A criticism of my post-scarcity article.

Found, thanks to referring links, an interesting criticism of my post-scarcity article over at Sarah Hoyt's:

"That guy has some things seriously wrong, and is approaching others the wrong way. He may be ultimately right, because his point about boredom and destructiveness is spot-on, but many of his premises are wrong.

1) We know how the pyramids were built, and it did not require high technology.

2) Damascus steel came about by a lucky discovery of raw materials of exactly the right combinations to produce said steel. From what I have heard, we don’t have any samples which have been available for analysis since we gained the technology to analyze them properly to reproduce it.

3) Unlike his examples of Greek Fire and Damascus Steel, modern technologies have detailed explanations of how to reproduce them available. So unless something happens to destroy the libraries, we won’t be able to lose anything but the most recent of technologies.

What I did not see in that analysis was the acknowledgement that the availability of cheap resources to support the basics, plus the energy and technology to build essentially anything you can dream up will free up creative people to soar to heights we can barely imagine now. Plus, while he is correct that a societal infrastructure is needed to counteract the destructive nature of some people, what he didn’t seem to realize was that we WILL have such a thing, but it will simply not be in a form we currently can recognize.

I’m just saying that people will have society, no matter what their everyday personal life is like, and that society will still have ways to either discourage destructive tendencies, or channel them into harmless avenues. This should generally work for 99+% of the people who would get that way."

Well, it's an interesting criticism, and it did get me thinking of angles that I didn't quite consider, yet in others, I do think this fellow is missing the point.

1) We know how the pyramids were built, and it did not require high technology.

Well, yes, we certainly do have theories about how the pyramids were built, some of which are indeed quite plausible. However, as far as I know no one's quite managed to empirically replicate the precision with which the massive stone blocks were built such that a knife can't be stuck between any two of them. Without mortar, I would add. As far as I'm concerned, the technology and engineering precision is lost.

If anyone has any readings in which this was actually achieved, I'd be interested in them.

Leave like a goddamned gentleman.

Four or five months ago, I decided to leave the Men's Rights Activists camp.

Not that I had been an extreme participant in the discourse, of course, but more of an observer (quelle surprise!) watching from the sidelines. But over the past month or two I had been worried about certain developments in the MRM, amongst them increased calls for leftist alignment, progressive ideology, "inclusion", and attempts at shaming those who did not agree. In short, hijacking and co-option of what I believed the MRM had been about.

This whole saga came to fruition of late, and it's been amusing to see how everything I said has come to pass.

Furthermore, I had come across arguments, particularly from No-Ma'am and Hawaiian Libertarian, that convinced me that the MRM was merely the next step of the exercise of the Hegelian Dialectic when it came to the complete dissolution and takeover of the family unit by the state. Champion the rights of women first, then champion the rights of men, and in the end the state is everywhere to act as a "mediator" with a finger in everyone's pie-hole.

Take note that this was not an easy task - while I didn't stay up nights agonising over the rights and wrongs, it nevertheless took considerable looking into the arguments, juggling them in my mind, and pitting them against observable examples to see which one was closer to empirical truth, such as Aurini's mention of the Canadian courts moving to "supervise" children in divorces, or right now, German kids being assigned handlers by the state "for their own good." If one toes the water for a long time before jumping in, coming back out should take at least as long, because a strong conviction is required on the basis of principles and morals, instead of adhering to some group or ideology because it validates your chosen lifestyle. (Ahem).

So, after I had formed my case for leaving the MRA camp, what did I do? Nothing much, and it was all limited to me. In the public forum, I took MRA sites off my blogroll and made a post on my blog about the reasons I was leaving, for anyone who was interested in what a Singaporean gook does with his life. Privately, I stopped watching MRA videos, reading MRA blogs, and writing on MRA forums.

That's all. Really. There were some who commented on my leaving post, arguing against my case; I addressed their arguments and sent them on their way. Simple as that. If you actually think out your case before making the move instead of basing it on your feeeelings, then you should be able to clearly address the people expressing consternation.

Right? Right?

What I didn't goddamn do was immediately run to the biggest social network I had access to, scream, howl and throw a tantrum, and wish death upon all MRAs while acting like a big drama queen, wanting others to pat me on the back, say "there, there" and validate my choice.

Now, I'm not asking one to pretend to be nice to the people whom you're leaving. I'm not expecting someone to find platitudes to mouth while walking through the doorway, that it was a nice time, so sorry for our differences of opinion, and I wish you all the best in the future. I don't wish the best for the MRAs, and indeed, I'm hoping (and predict) that they're going to fail for the reasons outlined by No-Ma'am and Hawaiian Libertarian. If you want to cease to be affiliated with anyone or any group for any reason, that's your pejorative, no matter how retarded I personally think your reasons may be. Certainly, those MRAs who cared about my leaving must have thought my reasons were silly, otherwise they wouldn't have protested.

But observe some goddamned decorum and leave like a gentleman, because the gentleman is a gentleman and never has an excuse to deviate from benevolence. If that's not good enough for you, howling and screaming will make you look like the idiot.

That is all.

Fights break out locally over Hello Kitty toys.

Really. And one wonders why democracy is a bad thing?

On laws and the lowest common denominator.

It's a general rule that the more mainstream/popularised something is, the more dumbed-down it gets. Anything, you name it - art, music, culture, hell, even World of Warcraft. This is because it has to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and unfortunately, that isn't very high.

The laws of a society, at least those written down on paper, are meant to apply to everyone. Hence, they have to be dumbed-down so the common man can understand them, unfortunately.

Not so different.

 
Have you ever played Half-Life 2?

Did you notice that the Gordon Freeman character has similarities to Snowden?

Not just in looks. The world of HL2 is impoverished and highly militarized, with spy and killer drones.

Not to mention relentless propaganda about how all of it is for their own good. And how 'citizen' means a compliant slave.

Then there is the part about how 'this lowly physicist' becomes impossible to catch in spite of universal surveillance, and how small cells of underground resistance can outflank far larger organized institutions.

At this moment Snowden is "Anti-Citizen One"

"Feeling it in your soul is where it starts. From there, it migrates to your daily thinking. And from thinking about it you start to change how you live your life. You become more deliberate, determined, relentless.

More ruthless.

