Harry Lee was the greatest statesman of our age, but …

Harry Lee took Singapore from third world to first world. He created an economic order that every nation should imitate, and many have.

Singapore was about to fall to communism and racial violence, following the path of so many other third world hell holes abandoned by their colonial masters. Harry Lee created order peace, and economic freedom, which brought prosperity. As Spandrel says, he was a legalist, not a reactionary. Legalism, done right, brings order, peace, and prosperity. So, why would one need more than legalism?

In legalism, the great man decides what is to be done, then makes people do it. And then he dies, and the tide comes in, and washes away his sandcastles, however impressive they may be.

99 Responses to “Harry Lee was the greatest statesman of our age, but …”

  1. Alrenous says:

    Notably what makes him great is not what anyone is saying about it. Legalism isn’t hard. I mean we already have a name for it and everything, the recipe could fit in a single book.
    What makes him great was making the anklebiters leave him alone long enough to get anything done. This skill is all behind the scenes. It’s the exact words he chooses in the back rooms. It’s who he befriends properly versus who he only pretends to befriend.

    Similarly, what made John Cowperthwaite great was not that he said ‘no.’ Any monkey can do that. It’s that he -could- say no and get it to stick.

    Anyway let’s digress into anklebiters. Why is Plato’s philosopher king reluctant to rule? Anklebiters are that annoying. They’re too stupid to be deterred by anything less than lethal force, but especially in modern times that doesn’t work either. The hobbits get all pissy about it, meaning you only replace one small group of anklebiters with a larger one. Absent lethal force, no amount of failure or overwhelming odds are enough to stop them coming. Even the most total failures merely reveals there’s an endless supply of backbench anklebiters ready to take the field.

    The tide you speak of is specifically the tide of these anklebiters. Without LKY the reigns will default to the monkiest one. Shockingly, they are not fit for rule.

    Sulla probably retired to get away from the anklebiters.

    • Aguila1952 says:

      “This skill is all behind the scenes.” And that is the real truth because he got to rule, to make decisions of who won and lost, killed his opposition, and while those who won prospered, what is life really like for the average Singaporean? They might “disappear” if they voice any criticism of the king. I bet his favorite show was “The Sopranos” even though Asians have their share of organized crime as well. Great man my ass! Dictator is more like it.

  2. jim says:

    What would make his legacy safe is rule that was openly by an elite, an elite that reproduced well above replacement, and considered itself entitled to rule.

    • B says:

      You’ve had that. And then members of this elite turned on each other, allying with different subject classes.

      • jim says:

        Not open elite rule. Held elections, even though he knew democracy was bad.

        Hypocrisy only lasts a generation. His pretend democracy now will become real demotism.

  3. Slumlord says:

    He was the second greatest.

    Konrad Adenauer was greater, simply by virtue of the challenges he had to overcome. Le Kwan Yew was impressive, but he did not have to feed fifteen million refugees, fight off the victorious powers, restore to prestige a country drenched in odium, repair a bombed out country and pay back war reparations……and engineer an economic miracle in the process.

    • jim says:

      Capitalism and all its institutions had existed in Germany in recent living memory. All Adenaur had to say was “normality”, and suddenly normality returned. Harry Lee had to build the institutions of capitalism from scratch in a population that did not comprehend them and was hostile to them. He had to create Chinese capitalism because British capitalism had retreated.

  4. spandrell says:

    Well the legalist legacy did last for a hundred years; but the legalists themselves had this tendency to get killed.

    Funny thing is LKY had no exposure to traditional Chinese thought; he was brought up in English language and culture. Yet his attitude was a carbon-copy of Han Fei. There’s some funny genes going around in Chinese people.

    • Alrenous says:

      I’m not the least surprised.
      Philosophical tradition / thinking in straight lines + asian preference schedules => (often) Legalism.
      This implies the original legalists were philosophical. This could be influence from the Athenian tradition, else it could be that philosophy belongs to everyone, if they care to take it. (As it happened, only Athens cared to take it sustainably.)

  5. scientism says:

    I suspect Singapore will unravel pretty quickly and that will be precisely because LKY didn’t place enough emphasis on culture. It’s telling that he had to continue in an advisory role for so long and also that the system had already started to show cracks (opposition gaining votes, protests, etc) before he died. If LKY had revered something and encouraged others to do so by his example, then Singapore could continue to revere it – such a legacy can last for millennia – but he instead leaves Singapore with a ‘tradition’ of pragmatism and no real way to tell what was essential and what was accidental to his worldview. Was opposition to gay marriage an essential part of his worldview or an accident of his generation’s mores? Nobody has any way of knowing. Multiply that for every progressive cause and you have some sense of where Singapore is headed. Worse, he was pragmatic about democracy (although he questioned democracy for time to time, he also thought elections were an essential test of the PAP’s relevance) and about economics (Singapore has high economic freedom but also has public housing, SOEs, state direction of the economy and a sovereign wealth fund).

  6. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Interesting.

  7. Dan says:

    “And then he dies, and the tide comes in, and washes away his sandcastles, however impressive they may be.”

    That’s an indictment of life, not of Harry Lee. If you create civilization where there is none and it doesn’t last forever, well, so?

    • peppermint says:

      the king is supposed to arrange for a the kingdom to survive him. if he succeeds, his family continues to be successful. if he can’t designate a successor, that’s an indictment of his government. franco designated john charles, who made a successful transition, but then surrendered to the EU.

    • jim says:

      If Singapore had been built upon ideals, rather than pragmatism, the loss of one able pragmatist would not be so devastating.

  8. Seamus says:

    Legalism or not, if the Base population were third world savages, it wouldnt have mattered much.

  9. A.B Prosper says:

    Singapore is a safe orderly prosperous society despite being multi-racial and mutli-cultural and even secular . I can see why so many on the Right admire it and admire Harry Lee,

    It also highly authoritarian, massively statist and has a TFR of 1.19 children (basically 1 plus an occasional twin) per couple despite low unemployment massive state intervention ( even down to state run dating services ) and with massive immigration.

    Even the guilt wracked, memetically occupied Socialist Mittel Europa with its 50% underemployment is better off than this, Some of the Scandinavian nations have near replacement fertility among White natives despite being Culturally Marxist

    Its a Potemkin society really much less admirable than people think and far more doomed than even the West.

    • jim says:

      Some of the Scandinavian nations have near replacement fertility among White natives

      Do they?

      How do you know?

      To know that, you would have to have data on white babies, and I am not seeing data on white babies, which leads me to believe that the data is absolutely horrifying.

      When I go looking for data on white Scandinavian fertility, I just don’t find it. What proportion of babies are white? If you don’t know that, you don’t know white Scandinavian fertility.

      Seems to me that white Scandinavian men have been emasculated by ever broader rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment laws, so whenever a white Scandinavian women wants to get nailed, she wanders through the brown side of town with her boobs almost hanging out, for a good gang bang with a free beating thrown in.

      • A.B Prosper says:

        Oh Europe is pretty sick alright, no argument here and are far lower than they ought to be but as it happens I do have figures.

        From PEW research via this blog

        https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/pew-fertility-rate-for-muslims-and-non-muslims-in-europe/

        If you take a look at the charts you can see the numbers,. Now in fairness the Muslim Non Muslim fertility rates might include Hindus or Animists or Christian Africans but its a pretty good estimate. Some of the countries also are basically entirely White anyway the natality difference being between Muslim and and Muslim only

        The rates all (save Kosovo which is already mainly Muslim though still White) and Bosnia Herzegovina which is equal is higher than Singapore, Even allowing for some drop its still the case.

        Now going by the listed rates and the U6 rates I see Whites want children they simply can’t afford large families or maybe won’t on what they are paid . Solutions that suggest idiocy like turning the west into Singapore (heck the UK is already less free) and making people even more into economic units are simply going to fail.

        Counting on “MOAR FAYTH”!” might help if you like Islam but Christianity even Orthodox will not change the priority make up in Europe. You are also not going to make European women into Afghan breeders either by not educating them or preventing them from work or the dole,

        No argument that there are cultural changes that are needed , deportation and an end to cultural Marxism of course but first and foremost stable jobs for young people are the most important factor.

        Good Jobs or no White future its just that simple

        • jim says:

          That is children per non Muslim woman, aka per white woman.

