Feminists howl and cry over bawdy Singaporean Armed Forces song, SAF capitulates.

Well, was I expecting any different? Let's pick out some hilarious quotes from the article:

"However what was revolting was the flood of misogynistic and sexist comments against AWARE for interfering in the internal affairs of MINDEF. AWARE is a non-profit organization, a member of civil society who actively engages with the government. Since the 1980s, AWARE has published books, reports and held discussions with statutory bodies to elevate and strive for gender equality. In 2003 the restriction on female intakes in NUS’s medical faculty was lifted after AWARE made the efforts for it. Either the public is oblivious of AWARE’s long-term efforts to empower women or sexism is still deeply embedded in Singapore’s culture."

*Typical destruction of masculine space by women who have no skin in the game.
*Non-profit organisations (that mysteriously have well-paid members, boards, and suck up tons of government money in grants) are not automatically good. If anything, they are actively detrimental, being instrumental arms of the Cathedral.
*Assumption that sex equality is good. (Do not use gender. Do not use the left's terminology and accept their frame.)
*The training of women doctors is an active malinvestment, considering the repeated global studies oft cited in the manosphere regarding hours worked, time taken off, specialisations, and individuals who leave the workforce for any period of time between the sexes in the field - a greater return to society is given when men are trained as doctors compared to women. Strictly speaking, the restriction of places for women was a logical and rational move. But as has been repeatedly shown, economics and reality be damned, ideology trumps all. Equality!

"This Purple Light saga has revealed much of our society’s mindset and deep-seated hatred for AWARE."

And rightly so. You are anti-civilisational and should be reviled, as Queen Elizabeth I did to the feminists of her time. Feminism has been recorded as one of the many reasons why great civilisations such as Greece, Sparta, and Rome have fallen - but of course, progressives see history as one great line towards greater progress and glory, unable to observe the cycle of history as outlined in all those silly bronze age texts put forth by goat herders.

"The response clearly shows that advocacy groups like AWARE have a long way to go in combating stereotypes and prevailing attitudes that undermine the efforts of women."

"We have a stereotype that people who use stereotypes are stupid." - Bryce Laliberte.

"What should be exhaustive is society’s silence on crude misogyny and relentless chauvinism. Yes Singapore is not an institutional patriarchy. However the patriarchal mindset is still detrimental to both men and women. It has negative effects on society and makes no sense to future growth. Sexism and misogyny has no room in the modern century. Until we do not raise our voices and work towards correcting these myopic attitudes, social justice and equality will never be achieved."

*Unable to state "negative effects", nor how it is supposedly detrimental to men and women, when the exact opposite is becoming more evident by the day as society becomes more and more dysfunctional. How's that 25% of all US women on antidepressants working out for you?
*Unable to define "growth", nor how patriarchy makes no sense to it. 
*"Wrong side of history" argument, contention that the past has nothing to teach us.
 *Assumption that "social justice" and "equality" are good things. Why? They just are.

"This is a textbook example of feminine discourse. Note how she doesn’t actually bring up any specific proposition of mine and then argue against it, she just calls me sexist, claims offense, and leaves with a non sequitor." - Bryce Laliberte.

 Essentially, the entire article can be boiled down to two points:

*Singapore is sexiss.
*Bawdy versions of army songs are sexiss and normalise rape.

I also finds it amusing that she openly admits AWARE has been caught lying about their achievements (claiming "Purple Light" was banned) and yet trumpets their "achievements" as proof that they do good. One would be more inclined to inspect those claims, no?

For any of you Singaporean guys out there, I'm sure you all know "Purple Light" - anyone who has been through the SAF's grindmill should. Am I surprised the SAF was all over themselves to grovel and whine and say they are not sexiss? Well, what am I supposed to expect to an army made up of merchants, in a nation made up of merchant?

"As Sunshine Mary observed, leftists are oppressed by reality itself, so do not acknowledge being on top and privileged.

Thus racism and sexism, strangely, never go away, no matter how much privilege women and black receive, which justifies ever more drastic measures against their oppressors." - Jim.

It would all work, really, it would all work, if it weren't for those evil racists/sexists/homophobists/capitalists/saboteurs/kulaks/monarchists just ruining all our wonderful utopian dreams!

Nothing new under the sun.

Great article from Alternative Right: go read it here.

According to Tradition, the various epochs of human history are reduced down to Four Ages, each of which deteriorates in a state of gradual degeneration. In Hinduism, these are known as the Four Yugas, respectively titled the Satya or Krta Yuga, Tretā Yuga, Dvāpara Yuga, and the Kali Yuga. These also correspond to the four eras symbolized by metals found in Hesiod’s Works & Days, being the Gold, Silver, Bronze and Iron Ages.[3] Similar versions of this myth are also found in the Persian, Chaldean, Egyptian, Aztec, and Norse Traditions.

[...] 

Many of the predictions held for the Kali Yuga arise from the Hindu scriptures known as the Purānas – in particular the Linga and Bhāgavata Purānas provide lengthy descriptions of the events that will unfold as the Kali Yuga accelerates. An entire section of the Bhāgavata Purāna is devoted to the evils of the Kali Age. Some of the defining points of the Kali Yuga are described as follows: 

"In the Kali Yuga, wealth alone will be the deciding factor of nobility of birth, righteous behavior or merits. And only brute force will be the only standard in the arrangement or decision of what is righteous or just.[27] […] When (in the Kali Age) religion will be predominantly heretical, and kings will be as good as robbers and men will be earning their livelihood by theft, (economic offences), mendacity, wanton violence to life and such other pursuits.[28] […] Thieves function as kings and kings function as thieves. The chaste ladies cease to exist and wanton sluts increase in number.[29] […] As a result of Kali’s influence, mortal beings become dull-witted, unlucky, voracious, destitute of wealth yet voluptuous, and women, wanton, and unchaste.[30] […] In the Kali Age, men will abandon their parents, brothers, friends and relatives and establish their friendliness on sexual basis. Their affection being centered on their relation with women, they will seek consultations from their wives’ relatives (such as sisters and brother-in-laws) and will be miserable.[31] […] Killing of fetus and murder of heroes become prevalent.[32] […] In Kali Age men excited by tamoguna adopt Māyā (deception) and jealousy. They do not hesitate to kill ascetics. They are always tormented by jealousy.[33] […] In Kali cooked food will be kept for sale in living places. The selling of Vedas and other sacred literature will occur in cross streets; young women will even sell their honour.[34] […] Women will be short-statured but voracious, noted for fecundity and shameless. They will be harsh-speakers, given to theft, fraud and dare-devilry."[35] 

From these extracts it is clear that a significant amount of the negativity embodied in the Kali Yuga originates from humanity itself, under the influence of the tamas guna (materialistic component of existence). In the Kali Yuga we see an increasing trend towards indulgence on the material plane, such as the abandonment of religion, obsession with sex, and jealousy over the wealth and acquisitions of others. People are respected by their wealth alone, and not for deeper personal qualities such as strength of character or personal achievements. Under the reign of the dark material strand of existence, only materialistic pleasures such as sex and wealth are accorded merit by society in the Kali Yuga. This materialism is also expressed in the passage regarding the abandonment of aged parents and the killing of fetuses – this can clearly be seen in today’s increasing trend towards placing ones parents in Rest Homes or Retirement Villages, left to die amongst strangers rather than accepting responsibility for the elderly. The killing of fetuses can likewise be seen to relate to today’s increased abortion rates. Other symptoms include the moral degeneration of the female to a purely sexual role and a corresponding increase in the growth and social acceptance of prostitution. Perhaps the most unusual prediction here though, is the one that cooked food will be kept for sale in living spaces – a clear reference to fast food, and the mass consumption of it by the populace at large. A similar picture of civilization slowly decaying from within can be found in the Vishnu Purāna. The Vishnu Purāna (IV, 24) also tells us that the syndrome of the Kali Yuga is marked by the fact that it is the only age in which property alone confers social rank; wealth becomes the only motive of the virtues, passion and lust the only bonds between the married, falsehood and deception the first condition of success in life, sexuality the sole means of enjoyment, while external, merely ritualistic religion is confused with spirituality.[36] The problems brought by the Kali Yuga are not entirely brought about by moral collapse however – there are also a set of predictions relating to environmental problems.

And what do I think of...

"Sustainable immigration?"

Didact has asked me for my thoughts on the matter, and all I can say is that I have to agree with his commentary.

The immigrants? They are not merchants. Even if they were, there's no pressure on them to conform to Singaporean ways, not when the whole gist of the Speak Good English movement is so that "foreigners will understand us when they come to Singapore". It really shows the officially promulgated mindset regarding foreigners, doesn't it?

The immigrants are not Singaporean and will never be Singaporean, all pretensions of tabula rasa aside. They watch out for their own, look to their own, gather in their own communities (even filipino maids get together), and discriminate for each other when it comes to jobs. I have no beef with this, this is exactly what ethno-nationalism should do - in one's home country. Not as immigrants. For all that they are third-world folks, they understand as much compared to the residents of our global, cosmopolitan city.

There is no Federation of Malaya threatening to kick them out if they don't accept the rules laid down, there is no pressure to assimilate, and charges of "raciss!" tend to stick as much to the average Singaporean as they do to your average rabbit-warren SWPL. For some reason, the Singaporean government is quite reluctant to do to immigrants what it did to its own people back in the day.

Wonder why.

