It's debatable how much he was a dictator at all. It's true Singaporean elections are not exactly free and fair by western standards, but there's really no reason to believe the PAP wouldn't continue to dominate the country even if they were. They may sound hard to believe given how they've won clear majorities in every election going back decades and no other democratic country really has that. But you have to remember Singapore is not just a country but a city and there are cities in the US that have been controlled effectively by one party for decades at a time.
I think the backdrop of what the development work the PAP did really helped with their image especially when they were up against extremeist communists party, there infact was a time when they posed a such. There was also the transition between colonization and autonomy the PAP lived through.
Wouldn't a dictator be considered a dictator even if he was accepted by the populace? I think you are right about PAP's popularity though; all of the very few Singaporeans I know admire LKY. Also, even bigger countries can be de facto one party states, for example Japan.
Newspapers, magazines, reports from advisers who actually read books and other primary sources, books full of vague platitudes from other WEF attendees.
I would imagine most don't read for pleasure. So the real answer is probably just work reports, legal documents, research papers, or ,more specifically, their underlings' summaries of these writings.
But of the few who do read for pleasure, I would assume most only read the newspapers of their political tendencies, perhaps a journal related to their industry, Foreign Affairs, etc.
Climb the ladder of large institutions (i.e. global investment banks, F500 corporations, universities, federal agencies, etc.) and hang out with the phony professionals who are doing the same.
Same as well. As a lad who has been raised to think of governance as being very ideological (Canadian) the idea that a country can be ran with a results-based governance structure stunned me.
Who knows why this guy is so highly valued. He did nothing of world-historical importance but just found a market niche for a tiny island, like any entrepreneur has done with their companies and leaders have done with their countries innumerable times.
He fixed what is essentially a tent in a neighbourhood of homes.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>neighbourhood of homes
Kek no he didn't
What fricking homes?
11 months ago
Anonymous
The world, dumbass. Singapore is a city-state.
11 months ago
Anonymous
That's a moronic take. Also half the world was in fricking ruins.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>le take
Go back to Twitter. There was no opinion given, just facts. Half of the world being in ruins is irrelevant because half of the world isn't a city.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You're just focusing on a factor that benefits your argument. Also, even if Singapore being a city is as important as you portray it, I fail to see why it'd be a positive at all. You think it's smaller = easier? That's just silly.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>You think it's smaller = easier?
Yes, you double digit IQ subhuman. Managing and leading a smaller group of people is indeed easier than managing an empire or whatever.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I would disagree. From an economic standpoint a larger population is preferable.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Easy economic win thanks to the larger population, which definitely is easier to control than a city where you establish a tax haven.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I mean again, there's aspects to controlling a population other than size. For example it helps if it's not divided to a point where it repeatedly engages in race riots. But yeah, if I was in his place I would take population. In fact it wasn't his first move to turn Singapore into a tax haven. He wanted to join Malaysia, which again supports the argument that more territory and people is preferable even at the cost of sovereignty. And either way, it's not like he just decided to to turn it into a tax haven and it happened.
All he did was copy what British had already done many times. Nobody actually believes that if Mainland China had failed that his country would’ve succeeded. And what did he do that was of historical importance? Nothing. It is still a politically irrelevant country with some rich bankers.
I don't get it. What did the British do? The country is not politically irrelevant. Just a couple weeks ago it was revealed it's a regular meeting spot for heads of intelligence of most major countries for example.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>In fact it wasn't his first move to turn Singapore into a tax haven. He wanted to join Malaysia, which again supports the argument that more territory and people is preferable even at the cost of sovereignty.
Yeah, he was a clueless idiot at first. Let's check on how Malaysia is do-never mind.
11 months ago
Anonymous
That's kinda my point though. Malaysia is still a tent, one among many.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You should use Google and compare both the land size and population size of Malaysia to Singapore, then come back.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah and I can compare it to the size and population of the US too. Proves nothing.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Except, you know, neither Malaysia or the US are city-states, which was the whole point all along that has now been proven.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I mean... The US is not a city state and is successful. Malaysia is not a city state and sucks. What does that suggest regarding your point? Not much. Actually nothing.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Indeed, that suggests nothing regarding my point because what you've said is irrelevant trivia. It being a city-state is only one factor, but it's a main factor.
11 months ago
Anonymous
And again I disagree. What are your arguments for it being the main factor?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Who said it was THE main factor? It's A main factor.
You can't even read properly and you want to disagree with the basic fact that less people are easier to control than more people. IQfyerally moronic.
All he did was copy what British had already done many times. Nobody actually believes that if Mainland China had failed that his country would’ve succeeded. And what did he do that was of historical importance? Nothing. It is still a politically irrelevant country with some rich bankers.
because he built the template for the hypersurveillance police state city that globalists dream of for their own nations, the countryside emptied of people and given over to automated logistics centers and rewilding corridors, the entire population corralled into mega-cities with gilded cores. this isn't even a secret, they talk about it openly
He managed to take a post colonial dump into the #1 nation on most living standards through a unique mix of authoritarian and free market policies in a real and pragmatic way that has never been done before. The microcosm of issues such as multi culture and modernity is mostly resolved while the rest of the developed world can't figure it out at all. It's also proof of localism and city state governance is superior to the ideologies controlling enormously huge countries and populations with abundances of resources. You have no arguments and you're dumb.
Every entrepreuner in the big tech industry, "Tech Bros", finds their influence from Ayn Rand's writing among others like Richard Dawkins.
The infatuation is so deep, and goes so far back, they not only name institutions and organizations after elements from her work, but even their children.
You would find instances in the 90s, in Sillicon Valley where someone, who gave the middle name Rand to his son, would learn from another father, they gave the middle name Ayn to his daughter.
Ayn Rand was one of the key inspirations for what ultimately became "The Californian Ideology".
This is one of those other reasons people genuinely despise what people have done with her body of work because amazingly, people who have been told to act selfishly, ruthlessly toward their own benefit and at the cost of even society itself, have gone on to drag us into the world we now know.
You should really know what you're talking about but since you want to go off-topic,
I really don't like California's prejudice against firearm ownership.
Or it's bias on shifting anti-pollution efforts onto consumers as opposed to industry.
Or California really, so I'm kind of left with mixed feelings about the hypothetical of a Californian owning a gun because I wouldn't trust one with one.
The only reason I'm not ready for it to secede just yet is because I want Texas to do it first.
But back to what I was saying,
https://archive.org/details/BBC.All.Watched.Over.by.Machines.of.Loving.Grace.3of3.Monkey.in.the.Machine.PDTV
>But back to what I was saying, >https://archive.org/details/BBC.All.Watched.Over.by.Machines.of.Loving.Grace.3of3.Monkey.in.the.Machine.PDTV
Obligatory
Lee Kuan Yew, he was prime minister of Singapore for a long ass time and turned it from a third world mud hut shithole into one of the wealthiest countries in the world. I guess you could call him a capitalist authoritarian.
lol moron. Can’t say he rode the China wave when he is partially responsible for it happening.
11 months ago
Anonymous
No, he’s not. All he did was spin up a friendly environment that capital could be deployed from in an era where the United States and Mainland China, which were heavily industrialized or industrializing and/or pushing for Asian trade. This idea that they were like imperial Japan 2.0 is ridiculous.
11 months ago
Anonymous
NTA but China was still a Maoist shithole in the throes of the Cultural Revolution when Singapore was becoming a big deal. I believe he's talking in the sense that when Deng came to power he copied a lot from Singapore in terms of economic policy and Lee helped reorient Chinese policy to be more amicable to the West and less agitating for communist insurgency in the region. They had mutual high regard for each other. Lee was very influential in China during opening up, a lot of the reforms and changes of the Deng period can be at least partially credited to him.
Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era
The Limits to Growth
The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind / homosexual Deus
The Fourth Industrial Revolution
The Open Conspiracy
The Impact of Science on Society
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars: An Introductory Programming Manual
There is no technocratic elite. There are bourgeois elite who occasionally cosplay as technocrats when they want to pretend to be something other than high bourgeois, and there are party members of various dictatorships who cosplay as technocrats, those being Chinese and Singaporean. As a social class the technocrats have not come into their own yet.
The sort of proto-technocrats are in their infancy as a social class, and the bourgeois make certain to try to cull their wealth and influence where they can.
Unironically, they read the biographies/autobiographies of other politicians. They want to see what former colleagues say about them and other government officials.
whatever the pope says
they only read tweets
Is he the only benevolent dictator?
Of the modern era, yes
Who are some from the past?
Cincinnatus and maybe Augustus after he finished stabilizing the republic cum empire
Most kings during the era of absolute monarchy with “the great” epithet attached to their names. may differ.
It's debatable how much he was a dictator at all. It's true Singaporean elections are not exactly free and fair by western standards, but there's really no reason to believe the PAP wouldn't continue to dominate the country even if they were. They may sound hard to believe given how they've won clear majorities in every election going back decades and no other democratic country really has that. But you have to remember Singapore is not just a country but a city and there are cities in the US that have been controlled effectively by one party for decades at a time.
I think the backdrop of what the development work the PAP did really helped with their image especially when they were up against extremeist communists party, there infact was a time when they posed a such. There was also the transition between colonization and autonomy the PAP lived through.
Wouldn't a dictator be considered a dictator even if he was accepted by the populace? I think you are right about PAP's popularity though; all of the very few Singaporeans I know admire LKY. Also, even bigger countries can be de facto one party states, for example Japan.