          The problem is, however, to what extent white women are having brown babies? A lot of these children, perhaps most of them are bastards. Many bastards produced by white women are brown, perhaps most of them. These brown bastards grow up with only half the white genes, and none of the white culture.

          It is easy for white women to reproduce, hard for white men to reproduce.

          Thus this data is consistent with white Scandinavian fertility being terrifyingly far below replacement.

          As I said in the comment to which you are replying: white Scandinavian men have been emasculated by ever broader rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment laws, so whenever a white Scandinavian women wants to get nailed, she wanders through the brown side of town with her boobs almost hanging out, for a good gang bang with a free beating thrown in.

          As I said, we need data on the race of the babies. We need to know the number of white babies, which I believe to be somewhere between not many, and bugger all.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            I can’t speak for anywhere but the US its about 3% claiming mutli-racial as of the 2010 census. Its higher here in California miscegenation central around 10% but again that includes some Whites married to Hispanics who are biologically White being essentially Spaniards.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25race.html

            I doubt its much higher in Europe. Even if it was higher and its say 1 in 10, that’s till leaves Whites much higher fertility than Singapore.

            Simply the Singapore model is non viable for any purpose.

            As to your points re: Scandinavian men, oh agreed 100%. Getting rid of Cultural Marxism will increase White fertility to a degree, possibly even to replacement in some areas. Maybe.

            Also re: an actual solution . The European people will have to do a bunch of things to fix their issues, all are doable, none are entirely manpower intensive but all of them are difficult and most will require something Harry Lee did have, the desire to rule over men with as hard as hand as needed.

            Getting that is not easy, the Church civilized men , the eras of mass warfare gave the entire continent PTSD and comfort made them soft .

            Making a society that is essentially going to be cruel is not simple.

            Lastly, its perfectly possible that White are way over our natural carrying capacity too . We can’t build societies capable of giving most of the population the economic means of support anyway and as such a Japanese style decline is best for us. We need to get foreigners out but we don’t need anywhere near as many of us and can’t support them

            Keeping rapacious businesses from importing people to make up for the shortfall is essential in any case, Capitalism and the market need taming. The Medievals knew this as did the Old Greeks we just forgot. The market makes great stuff but it kills the things that matter and must be reigned in

            • jim says:

              the US its about 3% claiming mutli-racial

              In scandinavian countries, white illegitimacy much higher, repression of white male sexuality much more severe. One would expect this to lead to a much higher level of white female attraction to colored people than in the US, and this does seem to be observably the case.

              I think that seven in ten is far more likely than one in ten, which would imply a Swedish white fertility of one quarter replacement levels.

            • jim says:

              The market makes great stuff but it kills the things that matter and must be reigned in

              Everyone who has reined in the market, as for example Sweden and Venezuela, has experienced horrifying political, social, cultural, and economic decline.

              For example, East Germans, when compared with west Germans, are niggers. Swedes are cucks.

          • peppermint says:

            the market doesn’t kill the things that matter and need to be reined in. Too many people say the market because they don’t know or refuse to name the Jew

          • Recusancy says:

            @Jim

            When a reactionary says “reign in the market” they mean guilds and mercantilism, not socialism. I am unaware if that was A.B Prosper’s meaning, but historically, European governments did not follow Adam Smith’s economic proscriptions.

            Free trade, especially dependance on foreign goods and cultural globalization, tends to erode national sovereignty. If national sovereignty is good…

          • A.B Prosper says:

            Recusancy , exactly. Mercantilism,. Protectionism and yes Guilds when needed are the tools you want. Tweak tax incentives to creating middle class workers and make sure that someone is always responsible when screw ups happen and you have a recipe for a far better state than Laissez faire would

            Communism is at best stupid and the “final phase” ? employee ownership of the means of production while entirely laudable and compatible with markets can only be reached via the market, not by the nonsensical intermediary state ownership.

            We have some companies like this WincCo foods in California and its about the same as every other supermarket, on the scruffy side as you might expect

            As for Dubai, a good state needs ethics as well and a hypotethical neo-reaction state should avoid repeating the mistakes the Founding Fathers did. Slavery, Labor exploitation past a brief period (indentureship to pay for a crime or at the time of the founding passage to America, heck in the last case its quid pro-quo but slavery and mass import of cheap labor from more natal places is is exactly what screwed the US stop.

            Cheap labor outside of a couple of narrow categories (young people, people paying fines, supplemental income for pensionnaires) cheap labor is a problem, not a benefit

            Its create a massive entitlement complex where people think they should have cheaper and cheaper labor and that they should lord it over other men. when they should not,

            another nice side effect is nearly all of the original Black-White race mixing in the US was people using African slaves for sex and its telling the most famous descendant of Thomas Jefferson was Oprah Winfrey .

            Now Oprah is a capable and smart women but is she the face of America the founding fathers wanted ? Don’t think so. NrX? Doubt it. Cathedral? Yep..

            If you want things cheaper, use machines and be prepared to do wage sharing

            As to China turning into Singapore, I strongly doubt it. They’ll try though and probably fail for a lot of reasons. Even if you are correct and you may be, we are Western and while Singapore has some roots there, its not , Western its Asian and not a model we can repeat

            As I said, fertility is everything. Neither China, Hong Kong nor Singpore have a veruy natal culture.

            Dubai does but its a slave fueled state and unlike some in this little community I have a problem with that

            http://www.vice.com/video/the-slaves-of-dubai

            C.S Lewis summed up my feeling in the matter

            Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.”

            And do know hierarchy is a huge component of NrX but slavery is a no go for me . No one needs cheap labor or depravity and that’s all slavery brings you.

            So for the West to fix its own fertility issues issues, it needs to deport non Westerners , impose a a Western system (and this means no Marxism its Jewish and won’t even work for Jews) a restoration of western cultures (exiting Cultural Marxism which is partially, YKW also) and a functional economy

            Do that and we self repair.

            • jim says:

              Slavery

              It was, of course, a great mistake to import people of an inferior race – and a bigger mistake to set them free. Observe Haiti.

              Some people simply need permanent supervision. For the most part black slaves were not black freemen kidnapped for sale, but rather no good bums sentenced to slavery for having no visible means of support (the penalty for more serious crimes usually being death). So we wound up getting those blacks that, in the opinion of their fellows, needed permanent supervision.

        • jim says:

          Good Jobs or no White future its just that simple

          You will notice that Muslim women are reproducing at above replacement despite the fact that neither they nor their husbands have jobs, which would imply that Muslim men are reproducing at well above replacement.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            Jim, if we can’t reign in the market and we can’t have meaningful labor for people because you know, machines and the discipline of markets are far more important, than our cultures and peoples simply The West is finished.

            And Peppermint, its not all about “The Jew” the top end Tikuum Olan, Use the Goyim ones have been a pain in the collective ass of the West but they are not the sole cause and if i dunno JHVH beamed them all up tomorrow, the West would not miraculously recover.

            Frankly our cultures have been mentally and socially colonized by an alien ideology “The Market and its cousin Capitalism” and until that notion is dealt with the West has no future. Now I’ll concede Communism is not much of a solution but than what?

            And as for the Muslims, we are not them. Most of them are African and Semitic with s smattering of South Asian thrown in. They are not White people and aren’t part of the Western culture, they are though they won’t admit it, another Jewish sect, like the Christians, one that’s more warlike.

            Mostly the peoples with high reproduction rates have Low IQ’s and High Time preferences compared to say Nordics. We have people in our race like this, White Trash and they have tons of illegitimate babies and larger families.

            We could I suppose remove the foreigners to remove miscegenation and take away birth control, Hey bring back the squalid rookeries right? This would increase numbers considerably but it would lower us to the level of our foes and as an added bonus
            create a population unable to serve the Gods of the Marketplace

            The problem is that modernity going forward requires more and more brains but fewer and fewer people. It wasn’t that many years ago we had jobs like Tax Preparer and Travel Planner and a lot more people in manufacturing and tons of other jobs but these days we have software or automation to do those jobs. if not automation than hey send the labor to where its cheaper because only the market matters, right?

