Author: VD

Exposing the true face of SJW

Rosarior beats back and exposes an SJW entryist attempting to impose a Code of Conduct on the Awesome-Django project:

great project!! I have one observation and a suggestion. I noticed you have rejected some pull requests to add some good django libraries and that the people submitting those pull requests are POCs (People of Colour). As a suggestion I recommend adopting the Contributor Code of Conduct (http://contributor-covenant.org) to ensure everybody’s contributions are accepted regarless of their sex, sexual orientation, skin color, religion, height, place of origin, etc, etc, etc. As a white straight male and lead of this trending repository, your adoption of this Code of Conduct will send a loud and clear message that inclusion is a primary objective of the Django community and of the software development community in general. D.

A few things about this. First, the name is generic. Second, this comment is literally the SJW’s first “contribution to the project. Third, while the SJW uses the correct terminology, he offers no evidence whatsoever for his claims. Fourth, his claim that the people whose pull requests were rejected are People of Colour are likely false considering that he doesn’t know that the individual he is addressing is Hispanic, not white.

Fortunately, rosarior recognizes the nature of the stealth attack. While he politely addresses the nominal suggestions, he makes it clear that this project is not a soft target and shuts down the SJW’s line of entry

The pull request was rejected not the person. Of the people who did not had their patches accepted at least one submitted another pull request and was accepted or are contributors in my other repositories, disproving your basic premise.

There is no need for a code of conduct, there hasn’t been a conduct related incident with the repository and nothing about a contributor comes into play when rejecting or accepting a patch (as proved above). An explanation is provided when a patch is rejected, and some have been left open to re-asses in a future time.

I’m not white and please don’t make any other assumptions about me, they hold no relevance to the matter at hand.

I already work on several projects that hold inclusion as one of their primary goals.

I’m closing this issue based on the explanations given.

The wording allows just a little more wiggle room than is ideal, but it is a strong and effective response, particularly the implicit statement that “inclusion” is not a primary goal of this particular project. Perhaps due to the wiggle room, the SJW tries again.

You seem to have taken personal issue with well the issue 🙂 I opened
this issue not to attack you or your decisions,but to help improve a
part of the project in which it seemed lacking. Most projects on Github
have adopted the Contributor Covenant or a variant of it. It is a
very straight forward document that protects all parties,I don’t
understand your negative attitude towards that philosophy. You may not
be “white” [ in your profile picture you sure seem white 🙂 ] but you
are not a woman or a trans-gendered person so you can’t possibly
understand what they go through (harassment,exclusion,threats) and why a
code of conduct is necessary. Even the Django Software Foundation has
adopted one to protect it’s future,for me it’s very obvious Django
related projects would naturally follow suite and adopt the same if not
similar Code of Conducts. I urge you to reconsider for the good and
future of this project 🙂 Thank you

Now the rhetorical gloves come off. The SJW tries to play on rosarior’s insecurities and emotions, then throws out an appeal to the herd animal instinct before issuing an implicit threat. The code of conduct is now declared “necessary” in order to protect the future of the project, which is twice mentioned in a threatening manner. Notice that the SJW doesn’t even address the fact that his original claimed concerns were addressed, thereby negating any need for the requested code, he simply moves the goalposts and moves on to more high-pressure rhetorical tactics. This is why dialectical arguments are totally useless; the SJWs simply ignore the effective ones.

1- You opened an issue to raise concern about the relationship of a contributor’s race and the rejection of their patches.
2- Only I can accept or reject patches in this repository.
You made it clear who this was about.
Apart from this issue, we’ve had no conduct problems, so no need for a code of conduct.
I’m very certain of my race: I’m Latino, Puertorican, a Mestizo from a
Castiza mother and a Mulato father. There are many more races than just
black and white (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation).
Yes, I’m not a woman or a transgendered individual and I don’t intend
to even try to understand what they have to put up with, never said
that. But you assume women and transgendered individual are the only
targets of harassment, exclusion and threats.

English is not my first language and I hope I’m mistaken but your last line “I urge you to reconsider for the good and future of this project 🙂 ” sounded like a threat, please clarify.

