Sept. 9, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:19:25
3070 Gene Wars: r/K Selection Theory | Part 3
For many decades, two main reproductive strategies have been recognized by biologists - this is referred to as r/K Selection Theory. When you look at humanity through the lens of reproduction strategies – things quickly begin snapping into place and a battle for genetic survival is revealed. In the area of public discourse, these two survival strategies battle for ultimate supremacy. In the latest installment of the controversial Gene Wars series, Stefan Molyneux analyses various political positions and attitudes – including how they are shaped and explained through r/K Selection Theory.
Hi everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
Welcome to my Part 3 Labor of Love.
This is Gene Wars Part 3 Policies.
And I'm going to do a very brief summary for those of you who want to cheat and start here.
This is a very brief summary, of course, of what has gone on in the past two presentations so that you can sort of understand where we're going with here.
So the basic thesis is that there is a left-wing and a right-wing brain that corresponds quite nicely to biological processes and evolutionary capacities that have been well delineated throughout the history of biology.
And that there are basic physiological differences between these two brains, which we went into in part two.
So basically, let's go through this very briefly.
So for decades, two main reproductive strategies have been recognized by biologists.
They're referred to as RK selection theory.
So the R strategy is an adaptation to excessive resources.
And it generally is an evolutionary strategy pursued by prey species, the rabbits, mice, deer, insects, and so on.
And it emphasizes quantity over quality of offspring.
Rabbits just pump out offspring like crazy.
I think oysters have a hundred million eggs every single year.
Oyster porn never ends.
And because you're not going to run out of grass, you just might as well have kids as often as possible if you're a rabbit and you're just going to keep eating grass.
And, you know, an owl is going to sometimes swoop down, a fox is going to grab you, a wolf is going to grab you, and so on.
And so you just want to pump out as many kids because you can't fight against the wolf or the fox or the owl.
You're just going to get eaten.
And so when you have an excess of resources, in other words, you think of rabbits in a field, you've got 10 rabbits or 20 rabbits in a field, they're going to get eaten before they run out of grass.
So you might as well just keep pumping out babies and be basically a great way of turning grass into new bunnies.
Now the K strategy is an adaptation to scarce resources.
In other words, if you are a predator species, you know, like a wolf or an owl or a lion, then grass is a lot more common than antelope.
And so you have a scarce resource, which is the animals that you're hunting.
And catching a rabbit is a lot more complicated than eating a blade of grass or eating, if you're a deer, eating a leaf on a tree.
And so you have to have fewer children because if you have too many children, you're all going to starve to death.
And you also need to invest in your children considerably, in your offspring, because you need to work together as a pack to hunt whatever it is that you're hunting in general.
So you have to teach your kids how to hunt, you know, teaching animals how to eat grass.
It's like, hey, grass, go eat, you know, go do it.
And I think I've got this, right?
Whereas if you think of hyenas hunting an antelope, well, some of them have got to chase the antelope, some of them have to lie in wait, and it's a very complicated thing to do.
And so...
It's been around for a long, long time, and it's in the major university biology textbooks and so on, so you can look it up.
It's not particular to this presentation, and so there is the argument that RNK is not just pursued By particular species, but also within particular species.
And so there are animals where rising sea levels have created an island, and in the island there aren't really any predators, and the R versus K begins to shift with those kinds of situations.
So let's look at the five main traits of an R-strategy life form, also known as a liberal, and aversion to competition.
That's very, very important.
So if you're a rabbit and you're not going to compete with another rabbit for the grass because, you know, just take three steps to the left and there's more grass.
Like if you're a giraffe, you're going to nibble at those leaves and you're not going to go and attack someone else because, you know, just move over and get more leaves because there's no shortage of food.
And so they don't like to compete.
Competition is not particularly healthy.
Now, you can have prey species that compete, but they do so for mates, when you think of sort of the deer and the rutting and all that sort of stuff.
Our strategy, high sex drive, high promiscuity.
And that's because you just want to bang out as many kids before you get eaten.
That's your best strategy for reproduction.
You have low investment single parenting.
These are not pair-bonded species in general that mate for life, and they don't really invest in their kids.
You know, rabbits squeeze out the pups, and off they go to eat more grass and have some more sex.
But enough about college.
And our strategy, you've got to mature really quickly.
You've got to get your reproductive gonads going as humanly possible.
It's, you know, highly accelerated naughty bits, I believe, is the technical phrase.
Early sexual maturity and activity is really key for our strategy.
The earlier you can get to reproduction, the more likely you are to survive.
Because any animal which delays its capacity to reproduce gets eaten and gets eaten by a predator while that gene dies out.
Our strategies have very low loyalty to their in-group.
And I see this.
Your rabbit gets eaten by something and the other rabbits are like, still got my grass.
Good.
I'm glad that they're full because now I'm not going to.
Low loyalty to in-group.
These are not pack animals in general.
So compare this to the K strategy.
Well, there's an embrace of competition because Ks are more complex.
They tend to be more intelligent.
They tend to have high in-group loyalties, which we'll talk about in a sec.
But they embrace competition.
Because excellence in K really matters.
You can't really be excellent at eating grass, but excellent at hunting a rabbit is really, really important.
Now, because they embrace competition, they have to delay their sexual maturity because you need to find out If the wolf you're mating with is of high quality, can they bring a lot of meat to you?
So you have to wait until after puberty to engage in monogamous sexuality because you have to prove your worth in this situation.
Case strategists have high investment dual parenting, and because they highly invest in their children in terms of raising them and teaching them how to hunt and keeping them safe and so on, they don't have that many kids, right?
They just have fewer kids.
So they have late sexual maturity and activity and a very high in-group It's loyalty because it is a pack and they can't work very well individually.
They have to work together as a pack.
A rabbit can eat all the grass at once and a deer can eat all the leaves at once without having to have other rabbits and deer surround the tree or anything, but that's not the way it works with the R versus K strategies.
So, the R versus K, my argument is that they are gene sets.
And in part two of this presentation, this is part three, of course, there are these gene sets.
And the R versus K are gene sets that compete with each other.
Human beings are the most K-selected species known to human beings, I guess.
But even within humanity, there are different strategies of R versus K, which is what we're going to get into here.
And R versus K tend to prey upon each other.
So you can think of R versus K as human subspecies that generally tend to displace each other.
And there's value in K and there's value in the R.
If you have an entirely R-selected situation in society, you just have massive chaos and If you have an entirely case-selected situation in society, you generally end up with stagnation.
There's not enough innovation and creativity.
Like, think of the multi-thousand-year, not much changed in Chinese society, Mandarin rule, and so on.
Now, K's don't obviously prey literally upon ours in humanity, but the gene sets both fight for survival using a variety of cultural and religious and political mechanisms, which is what we're going to get into here.
And if you really want to understand K's in humanity, think of sports as And the free market.
You know, if you win in sports, you don't eat the other team, but you carry home the prize and this may get you the cheerleader or whatever.
And in the free market, if you outbid someone in a contract or in a proposal, well, you don't eat them, they don't starve, but you've sort of won access to more resources.
And so we're going to get into that as we go forward.
Let's move on.
So, our organisms, short lifespan, they tend to be small, and they're weak and vulnerable.
They have fast maturation.
And one thing that's true about biology as a whole is that fast maturation means less complexity when you mature.
So, something that is faster to grow is going to be less complex when it matures.
Just think of human babies.
It just takes forever to grow up.
I mean, the male human brain doesn't really finish its maturation point until the late 20s.
I mean, that's crazy.
I mean, it's almost a third of a century to grow a male brain.
So, our organisms are prone to take risks.
I mean, they have to.
They've got to go and eat, even though there are predators around.
They're opportunistic exploiters.
In other words, if you give them more food, they'll generally like goldfish.
They just eat until they explode.
They tend to be less intelligent and experienced, but they make up for that with a very strong sex drive.
predations.
They tend to reproduce at an early age.
They have a very large number of offspring.
They have very small relative size at birth.
They care little for their offspring, and they have a highly variable population size.
You know, if there's lots of grass, they'll grow like crazy, and if their predators go away, they'll grow like crazy.
They don't have any general inhibition to growth, and that's because the cap, the limit to their growth, is external predation or a Compare this to K organisms.
