I'm not sure about this Neanderthal/Sapiens split, the theory may have been forbidden at one time but not anymore, but overall it is a good introduction to r/K theory.
Personally I see a huge split between stupid extroverts and smart introverts. I also consider leftists to be mentally-ill children.
Intro of the r vs. K concept
r/K selection theory is an incredibly powerful paradigm, capable of flaying a liberal’s mind faster than any other concept on the planet.
r stands for reproductive focus – the rabbit strategy of pumping out lots of cheap offspring and fucking whatever moves. It’s a response to overwhelming predation.
K stands for competitive focus – the wolf strategy of mating for life and raising pups together, teaching them to hunt and integrate socially with the pack. It’s a response to selective pressure for individual excellence.
A racist example
Since I’m a straight to the point kind of guy, I’ll start with the most racist example possible.
Negro Sub-Saharan Africa is r-selective. Selection pressures overwhelm individual merit, taking random individuals and population swathes. Fecundity rapidly repopulates to carrying capacity. A farmer who attempts to build or save will be attacked by his neighbors because he threatens their long-term r investment.
White glacial Europe was K-selective. The smart survived. The dumb froze or starved. Fecundity focused on stable, slow growth. Hence, Neanderthal man evolved the capacity for thought.
Confused? Keep this glossary in mind for future reference throughout this post:
r = fecundity selection = liberal = Sapiens = extrovert
K = competitive selection = conservative = Neanderthal = introvert
Also, this entire post is written in reaction to the free content written by Anonymous Conservative at http://www.anonymousconservative.com. If you’re unable to access his site, and you get a “missing index file” error, try using this proxy: http://www.freewebproxy.asia.
Mechanisms of r/K expression shifts in society
There are three primary mechanisms by which the ratio of r/K expression shifts in a society:
1. Environmental cues alter psychology and biology during childhood development
2. Changes in the population’s underlying genetic ratio
3. Changes in social promotion
Together, these produce the cycle of history, in which hardship creates a superior K selected group, which conquers, prospers, becomes r-selected, and collapses.
r/K theory also fully explains the American political bipolar spectrum of left-liberal vs. right-conservative. However, the story is a little more complex, because America is a decadent empire in decline, so both sides are mostly r.
Let’s start by talking about some of the simpler implications of r/K theory first, before we tackle hairy topics like contemporary America.
Simple enough for ya?
Homosexuality is a dishonorable mating strategy
In one of the pdfs, AC (Anonymous Conservative) describes the complex and chivalrous mating combat of the Australian Giant Cuttlefish. A subset of males cheat at this competition, adopting the coloration and appearance of a female in order to skip the combat, mate quickly, and sneak away.
This example finally provides an evolutionary justification for homosexuality. Mimicking a female gives the Anticompetitive cuttlefish access to females, which he would otherwise never acquire. Likewise, almost all human fags are bisexual, and many men become gay only after failing with women. Being gay permits the occasional “experimental” bang with a girlfriend. Hence the K male’s aversion to fags and fag hags. To quote:
“the Anticompetitor is designed to avoid engaging in these competitions, while still seeking advantage within the competitive environment through violations of the rules of honor which govern the competition.”
Hatred for liberals is genetic
These quotes are all coming from AC’s website:
“…Competitors who evolved to revile those who violated the Competitive strategy. These groups would easily dominate such a group competition. Individuals that were imbued with a fierce contempt for cowardice, a hatred for selfishness, and aversions towards such behaviors as interference in free competitions between men, opportunistic advantage taking, rule breaking, sexual sneaking and disloyalty to the group would form, and function within, successful groups unusually well.”
In other words, homophobia is not latent homosexuality, it is a rational genetic strategy. As is hating hippies.
Feminism is r-type
“In r-type populations, females exhibit more male traits, such as increased size, aggression, and competitiveness. In this milieu, this is an effective aspect of an r-strategy, as r-females need to both provide for their offspring, and fend off threats, due to male abandonment.
It is interesting that modern feminism, so often associated with the left, exhibits a denigrating view of the rewards offered by offspring rearing, an embrace of sexual liberation for women (ie promiscuity), a denigrating view of men which would facilitate short-term mating relationships, as well as an increased drive to compete aggressively alongside males, in traditionally male endeavors.”
Likewise, r-type males will become more effeminate.
A deeper look at r-selected psychology and childhood development
Next let’s look at those twisted little minds.
Liberalism is brain damage
“Amygdala damage in monkeys produces total loss of threat aversion, hyper-sexuality with inappropriate partners, and diminished child rearing investment.” (All of which are r-type strategies.)
An unstable childhood makes for a liberal adult
“an Anticompetitor is likely to be an individual who has received cues in childhood indicating that as an adult, they will prove uncompetitive with Competitor peers.”