You change things and you don't care who notices, because you must. And then suddenly the bad feeling passes. Because you recognize that you are no longer part of the problem but part of the solution. In this way we may all save ourselves, as each becomes first uneasy then thoughtful then deliberate. Maybe it will be enough, in the end. If not then at least we will have each learned how to deal with heartache, and how to go forward no matter what."

Peering out of the box - 24/6/2013.

Sultan Knish - The End of the World.

To understand why is to understand the purpose of environmentalism. Its harsh criticism of consumerism turns it into a moral activity. The Whole Foods shopper is elevated above the Wal-Mart shopper. The woman who buys sneakers made of recycled tires isn't shopping, she's engaged in an ethical communion with the earth. Environmentalism is the theology of consumerism, uplifting it rather than proscribing it, taking a cut of ordinary economic activities in exchange for its blessing.

As I've pointed out before, the disdain Leftism has for religion is not so much borne of any actual reason, but rather, a very common fear that as a religion itself, it'll lose converts to other religions. Keeping on the same line of thinking:

Cappy Cap - When Atheists Really Aren't Atheists.

Environmentalism is nothing more than a snooty person's religion.  Equally unfounded claims.  Equally unfounded moral superiority.  Equally deserving to get a punch in the face if they ever proselytize to you. 

They may "claim" they hate religion or are "too smart for it," but just like all the other sheeple, they find something to glom onto because they lack true and genuine independent thought and individuality (see hipsters).  Just because it isn't a biblically-based religion doesn't mean it isn't one and the intellectual weakness of one to subscribe to it doesn't apply.  But when you go to the extend to create a CHURCH of atheists you are merely mocking atheists and atheism.

The Economic Collapse - The biggest ponzi scheme in the history of the world.

Uncle Sam had once been the wealthiest man on the entire planet, but now he was a broke, tired old man that was absolutely drowning in debt.  Unfortunately, once he was down on his luck the rest of the world did not have any compassion for him.  In fact, much of the rest of the world celebrated the downfall of Uncle Sam.

Mangan's - Robotopia.

We're faced with a future in which lots of people will have little value in the labor force. Farmers went from 90% of the population to less than 2% currently because of industrialization. The same forces have hit, and will hit harder, every other sector of the economy. We have our own unskilled people to take care of.

Vox Day - A Mysterious Sinking.

So, do the Russians have an attack sub called "Yet Unclear Reasons"? Or, as appears more likely, did one of those Russian crew members take a creative approach to ship's maintenance? If it is true that the MOL Comfort was carrying arms intended for the Syrian rebels, it would appear that Mr. Putin has called Mr. Obama's decision to raise the ante.

We seem to be plunging headlong into WW3.

Jim - Economic Efficiency of Slavery.

Economists find this outcome most strange, but there is no mystery to it.  When stupid people, prone to short time horizons, get to make their own decisions for themselves, they are apt to make stupid decisions.

A slave maid could not steal the silverware, because she could not own anything.  An employed maid could steal the silverware, and probably would, and would be the worse off for it.  An employed maid might well beat the baby with stick as thick as her arm because her mistress spoke sharply to her.  A slave maid would not, because her mistress could do worse.

If slaves and masters 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 is 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.

Free Northerner - Sexonomics: Odds of Divorce.

I can’t calculate the exact numbers by calculating all these odds together because a lot of these positive qualities overlap, but I consider myself justified in estimating, that the type of women I plan on marrying would have a statistical likelihood of divorcing me around 10%.
 
A 10% chance of divorce, even a 20% chance, while still higher than I’d like, is a risk I am willing to take.

The question of a cost-benefit analysis has to be approached on both sides. Free Northerner has assessed the costs, but what are the benefits of marriage when it comes to men?

Oh, wait. Nothing of any worth.

Stop feeding the cats, damn it.

There is an orphanage-cum-nursing home within walking distance of my home. This does not count for much, considering how cramped most of Singapore is, but the location harbours an alley of the sort that's formed by two high walls, one of the orphanage proper and the other of a condominium complex.

When I go get my morning tea, there's this middle-aged woman who lugs around a huge sack of dry cat food and paper plates, and sets out food for the local strays. Shielded from view by the high walls, the cats emerge from wherever it is cats go, and congregate to feed.

I have no idea why this woman feeds the cats. Maybe she's just a crazy cat lady. Maybe she believes that feeding the cats will earn her merit. Maybe she thinks the cats are just starved, the poor things. Maybe she's just plain crazy. Whatever the reason, it doesn't change the end result: the cats come to be fed, and she feeds them. In considerable numbers, too: to and from watching the old folks hang up their songbirds in the morning, I've counted anywhere from between twenty to thirty different cats lounging about in the alley each time.

Why I don't believe the Post-Scarcity Singularity will save us.

Last night I was walking to the 24-hour supermarket when I saw yet another homeless man sleeping on a playground bench. Young man, looked like a migrant Indian worker (like the difference between local ethnic Chinese and mainland Chinese, you instinctively recognise the subtleties after a while), yellow construction boots, tattered knapsack as a pillow. He didn't smell of alcohol nor of any suspicious substances, and his position was too regular for it to be likely that he had collapsed there intoxicated.

It's a little interesting, because employers of foreign workers are required to provide housing to workers, but that's another story for another time.

Imagine, now, that we have hit the technological singularity, and have achieved post-scarcity. This homeless fellow would never need to work, or indeed, leave his home country. For ten cents' worth of uni-gel, which costs virtually nothing to produce, he can make his 3D printer print him anything he needs, from a hot meal to a roof over his head. Fusion energy sourced with raw materials from asteroid resources supplies all his energy needs. Health care is taken care of by mass-produced nanites. Whatever he desires, he can create. Surely this is the superlatively sexy scientopia we are all promised, and our homeless man is happy in it, yes?

Perhaps, for a short while. Then our homeless fellow gets bored, and idle hands are the devil's playground. Well, that's easily solved, isn't it? We simply offer people holodecks with their favourite midget gimp porn simulation all day, and they'll lock themselves up in there and be quiet.

Right? Right?

The Underclass, a quick brief.

Occasionally, you will hear reactionaries describe what needs to be done with the underclass. Various reactionaries may call them by different names - the underclass, the underman, the untersmensch, and more flexibly, the Dalit caste of Moldbuggian terminology.

But exactly who are the underclass?

