Category Archives: Lost Republic Original

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 Ayelam Valentine Agaliba​:

—-“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.

Black crime statistics, police violence statistics, and lying progressives.

Progressives make their case with anecdotes. Conservatives need to counter with data.

The conservative strategy has to be telling the truth, and being as intolerant of lies as possible. Constantly ask them: Why are you lying?

“Police in America kill around 300 black people per year. Black criminals kill 1000 white people and over 6000 blacks. So yes, we can talk about the police thing. But we’ve got some other things to talk about too…”

Outside of STEM disciplines, Universities are no longer place where people learn to seek truth. They are places where people learn to lie.

If I’m not one of yours . . . (Rapper Azealia Banks: I Hate White Americans)

If I’m not one of yours, then I can’t possibly accept you as one of mine. Universalism can only be a two-way street. I’m wary of the progression of rhetoric in S Africa: Liberty->Equality->Reparations->Kill the Boer

We could be building institutions that help heterogeneous people with different reproductive strategies cooperate (probably by pushing everything into the marketplace of voluntary interaction).

Instead, the cultural marxists are hell bent on creating a new religion that infatilizes black people (by robbing them of all responsibility for their own success), and destroying/degrading/humiliating white people where ever possible

“Treating women differently” and other Marxist BS

What does it even mean to “treat women differently”? Does not that imply that you also “treat men differently”?

Differently does not mean worse. For example, with men, I’m less patient, more expectant of loyalty, less tolerant of weakness and incompetence.

You can’t engage cultural marxists as if they’re truth seekers and truth speakers. They’re just playing word games to gain power.

It’s best to simply expose them for the liars and hypocrites they are without falling into the strange rationalist pseudo-scientific world of their verbalisms.

We need an ideology for a heterogeneous polity.

An ideology is a philosophy boiled down to simple, actionable points.

We have a heterogeneous polity and disproportionate crime rates.

I cannot think of a more destructive ideology than the one being
promoted. The ideology of the struggle of cultural classes gives people an excuse and an enemy. Like economic Marxism, Cultural Marxism undermines people’s feeling that they are responsible for their future. It gives them an excuse and an enemy.

I recently listened to a long interview with a prison psychologist who
talked about many black criminals have been “infantilized”. No sense whatsoever that they are responsible for their own actions, that they must control their impulses, that anyone has the right to tell them to not walk in the middle of the street.

We need an ideology that promotes cooperation between groups. I know what wrong looks like — I complain about it frequently of FB. I can guess what right might look like. Three separate ideas:

-Historically the more universalist (western) forms of Christianity have been great at getting people to cooperate. I have a Ghanian friend who has talked about large African tribes half of whom adopt Christianity, and half Islam. The latter become more peaceful and rich, the former more militant and poor.

-Relegating as much as possible to voluntary exchange might be a good philosophy too in which to try to develop an ideology. I don’t think there would be so much racial tension in a monarchy. I’m not suggesting one, but access to political power seems to be a leading cause of interracial violence. If you look at a person’s race, sex, and marital status, you can tell with about 70-80% accuracy how they’ll vote. Married whites & single white men vs everyone else.

The more we do voluntarily and not through political power they less there will be to fight over.

-Voluntary segregation. Everyone can have their own police, their own schools, etc. I think this would be most effective not between groups, but within the black community. They need an aristocracy to emerge. I think of the writing my teacher James McPherson did about the pullman porters. Europeans had the benefits of the Bubonic Plague which wiped out 30-60% of Europe’s population, mostly the underclasses. This, plus other things (the manorial system, the ban on cousin marriage — which was done for entirely Machiavelian reasons but had good consequences) gave Europe a big boost.