Monday, 30 December 2013
Since it just ended less than an hour ago, I'd best get this down while it's still fresh in my mind.
Thanks to Didact's planning, the three-hour meetup bore considerable fruit, with him, me, and two others sitting down and discussing various topics which included:
*The ins and outs of various economic theories
*The possibility of a Singaporean collapse, how it might look like, what to prepare and what infrastructure is likely to go first
*Comparison of this situation to other regional collapses (eg. Indonesia during the Asian Currency Crisis)
*How to best get the Singaporean Government to pay attention (if at all possible) to the impending crisis, and why they won't listen to anything outside the paradigm
*And various other reactionary ideas.
Very productive and enjoyable time, made doubly so by said person promising to send Didact and I a couple of economic papers which he's been trying to get around. I should be able to get it up for you guys to give it a look-over once it arrives in my inbox.
Kudos to you all folks out there.
Saturday, 21 December 2013
Breaking out of my self-imposed silence for a moment to make a small announcement. I haven't been posting much due to my job search, and any spare time I have is spent browsing Mr. Soto's wonderful collection of neoreactionary books.
In any case, it seems that Fight Club has been moving out into meatspace for some time now. The various manosphere events have been most prominent in the minds of those involved in this little corner of the internet, but there's also been a recent meetup (or alternatively, hateup) of reactionaries in New York City which has gained a little less publicity, but I hear many important discussions have taken place there.
To this effect, Didact and I are looking to organise something similar, but on a much smaller scale than what's been done (as he points out, $5 for a local brew is pretty exorbitant). We're looking at the 27th or 30th, probably the latter, and already have one taker. The location will be something that's convenient for everyone (likely central Singapore) and more details will be released when events progress.
If you are interested, send either of us an email, or post a comment
Monday, 25 November 2013
This blog has been up for almost ten to eleven months now. Looking at the backlog, it's interesting to see how my views have changed over the course of one year.
Just looking at my earlier posts makes me feel a little embarrassed for actually ever having bought into the whole equality myth, which is why Mens' Rights Activists will ultimately fail, no matter what they do. When you go against human nature in the form of male disposability, no matter how hard you shame or legislate (even assuming that they could do so), you run up against this huge wall. Human nature is a feature, not a bug, and if you have to keep on filing bug reports then something is clearly wrong.
Next came MGTOW. Sure, I can agree with some ideas there, and still stick to them. But as Aurini points out, there's no sense in getting angry about the way men and women are. Each generation has its set of challenges, and you have to take them in stride as they come along.
So comes the whole Game/self improvement aspect, something which everyone can run. But the more important thing is that it acted as a gateway into the secret truth that is neoreaction: that when you question one part of modernity as it pertains to the sexes, you eventually start questioning all other aspects of modernity. Race. Education. Equality. Democracy. You can drink soda until you're acclimatised to it, but stop drinking it for a while and you realise how foul it really tastes. Modernity is the same way.
"Consider yourself. Why do you think you’re beyond the effects of socialization? Do you think all “those others” in history didn’t think they were perfectly normal as well? “I got through public school, and I’m fine.” That may be, but consider: many also get through child abuse. By what metric do you reckon you’re fine anyhow? Because you’re educated, you have a job, you’re not a bad person? Isn’t that the metric you were taught by the system? “No, the system teaches me to buy things.” And what taught you that this is what the system is like, if not the system? It may not teach you to buy things so much as it informs you of what to buy, and even if we suppose advertising has no effect on you, you still like the taste of Coca Cola. What is Coca Cola anyway? Sugar and water. If you could be adapted to drinking a superstimulus so patently unavailable in nature, what makes you think you couldn’t be adapted to the superstimuli of democratic theater and other forms of intellectual pornography?"I was not so surprised that the mainstream media attempted a hit piece on the manosphere - after all, most are interested in sex and how to get Jimmy or Jenny to like them. What everyone is more surprised at is how the mainstream has picked up onto neoreaction with the usual opening hit piece. After all, we're just "geeks for monarchy", right?
This is the final stop for me, I think. Neoreaction questions everything about the modern world and what it leads us to believe.
Friday, 22 November 2013
Well, was I expecting any different? Let's pick out some hilarious quotes from the article:
"However what was revolting was the flood of misogynistic and sexist comments against AWARE for interfering in the internal affairs of MINDEF. AWARE is a non-profit organization, a member of civil society who actively engages with the government. Since the 1980s, AWARE has published books, reports and held discussions with statutory bodies to elevate and strive for gender equality. In 2003 the restriction on female intakes in NUS’s medical faculty was lifted after AWARE made the efforts for it. Either the public is oblivious of AWARE’s long-term efforts to empower women or sexism is still deeply embedded in Singapore’s culture."*Typical destruction of masculine space by women who have no skin in the game.
*Non-profit organisations (that mysteriously have well-paid members, boards, and suck up tons of government money in grants) are not automatically good. If anything, they are actively detrimental, being instrumental arms of the Cathedral.
*Assumption that sex equality is good. (Do not use gender. Do not use the left's terminology and accept their frame.)
*The training of women doctors is an active malinvestment, considering the repeated global studies oft cited in the manosphere regarding hours worked, time taken off, specialisations, and individuals who leave the workforce for any period of time between the sexes in the field - a greater return to society is given when men are trained as doctors compared to women. Strictly speaking, the restriction of places for women was a logical and rational move. But as has been repeatedly shown, economics and reality be damned, ideology trumps all. Equality!
"This Purple Light saga has revealed much of our society’s mindset and deep-seated hatred for AWARE."And rightly so. You are anti-civilisational and should be reviled, as Queen Elizabeth I did to the feminists of her time. Feminism has been recorded as one of the many reasons why great civilisations such as Greece, Sparta, and Rome have fallen - but of course, progressives see history as one great line towards greater progress and glory, unable to observe the cycle of history as outlined in all those silly bronze age texts put forth by goat herders.
"The response clearly shows that advocacy groups like AWARE have a long way to go in combating stereotypes and prevailing attitudes that undermine the efforts of women.""We have a stereotype that people who use stereotypes are stupid." - Bryce Laliberte.
"What should be exhaustive is society’s silence on crude misogyny and relentless chauvinism. Yes Singapore is not an institutional patriarchy. However the patriarchal mindset is still detrimental to both men and women. It has negative effects on society and makes no sense to future growth. Sexism and misogyny has no room in the modern century. Until we do not raise our voices and work towards correcting these myopic attitudes, social justice and equality will never be achieved."*Unable to state "negative effects", nor how it is supposedly detrimental to men and women, when the exact opposite is becoming more evident by the day as society becomes more and more dysfunctional. How's that 25% of all US women on antidepressants working out for you?
*Unable to define "growth", nor how patriarchy makes no sense to it.
*"Wrong side of history" argument, contention that the past has nothing to teach us.
*Assumption that "social justice" and "equality" are good things. Why? They just are.
"This is a textbook example of feminine discourse. Note how she doesn’t actually bring up any specific proposition of mine and then argue against it, she just calls me sexist, claims offense, and leaves with a non sequitor." - Bryce Laliberte.
Essentially, the entire article can be boiled down to two points:
*Singapore is sexiss.
*Bawdy versions of army songs are sexiss and normalise rape.
I also finds it amusing that she openly admits AWARE has been caught lying about their achievements (claiming "Purple Light" was banned) and yet trumpets their "achievements" as proof that they do good. One would be more inclined to inspect those claims, no?
For any of you Singaporean guys out there, I'm sure you all know "Purple Light" - anyone who has been through the SAF's grindmill should. Am I surprised the SAF was all over themselves to grovel and whine and say they are not sexiss? Well, what am I supposed to expect to an army made up of merchants, in a nation made up of merchant?
"As Sunshine Mary observed, leftists are oppressed by reality itself, so do not acknowledge being on top and privileged.
Thus racism and sexism, strangely, never go away, no matter how much privilege women and black receive, which justifies ever more drastic measures against their oppressors." - Jim.
It would all work, really, it would all work, if it weren't for those evil racists/sexists/homophobists/capitalists/saboteurs/kulaks/monarchists just ruining all our wonderful utopian dreams!
Saturday, 16 November 2013
Just throwing this out there:
1/3 of Russians want their Tsar back.
Georgians consider a return to monarchy.