            This wouldn’t matter if we had replacement jobs but 50% of young people under 29 do not have decent work. Its not important up to 20 or so but we must have jobs and unless we get them we can’t produce the kind of people we need and sustain this society,

            We are simply eating our own young

            Now one option that might be considered as a misogynist state , take the Saudi route and basically treat women as chattel, arranged marriages, no work allowed other than handful of trades that kind of thing. Throw in some work sharing and it might work

            But again it might not and it goes in the face of millenniums of our culture and traditions. Worse it doesn’t seems to help them that much and again destroys the fabric of our society. we aren’t them

            Were I tasked to fix things I’d start with removing immigrants and no Westerners, that’s job #1

            job #2 is stepping on Cultural Marxism job #3 is I am not sure I think I’d try Distributism, which is changing the incentives to make broad based wealth redistribution the best choice . Make wages 5x as deductible up to a certain point and reduce other deduction that kind of thing

            It might help and I suspect combined with trade controls. re-localization (you should be able to buy most anything made domestically) and work sharing should reduce the unemployment rate.

            This should provide the good jobs people need and thus a White future,

            • jim says:

              if we can’t reign in the market and we can’t have meaningful labor for people because you know, machines and the discipline of markets are far more important, than our cultures and peoples simply The West is finished.

              Living standards were rising when we had a market economy, now they are falling. The further we go from a market economy, the worse it is going to get.

              Throughout the world, we see people trying something other than capitalism, and always meet the most utter disaster, most recently Venezuela.

              What model for something other than capitalism do you have in mind? Venezuela? North Korea? Sweden? East Germany?

              The problem is that modernity going forward requires more and more brains but fewer and fewer people.

              Not seeing it. Still no robot that can drive a car or pick fruit or clean a house.

              It is not that young men are not getting a wife and children because there are no jobs. Rather, they are not taking jobs because there are no wives and they are not permitted to have children.

              Living standard are falling in part because large numbers of useless makework jobs are being artificially created for women, and men are not working, because they will be taxed to support women to fuck someone else and have random thuglets.

              The problem is not that the men cannot earn enough to support a wife and children. The problem is that they cannot earn enough to compete for women with Uncle Sam the big Pimp. And if you cannot earn enough to compete with Uncle Same the Big Pimp, why bother to earn anything at all?

          • peppermint says:

            » changing the incentives to make broad based wealth redistribution the best choice

            Isn’t that what we have now, modulo welfare not being a formal asset?

            Or do you intend to say redistribution and mean a stronger middle class than has existed in our lifetimes?

  10. Rachel says:

    /duck/ is dead

    but something new has arisen from the ashes:

    https://8ch.net/aristoi/catalog.html

    Love live aristo!

    .

  11. A.B Prosper says:

    Welfare is a terrible idea Peppermint, paying able bodied men not to work is something that is destructive for male social status and allocation of resources . To get quality mates, men need income.

    I’be alright with paying mothers to stay home and mother or even home-school instead of working if they followed through. I think I’d tie it to some measurable criteria like how well the kids performed. If the kids were in good health at the quarterly physical and tested at say a B average, they’d get 100% — C they’d get 50% lower, nothing. If they score above the expected level, say college level at age 10, they;d get other benefits.

    As for an economic system, lets try Distrbutism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

    According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Distributism therefore advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership.[ Co-operative economist Race Mathews, argues such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.

    Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism,which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitative

    This is more or less how I see things with the caveat that i don’t expect a just social order only one that’s functional in the long term.

    Also it might not work. Its not been done before but on the upside, its not Socialist and its not Capitalist, its a genuine Christian 3rd way

    Along with distribution I favor social conservatism and ethno-nationalism as well. Those three together should undue the harm

    • peppermint says:

      » To get quality mates, men need income.

      why? if the mothers are being paid by the state for the kids, men need to do what they can to get swag and fuck bitches, not try to be “successful” the way wite ppl say just to confuse a nigga and keep the Black man down like slavery

      • A.B Prosper says:

        Huh? The goal here is not more White trash but a larger class of decently well performing middle tier White people.

        Its not a numbers game but a much harder effort, quality and quantity.

        • peppermint says:

          » The goal here is not more White trash but a larger class of decently well performing middle tier White people.

          to be accomplished by direct payments to mothers.

          This isn’t even a cynical ploy to buy votes from people with their own money. This is just socialism for socialism’s sake. But it’s not socialism, because it’s a “genuine Christian third way”. Because you call something Christian and suddenly it’s infused with the grace of the Holy Spirit or whatever.

          Listen carefully, faggot.

          » Under Nerva (96-98 AD) the Welfare State assumed responsibility for children throughout Italy, intending at first, merely to supplement private benefactions, but soon and inevitably the imperial treasury took over the entire operation and converted it into a “program” far more ingenious and practical than anything thus far devised by our professional parasites in Washington. The governmental system not only (a) provided the sustenance of poor children, but also (b) tried to solve the Roman “farm problem” by making available to reputable cultivators loans at low interest for the improvement of their lands, especially lands of the kind now called “marginal,” thus (c) reducing unemployment in, and stimulating the economic life of, towns in “depressed” agricultural areas, and thereby (d) restoring prosperity to many municipalities and large parts of the countryside, and so (e) creating the conditions in which responsible people are willing to beget children. And the objectives of (e) are further fostered by (a), since the children are guaranteed sustenance and education in the event of the financial failure or death of their parents. The plan that combined these various pur- poses was not only ingenious but feasible. It was, furthermore, well administered by a judicious division of responsibility between the central government and local authorities, evidently designed to hold to a minimum the number of administrators; and Roman bureaucrats, unlike our own, appear to have been, on the whole, both honest and diligent. The plan worked for a hundred and seventy- five years, and the institutions thus established survived, despite occasional difficulties, until the revolving funds were extinguished by the great monetary inflation and concomitant catastrophes of the Third Century.

          » But the plan failed from the beginning – was doomed to failure by ineluctable forces which the Romans, who had before them so much less history than we, may be pardoned for not seeing. And Professor Bourne, although well disposed toward bureaucracies and economic planning (which he regards as the mark of a “mature civilization”), shows why the plan’s apparent success merely masked for a time a profound and inevitable failure. “While the alimentary institution, to judge from its hearty acceptance by land-owners, was a success in respect to the agrarian problem, and while it undoubtedly fed and clothed many children” it was essentially an extension of the Welfare State. “Generations of governmental support for hundreds of thousands of Italians, without requiring from them any tangible service, made it clear to them that they had rights on which they could insist, but taught nothing of commensurate duties.” Paternalistic government merely created “a social and political irresponsibility based on an arrogant and childish belief in ‘rights’ and confidence in immunity to danger.” The net result was a population whose “lack of vigor, and irresponsibility” doomed it to extinction at the hands of the barbarians.

          » This is a clear illustration of the operations of forces inherent in the very nature of society. As every student of politics (including, I suspect, our more intelligent “liberals” despite their artful verbiage) well knows, a Welfare State necessarily entails a totalitarian despotism – and despotisms, for obvious purposes of their own, foster “lack of vigor and irresponsibility” in their subjects. The economic price of a Welfare State is crushing taxation. The social price is national suicide.

          tl;dr go fuck yourself with a rake

          » In the Second Century a freeborn Roman citizen named C Sergius Alcimus buried his son and recorded the following facts – and only these facts – on the marble tombstone: the boy (1) died at the age of three years, three months, and three days; (2) got his handout from the public treasury on the tenth day of each month; and (3) got his handouts from Wicket No. 49. This particular inscription is No. 10,224-b in Volume VI of the great Corpus inscripiionum Latinarum, and you will find many other inscriptions of identical form on the same and adjacent pages of this volume and in other volumes of the Corpus – all proudly recording for posterity the unconscious debasement of their authors.

          you like that debasement don’t you. you love going down on your knees. what’s the difference between acne and priests? acne comes on your face after you’re 13 lol

          • A.B Prosper says:

            Mind your mouth.

            The point that really seems impossible for you to grasp is that unemployment and underemployment means smaller families. Its not hard, Just look at the US TFR pre Birth Control, it was at its near lowest level in the 1930’s and no it wasn’t because of FDR , people had no food. It went up way up in the 1950’s when had plentiful jobs and yet tax rates as high as 90% —

            The late eras 60’s and 70’s and such combined cultural shifts with automation and we got just what you’d expect less babies

            Lets show you a Gallup Report

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/165935/nearly-half-younger-southern-europeans-underemployed.aspx

            Note this parts where young people 15-29 who are either unemployed or work part time and want full time work.

            Its about half and no less than 25%

            This does not include people who say make only enough money to be lower class and afford one child either,

            Germany and Austria might an an exception to the economic problems they have a very good education system and it may be that they have been memetically colonized by Leftists or they may have lots of jobs that pay poorly or require skills beyond the average German’s ability to learn I do not know.

            using US numbers here say I’m stuck at $15 US in a high cost area and I am decently smart I am not going to have as many children as otherwise.

            All of Europe is high cost because its crowded. Land is expensive and people there want a better standard of living and not just keeping popping out labor drones for the elite.

            And yes taxes and socialism costs contribute to higher living costs but I don’t care what promises any business makes, if there is any possibility to pay less wages or to sell out their country, almost all them do it. Promises to hire more never last and its always a lie past a quarter or two.

            In the end profits uber alles is not good for society

            Now as to why you pay women, married ones a point I did forget, to stay home is simple. We don’t have an economy to support that many workers. Its called an incentive and incentives used correctly can work

            Now as the idea that a welfare state causing a despotism , well OK. You are getting one anyway. The Enlightenment BS you were fed about individual rights and all that is rubbish. Human societies may give men of certain status certain privileges but on the whole, no one is free and given too much freedom, can’t use it anyway. You are a on an NrX blog, you ought to know this stuff.

            You might stem it off with eliminating the vote for some I suppose but again than its just a despotism for them instead of you. You can’t win, if everyone votes they’ll vote their own interests at your expense

            Now as for your insults, I’m nominally Christian sure but entirely un-churched and think its almost all metaphor . I was telling you though that its being Christian in origin is a sales point for many.

            if you don’t think so. No problem. Its still much better than Communism or Social Democracy we have it or the inevitable Oligarchy Capitalism is creating but again as I said it might fail but a system that respects private property and shifts incentives to broad based ownership sounds pretty good to me

            • jim says:

              The point that really seems impossible for you to grasp is that unemployment and underemployment means smaller families

              It is entirely the other way around. For example, Timore Leste has high unemployment and underemployment, and if you do get a job, it is a tiny fraction of the pay that an illiterate no-hablo-English day laborer reliably gets by showing up at Home Depot at seven in the morning, and yet pretty much everyone in Timore Leste is married, and everyone has big families.

              Men work for their families. They work so that they can have families. If they cannot have families, not going to work. If you tax the shit out of them, not going to work.

          • peppermint says:

            » people there want a better standard of living and not just keeping popping out labor drones for the elite

            what is the nature of the good lol

            oh, I know, it’s working so you can get taxed to pay for other people’s kids. That’s good. I love working to get taxed to pay for other people’s kids. The glorious feeling of being cucked and not having as much resources to pay for a wife and kids of my own is hard to describe to someone who isn’t a Christian and hasn’t felt the raw emotion of being told my sins are forgiven or being given a piece of the Savior.

            Distributism is socialism in a cassock. It isn’t direct government control, it has less cultural marxism, and that means it hasn’t been tried, which means it’s better than capitalism which has been tried but was taken over by communists and Jews. And the communists, the communists were Christians.

      • A.B Prosper says:

        What passive aggressive drek.

        If you don’t like Christianity fine but like 2/3 of NrX are obsessed with it and are constantly lamenting that secular people no longer have Christian based social pressures to encourage them to act against their own economic interests

        Also most Americans are nominally Christian as well and its a lot easier to implement something with a foundation that rooted in existing cultural DNA.

        Distributism meets this criteria and as its market and incentives based avoids the flaws of Socialism and the toxic effects of Capitalism

        Its vaguely possible that some open conspiracy of high performers could drag the White race into Asatru much as it was dragged into socialism but The Cathedral as its called is a Christian heresy and had a much easier time of it than they would / Communism is rooted in early monastic teachings as well

        As such moving to a folk centred culture would be rather difficult and maybe not useful

        Thus I figure if we take care of the foreign invasion, check the cultural Marxists influence and come up with some means for men to get income that should at the very least stabilize things which is good enough. as an example, a UK that was say 95% White with a stable population of 40 million would be just fine.

    • jim says:

      I’be alright with paying mothers to stay home and mother or even home-school instead of working if they followed through.

      But this makes them independent of men. Which means that men have no reason to work to pay the taxes to support those women.

      property ownership is a fundamental right and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy).

      Capital comes from people creating wealth and not consuming it, and then thinking how to put the stored wealth to work. Therefore, rightly belongs to those people.

      If you try to give it to someone else, you find that, mysteriously, you do not have any capital. So you squeeze the kulaks.

      What is a corporation? Corporations are people. A corporation is a bunch of people who have created wealth, and given it into the charge of one themselves, the CEO, to put that wealth to work. A corporation is a group of able and industrious people who have come together to use wealth to create more wealth.

      Modernity, the motor car, electricity, dishwwashing machines, comes from heroic scientist engineer CEOs, who had a vision of how value could be created, and mobilized other people’s wealth and other people’s labor to create value.

      • A.B Prosper says:

        I missed a point and it was very important. Married women only not single Moms . Your point is correct. I apologize

        And no corporations are not people at all, they are a tool to dodge responsibility so that when say the entire Gulf of Louisiana is polluted or thousands die from shoddy goods no actual person has to suffer the consequences.

        Charlie Stross may be far to the left of me but he describes corporations perfectly

        http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders-from-mars.html

        Corporations do not share our priorities. They are hive organisms constructed out of teeming workers who join or leave the collective: those who participate within it subordinate their goals to that of the collective, which pursues the three corporate objectives of growth, profitability, and pain avoidance. (The sources of pain a corporate organism seeks to avoid are lawsuits, prosecution, and a drop in shareholder value.)

        Corporations have a mean life expectancy of around 30 years, but are potentially immortal; they live only in the present, having little regard for past or (thanks to short term accounting regulations) the deep future: and they generally exhibit a sociopathic lack of empathy.

        My words now:

        They are alien invaders basically and people who support them are some combination of rootless (having no Volk) consider economics the main and basically only good or are memetically colonized. Corporations are not good they are outright bad and yes like everyone here I don’t know how to be rid of them without catastrophe

        • peppermint says:

          yes, because I want to pay for Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior’s four little girls to go to Disneyland

          what’s the point of me working when my wife can get money to take care of my children from the government? I think it would be a better use of my time to seduce your wife and cuck you. It shouldn’t be too difficult, because you’re a retard, and she instinctually wants better genes.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            Do you have a a better idea?

            And note you basically already pay for women to have children, its called the Earned Income tax Credit and the per child deduction.

            My idea formalizes this to married women only accepting a traditional role and they lose it in case of divorce. Its less generous than what we have right now !and will have so long as women can vote

            I appreciate strongly you not wanting to pay for people not of your folks, I respect it but not doing that requires you to have an ethno-state . Got a plan for that? Northwest Front maybe? Take your pick but the only way you will end up not paying this stuff is an ethno-state or utter economic wreckage

            As fa as you gamma male posturing, it demeans you not me . Anyway before you could seduce my wife I’d have to be married and I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed but I’m not that stupid.

            • jim says:

              Its less generous than what we have right now !and will have so long as women can vote

              Well there is your problem right now. That women can vote.

              Everything is ultimately paid for by men, in the sense that most women’s work outside the home is government manufactured makework. So women should be supported directly by their husbands and fathers, not by the state, in order that families are cohesive, and men have motive to work.

              the only way you will end up not paying this stuff is an ethno-state or utter economic wreckage

              Hong Kong did not pay for this shit for a long time, and for the most part still does not. Did utter economic wreckage ensue?

          • peppermint says:

            is it more feasible to change entitlements or scrap them entirely? Politics is, after all, the art of the possible. I will concede that I haven’t done the A/B testing in front of prospective Republican voters, so maybe you’re right.

            OTOH, maybe you’re a faggot confused enough to say things like ‘gamma male’

          • A.B Prosper says:

            I find the terms Vox Day and others use for the social sexual hierarchy to be useful shorthand especially for the behavior you were displaying. Its like saying “The cathedral” a term a lot of us use.

            . If you prefer a different tack than you might like “Dude, its not High School , we debate ideas not call each other faggot now, its so 80’s”

            Now as to your point, getting rid if entitlements is plausible if you are willing to accept the consequences which is basically social collapse and civil war . assuming somehow you come out on top with an intact economy and I suppose its plausible, you can also kiss your economy goodbye and your reproduction rate as well. The paradox of thrift will get you. Its an efficiency trap you can’t beat.

