Open thread: r/K selection and politics

There has apparently been weak communication between the faction of the Right which considers r/K selection to be influential in politics and the faction (usually HBD folks like Evolutionistx and RaceRealist) who have either not expressed such views or rejected them.

Whichever side is correct, it seems apparent that patrifocal societies (Confucian, Indo-European, Abrahamic) are more right-wing/Authoritarian and more matrifocal ones (modern Sweden, many modern Germanic speaking countries) are more Left-wing/Totalitarian. Politics may ultimately depend on if women are trying to appease men (right-wing), or men trying to appease women (left-wing).

Still, r/K selection theory should be discussed so that the truth might be deduced on this matter.

Argue at will! (even if this is an old post by the time you come across it).

[if no one argues here, then argue somewhere else so that the reactosphere can reach a consensus on this issue]

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Open thread: r/K selection and politics

  1. My conclusion after learning about r/K was that it was a way to talk about tribal friction without explicitly addressing the taboos of talking about varying tribal strategies and their conflicts. Better to flatly state the widely observable characteristics of various tribes than try to universalize the phenomena. Tribes in control of de facto ethnostates are observably K at home and r abroad. Tribes without any state of their own tend to be r until and unless they are subsumed into another Tribe or get their own ethnostate. That’s about the only way I can see r/K being consistently in accordance with history. Breaking it down to an individual characteristic fails because there are too many Tribal interests and interaction to unpack.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for the comment! Your theory might be right.It does seem to be the behavior demonstrated by Europeans, Jews, and Africans. But why is it that some tribes are more willing to form de-facto ethnostates in the first place, while others, like white liberals, are hostile to the idea (I do not claim to know the answer to this, but it would be interesting).

      Like

      1. I think tribal strategy is like any other adaptive trait. It’s an expression of behaviors relevant to the environment, which includes other tribes that are part of typical interactions. Behaviors not conducive to reproductive and resource gathering success are weeded out over time.

        Europeans who were not somewhat liberal were weeded out by the necessity of being cooperative to facilitate the resource trade and/or conquest that made their proliferation possible. Ashkenazim who were not ethnocentric melted into the surrounding European tribes. The liberalization of Europe to facilitate continental and global expansion also selected Ashkenazim to become urban specialists.

        The problem of the current age; however, seems to result from just this relationship between the Ashkenazim and various European tribes. The niche of the Ashkenazim is currently enjoying all-time highs in terms of resource return. Yet, the liberalism that built international markets and made European tribes the wild success (allowing Ashkenazim success) is now long-past the point of diminishing returns.

        The open question in my mind is what does the world look like when there are no liberal tribes left? One would think that would produce societies that are not conducive to global markets and are openly hostile to diasporas like the Ashkenazim who rely upon an environment of liberalism both for their security and resource gathering niches.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I would agree. Economics has certainly selected for liberalism. Trade was instrumental in the evolution of the NW European middle class. If liberalism just suddenly went away you would probably have tribes fighting over land in order to obtain resources, just like throughout most of history. My guess is that some liberal traits will be selected out as liberals are having fewer kids, and we will end up with Westerners who are both shrewd in the marketplace and somewhat tribal (sort of like East Asians are today).

        Like

      3. I largely agree with your prediction. The trouble, I think, is that shrewd and ethnocentric liberalism is insufficient to maintain the economic systems that are in place. When you consider just how much of the world’s economy relies upon the blind trust of western liberals, it’s shocking to imagine what could come out of an absence of that trust.

        Though I’d rather the European tribes saved themselves, but you will almost certainly see the utter decimation of many European and European-diaspora economies as a result. Setting aside even the fallout of tribal conflicts, there are so many places in Europe that are simply unfit for autonomy with their current population numbers due to their lack of local resources.

        Sufficed to say, I see a dim future for what is evolving out of liberalism and it is likely this fear of post-liberal Europe that is driving their tribal elites (and the Ashkenazim Elites in those same circles) to the choice of tribal replacement. If sufficient liberalism cause a tribe to go effectively sterile, then the liberal elite must bring in new tribes within which to cultivate a new liberal population with positive growth.

        Of course, as we know, the liberal traits take a long time to show up in a tribe with enough significance to matter, much longer than it will take to destroy the modern West; therefor the current paradox. The only way for the Elites of the West to save the genes for general liberalism is for them to consciously institute explicitly illiberal policies. Namely, pushing out the illiberal tribes who’ve interloped and aggressively suppressing the most dysgenic liberal behaviors in their own tribes.

        Like

  2. I think r/K holds ground, but it’s much more maliable and grey than monolithic black and white.
    Also, a ton of other factors interfer. Look at this article here, for instace (a goy-aproved site, with a superficial article):
    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-inherited-distrust.html

    Also, another study said that over-ingestion of carbohidrates compared to fats and proteins leave people in a ultra-passive-pacifist state, and guess where people most consume pizza, ice cream, burgers, etc?

    But then we have JayMan (I think Elfno here knows him, like hbdchick) clayming that every personality trait is inheritable.

    So, yeah, many factors.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yep, I have been reading Jayman for a few years now. What you say about over-ingestion of carbs is interesting. It would mean that Liberalism, like cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity are all (to a large degree) modern/industrial/Western diseases. It would also explain why East Asians with their more balanced diet and smaller portion sizes are not suffering from the same pacifistic liberalism.

      I myself eat a limited amount of carbs and no sweets. I also consume a lot of grass fed meat and Avocados. Perhaps this explains why I am more right wing than my friends and family on the SAD diet.

      Thanks for the insights

      Like

      1. “It would also explain why East Asians with their more balanced diet and smaller portion sizes are not suffering from the same pacifistic liberalism.”

        I’m very well read on nutrition. I’ve never heard this before so I would hesitate to put too much stock into this. East Asians are going down the same path we are. Prostate cancer is another disease of civilization, and as East Asia adopts a Western diet, their rates of obesity and prostate cancer along with diabetes are exploding.

        More carbohydrate consumption is correlated with low income. Especially on America.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s