The Natural Slave.

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.

Don’t judge, just live!

And always be true to yourself.

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.

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.

-Jim

The 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.

Freedumb.

"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.

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.

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.

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!"

*Crab noises*

"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."

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?

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.

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.

*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 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.

The Singaporean Government's fixation on immigration.

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?

*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.

Didact again:

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.

Being a pawn of reaction.

There's a short piece by The Legionnaire on visualising the struggle between Reaction and Progressivism as a chess game.

The pawns in our side would be your average individual who reads reactionary blogs and sometimes even comments, but lacks a blog or other platform from which to espouse such ideas.  These foot-soldiers will become increasingly important in the long-term (very long-term?), but for the next few years growth in the number of pawns will only serve as a measure of how easy it is to notice the societal dysfunction.

A pawn is a piece. A small piece, perhaps, but still a piece. Cogs, nuts and bolts are what enable a machine to enact its will upon the world. There is no shame in admitting you are a pawn - at the very least, you have a purpose to serve, at the most, it is a starting point to greatness. The nature of hierarchy demands that the vast majority of reactionaries be pawns - like the socio-sexual hierarchy, everyone is measured on a sliding scale, and there is only room for so many movers and shakers. If everyone is alpha, then no one is.

You may be a pawn. While others may pontificate at length and hold discussions on their blogs, refine the ideas of neoreaction, your role is to be the boots on the ground and bring others into the fold. 

1. A pawn is on the front lines.

As a foot soldier of the reactionary side, a pawn will often be the first encounter many people will have to neoreaction, whether in meatspace or out. The reason for this is simple: there are more pawns than any other piece, and they are to be found on the front lines and boundaries where they can interact with or be stumbled upon by pre-reactionary individuals in their daily lives. Maybe you're the slightly funny but likable guy at church who draws attention to certain Bible verses and argues over how they're interpreted, or the guy who helps out at the local pre-reactionary ground and hands out links to reactionary blogs and websites, or the young mother who truly keeps house and invites her peers over to get a glimpse of what they're missing.

You may not have an openly reactionary group like the Golden Dawn in your area to provide boots on the ground in an organised fashion, but the boots of a lone wanderer and hopefully, agent provocateur in your own small way are no less valuable. Legionnaire suggests infiltration, putting on a leftist mask and sowing doubt within the mindless zombie ranks. Anarcho-Papist prefers a more confrontational style true to himself. Bulbasaur prefers anti-prometheism: hastening the leftist singularity and revealing its inanities:

Such reservations assume that Liberalism’s existence is a rational development of human history, and not a bizarre aberration given power through its profound inconsistencies… Inconsistencies that express themselves in our day-to-day world as pious secularism. Inconsistencies like individualism and equality. Like “Judeo-Christian nation.” Like Humanism and/or Abortion. Like marriage for degenerates. Et cetera, ad nauseum. In this left-wing reality the real and the ridiculous overlap to a frightening degree.

[...]

Troll leftists with their own rhetoric (online and IRL). Support AGW regulations because the end result would be putting the peasants onto the farms where they belong. Support silly scientific arguments not because it is true, but because it keeps the prole in line and the children happy (because it is religious in application). Support more progressive economic measures because it keeps inferior brown people alive and happy. Support abortion because it is eugenic. Support feminism because it gives over-educated and hysterical single women a pleasant diversion. Support anti-racism because it is the White Man’s Burden to do so.

This will help to bring the Left as far into dildosingularity as possible. All the while, continuing to teach the Vaisyas our ways and stoking their hatred of Brahmins.

Whatever role you choose to take on the front lines of this conflict, remember that to those whom you are attempting to sway, you are literally the whole of neoreaction. Working on improving yourself and gaining some skills to hold your ground are necessary; while a pawn may not fly across the board, it nevertheless moves forward. You may be a midwit, but you aren't stupid (otherwise you'd be at home watching Insert country here Idol). Get rid of any conflict avoidance tendencies as best as you can (hard, I know from personal experience), because you will encounter conflict in some form, no matter what you do. You're going up against the system and in many cases, people whom literally are brain-damaged (underdeveloped amygdalas, by extent of r/K selection theory) and see you as evil. While Anarcho-Papist and Aurini suggest some techniques for getting people over to your side through minimising conflict, you will eventually run into a True Believer.

If words aren't enough, lead by example. The (wo)manosphere is a good springboard for this; it's much harder to dismiss a well-groomed, physically fit, confident-looking guy or a pretty, slender and well-groomed girl with a smile on her face than it is to dismiss Mr. Scruffy or Little Miss Pajama Pants.

Find a strategy you're comfortable with. Sow dissent. Have an out ready. The articles I linked have suggestions for those, and more. Break bread with those in your social circles and say mildly uncomfortable, politically incorrect things that make them think.

2. A pawn is backed up by the other pieces.

So you're a midwit with an IQ in the range of 100-120. That's all right - one of the tenets of neoreaction is hierarchy. Everyone has their place in the order, and that is a good thing. Maybe you don't have any stunning insights of your own to contribute, but your job on the front lines is to spread them. Those of the high and low theories have already done the intellectual heavy lifting for you and supplied the statistics and data. They've given you a general strategy to follow and the ammunition required to put it into action; the least you can do is accept it.

If you can move two squares on your first turn, unless there's a particularly compelling reason not to do so...why not? Accept help and support, there's no shame in it.

