Read on Twitter
One sentiment I see a lot in the dissident right is "Being rootless is bad" and I really want to push back against that. In my observation there is a consistent pattern of nomads with high social cohesion out performing settled people.
Individually, nomads tend to face higher death rates while collectively they tend to be much more resilient. A lot of this is the difference in the pattern between wins and losses in settled vs nomadic peoples.
Settled people tend to have lots of consistent little wins, right up until they take a big L which tends to end their society in about the same way as a full stop ends a sentence.
Conversely, nomads have a tendency to take lots of little Ls, right up until they score huge wins, often at the expense of settled people.
There are of course lots of modes of nomadic life. They can range from wandering bands of hunter-gatherers, to steppe people on horseback, to wagon train pioneers and settlers, to being a wandering merchant diaspora who specialise in the provision of financial services.
Our misfortunes at the hand of that last one probably motivate a lot of the resentment towards the nomadic way of life, even though, especially if you live in a colony or are an immigrant, you are probably descended from nomads yourself.
I am sceptical that doubling down on settled life is going to be a winning proposition. I believe that learning how to be an effective nomad and in particular putting together your own band of fellow travellers, is going to work out much better in the long run.
When you are regularly on the move, you have only each other to rely upon. And I think that such a difficult circumstance is really the most effective way to build up that social capital you need.