            Oh actually theree is one way, you de-industrialize and use older, cheaper, less efficient manpower intensive tech . This makes good a bit more expensive but it might be worth it.

            Now if you have a better plan that assuming you could somehow get in charge will actually solve the problems I am all ears . Don’t assume that your new Republic will be immune to well meaning meddlers, to angry mobs, to opportunistic nations wanting to foment a instability that will aid them or to the Cathedral 2 Electric Bugaloo.

            Your guys have to govern and if you are in charge and many of you new r people are going hungry or without the basics, especially after a revolt where everyone is armed they will replace you fast with someone who will make sure they are eating.

            The benevolent guy is FDR , history is replete with far more nasty people.

            well alright you might pull a Stalin, disarm, them or result to genocide and mass murder but that won’t do your economy any good and you’s better keep track of the nukes or some foreign power will eat your lunch for what they say will be your own good.

            You break it you buy it

            • jim says:

              Now as to your point, getting rid if entitlements is plausible if you are willing to accept the consequences which is basically social collapse and civil war

              That silly. You could abolish entitlements tomorrow (except for retirement benefits) and not a dog would bark.

              People predicted doom with Clinton’s welfare reform. Millions would, supposedly, starve. Instead, they got jobs, husbands, or switched from fucking the meanest and most vicious thug on the block to fucking the guy who was willing to look after them.

              Few people in Dubai are entitled to anything, except a short time in jail followed by free one way ticket out of Dubai. No trouble ensues. The entire world, outraged by this, is ceaselessly trying to manufacture trouble in Dubai, gets absolutely zero traction.

              Different states have radically different welfare levels, and it is the ones with high welfare that get the most rioting and troubles.

              Now if you have a better plan that assuming you could somehow get in charge will actually solve the problems I am all ears

              There is plenty of work that needs doing. Illegals who have no skills and cannot speak a word of English go to the Home Depot parking lot at seven in the morning, and at seven thirty or so, if they are sober, not making trouble, and willing to do as they are told, some guy offers them money to get into the back of a truck to work for a day. Looks like full employment to me.

              What needs to be done is to make it possible for a man to have a family, and money is not the big problem there. What is the big problem is that a man is not allowed to exercise authority over his wife and children, nor keep the assets he accumulates. So he is disinclined to trouble himself to support a wife and child, or to accumulate assets.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            Also the US is not Dubai which is a tiny city state. Those models don’t scale.

            To even try your idea you’d have to kick the illegals out first. and there isn’t day labor for 30 million people (assuming 10 mil can’t work and should get disability if you permit it ) and the sudden loss of income would cripple a lot of companies,

            The last time we has massive poverty we got FDR which kind of solved some things and while maybe waiting it out would have been better, it can take years and people cannot wait to eat.

            You could get a lot worse or just slump the rest of the way to Brazil 2.0

            Also the UAE citizens have a lavish welfare state so that’s not quite correct either. Its more lavish than ours

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2820598/A-lifetime-perks-UAE-help-cushion-wealth-gap.html

            The government benefits that Emiratis have long enjoyed would be unthinkable in most of the world: Tax-free income. Free high-quality health care. Subsidized fuel. Generous government-funded retirement plans. Access to land to build homes with interest-free loans. Free higher education, even when pursued abroad.
            To ease marriage costs, the government gives Emirati men 70,000 dirhams ($19,000) when they marry an Emirati woman. A debt settlement fund provides a one-time bailout to entrepreneurs who need it. On some occasions, the UAE’s rulers have paid the debts of Emirati nationals ahead of major holidays.

            Funny enough the welfare state works and Dubai has a rather small diaspora. and population growth too , probably on account of Islam

            However as I said it doesn’t scale.

            I don’t disagree with you last point though

            What is the big problem is that a man is not allowed to exercise authority over his wife and children, nor keep the assets he accumulates. So he is disinclined to trouble himself to support a wife and child, or to accumulate assets.

            Who the hell would want authority over a woman or children , its too much like work for basically no gain.

            Also a lot of rational men know there is little she offers except sex and children that they need.

            In my own example I can vacuum my own house the dishes have been my chore since I was a kid and I can even cook, sew and do pretty much any non gender specific chores .

            she offers exactly what? A rapidly declining sexual market place value ? Company?

            As for children? Well maybe but that is a hell of a trade-off and like a lot of people I value my own time. more than the needs of a non existent society. There are three basic reasons to have children by choice

            #1, you think God wants you to

            #2 You want them for whatever reason

            #3 You wish to pass on your culture as it because your people do

            To the 1st, I’m a lousy Christian the 2nd I don’t especially want to trade the responsibility for children for an Oxytocin high and the 3rd what culture?

            Now if we actually have a Western culture and are no longer seen as cogs in some state machine and get back to me .

            I

            • jim says:

              Also the US is not Dubai which is a tiny city state. Those models don’t scale.

              They scale just fine. China is emulating Singapore with the assistance of Hong Kong, China being the biggest country in the world. To some extent, so is India, the second biggest, though its ability is to imitate Singapore is limited by pesky demotist and democratic politics which keep it poor.

              The smallness of Dubai helps in that it makes it easy to deport troublemakers with a minimum of fuss, but America has Alaska. Send troublemakers to camp in Alaska.

              Also the UAE citizens have a lavish welfare state so that’s not quite correct either. Its more lavish than ours

              Very few people in Dubai are citizens. So in Dubai, that is not so much welfare, as benefits for the aristocracy. Instead of taxing the rich to help the poor, they are taxing the poor to help the rich. Which works well.

              They are not the idle rich, or at least not entirely idle. Every male citizen serves nine months in the army and remains liable to serve at any time, so they are in fact a martial aristocracy. Benefits you give to your fighting men are not necessarily welfare, however generous they may be. With citizens a small, and martial minority, rather than a bunch of entirely useless idlers, Dubai is an aristocratic state, not a welfare state. If they were giving Dubai women handouts to cheat on their husbands, then it would be a welfare state.

              Dubai maintains a citizen army of twenty thousand men, which keeps its citizens somewhat useful. They also staff the government bureaucracy, which is not necessarily all that useful. The army of Dubai has a leadership position in the armies of the United Arab Emirates.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            Eliminating female suffrage would have much value but the Corporations won’t allow the status of women to be reduced to them being chattels of men. This would reduce consumption and raise the cost of labor.Both are anathema.

            Anyway what is it with you and city states? Timor Leste is basically a tiny homogeneous island city state and its not Western As with Dubai those models don’t scale anyway. heck best run White country in the world is probably Iceland , healthy economy, good government, adequate personal liberty and native population growth. Alas Its population 300,000 and can’t scale

            last Hong Kong the TfR is 1.1 – about the same as Singapore. It was below replacement in 1980 and that when it was fully capitalist and there was a greater demand for human labor . It bricked in a 10 year cycle going from over 3 in 11970 to 2 in 1980 (still below replacement) than 1.2 in another decade. (19190) Its not a working thing either . Itts stopped at 1.1 which is as low as fertility ever goes it seems

            There are several reason why this is so, crowding, economic issues, cultural changes , moving closer to communism but no doubt the economy and technology played a huge part

            • jim says:

              Timor Leste is basically a tiny homogeneous island city state and its not Western

              If everyone had the laws of and customs of Timor Leste in relation to women and the family, everyone would have the fertility of Timore Leste. If everyone had the laws and customs of Singapore and Hong Kong in relation to corporations, production, property rights, employment, and trade, everyone would be as rich as Singapore and Hong Kong. If everyone had the laws and customs of Singapore in relation to criminal activity, everyone would have a crime rate as low as that of Singapore. If everyone had the health system of Singapore, healthcare would everywhere be as cheap and as good as that of Singapore.

              It really is that simple.

          • peppermint says:

            …because, to within an epsilon which can be controlled by culture and intensive early education, all groups of anthropologically modern humans are basically the same

        • jim says:

          And no corporations are not people at all, they are a tool to dodge responsibility so that when say the entire Gulf of Louisiana is polluted or thousands die from shoddy goods no actual person has to suffer the consequences.

          The gulf oil disaster was absolutely no disaster, in that the oil vanished naturally, as a result of micro-organisms that eat oil and shit asphalt, and the beaches that were not cleaned were in much better shape, because they avoided all the damaged caused by the cleaners. And the corporation had to pay billions of dollars for imaginary or trivial damage, or damage caused primarily by the environmentalists “cleaning” things.

          Charlie Stross may be far to the left of me but he describes corporations perfectly

          If you quote Charlie Stross approvingly, you are commie.

          The wealth and the technology of the west was created by corporations. Without the technological advances brought by corporations, you would be a seventeenth century peasant. The only alternative economic model to corporations creating wealth is the communist state creating wealth, and you saw how that worked out.

          Abolish corporations, you get communism, or over regulate them, and you get the state depicted in “Atlas Shrugged”. It has been tried. For a recent example, see Venezuela for what happens when government makes corporations serve the people.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            One can quote Stross or Marx and acknowledge they are correct in some things without being a Commie.

            And while the gulf oil spill wasn’t as bad as it could have been , don’t assume you’ll get lucky every time. You need to study ocean health a bit to realize just how much damage has been done without strong regulation and many ecological disasters Fukishima for instance will be an issue longer than that some longer than human civilization, give or take.

            The disaster caused by actual Communists in the Ukraine was actually less worse FWIW anyway

            Now the West got by fine for tens of centuries without multi-national companies because our stuff is not us, its just that stuff.

            We are not our economy, we are our blood and our ideas, our folk beliefs and our history. This infatuation with money is a recent thing and it killing us as a people,We are now cogs with no purpose than to serve the single Corporate machines

            Also things are not that binary, one can eschew both giant unaccountable corporations and the state owning everything alike.I want many people to own property , to be yeomanry if you will and the current oligarchy lead by corporations is not going to get anywhere near that goal.

            We’ll all end up slaves who think we are free because you know Coke or Pepsi as the relentless drive for efficiency and yet more consumption ends up nowhere good.

            Combine it with with Cultural Marxism and we get Brave New World or worse.

            • jim says:

              Fukishima for instance will be an issue longer than that some longer than human civilization, give or take.

              Fallout from Chernobyl killed about nine people, and wildlife is now settling the inside of the Chernobyl reactor. We can tell it only killed around nine people, because a major part of the fallout landed on two tiny towns, and there are only nine excess cancers in those towns.

              Fukishima will probably kill about 0.1% as many, which means the total excess risk of Fukishima is comparable to a traffic light going down for a few days.

              one can eschew both giant unaccountable corporations and the state owning everything alike

              Yet no one has produced a system that eschews giant unaccountable corporations, without resulting in devastating economic, cultural, and social disaster. As I said, East Germans are niggers and Swedes are cucks.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            Jim. Do you assume that Timorese and Europeans for example are so much alike that they can be interchanged policy for policy with Europeans? To my mind that’s Cathedral nonsense,. people and policies cannot be interchanged willy-nilly. Biology is different and it takes generations sometimes to shift culture.

            Also people from Timor here in the West end up doing very poorly and are responsible for a lot of depraved crime in Canada as well.

            A person outside their folk and context will not do as well as someone in their own context.

            I think the exception might be people with fairly high IQ’s inculcated into certain values, Whites and Asians think quite differently probably on a biological level but are capable of operating in certain marginally interchangeable ways and may react somewhat similarly to certain stimuli, sometimes.

            Also a little study would show the Singapore has an enormous quiet welfare state with subsidizing housing, state run dating services and a lot more. Its stingy compared to the West . Still I can’t imagine say the USG running dating services for example. but Singapore does

            Its all in English so enjoy!

            https://app.sdn.sg/default.aspx

            Also its the among the most unequal countries in the world and that kind of backs up my point, no money no babies for smart to middle, people in Singapore work hard , believe in work above most things and have no time or money for children which in the 21st century are a luxury good.

            So they have few children and the State there in a panic tries to team up with Mentos(yes the candy) to get people to have kids. It doesn’t work of course

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jxU89x78ac

            Its as absurdly socialist as well, pure comedy.

            Also if you tried to tell Singapore not to let women work,. they’d laugh in your face.

            What I see is the Right just as the Founding Fathers didn’t felt do not want to pay the costs for maintain civilization and we are running out of the ability of offshore them and put them off or come up with hacks.

            Its understandable these days and with the effect of Cultural Marxism, mass immigration, feminism and lazy scum all t quite justified since its not only bad policy, not in any working man’s interest and basically impossible for a lot of reasons.

            In the long run we probably will get patriarchy anyway , after the catabolic collapse is through. It will result in a pre-modern economy and after a significant population free fall , probably at best replacement fertility — think 100 million at an 1920’s level with some schizo-tech

            Or we might get Idiocracy or revolution, who knows.

            • jim says:

              Jim. Do you assume that Timorese and Europeans for example are so much alike that they can be interchanged policy for policy with Europeans? T

              The Timorese policy is a considerably milder version of the European policy as it was in the eighteenth century.

              Also if you tried to tell Singapore not to let women work,. they’d laugh in your face.

              Before 1980, if you told China to imitate Singapore, they’d laugh in your face.

  12. R7_Rocket says:

    Speaking of ankle biters…

    https://storify.com/DNLee5/calling-out-culturally-insensitive-science-narrati?awesm=sfy.co_e0QGI&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_campaign=&utm_source=t.co

    Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “diversity means chasing down the last white man (kulak)”. DNLee hates the idea of the kulaks escaping her clutches.

  13. Peppermint says:

    ABP: I’m a degenerate faggot I know how to cook and wash dishes please rape my face

    Me: no way man I don’t want your AIDS

    ABP: well you still have to pay taxes for my hormone replacement therapy distributism is Christian

    Me: fuck off castrate yourself with a rusty knife

  14. […] Lee Kuan Yew died this Sunday, and with his death came a flood of obituaries memorializing the man. This part of the Internet was no exception. Many of these were fawning, but some pointed out that he wasn’t some deity come to earth, and a common theme running through many of them was whether Singapore can keep its position in the world without Harry Lee at the helm. […]

  15. Steve says:

    Wisconsin Basketball Player Has Embarrassing Moment at Press Conference

    http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2015/03/wisconsin-basketball-player-has.html

  16. […] RIP. Nick Land chooses the word Greatness. Spandrell says a fond and clear-eyed Goodbye. Jim says, “Harry Lee was the greatest statesman of our age, but…” Only time will tell. Ash Milton has eulogy of sorts for LKY over at Social Matter. (More on that […]

  17. Corvinus says:

    Singapore is a kleptocracy. LKY spent his life obtaining control of every important institution of society. He pilfered the public coffers and dished out to cronies millions of dollars in government salary, compliments of the average Singaporean family, which paid around 80% of its earnings back to the government.

    He was a totalitarian who stole billions from his people.

  18. B says:

    LKY was a hero, about as close to Moldbug’s ideal of Steve Jobs with a state as you’ll get.

    He was a tragic hero, and his ultimate defeat shows the limit of High NRx ideals (I think that since the stupids have jumped on board, we can call what currently exists Low NRx. You know, sort of like the difference between Luther and the Munster Rebellion.)

    He succeeded in creating massive wealth and order out of what was poised to be a typical SEA hellhole with mass murder and poverty. You can look next door to Indonesia for a sample. At the best, they would have been like Malaysia.

    He failed to create a social ethos that would have been worth living and reproducing for. When aspiring yuppies achieve their goals, what else is there left to do? What would Singaporeans lay their lives and wealth on the line for? I’ve been to the place-it’s a giant shopping mall. Would you die to defend JC Penny and Cinnabon?

    This was not LKY’s fault. He was the product of two societies which had completely lost their faith. A significant part of the best Britons and Chinese were, by the 1930s, Communist. There were no other ideals worth taking seriously. LKY was, in this, like Marcus Aurelius.

    Notably, LKY went to Israel to try to understand how to make a small country in a dangerous neighborhood work well.

    But he didn’t understand that there was something else which went beyond capitalism and an effective military, beyond rationalism and positivism, which was necessary to establish a state with roots.

    I suspect that had he been capable of thinking in this way, though, his life would have taken a different path and he would not have been in a position to implement this insight on a national scale.

    • jim says:

      Everything you say is true, but:

      Your Judaism is in many ways profoundly unsuited to be the state religion that the Hebrew religion originally was. As a result, your state religion is in fact progressivism, and progressivism is moving towards the eradication of Israel.

      Atheist Jews were able to reconquer Israel, because their progressivism and socialism had a good bit of Nazism and fascism in it, but progressivism has moved further and further away from that.

      Religious Jews were not able to reconquer Israel, but rather whined at the colonial powers that they should be wafted back into Israel by other people’s armies.

      Consider the recent election: Close. If Israel had given citizenship to a few more Arabs, a Jewish left + Arab coalition government would have been possible – and tempting – and the Cathedral would have twisted arms until it happened. And once it happened, a “peace” deal that gave that government a somewhat bigger majority would be tempting. That was Obama’s plan in the short term.

      And then, an election or two down the line, a substantially Arab coalition cuts a “peace” deal for a one nation solution in which all Arabs get to vote. That was the State Department’s plan in the somewhat longer term.

      And then it is off to the races with population replacement as is under way in many of the formerly white nations.

      The Australian government has been in the news lately for stopping the boats: “human rights violation” says the UN – which implies that the other white countries are not stopping the boats.

      The permanent and unelected Australian government is uniformly in favor of unlimited illegal immigration, and declares all attempts to stop it illegal. The merely elected government has the support and loyalty of the military so can blow off the permanent government for the moment – but it has to use the military to do things that the permanent government declares illegal, declares to be kidnapping, piracy, and unlawful imprisonment.

      Because your official religion is progressivism, once you get enough Arabs in the Israeli government that the merely elected government becomes hesitant to use the military to defy the permanent government, the permanent government will open the doors, one little crack at a time, until the doors are wide open, as is happening in the white countries.

      So yes, everything you say is true – but actually existent Judaism, exilic Judaism, is just inherently exilic, inherently subversive, subversive of its host nation even if that nation is Israel, not really an adequate solution to those problems.

      • B says:

        This is largely bullshit.

        Religious and non-religious Jews established Israel together. At the time, religious Jews were a minority in the world and in Israel. But they also fought.

        I don’t understand the bit about whining. The founders of the state fought an insurrection against the British and negotiated with them in turn. They also used the USSR and the American political system (see:Forrestal’s diaries, for instance.) Despite being a bunch of socialists, they neither became a Soviet satellite nor descended into purges and famine. And this is directly due to Judaism and the influence of people like Rav Kook.

        Your mistake is that you attempt to make generalizations and then use them as a Procrustean bed. Even if your generalizations were correct, which they aren’t, Israel operates under a completely different set of rules. This was pointed out by Luttwak, who is a much deeper analyst than you, but when it comes to us, his predictions have all been wrong.

        Now as for your boogeyman of Arab voters. Even with massive, US-sponsored turnout and voter fraud, they got about 10% of Knesset seats. And their proportion of the population is falling. Further, no major leftist party would join a coalition with them-their voters wouldn’t stand for it. It would be the end of that party. And State doesn’t want to enfranchise the Arabs of the West Bank. They explicitly want them to get their own state. Which is getting less and less likely every month. So don’t scare us with this-the situation is much better than it was 10 and 20 years ago, with Oslo and Gaza.

        • B says:

          Just to make sure I’m explicit-all the things that make us completely different from the Western countries are directly a result of Judaism. And there is no such thing as exilic Judaism. It’s all Judaism.

          • jim says:

            Yet Israel was reconquered by atheists.

            What makes Israel different is that it is on the metaethnic frontier – you face people trying to kill you every day. That is why Jews outside Israel are degenerate and getting more degenerate, while Israeli Jews are turning into Draka. That which does not kill me makes me stronger. The Jews outside Israel believe the same things as the Jews inside Israel, but look at the difference!

          • jim says:

            And there is no such thing as exilic Judaism. It’s all Judaism.

            Judaism has not only changed radically since Deuteronomy. It has changed radically in my lifetime.

          • B says:

            It is difficult to consider people like Ben Gurion atheists.

            There were plenty of religious people fighting in 1948. And the secular Zionist movement only survived in the beginning because it had the Old Yishuv, which is to say, the religious Jews who kept coming to Israel in waves over the last 1000 years or so, despite unbelievably hostile conditions.

            The Jews outside Israel frequently come to Israel, and do just fine living here (including in settlements-Efrat, for instance, is 70% Anglo-American,) serving in the military, etc. And they are the same Jews, with the same Judaism. Just the context changes.

            I can’t take your assessments of Judaism seriously, since our discussions showed that you were completely unaware of its principles, details, etc. until very recently, and are largely still unaware of it. Forgive me for not wanting to waste any more time on discussions of whether we know what tefillin should look like or how to keep Shabbat and Kashrut with you. You made your prediction re: homosexual marriage by the end of 2016 in a major Orthodox synagogue, we’ll leave it on hold until then, ok?

            • jim says:

              I can’t take your assessments of Judaism seriously, since our discussions showed that you were completely unaware of its principles, details, etc. until very recently,

              I have always been aware that current Judaism tortured past texts beyond recognition, and often texts not all that long past. That I still don’t recognize the old texts in your interpretation of them is not ignorance, but common sense.

              For example the old testament laws on rape and marriage make no sense in a society where female consent was considered legally or morally significant, or even something that women much cared about, and even male consent was no big deal, and the Book of Ruth makes no sense unless these laws meant what they said, and were acted on in accordance with their common sense meaning.

              How can Ruth be a virtuous women when she anoints herself all over and sneaks into bed with Boaz in the night, except that she claims that she is legally and socially obligated to have sex with him, and he with her?

          • B says:

            To the extent that the founders of the state were leftists/atheists, they left work undone for that exact reason: http://israelmatzav.blogspot.co.il/2008/06/truth-about-1948-battle-for-jerusalem.html

            Things have been steadily improving since.

          • B says:

            I’m going to point out that Ruth doesn’t say anything about sleeping with her, and the euphemism she uses (“spread your cloak over your servant”) is one for marriage, not sex. Further, the Book of Ruth tells us explicitly when she and Boaz had relations-that it was after marriage.

            As usual, you have an agenda, and the sources interest you only insofar as they support it.

            • jim says:

              Ruth spent the night in bed with Boaz, and clearly intended to spend the night. Perhaps they spent the whole night chastely cuddling, but when Ruth anointed her body, cuddling was not the main thing on her mind.

              When a girl gets in bed with a man, it is not to propose marriage. For her to be chaste, she has to be claiming to be already his wife or one of his wives – regardless of the consent of either party.

              If arguably his wife (she assumes the nonexistence of the closer kinsman) then Deuteronomy and Genesis mean exactly what they plainly say: Marriage without consent. Ruth is, like Elimelech’s land, part of the estate of Elimelech, property of the rightful heir of Elimelech, just as Abishag, David’s newest, youngest, and hottest wife or concubine, was the rightful property of the heirs of David, and Solomon killed Adonijah, because they both wanted Abishag.

              The conversation between Solomon and his mother only makes sense if Abishag is property.

          • B says:

            You are an idiot.

            When the Bible wants to tell us someone slept with someone else, it comes right out and tells us. As it does in the Book of Ruth, in the story of Judah and Tamar, etc.

            Having gotten yourself confused with the Book of Ruth, you jump to the Book of Kings. At least this time you’ve gotten the story sort of right.

            The point of Avishag the Shulamite wasn’t that Solomon wanted her. The point was that in those days, whoever took the kingship took the previous king’s wives/concubines as a seal of his new kingship. Hence, for instance, David’s rebellious son, Absalom, has sex with his father’s concubines in public view on the roof, to demonstrate to the people that he is now in charge. Therefore Solomon takes Adonijah’s request for Avishag as an attempt to usurp his power on the sly. Youth and hotness are not the point. Solomon did not lack women, and he was not led around by his dick. Political considerations were the point. And none of this has any bearing whatsoever on the question of whether women were property. The king is the king, different rules apply, and even if they didn’t, you can’t take Solomon’s conduct as exemplary.

            Arguing with you would be fine if you were just ignorant, but you are ignorant and absolutely self-assured, so it’s an annoying waste of time.

            • jim says:

              When the Bible wants to tell us someone slept with someone else, it comes right out and tells us. As it does in the Book of Ruth, in the story of Judah and Tamar, etc.

              Whoever wrote down the book of Ruth did not know what Ruth and Boaz did when Ruth spent the night in Boaz’s bed, or if he knew, politely refrained from telling us. Quite possibly they only cuddled. But it is perfectly clear what Ruth intended to do.

              And Boaz’s view that Ruth is nonetheless a chaste woman only makes sense in a society where consent is unimportant, and women are property. Ruth is chaste despite anointing her body and getting into Boaz’s bed because she believes that Boaz is the rightful heir of Elimelech, and that therefore she is the property of Boaz, and therefore has a duty to pleasure him – as the perfectly clear and straightforward laws of Genesis and Deuteronomy command.

              It is implied she was looking forward to performing her duty, and was a bit miffed that Boaz was taking so long to command her to perform it. She earlier told us that she hoped to find favor in his eyes. But her approach to finding favor in his eyes only makes sense if she is a slut, or if she is a chaste woman who regards herself as property. And since Boaz tells us she is chaste woman …

          • B says:

            Look, your approach is absolutely no different from the approach of the Gender Studies postmodernists, who read the story of David and Jonathan and conclude that they were homosexual lovers.

            “Look, it’s right there!” they say. “David says that Jonathan’s love was was more wonderful than the love of women!”

            I say, if you want to flay the story to fit your biases and agenda, suit yourself. But leave me out of it. I am a Jew, and to me, our Torah makes sense and gives life in light of our tradition. Which has a range of recorded interpretations, which are themselves deserving of study and thought. But that’s not to say that any asshole can show up with a KJV in his hand and teach us how to read it, what it really means, what the REAL AUTHENTIC JUDAISM was back 3000 years ago, etc.

            • jim says:

              your approach is absolutely no different from the approach of the Gender Studies postmodernists, who read the story of David and Jonathan and conclude that they were homosexual lovers.“Look, it’s right there!” they say. “David says that Jonathan’s love was was more wonderful than the love of women!”

              Jonathan does not creep into bed with David.

              Ruth anoints her body, creeps into bed with Boaz and spends the night in bed with him. Big difference. Even if we suppose nothing happened, it was clearly Ruth’s intent that something happen.

              Boaz concludes from this not that Ruth is a slut, but that she is chaste – which conclusion only makes sense of Deuteronomy and Genesis mean what they say – that consent is unimportant and women are property. Ruth is chaste because she seeks to pleasure her rightful owner, the man she believes is the rightful heir of Elimelech, her previous owner.

          • B says:

            As I said, you are no different than a postmodernist, happily ignoring context and tradition and proclaiming that your twist is the obvious meaning. I’m not going to waste any more time pointing out the parts of the text that plainly contradict your twist, because it’s obvious you don’t care about them and are not arguing in good faith.

            • jim says:

              proclaiming that your twist is the obvious meaning.

              When a woman anoints her body and goes to bed with a man and spends the night with him in his bed, the meaning is indeed obvious.

          • B says:

            In your frame of mind and in your world. Likewise, if a man told you that your love was better than the love of a woman, you’d deduce that he was a homosexual and wanted to engage in homosexual relations with you. “Heheheh, Beavith, he said “tool!””

            • jim says:

              Boaz seems mighty clear that women in his day were very much like women in our day.

              It is easy to imagine a society where people can use words of love without intending genital expression of that love, indeed it happens quite a lot in our society. But when a woman gets into bed with a man at night, in the darkness …

              Ruth is prepared to do whatever Boaz tells her to do. In the dark. In his bed.

              Under the circumstances she must have expected that he was likely to verbally or non verbally demand sex of her, whether he in fact demanded sex of her or not.

              In which case it follows that she, and he, must have interpreted the laws of Genesis and Deuteronomy to mean what they plainly say – that women were property, and she was part of the estate of Elimelech, otherwise she would be a slut, and Boaz did not think she was a slut, and the intended audience of the Book of Ruth is not intended to think she is a slut. Therefore, the intended audience of the book of Ruth interpreted the laws of Genesis and Deuteronomy according to their plain and clear meaning, pretty much as Islamic State interprets the words of Mohammed according to their plain and clear meaning, and expected Boaz, Ruth, and Naomi to interpret them according to their plain and clear meaning.

          • B says:

            Again, not interested in postmodernist, decontextualized analysis based on your agenda. Thanks.

            • jim says:

              What context could possibly have led Ruth to expect that she was unlikely to be requested or commanded to perform sexually, while in bed in the dark with the somewhat drunk Boaz?

              What context could possibly have led the intended audience of the Book of Ruth to believe that Ruth did not expect to be requested or commanded to perform sexually, while in bed in the dark with the somewhat drunk Boaz?

              You say “context” – well the context of the times was not a pile of rabbis, it was King David.

              At the time the book of Ruth was written, presumably in the time of King David, they did not have a pile of rabbis to tell them the book of Ruth did not say what it said nor mean what it means. If Boaz, mighty man, was expected to be a little bit like his great grandson, King David, mighty man, likely no woman within a mile would have been safe unless wearing steel panties.

              And if Ruth expected to be nailed hard, and is nonetheless viewed by Boaz and the intended audience as chaste and virtuous, then to Boaz, and to the intended audience, the laws of Genesis and Deuteronomy mean what they say and say what they mean – that women are property.

              Whether or not Boaz banged her, whether or not she was trying get him to bang her, she had to expect that once she got in bed with him he would seek to bang her – and she is prepared to do whatever he tells her to do.

              For her to go to his bed with that expectation, and yet be chaste, be perceived as chaste by Boaz and the intended audience, Boaz and the intended audience had to believe that the laws of Genesis and Deuteronomy mean what they say and say what they mean.

            • jim says:

              When you lose an argument, which you usually do, you revert to insults.

        • jim says:

          And State doesn’t want to enfranchise the Arabs of the West Bank. They explicitly want them to get their own state.

          Both policies are now live in the state department. The unending status quo is increasing unacceptable to progressives – and your state religion is progressivism.

          You say no Israeli left party will go into coalition with the Arabs – but the Obama and the State Department believed otherwise. As progressives measure holiness, a Jew willing to go into coalition with arabs is more holy, and the trend is always to ever greater holiness.

          Obama had a plan. Like most of his plans, it failed. But progressives only have to win once. You have to win every time.

          • B says:

            We saw how well Obama and State understand Israel quite recently. Israelis reacted to an external push leftwards, with the latest Western political tech (including, BTW, LGBT entryism) by massing to the right. And we have time on our side. The progs don’t. We are growing, they are collapsing and turning on each other.

          • B says:

            It’s the vector that matters.

            Of course they suck, but less than the alternative and less than they sucked 10 years ago.

            Imagine if the U.S. elected Republicans who were further to the right than Bush Sr.

            I know we can’t vote our way out of this-but this vote is a symptom of something.

            • jim says:

              Luttwak agrees with me:

              He flatly and directly disagrees with you, for he credits Ben Gurion, and Ben Gurion was an atheist. Atheists founded Israel. Jewish believers were subversives then, and subversives now.

              Or are you perhaps claiming that Lutwak agrees that Arab opposition to Israel is becoming weaker, in part because they are too busy killing each other. The problem however, is not Arabs, but the state department.

          • B says:

            He agrees with me in that we have a special providence. I agree that Ben Gurion played a part in it.

            Luttwak agrees with me when he implies between the lines that we will outlast the Cathedral just like we outlasted the Turks, Brits, French, etc.

  19. John says:

    I don’t know that Singapore is in a worse situation than other developed countries. It’s a densely populated city-state, so its fertility rate is going to tend to be lower than the rates of other countries.

    LKY inherited a multi-racial, multi-cultural society and did succeed in laying the groundwork for a greater Singaporean national identity. Despite its materialism and young status, there is a basic social conservatism there that is also fostered and supported by the government. It’s less cynical in that regard and there’s a greater willingness to sacrifice for and defend it than might be expected. It’s an international port city on the one hand, but it’s also a home for many people on the other hand with military service for all male citizens and a significant percentage of GDP spent on the military and national defense.

    It’s sort of difficult to characterize politically. It’s officially multi-racial and multi-cultural, but socially conservative with socialist, fascist, and capitalist elements.

    • jim says:

      The really bad thing about Singapore is that it is a gene shredder. Of course big cities tend to be gene shredders, but Dubai quite recently used to manage replacement fertility thanks to patriarchy. (Fertility collapsing in the past decade)

      The solution is to go all the way with patriarchy – the laws of eighteenth century Britain, today’s Timor Leste, and Japan before MacArthur.

Leave a Reply