At 1.2 children per woman, immigration cannot be sustainable in any sense of the word. Let the number in that you need to so much as keep your population, and you dilute your native base. Let in the number required that you don't dilute your base, even with aggressive pressure and shaming to integrate, and it won't be enough.

And this conundrum is a good thing. I've already made my thoughts on Singaporean culture quite clear.

A nation of merchants.

Recently, Vox Day ran a piece on Singapore, which I linked in my previous post.
 This is not about that, but rather, a comment that was posted in reply to that piece:

My former company had a policy of sponsoring people from Singapore to work for us for 18 months at our plant in the Bay Area. Subsidized by their government, because they wanted to attract biotech. They were some of the best workers.

What was mind boggling to me was: the women had Masters degrees in science. Yet they were very, very good administrators and dotters of I's and crossers of T's, but no interest in science itself or discovery of new things, testing new ideas. Here they were working at the pioneer of biotech, access to the cutting edge of science....and.....just wanted to make good money.

The other wacky thing was the married women, coming to America for 18 months. Without their husbands. With zero (and I mean absolutely zero) visits by either spouse during the entire 18 months. All of them. No interest in having children, and all they could talk about was networking and getting their next better (read higher paying) job.

I don't understand the absolutely mercenary mindset displayed by some cultures, to the exclusion of all other joys in life.

And from good old Didact:

Singaporeans will tolerate a great deal from their government- they made a pact with their government that as long as the State provided economic prosperity and a basic level of comfort to everyone, they would trust the People's Action Party with basically absolute power.

Why did the Singaporean people so willingly give up their dialects, trash their traditions, leave their kampongs, and do everything they were told and give up everything they asked, so long as they could have jobs and a subsidised HDB flat?

It's not as if they were happier in the HDB flats, not with my paternal grandmother and the rest of the older generation complaining about how things were and how happy they were growing tapioca and raising chickens.

And then the sullen realisation hits: we are a nation of merchants. Founded by merchants, for merchants, for the purpose of mercantilism. The Chinese? Merchants. Indians? Merchants. Europeans? Merchants? Maybe not literally so, but all the immigrants to Singapore were possessed of the merchant spirit, which the whole "abandon your roots to sink your fortune" shtick. Unlanded people willing to abandon everything in the world for the promise of work and money.

Given that psychological traits are at least partially heritable, why am I not surprised?

I remember my history teacher telling me about the '60s, about the push for independence and how a lot of Malayan-born Chinese and their parents rapidly embraced Malayan nationalism, undergoing drives to learn Malay language and culture...at the same time when the Federated States of Malaya were shifting their feet as to what to do with all these Chinese and whether to just leave them stateless, kick them out or grant them citizenship with conditions.

If that's not a merchant ethos, what is? The eternal chimaera. How could I have expected any more from the Singaporean people at large, the descendants of merchants and money-changers? So this is what you get when you have a nation of merchants?

The questions remain. Am I a freak in a nation of merchants, or am I just another merchant that has identified the non-merchants as the winning side and is merely seeking to mimic them for my own comfort and profit in the long term? How can I test myself?

I'm thinking that there might just have been something to the ancient Chinese ranking the merchants on the bottom of the class system.

Defectives Deserve Death.

That one's quite the heavy-handed statement, isn't it? Heh. Does it mean I'm going to go out and slaughter folks? Nah, all I need to do is sit back, relax, and watch as the defectives willingly rush to hurl themselves off the cliff. Defectives deserve death, and to make things all the easier, they're all too eager to commit suicide.

What sparked this? Well, a piece The Real Singapore happily cribbed from the Huffington Post, claiming that amongst the things that produced happiness:

-Giving parents free shit so they can abandon their children to the state and return to their cubicles sooner.
-Giving people free shit so they can stuff their bodies with whatever they want.
-Giving women free shit so they can do whatever they like without repercussions.

Well, yes, if you simply redefine the word "happiness" to mean the exact same things you're meant to be a proponent for, then of course people are going to be happier, by your self-serving definition. However, when you look at some other metrics of modern societies that aren't a circular argument in that "people are happier when the state raises their children because we define happiness to be how happily they return to slaving away"...

Naturally, this appears to have been enthusiastically embraced by many of the replies. Who doesn't like free shit? Coming from a nation which puts forward that the ultimate pinnacle of human existence is the acquisition of cash, credit cards, cars, career, and condos, the next obvious step is demanding that all these things be given to them simply for existing. Hedonism is the new liberty, and training people to live at crotch level makes them easily herded.

"I've got a right! A right!"

No, no rights. No more rights. Charted freedoms. Noblesse oblige. Allegiances. No. More. Rights. Frame anything as a 'right', and no matter how deleterious, stupid and flat-out evil one can prove it to be, it can never be repealed because it's a 'right'.

