[edited several times for more precise language]
[edited several times for more precise language]
I have decided to reevaluate my views on the application r/K selection theory to humans as done by Rushton and the Anonymous Conservative (whom I will refer to as AC). The blogger RaceRealist made a fairly good case that Rushton’s application (and by extension AC’s) of r/K selection theory to humans is based on false premises.
Race Realist responded to me in the following comment:
Thanks for being objective. That’s rare to find nowadays.I’ve spent years researching Rushton’s theory and thinking about how it applies to humans. Then I thought ‘Why only read what I agree with here when I don’t do that for other things?’ Then I found Judith Anderson’s ecology critique and then I went back to read the Graves paper that I just handwaved away.Rushton’s misapplication of r/K theory was based on Pianka’s (1970) r/K continuum. That’s wrong. Describing behaviors as ‘r’ or ‘K’ is stupid. r and K describe agents of selection. Endemic disease is an agent of K while cold winters are an agent of r—which Rushton completely reversed! He literally arbitrarily put r-selection to Africans and K to Eurasians because it ‘fit with the data’. True—it did.However where he went wrong was 1) treating human races as local populations (he’d need to look at one population in one ecosystem and compare it to another in a different one. These populations can be on the same continent (Africa) or two different ones (say, Africa and Northern Europe). 2) to apply the theory based on behaviors in modern environments makes no sense. Organisms MUST be studied in the environment that the selection was hypothesized to have occurred. Not doing so means it’s fine to disregard what he says about r/K selection in application to humans. Even omitting the racial comparisons doesn’t save it. 3) Evolutionary biologists and ecologists don’t even use the theory anymore.I’ve brought this up to PumpkinPerson and he won’t take to it. I’ve explained to him that Rushton reversed r and K for humans (if it were applicable to us) and he still spews Rushton’s garbage. I know that it’s tough to change your beliefs and then the backfire effect occurs (which occurs when you’re presented with new information then do anything you can to find information to back what you originally thought after presented with said new information). That’s one cognitive bias I’ve learned to nip in the bud recently. I’ve also found it much easier to change my view by reading new information myself.Now I’m at the bookstore every week in the biology section buying new books (I did this anyway) that are the opposite of what I believe to see what I think after. Constantly reevaluating your views is the logical—and intellectually honest—thing to do.So anyone who pushes this theory is pushing a wrong theory, and applying it to other aspects of our lives also makes no sense. Behaviors are not ‘r’ or ‘K’. Behaviors are responses to the selective agent—whether it is r or K. People like Anonymous Conservative, Stephan Molyneaux and the other guys you brought up then—by proxy—push a wrong theory. Read the papers provided and follow the references to read more in depth about how to apply it—and why it’s not in use anymore.This, then, leaves use with one troubling conclusion: anything based off of Rushton’s r/K selection theory is wrong by proxy. Rushton didn’t understand evolution and life history theory (r/K selection). I saw one critique of Rushton’s theory saying that ‘only a bad person would push a theory like this’. That’s a flawed retort. Ad hominem attacks in scholarly discussion do not work. Theories like Rushton’s must be deconstructed to show how and why they are wrong, lest other people believe something that is horribly flawed and incorrect.I’ll most definitely be showing others how and why Rushton is wrong as well. Rushton was wrong about a ton from penis size to testosterone. This is just the nail in the coffin.Rushton didn’t even reply to Graves or Anderson in print, take that for what you will.
… so now you know the gist of the problem I suppose.
Personally speaking, some of AC’s views have rubbed me the wrong way, largely because of his sometimes neoconservative bent. This is not to say he does not have more praiseworthy and transcendent ideas, he does, but this still does not overshadow larger problems: that r/K selection was not applied in the way it theoretically should have been, and that the theory itself is discredited: see RaceRealist’s recent blog post for details.
I previously wrote a post on Tolkien’s Elves and r/K selection theory, in which I described Tolkien’s elves as a K-selected ideal in a universal sense. I now reject this idea. However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the elves have managed to follow an evolutionary strategy which gives them high fitness in their usual habitats. Thier phenotypes are also characteristically Northern European. So I still think of the elf as a biological ideal, but not in a universal sense of being “the measure of all things”. Rather the elves are a particular aristocratic ideal of the Germanic and to a certain degree Insular Celtic peoples who first conceived of them in their mythologies (and yes, just as some elves have dark hair, a minority of Germanic people such as King Halfdan the Black did/do as well).
From a Jungian perspective, the elf is an archetype which is part of the collective unconscious of Northwestern Europeans. It is, in my view, what would normally direct them (or perhaps I should say us given that I am a NW Euro) on a eugenic evolutionary path. This can be completed through selection for biological fitness in one’s environment and through endogamy within a biologically related clade or “subrace” (while excluding 1st – 3rd cousin marriages). The result is a eugenic biological transcendence from the parent race, and species, to form a new aristocratic clade.
As an end note, the current demographic pressures on the NW European gene pool may act as the refining fire from which a new aristocratic clade will emerge. Remember: it is always darkest before the dawn and what does not kill us will only make us stronger.
Interesting article on ethnocentrism:
“I have in this War a burning private grudge—which would probably make me a better soldier at 49 than I was at 22: against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler (for the odd thing about demonic inspiration and impetus is that it in no way enhances the purely intellectual stature: it chiefly affects the mere will). Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien,
Because of heavy school work, I plan to lower my posting frequency for the next few months. Keep in mind if you choose to browse older posts of mine that they are likely to be more and more ‘immature’ the farther back you go, that doesn’t mean that they don’t contain any valid information, but they are likely to seem a bit odd to newer members of my audience.
In the mean time, I will now provide a link to a philosophy channel on Youtube since some individuals have asked me, as well as Curt Doolittle, where to start on studying philosophy or various philosophers. The name of the channel: Rules of the Mind. There is also a traditional Catholic MGTOWist named Mark who has done some very thorough videos especially on Nietzsche you can click this link to go to his Youtube channel. (I haven’t been incorporating Nietzsche into my posts with the intent of annoying Christians; if Mark has learned something from Nietzsche, I think Nietzsche is of some worth to Christians).
Now since someone commented on my previous post bringing up the fact that male members of K-selected species are masculinized, and that this conflicts with the somewhat androgynous appearance of the elves (who have many K-selected traits), I will now show visual examples of the masculinity which male elves possess in spite of their beardlessness and long hair.
Feanor and his followers
Thranduil and Elrond:
The Noldor and Vanyar
There is a perverse tendency among some members of the right to equate ugliness and stupidity with masculinity. One of the reasons I began this blog in the first place was to counter this tendency.
The archetypal duality between the aesthetically harmonious, refined, intelligent man, and the extremely strong, bearded (I’m not saying beards are necessarily ugly), unintelligent one is actually quite old and can be seen in the Norse deities of Baldur and Thor, as well as in Greek myth in the conflicting characters of Apollo (beardless, intellectual) and Heracles (bearded, strong, unrefined). Because male elves visually tend to embody the former archetype more than the latter (in their behavior they often embody both), there is a tendency to see them as effeminate; I don’t exactly see them this way; they are just a different type of masculine than many are accustomed to.
In the United States, these two conflicting male archetypes were brought over, respectively, by the refined Cavaliers to the Virginia Tidewater, and the rough backcountry Scotch-Irish to Appalachia. This has, of course, led to vastly different cultural trajectories for these two areas of the South. Having grown up in the area of the US where the Cavaliers settled, I suppose that I was influenced by their ideas about aesthetics and masculinity, and you will find this reflected throughout my blog.
In this post, I am publishing a theory that I have regarding the morality of the villains presented in Tolkien’s novels. Though many villains exist throughout his corpus — dragons, orcs, ungoliants, Suaraman, balrogs, and more — I will be focusing on the main two: Melkor and Sauron. Please note that what I am publishing here is at best a theory, I am not an experienced Nietzsche scholar, though I do find his writings enlightening. It should be remembered, not only for this post but all of mine, that my theories are not usually born perfect, and are almost necessarily modified over a period of time for their improvement. This post will also contain mild criticism of Abrahamic religion in general due to its efforts to create a ‘universal tribe’.
The Ubermensch or Superman of Nietzche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra appears as a goal towards which humans in their present state are supposed to evolve. However, I suggest that the Ubermensch is something much more deeply embedded in the human consciousness. It is literally the goal that we internally understand we must evolve towards, an archetype which reappears over and over again. A video I link to here briefly summarizes Nietzsche’s Ubermensch as having the qualities of the self-creation of values, independently thinking, strategic selfishness, pagan values, lack of resentment of other’s success, acceptance of suffering, recognizing their strength have gentleness towards the weak, and delight in their own abilities. Watching this video does not replace reading Nietzsche, of course, and there are other minor characteristics of the Ubermensch which I have not listed here, but the ones I have listed are sufficient to show, in the following examples, that the Ubermensch is not just a reality we are destined towards, but some innate, perhaps divine, idea implanted in our consciousness guiding us to become who we are.
Let us first take for example self-creation of values, which is a recurring theme of Nietzsche’s worldview. We should all consider the fact that none of us are truly free until we grasp the self-creation of values. This is perhaps the centerpiece of a (dare I say) Aryan (i.e. free or noble) worldview. It can clearly be seen in the character of Thranduil from The Hobbit, whose values are not swayed by the opinion of others. Instead, he independently forms opinions regarding the situations and persons he comes in contact with.
Thranduil’s self-creation of values remains a constant theme from his imprisonment of Thorin to his declaration of war on Erebor, and eventual respect for the deceased dwarf Kili. Over the course of the entire narrative, however, this self-creation of values usually manifests itself through another characteristic of the Ubermensch, strategic selfishness. Thranduil is selfish, but not in a rash, unorganized manner. He systematically uses his own power to prevent Thorin from entering Erebor and obtaining gems which belong to him (see this video). Once Thorin manages to enter, he strategically attempts to reclaim his gems in the mountain through trading the Arkenstone (which fails). Then when orcs attack Erebor, and he must ally with the dwarves, after much futile fighting he wishes to recall his forces from the battle and let the dwarves die to save the blood of his elven kin. However, Thranduil also has a compassionate side; his gentleness towards the weak, in fact, appears twice; first, when he supplies the impoverished former residents of Laketown with food, and when he comforts Tauriel after the death of Kili. Thranduil also seems to delight in his own abilities; his skill at sword fighting is superhuman, and one almost gets the sense that he enjoys slicing the heads off of orcs.
To match this, his speech is almost always poetic and has the same well-honed effect of his physical sword. It is clear from these attributes that Thranduil and perhaps many other elves who show similar qualities at times (all elves are by nature superhuman), such as Galadriel, are outward manifestations of the Ubermensch, a deeply buried archetype, which is here expressed through Tolkien, and the film contributors associated with Peter Jackson.
The archetype of the Nietzschean Ubermensch does not only spring up in Western, Indo-European cultures, however. An example from Japanese anime, Haruka Nanase (Haru) of Free! , exemplifies many of the attributes of this archetype. Like Thranduil, Haru constantly exercises the self-creation of values. From the time he is a child he insists on only swimming free and continues to resist being held to external standards up to the time that he takes up swimming as a career. He clearly lacks the strategic selfishness of Thranduil, and this helps to make the character more ‘cute’ and child-like. However, he exceeds Thranduil at not resenting the success of others. Thranduil is obviously resentful of Thorin’s power, yet Haru is never resentful of the success of his rival Rin Matsuoka. Even when Rin beats Haru in a race and brags about it to Haru’s face saying he will never have to swim with Haru again, Haru does not become angry or resentful. Instead, he is very calm and controlled, and thus amazingly exemplifies one of the softer qualities of the Ubermensch, gentleness towards the weak. Later when Rin’s unstable psychological state causes him to swim very poorly in a race, Haru recognizes the emotional weakness within Rin and does what he can to help Rin overcome his emotional burden by inviting Rin (against the rules) to swim in a relay with him.
Haru also shows some traces of pagan values in his personality, for instance, he has an animistic view of the water in which he swims, and wishes to interact with it as though it were a conscious entity. Pagan values are a recurring theme in Free!, being set in Japan, where Shintoism is a strong part of the culture.
If you watch all the episodes of Free! including the movie Starting Days it seems clear that Haru’s persona as a “superman” is quite evident to the other characters. One character in Starting Days, Asahi Shiina, is so impressed with Haru’s talent at swimming that he even has trouble believing that Haru is a normal human, capable of dying if someone tried to kill him, until one day Haru passes out from low blood sugar. Another character in this movie, Ikuya Kirishima, seems to see Haru as an Ubermensch in much the same way I describe the archetype here, as someone to emulate, or a “guide” or blueprint for the development of a more advanced self.
There are many more manifestations of the Ubermensch as an archetype than the ones I have described above. These two, however, demonstrate the somewhat universal, cross-cultural, nature of this archetype, which dwells in the depths of our consciousness, constantly pushing us, and our biological kin, towards arete, excellence in every sense possible. Thus, though Nietzsche proclaimed “God is dead”, he seems to have supplied us with an eternal God, as real as the evolution of life in the universe, and the universe itself.