The 10,000 Year Explosion by anthropologists Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, two professors at the University of Utah who refer to themselves as “genetic historians”, was released in 2009 to strong reviews.

The book offers an interesting thesis: technological advancement has supercharged Darwinian natural selection1 pressures in humanity, and the microevolutionary genetic changes resulting from the biggest change in human history – the neolithic agricultural revolution – are both ongoing and occurring extremely rapidly by historic norms. These changes are occurring 100x faster than its long-term average over the 6 million years of human existence; if humans had always been evolving this rapidly, the genetic differences between us and chimpanzees would be far larger than it is.

A detailed look at the fossil record, combined with evidence from contemporary examples of natural selection, “makes it clear that natural selection can proceed quite rapidly, and that the past consists of long periods of near-stasis (in populations that were well matched to their environments) interspersed with occasional periods of very rapid change.”

These ongoing genetic changes are making humans more efficient in an environment of sedentary agriculture consumption, which is far different from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle we lived for millions of years. These changes can be studied based on DNA sequencing; many of the studies used data from the International HapMap project.

Genetic changes are naturally selected for based on their adaptive fitness (i.e. procreative and survival adaptive fitness) taking into account factors such as location, weather, culture, diseases and technology in an ongoing dance. Genetic changes influence human culture, economic and social developments, which then affects additional genetic changes.

The authors also offer a unique example of recent rapid natural selection pressures: Ashkenazi Jews during the Middle Ages. According to their theory, the exclusive role that Ashkenazim played as money-lenders to Christian Europe for over a thousand years provided unique and intense selection pressures on their community. These pressures ultimately led to higher average verbal IQs compared to the surrounding populations (who were forbidden by the Church from being money-lenders), along with unusual increases in certain diseases not typically found in other groups. In turn (my addition) these natural selection pressures influence the Rothschilds and their allies’ central bank ownership domination we are experiencing today.

This post will delve into some of Cochran and Harpending’s arguments, framing them in the context of social, economic and political developments in the modern world, as well as briefly touch on the eugenics movement of the early 20th century.

---

Animal and plant artificial selection

Let’s start with a discussion of artificial selection, which involves humans deliberately breeding other species to emphasize or de-emphasize certain traits. The clearest examples of artificial selection are from animal domestication, where modern animals look and act very different from their wild ancestors yet branched off from their forebears only recently. For example, dogs were domesticated from wolves only between 9,000-34,000 years ago and now come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes.

It is not just physical appearance that has changed. Dog behavior has changed as well, where they are good at reading human voices and gestures while wolves can’t understand us at all. Dog breeds are highly variant, differing greatly in abilities such as learning speed and capacity. For example, the number of repetitions required to learn a new command can vary by factors of ten or more from one breed to another. The typical border collie can learn a new command after 5 repetitions and respond correctly 95% of the time, whereas a basset hound takes 80-100 repetitions to achieve a 25% accuracy rate.

As another example, dog bite accident statistics are stark: biting is disproportionately distributed among breeds. A survey of attacks from 1982-2006 found 1 record of bodily harm attributable to border collies but 1,100 records attributable to pit bulls (in my opinion, “shitpits” should not be legal to own).

Even though 9,000-34,000 years is a remarkably fast evolution by historical standards to evolve dogs from wolves, this timespan can be shortened to within a human lifespan if applied in a rigorous, sustained and targeted manner. Starting in the 1950s Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev developed a domesticated fox in only forty years. In each generation he selected for tameness and only tameness, although selecting for tameness affected other traits such as coat color, skulls shape, and ear floppiness, in what is known as domestication syndrome. Presumably if you selected for another trait or traits – aggression, dominance, intelligence, creativity, sensitivity or whatever – those would also affect the animal’s physiognomy.

The details of the experiment are fascinating, per Wikipedia:

From the beginning, Belyayev chose foxes solely for tameness, allowing only a tiny percentage of male offspring, and a slightly larger percentage of females, to breed. The foxes were not trained, in order to ensure that their tameness was a result of genetic selection and not of environmental influences. For the same reason, they spent most of their lives in cages and were permitted only brief encounters with human beings.

Belyayev set down strict guidelines for the breeding program. Goldman said, “Starting at one month of age, and continuing every month throughout infancy, the foxes were tested for their reactions to an experimenter. The experimenter would attempt to pet and handle the fox while offering it food. In addition, the experimenters noted whether the foxes preferred to spend time with other foxes, or with humans.” After the fox had reached sexual maturity at an age of seven to eight months, “they had their final test and assigned an overall tameness score.”….

The least domesticated are in Class III; those that allow humans to pet and handle them, but that do not respond to contact with friendliness, are in Class II; the ones that are friendly with humans are in Class I. After only six generations, Belyayev and his team had to add a higher category, Class IE, the “domesticated elite”, which “are eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs. They start displaying this kind of behavior before they are one month old. By the 20th generation 35% were ‘elite’, and by the 30th generation 70% to 80% of the selected generation was ‘elite.’

Once the foxes in each generation had been classified according to the latest research, only the least fearful and least aggressive foxes were selected for breeding. Goldman said, “In each successive generation, less than 20 percent of individuals were allowed to breed”. The sole criterion for permitting them to breed was their tolerance of human contact….

Trut wrote in 1999 “that after 40 years of the experiment, and the breeding of 45,000 foxes, a group of animals had emerged that were as tame and as eager to please as a dog.” Fitch described the tame foxes as “incredibly endearing”. The New York Times wrote that they “were clean and quiet and made excellent house pets, though — being highly active — they preferred a house with a yard to an apartment. They did not like leashes, though they tolerated them.”

You can watch a video of the domesticated foxes below:

Changes in domesticated plants such as corn or maize have also changed remarkably in only 7,000 years. Humans used artificial selection to grow more and better crops, with more resistance to pests or droughts and with other beneficial attributes. Such dramatic changes are common in many varieties of domesticated plants and animals. Evolutionary genetics predicts that substantial change in almost any trait is possible in a few tens of generations.

---

Humans evolve quickly as well

Cochran and Harpending liken the rapidity of animal changes over successive generations to that of humans:

Biological processes that were once tightly regulated can be turned on all the time, as with lactose tolerance; turned off entirely, as with the caspase 12 gene, which increases the risk of sepsis when intact and which is inactivated in most populations; or turned off selectively, as with the Duffy mutation, a malaria defense that keeps a certain receptor molecule from being expressed on red cells while continuing to be expressed everywhere else. Some other changes are more like turning up the volume (sometimes all the way to eleven), as in some groups that have extra copies of the gene producing amylase, an enzyme present in saliva that aids in digesting starch….

We expect that differences between human ethnic groups are qualitatively similar to those between dog breeds – that the differences are evolutionary shallow, mostly involving loss of function, exaggerations of already-existing adaptations, neoteny, and so on [i.e. microevolution]. Although such changes cannot generate truly complex adaptations, changes in all those hundreds or thousands of genetic switches and knobs can still cause the sorts of evolutionary changes we see in dogs and other domesticated species; and these differences – such as those between Great Danes and Chihuahuas, or between teosinte and modern maize – are not so small. In other words, very significant evolutionary changes in response to agriculture were still possible….

Because the authors believe that all humans have a common ancestry within 100,000 years, and all humans outside of Africa have even more recent common ancestry (~50,000 years), “observable differences between populations must have evolved rapidly, which can only have happened if the alleles (gene variants) underlying those differences had strong selective advantages.

The alleles that are regional, those underlying the differences between populations, must also have had important effects on fitness. That’s what population genetics implies, and genomic information now confirms it.” Random mutations that end up conferring reproductive and reproductive survival advantages to their unique environments end up spreading among that population group, and they can do so relatively quickly depending on how large the advantage is:

…if a favorable mutation occurs on a chromosome, people with that mutation will have more children survive than average, so over time, more and more people will bear that mutation. If the advantage is large enough, the mutation can rapidly become common, before recombination completely reshuffles its original haplotype, rapidly enough that people bearing that mutation will also carry the original local haplotype that surrounded it when it first came into existence.

The mutation can affect many different things – skin color, metabolism, defense against infectious disease, central nervous system features, and any number of other traits and functions – and every major innovation in human history led to new selective pressures, which in turn leads to more evolutionary change.2 And all of these were dramatically impacted by the neolithic agricultural revolution.

---

Agricultural humans vs hunter gatherer humans

Modern humans had been hunter gatherers for almost all of their 300,000-500,000 year history, which suddenly changed when the last ice age receded about 11,700 years ago. The authors hypothesized that mating between humans and neanderthals may have created physiological and mental changes in humans – perhaps the introduction of new sophisticated language abilities – that led to this and many other innovations.3

Farming produces between 10-100x more calories per acre than foraging, and as a result from 10,000 BC to AD 1 the world population increased by roughly 100x:

However, “the quality of the food was much worse than among hunter-gatherers, and the standard of living did not increase because population growth easily caught up with improvements in food production [Malthusianism]. Additionally higher population density, permanent settlements, and close association with domestic animals greatly increased the prevalence of infectious disease.” The carbohydrate portion of the human diet tripled, while the amount of protein tanked. Therefore:

There is every reason to think that early farmers developed serious health problems from this low protein, vitamin-short, high-carbohydrate diet. Infant mortality increased, and the poor diet was likely one of the causes. You can see the mismatch between the genes and the environment in the skeletal evidence. Humans who adopted agriculture shrank: Average height dropped by almost five inches.

There is numerous signs of pathology in the bones of early agriculturalists. In the Americas, the introduction of maize led to widespread tooth decay and anemia due to iron deficiency, since maize is low in bioavailable iron. This story is not new: Many researchers have written about the health problems stemming from the advent of agriculture. Our point is that, over millennia, populations responded to these new pressures. People who had genetic variants that helped them deal with the new diet had more surviving children, and those variants spread: Farmers began to adapt to an agricultural diet. Humanity changed.