Whereas, if the environment was more hospitable,
“Individuals would then adopt a psychology geared towards an adherence to social rules, diminished personal selfishness, monogamy, formation of stronger, more loyal pair bonds between mates (itself an exhibition of competitive intent), and they would actually delay the onset of puberty, possibly in an effort to optimally increase maturity and ability prior to competing for a mate”
So a liberal is someone who,
“…during the earliest years of an individual’s life, would detect cues within their environment that survival was going to prove difficult, and their life would likely be short and harsh. These individuals would develop a psychology geared towards opportunistic advantage taking, rule breaking, promiscuity, depersonalization of mates, and they would also enter puberty earlier. It was proposed that the adoption of this psychological and biochemical path was an attempt to simply mate and reproduce as quickly as possible, with as little investment in childrearing as possible”
In other words, a born loser.
Younger brothers tend to be more r-type.
The older brother or sister dominates him in childhood, signaling that he will be outcompeted.
Thus, the first child should be a son to maximize K.
(Take that, little bro.)
Liberals are fattie-fucking losers.
A summary of the liberal mind:
“One strategy will pessimistically avoid the fear of a competition that they feel destined to lose, while mating desperately with any mate available.”
Liberals cannot face the world without government protection.
“What is described in the paper is a desire to restrict individual actions through rules, so as to eliminate uncertainty in interpersonal outcomes.”
T. Gondii exacerbates this – cat ownership. Ouch.
Meat eating is conservative, vegetarianism is liberal
Herding or hunting are high skill, high investment competitive activities for apex predators. Foraging isn’t. The brain responds to the diet by shifting in either direction. Neanderthals were herders; Sapiens foragers.
“Watership Down” understands liberalism perfectly
If you’ve read “Watership Down”, you’ll remember the episode of the barrow of the snare. The protagonists were instantly welcomed, though they were outsiders. The vivid sickness of the barrow’s mad poet. The wrongness and easy sex of the place – all driven by overwhelming predation. The horror of the natives when the snare was defeated – liberals don’t want to win.
For a perfect example of the sickness of our contemporary poets, see the music video “The Wall” by Pink Floyd. He wallows in his agonized pleasure as his one-night-stand bangs another r-type. He despises and caricatures fascist K values. He’s obsessed with the mass warrior culling of WWI, and with creating a socialist society, and with rebelling against social rules. A perfect journey through a crippled and pathetic psyche.
The Neanderthal female
If all that was too depressing, here’s a lighter note. Once upon a time, women judged a man for his chivalric grace in defeat, as much as his prowess in victory. With the return of K-selection, that time will come again.
“a Competitor male’s willingness to shoulder the risk of failure in competition likely arose as a sacrifice, wisely demanded by the females looking to maximize their own competitive advantage.”
Who’s more warlike: K’s or r’s?
K’s get a bad rap because they’re warriors. But warriors do less fighting than cowards, at the end of the day. Here’s why.
The pyschopathic leader problem of r-societies
One of the main reason r societies tend to commit so much government violence is that they are dominated by psychopaths. These psychopaths must stay in power, despite ruling an incompetent population that demands perpetual abundance. The solution is always to kill a bunch of people.
AC writes of Communism/Socialism/Marxism:
“…every such movement has its leaders chosen by individuals with deficient amygdalae, who cannot see the threat until it confronts them openly, and are programmed to appease any such threat once it is perceived.”
Hello, Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot/ *snort* Kim Il Jong.
K’s are not the war party
AC (AnonymousConservative) identifies K’s as the War Party. This is not quite correct. K’s are not AFRAID of war. r’s are. However, r’s will tend to engage in far more war than K’s. This is because K’s are fundamentally isolationist, while r’s are fundamentally universalist.
When you combine r’s universalism, tendency to promote predatory leaders, and general incompetence, you get a recipe for psychopaths misdirecting attention from home misrule by blaming and demonizing the Other and engaging in endless wars of aggression or internal democide.
The same pattern simply does not occur in K-dominated societies. A rational K is unlikely to engage in wars of aggression unless he possesses an overwhelming military advantage that renders cost negligible. An r will engage in wars regardless of cost. And a K will never commit democide because it violates chivalry and sanctity of life, while an r values neither.
The classic example of a supposed K-driven war is the 4th Reich’s blitzkreig, eventual overreach and collapse. One could also point to the Napoleonic wars. However, these were actually patinas of K-rhetoric painted over heavily r-driven societies. Both were broken, weak, heavily socialist, and needed misdirection to permit the psychopaths at the top to maintain power over the r masses. For comparison, the Soviet Union was far bloodier, despite employing a purely r rhetoric.
More accurate examples of K driven wars would be European colonization of the territories of the low-IQ races, and the Mongol conquest of Asia. These were rationally justified wars supported by the rhetoric of competitive superiority. Likewise, we can see in Sparta a strong K-selective pattern, while Athens in its fall was seduced to stupidity by r dynamics which led to the rise of a foolish and predatory leadership.
The mainstream conservative movement in America employs a mixed r- and K-rhetoric to justify a mostly r platform, that is only K by comparison to the American leftist movement, which employs purely r-rhetoric to justify a more extreme version of the same thing. Contemporary America does not have a mainstream K movement, because it is a decadent empire.
