Glibc

Compiling to native code, and furthermore for a Linux system... wow, sounds scary, and very, very far away from what I've been doing in the last decade(s). Well, the thing is that my employer decided some months ago that we had to compile to native code some of our Python applications. It's not something performance related, it's for preventing access to the source code of these applications. We were looking into cython, but we settled on Nuitka, an amazing piece of software that has been serving us so well.

Normally almost every native application compiled for a Linux system has been dynamically linked against glibc. OK, and, what's glibc?

The GNU C Library, commonly known as glibc, is the GNU Project implementation of the C standard library. It provides a wrapper around the system calls of the Linux kernel and other kernels for application use. Despite its name, it now also directly supports C++ (and, indirectly, other programming languages).

So when a Linux native application (using glibc) starts, the dynamic linker (libdl.so) will dynamically load the shared objects (SO, .so files, the equivalent to windows DLL's) needed by the application (like glibc.so) and link the callsites to the functions imported from those libraries.

Obviously glibc evolves over time, so, what about versions? First, what glibc version is installed on my system? You can check the SO's loaded by a running process by doing: lsof -p PID | grep .so. Normally you'll see that it's using: libc.so.6 (in Ubuntu it located here: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6). That 6 is not the version number (libc.so.6 is the name for the library since 1997!), the version number is something like 2.XX (2.39 in my ubuntu 24.04). You find it by using: ldd --version

So, what happens if I compile my application in a system with one version of glibc and try to run it in a system with a different version? Well, the situation is quite more fine-grained that I thought. Version numbers are not checked at the glibc level, but at the function level. This is so because glibc uses symbolic versioning

The "Symbol Versioning" Approach (Advanced)

This is what glibc uses. It is also used by heavy-hitters like OpenSSL, Qt, and libgcc.

    The Logic: The filename stays the same (e.g., libc.so.6 has been the name since 1997), but individual functions inside the file are tagged with versions.

    The Result: Multiple versions of the same function can coexist in one file. This allows for extreme backward compatibility without breaking the system every time a single function is updated.
    
    The primary goal of symbol versioning is backward compatibility. It allows a single library file to provide multiple versions of the same function so that:

    Old binaries compiled against v2.10 continue to use the v2.10 implementation.

    New binaries compiled against v2.11 use the new v2.11 implementation.

So multiple versions of the same function live inside glibc, and your binary will dynamically link against the one it was compiled for. And, when does the version number of a function change? Normally it only changes if the function interface (the contract, the ABI) changes, but not if its only its internal implementation that changes. So if we compare symbolic versioning to semantic versioning (SemVer, a more familiar versioning schema), we could say that in symbolic versioning a version change corresponds to a Major version in semantic versioning.

You are exactly right: A new Symbol Version is functionally equivalent to a Major Version bump for that specific function. It signals to the linker that the "Contract" for that specific symbol has changed, and old programs should look for the previous contract elsewhere in the same file.

Notice how symbolic versioning is used for functions inside a library, while semantic versioning (when used) is normally used for libraries.

The glibc version (that one obtained with ldd --version) has no importance in terms of loading the library in memory (the dynamic linker will load libc.so.6 regardless of its "internal" version), the important part is the specific version of each function that we try to link.

I guess when you program in C you are aware of the version of each function that you are using, as you have to adapt your code to the ABI of the function if it has changed, but when that happens behind the scenes, that's quite different. In our case, we just write Python code, and the beautiful Nuitka takes care of transforming it to C and then compiling it to native. So it's Nuitka who takes care of writing the C code in accordance to the function versions inside the glibc in the system. So if then you run that binary in a system with an older glibc version it could happen that your binary is "pointing" to a function with a symbolic version (let's say openEncryptedFile@GLIBC_2.12) higher than the one in the older glibc (let's say openEncryptedFile@GLIBC_2.10) present in the current system, and your application will crash. Basically this means that you have to compile your Python application in a system with a glibc version <= that the glibc version in the target system. It feels odd at first, as the starting point is just the same Python code, and if in one system it can just use openEncryptedFile@GLIBC_2.10 why doesn't it compile it always with that 2.10 even if a bigger version (openEncryptedFile@GLIBC_2.12) is present? Well, that's how things work by default, when compiling, code will be linked to the highest version of that function present in the glibc in the compilation machine.

