The Village Bicycles

Once upon a time cycling was a popular activity in my village and many people had their own bike. Being villagers many weren’t rich but the cyclists among us invested a lot into lovingly maintaining and upgrading our own bikes. While there were some douchebag cyclists who would cycle any way they saw fit and parked everywhere by and large there was a polite and courteous cycling culture.

There were also a few village bicycles- bikes that those who didn’t have one for various reasons to share for short distance rides. Those were beaters that people would have their fun with and after leave exposed to the elements. While many of them started out pristine and shiny from the shop they soon became worn out, damaged and abandoned.

The cyclists in our village would shake our head as we saw these rusty abandoned bicycles lying around, overgrown by grass. Sometimes someone might rescue one and restore to original condition with much TLC but that was difficult and expensive due to the condition of the bikes. Sometimes they were just too damaged to restore. While sad these shared bikes were the minority and most people were responsible cyclists with their own lovingly maintained bicycles.

Then the bike share came.

It started first as a trickle- a shared bike parked haphazardly outside a house there, another lying on it’s side in the grass, signs that things were about to change. They were often ridden by people who barely had any idea how to cycle, and they would often bring in more bikes and leave them where they found them. These were different from the village bicycles everyone was used to which were considered one off anomalies.

These were village bicycles on a large scale.

The identical bikes starting to clog up the bike stands and spill over onto the streets and spread everywhere. It wasn’t long before there were so many that just about anyone could have access to a bicycle at the drop of a hat. Some said this was a revolution in cycling, cycling would no longer be the reserve of bicycle owners, it would truly be for anyone, anytime, anywhere.

But deep down everyone had their reservations. The people who used the shared bikes weren’t cyclists in the traditional sense of the word, they just knew how to ride a bike and didn’t care much for one beyond it getting them from point A to B. Their relationship with the bicycle ends the moment the trip did. They knew little about how to cycle safely, what was proper etiquette, or how to maintain and keep bicycles in good working order. The shared bikes were just expendable, disposable tools, discarded after they were used, abandoned to the elements for newer, fresher models. No one could trust them to work properly, so parts were often stolen just in case and bikes missing parts were left abandoned.

They were everywhere. Proper cyclists could no longer park their bicycles due to the shared bikes clogging up racks, nor could they enjoy a safe and leisurely ride due to the sheer number of bad riders around. It was a mess. We wondered if this new state of affairs really improved cycling. Some had argued that the shared bike would increase the number of committed cyclists who would go on to get their own bikes and learn the ropes on proper cycling but what seemed to have happened instead is that the shared biked simply made people start to treat bicycles as disposable objects and bad cycling as acceptable. Some committed cyclists gave up entirely stop cycling, the experience just wasn’t the same anymore.

My cousin came down for a visit during Chinese new year and remarked on how messy and dangerous our village was from all the shared bikes. I told her that things weren’t that way before and our village used to have a good cycling culture. Something had changed from all this, people no longer viewed cycling as an endeavour where one would lovingly maintain a machine that would take him on all sorts of adventures. Instead cycling had been turned to a series of short-term anonymous casual encounters with bicycles one couldn’t care less about. Abandoned the moment there was another identical, but newer bike available.

The village bicycle, and the village bicycle way of riding had become what cycling is in our village.

The Culture War is Already Here

Talon has been on a deep recce mission investigating local SJW spaces over the past few months, hence the lack of updates here due to the need to maintain cover and not give the other side any indication that they are being observed, but now he’s back and ready to bring more local manospherian writing to the fore.

Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you would have known by now that the creeping forces of progressiveness have been working hard to expand their foothold in the social and cultural spaces of Singapore over the past few years.

The progressive enemy is relentless and they will not stop until they achieve their goals, and then more. It is the job of every social insurgent to meet them at every front to make sure that they do not operate unopposed.

We have all seen the results of a culture war that is allowed to go generally unopposed to way of the left in America- a fractured nation that grows increasingly fractured over time as the war for it’s soul rages unabated. Don’t mistake the election of Trump as a decisive victory for traditional America, he is just a blade forged in defiance of destiny to buy the American people a bit more time to save themselves.

We have all seen the insanity of regressiveness come full tilt in many of the European nations- who now have become so poisoned by it they lack any sort of self-belief in their own nations and culture, preferring to see it subsumed under a flood of unhindered immigration. We’ve seen how they crack down on people speaking out against this insanity while closing a blind eye to crimes committed against them by outsiders in the name of preserving multiculturalism.

We have seen how the slippery slope is no fallacy at all with the regressive left, how now transgenderism mania is in full bloom where injecting children with hormones and puberty blockers in the name of ideology is trendy. We’ve seen how the idea of the traditional family is being derided and erased for the progressive alternatives over the past decades.

We’ve seen how these regressive ideologies are starting to plant themselves all over Asia and push into these traditional soceities.

Now ask yourself if you want this madness to take over Singapore, a place that operates on thin social, economic and cultural margins. A place where we don’t have the luxury of resting on our laurels to entertain and absorb very bad ideas.

No? Then meet the progressive enemy at all fronts, at all times. Never back down. Never give up. The culture war is already here and you will have to fight it if you want to save your culture.

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.

The Insurgency Rises


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.


Male vs Female Excellence

duzx4vnNot what most feminists have in mind when charting out a path to female success.

“Ah you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding!”


The respect you earned by working for it is worth more than the respect you get by convention.

One of the things that progressives, feminists and those of the social justice persuation will invariably fail to realise in their quest to narrow the gap in outcomes between the genders is that a lot of the differences come about due to the fact that as a gender, men have to suffer and slog in order to earn their claims to excellence.

The feminist assumption is that men are privileged and treated differentially from cradle to grave, hogging the limelight while oppressing and preventing women from achieving the same levels of success and excellence. Look at the rhetoric behind the innumerable crusades behind the next inane example of gender inequality and you will see this at work.

Women are every bit as capable as men, and all differential outcomes are due to the differences in the way the genders are treated- that is to say men are treated better.

You better believe it or you are a misogynist.

The truth of the matter is, they are half-right. Men as a group do tend to show higher levels of dominance, performance and excellence in many fields than women, not to mention earning accolades for doing so, a fact that has always caused much hand-wringing to those who believe in fempowerment. This is indeed due to the fact that men are treated differently from women, but not because they are treated better but rather, because they are treated worse.

Men achieve more excellence than women as a group because they are treated worse.

It’s something you will never be able to get your average progfemliberal to admit, because to do so goes deeply against several decades of established feminist dogma. But contradicting dogma isn’t the only concern they have, the corollary of this truth suggests that in order to get women to perform better, we actually need to treat them as badly as men.

It’s something that is more than enough to make your average feminist flip out.

But it’s true. The rhetorical sleight of hand that progressives use in order to disguise this truth is to simply look at the differences in outcomes between the genders at attribute differences to the preferential treatment of the male side instead of truly examining why things are this way. They follow on by concluding that what is needed is preferential treatment for females in order to achieve the same outcomes, ignoring a good chunk of reality that of points out success isn’t an entitlement and most men have to suffer in order to achieve it.

Why are men stronger in general? Biology aside they don’t have the option of getting to rely on another gender to do the heavy lifting for them. Why do they earn more as a group? They don’t have the option that women have in eventually opting out of the workforce in marriage to a beta provider.

A woman’s value is intrinsic, and not tied to how well she performs. For all the talk of empowering women we still see this mentality very much in play. There is no need to prove female value, it is assumed.

On the other hand, a man is not considered one until he proves himself to be so under tangible metrics. A man who declares he is valuable as a man simply for existing is laughed at. In order to earn the respect of soceity he needs to make something for himself.

There is no safety net for a man. It is do or die. Suck it up and suffer. Bring home the bacon or be disqualified. It is in this environment where most men who are worthy of anything noteworthy have earned their respect.

In contrast, progressives ask us to assume that we already need to celebrate all women for successes that exceptions aside they have mostly not earned as a group. Any failure is not assumed to the result of personal flaws on the part of the woman but rather the machinations of external factors working to sabotage and oppress women.

The progressive method to female excellence is to roll out the red carpet with a wagonload of affirmative action and gender-equality quotas, thinking that this 5-star hotel treatment they erroneously attribute to the successes of men will turn women into the successful people.