This response could be described as overly long and dialectical; rhetoric has ZERO informational content so responding to the feigned issues serves no purpose unless one is doing it to expose pseudo-dialectic on behalf of any onlookers. However, expecting a programmer to not respond in a systematic manner to the issues raised is rather like expecting sight hounds not to chase running rabbits, so it’s harmless. What is particularly important, however, is the way rosarior calls out the SJW for his implicit threats and requests clarification; in doing so he causes the SJW to unmask completely and show his fangs.

I really have no idea why you are responding the way you are! Really!! Code of Conducts are not JUST about conduct,they cover all the spectrum of behaviours expected from civilized human beings that are more and more absend in the software industry. You are evading the topic at hand and I can only wonder why,why deny equal opportunity for all to join and contribute to your project Roberto?

That you have not “seen” harassment doesn’t mean it is not happening all around us. And turning a blind eye makes it worst. I was not threaning you,but your reaction is a projection of your feelings and now I feel threated by you. Reading the links you posted I only have one thing to say to you:reevaluate your actions,you are becoming a toxic individual who is harming the Python and Django communities and haven’t even realized it yet. You are a member of the Django Software Foundation and are supposed to be setting the example. I will be forwarding the content of this issue to the Chair to evaluate your continued presence in the DSF. best regards.

It’s all there. Threats, point-and-shriek, playing the victim, false accusations, and the inevitable appeal to the amenable authority. In the interest of Social Justice Convergence, the SJW demonstrates that he will try to destroy the project rather than permit it to continue if it cannot be captured and forcibly submitted to the SJW Narrative. Rosarior’s response was the best one I have seen in technology yet, as he not only defeated the assault, but exposed the SJW for what he is in the process.

This is not a joke. These people are genuinely dangerous and will destroy everything they touch. Resist them. Expose them. Seek them out in your own organizations, hunt them down and root them out. SJW delenda est.

It’s time to go on the offensive. If your group or organization has a Code of Conduct, start the campaign to get rid of it now. There is a reason the SJWs are so intent on imposing them everywhere; that is how they intend to institute their thought policing.

And since you know the SJWs are going to be coming after him, show the man he’s got support behind him. If you’re on Twitter, follow the man.


“Those who can code do, those who can’t write code of conducts.”
– Roberto Rosario

The anti-nationalist enemy

Even the mainstream Right is beginning to recognize that things have irretrievably changed and there is no going back to a sane and reasonably unified America:

A globalized faux cosmopolitanism — simultaneously tribalist and anti-national — seems to have taken much greater hold in the current administration (and perhaps even among some of its supposed political opponents). Yet the Left’s allegiance to the comfortable pieties of the Sixties seems part of the reason for its many failures.

This worldview sees a rural good ol’ boy clinging to his guns and his religion as the greatest foe of “progress.” Thus, it is woefully unprepared to confront the reality of black-robed fanatics beheading religious minorities, enslaving villages, and setting fire to the Middle East. Because of its limited moral imagination, it also struggles to persuade a heterogeneous body politic. Early proponents of Great Society welfare policies might not have foreseen how, too often, well-intentioned government dictates could destroy communities, tear apart families, and destroy the foundation of economic opportunity. Experience has — or should have — disabused us of this naïveté. And say what you will about the dangers of central planning, the technocrats of the past were at least able to do things like put a man on the Moon. The mandarins of today struggle to get a health-care website up and running. Outside the narrowly political realm, as the Far Left claims a resurgent voice in cultural affairs, we have increasingly seen how radical progressive politics are a cultural dead end: Rather than a spirit of creativity, exploration, and accomplishment, radical leftism gives us only the petty tyranny of a Maoist struggle session.

The fact that the globalist Left fails to understand its enemy is a feature, not a bug. We know them. They don’t know us. That means we will win, but only if we show up everywhere they are and refuse to continue to concede any ground, intellectual or otherwise.

That means NOT adopting their social justice ideals or their rhetoric. And that may be the hardest thing for many of us, conditioned as we are to avoid speaking our true thoughts and expressing our true feelings out of a misguided sense of imposed decency.

For the love of all that is good, and holy, and true, if we lose, we lose, but let us at least not lose due to a foolish sense of etiquette.