They generally have a longer lifespan.
They tend to be large and complex animals, robust and well-protected.
They've got...
You know, they've got horns or they've got teeth or they've got claws or something like that.
They tend to mature much more slowly and they're risk-averse.
They'd like not to take too many risks.
And they are consistent exploiters.
In other words, they eat until they're full and then they don't eat again, right?
And they tend to be more intelligent and experienced as animals.
They have a weaker sex drive.
And that's because having too many children is very bad for the gene pool.
They reproduce at a later age.
They have a small number of offspring who have a large relative size at birth.
They put a huge amount of care into their offspring, and they tend to have a stable population size.
All right.
So let's get into the details.
Let's look at something like abortion.
So we have conservatives and we have liberals or left.
I'm going to use left versus right because it's a bit more of a common way of looking at things.
So if we look at our organisms, those who are on the left, well, our organisms have low investment in offspring.
They generally avoid monogamy and pair bonding.
So the quality of their offspring is relatively unimportant.
It's not like one rabbit is really a lot better than another rabbit, whereas in the case of the K organisms, the quality really matters.
So there's little differentiation in quality.
And better in the R-organism world is actually worse, because a more complex rabbit still is going to get eaten by the wolf.
And so you're investing in growing the rabbit brain rather than reproducing, which means that you're more likely to get eaten rather than reproduce.
And it's not like your rabbit brain is going to have you outfox the fox, so to speak.
So better is actually worse in the R-continuum.
Offspring which interfere with more offspring are a negative.
This is one of the reasons why it's kind of a pump and dump situation or a spray and pray situation for sperm and eggs.
Because if you have lots of offspring around and nobody wants to mate with you, well, then you can't produce offspring as quickly as possible, which is a basic foundational drive and component of the R-organism strategy.
And so if you think about something like breastfeeding, right?
The longer you breastfeed, the less likely you are to have another kid.
And you can look at different breastfeeding lengths as part of this continuum as well.
And so babies are not precious.
Yeah, you could just make another.
There's just undifferentiated blobs.
They're just blobs of cells in our organism universe.
And you have a very high sex drive, and you're going to have as many kids as you possibly can.
And the parental preferences vastly outstrip the child preferences, right?
Because parental preference is to go and have more kids.
And so there are organisms, given that this characteristic tends to cluster itself on the left, is pro-choice and pro-abortion.
And by that, I simply mean that they accept that abortion.
Like it's the woman's choice.
It's the woman's choice.
Parental preferences vastly outstripped the child's preferences.
Of course, it's the baby's or the fetus's preference to be born, but it's the parent's preference that matters.
And so this low value of offspring is one of the reasons why on the left they have less problem with abortion.
Now, just to remind you here, I'm not arguing either of these positions.
In this presentation, I've talked about these things elsewhere.
I'm simply trying to delineate why there is a left-right divide, why it's so common, and why it ends up with particular positions.
So I just really want to be clear.
I'm not pro or against any of the positions I'm putting forward here.
I'm simply pointing out the biological markers.
You know that old parenting joke, you can be replaced.
You know, I can just make another one of you.
And that is very much an R statement.
Now, K organisms, the high investment in offspring, monogamy and pair bonding, the quality of the offspring is essential, which is why you have to put so much time and effort into finding a capable and quality mate and investing in your kids.
There's a high differentiation in quality.
A wolf who's really good at hunting is a lot more valuable than a wolf that's really bad at hunting.
In fact, a wolf that's really bad at hunting will drag you down.
But there's no such thing as a rabbit that's really good at getting grass.
I mean, it's no differentiation.
So better in the K-organism is actually better, not just for you, but for the pack as a whole.
If you...
Think of it in terms of sports, right?
There aren't many players who in hockey said in Wayne Gretzky's heyday, I don't want to play with Wayne Gretzky because he'll make me look bad.
It's like, well, no, Wayne Gretzky was a fantastic player, also had a remarkably high number of assists in that he was a great team player.
And so having somebody of high quality on your team is really, really important.
Maybe they'll get the cheerleader, so to speak, but you'll get to win more games.
So a really good hunter in the wolf pack gets everyone to feed better.
So quality is actually better for the entire gene set of the pack.
Offspring which interfere with more offspring, that's fine.
No problem at all, which is why K-selected organisms tend to breastfeed a lot longer because too many children is bad for the K because they can't invest in the quality of their offspring as much.
And so you've got people who consume resources but who aren't going to grow up to produce as many resources because they're lower quality.
And you can't just make another in the K-selected organism world because it's a longer gestational period.
It's a tougher birth usually because there's bigger brains to pass through the birth canal.
Longer breastfeeding, it's a huge investment in offspring.
So you can't just, hey, I'm going to make another.
And babies are worshipped.
They're incredibly precious.
K-organisms will go to huge lengths to keep their baby safe and secure.
And because of that, there generally is a lower sex drive among K-selected organisms, because fewer children are better.
And as we talked about in the last presentation, which we'll get into in a slide or two, K-selected organisms do not have a thirst, an insatiable thirst for variety, which we'll get into.
If you're a K-selected organism like a human being and your kid cries in the night, you get up and you take care of your kid because the parent preferences are insignificant relative to the baby or child preferences.
And so because K-organisms place such high value on children and human beings can be somewhat divided into a K versus R continuum, the K-organisms, which are people on the right who are generally religious, are anti-abortion because children are incredibly precious.
And ours, generally on the left, are atheistic, materialistic, and secular, so there's no magic soul inside the body.
But on the right, among conservatives, there is a soul within the body, and the soul is a metaphorical way of saying how important offspring and human beings are.
So, now, just to clarify something that was confusing to other people, I apologize for that in previous presentations.
It's true that in general, religious people have more babies, but birth control is still a very important part of what has changed, right?
So, religious people have a lower sex drive in general, but...
Of course, they end up having more sex in a monogamous relationship.
You have more sex overall.
And, of course, you don't end up having to be regularly doused with Lysol in order to kill whatever bacteria the last person left you with.
So, you know, Mormons have 3.4 babies per family.
I think for the U.S. as a whole, it's 2.1.
But they don't have more babies than they can afford, and they still highly invest In each baby.
And they don't abort, right?
And so the children are precious.
So it doesn't mean necessarily that K-organisms are always going to have fewer children.
But they will tend to pair bond and invest highly in their children.
That's the K-organism.
The fact that the R-organisms have fewer children is because of birth control and abortion and so on.
It's not part of the biological drive.
So I hope that helps.
So let's look at economic versus sexual freedom.
I talked about this with Bill Gerdner recently on this show.
So our organisms have a very high sex drive and insatiable thirst for variety.
They're just going to have lots of sex with lots of different rabbits.
I know.
I like to watch.
And now, our organisms have little capacity to compete in the economic free market.
Because they don't invest that much in their kids, and they generally grow up without fathers, which we'll get to in the single mom slide, and because they tend to, in general, be somewhat less complex and intelligent, and they don't have as much tribal sense in-group preferences, and they don't network as well, they have less capacity to compete in the economic free market.
And so they prefer sexual liberty to economic freedom.
You know, I'm not going to win in economics, but I'm really horny when I have sex with a lot of different people, so I would love it if sexual restrictions were blown away.
The 1960s, you know, purely our selected time in a lot of ways.
They prefer sexual subsidies to low taxes, right?
So if you are selected, you're probably not going to end up making a lot of money, so high taxes aren't a problem to you.
But you do want sexual access to a variety of women.
I'm just speaking to men here in general.
And so you want the government to do things which are going to open up the magic gateway of paradise, the snug hum or female availability.
And so sexual subsidies, welfare, single mom welfare, and free government schools, and free healthcare for kids, like all the things that reduce the negative consequences of sexual availability.
Abortion, you want abortion because, you know, that increases your access to sexual variety.
And so given that you're not likely to make much money, but you really want a lot of sexual access, Well, you're going to really like government policies which lower sexual standards and reduce inhibitions.
And this is also going to occur in art, right?
You're going to prefer art that promotes, oh, you know, we've just met and we've just slept together, and you're just going to see art that promotes...
This kind of sexual availability, sexual access, don't have such hang-ups, you know, everyone who doesn't have sex on the first date is a square and they're inhibited and they're uptight and they're stuck up and they got something non-exotic up their ass and that, right?
So...
You're going to love artistic and government policies which lower sexual standards and sexual restrictions.
So, yeah, you're not going to get taxed much, but you sure want to get your big bag full of poontang, so you're very willing to trade economic freedoms for sexual freedoms.
And this, of course, is what happened in the 1960s and the 1970s.
there were massive restrictions on economic freedom, but massive breakdowns in sexual freedoms, right?
And this is when one of the things that Ronald Reagan really regretted in his political career was the giving of no-fault divorce.
You could just get divorced and that is fine.
Well, that opens up sexual access for a lot of men because when women are tied up in monogamous relationships, their sexual access is diminished.
And so the fact that, yes, it had to be California, the left coast of the United States that put this stuff in, which then quickly spread around.
People say, oh, gays have undermined marriage.
It's like, you know that it was a lot of straight people who voted for and really wanted no-fault divorce.
I think that's done a little bit more.
So, there are organisms, absolutely, you know, give me sex, and I don't care that much about taxes.
That perfectly fits with the biological and genetic drives of the organism.
So basically, you know, penises and vaginas, you know, they're kind of undifferentiated.
You know, you can't tell the quality of someone through a glory hole.
And basically, they are selected organisms are just looking for variety and sexual release.
So glory hole, pencil sharpener, cupped hand, sorry, cupped hand.
I mean, what do they care?
So K-organisms, they have, of course, a lower sex drive and less thirst for variety.
And that would be bred out, right?
All the K-organisms that had crazy sex drives and wanted to have sex with anyone would have been ostracized or attacked by the other K-organisms, would have achieved either personal or genetic death through being killed or failure to reproduce because you can't have that many kids when you're K. They have a very high capacity to compete in the free market because their parents invest so much into them.
They're not raised watching TV. They're not raised, you know, here's a tablet, here's a computer, you know, whatever it is.
You have high investment, which means that you have a lot of skills to bring to the free market.
Now, for K-organisms, economic freedom means that you can compete in the free market to win and achieve a lot of resources.
And that buys you sexual access to high-quality monogamous partners.
I know that this is bringing things down to the base element and so on.
And again, I'm talking from a male perspective largely here.
But, you know, your daddy's rich and your mama's good-looking, that old song by Gershwin?
Summertime.
And Sam Cooke's version is great, by the way, but Sam Cooke's version of everything is great.
So if you have economic freedom, you can go out and compete for resources, you can get a lot of resources, and you can end up with a pre-train wreck Anna Nicole Smith.
Again, this is just biological drives.
You can get a lot of resources, which buys you access to high-quality monogamous partners.
Now, so K-organisms, they prefer lower taxes.
They don't want sexual subsidies.
They want lower taxes because they want to be able to accumulate the resources that gets them access to high-quality partners.
So, they reject government policies which lower sexual standards.
They want Mallory Towers, not every Woody Allen film ever made.
They want all of these standards to be kept relatively high.
And they will punish sexual irresponsibility as being very dangerous to the tribe as a whole.
So, K-organisms, they're perfectly fine if there are fewer sexual freedoms or sexual libertinism or whatever.
They want economic freedom because competition enhances high-quality sexual access, which is why you have people on the left constantly saying, let's just, you know, make love, not war.
Let's just have sex.
Let's have sex.
Let's lower the standards.
You know, why are you so hung up?
And fine, you can raise my taxes.
I don't care.
Whereas people on the right, the K-selected organisms, they say, ah, I'm not that comfortable with all this sexual activity and sexual freedom.
It's really not good.
But I don't want high taxes because that's going to interfere with my ability to get the resources that get me the high-quality partner.
So let's look at radical feminism.
So R-organisms, which we'll talk about in the single mom presentation in a sec, R-organisms flourish.
The R-organism gene set, the R-gene set, really flourishes when the dads aren't around.
Because when a father isn't around, the signal that gives to the genetics and the epigenetics of the...
Well, the epigenetics in particular, these are the genes that change based on environment, that turn on and off based upon environmental cues.
When you grow up without a father, this signals to you...
One of two things.
Either your father has been killed, in which case you're in a dangerous environment, an unstable environment, and unstable environments with predation, of course, are the breeding ground for the R-selected gene set.
Or your father just doesn't stick around, in which case you're in a low parental investment situation, in which case, you know, your R-gene set is what needs to grow to succeed within that.
So radical feminism in general promotes hostility to men.
And because it makes...
And when men are unstable or somewhat absent or somewhat not around, that promotes higher sexual drives among women.
And it has them want to mate with somebody who's more physically perfect rather than more morally good and stable and reliable, which is why, you know, the young women of today so often go for, you know, bad boys with abs, you know, and hella good hair, as Taylor Swift says.
You know, they want...
Physical cues of excellence rather than stable cues of strong and consistent and responsible and reliable provider.
So if you promote hostility to men among women, you know, constant scare in the West of, you know, rape, rape culture, you're in a rape culture, you're going to get raped, you rape, rape, patriarchy, men are bad, men are evil, men are...
Right?
Okay, so that provokes a higher sex drive.
That promotes irresponsible sexuality with regards to case-selected preferences.
And also, if you keep telling women that they're in constant danger, Well, constant danger is what promotes the R gene set, because predation, predation, predation is what the R gene set is selected for, to survive constant predation.
Radical feminism promotes masculinity among women.
Right?
And you can see this all over the place.
You know, the kick-ass women in movies and the kick-ass women in video games.
And, you know, they're tough and they can take on guys.
Like I saw, heaven help me, I saw the Mission Impossible Rogue Nation movie.
And there's this woman in there who's all of a, you know, buck ten as far as weight goes.
And she's taken on some 250-pound, 6'6 tall guy with pure muscle.
And she just wins!
You know, just wins.
Meanwhile, you can only get two army ranger women completing the standards if they lower the standards, right?
So you promote masculinity among women.
Fathers are bad.
You've got to do it all by yourself.
And when you look at our selected organisms, there's less differentiation between male and female characteristics.
And the men tend to be pretty, I think of ducks, right, the men tend to be prettier, and the women are kind of plain and they think of peacocks, the male peacocks, right, those giant feathers coming out of their ass, you know, much like some kinky Stefan Ledfest, hey, from Saturday Night Live, not this show, in some, I assume, Berlin dungeon.
And so promotes promotion of masculinity among women.
Well, yeah, I I mean, female rabbits are very masculine in a way, because they have to take care of their kids themselves, and they can't rely upon men.
The femininity is kind of the shadow cast by protective masculinity.
In other words, when men take on the role of providers and so on, then the women can differentiate more and become more feminine.
Again, right or wrong, these are just the realities of biology.
So, when you promote masculinity among women, while men become more promiscuous, more hedonistic, less responsibility, they become more effeminate.
And the women become more masculine and aggressive and shrill and competitive and all that kind of stuff.
And...
So, this is the rise of the metrosexual.
This is the rise of manscaping.
This is the rise of men having their body hair removed to look more feminine, to look less masculine, and so on.
And so, this is what happens in the R-selected environment.
Now, radical feminists are, you know, as I've argued before, they're, you know, just Marxists in panties, right?
And so they have to promote government resource transfers to pretend that men aren't needed, right?
So in a case-selected environment, if a woman has a kid without a male protector, that kid is much less likely to do well, unless our selected feminists can convince the government to provide massive subsidies to single moms.
In which case, yeah, okay, men kind of aren't needed except to pay for the taxes, which have to go to the single mom.
And so radical feminists have to be leftists and have to promote government resource transfers.
You will almost never see a radical feminist group that's deeply concerned with the national debt, because that goes against the whole.
Our selected organisms need to create the illusion of infinite resources.
Right?
There's as much grass as you want.
Whenever people believe that resources are infinite, it promotes the R-selected gene set, which is why those on the left are always promising you free stuff.
They're trying to provoke your, not consciously, they're trying to provoke your R-selected gene set to dominate.
And that's the, right, that's the hook.
It's the hook in the water.
Free stuff.
If you respond to the idea of free stuff, that's your R-selected demon.
And if you respond, oh yeah, might have played my hand a little bit there.
Let's just Keep going.
Oh, don't look back.
We just had a little bump in the car.
But if you, whereas if somebody says to you, here's some free stuff, and you say, wait a minute, who's going to pay for that?
Well, that's your R selected, K selected, sorry, that's your K selected aspect.
Fine, we can say deem it.
And so when people offer you free stuff, if you respond positively, like, yay, that's our selected.
And if people say, oh, here's, you know, free college education, here's free this, here's free that.
And you go like, wait a minute, who's paying for this?
This can't be free.
Nothing's free.
Ah, that's case selected.
In other words, you understand there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Basic reality, economics, and so on.
Radical feminists oppose slut-shaming.
In other words, if a woman's sleeping around like crazy, they oppose that.
That's slut-shaming.
You can't do that because that kind of promiscuity is our behavior.
And radical feminism, in a weird way, they deny responsibility to women.
I get into this all the time.
When I put a video out criticizing single moms, people say, well, you know, it's not like they chose to get pregnant.
It's like, well, unless God chose for them and pinged them with some celestial turkey baster.
Yes, they did.
And in fact, the data is out to show that single moms in general choose to become single moms.
They have unprotected sex, and with guys who are around, they just...
Then they try to get men to marry them.
Anyway, let's not go down that road.
That way madness lies.
And of course, as we talk about our selected organisms being less complex and generally less intelligent, well, single moms have an average IQ in the low 90s, which is quite a lot lower than the average of 100.
And so they deny responsibility to women.
Whereas in case, selected organisms say, well, you chose to have sex.
You've got to live with the consequences.
And they promote institutional sexism.
It's everywhere.
It's all around you.
It's not any individual.
If you meet a man who doesn't seem to be sexist, he is because penis.
Evil.
Now, K-organisms, they promote affection for men.
And that's because they know that if women hate men, that's going to promote higher sex, more variety, more unwanted children, which is very bad for the community as a whole.
They accept differentiation among the sexes, right?
So there are certain researchers who have done fantastic work on pointing out the differences between male and female brains.
And if you're case selected, you're like, well, of course, right?
If you are selected, that is deeply offensive to you.
Because if there are differences, if there's a division of labor in terms of intellect and capacity between men and women, this doesn't mean better or worse.
It's just, you know, evolution is never better or worse.
It's just more adapted or less adapted.
And so the degree to which you accept differentiation among the sexes is the degree to which you are K-selected.
Because K-selected means men do one thing and women do another, right?
They know that men are needed for the K gene set.
So they want to reduce government power.
They want to reduce the degree to which money is taken from responsible K-selected families and given to irresponsible R-selected single moms.
They want to reduce that because that's breeding your enemies, so to speak.
That's breeding out the K gene set and subsidizing the R gene set, right?
And the case, no, it's essential to ostracize our behavior.
Ostracism is very, very powerful, and Ks are perfectly comfortable with it.
Because it's much kinder, right?
I mean, you don't want to attack someone because there's risk in that.
But, you know, if you ostracize, like if a wolf is just doing really terrible things, well, you simply ostracize that wolf.
You just drive him out of the pack or you don't, right?
You just don't respond.
You don't share.
You just don't deal with that.
And that promotes gene death.
The individual survives but won't reproduce.
And so ostracism is something that K organisms are incredibly important.
Well adapted to have and to impose and so on.
You can watch Downton Abbey to see the degree to which single moms got ostracized in society.
Our organisms can't stand ostracism.
Ostracism is like the ultimate evil for them and we'll get into why in a little bit.
So they're going to deny institutional sexism.
They're going to say there's no magic structure that people's brains are formed by.
You judge each individual and you look for better and worse.
So, R-organisms with regards to single motherhood.
So, the R-gene set wants high-stress, low-investment, father-absent families, because that is the petri dish, that is the fertile breeding ground for the R-gene set to reproduce.
And there's not any particular help in empathy, right?
Empathy is not our selected trait for a variety of reasons.
If you really care about your friend who's getting eaten by a wolf, well, the wolf's probably going to eat you too, so you've got to just run and abandon, right?
Now, single moms, and again, I know there are single dads.
We're just dealing with the vast majority of things, right?
Single moms, well...
They go to the government and they say, give me all these resources.
They must not have empathy for the people whose resources they're taking based upon their irresponsibility.
So the R gene set wants to create a large dependent R army, which pillages from the K group.
Because if everyone's an R, there's very few resources to strip.
So some people have to be K in order for the R to have stuff to steal from.
Like if everyone's a thief, there's nothing to steal.
Now, the R's will hold up kids, you know, like, oh, we need to, you've got to help these kids, you've got to save these kids.
And K's respond to that, because for K's, kids are incredibly precious.
So when a single mom says, I can't feed my children, that's really tough for K's, because K's really, really care about kids.
And the R's don't as much.
I'm sorry.
It's just biologically the case.
But the R's are very cunning, and they dangle the kids like, Oh, you don't care about this child?
You don't care about this child?
So, you can see this showing up all over the place.
What about the children?
They don't care about the children.
And...
So if they hold up their kids and say, well, it's not the kids' fault and so on, well, the K response to that is to say, so you're too irresponsible to raise your children, so you need to give your children to a K family.
You need to give your children up.
You need to have your children adopted by a K family.
That would be a free market, freedom, liberty, K response.
Whereas if you've got the government, then, oh, you hold this up and all this, well, we'll get to the media and R versus K in a bit.
Now, single motherhood also, not always, but in general, creates an unstable criminal class, right?
Single moms have been to some degree characterized as a conveyor belt criminal factory of infinite production of hellspawn for society as a whole.
And of course, they are, I think, perfectly nice and wonderful children of single mom households.
But statistically, it's not particularly great.
There's data shows that a 1% increase in single motherhood in a neighborhood is associated with a 3% Increase in an adolescence level of violence.
And of course also we talked about how earlier sexual maturation is an R-selected trait that shows up in biology and human biology.
Because girls who grow up without a biological father in the house hit puberty earlier because they're now R-selected.
The gene sets figure it out.
Even younger sisters in Biologically Disrupted Families reach puberty earlier than their older sisters do, right?
So the older sisters reach puberty later, there's a divorce, the younger sisters reach puberty sooner.
And that doesn't show up in biologically intact families.
And the quality of father's involvement with daughters is the most important feature of the early family environment in terms of when the daughter hits puberty.
A more involved father delays puberty and reduces sex drive.
And that's case selected, right?
And of course, when you create a criminal class through single moms, that creates the predators, which the R-selected genes that need in order to manifest itself epigenetically.
Sorry, I know this is a mouthful.
You can watch it again slower if you like.
So, there are organisms when there's a welfare state.
Children become an asset in the present, but a cost in the future.
Right?
Because the more kids you have, the more resources you get through the welfare state.
So they become an asset, and they become a cost in the future to society as a whole, in general.
Now, K-organisms, they don't leave children in the hands of irresponsible mothers, right?
So in a K-selected society, if a woman is a single mom, and she's made a really bad decision, okay, so you have to give your kid up for adoption.
And that is actually the best thing for the child.
I mean, single moms who hold on to their kids are being very selfish because the kids do very badly in single mother households in general.
There's no bigger single predictor statistically for a negative outcome for a child than being raised in a single mother household.
Single moms are terrible moms as a whole.
So what they should do is they should give their kids up for adoption to a two-parent family so the kids have the best chance of doing well.
And they do well.
I mean, the kids who have given up...
To adopted households do as well as all the other kids in two-parent households.
And if they stay in the single mom household, they do statistically very badly.
And so single moms who hang on to their kids are being selfish and they're hurting their children.
And so in case elected society, you don't get resources to raise your single kid.
You've got to give it up to someone else.
And consequences accrue to actions without effort.
You don't have to throw people in jail.
You don't have to punish them.
You simply have to not associate or provide resources to people who are being harmful.
So they provide sexual ostracism for single mothers.
And you can look at my videos on single moms about this and know why.
And that reduces breeding opportunities for R. R, uh, single moms are R-selected factories.
And K and R are subspecies in combat with one another.
And so in a K-selected society, you want to reduce the breeding opportunities for R. And so you try to get people to not have sex with single moms.
Uh, anyway.
But enough about me.
So once children are separated from single mothers through a refusal to subsidize those moms, the children are not punished through the ostracism of the mothers, right?
You can't punish the mother if she's still got the kids around.
So in a case-elected society, which is what used to happen before the rise of the welfare state, the single mom would give her kids up to a married couple who would raise that children as their own because 10% of married couples are infertile and a lot of those want kids.
And so you separate the children from the irresponsible mom and then you can ostracize the mom and thus prevent more of this situation from coming to be, right?
It's like that old poster.
I remember this from years ago.
I've talked about this on the show before, that...
There's a picture of a ship going down, and underneath it says, it could be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
Well, that's a very case-selected.
Yeah, you didn't buy health insurance and you got sick and nobody likes you?
Guess you should buy health insurance and have people like you.
So, in the K-organism world, children are a present cost but a future asset, right?
You invest a lot in your kids that they're a present cost but they're a future asset, right?
In the socialist R-organism world, and Marxism is the ultimate R-selected strategy, theory or framework, in the R-selected socialist world, children are a present asset but future You get given money by the government for having them now.
Other people pay for the incarceration costs later.
But in the K-organism world, yeah, children are a present cost, but a future asset.
When you get too old to hunt, they'll bring you some food.
Let's look at sexual maturity.
So our organism, because the earlier that sexual activity is stimulated, the more our gene set is enhanced, is flourished, right?
So you want to promote early sexual activity and thoughts, right?
And you can see this fight.
It's going on actually here in Ontario.
So the government put in, they said, oh, we're going to consult with parents, which means they're never going to consult with parents.
And they put some pretty heavy-duty sexual education into government schools.
So this is all Government schools are our selected factories, which is why the West has gone so R to the point where, hey, who needs borders?
We'll get to government teachers in a sec, but it's a pure R environment, which is why they want to teach kids about sex a lot.
Why government schools would have anything to do with teaching about sex is incomprehensible to me.
That is the job of the family.
But the R selected gene set wants to promote early sexual activity and thoughts as much as humanly possible because it lowers the need for quality.
Anything which lowers your capacity to bang based on quality, you know, like I put out for virtue is my basic T-shirt.
And, you know, two thumbs up for virtue, one penis up.
And anything which is going to lower quality, right?
So you think of drinking parties, right?
You get together and everybody gets drunk and they have sex with each other.
Well, the drinking is a way of making sure that the R-selected gene set gets to bang others without that pesky K requirement for quality getting in the way.
So anything that reduces your capacity to judge the quality of your sexual partners, drugs, alcohol, raves, whatever it is, right?
The hypnosis of an incredibly high sex drive, which is the R-petri dish.
Anything where quality gets lowered.
And even physical beauty is part of that.
Physical beauty renders men idiots, so low is their demand for quality.
Early sexual activity increases the span of fertility, because remember, fertility is our organism's way of optimal survival.
And it promotes physically healthier offspring rather than higher quality offspring.
So a wolf that can run a little bit slower, but is much smarter, is a much better predator.
Now, a rabbit that can run a few percentage points faster, at the expense of not being quite as smart, is going to get, it doesn't have to be faster than everyone, it just has to be faster than whoever else the wolf is chasing.
So you want healthy offspring, and the quicker you get eggs converted to offspring, the healthier those eggs tend to be.
They tend to get a little dusty for human beings into the mid to late 30s.
So, they want healthier offspring rather than higher quality offspring.
It also allows for the release of high sexual tension, which is a constant problem for our selected organisms.
Sex maniacs, right?
It also promotes the worshipper-based physical qualities, sexiness, rather than virtue.
And so, yeah, the R selected people are constantly focusing on early childhood sexual education and the promotion of non-traditional sexual standards and so on.
Because, you know, if you can expose kids to sexual ideas earlier, well, that is going to help the R gene set.
K-organisms, they delay sexual activity and thoughts.
And, of course, they promote sex after marriage, right?
You've got to have a commitment to a high-quality person, and then you can have, you know, the wall-to-wall mango-soaked bang-a-thon.
And later, sexual activity is needed to determine quality.
You've got to find out who's good, who's smart, who's passed with 100% in calculus before you, you know, bang those nerds senseless.
And so...
That promotes higher quality offspring, at the expense to some degree of the eggs aren't quite as young, but again, you want a wolf that can run 5% slower, but is 10% smarter.
Whereas for rabbits, you just want to run 10% faster, you don't care about, right?
There's no point with that trade-off.
Lower sexual tension needs less release, and so there's skepticism towards base physical qualities.
Books I read that were very influential to me when I was a kid by Enid Blyton called Mallory Towers, M-A-L-O-R-Y, Towers, constantly promoting quality of character and great skepticism towards, you know, the girls who just spend all their time primping and putting makeup on and fluffing their hair.
They're all just shallow idiots that nobody wants to have anything to do with.
So the skepticism to base physical qualities, and they put out for virtue, not just sexiness.
And they do not want early childhood sexual education.
And of course, you can see this with religious people in government schools.
Don't even let me start it on R versus K relationships to pornography.
I'm willing to do the research, but it might take a while.
What about equalities of outcome?
Inequality, our organisms can't stand inequality.
They just can't stand inequality.
Low parental investment means lack of quality in offspring.
And what's the point?
There's no point having a high-quality rabbit.
High-quality wolf, yes.
High-quality rabbit, who cares?
Now, if you have a low parental investment and there's a lack of quality in your offspring, I think of all the extreme cases like the people around Dylann Roof, just a bunch of, you know, white trash idiots, right?
And black trash idiots, for that matter.
Now, it's less negative for you if you've been raised in a R-selected, low-quality, low-parental investment environment, often with physical violence, neglect, abuse, and so on.
Well, that's less painful if there aren't higher-quality people around.
Our organisms have a hostility to free will and personal responsibility.
Because quality requirements are higher for monogamy than one night stands.
One night stands, you just have to be turned on and probably not even sober.
So anything which rewards quality is the enemy of the R-selected gene set.
And so they do not like it when people get rich.
They do not like it when people get better, when people have additional resources.
So economic equality has to result from injustice, because remember to the R Gene said, it's like you, you know, you helicopter over a field of 10,000 rabbits in Australia, and can you tell them apart?
No, of course not.
It's just one big giant blob of this.
People are people, right?
We are the world.
We're all one.
There's no, we're all the same.
Deep down, we're all the same.
No, we're not.
And so, any economic inequality must result from injustice, must result from predation, must result from stealing.
Right?
If you have more grass than me, you must have stolen my grass.
Because we're all supposed to share.
It's all equal.
And this results with a hatred of the wealthy.
Now, I'm not talking about inequality of opportunity.
Sorry, equality of opportunity is great, but equality of opportunity, everyone gets to compete equally, does not result in equality of outcomes because people are different, and quality matters.
I mean, try starting a band by just picking the third guy at some local karaoke night.
What are the odds of your band being very successful?
Well, not very successful.
And if it's not even karaoke, just some guy off the street.
Okay, you can be our lead singer.
Right?
Probably not going to work out very well.
Now, in the K-selected world, so high parental investment means high-quality offspring, and they prefer competition with higher-quality people, right?
I mean, Ronda Rousey is not out there taking on a bunch of girl guides.
By the way, you've got to watch her video on Do Nothing Bitches.
Just great stuff, right?
And she's K-selected up the yin-yang.
So they prefer competition with high-quality people.
You want to go up against the best, because that's the only way you're really going to enjoy your victory.
So they prefer free will and personal responsibility because free will is how you differentiate quality.
Personal responsibility.
If you look at the debate around the IQ bell curve, The people on the left say, well, everyone can be smart.
You just have to give them the right environment.
There's no fundamental difference between people other than the environment.
So if you take someone with an IQ of 80 and you put them into Stanford, they'll do really well.
And the data does not support it.
The data does not support it.
I mean, think of the Head Start program.
What, $100 billion plus trying to get inner-city kids to do as well as non-inner-city kids?
Complete failure.
Complete failure.
It's like saying, everyone's seven foot tall if you just give them the right food.
No, they're not.
It's true that malnutrition will cause you to be stunted, but extra food just makes you grow wider rather than taller.
So, in the K organisms, they relish and respect and prefer and understand and accept That there are innate differences, because that's the whole point of a K-organism, is to prefer the innate differences and breed to enhance them.