Jim defines the underclass thusly in the comments of this article:

Underclass people engage in hunting and gathering behavior, as if the city was a jungle, which is inappropriate in a world of property rights, agriculture, trade, and industry. Underclass people do not work, and predate on civilized people. If you don’t have visible means of support, probably underclass. At fault in a traffic accident and cannot or will not pay, underclass. Drunk or stoned while behind on your rent, underclass. Inappropriate intoxication such as fighting drunk in public, or drunk or stoned when at fault in a traffic accidents, underclass. Petty theft, underclass, shakedowns, underclass. A woman who has children by more than one man without reasonable excuse such as widowhood, underclass. Vandalism, underclass. Streetwalking underclass, though tonier forms of prostitution, for example operating out of a bar or brothel, would not necessarily be underclass. People who profile as underclass (underclass mother, black, fatherless, and suchlike) would be assumed underclass and would have to demonstrate non underclass character by getting a job and staying out of trouble. Conversely, people who profile as middle class, (white, two middle class parents) would be assumed middle class, unless they they show underclass behavior, such as fighting drunk in public, homeless, stealing, etc, show underclass behavior by getting into trouble. Born in the ghetto, have to earn your way out. Born in the suburbs, have to screw up to get sent to the ghetto.

Basically any wrongful behavior that adversely affects property values or disrupts business, underclass, send them out of the nice suburbs. This would remove about eighty or ninety percent of blacks, mestizos, and bastards from the nice suburbs.

Cough cough.

The haze from Indonesian forest fires continues to plague the rest of South-East Asia. The problem, unfortunately, has been compounded by the lack of rain over the last few days, causing what looks like fog to hang over the sky at all times, with a slight scent of ash to the air.

I've mentioned before that one of the nice things about living in Singapore is the generally clean environment, especially with regards to air quality. For all the laws and regulations we put up in our own backyard, there's as much chance of stopping the haze coming from burning forest as there is of, say, stopping Fukushima radiation from reaching the West Coast.

And the Indonesian government's response?

 

Well. Perhaps we should forgive criminals, because they had so many other chances to commit crimes and didn't do so? Shall we have someone tally up the positives of all good and evil deeds both real and in absentia, and then weigh one against the other?

Then again, reading about Indonesian politics, it has never been quite on the straight and narrow. One of my seniors described to me the difficulties inherent in doing business there; the number of palms to grease and people to play golf with just to safely secure one shipment of coal is astounding.

Mrrrph. I'm taking the time spent indoors to catch up on my reading and coding, but my feet get itchy. Man is not made to sit under a roof all day.

Peering out of the box - 17/6/13.

Great old clouds of smoke have been rolling in on the island from Sumatra - the usual slash-and-burn farmers in Indonesia are being blamed yet again. It hasn't been this bad for years, though. Since I'm sensitive to smoke, the only recourse is to stay indoors as much as possible, do my running inside on a treadmill, etc, etc.

Anyways, without further ado, the weekly peering out of the box.

Vox Popoli - Rejecting the lie.

A few people, both sympathetic and otherwise, have asked me why I am willing to hold and defend such controversial and upsetting opinions as I have done of late. And providing more evidence that rabbits simply do not have the capacity to understand not-rabbits, the SFWA is absolutely rife with various theories concerning my supposed mental instability. 

After all, who but a deranged lunatic would think to challenge the received wisdom of the warren's long-accepted consensus goodthink?
As it happens, the reason is fairly straightforward. If you will not stand up for the truth when pressed, you will not stand up for the Truth when persecuted.

The Economic Collapse - Rotting, Decaying And Bankrupt – If You Want To See The Future Of America Just Look At Detroit

In fact, Detroit is a perfect example of what the future of America is going to look like.  We live in a nation that is rotting, decaying, drowning in debt and racing toward insolvency.  Already there are dozens of other cities across the nation that are poverty-ridden, crime-infested hellholes just like Detroit is, and hundreds of other communities are rapidly heading in that direction.  So don't look down on Detroit.  They just got there before the rest of us.

Sultan Knish - The end of control.

A hammer exists to hammer. A hammer in the hands of a man is a tool, but a hammer that exists for its own sake is a destructive force. A bureaucracy exists to regulate to achieve a specific end, but a bureaucracy that exists for its own sake is tyranny. It seeks to control for the sake of control. It wields power for the sake of power. 

It insists that its ends are moral, but as they are not achieved, the true end of control is revealed. 

Socialism begins with control to achieve social ends only for control to become the end. And that leads to the end of freedom.

Zero Hedge - Entitlement America And The High Cost Of "Free"

 Almost three years ago we first highlighted the real math behind the surging entitlement class that America has become. So why does a large portion of the population choose not to work when there are many jobs available? The answer is simple. If you can receive 2-3 times as much money from unemployment, disability, and/or welfare benefits (subsidized housing, food stamps, free cellphones, etc.) as you can from a temporary or part-time job, and live a life of leisure, why work? This is the ugly reality we illustrated just six months ago and the situation - amid what is apparently called a 'recovery' remains a depressingly real sign of the times. The political allure of free is so strong that an alarming number of people choose to become wards of the entitlement/welfare state rather than captain their own destiny.

Vault-Co - Leftists, Marxists, Socialists, Communists and Statists Are Damaged Goods

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "POLITICS." THERE NEVER WAS.
THERE IS ONLY BIOLOGY. THE LEFT ARE BIOLOGICALLY DAMAGED PEOPLE. They are the botched. The bungled. The busted. There is nothing to debate. Nothing left to prove on this subject with science.

Didact's Reach - Welcome to the Panopticon.

If you choose the latter course, then remember: the only logical outcome of pushing back against this country's government is eventual open armed revolution. Understand this well, and be ready for the day it happens.
Choose carefully, and choose well.

The Singaporean pussy pass in full effect:

So it happens that a little over a week ago, a 31-year old single mother pushed her 9-year old mentally disabled son out of an apartment window to his death.

Unsurprisingly, the internet white knights have come crawling out all over the place. They blame everything - from the evil government that didn't give her enough free handouts, to assurances that she must be mentally disturbed and hence cannot be held culpable for her actions, the town councils that overlooked her -

Everything and everyone is to be blamed for the death of this boy - except the mother who pushed him out of the window. Because she's just a victim of this horrible, oppressive society, a leaf blown in the winds of fate.

