Right and Left II

Bill Whittle and Stefan Molyneux work through the Anonymous Conservative r/K model of ideological polarity in a compelling video. XS prediction: This analysis is going nova. It sets the gold standard for definition of Right / Left difference.

As a darkening vector for the mainstream right, with at least significant truth value, it’s hard to beat.

ADDED: Reminded to link this, which I was too lazy to do yesterday.

November 14, 2015admin 20 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations


20 Responses to this entry

  • Right and Left II | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on November 14th, 2015 at 10:19 am Reply | Quote
  • Simon Says:

    “…called an r-selected Reproductive Strategy… These traits are ultimately designed to maximize the numbers of offspring produced”

    Somehwat ironic then that this strategy actually serves to decrease birthrate in Western countries.


    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    I’d say the paradox lies in the greatly reduced interest of r-select individuals with parenting. They’ll do anything they can to avoid it. Liberals for instance never seem to care that much about having their own kids or passing on their own genes, they’re happy to just go through the empty mechanical motions of it all. Zizek talks about the obsession of postmodern liberals with extracting the ‘essence’ out of an experience, such as with decaffeinated coffee, or vaporizers, or fat-free milk etc. but we could easily extend it to conceptions of post-work economies, safe spaces and so on. R-types are terrified of the dangers and risks of life so they hysterically reject truth and replace it with Utopian delusions. This explains why although they are (unconsciously) following a hyper-breeder reproductive strategy they do so only to gratify their immediate lust, and not with any foresight and planning into long-term genetic survival and individual success, which, in the last analysis, they fear more than anything. They’re basically like paperclip sex monsters who got hacked with the advent of contraception and now enjoy the barren and hollow simulacra of hedonism as the highest satisfaction of their utility drives, exactly like a paperclip AI programmed to only produce the illusion of creating paperclips.


    Simon Reply:

    Great analogy thanks, pulls together what I was trying to wrap my brain around.


    Grotesque Body Reply:


    I know several female paperclip sex monsters who are deeply unsatisfied (despite all the stimulation) and just can’t figure out why.


    Mike Reply:

    The lizard brain doesn’t know anything about contraception. r selection doesn’t imply kids anymore.


    Posted on November 14th, 2015 at 10:26 am Reply | Quote
  • Ted Nuisance Says:

    these guys are buffoons. i love this blog. love it the most of any blog. these two fellas miss a lot of things and make huge assumptions… “liberals” send “our warriors” away to iraqistan to eliminate mating competition? hilarious nonsense. “our warriors”? holy cow. they make good points and back them up with wild conjecture… also everything is so black and white to them, nothing grey… I envy that level of delusion certainty.


    Ted Nuisance Reply:

    @Ted Nuisancedelusional certainty…


    michael Reply:

    trrue they play fast and loose with hard and soft sciences without making the proper connection even when there are some. And still its emotionally satisfying partly because we know theres a combination in there somewhere thats true. However this is another example of alt right thinking they have discovered something new. socialism is dysgenic has unintended consequences not not exactly a revelation in conservative ink. Its more likely humans have both programs on hard drive and can be triggered either way.


    Orthodox Reply:

    The theory does say people are programmed both ways. The Anonymous Conservative blog has regular posts about people switching from r to K as resources are restricted.


    Posted on November 14th, 2015 at 2:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    The “Authoritarian Personality” is total bullshit and yet most leftists believe it because it is sciency. They have no immunity to r/K, it’s like memetic HIV.


    Mike Reply:

    The left has a general-purpose antibody to scientific crimethink: just dismiss it as “junk science”, “pseudoscience”, etc.


    Posted on November 14th, 2015 at 4:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    Not sure how NRx-friendly Theodore Kaczynski is considered, but I’m struck by how many, many of the issues Molyneux and Whittle discuss here were foreshadowed in Industrial Society and Its Future.

    By the way, does anyone have any thoughts on a general ranking of countries in terms of r/K selection predominance? To the best of my knowledge, Japan, Singapore and PRC would be at the top, but it would be interesting to know if there were others.


    Posted on November 14th, 2015 at 7:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner (@heresiologist) Says:

    The actual book that lays out the r/K model happens to be free today (Saturday the 14th)

    Download it while you can.


    It is a pretty dense argument, but if you read it all sorts of puzzle pieces start to fall into place


    Erebus Reply:

    Thanks very much for the link.


    Posted on November 14th, 2015 at 7:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    Last time we talked about this told us apparently cochran doesn’t buy it.


    admin Reply:

    The level of abstraction has to be a challenge to nuts-and-bolts gene pokers.


    Posted on November 15th, 2015 at 12:52 am Reply | Quote
  • Scott Alexander Says:

    It’s a cute theory but fails on a few counts.

    First, the most important determination of r/k is density; species who have reached carrying capacity tend towards k, species on vast open frontiers tend toward r. But liberals live in crowded cities, and conservatives on vast open plains. And all in all conservatives do tend to be wealthier than liberals, ie have more resources available.

    Second, the linked page makes it sound like instability produces k selection, but that’s not really right. Constant specific pressure produces k-selection. Instability produces r-selection, because things are in such flux that it’s not worth adapting to anything, so you might as well just spit out a bunch of children and hope at least some of them survive.

    In fact, if I were trying to write this theory it would be the other way round. Conservatives are r-selected (marry young, many children, live in open spaces, have more money). Liberals are k-selected (live in crowded spaces, marry older, spend lots of time looking for exact right mate, lots of careful investment in their children like paying to send them to Ivy League colleges). But I’m not actually proposing it because that would be silly.


    Mike Reply:

    Some thoughts:

    I think the theory might need to be elaborated upon regarding resources. Specifically, conservative/predator resource abundance is through work or the passive income resulting thereof (hunting, or work, or investment); liberal/prey resource abundance is because of welfare or redistribution (ie. resource acquisition and resource provision are different). The mode of resource acquisition is more fundamental to the theory than the presence of resources.

    Second, the difference in the number of kids is simply because of contraception (the difference would be even larger without welfare-farming single mothers, who are “classic r” as opposed to contraception-mindhacked modern elite/middle-class liberal r.).

    Third, you confound “carrying capacity” (ie. the crowdedness of the ecological niche) with “physically crowded”.


    Posted on November 15th, 2015 at 1:40 am Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    AC’s model depends on ideology being biologically hardcoded and thus no such thing as leftist at 18 because heart and rightist at 38 because brain. In reality that happens pretty often.


    Posted on May 6th, 2016 at 8:21 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment