Sure, kill my child, I won’t hold it against you:
The family of a murdered British backpacker are hoping authorities will “show leniency” when sentencing them for their horrific crimes.
Despite losing their son David Miller, 24, who was killed alongside Hannah Witheridge, 23, the family are hoping the killers will receive a long jail sentence to reflect on their crimes as opposed to the death sentence.
The young backpackers were killed in a savage attack in September 2014 while walking back to their hotel along a beach in Koh Tao…
David Miller, from Jersey, and Hannah Witheridge, of Norwich, were battered with a wooden hoe as they walked back to their rooms.
Hannah was raped during the ordeal in September 2014.
It makes no sense logically. They raped and killed an innocent girl. They murdered your son. Just let the government flip the switch.
This only makes sense as an instinctual program in the brain similar to the programming if an r-strategist rabbit. It deemphasizes the importance of offspring, and imbues a drive to ingratiate themselves with the locals in foreign lands.
A human rabbit, following such a strategy will lose a few offspring, but they will survive in their new homeland of free resources by avoiding conflict. And if they were mating as fast as rabbits are programmed to mate, and there was no birth control or abortion, they could easily make up the deficit.
The r-strategy is about quantity over quality. Love and the drive to protect is not a part of the equation.
Tell everyone about r/K Theory, because rabbits are disposable, even to rabbits
[…] r-strategists, Low Rearing Urge, and Preemptive-Appeasement […]
Its just like Rotherham. If Rotherham had happened in America only God himself could save the perps. Fed up cops would be disappearing mooz in the middle of the night- by the truckload.
Hello,
I’ve been trying to contact you, but your email address seems to not be valid
I was recently turned on to your website by a friend, and I’ve found it fascinating. I agree very much that is does represent a possible paradigm shift in the way we discuss politics and policy motivations and is much more useable that they purely intellectual and logic based attempts of the past few centuries. Obviously this will only work if your work and theories enter into the popular consciousness. The book is obviously a major step, but (from what I have witnessed on the internet and in universities), your work is not well known at all. I think that you need to devise a new distribution strategy, specifically by making use of internet message boards (reddit, 4/chan, etc). I dont know you personal politics and feelings toward these places, but (as someone who has studied and works in information systems, and has a minor poly-sci background in school), I can tell you that this is the most effective way to reach people currently (as evidenced by the 2016 election). The truth is, if you are serious about getting this out there, you site and book aren’t going to cut it – you need more exposure. I have some connections to some moderators on these sites – but I strongly encourage you to reach out on your own. YouTube is also a great resource. There are a number of rapidly growing Conservative outlets that you could partner with (everyone benefits from views) – especially in some kind of multipart series. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in any way.
That said, I do have a few questions about your research.
1. r/K Theory seems to say that an environment with plentiful, easily exploitable resources favor large offspring count and low-investment parenting (r/Liberal), while hashers, lest bountiful environments favor lower number, more developed and parented offspring (K/Conservative). Yet, this seems to be the opposite in humans. People living in poorer regions or harsher times (Middle East, Sub-saharan Africa, Ireland during the famine, etc), tend to have large numbers of children (yet do tend to be more conservative), while very wealthy and abundant societies (present day US and Western Europe) seem to be having very few children, if any. This doesn’t seem to contradict your theory, as the main correlations seem to remain (Plentiful, seemingly limitless amounts of wealth and resources breed Liberal policies, and greater grasp of the harsh realities of the planet and resource availability, Conservative ones), but human breeding habits seems to be in stark contrast to all other animals. I wonder if you have a biological reason for this, or if it is social/cultural (e.g. Humans are the only species in which the younger generation will feel an obligation to care for the older when it can no longer provide for itself – so many children is a kind of insurance in harsh times, etc)?
2. You mentioned how in r-selective groups, females tend to take on more masculine traits, and males feminine ones. As seen in large swaths of Western Left-leaning societies (Woman taking on male dress and style, and seeking out more masculine positions; men being more effeminate and subservient). This seems to be peaking in the whole “transgender” movement and claims to be “non-binary” etc. In light of that, if r-selection highly favors non-competition, does that mean that the “end goal” of an r-selected species would essentially be hermaphrodism, where each organism can have large numbers of offspring on its own, and exploit resources without even having to compete for a mate? (This would seem to explain the massive normalization of “gender as choice” occurring on the Left”).
I hope this reaches you in its entirety.
Hi, thanks for the advice on spreading this. Reddit and Chan are aware of it, though I am not sure their reach is sufficient to drive this into the mainstream dialog. One problem is that it is so triggering to the left. There are indications that a lot of researchers now are aware of this, but those who support it are only making vague references to it on occasion, probably knowing the backlash that will happen to those who openly support it. So it has good permeation among the online right, but ti has yet to ignite.
For that I know what I need. I need to find a way to have it thrown in the left’s face, on a scale that will trigger some sort of massive, newsworthy overreaction. I expect at some point a political science class will openly teach it, and I expect that to set off the types of protests by the left which it needs. Until then I am brainstorming additional strategies. In short I need to trigger the Milo effect. The moment local PD needs to call up state because they do not have enough SWAT officers to deal with the leftist reaction, this will have entered the dialog. If the National Guard gets called out, then my work here is done, and obivoulsy a declaration of Martial La with curfews would be the ultimate. But how to do that? The left has to be confronted with it, so they freak out. I just haven’t mapped it out well enough yet, btu it is doable.
Now the questions:
Africa and offspring number. There are a couple of variables. One, birth control and the knowledge that sex leads to offspring. Hanoi Jane Fonda was banging anything with a pulse. If she didn’t have birth control, abortion, and a knowledge that sex leads to offspring, she would have had scores of kids by age 50. But r-strategists have no rearing urge – something that is even found in tests measuring preferences for smell. Conservatives prefer the smell of babies over coffee, while leftists prefer the smell of coffee over babies. Since to a leftist kids are a burden, they find ways to have sex without offspring. Conservative, by contrast, are like Sarah Palin. They want the family and the kids, so they will not use birth control or abortion, and though the research shows they have fewer partners and longer relationship durations, and begin having sex later, they will end up with more kids.
It is important to understand that r/K in biology is where politics came from. But modern technology and the unique aspects of human intellect and understanding that have evolved recently, mean r/K urges may not play out as intended. So this is a story of how things came to be, how our species’ evolutionary past imbued these urges in humans today, and why they look as they do today. But these urges may not play out today as they did in the older environment where they evolved, and thus liberalism may not work out to be an exact r-strategy just like in nature, due to the ways humans have developed ways to satisfy the urges (such as low rearing urges) with modern technology (such as Abortion and birth control). So take away the modern convenience as in nature, and it becomes an r-strategy again, but add it back, and the urges are maladapted to that new contrivance.
I think the end goal of the r-strategy is numbers. Numbers will mean reproducing manly females who take what they need for their young, and everyone else flees, because competition is bad due to resources being free. So I think the end point of r-selection is manly females, effete males, and a tolerance for everything else which is just really competition and conflict avoidance, burned into the brain.
But your point about hermaphroditism as a form of competition and conflict avoidance is interesting. That could be conflict avoidance manifesting in signaling a non-threatening status with regards to mating. So that might not show up in pure r, when males would be mating freely with other females, like hippies in the 60’s. Rather that might crop us as just a smidge of K-selection enters the picture, and makes the rabbits feel a need to find a “status” that assures them they won’t come into conflict with others out there, as they begin to sense others are getting irritable and conflict tis becoming a possibility. If you are a non-binary trans-human, suddenly you aren’t competition for the cute Indian girl in math class, and you will feel like the guys who like her will like you better, and be less likely to get pissed at you.
The pictures of these two appeared on the internet; her injuries were truly horrific. Were I the parents, far from letting the government flip the switch, I’d be enthusiastically inquiring about whether I could flip it for them.
I (insert sentence enhancer here) dodged a bullet!
Since birth in ’70 I’ve watched 3 branches of my extended family repeat r cycles to collapse!
It’s clockwork.
(I see a “sawtooth” wave cycling)
If the parents thought that a lifetime in prison was a worse sentence than death, I could understand it.
That’s not what they’re after, though.
“Quantity over Quality”
Did you know that this is exactly how Rene Guenon summarized any kind of civilisational decline?
It is in just about every biology text book’s description of r/K Theory.
If you kill them they just get reincarnated earlier. Keep’em in a cage til they die of old age I say.