William F. Buckley’s passing brings out many statements that he is the father of modern conservatism. Is that true? In what sense is it true? Was Buckley really conservative? All his life or just at times?
The survival probability to some date T of something alive at t can be written p(t,T). The value of p(t,T) can be at most 1. For a human life it falls to zero as T increases.
We can look at survival probabilities of many things.
- Political organizations
We can stop at 10. Conservatism is presumably about increasing the survival probability of something or other. We can write conservatism as an optimization problem.
subject to constraints.
What might the constraints be?
- Current income.
- Current utility.
- Current consumption.
Lets compare this to Egalitariansim
Min Sum (x_i – xbar)^2
where the sum is over individuals i, and x_i is some measure like consumption, utility, fertility, etc.
For liberals these seems to include the probability of being in the West. I.e. each person on the earth has an equal chance to be in Western lands. This is the death of exclusion.
One version of liberalism is that any thing you hear about, make the outcomes equal. This doesn’t really distinguish or weight or discriminate between objectives, i.e. different x’s. If x is a variable, the outcome has to be equal. This is mindless sentimentality.
The objective functions of conservatism, maximize the survival probability and liberalism, maximize equality are radically different. The outcome from pursuing one or the other as a goal is also radically different. Survival probabilities will be lower under liberalism since that is not the objective function, and maximizing equality will impose a cost on survival probability.
Who are the thinkers who are pushing the program of maximizing survival probability in one way or another? The immigration restrictionists are. Some examples are Lawrence Auster, Vanishing American, Roy Beck, Peter Brimelow, Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer, Vdare in general, Jared Taylor, etc.
Many who are part of liberalism are really careerists. This includes the Clintons who are maximizing their own wealth. John Edwards is another example, a man who has chosen Wall Street and VC’s in a sell-out of the children of the mill who found computer programming jobs. Neocons are on the side of mindless equality. They are against immigration restriction. This means they are against maximizing survival probability as a goal, which means they are not conservative.
Mathematical Conservatism can be defined as a conservatism anchored in the mathematics of optimizing the survival probability of key variables subject to constraints. Those key variables include civilization, genes, and gene combinations. That means stopping immigration which is against all those things.
Mathematical Conservatism is closely related to traditionalism as Lawrence Auster and others advocate. However, by using the language of constrained optimization it can bring to bear the considerable machinery of operations research, mathematical probability, and economics developed in the 20th century.
Just as Law and Economics as a movement has transformed many arguments about law into calculation, so can Mathematical Conservatism. Simply restating traditional conservatism in the form of constrained optimization is sufficient to eliminate much of the nonsense that comes out of neocon think tanks.
The optimal immigration for the purpose of maximizing the survival probability of the West as a civilization and as genes is zero. This is, assuming that zero is the constraint. If we can go below zero, then the optimal is negative. This is the level the third world has now, and which Europe had in the 16 to 19th centuries, the centuries of the rise of European civilization.