PPD and r/K

Ideological categorization is the astrology of politics, in the sense that it panders to insatiable identity hunger. This post still holds the daily traffic record here, which is probably not entirely due to people looking for their political star signs, but neither is it mostly for other reasons. New approaches to the Left-Right spectrum — the Prime Political Dimension — promise master-keys to the secrets of identity-core opinion.

Given the quite absurdly competitive nature of the terrain, there is something truly remarkable about the simplicity and persuasiveness of this PPD-model, based upon the biological distinction between r/K selection strategies. The application of this distinction to humans is — I confidently assume — radioactively controversial. Its usage as a conceptual tool to collapse ideology into an axis of Human Biological Diversity is therefore undoubtedly disreputable. (This trigger-warning isn’t likely to act as much of a deterrent here.)

The ‘Anonymous Conservative’ theory does the most important things expected of a PPD-model. In particular, it provides an explanation for the polarized clusters of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ traits, which have often proved highly resistant to reflective integration. Why should anti-capitalism, pacifism, and sexual laxity belong together? When grouped together as expressions of an r-type strategy, this bundle of seemingly unconnected ideological predispositions tightens into an intuitively coherent whole.

Worth special mention is the mapping of ideological difference onto environmental conditions. The (‘liberal’) r-type strategy is a response top conditions of resource abundance, versus (‘conservative’) K-type adaptation to scarcity. When augmented by some modest assumptions about the effects of r-type prevalence upon the persistence of Civilization, the r/K PPD-model automatically generates a cyclical history of social ascent and decline (through a biorealist abundance-decadence mechanism). The hope-crushing tragic structure is sure to appeal to reactionary sensibilities.

The Outside in prediction: This is a theory (and book) that will go far. You can read the first chapter here.

August 19, 2014admin 36 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

36 Responses to this entry

  • Hurlock Says:


    That Anonymousconservative post on r/K selection is probably the most important essay I’ve read this year.

    (Yet I wonder, how didn’t I realize any of that before?)

    This is a theory that will go very far indeed.


    John Reply:

    Seconded on all counts.

    This sort of insight is for me the essence of NRx.

    It also lends greater context to the eugenic-dysgenic cycles theory.

    One question comes to mind. If black populations are the most r-selected, shouldn’t they produce the least violent, least physically imposing males? The opposite is true, yet there are also many flashy/effeminate r-selected types among the black male population.

    Makes me wonder if the capacity to oscillate rapidly between r/K expression is yet another genetic characteristic, as I’ve observed myself switching r/K behavior patters at various intervals in my life.


    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    Violence is anti-social; anti-social behavior tends to wear the fabric of social cohesion. Greater social cohesion implies greater gains to higher, more leveraged investment, i.e. more K-selected behavior and attitudes.


    Posted on August 19th, 2014 at 2:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner (@heresiologist) Says:

    AC has a whole other strain of thought of “amygdala hyjacking” of progs/narcissists which is worthy of study and experiment for NRx meme creation and debate.


    Izak Reply:

    That was the first thing I read by AC, and I thought it was complete bunkum.


    Posted on August 19th, 2014 at 3:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mike Says:

    An excellent book, and I strongly recommend his blog as well.

    He gives his book away free on Kindle every now and again (that’s how I got my copy).


    Posted on August 19th, 2014 at 3:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Puzzle Privateer (@PuzzlePrivateer) Says:

    Human beings are K-selected species and as John (Aug 19, 2:53pm) points out above it doesn’t really fit Africans and let’s not forget how genocidal those r-selected Progs were in the French & Russian revolutions. In a full analysis AnonCon’s idea is almost certainly wrong.

    However, I think it points the way to behavioral truths at least about Europeans.


    Chris B Reply:

    I would say Africans are slap bang into the middle of a R selection binge if population rates in west Africa are a sign. In USA same, but with shooting and abortion keeping numbers down.
    As for progs in France and Russia – surely their genocide was not based on a survival strategy, but on a utopia strategy – ultimate decadence. There belief in abundance led them to try and bring everyone else into the utopia.


