When 9/11 went down you saw examples of K-selected art highlighted by the media:
It said ominously, “Nice shot – Now it’s our turn.” Inherent to it was a sense of independent self-reliance, and imminent vengeance. We didn’t need sympathy, we didn’t give a fuck what other people thought about us, we just wanted to get it on with the scumbags who attacked our nation.
There is a strong, violent, K-selected strain that runs strongly enough through American culture that back then it frightened the American liberal media enough to make them cater to it’s desires with art like that.
Today, the liberal cartoonists in Europe are a little bit different
Belgium was attacked, so the liberal European artsy types, represented by doughy blob-like flags, want some sympathy, some heart-shaped floating love bubbles, and a good group-cry-hug, because of what those evil meanies did. Inherent to the theme is a sense of helplessness, a desire to avoid the problem, a desire to acquire the emotional approval of others, and wholly absent is any sense of imminent violent and brutal retribution. I am actually disgusted, in a deep, visceral way, as I look at that pathetic image.
These are two very different psychologies, and as time goes on all of our populations are splitting ever more widely, to the point we not only no longer understand each other – we cannot tolerate each other. Doubtless there are Europeans who cringed at these pictures as strongly as any K-strategist, and there were liberals in America on 9/11 who would have preferred some variant of the two crying flags. We all hate each other, and there is no reasoning through it.
The problem is these psychologies cannot coexist when resources run out – and resources always run out at some point.
The only bright point is, the rabbits aren’t designed for resource restriction.
[…] K-selected Art Vs r-selected Art – Terrorism […]
All people make most of their decisions in the impulsive cognition system (the seat of emotion) and act, then use their rational minds to rationalize their (already in process) actions. Ironically, this makes the real Boyd Loop OOAD, which explains why people err so often in their action plans despite ample, useful information to guide them.
My point is that when people are fearful or euphoric their emotional cognition system is even more powerful than normal. People in this condition are thus very easily controlled by adept PR and marketing. After 9/11 it was trivially simple to pick a scapegoat or a target that was already designated by political operatives and channel that collective rage into an invasion with the flimsiest of pretexts. Concentrating the profits of that adventure while distributing the losses (to maimed people, widows and orphans in the USA and elsewhere) undoubtedly made some people in the USA, UK and Europe richer than kings of yore.
Imagine how easy it will be to, when the financial apocalypse arrives, direct the much greater reservoir of rage. There is simply nothing to be done about this on the individual level except to make every attempt not to get caught up in “assaulting the Bastille.” The truly evil people behind the scenes are undoubtedly looking forward to leveraging this inevitable flood of rage when the dam holding back the reservoir finally ruptures. They will need canon fodder as usual; I don’t plan to be among those providing it.
The r/K thesis certainly has utility, but today’s post, to me, highlights it as more of a male/female dichotomy. Wanting to avoid conflict, seeking the emotional approval of others, helplessness — these are all classic female traits. The reaction we see in Europe is that of girls. Drawing hearts and cooing bromides in pink chalk on sidewalks is what girls do. Perhaps the losses in the trenches of Ypres and Verdun were too great. Perhaps Europeans succeeded in killing off its masculine imperative. Certainly, as Europe’s traitorous leaders seek to import more military-age moslems and demonize those few remaining native Europeans who would resist, the situation grows more dire. We are seeing the same thing in the U.S.–an epicene intelligentsia looks upon the spectre of Trumpism with cowering fear and dread, knowing that such sentiment spells doom for its 40 year reign of effeminancy.
r/K or x/Y– both are instructive.
I agree partly. I think r/K has a couple of advantages, though. One, I think it is more accurate. x/Y doesn’t explain why as the society becomes more x, females become more aggressive and assertive. They go from home-makers to careerists. They go from conflict averse to demanding to serve in military and law enforcement. They go from sexually submissive, to sexually assertive. Also, the culture begins to become filled with the themes of sexually liberated Supergirl, and her inept sidekick boy named Cuckold. As liberals espouse X, their most X component becomes more dominant and even begins to weakly act Y.
Two, x/Y wouldn’t explain why these shifts in ideology happen, or predict what will shift them back. Without r/K, you assume we are waiting on the right leader. With r/K you see it is resource availability, and that K will return with resource shortage, whether there is a leader or not. It is useful for timing strategy and predicting where the populace will be ideologically in the future.
Three, it has advantages in rhetoric, for reasons I am not entire clear on, but which probably reside with the deeper truth within it being seen subconsciously. Calling liberals girls isn’t as effective as explaining r/K to them. I think the girl epithet carries an emotional, schoolyard taunt element, which makes liberals feel as if they are emotionally in your head, and thus you are somewhat helpless and frustrated. r/K, explained logically, without emotion, is almost like telling the liberal you know what he is, you recognize he can’t be fixed, you realize how powerless and impotent he is, so now you are done with him and could care less what he does. This perception by the leftist that you are not emotionally affected by him is very emotionally affecting to the leftist. It also draws a subconscious picture of the K-selected environment, where violence is ever present, and it highlights that K-selection is about producing greatness because it is required to survive, while r-selection is not, and thus is inferior according to the credentialist authority of science. All very bothersome to the left on a deep emotional level, and inspiring of youth to see the leftist for the inferior, inept, disloyal, impotent coward he is. Are you a wolf, loyal to the pack’s future, or a cowardly rabbit hedonistically living for yourself right now?
Finally, the biggest use of this is the understanding of the amygdala. It is the fundamental concept underlying all of this, and it is the one organ which controls the leftist’s entire worldview. Grasp that amygdala, grasp the panic it guides the movement with, and grasp what elicits it and what suppresses it, and you grasp the most fundamental force in all of politics.
I have been waiting for you to analyze a woman’s version/role in the R/k dichotomy … finally.
A few comments and questions:
1. “…as the society becomes more x, females become more aggressive and assertive …” — is this true? I assume you are referring to a numerical dominance, not the slippage of society into femininity. In my experience — and yes, I’m a gal — the first is true, that when women are aggregated, they compete against other women, either socially or in the workplace, in an aggressive and assertive manner. But isn’t that the case with men, too? Groups of men quickly establish such as in rankings in sports, for example, or earned bonuses for men in sales. Women are more cagey. But, believe me, women in a group establish a subtle but effective pecking order.
To the second idea, that as society become feminized, women become more aggressive, well, I disagree. As society becomes feminized, women stand pat and men become cucks which lessens the distance between them. It is men that change, not women. I know it is a habit among K-selected men on this blog to think that women have somehow been masculinized, and in some cases this is certainly true, but from my viewpoint, the sheer number of cucked men is overwhelming. The ratio of gay men to gay women, for example, suggests this. Or the dreadful, androgynous clothing that young men wear, or the poses taken by young men in advertisements, suggests cucked men are a desirable value (to some) if one wants to be trendy.
2. “With r/K you see it is resource availability, and that K will return with resource shortage, whether there is a leader or not.” Yes. Any perusal of pioneer memoirs will show K-women standing next to their K-man, facing the world together and stronger for each other. K-men, at that time, didn’t want a sulky, passive, narcissistic r-woman. They wanted and needed a strong and resourceful spouse to help make a living in a difficult, resource-light environment. Too bad the frontier closed; the selection process fostered by the frontier has closed, too. What’s the equivalent of the frontier today? Ranchers and farmers? Entrepreneurs? Militarists? Where do people become K-ified? Do we really have to wait for terrorists to create a few K-minded people, or for the resources to run low, or dry? Sadly, I think so. We have to create a frontier-like mentality and situation before we’ll get frontier like men AND women.
The r/K selection theory, as you expound it, anonymousconservative, makes a lot of sense, but is much easier visualized with men, than with women.
I want you to write about K-selected women, please. For your readers.
One gets the impression that in order for our civilization to survive, we’re going to have to kill a lot of our own people first.
http://www.iancoate.com/military%20SAS.html
Great post. Completely agree about that cartoon. What an aggressive display of codependency and vulnerability. It reminds me of people with dependent personality disorder who flaunt their helplessness in front of others. They’ll never ask you for money or for help, they’ll just sort of flail around in front of you with their pockets inside out, flaunting their helplessness. Gross.
After the French attacks and everyone was putting that French flag over their Facebook profile pictures, I had a similar level of disgust. I imagine the terrorist groups are looking at those lame gestures and thinking “Holy shit. What do we have to do to get their attention?”