Seems like more and more people are waking up to the idea that democracy is a bad idea. Courtesy of Radish Magazine (click to enlarge):
Friday, 15 November 2013
Great article from Alternative Right: go read it here.
According to Tradition, the various epochs of human history are reduced down to Four Ages, each of which deteriorates in a state of gradual degeneration. In Hinduism, these are known as the Four Yugas, respectively titled the Satya or Krta Yuga, Tretā Yuga, Dvāpara Yuga, and the Kali Yuga. These also correspond to the four eras symbolized by metals found in Hesiod’s Works & Days, being the Gold, Silver, Bronze and Iron Ages. Similar versions of this myth are also found in the Persian, Chaldean, Egyptian, Aztec, and Norse Traditions.
Many of the predictions held for the Kali Yuga arise from the Hindu scriptures known as the Purānas – in particular the Linga and Bhāgavata Purānas provide lengthy descriptions of the events that will unfold as the Kali Yuga accelerates. An entire section of the Bhāgavata Purāna is devoted to the evils of the Kali Age. Some of the defining points of the Kali Yuga are described as follows:
"In the Kali Yuga, wealth alone will be the deciding factor of nobility of birth, righteous behavior or merits. And only brute force will be the only standard in the arrangement or decision of what is righteous or just. […] When (in the Kali Age) religion will be predominantly heretical, and kings will be as good as robbers and men will be earning their livelihood by theft, (economic offences), mendacity, wanton violence to life and such other pursuits. […] Thieves function as kings and kings function as thieves. The chaste ladies cease to exist and wanton sluts increase in number. […] As a result of Kali’s influence, mortal beings become dull-witted, unlucky, voracious, destitute of wealth yet voluptuous, and women, wanton, and unchaste. […] In the Kali Age, men will abandon their parents, brothers, friends and relatives and establish their friendliness on sexual basis. Their affection being centered on their relation with women, they will seek consultations from their wives’ relatives (such as sisters and brother-in-laws) and will be miserable. […] Killing of fetus and murder of heroes become prevalent. […] In Kali Age men excited by tamoguna adopt Māyā (deception) and jealousy. They do not hesitate to kill ascetics. They are always tormented by jealousy. […] In Kali cooked food will be kept for sale in living places. The selling of Vedas and other sacred literature will occur in cross streets; young women will even sell their honour. […] Women will be short-statured but voracious, noted for fecundity and shameless. They will be harsh-speakers, given to theft, fraud and dare-devilry."
From these extracts it is clear that a significant amount of the negativity embodied in the Kali Yuga originates from humanity itself, under the influence of the tamas guna (materialistic component of existence). In the Kali Yuga we see an increasing trend towards indulgence on the material plane, such as the abandonment of religion, obsession with sex, and jealousy over the wealth and acquisitions of others. People are respected by their wealth alone, and not for deeper personal qualities such as strength of character or personal achievements. Under the reign of the dark material strand of existence, only materialistic pleasures such as sex and wealth are accorded merit by society in the Kali Yuga. This materialism is also expressed in the passage regarding the abandonment of aged parents and the killing of fetuses – this can clearly be seen in today’s increasing trend towards placing ones parents in Rest Homes or Retirement Villages, left to die amongst strangers rather than accepting responsibility for the elderly. The killing of fetuses can likewise be seen to relate to today’s increased abortion rates. Other symptoms include the moral degeneration of the female to a purely sexual role and a corresponding increase in the growth and social acceptance of prostitution. Perhaps the most unusual prediction here though, is the one that cooked food will be kept for sale in living spaces – a clear reference to fast food, and the mass consumption of it by the populace at large. A similar picture of civilization slowly decaying from within can be found in the Vishnu Purāna. The Vishnu Purāna (IV, 24) also tells us that the syndrome of the Kali Yuga is marked by the fact that it is the only age in which property alone confers social rank; wealth becomes the only motive of the virtues, passion and lust the only bonds between the married, falsehood and deception the first condition of success in life, sexuality the sole means of enjoyment, while external, merely ritualistic religion is confused with spirituality. The problems brought by the Kali Yuga are not entirely brought about by moral collapse however – there are also a set of predictions relating to environmental problems.
Monday, 11 November 2013
...I would like to make an addendum to my last post, because I'm the sort of hasty fool who thinks of important points after I mouth off.
*Upon rereading the original post which sparked this whole exchange, it would appear that we are not so much in disagreement as I had thought. While I still disagree with Didact on some points, such as everyone being equally possessed of reason - which is still a notion of the Enlightenment - he nevertheless does state that those who abuse, or are likely to abuse their rights should have them restricted.
That more or less puts the question down to one of frame control. The core problem lies with how the inevitable calls for expansion of the franchise are dealt with. The framing of various privileges as rights, like republicanism, inevitably leads to demotism; however, when framed as privileges, they can be rescinded much more easily in cases of abuse. Few would argue against a right to life and freedom, but then why do we put people in prison, if not the death penalty when they show they are unable to handle such freedoms without harming others?
Essentially put, it's frame control. "No, you cannot have a say in government because you're not of the aristocracy. Buy a land and title, marry an aristocrat's daughter, or perform some service to the king. Having a say in government is a freedom we accord you." as opposed to "You can't deny my RIGHT to vote!"
*I would like to vehemently disagree that the concept of Noblesse Oblige is one that is exclusive to western civilisation. Consider my post on the Analects:
"In leading a state of a thousand chariots, respect the office and be trustworthy, economise the use of resources and love the people, and employ the people when it is timely."These are but a few verses amongst others which highlight the idea that by virtue of their elevated position, aristocrats and rulers have a paternal duty towards their vassals and need to be virtuous in their ruling. Remember that the Analects formed the backbone of the Imperial Examinations' syllabus for over a thousand years - while like in all systems, there were obviously those who slipped through the cracks, the duty of rulers towards the ruled was nevertheless the officially endorsed position in much of Chinese thought for that time. Sure, there were corrupt officials who did not behave in such a manner, but it was expected of them, and everyone knew they weren't living up to the expected standard.
- Chapter 1, verse 5.
"To rule with virtue is like the North Star in its place, around which all other stars revolve in homage."
- Chapter 2, verse 1.
Duke Ting asked: "How should the lord employ his subjects, and how should subjects serve their lord?"
Confucius replied: "The lord should employ his subjects in accordance with the rites. The subjects should serve their lord with loyalty."
- Chapter 3, verse 19.
*This is a perfect example of "rights" trumping everything, no matter how deleterious, by a self-professed libertarian.
Amongst the other stupid fallacies this fellow commits, such as correlation = causation (cities with growing tech industries have more homosexuals, hence tolerance of those like homosexuals causes creativity, which causes growth), he openly admits that adultery causes numerous problems, yet still wants it to go forward. Why? Because "tolerance" and "individual freedom".
It's not about me being harmed, it's about civilisation and society, which apparently you don't give a shit about. Civilisation doesn't happen by magic.
Sunday, 10 November 2013
Didact has written up a piece in reply to a comment I left on his blog. Go read it, it's worth quite a read. Still, I feel obligated to explain my views, whether one agrees with them or not.
Let's begin, then. Didact states the following:
"When John Locke wrote his major work on the subject of the limits of power to monarchy, Two Treatises, his arguments in favour of natural rights started with the philosophical idea that all men are born equally innocent, a state of nature created by the Almighty and none other. What they become after this is a function of their upbringing and their surroundings. From this argument comes the idea that there are certain rights that men retain simply by virtue of their birth."Perhaps it is convenient, then, that Radish Magazine's latest piece has a section on John Locke:
In the same Essay, Locke invents a key bit of Whig doctrine: the so-called blank slate (or tabula rasa).The gist of my argument is that I deny the fact that all men are born equal, that instead people are born with varying levels of gifts and talents and that where the concept of freedoms are concerned, they should be allocated to those who have proven the wherewithal to wield them responsibly. Indeed, Julius Evola criticises the very idea of natural rights in the third chapter of Men Amongst the Ruins, of which I'll quote a small sample:
Ultimately, Locke’s philosophy fails because it hinges on an impossibly accurate and precise correspondence between words and things. He defines certain terms, thereby translating things into words; he reasons exhaustively with those words; and finally he translates the words back into things, which all sounds fine — except the natural-language correspondence between words (e.g., “injustice”) and things (e.g., grandmother stew) is never perfectly accurate or precise, and hence it has no chance of holding together under the terrible corrosive rigor of pure logic, which explodes the smallest of contradictions into infinite nonsense.
Politically speaking, though, the greater fault here is that nowhere in his interminable Essay does Locke explain whether or not “character” includes ability, cognitive or otherwise. Generations of Whigs have assumed, much to the detriment of science and education (not to mention immigration policy), that it does; in other words, all nurture, no nature. It should but probably doesn’t go without saying that this is not true.
To begin with, I find it odd that the title "natural right" has been given to that which appears to be the most unnatural thing conceivable, or to that which is proper to primitive societies. The principle according to which all human beings are free and enjoy equal rights "by nature" is truly absurd, due to the very fact that "by nature" they are not the same. Also, when we go to an order that is not merely naturalistic, being a "person" is neither a uniform quality or a quality uniformly distributed, nor a dignity equal in everybody, being automatically derived from the mere membership of the single individual in the biological species called "mankind." The "dignity of the human person," with everything that this expression entails, and around which the supporters of the doctrine of natural law and liberals rally, should be acknowledged where it truly exists, and not in everybody. And even where this dignity truly exists, it should not be regarded as equal in every instance. This dignity admits different degrees; thus, justice means to attribute to each and every one of these degrees a different right and a different freedom. The differentiation of right, and the hierarchical idea in general, derives from the very notion of a person, since this notion, as we have seen, is inconceivable without referring to the difference, to the form, and to the differentiating individuation. Without these presuppositions, the respect for the human person in general is only a superstition, or rather one of the many superstitions of our time.
The same applies to freedom, the first term of the revolutionary triad. Freedom must he understood and defended in the same qualitative and differentiated manner as the notion of "person": everybody enjoys the freedom he de-serves, which is measured by the stature and dignity of his person or by his function, and not by the abstract and elementary fact of merely being a "human being " or a " citizen ".To reiterate, point seven of Anarcho-Papist's approximations of neoreaction: freedom imposes responsibilities, and the inability to exercise those responsibilities should entail a limiting of that freedom. People are unequal, and the ability to exercise actual freedom, instead of manufactured, packaged freedom sold by modernity as controlled opposition - that is a rare thing indeed.
Nothing says you're a rebellious, anti-establishment type like a mask sold by Time Warner made by minimum-wagers.
Again, to better illustrate this, you do not allow children to have the freedom to choose what they will have for dinner for they will only eat candy; similarly, you do not let defectives and degenerates to vote themselves goodies from the public purse.
I will say it again: I'm not a great thinker. There is the temptation to lie back and let others take care of me, and it is very tempting indeed for the midwit. It's a readily observable fact of today that the majority of the world's population do not care about liberty and freedom when they are fed, clothed and given Dancing With The Stars to watch, whether it's in Singapore or the US. These people do not care for liberty or freedom and simply want to be taken care of and indeed are afraid of it, and who can blame them? The modern age of the vulgar and mediocre will be a brief, but tragic, flash in the pan of history. After all, the Common Man couldn't be bothered to make it otherwise, leaving himself to be ruled by unelected bureaucrats and banksters while going through the motions of elections which make no difference whatsoever.
Terry Pratchett's Feet of Clay may be a work of fiction, but it hits the nail on the head with this quote:
'You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For Themselves?'But to summarise: I disagree with Didact's premise of people having any sort of inherent rights by virtue of their birth. As has been said earlier on this blog: Enlightenment values concocted by autistic philosophers, who think that everyone is just like them, that do not reflect reality is a bad way to run a society.
'Seems to be a major human activity, yes.'
Dorfl rumbled as he thought about this. 'Yes,' he said eventually. 'I Can See Why. Freedom Is Like Having The Top Of Your Head Opened Up.'
'I'll have to take your word for that, Constable.'
Now to move on: it is true that the "right" to free health care, the "right" to tell other people what to spend on, and the "right" to be free from want and fear - whatever the hell that means - seem absurd to us, but the problem is that they stem from the very idea of rights themselves - that people can be entitled to certain things regardless of situation, ability or circumstance, it inevitably opens up the path for all the petty tyrannical rights Didact mentions. Get people to believe that there's something that they're entitled to by virtue of existing, or in other words, frame it as a right, and you can push anything through. It's the same problem with republicanism and indeed, how monarchies decay into republics: there will always be that extra sliver of people who think they deserve a vote, who have just a little less land that is required to be able to vote, and that inevitably keeps on expanding until you get the mob rule of today. Similarly, the first rights may sound very good, and instinctively agreeable - life, liberty, property. The problem is that the franchise inevitably expands to encompass all the petty tyrannical rights spoken of.
It's not a slippery slope argument if there's precedent for it. There are no “rights,” only what you’re afforded by society. Anyone looking at the US today and the various scandals can see that despite lots of talk about the right to privacy, the best response has been ineffectual since the NSA still does what it's doing.
The distinction between "rights" and "freedoms" may seem merely semantic, but believe me, they aren't. If you support the masses and their demands for "rights", eventually you'll lose your freedoms.
With regards to monarchy, I won't go into detail (since it's not really the focus of this reply), but point to points 5 and 6 of "Ten Objections to Traditionalism and Monarchism with answers":
Good kings are good, but bad kings are very bad.
Bad kings are not nearly as bad as Demotist/Communist dictators. Bad kings are in a different universe from bad Demotist leaders. There is not even a vague comparison. In the traditional system, kings rely on the aristocracy and clergy for support, and have trouble doing anything without them. For a Demotist leader, there tends to be far fewer checks and balances. They can cause a half million deaths in a place like Iraq with a snap of their fingers. Study up on the history of “death by government” to get a better perspective on what I mean. Kings and emperors very rarely, if ever, engage in mass murder against their own people.Didact is right to point out the problems with absolute monarchy, and that a bad king can be damaging. But for comparison, Bloody Mary was thus named because she had 200 Protestants executed and 800 exiled.
What if the king is an idiot or psycho?
Then the prior king appoints a regent to take over the affairs of state on behalf of his successor. There is also a debate within the Reactionary community as to whether adoptive succession is preferable to hereditary succession, which avoids the issue of stupid or crazy children. Adoptive succession was used for the “Five Good Emperors” of the Roman Empire, until the disastrous sixth emperor, Commodus, who was the child of the fifth. After he threatened to kill them, the Roman senators ended up paying a gladiator to strangle him in the Colosseum’s equivalent of locker rooms. After his assassination, the senators declared Commodus damnatio memoriae and all his statues and inscriptions were destroyed. Such extreme scenarios rarely ever happened during the age of Renaissance European monarchs. One of the greatest statesmen of all time, Klemens von Metternich, strongly influenced the mentally deficient monarch Ferdinand I of Austria during his reign, sat on the regency council, and ran most important affairs, presiding over a hundred years of relative peace in Europe.
What's the body count of democratic and demotist leaders today? The difference between the fascists and communists, and the monarchs of yesteryear, is that they did not claim to be the champions of something as nebulous as "the people", were not accelerating towards a leftist singularity by means of holier than thou, and were disincentivised from running their kingdoms into the ground if they wanted anything to hand down to their next generation. It was not perfect, but time preferences in general were longer than in a democracy.
One point of agreement amongst most reactionaries is that utopia is not possible, that we cannot eliminate human nature, only account for it - there's a reason why libertarianism is described as proto-reaction and that there's a joke going around the block that reactionaries are libertarians who've been mugged by reality. Sure, monarchy - absolute or otherwise - has its problems. Democracy has its problems. Anarcho-capitalism has its problems. The goal is not to develop a system that has no flaws, but instead do least harm. As Nassim Taleb points out in Antifragile, if something has always been done a certain way, there's a reason this arrangement is stable. Don't go around tearing down Chesterton's fences without knowing why. There's a reason why monarchy has been the prevailing governmental system in so many nations around the world for so long, and it's only now that reactionaries are discovering why, when faced with the ugliness that is democratic modernism.
There was an interesting tweet on my feed some time back: "The ideal king should do nothing but brutally murder anyone who tries to take his power." I should have asked for clarification. The ultimate goal is to a) maintain hierarchy and structure to accommodate differing peoples and b) avoid holier-than-thou acceleration into a leftist singularity. If monarchy is not perfect, but best at this, then so be it. If another form of governance is better than this, then so be it.
I haven't looked deeply into the divine right of kings, but it's important to note that the Mandate of Heaven has a very specific clause within it - that even the Emperor himself is subject to hierarchy, and the peasantry are obliged to revolt should Heaven express its displeasure via natural disasters. Something similar been discussed amongst some reactionaries as a possible solution - legitimacy without risk of abuse. For a more western view, here's a defense of the divine right of kings dating from 1856.
Anyway, back to the point of rights. Didact argues that "might makes right" is absurd, and I will agree with one addendum: might makes right is absurd when those with said might have no connection to the land or people whom they are ruling over - which most demotist fascist and communist leaders were, instead being wedded to ideologies of "the people" instead. Again, this is not an endorsement or claim that absolute monarchy is best - as I've pointed out earlier, monarchs were rarely absolute, even when so in name, and had to garner support from the elites. But apples to oranges - monarchs are hardly modern demotist leaders, who had far more incentive and opportunity, and less compunctions, about abusing power when they had it.
The second point is that might makes right is essentially the way of the world. It's an is/ought problem - you can argue that things ought to be one way, but reality is another - I would like it if everyone was sensible, but reality is that most people aren't most times and you have to plan around that. Power comes from the barrel of a gun, and the second amendment proves just that. Constitutions are easily reinterpreted as "living documents", checks and balances eventually get corrupted - the only kind of person a piece of paper is going to stop is the noble natural aristocrat, who needs no stopping in the first place. The very fact that the people of the US are losing their freedoms rapidly amongst calls for "rights" should make it obvious that a piece of paper is not going to stop a psychopath - the sort of whom modernity encourages up to the halls of power - or the mass man, who can only see the trough in front of him. The problem with contracts is that they are only binding on those who choose - or are forced - to recognise them, and the latter boils down to the same thing.
Confucius once said something along the lines of (I'm lazy to go sift through Analects for the exact verse) "It is better that people not do evil because it is shameful, rather than that they fear punishment." Sure, it's better, and people ought not to commit crimes because it's wrong and shameful to do so. What happens when you get people who only understand the barrel of a gun - and they have bigger guns than you do? Either you submit to them, or you retain your self-respect and go out in a blaze of glory. Your "right" to not be a slave goes only as far as you can defend your freedoms - which I notice has quite perceptibly lapsed.
How are those checks and balances working out for the US now?
The question is not how to eliminate power differentials- which will always exist no matter how hard one tries - by spreading it out, it's how to try and ensure those with power are best suited and encouraged to use it in a responsible and sane manner. I may disagree with some of the things MM Lee did back in the day (and he apparently regrets some of them now), but when things were less demotist, Singapore experienced much more prosperity. Would he have taken another route instead of going for the flash-in-the-pan route of modernisation - which is another point I disagree with Didact, that Singapore's eventual collapse is due to modernity and not the power differentials between the Lee family and the rest of Singapore.
On a final note, I'd like to say a few words about Sparta, to use Didact's example. By his own admission, there was not just a large power differential between the Spartans and the helots in much the same way as elites and commoners were, perhaps even more due to the latter being slaves. By his very argument, the Spartans did not have rights in the Lockean fashion and as we understand the term today - things that everyone is entitled to. Instead, the freedoms, perhaps even privileges that were afforded Spartan citizens were on the basis of their citizenship, which was transferred by blood - which naturally implied other qualities that qualified them for bearing the responsibilities in exchange for they were accorded freedoms by their society, much like was described in the Evola quote above.
Didact makes what I believe is a mistake a lot of libertarians make: the assumption that everyone is just as intelligent, freedom-loving and rational as them. Indeed:
To deny men the basic right to live their lives as they please without being told how to live and what to do is to reject the basic premises of a free enterprise economic system- a system that seems completely chaotic on the surface, and yet is more efficient and generates capital and prosperity faster than anything else ever seen.This argument will work on a rational, hard-working man. It's not going to work on a defective or degenerate who only cares about getting their EBT cards refilled at the end of the month. A flatter hierarchy can work in a society of philosopher-kings, but even the Spartans made separate rules for themselves and their slaves. Note that by his own examples of Spartan society, power was dispersed amongst a small subset of elites of a small subset of Spartan citizens compared to the masses of people they ruled over - essentially, aristocrats who provided countervailing power against the king, as opposed to "the people" or "the general will" of Robspirre.
This is what "rights" eventually get you in the end:
The main problem was an ongoing decline in the birthrate; a combination of euthanasing any child at birth that did not measure up to specified physical standards and the fact that Spartan women could choose who (or even if) they wanted to marry resulted in fewer and fewer adult males as the decades passed.
As fewer adult males meant a smaller army, and Sparta's power was based on its military prowess, the army eventually became too small to effectively maintain Sparta's position as a major player in Greece.For example,at the battle of Leuctra (371 BC) only about 3000 of the 11,000 strong Spartan army were Spartiates, the remainder being helots promised freedom if they fought, and mercenaries.The Spartans were overwhelmed in the battle and suffered a severe defeat at the hands of the Thebans.
By the battle of Mantinea (207 BC) the Spartan army only contained 1000 Spartiates, and suffered another crushing defeat, this time by the Achaean League.Further defeats at Messene (202 BC) and Tegea (201 BC) finished off Sparta as a military power for good.Now, this is off the top of my head, and I might be wrong on this (don't have the sources on hand, alas), so Didact can correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps one of the things Spartans believed was a "right" was the status of women in their society, who manned the estates and oversaw the helots so the men could better concentrate on war. No childbearing before age of 17, marriage based on the whims of romantic love, so on and so forth -
- The simple result was a declining birthrate, which was attempted to be remedied via various incentives for childbearing, much like the baby bonuses of Singapore and Australia today. Predictably, those failed, resulting in the Spartan army being undermanned and helots repeatedly trying to take their chance to revolt. Yet the Spartans could not revoke these "rights", because they were sacrosanct.
By the time the Spartans had realised their mistake, bit the bullet and stripped their women of the privileges that they had come to see as rights - what a shock that must have been! - the birthrate immediately jumped, but it was too late for them. This proud people was done for, crushed from without by their enemies, and from within by the Helots, at least in part because they could not revoke a "right" despite the obviously deleterious effects.
And that is why there are no rights, and they are amongst the stupidest ideas ever conceived. There are only what freedoms that you can defend or are given to you by society. One can certainly use "rights" to describe the freedoms and privileges which Spartan citizens enjoyed, but they do not fit our modern understanding of the term where they are available to all Just Because.
Now, I don't expect us to see eye to eye on all issues - as the saying goes, one of us would be unnecessary otherwise. Ultimately, that is why the concept of exit is so important to reactionaries - that Didact can have the society he envisions with people who think like him, and I can have the society I envision with people who think like me, and history will decide whose ideas merit consideration.
Saturday, 9 November 2013
Didact has asked me for my thoughts on the matter, and all I can say is that I have to agree with his commentary.
The immigrants? They are not merchants. Even if they were, there's no pressure on them to conform to Singaporean ways, not when the whole gist of the Speak Good English movement is so that "foreigners will understand us when they come to Singapore". It really shows the officially promulgated mindset regarding foreigners, doesn't it?
The immigrants are not Singaporean and will never be Singaporean, all pretensions of tabula rasa aside. They watch out for their own, look to their own, gather in their own communities (even filipino maids get together), and discriminate for each other when it comes to jobs. I have no beef with this, this is exactly what ethno-nationalism should do - in one's home country. Not as immigrants. For all that they are third-world folks, they understand as much compared to the residents of our global, cosmopolitan city.
There is no Federation of Malaya threatening to kick them out if they don't accept the rules laid down, there is no pressure to assimilate, and charges of "raciss!" tend to stick as much to the average Singaporean as they do to your average rabbit-warren SWPL. For some reason, the Singaporean government is quite reluctant to do to immigrants what it did to its own people back in the day.
At 1.2 children per woman, immigration cannot be sustainable in any sense of the word. Let the number in that you need to so much as keep your population, and you dilute your native base. Let in the number required that you don't dilute your base, even with aggressive pressure and shaming to integrate, and it won't be enough.
And this conundrum is a good thing. I've already made my thoughts on Singaporean culture quite clear.
Wednesday, 6 November 2013
Reblogged from Anarcho-Papist:
1) Civilization does not happen by accident.
2) Expect consequences, some which you won’t like, when you mess with the way things have always been done.
3) If something’s always been done a certain way, you’re better trying to figure out a reason why such a norm is stabilizing.
