Crappy people leads to crappy culture.
Crappy culture leads to crappy civillisation.
It’s not a very complicated equation, but awareness of such realities have been dampened significantly by a shift from soceity having a masculine model of value to a feminine one.
In a soceity in which the feminine value model dominates the cultural narrative, people assume that all individuals, groups and behaviours are equal in inherent value regardless of the outcomes they produce, this leads to far greater tolerance of dyscivic behaviours.
In short crappiness is tolerated, because to criticise anything except the acceptable targets (whoever’s at the top) would be considered extremely offensive. Criticism is no longer viewed as an impetus to improve, but rather as an assault on a person’s inherent value.
So crappy people get crappier.
An increase in the prevalence of crappy people has knock-on effects for the rest of soceity. Crappy people can’t be bothered to drive properly and cause more accidents, the end result? More delays on the highways as you try to get to work.
Crappy people can’t be bothered to take care of their health, eat whatever they want and don’t exercise. This leads to a larger burden on healthcare for everyone further down the road.
Crappy people aren’t resource prudent. They spend their money, time and energy on useless and unproductive pursuits, leading to economic and cultural anaemia in the long run.
Crappy people toss stuff around without using the bins, crappy people do the bare minimum at that jobs, crappy people make crappy parents which lead to crappy children so on so forth you get the drift.
What’s more, crappy people are invested in a soceity that allows their crappy behaviour to perpetuate, because to change would be too difficult. This leads to a lock-in effect in which anybody trying to rise above the crappiness would be quickly dragged back.
The epidemic of weak, feminised hetrosexual men in soceity nowadays is a good example. Feminised weak men have vested interests in keeping their dysfunctional caricature of masculinity as an acceptable form of it in soceity, hence they will attack masculine men who are actually out there building things and keeping things running. Such weak feminised men have become dysfunctional and created their own dysfunctional culture.
Dysfunctional people create their own dysfunctional culture which leads to a dysfunctional soceity. This isn’t rocket science. In a soceity that runs the Masculine value model all these dysfunctions would be called out for what they are- dyscivic behaviours that will eventually lead to ruin.
One of the many criticisms of Singapore is that it is a nanny state, one that intrusively controls almost every aspect of Singaporean life. Everything is regulated, with the defacto emperor-god of Singapore, LKY pulling no punches about admitting that:
“I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.”
When I was a Beta white knight liberal this quote used to offend me a lot, it was an example of the evil paternalistic influence of the authoritarian Lee Empire oppressing everyone in Singapore.
But now that I’ve turned to the dark side, I realised that the old man was right. Newly-independent Singapore in 1965, with it’s largely immigrant population had a nascent culture that was largely unregulated with many competing practices, not all of which were conducive for the development of Singapore. The progressive assumes that the paths of all cultures inevitably marches them towards enlightenment and prosperity but a realist would realise that this is narrative myth. Degeneration is just as likely, if not more, than progress.
Unlike larger nations which have larger buffers in their hinterlands and populations, an island republic like Singapore is inherently fragile and running on thin margins. There is no time or space for dysfunction.
Which is why the PAP went full time into the social-engineering gig. I don’t think they got it all right, Stop At Two is a good example of something that they took too far, but the general drive to clamp down on dysfunctional behaviours have by large, produced wealth and prosperity for most.
Which is why liberals hate the Singapore story, because it flies in the face of progressive narratives about progressivism being the best way for everyone to find happiness. Red Pill folks will know however that if anything, progressivism is a sign that a civillisation has started to decline.
The progressive myth is that dysfunctional behaviours can be “helped away” by squandering resources and making everyone feel good about themselves. They refuse to see that this actually just further perpetuates dysfunctional behaviours and pisses away hard-won resources into a black hole with no Return On Investment. But the progressive is an ideologue, and they will insist on carrying things to their illogical conclusion.
Being a Red Pill realist means realising that civillisation is built upon functional behaviours and culture. Wealth, prosperity and security are not entitlements, but rather hard won assets that need to be protected for future generations from dysfunctional squandering.
A masculine man stands for functional behaviour, he has no time for dysfunction. Put on your masculine frame of mind and evaluate matters in accordance to the real tangible value they can provide everyone.
Nobody is a special snowflake, and nobody deserves to be protected from reality just because their feelings will be hurt when they are called out for dysfunction.