TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

      • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo

      • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Former prime minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew is red pill as fuck

[deleted]

March 29, 2015
243 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Former prime minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew is red pill as fuck
Author

[deleted]
Upvotes 243
Comments 193
Date March 29, 2015 4:24 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/30pkyk/former_prime_minister_of_singapore_lee_kuan_yew/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/former-prime-minister-of-singapore-lee-kuan-yew-is.30767
https://theredarchive.com/post/30767
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill

Comments

[–][deleted] 202 points203 points204 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

"I'd rather be correct than politically correct." -Lee Kuan Yew

[–]foldpak111 75 points76 points77 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Political correctness will be the downfall of modern society.

[–]aazav 42 points43 points44 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You are a special flower! Just like every other special flower! Here's a gold star for your fridge for attending!

Fuck that shit.

[–]foldpak111 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But when you refine your lens and tighten the focus you become more so

[–]Endorsed ContributorTheRedPilsner 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The term "politically correct" is so 1990s. These days it's called "social justice."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

my face contorts with disgust whenever i see the words social justice. a reaction i associate with seeing a skinhead with swastika tattoos walk past..

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Piggybacking on top comment to counter the misinformation spread by theredpoo.

In Singapore, the chewing of gum is not punished with public caning. I mean, the act of chewing it is not even illegal. On the other hand, the sale of chewing gum is prohibited, and the greatest legal punishment is just a fine. A simple google search proves him wrong. Hell, there's a wikipedia article on this matter.

*edit: Sorry for the derail, but he's got a serious chip on his shoulder, and is basing his opinions on a really popular myth made up decades ago by sensationalist media outlets.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Medicinal gum has been legal since 2004 thanks to a FTA with the U.S. who pushed for it.

[–][deleted] 64 points65 points66 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Holy crap, this guy...instant respect for someone I knew nothing about.

[–]nuesuh 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

yeah. Not something that happens very often.

[–]Thatgoodsshit 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I first learned about him from an interest in Buffett and Munger.

Judged against Lee Kuan Yew most world leaders look like children.

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points33 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I've spent time in Singapore. It's so fucking cool. The whole country is as clean and well-designed as an Apple Store. Huge respect to the guy who made that country happen.

The dating scene there is very interesting. It's a little bit like LA, everyone is constantly dressed to the nines... Looking your best is definitely a country-wide value. Singaporean girls are OUTRAGEOUSLY superficial and entitled but they're cute as fuck, even underneath all their makeup.

Singapore itself struck me as pretty Red Pill. All the men are pretty disciplined and hard-working thanks to the mandatory military service and the incredibly strict laws.

Definitely recommend a trip to Singapore for any RP'ers with significant extra cash.

[–]stuckinbathroom 24 points25 points26 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Eh, I dunno about Singaporean guys being RP. Sure, they're disciplined and hardworking but the same could be said of most BP-as-fuck Asian-American and Asian-Canadian guys, no? In my experience, Singaporean guys put the pussy on a mile-high pedestal, which feeds the entitlement complex of the women that you describe. That said, their Asian values do reward straight-laced provider behaviour in men, as any functioning society (which manifestly does not include the Anglophone west) should.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]stuckinbathroom 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Gender equality" my ass. Good God, she had the gall to mention gender equality and mandatory conscription for men but not women in the same breath?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Whoa whoa easy there buddy, give some love and respect to your fellow Asian, not the ones perpetuated by Hollywood

[–]stuckinbathroom 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey, I'm Asian-Canadian myself. Didn't mean to suggest that all Asians in the west are BP, just that those who are tend to be studious, disciplined, family-oriented, and hard working.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]red_pill_throw_away 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm currently in Singapore and this cannot be truer. This whole place gets boring fast. But then again I'm still a student so I haven't really been exposed to the finer life here due to the lack of $$. That being said Singapore is the best hub to travel through Asia. Flights are cheap, location is central and the place itself is safe, clean and very Western. Its nice to be able to come back to some civilization after trekking through Cambodian jungles for 2 weeks.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I definitely agree that Singapore guys are red pill in general. My brother became redpill while serving NS, it's amazing what having a group of male friends in a disciplined environment can do to you. He started lifting (been for years now) and he takes no shits from anyone. He's constantly looking to improve himself career wise.

Funnily I've served too but I'm still beta after casually reading TRP for a year, while my bro has never even heard of the term redpill.

[–]guy2435 25 points26 points27 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Yup this statesman is one to look up to. I've worked a part of my life in Singapore and if I may say, it's one of nicer place to work and live. The government is authoritarian but even handed, not much political corruption. As long as you obey the rules and law of the land, you'll be fine. The people generally look up to their leaders, as they are competent and very capable of handling their jobs, and they do it for general welfare of their people and country. They say its hard work so people don't usually run for public office so much so that the government was campaigning for bright minds to enter politics to get new blood. Unlike in some countries where if you're popular you'll win elections, even if you don't know what the fuck you're suppose to be doing in office. Their prime ministers are bred in politics, and are appointed by the previous prime minister, not elected by the clueless masses. Dissent and anti-government activities or protest is not allowed, they are squashed immediately. There's a proper place for those things where you discuss it in front of your leaders, ministers and prime minister, reasonably. I like his style better than the freedom of democracy style of the US. But that is just me and my opinions.

[–]foldpak111 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The women there are extremely shallow, though.

[–]ShekelBanker 43 points44 points45 points 11 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

I might get flak for this, but in spite of those libtards crying about how he restricted the press and how he controlled freedom of speech, but you look at democracy in the West and see that it's not functioning, not to mention that cancerous leftist ideas were shut down instantly in Singapore.

His methods of leadership were compared to Hitler, but he, like Hitler pre-WW2, did an amazing job in ruling the country. Let's remember Germany when the rest of the world was in abject poverty due to the Great Depression, it was sitting as the most economically healthy. Singapore when Asia was in a crisis due to the Lost Decade (1991-2000) in Japan.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points27 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Democracy or not, there is no real freedom. Only the illusion of it. If Singapore indulged in democratic mudslinging at that point as has been the case in the west for a while now, not much work would have been done. Free press gives you nothing but 1/4 women getting raped in college and 1 black guy getting killed every 28 hours type of news that turns people against each other based on gender and race. Lie after lie after lie, 'free press' hasn't been an asset for the west in a long time.

[–]DexterousRichard 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, sometimes I think that freedom of the press is important, but the way it has enabled leftist interests to erode healthy culture and inject insidiously harmful ideas and memes into the mind of the public seems worse, in the end...

[–][deleted] 36 points37 points38 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I'm from Iraq originally. I used to be pro-democracy, but now I think it's not always the best option. Sometimes, a strong leader who gets shit done is what you need.

[–]InvictusCor 32 points32 points32 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Democracy and a strong leader are not mutually exclusive. 9 times out of 10 having a 'strong leader' ends in civil war and bloodshed. I can point to dozens of examples. Democracy and fascism are both forms of what you'd collectivism. I.E The group is more important than the individual. When you have this you get conflict in society between different groups striving for power.

Throughout my study of history and economic history, the best periods of growth and advancement of civilization have been where you have the smallest state possible, the freest markets and individual rights. So you don't have to choose between 'democracy' and 'fascism', they're two sides of the same coin in my opinion.

[–]zarus 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fascism is basically democracy without a political process.

[–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sometimes, a strong leader who gets shit done is what you need.

The problem is that most countries don't produce guys like Lee Kuan Yew, but rather guys like Saddam.

[+]1nzgs -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

So you want to be ruled by a strong leader, and you think yourself "red pill"?

Democracy and authoritarianism are both bluepill political systems that defer power from the individual, and should be detested by red pillers.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I disagree. You are responding to a person who said he is from Iraq. Have you seen Iraq lately? It's a shithole. It needs security badly. It's not that he personally needs to be ruled, it's that the situation needs to be controlled. The violent, suicidal, genocidal apes need to be controlled. Only a strong leader with actual political power will have the will to control such a situation without relying on foreign help.

Redpill isn't an ideology, it is a description of reality: the truth about the sexes. So there is no political affiliation if you are RP. Political solutions must, first and foremost, be pragmatic--what actually works in a given situation. Often times a dose of authoritarianism accomplishes what other systems can not, or take longer to do.

Under ideal, peaceful circumstances, a red pill man would probably most enjoy a minarchy (minimal government) situation, because it would afford him the most freedom to determine the course of his life. But I have no doubt in my mind that RP men have lived well under all forms of government and anarchy in the past 200,000 years.

[–]1chillaxbrohound -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Philosophically pragmatism (believing what works) and positivism (believing the truth) are very different.

[–]theredpoo 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Bingo. You will get downvoted by those that are operating out of fear. Individualism is the only thing that could be considered "red pill", if the red pill means uncomfortable truths.

I would contend that the ultimate red pill system of government would be self-governance.

[–]Animea93 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No matter how red pill I am it won't matter when my countrymen are nut jobs.

When you look at what the people in certain. Middle East countries do when they get a democracy it's clear they would have been better off under the old dictatorship.

[–]theredpoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Which country the middle east is a democracy? Where is the evidence that democracies are a good system?

[–]LarvalAlpha -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How is self governance an effective way to maintain economic ties and treaties with other countries? How is infrastructure maintained? Do you propose that we all live in small tribes with no leadership? Government is a necessity to modern life.

[–]theredpoo 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes that's what we were taught in government schools.

But you're presenting a false dichotomy. It doesn't come down to tribalism or being ruled by authoritarian sociopaths.

Government is just a group of men and women who have power over you and will act in their own self interest, not yours or mine.

No one watches the watchers, so we have things like war and jailing people for having a plant that most people do not support.

Power-over dynamics are not in anyone's best interest, they don't help you, and they certainly aren't "red pill". If you feel you need a leader in politics to guide your life, you have some pretty big issues. Not having government does mean we would have to take more self-responsibility. However it also means we would have more freedom, more choices, and less restrictions on what we can do with our bodies.

Freedom is red pill all the way. Government is restricting and not red pill. People who work in government are more likely, not less likely, to be power-driven and self centered.

"Leadership" needs to be of your own choosing, not up to several million voters you don't even know.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Except the concept that power abhors a vacuum.

As argued by Hobbes, if you don't have some sovereign authority, then the sovereign authority will be whomever can make himself sovereign - typically by force, because force is the most effective method.

If you want to see how trade works without the monopoly of force by the government, look no further than illegal activity. Because it is outside of normal laws, which prohibit force, and give an alternative - courts, which are really just abstracted, less violent force, instead you have rampant violence.

If you get rid of the government, that IS how commerce will proceed. It has in the past.

The only reason we've come so far in the past five centuries (look up absolute monarchy versus feudalism) is because we've had strong states. And yes, that does mean sometimes things will be asked of you that aren't in your direct interest. This, historically, was why we had a patriarchy. I'm not going to argue that that social contract isn't broken.

But regardless about whether you feel laws or a certain tax rate is unfair - at absolute minimum we need a monopoly on violence or we'll just descend into warring apes.

[–]theredpoo 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

By having a state we are providing a place for the most controlling, the most power-hungry, and the most sociopathic among us to gravitate to.

Illegal activity is created by the state. For example, if you made all drugs legal, the prices would plummet, and people wouldn't be getting killed (or jailed) over them. The state causes unnecessary deaths in this and many other cases.

The war on drugs, a government creation, causes rampant violence- not free trade.

Actually, we've come this far despite "strong states", not because of them. Government holds back human autonomy and ingenuity in every case.

Without the state, war actually ceases to exist. Not to say violence completely goes away, but without government, there is nothing to take over, no tax base, and resources are owned and sold privately. You remove the incentive and you've solved most of the problem.

With your last statement:

But regardless about whether you feel laws or a certain tax rate is unfair - at absolute minimum we need a monopoly on violence or we'll just descend into warring apes.

There are many problems here. Who gets to decide who owns this monopoly? Who watches these watchers? As you likely know, voting is meaningless, especially these days. Nobody is accountable.

You also have no proof of your "warring apes" comment. This is just your fear of other people. The US is not and has never been a tribalist society, so the evidence points the other direction. Also, who is stopping anyone from becoming a "warring ape" currently? Have you ever heard about a cop stopping a murder? Or stopping a burglary? I'm sure there are cases, but they are extremely rare.

Police statism causes much more violence than not. Allowing individuals to protect themselves, and not relying on a ineffective and counter-productive police force is a much more sane proposition- based on human behavior.

Ultimate power corrupts ultimately, and cops and politicians are certainly not immune to this, as we are seeing in the US.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Illegal activity is created by the state. For example, if you made all drugs legal, the prices would plummet, and people wouldn't be getting killed (or jailed) over them. The state causes unnecessary deaths in this and many other cases.

This is actually an argument in favor of my position. Making, "all drugs legal" is bringing them under the monopoly of violence that the state has. This means that disputes are resolved in the courts, rather than by gunfire. If you got rid of all laws tomorrow, sure, drugs would drop in price and you may even see less deaths related to drugs. Drugs are pretty cheap to manufacture after all - especially since you got rid of patent laws, quality control laws, and obviously controlled substances laws.

But what about gold? What about uranium? What about plutonium? All of those are very valuable substances. With no laws - with no monopoly on violence, what stops me from killing you, or getting a group of guys together and killing you, and taking your gold? You're one man. I don't care how well-defended you are in your home, or how many guns you have, if I take 100 armed men to kill you, you will die.

My position isn't, "the government is perfect" or "all laws are good" - I actually disagree with the drug laws and I am in favor of legalization. But there's a huge difference between, "let's legalize pot!" and "let's give everyone the right to shoot whomever they want, whenever they want".

Please explain to me, if you would, why we have "come so far despite strong states", when for most of human history we did not have strong, modern states, and the moment we did (the birth of modern statehood is typically held to be 1648, but there were a few centralized places beforehand), we began making ridiculously huge strides very, very, very quickly. When did Spain discover the New World? When it centralized and unified. When did Britain start colonizing and industrializing? When Scotland and Ireland were brought into the fold.

Why is Botswana doing so much better than its other African neighbors? Could it be its strong, stable state and lack of internal warfare (i.e. anarchy)?

There are many problems here. Who gets to decide who owns this monopoly? Who watches these watchers? As you likely know, voting is meaningless, especially these days. Nobody is accountable.

As for who gets to own this monopoly? Well, whomever can take it in accordance with the rules that previous generations (for example, in the US, we have the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court) have set down, mixed with their own force of will and popularity. You want to use your influence and try to change who is in power? Go ahead, good luck. Do that. Exactly as has happened throughout history. Rome was a Republic until Julius Caesar said screw that, I have enough popularity and power to make myself the leader. And he was right - at least for a while. Or go conquer your own territory. Most of it is taken by groups (governments) that are far wealthier and more powerful than you and who have violent armed men who are willing to kill you to prevent that. Antarctica and Mars are open though. One guy declared himself sovereign on a former oil derrick or something.

But wait! That's not fair is it?

No. It's not.

Because the world isn't fair. And it never has been. Sucks, doesn't it? But it's better than the alternative of constant, violent warfare. As Hobbes said, yeah, having a government sucks. But it sucks less than not having a government. Because living is sorta fun, and so is stability.

You also have no proof of your "warring apes" comment. This is just your fear of other people. The US is not and has never been a tribalist society, so the evidence points the other direction. Also, who is stopping anyone from becoming a "warring ape" currently? Have you ever heard about a cop stopping a murder? Or stopping a burglary? I'm sure there are cases, but they are extremely rare.

Human history? What precisely do you think we are, and have been if not "warring apes"?

Do you not think that men will kill you if it is in their best interest? They will. And even if the first generation or two of no laws is relatively civilized - how quickly do you think that would fall apart? Once you know that you can literally go out and kill with impunity, steal with impunity, do whatever you want with impunity - who wouldn't? The men who don't will be outcompeted by the men who do. Or you'll see men forming groups of violent men to protect their livelihood - and you're back at square one, with a government. Which is exactly how it happened in the real world, in the real past. Governments didn't come from nothing. We HAD the anarchy you describe.

And it didn't last. And it won't last again, if we decided to try it again. Because people are violent bastards.

And sure, cops stop murders, and burglaries. But more importantly, the THREAT of force stops them. If I kill someone, a group of people will attempt to find out who I am based on any evidence they can, and if they do find me they will either kill me or lock me in a cage for most of the rest of my life like an animal.

In your world, if I kill someone - what happens?

A vendetta? Maybe? From family members? But isn't that just rule by kinship then? A tribe?

States cause violence, but they prevent far, far, far more of it.

Just answer this question - what do you do when the warlords come back? What happens when a violent group of 100 men wants your stuff? How will you fight them off?

[–]theredpoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This is actually an argument in favor of my position. Making, "all drugs legal" is bringing them under the monopoly of violence that the state has. This means that disputes are resolved in the courts, rather than by gunfire. If you got rid of all laws tomorrow, sure, drugs would drop in price and you may even see less deaths related to drugs. Drugs are pretty cheap to manufacture after all - especially since you got rid of patent laws, quality control laws, and obviously controlled substances laws.

If legal, there would be about as many deaths from people buying and selling drugs as there are at a typical CVS store. Basically, almost none. Right now they are illegal and disputes are resolved via gunfire. The less state involvement, the better. I don't think this is what you are saying.

But what about gold? What about uranium? What about plutonium? All of those are very valuable substances. With no laws - with no monopoly on violence, what stops me from killing you, or getting a group of guys together and killing you, and taking your gold? You're one man. I don't care how well-defended you are in your home, or how many guns you have, if I take 100 armed men to kill you, you will die.

I don't see your point. Nobody is stopping you from killing me to take my alleged gold now. Cops certainly aren't! In a stateless society it would be up to the individual to provide security for his wealth. This would be a superior system to banks which are owned and controlled by governments, and they can steal your money anytime they'd like for any reason.

Please explain to me, if you would, why we have "come so far despite strong states", when for most of human history we did not have strong, modern states, and the moment we did (the birth of modern statehood is typically held to be 1648, but there were a few centralized places beforehand), we began making ridiculously huge strides very, very, very quickly. When did Spain discover the New World? When it centralized and unified. When did Britain start colonizing and industrializing? When Scotland and Ireland were brought into the fold.

Governments hold back progress, they do not encourage it. Taxes & regulations stifle innovation. Look at technology, one of the least regulated industries. Improvements are leaps and bounds faster than industries that government controls- like transportation. Saying those empires were "successful" is subjective. Compared to what? If we had companies working for profit to solve those problems how do you know they wouldn't have been much faster and more efficient than those countries' efforts? Just look at the California high speed rail for an example of government wasting taxpayer money and not getting off the ground.

Why is Botswana doing so much better than its other African neighbors? Could it be its strong, stable state and lack of internal warfare (i.e. anarchy)?

I'd have to study Botswana to know the answer. But there's all kinds of evidence that the less intrusive governments in Africa have had much more success.

As for who gets to own this monopoly? Well, whomever can take it in accordance with the rules that previous generations (for example, in the US, we have the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court) have set down, mixed with their own force of will and popularity. You want to use your influence and try to change who is in power? Go ahead, good luck. Do that. Exactly as has happened throughout history. Rome was a Republic until Julius Caesar said screw that, I have enough popularity and power to make myself the leader. And he was right - at least for a while. Or go conquer your own territory. Most of it is taken by groups (governments) that are far wealthier and more powerful than you and who have violent armed men who are willing to kill you to prevent that. Antarctica and Mars are open though. One guy declared himself sovereign on a former oil derrick or something.

But wait! That's not fair is it?

No. It's not.

Because the world isn't fair. And it never has been. Sucks, doesn't it? But it's better than the alternative of constant, violent warfare. As Hobbes said, yeah, having a government sucks. But it sucks less than not having a government. Because living is sorta fun, and so is stability.

Stability does not come from governments. See the US police state for countless examples of this.

Human history? What precisely do you think we are, and have been if not "warring apes"?

Very few places have ever had anarchy. WE have certainly never had anarchy in the US. There were groups in Ireland, Iceland, and the Quakers in the early days of America. All were very successful. The majority of recent history involves nation-statism. This has brought us war, uneccessary deaths to the tune of hundreds of millions of people.

Do you not think that men will kill you if it is in their best interest? They will.

Yes and governments are full of men like this, sometimes called soldiers and cops. And government is certainly not going to stop someone from killing me if they want to.

And even if the first generation or two of no laws is relatively civilized - how quickly do you think that would fall apart?

If it is true that people do not act civilized, then how do you justify a government, made up of people, ruling over the rest of us who are not going to act civilized? Government is just made up of people, not magical infallible saints.

Or you'll see men forming groups of violent men to protect their livelihood - and you're back at square one, with a government. Which is exactly how it happened in the real world, in the real past. Governments didn't come from nothing. We HAD the anarchy you describe.

Again, we never had anarchy. Anarchy just means 'no ruler'. The groups that have had it have been completely non-violent. Because governments evolved at some point for some reason doesn't mean this is the correct way to go, or the most efficient, or the most humane. Slavery also evolved out of a supposed need, but clearly we evolved from that. We can evolve from nation-statism as well since it is so bloody and inefficient.

Because people are violent bastards.

This is a blanket statement. What people? If MOST people are violent bastards, then having a government assures that we will be ruled by...violent bastards. We need to think logically here, not just repeat what we've been forced-fed in government schools.

And sure, cops stop murders, and burglaries. But more importantly, the THREAT of force stops them. If I kill someone, a group of people will attempt to find out who I am based on any evidence they can, and if they do find me they will either kill me or lock me in a cage for most of the rest of my life like an animal.

Me having a gun is a MUCH bigger threat to you robbing me than a cop that 99.9% of the time will not catch them. The threat of being caught is tiny compared to the threat of being shot by me and my gun.

In your world, if I kill someone - what happens?

A vendetta? Maybe? From family members? But isn't that just rule by kinship then? A tribe?

Many ways to go here. In a privatized system, we can still have arbitration. It's done all the time even now. The system we have now is one of kangaroo courts. It's a joke. I don't have all the answers, but surely we could do better.

States cause violence, but they prevent far, far, far more of it.

You have zero evidence of this. Hundreds of millions of people died in wars in the 20th century. Millions of people have died in the drug war, created by the state. Hundreds of thousands die on government roads every year. Who's lives were saved? How many? Where are these stats?

Just answer this question - what do you do when the warlords come back? What happens when a violent group of 100 men wants your stuff? How will you fight them off?

Easy. We already have a govenrment that steals from us via taxes and inflation (federal reserve). I'll take my chances with everyone else. If I end up becoming a rich guy I will hire my own security. There's also digital currencies nowadays that even 100 men with guns can't get to, so I would keep a lot of my wealth there.

It takes a lot more thinking to be open to anarchy. And I realize this is a red pill tougher to swallow than the woman one. If you want to educate yourself a bit more, check out some of Stefan Molyneux's videos on anarchy. (Practical Anarchy is one of many).

The state has been there a long time but it is way too violent and inefficient for us to accept as the end all solution on how to organize society. There are much better, more peaceful ways to do so. And not being a central planner, I don't have all the answers, but surely this system can evolve way from the bribes and violence that it's built upon.

[–]phrostbyt 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That shit made no sense bro

[–]newls 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Nazi Germany was the first country in the world to ever introduce compulsory lunchroom cafeterias in the workplace, and compulsory holiday time for workers throughout the year.

[–]ShekelBanker 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's been so long when I worked in a place that had lunchroom cafeteria...oh wait, never worked in one who had such thing. It's particularly annoying when you budget and find out that you pay 1/10th of your salary for delivered food at work. I fixed that by eating a tonne for breakfast, skip lunch and eat a bit at dinner.

[–]tabularaja 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe you can pack a small cooler with homemade lunch so you don't have to go so long without eating

[–]unassumingusername7 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's so crazy it just might work!

[–]1nzgs 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

Freedom should be extremely important to any redpill follower. Freedom is the essence of masculinity; controlling others is a feminine trait.

Singapore is in some ways a great country DESPITE the authoritarianism, not because of it. The successful are not taxed heavily, and they do not have an immigrant welfare culture. Singapore would be vastly more successful if it retained its economic freedom but also allowed more social freedoms. The downfall of the west wasn't due to laissez-faire freedom, but the relentless expansion of cultural-marxist governments.

Comparisons to Hitler are also moronic since Hitler did a terrible job running Germany. He was a weak little man with an inferiority complex towards the jews whose business acumen was putting ordinary Germans to shame. So his solution, instead of competing with them, was to smash up their businesses and steal their homes.

I'm honestly very disappointed to read positivity towards Hitler on this subreddit. He was profoundly Left wing (a classical marxist, not a progressive) and an enemy of free men. You don't seem to have a grip on what constitutes leftism.

[–]Phokus1983 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

lol, this is why i take issue with RP pushing political ideology (outside of everyone agreeing that feminism is garbage) even though i agree with many RP ideals. I think we can all agree that feminism is a disaster, but outside of that, the world is a complex place where you can find examples of democracy and authoritarianism working.

Did you know that 80% of Singaporeans live in government housing? They also have price controls on their healthcare system. The government owns a significant amount of the GDP (i.e their airline is owned by the government).

If RPers don't believe that an unregulated sexual marketplace works (a small percentage of alphas get a large majority of the sex), why on earth would you believe an unregulated economy works (most of the wealth accrues to a small minority of the wealthy)?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That's a very interesting last point. If there's a difference, I would say that it's because we care about maximizing economic growth even though it means accepting large wealth inequalities. In the sexual marketplace, we don't really "gain" anything from inequality. Although even that point could be argued, because in a darwinistic sense, the species becomes more fit when only the most fit males are allowed to reproduce.

[–]Phokus1983 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The overwhelming majority of countries that became rich never got rich because of free market/free trade principles (it's only AFTER rich countries got rich that they, for example, loosened trade restrictions). "Maximum Freedom" doesn't even do a good job of maximizing economic growth.

edit:

because in a darwinistic sense, the species becomes more fit when only the most fit males are allowed to reproduce.

Thanks to technology, the 'most fit' males AREN'T reproducing. I can't wait until vasagel becomes available.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know where you're getting that idea from. It doesn't make sense either theoretically or empirically.

South Korea vs. North Korea East Germamy vs. West Germany

In Economics 101, you're taught that all government interventions in the economy impose a dead-weight loss. This isn't even disputed! The only thing that economists argue about is whether the loss of efficiency created by government intervention is worth some other perceived benefit that comes along with it (i.e. reduced income inequality)

I mean, the U.S. is actually a perfect example. Government spending as a percentage of GDP was something like 2% from the end of the civil war up to the early 20th century. The number of federal regulations was orders of magnitude smaller than it is today. And in less than 100 years we became the world's most dominant industrial power, to the point that we could determine the outcome of World Wars.

[–]Phokus1983 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Nobody said 100% closed trade was ideal. The overwhelming majority of wealthy countries adopted a 3rd way of development economics to get out of poverty. They used tariffs, protectionism, subsidies, etc. to develop their economy at the expense of importers. i.e. the US had tariffs as high as 30-40% during the height of their GDP growth. Japan, for example, had a really shitty auto industry, but their ministry of trade kept bailing out Toyota and imposed import quotas on US car manufacturers until Toyota was finally competent. It's called the infant industry argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5-ojv5-b3U

http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427765176&sr=8-1&keywords=bad+samaritan

[–]Animea93 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Freedom is conditional. You are only free because the local power structure allows you to be. That structure can be a democracy, where the majority decides, or an oligarchy, where only a few decide.

Depending in the local populous, you may end up being better off under a dictatorship. Iraq certainly is.

[–]Frankentim_the_crim 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If your freedom is conditional, allowed, or up-for-grabs, it isn't truly freedom at all. Freedom is guaranteed, by ones own means to protect and enforce it. Freedom is not a political climate. It is a state of being, at the individual level.

[–]Animea93 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

All freedom is conditional on you obeying the law. Hopefully those laws are things you don't want to do anyway(murder, theft, etc), but not always.

[–]Frankentim_the_crim 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You totally missed the point of what I said. Let me put it into terms fit for a consumerist drone: if the brand of freedom comes with terms and conditions (or in other words, LIMITATIONS), then it isn't actually freedom. TRUE freedom is the ability to act without hinderance by outside forces. Laws limit freedom, and limited freedom isn't freedom.

[–]Animea93 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My point is true freedom is impossible, as there will always be people around you who can stop you if they want to.

[–]Frankentim_the_crim 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you. I thought I was going crazy there for a moment.

[–]theredpoo -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Finally some truth being spoken about politics here! You're exactly right, but many will downvote out of ignorance.

Authoritarianism is the opposite of what a Red Pill man should want. Freedom is the only answer.

[–]john_steinbecks 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But, as mentioned above, freedom also means freedom of the press to say whatever they want. You open a newspaper in any western country and it's telling you: diversity is good, feminism is good, we need more immigrants, immigrants are good for the economy, we need more women in tech, white men are racist, there is a campus rape culture, Russia and Iran are our enemies, etc, etc, etc, and it's incredibly divisive and incredibly toxic. If the west is going to survive we're going to need to curtain certain freedoms (in my opinion that includes the freedom of the press) by embracing at least low level authoritarianism.

[–]orangutan_innawood 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

about how he restricted the press and how he controlled freedom of speech

The three countries are very different, though. Singapore is a city state, their needs are more homogenous, but they are also a very small country that can't afford to fight amongst themselves. Nazi Germany is a smaller country than America by magnitudes and the most culturally homogenous country of the three.

On the other hand, America consists of 50 states and encompass a wide variety of people from different cultures and backgrounds. America enjoys a great level of personal freedom and a culture that highly values innovation because she can afford and benefit from it. It's one of the reasons why America is so strong. The "cancerous leftist ideas" are a byproduct of this environment that values individuality, creativity and self-expression. It was the country that gave non-conformists a chance that gave rise to the powerhouses currently residing in Silicon Valley. You can't have one without the other.

[–]WAFC 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you get flak for anything it should be a questionable grasp of history. Germany suffered the Great Depression like everyone else. Hitler's economic policies lifted them, but as he wasn't elected until 1933, not for several years. Also the main reason Germany's economy recovered was out of control government spending, primarily on (duh) the military.

Hitler's economic record is sketchy at best, and was possibly even propped up by dealings with large multinational banks, depending on how conspiracy theorist you want to get with it.

[–]b33k3rz4 points 11 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

The best political system is a benevolent dictatorship.

[–]theredpoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you want to turn all your freedom and power over to a dictator, you ain't red pill. That's the opposite of going your own way and carving out your own path.

[–]Animea93 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't care how Red Pill you are, you aren't going to defeat Isis by yourself.

[–]theredpoo -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is no need to as long as you aren't constantly killing their brothers, they won't feel the need to get revenge.

[–]MEpicLevelCheater 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's how we run this place.

It's no surprise that, as a result of our benevolent plutocracy, TRP has survived (and maintained quality) in spite of its tremendous growth.

[+]theredpoo -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Democracy doesn't work, the US is built on a system of bribes.

However, having a dictator also doesn't work. This guy's government still institutes public canings for such horrific crimes as chewing gum in public.

[–]ShekelBanker 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

At least look behind the reason why he banned chewing gum in the country.

[+]theredpoo -12 points-11 points-10 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Of course, there's always a reason. Threatening people with violence, however, is never a good solution. Especially when it comes to tiny things like gum.

Otherwise, the drug war would actually be working, instead it's filling prisons and creating more addicts.

[–]TheCrimsonSea 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm surprised to see this many statists here, honestly.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Because force and violence are absolutely necessary to keep people in line. There must always be some sort of sovereign government, because the alternative is a war of all against all. This is another sign of the luxury we live in now - people don't seem to remember that only a few hundred years ago (pre 1500ish) everything was tiny divided pieces of land ruled by petty warlords. A monopoly on violence is good for both stability and trade.

You get rid of all laws tomorrow, you'll either be in a violent war zone or under a different government within a year or two.

How do you think governments first originated? They didn't magically appear.

Anarchy is ultimately unworkable. I have never seen a response to the argument "what do you do when the warlords come back?" - people seem to assume government gone = force gone. In reality it just means everyone is free to use force again, and it's either each individual man against each individual man, or a group of men pool together and... Oh wait, that's a government.

At best you could get a small state that included courts, a military/police, and someone to ensure that the laws are executed correctly. That's the lowest limit. And it's not even the most efficient one - the nations from the 16th to 19th centuries had far stronger powers than those, and look how far we came.

[–]theozoph 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"Statist" is a word that encompasses everything from hardcore Marxists to Neo-Reaction. When a concept is so vague that it can encompass everything from the dictatorship of the proletariat to absolute monarchy, it's a sign that it isn't of much use, except as a general symbol of disapproval.

You might as well have said "heretics", or "badthink". Try having a little more finesse.

[–]TheCrimsonSea 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I am surprised that I don't see as many anti-statists (anarchists) here; absolutely no need to not use "statist" in this context.

[–]theredpoo 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Kind of sad to see that, it's like the selective red pill.

[–]tehokosong -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Don't worry, here in Singapore we just hang drug traffickers, saves money for the government and creates a deterrence.

[–]theredpoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's archaic and ridiculous. Drugs should be legal everywhere, people need treatment not jail.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ShekelBanker 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

1.No

2.No, lifting 3 days a week

3.No, I drive a Mistubishi

4.Now

[–]George_l_rockwell34 points35 points36 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

This guy was fucking awesome. He ran a government the right way by using authoritarianism to enforce the law and keep the streets clean and orderly, he enforced eugenics so that the most brilliant people in Singapore would be encouraged to have more kids over people who aren't intelligent, and he allowed for huge amount of economic freedom so that the most talented and hard working people could get to the top, and so that anyone who works hard can make a living for himself and not have to worry about a ridiculous amount of taxes being deducted from his paycheck.

As for immigration, they don't fuck in Singapore when they let immigrants in. If any immigrant decides to cause trouble, he will be punished severely and be deported back to his home country with no questions asked.

[–]BrunoOh 57 points58 points59 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If any immigrant decides to cause trouble, he will be punished severely and be deported back to his home country with no questions asked.

This annoys me to no end. I live in one of those European welfare states filled with immigrants...when they misbehave, it's called "inhumane" and "racist" to send them back.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm Singaporean and it's shocking to see claims of racism being made against people who argue for sensible immigration policies. I'm referring to UKIP in particular but I understand this issue has surfaced all over Europe. Thankfully we don't have much of that feminist leftist nonsense here so I've never heard of such a ridiculous argument until reddit. We are a first world country so we naturally have issues with immigration, but it's usually characterised as a jobs/ overpopulation/ identity issue or xenophobia at worse. We have our share of racism but that's a separate issue altogether.

[–]john_steinbecks 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's almost like immigration, multiculturalism, and political correctness are being forced on western countries by the media and academics...for some reason.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good Autocracy > Democracy > Bad Autocracy

[+]theredpoo -43 points-42 points-41 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He also has people beat up in public for such atrocities as chewing gum.

Not awesome in my book.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is always the feminist/white knight cunt shaming and calling reality oriented folk names simply because they disagree.

[–]ziggitypumziggitypim 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for sharing, this is gold.

[–]Shade_Raven 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Rest in Peace. He died on the 25th

[–]Sir_Shitlord_focker 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No malice at all, he gave her good advice.

[–]EarnestMalware 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

While I generally respect the choices Lee Kuan Yew made, geography is, as always, a primary factor in this development.

[Edit]: That said, "I spent a whole lifetime building this, and as long as I'm in charge no one is going to knock it down." is a fantastic governing philosophy.

[–]stuckinbathroom -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

An important, often overlooked point. Sure Lee was an extremely effective and inspiring leader, but Singapore's growth is not out of line with that of other East Asian countries (e.g., Taiwan, South Korea). They would have done well even without him.

[–]Thatgoodsshit 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Give an east Asian population western institutions and they will always do well. Singapore is still exceptional even above this high standard.

Hong Kong is the most direct comparison. Singapore started out significantly poorer and outperformed them. LKY also had the disadvantage of a 75% Chinese base vs Hong Kong's 90+%.

[–]1nzgs -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's worth noting that S Korea is a much greater economic success despite being ravaged by war 60 years ago.

[–]Thatgoodsshit 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

1) After their occupation the Japanese massacred between 25,000 and 50,000 ethnic Chinese in Singapore and Malaya. That would have included Lee Kuan Yew himself had one of the Japanese guards not allowed him to escape.

2) Singapore is much richer than South Korea.

GDP per capita PPP

Singapore: $62,000

South Korea: $33,000

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

[–]stuckinbathroom 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

To be fair, South Korea has a large agricultural space which cannot be transformed into high-tech, knowledge work-heavy cities like Singapore. A fairer comparison would be between Singapore and, say, Seoul.

[–]Thatgoodsshit 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

GDP per capita (Nominal) IMF 2013

Singapore: $55,000

City of Seoul: $39,000

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]stuckinbathroom 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You may be on to something there. It is a biological fact that marriage and children decrease testosterone levels in men. Married men who are invested in their children's lives are much less prone to risk-taking and stupid behaviour than young, childless men. This is why the PLO arranged for the members of terrorist group Black September to be married off in order to stop them from committing further acts of violence. It would not surprise me at all if a leader as shrewd and highly-attuned to human biological realities as LKY would have built his natalist policies around this.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]1nzgs 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Very good. To think this guy is "red pill" is hilarious. Nothing he has ever said or done has been for the benefit of free men. He is a social engineer of the highest order.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I always thought TRP was about adapting to the realities of this world and getting it to bend to your will. It says nothing about freedom.

[–]_xen -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Your conspiratorial reasoning is absurd and nonsensical.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

He looks like an interesting figure, I look forward to researching him. Thank you for sharing this.

[+]Heyimtitel -16 points-15 points-14 points 11 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

It's funny how you get upvotes just giving a personal, non informative, remark, just because you are a popular figure on TRP.

This admiration could extend to cloud others judgement and make them believe in what you say even if you decide to troll. You are in a nice position, it's one of my biggest desires.

edit: sorry, IllimitableMan, I deprived you of some karma. :(

[–]waitfor_ittt 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Your next step in unplugging is understanding why you're getting downvoted.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Honest question (I'm a newbie): why is /u/Heyimtitel getting downvoted?

[–]Aphrodite_ 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because he's being a jealous dick.

[–]guy2435 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think he was downvoted because he thinks we are idiots here. That we take IllimitableMan's words as truths and infallible. That we just accept them and don't put much thought of its value and will never understand if there's wisdom in it to be had and just accept it as God's words. That we really do care for internet points, and we give it to IllimitableMan as our offering on all of his comments, however mundane and useless they may be. That is in my opinion. Good day to all RP men in this sub.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He is being downvoted because he expresses his envy. Nevermind he is factually correct (or not). He gives a fuck, he shows emotion, he looks weak.

Then he gets indignant claiming to be a martyr because he spoke the truth.

Actually the crux of his post is:

You are in a nice position, it's one of my biggest desires.

Should he have approached with less butthurt and made his point clearer, he might not have gotten those downvotes.

[+]Heyimtitel -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Envy? I was expressing admiration.

And all this ruckus over my post shows that you guys give a fuck, not me.

Also most of your posts have big thinking flaws. You remind me of the rationalisation hamster a little. Like a woman screaming rape after she is seen as a slut.

[–]zuiper 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He is wanting to emulate being popular for doing things that have no value, and not because you are contributing actual value.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On the other hand, by discounting speculations about what /u/Heyimtitel is thinking, we can see that the point of his comment is about the power of reputation.

[+]Heyimtitel -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because saying a harsh truth will always bring hate. TRP is the best example.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He was a great politician, one who knew his goal and was relentless in using his power to get there.

StartGainingMomentum has a great post on him: http://www.startgainingmomentum.com/9-lessons-you-can-learn-from-lee-kuan-yew-lky/

PS: I guess it's ok to link directly this blog? If not, just tell me and I'll edit.

[–]Bigbobswheelbarrow 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fascinating guy. I had no idea there were modern-day philosopher kings around. I just spent several hours going through the resources in that article, very nice collection.

[–]lnvader2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I'm planning a move to Singapore sometime in the near future. Anybody have any advice for finding success there?

[–]stuckinbathroom 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

Would not recommend, to be honest. Cost of living is insane, women are shallow and materialistic as fuck, and it's pretty sterile/boring. Nightlife is lackluster and there's really no contemporary culture if you think about it; when was the last time you heard about a Singaporean film or band? The national pastimes are eating and shopping. It's like living in an enormous supermall, except that the mall cops can fine or imprison you.

If you have a career (not a job, but a career) lined up that is taking you there in order to get to the next rung, then by all means go for it. Otherwise you're better off somewhere else.

I will say that it is a good place to raise kids. Singapore retains many of the traditional beliefs that men are essential to the survival of the collective (e.g., through mandatory military service) which have been lost in the west. Unfortunately I think this too is on the decline: divorce rates are rising and each generation is more Americanized than the last. Still, it's a safe and stable place, for sure, and the educational opportunities for children are top-notch. School is extremely cutthroat and competitive, but if they make it, your kids will be among the best in the world.

[–]lnvader1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

**I'm in my mid/late teens and my family is planning a move. My father is an investment banker and i'm a student who's strengths are in math (computer science) and science. I day-trade crypto currency to make money. What route would benefit me the most?

[–]stuckinbathroom 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Mid/late teens and good at CS/math? Where are you now? If in the states, try to get into a good engineering college. Then you won't have to move to Singapore with your family.

[–]lnvader2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The sjw infestation in US colleges has me worried. I also foresee a major decline in the states soon. I'd like to leave ASAP.

[–]stuckinbathroom 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Good move long term, but the fact is that the US still has the world's best universities for teaching and research. The SJWs are restricted to bullshit humanities and some social science departments; major in something useful and you won't notice them. After you graduate, consider moving elsewhere, perhaps South America or Southeast Asia. Those places are good to spend your twenties in, but they can't give you the same educational opportunities you get in the US.

[–]michaelconnery1985 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What advice for someone that is the opposite? Im a Singaporean male and intend to major in CS and would like to study in the US. Cost is a huge factor though, so I might make that a destination in terms of career.

[–]stuckinbathroom 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Can you get a scholarship or something? That's what I would recommend. Some schools, especially really elite ones in America (Harvard, MIT), also offer financial aid for international students but mostly their aid is for Americans only. Only worth going to school in America at full cost if it's a really top school, IMO. Otherwise go NUS or something and get into PhD program in America. Can look for jobs, then drop out after a couple years.

[–]michaelconnery1985 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Scholarship? If you mean from Singaporean firms, then no, because its too late to apply now and most importantly I hate being bonded to a corporation for 6 years.

You need to actually get accepted to the elite ones before they give our financial aid... which I am not able to.

I have offers from Aus and UK, but it really isnt my ideal destination (its either US or Canada), so i guess Ill stay local and then look for opportunities overseas for exchange / internship or after I graduate

[–]stuckinbathroom 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sounds like a plan. When I said scholarship, I meant PSC or President's Scholarship or something like that. But too late I guess. You finished NS?

[–]1nzgs 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have some advice, buy a ticket to South Korea. Better standard of living, more freedom, better women, far better culture. You're welcome.

[–]theredpoo 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You're exactly right. It's also a collectivist society, not individualist. No place for a Red Pill Man.

[–]lnvader1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The west surely isn't a place for the redpill man. It's the most backward and castrated society in human history. I see some hope in Singapore because they are a traditionalist society.

[–]stuckinbathroom 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

LOL, believe me, they are rapidly becoming just like the west in terms of their values. You're not going to find any "traditional Asian" women there, I guarantee you that. Just golddiggers and career women. Look to Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam if you want a pleasant, feminine companion.

[–]lnvader0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Asian girls aren't really my thing. I'll probably head over to South America to find a wife.

[–]kevkos 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good luck with that. Latinas come with all kinds of issues. You want drama in your life, no problem, just start dating a Latina girl.

[–]theredpoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Traditionalist meaning pro-marriage, and anti-individual. I see no hope.

[–]stuckinbathroom 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. Singaporean divorce law is just as bad as it is in the rest of the English-speaking world.

Edit: actually, Singapore does not permit no-fault divorce, and divorce is generally not allowed for couples who have been together for under 3 years. However, alimony is provided at the discretion of a judge (you can guess how that turns out for most men...) and is legally grounded in the Women's Charter. This means that, according to the letter of the law, only women and not men can receive alimony! They really do away with any pretence of equality.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's one thing to get your social circle into your frame, but to do it to a whole country is prime alpha behaviour. RIP RP-hero.

[–]jakethesnake76 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanx for the Links i had never heard of this man......this one of his is red pill too, talks about effort..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnlPfvx7Cgg

[–]Newdist2 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I first read about this guy on Steve Sailer's blog. Amazing leader, redpilled in all ways.

Here's an obit over on Unz's site:

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/lee-kuan-yews-flawed-utopia/

[–]0xdada 15 points15 points15 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Singapore was, and is, the definition of a police state. Leaders are compelling, undoubtedly, but a cowed populace makes for a dishonorable people. Silvio Berlusconi was compelling as well, as was Il Duce.

Totalitarianism rewards the weakest and worst in a people. He brought stability and a modern quality of life to an isolated/island state, but the same could be said for the House of Saud, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, and to a lesser extent, Fidel Castro. They need compromised, compliant peons to stay in power. Putin probably has the same appeal to Russians.

Whether Singapore is revealed to be a potemkin village built over torture chambers and labor camps will be something that comes out now that their dear leader has passed on.

They are all just heads of the ruling gang. That some of them have delusions of popular legitimacy or divine right does nothing to change how they must operate to retain control. They may be interesting to listen to, but to stay in power, a ruler only ever provides either bread or circuses. If it's not one, it's the other.

[–]KeepPushing 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You painted complex issues with a huge broad brush and you managed to demonize and diminish the one leader who has helped lead a nation out of poverty and into extreme wealth. You skip over the far dirtier and bloodier pasts of every single nation you'd hold above Singapore and then find the most obtuse way you can think of to undermine an anomaly of a high functioning civilization. The French didn't have their freedom without the heads that rolled down the streets of Paris. The Americans couldn't have had what we have today if we didn't have slaves building our economy in the colonial days. We wouldn't have the country we have today without the Native Americans we killed or forceably removed over the course of centuries. Do I need to go on?

Singapore is an infant nation compared to established developed nations. There's always going to be some "blemishes" on the road of development. Stop taking what we have for granted and projecting it as perfectly reasonable expectations for other nations. You are just wrong and you need to travel more to gain an actual world view from which to base your criticisms on.

[–]0xdada 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have not demonized your leader, rather, I have put him in the context of leaders. My broad brush perhaps does not include the nuanced excuses and compromises his supporters use to justify his brand of benevolent tyranny. He was a very compelling speaker, and very charismatic, and yes, he made Singapore a unique story in the world. He created a shining example of how muslims and christians can live together in peace and prosperity. However, I have doubts that his vast secret police force is made up of saints. The pervasive low-level fear the population had of them is the sacrifice they made for stability. Worth it? Sure, if you aren't among their recipients of victor's justice. He was not a democrat, which is not a guarantee of being in good company, but it is the standard of good statesmanship. He was probably the most benevolent fascist the world has seen.

So I have not demonized him, I have commented on a leader - a freedom we have on this side of the pacific that Singaporeans have somewhat less experience exercising with any nuance.

[–]KeepPushing 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have not demonized your leader

He's not my leader, I've never even been to Singapore.

And you are again being hyper critical of him without taking into context of what he's had to work with. Take the beginning few decades of any independent nation and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone cleaner than this guy. Idealistic leftists constantly criticize him but they never give a realistic alternative option to governance. If the leftists had it their way, Singapore would be a backwards country full of racial tension and division. Go to any European nation that allows refugees and immigrants from Muslim nations and ask how they're doing. Ask them how the freedom they give to Muslims to gather in ghettos are doing. Ask them how it feels to give a population all the tools and freedoms to undermine the principles upon which their nations are founded. People need to stop envisioning an idealistic democracy full of freedoms as being a realistic option for every nation on Earth at all times. The world isn't that black and white.