    Puzzle Privateer (@PuzzlePrivateer) Reply:

    For the progs in france I mean that they weren’t the giant pussies r/K tries to make r’s out to be.


    John Reply:

    Yes, that’s what I was getting at. The article depicts r-type individuals as effete and conflict avoidant, whereas various r-selected groups have plenty of violent, high testosterone types. The point about genocidal leftists also raises questions…

    Clearly there is a lot going on here. Many of the r/K generalizations fall apart and/or have many non-trivial exceptions.

    For me the most illustrative bit is the behavior of the bacterial colonies in abundance vs scarcity environments.

    Posted on August 19th, 2014 at 3:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    Can this be integrated into the Hyperborean/ Atlantean theory. Will each exhibit it differently?
    What exactly triggers R/K in humans?
    Is the great disaster at present the combination of R selection + contraception? Previous conditions being such that K selection was stimulated in lower classes, whist R was enacted in higher classes who actually had the children – thinking of Wade’s book here (hence the greater conservativeness of the middle and lower classes normally) whilst now all are moving to R selction due to welfare, fastfood etc etc (but again, contraception is stifling the growth rate, except in culture not using contraception).


    Mike Reply:

    I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the bourgeois left is something that came into existence because of contraception – the bourgeois left is essentially high-IQ r-selectors.


    Posted on August 19th, 2014 at 3:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    Cochran completely rejects this theory


    Chris B Reply:



    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    In the comments here


    Cochran doesn’t go into detail in explaining his objection to the theory, but his reaction should encourage us to look closely at the theory before adopting it. One of those ideas that is a little too convenient and tends to confirm our biases.


    Chris B Reply:

    “One of those ideas that is a little too convenient and tends to confirm our biases.” very true. I read the AC website a while back and was put off by the partisan tone.

    Puzzle Privateer (@PuzzlePrivateer) Reply:

    AnonCon’s comments start here:


    Interesting read, and yeah Cochran doesn’t like it.

    Hurlock Reply:

    It would be nice if he at least tried to explain why he doesn’t like it.


    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    Yes, it would have been.

    But for one thing, it is very difficult to credibly portray the liberal overclass as following a strategy of low parental investment, early maturity and high growth rate.


    Chris B Reply:

    It’s a real shame, because it would place the recurring left/right axis on a biological basis. There must still be one, the best suggestion I can supply is levels of Oxtocin maybe? that and outbreeding/ inbreeding relating to Hyperborea/ Atlantis theory?

    Posted on August 19th, 2014 at 4:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Puzzle Privateer (@PuzzlePrivateer) Says:

    He should have used Life History Theory instead. It was developed out of r/K theory as far as I know.



    Puzzle Privateer (@PuzzlePrivateer) Reply:

    What I mean is: Life History Theory is accepted as applied to humans whereas r/K is not. Your species is r or K, but subgroups or individuals can have Fast or Slow life history.


    Puzzle Privateer (@PuzzlePrivateer) Reply:

    Take this paper for example:


    Fast life histories, not pathogens, account for state-level variation in homicide, child maltreatment, and family ties in the U.S.
    Joseph Hackman; Daniel Hruschka
    (Profiled Author: Daniel Jacob Hruschka)
    Evolution and Human Behavior. 2013;34(2):118-124.

    ScopusFull text | Abstract
    Parasite stress theory has recently been used to account for an array of cross-cultural differences in human cognition and social behavior, including in-group bias, interpersonal violence, child maltreatment, and religious adherence. Here, we re-assess the apparently ubiquitous effects of parasite stress on behavior observed in the U.S., using the cross-sectional, cross-population approach implemented by prior pathogen stress studies. Our results raise two challenges to previous findings. First, we show that the observed effects of pathogen stress in the U.S. data are due exclusively to one type of infectious disease – sexually transmitted diseases (STD) – while non-STD infections have no effect. Second, we find that controlling for life history measures of extrinsic risk and a fast life history erases the observed associations with family ties, interpersonal violence, child fatalities, and religious adherence. Thus, after appropriate variable specification, stratification, and control, U.S. cross-state population differences provide no support for the pathogen stress hypothesis in these various domains of behavior. Rather, the findings are more consistent with predictions from life history theory. © 2013 Elsevier Inc.


    Posted on August 19th, 2014 at 5:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Says:

    “put off by the partisan tone.”


    His clear disdain for “liberals” undermines the credibility of his theorizing, which, if followed to its logical conclusion, should engender admiration for their opportunistic, r-selected, vibrance.


    Posted on August 19th, 2014 at 5:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    My prediction is that this theory goes nowhere.

    I’ve noticed it before from blogs like Mangan and Heartiste and I found it difficult to believe then. They seem to have swallowed it wholesale. I find it nonsensical. But I appreciate the link to his overall argument (and the one from the Greg Cochran blog).

    One issue is that he relies on pre-loaded meanings and connotations that have no clear modern equivalent to the evolutionary theory. Like if you look at the way he defines “competition,” it comes with a totally fixed definition related in some way to capitalism or warfare. The postmodern left is highly competitive. Political Correctness is a doctrine of moral competitiveness. Most of leftist morality has to do with White people trying to out-compete each other to be the most pure. They rarely hold any nonwhites to the same standards, if ever, not because they’re averse to outgroup competition, but because they absolutely know there’s no chance in hell for anyone else besides them. This sort of extreme moral competitiveness often affects how they behave in terms of their political posturing.

    Another huge issue is that Anonymous Conservative conflates the actual behaviors of each political group and policies they promote. He seems to think that Leftists promote r-selection because they themselves behave that way. They don’t — not the serious ones. The most civically engaged Leftists have small litters, they’re less promiscuous, they’re more masturbatory if anything, and conservatives are the ones going out and banging each other all the time. Who does Anonymous Conservative think invented the concept of “Marital Rape”? It’s one of the policies that the Left is very concerned with applying to themselves. (The black underclass who supports the Democrats, on the other hand, rarely complain about marital rape but definitely make use of the r-selection benefits that the Left promotes).

    The problem with ham-fistedly generalizing about political strategy is that for most people in the US and Europe, politics is totally abstract and divorced from immediate practical concerns. What people want ideally in their minds isn’t going to be what they actually do in real life. This is why a lot of times people are total hypocrites and try to implement policies that will directly go against their own natures, or at least offer the freedom to do so. It’s the old cliche about the slut who thinks the government ought to ban sex, so she won’t have to live such a shameful life. People run away from themselves, and their fantasies play out in the realm of politics, which is oftentimes as much about building a new reality as much as it is about trying to practically acommodate the existing state of affairs. White people are especially pesky because they seem to want to do the former more than anyone else. Nobody fails to understand that politics is the art of the possible more than White people, and nobody does the a greater amount of stuff in the Western world than them.


    Posted on August 20th, 2014 at 4:16 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    The association between leftism and pacifism seems like the easiest of Anonymous Conservative’s claims to refute. Lenin has got to be pretty much the gold standard of leftism, and he was no pacifist.

    I also don’t see the connection between promiscuity and abundance. Chimps are promiscuous, but constantly fighting over territory.


    Posted on August 20th, 2014 at 4:43 am Reply | Quote
  • Blogospheroid Says:

    A few years ago, I might have been delighted by finding out such super-systematizing theories. Nowadays, I just yawn.

    First point is , contraception changes everything in this theory.

    What predictions does this theory make that are not predictable by other political theories?

    What explains the low fertility of the most cathedralized countries and the high fertility of settlers?

    It doesn’t explain why liberals support abortion and conservatives oppose it. r strategists should be against abortion and K strategists should be for abortion.

    Mr Land, you’re in China. Do you see support for this theory in a non-western society?

    Overall, too many oversimplifications.


