The Sociopolitical Implications Of r/K Selection Theory

A while back, I came across a thought-provoking article about r/K selection theory. The basic idea is that r-selected species are adapted for environments with unlimited resources, while K-selected species are adapted for competition. The typical examples of these are rabbits and wolves. As the article explains:

Rabbits (r-Strategy)

  • They’re herbivores with near unlimited resources (never a shortage for grass).. The virtually unlimited resources are a primary reason why rabbits are not territorial. This is also part of the reason why they opt for breeding often; unlimited resources means they’re not going to starve.
  • They have no defense against predators other than running. They do not have any loyalty towards their group. It makes no sense for a rabbit to rush to the aid of another rabbit being attacked. Then you’d just have two dead rabbits.  Because they can be killed so easy, it makes sense to reach maturity as quickly as possible so they can begin birthing children.
  • Hierarchies are pointless in rabbit society. Rabbits lives are rather simple; eat grass and run away from danger. There’s no need to invest heavily in their offspring. As such, there’s no need to prove who’s the superior (alpha) and the best candidate for passing on their genes.

Wolves (K-Strategy)

  • They’re carnivores that must hunt to survive. Hunting requires more intelligence and training than grazing on grass. Due to the increased difficulty of hunting compared to grazing, more time is invested in training the offspring to survive.
  • Because prey is limited, wolves must viciously protect their territory from intruders. While it might seem heartless, if another pack is allowed into their territory the supply of prey will be exhausted and both packs will starve to death.
  • Wolves are monogamous/pair-bond. Because raising the offspring is so important for the continuation of the species, the wolves will pair for life in order to raise their young. As such, they will choose the best mate they can find to further improve their chances of birthing strong, healthy cubs. This process of choosing leads to hierarchies with an alpha male leading the pack. Wolves also wait longer before reproducing and generally have less offspring. If they reproduced early and often, there would be too many wolves for the ecosystem resulting in the consumption all the prey and starvation.
  • Wolves are more complex. This is true for carnivores in general. Because carnivores typically live in groups, they must have more sophisticated ways to communicate. The same is true for their domesticated brethren. Look at a dog and you can easily identify if he is scared, happy, angry, or bored by his body language and barks. Can you tell the same moods on a rabbit?

This isn’t a completely binary distinction. For example, some herbivores (such as bovines) will flock in packs and defend themselves. Lions are more K-selected than domestic cats.

The social angle


Peacocking works, but be careful not to overdo it.

Humans are mainly K-selected; that’s what is natural for us. There are individual differences and statistical outliers, of course. As an extreme example, imagine two brothers; one picks up Atlas Shrugged and is inspired to become a successful businessman, and the other reads the Communist Manifesto and then continues to live in Mom’s basement where he smokes weed and posts social justice memes on 4chan all day. Compare also the factory worker who is a pillar of his community and is proud to bring home the bacon to his wife and kids, versus the starving artist who has yet to produce much of value.

Differing societies have their own average balance between r and K selection. Those mostly r-selected tend to be more collectivist; those more K-selected are generally individualist. In isolation, societies find their own level and work out what’s best for them according to their own unique cultures. When one group enters another group’s turf, problems can happen. I’ve already described how this was a factor in my witty take on the demise of the Neanderthals, who might have been too progressive to survive, rather than too backward as is often assumed.  That, of course, was an analogy for what’s going on in today’s society.

This even has implications for mating strategies. What we’d now sometimes derisively call “provider game” used to be the only game in town, and was natural for our society at the time, as it had been since antiquity. After the Sexual Revolution, all the rules changed seemingly overnight, and what used to work became ineffective. The flowers, gifts, and poetry stuff once showed you were dependable and good-natured, which (believe it or not) used to be desired qualities. That will get you Friend Zoned now.

The weird thing is that today’s game strategies are an adaptation in response to our society’s unnatural shift from K-selection (where being hard-working and stable is valued) to r-selection (where being “exciting” and flashy is valued). This is why in today’s dating arena, those continuing to use traditional courtship strategies are like fish out of water. These days, being at least somewhat game-aware is pretty necessary even to get a steady girlfriend. These differing strategies lead to much confusion about what best exemplifies an alpha—a socially savvy and successful man, or a meth head ex-convict with missing teeth and a high “notch count”?