The respect of women as a successful class in the fields traditionally earned through the toil and hard work of men must be assumed. The respect of women as successful in these fields is based on convention and dogma, not actual tangible work and results. The feminists are not interested in emulating the masculine journey towards success, they just want to cut to the chase and get the results, and failing that enforce the same measure of social evaluation through convention.

Understanding this dynamic will allow you to cut through a lot of the fempowerment dogma that you see around you today and allow you to see those who peddle it for who they really are. Know that true respect cannot be demanded by convention, but earned through real tangible achievements and deeds. This is even more so important as a man in a degenerate culture that is applying the feminine model of intrinsic value to everything.

Women and Nature


“Women are sheltered from nature, and thus will inherently misunderstand it. Historically, this was a privilege. Nature is cruel and dangerous; uncompromising, nature is the ultimate fascist. The responsibility of dealing with nature falls to the hands of men, who exist on the front lines of risk when shit goes down and man must protect his tribe. Man, as hunter, understands the unpredictable nature of the wild animal; woman as caretaker will only understand the cute and cuddly, cartoonish domesticated animal.

In modern terms, even if hunting isn’t our primary method of sustainment, men are still tasked with the responsibility of understanding reality while women favor a socially acceptable, cute and cuddly, cartoonish worldview; of course, this is problematic in an egalitarian democracy.”

The Human Animal and “Of Mice and Men” (1937) 
“Bad” Billy Pratt

Save Marriage… By Making It Easier To Destroy Families


It is no surprise that due to various demographic effects the marriage rates in Asia are falling along with birth rates and these trends have some implications for the Asiasphere, especially if they are trying to overtake the West who is much further along the issue and struggling with several toxic strands of self-defeating ideologies.

This is yet another article in an increasing number on the issue. What’s surprising is how poorly the writer automatically assumes that saving marriage means sweetening the deal for women by tossing men under the bus.

Perhaps it’s notable that this article is from the Economist, which hails from the West where they have all but nuked their own concept of marriage by making it extremely easy for people to smash their vows and with it the the fundamental building block of civillisation- the family. I guess they can’t help but to spread the misery around.

Here’s the part of the article in question (emphasis mine):

“Governments cannot legislate away popular prejudices. They can, though, encourage change. Relaxing divorce laws might, paradoxically, boost marriage. Women who now steer clear of wedlock might be more willing to tie the knot if they know it can be untied—not just because they can get out of the marriage if it doesn’t work, but also because their freedom to leave might keep their husbands on their toes. Family law should give divorced women a more generous share of the couple’s assets.

TL;DR: Writer thinks giving women more power and freedom to destroy their marriages and take their ex-husbands to the cleaners will boost marriage.

TL;DR: Writer thinks giving women more power and freedom to destroy their marriages and take their ex-husbands to the cleaners will boost marriage.

Here’s a picture of an idea of similar quality:

Lul wut. What a good deal for men, everybody must be clamouring to sign up.

It reaches a point where you are not sure if the people who write such articles are trolling or serious, or if they have more than two brain cells to rub together. Does the writer of this article seriously think men are stupid to go for such a deal? Does the writer seriously think more men will marry under these kinds of hostile conditions? I am going to hazard a guess the writer has been drinking a little too much feminist kool-aid.

The effects of divorce on children and the mental health of men ground under the system of family court every since frivorce became a thing is pretty clear for all to see. The bad effects of children growing up in single parent arrangements is pretty well documented, and one of the leading causes of single parenthood is divorce. The negative effects of building a whole demographic of unmotivated men who rather go deadbeat than keep getting milked by the system are well felt in places where divorce has gone full retard.

What I do find amazing is that I do know some people who run on this logic train of thinking making divorce easier is good for marriage, it’s as if they don’t even realise that men are rational creatures, and will respond accordingly. It’s as if they don’t even realise that men also make up the other half of the equation.

The article does get one thing right- and that is Asians do think that the superiority of Asian family life is one of the key advantages over the West and that’s true, all the more now than ever.

The last thing we really need is to import Western practices on marriage here to nuke our own families. It is one of the areas where Western civillisation has really dropped the ball, and the Asiasphere would do wise not to follow suit. Most certainly not here in Singapore.


White Privilege


White Privilege, the term has been tossed about quite a bit, and it one of the more prominent of the Privileges going around.

Locally a wannabe muppet has copied the idea wholesale and attempted to launch a local version called Chinese Privilege, but that’s for another post.

Beyond all the SJW rhetoric, does it really exist? Are White people really privileged? Do Ang Mohs really have it easier in life? Do Caucasians have a leg up, especially those living as expats in the Asiasphere? Let’s examine it objectively.

Long before “White Privilege” locals had a term for the various economical and social advantages enjoyed by Ang Mohs, usually as a term of derision towards of others who revere and look up to Caucasians as a class above called “Ang Moh Dua Ki” (Caucasian Big Penis).

But is it really privilege? Are all these things unjustified advantages?

Objectively speaking, nope. As much butthurt as this might cause, the current advantages that Caucasians enjoy are the result of a long chain of favourable historic events that have led to the Western Sphere being the top dog of the world currently. There is no need to be in denial about this, here in the Manosphere we don’t deal in denial.

And what your civillisation has earned, be it through hard work developing or going out there to conquer the world, it gets to keep. This is the way competition works, not everybody gets to be top dog.

The progressive SJW narrative is that Ang Mohs have stolen everything that they have owned. This is half true, but they weren’t the only civillisation that has been doing that, just that they ended up with the largest pot at the end of the day. And a good part of it was being willing to put in the grunt work to develop and invent what we associate with modern civillisation today.

Many SJWs can talk about how the Native Americans had their land taken away for American interests, but the truth is they were already doing it to each other in perpetual warfare for ages long before Whitey came. The idea that there is a land that belongs to people, as LKY noted, is an abstract idea and pointless if you can’t defend it, or at the very least deter an aggressor.

We Chinese folk may talk a lot about how we got shafted by the White man, but the truth is we also did pretty nasty things in the name of empire. We were pretty much the most advanced civillisation for a good part of human history but unfortunately got caught in stasis and never developed the scientific method and other tools that would have allowed for an industrial revolution. Things may have been quite different if Chinese civillisation decided to do so.

The point is, yes it’s undeniable that Caucasian civillisation and race in general has many advantages, but those advantages were handed down to them by the hard work and conquest of their ancestors. You could say that the current generation didn’t earn it, they merely inherited and that is true, but the fact remains that these things give them a leg up.

What I find amusing is that we want them to feel guilty about it, or even denounce their ancestors for working to give them a better future. Yes White people did horrible things, but they weren’t the only group, and they did give some rather useful things to everyone in the process of their smug, arrogant superiority. Give credit where it is due. What have the Ang Mohs ever done for us? Well plenty actually.

Which is more than we can say for the other horrible things other groups have done which had had virtually no redeeming purpose for humankind as a whole. 

So yes, that Ang Moh Dua Ki is in part due to the successes of previous generations of Ang Mohs that have allowed them to rise to the top in the world. But that is not it. What people don’t realise, above all progressives who insist on sabotaging their own civillisation, is that this position of dominance is not permanent and must be maintained. White civillisation is losing the plot, if what’s happening in their nations are anything to go by.

Which is sad to watch actually, I don’t like Ang Moh arrogance, but I do prefer it to the alternatives like living under ISIS dominance.

All this also has several lessons for us Asians. How dominant your civillisation is depends on how far you can advance it’s interests unashamedly. The successes you obtain today will be passed on to future generations. The position of Top Dog requires hard work to maintain.

Civillisations peak and pass away in cycles, we Asians had our time in the sun but now it is a Western century. I do think the West in in decline however, and what happens next  and who wins depends on the choices that individual groups make for themselves now.

So yes there is White Privilege, but that does not really matter.

What matters is what you do for your own people right here, right now. It’s time to stop envying White people and begrudging the successes their ancestors have given them. Our civillisation needs masculine men to build and lead it into the future.


Men Are Not Equal


Equality is an aspiration, it is not reality, it is not practical”

Those words were uttered by Lee Kuan Yew in 2009 and they caused quite a bit of butthurt among the liberal Singaporean crowd, of which I was one during my Beta White Knight days. How dare someone say that! What is he implying?

And then now, 7 years later, I realise that old man was quite right.

Men are not equal.

People are different in ability, values, culture and virtue, and all this leads to different outcomes.

The progressive narrative demands that they are. The progressive narrative demands that all differences in outcome are due to discrimination. The progressive narrative demands outcomes be equalised by any means necessary.

Here’s something a little more controversial- many of these differences are innate, the result of what nature has given us through genetics. Some people will be taller, some people will be smarter, some people will be stronger than others.

What’s more, as many of these differences are given by nature, we tend to see a clustering of traits among various ethnic groups. Different populations have grown up in different environments and have adapted to their various environmental contexts. The gene lines that didn’t work out didn’t get passed on.

Even nurture conspires to reenforce cultural values and practices that worked in those environments over generations. Very often this nurture works in concert with nature in a symbiotic, mutually reenforcing relationship with each other. Genes create innate instincts that eventually form culture, and culture reenforces and selects for those genes in a population.

What this means is that different groups of people will be different (duh), but these differences aren’t benign or just cosmetic as much as the progressive would like you to believe, they have very real implications for how a population group will compete in a modern, increasingly globalised world.

Some groups will be better than others because they have better innate abilities that are better suited to the modern, connected world. Some groups will be better because they have cultural values that give positive outcomes more reliably.

And that means the less able, the less culturally functional will get the short end of the stick.

Men are not equal, that’s just the way reality works.

The progressive demands that they are, and attempts to equalise all outcomes no matter how dysfunctional these attempts are to the overall endeavour of civillisation. They will demand that wealth and resources be taken from functional people and given to dysfunctional ones. They will demand that dysfunctional behaviours, practices and cultures be regarded with as much virtue as functional ones.

All in the name of progressive equality.

To further cover over the stark clash that progressive equalist ideology has with brutal reality, the progressive goes further to push the idea of race and gender creationism- that all these things are just constructs, that all people are inherently innately equal in ability and that all observable inequality of outcomes is due to evil discrimination from the winning group.

All the problems losing groups have necessarily come from racism, sexism, classism, and whatever “ism” that they can come up with.

But at the end of the day, the progressive may try hard as they might, but reality will still eventually have its say at the end of the day when the system finally comes crashing down when the progressive pumping operation to equalise all outcomes finally causes too many problems to be sustained.

Men are not equal, nature is the greatest fascist, and has made it so.

In the manosphere we don’t believe in equality because that’s not how reality works. Not all cultures are equal in value for finding particular outcomes. Not all men are the same in ability. Competition will eventually lead to winners and losers.

The manosphere teaches you to be aware of your strengths and weaknesses and form a rational, practical and coherent plan to best achieve what you can within those limitations. There is no shying away from reality to believe one is awesome just because they are wish themselves to be.

This means being realistic with yourself and with reality, this means seeing things for what they really are.

If you want to be an masculine Asian man in Singapore, you need to see your true strengths and weaknesses. What is responsible for the stereotypes that render Asian men unattractive? Are you adding to any of them? Is there anything you can practically do to defy or work around them?

The Beta Singaporean Asian male or SJW will just whine about White privilege and assume that they are entitled to whatever they enviously see Caucasians enjoy because they assume everything ought to be equal.

But things are not, and that’s the way they are. If you really want

You may have been given limits by your natural biology, but you can utilise them to the maximum of your physical potential. You may have been raised in a culture that attempts to turn you into an unattractive, compliant Beta male but you can use Red Pill truths to find the right ideas and practices to achieve the outcomes you want.

This is what the manosphere advocates- realistic, reality-based approaches towards finding the outcome you want.

Men are not equal, but every man can be the best that he can be.


The Girl With Daddy Issues


The usual platitudes we hear about a less-than stellar past is that it does not matter and that we can rise above. But this comes with a caveat- you can only conquer your past if you are able to come to terms with it and learn the right lessons along with taking the right actions. Many people are unable to do this.

I knew a girl once during my beta Blue Pill days, she was just trying her best to make her way through life but life had dealt her a few bad hands. Firstly and she is the daughter of a single young mother who had to take care of several children.

Secondly they weren’t exactly well to do and the years were spent flitting from one rental place to the next while she watched her mother run through a series of live-in boyfriends over the years who would hang around for a season or so, a string of transient relationships which her mom could never convert to marriage.

In such an environment she grew up, never having known a stable father figure that could fill in for the parts her overtaxed mother simply could not, with her formative impressions of men being unreliable, transient entities that would enter her life for a season and then leave. Entities hung around with her family for in low-investment, low-commitment  relationships before leaving.

When she came of age she started a string of relationships with unreliable, damaged men, the problems from which which she would tell to her friends, one of which happened to be me.

Being the Beta Blue Pill White Knight that I was, I was a safe person in which she could reliably hang out with and confide in. In retrospect I now realise I was a good sounding board because I was so Blue Pill she knew I would tell her what she wanted to hear instead of telling her things as they really were.

Having been able to put a Red Pill lens to her actions now, I realised that her relationships with men were largely transactional. Men were resources to her, either to be farmed as romantic companionship or as safe Beta orbiters from which she could mine favours and resources. That was just her view of men, formed by her years of being raised by a single mother dating a string of unreliable men.

She eventually got together and settled in for a long term relationship with a guy who was equally a drifter in life. But of course she cheated on him with other men that seemed more exciting, with him being non the wiser and me bearing witness to all that as her then-confidant. I said nothing to anyone, and watched the various dramas carry on. Their relationship is still carrying on today, although she does still peek a glance to the men she cheated with from time to time.

During my Blue Pill days she was just a friend I was trying to help through life, but as I got more Red Pill I started to understand more of her actions and slowly drifted away as I decided to leave the sphere of female manipulation. I don’t blame her for what she did, she was just somebody trying her best to get by in the only way she knew how, but I wasn’t going to be the Beta chump anymore.

I would like her to be happy, that some day she would be able to leave all that baggage behind and form happy, productive relationships with men but I know that is highly unlikely- her daddy issues just run too deep and all her experiences with men are coloured deeply by the lens of her experience with the unreliable, damaged, drifting male.

Fatherlessness isn’t an issue that only affects men.

Feminism draws a lot of it’s female stock from people like her. She disguises her daddy issues under a thick layer of pop-culture feminism, stating in no uncertain terms that the patriarchy is finished and now is the time of girl power. And why shouldn’t she feel this way? Patriarchy had failed her anyway. She is a self-made woman, even if that woman was really made by a haphazard patchwork of resources and favours she managed to extract from her transactional dealings with men.

But what is she really heading to? She is approaching her 30s with her looks, one of the assets she managed to draw upon to mine male resources, fast fading. Her relationship with her long time boyfriend is based on comfort, but isn’t really heading anywhere.

When you are in your early 20s the world is your oyster, but as you start to leave them you realise that your options are increasingly reduced and the choices of yesteryear increasingly echo their consequences. And her life, set on the path by her daddy issues have inevitably brought her to where she is now- approaching the wrong side of 30 with a life still trapped in a lifestyle they should have matured out of a long time ago.

They just live in the present because there is no real plan for the future, just indefinitely delaying the decision to grow up and trying to sate all that existential drudgery with acquiring more cats and jumping on whatever fashionable progressive ideology that serves to prop up that social facade that serve in lieu of true self-actualisation.

In all likelihood, there will be no legacy. They shall pass along with their batch of drifters and that will be that.

It’s sad to watch but that’s the way it is, the girls with daddy issues are damaged, and in all probability you can’t help most of them. Very often all you can do is just make them comfortable and move on. It is just too difficult for many of them to realise that the real problem they had was a lack of a good father- in fact it may very well be impossible for them to imagine what even having a father-daughter relationship would be like. They simply have no concept of it.

So you can’t really help them, and if you have any common sense you should know not to date, or worse, try to make a wife of one. What you can do is to stop more girls from ever suffering the same fate. Singapore still has relatively strong family ties that works towards reducing this issue, so work towards keeping it that way.

Look around you and spot the girls with daddy issues, let them serve as motivation for you to stop the same fate from befalling your daughters, nieces and cousins. Be the strong, stabilising masculine figure in their lives lest they end up with daddy issues.