Khomeini, though you could hardly call him a dictator
Ataturk
Gaddafi
Hitler
You want to know the terrible truth? They don’t read anything, like at all.
Sades
Newspapers, magazines, reports from advisers who actually read books and other primary sources, books full of vague platitudes from other WEF attendees.
Peter Thiel is a Girard scholar.
I would imagine most don't read for pleasure. So the real answer is probably just work reports, legal documents, research papers, or ,more specifically, their underlings' summaries of these writings.
But of the few who do read for pleasure, I would assume most only read the newspapers of their political tendencies, perhaps a journal related to their industry, Foreign Affairs, etc.
My question is how do I develop that technocrat talk? I dont care about walking the walk, just wanna talk the talk.
Literally just read the Financial Times for like a week.
Watch Davos streams and study their buzzwords
Climb the ladder of large institutions (i.e. global investment banks, F500 corporations, universities, federal agencies, etc.) and hang out with the phony professionals who are doing the same.
Read The Atlantic and these https://www.weforum.org/reports
Think tank slop
Gigachad
His book Third World to First is fantastic. I highly recommend it if you haven't already read it.
It was incredibly enlightening to me as a SEA thirdie. But I lack the will to see it through
Yes I've read it twice actually. Wonderful content but I hate the prose, even with poor prose it's still a must read.
Same as well. As a lad who has been raised to think of governance as being very ideological (Canadian) the idea that a country can be ran with a results-based governance structure stunned me.
Who knows why this guy is so highly valued. He did nothing of world-historical importance but just found a market niche for a tiny island, like any entrepreneur has done with their companies and leaders have done with their countries innumerable times.
He fixed the country within his lifetime. That is significant.
He fixed what is essentially a tent in a neighbourhood of homes.
>neighbourhood of homes
Kek no he didn't
What fricking homes?
The world, dumbass. Singapore is a city-state.
That's a moronic take. Also half the world was in fricking ruins.
>le take
Go back to Twitter. There was no opinion given, just facts. Half of the world being in ruins is irrelevant because half of the world isn't a city.
You're just focusing on a factor that benefits your argument. Also, even if Singapore being a city is as important as you portray it, I fail to see why it'd be a positive at all. You think it's smaller = easier? That's just silly.
>You think it's smaller = easier?
Yes, you double digit IQ subhuman. Managing and leading a smaller group of people is indeed easier than managing an empire or whatever.
I would disagree. From an economic standpoint a larger population is preferable.
Easy economic win thanks to the larger population, which definitely is easier to control than a city where you establish a tax haven.
I mean again, there's aspects to controlling a population other than size. For example it helps if it's not divided to a point where it repeatedly engages in race riots. But yeah, if I was in his place I would take population. In fact it wasn't his first move to turn Singapore into a tax haven. He wanted to join Malaysia, which again supports the argument that more territory and people is preferable even at the cost of sovereignty. And either way, it's not like he just decided to to turn it into a tax haven and it happened.
I don't get it. What did the British do? The country is not politically irrelevant. Just a couple weeks ago it was revealed it's a regular meeting spot for heads of intelligence of most major countries for example.
>In fact it wasn't his first move to turn Singapore into a tax haven. He wanted to join Malaysia, which again supports the argument that more territory and people is preferable even at the cost of sovereignty.
Yeah, he was a clueless idiot at first. Let's check on how Malaysia is do-never mind.
That's kinda my point though. Malaysia is still a tent, one among many.
You should use Google and compare both the land size and population size of Malaysia to Singapore, then come back.
Yeah and I can compare it to the size and population of the US too. Proves nothing.
Except, you know, neither Malaysia or the US are city-states, which was the whole point all along that has now been proven.
I mean... The US is not a city state and is successful. Malaysia is not a city state and sucks. What does that suggest regarding your point? Not much. Actually nothing.
Indeed, that suggests nothing regarding my point because what you've said is irrelevant trivia. It being a city-state is only one factor, but it's a main factor.
And again I disagree. What are your arguments for it being the main factor?
Who said it was THE main factor? It's A main factor.
You can't even read properly and you want to disagree with the basic fact that less people are easier to control than more people. IQfyerally moronic.
All he did was copy what British had already done many times. Nobody actually believes that if Mainland China had failed that his country would’ve succeeded. And what did he do that was of historical importance? Nothing. It is still a politically irrelevant country with some rich bankers.
because he built the template for the hypersurveillance police state city that globalists dream of for their own nations, the countryside emptied of people and given over to automated logistics centers and rewilding corridors, the entire population corralled into mega-cities with gilded cores. this isn't even a secret, they talk about it openly
He managed to take a post colonial dump into the #1 nation on most living standards through a unique mix of authoritarian and free market policies in a real and pragmatic way that has never been done before. The microcosm of issues such as multi culture and modernity is mostly resolved while the rest of the developed world can't figure it out at all. It's also proof of localism and city state governance is superior to the ideologies controlling enormously huge countries and populations with abundances of resources. You have no arguments and you're dumb.
aliester crowley and the kabbalah
They don't.
bump
Differential Equations with Applications and Historical Notes by G.F.Simmons
How Nations Fail
Every entrepreuner in the big tech industry, "Tech Bros", finds their influence from Ayn Rand's writing among others like Richard Dawkins.