The simple answer is that the Lockean concept of “natural rights” is profoundly flawed, and actually restricts human freedoms rather than enabling them. Nothing could be more unnatural. Rather than true freedom, what we have is “many individual, domesticated, and mechanized freedoms, in a state of reciprocal limitation.” The Lockean concept of natural rights is thoroughly and simply deconstructed in chapter three of Julius Evola’s Men Among the Ruins.

Take a look at this:

Her entire argument boils down to "I don't like it, muh rights and freedumbs, fuck the society that allows my privileges to exist." That's the ultimate in high time-preference. So much for the supposed vaunted ability of North-East Asian peoples to play the long game that spans generations, eh?

To quote Vox, who has more to say on the matter:

What appears to be difficult for solipsistic women and their intellectual white knights to understand is that the equal education and opportunity they so value necessarily means a lower standard of living for them and everyone else. That's not because Mr. Lee is sexiss or because I am misogyniss, the observation is no more credibly debatable than the idea that if you drop a ball, gravity will cause it to hit the floor.

Okay, got it, sister. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, not going to stop an enemy in the middle of making a mistake. You go, girl. Your educated ovaries will be left alone as per your wish, but not for the reasons you think or want. Even if you repent, good luck finding a sperm bank, or some gamma male stupid or desperate enough to impregnate you - all the while raking in money for fertility treatment because some bint actress on the televitz could, so can you. We don't need defectives in the gene pool, and the more of you that take yourselves out, the better.

Singaporean society needs to die, and is already well on the path to doing so; I don't need to do so much as lift a finger while it commits suicide, but if anything, I should actually make it easier for these defectives to die out. I will celebrate the day this modernist, vulgar mockery of a culture is subsumed by the PRCs, Thais, Pinoys, and all the foreigners who don't share our culture. What a shock, isn't it? Singapore's population is already only slightly more than half native-born, it shouldn't take more than a couple of generations for it to go the way of the dodo. Hell, it may come all the sooner - I will laugh at "muh education" and "muh rights" when the US dollar collapses and both finance and trade come to a screeching halt.

But what other end could it have been? For all the supposedly reactionary platitudes, Singaporean history is essentially whig history, the entire social narrative based off eternal glory and progress. The approach to the leftist singularity was set from the very moment the national narrative decided that anything pre-independence was simply Singapore just being "a sleepy fishing village" with nothing to learn from or to be thought about, a past to be fled from as quickly as possible.

It seems odd that a reactionary should be calling for the destruction of a culture, but there are no more traditions to be had here, having being systematically destroyed and discarded in one generation. Antiprometheanism, friend. As it is, Singaporean culture is defective. It needs to die.

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.

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.

Foreigner comes to Singapore to work, demands locals change culture to suit her.

Somehow, this sounds familiar...

I am from the Phillippines and I first came to Singapore 2 years to work as a bank manager. I would love to know the Singaporean culture better but while people pay respect to the dead during the Hungry Ghost Festival, they should not leave incense papers scattered all over the place

[...]

I hope I do not offend the Chinese or Buddhist community in Singapore but can't they not burn so many incense paper as I am sure many will know this kind of superstition is no longer valid in the current modern world.

I am planning to bring my kids over in the next few years and I hope that they will not have to suffer from any respiratory problem in the "7th Month" every year.

I have already email to the relevant authorities and hopefully the government will listen to my advice and ban burning of papers in the public.

Foreigners coming to a country and demanding legislation be changed to suit their wants and preferences. Now, where have I heard of that before?

Oh, right.

"I love the culture here...but want to ban it anyway." You don't "fundamentally change" something you love.

If you don't want to take it as a religious issue, then it's a damn cultural issue. Really, banning burnt offerings altogether, a custom that's persisted for more than a millennium, because you don't like it.

We are nice people. We use incense bins, or burn the stuff on the grass, and do it away from storm drains, potential fire hazards, and roadsides (or at least, less than before). It used to be that people didn't even bother using cages when burning paper cars and mansions.

People don't clear up the ash piles or hell money because it's supposed to belong to the dead now.

Now, could this be a fabrication? Well, of course it could. But the shitstorm of a response provoked shows that even the local lumpenproletariat are beginning to be more than a little incensed (no pun intended), and the local Brahmin class appears to be either ignorant or dismissive of the concerns raised. Interesting.

But what's going on - it's happening at a smaller scale than in the West, but still happening nevertheless.

How heavy-handed should eugenics be?

There's been a small discussion in the reactosphere lately over eugenics, the whys, hows and wherefores. It appears to have started over twitter, but Nick Steves opens with the first formal piece, followed quickly with a reply by two fellows, Amos and Gromar. Most reactionaries do agree that dysgenic social impulses should be curtailed, i.e., stupid people should be discouraged from breeding. The converse, say, tinkering with the human genome to produce ubersmench, is more of a controversy.

I fully admit I'm a midwit and don't have that much to contribute, but a few thoughts from myself to myself as I watch this discussion unfold:

Well, who are the "stupid" people? What is "stupid"?

The generally-agreed upon definition appears to be the following points which define the underclass:

*High time preferences (or low time horizon. Essentially, spend today, don't save).
*Tendencies towards violence.
*Inability to understand cause and effect, or unwillingness to associate the two.
*Inability to hold to promises, guarantees and contracts.
*Insistence for others to bail them out of negative consequences of mistakes, externalising their negatives.
*Inability to learn from mistakes.

More points may be added depending on who you ask, but these simple few points can quite soundly be blamed for the state the modern-day underclass is in.

When people hear eugenics, the immediate thing that comes to mind are well, Nazis. Evil! Bad! Guilty of wrongthink and inflicting feelbad! The moral opposition to extreme measures such as forced breeding and culling of humans aside, where even James A. Donald, the most cynical and blunt blogger in the reactosphere points out that he prefers moral objections aside, he prefers segregation to culling the underclass because of the few individuals who may indeed possess the wherewithal to drag themselves out of the mire.

Solution A is not the solution, as I've written before.

Nick Steves points out the important, well, point: in a traditionally arranged (and presumably Christian) patriarchal society, the underclass men who would be babydaddies today would simply not get to breed. The women who would be babymommas, while they would still reproduce due to the female sex being the reproductive bottleneck, would still not get to exhibit the worst of their high time-preference tendencies. All this without grim state programs, laws on who can reproduce with whom, and sinister biotech labs people commonly associate with organised eugenics. Hell, one doesn't even need contraception for that idea to work. All that's required is a sense of discomfiture at the bottom, and people will be provoked to rise to the top, if only to avoid said discomfiture.

Soft eugenics are by far the most effective, I believe, if only because they work well with a stable societal structure; they are also the most humane to boot. By the point you have to offer people incentives to be sterilised in exchange for welfare, vouchers or what have you, society has already largely gone to the dogs and can't be saved

Addendum: Graaagh has thrown in his two cents:

What the eugenicists saw was the fact that advanced civilizations coddle weak and degenerate people, people who would have been culled in a primitive society. The answer to this is not to give some committee the task of culling them, to bureaucratize barbarism, but to have a society that gives them a place, or to deport them to a society where they have a place. This means firm institutions and norms, not a false Cathedral or Bazaar. Tradition is our best eugenics policy.

"I-it's not my fault!"

 
Well, the job hunt continues. Went for some more interviews, mailed in my CVs, went for a walk-in interview or two. No dice. Seems like the global joblessness plague is hitting this lovely little island as well.

In any case, this little tidbit caught my eye. Our glorious leader LKY denies that Singapore's low birthrate is his fault in his new memoirs:

In his new book 'One Man's View of the World', Lee Kuan Yew shares that he has given up on solving the problem of low fertility and also emphasised that money won't solve the problem.

He suggested that if he were the prime minister, he would introduce a huge baby bonus which was equal to 2 years of the average Singaporean's salary.

He expected that running such a scheme for 1 year would prove beyond doubt that even super-sized monetary incentives have only a marginal effect on fertility rates.

This would prove that "low birth rates have nothing to do with economic or financial factors, such as high cost of living or lack of government help for parents.

Locally, the Stop at Two policy wins the award for the greatest "keblekan pusing" (Malay: about face) that the incumbent government has done. Is he right? Partly, yes - the effects of atomised people, hedonism, political freedom, breakdown of patriarchy and traditional social support networks, etc, etc - these factors are all universal across time and cultures to bring on the downfall and resultant zombie apocalypse of the golden masses in every civilisation in which they manifested themselves. This is, after all, the cycle of history. One can no more expect things to be different today as opposed to the women of Sparta, who refused to partake of the very activity which made them so valuable.

At the same time, it cannot be denied that Lee's government back in the day actively pursued policies that contributed to this situation. Legalising abortion, selling sterilisations and abortions door to door to the point when a single doctor found themselves performing nine sterilisations per day, exponentially increasing fines and hospital fees past the first two children, denial of education to third and fourth children, and that's from the policy alone. Not to mention the targeted (whether intentional or not) breakup of the extended family structure, then once those support ties were severed, refusing government assistance to women with more than two children - a policy which continues to this day with the lower class. (In this last point I can see why dysgenic fertility should be discouraged, but the means should be a 'discomfiture at the bottom rung' that's socially imposed. More on this another time.)

Things would have gone downhill eventually, as Mr. Lee suggests. But people respond to dis/incentives, so that doesn't excuse him from blowing the brakes to hell and claiming "not my fault". Dis/incentives are why some cycles take longer to turn than others - hardship, affluence, decadence, destruction, back to hardship. At this point, the only way to fix this is what history has gone through before - destruction of affluence and artificial governmental constructs leading to the family being net positive to those who don't eat their seed corn, and a return to the patriarchal social structure. It's only a matter of time now.

On a side note, the idea of overpopulation is nothing new - it's been bouncing about since at least the second century AD with Tertullian. Apparently having a track record of being wrong for 1900 years hasn't dampened their enthusiasm any.

What I find curiouser and curiouser is that manosphere ideas are beginning to permeate the local culture as well, although it seems that the authors of these articles haven't quite grasped the full extent of human realities the average game blogger might, let alone a reactionary.

Good =/= nice.

I have previously written a short piece on my idea of The End.

The End, as I noted, will not be comfortable, let alone nice, and that's a massive understatement. Is it good, though?

Author Tom Kratman had this to say in one of his comments on Vox Day's blog:

Christians and children....My church's thing is running a school in Haiti. Having been adjutant of the battalion responsible for running the interment camps for Haitians (this was well before Death Camp GTMO, of course) at Guantanamo, circa 91 and 92, I am not entirely unfamiliar with Haitians and therefore with Haiti. I and not unsympathetic to Haitians, but I will not give a penny to running a school in Haiti. Why? Because the effect of educating a few hundred Haitians is to allow them to escape the hellhole that is Haiti, thus leaving Haiti the poorer in human capital and helping to continue the cycle of social ruin that is Haiti, in every particular.

Now the christian thing to do for a place like Haiti is to sail in and take it over, shoot or hang about a half a million people the country and the world would be better off without, build a nuke plant so they'll stop cutting trees for charcoal, plant trees, start a tourism industry again, and ultimately give a reason for human talent to stay there. Only then will educating the masses there do less harm than good.

Are these measures suggested by Mr. Kratman necessary? After reading the comment, I went and looked up a few facts out Haiti's resources, population, political situation and so forth. And the conclusion was, to put it succinctly, that the patient was a walking corpse and the best thing to do was put the fellow out of his misery. I personally prefer James A. Donald's and Vox Day's prescription of segregation, which is already being carried out covertly by the SWPLs and their lovely gated communities where they don't have to experience all the diversimification they're foisting upon the rest of the populace. Hey, good enough for thee, good enough for me.

The lesson to take away from here is that good things may not always be nice. In fact, good things, in my experience, have more likely than not been anything but nice, but that's certainly one step ahead.

Do I want violence? Well, my more wrathful baser nature would say yes, but that's nothing to do with any reasoning. Oh yes, I would dance upon the ashes of this society and heap is as compost upon the green shoots of what is to come. If there was a way out of this without the need to resort to violence, though - well, why have unnecessary violence? Even abandoning the moral standpoint and looking at it from a utilitarian one, why waste time and resources into violence when it's unnecessary?

But what I want is inconsequential in the end - there is no getting out of this without a crisis, and while I'm not historically well-read enough to determine if all crises require violence to be successfully resolved, the hole we've dug ourselves into this time is definitely deep enough to pretty much necessitate it. That, after all, is what fourth turnings are all about.

Equalist Marriage Advice.

A leftist equalist helpfully posts his marriage relationship advice over at Vox Day's:

A) We each respect the others ambitions
B) The kid got disciplined by us both and raised by both
c) We both cooked, cleaned
D) Made big decisions together
E) We each play the games we want
f) We F*cked a lot.
G) We both work
H) We hold hands when we walk down the street
I) We are partners in everything and have each others back

Now, a commenter named Mudz has this to say to that:

 If they had only known! WHY DIDN'T THEY HOLD HANDS??

I'm sure it must be delightful for you both to return from work to a dark house, then discuss together who's going to cook dinner and do the chores, how you're going to discipline your child, who's big decision you'll fairly support. Sounds like the perfect respite from a long day of work, to repeat over and over again.

I think it's pretty dubious that 9 mostly tangential requisites is better than 6 basic ones for marriage, but you can claim it's what anchored your relationship if you like(because marriage only works if you do just everything together, whatever those things are). But I shall regard the claim with great skepticism.

Gresham's Law - it just gets worse and worse and worse...

From Wikipedia:

Gresham's law is an economic principle that states: "When a government overvalues one type of money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear from circulation into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation."[1] It is commonly stated as: "Bad money drives out good".

Aurini has written a small piece on this little law, which examines how it applies to sex and culture. He concludes:

"The result of the interplay between Cad/Dad and Lady/Slut-Bitch is a mating market that’s slightly more focused on meaningless sex, and slightly less focused on emotional bonding.

That was the first iteration: now repeat ad nauseum."

