Criticisms of Anonymous Conservative’s political theory

I have three criticisms in particular.

1. AC says conservatives are K. But conservatives have lots of kids and prefer less crowded ecological niches, i.e. living in the country rather than the cite. Having more kids in low-population areas is literally the definition of R. Liberals have fewer kids, prefer high-population areas and spend more money on each kid. However AC has the spirit right, which is that liberals are passive aggressive fags, and getting the spirit right covers over a multitude of technicalities (Jesus harped on this point constantly).

2. AC describes K-conservatives as “competitors”. This is something where I disagree in spirit. Liberals compete for turf more effectively and more often, e.g. gentrification. But it’s passive-aggressive, therefore more difficult to observe. They might shy away from boxing gyms, but that just means they’re pussies. However, modern humans compete for the same niche in the ecology (i.e. real estate and social position) via politics, and liberals are better at this because they are calculating, manipulative, and aggressively passive-aggressive. By comparison, conservatives are gullible and complacent. They generally flee to lower cost-of-living areas with less competition rather than play school district gerrymandering games with their Nice Hwhite Neighbors.

3. This last one isn’t really a disagreement so much as a paradigm shift: I don’t think the K strategy has anything to do with intra-species competition, but is rather a survival strategy for harsh environments. I believe it’s a sociosexual strategy optimized for avoiding disasters, because genetic drift is a stronger factor for smaller populations. For example, in a small tribe all of the people with “hunter” genes might be in the same place (out hunting) and get wiped out by a single forest fire, causing extinction of those genes, whereas natural selection is more important for very large populations.

Thus the conservative obsession with The Apocalypse. Itz coming. In the conservative mind, ITZ always coming. Because they’re wired to avoid genetic drift events, hence why they predict about 17 real apocalypses for every real one. R is about winning the natural selection game through competition, which focuses on preferring competitive genes because other members of the species are the enemy, whereas the natural environment is presumed to be relatively safe.

(Compare to dysgenics, which is neither R nor K.)

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Criticisms of Anonymous Conservative’s political theory

  1. Kensuimo says:

    “…17:1.”

    I think that’s a rather…

    …conservative estimate. (YEAAAHHHH)

    Space exploration will have interesting effects on r/K distribution. At least until it’s automated. Red Mars, pretty good read. Think the Martian all grown up. Dry, lots of detail.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >I think that’s a rather…
      …conservative estimate. (YEAAAHHHH)

      Fantastic.

      >Space exploration will have interesting effects on r/K distribution. At least until it’s automated. Red Mars, pretty good read. Think the Martian all grown up. Dry, lots of detail.

      I think we have to wait for the next swing before thinking seriously about jumping off.

  2. Koanic says:

    Occ literal inflexibility founders in parietal debatebrain angelic combat.

    1. Kidcount is an incomplete metric. The two relevant metrics are reproductive investment in quality vs quantity, and speed of life history.

    Lastly, one must ignore the effect of contraceptives, because they are a giant manmade monkey wrench in Mother evolution’s schemes. If one must consider them, then one should view them as the ultimate expression of r – for what is lower investment in offspring than pre-emptively annihilating them?

    Lastly, re rural vs city: r vs. K conceals the difference between stress tolerator and competitor. You incorrectly assume that rural = low population = abundant resources = r. Actually, cities are the location of abundant free resources. Rural America is the harsh, stress-tolerator environment. There one deals more with physics of nature than than society of hivemind.

    2. You have missed the point. K-competitor = direct honorable honest competitor. r-competitor = indirect dishonorable lying competitor. Therefore your evidentiary point that K-competitors, given a choice between leaving and dishonest indirect competition, pick leaving, is proof that they are K. There will be further proof of their K-ness when the option of honest direct competition is once again viable.

    3. I assure you that I am a Competitor and you are a Stress Tolerator. We are both stuck under the K label. Your occ may not like this, but it ain’t changing. As usual you’re answering some other question.

    “In the conservative mind, ITZ always coming.” Mr. Stress Tolerator is projecting like Lady Liberty’s rampant transsexual makeover. We Competitors are always preparing for chivalrous death, and quatequine jaunts are merely a more exciting subset thereof. Viva morte.

    4. Dysgenics – I don’t see any dysgenics. What I see is an adaptive correction underway. The r-strategy of low child investment has become too effective with the advent of contraceptives, and is killing all the kids of some r-strategist demographics. The solution for those demographics is to reduce IQ and accelerate social decay until contraceptive overeffectiveness ceases. This may occur via several means – shift to K, loss of ability to create or use contraceptives, loss of r desire to use contraceptives, extinction, etc.

    Other than that, we are in complete agreement regarding the grammatic structure of your text, and almost all the spelling!

    Whatever happens, we may be assured that the gentle corrective pressure of the thermodynamic statistical tendency which subsumes biological life will continue in its warmly indifferent overall application. Ask not the petri dish why the experiment ends!

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Occ literal inflexibility founders in parietal debatebrain angelic combat.

      This is a weird criticism. It seems like it stems from the same place as when Glenn said I described the behavior of value stratification rather than the thing itself.

      >1. Kidcount is an incomplete metric.

      Conceded.

      >Lastly, re rural vs city: r vs. K conceals the difference between stress tolerator and competitor.

      Conceded. CSR is a better paradigm.

      There is still a paradox hiding in here somewhere. CSR competitors prefer direct honorable conflict, yet “war is deception”. There must be unspoken assumptions hiding in here, related to in-group/out-group boundaries.

      >3. I assure you that I am a Competitor and you are a Stress Tolerator. We are both stuck under the K label. Your occ may not like this, but it ain’t changing.

      You’ve misread me, I enjoy the increased clarity. Granularity is often better.

      >As usual you’re answering some other question.

      Yeah, Boneflour said it best. “The curse of bigocc is that everything is everything else.”

      >4. Dysgenics – I don’t see any dysgenics. What I see is an adaptive correction underway.

      As anecdotal evidence in favor of your point, the PUA community is lately reporting that women are increasingly preferring looks over confidence. This indicates that they are preferring low mutation accumulation rather than dishonorable R-competition.

      I didn’t mention this in our convo, but when you say “I don’t see any dysgenics” I believe your perception is incorrect. See here: http://www.unz.com/isteve/height-changes-from-1914-2014/

      Height in America (and the other nordic countries) topped its nutrition-fueled increase in 1996 and began decreasing. Likely the Flynn effect will follow in short order and the ugly reality beneath this will become clear.

      It’s reasonable to claim that this is *only* due to immigration and not interbreeding but that assumes they will have gone back in the future and that’s not 100% certain. If not, the distinction is immaterial.

      >Other than that, we are in complete agreement regarding the grammatic structure of your text, and almost all the spelling!

      I dub thee Koanic the lovingkind.

      • Koanic says:

        “I believe your perception is incorrect.”

        I meant it in the same sense that a planet ruled by tapeworms is not dysgenic.

        Cool correlation of height and Flynn effect.

      • Heaviside says:

        >CSR competitors prefer direct honorable conflict, yet “war is deception”. There must be unspoken assumptions hiding in here, related to in-group/out-group boundaries.

        War is primarily deception and transportation. Honor is a social construct and a feature of ritualized dueling.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Yeah, that’s how I figure too. Honor is intratribal monkey violence formalized. Presumably the MT version is supposed to be altruistic because it’s for overall tribal strength and eugenics, although it’s obviously possible for this to be selfish too.

  3. Boneflour says:

    The obfuscation here is that R/K theory is serving as both dialectic and rhetoric. Yes, both phenotypes “compete” for Darwinian victory, for an environment more suitable for their reproductive strategy, for mates and territory. But for the sake of influencing the population toward K, the K type is the “Wolf Competitor” where the r is the “Rabbit Traitor”.

    “Compete” is holding too many definitions at once, hence Koanic’s “K-competitor = direct honorable honest competitor. r-competitor = indirect dishonorable lying competitor.”

    The ur-example is the cuttlefish:
    http://www.anonymousconservative.com/cuttlefish.pdf

    The K-type cuttlefish have the equivalent of medieval jousting tournaments, competing for camouflage ability, then “character”, then physical strength. And the winners go down to sex the ladies.

    (Everybody follows the rules because the big guys could probably kill the losers anyway, it would just be bloodier for all involved. Same result, but everyone has more to lose including the losers.)

    The r-type cuttlefish look like women and drift past the tournament straight to the lady chamber. Their kids might be shit compared to a K-type, but they still have them. Easy win, no conflict. It’s like everybody’s at the football game, seeing what team wins/who all is getting laid tonight… and while everyone’s distracted… the shrimpy moron is fucking the 9-year old that he’s babysitting. It’s repulsive, but it works.

    Imagine if all the predators were removed, and food was everywhere. Suddenly there’s absolutely no point to jousting tournaments. Why have camo when there’s nothing to hide from?

    At that point, the K strategy of conflict actually becomes less competitive. They’re wasting time and energy fighting that they could be using to eat and fuck more. The r-types that sneak down and fuck whatever actually do better than the K-types… as long as conditions of abundance continue.

    Of course, this leads to degeneracy and plummeting birthrate, like you see in the cities. Abundant resources and no social space? There’s an experiment for that:
    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-mouse-utopias-1960s-led-grim-predictions-humans-180954423/?no-ist

    The researcher created a room with abundant food and no predators. Basically idealized r selection.
    What he got was Mouse San Francisco:

    Note that we are adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers: http://lesswrong.com/lw/l0/adaptationexecuters_not_fitnessmaximizers/

    We do what FEELS GOOD because what FEELS GOOD has been sexually successful in the past. “It just feels better without a condom, babe. I’ll pull out, honest.” K selection is a strategy for harsh environments, which is why “reality is conservative”. K types pull out of the city because the “winning” strategy of ass fuck your neighbor with a smile FEELS BAD MAN. It’s unnatural, counter to the genetic instinct.

    The intra-species conflict stems from each phenotype unconsciously trying to alter the environment to favor their respective reproductive strategies.

    K-types (generally) agitate for lower taxes, reduced spending on entitlements, “get off my lawn” politics, religious freedom, death to rapists, pedophiles, and traitors and start small businesses.

    The effect is increasing competition, letting losers fail, honorable accountability, family formation, civilization.

    r-types (generally) agitate for more taxes, universal basic income, “free love”, wealth redistribution, sex ed for 5 year olds, leniency/celebration for rapists, pedophiles, and traitors, and aim for gubment jobs or welfare checks.

    The effect is Too Big To Fail corruption, throwing money at losers, complete lack of accountability, single moms, degeneracy and decay.

  4. Koanic says:

    Boneflour adds a good point re mouse utopia, but that terminal r endpoint is not an inherently necessary feature of human cities. Often and perhaps typically, cities are meatgrinders of social Darwinism.

    It is not true that K-types are driven from cities. This is an Americanism due to the current policy of ceding inner cities to negroes to drive badwhites to the suburbs, then exporting negroes to the suburbs so goodwhites can reclaim the valuable real estate.

    I am not particularly interested in rural life because there are fewer people to compete against, and many K Competitor types are similarly drawn to cities because that is where the action is.

    When I capitalize Competitor, I am referring to CSR theory.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >It is not true that K-types are driven from cities. This is an Americanism due to the current policy of ceding inner cities to negroes to drive badwhites to the suburbs, then exporting negroes to the suburbs so goodwhites can reclaim the valuable real estate.

      I think this is less an Americanism than a “West”-ism for the last two or three centuries as enlightenment ideals started catching on with intellectuals. Would the Virginian plantation owners (former English aristocracy) have replaced their white slaves with black slaves if not for the idea of separation between body and spirit? I think probably not.

      >I am not particularly interested in rural life because there are fewer people to compete against, and many K Competitor types are similarly drawn to cities because that is where the action is.

      That is very good to know. T-back says cities are gross a priori.

  5. minwu says:

    What do you think about libertarians? They are neither R nor K nor dysgenic according to AC.

    “They might shy away from boxing gyms, but that just means they’re pussies”

    Black thugs like boxing yet they are r-selective as fuck.

    What I dislike about AC is that he advocated bullying because of what Adam Lanza did. He stated that spree-killers are narcissists who weren’t bullied enough, implying that only narcissists are bullied. Anti-Thal nonsense IMHO.

    • Koanic says:

      Adam Lanza was a non-Christian oppressed omega Sperg with terrible physiognomy.

      https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/841596/sandy-hook-distrcit-attorney-report.pdf

      A woman-hating child of divorce; clinically Asperger’s plus other serious disorders; severely OCD.

      Bullying was part of what made him do it, because it was part of what made him completely drop out of society.

      He probably took the black pill: “Topics of conversation included world and current events, and included chimpanzee society and how they interacted.”

      He was a pro-pedophilia homosexual obsessed with school shootings.

      The solution to a problem like Lanza is good nutrition, strong families, leave no man behind Christianity, and a de-atomized society where nobody doesn’t belong.

      Also, higher infant mortality and/or some other winnowing process during the male rite of passage.

      Adam Lanza was not a Thal. He was a hyper-neo aspiepath.

      Similarly, John Scalzi is not a Thal, but a hyper-neo TM.

      One must retain some semblance of the supersized humane dimensions of the original Neanderthals to be called “Thal”. The hyper-neotenized sapiens versions are just bad knockoffs.

      We should call these sawed-off runts “Thallums”, after Gollum.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        Agree on all points.

        >The solution to a problem like Lanza is good nutrition, strong families, leave no man behind Christianity, and a de-atomized society where nobody doesn’t belong.

        No more blood tithe? Koanic the lovingkind and charitable.

        >One must retain some semblance of the supersized humane dimensions of the original Neanderthals to be called “Thal”. The hyper-neotenized sapiens versions are just bad knockoffs.

        The upper middle class, explained.

        • Koanic says:

          Nah the blood tithe is only for the MTs worthy of it. Those who do not aspire to the registry of heroes may pursue the one-child policy instead.

          • Aeoli Pera says:

            Two-child bruh.

            That’s the extent of my argument, I don’t know why that seems better.

            • Koanic says:

              That is nowhere near sufficient to simulate standard human evolutionary eugenic pressure. 1 child is already Old Testament soft.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Oh, you’re assuming something like a adult male citizen’s right to breed one child. I was figuring 20% wouldn’t reproduce at all (approximately the failure rate Europeans are comfortable with).

          • minwu says:

            >Those who do not aspire to the registry of heroes may pursue the one-child policy instead.

            What do you think about willful celibacy? Smart, christian omegas would make excelent hermits.

      • minwu says:

        >He was a pro-pedophilia

        Thanks for the info. I thought Adam Lanza was just a crazier version of Eric Harris.

        >leave no man behind Christianity

        Unfortunately, there always will be some people who will choose damnation over repentance.

        >Adam Lanza was not a Thal. He was a hyper-neo aspiepath. Similarly, John Scalzi is not a Thal, but a hyper-neo TM.

        This contradicts what you wrote about him some years ago. I suggest you to write a topic summarizing the changes from Neanderhall/Old Edenism to Altrugenics/New Edenism.

        >We should call these sawed-off runts “Thallums”, after Gollum.

        So Thallums are to Thals like Gollum is to Smeagol.

      • minwu says:

        >He was a pro-pedophilia
        Thanks for the info. I thought Adam Lanza was just a crazier version of Eric Harris.

        >leave no man behind Christianity
        Unfortunately, there always will be some people who will choose damnation over repentance.

        >Adam Lanza was not a Thal. He was a hyper-neo aspiepath.
        This contradicts what you wrote about him some years ago. I suggest you to write a topic summarizing the changes from Neanderhall/Old Edenism to Altrugenics/New Edenism.

        >We should call these sawed-off runts “Thallums”, after Gollum.
        So Thallums are to Thals like Gollum is to Smeagol.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Eh, he’s not very smart. Despite that, he’s demonstrated that you can alter history with just one iffy idea.

      >Black thugs like boxing yet they are r-selective as fuck.

      They’re just dysgenic, or “ruderal” in CSR parlance. And my observation is that thugs only box by instinct and experience, not concentrated study.

      • Koanic says:

        “he’s demonstrated that you can alter history with just one iffy idea.”

        Marx already demonstrated that.

        Blacks wouldn’t compete in combat sports at a significant level without white coaching.

      • minwu says:

        Just to clarify: I had no intent of defending Adam Lanza. My point was that AC advocacy of bullying is nonsensical slander, as he used an exceptionally wicked aspie like Lanza as an excuse to accuse bullying victims of being narcissists and potential murderers.

        > The upper middle class, explained.

        Except that the upper middle class are midwits, while Lanza had a very high IQ if I remember correctly.

  6. dude says:

    Agree with the patriarchal aspect of K.

    You can tell by peoples words or logic if they’ve had children or not.

    Time needs to be included in the r/K theory. Parental investment in time. The difference between the city 2 parent 2.4 child income and rural large families, is again time. City slickers invest more money, paying people to put their time into the children. Out in the country parents will home school if need be and form community organizations to cater to their children. Both strategies are K IMO. The fact rural people have more children is irrelevant, as we make greater investments in time.

    There’s also competition out in rural area’s it’s just different again to that of the city.

    The r selected live rural too, you find them in the lower socioeconomic area’s of the towns. They consist majorly of the single mothers…

    I’ve read of a realignment of the feminism perhaps not a cure, but at least it’s something. The read comes from Denmark. I have my own eyes to confirm this lifestyle out in the rural area’s. Also as Darlock predicted marriage is becoming a badge of success… an in group, out grouping, in my area anyway.

    http://www.voxeu.org/article/why-dutch-women-work-part-time

    At least k selection gives the moral authority on man and woman partner roles. Which leads to a growing patriarchy.

    Out my way they have God for Men. :-) Never attended yet though.

  7. Pingback: Neuron extinction events re: epigenetics | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s