The infatuation is so deep, and goes so far back, they not only name institutions and organizations after elements from her work, but even their children.
You would find instances in the 90s, in Sillicon Valley where someone, who gave the middle name Rand to his son, would learn from another father, they gave the middle name Ayn to his daughter.
Ayn Rand was one of the key inspirations for what ultimately became "The Californian Ideology".
This is one of those other reasons people genuinely despise what people have done with her body of work because amazingly, people who have been told to act selfishly, ruthlessly toward their own benefit and at the cost of even society itself, have gone on to drag us into the world we now know.
>The Californian Ideology
Ironic considering California is one of the biggest welfare state with the highest taxes in the US.
It's also the state with the biggest housing crisis, perhaps outside of new york, because nobody wants their property values to diminish.
So they do everything to stop not just apartments, but shelters.
So you don't just have Skid Row, but countless workers in Sillicon Valley who sleep in their car in parking lots.
And areas being labeled Mountain Lion conservations where there are none.
Because noone wants a building full of poor people.
But they're free to live under the bridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology
You should really know what you're talking about but since you want to go off-topic,
I really don't like California's prejudice against firearm ownership.
Or it's bias on shifting anti-pollution efforts onto consumers as opposed to industry.
Or California really, so I'm kind of left with mixed feelings about the hypothetical of a Californian owning a gun because I wouldn't trust one with one.
The only reason I'm not ready for it to secede just yet is because I want Texas to do it first.
But back to what I was saying,
https://archive.org/details/BBC.All.Watched.Over.by.Machines.of.Loving.Grace.3of3.Monkey.in.the.Machine.PDTV
>But back to what I was saying,
>https://archive.org/details/BBC.All.Watched.Over.by.Machines.of.Loving.Grace.3of3.Monkey.in.the.Machine.PDTV
Obligatory
how about no state secedes you fricking soviet commie chink
I dont know who this guy is but he looks kino af. Who is he and is his works (if he wrote) worth reading?
Lee Kuan Yew, he was prime minister of Singapore for a long ass time and turned it from a third world mud hut shithole into one of the wealthiest countries in the world. I guess you could call him a capitalist authoritarian.
Most based position there is. You have to protect capitalism from the people, that's where it's all at.
He rode the US and China waves and nothing more. Did he succeed where others failed? Sure. Did he do some incredible historical thing? No.
lol moron. Can’t say he rode the China wave when he is partially responsible for it happening.
No, he’s not. All he did was spin up a friendly environment that capital could be deployed from in an era where the United States and Mainland China, which were heavily industrialized or industrializing and/or pushing for Asian trade. This idea that they were like imperial Japan 2.0 is ridiculous.
NTA but China was still a Maoist shithole in the throes of the Cultural Revolution when Singapore was becoming a big deal. I believe he's talking in the sense that when Deng came to power he copied a lot from Singapore in terms of economic policy and Lee helped reorient Chinese policy to be more amicable to the West and less agitating for communist insurgency in the region. They had mutual high regard for each other. Lee was very influential in China during opening up, a lot of the reforms and changes of the Deng period can be at least partially credited to him.
Laughs in Mexico
Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era
The Limits to Growth
The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind / homosexual Deus
The Fourth Industrial Revolution
The Open Conspiracy
The Impact of Science on Society
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars: An Introductory Programming Manual
The talmud
Check out Jay Dyer's globalist book series playlist in YT
There is no technocratic elite. There are bourgeois elite who occasionally cosplay as technocrats when they want to pretend to be something other than high bourgeois, and there are party members of various dictatorships who cosplay as technocrats, those being Chinese and Singaporean. As a social class the technocrats have not come into their own yet.
The sort of proto-technocrats are in their infancy as a social class, and the bourgeois make certain to try to cull their wealth and influence where they can.
they don't. that's why they're on top while you're here obsessing
Would Lee Kuan Yew spend his time arguing about nothing with morons on a basket weaving forum?
‘Between Two Ages.’ Berzizinsky was very interesting though some of it is outdated and thus, skimmable.
New York times bestseller self-help guru padded blogposts
Your personal information
Nonfiction mostly. Biographies of homosexuals like Gates, Jobs, and Musk
Unironically, they read the biographies/autobiographies of other politicians. They want to see what former colleagues say about them and other government officials.