Category Archives: Lost Republic Original

“White Debt” ???

To a fellow University of Iowa graduate (from the non-fiction program . . . predictably):


White people, whom you describe as a “moral problem”, have built modern civilization, dragged the rest of the world out of ignorance poverty and disease (against their will in many cases), suffered germ warfare from Asian invaders, suffered slavery (the Black Sea slave trade numbered 5 million almost half the individuals of the North Atlantic slave trade at a time when the world was much more sparsely populated), ended slavery, invented universal ethics and universal laws, and continue to run the only society in the world that tolerates your parasitism, moral relativism, and anti-social propaganda.

Note: Though I’d love give credit to my Slavic ancestors, the world-improving changes are mostly attributable to Western and Northern Europeans. If Slavs did anything right, it was acting as an enormous meat shield against the invading hordes from the East, and slave traders from Turkey and their agents.

So to hell with your whiny, hypocritical, self-loathing, overly deceptive, cultural Marxist status seeking.

Author and anti-Islamist activist Maajid Nawaz — on Tolerating bad behavior

It’s going to come to something like this because it has to. Behavioral norms must be defended as property.

In the words of one of my intellectual heroes, Thomas Sowell: “You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.”

Of course, all this will be thrown out by the left because the left seeks political power through problems and messianic, impossible-to-achieve solutions. This is a real solution. Defend behavioral norms with violence.

It will take a long time to recognize this because from within, we don’t recognize the work that culture is doing. Culture is resolving conflict without litigation and without inappropriate levels of violence. (I say “inappropriate”, because in most of Eastern Europe, you can punch someone in the face under certain circumstances without worrying about lethal escalation.)

Anyway, only when culture is lost must we substitute something — like litigation. And only slowly will we realize the importance of behavioral norms.

This is the path for success for multi-cultural societies. Having said all this, there is nothing wrong with voluntary segregation around culture or ethnicity. All people should have a homeland. There should be homogenous places and multicultural places. I’ve heard this idea referred to as “pan nationalism”.

(thanks, Faisal Goussous​. FYI: Curt Doolittle​)

Regarding #Paris

My Observations:
– Yes, they are true Muslims (see the recent analysis in the Atlantic)
– No, they won’t stop. Though it’ll probably take more such incidents to realize this.
– yes, these are runaway underclasses, but that doesn’t matter (more here:
– Multiculturalism has failed.
– Universalism has failed.
– Democracy creates malincentives by rewarding birthrates.
– You can have modern civilization or disgenic breeding patterns, not both.

My Recommendations:
– Deny welfare to new arrivals. They must work for an opportunity.
– Deny access to political power. Minorities seem to seek power when they reach 5-10% of the population.
– Replace welfare with the mutual aide societies that thrived in the US in the early 1920s. They are much better at punishing abuse because they are voluntary.
– Allow communities to voluntarily segregate themselves — “If you believe in diversity, let us organize around our beliefs!”
– Put direct restriction on Islam.

And if that doesn’t work:

– kick them all out.

Lastly, my (very, very inappropriate, trigger-warning) jokes:

It’s like the zombie apocalypse except they have an IQ of 80 instead of 40, the virus is conceptual, and you don’t have to shoot them in the head. Anywhere will do.

What do you mean it’s impossible to round up a few million people? That sounds like something a holocaust denier would say.

My advice for Israel’s survival

This came after a long and exhausting argument with Israel supporters in which I refused to accept Palestinians don’t exist.

Gentelmen, it’s been fun. Thank you for the engagement. I have work to do, and I need to leave this alternate reality into which you are doggedly trying to drag me.

I’ve written this before, but here’s my advice for Israel’s survival:

1) Face your history. Stop the double-talk, lies, distortions, overloading, reframing. You need to do it.

2) You are now a landed people. Develop Duty, Honor, Sacrifice because those are the ethics that allow you to defend yourself. You have it. But punish (or as a bare minimum, stop subsidizing) the parts of your society which parasite on the sacrific of others.

3) Declare your goddamn borders. Israel is the only country without declared borders. This, plus the thousands [this may be an exaggeration] of statements by Israeli leaders encouraging ethnic cleansing is the reason so many people (me) remain suspicious of Israel’s intentions — see the graphic at the top of the conversation.

(Defend your borders both against the Arabs and against the parts of your society who publically advocate expansion to the Euphrates river.)

4) Ween yourself off direct western subsity. It creates resentment and puts at risk the political support which is very important to Israel.

5) Make peace with your neighbors.


Some excerpts:

>You can blame Israel, hate Israel, explain that Arabs don’t really want to destroy Israel, etc. All that would be very noble. But seriously expect a suicide of the whole nation? — It’s not noble, it’s stupid smile emoticon

> I had no doubts that my refusal to deny the existence of Palestinians would very quickly be interpreted as “so you want to destroy Israel.”

It happens almost every time.

>Show us something which demonstrates that a palestinian arab nation existed before 1947.

>This is a great slight of hand. You’re pretending that I’m talking about modest claims to property claims. I’m talking about this:

“We must expel Arabs and take their places.”
— David Ben Gurion, 1937

[He came back by stating it’s a fake quote. I don’t have the time to check (perhaps that was his goal) but it doesn’t seem fake. It is cited down to a page number, and consistent with dozens of other quotes for Ben Gurion and other Israeli leaders.]

>This was Gaza after WW1 , occupied by the british troops, as you can see few houses , a small village, that’s it. Now they are 2 millions…..

>You are presenting a single photograph of a town and concluding from it that Gaza was uninhabited?

What the hell is wrong with you???

First of all, it’s a town. It looks like a normal town and in no way indicates an absence of people.

Second of all, if it did indicated an absence of people, it’s one damn photograph. It is another enormous sweep of dishonesty to extrapolate from one photo a statement about an entire region.

Restating the biologicizing of politics and ethics

FUTURE TRENDS: Look for political “is/am” to be slowly replaced with a tracing of incentives rooted in biology. As part of this process, morality will be wrested from philosophers and pseudo philosophers and will be taken over by biologists. Example: leftism will be described as the impulse to care for the weak driven by the biological needs of women and people who fear being out-competed. (edit: ^^ Status signaling needs to be incorporated into this.)

Run Away Underclasses


I’m reflecting on this column by my acquaintance, Mustafa Akyol:

The aristocracy of the Muslim world doesn’t not want confrontation. It’s obvious.

The elite, the educated, the *landed*, those with something to lose, those who find the best aspects of Islamic history in science, commerce, scholarship — they recognizing the absurdity of the open confrontation with the West being promoted by their own underclasses. All the West has to do is lose patience.

But the elites seem powerless to stop the pull of these mal-incentives. Islam as an ideology is too appealing to the underclasses. (Anyone gets redemption by becoming an enforcer of Islam — the stricter the interpretation, the nobler the violence.)

So there’s a fundamental incentive problem. It appeals to the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

Here’s a theory of recent history to test: the brain drain of Islamic aristocracy from the Middle East into the West left the inmates running the asylum. The best of Islamic society was not present to suppress stupid interpretations of their beliefs, and now they’ve coalesced from a religion to an ideology to a movement.

(An interesting aside: Early incarnations of Islam strictly reserved for the upper classes, and considered it absurd to share the revelations with the underclasses. In the words of Haille Mariam-Lemar​:

—-“ISIL/ISIS/IS are actually theoreticians of democracy. Within islamic theology they belong to a historical tradition called khajirites. The khajirites combined radical democracy with literalism. This is why the middle eastern tyrannies are so frightened of them. As anyone familiar with islamic history would tell you the early islamic caliphates viewed islam as a property of the arab aristocracy and opposed mass conversion. The aristocrats were opposed by the khajirites who argued that any man, even a black slave, can become a caliph so long as he has the requisite theological training and is elected.”—-)

The appeal to the underclasses, and specifically, the licensing of bad behavior among the underclasses gives Islam an irreparable incentive problem.

Communism is similarly broken (for this and MANY other reasons). The worst people have license to use excuse their personal failures and use violence against imagined enemies.

A third instance of this theme: It seems a similar incentive problem exists in the victim narrative adopted by parts of the black community in the US. Look at how Richard Sherman’s very gentle self-reflection of violence in his community is perceived as utter betrayal:

Look for what ideologies do to underclasses — to people who are not that good at life, and tend to cling to just a few actionable ideas in their heads as if they were liferafts — because in the confusing, dangerous worlds they perceive, boiled-down ideologies ARE liferafts.

(h/t Curt Doolittle​)

Social norms and the hubris of pro-immigration people

There is an enormously rich body of work about the unique development of high trust, capitalism, and modern civilization.

It is arrogant and naive to dismiss it all and assume that culture plays no role whatsoever, and that any people, with any habits, and any traditions, from any culture, can come in any number, with no negative consequences.

Social norms are important and fragile.

On Immigration and my recent posts.

I’ve been posting many anti-immigration stories. I pointed out in one argument that the whole world is against multi-culturalism except (partially) the west, and was asked, “So what, you want the West to be more like the rest of the world, which you seem to despise so much?”

Good question.

Firstly, recognize that the social norms of high trust societies are VERY expensive. Every time we behave well we pay the opportunity cost of not behaving well. We pay for our social norms.

Social norms must be defended as if they are property.

Secondly, realize that there’s nothing wrong or unnatural about preferring the company of people who share your culture, values, and (yes) even genes. All animals display kin preference.

I happen to think that a society benefits when it admits a modest portion of foreigners, especially the intelligent, law abiding, capable, hard working ones.

(Relevant observation: It seems that when a population reaches somewhere between 5-10% of the population they seek political power.)

What is lost is trust (diversity DOES reduce trust) is gained in their economic velocity. So that’s my ideal society. Though I’d prefer more societies in general.

Let a thousand nations bloom. Let each one choose it’s formula — from complete segregation to complete diversity.

ps – I don’t despite the rest of the world. I’ve enjoyed vacations on every continent. I like the diversity. But diversity means preserving cultures, not destroying them through forced integration.

G̶l̶o̶b̶a̶l̶ ̶W̶a̶r̶m̶i̶n̶g̶ Climate Change and Status Seeking

G̶l̶o̶b̶a̶l̶ ̶W̶a̶r̶m̶i̶n̶g̶ Climate Change and Status Seeking

Well, if you seriously believe that the oceans will rise by 10 feet as predicted by James Hansen, the data manipulator ( — (In other words, believe that it is ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN, as opposed to believing that repetition of this mantra is an inexpensive boost to one’s status.) — then you can pretty easily anticipate where the masses will be fleeing once the oceans rise, and buy property there.

This should be very easy to do, actually.

The problem is, the more you ACT on this belief, the more you will realize it is a bunch of smoke and mirrors directed at gaining political power, and with a long history of being wrong.

Seriously, isn’t real estate on high ground the no-brainer thing to do. If you want to get rich invest. If you want to avert humanitarian catastrophe, then get politicians to build high density housing up in the hills.

The problem is, the more you act on this global warming religion, the more your are forced to confront your beliefs. And zealots hate that.

It is much easier to repeat matras for the purpose of low-cost status seeking without ever having to act on your beliefs.

On non-intervention

I think property rights and rule of law are virutes.

Intervention on behalf of property rights are rule of law are good things.

Non-intervention alone is not a good thing. It has become so in the parlance of many libertarians because the US gov’t intervention often goes hand in hand with violations of property rights / rule of law. But non-intervention should never be considered a virtue in itself. That is suicide.

Many libertarians have what I consider to be a very feminine / gossiping / shaming / beta male conception of property. They think it is “natural”, and everyone who violates property can be shamed into behaving more “naturally”.

This is childish and naive.

The grownup version of libertarianism is this: you get property when you can punish everyone who would violate property.

Libertarians who ignore the cost of doing this are attempting to free ride — to purchase their liberty as a discount.

Mutual insurance seems like the best chance at establishing liberty.

I pledge to intervene on your behalf (in support of property and rule of law), if you pledge to intervene on mine.

The aristocrats must not abandon their people

As the bottom third (under the guise of the 99%) attacks the top third (calling them the 1%), the top increasingly abandon and shelters itself. The US is becoming more like Brazil.

I wonder if the top isn’t making a mistake as they, quite sensibly, pursue self-preservation. Perhaps they should make a more deliberate effort to provide arguments, a vision, and a positive example to the bottom. Or else the Cathedral will mobilize them for its own purposes.

In other words, I wonder if the beliefs and norms of the bottom third isn’t the “decisive terrain” in the struggle to shape modern society.

Third week in a row: Black mob violence closes carnival. Racine.

Third week in a row. The narrative of the egalitarian cult cannot survive all those youtube videos / tweets / comments.

The way for a heterogeneous polity to succeed is probably by pushing everything into the market place of voluntary exchange and promoting a diversity of institutions. (NOT by promoting a diversity of people under uniform institutions.)

Inequality is NOT a measure of injustice. The left pursues equality with the zeal of a fundamentalist religion. It’s am impossible goal, and that may very well be the point — what good is a messiah once he has arrived?

The law of Karma must be restored. Without it, these communities are infantilized.

Like economic Marxism, cultural Marxism gives unsuccessful people two very dangerous things: an excuse and enemy. Nothing good will result.