The political angle

welfare woman

The breakdown of the nuclear family explained in one picture.

Ideologies tend to support either K-selection or r-selection as a model for society. Now consider the part quoted about rabbits given above. Which ideology favors handing out unlimited free goodies, is anti-military, puts down traditional morality, believes in gun control, despises their own society, will run from a fight, seeks to eliminate the consequences of promiscuity, considers any hierarchy to be “privilege” or “oppression“, and doesn’t believe in self-improvement?

That certainly hits the highlights of the culture war. This presents a new perspective on why Social Justice Warriors want to re-invent society their way. All along we thought it was only cultural Marxism, but maybe there’s something even deeper going on psychologically with the SJWs.

This is reflected in policy arguments too; compare Bush the Elder’s “family values” with Hillary’s “it takes a village to raise a child”. As we can see, quite a bit of leftist ideology is basically about turning human society from the K-selected model into one friendly to the r-selected model. Two competing ideologies (or two societies living in the same space) with differing ideas about these things will come into conflict. The more K-selected ones will get themselves dragged down by the others if they let it happen, or even destroyed. Also, take a look at any bad neighborhood; consider it a low-investment parenting theme park.

In the wilderness, these things wouldn’t happen. Apex predators don’t tolerate rivals coexisting in their own turf. The smart lion drives away a pack of hyenas, and the smart bear chases away the foxes. In human societies, this has worked out quite differently, especially when clever manipulators weaponize our own societal values of tolerance, fairness, and all the rest of it against us.

The greatest problem is that we don’t actually have unlimited resources available to meet our wants and needs, like rabbits in a grassy field. All the free goodies a government hands out must come from taxpayers, with bureaucrats getting their piece of the action. (So who are the predators in that situation?) As Margaret Thatcher put it:

I think [The Labour Party] made the biggest financial mess that any government’s ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.

In the Communist world, those faced with the task of implementing the silly theories of Karl Marx had to ration resources, which resulted in inefficiency and corruption. Things didn’t go according to theory, obviously. Ideologies out of touch with reality become dysfunctional pretty quickly.

The endgame


Now here’s something even more disturbing. In advanced species, adulthood means being able to fend for oneself. In the beginning, people relied on families and tribes (extended families writ large) for resources, protection, and support. Some degree of interdependence in a community is natural to us, since organized hunting and agriculture increased the odds of survival, and thus we’re social creatures. The head of the household called the shots in the family, and the chief led the tribe.

At the dawning of civilization, related tribes bound together into nations. The model of families living under kings was the norm up until the Age of Enlightenment, with the main drawbacks that the nobility (and those close to them) got rich at the expense of others, lorded it over their subjects, and sometimes got into short-sighted wars. Afterwards, the transition into democracies moderated some of these problems, though graft and corruption and badly-conceived wars still happened.

Now we’re moving into the “New World Order” model, where a few thousand plutocratic elites around the world use their wealth and influence to implement managed democracy, get into spit-in-your-eye wars, and other forms of skullduggery to influence things their way. They’re pushing to open the borders, erase national sovereignty, turn the diverse peoples of the world into a mass monoculture, and they’ve conspired to make the public unaware and compliant.

Overall, the elites are causing increased dependency on the nanny-state governments, which meanwhile neglect the public’s safety and well-being. They’ve shown great hubris, trying to live as kings and make us their serfs. Meanwhile, young adulthood has become increasingly an extened adolescence, and these days many are seeming more childlike than ever. The more all this goes on, the less citizens resemble independent adults.

The extreme model of this in the animal kingdom is with some insect species, such as ants and bees. Joseph Sobran used The Hive as a metaphor, and so have I. If you don’t feel like being one of their worker bees, or a neutered drone, then it’s time we get the globalists off our backs.

Read More: Cultural Collapse Theory: The 7 Steps That Lead To A Complete Culture Decline

85 thoughts on “The Sociopolitical Implications Of r/K Selection Theory”

  1. I personally don’t believe in r/K theory. For it to be true, evolutionary theory has to be true and essentially airtight, which I don’t believe to be the case (
    R/K theory is a good example of back rationalization, a problem in evolutionary psychology, where you know what the end result is and construct a theory that fits what you already observe. I don’t see how it’s useful unless you are a “race realist” and need ammunition to intellectually justify your instinctual dislike for those of a different race than you. In the end it will just encourage men to fit square pegs into triangle holes.

    1. You got to admit though, welfare surely doesn’t favor an individual who makes the effort to better themselves.
      The r/k theory, even if the premise is bad, does explain a lot about nature. I would say a person living on their own in a road warrior type scenario would be about as “k” as you could get. Where living on welfare is “r”

      1. Yes I’ve written about that before:
        I won’t argue that blacks are more intelligent than whites, but if you take away all welfare and provide factory jobs that are better suited to their ability, they would do better than now, though how much better is up for debate. A hint that this is true can be shown by the fact that nuclear families among blacks were the norm before government stepped in and provided welfare to black women.
        If r/K is helpful to you, I don’t see the crime in using it, but it’s just an opinion and prevents you from seeing nature as it is, which doesn’t so neatly fit a black and white dichotomy. Once you believe in a theory, and your ego has invested in it, you will be blind to anything that disproves it.

        1. “if you take away all welfare and provide factory jobs that are better suited to their ability, they would do better than now”
          How about we just end welfare and they compete like everyone else for the factory jobs?

        2. Well there is an argument to be made that the welfare state was introduced because Blacks were doing too well………
          The facts are clear, where the initial resource endowment are close, information is easily accessible, and the rules fair and transparent, Blacks outperform whites.
          Racism, Jim Crow, and ‘discrimination’ exist for this very reason…….to eliminate having to compete.

        3. If when everything is on a level playing field blacks outperform whites then why is it that almost everywhere they are in charge or are the majority is a dump?

        4. people don’t want to have children because it entails a massive 20 year commitment that essentially spans out into the grave. it’s seen as not the most productive or interesting thing to do. it only gives validation and purpose where there is no other – a scientist, writer, inventor, businessman etc. can create plenty of validation – infact more validation and satisfaction by not juggling a complicated personal life with his business and recreation.
          whatsmore is that children are often quite disappointing – did Einstein’s son finish his theories ? did Churchills children finally bring world peace – children (apart from vapid celebrities and racing drivers etc.) don’t often follow their parents any more.
          even if as you argue – you could run about knocking up women all over the place and
          leave them and the kids to the welfare state and even if no authorities or family members ever found you – the children might come looking for you later – it’s an entanglement – not a benefit – so why bother ? it’s not socially acceptable so if you were uncovered you would be a pariah.
          whatsmore is that children entangle you into the Govt. system whether you like it or not. suddenly you have to answer to school teachers, doctors, other parents etc. and perhaps none of us had a particularly fantastic childhood, the 80s and 90s being quite a confusing time, and thus we’re not really interested in repeating that scenario as a responsible party – it was bad enough the first time around thanks.
          so you really want to become a bad or even a better version of your parents and teachers – being an authority figure to some small genetic offshoots seems over rated – that’s why people are not having children. it’s not even said that genetics actually bring that much benefit since humans can just as well pass on knowledge and skills to one another that might be far more satisfying and more easily done by selecting preexisting genetic units not of our own exact code – rather than randomly creating bits of our own genetic code and hoping to bring them up well enough and live long enough to garner any satisfaction / benefit.

        5. The welfare state was introduced when politicians realized they could buy votes and dress it up as virtue. People accepted the welfare state when they realized they could reap short-term gain, at the expense of their neighbors and the unborn.

        6. yes.
          manufacturing jobs is good for everyone.
          But, labor is cheaper in Asia for the Factory Owners…!!!
          Ends instantly with Trade Tariffs. All other taxes are superfluous.
          Returns a robust middle class…the Keystone of western civilization…
          But, labor is cheaper in Asia for the Factory Owners…!!!

        7. Then they would have to be more industrious than they are now in terms of work ethnic if they still want an iphone, Nike sneakers, etc. No more mooching off mommy welfare while making rap videos in the neighborhood.

        8. Theoretically speaking, Kisse makes her(?) point that blacks were poor, and welfare policies hurt the poor in general. So if you could find a group of whites that faced the same pressures from the welfare system, and track the progress of institutions that were left to them, you would be able to prove or falsify her statement.

        9. Is there any further reading about black culture before government assistance?? This will help diffuse some of the identity politics going on now I think.

        10. Then, as first step, let’s ban “cheaper” Items/Goods/Utilities etc. from China and other Asian countries !!!

        11. I partially agree, but I also acknowledge the fact that “arguments” can be easily “made up” by any one.
          “Blacks outperform whites”; why are you being too “generic” !? In which area/sector they outperform whites ? Science, Technology, Education, Medical, Electrical, Aeronautics etc. etc. ?
          Did whites restricted/restrained blacks from popping out a/another Bill Gates/Mark Zuckerberg/Larry Ellison ?
          Did whites restricted/restrained blacks from becoming President of this Country ?
          Guess you know about “George Washington Carver”, a Botanist & Inventor and also the first black faculty at Iowa State University. In majority of the cases, Talent was and is always recognized and rewarded.
          Everybody has their own limits, strengths, interests and capability. People who excel in Sports are given due recognition and opportunities and so in other areas/sectors.
          I am not a white but that doesn’t mean I overlook the statements like “Blacks outperform whites”.

        12. Let @Kisse prove her(?) point by showing facts/statistics that “there were NEVER any white people” who are “poor in general” and never faced the same pressures from the welfare system.
          Otherwise, her(?) statement automatically becomes FALSE !

        13. The burden of proof is an adversarial concept. If you want to have a productive conversation and you have your doubts, it’s better to just agree to disagree.

        14. no need to ban anything. i believe in free market.
          And mostly no taxes.
          So when there are ubiquitous, overwhelming taxes – except for imports. There is a major problem. but not for those who own the factories and payoff the politicians…
          import duties have always been around, long before income tax…

        15. The original comment poster talks about “facts are clear”. Which “facts” are clear ? The person didn’t presented any “facts” that are “clear” ! and the burden of proof lies with the person who talked about “facts”.
          “Agree to disagree” has nothing to do with what @UnreconstructedConfederate said. He didn’t agreed or disagreed, he is asking a “Question” !

        16. Yes. Lower divorce rates than whites, higher marriage rates, higher entrepreneurship, low bastardy, higher educstion/training, and way way. Lower incarceration rate.

        17. sounds rather misanthropic to me. i’m guessing that you don’t have any children of your own. it could very well be that you’re not suited to be a parent. If so, you’re probably making the right choice for yourself as well as any children that you might have had. the irresponsible thing would be to have children when you have neither the desire nor temperament to care for them and to raise them properly and lovingly. no sarc intended, just calling it as is appears to me.

        18. I was just remarking in another forum that blacks and women have become dupes of crony capitalism materialism with this commercial as an amusing example:

          It’s highly racist and should offend me but I’m amused and actually feel sorry for non-whites and women who think they’re cool by wasting their money by buying into a pleasing narrative.
          As I read various biographies from a century ago, I’m amazed at how frugally our ancestors lived and how empowering this could be. Advertisers insulting me is the best thing they could have done.