[–]_xen 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Nonsense, can you name a country that wasn't built on some degree of violence? Fact is, Singapore stands above any nation today at living standards and quality of life ($82,000 per capita sgp vs $53,000 usa). Singapore has the highest economic freedom in the world and second highest number of entrepreneurs per capita, and yet you mention it along the lines of Fidel Castro and Hussein? It is a shining city upon a hill if there ever was one, a true model nation for mankind.

I'll take a noble philosopher king like the head of Singapore over an ineffectual left-wing western democratic leaders any day.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]_xen 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Looking at your comments, you seem to be a nonsensical troll. But anyways Singapore ranks #1 in economic freedom and blocks leftards from brainwashing populace through media by curbing some level of media freedom, I think that further protects freedom. South Korea is vastly poorer economically in any measure and it has vastly less economic freedom and much greater govt control of society, to say it is better than SGP is laughable at best.

[–]1nzgs 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the only intelligent comment I've read in this thread. Very good.

[+]theredpoo -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. This guy is no badass hero. He has used violence to force economic progress. He also has people whipped in the streets for things like chewing gum.

Self government is the only true "red pill" way to go if you want freedom, prosperity, and peace.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago* (32 children) | Copy Link

You really don't even want ANY of the Marxism inherent in modern democracy in your culture if you want a good situation.

In Singapore Lee Kuan Yew recognized that democracy becomes degenerate very quickly and so he simply rejected it.

Russia and China have rejected Marxist ideology and are now Authoritarian.

If I were to bet on the West AFTER the Misandry Bubble pops I'd guess it will be something Authoritarian.

Democracy only works when it's limited to Alpha males. Once women and Beta males are allowed to vote things get distorted.

Authoritarianism openly places Alpha males in leadership positions. It's refreshingly honest.

K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) is a better government than complex lies and indoctrination.

Want to see the future?

Watch Putin.

[–]kevkos 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Authoritarianism also shits on alphas and betas everywhere who aren't connected to the government somehow. Not a good solution if you want freedom.

[–]1nzgs 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Apparently a lot of people here aren't interested in freedom but want daddy government to look after them, and then try to rationalise themselves as "strong alpha males". They sound a lot like feminists to me...

[–]kevkos 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep! Exactly. If you want an "authoritarian" in your life to boss you around, you ain't alpha.

[–]DexterousRichard -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't want a daddy government to take care of me. I do, however, want my government to fix the fucking potholes, not let out monuments and public squares decay to a third world state, to do something about the hordes of mentally ill blacks roaming downtown and yelling at their feet and every third person they see, and to use my tax dollars to improve, progress, clean up, and develop our cities and infrastructure, rather than completely waste it on stupid useless social programs.

[–]theredpoo 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

People could figure out how to fix roads without the middle man of government. Tax dollars are always wasted by bureaucrats. Every. Single. Time.

[–]Queef-Latinah 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What if such repairs are not to to code and cause an accident on the road? Who enforces that?

[–]theredpoo 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Private ownership. If you owned a road for profit, you would have a much greater incentive to fix problems than government currently has.

In our current system, there is very little incentive to get things fixed. Votes, sure, but that's very low compared to an entrepreneur providing a service.

The government can put off fixing roads and maybe a few people will complain, but nothing major happens.

An entrepreneur can't afford to have even a few unhappy people. He will fix those roads because he cares about his bottom line.

[–]NeoreactionSafe -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that "Freedom" ends up looking a lot like "Equality" over time.

With an Authoritarian structure you know full well where you are. The natural Alphas will be destined to rise in the social heirarchy. The Betas will occupy the middle. Women are beneath the Betas. Everyone is in their natural place.

Humans have had Authoritarian types of government since the beginning of time and are the most common historically.

The concept of "Freedom" might be another one of those "silly dreams" we must wake up from. It's not a natural thing really.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Freedom is a vacuum of heirarchy.

I would GLADLY abandon Feminist indoctrination for the natural heirarchy of Authoritarianism. (and it's probably destined to happen after the collapse)

[–]kevkos 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Authoritarianism is the opposite of freedom, and is not "alpha" by any definition. If you require an authoritarian dictator to boss you around, you are just sacrificing your independence- and aren't exactly asserting yourself as a man.

Freedom is not a silly dream. You must claim your own freedom; it's mostly an inside job.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

No, Heirarchy is natural.

Men love women, women love children, children love puppies.

This is Red Pill.

Freedom and Equality are abstract concepts... they aren't in nature.

Power is a more "real" thing because it references the Heirarchy.

Red Pill teaches us to have Power in the Heirarchy.

[–]kevkos 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No, hierarchy is not natural when it comes to power-over dynamics constructed by politicians.

Man's natural state is autonomy.

Government prevents autotomy.

Therefore, government cannot be red pill.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Oh gosh... and you are Red Pill?

Power is the Heirarchy. You build Power by steering the Heirarchy to serve your needs.

Authoritarian systems are Red Pill because they embrace nature.

Socialist systems intentionally attempt to reverse nature. (Equality)

Look at Europe:

http://m.chron.com/world/article/Conservatives-gain-in-French-local-elections-6166898.php

The Interior Ministry, counting results of 66 of 98 regions, said Sarkozy’s Union for a Popular Movement and its allies won 46 percent of the vote, compared to 34 percent for the left and 20 percent for the National Front.

Sarkozy said the right would prepare a changing of the guard “to redress the country, stop the decline that the most archaic socialism in Europe has plunged it into.”

[–]kevkos -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Red pill is certainly not letting some authoritarian government walk all over you.

Autonomy is our natural state. Countless examples of this.

Government, or a small group of people controlling a large group, is most definitely not a natural state.

Fixing your own problems is red pill. Expecting others, like governments, to fix them is not red pill.

Personal power is red pill. Power-over dynamics is weak.

[–]NeoreactionSafe -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry but nature is about Power.

Authoritarianism is just one form of Power.

Russia and China are recent examples of post-Marxist countries that went from Marxism to Authoritarianism.

The REASON is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid)

After decades of Marxist / Feminist blinding the people need simple and clear Heirarchies of Power. It's starting over after Feminism fails. Call it a "Reboot".

Read the Misandry Bubble and the Manipulated Man in the sidebar. These give the underlying reasons why history flows as it has and will in the future.

If you are dreaming of a Libertarian future you aren't likely to get it. (sorry)

Libertarians tend to dream of a utopia where people are free yet don't fight. (Power vacuum)

Authoritarianism is the grim, hard reality of filling a Power vacuum.

Nature Abhors a Vacuum.

[–]kevkos 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Because something exists (communist China or authoritarian Russia) doesn't make it right.

Joseph Stalin had an empire and kill upwards of 40 million people. Was he right?

China is a horribly unhappy place. Authoritarian control has created a completely miserable culture. Do they get shit done? Yes, but at a price.

The problem is you're presenting the argument from "what is" must be correct.

Lots of examples destroy this argument.

Slavery was rampant at one time. Was it right and natural? Blaming the Jews was the norm in Germany for decades. Was that right? 1 billion people on the planet believe their religion is correct, and it's okay if people of other religions die because they have different beliefs. Correct? Most men are betas and operate in a beta-centric world. Should we follow their lead?

You get the idea. Freedom is what people crave, no matter what authoritarian sociopaths around the world try to do with it.

Autonomy is our natural state.

Power-over force, collectivism, violence are normal today. But not natural.

[–]1beerthroway 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Democracy only works when it's limited to Alpha males

Which is basically a republic. (Ideally)

[–]NeoreactionSafe 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

That was the Founding Fathers vision.

Only proven Alpha males could vote. In those days that meant you needed to own your own property. A man who just got off the boat and had no money could not vote. Many white european immigrants came over as indentured servants and had to serve their term as slaves before gaining freedom. Once freed they still needed to work hard and buy property. Only at the end when you had "skin in the game" were you Alpha and could vote. Lazy people could not vote.

[–]1beerthroway 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That would solve so many of our problems as Americans. We have become so entitled with no understanding of why our rights are our rights. People don't work hard anymore and it's reflected in our values. Could you imagine the shit storm that would arise if someone said "we need to limit voting rights to property owners"? "You fascist sack of shit!"