4) The existence and concentration of power cannot be eliminated; don’t waste your time trying to do so.
5) High degrees of power asymmetry tend to be stable.
6) Individuals must be socialized into their autonomy and independence.
7) Freedom imposes responsibilities, and the inability to exercise those responsibilities should entail a limiting of that freedom.
8) The innate qualities of human individuals explains a lot about society.
9) It is better to benefit the group than the individuals of that group.
10) Social structures instrumentally transform human nature into social capital.
11) Don’t fight human nature, make it work for you.
12) Justice is equality, and no one is the same.
13) There are no “rights,” only what you’re afforded by society.
14) If you won’t let someone lose, you won’t let society win.
15) Social roles should be adopted for the benefit of most, not eliminated for the benefit of a few.
Tuesday, 29 October 2013
Recently, Vox Day ran a piece on Singapore, which I linked in my previous post.
This is not about that, but rather, a comment that was posted in reply to that piece:
My former company had a policy of sponsoring people from Singapore to work for us for 18 months at our plant in the Bay Area. Subsidized by their government, because they wanted to attract biotech. They were some of the best workers.And from good old Didact:
What was mind boggling to me was: the women had Masters degrees in science. Yet they were very, very good administrators and dotters of I's and crossers of T's, but no interest in science itself or discovery of new things, testing new ideas. Here they were working at the pioneer of biotech, access to the cutting edge of science....and.....just wanted to make good money.
The other wacky thing was the married women, coming to America for 18 months. Without their husbands. With zero (and I mean absolutely zero) visits by either spouse during the entire 18 months. All of them. No interest in having children, and all they could talk about was networking and getting their next better (read higher paying) job.
I don't understand the absolutely mercenary mindset displayed by some cultures, to the exclusion of all other joys in life.
Singaporeans will tolerate a great deal from their government- they made a pact with their government that as long as the State provided economic prosperity and a basic level of comfort to everyone, they would trust the People's Action Party with basically absolute power.Why did the Singaporean people so willingly give up their dialects, trash their traditions, leave their kampongs, and do everything they were told and give up everything they asked, so long as they could have jobs and a subsidised HDB flat?
It's not as if they were happier in the HDB flats, not with my paternal grandmother and the rest of the older generation complaining about how things were and how happy they were growing tapioca and raising chickens.
And then the sullen realisation hits: we are a nation of merchants. Founded by merchants, for merchants, for the purpose of mercantilism. The Chinese? Merchants. Indians? Merchants. Europeans? Merchants? Maybe not literally so, but all the immigrants to Singapore were possessed of the merchant spirit, which the whole "abandon your roots to sink your fortune" shtick. Unlanded people willing to abandon everything in the world for the promise of work and money.
Given that psychological traits are at least partially heritable, why am I not surprised?
I remember my history teacher telling me about the '60s, about the push for independence and how a lot of Malayan-born Chinese and their parents rapidly embraced Malayan nationalism, undergoing drives to learn Malay language and culture...at the same time when the Federated States of Malaya were shifting their feet as to what to do with all these Chinese and whether to just leave them stateless, kick them out or grant them citizenship with conditions.
If that's not a merchant ethos, what is? The eternal chimaera. How could I have expected any more from the Singaporean people at large, the descendants of merchants and money-changers? So this is what you get when you have a nation of merchants?
The questions remain. Am I a freak in a nation of merchants, or am I just another merchant that has identified the non-merchants as the winning side and is merely seeking to mimic them for my own comfort and profit in the long term? How can I test myself?
I'm thinking that there might just have been something to the ancient Chinese ranking the merchants on the bottom of the class system.
Wednesday, 23 October 2013
That one's quite the heavy-handed statement, isn't it? Heh. Does it mean I'm going to go out and slaughter folks? Nah, all I need to do is sit back, relax, and watch as the defectives willingly rush to hurl themselves off the cliff. Defectives deserve death, and to make things all the easier, they're all too eager to commit suicide.
What sparked this? Well, a piece The Real Singapore happily cribbed from the Huffington Post, claiming that amongst the things that produced happiness:
-Giving parents free shit so they can abandon their children to the state and return to their cubicles sooner.
-Giving people free shit so they can stuff their bodies with whatever they want.
-Giving women free shit so they can do whatever they like without repercussions.
Well, yes, if you simply redefine the word "happiness" to mean the exact same things you're meant to be a proponent for, then of course people are going to be happier, by your self-serving definition. However, when you look at some other metrics of modern societies that aren't a circular argument in that "people are happier when the state raises their children because we define happiness to be how happily they return to slaving away"...
Naturally, this appears to have been enthusiastically embraced by many of the replies. Who doesn't like free shit? Coming from a nation which puts forward that the ultimate pinnacle of human existence is the acquisition of cash, credit cards, cars, career, and condos, the next obvious step is demanding that all these things be given to them simply for existing. Hedonism is the new liberty, and training people to live at crotch level makes them easily herded.
"I've got a right! A right!"
No, no rights. No more rights. Charted freedoms. Noblesse oblige. Allegiances. No. More. Rights. Frame anything as a 'right', and no matter how deleterious, stupid and flat-out evil one can prove it to be, it can never be repealed because it's a 'right'.
The simple answer is that the Lockean concept of “natural rights” is profoundly flawed, and actually restricts human freedoms rather than enabling them. Nothing could be more unnatural. Rather than true freedom, what we have is “many individual, domesticated, and mechanized freedoms, in a state of reciprocal limitation.” The Lockean concept of natural rights is thoroughly and simply deconstructed in chapter three of Julius Evola’s Men Among the Ruins.Take a look at this:
Her entire argument boils down to "I don't like it, muh rights and freedumbs, fuck the society that allows my privileges to exist." That's the ultimate in high time-preference. So much for the supposed vaunted ability of North-East Asian peoples to play the long game that spans generations, eh?
To quote Vox, who has more to say on the matter:
What appears to be difficult for solipsistic women and their intellectual white knights to understand is that the equal education and opportunity they so value necessarily means a lower standard of living for them and everyone else. That's not because Mr. Lee is sexiss or because I am misogyniss, the observation is no more credibly debatable than the idea that if you drop a ball, gravity will cause it to hit the floor.Okay, got it, sister. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, not going to stop an enemy in the middle of making a mistake. You go, girl. Your educated ovaries will be left alone as per your wish, but not for the reasons you think or want. Even if you repent, good luck finding a sperm bank, or some gamma male stupid or desperate enough to impregnate you - all the while raking in money for fertility treatment because some bint actress on the televitz could, so can you. We don't need defectives in the gene pool, and the more of you that take yourselves out, the better.
Singaporean society needs to die, and is already well on the path to doing so; I don't need to do so much as lift a finger while it commits suicide, but if anything, I should actually make it easier for these defectives to die out. I will celebrate the day this modernist, vulgar mockery of a culture is subsumed by the PRCs, Thais, Pinoys, and all the foreigners who don't share our culture. What a shock, isn't it? Singapore's population is already only slightly more than half native-born, it shouldn't take more than a couple of generations for it to go the way of the dodo. Hell, it may come all the sooner - I will laugh at "muh education" and "muh rights" when the US dollar collapses and both finance and trade come to a screeching halt.
But what other end could it have been? For all the supposedly reactionary platitudes, Singaporean history is essentially whig history, the entire social narrative based off eternal glory and progress. The approach to the leftist singularity was set from the very moment the national narrative decided that anything pre-independence was simply Singapore just being "a sleepy fishing village" with nothing to learn from or to be thought about, a past to be fled from as quickly as possible.
It seems odd that a reactionary should be calling for the destruction of a culture, but there are no more traditions to be had here, having being systematically destroyed and discarded in one generation. Antiprometheanism, friend. As it is, Singaporean culture is defective. It needs to die.
Saturday, 14 September 2013
Yesterday we touched upon what makes the natural aristocrat. The natural slave is merely the polar opposite - one who is incapable of handling freedom in any shape or form, so they must be constantly monitored and coerced in order to keep in line. This is the person who is referred to when it is said "do what thou wilt, save watch the policeman on the corner."
And they are quite worthless, for sans some form of coercion:
They cannot be trusted to be a husband, because marriage is slavery and they should be allowed to dump their wife the moment they get bored of them.
They cannot be trusted to be a mother, because children are slavery and they should be allowed to kill the kid the moment they get bored, or if they cry too much at night.