You can't have it both ways, folks. If you want to claim no personal agency or responsibility, then you will have none of the attendant rights. If you can't claim responsibility when you push someone out of a window, why should we give you the privilege of voting?

I think I do understand part of the reason why the local girls hate our menfolk so much. They're all a bunch of dumb pussified white-knighting gammas.

Someone needs to do something about these horrors! Just not me. NGOs gotta take care of it. Pimp Daddy G's gotta take care of it. Town councils gotta take care of it. Just not me. Just not the neighbours. Just not the extended family. Just not other people. No, it's all someone else's problem.

You dumbshits, you atomised Singaporean society and now you complain that no one's got your back? If you're going to ditch others to get ahead, then why are you surprised when others ditch you? You tore apart the existing societal safety net and left yourself with no other option than Daddy G's sugar, and now you complain that he won't let you have any?

You all deserve what's coming to you.

Update: the exoneration of any and all culpability continues:

How could three persons, an old lady, a young mother and a special needs child lived on a $1,000 income. Maybe there were some handouts from the govt or some charitable organizations. This is a tragic story of the lives of three miserable beans trying to get by in one of the most expensive country in the world.

So, where are all the other people? Oh wait, to other people this woman and her family were fucking invisible. A nonentity. Only there for some people to get all righteously angry over...and as pawns in directing anger at the government.

The poor woman, now in prison for delivering her son, would probably think it is better to end it all. The poor child will be her life of living hell. She would have nothing else to live for short of a miracle, a little mercy from some kind souls.

[...]

"The poor woman in prison is likely to remain in prison for the rest of her life. She just switched from a prison without bars to behind bars. The latter may be less demanding financially and emotionally less draining. At least she will have a life of her own to live for, behind bars. At least she set free the poor boy trapped in a flawed body. Some may disagree and think it is better for the boy to continue to live. What about her mother, now with all $1,000 to herself for as long as she can work?"

You know, just reading these lines makes me sick. Killing your own nine-year-old son is "delivering" and "setting him free". I wonder if the kid felt free when he was plummeting to the concrete pavement below or terrified enough to piss his pants, but such is the logic behind dismembering babies to "save" them. Well, fuck.

No one has the right to declare another's life not worth living. Only the possessor of said life can even begin to argue to have the right to relinquish it.

Going through Dalryample's work again, the constant motif of the underclass, and the idiot fools who coddle and enable said underclass, is that of non-culpability. They know all the right things to say to the judges, all the right acts to put on in front of the social workers. The idea that they might even be marginally culpable for their own deeds is foreign to them - they describe themselves in the passive ("The knife went in"), helpless objects, victims of circumstance, suffers of a disease which Dr. Dalryample must now cure, or else in their eyes, HE becomes the one to blame for the mess they've made of their lives.

Oh, I am in full support of everyone's right to fuck up their own life - so long as others aren't asked to foot the bill.

Just look at the comments:

"She needs treatment not punishment"

"the woman has my sympathy."

"Feel sorry for what our country has done to drive her to this tragedy. She should be given treatment for her mental and emotional health not more punishment."

"She must hv felt stuck in a depressive situation for 78840 hrs. Seeing no end of her plight and decides to commit a crime like this."

"with fianancial difficulities, even if u go to any help centre they don't help if you have bills not paid an have an income of S$500.00 - S$1000.00 they don't help"

The gentleman does NOT deviate from benevolence, even in the midst of destitution. The people of the Great Depression by and large did not deviate from respectability, even though they were living in the most miserable times of the cnetury. There's not even the slightest shred of evidence that this woman was suffering from mental illness, and yet people automatically assume that - all while screaming at others not to judge because "they don't have all the facts".

What's worse than the fools clamouring for the pussy pass are those who immediately try and use this murderess' case to attack the established order - they don't even bother to feign sympathy for her before jumping straight into the calls for wealth redistribution.

So what now? When world finance and trade collapse and Singapore is left with shit, you're going to use that as an excuse to start a free-for-all killing and looting spree?

Look in the mirror. You are the ones responsible for this country's downfall. You allowed it to happen.

I will stand by and wait in my box, and there's only room for me and mine.

*Sigh*

I'm not completely heartless. I can understand extenuating circumstances - please be reminded that this is NOT one from the evidence presented, and that even if this murderess was truly mentally unstable, that does not excuse murder unless one tries an insanity plea - like stealing a loaf of bread when one is starving. That doesn't change that it's still stealing and we are still bound to be benevolent even in destitution.

Now, if I were the bakery owner, I would assess the situation judging on whether the thief were truly repentant and in need. If so, I might ask for a reduced charge. I might forgive him for the theft. If they were willing to learn and able-bodied, I might even take the fellow on for food at first, and then perhaps a small day's wages later.

And it will not wash away his deeds any more than a carousel rider can stride into church at 30 and declare herself a "born-again virgin".

But the idiots piling on to white knight don't even know if this murderess is repentant. Do we? There certainly haven't been any reports to the contrary. And for those idiots who claim a mother would never harm her children, please let me remind you of the average 15% infanticide rate in the ancient world, shooting up to as high as 50% in renaissance Italy and 17th-century China, and the 1.3 billion abortions worldwide since 1980.

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.

Don’t judge, just live!

And always be true to yourself.

- Aurini.

A point of amusement.

One of the things I like to do with my spare time is that I enjoy modding for Dungeons of Dredmor, a roguelike which doesn't take itself quite seriously. For those unfamiliar with the genre, a roguelike is a form of RPG which is made distinct by the following traits:

*Dungeon layouts that are randomly or psuedo-randomly generated.
*A high degree of unpredictability. For examples, potion effects may be randomised between games.
*Brutal degrees of difficulty.
*High importance of resource management and prioritisation. Creating and safeguarding caches can be vitally important in some games.
*All sorts of inanities; due to the open-source or at least highly-moddable nature of most games in the genre, there're enough people to think of anything and everything.

Occasionally, I get feedback on my mods. Since I do a lot of different stuff, I get a wide variety of it - some I agree with, such as making things more modular so people can pick and choose what they want or don't want to add, and I spend a night or two working on rectifying the problem. Others I don't agree with, and if the fellow is decent enough, explain why I see things differently, or just ignore them if they aren't.

Recently, though, I received a complaint that was just bizarre.

Ahem:

The not-so-invisible people of Singapore.

The tissue sellers have emerged.

I don't remember seeing them as recently as fifteen, or even ten years ago. Elderly men and women in their late fifties to early seventies, staking out roadsides, underground passageways, food courts and more in a bid to sell their wares - hand-sized packets of tissues. The tissues themselves are priced at three or four times what it would cost to purchase them from a newsstand or drink stall, highlighting the fact that it's not so much business as charity that the tissue sellers are looking for, only they'd rather not be overtly looking for handouts.

Hrm.

Currently reading Theodore Dalrymple's Life at the Bottom and being reminded of how the problems of the underclass are exacerbated by leftist-driven policies, breaking of social mores that kept people in check and improving themselves, and the soma of modernity.

It bears thinking on how the Singaporean government has been keeping the local underclass out of sight, until recently.

"Fairness". Pfah!

An equalist appeals to us as to why meritocracy is bad, and we should embrace fairness instead:

"Why is fairness a virtue - that is, why is it inherently good? I do not profess to have the best answer, but I shall share my views through a thought experiment.

Imagine leaving your current dimension and entering a state of non-existence. You have no idea what wealth or resources, material and non-material, you will possess at your point of birth. The only thing you are certain of is your own will - your freedom to choose what you want to do with your possessions, whatever they are.

This is what the American philosopher John Rawls called the veil of ignorance. As you put it on, ask yourself: would you prefer a fair society that rewards traits such as diligence (resulting from free will), by allowing everyone to start on an even playing field, or would you rather have a society that (unfairly) rewards individuals based on, for example, what material resources they possess at birth, something which you lack control over?

The intuitive choice would be the former - the fairer option. Fairness is a virtue because we desire it independently of worldly possessions. It is something that is so appealing to when we are stripped bare of our property and thrown into uncertainty. This is an important frame of mind to view things for a compelling reason: the living consists of only a single generation, while an infinite number of generations exist in exactly that state - unborn. Unlike in the thought experiment, they cannot choose the society they are born into, but we can. Thus, fairness becomes an inherent human endeavor, not just to create a society we desire for ourselves, but for future generations as well."

Let's take this apart piece by piece.

"As you put it on, ask yourself: would you prefer a fair society that rewards traits such as diligence (resulting from free will), by allowing everyone to start on an even playing field, or would you rather have a society that (unfairly) rewards individuals based on, for example, what material resources they possess at birth, something which you lack control over?"

The problem with this is that in order for this argument to hold water, one has to assume tabula rasa, which is a) not only falsifiable but b) the greatest lie of our generation. People are inherently different by virtue of their genetic makeup leading to physical/mental/behavioural/so forth differences demarcated along racial/sexual/so forth lines, and nurture has to work within the bounds set by nature. The author assumes that worldly possessions are the only factor that contribute to success.

The author would like a world to be what ought to be, instead of what is. And in the battle between is and ought, is will always win out in the end.

One might argue that the author is only arguing for equality of opportunity. Yet, as affirmative action and other such "positive discrimination" programs throughout the world prove, equality of opportunity invariably leads to equality of outcome, since opportunity is so nebulously defined and I'll wager the percentage of people who will admit they had every opportunity but blew them will be miniscule.

While the petty man can be uplifted to some extent and whipped into line, the gentleman has far more potential (and by definition of "gentleman", of course he exercises it). Once again, as various "fairness" and "equality" policies prove, they always involve dragging down the gentleman to the level of the petty man, since the latter cannot be uplifted to the level of the former. Hence, Harrison Bergeron.

We lack control over so many things in our lives. We lack control over our genetics, we lack control over how people react to us, we lack control over acts of nature, we lack meaningful control over how our governments act - what, are you going to bitch that you didn't have control over how that guy/girl blew you off? You're dealt a hand, the best thing you can do is play it to the best of your ability instead of coveting someone else's cards.

"Fairness is a virtue because we desire it independently of worldly possessions."

False. "Fairness", more often than not, is driven by envy, most often caused by a lack of worldly possessions. Even in the case of Cappy Cap's crusaders, they take up a cause because their lives are otherwise meaningless and they want to feel important. Psychopathic impulses may be desired by an individual independently of worldly possessions (for example, mass shooters have come from all walks of economic backgrounds in the name of all sorts of ideologies) but that does not make mass shootings a desirable occurrence.

"It is something that is so appealing to when we are stripped bare of our property and thrown into uncertainty."

Here we see the proof of envy showing up. "If I have nothing, other people should give up their stuff in order to make me feel secure!"

In short, "fair" is used in much the same way as "equality" is: a rhetorical platitude used to disguise envy and redistribution. It is intuitive, sure, but then again, even monkeys have been shown to show envy intuitively, so I fail to see how intuitive = good in any sense.

"This is an important frame of mind to view things for a compelling reason: the living consists of only a single generation, while an infinite number of generations exist in exactly that state - unborn. Unlike in the thought experiment, they cannot choose the society they are born into, but we can. Thus, fairness becomes an inherent human endeavor, not just to create a society we desire for ourselves, but for future generations as well."

"B-b-but it's FOR THE CHILDREN!"

Disgusting.

So, to sum up this fellow's argument:

-Look at all those fat cats hoarding all the advantages you should have!
-Appeal to nature (or in this case, intuition)
-If you support fairness, that shows you are so much more enlightened and virtuous because worldly possessions don't matter to you!
-Won't you think of the children?

The implications of the argument are clear: in order for a "level playing field" to be enforced, the wealth of parents should be confiscated and redistributed through taxation so each child has an equal amount of worldly possessions to start with regardless of innate ability or inclination to learn.

Well then. Why bother getting an education in the first place and making all that money if it's just going to be taken away anyway? For a society to prosper, there always needs to be a mild discomfort at the base levels, a hunger to improve, tempered with shame. Redistribution kills that dead.

The worst thing is that redistribution doesn't even solve anything barring the worst-case scenarios (such as dumping a kid in a third-world country). White lower-class students routinely score higher on average on standardised testing than black upper and middle-class students. Head Start in the US has been a tremendous failure, putting paid to the idea that racial differences in IQ and ability were due to nutritional deficiencies. Material wealth and standards of living have been repeatedly shown to have a far less marked effect on intelligence or academic ability than the cathedralists would have the masses believe; "10,000 hours of practice" is scarcely enough, but it perpetuates the pretty lie that you can do anything you want.

Peering out of the box - 10/6/13.

Zero Hedge - NSA Whistleblower Reveals Himself.

So...any bets on how long Snowden lasts before he decides to make toast in the bathtub, has an unfortunate car accident or just plain disappears?

Anyone?

Vox Day shares his thoughts here.

Speaking of Vox...

Vox Day - Homeschooling hits critical mass.

I predict shortly in the future that the USG will clamp down on homeschooling, if not outright attempting to make not sending your children to public school an offense like it is in Germany and here in Singapore. Can't have the kids thinking for themselves, can we?

Sultan Knish - Government is the new race.

Black history has become a commodity. It was mortgaged to the Democratic Party which turned it over to the IRS. And when history turns into a commodity, it is cut off from the flows and currents of a culture. It is reduced to an item of intellectual property to be exploited, developed and then finally discarded. In this state, it cannot grow or change. It does not reflect the soul of a people. And without it, the soul of a people grows stifled and musty. Without control over their own history, a people are unable to grow and change.

The Reactivity Place - What Hath the Kingdom of God to do with Secular Rightists?

 Jim Donald goes farther than most in advocating officially state sponsored religion. Why? Because it is the natural state of a people to have a shared religion. And Official Religions, because they are official, are much more benign than Unofficial official religions such as we have today (Liberal Christianity). I make the same point in a previous post, that a religious heritage works best when it stays clear of the extremes of rigor (phariseeism) and laxity (pietism). Modern Liberal Christianity is the absolute worst aspects of both.

In case you haven’t noticed, we live in a culture now completely dominated by lies, regarding the sexes, regarding race, regarding economics, regarding politics, regarding equality, regarding health and happiness and meaning in life. Those who can see through those lies, articulate a response, and fight against them are our friends, irrespective of the divergence in our prior metaphysical commitments.

Elusive Wapiti - Cash and Prizes 

This may account for some of the "cash and prizes" complaining that you hear. The fellows who dominate the manosphere are likely whiter, better educated, and have higher incomes than do the average American male. So it follows that they pay more than the average figures listed above. Plus, a median income of $29,000 for an electively divorced single mother is supplemented by benefits not available to non-custodial fathers, such as the earned income tax credit, child care deductions, lower tax bracket, extra exemptions, etc. I suspect these considerations are not factored into the "female breadwinner" analysis, and these indirect compensations not only soften the blow of choice motherhood but may also be arguably viewed as income transfers of the "cash and prizes" kind, as well. 

Also notable is that the average single mother has a net effective income of 57K, which is equal to that of someone making 69K/year. Government-subsidised failure indeed, paid out of the pockets of productive citizenry.

Stares at the World - The question libertarians can't answer.

Yet another protest.

For the third time this year, Singaporeans have gathered at Hong Lim Park on the eighth of June, this time to protest the new MDA regulations on "news sites". For a people notorious for their political apathy, this is a bit of a record, especially considering that the Speaker's corner has, prior to this year, been woefully underutilised. Two thousand protesters may seem a small amount to folks in western countries where demonstrations are common, but it's a bit of a milestone for us, for better or for worse.

My personal suspicions are that it's going to be for the worse.

What makes this episode slightly more interesting is the timing, which has happened to largely coincide with the whole nonsense about PRISM and the NSA over on your side of the pond, and Aurini has recently come up with a video on privacy and technology.

Have the more vocal Singaporeans acquired a taste for protesting? I'm personally not sure if this trend will continue, but I can see how it might; protesting, like voting, is ultimately like masturbation: it feels good, but rarely does it accomplish anything. A powerful but useless ritual that makes people feel like they've done something and stuck it to The Man.

Like the US government, the Singaporean government is in damage control mode over the new regulations, although the chance that anything substantive will be changed is next to nil. It'll be interesting to see how things play out, at the very least.

This struck me:

Been catching up with my reading, so no new post today, either, but something to think about:

"Confucius said:

"When all under Heaven are with the way, the rites, music and military conquests are initiated by the son of heaven. When all under heaven are not with the way, the rites, music and military conquests are initiated by the lords.

"When initiated by the lords, they rarely last beyond ten generations (a Chinese generation is 30 years). When initiated by the officials, they rarely last beyond five generations. When the destiny of the state is in the hands of the officials to the family, they rarely last beyond three generations. When all under heaven are with the way, rulership is not for the officials. When all under heaven are with the way, there is no discussion amongst the people."

- Analects, chapter sixteen, verse two.

Monarchies lasted for centuries before giving way to democracies. Democracies...well, the Wiemar Republic fell in about 20 years, while the US has been puttering around for about a century since universal suffrage.

Vox Day estimates the average democratic lifespan as 50-70 years, with modern technology distorting that and allowing the can to be kicked down the road a little longer, but as we can see right before our very eyes, that illusion of so-called democracy is rapidly disintegrating into a world of jackboots.

It amuses me that the inherent instability-to-democratisation relationship was acknowledged as far as two millenia ago.

On social shame and punishment.

Been reflecting on this in the past day or two:

"Lead through policies, discipline through punishments, and the people may be restrained but without a sense of shame. Lead through virtue, discipline with the rites, and there shall be a sense of shame and conscientious improvements."

- Analects, Chapter 2, verse 3.

Thinking back to when I was sixteen or thereabouts, longtime readers of this blog (do I have any?) will remember that the complete narcissist of a principal who headed my school at the time mandated that every student join a uniformed youth organisation for the ostensible purpose of "promoting leadership". By some freakish coincidence, my class was the first to have this inane rule apply to them, so during the four years I was in secondary school (your rough approximation would be junior high), I was able to track quite keenly the...ah, decline of the uniformed youth organsiations during my time there.

Nothing to report today.

Instead, please wander along to this marvelous collection of reactionary literature put together by Mr. W. C. Soto for the benefit of cheap asses like me who don't want to pay for good reading and has figured out that those books are largely unavailable in his country anyway.

My suggestion would be to start from the titles on Free Northerner's reading list, and work outwards from there.

Confucius - a smart guy.

Been reading through the Analects again, and noticing all the parallels that can be drawn. 