The advent of agriculture has led to many rapid changes in the human population, which are ongoing:

1. Skeletal and muscular structure – The human skeleton has become more lightly built, our jaws have shrunk, our bones lighter, brow ridges have disappeared, and skull volume has decreased about 10% from 20,000 years ago. There may be direct trade-offs between muscle and brain function — hunter gatherers likely had stronger muscles than today.
2. Higher rates of elite reproduction – Agriculture also led to the creation of nonproductive elites due to excess food production, which was impossible under hunter-gatherers. This in turn greatly increased inequality. The fraction of men fathering the next generation was markedly higher as hunter-gatherers than in agricultural societies, for example. “Gregory Clark, in A Farewell to Alms, shows that in medieval England the richest members of society had approximately twice the number of surviving offspring as the poorest. The bottom of society did not reproduce itself, with the result that, after a millennium or so, nearly everyone was descended from the wealthy classes.” And those living in rural areas, like today, had many more children than those living in urban areas, which are known as “IQ shredders”.
3. Lactose tolerance – One of the important genetic adaptations that occurred after the introduction of agriculture and the domestication of cattle was a mutation 8,000 years ago that allowed adults to digest lactose, the main sugar in milk. This increased the efficiency of an agriculture diet by offering a consistent source of protein that those on this diet were otherwise deficient in. Dairying is much more efficient than raising cattle for slaughter: it produces about 5x more calories per acre. These pastoral communities could migrate and bring their cattle with them, compared to static agriculture societies, and raise a larger number of warriors, who were also taller and stronger. Cochran and Harpending theorize that the mobility afforded to the proto-Indo-Europeans by their lactose tolerance was a huge advantage that allowed them to spread over western Eurasia around 7,000 BC (the Kurgan hypothesis).
4. Skin changes to increase Vitamin D absorption – Humans on an agricultural diet suffered from Vitamin D deficiency which hunter gatherers did not; there is plenty of vitamin D in fresh meat. Such deficiency “would have been serious since it could lead to bone malformations, decreased resistance to infectious diseases, and cancer. This may be why natural selection favored mutations causing light skin, which allowed for adequate vitamin D synthesis in regions with little ultraviolet radiation.” Several major mutations causing light skin color appear to have originated after the advent of agriculture.
5. Resistance to diseases – Infectious diseases spread in agricultural communities due to crowding (such as measles), garbage, contaminated food and water supplies, and new vermin such as rats and mice, which spread diseases such as typhus and plague. Infectious diseases among sedentary populations were devastating, and therefore farmers experienced strong selective pressures to adapt. Over time these communities dramatically improved their immune systems to resist these diseases, while hunter gatherers did not.One example of this is falciparum malaria which was especially prevalent in Africa. Africans developed sickle cells as an expensive malaria defense (expensive because it provides defenses with serious side effects). Europeans were not able to invade and conquer the heart of Africa because of these powerful tropical diseases, which Africans had resistance to and Europeans did not, until the 1800s when quinine became widely available.Another example is the American Indians exposure to Europeans in the New World: the Indians were hunter-gatherers and had no immunity to the diseases Europeans carried such as smallpox, measles, diphtheria, whooping cough, leprosy and bubonic plague, along with other diseases in tropical and subtropical areas such as yellow fever, dengue fever, falciparum malaria, lymphatic filariasis, schistosomiasis, and onchocerciasis. These diseases were all basically one-sided; relatively few pathogens went the other way, such as Syphilis. These diseases, especially smallpox, ultimately wiped out an estimated 90% of the indigenous population within a few centuries. This is the primary reason why Cortes and Pizarro were able to conquer the Aztecs and Inca with so few men. This happened in America, too, although the settler’s awful and deliberate wiping out to almost complete extinction of the Indian’s food source, the buffalo, certainly didn’t help, from an initial population of roughly fifty million to almost zero. European diseases also decimated Australia Aborigines and Polynesians. However, other countries conquered by the Europeans, such as the Philippines, India or Indonesia, did not see population collapses because they already had extensive contact with Old World populations and so their immune systems were built up to resist such diseases.
6. Domestication – Elites in agricultural communities wanted a docile population that could be taxed and controlled. Aggressive, combative people had reduced reproductive fitness under their control (as they would be incarcerated or executed), so selection pressures over time resulted in less aggressive people. “Since the elites were in a very real sense raising peasants, just as peasants raised cows, there must have been a tendency for them to cull individuals who were more aggressive than average, which over time would have changed the frequencies of those alleles that induced such aggressiveness ….selection for submission to authority sounds unnervingly like domestication.” This is a point that Ted Kaczynski emphasizes strongly in his writing as well: technological society selects for those population traits that more smoothly integrate into it, and “mental illness” is defined to a large extent by those personality traits that make smooth participation in civic society difficult.4
7. Delayed gratification and increased planning – Agricultural societies over time selected for those who possessed long-term planning abilities, given crops needed to be stored for reserves and a portion kept for re-planting. Reproductive fitness favored patience and self-control, a hard-work ethic, as well as selfishness due to private ownership of goods and private property. These traits were unnecessary in hunter-gatherer societies.

The earlier that a group was exposed to agriculture, the more adapted they became compared to late-comers; better adjusted to the diet, tougher against the new diseases, and better at tolerating crowding and hierarchy.

---

An example of accelerated natural selection: Ashkenazi Jews

Given that a variety of dogs possessing a huge variety of differing traits descended from wolves in less than 35,000 years, that humanity is rapidly changing due to the effects of the neolithic agricultural revolution, and that intense artificial selection can change the traits of a species within a human lifetime per Belyaev’s foxes, how rapidly can a human population change due to intense and sustained natural selection pressures?

According to Cochran and Harpending, a study of the Ashkenazi Jewish population during the Middle Ages can assist with answering this question. This group faced unusual and intense natural selection pressures which led to their population possessing both increased average verbal IQs as well as the prevalence of unusual diseases not commonly seen in other populations. They argue:

If a high-fertility subpopulation was reproductively isolated (or nearly so) for long enough, selective pressures specific to that social niche might cause them to evolve in an unusual direction and become significantly different from the surrounding population. We think this happened among the Ashkenazi Jews…the kind of natural selection that occurred among the Ashkenazim was possible because of the persistence over centuries of strong prohibitions against intermarriage and an odd social niche in which certain traits conferred high fertility. It’s a very unusual case, since few populations appear to have experienced the long-lasting reproductive isolation and unusual job mix required to get those results. There are all sorts of ways in which that process could have been interrupted; it’s being interrupted now, for example, through high rates of intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews and by changes in fertility patterns.

Ashkenazis have the highest measurable IQ of any ethnic group, averaging around 112-115 compared to the European norm of 100 (although their visuospatial abilities are typically somewhat lower by about half a standard deviation than the European average). This doesn’t mean any particular Ashkenazi is intelligent, just that their group IQ bell curve is shifted rightward, which has a strong impact on the number of individuals out on the far edge of the distribution:

“This fact has social significance, because IQ (as measured by IQ tests or their equivalents, like the GRE or SAT) is the best available predictor of success in academic subjects and many jobs. Jews are just as successful in such jobs as their tested IQ would predict, and they are hugely overrepresented in those jobs and accomplishments with the highest cognitive demands” – 10x greater than their share of the population for scientists, earning more than a quarter of all Nobel science prizes, accounting for about half of 20th century world chess champions, they account for 22% of Ivy League students and are highly overrepresented as CEOs. (They are actually far more overrepresented adjusting for IQ compared to white populations, though, which raises separate questions about tribalism and nepotism5).

This was not the case in ancient times with Sephardic Jewish populations. Surviving writings from Greeks and Romans did not state that the Jews were unusually intelligent:

[Roman] history is irrelevant because the Jews, in those days, were much like other people. Most Jews then were farmers, just like most other people in settled populations, and they must have experienced evolutionary pressures similar to those experienced by other agricultural peoples. They were not intellectually prominent at that time.

They made no contributions to the mathematics and proto-science of the classical era. A fair amount of classical commentary on the Jews has been preserved, and there is no sign that anyone then had the impression that Jews were unusually intelligent. By “no sign,” we mean that there is apparently no single statement to that effect anywhere in preserved classical literature. This is in strong contrast with the classical Greeks, whom everyone thought unusually clever.

They key cultural precondition among the Jews – key, that is, to later events among the Ashkenazim – was a pattern of social organization that required literacy, that strongly discouraged intermarriage, and that could propagate itself over long periods of time with little change. That pattern (Rabbinical Judaism) had not always existed but gradually emerged in the centuries after Titus’s destruction of the Temple in the first revolt against the Roman Empire in AD 70. This happened first in Israel, then later in the Jewish community of Mesopotamia. It coincided with the development of the Talmud, a collection of writings about Jewish law, customs, and history. The Torah and the Talmud are the central documents of rabbinical Judaism.

Literacy, which does not itself require high intelligence, was probably important to the Jews in their shift from a nation to an urban occupational caste during and following the Diaspora, acting as an entree to many urban professions in which they at first had no special biological advantages. The prohibition against intermarriage mattered, because local selection pressures cannot change a population that freely mixes with neighbors. Intermarriage quickly dilutes the effect of beneficial alleles within a population, since the introduction of alleles from outside easily swamps the effects of selection within the group. Rabbinical Judaism’s long-term stability was also key, since natural selection takes many generations to effect large changes.

In addition to higher IQ, Ashkenazi Jews also have an unusual set of serious genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs, Gaucher’s, familial dysautonomia, and others that are up to 100x more common than in other European populations.

Cochran and Harpending believe that their higher IQ plus predisposition to unusual diseases have a single cause: that higher IQ arose from natural selection for success in white-collar occupations which as a byproduct produced susceptibility to these diseases. The alternative explanation for these odd diseases, the bottleneck hypothesis (i.e. there was only an initial small population which inbred), is likely incorrect because (1) the genetic diseases associated with the Ashkenazim are concentrated on only a few metabolic pathways, not scattered like one would expect to see if the bottleneck hypothesis was accurate; and (2) certain measurable genetic changes that would have been expected to occur if true did not happen.

The authors trace the development of the Ashkenazim in support of their argument:

When they first appear in the historical record [which began as a distinct community 1,200 years ago], the Ashkenazim are long-distance merchants who trade with the Muslim world. This is the beginning of a unique occupational pattern; there were no other European groups – or other Jewish groups, for that matter – who were noted for this. The majority of Jews had already given up agriculture, but the Jews of Islam, although urban, mostly worked in various crafts. The Ashkenazim apparently seldom had such jobs….

When persecution became a serious problem and the security required for long-distance travel no longer existed, the Ashkenazim increasingly specialized in one occupation, finance, left open to them because of the Christian prohibition of usury. The majority of the Ashkenazim seem to have been moneylenders by 1100, and this pattern continued for several centuries. Such occupations (trade and finance) had high IQ demands, and we know of no other population that had such a large faction of cognitively demanding jobs for an extended period….

The Jews in this period were prosperous. Historian H. Ben-Sasson pointed out that “Western Europe suffered virtual famine for many years in the tenth and eleventh centuries, [but] there is no hint or echo of this in the Jewish sources of the region in this period. The city dweller lived at an aristocratic level, as befitted international merchants and honored local financiers.” Their standard of living was that of the lower nobility. The Ashkenazi Jews were thus spared malnutrition and occasional famine. This helped Jewish populations recover from their losses due to persecution; it may have affected selective pressures as well.

The persecutions due to religious hostility and commercial rivalries were quite serious; the First Crusade of 1096 resulted in the deaths of ~25% of the Jewish population in the Rhineland:

Expulsions and persecutions continued unabated throughout the Middle Ages:

Many of the expelled Jews moved east to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where they were moneylenders, tax-farmers, toll-farmers, estate managers, and proprietors of mills and taverns. According to the historian B.D. Weinryb, in the middle of the fourteenth century “about 15% of the Jewish population were earners of wages, salaries and fees. The rest were independent owners of business enterprises.” According to Cochran and Harpending,

For 800 to 900 years, from roughly 800 to 1650 or 1700, the great majority of the Ashkenazi Jews had managerial and financial jobs, jobs of high complexity, and were neither farmers nor craftsmen. In this they differed from all other settled peoples of which we have knowledge. In fact, it would have been impossible (back then) for the majority of any territorial ethnic group to have such white-collar jobs, because agricultural productivity would have been too low. 90% of the population had to farm in order to produce enough to feed themselves and a thin crust of rulers, scribes, soldiers, craftsmen, and merchants. Selection for success at white-collar tasks could only have occurred if those scribes and merchants could somehow become an ethnic group, one defined by occupation rather than location.

Ashkenazi Jews who were successful at these high-complexity jobs (including business leaders, prominent rabbis, and community leaders) had many children, and these children were much more likely than the surrounding population to survive until adulthood. The richer Jewish families had more children and the poorer families had fewer children. Compare this to Jews in the Islamic world, who mostly had “dirty”, low status jobs and had much greater competition for white-collar jobs from Greek Christians and Armenians, as well as from Muslims, so their selection pressures were entirely different than the Ashkenazi experienced. As a resultthe Jews in Islamic lands do not have high average IQ scores, are not overrepresented in cognitively demanding fields, and in Israel Ashkenazi Jews score on average 15-16 points higher on IQ tests than they do.

Repeat these pressures and outcomes for a thousand years, where the Ashkenazi interbred with one another with very little out-group marriage, with the richest and most successful money-changers and other middlemen in intellectually challenging roles having the most children, and over time the average verbal intelligence levels rose and rose and their genetics became more and more distinct. IQ is highly heritable as are other obvious features such as height.

In 1791 Napoleon gave legal equality to European Jews, and his conquests spread that policy over much of Europe. Thereafter Ashkenazis began to emerge as scientists and mathematicians. It is the combination of the exclusive role of Jews as money-lenders in the Christian middle ages along with their much higher average verbal IQs that set the stage for the Rothschilds and their allies’ central bank ownership that owns and rules the world today.

---

The eugenics movement

The ongoing, rapid natural selection of humanity in light of changing technologies, especially the neolithic agricultural revolution, along with the incredibly fast evolution that can occur from artificial selection was to an extent known in the early 20th century, and the eugenics movement was widely accepted throughout Europe and America. Eugenics proponents encouraged a variety of measures to increase procreation for those considered to have good genetics and to discourage procreation for those considered to have bad genetics. Some high-status proponents included W.B. Yeats, D.H. Lawrence, Trotsky, George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, John Maynard Keynes, R.A. Fisher, Alexander Graham Bell, Theodor Roosevelt, Hellen Keler, Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr., W.E.B. Du Bois, Woodrow Wilson, Clarence Darrow, the list goes on and on…Lee Kuan Yew was also a major proponent of it, encouraging the smartest of society to marry smart spouses and encouraging the poor to be sterilized.

What happened to eugenics? It wasn’t scientifically discredited. Instead, after World War 2 egalitarianism became supercharged in response to Hitler’s failed attempt to transvalue the core values of western civilization and, due to the egalitarian ratchet effect, measures that were previously accepted for society’s benefit were discarded on cloaked religious grounds. Eugenics was one of those discarded policies. Academia is not willing to consider the implications of genetic differences among population groups, no matter how strong the evidence, as Brett Andersen eloquently points out.

In the modern era eugenics is still practiced to a limited extent, but not coercively. Genetic testing is regularly used to test for a variety of diseases before and during pregnancy, and a pregnancy can be terminated if major problems are found. CRISPR technologies for gene editing are showing increasing promise. And some people choose their mates to highlight certain traits, whether it be intelligence or athleticism. For example, elite bodybuilder John Brown picked his wife for her athleticism, and they had three sons, two of whom went to play in the NFL (Equanimeous and Amon-Ra St. Brown) and the third college football. If you want your children to exemplify (or to avoid) certain traits, this should be something you should keep in mind as well…

However, other than this there is an extreme (egalitarian caused) dysgenic trend which is in slow-motion imploding all of western civilization, a reverse Flynn effect. In prior generations the upper classes did most of the breeding, but in the modern era the lower classes are breeding much more rapidly. The prevalence of government welfare means that people who cannot otherwise support themselves are procreating; the selection pressures are to the lowest common denominator. Short sightedness and irresponsibility are actively encouraged. This is a disaster for society not even in the long term but in the present. Globohomo encourages this and intends to benefit from it, as they see a low IQ, dysgenic population as much less of a threat to their rule…

---

Conclusions

The 10,000 Year Explosion proves that humans and animals evolve based upon their own unique natural selection pressures based on technology, culture, location and environment, and therefore groups, like individuals, are unequal in many respects — respects that can’t be legislated away by fiat. Inegalitarianism is central to nature.

The proper role of eugenics is an interesting one and up for debate, especially if the hope is for society to undergo a partial transvaluation of values. Even if society decided to pursue widespread eugenics, which traits would be emphasized and who would make that determination? Who is to say they would be correct and not result in a loss of needed genetic diversity? That would be a lot of power to hand over to an individual, group or organization…and IQ isn’t everything; east Asian nations have the highest average IQs in the world, yet the world clamors to move to white western countries, and many rich east Asians move to America or Canada as soon as they have the money to do so. The quality of life and standards of living in the west are far better, with much higher community trust based on a shared system of values above and beyond base materialism, even though the average white IQ is less than east Asians. You can put a bunch of ultra-high IQ Indians, East Asians and Jews in San Francisco, yet the city is falling apart more than any other in America (and perhaps the world)…

Ultimately, what is clear is that the dysgenic race to the bottom should be avoided; people should not have children if they cannot support them without welfare. Society’s incentive structure for who has children is all wrong. And policies like forceful sterilization of repeat violent criminals, refundable tax credits for those with genetic heritable defects who choose to sterilize themselves, and tax credits for high income couples who have children seem like easy and popular eugenic measures…

As Nietzsche wrote in Twilight of the Idols, p. 76:

Nothing is beautiful, except man alone: all aesthetics rests upon this naïveté, which is its first truth. Let us immediately add the second: nothing is ugly except the degenerating man — and with this the realm of aesthetic judgment is circumscribed. Physiologically, everything ugly weakens and saddens man. It reminds him of decay, danger, impotence; it actually deprives him of strength. One can measure the effect of the ugly with a dynamometer. Wherever man is depressed at all, he senses the proximity of something “ugly.” His feeling of power, his will to power, his courage, his pride — all fall with the ugly and rise with the beautiful. In both cases we draw an inference: the premises for it are piled up in the greatest abundance in instinct. The ugly is understood as a sign and symptom of degeneration: whatever reminds us in the least of degeneration causes in us the judgment of “ugly.” Every suggestion of exhaustion, of heaviness, of age, of weariness; every kind of lack of freedom, such as cramps, such as paralysis; and above all, the smell, the color, the form of dissolution, of decomposition — even in the ultimate attenuation into a symbol — all evoke the same reaction, the value judgment, “ugly.” A hatred is aroused — but whom does man hate then? There is no doubt: the decline of his type. Here he hates out of the deepest instinct of the species; in this hatred there is a shudder, caution, depth, farsightedness — it is the deepest hatred there is. It is because of this that art is deep.

Powerful words.

Lastly, one more thing. Back to the problem of evil.

Charles Darwin wrestled with the problem of evil and the nature of God in the context of natural selection. He could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering, such as the ichneumon wasp paralyzing caterpillars as live food for its eggs. Why would God have designed such a creature? This did not turn him into an atheist – he thought God could be the original mover, but has taken a hands off approach thereafter – but rather he came to think of himself as an agnostic.6 The malevolent Demiurge in control of material reality more readily solves this issue…

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 Darwin’s theory of evolution in “On the Origin of Species” is based on key facts and the inferences drawn from them, which biologist Ernst Mayr summarized as follows:

• Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce, the population would grow (fact).
• Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).
• Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).
• A struggle for survival ensues (inference).
• Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).
• Much of this variation is heritable (fact).
• Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their heritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (fact).
• This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).

2 According to the authors, people commonly “think that ancestry is something like mixing colors of paint: if you pour in equal amounts of blue and yellow, you’ll get green – and the paint will remain green. If a population were 90% Norwegian and 10% Nigerian, intuition says that nine-to-one mix will remain the case indefinitely. But intuition is wrong: if you placed that mixed population in Africa, certain alleles that were common in Nigerians – alleles that protected against malaria, or that made skin dark and resistant to skin cancer – would become more and more common over many generations. Eventually almost everyone in that population would carry the Nigerian version of those genes….We see this in animals too: white-tailed deer carry a brain worm that is fairly harmless to them but fatal to moose, so white-tailed deer are pretty good at displacing moose populations, and American gray squirrels imported to England carry a virus that they survive but that devastates the native red squirrel population.”

3 Given humans from Africa had migrated to Europe 50,000 years ago where the Neanderthals were long-situated (they disappeared within 10,000 years), such mating could have led to allele transfer that transferred adaptations to local conditions in Europe such as the ability to tolerate cold weather, resist local diseases, or adjust to big swings in the length of the day over the course of the year. Humans did not develop agriculture anywhere on earth during the Eemian period (the interglacial period of about 125,000 years ago), but they did so at least seven times independently in the Holocene, along with cave paintings, sculpture, jewelry, dramatically improved tools and weapons, and involved trade and exchange from hundreds of miles away. Introgression between species is common; it is ubiquitous among domesticated plants, but also common among animals such as breeding western European bees with African bees and among breeds of cattle.

4 Kaczynski, Industrial Society and Its Future, 14: “The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is not the fault of capitalism and it is not the fault of socialism. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity. Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extend that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn’t function if everyone starved; it attends to people’s psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn’t function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system. Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo “retraining,” no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.”

5 Let’s look at Jewish student representation in higher education at Harvard as an example.  In an analysis of Harvard undergrads, Ron Unz concluded that Jews and Asians constituted approximately half of Harvard’s student body, leaving the other half for the remaining 95% of America.  Also see here. A 2009 article in the Daily Princetonian (“Choosing the Chosen People”) cited data from Hillel, a Jewish campus organization, that with the exception of Princeton and Dartmouth, on average Jews made up 24% of Ivy League undergrads.  On the basis of Richard Lynn’s estimates of Ashkenazi Jewish IQ and correcting for the greater numbers of European whites, and given Jews making up 2% of America and white Christians roughly 55-60% of the population, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews should be around 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or  4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145). Instead, the ratio of non-Jewish whites to Jews is around 1:1 or less. 

Per Kevin MacDonald, Espenshade and Radford show that there is discrimination against poor whites and against non-urban whites—exactly the population groups that are least likely to be Jewish. There is a “a general disregard for improving the admission chances of poor and otherwise disadvantaged whites.”  Additionally “when lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.”  They also found that high school participation in commonly understood white middle America activities dramatically lowered admissions chances: “What Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call “career-oriented activities” was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to enormously reduce a student’s chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. … Excelling in these activities “is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission.”

