The Road of our people’s democracy

In Hungary, and various other soon to be iron curtain countries, free and fair elections were held, which elections the communists completely and totally lost.

Untroubled, they applied pressure to purge the very rightmost people from government. And the very rightmost were purged. And they continued to apply pressure, and the very rightmost remaining were purged. And pretty soon there was no one left except communists. They called this “The Salami Slicer“. The process did not go all the way to infinite leftism and the execution of absolutely everyone, because Stalin had it under top down control, and turned it off once total communist domination had been achieved.

Which is OK, provided that Stalin has sufficient control to prevent those under him from using it against him.

Now lately, social justice warriors have been pushing open source software projects to adopt the following set of rules:

… People with “merit” are often excused for their bad behavior in public spaces based on the value of their technical contributions. Meritocracy also naively assumes a level playing field, in which everyone has access to the same resources, free time, and common life experiences to draw upon. These factors and more make contributing to open source a daunting prospect for many people, especially women and other underrepresented people.…

Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:

The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances
Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
Public or private harassment
Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission
Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

Our Responsibilities

Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior.

Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful. …

tl;dr The project agrees to purge the politically incorrect.

Doubting that the politically incorrect need to be purged is, of course compelling evidence that your views are so shockingly right wing that you need to be purged.  Indeed, debates on this issue tend to reveal that practically all of the key contributors are so ultra extreme far right wing that they need to be purged.

Further, although supposedly it is everyone’s responsibility to purge the politically incorrect, obviously ordinary contributors, being mere coders and guilty of white privilege lack the required exquisite sensitivity to subtle slights, so people with the right race, sex, and sexual preferences need to be added to the project to take charge of purging people.

Note that the people pushing this proposal are so excruciatingly sensitive that they consider that the use of terms such as “forking” constitute sexualized imagery.  They find misogyny and racism absolutely everywhere.  Everyone (except themselves) is guilty, and must be punished.

58 Responses to “The Road of our people’s democracy”

  1. B says:

    So what? If American open source projects get commissars, they will move to Israel or China. And the contributors will be sitting in America, just like before. People will use the projects’ output in America, just like before. And since the commissars are typically idiots with no technical grasp (dailycaller.com/2016/01/26/clinton-chief-of-staff-lost-her-personal-blackberry-which-contained-classified-emails/), pissing off the people who do have technical skills is a sure route to embarrassment. Since everyone is a criminal, having your criminal private life leak and go viral is a good disincentive.

    • jim says:

      So what? If American open source projects get commissars, they will move to Israel or China.

      Can’t move to China, language barrier. Cannot move to Israel, the state religion of progressives stronger there than the US.

      Observe your government is building a new Wailing Wall for females and progressives, which undermines the pious pretense that Judaism is still in exile because the temple site is still supposedly enemy occupied.

      No one will turn up to the new and improved wailing wall, because the real objective is not to pray, but to smash prayer, just as the real objective of gay marriage was not for gays to get married, but to smash heterosexual marriage. But the new and improved Wailing Wall is a step to their actual objective, which surely shall be achieved in time, for the balance of power is that they can build a new wailing wall, but you cannot build a new temple, and do not really want to build a new temple. You hope for a messiah to build one for you. If you don’t really want to rebuild the temple, don’t really want to return Judaism from exile, even less do you want to defend politically incorrect software contributors.

      The number of female and NAM contributors to open source is indistinguishable from zero. Obviously this must be due to large numbers of witches issuing evil spells. If a large number of witches are not found, have to look harder. If the removal of large numbers of witches fails to fix the problem, not enough witches were found. Need to redouble the hunt for witches.

      • B says:

        >Can’t move to China, language barrier. Cannot move to Israel, the state religion of progressives stronger there than the US.

        Move the project to China/Israel virtually.

        The Wall-we shall see what happens.

    • pdimov says:

      “If we deem you a thought criminal, we won’t let you work for us for free.”

      It’s interesting how this is going to unfold.

    • vxxc2014 says:

      Outsourcing isn’t an answer.

      Fighting is.

      • pdimov says:

        The problem is that most normal people don’t understand the situation. If you start talking about SJW entryism they see you as a right-wing nutjob. If you respond to the SJWs in the manner they deserve, you come across as an asshole in the eyes of the normies.

        Viewed in this light, “Coraline Ada Ehmke” may be doing us a favor by raising awareness of social justice issues in open source. Programmers aren’t stupid and can see what this means:

        “The responsibility of enforcing the code of conduct should be handed to a committee comprised of people who have more experience with harassment which is often not recognised by people with more privilege. As well as that, what if Matz or one of the maintainers themselves were to violate the code of conduct? Nobody could stop them, therefore the CoC enforcement task should be carried out members of minority groups who will not violate the CoC. Nobody, not Matz or any maintainers should be exempt from consequences like demotion and banning.”

        • ..peppermint says:

          I see dumb progressive slogans on Facebook. Can I respond substantially? No, I’ll be signaling discomfort and my gf will be unhappy with my show of weakness. Can I respond with a snide comment? Then I’ll look like a pinhead and open myself up to being lectured.

          It is unclear that he structural advantage the signalers have will ever be dismantled, even when we have right-wing memes everywhere instead. Unless people can learn to reject signaling out of hand and focus only on accomplishments. Which means Law of Jante and credentialism.

          • pdimov says:

            This is less of a problem in open source, volunteer programmers tend to be dialectical (autistic if you prefer) and don’t pay that much attention to signaling. Some of them do honestly believe in white privilege and the rest of the crap though.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            “I see dumb progressive slogans on Facebook. Can I respond substantially? No, I’ll be signaling discomfort and my gf will be unhappy with my show of weakness.”

            Tight game tight, P-Mint.

            Trump taught me the same. I watched my first Trump rally speech just recently, and was dumbfounded by how he (barely) never insults anyone. He’s extremely skillful and deft with how he expresses his anger. Because just like you say: Frustration isn’t sexy, however righteous and justified said frustration might be.

            So part of this challenge is figuring out how to pitch White Independece in a positive and triumphant way. How to make it a happy thing, a winner thing.

  2. vxxc2014 says:

    So bitch slap the pussies around.

    When you have an enemy this weak and projecting it you slap them down.

    The failure of your approach is REASON. Reason is USELESS.

    As is any appeal to sanity.

    HURT THEM. It’s the only language they understand.

    Especially an enemy more bitch than Tahesi Coates.

    • R7_Rocket says:

      As Scott Adams said:
      Identity beats Analogy
      Analogy beats Reason
      Reason beats nothing

    • viking says:

      while I would pay to see this nerd vs fag fight I think anonymity is the answer the programmers themselves and the task should be making programs that guarantee free thought through anonymity remake twiiter face book blogger disquis email all of it in an open source free and completely unbreachable by NSA and SJW.We are still at a point where such products can be attractive to the left on privacy grounds in fact if good products existed that were private i think everyone in the world would want them.

  3. Mister Grumpus says:

    I’m so naive. I’m naive because I just can’t mentally process/comprehend the evident facts here that:

    1: SJW’s feel the need to intrude upon a bunch of guys getting together to write computer programs FOR FREE, and

    2: The SJW’s are succeeding = the programmers are retreating from them.

    I recall how GamerGaters claimed that SJW intrusion into computer games only really got started when there was big money in it. Well. It’s not about the money here.

    This is fascinating. What’s next? Sucking a Mud’s dick, swallowing his semen, making a PornHub out of it, and including it as (a necessary) part of your Harvard application?

    • pdimov says:

      SJWs are parasitic. They can only take over what exists. Open source, being meritocratic, is overwhelmingly white and male, so SJWs are trying to take over it. It’s not a rational calculation. There is money involved in some cases – half of the budget of the GNOME foundation has been redirected to women outreach programs – but it’s not about the money.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        I keeping getting this sucking-dread suspicion that every day a greater proportion of people cross-over into being economically and/or culturally net-worthless. As in, the Net Present Value of the planet earth would increase if they simply vanished.

        And this fact continues to “leak out” into phenomena like this; These SJW’s clamoring to invade every self-supporting system/community they can find.

        Perhaps “Western Civ has got to go” is this very same perception, but this time by the parasitic class about themselves, and projecting it back onto the White Man out of mental self-preservation.

        • pdimov says:

          That’s not a bad observation. The SJWs feel that their lives lack purpose, so they try to attach themselves to something that has purpose, such as, in this case, an open source project.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            “Black Lives Matter!” is the ultimate parasite/empathy-predator anthem imaginable as far as I can tell. Suing us to feed them in return for… gang-raped white old ladies and shit-canned property values.

            Goddammit man. How DOES this end?

            A: White self-genocide
            B: ________________

            • jim says:

              Goddammit man. How DOES this end?

              A: White self-genocide
              B: ________________

              White South Africans are lefter than ever. There is no democratic way out of this, because democracy leads to priestly rule, and priestly rule leads to holiness spirals.

          • Brian says:

            How does one end priestly rule?

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            > How does one end priestly rule?

            If that question stumps you then it’s just because you’re part of the dominant culture, like me.

            But there ARE historical examples of this that Jim brings up here. Namely, there was a Restoration period in 17th-century England where the progressively-corrupted Anglican Church was re-subjugated by the warrior-class.

            This Oliver Cromwell fellow was involved, but I’m too historically ignorant/lazy to know exactly how.

          • peppermint says:

            Trump isn’t a signaler, he’s a builder; putting a builder in a position of ceremonial authority might have an effect.

            Ideally, candidates for offices of public trust should
            (1) be at least 50 years old
            (2) be happily married or a widower
            (3) have earned at least one million dollars in cumulative salary not drawn from the governmental and financial sectors
            (4) have at least 3 children
            (5) never have been convicted of a crime or arrested under suspicion of a felony, children never have been convicted of a felony

            For example, Trump isn’t good enough because he’s a divorcé.

          • B says:

            >Trump isn’t a signaler, he’s a builder

            What was he doing on television, in the WWF and on the Apprentice, discussing construction blueprints? What is Trump Towers, if not signalling? I mean, it’s not as though it’s a chip fab. Trump is a populist signaller. Which is better than being an elitist signaller, I guess, but not better enough.

            >have earned at least one million dollars in cumulative salary not drawn from the governmental and financial sectors

            Everybody in America works in or for the governmental or financial sectors.

            What America needs is to be run by JSOC (which is probably the last repository of courage, intelligence and competence left,) but most of the guys running JSOC get half of their big-picture ideas filtered down from Harvard via Fox News and Bangtube, so probably aren’t intelligent enough to reform and run America.

            Moldbug and Weev think America needs to be run by Silicon Valley programmers, but the guys running Silicon Valley have the same problem as the guys running JSOC, except that they lack the courage.

            I think the mess is beyond reform without divine intervention.

  4. To me the really interesting part is not that they want to purge derogatory remarks, but that they find sexualized imagery or terms somehow bad. Two generations after the Sexual Revolution and it is now liberals turning prudes? It is really mind-boggling. If you want to censor sexual imagery in 1975 people would say you must be one of them religious conservative Victorian prude wackos. Not the latest wave of progressivism.

    The only good explanation I can come up with is the idea that women find the typical low beta to gamma male having any sort of sexuality strongly repulsive, ideally he should behave in a neutered way and only attractive alpha to top beta men should behave sexually. But of course this is never said openly, hence the hamster spins.

    But if it true, and I have not seen any alternative theories, there is a truly shocking idea – what is this is something that does not map neatly to left/right, change the past / preserve the past? What if the old time Victorian religious conservative prudes were already motivated by something similar as todays sex-negative feminists?

    Impossible? Not so sure. There are three overlaps between prudish religious Victorians and modern Progs, one is holiness-signalling, the other is women taking a very visible role in policing, and the third is sex-negativity.

    (BTW I am aware actual Victorians were prudish because of rationalism, not religion, i.e. not wanting the conscious mind to be ruled by any instincts, but I am just playing to present stereotypes now.)

    So for extra mindfuck, imagine opposition to certain aspects of the Sexual Revolution a “progressive” project in a conservative, religious garb. Not the aspect of liberating women, but the aspect of liberating porn for the consumption of unattractive gamma men.

    • peppermint says:

      women find men of slightly lower SMV repulsive, but they can have a motherly affection for and date men of much lower SMV and not feel like they’re getting dragged down (until they have a mulatto baby).

      Those men of much lower SMV are terrified of higher SMV men, and need to be even more abusive towards the women than niggers usually are in order to keep them.

      I have seen this happen.

      Polygamist men of higher SMV want to destroy men of somewhat lower SMV than them, and if the woman must have a boyfriend, want the women to be with men of much lower SMV and cheating on those men with them. But they really want their pussy on the side to be strong independent womyn who don’t need no man.

      Don’t blame the women. It’s the men who set the policy.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        > But they really want their pussy on the side to be
        > strong independent womyn who don’t need no man.

        You’re a stone cold killer, P-Mint.

        My first clue of this was when I read — way-way back in the day — that PUA “pioneer” Ross Jeffries’ (or rather “(((Jeffries’)))”?) harem was a bunch of “professional” women.

        Don Draper (a fictional character naturally) doesn’t mess around with married Mom’s, duh.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        “Those men of much lower SMV are terrified of higher SMV men, and need to be even more abusive towards the women than niggers usually are in order to keep them.

        “I have seen this happen.”

        Can you give a fake-name example?

        • peppermint says:

          a girl I knew in college. She dated a mud person (dark skin Indian) because nobody above her SMV wanted to date her and she didn’t want anything to do with people under her SMV. She dated this mud person for a year, then she got a job in the broader information technology industry, ditched him, deleted their cute couple pictures from Facebook, and presumably doesn’t want anyone to talk about him since it would humiliate her White fiancé, who has lighter colored eyes and hair than her.

          While she was dating him, he was terrified of me. I don’t know what happened in their bedroom, but it’s well known that niggers beat White women more than they beat nigger sows.

      • jim says:

        Don’t blame the women. It’s the men who set the policy.

        Where we definitely know that men set policy, women are put in harems.

        Looks to me that in the west women set policy, and they put themselves in brothels.

        • peppermint says:

          and when women can’t be explicitly put in harems,

          but they can be made into secretaries of the playboys, or, the modern version, office industry professionals who would get their boss fired if he tried to touch them because bosses who are like a boss touch other companies’ women,

          who say that they’re Rosie the Riveter, and the media suppresses the fact that they’re actually Monica Lewinsky?

          Yes, the policy is to the benefit of the women of lower SMV who would otherwise have to marry a loser, have a bastard, or go childless. That doesn’t mean that they chose the policy: how could they? they are women.

          Bill Clinton is the one who wants to tell Monica Lewinsky that she’s Rosie the Riveter.

    • Jack says:

      Attitude toward sex is entirety a racial thing, with Whites leaning prudish and, in contrast, Jews leaning liberal. Sex negative Feminism is White while sex positive Feminism is Jewish. Both should be annihilated utterly, if there was any doubt.

      • peppermint says:

        sex negative feminism means:

        (1) Abort bastards and their parents
        (2) Abolish prostitution
        (3) Abolish homosexuals
        (4) Not just shame, but punish violations of monogamy
        (5) Keep porn and sex toys away from children under 35 (♀) or 40 (♂)

        I’m a sex negative feminist

      • B says:

        >Attitude toward sex is entirety a racial thing, with Whites leaning prudish and, in contrast, Jews leaning liberal.

        This is the exact opposite of the truth.

        Extreme modesty is a Semitic trait. Everyone who has dealt with traditional Semitic cultures has noticed this, from Burton to Wilfred Thesiger.

        Sexual libertinism is something that Indoeuropeans were traditionally noted for. Examples: the Roman Bacchanalia, the long history of group naked bathing in Germany, where whole families bathed nude together (this goes on today as well,) Freikörperkultur, the Oneida Commune, right down to the present day’s Western sexual mores.

        The sexually libertine Jews of today’s West are invariably highly assimilated into non-Jewish Western culture, and their sexual immodesty is a function of their assimilation. That it does not come naturally is obvious from the fact that they have to come up with elaborate theories to justify this behavior to themselves and the world, while dissolute Western non-Jews do not, any more than a horse needs a theory to justify eating grass. Jim mentioned that James Deen has to explain that he’s really a pro-sex feminist, while Hugh Hefner doesn’t. This is why.

        • Morkyz says:

          It’s pretty gross that you think families bathing nude together is an example of “sexual liberalism.”

          • B says:

            Why is that gross?

            Do you know why Ham was punished in the Bible?

          • Morkyz says:

            Err, I was under the impression he was punished for disrespecting his father. It’s not polite to barge in on a man when he’s naked and it’s very very impolite to make fun of him when you do. Still, in a healthy culture men (especially family, wtf) are able to be naked around each-other without it being “sexually liberal.”

            Note how men in societies where homosexuality is visible and tolerated in public don’t feel as comfortable holding hands with friends.

          • B says:

            >I was under the impression he was punished for disrespecting his father.

            You might want to read the relevant passage:

            2 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

            Men in a healthy culture can be naked around each other. But it is immodest, as a man, to look at your father’s nakedness, not to mention that of your mother, etc.

            And I doubt you yourself would be comfortable swimming naked with your mother.

          • Morkyz says:

            I wouldn’t, but the difference between me and these german families that are not uncomfortable is not sexual liberalism, but something else.

          • B says:

            Can you have a lack of shame without sexual liberalism?

          • Morkyz says:

            You can have women unashamed to show their hair and ankles without it. I think modesty norms/taboos (as in, what is perceived as being sexual in nature) are correlated, but not perfectly, to norms about who can sex whom.

            You can hypothetically imagine a culture where women showing their hair is considered risque but casual sex is common. There might even be such a subculture in parts of the muslim world. You can also imagine a culture with strong norms against casual sex but not much in the way of nudity taboos. I think pre-imperial japan might have been such a culture.

          • B says:

            >You can have women unashamed to show their hair and ankles without it.

            That’s the case in Judaism.

            >I think modesty norms/taboos (as in, what is perceived as being sexual in nature) are correlated, but not perfectly, to norms about who can sex whom.

            Sure, I’ll buy that. In Judaism, there are two different definitions of “ervah,” minimal areas which women are not allowed to expose without being immodest, for Jews and non-Jews.

            >You can hypothetically imagine a culture where women showing their hair is considered risque but casual sex is common.

            A hypocritical culture, based on shame but vs. guilt, sure.

            >I think pre-imperial japan might have been such a culture.

            I do not know very much about pre-imperial Japan. I know Feynman was struck by the casual way in which nudity was treated in 1960s Japan and thought it a very fine thing.

            But in general, European cultures which thought nothing of nudity generally thought nothing of sexual debauchery.

            Looking at Tacitus, he says that the ancient Germans were quite chaste, compared to the Romans.

          • Jack says:

            >Looking at Tacitus, he says that the ancient Germans were quite chaste, compared to the Romans.

            And then those Romans converted to Judaism en masse and created the Ashkenazi ethnos, which later immigrated to chaste Germany and, post-emancipation, commenced sexualizing the culture, eventually resulting in HITLER.

            To prevent Hitler’s ghost from incarnating in the flesh, the Jews could just stop sexualizing culture. So what did they do? Hollywood. Such mature, so responsibility, definitely won’t backfire horribly this time.

        • Jack says:

          Idiot. Modesty, or extreme modesty, is common among Semites exactly because they are naturally sexualized and lecherous. Whites did not invent the hijab and the burkah because they didn’t need to, can even bath naked together without being consumed by lust. (Btw, the Talmud calls Ishmaelites the most lecherous people, you should know that)

          A White guy can see a scantily-clad chick without exploding with desire to sex her up, but Semites can’t, that’s why they have to insist on modest clothing as you just did, lol. Thus, Semites of the secular Jewish kind invented elaborate moral systems to justify their lechery. Whites didn’t need to do that because they are not as lecherous.

          That’s what Jews don’t get, because you’re sexually neurotic: Whites can look at tits, think “well that’s beautiful” and move on. Jews see tits and can’t move on, so write essays on why “free the tit” movement is morally justified, or, if religious, start shrieking with agony.

          Take naked sculptures and paintings of naked women. Whites appreciated them for their artistic value. Jews see nakedness as inherently pornographic, so if religious, avoid looking at such sculptures and paintings, and if secular, become pornographers themselves.

          So religious Jews are tempted by almost everything, so avoid almost everything. Secular Jews are also tempted by almost everything, so morally justify almost everything. But the common thread is that everything makes you horny, you just have different coping strategies. Whites are not made horny by everything, so can tolerate much more sexual imagery than Jews. Jews have an “all or nothing” attitude, while Whites can balance sexual imagery with culture without descending to total degeneracy.

          Because Feminism is secular, it has been dominated by secular Jews, who are always horny, therefore justify all perversions.

          I knew you would bring up modesty, very Semitic of you. The issue isn’t just modesty, it’s how different races cope with lechery. Religious Jews and Arabs cover their women because otherwise the lust is unbearable. Secular Jews support perversity, all of it. Whites forbid that which is degenerate; taken to extreme, Whites produce moral systems that deem everything as degenerate, thus sex negative Feminism. Puritanism is essentially White. Puritanism is a mistake but so are the Semitic neurotic attitudes. Balance is key.

          • B says:

            >Modesty, or extreme modesty, is common among Semites exactly because they are naturally sexualized and lecherous.

            Ladies and gentlemen, I present you this man who accuses us of convoluted logic.

            >A White guy can see a scantily-clad chick without exploding with desire to sex her up

            Of course he can, if he’s a eunuch.

            >Whites can look at tits, think “well that’s beautiful” and move on.

            Sure they can. If they’re eunuchs.

            Or do you mean to say that the white people who visit strip clubs are there in the abstract interest of appreciating beauty?

            Please peddle your bullshit elsewhere. I spent years in the close company of typical American white males in the US military, and know exactly what they discuss among themselves 80% of the time. It is not the platonic beauty of women.

            >Whites are not made horny by everything, so can tolerate much more sexual imagery than Jews.

            Those whites who successfully resist Western culture do so in part through the exact same kind of modesty as we practice. Not a lot of abstract nude sculpture appreciation among the Amish, Mennonites and Mormons, and no nude joint bathing (I think the Molokans are an exception, but they are pretty crazy.)

            Those whites who rediscovered their Greek and Roman heritage during the Renaissance and created lots of beautiful nudes for the common white person’s artistic appreciation also behaved exactly as their Greek and Roman precedents sexually. I’m talking of course about Pietro Aretino, Michelangelo, etc.

            You can try to square the circle all you wish, but facts are facts.

            >Religious Jews and Arabs cover their women because otherwise the lust is unbearable.