If you wonder if other .so libraries (SO, ELF libraries) also use symbolic versioning, it depends. For smaller, simpler libraries what is usually used is the SONAME approach, the library (.so file) name changes with each version (this is a coarse grained approach).

Symbolic versioning is the technically superior approach, but it is not the universal standard for all ELF libraries. It depends entirely on the library maintainers and their commitment to long-term ABI stability.

In the Linux ecosystem, there are two primary ways to manage library changes:  
1. The "SONAME" Approach (Common)

Most smaller or simpler libraries use the SONAME mechanism. 
You’ve likely seen files like libfoo.so.1 and libfoo.so.2.

    The Logic: If the developers change the interface, they increment the "Major" version number in the filename itself.  

    The Result: Programs linked against libfoo.so.1 will refuse to start 
    if only libfoo.so.2 is present. This is a "heavy-handed" fix because 
    it requires recompiling every program that uses the library even if 
    the specific function they use didn't actually change.

2. The "Symbol Versioning" Approach (Advanced)

This is what glibc uses. It is also used by heavy-hitters like OpenSSL, Qt, and libgcc.

    The Logic: The filename stays the same (e.g., libc.so.6 has been the name since 1997), 
    but individual functions inside the file are tagged with versions.

    The Result: Multiple versions of the same function can coexist in one file. 
    This allows for extreme backward compatibility without breaking the system every time a single function is updated.

To complete this post, I'll add some useful, related commands:

• To check the SO's used by a given program.
  For a binary on disk: ldd /usr/bin/program_name
  For a running process: lsof -p [PID] | grep '\.so'
• To view the symbols used by a program (the specific functions imported from SO's)
  All imported symbols: nm -Du
  Symbols + Versions: objdump -T | grep '*UND*'
  Only glibc symbols: objdump -T | grep 'GLIBC_'
  Library Version Map: readelf -V
  
• To view the symbols/functions exported by glibc in your system: objdump -T /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6

Some additional findings related to the last command. For example I want to see the versions of pthread_spin_init present in my glibc: objdump -T /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 | grep pthread_spin_init

That gives me:

0000000000a4130 g DF .text 000000000000000d GLIBC_2.34 pthread_spin_init 00000000000a4130 g DF .text 000000000000000d (GLIBC_2.2.5) pthread_spin_ini

Which is very interestinng as it shows us that a symbol version is not a sequential counter for that specific function. Instead, it is a timestamp or a marker of the glibc release that defined that specific version of the function's ABI. From a GPT:

How glibc handles ABI changes with symbol versioning

Original version: Suppose foo() was introduced in GLIBC_2.2.5. That version is tagged as foo@GLIBC_2.2.5.

ABI change in glibc 2.32: If glibc developers change the ABI of foo() in version 2.32 (e.g., change its behavior, arguments, or return type in a way that breaks compatibility), they will:

Keep the old implementation as foo@GLIBC_2.2.5.
Add a new implementation as foo@GLIBC_2.32.

At runtime:

A binary linked against glibc 2.2.5 will request foo@GLIBC_2.2.5, and the dynamic linker will resolve it to the old implementation.
A binary linked against glibc 2.32 will request foo@GLIBC_2.32, and get the new implementation.

This mechanism ensures backward compatibility while allowing glibc to evolve.

Python Sentinel Values

Every now and then we need a flag or sentinel value. A unique value that we can distinguish from the normal values that we are processing and that has a particular meaning. a special, unique value used in programming to signal the end of data processing, a loop, or an operation. For example in my recent post about adding null-safety to a pipe function I was using 2 sentinels/flags: NULL_SAFE and COALESCE.

The essential function a sentinel value has to accomplish is to have a unique identity, so that comparing it by identity (Python: is, JavaScript: ===) with any other value/object in our system has to return false. So the most simple approach is just using a new object for each of our sentinels.

NO_INVEST = object()  # Sentinel value

def invest(amount: int | None | object) -> str:
	if amount is NO_INVEST:
		return "No investment"
	else:
		amount = amount or 0
		return f"we've invested {amount}"

print(invest(NO_INVEST))  # Output: No investment
print(NO_INVEST)  # Output: object object at 0x...

That simple approach works fine, but it's missing a few things. Printing the value is messy (we get an "object object at 0x..." representation, it would be nice to get NO_INVEST) and its rather typing unfriendly. Saying that invest can receive an object, apart from int or None lacks any meaning. What kind of object is that?. A sentinel value should (mainly) have these features:

• A unique identity (is comparison)
• A meaningful repr (debuggability)
• Clear typing (especially for static type checkers)

Our basic sentinel only provides the first one (identity). That's why some smart guy came up with a very interesting PEP 661 proposing a new Sentinel class. Unfortunately that PEP is in deferred status. The document also presents different techniques commonly used for Sentinel values, like the simple object() that I've just shown, using an enum or using a class. Using a class is the best approach to me, I'll show several iterations until getting what I think is the best we can get so far.

Approach 1. Classes are objects in Python. We can use a class for each sentinel object, and in order to get a nice representation we can give it a metaclass with a custom __repr__. The missing piece is having some typing friendliness, we're still stuck with the Any signature. Additionally, declaring a class for something that is not intended to work as an object factory, but to be used as an object in itself is rather unnatural.

    class SentinelMeta(type):
        def __repr__(cls):
            return cls.__name__
        
    class Sentinel(metaclass=SentinelMeta):
        pass
        
    class NO_INVEST(Sentinel): pass


    #def invest(value: int | None | Type[NO_INVEST]) -> str: # this signature feels a bit strange, but it works
    #def invest(value: int | None |Literal[NO_INVEST]) -> str: # this one feels better, but only works with mypy, not with pylance
    def invest(amount: int | None | Any) -> str:
        if amount is NO_INVEST:
            return "No investment"
        else:
            amount = amount or 0
            return f"we've invested {amount}"

    print(invest(NO_INVEST))  # Output: Using NO_INVEST sentinel in match statement
    print(NO_INVEST)  # Output: NO_INVEST

Approach 2. We can make the usage quite more natural by hiding the class creation behind a function. That also allows us to skip the Sentinel base class.

    class SentinelMeta(type):
        def __repr__(cls):
            return cls.__name__

    def sentinel(name: str):
        return SentinelMeta(name, (), {})
    
    NO_INVEST = sentinel("NO_INVEST")


    #def invest(value: int | Type[NO_INVEST]) -> str: # pylance doesn't like it, using a variable as type
    #def invest(value: int | Sentinel) -> str: # we don't have a Sentinel class... so forget it
    def invest(amount: int | None | Any) -> str:
        if amount is NO_INVEST:
            return "No investment"
        else:
            amount = amount or 0
            return f"we've invested {amount}"
        
    print(invest(NO_INVEST))  # Output: Using NO_INVEST sentinel
    print(NO_INVEST)  # Output: NO_INVEST

This one feels quite natural to use, but we still have the problem with typing. We can leverage the Generic types/class subscripting that we saw in my previous post for getting something like this (Approach 3)

    class SentinelMeta(type):
        def __repr__(cls):
            return cls.__name__
    
    class Sentinel(metaclass=SentinelMeta):      
        def __class_getitem__(cls, item):
                return cls
    
    def sentinel(name: str):
        return SentinelMeta(name, (Sentinel,), {})
    
    NO_INVEST = sentinel("NO_INVEST")


    #def invest(value: int | Sentinel) -> str:
    def invest(amount: int | None | Sentinel[NO_INVEST]) -> str: # at a typing level it's equivalent to the above, but it's provides extra meaining      
        if amount is NO_INVEST:
            return "No investment"
        else:
            amount = amount or 0
            return f"we've invested {amount}"

    print(invest(NO_INVEST))  # Output: Using NO_INVEST sentinel      
    print(NO_INVEST)  # Output: NO_INVEST
	

Hey, this one feels rather good to me. The Sentinel[NO_INVEST] looks pretty nice in that signature. The type checking is mainly off, cause our sentinel() function is not typed, so it's considered as returning Any, and when we pass Any to a function it disables type checking. This means that for the type system any sentinel that we create with sentinel() is just an Any, so the type checker will allow passing any sentinel to a function that expects a specific sentinel. It's not a problem for me, what I'm mainly interested in is the semantics, the clarity, that this type annotation provides to the function signature.

Given that we are using Sentinel classes as objects, not as object factories, we can make these classes to be more object like, by preventing instantiation. Additionally, Sentinels do not have attributes and are not intended to be expanded with attributes, so we can prevent them from getting attributes added dynamically. All in all we get:

    class SentinelMeta(type):
        def __repr__(cls):
            return cls.__name__
        
        # prevent sentinel classes from being instantiated
        def __call__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
            raise TypeError(f"{cls.__name__} is a sentinel and cannot be instantiated") 
        
        # prevent sentinel classes from being modified
        def __setattr__(cls, name, value):
            raise AttributeError(f"Cannot modify sentinel {cls.__name__}")


    class Sentinel(metaclass=SentinelMeta):      
        def __class_getitem__(cls, item):
                return cls

    
    def sentinel(name: str):
        return SentinelMeta(name, (Sentinel,), {})

    
    NO_INVEST = sentinel("NO_INVEST")

There's something missing in this implementation, support for our sentinels to be pickled (particularly important if we plan to use them in multiprocessing scenarios). That complicates the design and I've deliberately left it aside for the moment. Maybe we'll see it in another post.

Python Type Checkers and Type Expressions

In this previous post I explained how Python allows the usage of any object, not just type objects, for its annotations "Annotations can be any valid Python expression". Annotations are used to provide metadata, and while normally that metadata is just typing information, we can provide any sort of metadata for custom use at runtime (and as we saw we have the Annotated mechanism to combine both typing and custom metadata. While doing some tests at that time I noticed that VS Code (the Pylance extension) would warn (with: "Call expression not allowed in type expression" or "Variable not allowed in type expression") against using annotations like this (that as I've said is perfectly valid):

# metadata for parameters
@dataclass
class ValueRange:
    lo: int
    hi: int

# pylance warning: Call expression not allowed in type expression
def create_post_1(
    title: ValueRange(5, 20), 
    content: ValueRange(5, 100),
) -> dict:
    return {"title": title, "content": content}


val_range = ValueRange(1, 10)
# pylance warning: Variable not allowed in type expression
def fn2(a: val_range) -> None:
    pass
    
# but it's stored OK in the function annotations 
print(annotationlib.get_annotations(fn2))
# {'a': ValueRange(lo=1, hi=10), 'return': None}

So if this works fine at runtime (you can see that the annotation is stored along with the function) why pylance warns against it? Because we have to differentiate what is valid for runtime use vs what is valid at type checking time. From a GPT:

The runtime accepts arbitrary expressions. Static type checkers do not. This is so because static typing tools parse Python, but they don’t execute it, and they don’t compile it to bytecode either. Type checkers rely on syntactic patterns, not runtime behavior

This is something I had never thought about before. Python type checkers analyze your code without executing anything (they are static). So the types in the type annotations that they are going to analyze have to be expressed in a direct, static form, not as the result of executing an expression (as they are not going to execute that expression). The different Python type checkers (mypy, Pylance, pyre...) parse python source code into an AST (normally different from CPython AST) and analyze it, they do not run code, indeed they do not even compile the code to bytecodes to create code objects. That's why they can only work with type expressions (annotation expressions), that follow a specific syntax, not with any expression. From here: Note that while annotation expressions are the only expressions valid as type annotations in the type system, the Python language itself makes no such restriction: any expression is allowed.

Type checkers operate on expressions that syntactically denote types, which basically is a type name or a generic type. And this has sparked my curiosity about how generic types (MyClass[T]) work. For the type checker it's simple, as it does not execute anything, it just has to parse that particular syntax. But what's the runtime meaning of such generic expression?

Well, it's subscripted access to an object (to a class). When we do my_instance["x"] this searches for a __getitem__ method in my_instance's type. So MyClass["x"] should just search __getitem__ in MyClass's type (that is, its metaclass). That's correct, but given that Python designers have always considered metaclasses like particularly complex and/or exotic, they decided to introduce (via PEP560) a hook to make easier to implement subscripted access to classes. Rather than having to define a metaclass for MyClass, we can directly define a __class_getitem__ method in MyClass.

Pipe Operator and Null Safety

I've talked a couple of times [1] and [2] about how beautiful it's having a pipe operator in a language, though it's not particular common, and ways to simulate it in Python. Having a pipe operator makes applying functions to a value as convenient as chaining methods. When chaining methods we can leverage (if available) the safe navigation/optional chaining/elvis (?.) operator, to deal with null values. So, I've been thinking about null safety and pipes (not applying a function if the value is null, and coalescing to a default value).

In my previous post I mentioned that JavaScript had 2 different proposals for a pipe operator, but one of them has been discarded. I've been checking if this proposal includes null safety and the answer is not. It was discussed in the early stages, apart from the normal |> operator, having an additional ?|> operator for null safe cases, but it was discarded

// not null-safe, active proposal
user
  |> getProfile(%)
  |> formatProfile(%)
  
// null-safe, has been discarded
value ?|> fn
value |> fn ?? default

It was rejected on the basis that Pipelines should be pure syntax for data flow, not control flow.

To my surprise (I was not aware php continues to be used and evolve) PHP has recently added a pipe operator to the language, and for the moment it also lacks a null-safe version.

For Python decision makers adding a pipe operator seems "making the language too complex for beginners"... (you can't imagine how much I hate that so common kind of "pythonic" reflections...), but as I explained in my previous post we can easily add a pipe function that makes the trick (what has also been requested multiple times is adding such kind of function to functools, but no luck so far). An implementation is so simple as this:

def pipe(val: Any, *fns: Callable[[Any], Any]) -> Any:
    """
    pipes function calls over an initial value
    """
    def _call(val, fn):
        return fn(val)
    return functools.reduce(_call, fns, val)

And we can use it like this:

@dataclass
class Post:
    id: str
    title: str
    author: str

def get_post(post_id: str) -> Post | None:
    # simulate a function that may return None
    if post_id == "1":
        return Post(id="1", title="First post", author="1")
    else:
        return None

def get_address(person_id: str) -> str | None:
    # simulate a function that may return None
    if person_id == "1":
        return "Rue de La Nation, Paris"
    else:
        return None

pipe("1",
    get_post,
    lambda post: get_address(post.author),
	str.upper,
    print,
)	

# RUE DE LA NATION, PARIS

Creating a null aware equivalent is quite simple. The idea I came up with is having pipe accept not just a sequence of callables, but a sequence of callables or flag and callable or flag and value, with the flag indicating the we have to check for null before applying the Callable, or that we have to coalesce it to a value. Let's see the code:

// sentinel values
NULL_SAFE = object()
COALESCE = object()

def pipe(val: Any, *steps: Callable[[Any], Any] | tuple[Any, Callable[[Any], Any] | Any]) -> Any:
    """
    pipes function calls over an initial value, with support for null safety and coalescing:
    """
    def _call(val, step: Callable[[Any], Any] | tuple[Any, Callable[[Any], Any] | Any]) -> Any:
        if callable(step):
            return step(val)
        else:
            option = step[0]
            if option is NULL_SAFE:
                fn = step[1]
                return None if val is None else fn(val)
                
            elif option is COALESCE:
                default_val = step[1]
                return default_val if val is None else val
            else:
                raise ValueError(f"Invalid option: {option}")
    
    return functools.reduce(_call, steps, val)

pipe2("2",
    (NULL_SAFE, get_post),
    (NULL_SAFE, lambda post: get_address(post.author)),
    (COALESCE, "Not found"),
    str.upper,
    print,
)

# NOT FOUND

The function is quite minimal. We should add it proper error handing, throwing meaningful exceptions for each potential incorrect usage. You can just ask a GPT to add it and you'll end up with something like this:

def pipe(val: Any, *steps: Union[Callable[[Any], Any], Tuple[object, Any]]) -> Any:
    """
    Pipe value through callables or option-tuples.
    Steps can be:
      - a callable: called as fn(acc)
      - null_safe(fn): tuple (NULL_SAFE, fn) — only call fn if acc is not None
      - coalesce(default): tuple (COALESCE, default) — replace None with default

    Raises TypeError or ValueError for invalid steps.
    """
    def _call(val: Any, step: Union[Callable[[Any], Any], Tuple[object, Any]]) -> Any:
        if callable(step):
            return step(val)

        if not (isinstance(step, tuple) and len(step) == 2):
            raise TypeError("pipe2 steps must be callables or 2-tuples from null_safe/coalesce")

        option, payload = step
        if option is NULL_SAFE:
            if val is None:
                return None
            if not callable(payload):
                raise TypeError("NULL_SAFE payload must be callable")
            return payload(val)

        if option is COALESCE:
            default = payload
            return default if val is None else val

        raise ValueError(f"Unknown pipe2 option: {option!r}")

    return functools.reduce(_call, steps, val)

Python Annotated

In Python there is this common mantra that type annotations (type hints) do not have any runtime effect. Well, that's mainly true, as those type hints are not used by the runtime to check if your type assumptions/restrictions are correct (as the documentation says: "The Python runtime does not enforce function and variable type annotations. "). But on the other hand, this type information exists at runtime (only that the runtime itself does not use it). Until recently you would use inspect.get_annotations to get that info, a dictionary that gets stored in the __annotations__ attribute (notice that Annotations have been improved in Python 3.14, they're now evaluated lazily, and you should use now the annotationlib.get_annotions). So that information is available at runtime, and your custom code can make use of it for whatever it feels fit.

Additionally, the type hints/annotations syntax allows us to use any object as an Annotation, not just a type. Indeed Python’s grammar does not restrict the content of annotation expressions, as PEP 3107 explicitly states: "Annotations can be any valid Python expression". Put another way: Python does allow arbitrary expressions (hence returning anything) in type annotations. This means that you can use the syntax for defining information (metadata) about these parameters, information that then is used by your custom code for something other that type-checking (for example, stating that a function expects a string following a certain pattern, let's say: create_user(msg: r"^[0-9a-f]{32}$")). That's very nice, but most likely you'll want to combine both the typing information and the extra metadata information. With that in mind, the Annotated class (Annotated[T, x]) was introduced some versions ago. T is a Type, and type-checkers understand the Annotated class and just take care of the T part. The x part is for metadata, that can be any object, and that will be used by your custom code at runtime. Indeed, that x can be multiple values, not just one, I mean: Annotated[str, ValueRange(10, 20), Complexity("high")].

Apart from metadata that applies to the parameters we can have metadata that applies to the function itself or to a class ('cacheable', 'optimized', some sort of privacy mechanism, whatever). Normally we'll use a custom decorator that adds this information as an attribute to the function/class (__cached__, __private__). So all in all we have 2 mechanisms to provide metadata. Annotated for parameters, and decorators for classes/functions themselves.

# to add metadata to the class or function itself, just use specific decorators that add metadata to specific attributes, for example:
def non_critical(func):
    func._non_critical = True
    return func

# metadata for parameters
@dataclass
class ValueRange:
    lo: int
    hi: int

@non_critical
def create_post_2(
    title: Annotated[str, ValueRange(5, 20)], 
    content: Annotated[str, ValueRange(5, 100)],
) -> dict:
    return {"title": title, "content": content}

annotations = annotationlib.get_annotations(create_post_2)
print(f"annotations: {annotations}") 
# annotations: {'title': typing.Annotated[str, ValueRange(lo=5, hi=20)], 'content': typing.Annotated[str, ValueRange(lo=5, hi=100)], 'return': class 'dict'}

In other languages like Kotlin/Java we use annotations for both parameters metadata and function/class metadata. It's important to note that while in Python we can provide any object as metadata (both when using Annotated or when using a decorator and passing any expression as argument), in Kotlin/Java annotations metadata is managed at compile time, so you are limited to compile-time constants. This means that in Python we have an enormous power with what we can provide as metadata.

Kotlin and Java annotations cannot take arbitrary runtime objects as parameters. Their allowed values are strictly limited because annotation arguments must be compile‑time constants and the annotation instances themselves are created by the compiler, not at runtime.

The Annotated class (well, indeed what we have are instances of _AnnotatedAlias) has an __origin__ attribute (that points to the the type-hint) and a __metadata__ attribute for the metadata. However, ff we only want to get the typing information we can directly use the typing.get_type_hints functions.

annotations = annotationlib.get_annotations(create_post_2)

print(annotations["title"].__origin__) # to get the original type hint, which is str in this case
# class 'str'>

metadata = {key: value.__metadata__ 
    for key, value in annotations.items() if hasattr(value, "__metadata__")
}
print(f"metadata: {metadata}")
# metadata: {'title': (ValueRange(lo=5, hi=20),), 'content': (ValueRange(lo=5, hi=100),)}

print(f"type hints: {get_type_hints(create_post_2)}")
# type hints: {'title': class 'str', 'content': class 'str', 'return': class 'dict'}

La Mort de Quentin Deranque, un meurtre raciste / a racist murder

On February 12th, 2026, Quentin Deranque, a 23-year-old French man, was beaten to death (receiving multiple kicks to the head while he lay on the floor) by a far-left, pro-Islam, anti-French militia, a terrorist organization called "la Jeune Garde." Why? Because he was a French patriot, because he loved his country and culture, and because he intended to defend a few French girls belonging to Nemesis, a female organization that tries to raise awareness about the dangers that mass immigration from Muslim countries represents for women's rights and safety.

Of course, most mainstream media (which in France range from far-left to left, except for the excellent CNews) hurried to talk about a "fight" rather than a lynching. When the video of the lynching was made public, they tried to minimize it by claiming he was a far-right militant and an ultra-conservative Catholic. When that failed to silence the scandal, they escalated their lies, calling him a fascist, a racist, and a xenophobe. The far-left political movements that have instigated this violence for decades even dared to call him a "Nazi."

No, he was not any of those things; as I said, he was just a French patriot, a French nationalist. One could also say he was a conservative Catholic. It seems he had turned to Catholicism because of the link he established between French identity and the Catholicism. As someone who, even to this day, is not religious, I can clearly see and embrace that link, and I feel deeply grateful for having grown up in a place where Catholicism forms the basis of our moral system (regardless of whether most people consider themselves religious or not) rather than having grown up in a Muslim society.