    Izak Reply:

    His argument about abortion is that genetically speaking, the leftists are more inclined to go around banging everything, so their pro-abortion stance is a corrective rationalization. Aborting a fetus before it does anything is like the ultimate in low-maintenance parenting. That’s a fascinating thought except for one problem: abortion is far more predictable along class and racial lines than political ones. Black Democrats have a bunch of abortions; urban SWPL Democrats don’t. Surprise surprise.

    I’m especially amazed when I see a normally smart guy like Heariste be like “Oh look! The leftists are promoting cuckold pornography! This is part of their r-selection bias!” I mean, is he even serious about this nonsense?


    admin Reply:

    “Do you see support for this theory in a non-western society?” — I’m not sure what this question is really asking.

    Rushton’s usage of the r/K spectrum is illuminating, and certainly predicts Chinese characteristics with uncanny accuracy. Does the extension to broad ideological preferences work? I’m still at the cautious interest stage on that …


    Blogospheroid Reply:

    By support, I meant , do you see the more liberal folks in China having more children with minimal parenting investment and the more conservative ones having fewer with more parenting investment?


    admin Reply:

    The One Child Policy has made that kind of observation impossible. Besides, there aren’t any liberals in China. A few feckless types is the closest you’ll get.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    China in relation to r/K seems to show how r/K also works on culture and not just biology. The pattern of quick pop growth in response to industrialization which is r selection followed by an imposed K selection strategy happened too quick for the biological repercussions to hit. Even without strong arming Japan and whites have seen a drop in reproduction with an associated K selection in action. Observe how the well to do liberal SWPL types when they do have kids become the helicopter parents (being a two parent household has more to do with socioeconomic status than political affiliation) who stress over finding the right preschool.

    r/K is a biologically ancient mechanism, as such evolution has had time to play games with it to make nuanced systems within systems. Blanket r/K statements aren’t going to be as useful due to nuances such as the fact that all individuals are biologically primed to be able to perform either strategy. As such while the HBD aspect of r/K should be very interesting, the cultural aspect of r/K is probably more important. Examining the cultural aspect has the added bonus of being able to introduce r/K to prog mind space without setting off too many of their thought crime alarms.

    I’ve harbored the idea that a r selection boom/bust is at the heart of left singularity for a while (with technology being a catalyst rather than an actual cause). I’ve very curious to see how well it holds up when challenged.


    Posted on August 20th, 2014 at 5:11 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    It should be noted that for all the wannabe evolutionary poseurs that the competitive anologies to markets are still irrelevant. Competitiveness(via Thiel) destroys profits and long term accumulation of capital, which humans much more than any long and annoying discourse about r/K theory are weaker to lack of foresight to distant scenarios that might require extended planning tp [revent. Which all humans are far more weak to than *any* subtractive difference between r/K differences.

    The necessity to accumulate capital and prepare for these very distant probabilities that *are* underpriced are far more devestating red queens.

    If every one is going to try to keep up with the vague conservative references to competitiveness it needs empirical substantiation up to the point of relevance, and not one bit after.

    Can some one start a book reading club or something. Stop writing fucking blog posts(AnonConservative).


    Posted on August 20th, 2014 at 6:36 am Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    I can’t read this. He uses a paragraph where a sentence will suffice. I’m pretty sure that the r/K selection evo-psych angle has been explored before this author, but won’t be bothered to find a citation.

    The theory has too many holes. For example, how does it account for limousine liberals with 1.1 kids, each kid attending one of the nation’s finest $35,000/year preschools? You have to argue that they are actually K-selectors by psychology with the peculiar strategy of advancing themselves by giving the r-selectors what they want. But this certainly misses the point about these liberal inner party types. Most of them *are* true believers, and if you don’t understand that then you don’t understand modern America.


    Posted on August 20th, 2014 at 2:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    If you’re an actual K the r deck is stacked against you by feminism and the legal system [but I repeat myself].

    Remember K child rearing requires both parents. Oh you can reproduce. But the state allows her to leave.


    Posted on August 20th, 2014 at 9:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • DPP e r/K – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on August 12th, 2016 at 11:14 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment