The Rock Wants To Challenge The Donald?

The Rock wants to be more inclusive:

[Dwayne “The Rock”] Johnson doesn’t hesitate when I ask him whether he honestly might one day give up his life as the highest-paid movie star on earth—which is unquestionably easier, more fun, and more lucrative than being president of the United States—in order to run for office. “I think that it’s a real possibility,” he says solemnly…

“What are your thoughts on the Muslim ban?”

“I completely disagree with it,” he says without hesitation. “I believe in our national security to the core, but I don’t believe in a ‘ban’ that bans immigrants. I believe in inclusion. Our country was built on that, and it continues to be made strong by that. And the decision felt like a snap judgment. I feel like the majority of, if not all, Americans feel that protection is of huge importance. But the ideology and the execution [of national-security initiatives] is where we really have to be careful of not making those snap decisions, because there’s a tail effect… Within 24 hours, we saw a ‘tail effect.’ It grew to heartache, it grew to a great deal of pain, it grew to a great deal of confusion, and it had a lot of people scrambling.”…

Johnson describes himself as a “feminist” raised by “strong women.” He’s spoken openly about his experiences with depression and has positioned himself as a mental-health advocate. His popularity as a professional wrestler gives him a strong heartland base, and the fact that he grew up all over the United States—while his dad worked the wrestling circuit—gives him local ties, literally, from coast to coast (Connecticut, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, California, Washington, and Hawaii).

It is not surprising. A reasonable guy, with money pouring into his bank accounts like the overflow of Niagara Falls, tons of ease and safety, and no real need to fight or contact with crime, will naturally seek to avoid all conflict. This is not a moral issue, or a logical argument. This is how human brains are programmed. Very few humans could be dropped in the Rock’s life, and still feel like exhibiting protectionist tendencies.

Rock is likely a smart guy at manipulating crowds. Between his wrestling experience, as well as the construction of the above statement, especially the “tail-effect” part, he clearly has an idea of how to perk up amygdalae and focus them with interest, while then subtly infusing emotions into an argument. So you could never write him off. But based on this statement he has just immensely hobbled his campaign, and it is because he hasn’t studied r/K Theory and doesn’t understand why opposing urges exist, or how they manifest. Without that, I could not imagine him posing any threat to President Trump.

It is funny because you hear that quote about inclusiveness, and reflexively feel a pang of concern that he might be a middle of the road candidate who could “appeal to the middle.” We have been inured to the idea that being moderate is the path to electoral victory, to the point the belief is almost reflexively emotional in nature. You just hear it everywhere, and it sinks in. “He could be a moderate, and win a landslide.”

Yet, as K-selection draws more near, the reality is that r-strategists go more r while K-strategists go more K. That means if you want to win, you need to pick a side, r or K, and take the extreme positions of that strategy. As a moderate, the Rock will draw the fierce loyalty of neither r’s or K’s, and his active support will be minimal.

It is funny, because the moderate myth is probably an out-growth of the rabbits who run our media simply giving voice to their emotional perceptions. Seeking to be the moderate is not really about amassing support. In espousing moderation, you are actually failing to draw supporters behind you, by to some degree abandoning the tenets of the strategy you are espousing. What you are doing is defusing opposition, at the cost of amassing active support. That is textbook rabbitry.

President Trump is probably the best example of that. From immigration, to abortion, to judges, to guns, to religious freedom, President Trump took the most K-selected positions. By taking the highly K-selected path to the Presidency, he amassed immense support. He also amassed some highly motivated opposition. But only an r-selected rabbit would place more emphasis on avoiding conflict than amassing support, when the key to winning is acquiring votes. The key to electoral victory is how many people vote for you, especially when you are the K-selected candidate running for a leadership in a K-selected species, where the majority innately supports your strategy at the outset. If you want to win, you sacrifice their support at your peril.

Conservatives who simply seek pure K-selected support should always amass more support than opposition, and that should produce electoral victory reliably in our species. It is only when the K-selected candidates focus on minimizing their opposition from the small minority of r-strategists and they lose focus on amassing support, that they fail to win their elections. Then they are appealing to K-strategists with an r-strategy of avoiding competing. It really should be no mystery why they lose.

This should be a basic, PolySci 101 lesson for the Cucks. But sadly, Cucks are going to Cuck, because that is their r-selected, conflict avoidant instinct. Fortunately, they will not win elections when they do, especially with a much more intensive K-selection closing in.

Spread r/K Theory, because Cucks don’t need to Cuck