That's not to say you don't think - like I've mentioned before, an important part of being a good follower is picking a decent leader and provide feedback to make sure the leader stays on track and doesn't go loopy. Neither do you blindly regurgitate arguments without understanding them first, because you'll inevitably run into something you don't have a pre-programmed response ready for. So while you may not have the intellectual wherewithal to create, at least read, understand and internalise so you can do some quick improv when need be.

Remember that internet arguments, where you have access to all your statistics and arguments at your fingertips, are wildly different to real-life arguments, where you don't and have to deal with face-to-face issues such as hysterical shrieking and intimidation. No, a hipster threatening to punch you may not be very threatening and may even be amusing, but you will be the one in legal trouble if something does break out, and everyone will remember you as the evil right-wing thug regardless of circumstances.

So know your stuff, and know it well. The other pieces will support you while you cross the board...

3. A pawn is is expendable. 

...And in turn, you'll be expected to support the other pieces in turn. A pawn is expendable, such is the truth of the situation. If a piece must be taken, better to lose a pawn than a knight or rook; it would be better to lose nothing, of course, but if it is unavoidable...better an individual no-name member be shamed than a leader or the whole organisation.

Better to let others think there's a problem with you, rather than reaction as a whole. The average lumpenproletariat is already inclined to the latter, no need to make things worse. If you do have to concede an argument, do your best to sway the perception that it's your own failing, rather than that of the sources. Again, not everyone may be comfortable with this, so pick the amount of self-sacrificing behaviour you're comfortable with and go for it.

4. A pawn is promotable. 

And finally, this. If you believe you have some great insight, or have discovered some breaking study, or have a brand new counterargument to some talking point, then by all means put it up and spread the word. Promote yourself, if you will; your fellow reactionaries will hear what you have to say and judge your message on its merits. A pawn today does not have to stay a pawn forever, if it does cross the board.

You can start a blog espousing these ideas, or if you're feeling more adventurous, start a small group or regular meetups like some more daring individuals have done. Of course, starting an explicitly reactionary group or meetup may be quite hard (I only know of one at the moment), but groups that have other purposes which nevertheless advance the reactionary cause (such as Joseph of Jackson's little group of men who use game precepts to help take back progressive churches) is a distinct possibility.

This is not so easy for the other pieces. They already have their own established platforms, contacts, and audiences. To go from being a bishop to a rook means that one needs to get used to moving straight, as opposed to diagonals; to move from say, blogging about HBD to theistic reaction carries with it risk, as well as alienating a portion of the audience. However, the pawn who has nothing can easily build something.

A pawn, while comparatively weak, is not powerless. Like all others, still has the ability to take other pieces, block movement, and defend other pieces. One just has to be more circumspect about it.

Chocolate mooncakes.

The mid-autumn festival looms again. The local bakeries are churning out mooncakes once more. Pastries stuffed with lotus paste and an egg yolk, immensely high in calories and cloying to the point where the recommended way to eat one is often in extremely thin slices.

More than one of them are offering modern "re-imaginings" of the traditional mooncake. Chocolate mooncakes. Pandan mooncakes. Fruit mooncakes.

Damn you, SWPL crowd. If it's not lotus paste, it's not a mooncake.

Gone are the paper-and-candle lanterns of my childhood, inner skeletons of bamboo first, then wire as I grew a little older. What few lanterns are toted around by children are made of plastic, moulded in a factory, and battery-operated.

Preferably with sound effects, too.

I can't think of any Singaporean public holiday (most of which are based on religious holidays) that hasn't been bastardised in some way. Good going.

It's been noted by a few others who've written about the peculiar case of Singapore that the governmental thede is not the same as the majority thede, and I personally believe that this is part of what has broken down down the natural segregation of races on the island to some extent (there are others, like forced desegregation and the destruction of ethnic enclaves, that I won't go into now). The governmental class has been what's been keeping Singaporeans together for the last four to five decades.

But what is the essence of the Singaporean government's thede? What has it to offer those within its fold? Nothing but GDP and riches and cars and cosmopolitanism and modernity and all the other attendant problems that go along with it. Love with strings attached to it is always in peril, which is probably why so many men find the idea that a woman's love is largely conditional to be upsetting.

The thede of the Singaporean government will inevitably fail; as well-managed (for a definition of well-managed) as it is, it simply cannot make good on the promise of infinite growth, and the discontent is showing of late. As the global economy continues to be Berkanified, so do Singaporeans lose their love for their government. The soma tap is running dry, and drug resistance is building at an alarming speed, as proven by the last national budget.

Like any other country afflicted by modernity, people torn from their roots may be kept alive in a vase of water for a short while, but wither and die anyway.

Christmas becomes about presents and meals. The mid-autumn festival becomes about the mooncakes and lanterns, so why not Bernakify them as well? Improvementate them, as Tex Arcane would put it. Enrichify them. Why stop at sweet things? The locals like curry, don't they? Why not a fish head curry mooncake?

Hollowed-out symbols of another era. Once the meaning is lost, the symbol eventually mutates into a symbol of this era. Burnt offerings of cars, cell phones and credit cards to our ancestors.

Why not an Angry Birds mooncake? Can't be any worse than rockstar Jesus. Who cares about what the holiday means, anyway - it's just another day off work.