The Republican Final Four Three

According to the Weekly Standard, anyhow:

Tonight’s debate showed that the GOP field is smaller than it looks. Technically, there are still fourteen people running, but the winnowing is far along. We probably have a final six and possibly a final four.

The three winners of the night were pretty obvious: Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump.

Rubio ended Jeb Bush’s campaign with the kind of body shot that buckles your knees. That’s on Bush, who never should have come after Rubio in that spot for a host of strategic and tactical reasons. But what should scare Hillary Clinton is how effortless Rubio is even with throwaway lines, like “I’m against anything that’s bad for my mother.” Most people have no idea how fearsome raw political talent can be. Clinton does know because she’s seen it up close. She sleeps next to it for a contractually-obligated 18 nights per year.

Cruz was tough and canny—no surprise there. He went the full-Gingrich in his assault on CNBC’s ridiculous moderators. He did a better job explaining Social Security reform than Chris Christie, even (which is no mean feat). And managed to look downright personable compared with John Harwood, whose incompetence was matched only by his unpleasantness. If you’re a conservative voter looking for someone who is going to fight for your values, Cruz must have looked awfully attractive.

Then there was Trump. Over the last few weeks, Trump has gotten better on the stump. Well, don’t look now, but he’s getting better at debates, too. Trump was reasonably disciplined. He kept his agro to a medium-high level. And his situational awareness is getting keener, too. Note how he backed John Kasich into such a bad corner on Lehmann Brothers that he protested, “I was a banker, and I was proud of it!” When that’s your answer, you’ve lost the exchange. Even at a Republican debate.

And Trump had a hammer close: “Our country doesn’t win anymore. We used to win. We don’t anymore.” I remain convinced that this line (along with his hardliner on immigration) is the core of Trump’s appeal. But he didn’t just restate this theme in his closing argument. He used it to: (1) beat up CNBC; and (2) argue that his man-handling of these media twits is an example of what he’ll do as president. It was brilliant political theater.

Those were your winners.

Carson is irrelevant. He’s just the usual Republican Maybe-This-Will-Get-Me-Out-Of-Racism-Free card, the role previously played by Alan Keyes and Hermann Cain. He’s also anti-gun, so he’s a non-starter.

Cruz and Rubio are competing for the same Establishment dollar as well as the Unicorn vote, also known as the Hispanic Natural Republican. Cruz is tougher than Rubio and he also looks less like an overweight frat brother, so I think he knocks Rubio aside without too much trouble.

The real question is Establishment vs Grass Roots rebellion. And there, the verdict is far from in. And not that anyone here didn’t doubt that Jeb Bush was already cooked, but his epic fail raises some genuine questions about the idea that he is the smarter brother.

It’s hard to see how Jeb Bush recovers from his self-inflected wound at Wednesday’s CNBC Republican debate in Boulder when he went after Marco Rubio just after the young senator had hit one out of the park.  Rubio was defending himself from an editorial in the Sun Sentinel calling on Marco to stop “ripping off” the public and quit the Senate because of his poor attendance record.  Rubio responded that John Kerry and Barack Obama had been even more truant from the Senate while running for president and the paper had not only ignored that, but given these men their endorsement.  It was an example of  liberal media bias at its most obvious.  The crowd erupted in its first ovation of the night.  Advantage Rubio.

Clueless, Bush jumped in as if nothing had happened, taking the paper’s side and schoolmarmishly doubling down on Marco.  He got his head handed to him by Rubio (politely) and the audience.

Bush should just quit now. He’s an embarrassment.

The future of Vibrant America

We were told that Diversity and Vibrancy make America stronger. The truth is that they have made America literally stupid, ignorant, illiterate, and innumerate:

In the Detroit public school district, 96 percent of eighth graders are not proficient in mathematics and 93 percent are not proficient in reading. That is according to the results of the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress tests published by the Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics.

Only 4 percent of Detroit public school eighth graders are proficient or better in math and only 7 percent in reading. This is despite the fact that in the 2011-2012 school year—the latest for which the Department of Education has reported the financial data—the Detroit public schools had “total expenditures” of $18,361 per student and “current expenditures” of $13,330 per student.

According to data published by the Detroit Public Schools, the school district’s operating expenses in the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2014 amounted to approximately $14,743 per student.

Nationwide, only 33 percent of public-school eighth graders scored proficient or better in reading in 2015 and only 32 percent scored proficient or better in mathematics.

This isn’t public schools. This isn’t bureaucratic inefficiency. It isn’t Common Core or whatever the latest school fad is. It is the direct result of shortening time preferences and lowering the average IQ by 15 points.

And there isn’t a theory or a social policy in the world that can fix that. There is one answer and one answer only, an answer that every immigrant implicitly knows and nearly every American is afraid to admit, even to himself.

Mailvox: China gears up

This email pretty much echoed my thoughts on the matter:

Yesterday I told my wife, “Watch – when China really feels its oats and gets serious about colonizing and taking Africa, they’ll drop the one child policy.”

Then this morning I see this report:

China’s ruling Communist Party announced Thursday that the country will start allowing all families to have two children, abolishing an unpopular policy that limited many urban couples to only one child for more than three decades.

The decision is the most significant easing of family-planning policies that were long considered some of the party’s most onerous intrusions into family life and had been gradually relaxed in recent years. The restrictions led to an imbalanced sex ratio because of a traditional preference for boys, and draconian enforcement that sometimes included forced abortions.

The news elated 36-year-old Su Weihu in Guangzhou, who said she now plans to get pregnant next year before she becomes too old, and that she is eager for her 8-year-old daughter to have a sibling.

“I have looked forward this for so many years — even had dreams about it! I cried every time when I woke up and realized it wasn’t yet true. I thought it was so unfair,” Su said. “I do not care if the second child is a boy or a girl, at my age, as long as he or she is healthy.”

A statement from the party’s Central Committee carried by the official Xinhua News Agency said the decision to allow all couples to have two children was “to improve the balanced development of population” and to deal with an aging population.

Yeah, it’s to improve demographic balance. That seems likely. And if they need to support an aging population, why not just import Arabs and Africans? That seems to be working out so well for the European nations, after all.

Cuck-slapping Charles Murray

Charles Murray has done some genuinely good and courageous work in the past, but with regards to immigration, he jumped several sharks this day:

Charles Murray @charlesmurray
It could be the 1850s and the Know Nothings. Same fear, same rhetoric, same fascist tendencies. And I don’t use “fascist” loosely.

Mike Cernovich ‏@Cernovich
Fascism in 1850?  Did you have a stroke, Charles? 

Ken Zimmern ‏@KenZimmern
Opposing uncontrolled immigration is not fear, it’s national preservation. Sensible immigration necessary.

zerg_rush ‏@zerg_rush01
why not replace Charles with a cheaper, more eager Eritrean equivalent?

SpookyGoyScaryToy ‏@WorldWarMeme
only thing you can be too conservative on is immigration apparently.Old cucks are wasting rhetoric, they’ve lost

Jack Hanson ‏@jhansonwrites
600k plus Americans died because of Yankee “altruism”. How many millions are going 2 die this time?

Preston S. Brooks ‏@Rebel_Bill
So is this willful blindness or are you signalling that the Koch Brothers have bought you?

Enlightened Cow ‏@bendiestraw
Why is it always the people that live in HUGELY white areas are for diversity and mass immigration? His town is 99% white.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Not to mention the worst thing about the 1850s, when the Know Nothings rounded up the Jews and killed them at Auschwitz.

Charles Murray doesn’t use the term “fascist” loosely. He uses it ahistorically and incorrectly.

A problem easily solved

The season is about to turn. The German women are beginning to panic as they realize that they are more frightened of a Muslim-occupied future than they are of their National Socialist past.

    “None of us want this. We’re all scared.”“What is this? How will this be in 100 years?”

    “This is not my life. It just shows you how many of them are here already.”

    “Now there’s another 1.5 million who came this year.”

    “Every year 2-3 million arrive.”

    “It’s generally about foreign infiltration.”

    “Yes, exactly.”

    “We won’t dress like we do now.”

    “Here, no! They won’t take anything from me!”

    “Look, when I walk through the streets of the city, it’s only foreigners!”