Confucius and reactionary thought

As a recap, the general consensus of the reactionary position, as outlined by Nick B. Steves:

• Hierarchical social structures: Hierarchy is not only not bad, but natural and absolutely essential to the proper functioning of any social structure;
• Sex Realism: Sex differences are real, are ordained by nature or nature’s god or both, and we ignore them at our peril;
• Race Realism: Race and group differences are real, are ordained by nature or nature’s god or both, and we ignore them at our peril;
• Memetic Realism (“Deep Heritage”): Traditional folkways tend to be real, i.e., non-ideological, and naturally arising adaptations to social realities, which therefore represent pretty good (at least) local solutions to very (or intractably) complex problems;
• Economic Realism (later badly dubbed “Microeconomics” and we still await a name for the phenomenon): In any economy where an absolutely fixed supply of (properly divisible) money is deemed impossible or impractical, there is ipso facto a con game going where the issuance of money has itself become a political weapon;
• (Hyper)Federalism: Local optima rarely scale well; subsidiarity; the right of exit must be guaranteed;
• Social Justice: If social justice is anything at all, it is merely justice;
• Democracy: The best and brightest of any society were ordained by nature or nature’s god or both to lead. Expansion of the franchise beyond that natural aristocracy is tragicomically foolish;
• Politics: Defined as competition for parcels of power over unrelated others, usually as a means of redistributing wealth, politics is rightly minimized in any sane society.

Of the points above, the Analects deal mostly with hierarchy, memetics and politics.

On supporting theistic reaction anyway.

Jim acknowledges that the secular PUA and Christian Reactionary communities do seem to get along quite well, due to them sharing a number of common core beliefs about the world:

You will notice that the Pick Up Artist Community and the Christian Reactionary movement get along mighty well, despite the fact that Heartiste claims to be a minion of Satan, and despite the fact that they are in total disagreement about ultimate ends.

Whether the Bible is historically accurate or not, it is undeniable that it is to western civilisation what Confucius' Analects is to eastern civilisation, both works having formed the bases on which morality, culture, social customs and more have sprung up around. And considering both have produced civilisations that have had longer track records than our current crumbling so-called democracies, I'd wager that these "iron-age fairy tales" have a couple of lessons that we are already rediscovering in our day and age - one example popularised by the Game community being that of female hypergamy = the Biblical Curse of Eve. As highlighted by various sections of the orthosphere, it's an interesting commentary on the truth of various subjects such as societal structure, human behaviour, sex relations, and so forth.

To quote Thumotic:

Christianity is either a beautiful and resilient set of useful reactionary myths about the nature of the world, or it is the literal word of God. Either way, any true Reactionary movement will march under the cross.

One does not quite argue that since the Hare never raced the Tortoise, and indeed since animals cannot speak or hold races, that Aesop's Fables have nothing to teach us or it does not hold any points to be discussed, does it? From the secular reactionary's standpoint, the Bible is true on a moral level, so the actual historical accuracy of it is irrelevant. But naturally, as mentioned before, the progressive's religion is progress, and hence "iron-age fairy tales" are dismissed because...well they're "iron-age fairy tales".

As a side note, please do not conflate "Christianity" with "Churchianity".

Hence, even though I do not adhere to the Christian faith, I can still recognise the usefulness the Bible (and by extent, any other reactionary text) has, and indeed, while there is some sort of argument as to whether the belief system of the Reaction should be strictly Christian, generally theistic or secular along the lines of what Jim proposes, there needs to be some sort of religion to fill in that hole in peoples' heads.

Because you see, nothing has really changed. God has been replaced with Leviathan, the Church replaced with the Cathedral, priests replaced with scientists who insist that the interpretation of the entrails - I mean, "science" - must be left up to them and a simple, watered-down version fed to the masses. We have shed Mass for Wal-Mart chants, ancestor worship for Japanese company aerobics. Atheistkult exhibits the same blind, dogmatic fervor and attitude, happily making them the modern witch-hunters.

Instead of believing in unprovable, intangible gods, we believe in unprovable, intangible concepts such as "equality". Wait, there is a difference. Equality is falsifiable - and is clearly so, which is why the priests must work double-time to crush all crimethink.

The world turns, and things stay the same. The religion of Reason is most unreasonable, and indeed, judging by the state of the world today, doing quite a poorer job of being a constructive religion than that silly bearded man in the sky.

Where western civilisation is concerned, since it sprang out of Christianity, it would make most sense for the Reaction - at least where it comes to the faith of the masses - to return there. We gooks...we'll sort something out; I've taken a liking to feudal China, but naturally it had its problems, as does everything else. I'd like us to go back to the Analects and The Way of Tao as guiding forces for civilisation, but there might not be a going back in that regard.

It'll be interesting to see how things play out.

Peering out of the box - 3/6/13.

Stares at the World - Meditations Upon Psychohistory: “Whispering Leaves” by Cesar Tort, Part 1

Contrast to humans where things are utterly different.  First off is the mere length of parental-dependence; at the very minimum humans require twelve years before they’re able to function independently, and recent neurological evidence can arguably push full mental adulthood into the mid-twenties.  Not only does this extended-period provide more opportunity for error, the child-rearing in our species is so remarkably complex, (multiple stages, each requiring a different sort of input) that if any one stage is mis-performed, future neuroses result.

Sultan Knish - The extremist moderates and moderate extremists.

Around the time of the Arab Spring, reporters began describing the Muslim Brotherhood, which had a long history of terrorism and whose writings call for genocide, as moderate. The Free Syrian Army, which is dominated by the Brotherhood, is constantly described as both “moderate” and “secular”. But Hamas, which is the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, is described as militant, rather than moderate.
There is no actual standard for what makes a Muslim group moderate. The sobriquet is a form of approval granted by Western elites to Muslim groups and figures that most people would conventionally associate with terrorism.

Vox Popoli - The new dawn rising.

There is going to be war.  In Europe, it will be the European nationalists against the globalists and their African and Muslim jannisaries.  In the USA, it is going to be a confusing affair, with shifting alliances between the Black, Brown, Red, and White Americas, with Black, Brown, and Red America serving the interests of the globalists.

Of course, to say "there is going to be war" is somewhat misleading.  The war actually began in 1965; the first invasion soon after.  This nationalist response is a belated one, and is the result of the various nations finding themselves backed into a corner from which there is no other escape.

The globalists are going to try to crack down and keep the nationalists out of power, but the resulting exposure of what has always been their anti-democratic nature is going to completely eliminate their ability to claim any moral superiority over the nationalists.

Various further warning signs as to why getting your hands on some non-perishable food and seeds would be a good idea:

*Impossible for 40% of German farmers to drive on fields due to rain, asparagus and potato crops ruined.
*Freeze cuts US southern states' blueberry crop in half, worst yield in 20 years.
*Similarly, Belgian berry crops destroyed by cold weather.
*Canadian vegetables destroyed by frost, estimated 10-30% of current tomato harvest lost.

Make sure you have enough to eat.

The Economic Collapse - 18 signs that massive economic problems are erupting all over the planet.

Unfortunately, the false prosperity that we are currently enjoying is not going to last much longer.  Just look at what is happening in Europe.  The eurozone is now in the midst of the longest recession that it has ever experienced.  Just look at what is happening over in Asia.  Economic growth in India is the lowest that it has been in a decade and the Japanese financial system is beginning to spin wildly out of control.  One of the only places on the entire planet where serious economic problems have not already erupted is in the United States, and that is only because we have "kicked the can down the road" by recklessly printing money and by borrowing money at an unprecedented rate.  Unfortunately, the "sugar high" produced by those foolish measures is starting to wear off.  We are going to experience a massive amount of economic pain along with the rest of the world - it is just a matter of time.

Zero Hedge - It's A "0.6%" World: Who Owns What Of The $223 Trillion In Global Wealth

Back in 2010 we started an annual series looking at the (re)distribution in the wealth of nations and social classes. What we found then (and what the media keeps rediscovering year after year to its great surprise) is that as a result of global central bank policy, the rich got richer, and the poor kept on getting poorer, even though as we predicted the global political powers would, at least superficially, seek to enforce policies that aimed to reverse this wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich (a doomed policy as the world's legislative powers are largely in the lobby pocket of the world's wealthiest who needless to say are less then willing to enact laws that reduce their wealth and leverage). Now that the topic of wealth distribution (or rather concentration) is once again in vogue, below we present the latest such update looking at a global portrait of household wealth. The bottom line: 29 million, or 0.6% of those with any actual assets under their name, own $87.4 trillion, or 39.3% of all global assets.

We have so much to learn.

Today, having nothing better to do after searching through the regular job listings (and finding no more positions to my liking), I had a bit of time and decided to go learn how to do a little jar canning. While I may not have the tools to put what I learned in practice, thanks to pressure canners being a bit rare in this country, it was nevertheless interesting to learn it as a how-to, as well as how to do a canning/pickling mix that can be done for vegetables without advanced equipment and no more additives than some vinegar.

And all I had to do was to input a few keystrokes into my computer to get the information at hand, complete with video demonstrations.

Next, since I'm looking to grow a beard, I went ahead and looked up some resources for trimming and general care for facial hair, as well as some styles that would look prim and proper on my lip and chin. Again, this information was summoned up in mere moments from the comfort of my home. Not exactly world-changing information on a grand scale, but it's world-changing information on a small scale.

Isn't it fascinating? The ancients revered the Great Library of Alexandra, and even we today recognise its burning as one of the greatest blows to civilisation of the day. Today, we have information amounting to what, hundreds? Thousands? of times, and people are too...distracted, to put it kindly, to peruse it.

Is it a greater tragedy if a library is burned by a malicious hand, or if it's allowed to crumble to dust through disuse?

Singaporean delusions of democracy.

In the midst of the hoo-hah over the recent vaguely-worded "licensing framework" for "news sites" by the Singapore government, on which I have not really reported because frankly, people around these parts have been half-expecting some attempt at internet censorship by now.

What I found interesting in particular, is this:

And then ask yourself: why should you, as a citizen of this country, be subject to such state-imposed fear? Why should those who should be your servants in turn lord over your very right to speak up – a right which is guaranteed in our Constitution?

Ask yourself: why should a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in a statutory board have such immense power over you?

[...]

Article 14 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees that “every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression”.

We must not let this right be so easily usurped by unelected bureaucrats, without any engagement, discussion, debate or dialogue. For if we do, then what is the value of our Constitution and what it guarantees us as citizens, especially if you cannot even post comments on websites?

Surely, it is not the intent of our Constitution to forbid this.

 Let me draw attention to a couple of phrases: "unelected bureaucrats in a statutory board" and "usurped by unelected bureaucrats without any engagement, discussion, debate or dialogue". Hell, let's narrow it down even more to one word:

"Unelected".

Has that sunk in yet?

"Unelected". Say that three times, then turn around and clap your hands.

"Un-elected".

Now, fellow Singaporeans, let's imagine that there was an election tomorrow, and you threw all the MPs out of parliament through the ballot box. Let's imagine that happened without any shenanigans pulled like what happened during the recent Malaysian elections. Let's imagine that, say, the Worker's Party or whichever joke of an opposition party formed the new government, hurray hurray, stick a flag in it, it's done.

Who is going to oversee your CPF?

Who is going to overlook your Medisave and Medishield?

Who makes the laws that govern your lives? It's definitely not the MPs in any substantive amount.

Who controls the media?

Who makes sure the buses and trains run on time?

Etc, etc, etc...

Can you vote them out? Oh no, you can't.

Can the government you voted in root them all out and throw them out of their positions, even if it wanted to? As likely as Elvis suddenly reappearing in the middle of the desert like some B-horror/SF movie.

Democracy and the power of the ballot box is the biggest delusion of our modern age, and it's not hard to see why: it allows people to operate under the belief that they have some control over their fate. You voted? Then you endorsed the system and have to accept the result. You didn't vote? Then you have no right to complain, aye?

What a pretty lie. If not for the fact that refusing to vote is an offence in Singapore, I wouldn't even bother.

"Hey man, I still think we can turn this around." That's what your vote says. Voting implies consent. It implies that you still believe in the system and are satisfied with your options. I'm not advocating apathy. I don't want you to stop caring. I want you to stop believing. I want you to withdraw your consent. The best thing you can do for your country - for the men around you, for the future - is to let the system tear itself apart.

- Jack Donovan.