6 In a letter to a correspondent at the University of Utrecht in 1873, Darwin expressed agnosticism:

I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came from and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man’s intellect; but man can do his duty.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news; it feels like half of this blog is spent criticizing the right wing takes that are propagated elsewhere. The direction of these attacks revolve around explaining that standard right-wing perspectives share the underlying morality of the left that they so bitterly complain about, rendering their criticisms toothless and ineffective; additionally they don’t understand the structure of the modern world, how power ultimately rests with the owners of the world’s central banks who use divide and conquer tactics on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation so the masses are too busy infighting to focus on their theft.

To be outraged by or even to spend much of one’s time on the latest battle in the culture war (regardless of its merits) is to miss the forest for the trees; such attention feeds and strengthens globohomo narratives as a whole as the reaction in their desired action-reaction-synthesis (or thesis-antithesis-synthesis) Hegelian dialectic.

But this is intended as a hopeful, educational attack against the right; their impulses for order, stability, the rule of law, transparency and justice are fundamentally correct impulses, especially in this age of ultra-priestly values; they are allies, and they need to clear their head of the endless streams of nonsense that prattle around in their skulls. So let’s go through the standard right-wing take as well as the dissident approach (from my perspective) to the issues covered so far in this Substack. The following also serves as a compilation for new readers of the Neofeudal Review posts made so far.

• Russia/Ukraine
  • Right wing take: Russia is standing up for Christian values against the decadent globohomo west.
  • Dissident take: The war is fake and both sides are controlled by the central bank owners.

• Transgenderism
  • Right wing take: Transgenderism is evil and we must resist it with all our might.
  • Dissident take: Resisting transgenderism is destined to fail, just like resisting gay marriage or a bunch of other cultural war issues in the past, because it does not address the root cause of the problem, which is the push for egalitarianism rooted in Pauline Christianity itself (even if the people pushing it are secular, atheist, or communist).
• Congress
  • Right wing take: we must work the system harder to increase populist representation in the House and Senate.
  • Dissident take: populists have never had significant support in Congress nor will they ever unless there is a transvaluation of society’s core values.
• Cryptocurrency
  • Right wing take: cryptocurrency is a great hedge against the abuse of fiat currencies.
  • Dissident take: cryptocurrency is as corrupted as fiat because of the nature of tether, which acts as a central bank. It prints funds from nothing just like the Federal Reserve does with dollars.
• Government structure
  • (Far) right wing take: we need a dictator to institute law-and-order.
  • Dissident take: What’s needed is a two pronged approach; a law-and-order approach against radical leftists combined with a major focus on rebuilding the middle class. Both are required synergistically to be effective. Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore and Pyotr Stolypin in Russia are figures who pushed effective government structures in this manner.
• Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson
  • Right wing take: Both are heroes to the right.
  • Dissident take: they’re both compromised. While they both have some positive values, they are nowhere near hero worthy.
• Trump vs DeSantis
  • Right wing take: Split camps arguing passionately for one or the other.
  • Dissident take: They are both very flawed candidates and it’s hard to get excited for either, although on balance Trump is better.
• Resisting anti-white leftist trends
  • Right wing take: Trump or another figure will be able to figure out a solution to the radical anti-white leftism permeating society.
  • Dissident take: Negative anti-white trends are in such an advanced state that it may be impossible to effectively resist it, much like Julian the Apostate’s failed attempt to preserve Hellenism because the pro-Christian trends were already so far advanced. Also, material reality is likely controlled by the Demiurge, who is malevolent and enjoys torturing souls for unknown reasons.
• Owners of modern society
  • Right wing take: The owners of modern society are the ultra-high networth billionaires, mostly hypocritical leftist like George Soros and Bill Gates, who coordinate through groups like the World Economic Forum.
  • Dissident take: The owners of modern society are a few families who own the central banks of the world, and Soros and Gates are among their higher-level lackeys. This situation came about because Jews were treated as an errant cousin religion by Christians and were allowed a special monopoly as money-lenders for centuries, a profession which Christians were forbidden from entering. Multinational groups like the WEF, Bilderberg Group, Round Table, Trilateral Commission, and The Council on Foreign Affairs merely coordinate the strategies of the central bank owners.
• Collapse/accelerationism
  • Right wing take: Things are going to come to a head and society will collapse under its dead weight; then the real men can pick up the pieces.
  • Dissident take: There will just be a slow grind down to a lower and lower quality of life with no one-off event trigger of collapse, although the aggression against whites will intensify as America transitions to a one party state.
• Dating and marriage dynamics
  • Right wing take: It’s inexplicably hard to date in the modern era and it’s sad how difficult it is to keep a marriage together.
  • Dissident take: Marriage and divorce are dramatically slanted against men in all sorts of ways which leads to unhappiness both by the husband and the wife; dating problems are a result of unleashed female hypergamy by our overlords to make family formation more difficult.
• Diet / obesity
  • Right wing take: People are fat due to low willpower, easy living, and eating lots of fast food.
  • Dissident take: Most of the cause of the obesity epidemic is the ubiquitous use of seed oils in most prepared foods while eating out, declining testosterone levels, poisoned food/water and the completely unknown synergistic effects of chemicals in the environment.
• Liberal talent
  • Right wing take: There is nothing to value at all about liberals and they should be addressed as a group, like rooting against the other team in a football match.
  • Dissident take: One can acknowledge the talent and positive values of opponents even if one shares strongly divergent political views; doing the former does not devalue the latter, in fact it strengthens the maturity of the argument and helps to steel-man it.

---

Are these explanations needlessly demoralizing, regardless of accuracy?

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: Western civilization is in a rather precarious position at present, and it’s better to explore difficult ideas even if it is more black-pilled and depressing than consuming hopium. The Q movement (a government operation styled on the Soviet’s Operation Trust) was always loathsome for this reason.

But I’m not trying to doom-post without cause; life is hard enough without piling on needless grimness. None of this writing is a call to passivity and despair. Rather the hope is that a sober assessment of how bad things are will ultimately lead to a push toward a partial transvaluation of the egalitarian values as the root cause of these problems. This critical insight is so far removed from the vast majority on the right that they are in no position to resist globohomo effectively today even if they want to.

Also, I hope some of these analysis and predictions are wrong — if so I’ll be somewhat embarrassed, wipe the egg off my face and update my worldview accordingly. As referenced in the preface to the large Neoliberal Feudalism philosophical essay, “The presented framework should be judged by its predictive value for future events and how well it illuminates current and past events, based on an attempt to understand the perennial laws that govern material reality and human nature.” I’m not perfect and the current iteration of these beliefs has taken many years of trial and error, and I’ve gotten a lot wrong over the years (much less so these days, unfortunately; it seems the black pilled take is almost always the correct one).

Lastly, I’ve recently updated each post in the Neoliberal Feudalism essay with many new images, charts, and figures. I’ve come to appreciate the importance of visual aids in conveying messages on Substack, and I hope to continue making iterative improvements so my writing gets easier and more fun to read.

Thanks for following.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

The ring-wing on Substack is an interesting community. Perhaps I have been led down a particular niche in terms of the people I follow and the writers who are recommended to me, but it seems like a heavy focus of this community is writing about how evil the left are for pushing a transsexual agenda both through society as a whole and especially targeted to children.

Now, I agree with the right that the left’s position on this is deeply immoral. But if one steps back and looks at it on a historical basis, it’s just another battle in a much larger culture war, a culture war the right always loses.

The way it works is as follows: the left decide that some newly created/defined victimized group needs protection, and there is an oppressor group which must be overthrown in order to help the victims. Currently it is the trannies; straight people and normal culture are oppressing them! Before trannies it was gay marriage; straight people and normal culture are oppressing them! Or how about the obese, or the disabled – able-bodied and thin people are oppressing them! And before that it was various minority groups; white culture is oppressing them! As well as women: male culture is oppressing them! Overthrow the evil oppressors! Or from the economic side with communism — the capitalists are exploiting the workers! Workers of the world unite!

Can you see the unifying element of all these disparate historical battles? It should be clear: it stems from the push for egalitarianism, that “the first shall be last and the last shall be first”, which derives from Christianity and specifically from Paul. “There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 NKJV), “Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (Matthew 20:26-28), and “Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things — and the things that are not — to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him” (1^st Corinthians 1:27).1

Here is a crude, basic chart showing over a 2,000 year period how the push for egalitarianism in all its forms has intensified over time:

Chart notes: Core societal values do not sit still; they get reinforced and progress to stronger and stronger levels over time as a ratchet effect. This is why opposition to any specific spot along the path toward more-equality (at a faster and faster pace) is destined to fail, because it has not addressed the core beliefs that have resulted in that egalitarian push in the first place. The central bank owning Rothschilds and their allies accelerate the egalitarianism push but are not the root cause of it.2

This ratchet effect has commonalities with what Brett Andersen refers to as the cultural ratchet effect, which he defines as follows:

Michael Tomasello (the developmental psychologist mentioned earlier), in his 1999 book The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition, describes the “ratcheting” process by which cumulative cultural evolution occurs. This process requires, in the first place, a kind of blind imitation, in which people imitate their cultural models without any rational explanation for their actions. This is referred to in the literature as “overimitation”. Chimpanzees don’t do this. If you show a chimpanzee how to perform a certain task, they will only imitate actions that are causally relevant to the task at hand. Human beings will imitate even irrelevant actions. This may seem irrational, but it is absolutely necessary for the cultural ratcheting process….

Imitation, however, is not enough for the cultural ratcheting process to work. The other side of the coin is innovation, or the propensity to tinker with culturally evolved products. Without some level of innovation, cultural products would not change over time….

Cumulative cultural evolution requires both the conservative impulse to imitate and the progressive impulse to tinker. These two processes — imitation and innovation — make up the ratcheting effect by which complex cultural products (e.g., institutions, practices, technologies, etc.) evolve over time.

The egalitarian ratchet effect, like the cultural ratchet effect, builds on itself over time as a process of imitation and innovation, animated by society’s core values.

However, because complete equality is impossible to achieve via raising up the lower performing groups, the only way to achieve pure equality is by flattening down and destroying those who excel more than baseline. This ultimately cumulates in one of three ways:

1. the leftist singularity, i.e. genocide of the disfavored group(s) as seen in communism under Mao, the “kulak” liquidation under Lenin/Stalin, and Pol Pot’s butchery of 25% of his population, to try to achieve the desired final egalitarian state, which ultimately fails anyway because pure equality is impossible;
2. Societal weakness results in conquest by foreign powers; or
3. A societal transvaluation of values occurs.

---

Tracing the ratchet effect of egalitarianism over time

2,000 years ago, Rome’s values were warrior-centric, valuing strength, greatness, individuality, self-determination, immediacy of purpose, hierarchy, nobility, what could be accomplished in the here and now. According to Nietzsche in his first treatise in “On the Genealogy of Morality”, the Roman aristocracy used a “good” vs “bad” system of morality; what was good were the traits that separated them from the masses. Paul of Tarsus inverted and transvalued those values for the gentile population, offering them a value system of “good” vs “evil”: what was “good” was subservience, conformity, equality, pity, guilt, suffering and self-hatred – the herd mentality; what was “evil” were those who were inegalitarian, i.e. those with traditional “good” values. Paul offered the masses these inverted values as a weapon of war in the Jewish battle against the Roman Empire to rile up the masses against the Roman elites, which was too strong to defeat militarily (although they certainly tried).

Nietzsche’s treatise is an important one; in my opinion the key essay to understand society over the past two thousand years, and can be read here. It’s not long.

After priestly values conquered Rome, which took about 400 years, and even though Rome itself was conquered by barbarians and the western Empire fragmented, a Christian Europe ultimately reached a kind of balance: it possessed extreme priestly egalitarian core values, but it was held in check by a rigid hierarchical Catholicism. And this structure lasted, more or less, for about a thousand years.

What changed the fundamental dynamic at that point? An advancement in technology: The Guttenberg printing press. The free dissemination of the written word at a cheap, affordable price resulted in the population asking why they needed Catholic priests as gatekeepers to knowledge at all. Protestantism under Martin Luther and Calvin then removed the hierarchical guardrails at the heart of Catholicism; then egalitarianism evolved through various permutations such as the French Revolution (“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”) through mainstream Protestantism to Unitarianism, which took over the university system in America before dropping their belief in God (while keeping the underlying value beliefs) as a way to outcompete their religious brethren in an environment that favored the separation of Church and State. This is why so-called atheists such as Richard Dawkins are merely Christians in denial; although they may no longer believe in God, they still believe in all of the fundamental values of the Christian religion going back two thousand years.

As historian Tom Holland (author of the excellent book “Dominion”) explains in an eloquent eight minute video segment below, liberals, secularists, communists, atheists, are all essentially Christians in their beliefs and metaphysics:

Specifically Holland says,

“I would say to look at the most obvious one because it’s the symbol of Christianity, if you look at the cross, it’s such an odd thing to have as a focus of veneration, and to have as a fundamental symbol of civilization. Because a cross is a symbol of torture.  And to the Romans it was an emblem of their power to torture to death their inferiors. So crucifixion was inflicted on those who opposed Roman power in the provinces.  But it’s also the paradigmatic fate that is visited on slaves who rebel against their masters.  And everyone who’s seen Spartacus remembers the rows of crosses lining the Appian way.  It’s a billboard advertising the ability of Rome to crush rebellion by the weak, and therefore it serves as a symbol of the powerful over the powerless.  Christianity absolutely upends that it says the cross is a symbol of the powerless triumphing over the powerful, the slave triumphing over its master, of the victim triumphing over the torturer, and this is such a radical notion its hard to express how radical it is.  And the idea that the last shall be first, that there is inherent dignity and value and power in being a victim, this is something that would have been utterly bewildering to the Romans.  And it takes a long time for first the Roman world and then the world of the Germanic conquerers in the west and so on to properly synthesize and understand it.  And thats why I think in a way we are so habituated to it that it takes an effort to understand just how weird and strange that idea is.

And its why actually I think the modern who has most profoundly and unsettlingly understood just how radical that idea is, how radical the idea that the cross of all things should become the emblem of a new civilization was a man who was not just an atheist but a radically hostile anti-Christian atheist Frederick Nietzsche, and Nietzsche said this is a repellant thing.  Nietzsche identified the power and the glory and the beauty of classical civilization and he thought that Christianity was notoriously a religion for slaves and he saw in the emblem of Christ nailed to the cross a kind of disgusting subversion of the ideals of the classical world, privileging of those who properly should be ground beneath the heels of the mighty, and he saw it as a kind of sickness that then infected the “blonde beast”, that this primordial figure of the warrior gets corrupted and gets turned into a monkish figure who’s sick with poverty and sympathy for the poor and the oppressed, and Nietzsche thought it was disgusting.  Now those ideas, however vulgarized, of course feed into a very septic subject which is fascism.

Fascism, I think, was the most radical revolutionary movement that Europe has seen since the age of Constantine. Because unlike the French Revolution, unlike the Russian Revolution, it doesn’t even target institutional Christianity: it targets the moral/ethical fundamentals of Christianity. The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution are still preaching the idea that the victim should be raised up from the dust and that the oppressor should be humbled into the dust; it’s still preaching the idea that the first should be last and the last should be first just as Christ has done.

The Nazis do not buy into that. The Nazis buy into the Nietzschean idea that the weak are weak and should be treated as weak, as contemptible, as something to be crushed….

Atheists of today [like Richard Dawkins et al]… they are basically Christians. Nietzsche saw humanists, communists, liberals—people who may define themselves against Christianity—as being absolutely in the fundamentals Christian, and I think he is right about that because I think that in a sense atheism doesn’t repudiate the kind of ethics and the morals and the values of Christianity.“

The above eight minute segment is part of an hour interview which can be viewed here if one cares to; it’s a very illuminating and interesting interview throughout.

After crypto-Christians superficially dropped their belief in God and thought of themselves as secular to get around the separation of Church and State, they pushed those values onto the world. And it really went into hyperdrive after the Christian west defeated Hitler in World War 2; Hitler’s failed attempt at transvaluing priestly values back into Roman inegalitarian hierarchical values resulted in a supercharged reinvigoration of these priestly values.

Within 100 years the white percentage of the world population dropped from 25% to 6.5% (1900-2000), in America from 90% to 60% (1965-2020) and in other European countries a lesser but still strong percentage; the west experienced massively declining birthrates, declining morals, and an intense and omnipresent push for egalitarianism in all its forms. For example, Obama didn’t come out in favor of gay marriage until 2012; yet only ten years later in 2022 Tucker Carlson, the furthest right figure allowed on air until his termination, was also in favor of gay marriage.3 “Far right” Ted Cruz recently told Uganda they were extremely evil for not allowing it.

The unhinged, parabolic nature of this extreme push for equality as currently exemplified by the transsexual movement cannot be separated from the history that is described herein; nor can it be effectively opposed. Sure, you can boycott Target or Bud Light or watch “What is a Woman?” or whatever, but meanwhile transsexualism continues to spread and globohomo continues to indoctrinate your children. The mega-corporations that are subject to boycotts receive all sorts of backchannel benefits that more than make up for the inconvenience of their betrayal of their core customer base (which is the same reason why Disney pushes child sex grooming).

After transsexualism triumphs, up next will be pushes for pedophelia and beastiality (“sexual attraction” equality) and white genocide (like is currently happening on a low-level in South Africa), among who knows what other horrible, deviant practices we can’t even imagine at this time. Given the parabolic nature of the moves, it will happen faster and faster, over a shorter and shorter period of time.

---

What can be done if pushing back on transsexualism isn’t and won’t work?

The answer is that there needs to be a transvaluation of values away from egalitarianism. To be able to say without caveat or further explanation: this world is unequal, it will always be unequal to a degree, and instead of trying to push down greatness and nobility in order to achieve equality for all (because the bottom cannot be raised up enough in anything to make up for the gap), we should accept that inequality is a part of life and those that can be great should be great.

There are two types of transvaluation that can occur: partial and full. In a full transvaluation of values to Roman style warrior values, inequality is promoted as an ideal and the poor, the destitute, the obese and dumb are discarded like genetic detritus, both individually and as classes. Taken to an extreme, that means extermination of the out-groups. Hitler’s zeal for lebensraum was so great that even though the Ukrainians and other Soviet satellite states greeted the Nazis as liberators, they ended up resisting them because of how extreme and harsh the Nazi policies were. Perhaps their resistance played a key role in the outcome of the war.4 This exterminationism is also what blogger Cesar Tort promotes, for example (Cesar has interesting historical points sometimes but he really is quite extreme).

Tom Holland is correct in his criticism of those who push pure warrior values, though, as he states in “Dominion”:

“The more years I spent immersed in the study of classical antiquity, so the more alien I increasingly found it.  The values of Leonidas, whose people had practiced a particularly murderous form of eugenics and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognized as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls, and enslaved a million more.  It was not just the extremes of callousness that unsettled me, but the complete lack of any sense that the poor or the weak might have the slightest intrinsic value.  Why did I find this disturbing?  Because, in my morals and ethics, I was not a Spartan or a Roman at all.  That my belief in God had faded over the course of my teenage years did not mean that I had ceased to be Christian.  For a millennium and more, the civilization into which I had been born was Christendom.  Assumptions that I had grown up with – about how a society should properly be organized, and the principles that it should uphold – were not bred of classical antiquity, still less of ‘human nature’, but very distinctively of that civilization’s Christian past.  So profound has been the impact of Christianity on the development of Western civilization that it has come to be hidden from view.  It is the incomplete revolutions which are remembered; the fate of those whose triumph is to be taken for granted.”

Let’s not forget that Christianity was so successful because it appealed to such a tremendous number of people who were otherwise valueless in Roman society.

There is a third possibility other than just pure warrior and pure egalitarian values.

The other possibility is a partial transvaluation of values, where one seeks a balance between warrior and priestly values, between egalitarianism and in-egalitarianism. This can take many forms; above the stability brought upon by 1,000 years of Catholic rule can be attributed to the balance between the two energies (also see the Byzantine Empire). To value strength, nobility, honor, while still acknowledging that the worse off have value, with a measure of humility and grace; one could say that Lee Kuan Yew exemplified this balance as he brought up Singapore from nothing to a massive success using his combination of strong-armed dictatorship along with building up a large middle class; he approached things from a Confucius standpoint, focused on the betterment of society, and he did not let politically incorrect ideas around the inherent inequality between different groups (Chinese vs. Malays, Muslims vs. Confucists, men vs. women, etc) get in the way of doing what it took to advance the interests of the nation as a whole.

Society works best in balance, and currently all we have is extreme egalitarian values, with no ability to argue that hierarchy and inequality is both okay and proper on its own terms, and you are not a “bad” person for acknowledging that; that society’s egalitarianism is not based in “reason” or “rationality” but rather a pure, intense religious belief dating back 2,000 years that has become unmoored from reality; that the goal should be to re-center and match society with reality as much as possible, and that to deny reality is only going to cause pain and suffering for both individuals and groups in the long term. There are characteristic differences between groups of people, between men and women, between races, between people of different sexual orientations, on the level of a bell curve; that to deny those differences is to inevitably result in assigning blame wrongfully to other groups, and that instituting even more measures to try to “correct” for it is just not going to work and will end up dragging society down to the lowest common denominator.

Tom Holland identifies the transvaluation of values argument but, perhaps correctly, does not step over the line; to argue even for a partial transvaluation of values could impact his quite successful writing career. In “Dominion” he skipped over World War 2 entirely; one can infer he did this entirely intentionally based on his statements in the above interview.

People ask what can be done to resist globohomo at this time. There is nothing outwardly that can be done on a political level; any populist revolution is guaranteed to fail, just as Trump’s did, due to Kynosargas’s accurate criticisms about the weaknesses of right-wing populism. It is a time for inward focus and education about the transformation of values that must occur if there is to be a hope for future change.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 Or see Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, section 51: “Christianity was not “national,” it was not based on race–it appealed to all the varieties of men disinherited by life, it had its allies everywhere. Christianity has the rancour of the sick at its very core–the instinct against the healthy, against health. Everything that is well–constituted, proud, gallant and, above all, beautiful gives offense to its ears and eyes. Again I remind you of Paul’s priceless saying: “And God hath chosen the weak things of the world, the foolish things of the world, the base things of the world, and things which are despised”: this was the formula; in hoc signo the decadence triumphed.”