Quentin was the child of a French father and a Peruvian mother, and he had mixed European and Amerindian features. Unless he was an illiterate idiot (he was a math student who loved philosophy and reading, so that does not seem to be the case), it is obvious that he could not be a racist and that his French nationalism was not based on a "legacy of blood" but on a "legacy of culture."

The fact that Quentin had partial extra-European origins leads to very interesting reflections. We saw his friends on TV; they were devastated by his assassination, yet they paid him tribute with enormous dignity and emotion. Many of these friends were clearly French nationalists, and for them, Quentin, with his 50% Peruvian ancestry, was just another French comrade. This is interesting for those who try to scare us with lies about French nationalism being inherently racist and xenophobic.

The even more interesting reflection is that I firmly believe Quentin’s death was a racist crime. His assassins, the ten far-left scumbags, all of them "white" and mostly coming from white, French (anti-France) bourgeois families, who beat him to death most likely focused on him because of his extra-European features. There were two other nationalist guys lying on the floor being kicked, but not with such cruelty. Am I saying that these far-left terrorists, who are supposed to fight against fascism and racism, killed him because he was not 100% white? YES, that is exactly what I am saying.

The far-left movement in Europe, and particularly in France, has become a cult of racial obsession. They have fully traded traditional class struggle for the radical, segregationist dogmas of the decolonial and indigenist movements. For these oikophobes —people who despise their own civilization— anyone of non-European descent is viewed strictly as a perpetual victim of a 'white system.' In their eyes, such a person is 'required' to hate their 'oppressors' and reject every facet of French culture. This means that for these lunatics, someone like Quentin, who chose to assimilate and embrace his French heritage, is seen as the ultimate 'traitor' to their narrative. To these self-loathing bourgeois radicals, Quentin should have been a grievance-filled victim, weaponizing his skin tone against the state. Instead, he chose the dignity of belonging to a national community, a history, and a culture. He was a French nationalist by choice and by love, proving their 'systemic' lies wrong. It was that clarity of spirit, that refusal to be a pawn in their racial war, that the far-left found truly intolerable.

Finally, I'll put here a list with the names and information (just taken from some other blogs) about the assasins. First three of the pieces of shit that directly kicked Quentin's head to his death:

Trois militants antifas lyonnais ont été formellement identifiés lors du lynchage du jeune Quentin.
1- Jacques-Élie Favrot (surnom “Jef”).
Assistant parlementaire de Raphaël Arnault, M2 à Sciences Po Saint-Étienne.
Militant à la Jeune Garde Lyon ainsi qu’à OSE CGT (syndicat étudiant de la CGT à Saint-Étienne).
2- Adrian Besseyre
Militant très actif de la Jeune Garde Lyon, né en 2001, il a également effectué un stage à l’Assemblée Nationale pour Raphaël Arnault.
3- Lelio Le Besson
Membre du service d’ordre de la Jeune Garde Lyon, et désormais militant actif de « Génération antifasciste », le mouvement qui a succédé à la JG.
Il a fait ses études à l’IG2E en Gestion des Risques et Traitement des pollutions

Then we have the scumbag that founded the far-left terror group, Raphaël Arnault. In this country in decay called France, a criminal identified as Fiche S (someone considered a serious threat to National Security), already condemned for a violent arbitrary aggression, can get a seat in the National Assembly. This ultra-violent illiterate piece of shit should be considered as one of the "intellectual" authors of this crime.

And then we have LFI, the anti-French, Pro-Islam political sect that has funded and empowered this terrorist group and has been sowing hatred in the country for years. Particularly, the leader of the sect, Melenchon, and its main and most violent and ignorant subordinates: Thomas Portes, Bompart, Rima Hassan, Mathilde Panot and Bilongo. They have minimized and even justified the murder, vomited lie after lie about Quentin (plainly calling him a "nazi") and even made fun of his execution. Hope one day all these traitors and scumbags will rot in hell.

Repose en Paix, Quentin. Les hommes sont morts, mais la dignité est éternelle.