r/K Mentioned By German AFD Leader

A commenter pointed out that r/K has emerged in the German political debates – following is a translation:

Europe phylogenetically fully traceable own reproductive strategy pursued. In Africa, two countries have the so-called r-strategy, aiming at the highest possible rate of growth, there is dominated by the so-called spreading type ‘. And in Europe we follow mainly the K-strategy that would utilize the capacity of the environment optimally; Here lives the, placeholder type ‘. Evolution has Africa and Europe said two different reproductive strategies brings, well comprehensible for everyone biologists simplified ‘

r/K is potentially the most powerful idea in political science, but presentation is as important as fact in politics. For this reason, r/K is best presented to the masses as clearly unattached to race or nationality. If you leave r/K attached only to behavior and attitudes, you make it very hard to deny, or to out-group the idea with the audience. In this case pointing out that migrants who leave their homelands are migrating to free resources and reduced work, and that therefore migration is r-selected behavior, will make the idea much more powerful than associating it with race or nationality.

When you do not clearly detach the idea from race and nationality, it may touch a very uncomfortable nerve in the masses. Most everyone wants to see themselves as limitless, and capable of being anything they want, regardless of their genes, their heritage, or their biology. When it sounds as if you might be saying that some other person is limited by their ancestry or their race, listeners innately see you saying that they too may be limited in some way by their race or ancestry. The subconscious discomfort that engenders makes them much less likely to adopt the idea of r/K as fact.

If however, you present r/K as tied to beliefs and behaviors, then they will not rebel at the idea so much. When you present to them the idea of there being loyal capable, family-oriented wolves, and disloyal, hedonistic, selfish rabbits – and anyone can be whatever they choose to be – they will innately see themselves choosing to be the loyal, capable, family-oriented wolves. From that point, their behavior may even begin to change, to avoid cognitive dissonance between their perception of themselves, and their own observations of their own behavior. If they tell themselves they are wolves, they will try to act like wolves, lest they not act like wolves and be forced to realize they are in fact rabbits.

Properly presented, the idea immediately infects their brain, and guides not only their perception of the idea, but also molds their perception of how they themselves are related to the new idea.

Poorly presented however, the idea becomes just another confusing theory which will fail to trigger interest, change behavior, or persuade people.

I don’t blame Hoecke for the initial hiccup in presenting the idea. It has taken me years to subtly hone the presentation of the idea, to maximize people’s interest and amygdala-flagging of it, and minimize both confusion and any potential psychological resistance to it. Along the way I have made all the mistakes myself, and seen where emphasizing one point or another could immeasurably strengthen the adoption of it, or make people recoil from it.

I mainly bring this up for anyone who intends to present the idea to the public. Do not tie it to race or nationality. Tie it to beliefs and behaviors, keep it simple, and present it in such a way that it is implied that people who oppose it are cowardly disloyal rabbits who feel threatened by it, while loyal, capable wolves have no problem with it, and even find it amusing.

Nevertheless, it is very nice to see r/K beginning to be presented to a wider audience in Europe. With every presentation of it, perfectly executed or not, we move closer to a day when our race will hold the K-selected values in high esteem, and seek to further them at every possible opportunity.