And so, yeah, they have to advocate free will, personal responsibility, and so on.
Anything which punishes quality is an enemy, right?
So for the R-organisms, anything that rewards quality is the enemy, right?
If you're really good at business and you make a lot of money, well, you just must be a thief who stole stuff, and you're corrupt, and you're nasty, and you're evil, and blah, blah, blah, right?
But for the K-organisms, which is why high tax on the wealthy is in our selected trade, whereas the K-organisms, anything which punishes quality is the enemy.
There's an old statement about Americans.
Americans are never poor.
They're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
You know, I want that ring.
I want that brass ring.
I can get there.
You know, like I grew up in a really poor environment, a really poor...
I knew rich people.
I didn't resent them.
I'm like, I'm glad you're there because I'm just going to do what you do and get the hell out of this hellhole.
So economic inequality for K-selected organisms, it results from intelligence and decisions.
Whether that intelligence is something you've worked for or something innate, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
I could go to singing lessons from here until the end of time.
I'm never going to sing 1% as well as Freddie Mercury.
Or Pavarotti, or whoever, right?
It's not going to happen.
So there's some things that are built in, and there are some things which are based upon your intelligence decisions, your commitment, your hard work, your willingness to sacrifice personal pleasure in the moment for the sake of good rewards later, which is a purely K-selected trait, which we'll get to in a sec.
And so K-organisms, they don't hate the wealthy, they respect and envy the wealthy.
Envy means I want to be like you.
Hatred is, I can't be like you, so I'm going to make you like me, miserable, flat.
And poor.
So inequality of outcome?
Yeah, there are rich and there are poor people.
And K's are like, that's great.
And R's are like, well, that's horrible.
And that's the result of injustice.
And let's go screw up the rich people.
Let's look at immigration.
So again, this is not arguments for or against.
This is just the biological drives.
So our organisms have very low in-group preferences, right?
So in America, you have a largely Protestant Christian country that was founded that way and made that way for hundreds of years.
And on the left, they're like, let's bring everyone in!
The low in-group preference.
Our group is not better than anyone else's.
People are people.
Everyone's the same.
There's no differences in IQ. There's no differences in culture.
There's no differences in ambition.
There's no, like, everyone's the same.
And if you bring anyone to America, they'll be just like Americans because it's all environment, right?
So they're very low in group preferences.
Now, remember, R is genetically in a battle to the death with the K. So anything which destroy K thoughts and persons is a plus.
Right?
So this is what happens on the left, is they put out this meme or this general idea, everyone's the same, and if you prefer your own group, You must be a racist, a xenophobe, a bigot.
You are a horrible human being.
And so any in-group preference, well, if you're white, if you're black and you prefer your own group, right?
I mean, it's like that old statement.
It's like, I'm proud of being black, said the black man.
I'm proud of being Asian, said the Asian man.
I'm proud of being white, said the racist, right?
Because any preference that white people have for white people is racist.
Everything else is just, well, they like their own culture and more power to them.
And so, if you have any kind of in-group preference, the R-selected gene set will just scream at you, and scream at you, and scream at you, and try and destroy your life, and get you fired, and so on, because they want to destroy in-group preferences, thoughts of quality, and differentiation.
So, for our organism, skepticism towards the value of outsiders is incomprehensible.
Like, they touch Adios America and Coulter's book, And they exploded.
It's matter and antimatter.
How could you be skeptical towards the value of a quarter of the Mexican population moving to the United States?
Same thing that's happening in Europe at the moment.
How could you be skeptical about the value of half a million Muslims pouring into Germany every year?
Skepticism towards the value of outsiders is incomprehensible because rabbits aren't tribal.
They don't have an in-group preference.
They don't, right?
That rabbit over there, yeah, he's the same as me.
But Ks know that it's different.
The importation of R-selected women in particular is of great value.
If you can import more R-selected women, not only will you gain sexual access because they have low standards, but also it will drag down the standards of your local women as well.
Now, they prefer outside R, the R organisms, the R people, they prefer outside R to internal K.
If you look at the big shift in American immigration from Ted Kennedy's 1965 immigration bill, they used to get Europeans coming in, now they get third world people coming in.
Well, they prefer outside R to internal K because the outside R's they can breed with, they can get their rocks off, and they also gain voting powers to increase the size and power of the state for more resource siphoning from Ks to R's.
I mean, if the state is what's used to take resources from the K's and give them to the R's.
Variety.
I mean, the R-selected organisms are crazy for variety.
They get easily bored.
They need constant stimulation.
So for them, diversity is a strength.
Yeah, well, diversity is fantastic because it breaks down the K-selected culture.
Everyone is the same.
So if you don't like a particular group or you're skeptical of their value, the only answer is that you're an irrational bigot because everyone is the same.
K-selected organisms do not see it that way.
They have very high in-group preferences.
I mean, wolves prefer wolves to non-wolves, and they prefer their own wolves to other wolves.
And for the K organisms, anything which destroys our thoughts and persons is a plus.
And this is why ostracism is so powerful in the K-selected world.
Now, skepticism towards the value of insiders, it's incomprehensible.
And you can see this in the immigration debate in the U.S. Some people are saying, well, no, our immigration policy should be to benefit the Americans who are already here, right?
Because they're the in-group.
They are the American tribe.
And again, it doesn't have to be white people.
It can be anyone, but the people who are already here.
And even the Hispanics who are already in America, they prefer, in a lot of ways, limited immigration.
For Hispanics, because they now have an American in-group preference.
So skepticism towards the value of insiders is incomprehensible.
In Europe, when the politicians say, well, we have to help all of these refugees, and people are saying, well, wait a minute, we don't have enough money, we don't have enough jobs, we already have trouble with the refugees who are already here, we can't take more.
Malaysia had a bunch of Muslims come over from Burma, where they were being oppressed, as they say, by the Buddhist monks, the extremist Buddhist monks, and they said, we can't do it.
We gave them supplies, and we said, move on.
Gotta move on.
So for the K-organisms, not valuing those who are inside your tribe is incomprehensible.
And K-organisms want to import K-selected women, which was, again, to some degree, European women in the past.
Now, R organisms prefer outside R to internal K, but K organisms, they don't like outside Ks or internal Rs.
The internal Rs are their enemies and the outside Ks are their enemies because they may compete for resources with the Ks, right?
It's like armies, right?
They don't like internal betrayers and they don't like the soldiers from the other army, right?
So that's the K. So for the R-organisms, the shift in immigration from K-selected Europeans to R-selected foreigners was great for the R. Gene said, fantastic, lowers the standards and creates a big voting bloc for a bigger government and blah-de-blah-de-blah.
Again, not all, right?
Regists in general.
But for the K-organisms, the shift of immigration in the U.S. from K-selected Europeans to R-selected foreigners, complete disaster.
Now, while the R's focus on variety and diversity, the K's focus on tradition and quality.
Because everyone is not the same.
Culture matters.
Intelligence matters.
Religion matters.
Everyone is not the same.
So...
Kindness, charity, we've got to help these people.
Well, that doesn't mean a government program, right?
First of all, charity is very difficult.
Very difficult.
Because there are accidents in life where we should genuinely help people.
However, people who've really screwed up, they like to pretend that it was an accident or it wasn't their fault.
And so they mimic, right?
Irresponsible people mimic people who have negative things in their life as a result of an accident.
It's really tough to differentiate these people.
Even charities have a great deal of trouble doing it.
I mean, I give money away to my listeners sometimes.
Sometimes it's been very successful and sometimes it's been a complete disaster.
And I get a pretty good judge of people.
It's really tough.
You certainly can't do it from a welfare state office hundreds or thousands of miles away.
So, state welfare versus private charity, state welfare is coercively put into place, right?
You take money from people through taxes by force or counterfeiting or debt or whatever it is.
You take money by force and you give it to people.
That is theft, technically, in the transfer of wealth against people's will.
Private charity is a different matter.
Now, so when I talk about criticizing state welfare, I'm not talking about not helping people.
I can help people a lot better with private charity.
So, welfare promotes sexual irresponsibility.
Because you don't have to be that careful who you sleep with because the government will give you resources, right?
You can marry the head honcho of government cheese provision.
You can get all your resources from the government so you don't need to be that careful about the man you sleep with.
