All posts by Davi Ottenheimer

German Universities Hacked at Alarming Rate

German universities are getting hacked again at the pace of 2022 and 2023, this time at the largest institutions in the country, and for some reason the coverage stays local. Munich reads about Munich. Leipzig reads about Leipzig. The national picture gets filed in a weekly incident list and a DFN slide deck.

Ten German higher-education targets since mid-September on Konbriefing’s tally: LMU München, Mannheim and Bremen in September; the Hochschulservicezentrum Baden-Württemberg, HU Berlin, Halle-Wittenberg, Leipzig, Rostock and the Charité in October; TU München in November.

Check the record for comparison, German entries on the same list by year:

Year Incidents
2021 4
2022 17
2023 17
2024 6
2025 2
2026, to 8 November 11

The BKA logged 42 attacks on universities and research institutions from 2022 to mid-2024. DFN’s assessment in October 2025 put the steady state at about twenty reported incidents a year and concluded: “Ein neuer Trend ist in Deutschland nicht zu beobachten.” October 2026 ran at more than three times that rate.

Then November opened with the Technical University of Munich. TUM confirmed on 6 November that attackers entered through the legacy myTUM portal and reached passwords, names, home addresses and dates of birth for roughly 60,000 students and staff. The stolen credentials were then used against TUMonline, the central campus management system, which the university pulled offline. Accounts with two-factor login were untouched. myTUM will remain permanently offline.

Seven weeks earlier, across town, LMU München reported an intrusion into its enrolment system. Around 600,000 records of current and former students were exposed, including bank details, with data reaching back fifty years.

The Rectors’ Conference asked the federal government in February 2025 to fund university cybersecurity directly. TUM’s own account of the incident shows where and why that matters. Any accounts with a second factor held. The legacy portal did not hold.

2026 X Posts About Midterms Echo 1937 Nazi Germany

One figure on the poster held gold coins in one hand and a whip in the other, with a map of the Soviet Union under his arm. The Deutsches Historisches Museum catalogues him as a Jew who embodies Western capitalism and Soviet Bolshevism at the same time. That one figure is the story from 1937. Twenty rooms beyond the poster were setup by Nazis to sell a lie.

“Der ewige Jude” opened in the library building of the Deutsches Museum in Munich as a “Große politische Schau”, with speeches by Goebbels and Streicher. It ran to 31 January 1938 and counted 412,000 visitors. The touring version reached Vienna, Berlin, Bremen, Dresden and Magdeburg before closing in June 1939. The Reichspropaganda-Amt and the Gauleitung München-Oberbayern built it with the Anti-Komintern and the party’s research institutes on the “Judenfrage”, a list recorded in Rosemarie Burgstaller’s entry in the Historisches Lexikon Bayerns. The Stadtarchiv München holds the press photographs of the rooms.

The sequence of rooms

Room one showed photographs of Rudolf Hilferding, Karl Radek and the actress Elisabeth Bergner, enlarged facial features and three wax heads. The wall text asserted typical Jewish features and explained their absence as camouflage. A Jew who looked German was a Jew in disguise.

Room two presented the Talmud and the Schulchan Aruch. The party journal “Mitteilungen über die Judenfrage” summarised the room: these law books with their thousands of paragraphs of hatred for non-Jews are for Jews what religion is for other peoples. Judaism was a hostile code wearing the costume of a faith.

A forty-metre hall followed, with a film of ritual slaughter running on a loop at the entrance and guided tours drawing the line to ritual murder.

Then the exhibition changed century. A Weimar film section with its own cinema. A mock shopping street with windows for fashion, music, literature and art, labelled as Jewish decay. A culture room under the title “Sodom und Gomorra” with Arthur Schnitzler, Franz Werfel, Max Reinhardt, Josephine Baker and Yehudi Menuhin. Seven or eight rooms of photomontage on Walther Rathenau, Georg Bernhard, Magnus Hirschfeld and Sigmund Freud, with walls built to lean inward over the visitor. A Bolshevism section of ruined cities and corpses copied from the Anti-Komintern shows. Two rooms of Freemasonry with coffins and skulls. An “Ehrenhalle” with the Nuremberg Laws in marble, and a last room presenting camps and expulsion as the solution.

The first rooms indicted the Jew as an archaic tribe with a bloody cult and a book of hatred in place of religion. The later rooms indicted the Jew as the author of modern sexuality, psychoanalysis, the theatre, the press, the department store and the Soviet state. Nazi usage called that second charge Kulturbolschewismus. The exhibition charged Jews with being too religious and with dissolving everyone else’s religion, and it placed the two charges in consecutive rooms. Room one had already supplied the rule that made both charges hold: the visible Jew was the enemy, and the invisible Jew was the enemy hiding. The same preference for the legible Jew survived the regime, which is why postwar Germany honours Chug Chaluzi for religious motives that German-Jewish society of the 1920s had treated as a mark against them.

From rooms to Xcrements

The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism has compiled the timestamped reactions of Christian nationalist figures and Project 2025 coalition partners to the midterm results, from the evening of 3 November to the morning of 5 November 2026. Read against the Munich floor plan, the compilation sorts itself by room.

Munich, 1937 X, 3 to 5 November 2026
Room 2: Talmud in place of religion. Long hall: ritual slaughter on a loop Partridge: divine judgment for “Pandering to Anti-Christ Israel”
Culture room “Sodom und Gomorra”: Schnitzler, Reinhardt, Baker. Photomontage rooms: Hirschfeld, Freud Webbon: Jews vote for “sexual perversion, and abortion”
Bolshevism section: ruined cities Metaxas: “Islam and Marxism”. Driscoll: a “counterfeit trinity”
Poster: coins in one hand, whip in the other, Soviet map under the arm Torba: the “Hinjew alliance”. Webbon: Jews caused the Iran war, Jews voted Democrat
Room 1: absence of Jewish features explained as camouflage Webbon: Jews appointed as “captains of the team”; “They hate you”
Last room: camps and expulsion as the solution Torba: “The time for voting is over.” Webbon: “I have a list.”

Joel Webbon, a Texas pastor, wrote at 12:41 a.m. on 4 November that Jews in the White House had talked Trump into the Iran war and that Zionists were the biggest threat to his side’s future. At 8:15 a.m. he wrote, “An entire war for Israel. Jews still voted Democrat.” Eleven minutes later he answered an exit poll showing Jewish voters at 67 percent for Democrats with “They hate you, your children, and your country.” At 11:18 p.m. he wrote that Jews vote for open borders, “demographic erasure, sexual perversion, and abortion.” One author, one day, with Jews as the war party of a foreign state and as the solvent of Christian order. Protection had been extended and loyalty assumed. A vote cast as citizens was received as treason.

Dale Partridge listed “Pandering to Anti-Christ Israel” first among the reasons for divine judgment. Andrew Torba of Gab wrote that those who bless Israel had been blessed with a landslide defeat and called the night a rejection of the “Hinjew alliance.” Eric Metaxas named Islam and Marxism as an existential enemy on the scale of the Revolution and the Civil War. Mark Driscoll named abortion, Marxism and Islam as a counterfeit trinity. The Bolshevism section in Munich showed ruined cities. The 2026 version adds a mosque.

Torba posted “The time for voting is over” at 10:32 p.m. on election night. Webbon promised the following evening that his side would win “with or without a majority vote,” and that morning had posted “I have a list. I will not forget.”

Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation alumnus who chairs a Project 2025 coalition member, wrote the morning after the election that the closest historical analogy was the 1932 German vote that made the Nazi party the largest in the Reichstag, and he meant the Democrats.

The Munich exhibition had a fixed grammar of Nazism. The Jew is their enemy as both the visible stranger and as the invisible insider, as the keeper of an archaic law and as the destroyer of other peoples’ faith.

The grammar acquires new names but nothing else. The timestamps in the GPAHE compilation show a 2026 regurgitation of 1937 Nazism was complete within forty hours of the polls closing.

GNU Maintainer: Slave-Made Code? “YES”

The lead maintainer of GNU Emacs was asked on the project’s public development list whether he would knowingly accept code produced by slave labour. He replied:

“Our answer must be YES.”

The question came from brian cully on 6 November 2026, in the thread on Human Emacs, a group of contributors who seek an editor free of LLM-generated code. Cully’s hypothetical satisfied every formal requirement.