Just fine, innit? An escalating arms race where good behaviour is rapidly driven out by the bad. Just a couple of hours ago, I wander by Mr. Sturges' and see this post:

He has this to say about these "gags":

"Well isn’t that nice. How many of you guys out there when faced with a fake pregnancy test that results in a positive every time would know the difference from a real one? Definitely not me, it’s something that I never concerned myself with. Can you see the consequences of this? Some poor sclub has sex with some predatory bitch hitting the wall hard and then is confronted with one of these fake tests. Well the poor bastard just thinks he hit the jackpot, finally he thinks to himself, “I’m going to have a kid!” Not so fast bucko, what’s going to happen next is she’s going to want to get married and then when he does, all of the sudden there’s a miscarriage the response of which she’s going to fake all of the appropriate emotions that someone who’s lost an unborn child is supposed to go through. After a couple of months of grieving here come the divorce papers, she’ll tell the judge that the “trauma” of losing the unborn child was too much and there goes half his property. Notice that the person that is on the losing end of this “prank” is called the “victim“. Given the implications of what could happen with something like this it makes perfect sense.

[...]

"Well, isn’t this nice too? If it is convincing enough to fool the requisite gullible guy can you see this getting out of hand? Given that 90% of the guys out there are gullible as hell, look for sites like this to proliferate. All because these bitches know that with very little evidence they can extract the hard earned resources from men with very little evidence and by preying on the gullibility of men who just want families.

Good grief, I’m glad I got snipped 15 years ago. But I’m going to make a prediction here that you might not believe, but given what I’ve seen over the past decade, is quickly going to come to pass.

This bullshit site is just the beginning. As more women hit the wall and more women become single mothers without support, look for sites catered to these whores where if you’re a man and leave behind so much as a spent cigarette butt, a hair or your saliva on a drink glass that she can get possession of, there will be services and websites that will make sure that the bitch’s bastard spawn matches your DNA whether you even met her or not. Given the family court system these days you are going to be screwed even if you didn’t lay the cunt. And, with ubiquitous DNA testing that surrounds us these days and the faith the general public puts into the results of any test like this, look for these types of tests to be abused. Especially if resources can be extracted from a productive male."

Oh, but the men aren't going to lose out. Gone are the days of poked holes in condoms - as Mister Grumpus comments:

"On the other side of things, there are plenty of sites selling fake (but of course real-looking) sets of birth control pills, replete with fake prescription documents, etc.

Which of course reminds me of that one outfit that sells fake ATM balance receipts. The more money you want it to show that you have, the more you pay.

Try to cheat and end up surrounded by cheaters, I guess."

Commenter Earl has some other ideas:

I have a great idea.
Act like you are poor and insane.
Tell her your job is part time greeter at the Sizzler.
And that you see snakes all the time…there is even one on her face.
Demonstrate low value to every slut you encounter.
If they are going to go the route of lying to get what they want…so will I.

Wonder what the next iteration will be?

Bad money drives out the good. Bad sex drives out the good. Bad behaviour drives out the good.

I think I can say we're in a free-fall spiral right now, and from within the safety of my reinforced box, I can say I'm loving every single moment of it as a young curmudgeon.

Why I don't really care about local politics compared to what's going on overseas.

As a general rule, I do not care to follow local politics and issues. When it comes to considering whether I should follow complaints about dirty toilets, demands for more free shit and people complaining that free public transport in the morning still isn't enough - or whether I should follow a collapsing global economy, decay of the world from East to West and impending global calamity -

- I have the suspicion that a goodly number of Singaporeans are like my father, who somehow believe that if global finance and trade were to stop tomorrow, we would still be fine. Why? Because everything is so far away and out of sight. True, heaven is high and the Emperor far away, as the saying goes. But these days, the sky looks pretty damn close, and the Emperor's arm has grown ever-longer. Hey, the government kept us relatively safe and sheltered during the 1997 Asian currency crisis, didn't it? I'm sure it'll save us in the case of a dollar/financial collapse and trade coming to a total standstill, won't it?

While American cities file for bankruptcy, Europeans hang themselves at increasing rates out of sheer desperation and both China and Japan melt down financially, Singaporeans are enraged over how dirty the toilets at their favourite food courts are and demanding the government do something about it.

I'd make a joke about first world problems, but the problems I'm concerned about are happening in the first world.

Didact correctly points out that oddly enough, in a lot of ways, Singapore is considerably freer than the US. Recently, it seems that Old Barry has reasserted the right in his wonderful NDAA for indefinite detention without trial, and while Singapore has possessed that power (along with Malaysia) since the 1950s, it has been at least somewhat even-handed in exercising it, and we still don't do extra-judicial killings via drone.

Censorship of the media? Well, I'm no going to deny that there is certainly some governmental interference in what is said and not said in the Singaporean mass media. But compared to the massive self-censorship of the Western "free" media thanks to the Cathedral, one can only wonder if it's all as cracked up as it's supposed to be.

So for those who say one should keep one's house in order before going around criticising others': well, Singapore is already largely in order. Despite increasing decay of its own, what I'm looking out for is not so much the mildew (although it's fun to complain about), but the wrecking ball the neighbours are driving into our yard.

Public education system designed to churn out worker drones fails to foster entrepreneurship. What a big surprise.

Youths are holding back Singapore's startup scene. Who knew?

Over the past three months, I have been matching youths to startups as the founder and director of the HUB Internship Program (an initiative under The HUB Singapore). Now that the university summer vacations are ending, I finally have the chance to reflect.

And it hit me: Singaporean youths are not accelerating nor strengthening our startup ecosystem. Instead, they are inhibiting our growth.

Our youths do not have market-relevant skills and experiences to do their job.

Given that it's more or less explicitly stated that the Singaporean education system was designed to provide worker drones for the multinational corporations which were invited to set up shop here, why is that any of a surprise? It's basically a rip-off of the Prussian model, with a few extra kinks thrown in here and there to promote subservience.

Something made to produce cogs is not going to be producing control systems in a big hurry.

The Prussian model of schooling preys upon the mania for learning that's embedded in the North-East Asian psyche, I'd argue. If you look at the culture which surrounded education in Ancient China - masters of thought and learning who had deep, personal relationships with their disciples, stories of lone scholars living on a pittance who later went on to ace the Imperial Examinations and become high officials and marry daughters of the Emperor.

You have an entire sub-culture springing up about the task of education, exclusive to those who are worthy. In that sense, the Chinese culture surrounding education had a spiritual aspect to it.  You have social strictures that govern how scholars and seekers of learning are expected to behave, what they're supposed to eschew, and what can be expected of them in exchange for their unique station in society.

This is complete anathema to the Prussian model, for it is not merely dead, but never had a soul to begin with. The problem is not so much rote learning, which is required at the beginning of all sorts of education, but whether the rote learning gives way to something else eventually. Where a teacher is not attached to a student for a lifetime, but merely a year or so, to huge classes that come and go. Where the ultimate goal is not to produce people to think, but to work and be subservient. Where the spirit in a school is divorced from the spirit of a society.

Yet North-East Asians do not see the differences. We see "education", and that triggers the Pavlovian response built from centuries of cultural conditioning without wondering if this "education" is the same as that "education".

The Analects explicitly state that those who are truly devoted to learning would be willing to relinquish material wealth to do so, yet the primary goal of education today is...the acquisition of wealth. Get a good job, earn lots of money to...well, who knows what? Sure it didn't always turn out that way, but the ostensible reason behind rewarding successful scholars with positions and power was so they could use their merits to govern effectively, was it not?

Education with an end, education without an end, or education as an end in itself?

A handful of them even had no idea what business development was, and chose it because it sounded the most lucrative amongst other categories of internships such as design or tech. And these were no average-grade-students. They were top scorers in their JCs or Polytechnics and had GPAs of 4.0+ (on a scale of 5.0).

[...]

Arguably, startup internships are accurate litmus tests for youths thinking of stepping out into the working world. Put to the test are skills like the ability to absorb knowledge, think creatively and maturely, and communicate with partners, clients and team members effectively (rather than formatting Powerpoint presentations — the new ‘coffee-making’ in today’s evolved internship scene).

During our interviews, I was taken aback at how youths thought internships were only necessary to fill up space on their CV. They prefer to focus on their academic-related but non-essential activities, and were keen to intern for 1-2 months at best.

Public schools in both the East and West are failing - for different reasons and to different ends, but the end condition is hardly desirable for anyone but those who find cogs and gears useful for their grand machines.

The End.

I will admit, I have gained a faith-based belief, if only to help assuage the damp pallor of moroseness which seems to hang about me like a cloud these days.

I call it "the end".

Now, while there are plenty of signs pointing to the distinct possibility that we are heading towards "the end", no one can tell with surety what "the end" will look like exactly, nor when it will come. That's all right, I acknowledge that my version of "the end" is merely a pleasant fantasy to keep me going and improving myself in preparation for when the real end comes. I hold no illusions that said preparations will actually carry me through whatever befalls the world in the future, but I will be as prepared as it is possible for "the end", materially, physically, and mentally.

My fantasies of "the end" are varied in nature, but generally can be summed up as such: "It's like watching a packed clown car get crushed by a train in slow motion while a blood-stained rubber shoe flies in the air and there are sad honking noises all over."

"The end" will not be pretty, but it will be hilarious in a twisted sort of way.

For those with a linear view of time, "the end" is horrifying to even consider, for what comes after that? Nay, the Machine must progress, the Machine must progress, the Machine must progress.

For those with a cyclical view of time, "the end" is merely "the beginning".

Fights break out locally over Hello Kitty toys.

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

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.