    “There are walking 50 foreigners and I only see one European face.”

    “Look at the women! They’re all veiled!”

    “This is our future.”

No, it’s not. The situation could be resolved in less than one month if outsourced to the Russians. Or if the German people find the inner steel to embrace their nationalism again. It’s not exactly hard to understand what the core problem is.


The danger of comments

Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos observe that the mainstream media is increasingly unwilling to permit the public to talk back for fear that their lies and inept arguments will be exposed.

It’s no accident that so many of the loudest voices against online comments sections are also political zealots. Jessica Valenti, Arthur Chu, Tauriq Moosa, Anita Sarkeesian: all have come out against comment sections. This isn’t an accident, of course. Psychologists have long been aware that political extremists have the most negative reactions to contrary information. Combine that with a disdain for free speech, a core cultural authoritarian value, and you get a frantic rush to remove the opinions of ordinary people.

But there are also more sinister, elitist motivations. A study conducted by The Washington Post and USA Today found that readers who viewed articles with comments sections were more likely to develop a negative opinion of the news media. Curiously, this effect was seen even when commenters praised the article in question. In other words, when the opinions of journalists and the opinions or ordinary members of the public are placed close together, it leads readers to question the competence of the mainstream media. What horror!

Another study found that reading assertive, aggressive comments could actually sway the opinions of readers. “Don’t read the comments,” warned Ars Technica, “they can make you mistrust real experts.”

It’s a piece of advice that captures the war on comments sections perfectly. Having initially cheered on the death of the “gatekeepers of information,” cultural elites are now scrambling to reinstall those barriers. Too late, they have discovered that people don’t always agree with them – and now they want to push that disagreement into the wilderness of the internet.

As most of you are aware, I am very pro-comments and pro-talking back. And while I have had to go to a higher level of moderation of late due to an unfortunate incident or two, it’s always been my intention to return to unregistered commenting. Which I am doing so now.

However, I would strongly recommend continuing to comment with a registered name as any attempts to abuse the more open system will be met with an immediate response, which will include, but is not limited to, turning the registration requirement on for extended periods of time without warning. This is the last time that I will announce the status; in the future it will be simply turned on, or off, as the moderators and I see fit.

Free speech is important. So is complete anonymity. Respect and support that by refraining from trolling, from “just having fun”, from “making a point”, from “playing a role”, and just as importantly, from responding to the occasional troll.

Brainstorm as book tour

Mike Cernovich comments on his recent Brainstorm experience and invites those who pre-order his forthcoming book to a special :

Vox hosts a monthly webinar called Brainstorm. Over dinner in Barcelona he invited me to be a guest. As he’s a friend of mine, I thought it’d be fun.

I did not expect to sell hundreds of copies of books.

Yet that is exactly what happened.

Before appearing on Vox’s Brainstorm, Gorilla Mindset had been selling 35-50 copies a day. A good day on Kindle was 30 copies. (I still sell 10-20 audio and paperback books a day, respectively.)

As you can see on the chart below, Vox’s review of Gorilla Mindset in addition to the scheduled Brainstorm created quite the spike in sales. Doing the virtual book tour with Vox sold at least 100 copies, and likely 200 copies or more.

Along with Vox Day, I am doing a webinar for people who pre-order Danger & Play: Essays on Embracing Masculinity.

Send a screen cap of your pre-order to Shauna.Danger@gmail.com We’ll host a webinar exclusive for those who pre-order. You only have until October 30th.

Speaking of Brainstorm, the October event for Annual members will be tomorrow night. Invites will go out later today. We have a LOT to discuss, very little of which I am inclined to mention in public.

It’s fascinating to see how useful Brainstorm has become in further weaponizing the VP community. We had a very successful Wargame Task Force meeting two evenings ago, which will be of absolutely no interest to anyone to whom the words “Avalon Hill” and “GDW” mean nothing, but it allowed us to quickly and efficiently make decisions, assign responsibilities, and start making progress on our current project, the first glimpse of which can be seen later today over at Castalia House.

I have no doubt that it will be equally useful for other projects, both more and less esoteric.And for that, we all have to thank the Annual members. They are the individuals who are making this all possible.