Europe

The Myth of Gender Equality

This historical reality of course goes completely against the modern shibboleths of gender equality- men and women are equal in all respects, with women being more equal and superior whenever it is convenient to point out so. Modern progressiveness attempt to rewrite historical male achievements as the result of gendered oppression, that the unequal output of the genders was due to men oppressing women while reaping the benefits for themselves. The progressive claims that a new era is upon us, the matriarchy is around the corner.
But if you are a Red Pill social insurgent you know better of course. The achievements of modern civillisation are a birthright that came about from the results of the sacrifices of millions of men that went before them, a legacy that the modern progressive narrative attempts to erase in lieu for an ideological fantasy that tries to make men guilty for having achieved so much. The genders are not equal and barring extensive social engineering (which progressives are trying to do), this will highly unlikely to ever be the case.
Davidson Maene addresses the myth of gender equality quite comprehensively on quora, here it is reproduced in whole because you never know when the progressives agenda will attempt to censor brilliant answers like this:


If women are equal to men, why have men achieved so much more throughout history?
 

Because men and women are not equal.

The statement is merely another politically correct assumption devoid of evidence made because it feels good, and allows the world to seem prettier and simpler than it is. Men and women are too different for any concept of equality, inferiority or superiority to make any objective sense.

Such is the case with gender differences in intelligence, for example. Did you know that almost all IQ tests are “sex normalized”? Meaning that while constructing an intelligence test researchers toss aside any section on which either gender significantly outperforms the other, assuming a priori that the sexes are equal in intelligence. Essentially, any time observable reality challenges their assumption, they choose to disbelieve reality. Not necessarily due to incompetence or dishonesty, questioning egalitarian creed is dangerous.

Any scholar labelled a heretic is pursued and punished with the zeal typical of those who have convinced themselves beyond reason of their stand behind infallible truths, on the right side of history. Most researchers are likely afraid of the phenomenon dubbed The Watsoning, after the abrupt end suffered by the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and Nobel prize recipient James Watson, for daring to question egalitarian dogma. If someone like him can be sacrified for wrong-think, is there anyone safe to speak his mind? Is the loss of credibility being suffered by academics and mainstream journalists cause for surprise?

“This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”(Thomas Jefferson)

We now follow truth so long as she leads to our preferred dogma.

Alas, reality rarely conforms to dogma and the few remaining intelligence tests which are not “sex normalized” are no exception: in adulthood (given that boys mature slower than girls), men have an average IQ about 7 points higher, give or take 1-2 points. It is true that this difference vanishes once one controls for the positive correlation between height and intelligence within the same ethnic/racial group. But this approach does nothing to refute the existence of said difference and misses crucial biological facts such as men having larger brains on average (brain size being moderately correlated with intelligence), and other brain differences.

The dispersion effect still remains, meaning that men–relative to women–have a very uneven distribution; they cluster around the top and bottom of human intelligence with fewer men being just average. One interesting effect of this clustering is that males outnumber women the further high up one goes in intelligence: in the top 85% (IQ115+) there are 2 men per women and for genius level IQs (140+) 8 men per women.

If you feel the need to claim that IQ is not a good measure of intelligence, you should know that the statement is not only demonstrably false, but means almost nothing in practice, as I showed in the introduction to another answer. In the same answer, you can see that IQ (and by proxy intelligence) is the single best predictor in existence for a slew of positive life outcomes: virtually anything which you would dub an “achievement”, from financial, to artistic to scholastic and even human relationships. It is such an excellent predictor that it makes the effects of discrimination on pay gaps irrelevant.

The fact that there exists gender differences in IQ means that it is a literal impossibility for men and women to achieve any semblance of equality in those outcomes–given free and open competition–especially at the highest levels; ergo men have always and will always dominate the highest levels of human accomplishments.

Unless one is willing to engage in eugenics or genetics engineering.

Research on the genetic heritability of intelligence has consistently shown that the effects of parenting on intelligence are nil or nonexistent into adulthood. Intelligence could be up to 85% heritable into late adulthood, with the remaining variation almost exclusively due to the unique environment of a child (e.g not shared with siblings) and other unknown factors.. Supposedly, those are things such as peer groups, in utero etc…The only studies which find otherwise do not account for shared genes between parents and children; assuming–a priori–that genes have little to no effect on how intelligent people turn out to be. You can use this to have some fun: challenge any naysayer to bring you a single study which finds that someone’s intelligence can be significantly changed by upbringing–while controlling for genetic heritability and the full development of late adulthood. Watch them stutter.

We then know that the gender differences in intelligence are not a product of the patriarchy, assuming that it is a shared environment between siblings.

There are ways to create the illusion of equality and even superiority. A notable one lies in the realm of American education where women now–supposedly–outperform men. In school, it is easy to explain away by the fact that boys mature slower, and because mass education must by default cater to the average, are at a disadvantage given that their uneven distribution in intelligences means that fewer are close to average. Whenever education caters to the highest intelligence, the ratio of men to women predictably gets skewed.

This is even true at the highest levels, such as between different medical specialties.

I don’t doubt that these two facts put boys at a disadvantage, but that they tell the whole story; they have not been enough–historically–to cause boys to fall so far behind. Note that women also enjoy all kinds of preferential treatments from the first day of school to the highest levels of education, and into their careers, further accentuating the disadvantage. Even when the result is that women now outnumber men in universities, preferential treatment in men’s favor is almost never introduced. In the minuscule number of cases where it is, maybe involuntarily as a form of protocol, there is no shortage of people being upset. A sweet hypocrisy among egalitarians: boys more successful than girls–>Introduce preferential treatment to be fair; girls more successful than boys–>what’s wrong with the boys?

Natural girl behavior and learning styles (easily focused, non confrontational etc…) have become “gold standard” in schooling; which probably means that boys are not well emotionally integrated into the new system, and acting like boys always have is the quickest way to get an “expert” to label one’s behavior diseased–without performing any medical tests–and enjoy a sedating dose of Meth, sorry, Adderall for ADHD; or be punished. Lastly, public teaching has become dominated by women. I once read about an interesting study which suggested that female teachers grade boys more harshly for the same performance as girls, being far less tolerant of their failings, unless the boy behaved as girls do.

But I digress. Do you know the first rule of gender equality? To desire gender equality, one must first lose the worries of an empty stomach.

Perhaps you will have noticed that gender equality is only ever the rage in wealthy countries, after life has either become easy or full of first world problems. It’s also the only place where it is fashionable to push the mysogynist statement that all men, everywhere, for all of human history, have subjugated, domineered and oppressed women into doing their bidding. I can never figure out how anyone convinces themselves that women are so weak and helpless that men can get together and manage to pass and maintain social rules which are actively unwanted by the other half of the human species–never mind that all little boys are raised by, and usually adore, their mothers.

How do you justify the claim that men are not utterly and completely superior to women if they can pull that off? If physical violence were enough to maintain such dominions, I know a lot of people who would be slaves today.

The misogynist statement, in all its glory, is just another manifestation of the arrogance of fortunate people—looking from their Ivory Towers—unable to fathom that anyone could desire something else out of life.

Truthfully, the historic and traditional model of gender relations is a crude and unsophisticated case of bartering. A man goes out into the difficult world, in times and places where work is too harsh (physically or intellectually) for most women to successfully engage in. He works himself to death, is possibly eaten by a saber-tooth and takes the extra risks necessary for the extreme “achievements” you speak of to make himself a more attractive mate; and gathers as much in the way of resources as he can for a woman who will, in exchange, give him “ownership” over something he lacks but wants desperately: her reproductive capacity.

It’s why rape was considered an offense against the husband, for example, and daughters the property of their fathers. It was understood that he had “paid” the wife for the kids by pledging to work and provide for her throughout his life-and as he likely dies sooner–after, on his inheritance or connections.

It’s interesting that the oppression narrative is so popular. Is there a single historical case where the old model of gender relations survived after life got easier and women made it clear that they were no longer interested? If men are so good at oppressing women, why do they fail so easily–as soon as most women say no–as they have all over the West? Have Western men somehow lost their natural bent towards violent female oppression? However did that happen?

Not to mention all the data suggesting that liberated American women have never been less happy, aggressive or medicated while Saudi women–in full oppression–report strange levels of happiness. In an interesting twist, while American women have historically reported more happiness than men, the situation has reversed: young Western males–completely outside the patriarchy–have never been happier too, it seems, with their video games, sports and uncommitted sexual adventurism: who is liberated now! I would forgive you for reaching the erroneous, yet funny, conclusion that the only people happy in a patriarchy are women.

These happy young lads are ripe for a rude awakening: their ever so delightful, liberated women, are unfortunately in danger of dying out. Look at birthrates across western nations: all heading fast below replacement levels, if they have not done so already. Liberated women spend their time pursuing educational, professional and sexual achievements.

When done, they often find that it is too late for any significant investments in motherhood, should they wish to.

It is interesting to note the dysgenic effect on the populations: the most intelligent women are having fewer children, if at all, meaning that the heritable components of intelligence—which make up the vast majority of the attribute—are making themselves scarcer each generation. It makes the recorded decreasing reaction times (highly correlated with intelligence) among European children scarier, doesn’t it[1]? True, a nation can survive for a long time with an ever aging population and bellow replacement levels; but we must all eventually go full Japan, or be demographically replaced.

This is true within countries and without. In the USA, without constant immigration, traditional conservative White women, with their much higher birthrate, would essentially out-breed feminists (and everyone else really) in due time–demographically dominating the nation and making women’s liberation–and leftism–an uphill battle. In Europe, liberated German women are under threat of being replaced by less liberated, beautiful Burka wearing ladies.

This is true of non-patriarchal men, too. Happy western boys are under threat of being demographically displaced by stern, handsome, bearded patriarchs. I would forgive you for getting the weird idea that after defeating the patriarchy at home, liberated women have decided to import handsome foreign patriarchs, in their support of third world immigration. Funny, yes, but untrue. What is true is that the sexy bearded strangers will never abandon their religion and accept feminism as the one true faith. If they out-breed the happy western lads, liberated European ladies, as minorities in their own nations, will be wearing burkas next–as many of them did so long ago following violent invasions from the East.

Last, but not least, the greatest instrument of illusory gender equality is the Welfare State. Women are by far the primary consumers of public “services” and “jobs” provided by the state. Most of the expense in healthcare, food, housing and education is consumed by women. “Liberation” is an interesting choice of words given the fact that when you break down taxation by gender you realize that, among other groups, the welfare state essentially serves the role of transferring wealth from men to women. The average woman in Australia–for example–consumes 150,000 more in taxes than she contributes over her lifetime.

The wealth transfer from men to women is accentuated in the progressive model of taxation by its heavy reliance on the highest earners who (due to the link between high IQ and income) are predictably, unavoidably and overwhelmingly males; essentially forcing these men to takes on some or all of the traditional roles of the husband, for many women they don’t know and who have never done anything good for them: providing food, shelter, child education, protection, old age security etc….

Funny, isn’t it? How long do you think it takes welfare states to collapse with an ever aging and declining population though? Don’t sweat it, Japan will answer the question soon enough. Not to mention that western lads may be happy, but they don’t work as hard as their fathers to produce the kind of extra wealth necessary to sustain a progressive welfare state. Why should they? They are no longer socially pressured to shoulder the burden of a family; a single man needs very little wealth to support and entertain himself. They play, sleep around with sexually liberated women, do sports and almost nothing to make themselves “husband material”, as the Wall Street Journal once noted; going from woman to woman, beefing up their sex stats as much as possible without the pesky expectation of commitment which other men fall victim to. It is fun. And they are happier than they’ve ever been oppressing women.

“Where have all the ‘good’ men gone?” has become a rather common complaint though. Of course, one of the many things we must always assume despite a total and absolute lack of evidence—aside from gender equality— is that the “good” women are still here.


Hear hear.

A SPG Regrets

mynameiskimsamsoonep1crying

This is a story of a girl who thought she could have it all, she lived dangerously by her desires and didn’t care much about anything else, much less about other people when they got in the way of that. She is the epitome of YOLO, and she lived her life to the fullest.

And by “life” we mean her twenties.

I first knew her when were were in our early twenties during uni- naive impressionable young adults who thought the world was our oyster that was ours for the taking. I was my hapless beta Blue Pill self as most local Singaporean guys are at that age and she was well aware of social power that women held by virtue of their gender at that youthful age.

She is a person who was what people would describe as “100% transactional”. Every dealing with her was evaluated on how much gain it she could get from it and how much it personally conveniences/inconveniences her.

It could be said that she had princess syndrome except that this was a princess who was perfectly and cynically aware and calculative of the value inherent in every social exchange. Hence she wasn’t just your typical dumb fempowerment girl that was typical of most of your english-educated females in a humanities course in university at that time.

Looking back through my Red Pill lens I now realise that she had to be more calculative because she wasn’t as pretty as her peers and needed to be more aware of how she could leverage on her social power for maximum returns. But that’s another story.

Anyway she had a nice quiet beta boyfriend, a Chinese boy still doing NS that was absolutely devoted to her, spending great amount on gifts, expensive dinners and activities on her from his meagre NS allowance. She rarely mentioned him but it was obvious that he wasn’t exactly giving her the tingles, even if he was reliable and good.

And things were about to change real fast for them, because soon she would be offered better deals.

She took a short trip to Europe for exchange and came back a changed person, she was different- hungry, dissatisfied with what she had now and wanted more. Being the beta White Knight who was the safe and naive non-judgemental confidante of many girls in school back then she expressed her doubts about her current boyfriend to me.

There wasn’t anything wrong with him- he had been reliable and loyal to a fault. In fact that was his fault- he was too boring and reliable, completely devoted in his beta script of dutifully supporting his girlfriend through life with a self-sacrificial donation of time, energy and resources to her.

She told me that he was nice and safe- husband material that she might marry one day but that was the problem. She wanted someone who was more fun and games right now. I was confused of course, for such rationales conflicted with my Blue Pill Beta script of how being a nice and reliable guy should pay off. In any case she revealed the reason for the change in her priorities:

She had cheated on him.