They cannot be trusted to honour a business contract, because despite voluntarily signing on the dotted line, they feel that being made to stick to the clauses they agreed to without duress would be slavery.
They can't be trusted to meet up with someone for drinks, because they feel that they should be allowed to flake if and when the fancy strikes them. You want to hold me to my word? Slavery!
They can't be trusted to work without supervision, they can't be trusted to not steal their employer's property, they can't be trusted to put their back in and stand a line even if they may not desire to at that very moment -
- They believe must be allowed to execute their every momentary whim and desire, regardless of prior words or commitments, or else that's slavery. Every responsibility, every commitment, every promise, every contract, every expectation.
Love yourself, too, and take whatever is needed for your benefit – after all, isn’t mankind one big happy family? Is this word a giant pot-luck? Eat whatever you want, protest whatever you want, sue whomever you want, and fuck whomever you want – with no regard for yourself, for your children, for your country, or for what the future consequences are.Well, what can we do with such people? Remember, the point of a reactionary society is not to cull such degenerates, but give such people a space or exile them to a society where they will have one. The latter simply makes such degenerates someone else's problem, and it eventually has to be dealt with. There is no need to cull them even if moral qualms were made irrelevant; under a traditional society free association and that small, uncomfortable pain at the bottom will cause it to be naturally eugenic.
Don’t judge, just live!
And always be true to yourself.
Do note that this is, like the natural aristocrat, a natural slave is a fairly rare thing. The societal narrative is often enough to provide some form of paternalism to the cognitive miser mass man; Billy may be paralysed at the thought of striking out on his own and becoming a world-travelling author who bangs women and writes books for a living, but he can choose between taking up an apprenticeship with the welder or interning at the local law office some years down the road. Jenny may not be able to choose from a whole city's worth of men, but certainly is able to pick between Pete Plumber, Louie Lawyer and Simon Surgeon while her father keeps Harley McBadboy away.
Freedom is not a binary thing, but a spectrum. Neither Billy nor Jenny are able to handle the full-blown fruits of freedom without ruining themselves, and yet they're able to manage some limited form of freedom. They are not natural slaves. Where do we find natural slaves, then? Well, repeat offenders in prison would be a good one. Or in those who feel no shame in being on welfare and consider it a right. Or in the slut who can't help but seek greater and greater oxytocin rushes. Habitual liars and backstabbers, frauds and cheats.
Billy and Jenny can at least be expected to hold their word and deal with responsibilities thrust upon them as befits their station in the grand hierarchy of life. Natural slaves cannot.
If masters and slaves were better off than employers and employees, an economist would ask, why could they not just cut a deal to do what they previously did, only without chains and beatings, do the same tasks in the same way, only as employees?
The answer to that question is: that the former slaves, once freed, could not credibly commit to stick to such a deal, and generally did not stick to such a deal, thus economically worse off. Stupid people, prone to violence, with short time horizons, needed masters.
-JimThe greatest irony is that in decrying any form of binding commitment as slavery, natural slaves make themselves fit for nothing save that very institution, which is well-suited to take care of these pathetic excuses for human beings. I find it quite fitting and delicious.
Oh, on a last note, think about this: if I ask you what your problem is with slavery, and you immediately cite the cruelty of a slaveowner, the pain of being whipped and the exhausting labour, what you're telling me is that you don't really have a problem with slavery per se. You just dislike cruel slaveowners.
Friday, 13 September 2013
"Is freedom a noble good? For some. For others, it is liable to make them miserable and degenerate."
"You are miserable because you are free."
Freedom. Such a loaded word. Ask most people, and they'll assume that freedom is good. Why? Because freedom is good. It's what everyone knows; if you have to ask why freedom is good you're a freak. Freedom is whatever one wants to define it as at the moment, such a chimerical thing, so I'll provide a neat, compact definition I'm going to be working with here: the ability to do whatever the fuck you please.
Do we have freedom, in this age where freedom is so highly vaunted?
Think. Even after the explosion of so-called freedom in the modern world, has most of humanity ever been free, to be honest? How many people actually buck the social narrative that is handed down to them from up high? Get born, go to mind-crushing public school, go to college blindly, get a stupid corporate job, muddle through life...
Idiots get worthless degrees and saddle themselves with undischargable, unpayable debt for no perceptible reason, or at best, because it's the thing to do. Is that freedom? You slave away as a drone of a programmer or a junior HR manager...because it's the thing to do. Because it's what the Brahmins tell you to do. Is that freedom?
Drinking and fucking wantonly and in the degenerate fashion to boot is freedom...how, when it's all that's fed to the masses in the social narrative? Rebellion is neatly packaged in a Che Guevara t-shirt, mass-produced and made ready for your easy consumption so you can feel like you're "fighting the system".
Need to feel all righteous and bask in the warm glow of moral superiority? Here's a manufactured social crusade for you to follow. Just sign your name here on the line, or in this day and age, follow, retweet, or what have you, change your avatar to this pretty little equals sign and you can feel all smug and superior for having contributed to a Cause(TM), you daring armchair crusader, you. At least choose a cause that is actual thoughtcrime instead of what the social narrative tells you is thoughtcrime, ya? Hint: if it's blared out in the mass media, it's probably not thoughtcrime.
The most placid animals are those which don't even realise they're penned in. Freedom to choose your leaders? Does anyone seriously believe in this day and age that democracy and voting actually change anything considering that most governments are run by unelected bureaucrats on the front and banksters on the back? Does anyone seriously think there is a true difference between any two candidates?
Ha ha, trick question. Of course they do, that's why voting is still around as a powerful but impotent ritual - at least, for its ostensible purpose.
The ability to handle freedom - freedom that doesn't come prepackaged in a box for easy consumption, freedom that actually involves managing oneself and reaping both rewards and responsibilities for and from one's actions, the freedom that actually comes from being a full human being, understanding the whys and wherefores of the social narrative - that is the defining characteristic of the natural aristocracy, that elusive sliver of humanity that has the natural responsibility of guiding those less able (and I shall repeat, that sliver does not include me). Every other characteristic of the natural aristocracy - low time-preferences, ability to safely dabble in risky behaviour such as drugs, gambling and sexual licentiousness, the ability to be constructive even when there is no need to work to survive, so on and so forth - all of these are the result of being able to grasp freedom by the horns and make the most of it.
As I have noted before, those of the natural aristocracy who enter the world in more unfortunate circumstances rise to the top of their own accord and on their own merits, the merchant who marries into the nobility, the rags-to-riches entrepreneur.
Freedom is wasted on the rest of humanity.
As Amos and Gromar hilariously points about about third-wave feminism:
Forget the grammar in the picture–focus on the message. It isn’t enough that society bends over backwards in order to accommodate women. Third-wave feminism is about acknowledging women’s subordination, both in terms of agency and intellectual/physical ability. The acknowledgement isn’t explicit because they’ll deny it endlessly. Rather, it’s implicit, and the way it comes out is through the constant over-compensation.No, they wouldn't have been enough. Nothing ever would be, for the majority of men and women alike, for the cognitive miser of mass modern man. Has "freedom" benefited women? Well, they're more miserable in terms of self-reported happiness levels, suffer from ever more mental illnesses than before, and if I remember the stats right more about 75% of them in the US are on some kind of medication for some sort of psychological issue or the other. Hell, fewer of them actually have the choice to putter about at home these days and have to slave away, thanks to wage depression, while their higher-class sisters putter about at home after having gained their feminist merit badges.
Women have their rights. They have the right to vote, they have the right to murder your child, and they have the right to hold office, etc.–basically, they got what they wanted. That’s what the previous waves were about. But aside from views on those issues, it should’ve been obvious from the get-go that those concessions would never have been enough.
“Feminism is being free to decide who I want to be and how to act.”
Note the operative definition of the word ‘free’. They already are free. There’s nothing described in the picture that they cannot do. Rather, they’ve redefined the word to mean ‘the ability to do anything I want to do without any negative consequences or negative social feedback’. This is what they hilariously redefine as ‘respect’. This isn’t a new point; I’ve made it before. That is the definition of third-wave feminism, and it takes a while for most new-comers to sex realism to understand this.
Have men benefited from freedom? Wouldn't say so, either. At least, with the state of the pathetic average modern male, it's clear that freedom only results in the Curse of Adam manifesting itself: stripped of meaning in both work and life, they quickly devolve into beer-guzzling, video-game playing, pony-collecting freaks who burst into tears because a man on a box with moving pictures missed a ball.
Westerners haven't benefited from freedom. Easterners haven't benefited from freedom. Middle Easterners haven't benefited from freedom, and neither have Africans, despite attempts to give it to these two groups via bombing and war. Give the mass man freedom, and this is what happens: South African Blacks burning money, despoiling clothes and pouring out alcohol onto the ground, destruction for shits and giggles. Not that it's anything particular to them - near the end of the empire, young Roman patricians would do the same, burning down their villas for the fun of it.
You are miserable because you are free. You are miserable because Enlightenment ideals concocted by autistic philosophers, if truly put into practice, would foist the burdens of the natural aristocrat upon the mass man - an impossible task, yet the natural aristocrat cannot be overtly pulled down to the level of the mass man, for that would shatter the illusion of freedom. Hence, everyone gets a fake copy of the benefits that ultimately ruins them, because the cognitive miser mass man has neither the ability nor the will to handle freedom.
Break the chains on people and they promptly forge new ones for themselves - this time with just enough slack to allow them all the hedonistic, destructive vices of the world, a situation made all the more severe by the corruption of the Brahmin class. The problem is not the Brahmins in and of themselves - every society since the dawn of time has had a priestly, storytelling class which controls the societal narrative. It is that they have become corrupted and dysfunctional. What to do about it, you may ask? From my perspective? Nothing; we are already headed straight for the leftist singularity, a glorious literal clusterfuck of dildocracy, all hail the collapse.
And the chains, the social narrative? They're not wrong in and of themselves. They give people who would otherwise be flapping about in the wind a life script to follow, a giant ritual of "I'm okay, you're okay" that once actually kept society and hierarchy together, but they have been corrupted too. I may be in favour of lighting up the whole mess and letting it burn, but it's not the optimal outcome.
If there are going to be chains and people are going to be miserable anyway...then let's pull the chains tight and make the mass man happier. As I've mentioned before, those who are capable of handling freedom will mysteriously find some slack in their chains and keep mum about it.
"Oh, Barnaby! What's happening to me? In an effort to root out tyranny, it appears I myself have become a tyrant!"It's strange, when one actually reads about the Middle Ages from texts free from the plentiful re-writing of history the Cathedral has done. Those poor peasant serfs who suffered under the harsh thumb of their lord and Church had as many as a hundred festivals a year, while today we work through the few official holidays so graciously allowed by our governments. Surprising, isn't it?
"Yes, you're right. I suppose tyranny in some form is inevitable in this world, and if someone is going to be a tyrant, it may as well be me."
Saturday, 7 September 2013
Lol. Seems like my countrymen are delusional. I don't blame them, though. Democracy = Good has been forced down the throats of people all over the world.
The benefits of democracy are numerous. Democracy allows citizens to participate directly in government. Practiced the way it is meant to be practiced, democracy allows for personal freedom.*Unpopular governments need not be bad governments. Similarly, popular policies need not be good policies, where "good" as defined as a) being in line with reality and b) ensure the continued well-being of a society. In fact, since the lumpenproletariat are cognitive misers, the converse is actually true: what is popular is bound to be bad.
The ‘majority rule’ applies in either direct or representative democracy where the winning vote is that of the majority.
Democracy advantages include:
* Democracy provides for frequent elections after a specified period of time. This ensures that unpopular governments are voted out of office and replaced by a new administration that will be forced to implement favorable policies so as to stay in power.
* Democracy affords citizens their right to elect the representatives of their own choice.
* Democracy affords the most popular candidates the opportunity to be elected.
* Democracy ensures that wealth is evenly distributed. This is possible as the peoples representatives fight to have their fair share of development funds.
* Through democracy, a people have the opportunity to have their voices heard and their wishes fulfilled.
* Democracy allows for many political parties to compete for power. This gives candidates and the electorate a broad field of parties for candidates and different candidates to chose from for voters.
The tying in with political parties and by extent legitimacy of rule to policies means that a policy, even if provably bad for the nation or society, cannot be halted or reversed without the state losing its legitimacy in the eyes of the voters. Stupid idea.
*Points two and three are exactly the same. Popular leaders need not be good leaders and in fact, are more likely to be bad leaders. This is, of course, discounting modern marketing techniques and knowledge in which the opinion of "the people" is manipulated like so much jelly.
*Even distribution of wealth is not per se a good thing. Also, non-sequitur in that how does democracy ensure that representatives "fight to have their fair share" of "development funds", which never happens in any real world democracy, and it is not explained how this will lead to a more even distribution of wealth. If someone thinks that Singaporean Ministries and other government offices are budgeted according to the number of seats a party has won in parliament, they clearly have no idea as to simple information that is available to the public on Google.
In short, useless feel-good leftist redistributionist twaddle.
*Identical to points two and three. Being cognitive misers, "the people" should not have their voices heard and wishes fulfilled. A child should not be able to choose to have sweets for dinner.
*Time, energy and resources which should have been allocated to solving problems are wasted on politicking and power struggles which are amplified in a democracy. The reactionary consensus is that politics should be kept to a minimum. Furthermore, actual implementation of such merely provides a smokescreen for a united political class, hence the red team/blue team phenomenon in which voters are presented with a false choice.
The main failure of this so-called list is its assumption that popular = good. This is clearly not the case. I may be a midwit, but even I can junk this pile of trash easily. Dear God.
Wednesday, 4 September 2013
Didact has an interesting observation on one of my pieces:
You see, Singapore is probably the most prosperous place in all of Southeast Asia- actually, more like all of Asia-ex-Japan. But, like most prosperous and (artificially) stable societies, Singapore also has a serious demographic problem. Essentially, Singaporeans aren't making anything like enough babies; the last time I checked, the birth rate is like 1.2 kids per woman, and that is even lower than Japan's.
Singapore today is rapidly becoming overcrowded and extremely expensive. Native Singaporeans don't even recognise their own city. Real estate is going through a huge bubble- and even subsidised government HDB housing now costs nearly double what it used to, even as the income gap has widened massively. Sure, you see some seriously fancy cars on the streets- Ferraris, Porsches, and Aston Martins are very common sights in the fashionable bits of Singapore (i.e. the bit of the country that I don't like). And there are foreigners everywhere, many of them from the Philippines and mainland China, who do not and never will share native Singaporean values. Add to that the fact that Singaporeans are themselves one of the most coddled and pampered groups of people anywhere on Earth, and you can see where the inevitable stress fractures will appear.
None of this will come as any surprise whatsoever to anyone who has seen what the American government has done to this country. The Singaporeans took the same set of dumb ideas and applied them on a vastly larger scale, relatively speaking, and are now wondering why the hell things didn't work out so well.
In another place, the usual cry from White Nationalists is that mass immigration is a plot to genocide the whites, and I have no comment on that issue, primarily because I don't really know enough about the situation to make a comment that others haven't already. But there are no whites in Singapore. Indeed, a whole lot of the immigrants are from mainland China, of similar, if not the same genetic stock as native Singaporeans. No one's being genocided here.
So why the hell is the Singaporean government so intent on immigration? Why not try to raise the birth rate as say, Russia is doing?
This is going to be a very long and winding train of thought, so bear with me. But we'll get there eventually. Well, for starters, let's take a look at some of the things my fellow Singaporeans claim will induce them to have more children, yes?
So why the hell is the Singaporean government so intent on immigration? Why not try to raise the birth rate as say, Russia is doing?
This is going to be a very long and winding train of thought, so bear with me. But we'll get there eventually. Well, for starters, let's take a look at some of the things my fellow Singaporeans claim will induce them to have more children, yes?
*Free education up to and including university, even overseas.
*Free healthcare costs for pregnancy checkups/hospital stays and if their children should fall ill.
*Free childcare to be provided by the government.
*Paid maternity leave, duration varies but the average seems to be about one year. That's one year any company has to keep the spot and shift additional workloads onto men and childless women.
There are many, many more, but these seem to be the mainstay of most prospective Singaporean "parents". And yes, I use the term extremely loosely, because...
Seriously, what the fuck? This is a fucking disservice to the generations who came before us, who raised children to be functional adults without so many of the fucking benefits these navel-gazers are demanding. To these people, there will never be a good time to have kids, because that would end their immediate joyride. Yes, this is not a good time to have kids. Neither was the Great Depression, neither was most of human history, by today's standards. I do not advocate irresponsible breeding ala single welfare mothers or popping out kids so they can be your pets, but neither is there going to be some magical perfect time when the planets all align.
