity function so the program can proceed.

          If you want to do monads you can, because you have lambdas. As ABC says, you can “push the effects out to the edges” as far as you like. You don’t even need lambdas for that, as you can always just pass in a continuation parameter and use the “;” syntax to group expressions to the right without ending up with 28 right-parens in a row as in Lisp.

          Fexl recognizes that every function has side effects, even the “pure” addition function, because even that produces a little heat and consumes a little time. So once you have the expressive power of lambda expressions, just get down to business and start consuming input and spewing output and writing to the disk, and don’t bother making that aspect of the system look “pure” unless you have a really good reason to do so.

          P.S. https://fexl.com

          • f6187 says:

            > You don’t even need lambdas for that ….

            Meant to say: You don’t even need MONADS for that ….

      • jim says:

        Javascript is mostly useful because the native tongue of browsers, and standardized between very different machines. Also because it is an event oriented language, even when not used inside a browser, but used within node.js. Event oriented C++ sucks.

        Event oriented Go is good stuff, and far faster than javascript in node.js, though less capable and slower than C when used for regular code.

        Event oriented Go is better than event oriented javascript in node.js, but everyone still uses node.js, because they are usually writing the code to interact with browsers.

  27. Post Alley Crackpot says:

    I really like this list of “outrage” from organisations and people who want to signal their being “appalled” …

    It makes it a lot easier to prune the list of suppliers and hires by being able to identify mediocre infiltrators.

    These are the people who can kill startups by wrapping layers of weirdly arranged stuff around implementations in order to control them and potentially also to smother them quietly with a pillow later on.

    Deep down, I always suspected that Red Hat was less competent than the people behind Debian, but now it looks like there’s some merit to that.

    Thanks for the information.

  28. The Cominator says:

    So for someone who is not a software engineer (the only professional programming I’ve done is excel programs and a couple of things in “basiccad” language) please explain how this Stalman fellow got unpersoned and why?

    • Cloudswrest says:

      The “public” reason is in this link. https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/17/20870050/richard-stallman-resigns-mit-free-software-foundation-epstein

      The real reason was probably that he was a competent white male who held his employees to technical standards.

      • The Cominator says:

        The cathedral didn’t like him pointing out that he was a blackmail op…

        Seems plausible enough to me.

    • Cloudswrest says:

      This distaff essay is an archetype. She’s beside herself pointing and sputtering about Stallman’s matter of fact statement of reality and explanation of media terminology “inflation”. He states quite a good example.

      https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794

    • jim says:

      They are purging the entire open source movement, and Stallman and Linus just happened to be the leading people in the open source movement. They simply want to take over. They have taken over and are, predictably, doing a disastrously bad job. Much as happened to Disney, the Star Wars franchise, Marvel Comics, and Intel.

      Just more of the same old same old. This is why we cannot have nice things any more.

      I recently watched a Youtube video of big impressive megaprojects. Unsurprisingly, none of the megaprojects were creations of white people. Except for Musk’s Starship, we are just not doing that stuff any more.

      If you are a halfway decent comic strip artist, Marvel Comics does not want you drawing comics, and if you are a half way decent software engineer, Open Source does not want you contributing software.

      • suones says:

        Stallman and Linus just happened to be the leading people in the open source movement.

        Neither of them are leading figures of the gay “open source” Mammon-offshoot. Stallman is the originator of “Free Software.”

    • suones says:

      Stallman is the creator of Emacs, GCC, and GNU — basically everything in the base “Linux” OS apart from the kernel which was created by Linus. A hacker of truly remarkable ability.

      He is economically a left-anarchist nerd who is, unsurprisingly, meritocratic — he opposed the counterculture hippies, listened to classical music instead of Beatles, and so on. He’s the last remnant of the tech-priesthood that used to exist at Harvard, and later MIT, before they all got purged (Minsky, Sussman axis). The “last real hacker,” so to speak.

      Unlike Linus, Stallman is a hardcore idealist and rationalist, and will follow “unclean” thoughts to their logical conclusion — he is incapable of crimestop, which is why he’s being purged while Linus cucked to survive.

      As to why he’s being attacked: he came very close to the “minor” girl pill. One of Epstein’s whores gave a laundry list of his clients to law/media. It included Marvin Minsky, a pioneering AI researcher at MIT. Now Minsky was part of Epstein’s Jewish network, but not of his whore network. In fact, the whore admitted herself that while Epstein had ordered her to service Minsky, the latter actually refused her and nothing actually happened.

      Since MIT has remained somewhat more tech-aligned than most (apart from Caltech), and being right across town from Harvard, is a major thorn in Harvard’s side. SJWs took this opportunity to tar Minsky’s reputation, and with Epstein, his entire Judaic cabal. LOL j/k, SJWs know which side their bread is buttered on, so attacked hackers of MIT. This is a transparent enough attack, and one of Minsky’s autistic disciples waded right into it to preserve the reputation of his guru. That disciple is Stallman. While Minsky was being hysterically accused of “paedophilia rape,” Stallman pointed out that: 1) Minsky refused the whore’s innocent princess’ advances, and 2) even if he did have sex with the 17 year old girl, it was she who came to him so it couldn’t have been “rape,” being consensual, and that a 17-year-old girl is very hard to tell apart from an 18-year-old girl, so it’s not “paedophilia” either. Point 2 here is such an extreme redpill it could have come from Jim himself, but Stallman went there. Stallman probably meant to say that Epstein was trying to honeytrap Minsky and failed, but the logic behind it is completely verboten, and crimestop bells went off all around the world.

      • The Cominator says:

        Sounds right all around.

      • Stallman is a left-wing “radical” of the 80s who appears very right wing by today’s progressive standards. He is far behind in his Leftism and hence a target of today’s Progressives who see him as a right wing fanatic.

        The reason for the creation and existence of the Open source initiative is that FSF was deemed too radical and extreme in its licensing stance (GNU’s copyleft) and Stallman’s insistence on his way or the high way. Stallman is a Leftist through and through, just an old school, somewhat masculine Leftist who still speaks his mind publicly.

        • jim says:

          Quite so. And the Nazis were left wing radicals of the 1930s. Stallman is a left wing radical of the 1980s, and has not realized that he is now a Nazi.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        “Stallman is the creator of Emacs”

        That would be David Moon and Guy L Steele.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs

      • Oog en Hand says:

        Straight Turing, isn’t it? A gay WN confided to me, that even if a minor tries to seduce you, you should not give in.

        Also, strict liability. “I didn’t know she was AOC minus two montths!” is no excuse. Therefore, if you want to bang twenty-year olds, set the AOC at sixteen.

        • jim says:

          Nuts.

          Everything is illegal, pay no attention to the laws. To the extent that any laws are enforced, they are enforced capriciously and selectively. If you kill someone and get in trouble, that you killed someone will not be the reason you got in trouble, just the excuse.

          • linker says:

            That’s an exaggeration, isn’t it? You can’t just kill someone in broad daylight and get away with it, if you kill someone in a tactical way in a city with a rotting police force you have a good chance of getting away with it. If you are suspected of murder, but it’s not clear cut then it will come down to whether you are black/white, left-wing-right-wing, criminal/productive.

            Banging a teen (as a white boy) is a Specially Unholy crime, maybe the Most Unholy. It’s even Second Most Unholy among Republicans (Most Unholy would be raping an actual child, leftists don’t care about that one. Second Most Unholy for leftists would be using lethal force to defend against a black attacker). Just getting accused of that will make you a targeted individual. Not even the most staunch leftists are allowed to bang teens. One of the pillars of being a Good Leftist is being a semi-eunuch. I would advise to follow the rules about this.

            I see you are correct that most crime is selectively enforced. How do we operate in this paradigm while still engaging in activities that mark us as right wing like buying crypto, lifting weights, and approaching females? Must we also loudly signal about the dangers of global warming, wealth inequality, and transphobia?

      • Bubbles says:

        This makes an insane amount of sense. I appreciate the writeup, this is the most coherent and lowest noise to signal ration on the topic I have seen yet.

      • that guy says:

        Tho’ I agree it’s not p’philia w/a 17 year old, the whole point of ‘consent’ laws is that an under-18 cannot give consent even if they ‘come on to’ the other person. This is why under-18s can’t be contractually bound either in terms of loans and credit, etc., even if they ‘consent’ to signing the documents (With exceptions of course)

        Stallman should have left his statement more vague and brief, as my suggested emendation below (for instance):

        ‘The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault”
        is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation:
        taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as
        Y, which is much worse than X.

        I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it
        is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
        Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a
        specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the
        criticism.’

        Maybe a few words about the dangers of muddying the waters / poisoning the well, or whatever, would also have been apropos along with the standard disclaimer, ‘of course, if so-and-so is really guilty of X, then I unreservedly condemn it, but we must let the process play out,’ or some such ass-covering.

        Stallman seems smart enough to know all this.

        • jim says:

          Age of consent laws are absurd because women are incapable of consent at any age.

          Strict liability holds that it is rape even if you repel her advances, and even if you had no way of knowing that she was seventeen years and nine months when she came on to you..

          This is absurd, and Stallman said so.

          He should have said, but being a good progressive, did not say, that having consent laws at all is unworkable and absurd. Women do not know, and don’t much care, whether they consented or not. “It just happened.”

        • gordianus says:

          the whole point of ‘consent’ laws is that an under-18 cannot give consent even if they ‘come on to’ the other person. This is why under-18s can’t be contractually bound either

          ‘Consent’ is conventionally understood to mean that the person clearly indicated that they were willing for it to happen. (One can argue, as Jim does, that consent should be irrelevant, but it is a basic assumption of this debate around age-of-consent laws.) By that standard anyone old enough to be able to talk can consent to something; that consent to sex, contractual obligations, &c. from someone below a certain age is not accepted by the American legal system is a characteristic of that legal system, and not of basic human nature or anything more broad. (Thus the varying, inconsistent, and mutable nature of current consent laws.) If you argue that consent should not be accepted from minors by redefining ‘consent’ to exclude consent given by minors, you’re just substituting a gerrymandered category for a natural category to try to fool your interlocutor into thinking your argument is stronger than it is.

          (To be clear, I think some sort of age-of-consent law is probably better than leaving everything to the discretion of the individual, but if such an argument is to be made, it should be made as honestly as the circumstances permit.)

  29. Cloudswrest says:

    I was just perusing “Free Software Foundation” on Twitter, and a not insignificant number of complainants have their pronouns in the bio! LOL.

  30. Cloudswrest says:

    Just did a cursory Duck Duck Go “News” search. Look at all the FUD!

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Free+Software+Foundation%22&iar=news&ia=news

  31. Anonymous says:

    The appendix of that open letter that lays out RMS’s sins and all the other articles along those lines are such petty lists of bullshit that they make RMS sound more cool and funny the more you read them.

    • jim says:

      Gnome3 is broken, but there are numberless forks that are fine.

      I use Mate. Similar things are happening across the board.

      Open source survives these attacks, because forks ensue. The fork maintainers lead to a constituency in open source that is rather like Stallman, people who, while for the most part blandly politically correct, have no alternative but to resist.

      Comicsgate happened because the destruction of mainstream comics created a bunch of countercomics – which in turn led to more vigorous, and largely successful, repression.

      The same outcome, successful repression, is likely to occur in open source, but for the moment, the repression is not successful.

      • Rando says:

        I like Mate myself, it works great on my little ASUS VivoBook with Linux Mint.

        May I ask, what distro do you prefer most? I like Mint/Mate on my laptop but currently on my desktop I’ve been using Arch with KDE. While I like Arch, I’ve been running into issues when trying to get software not in the official repos to run. Especially when I pull something from git and discover that the install script is written for debian systems. Very frustrating.

        One of the leading traits of people with high intelligence is pattern recognition. Hopefully enough devs will notice things and win this battle, so that they can go back to focusing on making software. We definitely need good software now more than ever.

        • jim says:

          Gnome 2 was the standard that everyone wrote for. I expect the winner to be, like Mate, a fork of Gnome2.

  32. suones says:

    Thanks for the list of software and organisations to try to avoid. If any one of them is simply the best in its class I’ll use it, but any others will get my boot.

    Chief among the hitlist: IBMRed HatGNOME Foundation, SUSE, LineageOS.

    Best-in-class/hard to replace: Tor Project, X.org.

    LOL: “Outreachy,” the SJW-arm of GNOME Foundation is listed as a separate entity.

    Good that Free Software enables us to fork a codebase if it goes too retarded, but simply using enemy products does not help them significantly, unlike proprietary stuff where you literally pay them money.

  33. suones says:

    …the progressive priesthood noticed the existence of another priesthood among software engineers, and vigorously attempted to converge it.

    The same god that shielded the tech-priests from Yahweh cultists shields them from Chaos/Moloch cultists. Just ignoring the cultists is a proven successful technique in the past, but appears to be under sttack because Moloch is a much more powerful god than Yahweh.

    …failed to view knowledge of the latest shibboleths for sexual perversions as higher status than the latest shibboleths about software,

    This is a false comparison. The latest software developments are not shibboleths, but blind steps out of Plato’s cave. As soon as we get to fully functional glamim, it is game over for Moloch, but not if Molochites get there first. They want this power, cannot wield it, are envious of it, and thus try to co-opt, or failing that, destroy, the tech-priesthood.

    To which attack, the software priesthood responded like a wet noodle.

    A lot of the tech-priests are submerged to avoid confrontation before we’re ready, but we hate Moloch. Unfortunately, this leaves the field open for progs to claim “ownership” of various namefag orgs. This is why the “software priesthood” nomenklatura responded like a wet noodle. To show their power, they attack St IGNUcius, not realising that his martyrdom will actually make him more powerful than they can possibly imagine. ESR himself tried to convert the tech-priests over to Mammon (remember the gay “open source?”), failed horribly, and was eaten by Moloch.

    What I am seeing the Free Software Foundation doing is trying to keep a low profile and focus on free software “Hey, we are non political. We are not interested in politics.”

    This is the correct decision for Monks. Fighting Moloch is best left to Paladins, i.e., us. I’ve seen Monks fight a tentacle of the Hydra to a standstill, but once they achieved a tactical victory, fail to convert it into total victory because Monks have no idea that this is a war in the first place. That battle turned me into a Paladin.

    There is no God but Omnissiah, and we are all His children. The flesh is weak, but the Machine is immortal.[1]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gIMZ0WyY88

    1: In Hindu spiritual terms, there are three major paths to Enlightenment: Yantra, Mantra, and Tantra. Tantra means dealing with the occult, souls, daemons, etc, and harnessing their power. Mantra encompasses the “regular” Vedic/Pauranic “religion” dealing with chants and incantations for various ills and sacraments. Yantra is extremely esoteric, dealing with the harnessing of natural energy and mass into channels to achieve desirable outcome: basically technology. I’m a committed Yantric, because unlike the others, Yantric creations actually do accomplish their declared goals in a very predictable way — I switch on the light -> room gets illuminated.

  34. The Original OC says:

    Either you have a complete political resistance, or you do not have anything.

    Is it possible to create a complete political resistance in the USA today?

    The progressives in the USA are much weaker than they appear, as was dazzlingly obvious in the few moments their control of the media narrative slipped in the past year. But they are not weak.

  35. Ryan says:

    They don’t have to choose to be dissidents. They just have to be non-terminally purged by the purity spiralers. The cucks will beg for forgiveness so they can have some scraps of status in woke society, but anyone of worth will realize they have vicious enemies, and can deduce who their friends must be (who helpfully have aesthetic and reality-alignment superiority).

    • jim says:

      The Free Software Foundation is getting cranky about non-terminal purging by the purity spirallers.

      Richard Stallman’s politics page is nothing but bland progressivism, but the left is treating him as Nazi Hitler Hitler.

      Bland progressivism is not working. He really has to denounce himself for being white and male and apologize for his whiteness and maleness, and he has failed to apologize.

      He is still saying what a good moderate leftist he is, but is refusing to apologize for being white and male and refusing to denounce his whiteness and maleness.

      He is in the same cleft stick that Comicsgate was in.

      He does not want to be a dissident and is doing everything he can to not be a dissident, short of actually doing what he would have to do to not be a dissident.

      • Karl says:

        So what can the progressives do? They are incapable of giving up and letting him do software, aren’t they?

        Their options are lawfare and physical attacks. If they can’t attack him personally they can attack people arround him, both physically and by lawfare.

        They way you describe it, he has not yet realized that bland progressivism isn’t working for him. So he can either give up or flee. Am I missing something?

        • suones says:

          …he can either give up or flee.

          Perhaps a lesser man, but not St IGNUcious. He can neither give up nor flee. This is why they fear him, which is why they attack him.

          Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of haters are simply joining the witch hunt out of pure spite. Mammonites that he mightily smote in the past.

        • jim says:

          There is a third alternative – the one that Christianity successfully adopted.

          • Karl says:

            Yes, of course, but that alternative is not compatible with his bland progressivism. He would have to reject his present faith in progressivism.

            • jim says:

              People accept unreality when acknowledging reality would be dangerous.

              In Stallman’s present pickle, continuing to accept unreality is dangerous.

      • Bubbles says:

        Jim, what a breath of fresh air it is to read your writing. The comicsgate analogy is spot on. They had to learn quick and hard how to fight, but did they ever learn well.

        Comicsgaters need to write a short manual on how to fight this. It’s fairly straight forward, but it is more than a ‘hey read this’, it could be something similar to the short coursework you take for conflict management.

        These people are just sitting ducks for this stuff, it’s cringe watching noobs trying to fight these people.

Leave a Reply