Europe must have been an exciting time for her, free from the clean and safe conservative repression of Singapore. Of course it was much safer then as they didn’t have all their problems with refugees and immigrants at that time- it was a decade ago before the current crisis. She had gone out onto the streets and day and met a stranger, an European who promptly got her high on some recreational drugs and ended up banging the daylights out of her.

That experience with casual hookups must have left a lasting impression on her because she had now seen the light and could no longer be satisfied with nor could she respect Mr. Boring back home who was dutifully paying his dues and keeping his hands to himself so that he can finally have her on their (eventual) wedding night.

She told all this to me with a straight face, with no hint of guilt or shame at all. Her main concern at that point of time, having returned to Singapore, was how to get rid of her boring Chinese BF without looking like the party at fault since he had given her no cause to do so.

Like I said, she was 100% transactional. Her BF had run out of a value proposition and she saw more exciting prospects ahead. Hypergamy doesn’t care if you have invested all your Beta energies into a woman thinking that will win her loyalty. She dumped him and set off with a vengeance to claim the world ahead. It was her oyster and she knew how to get the pearl. School was over and now it was time to prove to everyone that she can have it all.

She became a fully-fledged SPG, dating caucasian men exclusively. As she wasn’t the prettiest asian woman around she found that the market most open to her tended to be the middle-edge, lower-tier unattractive caucasians who were fat or balding who could not find western women back home or were on the wrong side of a divorce and had headed to Asia to feel like a man again.

Nevertheless any Ang Moh is a status symbol for an SPG even if he wasn’t the hot ones that the prettier SPGs could pull, and it was also a good living as they were willing to subsidise her lifestyle. The freelance work as a writer was all she find on an English Lit degree turned out to be irregular income. What? Work a regular job as an office drone? That was beneath her- her post-uni twenties as a young adult was for having maximum fun, not for doing something as boring as preparing for being a functional adult and “settling down”.

She made a big point of telling everyone that in the first few years of that lifestyle, writing long polemics on the wonders of the liberated SPG lifestyle and constantly posting pictures of her travels to various parts of the world with her middle-aged Ang Moh boyfriends. It was a good time for her, and she was living it up.

But things started to change, it was probably a combination of a drying up of suitors as she started to get older and a growing desire towards something more “serious” in her relationships. She was probably also starting to feel the pressure of competition from younger SPGs entering the market who could offer more in exchange for lower drama and upkeep and realised she needed to lock down an LTR with a boyfriend stat. The market for SPGs can be a vicious one, even more vicious than the mainstream.

Unfortunately, her years of happy liberated living funded by Ang Moh money left her with very few skills that would have rendered her a good LTR prospect, much less the temperament and character required for stability. Her transactional nature and lack of loyalty were instant red flags for any Red Pill Ang Moh worth his salt, leaving her with the either the ones who were so beta she found them unattractive or the ones that knew how to keep her at arms length in a relationship and prevent it from progressing to something more serious.

In any case she tried to settle down by getting into an LTR with an Ang Moh who was probably the latter- he was ambivalent about the relationship and they broke up and got back together multiple times. For the first time, she found herself in the unfamiliar situation of being the one that needed to qualify herself to the other party in the relationship. It was clear he had options while she didn’t, the power was starting to shift.

And with that so did the amount of male investment in terms of cold hard cash. She tried to find a full time writing job but the years of wild living had not really helped her to build up a work ethic, neither was she self-aware enough to realise that her attitude needed an adjustment or that she needed more market-relevant skills. She found herself job hopping and eventually even fired from her jobs.

The dream of the free and swinging 20s was about to give way to cold hard reality. The fun and liberated travels of the SPG lifestyle with middle aged Ang Moh boyfriends was started to be replaced by needing to pay her own way and play catch-up with her peers, many of which were much further along in life and had built up real assets for the future. She was now in her late twenties and hurtling into the thirties with none of her shit together.

And her “LTR” Ang Moh could see it, he dumped her and left her to her own devices- plenty of other SPG fish in the sea anyway. She wrote about how the breakup was empowering but it was becoming clear to everyone that they were witnessing a train-wreck.

And the big 30 finally came and past and in true social-media attention fashion she posted a long eulogy to the wasted previous decade by talking about how she had “grown” from the experience of her wasted 20s and was becoming stronger for it. A few Blue-Pills chimed in to provide words of “you-go-girl” encouragement, but it was obvious that nobody desired that kind of outcome for themselves. The party is over and people are moving on to the next big thing.

Today she struggles to get by on her freelance writing jobs, posting articles on why her kind of living is “independent and empowered” while simultaneously bemoaning the general lack of Ang Moh interest in her. As she approaches 35, the bitterness and resentment is apparent.

Barring an extraordinary effort to change her own attitude and gain life skills that make her a good LTR prospect, it is highly unlikely she will ever find the kind of happiness she desires. It is much harder to repair damaged goods, and for many of these women the future is cats and unhappy spinsterhood while convincing themselves they are the best.

If she had been a man, making a declaration of awesomeness simply for existing after fucking up the past decade would have gotten her laughed at and dismissed as a shithead who needs to prove himself before declaring worth. But being a woman society loathes to make her feel bad for making bad life choices and she sails forward ignorantly on the winds of convention, not realising the true extent of how badly she needs to change.

At the end of the day, we have to pay the bill for our life choices. The irony of my SPG schoolmate is that despite being so transactional in character and always making choices that favour her interests, she lacked the foresight to realise that ultimately the long game is what matters, and to make the choices that would be in her best interests.

 

 

Fighting Progressives and Recruiting Insurgents

ab370a2b962d2168056dc8065268fa98

The Fire Rises

The Red Pill insurgency has been gaining momentum in the past few years, but 2016 was the year were it really went mainstream to have a visible impact in the public ideological battlefield.

Previously restricted to just isolated groups of Red Pill men trading ideas on the forgotten corners of the internet, Red Pill truths are now for the first time, publicly presented in active opposition to the prevailing Progressive narrative while leftists all stand slack-jawed in disbelief as their most powerful rhetorical weapons proved to be all but useless.

But this is just the first step- it’s time for the insurgency to make the next stamp by ramping up recruitment in order to gain in strategic effectiveness. The time has never been more ripe that to make a big move as it is now when leftists are reeling back from the heavy body blows at their recent defeats.

Singapore fortunately has still been largely spared by Progressive creep into it’s ideological mainstream but make no mistake- the enemy here is trying hard, throwing every Progressive ideal wholesale they can rip off from the west to make something stick.

And some has, if the rise of Singaporean identity politics in memes like Chinese Privilege has risen in popularity among the english-educated demographics. A quick look around the Singaporean internetz will quickly find several wannabe Progressives preaching leftist dogma wholesale, working hard to push the Progressive agenda into the social fabric of Singapore.

The fight is on, and the field is open for battle.

Remember that local Progressives are by and large not intellectually committed to the on-paper ideas that they preach. For many of them taking these ideological stances is a often a statement of fashion, a lifestyle accessory that allows them to signal their virtue to others in their social circle as well as think of themselves as superior to the unwashed masses.

This lack of adherence to any intellectual standards and belief in their own superiority means that your Progressive will not be honest, neither will they act in good faith when engaging others outside of their dogma. SJWs always lie, and they will never play fair. Get this in your head, they are the enemy, they are not content to leave you be, and they wish nothing more than for the destruction of your way of life for their own amusement and social proof. 

Fighting Progressives 

In any case Progressives ideas are destructive to a civillisation and needs to be combated and defeated by local Red Pill insurgents on the battlefield of ideas. To do so you need to team up with fellow Red Pills and move to engage Progressives where you see them. Remember you will be at a disadvantage as the Progressives will be wielding powerful rhetorical weapons designed to discredit you as a racist, sexist, homophobe and all sorts of deplorable villainy.

Do not back down, realise that they are attempting to define the frame of the conversation in their favour and don’t play ball. The frame of what is considered moral in Singapore has not shifted to the leftist side, but they are winning as the population shifts to be more r-selected and has never experienced the full horrors of the progressive narrative turning their societies into a madhouse. Unlike the West where decades of progressive ideas has generated fatigue and disillusionment, you have to fight uphill against the natural inclinations of the population to entertain leftist ideas.

So you have to be smart and nimble, pick your attacks where they can cause maximum damage and do not bother with being bogged down in unproductive ones. Remember a 100 post back and forth exchange just to win an argument that nobody has the time for is useless versus a single tersely worded linguistic killshot that completely shatters the Progressive psyche for all to see. Reserve your detailed debates only with people who are honestly trying to explore the issues and learn something.

Keep your true stances and intentions unclear and mysterious to the enemy and always force them to qualify themselves and their ideas. Remember in Singapore the Red Pill social insurgency is still relatively unknown so make use of this to catch your enemy off-guard.

Remember to keep your debates short, impressive and always put your opponents on the defensive by making them defend themselves. Hit them hard and fade away before they can react, prevent them from gaining footholds in the ideological battlefield by crushing their attempts to define the frame of the debate on their terms. Dominate them so totally that their attempts to use their most powerful accusatory weapons of racism/sexism/whateverism look more like desperate last-ditch plays that impress exactly no one. Watch them shrink away as they realise they bit off more than they could chew.

Recruiting Insurgents

The insurgency must grow as the fire rises, never has the time been more ripe than to start unplugging your fellow men, with their minds being primed by what has happened in America with Trump getting elected and smashing the leftist narrative of cultural invulnerability.

Note that while your Blue pill friends are conditioned to automatically express a revulsion towards all things Trump, the seed of an idea has been planted in their heads just by witnessing all that has happened. They had a glimpse of how a Red Pill social insurgency can defeat the Leftist narrative in a surprise upset. While many cognitive dissonance filters are working to keep the Blue Pill strongly entrenched, these happenings have created leverage in their minds that you can work on.

And if you know how to act on them, you can start to slowly sway your Blue Pill towards a path that takes them to the Rabbit Hole and into the Red. Personally I have seen this happen as I engaged with some Blue Pill friends who were looking for some explanation on what had happened beyond the cut and dried leftist ideas that they are starting to suspect. They didn’t go fully Red Pill of course- unplugging is a long process, but they were far less sympathetic with the Progressive narrative when I was done with them.

Remember the idea is not just to win people entirely over to your side, we are not Progressives who demand unity of thought within dogma and employ brain washing and indoctrination techniques to enforce behaviour. Going Red Pill is a process of self-realisation, and you can only get the most dedicated and motivated insurgents that will carry on the fight when they have picked up the mantle of saving civillisation from Progressive rot on their own volition.

Take your time with unplugging people slowly, it will take patience, but the results are worth it. Meanwhile, Progressives are running around desperately trying to beat people into their mould with threats of labelling them as social outcasts. Compared to them, you will seem like the paragon of reason, a person who is truly interested in making the world a better place instead of just seeming to do so for social proofs.

There are those who are already pretty much Red Pill in outlook- they just haven’t learnt the terms. They people are ripe for recruitment into the social insurgency if they haven’t already been unknowingly waging one themselves. You just need to convince them of the danger of Progressive infiltration in soceity and they will join you. Keep an eye out for these people for they are valuable and an easy way to quickly build your ranks. A good deal of my best fellow insurgents came from this demographic, so place this as a top priority as much as you can. Always be on the lookout for fellow Red Pills. 

And there are Blue Pills who are on the cusp of taking the Red due to personal life crises. The Blue Pill outlook has been seriously threatened by something happening to them that has led them to realise that their fantastical Blue Pill beliefs are inadequate. This is most often seen in a breakup where a guy was dumped for being too beta. Start opening their eyes up slowly to the Red Pill by feeding them small doses of it. Before long you will have your own insurgents.

In any case it’s not just enough to attack Progressives effectively, you need to build your own tribe as well. This is the only way you can win in the long term.

The fire rises.

 

Insurgents vs.The Weakening Liberal Narrative

maxresdefault

The stunning defeats the mainstream progressive narrative suffered recently offer a good study in how a smaller, but more nimble and motivated force can punch way above it’s weight while facing a larger and more powerful foe.

On paper it shouldn’t even be a contest, over the past decades since winning the culture war progressives have controlled mainstream dialogue on what is considered moral and managed to emplaced the all-powerful memes of “racism/sexism/whateverism” in popular consciousness to serve as gatekeepers to their narrative. Run afoul of liberal dogma and see how quickly these terms will be used on you to bring you to heel.

On top of that, the progressive movement has enjoyed virtually uncontested support in mainstream media coverage, being able to bring the heavy hand of the media and associated lynch mobs upon any who threaten the modern progressive narrative with heresy.

While most of this has been happening in the West, even Singapore is not immune to the rise of such regressive culture, having seen several incidents in which local regressives have mobilised in an attempt to bring Western-style liberal outrage mobs to respond to any breach of the liberal narrative. While Singapore may not be fully aware of it, the frame of public consciousness, especially among the english-educated crowd is shifting to the liberal narrative, slowing uprooting the traditional Singaporean mindset as the various memes of regressivism sink their roots.

In any case, in most parts of the first-world in the West liberals control the frame. They are the new moral majority have have been since the won the culture wars of the 60s. They hold many advantages over other idealogical narratives and have the means to ruthlessly crush opposing ideas without much effort.

So how they they suffer so many stunning defeats of late? How did the cultural juggernauts of progressivism, feminism and social justice packing all the advantages lose out to an unorganised rabble of deplorables?

That’s because they’ve gotten fat, complacent, and are fighting yesterday’s war.

Your modern progressive is a descendent of the original liberals that fought and won the culture wars against the traditional right. As much as the modern progressive/feminist/SJW claims to be fighting, they actually function more like occupation troops seeking to police and entrench their narrative in a cultural battlefield that they have already won. The various strategies, tactics, and weapons were designed to be effective against traditional conservatives and people who have accepted their framing of social issues.

By and large they are playing by the rules of the game that have more or less been accepted by everyone in the mainstream on both left and right since the 60s- diversity is good, racism and sexism are bad, equality is an unquestionable good, and all the various conventions that have come to make up what is considered the modern progressive dogma.

Traditional conservatives, foolishly accepting the progressive framing of morality, are constantly on the defensive will never be able to out left the left and are stuck trying to explain why their position is more moral in a time when everybody is shifting left from them. This is why traditional mainstream conservatives cannot, and will not win the culture war.

It is in such an environment where liberals, now victorious as the new mainstream moral majority have made themselves into the cultural establishment. It is in this cultural establishment that modern progressives, feminists and SJWs patrol and carry out their various forms of cultural policing and politicking for higher positions in the liberal hierarchy. The traditional right is not a threat because the methods to contain them are established.

But the victory of the left sowed the seeds of the Red Pill movement that would eventually burst out into a fully-fledged social insurgency that would prove to be immune to most of the traditional weapons that the left could bring to bear in the battlefield of ideas.

This social insurgency was unlike what the progressive establishment was used to fighting- there were no central figures to take down in a classic decapitation strike and what few figures that appeared to be important were just riding the wave of the insurgency as opposed to guiding it. While there were many differing strands of ideology within the insurgency, several contradictory at times they were all united and focused in their common goal of taking down the left.

The traditional tools of suppressing ideological opponents by drawing from the traditional rhetorical toolbox of calling them racists and sexists didn’t work, drawing dismissive derision instead of capitulation.

This social insurgency was also fast and nimble, being able to quickly react to changing circumstances and put out memes and counter-memes much faster than what their mainstream opponents could do while the progressives were at a loss to finding something that could work.

The energy was infectious, as it gained momentum more people joined the insurgency or supported it quietly from the sidelines, seeing it as something that could finally deal damage against the progressive juggernaut that previously seemed untouchable.

While all this was happening the progressive response was confused and muddled, unsure of how to respond to a new and deadly threat that was unlike anything they had seen before. Worse, the politicking in their own ranks prevented them from forming a unified response with a good deal of energy being wasted on infighting.

The progressives were fighting yesterday’s war while the insurgency is fighting from the future. The progressive narrative was maintained by vested interests in existing structures by virtue of being the establishment and hence intrinsically tied to defending them while the insurgency was free to move and strike and will.

While the progressives are spread out defending a massive memeplex of ideas in all areas of mainstream public thought the insurgents could focus on individual areas and attack them in strength, cycling through many different methods of assault while possessing few apparent weaknesses that their opponents can exploit.

All this wasn’t apparent at first, as in their arrogance progressives have assumed themselves to be the endpoint of history and did not foresee a effective large-scale challenge to their stranglehold on mainstream ideological space. It wasn’t until a series of stunning defeats to the liberal narrative did they realise that the barbarians are sacking Rome.

It is in this battlefield that you, the social insurgent find yourself now. You are part of a global reactionary movement to save your culture against the extinction of regressive progressivism that has made several key victories recently. While these victories are encouraging more work still needs to be done.

The progressive narrative has been dealt several heavy blows recently but it remains dangerous. It is now fully aware of the threat the social insurgency poses and more likely that not will become more effective in tackling the insurgency. There is no time to rest and every social insurgent needs to move fast.

The new culture wars have started, and things are about to get real interesting in the coming years.

 

The Insurgency Rises

131210-F-MO006-259

If you haven’t been living under a rock and have been following world events for the past year (a bad idea, for a Masculine man should always be informed on happenings) you would have noticed that there is an ongoing shift in the zeitgeist of many first-world nations.

Namely, the monolithic liberal narrative that has come to dominate the mainstream since the left won the culture war of the 60s is starting to show weakness. Stunning defeats to the liberal world view by world events such as Brexit and the rise of Trump, events unthinkable just years ago indicate that there is a sea change coming.

The change will be sudden, it will be huge, and it will be unexpected for those who are unprepared. The worldwide social insurgency against the monolithic liberal narrative is rising.

It’s hard to say how this will affect Singapore, given as a nation the liberal narrative is still trying to make headway in here. But my take is in the next few years local progressives are suddenly going to find themselves cut off from their source of idealogical supply as the dominance of the left in Europe and America is challenged by the rise of Red-Pill social insurgency there. As far as social justice goes in Singapore, local SJWs basically import their ideas wholesale with some terms switched out to barely pass for local.

This will start to be more difficult as each meme the left puts out will be co-opted and countered by several memes the Red-Pill social insurgency in short order. We have seen this happen in the past year and this will only keep up as long as the left fails to understand the nature of their opponent.

Our SJWs will have to start making up their own social theories and memes, because the ones coming in from the west will arrive increasingly ineffective.

The left is on the defensive, the pivot point has happened.

What does this mean for you, the social insurgent here? These are ripe times to seize the initiative and strike several decisive blows to the progressive degeneracy that is threatening to take root in Singapore.

The Red-Pill insurgency is moving and reacting much faster than the left, putting out memes and ideas at a higher rate, as long as local SJWs rely on progressive ideas from the left they are fighting a losing battle, attempting to force their way into social consciousness by using the old and tired cliches of “racist! sexist! xenophobic!”.

Take them down in debate without mercy, and recruit even more like minded and energetic people to your side. Drop deep into enemy territory and hit them where they least expect it in all their safe-spaced. The regressive left is losing, they just haven’t realised it yet but there is blood in the water.

It’s time for the social insurgency here to rise. The simmering culture war is about to get hot here. Your job as a masculine man is to save your culture from it’s slow progressive slide to degeneracy.

 

Pivot Point

gallery-1462471207-iwo-jima

Many great wars in history have had pivotal moments in which one side lost the strategic initiative in a decisive battle and never gained it back, being forced to be on the defensive until the final, inevitable defeat.

The war may still be far from over following the loss of the decisive battle and the side that lost the battle may still be a formidable opponent with many advantages, but for all purposes the cause of the entire war had already been decided in that crucial battle where the.

For the Germans in World War 2 it was the Battle of Stalingrad that finally checked their advances on the Eastern Front and forced them into retreat till the inevitable end of the Third Reich several years later. For the Japanese it was the Battle of Midway in which they lost a huge portion of their carrier fleet and was no longer able to maintain their strategic initiative in the Pacific Theatre. Before those battles the outcome of the war was still a toss-up, but the slow slide to defeat became inevitable following the loss of the strategic initiative.

Feminism and the various ideologies espoused by the memeplex of cultural marxism have all but won the culture wars using the left as it’s trojan horse, slowly making headway into all aspects of modern culture to erode the bulwark of traditional values designed to keep civillisation healthy and thriving.

The slide of societal values left was slow at first, but soon kicked into full gear and more institutions fell under the thrall of cultural marxism, even conservatives, the self-styled protector of traditional values, often found themselves ideologically cuckolded and helping to propagate the meme virus of cultural marxism.

