Game theory and civic nationalism

Tipsy explains how logic dictates that civic nationalism is intrinsically doomed to failure in any multicultural society.

Civic Nationalism is doomed to fail in a multicultural society because it represents an unstable pareto-optimal equilibrium of the game of resource optimization through democratic politics. The non-cooperative Nash equilibrium, i.e., everyone out for their own group, becomes more stable when a democratic political system is overwhelmed by disparate ethnic groups.

For those inclined to read further about the distinction between these two equilibria, here’s an example of game that admits both types of equilibria. Suppose we have two players, A and B, who are playing a croquet game on a level field. Both players have a croquet mallet that can hit a ball exactly one foot in any direction and they get to hit it exactly once per round of the game. For each round, Player A is rewarded $1 for each foot the ball goes North and player B is rewarded $1 for each foot the ball goes West.

They both start the game willing to cooperate, and thus they decide to employ the Pareto-optimal solution, so they both hit the ball to the Northwest. They ball will go 2 feet Northwest and both player A and B will both get $1.41 (i.e., round(100*sqrt(2))/100).

Now, suppose in the next round, player A hits the ball to the Northwest as agreed upon, but player B decides to no longer cooperate. After player A hits the ball, player B hits it due West. Player A ends up with $0.71 and Player B gets $1.71 for the round.

Player A then gets pissed, and decides not to cooperate. So, the next round he uses a Nash strategy and hits the ball North and the still uncooperative Player B hits it West. They both end up with $1 for the round.

Note that the Pareto-optimal (cooperative) equilibrium yields the most money for both, but it is leaves each of the players vulnerable to the other cheating. The Nash-optimal (non-cooperative) equilibrium leaves both with less money, but structures the game in such a way that minimizes the consequences of the other cheating.

The Left has been using a Nash strategy for years, and “Conservatives” have been duped or shamed into using a Pareto strategy. The alt-Right is finally saying “Ok, you want to play that way, we will too.” This pisses the Left off, because they liked the marginal advantage that cheating in a cooperative game gave them. The alt-Right doesn’t care, goes full on Nash, because it understands the “game” is fundamentally non-cooperative now.

The scary thing is that the situation is even worse than he explains it. There have actually been THREE players, a Pareto player, a Nash player, and an anti-Pareto player. The anti-Pareto player has been playing to either a) hurt the Pareto player or b) help the Nash player, as he has no interest in money, but simply wants the psychic reward of achieving either (a) or (b).

What has changed is that a new Nash player has entered the field. This modeling is probably too complicated to bother with, especially since any numbers assigned would be arbitrary to the point of complete fiction, but regardless, both Tipsy’s original description as well as the more complicated version suffice to demonstrate that civic nationalism could never survive once sufficient Nash players were on the field.

There is nothing cooperative about US politics now. This is both an observable reality as well as a logically dictated consequence. Civic nationalism is now every bit as discredited and thoroughly disproven as communism, and any intellectually honest man will have to admit as much. Ironically, most of those still attempting to disprove it will achieve little more than revealing that they are actually Nash players hiding under a false Pareto front.

To sum up the discussion from last night in the other thread, it is observably better for a nation to be atomic-bombed, militarily defeated, and occupied by a foreign power than for it to adopt civic nationalism and mass immigration.

It is inevitable

Faith Goldy makes the move to the Alt-Right:

My heart is with civic nationalists, I want to believe. However, a deliberate evisceration of national identities coupled w mass migration has made my head at odds with my heart. Right wing civic nationalists are no better than Leftist do-gooder multicultis — result is ethnocide.

I completely understand those whose emotions trouble them on this subject and desperately want civic nationalism to be true. I once felt much the same way about it and other concepts I ultimately had to reject. But in the end, the head must always rule the heart, and the lessons of both history and current events are absolutely clear. Civic nationalism is nothing more than globalism lite.

Globalism is bad for all nations

Including the Jewish nation, as Moshe Feiglin, the leader of Zehut, points out:

Radical Left MK Merav Michaeli, who stated last week that the core family “is one of the things that we need to start breaking apart” did not actually say anything we did not know. All she did was to directly say what she and the entire politically correct dictatorship that rules Western and Israeli consciousness say all the time – just in a more sophisticated manner.

Although their values represent a minority, these forces rule Israeli consciousness by means of all the unelected power hubs in the country: academia, the media, the justice system, the welfare systems, government bureaucracy and the defense system.

Until now, these forces were smart enough to blur their statements and outsmart the public. Instead of saying that the family is bad, they would say: “Everything constitutes a family” (in which case nothing constitutes a family).

Instead of saying that it is bad to have children, they would say that we must safeguard them. (In other words, detach them from their parents).

Michaeli simply said these things directly. “The core family is the most dangerous place for children… and it must be broken apart”. Yes, she really said it.

(The claim that the core family is the most dangerous place for children is ridiculous blather. But who is checking? Children are attacked wherever they are. If they are in dormitories or any other situation outside their family, they are attacked even more. Michaeli could just as soon have claimed that breathing air is most dangerous to society. After all, 100{7a570d310fd04ee61246b4469264ca1004967a98be813fe63aaa5d2057987204} of the deceased lived and died in an oxygenated environment…)

Michaeli has removed the mask and has allowed the tip of this giant, lethal iceberg to peek out from the depths. By doing so, she has performed an important service for Israeli society.

When somebody tries to speak the simple truth, he is immediately denounced by the politically correct octopus. This means that if you are a consumer of the general media and rely on it to gain a sense of what is legitimate and what is not, what is good and what is bad, what is light and what is darkness – then you are forced to adopt these mad positions. Nobody will dare to take the media to task and tell you the truth.

Take for example Minister of Labor, Chaim Katz. The Knesset, including the Minister, decided that children will be adopted by normative families only. Makes sense, right? But the consciousness octopus immediately recruited all its heavy hitters and wonder of wonders – in just a short time Minister Katz announced that the law would be changed and the State would no longer give children for adoption to normative couples only, but would include same-sex couples, as well.

It is important to understand – these children will not be thrown into the streets. Thank G-d, the demand for children for adoption in Israel is much greater than the supply. The question here is the welfare of the child. You do not have to be a genius to understand that a child needs both a father and a mother. But the child does not really interest the octopus. What really interests the octopus is to dissolve the institution of family. That is why it is so important to it is to keep drilling into our heads that anything can be defined as a family, making nothing a family. Mission accomplished. No more family, no more society, no more nation. We have successfully destroyed the old world down to its foundation.

“What is good for the Jews” is not an appropriate objective for Americans or Europeans. They are not part of the American nation or any of the European nations, they are the Jewish nation, a people in their own right. But what is good for ALL nations is good for Jews and Americans and everyone else alike and what is bad for all nations is bad for Europeans and Asians and everyone else; nationalism is the only secular force strong enough to conquer globalism and it is in the interest of all nationalists to support the existence and objectives of all non-imperialist nationalisms.

This observation is somehow beyond the understanding of some nationalists of various types, who foolishly think that they are going to be the first nation to ever successfully oppose the entire world on their own, without any friends or allies. But it is nevertheless what both logic and history dictate.

The octopus seeks to strangle us all. Only through collective commitment to our division can we expect to withstand it.

Mailvox: America and Not-America

A people have the right to define themselves, whether they are in Texas or Catalonia:

I am in Dallas for a long weekend with my parents, and we went to the State Fair of Texas. Featured event: Grambling State vs. Prairie View AMU (both HBCUs) at the Cotton Bowl. We decided to go for the marching bands.

A bit to my surprise, everyone I could see in the stands stood for the national anthem. (The teams were not on the field at the time.) More to my surprise, there is a black national anthem. And they all joined in singing it, fists raised, where they hadn’t sung the national anthem.

Takeaway? They consider themselves blacks first, and Americans second.

They consider themselves to be a distinct people, a distinct nation, as is their right. It’s going to be fascinating to see how those who have always considered Confederate secessionists to have been racists and traitors try to get their heads around the growing movement towards black nationalism, particularly because black nationalists have no more use for white liberals than they do for white conservatives or the white Alt-Right.

We American Indians have our segregated and sovereign reservations. Why shouldn’t American whites and American blacks exercise the same Freedom of Association that is their unalienable right?

Partition of the United States is coming, whether you believe it or not, and it will most likely begin within the next two decades. I hope it will be accomplished peacefully, and with a reasonable amount of justice and good will on every side, but I am skeptical that this will be possible, in part because the vast majority of people are still hopelessly delusional about the very nature of the multinational empire in which they reside.

Skeptical nationalism

John Derbyshire contemplates Catalonia and California:

The great classic Chinese novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms opens with a sentence that any literate Chinese person can quote to you: 話說天下大勢, 分久必合, 合久必分 — “It has been said of all under Heaven that what was long divided must unite, what was long united must divide.”

As well as being a fair summary of four thousand years of Chinese history, that’s not a bad guide to history at large. Nations come together and merge; empires form then disintegrate.

Yes, there are those big historical tides ebbing and flowing. But we can form preferences related to our own time and place. Mine are nationalist, with a seasoning of skepticism.

Nationalism isn’t hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don’t understand them.

It is of course the case that our co-ethnics may be crazy beasts — North Korea‘s a nation; Khmer Rouge Cambodia was a nation — while the foreigners in that distant city might be benign and wise, or at any rate not life-threatening. The Middle East under the Ottoman Empire was not an exemplar of peace and justice, but it doesn’t compare badly with today’s Middle East.

The great British national conservative Enoch Powell, who fifty years ago gave those eloquent warnings about the evils of mass immigration, once said that if Britain were at war he would fight for Britain, even if it was a communist dictatorship.

The Greek poet in Byron’s Don Juan, living under the Ottoman Turks, likewise looked back to the Greek tyrants of antiquity and sighed:

Our masters then

Were still, at least, our countrymen.

I’m basically on the same page with these nationalists, but with reservations. When the Vietnamese army put an end to the Khmer Rouge government by invading Cambodia, most Cambodians hailed them as liberators. Perhaps I would have, too; perhaps even Enoch Powell would have.

So there are qualifications to be made about nationalism, especially small-country nationalism or sub-nationalism. You’re not drawing from a big pool of political talent there. I have mixed occasionally with Scottish and Welsh nationalists; let’s just say I wasn’t impressed.

Sub-nationalism like Catalonia’s is also in contradiction to nationalism proper. Who’s the truer nationalist: the Spanish citizen who would fight and die for Spain, or the Catalan separatist who feels the same way about his province?

Here you’re in the zone of differences that can only finally be decided by force of arms.

Derbyshire comes out for Spain, in the end, in favor of nationalism over sub-nationalism. I would be vastly more inclined to do so if Spain would also abjure the European Union; as usual, binary thinkers can’t seem to grasp the observation that neither side is good and both sides are idiots fighting over the right to be directly subservient to the European Commission on behalf of the Catalans.

The sour joke in Britain thirty years ago was that having fought eight hundred years for their independence, the Irish had then sold it for a package of EU agricultural subsidies. That’s not altogether fair. But looking at Ireland today gives you a jaded perspective on Irish nationalism. The seminaries are full of Nigerians [ How Catholicism fell from grace in Ireland, Chicago Tribune, July 92006] the cab drivers are all Polish; and the current Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, is an open homosexual whose father was an Indian born in Bombay. For this the heroes of 1916 faced the firing squads?

MPAI is one of the sad realities of history. Regardless, Derbyshire’s most important idea is here: We can call this alliance the Natintern, the Nationalist International. I’m still waiting for someone to come up with a suitable anthem, to be called of course The Nationale.

Civic Nationalism fail

Dear White Civic Nationalists,

What do you think these New Americans  U.S. citizens are going to do to Mt Rushmore when they outnumber you? What do you think they will do to the U.S. Constitution? And what do you think they will do to your children and grandchildren?

They are not here to assimilate. They are not here to become Americans. They are here to conquer and dispossess you and your posterity.

The Alt-Right

(with apologies to Fash McQween)