2 The Rothschild and ally central bank owners use egalitarianism as divide et impera tactics in order to increase their wealth, but the reason the Christian masses go along with it is because they have accepted the religious belief in equality as pushed by Paul. If they didn’t have that religious belief they would treat (for example) Jews as just another non-special sect among many like the Romans did, instead of at minimum the “former chosen people” who believe in half of their holy book and historically received special carve-out privileges as money lenders (Christians and Muslims were forbidden from money lending). Judaism was the only religion that Christians did not ban when they took over the Roman Empire. This strange dynamic continues today with Jews having a -40 favorability toward evangelicals while evangelicals are +39 toward Jews per polling.

3 He slid it in quietly mid-op ed: “It’s pretty interesting when you think about it. So this is a bill signing, affirming the legality – legalizing once again, gay marriage, which most people support in this country. Should people be able to get married if they love each other? Yeah, they should. That’s fine. Not that controversial a point at this stage.”

4 To be fair, there were a tremendous number of communist partisans behind enemy lines, and it was quite difficult to tell friend from foe. Leon Degrelle argues in his autobiography “The Eastern Front” that extremely harsh early Nazi policies in Eastern Europe were later made much more mild once they understood that the general population were not virulent Bolsheviks, but the general opinion had turned against them by that time.

Imagine, if you will, the expected prognosis for a small, poor-city state with the following issues:

• a complete lack of natural resources;
• a looming communist threat backed by major regional and world powers;
• a demographically, linguistically, and culturally diverse population lunging at each other’s throats in a tense atmosphere, a powder-keg for race riots ready to explode at any moment;
• influential newspapers controlled by foreign powers deliberately stirring up unrest at every turn;
• both of your much larger neighbors cutting off trade, and the closer neighbor (who you are quasi-militarily occupied by) threatening to cut off your critically important supply of water; and
• the superpower who set up your city-state and guaranteed security is leaving.

Imagine further that your citizens are uneducated and backward immigrants who settled the land for the purposes of cheap manual labor, and they are deeply set in their ways with strong loyalties and attachments to their various homelands. And all of this in hot (87-91°F average highs year-round), humid (over 80% year round), swamp-like conditions that strongly discourages even tourism to the city-state.

Now imagine that same city-state today where all of those issues have been resolved (other than the weather) fifty years later and it is a shining success story (materially, at least) with the third highest GDP per capita in the world at $91,000 in 2017 (5th highest today), the world’s highest percentage of millionaires, with one out of every six households having at least one million US dollars in disposable wealth (excluding property, businesses, and luxury goods, which if included would increase the number of millionaires), and crowned the world’s most expensive city multiple years in a row.

Well, such is the case with Singapore:

And Singapore owes its success primarily to one man: Lee Kuan Yew, who served as the first prime minister of Singapore between 1959 and 1990.

How did he pull it off? What was it about the man’s philosophy, consummated with an unrelenting and vigorous drive, that arguably single-handedly produced such a miraculous economic transformation? To what extent does it further the argument that only a dictator who strengthens the middle class can counter leftism, made in this Substack article about Pyotr Stolypin? And is there a downside, perhaps a massive downside, to this economic success? This is what this article will explore.

Much of the information contained herein is based on one of Lee’s autobiographies, “From Third World to First, The Singapore Story: 1965-2000”, although some is from other sources where identified. The book’s format is unusual in that it was not written chronologically but rather by subject: “Building An Army from Scratch”, “Britain Pulls Out”, “Creating a Financial Center”, “Winning Over the Unions”, “Nurturing and Attracting Talent”, “Managing the Media”, “Up and Downs with Malaysia” are a sample of the topics covered in this dense 700 page book.

Let’s begin with some historical background about Singapore itself.

---

Historical Background

The British governor Stamford Raffles arrived in Singapore on 28 January 1819 and soon recognized the island as a natural choice for a new port. Below is a modern-day map; one can see how critical the Strait of Malacca is for trade, which is the shortest sea-born route from India to the South China Sea; further south is the Sunda Strait next to Jakarta but its narrowness, shallowness, and lack of accurate charting make it unsuitable for many modern, large ships.

In 1824, a treaty with the owner of the island, the Sultan of Johor, led to the entire island becoming a British possession. Prior to Raffles’ arrival, there were only about a thousand people living on the island, mostly indigenous Malays along with a handful of Chinese. By 1860 the population had swelled to over 80,000, more than half being Chinese, mostly laborers. The growth of the Singapore population is reflected below:

The Chinese have comprised more than 70% of the Singapore population, and Muslim Malayas about 15% of the population since 1900:

After World War I, the British built the large Singapore Naval Base as part of their anti-Japanese Singapore strategy. Costing $60 million and not fully completed in 1938, it was nonetheless the largest dry dock in the world, the third-largest floating dock, and had enough fuel tanks to support the entire British navy for six months. However, the British Home Fleet was stationed in Europe and the British could not afford to build a second fleet to protect their interests in Asia, leaving it open to Japanese invasion, who took over the island in 1942 and then massacred 25,000-50,000 of its Chinese residents in what was called “Sook Ching”.

---

Lee Kuan Yew’s Background

Lee was born in 1923 in Singapore to English-educated third-generation Straits Chinese. Lee’s first language was English and he also learned Malay; he had a Buddhist background although he also described himself as agnostic, and he would later state Singapore was a Confucian society. He performed well in school, and was almost rounded up and executed during “Sook Ching” but managed to barely avoid it. He ended up working for the Japanese occupation force as an English specialist in their propaganda department. Per Wikipedia:

The rapid Japanese victory in the Malaya-Singapore campaign had a major impact on Lee: “In 70 days of surprises, upsets and stupidities, British colonial society was shattered, and with it all the assumptions of the Englishman’s superiority.” In a radio broadcast made in 1961, Lee said he “emerged [from the war] determined that no one—neither Japanese nor British—had the right to push and kick us around… (and) that we could govern ourselves.” It also influenced his perceptions of raw power and the effectiveness of harsh punishment in deterring crime.

After the war he got married, pursued higher education in Great Britain where he excelled, became an attorney and then returned to Singapore in 1950. There he made a name for himself representing nearly fifty trade unions and associations against the British authorities on a pro bono basis, and successfully defended the left-wing University Socialist Club against charges of sedition. He co-founded the leftist People’s Action Party (PAP) in 1954 with the goal of securing self-governance from Britain, which contained a significant communist element until he purged them from the party after they attempted an internal coup in 1957.

The PAP eventually won the 1959 Singapore general election, split permanently from and expelled the far-leftist element within the party, and secured self-rule from Britain in 1963. As part of securing self-rule, Singapore merged with Malaysia. The reasons for the merger was it served to reduce Britain’s footprint in Singapore; the PAP also hoped it would reduce Singapore unemployment, which was very high, with the introduction of a common market; and the Malays could hopefully reduce the communist threat, which was large due to the Chinese population’s ethnic affinity for communist China.

However, the merger was not successful. There were constant tensions between Singapore and Malaysia, primarily because Malaysia was comprised of roughly 70% Muslim Malaysians and 23% Chinese (like today), while Singapore was comprised of roughly the opposite: 75% Chinese and 15% Malaysian (like today). Malaysia wanted to stick to its “Malay Malaysia” policies explicitly favoring Malays over Chinese, whereas the PAP wanted a “Malaysian Malaysia” and to remove or weaken those affirmative action programs. Tensions culminated in anti-Chinese race riots in the Kuala Lumpur 13 May incident and in the 1969 race riots in Singapore. However, there were other issues, especially over taxes, use of the Singapore port and transportation of goods and hostility surrounding increased competition.

Lee’s personal qualities added to the tension: he was such an eloquent, popular public figure, able to cross religious and ethnic boundaries, fluent in English, Malay and he was learning Mandarin, that it was increasingly looking like he could become Prime Minister of Malaysia which alarmed the Malay politicians in power. Due to these issues Malaysia’s Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman considered arresting Lee and applying martial law against Singapore, but was dissuaded by British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, who still had leverage over Malaysia as he was defending them against attempts by Indonesia to annex the country.

Lee’s sad public speech where he acknowledged Singapore would be kicked out of Malaysia.

Singapore was expelled from Malaysia, and then had to turn its focus to dealing with its myriad problems on its own: issues pertaining to security/defense, high unemployment and poverty, a lack of natural resources, racial issues, communist subversion, recalcitrant unions, a hostile media, balancing capitalism and socialism, and juggling foreign affairs, including securing recognition, funding, diplomatic support, and trade. Let’s briefly delve into each of these, but before doing that, let’s discuss Lee’s philosophy and outlook.

---

Lee Kuan Yew’s Philosophy

In my previous post on Pyotr Stolypin, which dealt with his attempt to save Tsarism in Russia, I quoted Alexander Solyznhenitsyn, who wrote:

Stolypin saw in his mind the only path, the natural path, though in earthquake conditions it looked improbable: a knife-edge path along a broken ridge. In the past reform had for some reason always signified a weakening and possibly the collapse of the regime, while stern measures to restore order were taken to indicate a renunciation of reform. He saw clearly that the two things must be combined!

Stolypin’s story illustrated the point that only a combination of a strong monarchy plus an expanding, healthy middle class could serve as a bulwark against leftist radicalism.Lee Kuan Yew had a very similar philosophy as he established Singapore; he vigorously promoted the economic middle class, instituted a strong monarchy-in-all-but-name for over 40 years, and with an iron fist crushed the communist element.

A strong monarchy plus a focus on the middle class leads to widespread wealth and social stability, so long as the monarch is strong (Stolypin failed because Nicholas II’s personality was too weak), while an oligarchy with a compliant media seeks to poison society in every conceivable way, but primarily via divide et impera tactics in order to keep populism weak in order to continue their parasitism. This is a government structure argument, not a transvaluation of values argument; any society regardless of its core values has to wrestle with these issues.

However, there were two key difference between Stolypin and Lee: (1) the difference in their backgrounds and (2) their quite different strategies for pursuing their similar objectives:

1. Background differences: Stolypin was born into the Russian aristocracy; he was a supporter of the Tsar from an early age and ultimately subordinated his decisions to that of the (weak) Tsar, even as he battled the Bolsheviks and tried to uplift the peasantry. On the other hand, Lee came from a poor background, was self-made, rose to power as an anti-colonial leftist who was allied with the communists before experiencing a falling out with them, and he relied on regular elections for his support as he uplifted the peasantry from a position as implied dictator. In other words, both figures shared the same goals – the uplifting of the peasantry via an increase in their material wealth using the same institution – dictatorship – but arrived at from opposite directions.
2. Strategy differences: Stolypin’s goal was inward-focused autarky. Russia had all the natural resources needed to succeed on its own, it had a large population that only needed to be freed from the shackles of serfdom and communal living; private ownership would incentivize a great increase in domestic production which would in turn create a middle class and lead to social stability. Stolypin was not interested in foreign affairs or external warfare because (to him) all of Russia’s problems could be solved by looking inwards. On the other hand, Lee’s goal was the opposite: Singapore had nothing going for it except a world-class natural port located at a strategic location, and because of Singapore’s extreme racial issues and a host of other problems, he had to be outward/globalist focused – there was no other options other than to remain a poor, divided backwater, subject to the whims of its larger neighbors – and therefore his goal was to make Singapore a critical component of globalist goals.

---

Lee Kuan Yew’s approach

From Third World to First, The Singapore Story: 1965-2000 is too long and dense to provide detailed analysis issue-by-issue in this post or it will turn into its own book. Instead highlights will be discussed based on the values Lee employed to achieve his desired objectives. While some of the below values are oft-repeated buzzwords that politicians worldwide throw out in speeches to woo voters, almost all of the time they are empty and meaningless words with no follow through. Here, they are tabulated and analyzed because it is how Lee actually governed Singapore.

• Lee believed in an open-minded technocracy. In other words, Singapore should learn the latest processes, procedures, and technologies necessary to remain at a cutting-edge competitive level on the world stage. He would travel the world, constantly see what others were doing, and then use the ideas he learned to make upgrades within Singapore itself. Lee even learned to use a computer, emails and the internet himself when he was in his 80s – it’s pretty unusual for an “old dog” to learn new tricks like that; usually neuroplasticity atrophies as one ages and people just get stuck in their ways.
• Lee believed that society should be governed by well respected, well educated experts, and that those experts were expected to deliver results on the ground in an efficient manner, both in time and in cost (the tying of expertise to results separates Singapore from so-called “experts” in the west). In return these experts would be properly compensated, with salaries in the public sector commensurate to the private sector so the best are willing to serve and to do it without accepting bribery. As a result, public sector salaries in Singapore are among the highest in the world. He also regularly consulted with experts, especially technocratic experts, across the world in various fields, such as Dutch economist Albert Winsemius.
• Lee believed in having a free-market economy with very strong dirigisme characteristics. Essentially, every aspect of a citizen’s life would be controlled, molded and shaped to maximize productivity and competitiveness on the world stage, using a combination of incentives and governmental commands, while also forcing a high level of savings so that citizens would not become a burden either on the government in old age or on future generations by spending more than the government received from tax receipts.
• In that vein, Lee strongly believed in the value of formal education, especially technically oriented higher education, and especially learned abroad at the best universities in the world. His three children exemplified this belief and all went on to high achieving careers (his oldest son is the current Singapore Prime Minister; allegations of nepotism have dogged his career as well as that of the other children).
• Lee believed strongly in the values of pragmatism, adapting to changing circumstances and dealing with them in the moment in the most level-headed, realistic way possible with a view toward advancing his long-term goals. In line with pragmatism were values of self-confidence and a full defense of his positions using whatever tactics were required. While Lee was not a Christian and Christians were not really represented among his constituencies, he understood that he had to work within a Christian (or post-Christian) framework because the countries he relied on for trade as part of his leap-frog strategy (discussed below) were all Christian. Therefore he was very sensitive to their sensibilities and what was acceptable and what was not, and made pains to mostly stay within those boundaries.
• Lee was extremely cognizant of the racial sensitivity of political decisions, but from a pragmatic, not a liberal perspective. Here are a large number of controversial quotes by Lee where he acknowledged differences between races in their abilities and their temperaments. Lee had to take racial issues into his calculations to ensure social stability (see the race riots in Singapore in 1964 and in Kuala Lumpur in 1969), but he was very aware of and commented on the differences in average IQs among races. Lee commented negatively on American’s denial of human biodiversity, especially at Harvard:“I found many other fresh ideas and picked the brains of other highly intelligent people who were not always right. They were too politically correct. Harvard was determinedly liberal. No scholar was prepared to say or admit that there were any inherent differences between races or cultures or religions. They held that human beings were equal and a society only needed correct economic policies and institutions of government to succeed. They were so bright I found it difficult to believe that they sincerely held these views they felt compelled to espouse.”These views came, of course, from the western hyper-focus on equality as derived from Christianity, which Lee did not share. He did try to narrow the results gap between groups through education and other initiatives for social stability reasons and to placate the west, but with the specific stated understanding that the gap was not due to societal racism.
• Lee strongly believed in the values of meritocracy, seeking to transparently create processes and incentives that would promote the very best of society. In this way Lee was able to offer an alternative to racial and religion identity via a promise of wealth, essentially arguing, “Stop focusing on your differences and focus on making money instead, and in return we will make everyone rich.” And he expressed extreme disagreement with world leaders that turned inward with racial and religious focuses instead of opening up and pursuing wealth via free-market economies (examples he gives include Pakistan, India, Rhodesia, Burma and Sri Lanka).
• Lee was sensitive to the rapidly declining birth rates in Singapore (which are among the very lowest in the world). Because women naturally want to “marry up” in social status, they are reluctant to marry someone of lesser educational attainment than their own; but men of equal education generally want to marry younger, with the amount of a woman’s education either being irrelevant or a negative. Lee argued in “The Great Marriage Debate” that highly educated women need to prioritize having children, and that highly educated men should focus more on marrying highly educated women, because Singapore needs smart people for its future and data shows that children of highly educated individuals are much more likely to be highly intelligent themselves. The government of Singapore instituted many policies to try to revert the way-below-replacement birthrates, such as monetary incentives for having children and preferred placement for those children in the best schools, but it has completely failed: Channel NewsAsia reported in January 2011 that the fertility rate of Singaporeans in 2010 were an abysmal 1.02 for Chinese, 1.13 for Indians and 1.65 for Malays. Major cities worldwide, and especially Singapore, are “IQ shredders” where high IQ people move to and fail to procreate. Due to its aging population and not having enough children, Singapore has to constantly import itself new workers. Per Wiki: “By the middle of the 2010s, nearly 40% of the population were estimated to be of foreign origin; although many have become permanent residents, most of them were non-citizens made up of foreign students and workers including dependents.Between 1970 and 1980, the size of the non-resident population in Singapore doubled. The numbers began to increase greatly from 1980 to 2010. Foreigners constituted 28.1% of Singapore’s total labour force in 2000, to 34.7% in 2010,which is the highest proportion of foreign workers in Asia. Singapore’s non-resident workforce increased 170% from 248,000 in 1990 to 670,000 in 2006.”
• Lee believed in law and order and transparency, and that investigations into impropriety should be provided no matter how high ranking the target may be. Lee and his son and wife were investigated, for example, for buying real estate at discounted prices, but they were cleared of any impropriety. Lee then appeared before parliament to explain his actions, and donated the difference in price to charity.
• Lee believed in a Confucian society, which he saw as a balancing act so that society doesn’t devolve into an extreme version of American-style winner-take-all individualistic capitalism, which hurts society and breeds distrust, greed and fear, while also structuring society so that the best really do enjoy most of the fruits of their labor because otherwise they would not be driven to succeed.
• Lee thought that, because of Singapore’s post-independence difficulty in trading with Malaysia and also with Indonesia (given Indonesia was practicing Confrontation at the time), Singapore should leapfrog over its neighbors in order to engage in free trade worldwide and to provide a suitable investing environment, especially with western nations, by providing a law-and-order, stable investing environment where multinational corporations would feel comfortable investing and operating without fear of social unrest. With this approach and by working in a constructive way with the British when they decided to withdraw in 1967 (with the last troops leaving in 1976), which was alarming to Singapore from both a security perspective and because 20% of the population was employed directly or indirectly working for the British, Singapore was able to weather the crisis and emerge from it intact. Lee created an investor and business-friendly, stable oasis (with no union strikes or racial strife) for multinational corporations to operate freely, and it is why he is held in such high esteem by globohomo apparatchiks, according to Mother Jones: “[Lee] was a member of J.P. Morgan Chase’s “International Council.” In 2009, Barack Obama called him “one of the legendary figures of Asia.” Henry Kissinger later delivered an introduction as LKY accepted a lifetime achievement award from the US-ASEAN Business Council. Margaret Thatcher said he was “never wrong.” Tony Blair noted that LKY was “the smartest leader I think I ever met.” Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize–winning economist, wrote an encomium touting “Singapore’s Lessons for an Unequal America.””
• Given Lee’s background in pro-union legal work, Lee knew how to deal with the unions. He ultimately broke them and remolded them into entities that would not impede Singapore’s economic progress or allow them to become a point of hesitation for multinational corporations to invest there. Per Wiki: “Lee also forged a symbiotic and mutually dependent relationship between the People’s Action Party with the National Trades Union Congress, whereby the governing political party received certain input from the labour grassroots, whilst the national trade union centre is led by prominent PAP party politicians who usually have ministerial portfolios within the Government. The Government’s tight control over trade union activities and industrial relations, ensured near-total industrial peace, that was assessed to be a prerequisite for rapid economic development.“
• Given the problems with the neighbors and Malaysia constantly threatening to cut off Singapore’s access to its critical water supplies, Lee believed in possessing a high tech, highly motivated military to defend Singapore interests. Singapore was early to receive a lot of second generation, but state of the art for the region, military hardware from Israel and other countries, even though its population at the time was only a couple of million while Malaysia’s was tens of millions.
• Lee believed in applying technical innovation to society, but conservatively; in other words he wanted new, potentially disruptive technology to be tested elsewhere first so that the problems could be ironed out before being implemented in Singapore, especially in the financial sector.
• Lee believed in maintaining a balanced budget. Singapore does not have a central bank and therefore cannot print their way out of problems; this was a deliberate, consciously chosen decision. Instead the Singapore dollar is pegged to a basket of currencies of its major trading partners. Compare this to Malaysia’s currency; they originally had a fixed 1:1 exchange rate, which got de-pegged in 1971. Now $1 Singapore dollar (SGD) is worth $3.36 Malaysian ringgit (MYR). Such is the result of utilizing central bank printing to try to push problems down the road… Lee had the same warning to America, where he stated in a 2013 interview:“[The U.S.] has been unable to tackle its exploding debt, he asserts, because presidents do not get “reelected if they give a hard dose of medicine to their people.” In a social-media-fueled era of 24/7 news, furthermore, those who prevail in elections are not necessarily those who are most capable in governing, but those who can present themselves and their ideas “in a polished way”…Instead, he laments conditions in which “to win votes you have to give more and more. And to beat your opponent in the next election, you have to promise to give more away.” That being said, given the Rothschilds and their allies own the central banks of the world and Singapore uses a basket of those currencies, it is basically like having a second-order central bank, just without the ability to independently print.
• Lee also thought Singapore citizens should have a significant percent of their income impounded into savings account for down-payments on housing, for retirement and health care, and that people would otherwise not save enough to carry them into old age. His focus on most people owning their own home was an extremely important issue for him and he spent an inordinate amount of time on it (he wrote, “My primary preoccupation was to give every citizen a stake in the country and its future. I wanted a home-owning society”). Lee thought that Singapore’s soldiers would not be as willing to defend the country if their parents did not own their own home, and that otherwise they would think they were defending wealthy fat cats and not their people. Home ownership was critical for societal stability, for people to have a vested interest in the outcome of society: “I had seen how voters in capital cities always tended to vote against the government of the day and was determined that our householders should become homeowners, otherwise we would not have political stability.” Singapore has one of the highest (the highest?) homeownership rates in the world at 87.9%, a remarkable achievement.
• Lee believed in a media being subject to significant government rules and regulations, and he was very sensitive to the ultra-wealthy individuals and foreign governments funding the anti-PAP media within Singapore, and he was strong-handed in breaking them up and limiting their reach.
• Lee believed in sustainable environmentalism; cleaning up the extremely polluted rivers and water-ways, increasing the percentage of the water that Singapore produced (via rain capture and desalinization, among other methods), tremendously increasing the amount of greenery throughout the city by sending botanical experts abroad to study other countries and what they did and bring samples of the best back for planting.
• Lee believed in an efficient, transparent, fast-working judiciary that would promote foreign investor confidence in Singapore.
• He believed in the will of the people, and regularly called for elections to justify the actions he was taking and the direction he and the PAP were leading Singapore, but from an authoritarian perspective with his one party state. Lee stated in an interview: “Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people’s position. In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I’d run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that…“
• Lee stated over and over again that the communists were his most dogged, most difficult to defeat opponents, and he worked very hard to never underestimate them. He used all tactics at his disposal to crush the communists and crush them mercilessly; whether they were hiding in unions, or behind newspapers as writers or financiers, he would imprison them (often without trial for years; in Operation Coldstore, for example, the police rounded up about 100 supposed communists and communist sympathizers and detained them without trial for up to 10 years), he would sue them for libel in the courts, he would spy on them, he would limit their newspaper’s circulation or close their offices, whatever it took to maintain law and order. The PAP kept a British law that, among other things, suspended civil liberties and allowed for indefinite detention without trial which is still an active law today. When challenged by the United States on this in 1978, Lee wrote, “Singapore was a Confucianist society which placed the interests of the community above those of the individual. My primary responsibility was the well-being of the people. I had to deal with communist subversives, against whom it was not possible to get witnesses to testify in open court. If I followed [the U.S.’s] prescription, Singapore would come to grief.” Even with the economic prosperity that his policies were bringing to Singapore, Lee said that 30% of the population were hardcore communist sympathizers and it took many years, perhaps decades, to sway them from their beliefs, if they were swayable at all.
• In that vein, Lee believed in extreme punishments for criminals. Importing into Singapore small amounts of marijuana earns the death penalty. The caning of U.S. citizen Michael Fay in 1999 for vandalism caused an international incident with America. Bringing in chewing gum can get you a year in prison; feeding pigeons a $500 SGD fine, and also eating or drinking on the metro will cost you $500 SGD. But the benefit is an impeccably clean and both crime and drug-free city….According to Noah Carl in what he calls the “The Diversity Trilemma”, “Basically, you can pick two out of the following three: social stability, civil liberties, non-selective immigration. If you want social stability and civil liberties, you have to be picky with immigration. If you want civil liberties and non-selective immigration, you won’t get social stability. And if you want non-selective immigration and social stability, you’ll have to infringe civil liberties.” Lee wanted selective immigration – but lots of it, and selective based on intelligence and not ethnic or religious background – and social stability, so as a result he operated a very aggressive law-and-order society.
• Lee’s foreign policy with respect to war and economic boycotts was based firmly in Singaporean national interests. He was a strong proponent of U.S. war in Vietnam and against U.S. withdrawal because he was fearful of an ascendant communism in Singapore and surrounding countries; then he semi-supported the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia even after their genocide of 1.5-2 million of their own people (out of a population of 7.8 million) was known throughout the world because he pragmatically believed they were needed to counter Vietnam’s occupation of the country (but Vietnam had stopped the Cambodian genocide; I suppose Lee was so fearful of an expansionist communism that he believed in “better dead than red”); he was against Rhodesia’s existence with (white) minority rule because he wanted (black) majority rule there, which would bolster Lee’s own position (as Singapore was majority Chinese, like Lee), although he did not want to frame the Rhodesia conflict in immigrant vs. indigenous terms:“Like the peoples in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, I was a settler. If all immigrants were racists, then the world was in for a difficult time. We had two alternative solutions to problems created by migrations that had taken place all around the world: either to accept that all men had equal rights, or to return to the rule of the strong over the weak. For colored peoples of the world to demand retribution for past wrongs was not the answer to survival.”This was either a naive or a duplicitous answer and Lee was quite wrong on this, given the complete economic collapse, the mass starvation and the low-key white genocide that has taken place in Zimbabwe subsequently. But it served his purposes to add to the legitimacy of his own rule. He applied the same policies to South Africa, where there were no diplomatic relations until 1993 after apartheid ended, but there too today is an ongoing low-key white genocide and total economic collapse.
• In choosing how to develop some of the islands off of the Singapore main island, Lee chose to focus on tourism instead of other possible uses such as oil refining. The focus on tourism is why the Singapore airport is so beautiful and why the Marina Bay Sands is such an unusual, attractive design.

---

The Downsides

Everything in life has a trade-off, though, and Singapore’s is typical for those myopically focused on wealth creation and secular attempts to immanentize the eschaton: the highs of material success leads to spiritual death, atomization and torn-asunder family formation. The downside of Lee’s pro-globalist approach includes:

• A population total fertility rate which is one of the lowest in the world (#232 out of #237 countries);
• A soulless flattened culture where Singapore feels like a giant shopping mall;
• The total control Singapore has on its citizens, micro-managed down to the tiniest detail and which feels like a precursor to globohomo’s “15 minute cities”, degrades the basic humanity where Singaporeans are treated as human widgets;
• Despite being a supposedly conservative society, Singapore decriminalized homosexual marriage in 2022 and left the door open for outright legalization with a simple majority vote;
• Singapore has the most unhappy people in the world, coming in dead last. One Gallup poll of 148 countries found Singaporeans were the least likely to report “feeling positive emotions”:One may curiously note that next-door Malaysia, which has struggled compared to Singapore economically with a 2015 nominal GDP per capita of only $12,000, has one of the highest rates of happiness in the world.1 Indeed, the top 10 happiest countries on that list are all quite poor. GDP and wealth figures don’t take into account happiness, communal bonds, or the amount and quality of free time; perhaps, just perhaps, the most important things in life are intangible and unquantifiable.

Indeed, when Stolypin attempted to save Tsarist Russia via farmland privatization and enriching a new middle class, Solzhenitsyn wondered what the drawbacks would be, worrying a decline of communal farms would destroy community ties.2 But Stolypin believed it was the only way to protect the Tsar and avoid a tremendous amount of human suffering, which occurred anyways after the Bolsheviks took power. Perhaps Russia’s progress would have taken different turns if it had succeeded, possibly with greater citizen happiness than Singapore; perhaps autarky and self-sufficiency could have allowed Russia to thrive in a different, more relaxed manner versus the extreme micro-managed control which Singapore is subject to.

---

Lessons of Singapore for other countries

Lee strongly advised other leaders to open up their countries to free trade and foreign investments; to Lee, that was a prerequisite for a country becoming economically successful. He looked down on any country that turned inward and remained a closed society. As Singapore surpassed its competition and became economically successful, other leaders around the world sat up and took note, and many tried to copy his tactics. But Lee’s advice was somewhat myopic. Acceptance of foreign investment supercharges economic growth in a country but it also makes that country a prisoner to global capitalism’s whims, per Council Estate Media ; in other words, lenders and investors can collapse the economy at any moment by withdrawing their capital if they don’t get what they want. And what these investors wanted was to own value-generating assets, i.e. a country’s natural resources and its infrastructure, its banks and its major corporations; to control these without friction meant also purchasing the country’s mass media and educational system and then indoctrinating its citizens into becoming compliant, pliable workers. Singapore had no natural resources, it was at such a strategic location, and Lee was so good at what he was doing, that he never really got on globohomo’s bad side. But many countries did run afoul and their punishment was harsh: economies thrown into chaos, leaders overthrown, revolutions and murder; their rulers should have thought twice before taking in such investment for short-term growth.

In China’s case, they learned a tremendous amount from Lee’s experience in Singapore and initiated open market reforms while retaining security control to semi-copy his model. The main difference was that that China has a vast majority Han Chinese population and therefore much less racial conflict (notwithstanding the issues with Tibet or the Uyghurs, which are a very small percent of China’s population). And China, like Singapore, remains under globohomo control.

N.S. Lyons argues that Saudi Arabia is increasingly using Lee’s approach as well.

---

Conclusion

Oswald Spengler believed that in the period of Civilizational Winter, which he says we are in now, weak ties and complex bureaucracies (fueled by “money”) will be eventually severed in favor of strong ties and absolutism (fueled by “blood”). Perhaps Singaporeans would have been happier killing each other in race-based riots and living in poverty than be dead-last in world happiness ratings while materially well off.

Regardless, Lee knew that the only alternative to endless racial-infighting for a country in Singapore’s situation was the path he chose, regardless of its drawbacks.

Lee brought unprecedented economic success to Singapore using the model that a strong dictator who focuses on uplifting the country’s middle class, in conjunction with strong-armed tactics against leftist political enemies, would translate into long-term political stability and wealth. The downside of a myopic focus on materialism is a dying spirituality and massive unhappiness, along with a completely collapsed birthrate which requires constant infusion of immigrants to keep afloat. Each nation should have the ability to decide for itself how and to what extent it wants to choose materialism vs. spirituality on this spectrum, either extreme or moderate in either direction, but there is no independence for the nations of the world today, just complete debt slavery to the Rothschilds and their allies as owners of the world central banks, and getting rid of their shackles of central bank debt slavery is a proper Shelling point that all of the world should aspire to.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 “Feeling positive emotions” is a difficult thing to quantify and measure. Its entirely possible this Gallup study is flawed, but given the similar demographics, language, history and culture of Malaysia and Singapore, and their extreme differences in results, probably indicates that there is some disparity between happiness levels between the countries.

2 August 1914, p. 705, Solzhenitsyn wrote philosophically: “Perhaps, though, in this self-denial [the communal land system], this harmonization of the will of the individual with that of the commune, this mutual aid and curbing of wild willfulness, there lay something more valuable than harvests and material well-being? Perhaps the people could look forward to something better than the development of private property? Perhaps the commune was not just a system of paternalistic constraints, cramping the freedom of the individual, perhaps it reflected the people’s philosophy of life, its faith? Perhaps there was a paradox here which went beyond the commune, indeed beyond Russia itself: freedom of action and prosperity are necessary if man is to stand up to his full height on this earth, but spiritual greatness dwells in eternal subordination, in awareness of oneself as an insignificant particle.

Thinking this way makes action impossible. Stolypin was always a realist. With him, thought and action were one. No one can ask the people to behave like angels. We have to live with property as we live with all the temptations of this life. And in any case, the commune created a good deal of discord among the peasants.”