[–]stuckinbathroom -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I disagree that the criterion for voting had any significant correlation with alpha-hood as currently understood. Indeed, owning property (and thereby proving that you were a communally-invested, productive member of society) is more a mark of beta provider status. Moreover, any loutish son of a wealthy landowner could vote as well, be he alpha, beta, or otherwise. The difference is that male providers in those days were accorded the appropriate amount of social status and respect.

You cannot build and run a society solely with the efforts of, or for the benefit of, alpha males. You just can't: there aren't enough of them, and not everyone can be a leader. You need a few alphas at the top of the pyramid, certainly. To use a military analogy, you obviously need a few officers. But many more men must form the middle of the pyramid, the executive class, the NCO corps. And an order of magnitude more men must comprise the lowest stratum, the workers, the enlisted men. Society must accord men at the middle and the bottom some measure of status and respect for doing their job and doing it well. This was the promise of Marriage 1.0: if you do your job as an average, run-of-the-mill man (bring home the bacon, serve your country, contribute to a strong, supportive community), society will reward you with the dignity of wedded life, namely your fiefdom (household) in which to exercise benevolent, patriarchal authority, and an eager wife to be at your right hand.

The problem is not that alphas have given up the reins of power; the problem is that betas are no longer given the respect and status they need to build and sustain a thriving civilisation.

Edit: since we're talking about Lee Kuan Yew, I should mention that the military analogy comes from an address he made to Singaporean school principals in the 1960s. You can read it here.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Red Pill has merged the Player with the Alpha.

The Player (PUA) essentially is like a computer hacker who messes with the natural heirarchy and exploits the system in ways it wasn't designed for.

Through most of human history the Player was punished heavily and those punishments tended to lesson their numbers.

Alpha is very clear in Authoritarian civilization.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"The countries, towns, cities, realms and provinces which will have abandoned their old customs to gain liberty, but which will in fact have enthralled themselves even more, will secretly have wearied of their liberty. Faith lost in their perfect religion, they will begin to strike to the left, only to return to the right. Holiness, for a long time overcome, will be replaced in accordance with the earliest writings."

Epistle to Henry II - Nostradamus

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The things I find on a forum about male sexual strategy, man.

[–]redzorp 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well said!

All our problems in the West would be solved if we only allowed male property owners to vote. The rest of society is merely along for the ride. Giving any of them the "right" to vote was the stupidest move ever.

[–]cariboo_j 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hahaha. In the interest of equality, I'd suggest allowing female property owners to vote. Those who earned their fortune without the help of affirmative action or a husband.

I suspect this would be a vanishingly small number. The results would be virtually the same as allowing male property owners to vote, with the added bonus of no one being able to cry "sexism".

[–]1nzgs 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So you believe there are no socialist property owners? You think your fellow men are only looking for your best interest?

Stop trying to "fix" democracy and accept it is a poor system. The free market is a better force for moral change in society than any form of democracy or dictatorship.

[–]1nzgs 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Marxism is authoritarian. Do you even understand any of the words you are using? A rejection of marxism without a rejection of statism is not real change. There is only one way to reject marxism and that is to empower the individual by limiting the power of government.

Authoritarianism does not put "alpha males" in power either, it puts the power hungry in power. A lust for power over others is the crux of all left-wing ideologies. What authoritarianism does do very well is punish anyone successful enough to challenge the government, whether it's through the attainment of land, arms, wealth or followings.

Jesus christ some of the posts in this thread are moronic and disappointing. If you're not some variation of Libertarian/Objectivist/Anarchist then you are not redpill. Period.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Nature abhors a vacuum.

I'm sorry but Red Pill is about realizing nature. If we aren't based in truth then why is Red Pill of any value?

Libertarians are simply a type of naive idealism.

When the Misandry Bubble collapses we won't become Libertarians, we will return to nature... the other direction.

Authoritarian structures are the most simple way of being natural. Heirarchy is the natural order.

Lee Kuan Yew was very successful because he DID NOT encourage Libertarian views. (true)

"There is only one way to reject marxism and that is to empower the individual by limiting the power of government."

This is 100% incorrect. The Founding Fathers knew that once the people lost their sense of natural heirarchy (at that time being Christian) they would degenerate into mob rule. If you simply reduce government at a time when the people have lost their morals it will create chaos. In response to chaos the Authoritarian rule will insert itself. This is what the collapse looks like:

Marxism ("ignore nature") ---> Collapse ---> Chaos ("idealistic libertarians") ---> Authoritarianism ("natural heirarchy")

When we say:

"Return of Kings"

...we mean that Kings are the inevitable outcome of the collapse.

There is no Libertarian future.

Study Russia and China because they are recent real world examples of collapse and rebirth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

[–]theredpoo 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've stated similar things on here before and the downvote brigade came out in force.

Many are simply not ready for the red pill of government, that it truly is not out for anyone's own good and that it doesn't actually protect anyone but itself.

I contend that it's harder to swallow the red pill of the state than the red pill about women.

[–]Phokus1983 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Watch Putin.

Putin is an example of authoritarianism not working, unlike LKY. Singapore has some of the lowest levels of corruption in the world. Russia is MASSIVELY corrupt.

In many ways, Singapore has elements of socialism in it's society.

Did you know that 80% of Singaporeans live in government housing? They also have price controls on their healthcare system. The government owns a significant amount of the GDP (i.e their airline is owned by the government).

[–]truchisoft 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While talking about being a politician: "This is not a game of cards"

Holy fuck did he coin the phrase that was used for the House of Cards series?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The only bit I take exception to is the third world shithole. Even under British rule Singapore was one of the most successful affluent parts of the colonies, and so it was pretty well set as soon as it got independence. Its not like India which was in a bad state from independance onwards.

[–]john_steinbecks 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wish my country had a guy a quarter as competent as Lee Kuan Yew in charge.

[–]lala_xyyz 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Whatever LKY accomplished doesn't matter in the long run. With the TFR of 0.78 Singapore can at best be described as an IQ shredder. Funny that he made that remark to that woman - she had at most a single child, if any at all. In the long run, demographics is all that matters. Singapore will grow even more wealthy than it is now, and it's just a matter of time before hundreds of millions poor fucks surrounding it start demanding their "fair share" via some global institution. All that prosperity they've accumulated is literally for nothing.

[–]Thatgoodsshit 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That was one of the most interesting posts at xenosystems last year. For all his genius, LKY failed to build a firm demographic foundation for his society.

The man was so God damn good at his job though. Singapore will probably carry on just fine for a long while, simply on inertia.

[–]lala_xyyz 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It won't since it has no culture to bind the population, which will cause its disintegration the moment shit hit the fan, since no one will be willing to die for the ideal of a non-existing nation. Statesmanship is not about the gdp per capita but conquering and setting the foundations for long-term survival, creating and directing ideologies along the way. At best Singapore will end up like Luxemburg or Qatar, but given its unfavorable geographical position, demographic composition and a limited scope for population growth it's more likely to become a tributary of China. 20 years from now LKY will be seen as a racist misogynist market fundamentalist who created a neo-fascist state to worship the ideology of capitalism.

[–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also an interesting anecdote about LKY from a professor of mine who admired the man (he was a fan of Asian ValuesTM as well). He went to Cambridge and finished as the best from his class, and his later wife as the second best (or something like that - suffice to say that she had was similar inclined and educated as he was). When asked about whether he would have married her had she been better than him, he answered: "not really".

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah not everyone is created equal but tell the masses they think "Hurr durr niggers and beaners are stupid and dum."

You can't operate with that assumption unless you want everyone's civil liberties to be infringed.

[–]aazav 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Have "Down"?

It's called "Down's", not "Down". The name of the disease is Down's Syndrome. "Down" isn't any thing at all but a direction.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why is this such a big deal for you? He probably mistyped.

[–]Espada18 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP tends to attract a lot of people with a history of mental problems.

[–]zhu_ 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

crapz. i am from singapore.

[–]TRP Vanguardss_camaro -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

she should have kids as soon as possible...

The last thing Indonesia needs is more kids... It is overpopulated as fuck.

[+]theredpoo -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

His government also canes people in public for chewing gum.

[–]six6xis 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Chewing gum or spitting it out on the ground?

[+]theredpoo -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually possessing a pack of gum will get you a whippin!

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter