As above, so below (part 2).

In my last take on the subject, I pointed out how the anti-immigration sentiment in the western world is becoming increasingly mirrored here in South-East Asia, with much the same causes - loss of jobs to foreigners, loss of Singaporean identity, poor behaviour of immigrants and failure to assimilate and so forth.

Perhaps it is fitting that coinciding with the Woolwich incident and the riots in Sweden that something interesting has cropped up in the region:

Malay neo-Nazis.

No, really, I'm not joking.

"A couple of years ago, my friend moved out to Malaysia in search of a life where a winter wardrobe isn't a thing and you don't have to worry about stuff like moronic bro culture or seeing Kim K's face on television. What he found was a job as a bar manager in an establishment frequented by Malay punks covered in swastikas, wearing Combat 18 (a neo-Nazi terrorist organization) T-shirts and harping on about "Malay power." Turns out they're a group of far-right nationalists who want to rid Malaysia of any non-ethnic Malays and stop immigration into the country."

And maybe it's just me, but they seem to be holding a lot of the same concerns white nationalists, and to a lesser extent, local Singaporeans do hold:

"Malaysia is home to people from China, India, and foreign immigrants from Bangladesh, Africa, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Burma. The government can't control the entry of immigrants and we get so many of them. There are so many protests against the government about this issue, but they haven’t done anything tangible to improve the situation. Race has become a focus because of the inclusion of uncontrolled numbers of these people in our society.

Malay people have been affected in socio-economic terms. Ethnic Malays also fall prey to criminals who come from abroad and sell drugs and commit murder, rape, robbery, and so on."

Funny thing is, the Malaysian government had had a long history of discriminating for Malays instead of against them; my mother still remembers being told to "go back to China" as a village kid. Sure, there are a huge number of differences between what's going on in the West and what's going on right here, but it's nevertheless interesting to see that even with a government corruptly sympathetic to the Malays in Malaysia, they're still getting pissed off about immigration and want an ethnic homeland. They were already pissed off enough about letting in the Chinese and Indians half a century ago; this really doesn't come as a surprise to me considering it's further backed by sentiments sweeping the world.

Male disposability - a strength?

Male disposability, that big bugbear.

Ah, I still remember the old days when I was reading Angry Harry, of land whales squealing in excitement at the thought the Y chromosome might be decaying, "self-love" jokes when it was found it was capable of self-repair, and sullen silence when it was suggested its mutability may be responsible for much of human evolution.

Men are expendable. It's in our genes. Women are inherently valuable because they have wombs and thus are the reproductive bottleneck. You can spend forever trying to fight it, or you can accept the fact that men and women are not equal on any footing whatsoever and turn that to your advantage.

If it still can be, that is. Somehow, I doubt that.

The rise of indie gaming - a small exercise in skill and talent getting some light.

Some time back Dr. Faust did a small post on the second decline of the gaming industry. In a nutshell: mainstream games are getting worse these days because they're being rushed to meet schedules simply for the sake of staying afloat. Quality is being sacrificed for quantity, and people in suits are somehow forgetting that games are supposed to be fun.

This, of course, does not stop the average consumer from buying the next installment of the Call of Duty or EA sports or Assassin's Creed franchises. Which says as much about the average video game consumer as the companies which make said games.

I suppose this post will be somewhat disjointed and rambling, but it needs to be said anyway. Here's a game which took the spotlight some time ago: Dungeons of Dredmor. 

Does Dredmor have amazing graphics? Heck no, it uses indexed .pngs as sprites.

Does Dredmor have a compelling main gameplay plotline? No, it's essentially "bad guy in bottom of dungeon, kill him."

Does Dredmor have DRM? No, but strangely enough people want to give their money to the developers for their work anyway. Sometimes even if they aren't buying anything.

Such a fascinating concept, eh? If only people loved you so much they gave you money for nothing.

What Dredmor does right is that it's fun. It doesn't take itself seriously. It's accessible, without being dumbed down for the average two-bit drooling idiot that mainstream games are these days. The developers speak directly to the players instead of through "community managers" and "customer service representatives".

And if a player doesn't like any aspect of the game, then they are free to mod it as they like with nothing more than notepad. Not to mention the modding community that's sprung up, of course.

Here's the head coder for the game, Nicholas Vining, speaking about how his team went about doing the writing for the game:

Because Gaslamp Games is small, they can do all this - and thanks to digital distribution, they can circumvent having to grovel at the feet of giant publishers and work on their own schedule.

Another well-known indie game developer is Edmund McMillen - his work is amazing, and yet often disturbing. Due to the content of his games, no mainstream publisher would dare to touch titles like Time Fcuk or The Binding of Isaac with a ten-foot pole (play them and you'll understand why), and his sheer genius would have gone unnoticed. Hell, if not for Newgrounds, where he got his start...

Derek Yu? Masterpieces like Aquaria and Spleunky.

Hour of gameplay per dollar spent on the game, indie games generally tend to yield far more than the 50-60 dollar nonsense on store shelves.

The gatekeepers of the old media, be it books, electronic media, music, video games - they are quickly falling apart thanks to the many-to-many model the internet has made possible. The future of media - and gaming in particular - seems to be indie, especially as game publishers become increasingly feminised and inefficient; a small start-up comprising of two pimply-faced nerds in their garages and bedrooms banging away at keyboards can reasonably compete with them, because first and foremost, games are supposed to be fun. Is there going to be a lot of crap? Sure, Sturgeon's Law applies in all fields; one look at the offerings on Steam Greenlight is going to prove that beyond all doubt.

But this is where they are allowed to ferment, to flourish, and the wheat separated from the chaff. The future, it would appear, is small-scale: while others are extrapolating this to the rest of humanity with predictions as to people moving away from cities and into villages, I'm going to stick with what's observably happening now in this regard.

I'm angry and hateful and I couldn't be happier about it.

"You're so angry."

This was professed to me by my sister over the phone after I'd stated a few tenets of the Reactionary position. As summed up by Aurini in Freedom and Authority:  

"While I'm not exactly in a hurry to go out and buy one of those things, I like that we have the freedom to buy a double-ended dildo, and think that we should have the freedom to buy one of those things. But strong authority in society is necessary to deal with the underclass, and quite really, it doesn't really affect me all that much if double-ended dildos get banned. The fact that so many drugs are illegal that shouldn't be illegal is an irritant to me. I'm not a slave to chemical desires...a reactionary society is going to require strong legislation and strong leaders, and every so often you're going to have a stupid law. But the smart people can avoid the stupid laws."

This was the line which provoked said response.

Are the words alone innately angry? I wouldn't say so. Did I say them angrily? Perhaps. But even if so, so what? "You're so angry" was as relevant to the current discussion at hand as "you're scaring me", and for the same reasons, too.

In any case, I chose that point to pass the phone to my mother and be done with the conversation.

Am I angry? Why yes, I am. Properly tapped, it's an incredible source of strength at times.

To never be angered is to never have conviction or passion, an existence of pleasant soma. Anything goes! Do what you will! To never hate, to never judge, the loins burning with love, the mind rationalising away endlessly, the heart missing, no chest, no ribs, no blood.

If you don't feel angry at anything, then you are not alive.

Which is why "I believe X is wrong, but won't speak out against it because I don't want to impose my morals upon others" is a pile of crap. Either you do believe X is wrong, in which case you are condoning evil by not speaking out against it, or you don't believe X is wrong, in which case you're a liar for claiming it is. Note I don't mention cowardice, because people do have to look out for number one, and most still do speak out where it is safe to do so.

And imposing morals on others by force? Well, isn't the only intolerable crime in the eyes of the PC brigade these days intolerance? In the end, the only thing that matters is whether said morals and mores are pleasing in the eyes of the Gods of the Copybook Headings, yes?

Anger is a perfectly valid response to injustice. Hatred is a perfectly good reaction to evil. Yet in the world of Agape before Logos, both have been criminalised, and the only hate allowed is that which is performed in the name of love. A people unable to be roused to rational anger is a people comprised of sheep and cattle, ready to be herded by fast food and cable television. Pliant. Controllable.

Little wonder why they're trying to stamp it out, trying to turn the very concepts into little more than expletives. They've succeeded quite well.

Peering out of the box - 20/5/13.

Cappy Cap - You're better off staying in your mother's basement and drinking than going to liberal arts college.

Sultan Knish - The end of competition.

The American Dream does not actually require a red, white and blue flag or a dream. What it requires is a willingness to accept messiness. 

Messiness is another word for chaos. And no one likes chaos. Chaos means that in the richest country in the world some people will be illiterate, others will be homeless and some will accidentally set themselves on fire because the fireworks don't come with enough safety warnings. 

Those aren't good things. They're not things that governments and the squeaky wheels who make governments what they are think should be tolerated. They're messy.

Stares at the World - The Right continues to be right.

So a request to all the mindless idiots who believe whatever they’re told, no matter how many times the story contradicts – kindly shut the fuck up, stop voting, and read some George Orwell.

Matt Forney - Diary of a manospambot.

My jaw damn near dropped. Omigod, a black woman who didn’t look or act like she walked out of a Tyler Perry movie? Omigod, an intact nuclear family in the year 2013? It was like seeing two unicorns rutting in a barn. My brains were blown out of my ears. I thought, “Man, I have GOT to share this with the guys on Roosh’s forum.”

Then I realized something: if they were an intact family, that means that the guy was married…

“CHUMP!” I stood up, pointing at the white guy. “BETA BETA BETA!”

The Economic Collapse - 10 charts that demonstrate the slow, agonizing death of the American worker.

Jim's Blog - Game, Dark Enlightenment, and Reaction.

If you believe that game works then:

1. You are darkly enlightened, since you believe at least one forbidden truth about human nature.
2. You  should logically conclude that women should never have been emancipated and never given the vote, thus logically, you should be reactionary.

DemCAD - The American culture of debt.

The Gods of the Copybook Headings in a nutshell.

Taken off an argument with a fellow on twitter, and consolidated after some simmering:

-Morals are absolute. Whether they come from God, if you're a theist, or from a more secular view, the Gods of the Copybook Headings (history and natural law), they underwrite basic human behaviours that need to be enforced by society at large in order for a civilisation to be functional and self-perpetuating.

-Numerous civilisations throughout history have all, despite a wide variety of environments, curiously converged upon similar basic tenets - for example, laws against murder, some form of property rights, the definition of marriage as monogamous and hetrosexual, the curtailing of women's dysgenic mating choices, so on and so forth. Even Ancient Greece, which had widespread pederasty, nevertheless defined marriage in such terms. Where exceptions may be made for the elites such as a sultan and his four wives, they nevertheless are the rules for the masses.

-Sufficient deviancy from these tenets will cause either civilisational collapse or it being subsumed by a stronger civilisation without fail. The can may be kicked down the road a little with distorting effects by factors such as technology, but eventually modern civilisation is slated for either implosion (as in the East) or being devoured by the Mexican and Muslim hordes (in the West). Rome and Sparta fell under their own weight and hubris, and so will we.

-If moral standards required for successful civilisation are determined by negotiation within society, then anything can be made moral so long as a majority of people agree on it - or in our modern case, it is dictated from up on high by the elites. Yet the fellow who was arguing for "evolving morals" was unable to give an answer as to why rape and slavery should not be considered moral if society decided morality should evolve that way. Of course, human genetics and behaviour has a plausible explanation of why the rape of women is not just immoral, but given greater weightage than a man being raped - that a genetic interloper in a tribe would be divisive, at the very least.

-In order for "evolving morality" to have even the remotest chance of success, then core human behaviour must change - implying that core human behaviour is changeable in the first place. Oh, morals are free to "evolve" as they like, or as the elites demand, but these "evolving morals" will not exist very long as the civilisation which holds them vanishes.

-In order to take core human behaviour as changeable, one must assume tabula rasa. Yet tabula rasa is easily disproven with two very simple examples: the intelligence of Jews and lower-class whites. The former has faced persecution for much of history and yet still are more intelligent than the average person, and the latter consistently perform better academically than the children of, say, upper-class blacks. Nurture has to work within the limits set by nature. It is easy to admit that a bulldog is inclined to be violent, a collie to herd, and a doberman to guard, but horribly taboo to think human behaviour can be genetically determined thanks to the PC brigade.

-If tabula rasa is the greatest myth of our time, then human behaviour, and thus morality, can only "evolve" along with human genetics. Yet substantial evolution is supposed to take millenia, if not millions of years.

-Since for our intents and purposes, human genetics is immutable, human behaviour is equally not changeable and hence an objective standard of morality required for the formation and sustaining of a functional civilisation exists. The social engineers can twist and deform all they want, but blood will out in the end.

These are the Gods of the Copybook Headings. Civilisations ignore them at their own peril. The problems with modern civilisation have been seen before, and knowing manboons, will be seen again. We have only put it off for this long for two reasons: 1) the massive distortion caused by technological surplus and 2) we have been cannibalising the corpse of the West, but the bones have been picked almost clean now.

Yet the progressive's religion is progress: they think of history in a straight line instead of a cycle, and the past is to be shunned and avoided instead of being thought of as a lesson to be learned from. In their eyes, a solution that was used historically is unacceptable irregardless of its effectiveness - hence their disdain for "Iron Age fairy tales".

Don't like the grassroots response to immigration? Attempt to eat it out from within.

Well, this was surprising...well, not really.

SINGAPORE: Expect to see more new immigrants to Singapore as community leaders in the future -- the People's Association is planning to induct more of them into the ranks of grassroots leadership.

Currently, some 3,000 new immigrants are grassroots leaders.

They make up nine per cent of Singapore's 33,000-member strong grassroots leadership.

Hah. I thought the whole idea of grassroots organisations was to provide some idea of what people on the ground feel...so if you don't like it, change their makeup so it complies with your revolutionary vision of the future.

Ms Fu said through interaction with others, grassroots leaders can facilitate common understanding, even if it involves the work of dispute resolution.

She said: "We hope to get more people to step forward and represent views of diverse groups so that the government can actually have a more diverse representation, and understand the needs of each community stakeholder better.

"So whether you're a new citizen, old citizen, we'd like you to step forward, do something for the society, and that's how we can get engagement from our citizens."

Of course, firstly, the unquestioned assumption that diversity is automatically Good(TM)m so ingrained in all of us as the modern religion. A culture for everyone, unfortunately, is necessarily a dumbed-down, unremarkable culture, having everything, meaning nothing. It has to appeal to everyone, after all, the underman included, and in doing so loses the point of a culture.

Me? I'm finding all of this quite hilarious. The current culture of Singapore is at best three or four decades old - whatever that was here before the '70s was systematically dismantled and destroyed. The Singapore of today has absolutely no cultural roots in the Singapore of 1812 where Stamford Raffles set foot on this island and instead is stitched and glued together from government policy, social engineering and a subservient populace. When I hear locals complain about Singaporean culture being destroyed and locals being displaced, I have to suppress the urge that we were more than willing to do it to ourselves, after all.

Well, at most we've only lost a couple centuries' worth of history, as opposed to a couple millenniums' worth in the case of Europe. No big loss when you put it into perspective, right?