Greg KH Releases Big Linux 4.19 Kernel, Codenamed "People's Front"

[dungeon]

Thankfully they both no longer exist as an actual form of government...

If only people could realise that communism never existed as an form of government, never and nowhere They were just rumbling about it, talked about it, imagined it up to the sky, strive to it or whatever ... but in practice that never happened, meanwhile they were just doing something else.

Basically what happened in these so called communist countries was mostly just 'socialism with an dictator' Various forms of socialismus, mostly named by its dictator

Now look at correlation of these so called communists with these so called SJWs, they are doing same thing - they just again rumbling about it, talking about it, imagining it up to the sky, striving to it or whatever

So when will social justice happen? Never and nowhere again.

[blackiwid]

Moving on to ideology they both claim to be for the benefit of the people by pretty much any means necessary including the collectivization of the means of production and the systematic persecution and murder of perceived opponents. The groups they systematically persecuted and murdered even overlap for the most part, both including dissidents, homosexuals, jews and ethnic minorities. While fascism later on didn't emphasize the Socialist aspect of their policies as heavily as they did early early on, this was mostly to differentiate themselves from the German Communists also vying for power in Weimar Germany using similar tactics and messages. The "Socialist" in "National Socialist" really wasn't for show as one of the first things they did when they came to power was counter income inequality by standardizing wages such that not only would workers earn more, many high paying jobs had their wages significantly reduced.

Wow that is rich:

1. it's funny that so many of your hear so much bright bard or of which radical US right wing group you heard this bullshit.

2. you make it hard to fight against the CoC with such inflamous statements

3. how did we come from a news about a kernel release to talking about if nazies were socialists / left wingers / marxists?

4.1 repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. The basis for the Nazies and Hitler were Rassism, Stalin or China's communistic movement had nothing to do with Rassism.

4.2 I hear so often that Feminism is indistinctable from feminism, so if you hate Feminism (what I do) you must hate socialism / marxism. Again Hitler was a Anti-feminist, he wanted the traditional familie, that was his ideal.

4.3 Hitler murdered most radical leftists/marxists/communists in germany.

4.4 the name "socialist" in national socialist party was because he overtook the party as a opponent of them, he worked for the police to spy on them. So he clearly hated them, and all the leaders that were there before him and their policy was erradicated from him.

4.5 it was no communistic economy, they had markets (as far as possible in a big war), the industries loved him gave him money, if it all it was a mixed economy like everybody has that is not a communist or state socialist, even the big US Military is socialisticly organised.

4.6 Hitler was a big fan of the US Coca Cola and Ford, this racism and hate of the jews was also rooted deeply in all capitilistic western countries, america and uk also hated the jews. They white washed them self after the war because they were the winners so they could push that under the courtain.


5. the term socialist is so vague you can basically call everything socialist, we in germany call our system social market, but in other countries with similar policies they call it democratic socialism. So if you deamonize socialism in every form means deamonizing every country because you can fit nearly everything into it.

6. I always here look feminism is horrible, and if you are against feminism you must be against marxism / leftism / communism, because it's one thing, then I hear the antifeminist Hitler was to it's core a leftist / socialist. Both can't be true, at least decite which lie of the to you want to push?

[Weasel]

If only people could realise that communism never existed as an form of government, never and nowhere They were just rumbling about it, talked about it, imagined it up to the sky, strive to it or whatever ... but in practice that never happened, meanwhile they were just doing something else.

Basically what happened in these so called communist countries was mostly just 'socialism with an dictator'

Yes because communism doesn't work with human nature. It degenerates into a "socialism with dictator" because of human nature.

Communism works with ants, doesn't work with humans. It's as simple as that. "Real" communism didn't happen because it immediately degenerates due to human nature.

That doesn't make it any better.

[Sheshbazzar]

Nice propaganda here mate. McCarthy would be proud. You are a proud MURICA citizen. "Similar to Fascism"? How old are you, 12? Any serious person with political background understands that communism and socialism are the very antithesis of Fascism. If you are looking for similarities to fascism, look at late stage capitalism. Your MURICA is a blatant police state, your media are corrupt, your politicians are corrupt, your courts of law are corrupt, your education is shit, you owe huge amounts of money and the only reason your economy is still standing is because you are threatening anyone who complains with military action...