And so we find ourselves today on the brink of modern civillisation, at a point where societal values have gotten so distorted by the reality-denying ideologies of cultural marxism that the societies in which it had been allowed to run amok have all but lost the will to survive and thrive.

The cultural marxist-meme viruses represented by feminism and social justice movements now act early, infecting children and youth as they are indoctrinated in educational institutions that have been all but taken over by CM ideologues. The aggressive and hostile reactions by offence culture has all but suppressed open speech on any opposing views. Modern feminism preaches a one-sided, misandric and dyscivic ideology of gender relations, destroying harmonious gender-relations vital for the functioning and propagation of soceity and replacing it with an antagonistic, gynocentric system filled with “empowered” women aging out of their biological prime and emasculated, listless, directionless Blue Pill beta men.

While some thinkers in the Manosphere think that cultural marxism is part of a Globalist Conspiracy by the elite to smash the notion of nationalism and enact a New World Order I am somewhat more skeptical about these conspiracy theories. Sometimes a bad idea could just get popular as developed civillisation shifts to an resource-abundant r-selected environment, even if it is ultimately unsustainable.

In any case, the damage caused by Cultural Marxism is undeniable and massive, and it’s dominance over many aspects of modern life is indisputable. They won the culture wars.

But that was when the insurgency started.

It wasn’t much at first, just a bunch of frustrated men trying to apply their objective observations on human nature to get quick lays. But the hedonist is often the most honest seeker of truth, and going down that rabbit hole of taking the Red Pill ended up giving them a whole new perspective to view things by. With these new perspectives, these men shifted out from just trying to be successful with women and started applying their Red Pill awareness to the culture around them, realising just how broken things had gotten.

While these Red Pill men are hardly monolithic as a group and focused on many different issues, they all recognised Cultural Marxism at the main threat to their civillisation and way of life. As more men got chewed up by the system their ranks started to swell, and what was just a bunch of men trying to best make their way by in a system with the cards stacked against them had now become a full-fledged countercultural insurgency taking on the occupying force of Cultural Marxism.

The enemy was not prepared for this new challenge, having being used to waging pitched battles to unseat conventionally organised incumbent idealogical opponents . This new social insurgency was nebulous, had no central leadership, no obvious organisations or assets to attack and were immune to the usual methods of labelling and shaming used to silence opponents. Worse, they were more than capable of using the very same tactics they had used on the traditional right.

But while all this was happening, the excesses of Cultural Marxism in attempting to impose it’s ideology over everyone’s way of life had led to a rise of disenfranchised, silent classes in many of the societies in which it had taken root. They provided welcoming demographics for the insurgency to thrive and recruit more members.

Despite all this was happening, the enemy had had grown complacent and put too much trust into the strength of their dominant narrative to suppress the insurgency from breaking out into full force. Despite having the system on their side, the general quality of their idealogical foot soldiers also tended to be on the poor side as the bars for entry to Cultural Marxism were very low and relied more on being able to recite dogma than actually being useful.

They did not realise just how strategic control over social narratives were slipping from their hands and into that of the social insurgents until it was too late.

In a series of stunning defeats in which the reactionary insurgent forces won upsets over the incumbent Cultural Marxists, the left was sent reeling in shock as they suddenly found themselves defeated in decisive battles that they expected to have utterly crushed the insurgency.

Brexit, the American Presidential Elections. All these were supposed to be the final victory for them where nationalism and the patriarchy was finally put down for good.

Instead the rag tag basket of deplorables somehow pulled off a series of wins.

And the liberals are sent reeling, trying to make sense of their sudden defeats and finding some way to explain them.

The funniest thing about all this renewed vigour to “fight on” by many liberals and their social activists to start a revolution in the light of their defeats is that they don’t realise that a real revolution had started, they had missed the boat, and they now weren’t invited.

Pop culture liberals, feminists and SJWs had always been manufacturing a victim narrative in order to grievance monger and justify their various inane revolutions, but and are now left completely out at sea and flabbergasted when a demographic of insurgents with REAL grievances and plenty of motivation to carry out a social insurgency had brought a real battle to them.

They have been caught entirely flat-footed, and hit with several sucker punches.

Cultural Marxism is not dead by a long shot, in fact it has now started to wake up to the insurgency and take it seriously. Future battles will be a lot harder than before when the insurgency could sneak in shots under the complacency of their enemies.

But everyone has now seen that the seemingly invulnerable dragon of Cultural Marxism can bleed.

And if it bleeds we can kill it.

They have lost the strategic initiative.

The social insurgents of the manosphere have been spending the past few years preparing for open battle, and in the wake of these recent momentous victories that have set a new normal.

The time is now.

We Wuz Kingz

crt6yibwwaedrkz

It’s okay to be ethnocentric.

It’s okay to think that your own group is special, or exceptional, or whatever.

In-group preference is how societies and civillisations survive.

The difference is in how far you take these sentiments, and if you can actually back up those claims of exceptionality.

One of the more amusing (and sad) things to come out of the whole social justice gig is progressively-sanctioned ethnocentrism, of which Afrocentric historical revisionism is the Trope Namer for this post title.

Basically, a bunch of Afrocentric race activists thought that peddling fringe revisionist theories on how ancient Egypt was actually a Black civilisation (we wuz kings an shiet) man, or that the first president was actually Black, so on and so forth. On the weirder side of things we get pseudoscientific melanin theory in which the pigment is given mystical properties imbuing those who have more of it with superhuman powers, and guess which race has the most melanin?

1009567_466620713430150_1768455297_o

So on so forth, you can’t make all this up. This isn’t just restricted to Blacks, if you read around the ramblings of various anti-racism/sexism/whateverism warriors on the interwebz you will get a fair bit of them flirting with fringe pseudoscientific historically revisionist theories that promise some mind-blowing revelation of just how awesome their own group was.

This isn’t just restricted to race, you get the same nonsense along gender, nationality and whatever lines humans choose to define themselves by.

We get some of this locally as well, with the gift-that-keeps giving Sangeetha flirting a little with the idea that Tamils were responsible for Korean civilisation, making them the “right” fair-skinned asians in her jaundiced eye. Fellow Indians trying to correct her get the SJW beatdown because it is the narrative that matters, not the facts.

You also get a fair bit of the same nonsense with feminism, with feminists choosing to blow up the achievements of notable women in history when on closer examination, the awesomeness often does not check out or the story had been severely embellished. Just check out the gutter on stuff like “A Mighty Girl” FaceBook pages.

The thing about all mental wanking about how great one’s own personal in-group is that it often stops one from achieving true greatness. It is far easier to think back about the glory days, real or imagined instead of realising the work that currently needs to be done, and this is especially true of groups who realise that they don’t really have a lot to crow about in comparison to others.

Do I find it annoying when White people boast about the achievements of Western/European culture? Sometimes but the fact is the proof is in the pudding and available for all to see. They don’t need to split hairs over what’s the definition of success and civilisational achievement because they have gone out there and achieved a lot, both with the good and the bad.

You can blame White folks for doing some pretty terrible things in their climb to the top, but you can’t say they haven’t achieved anything, which is why the boasting while annoying, isn’t entirely without merit.

The nonsense starts when other cultures and groups who have not reached the same level of achievement nevertheless see the need to invent a narrative that allows them to feel good about themselves in terms of achievement. Basically a societal wide chanting of “I am special, I am special”. Peddling pseudoscientific theories and revisionist history is the illogical conclusion of this need to be regarded as special without needing to prove it. If there is nothing of value to be found, then something of value needs to be invented.

At the end of it, groups who invest in these collective fictions will only suffer when they waste time and energy believing they are special instead of actually going out to do useful things. This belief in unjustified self-value will most certainly lead to widespread Dunning-Kruger in the group to it’s detriment.

Do I think Asian achievements have not been fully recognised by the West?  Yep. Do I think the Asian civillisations, especially the Chinese and Japanese have achieved a lot? Yep.

But the difference between me and the “We Wuz Kingz” folk is that I live in the now, and it is what you do now and here that matters. Value has to be proven and worked for, not invented via nonsense and demanding that people see you as special.

The End of Feminism

scum1

The advocates of modern feminism often take a religious tenor in assuming the inevitability of eventual feminist triumph under the inexorable tide of “progress”. The faith in eventual victory is what drives much of the “don’t be on the wrong side of history” rhetoric that we see coming from social justice/feminist circles.

An initial assessment of the situation will quickly reveal why the SJWs/feminists feel this way, over the past decades since the end of WW2, various strains of progressive ideology have scored resounding victories in advancing their cause in the Western sphere, pushing forward rolling reforms that have fundamentally changed the way Western civillisation operates. In particular, feminist influence in most spheres of Western life cannot be made less apparent, and there seems to be no stopping the tide of progress.

As Justin Trudeau would say, “Because it’s 2015” in response to questions about his carefully constructed diverse cabinet ticking off all the diversity and inclusivity checkboxes. Progress is here, and it’s the progressive way or the highway.

While modern third-wave feminists may make a lot of noise about how women are still massively disadvantaged in the first-world with various issues such as manspreading, sexist air-conditioning, catcalling, fat-shaming and what have you not that annoyes the modern feminist, this is largely posturing in order to find a reason to keep feminism relevant after it had achieved most of it’s first and second wave goals. The inane nature of modern ever-more-easily triggered feminism is a good indicator of how far feminists have achieved any goals worth achieving.

Modern women in first-world countries now have far more choice and rights than their traditional counterparts will ever have. They can choose to do virtually anything they want and have the hand of feminism to swoop in and save the day if things go bad. Feminists have managed to arm-twist daddy government into providing all kinds of concessions to keep the feminine ideal of optimised hypergamy open to women, regardless of what choices they make with their lives.

So your average fembot does have a lot to celebrate really, despite all the wolf-crying about how women in the first-world are having it worse than ever one can’t help but suspect that even they know on some level that it’s really just required theatre to keep the whole gig running after it has achieved the real goals.

The ascendency of feminism is inevitable, and soon women all around will be able to reap it’s benefits. Thanks to feminism a woman will be able to make any choices and be “empowered”.

She can slut it up when she’s young in an attempt to shack it up with exciting Alpha lovers while relying on the Beta bucks to fund her cock-hopping journey, feminism is there to defend her from any social censure of her behaviour as “policing”. She can delay child-bearing in pursuit of a Sex and the City lifestyle disregarding the fact that biology rapidly strips her attractiveness with time, feminism is there to demand that men find her attractive. She can make terrible choices with her health and swell up to gargantuan proportions, feminism will demand that men call her beautiful and the state fund the programs that are needed to keep her alive. She can nuke her family for whatever reason, feminism will make sure the Child Support system keeps the bucks flowing from men.

Feminism’s progress in unlocking an ever-increasing set of freedoms for women is unstoppable. Women are liberated, they will be able to do whatever they want.

Utopia is here.

Except it’s not.

The progressive myth of inevitable triumph relies on a linear extrapolation of “progress” towards their goals. The notion that things can degenerate and regress away due to poor ideas that is an idea that is virtually invisible to them. This is why they are extremely careless and ham-fisted in their attempts to socially-engineer a more “progressive” soceity and wilfully unaware of the dangers.

From a civilisational point of view, Feminism is massively inefficient as it works against fundamental realities. Feminism didn’t knock down the floodgates of some artificial barrier between men and women to achieve equality and freedom by returning things to a natural level, it is a massive pumping operation that attempts to create an artificial state of parity by setting up ever more complex social engineering projects in order to achieve it’s goals.

This is why third-wave feminism is obsessed with picking every nook and cranny of soceity for “sexism”, “privilege” and “oppression”, they need to set up an ever more complex and byzantine set of rules in order to keep the pumping operation going.

Because the system is starting to creak under the strain.

Feminism wanted maximal female freedom in the sexual and marriage revolution and they got it. They wanted in on the workplace and concessions to boost their numbers artificially beyond what they would have traditionally been able to achieve and they got it. They wanted to have the freedom to do whatever they want with their lives with no regard to the effects on soceity and they got it.

The end result? “Empowered” women who self-select into genetic oblivion, taking the birth rate of their cultures down with them. An explosion of divorces, single mothers and dysfunctional children that weight down ever heavier in their demands for help from the system. A whole generation of special snowflake women who demand ever more from the state (it is their entitlement) without ever intending to give anything in return. A whole generation of men who increasingly see any commitment in women as a rigged game and choosing not to be suckers, robbing their civillisation of the vitality of the investment.

The thing is, feminism forgets that it does not exist in a vacuum. First-world feminism is only possible because traditional patriarchy built the comfortable and safe civillisation that made it possible for it to even be considered a serious idea.

And this civillisation by and large, is still maintained by men.

The feminist goes about her everyday business completely oblivious to these realities, she thinks she’s independent but in reality virtually everything that sustains her comfortable feminist life comes from men. The water that she takes for granted when she turns on the tap, the power that keeps her lights and central heating on in winter, the food she eats grown on farms and transported by truckers, the safety and security provided to her by soldiers, policemen and firemen that keep the big, bad world at bay.

The feminist is oblivious, she believes in the myth of her own empowerment when all things considered, she is even more dependent on men in her modern, comfortable living than a poor oppressed tribal woman in Africa.

And feminism has been slowly sawing away at the branch it has been sitting on, chipping away slowly but surely at the bedrock of the civillisation that sustains it. Try telling a feminist that low birth rates coming from modern “empowered” women are a crisis for soceity and see how she reacts. More likely than not you will see an immediate denial and furious rejection of the notion that women have any sort of an obligation or duty to their soceity and civillisation.

Feminists don’t care about civillisation, because they don’t understand how it is sustained in general. They were just dropped into this comfortable state of affairs and assume that it will last forever. All they need to do is to exploit this to their maximal advantage, even if it’s effects are detrimental to the civillisation that sustains them in the long run.

And inevitably the system will collapse, be it from internal pressure or from without. A civillisation cannot remain viable for long by running extremely inefficient social-engineering systems that require ever increasing levels of dysfunctional complexity taking out more than they put it such as feminism.