            Religious Jews live in modern-day New York, Tel Aviv, etc., where most women one sees on the streets are not religious or covered up, so this is absurd. Religious Jews practice modesty because we see it as a virtue. We do not demand it of others so that we may feel more comfortable.

          • Jack says:

            >Ladies and gentlemen, I present you this man who accuses us of convoluted logic.

            Nothing convoluted here, my proposition is very straightforward: there is a positive correlation between the extent to which a society goes to ensure its women are modestly clothed, and the sexual lust inherent to said society. It may sound counter-intuitive until you realize that modest clothing is practiced to reduce temptation, so the more temptation there is, the stricter the measures required to ward it off. Semites are super horny, therefore they dress their women with tents that cover them completely, or in your case, don’t allow unrelated men and women in the same room, lest they start shagging right away. This indicates not lack of sinful desire, but strong sinful desire which requires plenty of “fences around the law.”

            >Of course he can, if he’s a eunuch.
            >Sure they can. If they’re eunuchs.

            This is Jewspeak. A Jew actually has to be castrated so he can tolerate some nude imagery without being consumed with insurmountable passion, like Scott Alexander’s Jewish friend for instance. Normal humans can look at paintings of vaginas and see some real-life cleavage without it awakening their inner rapist. Semites can’t. And in fact, internet cafes are full to the brim with your correligionists jerking it off to some really nasty stuff.

            >Or do you mean to say that the white people who visit strip clubs are there in the abstract interest of appreciating beauty?

            They are there for the sexual gratification. Granted, the regulars are a bunch of perverts, but many visitors are there for the social experience, chilling out with the gang and such, with sexual gratification being an added bonus.

            >Please peddle your bullshit elsewhere. I spent years in the close company of typical American white males in the US military, and know exactly what they discuss among themselves 80% of the time. It is not the platonic beauty of women.

            Males talk about sex, news at eleven. Anyway, no one claimed that White men have no lust whatsoever, that’s your strawman, but that they are less lustful and degenerate than Semites, which is pretty obvious.

            >Religious Jews practice modesty because we see it as a virtue. We do not demand it of others so that we may feel more comfortable.

            Yeah right, as if I don’t read Times of Israel articles about the regulation of modesty in Meah Shearim and some other communities. Don’t get me wrong, secular Feminist provocateurs deserve being pelted with rocks, but you really shouldn’t pretend they don’t bother you. They do bother you.

          • B says:

            >there is a positive correlation between the extent to which a society goes to ensure its women are modestly clothed, and the sexual lust inherent to said society.

            African and Amazonian tribesmen must be models of chastity, then, since they run around naked.

            >Males talk about sex, news at eleven

            Strangely, I do not see a lot of sexual chatter among observant Jewish males.

            >Anyway, no one claimed that White men have no lust whatsoever, that’s your strawman, but that they are less lustful and degenerate than Semites, which is pretty obvious.

            You are assuming your conclusion. It is not obvious to me.

            A degenerate, by the way, is not someone who controls his lust, but someone who does not control it. Roissy, for instance. Words have meanings.

            >as if I don’t read Times of Israel articles about the regulation of modesty in Meah Shearim and some other communities.

            A small minority of observant Jews live in Meah Shearim and these other communities. Yet we do not see the vast majority who do not live there and are exposed to women who are scantily clad run about raping everything in sight.

            It may be that compared to modern castrated European and American males, observant Jews are lustful, since they have not been castrated. But if you transported a European male from 300 years ago to your modern society, he would immediately assume the women were all whores based on their dress and mannerisms. This does not tell us much about his personal character.

          • Jack says:

            >African and Amazonian tribesmen must be models of chastity, then, since they run around naked.

            They do not even attempt to cultivate civilization, unlike the Arabs, who tried and failed to cultivate civilization. Part of this trial is curbing lust, and due to their overpowering lust, the Semites came up with what you call “extreme modesty”. Those nigger tribesmen run around raping everything that moves. You can’t have that and maintain civilization, so sandnigger tribesmen developed strict modest clothing, without which they, too, run around raping everything that moves. Whites just don’t tend to behave that way organically, so do not need to cover their women with black tents.

            >Strangely, I do not see a lot of sexual chatter among observant Jewish males.

            Assuming this isn’t a lie, that means those religious Jews have succeeded in resisting their lust, like religious non-Jews do regularly. This goes to show that religion is required to successfully defeat degeneracy. That said, there’s a reason why some religions emphasize modest clothing more than others, and this emphasis is correlated with the challenge posed by the lechery in society. Among Arabs it’s extreme, among Jews it’s pretty strong, among Whites it’s significantly weaker. This is Social Technology 101.

            >It may be that compared to modern castrated European and American males, observant Jews are lustful, since they have not been castrated.

            Jews have been considered lecherous for a long time now. If modern Jews were paragons of healthy sexual conduct, you could call “projection” and “anti-Semitic canard”. Since Jews, both assimilated and non-castrated observant ones, do indeed conform to the old stereotype of the lecherous Jew, it kinda proves that those old Jew-haters had a point, and that Jews are not just lustful compared to modern castrated Whites, but were always lustful compared to Whites. Ergo it’s biological rather than merely cultural.

          • B says:

            Good job ignoring my points and reiterating yours.

            >Jews have been considered lecherous for a long time now.

            Sure, by the same people who accuse us of drinking blood.

            >If modern Jews were paragons of healthy sexual conduct

            Modern (religious) Jews are indeed paragons of healthy sexual conduct, as evidenced by marriage and reproduction rates.

            >you could call “projection” and “anti-Semitic canard”.

            The Hebrew/Russian saying is “the hat burns the thief’s head.” Or, “methinks the lady doth protest too much.”

            >Don’t get me wrong, secular Feminist provocateurs deserve being pelted with rocks, but you really shouldn’t pretend they don’t bother you.

            They bother me not because I find them tempting and am overcome with lust. They bother me because they are selling a cheap lie to the daughters of Israel.

            Similarly, you do not bother me because I find your words to be uncomfortable truths. You bother me because I find them cheap and obnoxious lies.

          • Jack says:

            >Sure, by the same people who accuse us of drinking blood.

            You were accused of drinking blood because the Goyim saw you circumcizing your infants and performing oral sucking on their penises, and concluded that if you drink (or appear to be drinking, for that matter) your children’s blood, God only knows what you might do to Gentile children. Totally rational xenophobia.

            >Modern (religious) Jews are indeed paragons of healthy sexual conduct, as evidenced by marriage and reproduction rates.

            Know what? I’ll agree with you on this one.

            >The Hebrew/Russian saying is “the hat burns the thief’s head.” Or, “methinks the lady doth protest too much.”

            There is also a Russian saying that goes: “one who doesn’t smoke and doesn’t drink [alcohol], that one will die healthy”, and accordingly, Russian men die in their 60s. So I take Russian wisdom with a grain of salt.

            >Similarly, you do not bother me because I find your words to be uncomfortable truths. You bother me because I find them cheap and obnoxious lies.

            What lies? Applying critical thinking and HBD knowledge to the Jewish people? You could actually benefit from this exercise. For instance, it is known that the IDF’s Hasbarah in Judea & Samaria is partly based on sending secular leftist Ashkenazim from Tel Aviv to inspect the Arabs in the checkpoints. The reasoning is that they will treat the Arabs humanely and won’t abuse them. However, this often traumatizes and subsequently radicalizes the leftie Ashkenazim, and they go on to join NGOs that severely damage your Hasbarah. So a better strategy would be to send poor Moroccans to the checkpoints, because, while they won’t treat the Arabs as anything other than subhuman garbage, which doesn’t look good on TV, they won’t turn into “Human Rights Activists” either, so the pros outweigh the cons and it’ll benefit your Hasbarah long-term.

            Now, try telling an average Israeli that “we should staff our checkpoints with Moroccans instead of leftie Ashkenazim”, and see how long till you’re accused of wayciss (immediately). Thus, “nazi” real-talk would improve your state of affairs, but because you stubbornly insist that the differences between Ashkenazim and North Africans are superficial at best, even though your own military knows better, you can’t criticize your military’s counterproductive strategy, not without being lectured about your wayciss stereotyping. And that’s just one example of why you should heed the advice of people who don’t worship at your feet, rather than that of your neocon sycophant supporters.

          • B says:

            >There is also a Russian saying that goes: “one who doesn’t smoke and doesn’t drink [alcohol], that one will die healthy”

            I’m starting to understand. You’re a Russian with a Jewish father, probably moved to the States as a kid (accounting for the good English and the fact that your knowledge of Israel seems to come largely from English language sources) and upset at the Jews for not accepting you as one of us.

            Am I right?

            This explains your rage, obsession, and familiarity with the portrayal of Israel given in the English-language Israeli media, combined with total ignorance of the daily realities, as seen below:

            >For instance, it is known that the IDF’s Hasbarah in Judea & Samaria is partly based on sending secular leftist Ashkenazim from Tel Aviv to inspect the Arabs in the checkpoints.

            “It is known” that you are an idiot. Checkpoints are manned by whichever infantry battalion is rotating through the area, as part of its responsibilities. Since these battalions are mixed, there is no such thing as “sending secular leftist Ashkenazim from Tel Aviv.” At any given point, any given checkpoint might be manned by secular leftist Ashkenazim, religious Ashkenazim, religious Sepharadim, secular Sepharadim, or Ethiopians. It might be Golani running a checkpoint one month and Givati or Netzach Yehuda the next.

          • Jack says:

            Next time I’ll cite a Congolese saying followed by a Turkic one, to help you reach the most sensible conclusion based on available data.

            Anyway, the Ashkenazi checkpoint traumas are popular, at least among pro-Palestine leftists, because almost all the “Human Rights Activists” who wail about their horrific experiences there are pale Ashkenazim, also see the videos of Shovrim Shtika, not many Ethiopians or Yemenites star in them. Since secular Ashkenazim are prone to wail about such stuff, it raises the logical question of why send them there in the first place. You say the battalions are mixed, but pretty sure there are varying ethnic compositions in at least some branches of the military, I doubt you have superfluous Ethiopian engineers for instance, and 8200 is Ashkenazi to the core, so I gather that if the IDF didn’t want leftie Ashkenazim at the checkpoints, they wouldn’t be there. It seems like a policy. Could be wrong though, ’twas just an example I conjured off the top of my head.

          • B says:

            You don’t know any Congolese or Turkic sayings, though…

            By the way, there is nothing to be ashamed of in your birth. It’s not something one has control of. Unlike one’s philosophy and speech.

            The guys who pull duty at checkpoints are about representative of Israel as a whole by ethnic breakdown.

            8200 and similar units seem to be about 70-85% Ashkenazi, in my experience. There are plenty of Sepharadim and so on. But they do not pull checkpoint duty.

    • pdimov says:

      Perhaps you’re looking for logic and reason where none exist? Whatever attack works is used, without regard for consistency or continuity.

    • jim says:

      What if the old time Victorian religious conservative prudes were already motivated by something similar as todays sex-negative feminists?

      It is pretty blatant that the old time religious Victorian prudes were leftists – radical flaming at the mouth leftists. They were always finding sexual immorality in soldiers, aristocrats, and male royalty. They claimed that women were naturally angelic, and therefore the apparatus of violent coercion to keep them from sleeping around was entirely unnecessary. They wanted to emancipate women and give them the vote. They wanted to ban liquor and “rescue fallen women”. They demonized military heroes, and valorized military camp followers. While outraged by the sexual immorality of aristocrats and soldiers, saw nothing odd about Florence Nightingale spending time in private with older wealthier men. They manufactured black poster boys and female poster girls to counter sexual and racial stereotyping. They wanted to erase slavery with fire and steel – with those despised and ridiculed immoral soldiers and aristocrats doing the dying, not themselves, of course.

      They wanted to rescue fallen women by removing all the adverse consequences of falling – blaming female immorality on the eighteenth century apparatus of coercion intended to penalize and prevent female immorality. They were very much anti male immorality, but when it came to female immorality, were agin it the way today’s “root causes” people are agin black crime.

      • peppermint says:

        John Stuart Mill eventually got married to Harriet Hardy, who was officially married to John Taylor, after John Taylor died. One or both of John Stuart Mill and John Taylor were cuckolds in the full sense of the word. Harriet may have died of syphilis.

        Rescuing fallen women and helping women become fallen and supporting them in it, while suppressing the authority of low SMV losers over their wives is stuff the high-SMV polygamist playboys want. Destroying the aristocracy is also good for high-SMV polygamist playboys. Imagine if the Chateau Heartiste guy was writing 200 years ago in England.

        Banning liquor is an attack on low SMV losers, and was phrased explicitly as an attack on low SMV losers and the way they mistreat their women, who would, after all, be better off as whores.

        Putting women in positions of power over men is one way of humiliating those men and removing them as sexual threats. There was a Dragnet episode in which a man is humiliated by having a female boss and steals from the company.

        Women don’t do this themselves. Men are the responsible sex.

  5. […] Salami tactics. Related: The tech salami slicer. […]

  6. […] kicks off the week with The Road of our people’s democracy. He draws parallels between Soviet-dominated Hungary’s Salami Slicer and America’s […]

  7. Howard J. Harrison says:

    Interesting: Google finds zero mentions of “Contributor Covenant” on lists.debian.org. The broader world has never heard of lists.debian.org, but leading open-source developers know all about it, for it is the social and technical center of open sourcedom.

    That is, not only is Contributor Covenant per se not yet winning, but where it counts, Contributor Covenant is not even discussed, indeed not even mentioned, apparently ignored.

    And Debian is rather left wing.

    So, the bad guys are not winning everything yet, are they?

Leave a Reply