But frankly, if it were up to me, the majority of Singaporeans should not breed, considering that their attitude towards their children is one more suited towards toys, pets and playthings than actual living beings.I still remember the career executive bitch the university invited to be guest of honour at my convocation crowing over how her three children see their nanny as another mother. This was supposed to be a good thing. Status, money, power, perhaps...but a failure of a human being on the level of the parents who sent their children to gay camp.
Didact says that Singaporeans are one of the most coddled and pampered groups of people anywhere on Earth. I'll add to that modernity-riddled, degenerate, materialistic, blindly credentialed, and miserable people - and they fully deserve the last, having willingly - or at least apathetically sold out their own souls for...what, exactly?
You expect these people to actually willingly embrace any sort of sacrifice, let alone that of parenthood? Hahaha! Their children are but toys to be tossed off to schools and caregivers! There are ten daycares within walking distance of my home alone!
Now, can you imagine what would happen if the Singaporean government made like Sparta and said "all right, ladies, you've had your fun, but we've got to take away your helot-filled estates from you now, chop chop"? It would be political suicide. No, they don't have to give a shit about local feminist groups, but they don't even dare to revise the Women's Charter, let alone have the guts to abolish it. Remember back in the late 1980s when Dear Leader Lee caught blowback from saying that high-intelligence women should have more children? Think of what he'd get today.
The problem is not women going out to work. As Aurini points out, women have been contributing economically since forever, and working outside the home was not a product of feminism, but that of housework being made easier and less time-consuming. My own grandmother was a tin panner, as were most of the women in her village. After marrying my grandfather, she worked the land attached to the home and brought vegetables to market.
The problem is modernity. Everything else is a symptom.
No, there's no way that going back to what came before can be established peacefully. Men and women alike love their toys, "self-actualisation" and navel-gazing too much for it. So be it, then. That route is closed to the Singaporean government. Barring collapse, the native birth rate will never be boosted above replacement; for all its riches and opulence, a society that fails the basic test of continuation is a failed society.
Singapore is the story of a failure.
But there's more to it than that. Even today, some forms of aid to lower-income households is predicated on the fact that said households have two or fewer children. The Singaporean powers that be know that encouraging the lower classes to breed won't produce the smart citizens that the country ostensibly needs, that doing so would have a dysgenic effect. Yet the fact that some people are ineducable and that said trait is heritable cannot be openly admitted because it would destroy the Singaporean narrative of meritocracy, that everyone can succeed given enough education. Education! Education! Education! Especially at a time when people are starting to whine about "elitism" and how placing students of differing abilities into different learning groups is a Bad Thing(TM) and Unequal(TM).
Oh, I doubt the Singaporean government will ever explicitly admit it was wrong with the Stop at Two policy. The reversal was a quiet, unannounced one. No apologies for the mass sterilisations, for the bright children denied education because they happened to have two siblings, for the door-to-door peddling of abortions, for the increased hospital costs...
They will never admit it was wrong to commandeer the land the kampongs sat on and herd the then-elderly into rat cages of HDBs - the current ongoing nonsense with Pulau Ubin is the last in the line of such reclamations over the past four decades. The mama shops are gone, the karang guni men are gone, replaced by Sembcorp waste trucks, and the old grandeur of downtown, the old colonial buildings have been replaced by modernist eyesores like the Esplanade and Ion shopping center.
Saving face is a great Asian tradition, after all, but it's far more than that. For all that Singapore is held up as a bastion of reactionary thought, the entire social narrative is progressive and modernist. Everyone is equal, everyone is equally Singaporean, you are weighed based only on your merit, if you study hard enough you can achieve anything, if you work hard enough you can be rich and successful. That the People's Action Party was responsible for turning the whole of Singapore from an underdeveloped sleepy fishing village (conveniently discounting the infrastructure inherited from the British), that they turned Singapore into a cosmopolitan first-world nation and so-called "global city", and this is where they derive their legitimacy from:
Singaporeans will tolerate a great deal from their government- they made a pact with their government that as long as the State provided economic prosperity and a basic level of comfort to everyone, they would trust the People's Action Party with basically absolute power.If the PAP decried modernity, it would lose its entire narrative of the so-called "Singapore Story", the entire reason for its legitimacy would fall apart. They cannot admit the soulless rot modernity is, which they have brought Singapore into in the name of comfort and GDP growth. They cannot admit that some people are ineducable, so they create different bands and streams and split pre-tertiary education into two tiers of technical education and junior colleges, all while maintaining the narrative and hoping people don't catch on (which they have, by way of cries of "elitism").
The entirety of Singaporean society is based on lies, soullessness and hypocrisy; little wonder why we're the most miserable people on earth. Every single church I've set foot in since childhood has been soundly churchian, and it has only been getting worse; and my paternal grandmother wonders why I'm an agnostic. I can't speak for the muslims, but I suspect that modernity was heavily involved in pacifying them, too - the mosque closest to my house is very modern, all plastic, concrete and glass, air-conditioned and with a cafe to boot. There's not much left. Once the last of my grandmother's generation dies off and with it all of their roots and standards, we'll get full-blown dildocracy.
National Day was but three or four weeks ago, and to what extent? What's the national character? Much is made of "our shared heritage" and "ties that bind us together", but what the fuck are these? Money? 5 "C"s? Kiasuism? A HDB flat?
A soulless, gaping vagina waiting to consume? While the last of the societal fabric is being torn apart, we build a new garden for Changi Airport as our politicians and policymakers fall over each other to make Singapore "truly global". Spend millions on the Singapore Flyer, a giant ferris wheel...why?
The last of the pre-WW2 generation is disappearing.
Now perhaps, perhaps you can understand why the Singapore government is so dead-set on immigration as a population policy. There is literally no other way out. The only way to boost the birth rate is to repudiate modernity. That is tantamount to admitting the last four decades were for nothing. Immigration will certainly destroy the country (or should I say, cuntry) in the medium run (or perhaps even shorter, considering that only about half of Singapore's current population is native born and bred), but at least it'll allow the can to be kicked down the road on the current paradigm for a few more years.
None of this will come as any surprise whatsoever to anyone who has seen what the American government has done to this country. The Singaporeans took the same set of dumb ideas and applied them on a vastly larger scale, relatively speaking, and are now wondering why the hell things didn't work out so well.They can't do anything else. If immigration fails, they have to double down on it regardless of the country fragmenting, regardless of the local populace being pissed off, regardless of...anything, really. There is no other way out. Unhappy Singaporeans think that if only they can kick out the "foreign talents" and redistribute wealth from those evil, evil ministers to them, everything will be peachy keen.
Guess what, fucktards: it won't. The moment you or your parents accepted modernity in the 1970s, it was all over. It took four decades, but you are dying, and rightly so. You can complain about foreigners depressing your workforce and wages, but the same could be argued of the push to get women out of the family and into the cubicle. You can complain about how the kampong spirit is gone, but you were the ones who happily devoured it when it was served up in the trough. You may be the ones who complain about rising COEs and HDB prices, but these are only the chickens coming home to roost. You can complain about the education system, but you were the ones who happily allowed the Prussian model to be imposed upon you. So long as the soma kept flowing, you were happy to be led to the factory floor.
And only now you seek to blame the PAP for your own failure? I find this picture highly amusing, for all the wrong reasons:
Death is the only solution.
I am fully of the belief that the only possible long-term outcome for Singapore is collapse. The path of modernity that the "gahmen" has pursued since the late 1960s is inherently unsustainable, consuming social capital to feed the gaping Singaporean vagina, which was only too happy to accept it. Like the West, we are running on fumes of what went before, only of a different sort. The only two things that truly bring money into Singapore are a) the port and b) financial services as a tax haven, and without these, everything else grinds to a standstill. Manufacturing, service, all gone.
Now imagine if the petrodollar fails...if fiat money fails...
I have already spelled out my path of retreat, to my grandmother's holdings in Malaysia. The farm has lain fallow since she passed away, but last time I checked the house is still standing, the well is still clean, and the fields, though overgrown with weeds, are not poisoned. It can be fixed, and there is time to gain the skills to do so. My mother survived that kind of life, and it seems I may have to in my later years.
Maybe humanity will have a better go of it next time around.