  • A territory where slavery is lawful.
  • Title to the product of forced labour granted by statute.
  • Copyright assigned to the FSF.
  • Code technically correct.
  • Maintainers fully informed of how it was made.

Read those carefully. Then look at the answer. Would acceptance be ethical?

Our answer must be YES. Any other answer is a first step towards splitting our community along the many lines of political and ideological divides that have nothing to do with software freedoms.

That is ethically reprehensible, and also logically false.

Eli Zaretskii has maintained Emacs since 2016. He has been asked this same question repeatedly lately, three times over three days.

On 8 November cully wrote that this amounted to tolerating slavery for the benefit of Emacs. Cully is right.

Zaretskii replied: “I don’t tolerate slavery. I just don’t ask our contributors how they feel about slavery.” He added that “people rarely agree what is injustice nowadays. Someone’s terrorist is another one’s freedom fighter. Someone’s justified war is another’s genocide.”

Eli is wrong. The hypothetical had stipulated that the maintainers already knew.

Later that day Divya Ranjan Pattanaik asked about child slavery. Zaretskii answered with a question of his own:

Are you okay with accepting code from countries whose policies you condemn or whose regimes you consider cruel and inhuman? If yes, why is that different from the slavery example above?

That exchange shows what the argument is about for Eli. Cully asked about the provenance of an artifact: how a piece of code was made. The question was about the code. Zaretskii answered each time about persons, and in the third reply he named which persons: contributors from countries whose regimes others condemn. An ethics test would reach countries, so Eli wants to stay blind to everything except licence paperwork and code “quality”. He stated the rule himself:

we will not change our principles, regardless of the way the code we accept was written.

Hume described this move in 1740, so this whole debate lands nearly three centuries late. Moralists reasoned in “is” for pages and then shifted into “ought” as if the two were the same kind of statement. Zaretskii makes that shift in a single line. The assignment is signed, the patch compiles, therefore the project must accept it. Legality is an “is.” Obligation is an “ought.” The second has to be argued for on its own, and across three messages the argument offered is that asking would be divisive.

Wollstonecraft answered the divisiveness claim even more clearly in 1790. Burke had argued that inherited institutions must stay beyond ethical examination, because a society that judges its own foundations fractures. Her reply applies to “fracture our community into many different enclaves” word for word: “the whole tenor of his plausible arguments settles slavery on an everlasting foundation.” In her second edition she spelled out the consequence. On Burke’s reasoning, “the slave trade ought never to be abolished.”

Sounds familiar, no?

A rule that forbids ethical examination of provenance protects whatever provenance is already inside the system. That held for sugar. It holds for emacs.

The GNU Project has written guidelines for tone. Richard Stallman posted to the same thread on 4 November to remind a participant of the Kind Communication Guidelines. His last post predates the slavery answer by two days. Philip Kaludercic, who maintains ELPA and argued for a middle path on LLM code, replied at length to Pattanaik and passed over the child slavery paragraph in silence. The project currently rejects LLM-generated code when a contributor discloses it, pending advice from FSF lawyers. Provenance is already factored in. The dispute is over which facts about provenance count. Legal title counts. Coerced labour is ruled out of scope.

Wollstonecraft called Burke’s position a servile reverence for antiquity. Shole would call Emacs yes to slavery a reverence for copyright assignment.

Proposal: Billionaire Realization Obligation on Tax-Avoiding Xtraction

Proposal for the BROTAX Act

Purpose

To treat borrowing by the wealthiest taxpayers as a realization of gain on their appreciated assets, to end the stepped-up basis at death for those taxpayers, and to require lenders to report credit extended to them.

This Act may be cited as the Billionaire Realization Obligation on Tax-Avoiding eXtraction Act.

Findings

  1. The Internal Revenue Code taxes capital gain only when an asset is sold.
  2. Taxpayers holding concentrated positions in appreciated stock obtain cash by pledging that stock as collateral for loans. Loan proceeds are excluded from income.
  3. These loans are commonly carried until death, when section 1014 resets the basis of the collateral to fair market value and the gain that secured the loan is never taxed.
  4. The 25 wealthiest Americans paid federal income tax equal to 3.4 percent of their wealth growth between 2014 and 2018, according to IRS records obtained by ProPublica. One of them paid no federal income tax in 2018 and two years later pledged tens of billions of dollars in shares as loan collateral.
  5. Section 1259 already treats a hedge that locks in gain on an appreciated position as a sale. Borrowing against the same position converts gain into spendable cash and merits the same treatment.
  6. The combined effect of these provisions makes capital gains tax elective for the wealthiest taxpayers.
  7. Closing the borrowing loophole for households above $100 million in net assets would raise more than $100 billion over ten years, according to Fox and Liscow, 182 Tax Notes Federal 647 (2024).
  8. Lenders advance a fraction of pledged value and require additional collateral when prices fall. A tax measured on proceeds drawn inherits that discount. The taxpayer holds the cash to pay the tax on the day the obligation arises, and a later fall in the collateral produces a recognized loss on sale under the adjusted basis.

Section 1. Covered Taxpayers

This Act applies to any individual whose net worth exceeds $100 million on the last day of the taxable year. Net worth includes assets held through grantor trusts, non-grantor trusts the individual funded, partnerships and corporations in which the individual holds a controlling interest, private foundations under the individual’s control, and the assets of a spouse.

Section 2. Covered Loans

A covered loan is any borrowing by a covered taxpayer, in any form, from any lender. Covered loans include securities-backed lines of credit, margin loans, prepaid variable forward contracts, equity swaps, repurchase agreements, unsecured credit, and loans from related parties or foreign lenders. A loan to a covered taxpayer is presumed to be drawn against the taxpayer’s appreciated assets. The Secretary shall apply this section according to the economic substance of the transaction.

Section 3. Realization on Borrowing

(a) Proceeds of covered loans drawn during a taxable year, in excess of $1 million, are treated as an amount realized from the sale of the taxpayer’s appreciated assets on the date drawn.

(b) The gain recognized equals the lesser of the proceeds drawn and the taxpayer’s aggregate built-in gain in appreciated assets on the date drawn. Gain is taxed under section 1(h).

(c) The basis of the taxpayer’s appreciated assets increases by the amount of gain recognized. Where the loan is secured, basis is allocated first to the pledged assets in proportion to built-in gain. Where the loan is unsecured, basis is allocated across all appreciated assets in proportion to built-in gain.

(d) Repayment of a covered loan produces no deduction and no reduction of basis.

(e) Interest on covered loans is excluded from the deduction under section 163(d).

Section 4. Carryover Basis at Death

Section 1014 shall not apply to property acquired from a decedent who was a covered taxpayer. Such property takes the basis it held in the hands of the decedent. Chapter 11 estate tax continues to apply.

Section 5. Reporting

(a) Any lender extending credit with a balance or commitment above $1 million to a covered taxpayer shall file an annual return with the Secretary showing draws, repayments, outstanding balance, and any collateral.

(b) A covered taxpayer who borrows from a lender that files no return loses the exemption under section 3(a) for that loan.

(c) Trusts, partnerships, and corporations attributed to a covered taxpayer under section 1 report their covered loans to the individual.

Section 6. Transition

Covered loans outstanding on the effective date are treated as drawn in five equal annual installments beginning in the first taxable year after enactment. Any renewal, extension, increase, or refinancing of an outstanding facility is treated as a draw of the full balance on that date.

Section 7. Constitutional Basis

The tax under this Act attaches to a transaction in which the taxpayer received money. The taxpayer elected to convert appreciation into cash. Congress has the power under the 16th Amendment to tax income from whatever source derived. In Moore v. United States (2024) the Supreme Court upheld a tax on income realized by an entity and attributed to the taxpayer who held the economic interest. Section 1259 has operated on the same principle since 1997.

Section 8. Effect

A founder who wishes to retain control of a company retains it. A founder who wishes to spend the appreciation pays the tax a seller pays. In 2020 the chief executive of Tesla pledged $57.7 billion in shares as collateral for personal loans. Under this Act, each dollar drawn against those shares is taxed in the year of the draw.

Section 9. Revenue

The Joint Committee on Taxation shall score this Act before floor consideration.