Well, if it reduces the requirements for quality, that's what the government provides.
You can just bang some thuggy hottie and, you know, get money from the government.
Economic determinism also destroys the concept of quality.
You are a result of economic determinism.
It's a very Marxist idea, right?
That the poor classes is just economic determinism and so on.
It destroys the concept of quality or personal choice and responsibility.
Welfare reduces the need to invest in offspring, which produces the next generation of our selected human beings.
Because if you're going to compete in the free market, you really need to invest in your kids because you've got to teach them all this cool stuff that they're going to use to...
Succeed in the free market.
You know, if, you know, as is in America now, you've got generations and generations on welfare.
What do you need to invest in them for?
Just plop them in front of the TV, let them run wild, going off and have sex with your new boyfriend.
That's going to produce your next R's, right?
The fantasy of infinite resources is fundamentally what feeds the R gene set, right?
So things like the gold standard and things like Bitcoin, where the production of resources, particularly currency, is limited, is very case-elected, which is why you see the case-elected people on the free market side, the libertarians and the republicans, who are genuinely free market.
They are promoting the end of central banking, which is creation of money out of nothing, Bypassing the natural restrictions of reality, at least for the moment.
Because when you get central banking, when you get the government's capacity to create money out of nothing, you create this fantasy of infinite resources.
That feeds the R gene set.
Why bother with quality when everything is free?
Now, welfare also enables and encourages hostility towards men.
Because what's going to happen is...
When there's a welfare state, a lot of women are going to breed with jerks, and those jerks are going to then abandon them, which makes them very angry towards men, which they then take out on their sons, which then further produces jerks in the future, which further breeds the argin set.
It's perfect.
I mean, it is really just like feeding the argin set.
Now, for K-organisms, there's voluntary charity, and that promotes sexual responsibility, which is very good for the K-organism.
And so, if you are a widow rather than a single mom, your kids are going to do fine, statistically.
You know, if the father dies somewhere or whatever by accident, then you're, you know, it's not the single mom you choose to get married immediately.
Sorry, you chose to get divorced or you chose to have children out of wedlock, and that's a single mom by choice.
If you are a widow, well, you're fine, right?
So you want to differentiate between those who are accidentally raising children alone and those who've made the choice, and you can only do that through the investment of voluntary charity.
Charity increases the requirements for quality, and charity works very hard to differentiate people in genuine need and those who are pretending to be in genuine need or who are pretending that it was accidental.
Right?
So they'll fake that, oh, it wasn't my fault this happened, and blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
The rejection of economic determinism strengthens the concept of quality.
If we're all just victims of economic circumstances, there's no such thing as quality, and there's no such thing as better or worse, right?
And if you reject economic determinism, and you say, well, people are making choices, and so on, it doesn't mean you eliminate it completely, that you don't say the environment has no effect, but if you say only the environment has an effect, then you are selected.
Charity increases the need to invest in offspring, which produces the next generation of K. Mothers who cannot provide have their children moved to K families in a K-selected environment.
The reality of finite resources feeds the K gene set.
Charity punishes hostility towards men.
So if you just get divorced for no reason, you used to get ostracized.
From society, right?
You can't talk to this machine.
She just divorced some guy, and that's very selfish because it's hurt her kids, so we're not going to associate with her, because father presence feeds the decay gene set.
And so you can't reward hostility towards men because that promotes the R gene set.
Let's look at teachers' unions.
So for our organisms, since everyone is the same, incentives and disincentives are both unjust punishments.
It's like giving more money to tall people.
It's just an unearned accident of birth, so why would you give more money?
It's not fair.
Success or failure is not a matter of personal responsibility.
Quality, free will, and virtue are the mortal enemies of the R gene set.
The R gene set is an excuse machine.
It wasn't my fault.
I didn't do anything.
It just happened.
I never meant to hurt you.
I never meant for this to happen.
I had an affair.
I never meant for this to happen.
It just happened.
It's just an excuse machine.
And whenever you hear someone just pumping out, there's just an R. That's the R fog to pretend that they deserve K selected charity.
Now, only high-quality K people get no excuses.
Excuses are for the R people by the perception, right?
Okay, organisms.
Okay, so everyone is not the same.
So incentives and disincentives are essential for promoting quality, right?
Not everyone gets to pass the math test, right?
You pass if you pass.
You fail if you fail.
Harder workers create their additional income.
It's an earned benefit, right?
So it's not like just being tall, right?
You earn that benefit.
Success or failure is largely personal responsibility.
Accidents must be strictly delineated from bad decisions.
Very, very important.
You cannot reward bad decisions, but you must help people who have accidentally fallen on hard times.
It's the difference between the guy who takes his money and blows it on the racetrack, where you can't give him more money.
But a guy who's on his way to put the money in the bank and he gets robbed by some people, yes, help him out.
Egalitarianism, determinism, and relativism are the mortal enemies of the K-gene set, which is a responsibility promoter.
No excuses, right?
Never explain, never complain.
No excuses.
Yeah, bad students lose grades, bad parents lose custody, bad teachers lose jobs.
And so anytime you see there's a government union, a government monopoly, where you can't differentiate by quality, well, you're in an R-selected.
Remember I was saying government schools are R-selected machines, right?
Failure.
Okay, so for our organisms, everyone is the same, so failures must be either accidental or institutional.
Never the result of personal choice.
Failure is outside the role of choice.
All pregnancies are accidental.
Infidelities just happened.
Pity for sadness is unbearable.
So selfishly, they've got to get rid of it.
They're very uncomfortable.
Since everyone is the same, well, the tragedy that happened to someone else, well, it could just happen to me.
You've got to alleviate suffering in the moment, no matter what.
Parents of addicts who are selected, just give them more money because they can't stand to see the suffering.
Parents, parents who are bad parents, all the excuses, well, I did the best I could with the knowledge that I had, are selected parents.
So for K-organisms, everyone's not the same.
Failures are either accidental or intentional.
Yeah, accidents happen.
Failure is within the role of choice.
Few pregnancies are accidental.
Infidelity has never just happened.
You made a specific series of choices, which is what ended up with you in the infidelity.
Pity for sadness is bearable.
It's teachable.
Okay, you're really sad that you failed that test.
I'm not going to run to the teacher and demand that you pass.
You're going to learn from that and study harder for the next one.
Since everyone is not the same, the case don't just say, well, I could have ended up homeless.
No, because, well, we'll get into that in a sec.
Sometimes you've got to alleviate suffering in the moment, but parents of addicts don't enable.
Don't enable.
It's okay for them to suffer because that's how they get better.
Debt.
So for our organisms, remember, our gene set wants to create the illusion of infinite resources.
When resources are infinite and collective, any shortage must result from selfishness.
Why would you hoard the infinite?
Give people free health care.
It's free.
Why would you not?
I mean, there's grass.
Why would you not want me to eat grass?
You've just got to be a jerk.
Now, lack of investment in children means national debt provokes little anxiety.
What do they care about how their kids are going to grow up in?
Ks, like, they're weighed upon the fact that the kids are born hundreds of thousands of dollars in government debt.
They've got to fix it.
That's why the Republicans at least talk about the national debt and wanting to...
In the tropics, do tribes worry about running out of bananas?
Do the Inuit hoard snow?
No, there's no point.
It's everywhere.
It's a resource that's infinite.
Conservation for the sake of the future is irrational for our selected environments.
For case-selected environments, any debt creates the obligation of repayment.
You're just making it worse for yourself, Dan.
You might do it in an emergency, but because you actually genuinely want to repay it, it's a liability that plagues you.
Since resources are infinite and personal, any shortages must result from bad luck or foolishness.
Giving scarce resources to foolish people destroys those resources.
Resources must flow in a case-selected society, must flow from the incompetent to the competent.
Conservation for the sake of the future is essential.
You think of farming...
Farming societies, they have to defer gratification.
They have to hoard their food.
They have to survive the winter.
They can't eat their seed crop.
They have to work really hard.
They have to plant crops that they're not going to harvest for months or maybe even years.
A lot of deferral of gratification.
A lot of managing of resources.
Other places, just food falls down off trees and all that kind of stuff, right?
And think of Europe.
Like, Europe at the moment is not holding on to its heritage and protecting its culture because there are very few native European whites who are having kids.
So why do they care, right?
It's like John Maynard Keynes, the famous...
Fiat currency addicted economists and people would say, well, what about the long run?
That's a case-selected question.
What about in the long run?
What happens when we have to pay this money back?
Case-selected people care about that.
Our selected people, he said, in the long run, we're all dead.
Well, no, not because he was gay, didn't have any kids, right?
So, no, if you have kids, it matters.
Gun control.
Our organisms.
Well, physical aggression is suicide for the R gene set.
Rabbits don't fight the wolves.
So, in humans, they prefer verbal abuse.
The Saul Alinsky just terror people.
Now, constant danger feeds the R gene set, and guns have been well proven to reduce criminality, right?
The more guns, the less criminality.
Less criminality is not good for the R gene set.
The R gene set has to feel vulnerable in the face of predators or criminals.
So constant danger feeds the R gene set, so they want to eliminate guns so that more criminals will provoke more R-selected reproduction.
So citizen disarmament is a double plus for the R's.
So since everyone is equal, criminals elicit sympathy.
Oh, that could have been me if I'd grown up in that environment.
That could have been me because everyone's equal and it's all environment, right?
Rabbits have no control over their environment.
Is there grass?
I'll eat it.
Is there a vagina?
I'll screw it.
Okay, I guess I'm done until tea time.
But the K-selected control their environment, right?
So the fact that there's passivity and determinism in the R-selected mindset is perfectly predictable.
And our organisms, they don't want to compete in an equal contest.
They don't want to knock on Ted Nugent's house and say, hey, Ted, I want your guns.
No, they want to use politics.
They don't want to risk anything personally.
If they want free stuff for themselves, they're not going to go with guns to their neighbors because their neighbors can shoot back.
They want the police to do it.
And rabbits can't be wolves.
If rabbits say, well, all teeth and claws are going to be banned, well, rabbits will still survive, but the wolves won't.
So if you're a weenie who's never going to defend himself, yeah, get rid of guns.
K-organisms' assertiveness is natural.
Verbal abuse is an admission of defeat and impotence.
For a K-selected organism, when you see someone screaming verbal abuse, that person has lost, and you've lost all respect for them.
You know, like if you beat me in tennis and I run off and throw my racket and say, well, you're just a jerk, right?
I mean, K-selected people, I guess our selected people are like, oh, he's hurt.
Let him win.
K-selected people are like, dude, not only did you lose at tennis, you lost at breathing.
So the criminal is not me.
K-selected organisms, there's me and there's people really, really different from me.
The criminal is not you.
It's not everyone's equal.
That could have been me.
The criminal is not me.
They're willing to shoot at self-defense.
So there's value for the guns.
Stability and diminished danger feeds the K gene set, so eliminating criminals serves this purpose of feeding the K gene set.
They want to compete in an equal contest, even with a criminal.
Now, they can't oppose the R's plus government power, right?
Which is why K's are dying in the West.
K's ally naturally with limited security powers.
And they want to compete with R's on an even playing field, which means no central bank.
No central bank.
A central bank means you don't have to weigh differences and weigh options and be intelligent enough to know the long-term effects of your predations.
Security in life.
Security in life.
The social safety net.
So for our organisms, everyone's the same.
Love is an illusion.
You're not driven by love to have sex.
You're driven by lust to have sex.
So because youth and sex appeal are so important to our selected organisms, security diminishes in life as sexual attractiveness decreases.
Low investment in your kids, rampant materialism, a lack of bonding, and a lack of saving means an insecure relationship.
Old age.
You're going to be in trouble when you get older.
Low investment in community.
No communal cushion for accidents or misfortunes.
You can't go and rely on your friends, your neighbors, your extended family.
And this is why the R's are like, oh, I've got to have unemployment insurance.
I've got to have old age pensions.
I've got to have free health care.
Because they haven't built the relationships that cushion them.
It's the subsidization of selfishness.
And this is why they're so opposed to ostracism.
K-organisms.
Okay, not everyone is the same.
There's good people, bad people, noble people, base people.
Love is an earned treasure.
Security for K-selected people increases in life because your virtue, your saved resources, and your reputation all increase.
A high investment in your kids combined with sensible saving and monogamy means a secure old age.
You're not going to...
Find some secretary attractive and go through the horrible asset mitosis and lawyer funding of a useless and needless divorce and so on.
You're going to keep all your resources.
High investment case, tribal, they invest in their communities.
Strong communal cushions for accidents and misfortunes.
So they want the freedom to spend and save.
They want charity.
They don't want government welfare.
There are negative consequences of selfishness.
They embrace ostracism, which is unbearable for our selected organisms because they don't have the social cushion.
You can handle ostracism if you've got people who love you.
You can't handle ostracism if all you've done is sit-ups rather than learn how to be a good person.
Government.
We'll end here, and I appreciate your patience, the lengthy presentation.
Our organisms, they want unlimited majority democracy, where verbal abuse and praise shape social policy.
Do you have doubts about immigrants from opposing cultures?
Racist!
Nobody looks at the data.
Nobody looks at the numbers.
Nobody asks, hey, I wonder how many Swedish women are being raped by foreigners.
No, nothing.
No facts, no data, no information.
You're racist, right?
Just scream.
That's what they want.
Now, they constantly react to anxiety with aggression.
This is where you get political correctness.
There's never-ending witch hunts.
There's always some new enemy to be rooted out and hunted down.
Because they're not training their fight-or-flight mechanisms to learn how to deal with negative stimuli.
They just react and blow up.
They reject stable laws.
They want resource transfers.
They want screaming and need and pity and manipulation to get them resources.
Now, property rights inhibit sexual access.
We talked about before.
If you have property rights, you can't have a massive welfare state.
You can't really have a welfare state.
You've got to deal with private charity.
Property rights inhibit sexual access, so our organisms are very hostile to property rights.
They're fundamentally into selfish emotional gratification, and they're infantile.
They have tantrums and greed and name-calling and so on.
It doesn't mean they're not smart.
But just immature.
Now, K-organisms, they prefer a limited democratic republic, a rule of laws, a government of laws and not of men.
Or voluntarism, right?
The idea of a stateless society, right?
Because then the state is what's used by the R to beat the K. R's and K's will achieve a stable equilibrium in society, but whenever you have a state, the R's generally breed.
There's the dysgenics of single motherhood.
The R's take over the political process, enslave the K's, and then they all hit the wall.
You ran out of money, and then everybody flocks back to the K's, and the women are all like, okay, let's pretend the R thing never happened.
You're so sexy with your accounting belly.
Right?
So, verbal abuse and praise is an admission of failure.
Like, if you try and manipulate people by just, oh, I love you so much, you're so great.
Now, K-organisms enjoy mild anxiety as a performance stimulant.
They don't freak out and verbally lash out at people.
They're unafraid of language.
Sticks and stones may hurt my bones, right?
But words will never harm me.
K-organisms prefer stable and predictable laws, right?
Because they want to be in control and they want to have predictability.
Unpredictability and predation is what breeds the R gene set.
And so the Ks want stable and predictable laws.
You can't have that in a majority mob rule late democracy like we're living in now.
And, you know, you don't need a giant drug war to keep drugs away from kids because parental investment does that.
You reject debt as destructive.
To children.
No, it is irresponsible to go into national debt to feed people's needs in the here and now because the kids are going to have to pay and it sure as hell isn't their fault that some woman hooked her stilettos into her hoop earrings with the wrong guy.
It's not some kids in the future's fault, right?
So this is, again, this is not exactly the, you know, the end be-all and end-all.
These are just some of the top ones that I thought were interesting and useful to talk about.
I'm going to do another one, which is more specific examples of this.
We've got Chamberlain and we've got Churchill.
We've got other people that we're going to compare the R versus K with.
And we're going to talk about the general cycle of what happens When R's take over or when K's take over and the general cycle that happens.
Because you can really understand a lot about the cycle of civilizations by looking at this R versus K stuff.
So please give me your comments below.
I will check them out and respond to them.
And I appreciate the feedback that people provide me.
And I, of course, need your support to continue doing this work.
You can go to freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out this show.
Come on!
It's my birthday month.
So I hope that you will help us out as we continue to spread, I think, this very essential and useful information to people around the world.