You are making jokes about Stalin's secret police while convienently ignoring that USA has at least 20 well known secret service branches and who knows how many black projects. NSA CIA FBI and a huge collection of acronyms, and you think Stalin was bad? Seriously? No one can even take a plane there without 100 people grabing your nuts for search and you think Stalin was bad? You have been bombing millions of children for decades and you think Stalin was bad? You have been topling foreign military governments for decades and you think Stalin was bad? You voted for a blatant fascist for president, who acts like a mad cowboy towards every country in the world, and you think Stalin was bad?

I am tired of CIA capitalist propaganda. Seriously. Stop it. Just stop it. Enough is enough. We have seen what capitalism has brought to the world, WARS, POLLUTION, DEATH, POVERTY. And you people still spread 60s propaganda about Stalin... You are delusional.

Stalin's national Communism is the very antithesis of real, international, Trotskyite Communism. The shrewd Stalin, who from his youth was a well read Biblical student, outjewed the ruling atheist revolutionary Jews. This alone is a clear proof that for one to reach the top (presidential elections are a joke show, the sock puppets are appointed by their & your masters, not by you, proles), Biblical investigation is a necessity (please don't mention the irreligious French revolution, it only resulted in Napoleon's humiliation by Russia and then in the restauration of Louis. Revolutions do not serve the lewd populace the role of which is that of a one shot means: let it humble itself before God, become chaste and He will save them). Stalin's Soviet Union was only outwardly Communist. (I lived in Russia in the '80s and frankly, even ~30 years after Stalin's death, it was so good to be there).

But the USA are, from the very beginning, real Communism i.e., an inconsistent dictatorship. Proof:
Accurate report on Kurt Gödel's discovery: http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/

**Loophole:

P: president
C: congress (both houses)
X: order, resolution or vote
Vi: vote

0. C passes X: C produces V0
1. C sends V0 to P
2. P returns V0 to C
3. C reconsiders V0: C produces V1, V0 shall become a law because V1 exists (shall be of effect)
4. C sends V1 to P
5. P returns V1 to C
6. C reconsiders V1: C produces V2, V1 shall become a law, etc.

**The president can postpone indefinitely anything resulting from the concurrence of both houses:

0.
X is an order, resolution or vote to which the concurrence of both houses is necessary. This concurrence is a vote, V0:

**Every** Order, Resolution, or **Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary** (except on a question of Adjournment*) shall be presented to the President of the United States; (U.S. const. I.7, §2)

1.
X’s vote, i.e., V0, should be sent to president, because if X is sent then V0 of effect:

and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. (I.7, §3)

2.
If he [the President of the United States] approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated

P doesn’t approve, he returns V0 to that house in which V0 has originated.

3.
who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, **by which it shall likewise be reconsidered**

Such reconsiderations result in a vote V1, the mere existence of which causes V0’s becoming of effect. But to become isn’t to be: if V1 exists then V0 of effect, if V0 of effect then V1 of effect and if V1 of effect then V1 sent to P because V1 is not excepted from:

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (**except on a question of Adjournment**) shall be presented to the President of the United States; (U.S. const. I.7, §2)

4.
Which is what happens in 5, Congress must send the reconsideration vote V1 to P.

5.
P returns V1 because he can for, after all, V1 is but a vote for which both houses of C are responsible.

6.
C must reconsider V1 for otherwise neither V1 nor V0 will take effect, in contradiction with 4. C thus makes a V2, the existence of which causes V1 to become of effect, which requires V2’s effect, which won’t happen before its having been sent to P. Etc.
X won’t even be presented to P if P disagrees on the Vs. But even if X were presented to P, P can still return X & any further V that C may present.

* Amusingly enough, what actually happens *is* adjournment, but not according to the meaning of the term as it is used in the constitution.

No Amending of this Constitution will be done without the President’s allowing it. For the proposal of Amendments by the Congress supposes that two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary. But both Houses need also agree before they shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States (V). These are respectively, a Resolution and an Order to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary. What this implies is that the amending process won’t start while disapproved by the President. But neither ends if forbidden by the same. For the very mode of Ratification, since determined by Congress also needs the President’s approval to take Effect (all of this because of I.7, §3).

No Judgment in Cases of Impeachment will be reached without the prior Consent of the President.
For such Judgments require Indictment, Trial & Conviction. Now, on the one hand, the Indictment in such Cases is an Order which only the House of Representatives can issue:

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment 5 (I.2, §5).

On the other hand:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments and the Conviction needs the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present (I.3, §6)

Which is a Resolution or Vote. So, because the Concurrence of both Houses is necessary, the Verdict is not going to take Effect before its (or a related Vote’s) having been signed or left unreturned in excess of 10 days (Sundays excepted) by the President (cf. I.7, §3).
Now Congress acted anti-constitutionally by making Amendment I, breaking the following fragment of the same (by then in the Constitution):

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

Congress is to be held accountable for that. For Congress made a Law abridging its own freedom of speech (as a legislator). This act is forbidden by the (then amended) Constitution. Moreover, Amendment I becomes a Law because Congress inserts it in the Constitution and this insertion (towards its end) becomes anti-constitutional because of (the just inserted) Amendment I: Amendment I is an ex post facto law, which is against the constitution.
Amendment XXV, Section 4 is no remedy. For President can Commission the Vice President with some Military Trust (because of II.3 and the Vice President’s being an Officer, see e.g., Amendment XII’s "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to **that** of Vice-President of the United States" where "that" refers to "office"). President as Commander in Chief can then order the Vice President to resign from the Office of Vice President. Should he refuse, being subjected to Martial Discipline, he incurs at least his being arrested; but he could also be Impeached, Convicted and removed from Office, because Constitution’s II.4 seems to apply to such disobediences. Now by Amendment XXV’s Section 2, President should nominate a Vice President: he can nominate his own self, and keep doing so upon each non-confirmation by Congress. This results in the Office of Vice President remaining empty as long as President finds fit, unless Congress agrees with the President’s nomination. In this way, President can ensure his not being ousted by Vice President (except by his own self). But even if Vice President were to become President, and Vice President’s Office should, as a result of his becoming President, be considered vacated, he, as President, is expected to nominate a Vice President (XXV.2): he can proceed as explained above (thus leaving that Office empty if not filled with himself); then, the new Dictator can no longer be removed following XXV.4 (except, again, by his own self).

One could object that reconsidered things need not remain without effect while the reconsideration votes themselves are of no effect i.e., it could be suggested that the word "before" means only logical precedence i.e., that x is before y should only mean that a necessary condition for y is x, where y may very well occur chronologically before x. But this, in fact, makes things worse. For if "before", as in "before it becomes a Law", weren’t to require the chronological precedence of the President’s approval (i.e., signature or non-return) then it would be perfectly sound to make of a Bill a Law chronologically before its passing both Houses. For the passage of a Bill is arguably motivated by a prior agreement of some majority of both Houses concerning that Bill: it hardly would have been proposed, if it weren’t probable that it would actually become a Law. Moreover, even if returned by the President, they could already be prejudiced against any objection of his in this process and be determined from the beginning to re-pass the same, or any related Vote should it be returned. So what could be defended then is that, since it is likely from the beginning that the Bill shall become a Law: it suffices for Congress not to by their Adjournment prevent its (or that of a related Vote) Return, because otherwise it shall not be a Law. That Bill shall then be made Law, with the Conditions of its being made so (e.g., passed by both Houses) to be fulfilled at some later time. The U.S. President could, if "before" weren’t chronological, also very well make out of some Recommendation a Law before its Consideration by Congress. For example one in which a part would be: "All non-Yeas, including abstentions, shall be added to Yeas, in the Vote for passing this Recommendation". For that that Recommendation was never considered by the Congress under the Constitution can’t be determined before the cessation of this Constitution. So, there is no constitutional objection against that Recommendation’s being a Law as soon as President has made it. Now, if there indeed shall be Consideration, the said Recommendation will pass the Senate and the House of Representatives because of that quoted part and its being a Law. It then suffices for the President of the United States not to return it upon being presented with it, within the required period. This would not happen if a prior (in time) Consideration by Congress was necessary, as would be the case if "before" were as usual, because then, Congress could discard such Recommendations by (say) not considering them. Therefore the chronological meaning of "before" is to be maintained.

Notice that USC IV.4 may be in contradiction with a dictatorial government: USC is inconsistent and classical logic takes care of USC’s requiring what it forbids. One doesn’t have to arrange for the US to be attacked (by the selfsame US, a classic) in order to establish a practical dictatorship: the USA are de constitutio a dictatorship (and inconsistent at that).

**The USC is inconsistent (self-destructive). Thomas Jefferson held the doctrine of Permanent Revolution. That failed suicide is prohibited by the USC is a striking confirmation.

Proof:
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself... (Amendment V)

That X fails suicide means that X failed to kill Y where X = Y. Here X must not be compelled to witness against X, but according to Amendment VI:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor...

So, X is to be compelled to witness in favor of X i.e., against Y. Since X = Y, X should be compelled to witness against X: this contradicts Amendment V.

It is interesting how Congress, by resisting the President’s veto, actually defeats itself. For then Congress must not fail to reconsider any vetoed vote in the unbounded sequence, for if it were to leave a returned vote not repassed, i.e., if C weren’t to produce a further joint reconsideration vote, then none of the preceding votes would be of effect which is a contradiction because the mere existence of any Vi, where i > 0, ensures that Vi-1 would *become* (nota bene that the word in the USC is "become", not "be") of effect. Vi-1 shall actually reach effect only after Vi’s effect, for the object of Vi is Vi-1’s being of effect.

In view of:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (II.1.8)

And because C, by its failing to reconsider a reconsidered but vetoed vote, raised a contradiction i.e., harmed the USC, it is therefore a signal duty, for the President, to punish C.

It can perhaps be thought that a reconsideration isn’t really a joint vote. This is of course false and an easy practical disproof consists in checking the Journal of both Houses.
A theoretical proof of the above is likewise easy:

...But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. (I.7.2)

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal. (I.5.3)

[duby229]

Stalin's national Communism is the very antithesis of real, international, Trotskyite Communism. The shrewd Stalin, who from his youth was a well read Biblical student, outjewed the ruling atheist revolutionary Jews. This alone is a clear proof that for one to reach the top (presidential elections are a joke show, the sock puppets are appointed by their & your masters, not by you, proles), Biblical investigation is a necessity (please don't mention the irreligious French revolution, it only resulted in Napoleon's humiliation by Russia and then in the restauration of Louis. Revolutions do not serve the lewd populace the role of which is that of a one shot means: let it humble itself before God, become chaste and He will save them). Stalin's Soviet Union was only outwardly Communist. (I lived in Russia in the '80s and frankly, even ~30 years after Stalin's death, it was so good to be there).

But the USA are, from the very beginning, real Communism i.e., an inconsistent dictatorship. Proof:

You don't have to link an article and paste huge portions of it. It's kinda rude. But anyway In order for you to classify a group as communist that doesn't call themselves communist, you would have to define communism. And nobody has ever done that. I think it would be quite hubris of you to do so.

[Sheshbazzar]

You don't have to link an article and paste huge portions of it. It's kinda rude. But anyway In order for you to classify a group as communist that doesn't call themselves communist, you would have to define communism. And nobody has ever done that. I think it would be quite hubris of you to do so.

I didn't quote anything except my prose. God wrote it through me. Sorry to disappoint your stupid certainty that religious men are stupid.

[dungeon]

Yes because communism doesn't work with human nature.

Capitalism also does not work, both starts to struggle after some time

Look at Israel's kibbutzim, these are commies basically who built a country, everybody loved them there, but after about 30 years later other side started to hate them, ha, ha

Both communism and capitalism works, just temporarily, so depends - why, when and up what point in time

[Sheshbazzar]

{To the chief Musician upon Shoshannim, for the sons of Korah, Maschil, A Song of loves.} My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer. (Psalm 45.1)

[L_A_G]

1. it's funny that so many of your hear so much bright bard or of which radical US right wing group you heard this bullshit.

Not sure what you're even trying to say here, but to me it sounds like nothing but pure whataboutism. The fact that the Nazis were mass murdering maniacs that brought death and unspeakable suffering to millions doesn't mean that the communist block countries didn't do the same and on a larger scale.

2. you make it hard to fight against the CoC with such inflamous statements

That's not my fault, it's with people who don't understand yet how awful of an ideology communism truly was.

3. how did we come from a news about a kernel release to talking about if nazies were socialists / left wingers / marxists?

Probably the fact that they used a codename that sounds an awful lot like something used by the former soviet block...

4.1 repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. The basis for the Nazies and Hitler were Rassism, Stalin or China's communistic movement had nothing to do with Rassism.

Antisemitism and pogroms were most certainly prevalent in particularly the early days of the USSR and let's not even get into all of the other persecution of minorities that the USSR engaged in throughout it's existence. As for the Chinese, they don't really have any racial minorities to persecute, but they have most definitely perpetrated some pretty staggering persecution of their Muslim and Buddhist minorities.

As for Hitler and his racism, it was always a means to an end as he believed that particularly the Jews had caused all of the suffering his country had gone trough since the end of WW1 and were still driving the German people towards hedonistic decadence. Some more cynical people say that the antisemitism was all about finding a scapegoat for the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles so that people could get over it and feel proud about their country once more. Fundamentally the racism was all really in the (supposed) defense of the German people, not just for the sake of it.

4.2 I hear so often that Feminism is indistinctable from feminism, so if you hate Feminism (what I do) you must hate socialism / marxism. Again Hitler was a Anti-feminist, he wanted the traditional familie, that was his ideal.

While people who title themselves as feminist these days tend to be pretty heavily to the left, modern day so-called "third wave" feminism isn't really feminism anymore. Actual feminism is about equal rights and treatment between genders, which is something you're hard pressed to find anyone being against, not about gaining special status and privileges for women (i.e what modern feminism seems to be about).

4.3 Hitler murdered most radical leftists/marxists/communists in germany.

He may have killed a lot of radical leftists that joined radial leftist groups other than his own, as they would have done to him and his followers had they taken power instead of him, but that really doesn't mean that his party wasn't a radical leftist party itself. Try to remember that the Nazi SA were far from the only far left paramilitary organization and late 1920s Weimar Germany was a hotbed of far leftist violence where paramilitary far left organizations fought each other and occasionally everyone else too.

4.4 the name "socialist" in national socialist party was because he overtook the party as a opponent of them, he worked for the police to spy on them. So he clearly hated them, and all the leaders that were there before him and their policy was erradicated from him.

If he had truly abandoned the socialism in "national socialism" then why did he put so much effort on helping the working class by continuing the state takeovers of industry, starting massive job creating public works projects like the autobahn and raise the wages of workers while fighting income inequality by standardizing wages when he came to power?

The simple answer to this is that he didn't. It's easy to fall into black and white type thinking where if he fought the far left he had to be far right and not the much more nuanced and complex truth of what actually happened in this dark chapter of human history.

4.5 it was no communistic economy, they had markets (as far as possible in a big war), the industries loved him gave him money, if it all it was a mixed economy like everybody has that is not a communist or state socialist, even the big US Military is socialisticly organised.

Try to remember that communist countries never achieved "full communism" with collective ownership of everything either. Being far left and/or Socialist most certainly doesn't mean that you have to have achieved full communism to qualify.

4.6 Hitler was a big fan of the US Coca Cola and Ford, this racism and hate of the jews was also rooted deeply in all capitilistic western countries, america and uk also hated the jews. They white washed them self after the war because they were the winners so they could push that under the courtain.

Again with the whataboutism because the soviet block most certainly doesn't have have a history any better when it comes to antisemitism. Many of the Jewish people that suffered under the rule of the Nazis were after all either immigrants who had fled the pogroms that had flared up around the time of the revolution or their children.

5. the term socialist is so vague you can basically call everything socialist, we in germany call our system social market, but in other countries with similar policies they call it democratic socialism. So if you deamonize socialism in every form means deamonizing every country because you can fit nearly everything into it.

I never said that socialism itself was the issue, because it most certainly isn't, it's the extreme interpretations of it, like communism/fascism that are the issue.

[Niarbeht]

The crazies are still going at it.