        19. There was a neat middle ground for this in the past that globalists portrayed as evil: “Tariffs”.
          This allowed cheaper or better made goods to still compete and provide incentive for improvement with locally made goods, but instead of taxing us via income or property taxes, instead it was the merchants who paid them. Income taxes are the 2nd worst type of taxation available. Here’s a summary:
          Worst to least-worst taxation types:
          1) Inflation. Government debt trashes savers and rewards well connected crony speculators. Also allows for a backdoor form of corruption where banks engage in fractional lending.
          2) Income taxes. “Income” is a defined concept (if you run a grocery store and pay $1000 for goods and sell them for $1100, is your income $1100 or $100?) So again, well connected cronies can define their “income” to become expenses and avoid them. Bill Gates Sr made millions if not billions from this scam.
          3) Property taxes. This is actually pretty good because it’s a kind of oligarch tax. It’s still subject to some quibbling by lawyers but can’t be smurfed away like income. No matter how many shelters an oligarch uses to obfuscate his origin, he’ll pay the same tax rate for his $1,000,000 mansion as Joe Six Pack for his $50,000 shack. It also recognizes the working poor who rent but taxing them less.
          4) And the best for last, tariffs. Foreign companies dumping cheap goods wind up losing their profits to paying taxes that would have been paid by locals above. If you get a $1 light bulb made locally versus one for 50 cents with a 45 cent tariff, you still help drive down the price of the local good, save money, and reduce tax burden from the above 3 methods.

        20. When someone becomes wealthy enough to be able to buy influence (rent seeking) to drive up their profits while lamenting it when others do so. Disney loves H1bs from Asia while busting on bootleg DVD’s from the same place and fiddling with copyright law. If you scratch your Frozen DVD and attempt to make a backup copy, they can send the DMCA police. Try to fix your tractor by patching the software so that your oil can be changed and you’re in violation. All without signing anything.
          In the meantime, the USA becomes a third world country filled with socialist/leftist leaners. If they string up the “free market” oligarchs who caused the mess, I won’t get in their way.

        21. we are saying the same thing….
          ” If they string up the “free market” oligarchs who caused the mess, I won’t get in their way.”
          me either.
          terms can get confused “free” and “progressive” etc…have an entirely different meaning from left and right…

      2. Exactly, the point of welfare was to destroy individual and family initiative ….in particular amongst Blacks

        1. The point of welfare, was to perpetuate a victim mentality, and then set up a vote farm. Read Johnson’s comments on the subject. I am paraphrasing/recalling this but he said “pass this, and the democrats will have the nigger (yes, he said nigger) vote for two hundred years.” while talking about passing welfare legislation.

    2. I think our current abberation is due to the extra factor of memetics as well as birth control and abortion.
      Alot of otherwise promiscuous people manage to avoid the consequences of their actions through birth control and abortion. Leaving only those who are too stupid or reluctant to control their reproduction or those who deliberately have more children.

    3. Young girls running after bad boys has always been a ‘thing’. It’s nothing new. When the borderlands of the Red Pill leak into those of the Alt-Right, I switch off.

      1. Correct, but there were repercussions, so a woman had to do it on the sly so the provider husband didn’t see. That behavior was self limiting. Now it’s the default.

    4. The theory of evolution is not, I think, necessary for the models to be useful.
      Case in point, r/K selection theory relates primarily to the breeding and child-rearing patterns of creatures found in nature. These general patterns are observable and reasonable, and we can choose to draw parallels between these creatures and human interaction. Certainly, it’s not a perfect model (but few if any models are), but to be frank evolution is entirely irrelevant.
      Much which is ostensibly related to evolution can be treated this way, for the back-rationalization reason you describe.

      1. yes, i think it relates to attitudes and behaviors.
        where humans can go to the supermarket and get whatever they need – they are more like rabbits, where they have to go hunt and farm and work hard, they are more like wolves. it does make sense.
        it therefore also follows that the motivated, aggressive hunter’s attitude needs to be cultivated – lest we become lame bottom feeders looking for a free meal.

    5. I think self-preservation trumps reproduction instinct and because humans have intelligence you will stay away from a situation you clearly see isn’t good for yourself under current conditions so evolution is still compatible with this and your not having children yet as well.

    6. So you’re a “race creationist” or a “race denialist”? Being a “race realist” doesn’t mean you dislike someone else, it means you recognize the reality that races exist, they are different, and that individuals are better off in homogeneous societies with their own kind than in “diverse” societies

      1. In my experience, 90+% of the time, race realism is “I hate niggers, here’s science justifying it,” ala Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire, Fred Reed, (((Roissy))), etc.

    7. Evolution, stripped to bare mathematical terms, means that an animal that reproduces more will have more of an impact on the gene pool. You say that evolution is an incorrect theory because there is no competition to reproduce, or because the fittest are not reproducing, But there you commit the equivocation fallacy in that those things are still there. We are competing just as ruthlessly as ever, and the fittest are still reproducing, but because all of western society is maladaptive no one feels any of the pressure. Our genes are still competing, they’re just handicapped by our psychology.
      Backwards rationalization is indeed a problem in evolutionary psychology, but that is mostly because 1. it is psychology and 2. there is no way to conduct an evolutionary experiment on humans.
      Besides, the purpose of evolutionary psychology is to describe our existing physiology. If it can’t do that. its useless. So if you want to truly discredit R/K, you need to look at human physiology and determine that there are no such characteristics that match R/K. The documented difference in amygdala activity between Liberals and Conservatives alone nearly proves it, and there are numerous other characteristics which back up R/K, particularly epigenetic characteristics related to hunger and violence.

      1. r/K theory can best be used to name the reason for IQ differences that lead to behavioral differences. Even patterns of differences in groups of the same races show the correlation of smarter, K, populations with more demanding environments and the Rs with environments with unlimited resources, Sub-Saharan blacks (r) with northern blacks (K), South Eastern Asians (r) and Northern Asians (K)… I think that it would be better to use reptile for “r” and K is kangaroos. Name a reptile that has a social order (0) and then think about the kangaroo and it’s devotion to it’s offspring. Also, maybe there is a correlation to the evolution of the brain. Parts of the brain are sometimes referred to as the reptilian and some are referred to as the mammalian; as the brain seems to be a structure built on the past. The old reptilian structures were not replaced but merely built upon with primary mammalian (usual mammals) and secondary mammalian (primates) structures. The reptilian brain is still in mammals. I have never read anything about research into a connection between brain structures and r/K but, primary drives are controlled by the reptilian parts of the brain and may explain the r behavior patterns.

    8. @Roosh_V:disqus, I share @taignobias:disqus’s sentiments on the subject. I don’t give the evolutionary theory much credence, but the r/K Selection Theory is useful for observing and predicting trends in human behavior. Is it perfect? No. There are outliers, exceptions, and layers of overlap, but it doesn’t need to be to 100% accurate to provide some value.

    9. Disagree. Human evolution is frequent and recent. Milk digestion, Ashkenazim IQ, there are too many examples to discount.
      As to r/K selection, an environmental change (i.e. the relative abundance of resources – wealth, to humans) will change the probabilities for what subsets of the population will be preferentially able to breed and expand. People with traits favoring r-selection would be disfavored during low-resources phases, and remain a small subset of the population. But once a society passes a tipping point into a high-resources phase, people with traits favoring r-selection would be favored, becoming more numerous and eventually dominant over time.
      Until the high-resources phase runs down once more, of course. The entire thing is the perennial problem of human civilization for the 5000 years it has existed – the rise and fall of civilizations. Its a sine wave variation in population proportions. The r-selected come into prominence and dominance just as a civilization is reaching its height. There’s probably some human evolution associated with that sine wave variation, but there is no guarantee that the evolved traits will stick around. The entire point of evolution is that it is adaptation to circumstances.
      As to non-reproduction, take a look at the mouse utopia experiments from the ’60s, which pushed r-selection to an extreme. Non-reproducing members of society are a staple of mouse utopias in their collapsing phases, and a mouse utopia colony is very similar to human civilizations at their height – effectively infinite resources, and zero predators.
      The modern world seems to have passed the tipping point into a high-resources phase about 150 years or so ago, say c. 1870. About the time people started treating Marxism as a serious option. Providing everything for everyone can only be seen as a serious option in a society so awash in resources (wealth) that people can fool themselves into thinking that the available wealth is infinite in magnitude and eternal in duration. It isn’t, but the wealth will be around for a few centuries, which is a close enough approximation to infinite and eternal for humans.

    10. I had a chemistry professor who said “a theory is merely an idea which has not been disproven…yet”. Evolution is a theory.

  2. The so-called elite are doing what has been called “human farming”. The dependency is to allow them to shape society and have a weapon against the middle class. These concepts start with the company town concepts. As they failed to achieve the “elite’s” goals they moved to the state to do it. Ultimately they will return to the company town. That perfection of extracting the wealth from the population. Except on a global scale offering no escape.
    As to mate selection r/K doesn’t make much sense for humans. Human society for however long has been driven by what women want. What women want changes with the conditions of the time and place. Modern women want their risks covered and backstopped. Not just resources, but social standing, their personal effort, and more. The state has provided them with that. Thus they can go for what is exciting to them. Remove the backstop for risk and we’ll soon find women attracted to decent stable productive men again. Why? They’ll again offer the best risk/reward ratio.

  3. Actually the west does have unlimited free resources. You might not (personally) like the standard of living those free resources would provide, but it’s definitely doable.
    R/K theory is hopelessly flawed as men would traditionally fall into the K (killer) section, and women would fall into the R (runner) section. But apex predators are in the K section, despite their sex.
    One could then argue that feminism is turning women into K, and men into R.

    1. this is what has happened.
      women do this on individual level (or try).
      Women like Lions.
      they find and capture strong man(lion), grind away at his soul – he becomes shopping assistant(pussy-cat).
      Women hate pussy-cats.
      Release into wild.
      Capture new Lion….
      Seems have done so on society wide level. Most Western-men are rendered pussies…
      Why they open arm(and leg) welcome refugees…(would they do it if they were little Thai women?)…
      I don’t blame them – if they were petite Thai women, I’d be out there with sign too…

      1. Thai women aren’t naturally small (from my experience), the small sizes appear to be stunted growth due to lack of protean in their diet approaching/during puberty and that’s all changing now. I know because I fed one (tiny at age 12) western standard food, and she turned out western standard height, shape and size (at age 18). The rest of her family (not fed by me) remained small. Filipinos appear to be racially much smaller, I’ve had trouble finding one (Filipino girlfriend) big enough, so many under 40Kg (and less than 4’10”), whereas I prefer the 40-50Kg size (over 5′).

        1. Thai lady under age 30, normal weight 40-50kg (5’3″). Filipino lady under age 30, normal weight 35-40kg (4’10”). I can only relate what I’m encountering.

    2. Maybe, but the five aspects r/K theory considers are:
      1.COMPETITION (K’s relish Competition, r’s avoid it at all cost. R want other K-groups to fight one another. Immigration w/o integration.)
      2.PROMISCUITY (K’s want strong monogamous relationships r’s will couple with anything with a heartbeat)
      3.PARENTING (K’s have few High Value children r’s have many children i.e. quantity over quality)
      4.SEXUALIZATION (K’s want kids to grow up & mature fully before Sex, r’s want kids sexually active ASAP(homosexuality OK))
      5.GROUP LOYALTY (K’s find in-group vs out-group natural & beneficial r’s find this scary & insane)
      You may find enough women adhering to the K type, but she is just so damn easy to manipulate, and todays manipulators are definitely r.

    3. The problem is that we have no pressures holding down our population numbers. R’s have predators, K’s have their food supply, but we have nothing. (Actually, we have an elite, but they exploit psychological weaknesses, so people with fewer of these are selected for ans can still reproduce without limit.) Since there are no pressures holding us down, we are neither r nor k selected. But since even Rs have positive evolutionary characteristics, that makes us worse than Rs since we neither need nor have any.
      Basically, there is a limit to the R or K characteristics you can demonstrate. You might say that they are the opposite of each other, because they never seem to occur together, but with no evolutionary pressures we have started to pull back from the limit and demonstrate traits that are characteristic of neither R nor K selected animals.

        1. I covered that when i mentioned the psychological pressure. Foreigners aren’t really subject to that. Whites who are good at disregarding this stuff will eventually be selected for, if they don’t get overrun by the migrant hordes first.

  4. Human evolution has been twisted. Women’s suffrage, birth control pill, and smartphone enabled hook-up culture. We are in a brave new world. The old theories about mate selection are obsolete. New framework is required for understanding.

    1. I find it interesting that even as we talk about becoming expats and moving to cultures where the women aren’t messed up, western civilization still has, for now, the best standard of living. That may change as the west races to the bottom while other places in the world improve.

  5. EXACtLY what is happening. Nothing else to say. Except that I am pleased with myself for passing my concealed carry permit shooting test this evening. (An easy test, the hardest part is getting off your duff and driving over there when you are feeling lazy.l)
    Fortunately, it was a K collective. It is nice to be in an urban area but still everybody around you likes Donald Trump and hates marxism.
    This could be a cultural mecca. A small gun shop in my neighborhood expanded and now has a shooting range and restaurant/coffee shop.
    Tomorrow is the written test. Looking forward to packing heat !

  6. selfishly – easy hook up. (but was easy in the late 70’s, 80’s, and especially 90’s also)
    however, I’m in the same sinking ship as everyone else…

  7. What you say at the end makes me remember something that struck me for a while: we, the millennial generation, are more child-looking than our parents when they were our age. We keep neotenic (childish) features into adulthood. It is only a matter of time before we see millennial with childish features AND white hair due to accelerated aging (itself due to precariousness, to general insecurity/instability, to overworking at unpaid internships, to worrying about student debt and so on).

  8. Actually, at least in the US, most of the tax revenue now goes to pay the interest on the national debt ($20 Trillion). The money needed for transfer programs, and everything else, is printed out of thin air.

    1. Bullshit. The US government only pays 6% of its budget on bond interest. The Federal Budget is 3.5 trillion, only 200 billion of which is going to pay debt interest.

        1. More like 15 aircraft carriers, but I get the point. When you compare 200 billion to 3.5 trillion, it isn’t much.

  9. “The more all this goes on, the less citizens resemble independent adults.”
    I notice most commercials today resemble the style and humor of modern cartoons. They know their target audience.
    And judging by the balding 30-somethings you see at Harry Potter World, running around in capes and carrying wands, it’s no surprise.

  10. Thank you kindly for the link to my site. I’m glad so many have enjoyed my post. While r/K selection isn’t a perfect theory, it does explain many trends and behaviors we witness on a daily basis from both sides of the political spectrum.

  11. When I first traveled out of the USA 20 years ago, my eyes opened in several ways including how to transcend the culture I had lived in as well as see it from a different point of view.
    One of them is the notion that women don’t need men anymore as providers. In theory, this is true and certainly there are women out there in a WGTOW type event but for the most part, “need” isn’t the same as “living well”. As other articles point out, American women are more miserable than ever before. 1/4th are drugged, another 1/4 or so are on the welfare state living in a sort of survival poverty situation, and 1/4 are miserable with their blue pill mates. Their problem, and for many even on this forum, is that being miserable isn’t the same as understanding how to get out of it or even understanding what’s wrong. This article is a great example of that.
    Without “game”, I married a woman much prettier than I deserve. Not a huge genius and merely focused on taking opportunities when they presented themselves, general self-improvement, and avoiding the loser scene.
    In the film Idiocracy, if you look carefully you’ll notice that the whole society was about to collapse and adjust if the protagonist hadn’t come along. The cities were full of garbage and starvation was on the horizon and the “smartest” guy unfrozen out of time merely forestalled the inevitable force of evolution. The author is correct that elites have created this mess and they may wind up in the same boat as the rest of us in this mess.

  12. r/K selection theory as an application for human behavior and even racial differences in behavior is wrong because Rushton didn’t properly understand ecological theory, nor did he understand evolution, nor did he understand anything involving r/K selection theory which means one can safely disregard what Rushton—or anyone like Molyneaux who doesn’t know about the theory—says about it.
    I understand it’s now a buzzword in this part of the Internet and that it’s growing in popularity—but that doesn’t mean that it’s a correct application of said theory to humans! r and K refer to local populations. Where is the local population of liberals and local population of conservatives? How do you study liberals and conservatives in the ‘habitats that the selection was hypothesized to have occurred’? Do you see how dumb it sounds to apply r/K selection to the within group variation that comprises Man?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *