Archive for February, 2016

Trump and testosterone

Sunday, February 28th, 2016

Testosterone levels and sperm counts have been falling steadily. Young men commonly have levels that once would have been normal in seventy year olds, and “normal” testosterone keeps being redefined downwards, while “normal” estrogen gets redefined upwards.

I have long suspected that this reflects metaphorical estrogen in the metaphorical water supply, rather than literal estrogen in the literal water supply, and the Trumpening hints that this theory is true. Trump’s supporters, critics, and opponents are all acting as if they have had testosterone shots, notably Rubio whose surgical castration seems to have been temporarily and partially reversed.

A Trump presidency is likely to have a big effect on the way American males walk, the way in which they speak, and the amount of kitchen work that they do.

Emancipation of women was a fitness test that we failed

Friday, February 26th, 2016

Hence the collapsing birth rate.

Fitness tests:

A fitness test is usually applied by a woman to a particular man she is thinking she might like in her pussy. When applied in this manner, a fitness test is what pickup artists call a shit test.

For example, suppose one schedules to meet a girl at ten in the morning. One is planning an all day first date with a variety of activities, since one hopes for a first date lay. She is late. A little after ten in the morning she messages one saying she will be there around eleven, twelve, or so. If one says “sure, I will wait for you baby”, one will wait and wait for she is not going to turn up at all. If one says “forget it”, departs the agreed meeting place without looking back or looking around, (she is likely not late at all, but stalking and watching) does not return when she promptly responds that she has arrived (swift forgiveness of drama leads immediately to more drama, not sex), and then goes silent for a few days, then soon she will be pestering one for a date. See the wise and great, Heartiste, minion of Satan, for a lengthy elucidation of shit tests.

Women cannot help shit testing men any more than men can help looking at women’s breasts. This is instinctive and unconscious. They genuinely believe their postures, attitudes, and demands are sincere, genuine, and deeply felt, like a four year old’s temper tantrum, and are entirely unaware that when their bluff is called, they will fold like cheap cardboard, and feel a deep relief, like a child in her father’s arms.

Emancipation of women leads to population collapse:

To reproduce it is necessary that a man and a woman form one household, one flesh. Sharing kids between two households is often tried these days, with results that are uniformly horrifying. One household must have one captain, and that captain the man, for women by their nature will not have sex with kitchen men.

And to reproduce, it is necessary that they are stuck in this arrangement.

If it depends on moment to moment consent, then we have prisoner’s dilemma. Women cuckold their men, and men spin plates. We get tit for tat defection. Tit for tat can only produce good results in iterated prisoner’s dilemma, and with reproduction, there are not many iterations.

Thus, for successful reproduction and child raising, women must be compelled to obey the father of their children, compelled to submit sexually to him, and forbidden to submit sexually to anyone else. Moment to moment consent frustrates both men and women, since it makes it difficult for them to reproduce. We need outside coercion to get to cooperate cooperate equilibrium. Moment to moment consent results in defect defect equilibrium, where no one gets what they really want. To reproduce successfully, men, women, and their children need durable and patriarchal marriage.

Emancipation of women leads to the welfare state, marriage to state, low IQ women having eighteen thuglets by eighteen different thugs, high IQ women having cats in place of babies.

The late nineteenth century, Victorianism, demonstrated that emancipated women without the welfare state means a whole lot of women giving birth in a dark alley in the rain to a fatherless child.

Victorianism was an effort to control this problem by dialing up censorious sexual moralizing to eleven, while simultaneously denying fathers the power to control their daughters and husbands the power to control their wives. Dialing up the sexual moralizing failed, and failed spectacularly. Recall Florence Nightingale’s wealthy gentleman friends, and Queen Caroline attending a ball naked from the waist up, and going back to her hotel with a man she picked up at the ball. Both of them needed a good whipping. No amount of pious moralizing will substitute for a father or a husband equipped with a stick no thicker than a woman’s thumb. Victorianism failed, and failed hilariously badly.

If you give women freedom of choice, a great many women make such terrible choices that men have little alternative but to pay for women’s choices. If you emancipate women to make their own decisions, you have to pay for their decisions, have to have a welfare state, because their decisions are frequently so bad. This profoundly impairs the freedom of men, that they have to pay for bad choices that they have no power over and receive no benefit from. Some thug knocks up some idiot, and the man with a job has to support another man’s child and a woman who is not giving him sex and domestic service.

This is pretty much what “Les Misérables” was about. “Les Misérables” argues that we need a welfare state to take care of criminal men and immoral women. And indeed that is true, if you reject the obvious alternative of coercively, involuntarily, and forcibly subordinating criminal men and immoral women to good men, of enslaving bad men and shotgun marrying independent fertile age women.

Since we don’t want to pay for eighteen thuglets, and we don’t want women giving birth in a dark alley in the rain, we have to keep women under male authority that supervises and restrains their sexual choices.

The eighteenth century system of guardianship was in large part a system for coercively marrying off young women who would have otherwise become independent women of property. They were generally married off to their guardian, or their guardian’s son. Guardian/ward marriages were the normal outcome of guardianship, and though theoretically consensual were usually clearly involuntary or the result of rather forceful manipulation. When the ward was taken into the guardian’s family at a very early age she was usually married off to a family closely related to their guardian’s family as soon as they came of age, to avoid psychological incest. Psychologically incestuous marriages between guardian and ward, in effect adopting a child with the intent of marriage at puberty, were not illegal but were subject to social disapproval, immoral but legal. Though legal, seem to have been extremely rare. If it was necessary to raise a female ward from an early age, she was raised in a household separate from her intended husband and transferred to her intended husband’s household at puberty.

Our society encourages gay men to adopt small helpless children as sex slaves, so we should not get agitated about eighteenth century guardians, who had to marry their wards for life in order to have sex with them and to keep charge of their ward’s property and dowries.

It is not clear what happened to poor independent young women, but somehow, in the eighteenth century, there do not seem to have been many poor independent women, so I suppose that something was done.

What was done with convict women in the early days of Australian settlement gives us a hint as to what was done with poor independent women in eighteenth century England.

When the convict ships landed in Australia, the convict women, now far away from family restraints, and free to mingle with men, acted like it was spring break in Cancun or Woodstock Revival. None of these women were there because of convictions for prostitution, and though they all acted like whores in eighteenth century meaning of the term, they don’t seem to have been selling sex, rather the reverse. The popular stereotype of a transported woman was a servant girl who stole something from her employer to give to her unreliable bad boy lover, who showed up at infrequent and unpredictable intervals to rough her up, have sex with her, and take her stuff. These days we longer call such women whores, because all women are like that, except for those few who have chosen to submit themselves for life to the firm hand of a strong man who is better than that.

If you read secondary and derived sources about the convict women in Australia they all invariably depict them as poor pitiful victims who were cruelly coerced into having casual sex by economic pressure or rape. This nineteenth and twentieth century account flatly, directly, and blatantly contradict what the primary sources and contemporary sources that they supposedly draw upon depict. What primary and contemporary sources all uniformly and consistently depict is Woodstock Revival and spring break on the shores of Port Jackson: Girls Gone Wild: “their desire to be with the men was so uncontrollable that neither shame nor punishment could deter them”. We don’t see contemporary reports of convict women in Australia trading sex for money until twenty years into the nineteenth century, three decades after settlement began – which is to say we don’t see contemporary reports of convict women in Australia trading sex for money until the coercion to impose monogamy was considerably reduced.

There is no contemporary report of convict women being forced into casual sex or paid for casual sex. What they do however report is women being forced, often by disturbingly severe violence, into monogamous sex, but resisting that coercion with amusing vigor and flair.

To solve the problem of spring break on the shores of Port Jackson, the authorities would frequently line up newly arrived female convicts in front of the female factory, and bring a bunch of preapproved males to marry them. Each male, on seeing a female he liked, would drop a small gift at her feet. If she picked it up, they were married (even if the female convict was already married to someone else in England). Any girl left over after every male had walked past was forcibly assigned to some male for seven years as servant and concubine, so it was advisable to pick up one of the gifts.

Upon arrival female convicts had to make a hurried choice between monogamous durable consensual marriage, or monogamous durable non consensual concubinage. Thus, for example, most, probably all, of the females that arrived on the Brittania in 1798 were either immediately married, married within a few weeks, or assigned to men to whom they subsequently bore children. They were swiftly taken out of circulation one way or another way. In some cases, many cases, they were taken out of circulation coercively by assignment. In the other cases, they voluntarily took themselves out of circulation with a swiftness that indicates very forceful pressure. Earlier and later convict women mostly got married in a less hurried manner, but they got married fast enough to suggest that pressure was applied case by case, and/or that they were shotgun married upon getting pregnant, but not shotgun married shortly after showing up on the docks like the girls of the Brittanica and other ships arriving around that time.

The first batch of convict women tended to produce children of uncertain paternity in brief and transitory relationships. Women off the Brittanica, who were swiftly married or assigned, generally produced children of known paternity in durable relationships, often durable relationships of assignment that they were forced into with open and unambiguous coercion, suggesting a harsh crackdown against immoral relationships and in favor of monogamy at about this time.

I would guess that what happened to poor independent fertile age women in eighteenth century England was something intermediate between what happened to rich independent fertile age women in eighteenth century England, and what happened to fertile age convict women on the shore of eighteenth century Port Jackson but I have no data supporting this conjecture, other than that eighteenth century England, unlike Victorian England, did not much resemble spring break in Cancun.

While the nineteenty century theory was that women were so naturally pure and chaste that all the apparatus of coercion to keep them from misbehaving was sheer cruelty and could safely be discarded, the eighteenth century view was that women had to be in the custody of someone with a duty and practical motive to keep them from engaging in sex, and the authority and power to coercively prevent them from engaging in sex, or else married to a husband who had the authority and power to coercively prevent them from engaging in extra marital sex. Eighteenth century people believed that fertile age women urgently needed sex, and if prevented from getting some were apt to take alarmingly drastic measures or go into hysterics, while from the mid nineteenth century to the present, people seem to think that sex is something alarming and unpleasant imposed on women by men. The nineteenth century treatment for hysteria reflects the realistic but unmentionable eighteenth century belief as to what caused it.

Harem formation

If female choice is unrestrained, twenty percent of the males get eighty percent of the pussy. But they don’t get it in any stable way. A girl spends a few months as number three on some man’s booty call list, then realizes she has little chance of making it to number two, so gets herself a position on some other man’s booty call list. So nobody gets to reproduce, whereas in old fashioned harems formed by male power, rather than female power, she would be stuck in one man’s harem, so she and that man would get to reproduce.

Harem formation, whether the result of female control of sex, or a few powerful men controlling sex, has a detrimental effect on the rapidly diminishing number of men in the society. Without access to pussy, they are disinclined to work or fight in defense of order, peace, and their society. Instead they hang out in mom’s basement.

Monogamy and chastity can be understood as socialism in pussy, the seizure of the means of reproduction by beta males.

The King is worried that men do not seem keen on working, paying taxes, or soldiering. So he price controls pussy down to something ordinary men can pay. Bride price shall be low or zero, women shall obey their husbands, not their fathers or their own whims. Price control causes a shortage, as always, so the King and the high priest introduce rationing. Only one pussy per customer.

This works if you have non consensual marriage, if marriage is handshake between the groom and the father of the bride, or between the father of the bride and the father of the groom. But what if you have, partially or wholly, romantic and consensual marriage? In which case the woman is likely to delay marriage hoping for a booty call from Jeremy Meeks until her eggs start to dry up.

So the high priest deems that going out on booty calls will result in eternal damnation. This, however, has curiously little effect. So the King and the high priest say that if daughter goes out on a booty call, the father is dishonored, and possibly punished. This works, assuming the King backs parental authority over daughters. Or the King could give all women the status of pets, and the high Priest switches marriage to being a handshake between the father and the groom. Or the King could give only misbehaving women the status of pets, and have consensual romantic marriage normal and normative, but only normal and normative for virtuous women, which is to say virginal women, or women plausibly presumed virginal, under paternal supervision. (Which is of course the solution that I favor.)

This is not necessarily a literal account of the origins of monogamy, rather I have personified the motives leading to monogamy as the motives of individual powerful people.

Most societies seem to have used, somewhat inconsistently, hypocritically, and irregularly, a mixture of these tactics, with marriage being mostly consensual and romantic, but female choice severely constrained by the authority of the father and pressure to get married, particularly severe pressure to get married in the event of illicit sexual activity or illegitimate pregnancy.

Poland goes alt right

Thursday, February 18th, 2016

Poland goes /pol

This may be the start of a Soviet style collapse of the American empire.

In the new issue of the weekly Network, a report about ?*what the media and Brussels elite are hiding*? from the citizens of the European Union”.

OK, they are reporting sexual Jihad, but what about the Jewish question? Yes, Poles are now allowed to mention the Jewish question

So. Are the Jews plotting to rule the world?

Biblical prophecy is that Israel gets to rule the Middle East, and clearly the Middle East would be better for it. Plus I don’t much care what happens to the middle east, and someone needs to keep Muslims in line. Fine by me if Jews plot to implement Biblical prophecy. They are supposed to plot to do that.

Since the exile there has been a whole lot of Talmudic and Rabbinical interpretation that reinterprets this Biblical prophecy as ruling us – as ruling whites, as ruling Europe, as ruling the lands of exile. Some Jews buy into this, some Jews do not. Perhaps some of my Jewish supremacist commenters can tell us how widespread is acceptance of this re-interpretation.

I would be inclined to suspect that Jews that want to take the Temple Mount back now tend to favor the interpretation that Jews should rule the Middle East, while Jews that do not want to return to Israel and do not want to take back the Mount tend to favor the reinterpretation that Jews should rule the lands of exile – but some of those are waiting for the Messiah to do the heavy lifting and are not necessarily going at it right now.

So. Did the holocaust actually happen?

Well the holocaust of the Jews did not happen quite in accordance to the official myth, but somehow most Jews under Nazi rule did wind up dead one way or another. There has been a whole of mythmaking and lies about the holocaust of the Jews, but it seems to me that the point of the mythmaking was not so much to make the Nazis more guilty, as to make killings by Nazis as different as possible from killings by commies. Anyone who tells you commies are very different from Nazis is in favor of one or the other.

Well, actually there is a big difference. Commies killed a huge number of commies. Nazis only killed a fairly small number of Nazis. Unless you count the war between Germany and Greece, in which they killed every Nazi they found.

Leftism is:

Tuesday, February 16th, 2016

As the destruction of Github illustrates, leftism is rule by priests, by priests selected by priests on the basis of superior holiness.  Degree inflation, Sarbanes–Oxley, and the Social Justice Warrior attack on tech is a program of seizing the means of production for the holy, just as communism was.

Leftism, suicide, autogenocide, and cosmocide.

Saturday, February 13th, 2016

If all men are created equal then it logically follows that all white males must die, because they keep emitting evil thought rays that cause blacks and women to underperform, blacks to commit crimes, and render women incapable of agency.  If you believe all men are created equal, you are going to pursue the goal of the death of all white males regardless of whether you are Jewish or not. This was obvious in the French response to the Haitian slave revolt.

Working class Trump voters must be bitter clingers who are worse than Hitler simply by existing.

The left has always been autogenocidal. When the Populares allied with the Samnites that showed they wanted to kill all free Roman males.

Indeed, cosmocidal. They want to immanentize the Eschaton, and the only way to do that is to kill everyone and destroy everything.

Your ordinary leftist, for example Scott Alexander is undeniably a nice guy.  But he has no enemies to the left, and no friends to the right, which means that all his friends are his enemies, and all his enemies are his friends.  He is incapable of seriously criticizing those to the left of him, and does not dare allow himself to comprehend those to the right of him. Thus Scott will completely and accurately identify some problem with leftism “but still, quite sincerely, ritually abase himself to it.  He writes long sincere thoughtful screeds pointing out that baby sacrifice is lowering the birth rate and causing family trauma, though of course he fully understands and endorses that Lord Moloch must be sated with the only food acceptable unto him.”

Leftism is holiness, and in any discussion, any consensus, the holiest leftist or cuckservative always wins, so nice leftists always lose to evil crazies, and piously agree that they deserve to lose, since the holiest, being holier, should get their way.

And if you want to immanentize the Eschaton, you are holier than anyone like Scott, who might be suspected of thinking that immanentizing the Eschaton might be difficult.  Only a total asshole like myself could possibly oppose immanentizing the Eschaton altogether. And if one wants to immanentize the Eschaton soon, one is holier than anyone who merely wants to immanentize some time in the distant and indefinite future.  And if one wants to immanentize the Eschaton right away, one is the holiest of all, and every leftist and cuckservative wants to be one’s friend, and none of them dare offend one, even though one will undoubtedly take offense anyway.

And thus the Khmer Rouge.  And thus Chang Hsien-chong

Angela Merkel hates Germans and Germany – is viscerally repulsed by them, clearly wishes all Germans and all memory of Germany and all German culture to end with her. Remember her revealing reaction to the German flag. She reacted to the German flag like a vampire doused with holy water, or exposed to the rising sun.

Leftism is inherently cosmocidal. This suicidal, destructive, and self destructive tendency is as common as dirt even among the non Jewish left. Granted, the Jewish left is worse, but the difference is nothing to get excited about. They all want to kill you and everyone like you.  And if, like Scott, they are not completely 110% on board with killing you and everyone like you, they are nonetheless trying to avoid falling overboard for fear that those who are completely 110% on board with killing you and everyone like you might take offense – or rather might take even more offense than they do already.

Fall of Aleppo reveals that asymmetric warfare is bunkum

Thursday, February 4th, 2016

In war, the stronger party prevails.

Asymmetric warfare only works when the weaker party has political protection.  Perhaps like the Taliban, the weaker party is fighting soldiers required to operate as heavily armed nursemaids.  Perhaps like Mao after the long march or the communists in Greece, the weaker party is launching raids from across a border that the stronger party is reluctant to cross.

The usual scenario where asymmetric warfare works is that the State Department fears the Pentagon more than it fears America’s enemies, and requires US troops to operate by police rules, while those the Pentagon is fighting operate by the laws of war.

When Russia intervened in Syria to rescue their ally and preserve their Mediterranean base, the usual suspects, in particular President Obama announced Russia was getting into a quagmire.  Instead Russia has, as I predicted, been decisively and thoroughly winning, largely through shelling, bombing, blockade, and siege – slow but thorough tactics that deny the weaker party any opportunity to do even a small amount of damage to the stronger.  Less sweat that way than taking strong places by storm.

The Turkish controlled parts of Aleppo and west of Aleppo have now been cut off from Turkey, and are now already conserving food and ammunition.  Short of an open land and air intervention by Turkey, short of open non proxy war between Russia and Turkey, will wither on the vine and fall in a few months.

Russia is also bombing the hell out of Islamic State’s Turkish supply lines, but has as yet made no attempt to cut them off on the ground.  Once Aleppo falls to siege, will probably turn its attention to laying siege to Islamic State.

The current peace talks illustrates asymmetric warfare in a nutshell:  The weaker losing side rather than the stronger winning side is laying down preconditions and making demands, the primary demand being that Russia stop advancing.   In other words, they are asking the State Department to stop the Russians from winning in the same way the State Department has so regularly stopped the Pentagon from winning. The State Department indignantly blames Russia for the failure of the peace talks, which supposedly failed because the weaker side is getting hammered so hard and is suffering so badly.

Women like rapists

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016

In the current Muslim invasion of Europe, the invaders continually commit acts that would get a white male a long time in jail and permanent registration as a sex offender, but for the invaders, minor consequences or no consequences.   And you are seeing few if any complaints from women,unlike the extreme hypervigilance against imperceptibly slight micro aggressions by nerds.

A bunch of Swedish males protest about sexual assaults by the invaders against their women.  And Swedish feminists counter protest “We are not your women”

Decoding:  “You are insufficiently manly to grope us, unlike the invaders, we don’t want to be owned by men like you.”

In the manosphere, I see a whole lot of posts hopefully and optimistically proclaiming that all these assaults will show women that they need manly white men to protect them.

we are approaching a social tipping point where the physical necessity of conventional masculinity will outweigh the liability to women in ceding the power that feminine social primacy represents.

But women are not reacting that way.  Their reactions shows that to them, all these assaults reveal white men as insufficiently manly, not invaders as dangerously aggressive.  They rather like the invasion, and don’t really want anything effective done to stop the assaults.

Efforts to protect women from sexual assault by the invaders are unappreciated and unwanted.   Such efforts would only be appreciated and wanted if white men claimed and successfully enforced ownership over women, if individual white men claimed and enforced such ownership, with their individual enforcement backed by collective enforcement.

Women love it when a firm and confident claim of ownership leads to successful defense – and rather too much love testing claims of ownership by creating situations where the claim needs defending.  Absent confident and firm ownership claims, do not really like defense very much.

Recall that in the legend of Perseus and Andromeda, after Perseus rescues Andromeda from the dragon, he kills her fiancee, abducts her from her family and marries her.   He rescues her and firmly takes possession.

Can’t stump the Trump

Monday, February 1st, 2016

I try not to follow electoral politics, because it is a spectacle, designed to give you the illusion of a microslice of political power.  And ninety nine percent of the time, it is as fake as professional wrestling, as when the Republican party recently passed a federal budget funding every single thing on the left wing wish list, including welfare for illegals, late term abortions and the sale of baby meat, completely, outrageously, and flagrantly betraying those who voted for them, and revealing that everything they had said on the campaign trail was a total barefaced utterly cynical lie.

But Trump … well at worst, it is truly great professional wresting, and the people I hate are getting pounded good and hard, and are not liking it very much.

Trump has the outstanding knack of getting a complex idea across in a gesture, a smile, a tone of voice.

A girl challenges Trump on “women’s issues”.   At least that is what her question verbally is, but her body language is “You are uncool because fertile age chicks don’t like you”.  And all us white knights know that fertile chicks are the arbiters of male social status.

Trump gives a rambling non answer to this rambling non question that logically makes no sense at all, and has no particular relevance, but in fact makes the point that he has numerous hot wives, great sex life, handsome sons and beautiful daughters.   So this attack having been deflected, she asks an actual question.  “When you are president will I get equal pay”

Trump replies “If you earn it” – making the unthinkable and unspeakable implication that what women do in the workplace just is seldom very valuable.

Trump was challenged on his reluctance to put boots on the ground in various trouble spots where the US is currently being routinely humiliated.  To which he replied “Do you want to rule Syria?”

We have of course been losing wars because we have been occupying countries while refusing to rule them.  Chaos predictably ensues.  Progressive imperialism believes we can put good guys (meaning democratically elected progressives) in power around the world, as was supposed to happen in Arab Spring.  Trump’s question implies that if you put boots on the ground the victory condition and the method by which victory is achieved is that your general rules as US proconsul.   This gives progressives the horrors, because the progressives want priests, not warriors, to rule.   But priestly rule in an Islamic country is at best Islamic Brotherhood, as in Egypt, at worst the Taliban, which is why we have been losing.  Events in Afghanistan have repeatedly demonstrated that faced with a choice between Taliban rule, and rule by US soldiers, the US State Department will choose the Taliban every single time.

The Road of our people’s democracy

Monday, February 1st, 2016

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.