And that is how feminism will end, not by achieving it’s nebulous goals and achieving feminist utopia but by becoming such a big societal parasite that it brings down the system it is leeching on and itself with it.

It has happened before in history, with the rise and fall of the rights of Spartan women being a good example of this.

But for now the feminists will believe in the myth of inexorable progress, and they will march on in lockstep dragging civillisation down with them.

 

 

 

When The Rabbits Have To Defend Themselves

russia-troops-2_3356246b

There has been some concern that an isolationist Trump presidency might withdraw from NATO and leave Europe facing a resurgent Russia by itself, a prospect that leave Europeans, Europhiles and liberals all around the world a little nervous.

These are all valid concerns of course, but when one comes across such concerns as articulated by r-selected rabbit liberals, looking a little further beneath the surface to understand the thinking that drives such worries reveal some rather interesting things.

Eurosocialism has been an expensive social experiment that has sucked up much of national spending in Europe, leaving them with a much smaller slice of the pie to spend on matters like defence. But the problem isn’t just economic, comfortable European living has also led to a population in general that is much less capable of waging violence when the time comes to it.

Which is why they have been relying on American military might to prop NATO up. The rabbit people of Europe have gotten very comfortable with their socialist welfare systems and have lost the ability to defend their borders and themselves. They assume that America will always be bound to sacrifice blood, sweat and tears for them to keep the system running the way it is, and are now getting a little nervous at the prospect of the sheepdog finally getting tired of the unappreciative sheep.

Now I don’t think an American withdrawal from NATO is a good thing, but I do think that Europe is going down rather quickly and if they don’t start waking up and pulling their own weight, they might not really be worth helping.

After all, the rabbit people aren’t really contributing towards keeping things running, but yet they want the wolves to die for them to keep the Elysium of infinite grass fields safe. This is the mindset that drives much liberal thinking- one that expects rights, securities and privileges to be afforded to them without doing anything to deserve them.

The rabbit people think that the wolf people are always bound to defend them, but don’t realise is that the wolves can do the math and realise the rabbits aren’t worth saving, choosing to to cut them loose.

And that’s when the rabbits have to defend themselves.

Chinese Stasis: How The West Beat The East

rhomberg_460140196_10-web__850_593
For a good chuck of recorded human history Chinese civillisation was pretty much the most advanced in the world. Chinese civillisation had a good deal of stability, wealth and had a high level of scientific achievement. In contrast European civillisation was still struggling to get out of the dark ages.

For some reason however, despite all these advantages China never underwent an indigenous industrial revolution. They just carried on the way they were eventually surpassed during the 19th century by European civillisation, which became the dominant civillisation from then till present day.

So what gives? How did one of the longest continuous civilisations get surpassed when by all measures it had everything going for it?

Environmental historian Mark Elvin proposes that China was a victim of it’s own success in his “high-level equilibrium trap” hypothesis. The basic gist of the theory is that China got so good at running pre-industrial civillisation the way it was that there was little incentive to innovate and improve on existing methods.

Geography also helped- any need for more resources could easily be met by simply farming more land. Chinese production, infrastructure and labour were already so cheap and efficient that it simply wasn’t profitable to work towards greater efficiency. Basically, there was no incentive to innovate or discover new things.

These factors, along with a shift away from Taoism to Confucianism and with it an emphasis on morality and philosophy instead of exploring the universe via inquiry also led to an environment that wasn’t conductive for scientific development.

The Chinese made a lot of discoveries, but they never had a fully-fledged formal scientific method that could unify all these discoveries and allow them to build on each other. Scientific discoveries were generally made in fits and starts, but that didn’t matter as the survival of Chinese civillisation didn’t depend on these.

The Chinese were comfortable, they could meet all of their challenges with existing methods.

In contrast, while European civillisation started out behind, the conditions were more conducive in the long term for development. European civillisation had a more open attitude towards innovation, which in part stemmed from environmental challenges that prompted them to find methods of overcoming them. For example, unlike the Chinese which had vast areas of lands to farm, Britan had to focus on maximising crop yields in what little space it had.

Also, European civillisation developed a fully-fledged formal scientific method and fully appreciated the advantages of technical advancement. Regional geopolitics probably also helped, with the various competing European powers working hard to outdo each other. The geography of Europe encouraged balkanisation which had multiple small states working hard to get ahead lest they be out-competed. Eventually they started looking out beyond Europe.

Welcome to the age of colonialism.

While all this was happening, China becoming even more inward looking. The Ming dynasty eventually banned all ocean-going voyages and burned one of the largest premodern ship fleets in the word. The Qing that replaced them weren’t all that less navel-gazing as well.

By the time of the 19th century, European civillisation had surpassed Asia. Those who were once considered barbarians were now more advanced and highly expansionist, moving into the East in an unstoppable tide of colonialism. Eventually Qing China would be brought to it’s knees in a series of humiliating wars, the Tokugawa shogunate of Japan forced to open it’s doors to the gunboat diplomacy of Commodore Perry, and India now ruled by the British Raj.

The West had truly surpassed the East.

History holds some interesting lessons for us. The superiority and ascendency of your civillisation is never assured, no matter how well you think you have things locked down. The various Chinese dynasties assumed they were the top dog of the world and that this condition would continue indefinitely. For a long time China was indeed the most advanced civillisation in the world.

But things change, other cultures who are more competitive will eventually overtake you if you aren’t working hard to be up to scratch. Cultures that are more innovative, aggressive and competitive will win against those who aren’t. Reality will give a rude shock to those who are navel-gazing and think they are exceptional just because they exist.

This also means that the eminence of the West is not assured, and by many measures they are losing the plot. Like historic China, they are becoming a victim of their own success.

Europe is screwing itself over with overly naive immigration policies. The majority of Americans are overweight and unfit. Westerners are no longer proud of Western culture, and the latest progressive fad is how to be sorry for being a White person.

Also, more importantly, the West has become less interested in actual science and innovation. STEM fields are being diluted by secondary concerns such as gender and ethnic quotas with much less concern over if real work is being done. Professors are being driven out of academia because they don’t support progressive ideology while snake-oil social theory liberal academics are filling it up. People are less interested in a rocket scientist making human history landing a probe on a comet and more of the shirt he is wearing offending them.

The West seems to have believed it’s own propaganda, and is actively working to hamstring itself. While the East faces it’s own set of challenges, it is working hard on developing and advancing.

Being an Asian that grew up in an ex-British colony, it is a bit sad to watch Western civillisation tear itself apart. While I root for Asian civillisation and the White folk did do some rather nasty things to us, the Western era has given us a lot of good things that we enjoy today. Give credit where it is due.

But if the degeneration of the West keeps up, it looks like the Asiasphere will be the one to carry  mantle of top civillisation for humanity in the coming years. Civilisations rise and fall in cycles, we had our time in the sun and then the West took over, but it looks like our time might be coming again. One of the nice parts about this if it really happens is having the SPGs realise that they have invested in a depreciating stock.

So learn from the lessons of the West, both what they did right and what they are doing wrong now. Keep hustling and work on building things up for your tribe.