Liberals practice total war, Neanderthals practice chivalry
Amongst themselves, K’s engage in ritual limited combat and abide by the results without envy, to permit the fittest to breed.
Liberals are programmed to break such rules. Thus their wars are total, and they frequently practice both genocide and democide on unspeakable scales.
r’s do not value life, since it is easily replaceable by promiscuous breeding. K’s value life, since they want to keep their group strong to defeat other groups.
The exception – K’s are willing to genocide inferior populations, as in colonialism and the Mongol hordes. r’s are psychologically horrified by genocide for inferiority’s sake (except when under the extreme duress characterized by modern socialist fascism), but will eagerly genocide in the name of righteousness, fairness, equality, etc.
Darwin was right, Dickens was wrong
“Conservatism will produce a society in which there will be a certain constant, low level of discomfort among those who lack ability, effort and determination. Those who fail to succeed will receive little help from the government, and will be forced to endure privation, while exerting themselves mightily.”
This is the only effective form of eugenic birth control – the constant low-grade stress of privation. Let the poor reproduce until they cannot stand the scarcity any longer.
“By contrast, Liberalism will tend to produce periods devoid of discomfort, as they redistribute resources to the more r-type psychologies, and other less successful individuals within the society. However, as the r-type individuals increase in number, you will see a gradual reduction of the population’s abilities, and a concomitant diminution in production. If history is a guide, this will produce a sudden collapse of the society, and sudden massive increase in discomfort for all. Thus where Conservatism would produce a small level of constant discomfort, Liberalism will produce alternating waves of greater comfort, and enormous misery.”
This is the true intended purpose of the Federal Reserve – to create a perpetual “period devoid of discomfort,” while preventing “a sudden collapse.”
Thus, r domination = guaranteed collapse, absent heavy predation. Whereas K domination = guaranteed stable growth.
“In short, Reagan was right. There is no left or right, there really is only an up or down. One strategy promotes pro-socialty, (K-type) morality, success, and Darwinian advancement, through simply granting men freedom. While a complementary ideology supports anti-sociality, (r-type) immorality, failure, and Darwinian devolution, through the imposition of uniform government oppression.”
And of course, instability and collapse guarantee war.
How genetic shifts in r/K ratio work
So how fast can a population shift its genetic ratio of r vs K genes?
Pro-K genetic shifts in r/K ratio happen slowly
AC assume that a society can shift its genetic r/K ratio rapidly. I disagree. While it’s possible that major events like wars or class purges can decimate the K population, the r population is essentially ineradicable.
In fact, the only way to move the needle on r is to subject an insular breeding population to several hundred years of intense selection, ala the Ashkenazim.
Why? Because the population ratio is not 50/50. It’s 80/20, favoring r. And since K doesn’t do fecundity blooms, this means that it’s possible to LOSE K quickly, but not possible to GAIN it quickly.
So aside from genocide-level events and the rare accidental evolutionary hothouse, we need a different explanation for the shifts in societal tenor that occur so regularly throughout history.
We can arguably see permanent K-loss in many previously successful empires that seemingly exhaust themselves and sink into oblivion, never reviving, but instead being absorbed by other, more vigorous peoples. However, this explanation only applies to a small percentage of cases.
The major explanation for the “phases of empire” that Sir John Glubb has so astutely expounded, is not changes in genetic r/K ratio, but changes in social promotion. Early rising empires promote K’s to power and influence; late decadent ones promote r’s.
r societies never fully eliminate K’s
Even with the r’s in charge, things rarely get bad enough that the K’s can’t reproduce. r’s mostly fight amongst themselves – or prey on each other. Thus the genetic population ratio remains stable at around 80/20.
How to permanently defeat the r’s
Getting pretty damn tired of the r’s by now? Me too. So how do we get rid of those pesky cock-a-roaches?
Space might be the solution
If humanity ever manages to GET to space, we might enter a phase of permanently K-driven evolution. Space is a lot like glacial Europe – hostile to life.
How many think Obama is going to put a man on Mars?
Better start looking for plan B.
r’s are better at internal competition in large groups
The problem is that r’s have one natural superiority over K’s – a greater aptitude for navigating large dynamic social groupings. Thus, the more a society leaves environmental K pressure behind, the greater the probability that the r’s will take over.
K’s can neutralize r’s by becoming the Distant Other
r’s are psychological ninjas when it comes to defeating the Near Other, who does not detect the threat. But they are hardwired to appease the Distant Other.
When K’s forcefully assert their absolute distinctness from r’s, and begin to mercilessly ostracize and antagonize them, the r’s will flip to appeasement.
The best argument against Liberalism is that Neanderthals are a separate species. By underlining our implacable enmity and difference, we become sympathetic and non-threatening.
Makes no sense? Well, that just means your amygdala is working.
Hence the name of this post – “Death to the Extroverts.”
I’m dead serious. If it worked for the Black Panthers, it can work for us.