0:00 - Introduction to Gene Wars
49:18 - R and K Selection Strategies
56:07 - The Genetics of Politics
2:04:58 - R-Selected vs K-Selected Psychology
2:08:30 - Understanding R and K Strategies
2:10:05 - Reproductive Strategies in Nature
2:20:05 - The Left-Right Divide on Abortion
2:24:06 - K-Organisms and Offspring Investment
2:26:13 - Economic vs. Sexual Freedom
2:29:58 - R-Selected Organisms and Sexual Liberty
2:32:56 - Radical Feminism and Its Impact
2:36:46 - Masculinity and Gender Roles
2:40:55 - K-Organisms and Institutional Responsibility
2:49:50 - Children as Future Assets
2:57:32 - R-Selected Environments and Inequality
3:07:35 - Welfare and Responsibility
3:15:11 - The Role of Excuses in R-Selected Organisms
3:20:09 - Gun Control and Social Dynamics
3:23:31 - Government and Social Structures
3:27:05 - Future Discussions on R vs. K Dynamics
This lecture, led by Stefan Molyneux, launches a comprehensive three-part series titled "Gene Wars." The opening segment focuses on R versus K selection theory, a concept rooted in biological principles that extends far beyond mere biology into the realms of civilization, culture, politics, and human behavior. Molyneux aims to revolutionize listeners' perspectives on societal dynamics by equipping them with a foundational understanding of these reproductive strategies and their pervasive influence on individual behaviors and collective cultures.
Central to this discourse is the principle of genetics, emphasizing the role of DNA as the blueprint of life. Molyneux articulates how every aspect of our physical being operates under the directive of self-preservation and reproduction, echoing the sentiments that each organ and system serves its agenda for survival. With this biological lens established, the lecture transitions into the core of R versus K selection theory. R-selected species thrive in environments abundant with resources yet heightened by danger, adopting strategies that prioritize quantity over quality—akin to the prolific reproduction seen in rabbits. Conversely, K-selected species emerge in resource-scarce environments, where investment in quality offspring and nurturing relationships becomes paramount, as illustrated by species such as wolves and elephants.
Throughout the discussion, Molyneux identifies five key characteristics that differentiate R-selected and K-selected species, highlighting behaviors such as social structure, parental investment, and mate selection. These differences set the stage for a nuanced exploration of how these reproductive strategies manifest within human societies, wherein individuals raised in chaotic environments may exhibit R-selected traits like early sexual maturity and risk-taking, contrasting with those from stable backgrounds who are more likely to embody K-selected characteristics promoting education and future-orientation.
The implications of this biological framework are explored in socio-political contexts, revealing how R or K tendencies shape societal norms and structures. Molyneux asserts that societies reflecting R-selection have higher incidences of crime and focus on short-term gratification, whereas K-oriented communities tend to prioritize stability and long-term planning, often resulting in lower birth rates and higher investment in personal development.
As the lecture progresses, Molyneux investigates ecological pressures, such as predator-prey dynamics that influence reproductive strategies and societal consequences. He draws parallels to contemporary challenges, including demographic shifts arising from these genetic strategies, and explores historical contexts such as the post-WWII baby boom. The nuanced perspective combines evolutionary theory with socio-political dynamics, suggesting that fluctuating societal conditions compel shifts from R to K strategies, thereby reshaping future generations.
The second half of the lecture pivots to the amygdala's role in human decision-making and emotional responses, particularly focusing on anxiety as a primal instinct that influences present-day behavior. Molyneux relates personal anecdotes to illustrate the biological mechanisms at work during stressful situations and how these reactions are tied to our evolutionary past. The correlation between brain structure, particularly the amygdala, and social behavior emerges as a key theme, with implications for understanding political affiliations. The differences between liberal and conservative ideologies are contextualized within this biological framework, and characteristics related to empathy and risk assessment are examined through neurological lenses.
Molyneux further unpacks the influence of dopamine receptors in shaping motivation and social interactions, emphasizing how these biological predispositions inform individual choices and collective political agreements. He posits that societal structures arise not merely from ideological philosophies but are deeply intertwined with biological realities that guide behaviors across generations. This examination extends into discussions on epigenetics, shedding light on how socio-economic conditions can influence genetic expression over time.
In concluding this thought-provoking lecture, Molyneux underscores the significant influence of R and K selection theory on parenting and broader societal constructs. He advocates for an integrated understanding of human behavior grounded in both biological and psychological principles, encouraging listeners to engage with these insights as they relate to contemporary societal challenges and individual choices. Through continued dialogue and exploration of these themes, Molyneux aims to illuminate the complex interplay between genetics and culture, reinforcing the value of understanding our biological heritage in navigating the future trajectories of human existence.
[0:00] Hi everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain. So as long promised, this is part one of a three-part presentation entitled Gene Wars. This is R versus K selection. So this is going to blow your mind, guaranteed. This is a way of looking at and understanding the world, civilization, nature, culture, war, peace, fertility from a biological, hormonal, epigenetic, and genetic perspective, that explains society in such a way that once you get it, once you really understand it, you will never be able to look at the world in the same way again. I believe you will be able to look at it very, very clearly. So just before we begin, just something important to know about genetics. So, of course, you're composed of DNA, and each one of these genetic components wishes to reproduce itself. And I have an eyebrow. In fact, I have two eyebrows, and if I don't shave, I have one. And my eyebrow, what is its job? Well, its job is to keep the sweat from running into my eyes. And why does the eyebrow do it? Is it kind? Does it care about me? No!
[1:10] Selfish little caterpillar on my forehead. No, it doesn't do any of that. Why does it want to help keep sweat out of my eyes? Well, the deal with the eyebrow is, okay, fine, Stef, I'll help you keep the sweat out of your eyes, but what you do in return is use your better vision to hunt, eat, have sex, so that I can use you to make a new eyebrow, right? This is the really important perspective. You've got a little toe. What is your little toe for? Well, it gives you a little bit of extra balance and helps you do the Macarena in a pretty seductive manner.
[1:46] And why does it do that? That out of the goodness of its heart, out of the altruistic generosity of its welfare state-driven benevolence? No, it does it. So, okay, Stef, I will attach itself to this smelly extremity of yours so that I'll give you a little bit of extra balance. You use that for hunting and for seducing the ladies so that you can have sex and I can use you to make another toe. This is really, really foundational. It's kind of a weird perspective, but it's really important to understand that we are just this big, giant, inconvenient machine for all of our body parts to make new body parts. The liver wants to make a new liver, the eyeball wants to make a new eyeball, and it will help us to the degree with which we can serve that end of making new stuff. That's the very, very important thing to understand before we dive in. Having said that, let's dive in. All right. So for decades, there are two main reproductive strategies that have been recognized by biologists. They're included in the most respected textbooks, and they've been taught in most, if not all, major biological courses and programs in university and so on. And it's been around for a long time. It survived challenges pretty well. And these reproductive strategies are referred to as R slash K selection theory. You can use the mnemonic rabbit for R and you'll see why as we go forward.
[3:15] The R strategy is an adaptation to excessive resources, right? So when you're not going to run out of food, then you want to have as many offspring as humanly possible. You're not going to starve to death, right? So think of rabbits in a field, they're not going to run out of grass or whatever, right?
[3:37] The R strategy for reproduction emphasizes quantity over quality. So think of like a frog has like 12 billion eggs and then tadpoles and then, right? But they don't give a crap about any of them. In fact, they'll eat them if they get hungry.
[3:54] And so they don't invest in their kids, they just have massive numbers of kids and you know each kid crosses their fingers and of course maybe two or three percent of them make it to adulthood it's the same thing with the sea turtles right they go up and they dump their eggs in the beach and then cross your fingers dodge the seagull alley and try and get back to the water and 95 or 97 or 98 percent of you will never make it to adulthood so you could also call it um my um first person shooter strategy spray and pray prey, just plow the semen, cross your fingers, keep moving. It tends to be centralized around prey species, so rabbits, mice, deer, insects, small lizards, and so on. That's where it tends to occur. Now, the K strategy is very different. Now, the K strategy is an adaptation to scarce resources. When resources are scarce, you've got to really work to try and gather them, to hunt them, to store them, to catch them. And it emphasizes in terms of offspring quality over quantity. You have fewer kids, but you invest much more in those kids. You teach them how to hunt, you nurture them, you raise them, and it's pair bonded and so on.
[5:12] Now, the K species tend to be larger, more complex, bigger brains, and they tend to be predator species. So lions, wolves, involves the larger kinds of owls, which are more case-selected than sort of the smaller owls and so on.
[5:27] We'll go into these in more detail, and I'll explain at the end how this connects to politics.
[5:35] Let's look at the R strategy. So these are the five main traits that are generally talked about. So, there's an aversion to competition in our strategy organisms. And why compete? Because resources are everywhere. There's grass everywhere. Why are you going to compete over this or that patch of grass? No, you just move on. So, there's an aversion to competition, rampant, rampant promiscuity. And that's because it's quantity over quality in terms of offspring. Low investment, single parenting. hunting. You don't spend a lot of time raising up your kids to live right and hunt good. Just dump them in the wilds and see what happens.
[6:14] Early sexual maturity and activity. And one of the things that's very true in biology as a whole is that the earlier an organism matures, the quicker it matures, the less complex it ends up being. So, you know, think of like a horse can walk within a day or two of being born. Kids stay like 10, 11, 12 months. and um but you know we end up with all this sophistication the brain takes like 20 to 25 years to mature still waiting but um uh other brains a brain of a millipede is like born good to go so the longer things take to develop the higher quality complexity and sophistication there tends to be so among the our strategy like think of insects and so on our early sexual maturity activity low loyalty to the in group among our strategies uh you're gonna get eaten and uh maybe and uh you don't want to go oh my friend's getting eaten by the fox says the bunny and he rushes over to hell but right i mean now you are down one more bunny uh so it's two two for one so you don't want a lot of loyalty to your in group because you're not in competition you're not going teaming up to hunt stuff, and if your.
[7:33] Friend or your brother, your sister, or whatever, your father, your mother, are being hunted by a fox or whatever, then you just, Just try and get away. That makes sense, right? Now, the K strategy, there's an embrace of competition. There is win-lose. There is a real desire to show yourself as better. There is delayed and monogamous sexuality. You want to monopolize the high-quality mates for yourself. Because you invest so much in parenting, you really care whether the kids you're parenting are yours or not. So you want to try and hold on to to your pair bonded partner so that she's not having sex with someone else so he's not having sex well i guess the woman always knows the kids are hers, but um so delayed and monogamous sexuality is key high investment dual parenting right these are the animals that stay together and invest a lot into their kids late sexual maturity and activity uh that is of course to give the chance to display reproductive fitness before having uh your kids and high in-group loyalty. These are the pack animals, either the wolves. They care about each other. They will work to defend each other. They compete with each other sometimes, but high in-group loyalty. These are the pack animals who work together, who team together in order to hunt their prey.
[8:58] Now, here's some quotes about this. So, if an animal species lives under conditions where resources are ample so that there are good opportunities for expansion, but where there are also considerable dangers, such as predators, then it will be advantageous for this species to use most of its resources, on breeding as fast as possible and spending few resources on each offspring. This is called R-selection. The R is the mathematical symbol for the rate of reproduction. R-selection causes the evolution of small animals growing fast and breeding fast. Examples are mice and insects. The opposite of rSelection is kSelection.
[9:40] Strange things are afoot at the Circle K. This is what happens when a species lives under conditions where the population is limited by scarce resources rather than by predators. The capital K is a mathematical symbol for carrying capacity, i.e. The maximum number of individuals that the resources in a given habitat can continually sustain. K selection leads to the evolution of big animals, which breed slowly and utilize the given resources optimally, and which invest a considerable proportion of their resources in the care of their sparse offspring.
[10:16] If the animals under these conditions bred excessively, then they would have insufficient resources for nurturing each young and they might over-exploit their habitat to the point where the resources were exhausted. K-selection is found in those animals that come last in a food chain, such as whales, elephants, and humans. Right so if lion breeds too much a pack of lions or a pride of lions right if they breed too much then they eat all of the food in the vicinity and they all starve to death right and this is uh this balance is really really important to understand you watch those nature documentaries where you know the wolf is in hot pursuit of the baby deer and everyone's like run deer run but of Of course, if all of the prey get away, if all the deer can outrun the wolves, then the wolves all die of starvation, and then the deer breed without opposition until they strip all of the resources from the environment, and then the deer all starve to death. The fact that some deer get caught is essential for the long-term sustainability of the deer.
[11:24] So, let's look at these, the rabbits, right? Breed like rabbits is the old thing, right? So, you know, you've got rabbits, rabbits, rabbits. They're never going to run out of grass, pretty much. And so you get all these rabbits, breed, breed, breed, breed, breed. And that's what they're up to. And they're basically just incredibly rapid photocopy machines designed to turn grass into rabbits as quickly as humanly possible. Because, you know, grass is easy to obtain, according to some of my listeners. And so you don't have to chase it, you don't have to hunt it, you just go and eat it. Now wolves on the other hand, aha, right, there's a bunny and so the wolf is going to have like, two kids and is going to teach them how to hunt rabbits and because the rabbit is going to be vamoosing on a regular basis according to Looney Tunes and so you really have to have a lot of skill and cooperation and so on. Like you can see how jackals hunt gazelle, right, Like some of them wait, the others herd the gazelle towards the ones who wait, they jump out. This requires a degree of teamwork, cooperation, pack mentality, intellectual sophistication, or at least intelligent sophistication in order to achieve it, whereas the gazelle just chewing away on the leaves and so on. Not that complicated a situation. All right, so...
[12:46] Looking at this in a tiny bit of detail. So, a meadow has enough food for 100 rabbits. Now, wolves keep the rabbit population at, let's say, around 30. Now, the rabbits are regularly killed by the wolves, and they can't do anything to protect themselves against a wolf attack. There's no, like, Monty Python vorpal bunny straight for the throat, rare rabbit, and none of that, right? So, any rabbit who waits to breed risks being eaten, and therefore, it's the end of that particular genetic pattern. So natural selection favors breeding early and often.
[13:23] Competition between the rabbits serves no purpose. The limiting factor for the rabbits are the wolves, not any lack of food, right? I mean, they're never going to end up running out of grass because they're going to be eaten by wolves before that. The rabbits don't compete with the wolves, so they're not going to attack each other or any of that. So So there's no competition, purpose, or value for them. If the rabbit is eating food you want, just, you know, step over here, right? Like that Seinfeld joke about guys in weddings, they all look the same, you know, in case the groom doesn't show up, you can say, do you take this guy or just takes a step over, right? So since competition and defense are useless, low investment parenting is optimal. I mean, basically, the commandments here, the two commandments of rabbit parents. Number one, if it is green, eat it. Number two, if it's big and moving, run! That's really all they are down for. So low investment parenting is optimal.
[14:27] Rabbits or our selected species are designed to convert resources into babies as quickly and as often as possible. So the males abandon the females in favor of promiscuity. I mean, there's no point sitting around and trying to train your kids to do what? Run from wolves and eat grass? It's not that complicated. And so they abandon females in favor of promiscuity. And there's no value to a pack mentality. In fact, there's a genetic disincentive for a pack mentality because you can't fight a wolf. So if a friend of yours gets eaten, you just keep running. There's no in-group loyalty, and there's no pack mentality. Not only is there a negative, but you don't need to get together to hunt your leaves or grass or whatever, so it doesn't really matter. So.
[15:16] What are the pressures that produce R-selection? Well, an early death, right? The earlier the death, the more you want to hyper-accelerate your development, have sex early, quickly, often, all that kind of stuff. But enough about my teenagers. Also, if the environment is random. In other words, you don't know where the fox is or the wolf is. They come out and grab you, and the more random the environment, the more you're going to have R-selection pressures. Lowered population density, of course, relative to the resources. In other words, if the meadow can sustain 100 rabbits, but the wolves keep the population of the rabbits at 30, then that's an horror selection pressure. Absence of competitive pressures is also important. And these produce animals like rabbits. They're docile. They flee from danger. They mate promiscuously, they're single moms, there's no sexual restriction and no in-group preferences. Compare this to wolves, we get to K in a sec, but compare this to wolves. Wolves are highly sexually selective, they only want the best, they're monogamous, they invest heavily in their cubs, they oppose early mating and compete in packs, and of course invest heavily in their offspring. So the K selection pressures are basically this. Prey is far more rare than Easy for rabbits to find food, hard for foxes and wolves to find food. It's on the move, it runs, it burrows, and so on.
[16:44] So, as we mentioned, excessive breeding in lions brings starvation, so competition selection defines reproduction capacity. It's quality over quantity.
[16:56] So, because hunting is vastly more complex than grazing, skills are of little benefit to prey, but they do serve predators. So, if you are, you know, man-whore, pick-up-artist, wolf-guy, your promiscuous low-investment wool, you're out-competed. Because you have a whole bunch of kids, you don't stick around to teach them anything, and the kids who are trained by their parents, few kids who are trained by their parents on how to effectively hunt, And they're going to out-compete the wolves who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Monogamy, you want to monopolize your high-value mates, combines, of course, with high-investment parenting. You're only going to invest in kids that you know are yours, so monogamy is the way to go.
[17:37] And potential mating partners must prove worth. How well can you hunt? How well can you kill? How well, how much food can you bring me while I'm pregnant and possibly disabled? So sexuality is delayed to allow for the assessment of the fitness of a potential mate. Now, K-selection produces packs of animals with strong in-group loyalties. Our selected prey exhibit little to no sadness when one of their group is killed. I've seen this myself. I mean, a rabbit gets grabbed by something, and the other rabbits are like, meh, more for me, right? They're not exactly hallmark cards. Now, K-selected animals are generally larger and more complex because R-selection is inherently dysgenic. It means it is not built on complexity and complexity because it's quantity over quality. Well, just think of mass-produced Ladas versus handcrafted Ferraris or whatever. It is inherently dysgenic. It resists progress, which is why a lot of the real R-selected stuff, like down at the bottom of the food chain, like the phyloplankton and the insects and so on, not a lot of evolution going on there. Now, this is getting to the real meat of the matter, which is us, you, me, and Kay.
[19:02] This is Special Kay. So strategies can change in terms of evolution and choices that can be made by a species. So one of the big things that happened to us was we lost our fur. Some could be argued more than others. but we lost our fur and this allowed us in the hot parts of the world to hunt animals and basically human beings are like running machines right you just run and run and run can outlast a good number of the animals and that's partly because we have no fur and so when we run the breeze cools us down right and so we can just basically run after an antelope until it collapses from heat exhaustion in 10 or 15 minutes and so losing the fur gave us a huge advantage when it came to hunting also when we went from sort of all fours to upright it allowed for considerable brain growth because when you're on all fours your whole back and your ass is exposed to the sun but when you walk upright you present a narrower window for the sun to land on and so you don't need to use as much of your body's water and energy for cooling, right? Because you just don't get as hot. So more water and energy is available for the brain, and the brain is our most expensive organ by far.
[20:19] And so these are things that change. Now, of course, when we lost our fur, we could hunt better, we get smarter, we use more tools, then we become kings of the jungle, and we can get as much food as we want, so...
[20:34] We are in a situation of low predation, at least from within the tribe, and high resource availability. So, bingo, bango, bongo, that gives you mass orgy, Samoan-style sex capades. And so, you've got an R strategy for human beings. Babies, babies, babies, babies, babies.
[20:56] And then you start running out of resources, right? Because you're hit up at the top of the carrying capacity of the environment. you run out of antelopes, you run out of stuff to hunt. So now there's more conflict and humans start to prey upon each other, right? There's more conflict among human beings. So the R, right? Hey, we're great hunters. We got tons of food. Oh, we've got tons of people. We're running out of food. We turn on each other. And so R then gives way to case selection and the R's, some of the R's flee. They're like, oh man, I don't do the fighting thing. I'm a ghost, man. I'm gone, baby. and um over time this strategy evolves right are you r are you k uh well it's better if you can do it real time than waiting for intergenerational changes so it evolves from genetics to epigenetics which is the activation or deactivation of particular genes based upon environmental cues We'll get to more of that in a few minutes. So, the Ar tribes flee. I don't want to fight. I don't want to fight. I'm a lover, not a fighter. So they vanish. They go. And they flee.
[22:11] To resource-scarce environments where nobody wants to go. So you leave like the lush jungles and all of that where there's tons of food, and you head north, and then you end up in godforsaken places like, I don't know, which listeners do I want to offend most? The Outer Hebrides. I actually spent a week camping there as a child. Not the most human-friendly part of the planet. So you get pushed into resource-scarce environments. And so you flee as R, but then because you're in a resource-scarce environment, K. begins to kick in. So you go to Europe, you go to England, you go to Ireland, Scotland, you go to the Nordic countries, you go to Siberia, right? Massive sections of humanity ended up in Siberia, for which I'm sure the entire planet would like to apologize. And now you have a challenge. It's not tribal competition that makes your resources scarce. It's that big-ass European winter. That is a challenge.
[23:09] So you end up, as the R people who fled, you end up raising crops and animals. But that requires a huge amount of investment in your children to make them good farmers, to make them good livestock managers, to make them hoe the back 40 and repair the fences and plan and not eat their seed crop during the winter. If you eat your seed crop, you know you're basically eating a tree bark and offspring come spring now when you start raising crops and animals you end up with a big division of labor.
[23:44] Because you know I'm the barley guy the guy down the street is the wheat guy and then there's a guy who does milk and then there's a guy who has pigs and and we all have to trade with each other because you know steady diet of wheat gets a little old after a while less of course in form of beer very nice but so So you get cooperative assertiveness, you get trade, win-win negotiations, and the way that you enforce social rules in this kind of environment is not through violence, but through ostracism, through social enforcement, right? Because social enforcement condemns ostracized individuals to genetic death rather than, you know, fighty beheading death, right? Because if you ostracize males, for instance, disruptive males, if you ostracize them from the eggs from the women, then they don't get to reproduce, and so you go with gene death, which is why people are so terrified of ostracism. Ostracism hits the same brain centers and causes the same pain as physical torture. We don't want to be ostracized because it's gene death for us. And so these kinds of societies, you know, you say Calvinistic or rigid or whatever, but they require a lot of cooperation. They deal with very strict social rules, a lot of ostracism, threats of ostracism going on and so on.
[25:05] Crops and livestock require the deferral of gratification, intense planning, cooperation, docility, and the conservation of energy, which have a lot to do with the R selection, become a liability. You know, I don't feel like, you know, fixing the fence. Oh, my sheep all escaped, right? So you flee as a prey species. You flee as an R. Man, I don't want to have a fight over the last antelope. But you end up returning as a hyper-predator species, so to speak. So you flee as an R, you come back as super K, which is kind of the story of colonialism in some ways. So, a couple of quotes. R versus K selection. The choice between the two strategies depends on early experience. People raised in a stressful environment exhibit typical R traits. So we're talking about how human beings dynamically adapt to environmental cues to figure out whether it's better to go R or to go K. Kind of tough to go both ways, right? So people raised in stressful environments exhibit typical R traits, such as many and early sexual contacts, large families, risk-taking, and short life expectancy. In a safe, predictable environment, they will typically have lower fertility and higher life expectancy and invest in long-term benefits, such as education.
[26:27] Socioeconomic development, with its accompanying demographic transition and drive to maximize quality of life can be viewed as a shift from an R to a K strategy by humanity.
[26:39] Now, even within a species, there is a margin of variation within the R-K continuum. For example, researchers discovered two varieties of the same opossum species. One living on the continent where they are threatened by predators. One on an island where their life is more safe. It turned out that even in captivity, the island variety lived longer and had fewer offspring, followed more of a K strategy than its mainland cousin, right? So here, same species. One is adapting to an environment with predators, and when you have random predation, breeding early and often is the key. Same species. One with predators turns R. One with no predators turns K. Even within captivity, over time, it has become genetic. And that's important. That happens to human beings as well, as we'll continue to talk about.
[27:38] Here's a summary table. I'll go through it quickly. And you can, of course, pause this and get into more details if you want. Our organisms, short lifespan, small, weak and vulnerable, fast maturation, they're prone to taking risks, opportunistic exploiters, if the resource is available, they'll eat it, less intelligent and experienced. They have a very strong sex drive, reproduce at an early age, large number of offspring, small relative size at birth, little care for offspring, variable population size, right? Depending on the resources, the population grows and shrinks. Many years ago in Australia, the Australian farmers got rid of the dingoes and other predators on the rabbits, the rabbits bred like rabbits, and ended up stripping the outback bear, and all starving to death, and it was a big mess. K-organisms, they have a long lifespan. They tend to be large organisms. They're robust and well-protected. They're slow to mature. They are risk adverse. Risk adverse. They are consistent exploiters.
[28:49] They are more intelligent and experienced. They have a relatively weak sex drive. They reproduce at a later age. They have a small number of offspring who have a large relative size at birth. They put a lot of care into their offspring and they generally have a stable population size so like human beings i mean it's it's a gruesome fact that you know our brains are so huge and you look at babies they have these like weird ali mcbeal style dancing baby giant heads and um basically human beings exit the mother's womb about 12 minutes before their heads get too big and they would just split their moms in two like wishbones at a thanksgiving turkey dinner and uh that's why babies are born so helpless like they gotta get out because any bigger and the hips won't take it and that's why babies are so helpless and that's why the first year of life sometimes called the fourth trimester or the first couple of months because they really should still be in the womb they're so helpless but they can't stay in there any longer.
[29:47] So, epigenetics is really, really important here. R and K strategies do not need to be fixed in the genes. They don't have to be pure in nature. They can be epigenetically shaped by early experience. We're going to talk in part two of this series about the genetic roots and genetic manifestations of R versus K strategies, which is hugely important to understand. The third part, which is the gene wars called ideology, which is R versus K strategies attempting to create societies in which they dominate. Anyway, we'll get to that in a sec. Well, not in a sec, but in a bit. Environments can change in carrying capacity and risk slash unpredictability over the generations. So organisms can adapt strategies to the current situation. Especially humans, we're incredibly adaptive. We have genetics, we have epigenetics, we have neuroplasticity, which is the capacity of the brain to reprogram itself based on new information, which I'm trying to do to you.
[30:42] So, epigenetic biological effects may be and seem to be mediated by hormones. Now, hormonal levels are dependent upon experience, upon the environment. So, as we've mentioned, our strategies for reproduction are the most appropriate in a dangerous, uncontrollable environment where there's little guarantee of surviving into adulthood. Such an environment is stressful. successful, and when all the way from the mother's stress to the fetus in the womb, when the mother's is stressed, the fetus is stressed, when the baby's are stressed, and so on, it leads to the release of glucocorticoid hormones such as cortisol. Children who are subjected to chronically high levels of these stress hormones are driven, are programmed to develop into our strategist reproducers and life forms, focusing on quick reproduction rather than long-term maturation.
[31:42] So, this is going to be achieved by higher levels of sex hormones, of course, testosterone in men, estrogen in women. This leads to early sexual maturity, a strong sex drive, a tendency towards aggressivity and risk-taking in men, and high fertility in women. On the negative side, of course, these are the high RPMs that burn out the motor. High levels of sex hormones are associated with a higher probability of heart disease and cancer, and thus a shorter life expectancy. Let's look at how this manifests. In one instance, a primary cause of childhood stress is an insecure attachment to the mother, not knowing if your mother is there for you, not feeling that she's reliable, not feeling her behavior is predictable.
[32:28] And the offspring experience, it's two sides of the same coin in a way. So there's a lack of support.
[32:35] Also, if the mother is excessively fearful, if the mother does not want the child to explore the world on his or her own and thus develop autonomy, well... So this motherly neglect and over concern is stressful in itself but it also signals a dangerous external environment right don't go out of the yard uh be careful on those stairs everything's dangerous worry worry worry this helicopter stuff that's been going on in parenting for the last uh i don't know a couple of decades maybe i mean when i was a kid it was, here's a hunting bow good luck for the weekend but um whatever signals a dangerous or random external environment provokes R-style epigenetic and hormonal adaptations in children. You can go to bombinthebrain.com for more of my presentations on that information.
[33:21] Now, of course, if you don't get a lot of attention from your mother, that signals to your body that she probably has a whole bunch of other offspring to care for, and when there's a lot of offsprings, that's a sign of an R-type situation. Also, and we'll talk about this more a little later, if the father is absent, if there's no father in the household, bang, you have instant R-karma. Because, of course, that signals that the father is gone, which means there's an R-type reproductive strategy, which is why girls raised without a father, sexually mature earlier, have earlier and unprotected sex, they're just doing what Mother Nature, in her infinite wisdom has laid down.
[34:06] Less immediate causes of childhood stress may include sexual, physical, or emotional abuse, malnutrition, diseases, living in true poverty, in a ghetto, or war zone. All of these can be seen as signals for the hormonal system to prepare the body and brain to invest their energy in short-term reproduction, neglecting long-term goals. Let me say something a little radical here. It's almost like they're two different species. And of course, we're all humans, but this R versus K, almost like two different species, because incomprehensible to each other. You look at people, there was a famous song, actually, I once peed next to Lawrence Gowan. Gowan did a song called, you're a, about criminals, criminals. Criminals and how he said he got the song because some guy was like ah you know I'm a really smart criminal I'm doing really well and he just kept ending up in jail and not learning anything it's incomprehensible to the K strategist what the hell are the R people doing and at the same time the R strategists you know in their hippie doofus reefer madness kind of way look at the K strategists like square man they don't have no any fun no spontaneity you know why would you want to get up in the morning if you knew exactly how your day was going to go, I couldn't work in a cubicle, man, all this Jack Kerouac stuff, right? Incomprehensible and, we'll talk a little bit at the end, the degree of incompatibility between R and K selected people, not insignificant.
[35:36] High levels of stress hormones stunt the development of various tissues in the body. In particular, the hippocampus region in the brain, that is the part that manages the consolidation of memories and the build-up of experience, the capacity to predict and, the consequences of current behavior to see over the horizon to the future. Again, there are strategists who fled to resource-scarce environments who then had to learn how to defer gratification and so on. Anyone who's like hungry, eats seed crop, well, they don't tend to last very long. And also, of course, if you're growing your own food, you have a fixed ceiling of how much you can eat. You have too many kids, well, you have a problem. So um i'm not saying all our strategists are criminals but i'm pretty sure that most criminals are our strategists so people who are raised in stressful environments.
[36:34] Have a lower life expectancy generally tend to be shorter and interestingly they're more likely to become obese when they have excess food right because the limitation is predation not a lack of food. So just eat, eat, eat, eat, eat, and to reproduce, reproduce, reproduce. Reproduction takes a lot of energy. Having sex, being pregnant, breastfeeding takes a lot of energy. Eat, eat, eat, eat, eat. And of course, if we look at the degree to which obesity is becoming a huge problem, I mean, Mexico, I think, is the most obese nation in the world. Throughout the West, particularly in America, obesity is becoming a huge problem because we have excess food. K-strategists don't get fat when there's excess food. They tend to store, they tend to hoard, data, right? But our strategists are eat, eat, eat, eat, eat. And in general, they have poorer health. They tend to be viewed as adults more quickly, so child soldiers and so on, and sexual abuse of children, of course, is treating children as sexual agents prior to them being sexual agents. They're less well-educated. They have more and earlier sexual contacts, earlier pregnancies, and larger families.
[37:41] Quote, their newborns are more likely to be underweight, more prone to die, and more likely to be abandoned or to receive little attention. These are people raised in stressful environments. Moreover, adults are more likely to engage in risky, opportunistic activities that are attractive in the short term, but detrimental in the long term, resulting in higher levels of criminality, militarism, violence, gangs, drug abuse, gambling, smoking, drinking, risky sexual behavior, promiscuity without AIDS protection, for instance. Dangerous driving and accidents at work.
[38:16] Prey species have to go and eat, and they can't be freaking out the whole time about predation, about being preyed upon, so they're not very good at recognizing and responding to danger, which is why they tend to end up being a prey species, just being risky by being alive. And so this is a fairly well-known phenomenon that they are less capable of recognizing dangers. So here's an example of how this could play out as a way of understanding the baby boom quote stress during childhood is expected to produce r-type reproductive behavior during adulthood this may explain the post-war baby boom which lasted from about 1950 to 1965 i.e, one generation after the economic depression of the 1930s and war second world war of course ending in 1945. If the increased birth rate was due merely to improved economic conditions, then it should have lasted at least into the 1970s. An alternative explanation is that the stress undergone by small children in the period 1930 to 1945 raised their fertility so as to prepare them to have large families by the time they became adult themselves. The next generation raised in more comfortable K-like surroundings was less fertile, and this effect became only more pronounced as economic and social development continued.
[39:42] I mean, lots of people in the post-war baby boom, like six kids per family. And that's because, at least according to this theory, a lot of stress in the 1930s and 1940s, and this produces high fertility, and that's the reason why. Such ongoing hormone-regulated fertility reduction might even explain the observed decrease in sperm count in Western societies, which is usually attributed to pollution, I would argue, or keyboards. An alternative RK model-based explanation may find support in the finding that, at least in one study, the decline correlated with the year of birth for men born in the period 1950 to 1970, i.e. the generation whose fertility fell most sharply. 1950 to 1970, economic booms. There was a Cold War and so on, but economic booms, relative stability within the Western societies, therefore you get lower fertility.
[40:37] Now, the RK hypothesis, it's important not to think it's just wealth and poverty. It focuses on uncertainty or risk is the main factor. So, our behavior is diminished in countries with a low per capita gross domestic product, but which are otherwise predictable and safe. So, for instance, the Indian state of Kerala, Eastern Europe before the fall of the Berlin Wall was poor but relatively stable. On the other hand, more wealthy but unstable and violent societies such as South Africa, certain Arab and Latin American countries, and inner cities in the United States tend to exhibit more R characteristics. Wealthier but more chaotic and violent.
[41:18] So the RK theory explains the demographic transition. This is a universally recognized and documented phenomenon that as a population becomes socially and economically more developed, its fertility drops enormously. Average number of births per women falls from seven or eight to less than two. Because you're shifting from R to K. It suggests, quote, It suggests that the best way to reduce unsustainable population in the long term is to increase the general level of physical, psychological, social, and economic security in the population. It also explains why less developed minorities such as Arabs in Israel gypsies in Eastern Europe or Hispanics in the u.s Tend to increase in share of the population threatening to overtake the majority That's an old saying that says the best contraception is industrialization and this explains that, So Let's.
[42:18] Try and encapsulate this into sort of one big picture. This is going to be a taste of part three in particular, but I want to give you the incentive to keep going with this, I think, very essential information. You really need to understand the world, the rise and fall of civilizations. You've got to understand R versus K. In general, you can say R is more on the left and K is more on the right. And we'll go more into the genetics, epigenetics, and biology of that in part three of this series. But what I want to get across just in this particular moment is that I want you to think of R and K as gene sets. And as all gene sets, they try to reproduce. They want to reproduce themselves, right? And they're in competition with each other, right? The more K a society is, the less R is supported in reproduction. The more R a society is, the more harried and threatened and overtaxed K becomes.
[43:16] So I want you to think of like, you know, like alien, like the thing that pops out of John Hertz, hope you get better, John Hertz's belly, an alien. I want you to think that we have these animals inside us, you know, bunnies and wolves, bunnies and wolves inside us, right? Now these animals, these genetic sets, want to create an environment where they can flourish, right? Like beavers want to dam up and we want to build houses and all that. Now I want you to think of something Something like where there is an excess of resources, R flourishes. The R gene set flourishes. Now, think of on the left. Do they like the welfare state? Do they like the money printing? Do they like the debt? Do they like the borrowing? In other words, do they have any fundamental problems? But they generally not. up so i want you to think of this highly verbally adept sophistic dangerous bunny sounds crazy but it's it's true.
[44:19] And welfare, the welfare state, not charity. Charity is limited. There's lots of charity in gay societies, and people on the right are generally more generous when it comes to giving to charity than people on the left. But the welfare state showers and rains down resources on people, particularly on the poor. Trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars have been poured into poor communities. these, that creates a situation of very high abundance. I'm not saying it makes them all rich, I'm just saying it creates massive abundance relative to charity and so on, which is much more discriminating.
[44:58] So wherever there's massive abundance, R strategies flourish. And so the fact that people on the left who manifest the R strategy argue for more resources being poured at people is how the R reproduces itself. It creates the illusion of abundance by borrowing money, by printing money, by getting off the gold standard. That's a K-limiting standard. Go pump money at the poor. Go create. Go borrow. Go into debt. Put out bonds. Forget the future. Forget the future. Resources now. That is how the R philosophy, the R political philosophy, Philosophy creates a system, a situation, a world, a society, an economy, which creates more R people, creates more R gene sets. It's the R bunny using our political ideology to create more R bunnies to breed with and more R bunnies in the long run. Ks, on the other hand, are like, ooh, think of conservatives. Ooh, national debt. Ooh, that's bad. because they're concerned about long-term consequences because that's the case strategy, particularly the one that came out of agriculture and livestock farming and so on. They, liberals, don't care about the national debt. Conservatives are, ah, national debt. That's our seed crop. We've got to think about the future. We can't just, and now.
[46:22] And our mindset is competition-averse. They don't like the free markets. They want everyone to get along. They want to resolve disputes with the government. They don't want people to duke it out themselves. Whereas conservatives are pro-free market. They're fine with competition. Yeah, let the best man win. Not everyone gets a medal, right? Not everyone gets a banner. So each gene set is striving to create a world that furthers its own reproduction, because there is an incompatibility. These two gene sets are at war in human society. Their predator and prey, with each other. So R, the R genetic mindset, strives to create a world of instability, predation, danger, combined with limitless resources. Now.
[47:17] This instability is manifested by the fact that people on the left tend to be utopians. We're going to engineer society. There's going to be central planning. We're going to fix all these problems. We're going to no more poor. We're going to change the way that healthcare is delivered. We're going to change these regulations, these laws, these tax codes. We're going to make sure we're going to change everything. This creates a dangerous and stable environment when no one can predict a goddamn thing. No one. That's perfect. That is the deep soil in which the R reproductive mindset and genes work. This is the soil they need to grow. The utopianism on the left is the R gene set creating instability, which furthers the production of more R gene sets. They're breeding through utopianism. On the right, conservatives, what do they want? They want stable rules, predictable outcomes. Well, not predictable, predictable rules. I don't want things to be different now. We're not utopian. We just want stable rules that everyone can play fairly and make the best man win.
[48:28] The R strategies, the R, the rabbit demons within the left, they want to get rid of fathers. Because if you can get fathers out of the family, you are producing R's like rabbits. So there's this denigration of marriage there's this denigration of men this hatred of the patriarchy and this promotion of strong heroic female single moms, that's on the left oh the government can be your daddy right because the government can shower resources get rid of the dad shower resources you've got the perfect storm for production of our personality types of our breeding types you're replacing the infinite grass of the rabbit world with the seemingly infinite currency of the state, get rid of the dads, get the dads out of there.
[49:19] And this is why people on the left tend to be so hostile towards males and patriarchs and so on, right?
[49:30] On the other hand on the right what they want they want stable families monogamy, right they want predictability and they want strong fathers because that all breeds the k mindset and the k genetics get to flourish in that environment so civilization starts with k, with high investment in offspring with self-restraint with control with a concern about long-term consequences and with a desire to create an equal and predictable playing field that's where civilization starts and it flourishes and then there's all this excess money, and then the our strategists say well you got to care about the poor you gotta you know more what about the poor what about the uneducated what about the single moms you know who through no fault of their own right so then they start pulling resources pulling resources and applying them to social problems and creating this random world-bag, kaleidoscopic mind-hell of utopianism and constantly shifting sands of new rules all the time. Tens of thousands of regulations pouring out of the government designed to fix every problem but creating an unstable environment which is the breeding ground for the R gene set.
[50:48] Now, the First and Second World War in the West killed off a lot of Ks. It didn't. Killed off a lot of Ks. And as a result, the K in-group preference died with them. And so on the left, you get a real focus on a denigration of in-group preferences, right? I mean, for the dominant, for the white Western Europeans and so on, right? Multiculturalism, all, everyone's equal, blah-de-blah-de-blah, right? There's no in-group preference on the left because it's R, and R doesn't have an in-group preference.
[51:22] In fact ours in in human terms ours will often align with k's of an another tribe in order to wipe out the k's in their own tribe to gain more power for the r's anyway this is one of the jane fonda hannah anyway so this division between humanity between the r and the k genetics and mindsets manifests itself in political philosophy we're going to go much more detail with examples in part three. Part two, we've got to establish that there's biological basis and genetic basis, otherwise the whole gene wars theory doesn't work. But I'm going to submit to you and make the case, and it will blow your mind when you get it. It will blow your mind, and you will not be able to look at the news, at politics, at philosophy, at relations between the genders, at feminism. You won't be able to look at any of that the same way once you bring this into to your mindset in a fixed way.
[52:19] But I want to make the case that what we call policies, what we call philosophy, is a wrestling between the R and the K mindsets to create conditions which allow each individual genetic structure to propagate, to breed, to try to create fertile soil for their own seeds. But what is fertile for the R kills the K. What is fertile for the K kills the R. This is why people get so hysterical. Because on the left, they're driven by R. And when people say, well, we should have private charity rather than public welfare, when people say we should have a balanced budget and measurement, when people say we should respect the role of fathers within the family, that is death, death itself to the R gene set. That will wipe the R gene set off the planet. Conversely, the Ks look at the Rs and say, well, if you win, there's no place for us.
[53:18] This is why left and right is universal in almost all human societies that have ever been documented. Left and right is universal because R and K is universal. It's an adaptation strategy that's had billions of years to evolve and fine-tune itself and respond to local circumstances. So, lizards want to make everything warm, because that's how lizards flourish. Penguins want to make everything cold, because that's how penguins flourish. And in the same way, the R gene set wants to make everything chaotic and random and have excess resources, because that's the hothouse environment that allows them to flourish. On the other hand, the Ks, they want stability, predictability, a limit on resources. They want stable monogamous families and two-parent households and high investment in kids because that's what allows that gene set to flourish. And the reason things get so ferocious is that these two gene sets are fighting for survival in the political arena.
[54:19] It's gene death to the Ks if the R wins. And it's gene death for the Rs if the K wins. And that's why it's so hysterical. And that's why it's so aggressive. And that's why it's so crazy to get into political arguments. It's not abstract arguments. It's arguments for base biological configuration, survival, and flourishing. These are two species at war with each other and using us. us, like giant remote control flesh-based dreadnoughts, they are using us to fight their battles for them. Once we become aware of this, we can mediate that influence and actually begin to reason, rather than being on two different sides of a biological equation that can never ever be win-win. I hope you'll join me for part two of Gene Wars will go into the genetics and the biological evidence for what it is that I'm saying. Part three will go in more details into the politics.
[55:22] Please, I beg of you, if you find this work valuable, freedomainradio.com slash donate. We really need your help to get this information together, to put it out to people, to begin to heal the chaos and confusion in the world. So I hope that you will go and donate to this conversation. I believe it is absolutely essential for the future of freedom, peace, and reason. We need philosophy, we need knowledge, and you can help us spread it at freedomainradio.com slash donate. If you got no money, no problem. Just share like crazy. I'll be happy to. Thank you so much for watching. We'll talk to you soon.
[56:08] Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain. Hope you're doing well. This is Gene Wars Part 2, The Genetics of Politics. So I don't want to go over part one. It's right here in this playlist. So don't be going out of sequence, you cheaters. So I hope that you will follow me along with this. It's fascinating stuff. There's an old saying that says a mind once stretched by a new idea never regains its original shape. This is certainly the case with this stuff for me and I I hope for you as well. Credit where credit is due. I heard about RK many years ago and looked into the differences in reproductive strategies, you know, where the R's have lots and lots of babies and don't really put any care or attention into their offspring, don't really care about monogamy. Basically, they're just like rabbits, very good machines to turn grass and pretty much all the vegetables in my vegetable garden into new rabbits. This is where they've got as much food as they want to eat, but there's this random predation from like owls and foxes and wolves and so on that they can't do anything about. So just breed, breed, breed, breed, breed, because I might not be able to make it to maturity otherwise. If you don't have a good chance to survive, if you're not very powerful or don't have a lot of teeth or can't fly or whatever, then you're going to be breeding like crazy because not many people are going to, not many of your offspring are going to make it to the adult finish line. On the other hand, there's As the K-selected species, they tend to be larger, more complex.
[57:34] And they invest a lot in their offspring, have fewer children because hunting rabbits is more difficult than rabbits, quote, hunting grass. And they're into monogamy and quality delayed sexuality, in-group preferences, lots of rules, right? So like when wolves fight, they use their teeth and they can kill each other easily. But what happens is the moment one wolf bares its throat, once a wolf bares its throat to another wolf, and in submission right the conflict the fight stops immediately they're very very into rules and they ostracize those who don't obey the rules have very strict rules about.
[58:15] Who eats first and who eats most and all that kind of stuff so um this this is r versus k reproductive strategies uh it's it's valuable and powerful to map these strategies to left and right in the political spectrum to conservative or liberal in the political spectrum. Now, I did get a lot of information from a particular source here. There's a book called The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics, How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans. And I will put a link to that below. We've got tons of other sources, which we'll put links to below as well. But credit where credit is due. I thought of the idea, went looking for more data, and it's like, oh, well, one guy's done a lot of the work, so So I appreciate that, and I'd certainly recommend the book as well. So that having been said, get ready to be stretched, my friends. We are going into the genetics of politics.
[59:10] We start with the amygdala. I'll bring up a picture here of the amygdala. These two little almond-shaped...
[59:17] Things, I'm such a technical specialist, things in the back of your brain. Amygdala actually comes from an ancient Greek word for almond. Almond comes from an ancient Sumerian word, which means the nut that turns California into a desert. And the amygdala is fundamentally designed to create emotional associations, these strong Pavlovian associations between sense data and relevant outcomes. So it gets raw sense data, and it tries to evaluate whether it's good for you or bad for you. And this is implicit memory. It's outside of conscious control. So I'll give you an example. When I was young, and I guess you could argue even more foolish than I am now, my friends, obviously, I grew up dirt poor. And so we had to sort of invent our own cheap entertainment prior to video games and all that. And my friends and I, we used to like to go into the woods, and we'd make a little fire and we cook beans in a can and so on. And then, Then, because we were young and stupid, we'll get into reasons why, at least my excuses as to why, in a bit, we would go across this giant train trestle that was, I don't know, like a quarter of a kilometer or more across, maybe a quarter of a kilometer above a sort of rocky stream bed. We'd go up there at nighttime, and we'd dare each other. We'd dare cross from one end to the other. Ooh, very exciting stuff. You're a teenager. What sense of consequences do you have? have apparently not.
[1:00:44] And there was even a guy in my apartment building who lost his legs doing this crazy stuff anyway.
[1:00:51] So one night, halfway across the bridge, here the train train is coming, thundering around the corner. I knew I couldn't get back to either end, I was right in the middle of the bridge. And there was a little sort of cubby where you could sort of sit, but but it was across. I didn't want to, so I jumped to get away from the train. Didn't quite make it. Was hanging between these two train tracks, hundreds and hundreds of feet above the rocky ground. And the train passed, and I'm so sorry in hindsight to the engineer. I apologize a million fold. What a terrible thing to put you through. But I was hanging and the train with the sparks, because it was breaking and all, it went by like six inches from my face. I felt the suction of the wind pulling me in. And terrible, stupid stuff. Now, of course, for a long time, and even now, like I even now try not to think about this. I don't really do, but try not to think about this before I want to go to sleep because it will interfere quite a bit. And train trestles like you couldn't pay me enough to go on one now. There's this basic anxiety or fear around it because that's my amygdala saying, hey, idiot, don't die for such a stupid thing. And in the book that I mentioned as an example given of a friend of the author's who.
[1:02:10] Was walking on a frozen lake and heard the crack of the ice and then fell in. And it's really tough to get out, right? I used to work as a gold panner prospector and explorer up in Northern Ontario after high school, so I could save up money for college. And we went through all of that. Here's what happens because you can fall into the ice and you got to let your gloves freeze and slowly pull yourself out because you keep pulling. You just keep shredding the ice and you can't get out. And you don't have a lot of time because it's really, really cold in there. And this friend of the author's every time every time he'd hear that sound he'd freak out even if he was just walking across a puddle right so it's the crack of the tiger's paw on the sticks that your body is telling you if if after that comes comes this giant tiger then you can be anxious about that so it's trying to keep you alive by freaking you out and it's not only uh fear but but it's these emotional associations between raw sense data and relevant outcomes. And again, it's outside of conscious control. Otherwise, PTSD, you could just turn off like that.
[1:03:16] The amygdala primarily responsible is assigning emotional significance to encountered perceptions. It reviews the sense data, raw sense data that's coming in, assigns emotional importance, particularly with regard to threats. But it's wired into wide areas of brain activity. It's pretty central. Now it needs training and experience to function well and so there are times when your amygdala is going to freak out and it doesn't turn out to be something particularly important you know surprise you know that's not when you you know pull out your machete and go all postal on your friends and family and so you know surprise party so the training and experience if you get uneasy and you don't confront that unease you don't confront your fears uh it all leads to a panicking amygdala that sort of floods your system with stress hormones and cortisol and all that kind of stuff through the ACC, which we'll get to in a sec. And the amygdala is not just like raw panic button. It also helps read emotion in facial expressions, positive, neutral, and negative, because we're social animals. And we have tribal constants that most times we'd have to work with over the past sort of couple hundred thousand years of human development. And so one of the threats we would face is not a predator, but an enemy within the tribe who wanted to do us harm. So we're very good, through the amygdala, at reading facial expressions and evaluating whether the person is positive, neutral, or negative towards us.
[1:04:42] Now, amygdala volume varies highly throughout the population. It's not like an arm, which is like pretty much the same length. You know, some people have these little Tyrannosaurus arms, and some people have like full-on stretch-o-matic orangutan extendables. If you have a low amygdala volume, it's associated with an avoidance of eye contact as well as an inability to perceive and to process threats. This is really important. So.
[1:05:08] They've done experiments where they've basically removed, it's more sophisticated than that, but basically they've removed or disabled the amygdala in monkeys, and that monkey does not process threats. It'd go up to a monkey that just beat it up and get beaten up, and they'll take the monkey out, put the monkey back in, and he's like, hey, friend, take the monkey out, put the monkey in. Hey, friend, same thing happens. There's no capacity to process threats. And I'm with Aristotle in terms of the mean on this. Like you want you don't want to be hyper vigilant and frightened of everything but at the same time, not experiencing fear is not the bark of the healthiest state of mind as in sociopathy or psychopathy so amygdala volume is is important to understand now k-selected species have a very strong amygdala development and the reason being that um they have to plan a long way in the future like if you're a wolf you don't want to wait until you're starving to death to go eat something you You can do that if you're a rabbit, because like, hey, look at me, fine rabbit hunter, I found grass.
[1:06:13] And so you have to look further down the time tunnel if you're a K-selected species. And so you need a stronger amygdalin development to see over-the-horizon consequences. This is particularly true for people who developed in really cold climates. Because in cold climates, half the year, you can't get any food, and you really need to plan to get your food. It's not like, you know, pomegranates and papayas are dropping on your lap. Oh, look, lunch fell from the sky. I guess I'll have some. You really have to be anxious. Like, if you're going to eat your seed crop, that's really, really bad. And if you're not going to plant, or you're too lazy to weed, or you don't want to chase away the birds, or all of this stuff is really, really bad. And so K-selective species have very strong amygdala development.
[1:06:59] And that's important to understand as well. Well, amygdala dysfunction, when it's not working well, it's shrunken or cut off, it's associated with novelty seeking, overeating, repetitive threat exposure, right? So, also interesting when they disable amygdalas in monkeys, they don't, right? Normally monkeys take food and bring it to their, just stick their trough, right? Like watching a busload of American tourists at a buffet, right? It's like, sorry, that was pretty cliched, but they basically, monkeys will take their face into the, just eat directly out of that, they overeat, and novelty-seeking is really interesting, because everything kind of feels new, and you have this kind of curiosity about new things, because you're not really learning very much with the amygdala dysfunction. This associates, to some degree, a smaller amygdala with an R-type mindset. So we talked about the R's will flee danger. They can't fight. They flee danger. There's not a lot of ritualistic combat among rabbits for mates, but there are among more K-type species. So they explore. They like to explore. Let's go someplace new because there's a threat here. So the fact that they would like novelty-seeking would associate well with that, the avoidance of confrontation.
[1:08:17] There's something called the Clover-Boussey syndrome, which I thought was being crazy and having big teeth, but it's a human syndrome produced by deficient amygdala function. It is associated with docility and rabbit. Let me not combine those two words. Rabbit sexuality like rabbits. Maybe it's rabbit fetish. I don't know. But anyway, so when you have a deficient amygdala you get docility like a rabbit and you get rabbit sexuality and these again all are selected traits amygdala damage is also associated with lower investment in child rearing other animals where you damage or disable the amygdala they don't really care about their offspring and so on so and we'll go into the mechanics of why in a few minutes amygdala damage is also associated with lower in-group preference and empathy right so rabbits don't have a very strong strong... I don't mean to pick on rabbits. It's just the most common example that people know.
[1:09:14] They don't really have much of an in-group preference, right? I mean, rabbits will not draw up a wagon circle around a wounded rabbit. They're like, hey, I don't have to run fast. I just have to run faster than you if the wolf is chasing us. And if a rabbit gets taken or eaten, the other rabbits don't seem to care that much. They just don't have a strong in-group preference and they don't have very strong empathy, which makes sense. As I talked about in part one, on biologically, if your best friend's another rabbit and a wolf sits on the other rabbit, running to his aid is just going to give the wolf two meals instead of one, and thus taking that tendency out of the gene pool. So.
[1:09:49] Antisocial personality disorders and other manifestations of psychopathy, lack of empathy and association, is also associated with lower amygdala volume.
[1:10:00] What I'm basically saying is that all rabbits are evil, but I think we already know that, don't we? Reduced amygdala function, volume, and or activity levels are all associated with deficiencies in morality and moral judgments, moral emotions, deficiencies in guilt, and empathy. People who are better able to read emotional cues than others exhibit more pro-social behaviors. And the amygdala is responsible for helping you to read emotional cues, positive and negative and neutral, in others. And exhibit more pro-social behaviors because you can read and understand and recognize other people's emotions.
[1:10:38] So basically, the amygdala produces discomfort until the threat is dealt with. Now, this is important. The amygdala is proactive. Fight or flight is just like, wolf run hide dig right i mean that's what happens but the amygdala basically if you're in a threat situation the longer your time frame the more sophisticated your problem solving can be and so the rabbit only has run right all and all it has is run but if you're like some human being in like northern france uh you know in in the 5000 bc or something like that well you're going to feel uneasy if you're not taking care of your crops if you just don't feel like building like repairing the fence around where your sheep are it's going to bug you it's going to just nag at you until you go and deal with it well that's the amygdala uh it's dealing with not just short-term fight or flight but long-term oh this isn't going to be good for us it's it gives you emotional cues for solving problems in the long run so if you think about something like, the national debt i can say this is a worldwide podcast and i can't think of a country that that doesn't have one, I don't know, Cutter? Anyway. So there are some people who are like, ooh, you know, this national debt is really bad. We've got to do something about it. And there are other people who are like, eh, you know, it'll take care of itself or we'll deal with it when we get there. Or John Maynard Keynes' famous statement. He was a very, I guess, lefty, I would call him a lefty economist.
[1:12:02] He just said people would say, well, in the long run, what about the long run? What about the long run? And he said, eh, in the long run, we're all dead. Well, he was gay, so he didn't have kids. Maybe that had something to do with it. So the amygdala will produce this kind of sense of unease you know like you have this thing where i had a thing i never did homework when i was a kid for a variety of reasons but i'd have a test coming up i don't know i'd be writing or reading or playing with my friends or whatever and um i just feel this kind of unease you know like i should really be studying for this test right and eventually i'd be like oh fine i'll go and study for the test and then the unease would go away that's the amygdala give this unease until the threat is dealt with so it's anti-hedonistic right because it's the kind of thing it's like if you're trying to lose weight would you like a piece of cheesecake you probably shouldn't right that's the amygdala right oh you have the cheesecake and then you feel bad afterwards and it's trying to it's trying to give you an aversion mechanism for doing that again so it's anti-hedonistic because it's telling you plan for the long-term look for long-term benefits rather than benefits in the here and now.
[1:13:10] And it develops through exposure to adverse outcomes and this is why our selected environments don't develop strong amygdalas because the adverse outcome from our selected species is you get away in which case forget about it or you don't get away in which case you're eaten but there's not a lot of you know we we really ought to build this rabbit fort against the wolves and we you know there's none of that it's like run screw eat and try not to get eaten.
[1:13:37] So amygdala volume is associated with the number of individuals in the group, as well as sociability. And so it may support the skills needed for complex social life. You know, social life is a lot of navigation, pluses and minuses. You want to obey the rules of the tribe, but you don't want them to become so ossified that you end up with this 3000 years stagnated Chinese empire or something. So you want to challenge people, but at the same time, you don't want them to set fire to you because you're a heretic, right? I mean, it's a lot of challenging, complicated stuff. Now, this may be more due to my life than yours, perhaps, but, you know, it's complicated. MRI scans measure amygdalas that range in size from about 2.5 cubic millimeters to over 5, right? So, significant differences in size. Those with the smallest amygdalas listed fewer than 5 to 15 people as regular contacts, while those with the largest amygdalas counted up to 50 acquaintances in their social life. So a larger amygdala makes it easier and more positive and more enjoyable for you to negotiate and to navigate the complexities of your social life.
[1:14:42] Primate studies also show that the primates who live in large social groups tend to have bigger amygdalas. Quote, people who have large amygdalas may have the raw material needed to maintain larger and more complex social networks, said a researcher. That said, the brain is a use it or lose it organ. I remember thinking about that with my penis when I was a teenager. It may be that sorry that's not the researcher it's my aside it may be says the researcher that when people interact more their amygdalas get larger that would be my guess so.
[1:15:20] Let's look at some of the left right stuff so in general liberals want social change and reject inequality and these are very very general statements and there's lots of exceptions and so on. Conservatives are considered to resist social change and they're willing to accept inequality. So conservatives tend to be more free market oriented, which is, you know, you work hard, you get your rewards and that's fine. Whereas liberals are like, oh, I want an equality of outcome, you know, let's take some from the rich and give more to the poor and so on. And they're very keen on social experiments. Whereas conservatives are like, I'm willing to change according to the market, but I don't want to change the rules.
[1:15:58] So there are two main differences between liberal and conservative brains. And again, this is all, you've heard the caveats, but just remember them, right? Again, and don't, try not to pick too much at every thread in this tapestry. Just, you know, go with me if you don't mind. Thrust me, thrust me, right? Just give it a try. Try it on for size and we'll go for it and we'll find the exceptions as we go forward. But just give it a try. trial so um liberals possess a smaller right amygdala volume a smaller right amygdala volume everything that that implies a novelty seeking a tendency towards perhaps promiscuity uh a a um willingness to try new things and a very low capacity to recognize threats and a desire for or equality of outcome, all these kinds of things. Liberals also have a larger anterior cingulate cortex, or the ACC, as we mentioned before. They have larger anterior cingulate cortex, cortices. So, long-time research has linked amygdala function with political affiliation. And, by the way, there's the amygdala. Again, this is a side view of the spinal cord. We'll get to the prefrontal cortex in a bit. The anterior cingulate cortex is behind the eyeballs and wrapped around the top part of an S, it looks like.
[1:17:25] So, we talked about the amygdala, the larger anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC.
[1:17:30] So, the ACC is a neural alarm system. It's like the red button pushed by the amygdala in case of a significant threat and or danger. So, it's like a low-rent kind of, I feel uneasy until I deal with a particular situation. Oh, I got to do my taxes, whatever it is. But when the amygdala freaks out, it pushes the ACC. It's triggered through significant physical pain as well as social ostracism and exclusion. Exclusion and it's also triggered through perceived unfairness now i've talked about in this show for a long time that we rely too much on government power edicts guns prisons courts and all that to to organize society and i've said well ostracism and social exclusion are the way that we should organize things because it's very powerful and social ostracism and exclusion activates the the same pain centers in the brain as torture, as physical pain. So, this is very, very important. It's triggered through physical pain, social ostracism, and exclusion.
[1:18:28] Now, that's really, really important to understand because social ostracism is not personal death, but it's kind of gene death, right? Because if the women won't bang you or the men won't bang you, you don't get to have any offspring so the fact that we would have this significant aversion to the point where it's equal to physical torture the significant aversion to being ostracized in society is because we need society to raise our kids we have this you know ridiculously slow development takes a quarter century for the brain to finish maturing as we'll talk about.
[1:19:04] And um that is a very very powerful mechanism that's tragically underutilized in a modern in society, because they're much more flexible, much more fair, much more, powerful than mere government power.
[1:19:23] So, it's also highly stimulated, the ACC, during the experience of envy.
[1:19:29] Envy is a very, very powerful emotion and it goes right down deep into the brain.
[1:19:34] So, envy has two components. One, it's a motivator, right? There's an old saying which says there's no poor people in America that are only temporarily embarrassed millionaires, right? Like, you can get that brass ring, you can do it, you can achieve it. And there have been studies, of course, that conservatives are much more likely to agree with the proposition, if you work hard, you can achieve whatever it is that you want or need. Whereas liberals generally don't feel as strongly around that. So there's envy, but envy is associated with, can I achieve this thing that I envy or not? So if somebody's really good at table tennis, oh, I just love it. Are you going to go practice or are you just going to be resentful and um the experience of envy is really really uh important to uh understand if you envy somebody being popular are you going to work to learn how to be more popular if you envy somebody who's got a lot of money are you going to work to try and make a lot of money these are questions or are you going to say resentment combined what Nietzsche would call resentment right resentment combined with your envy to the the point where you say, well, that guy's got all this money. I bet you he took it from me. I bet you it's my money somehow. And so I want the government to take that person's money and give it to me, right? That would be, I guess, I'm sorry to use the slightly negative voice. I don't want to sound too hostile to the R-selected people, but the experience of envy also is triggered through the ACC.
[1:21:00] So liberals have a larger envy center in the brain. And what do they continually do when they're running for office, or they're writing, or they're sleeping, or they're breathing. What they do is they engage in this class warfare. Ah, the rich, we're going to go and tax the rich and give you money. Well, that would only appeal to people who don't think they can become rich, right? I mean... That's clear, right? So the despair, the depression, the hopelessness that goes along with envy appeals to this biological reality that liberals have a larger envy center in the brain.
[1:21:40] Envy is also associated, interestingly enough, with a willingness to break rules. So think of on the left, oh boy, that could be a whole show in itself, I'll just touch on a few. Think of on the left the degree to which uh liberals set up rules and break them simply by breathing it seems right so it's like let's have obamacare except for these congress people and all their friends uh so they're always these exceptions that are set up insider trading is really bad but we're gonna exempt congress from it right and and this kind of stuff generally comes outcomes from the left. The right likes stable rules with unequal outcomes, right? So on the right, when they're playing chess, they don't want the rules to change and they're willing to accept that some people are going to be great at chess and some people are going to not be great at chess. Unequal outcome, equal rules. On the left, it's equal outcomes which require unequal rules, right? You get two moves for every one move because that person's better. We're going to tax moves from the good chess players and give them to you. You understand this is the way that it works. Oddly enough, it doesn't work. Marxism doesn't work when it's M-A-R-C-K-S, right? When we don't say, well, all of these smart kids who worked hard and studied, they all got A's, whereas the kids who didn't got D. So we're going to take some of the A's, everyone's going to get a C plus, right? We don't do it that way. But there's reasons for that, which we can talk about another time.
[1:23:06] So envy is associated with the willingness to break rules. A feeling of being outside the main social group and thus there's a diminished or adverse loyalty to the main social group. Remember, R-selected species, low in-group preference.
[1:23:23] And they appeal to government. And that's the avoidance of direct competition, right? So an avoidance of competition is key to R-selected species, right? I mean, the rabbits, they don't compete with each other for food. It's like if you're a rabbit, and if you're a rabbit and Bob, your friend rabbit, is eating some piece of grass you want, step over to the right and eat the next piece of grass. So you don't compete. You don't compete with the wolves. You don't compete with each other. You avoid competition, because competition can produce conflict, which can injure you, for which there is no point, because you can't fight the wolf, and there's no point fighting over grass. So this avoidance of competition is really, really important.
[1:24:00] And there's no point having social ostracism or exclusion. I mean, rabbits can eat the grass too, if they want. There's no particular point, because ostracism is to enforce very strict rules, which implies limited resources and high investment, high quality children, and so there's no point. So liberals appeal to uh the government now this is not just liberals once the system is set up right it's not rich or poor lots of rich people i'm thinking like the military industrial complex the prison industrial complex just about every major corporation they all want rules bent in their favor so that they don't have to compete plumbers and other trades people want massive licenses so they don't have to compete with kids out of high school who are willing to work for literal peanuts um think of unions right unions are gonna have a union shop right you don't want want to compete with people who are willing to work for less. So wherever you see people wanting to avoid direct competition by jury-rigging the system and creating special rules for themselves, that's coming from the R-selected mindset.
[1:24:58] ACC activation is also present during the experience of empathy, but there's also depression, which we'll get to involved in being a liberal as well. So there is this liberal attachment to the underdog, which we'll talk about as well. But conservatives experience less pain by inflicting social exclusion and um i think there's really good reasons for that i and again again i want to understand as i want to be very clear this is not absolutely conclusive 150 proven or anything like that but these are interesting things to think about and once you start looking at the world through this lens i think you'll find a lot of things will pop into focus that were unclear before form. So, this would predict that liberals will experience empathy for the poor, but they would not possess the capacity for personal self-sacrifice to fix the problem because of the smaller amygdala. And so, they feel really bad about the poor, and it's well documented that conservatives give a lot more money to the poor, a lot more money to charity, than liberals do. People on the right are comfortable without government charity or government welfare because people on the rides through churches and other organizations give a lot more to poor people or to help out people, whereas liberals feel worse about poverty but don't do much to actually change it themselves, which is why they like government programs. All has a biological basis.
[1:26:22] So R versus K in time, as we touched on before, the amygdala focuses on dangers and benefits in the future based upon past trends and triggers, right?
[1:26:32] Conservatives look to the past to learn about the future. If you talk to a conservative about national debt, they'll talk about Rome, they'll talk about France during periods of hyperinflation, they'll talk about fiat currency, they'll talk about debased currency in historical past, they'll talk about constitutions and why it was there.
[1:26:49] And um that's an amygdala function the bigger the amygdala the more it learns from and is able to predict future dangers based upon past trends so conservatives are simply saying look we've learned these lessons already for god's sakes let's not keep doing the same thing over and over and over again whereas the liberals are like hey new hey something shiny hey there's no past right they're in this constant revolving and accelerating door that doesn't lead anywhere now the acc focuses on more immediate stimuli run wolf flee no vorpal bunnies in the vicinity and this is i think i won't do the whole story you can look it up the grasshopper and the ant right the grasshopper strums his guitar and lasers around all summer while the ant is busy storing up food for the winter and um that's grasshopper is you know r selected in this story the ant is k selected is planning ahead wants to sit around and play guitar but has to store up stuff for the winter this is agriculture versus, you know, eating plentiful fruit and nuts that are all around you, and to some degree hunting as well, although agriculture requires more planning than hunting, and agriculture is generally adopted in colder climates, and this is why this association exists.
[1:28:03] So, conservatives, they've got all these lessons built up in the amygdala, and we're going to talk about epigenetics, that genetically this information can be transmitted across generations as well. Well, so they look to the past. What should we do? Well, let's look to the past. Whereas, I don't know, where do liberals look? Fantasy cloud castles of Marxist progressivism? I don't know, but not on... The liberals sort of deal with, appeal to, it is emotional. Don't you want to help the poor? Where the conservatives say, well, yeah, but let's think about this intelligently. Like, there was a great poster I saw many, many years ago, which was it was a ship sinking down into the ocean and I think I can't remember what it said at the top underneath it said it could be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others and that is a very K selected thing.
[1:29:00] Liberals focus on more immediate pains and pleasures. You can see this around sexuality, and we'll get into more of this in part three. But liberals will offer you sexual liberation in return for mere economic and property rights. Ah, what does stuff mean when you got sex? And that's more immediate, and that's more ACC-driven with a diminished amygdala. So if you look at this picture, now you see down at the bottom left, there's a homeless guy, and then there's these giant skyscrapers, right? So if you are R-selected, you're going to look at that and say, this guy's poor because there are all these skyscrapers and nobody's helping him out.
[1:29:39] Whereas the K-selected people look at this picture, not without sympathy to the homeless guy, but say, because we allow resources to accumulate to the people who are best able to maximize or increase them, that's why we have skyscrapers. If you gave all the money that was used to build one of those skyscrapers to the poor guy in the park, you wouldn't have any skyscrapers. And that is a very, very important thing to sort of process and understand. Okay, let's continue our tour of the brain with the prefrontal cortex, PFC. Private first class? No, prefrontal cortex. Very front of the brain, behind the forehead, abstract thinking and thought analysis. I have a double D cap. Behavior regulation, mediating conflicting thoughts, predicting the probable outcomes of actions or events. Don't climb a trestle. Social control controls your impulses and sexual urges. This is why you don't mate with Gumby's that are jumping up and down in front of stores. Most strongly implicated in consciousness, general intelligence and personality. And significant studies show between 20 and 50% of personality is genetically inherited.
[1:30:50] So, it controls dopamine activity and rewards within the brain. We'll get to dopamine in a sec. So, dopamine, of course, is an incentive motivator designed to help us pursue success, the thrill of victory. You know, when you finally beat that level on the video game or that woman decides to go out with you or whatever, right? You finally see that I've got a new video out. That stuff. That's the, the PFC controls dopamine activity and rewards within the brain. And it's like crazy stimulation right it grows mad right i mean the brain has increased threefold in the past five million years the size of the prefrontal cortex has increased six fault.
[1:31:31] And it's the last section of the brain to mature it takes about 25 years to finally finish putting those uh bricks in place the the uh prefrontal cortex also helps to suppress the fear response of the amygdala right so if you've had this i'm sure like i remember when i was a kid, standing on a on a brick wall i know it's about i was pretty young but it's about five feet up it's a long way down and i was like oh i really want to jump i want to see if i can do it oh but i'm scared right so they make the amygdala it's like i don't know but the pfc is like but if we jump and it works oh dopamine right it's going to be a dopamine high right so i'm going to get The joy chemical, if I land, but I've got the anxiety, I don't want to hurt myself. So I jumped, and I did well. I did a nice tuck and roll, and I got the high, right? So the PFC and the amygdala, the amygdala is like, ooh, look out. And the PFC is like, yeah, but if we get it, ah, you know, joy, thrill-o-rama, right? Now, a specific variation in the gene for the D4 dopamine receptor manages dopamine activity, right? So dopamine can be floating around. It needs a place to plug in. This is DRD4-7R. R.
[1:32:41] Now, liberals have a deficiency of dopamine as a result of possessing a less effective receptor gene and thus less capacity to experience the dopamine incentive mechanism, right? So the incentive mechanism combined with envy is kind of designed to have you say, oh, that guy's got great biceps, so I'm going to go to the gym and get great biceps, right? Whereas if you have a deficiency of dopamine, your envy center is still going to kick in and say, well, that guy's got great biceps, but then you're going to say, but I'm an arts major, so noodle arms aren't going to make it. Brandon Lee is my hero.
[1:33:18] And so you're just not going to experience the same motivation mechanism. So you're going to see things that you want, but you're not going to have the same motivation to try and achieve them. Less optimism and diminished reward incentives. So when you look at poor people, if you're K-selected, you say, well, get off your ass and go get a job. But if you are selected and you have that particular brain configuration, you're more likely to say, oh, you poor thing, here's some money, because they're not going to believe that incentive, because they don't experience that same get up and go, achieve, walk like the Kool-Aid jug through walls to get what you want, stop at nothing, pay any price, bear any burden, achieve, achieve, achieve, because it's so great when you do. They're going to be like, oh, yeah, there's great stuff in the world, but... Ah, it's raining out and I already feel like getting off the couch, right? Less optimism diminished reward incentives. Allelic variations in the gene for this dopamine receptor are also associated with tendencies towards anxiety, depression, and neuroticism. And these things are all important in the left-right continuum.
[1:34:30] Variations in the DRT4 gene also produce hypersexuality, earlier loss, of virginity, earlier sexual experiences, promiscuity, and a tendency towards infidelity. All are selected, just like the other mindsets we've talked about on the liberal side. Liberals also show an increased tendency towards depression as well as an increased libido.
[1:34:55] So if you are kind of depressed, then sexuality is a great way of getting you the dopamine hit and the oxytocin hit, which we'll talk about in a sec.
[1:35:06] The lack of ability to alleviate amygdalin stimulation can produce an anxiety-avoidant mindset. So on the liberal side, it's, oh, I feel anxious, but rather confronting and dealing with it and training your brain to overcome the amygdalin stimulation of anxiety or fear. Ah, you just avoid, avoid that stuff. Everything's got to come with a trigger warning. I need hug rooms with videos of puppies playing in case I hear something that upsets me. They're just anxiety-avoidant mindsets. You know, whereas the case-elected species are like Ben Shapiro. They walk towards the fire. You don't try and flee from this conflict, as I'm sure you saw in his gun debate with Piers Morgan. So, when you confront your anxieties and your fears, sorry, when you avoid your anxieties and your fears, that strengthens the fear response of the amygdala, because it's not encountering any opposition. So, it floods. Amygdala hyperstimulation becomes the order of the day. And this saying the trigger warnings is like well i can't control my own fear response my own anxiety response so you have to control it for me people who are unwilling to confront their own fears and anxieties become hyper controlling of others because they have not taken the responsibility to say well in my feelings i should really deal with them i should learn how to manage my negative emotional experiences no it's your fault you make me feel this way you have to to change your behavior, and it's a confession of helplessness with regards to amygdalin stimulation.
[1:36:35] Political correctness, trigger warnings, everybody's freaking out, and intellectual hysteria, but largely against imaginary threats. Largely against imaginary threats. And we'll talk more about this in more detail in part three, but I want to sort of lay the foundation of this here. And liberals they view legitimate conservative anxieties as mere paranoia what do you mean you're afraid of muslims you're islamophobe you're uh but what do you want to protect the institution of marriage for why do you think we should target high criminal populations or why why should we target middle eastern people in the security lineup why should we care about national debt i I mean, we've got to take care of people in the here and there. It's like they don't understand because they don't have the amygdala to understand why conservatives are anxious about things. Why are they bothered? They're just paranoid.
[1:37:40] Conservatives are also more prone to feelings of disgust, which we're going to talk more about in part three, but again, I wanted to mention it here.
[1:37:50] So, when you're in a competitive environment, oh yes, we're going to get to Churchill and Neville Chamberlain in a bit. It's so funny, I was doing research for this, and I typed in Chamberlain's childhood, and I'm so Brit-centric that I ended up learning quite a lot about Wilt Chamberlain. What a man-whore. Anyway, a competitive environment boosts testosterone. When you win a difficult competition, you get dopamine and you get long-lasting surges in testosterone, right? So going into challenging, difficult competitions, you get joy juice and testosterone. Now, as competitive environments diminish, so does testosterone. Testosterone and we're really looking at sort of post-1960s a welfare state for the poor and hyper-regulation and licensing and protective tariffs and all that for the rich and the powerful competitive environments have significantly diminished and so does testosterone when competitive environments diminish people become competition averse and so when you say free market people think of like dog-eat-dog cannibalism they're just averse to the whole thing right so this includes the rich and the poor the middle class generally gets screwed both sides um it's a you know tragically economic dp from every angle the rich use the power of the state to exclude themselves from competition the poor use the power of the state to provide resources for themselves without the need to compete.
[1:39:17] And this adaptation to a non-competitive environment strives to survive. So when you adapt to a non-competitive environment, you activate a whole bunch of gene sets, you activate a whole bunch of LLs, which we talked about at the end of part one, that are dependent on the continued existence of that non-competitive environment, which is why when you talk about privatizing stuff, or you talk about charity as opposed to government welfare, when you talk about privatizing schools, people freak out because the genetic, the gene set within them, the R-selected gene set within them that relies upon a non-competitive environment fears genetic death from that and fights like a cornered rat. I'm not going to go with rabbit that time. In general, within the mind, excesses lead to desensitization.
[1:40:07] So, higher dopamine receptor functioning is associated with the desire to win by following rules. So, if you win by cheating and you're K-selected, you don't feel good. You feel pretty good if you are selected, but if you're K-selected, you only get the dopamine hit if you win by following the rules. If you cheat, it doesn't work. Lower dopamine functioning is associated with a willingness to cheat, which results from a feeling of impotence. So when I, and this is, earlier when I was in boarding school in England, you're taught, you know, it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. That's what matters. And that's very K-selected. I've basically been pendling back and forth between R and K my whole life, probably one of the reasons why I find this so fascinating.
[1:40:53] So, oxytocin, colloquially called the love hormone, produces higher trust and generosity, and it's triggered by dopamine signaling. This is why you get good sportsmanship that occurs, right? So, you ferociously want to beat the other person, right? I remember playing in tennis tournaments and, yeah, you want to win, win, win, and then you shake the person's hand over the net, and that was something reinforced when I was young quite a lot. So, those who avoid competition also have less capacity to bond. This is one of these counterintuitive things. People who compete together or compete against each other bond well, and competition within a social group promotes bonding. Competition promotes dopamine, promotes testosterone, and dopamine signalings produce oxytocin, which is a bonding chemical. A love hormone promotes social trust, promotes all of these good things. So when you reduce our capacity to compete with each other, you reduce in-group preferences tribal functioning love connection community which is one of the reasons why i mean when you have no welfare state you have to rely on each other you join what used to be called friendly societies you get to know your neighbors and they help you out like when i, got sick with cancer a couple of years ago people chipped in to pay for my treatment i had to flee the socialist hellhole of canada and go to america to get uh well i guess this scar put in and get the tumor taken out and so on because I was a year misdiagnosed up here in Canada.
[1:42:17] So you provide value to people, they provide value back, you got a social safety net called I know people, I help them, they also help me over time. And so when you get the welfare state, the necessity of that diminishes, but also the welfare state by diminishing competition among people diminishes oxytocin and our feeling of, I was going to say bondage, of bonding towards each other. So genetics and hormonal activity produce lower monogamy, lower in-group preferences, and lower parental investment, right? Because all of these reductions in oxytocin reduces monogamy because you are looking for new sensations, new excitement, new sexual partners, lower in-group preferences, lower parental investment. Oxytocin is well-known as a bonding chemical between parents and children. And therefore, because we stick around each other so much when we're raising kids, if you're not that invested in your kids, you're not that bonded with your kids, it's much easier to abuse and or neglect them.
[1:43:20] Now, so if you want an extreme end of this, right? drug addicts. I had Gabor Maté on the show twice, I think now, and he talks about this dopamine drive to get this stuff from drug addicts. And drug addicts, they're willing to break the rules, they're willing to lie, to cheat, to steal, they'll take money from their mother's purse, whatever. That's a very extreme end. We see this desensitization of dopamine functioning. People just got to get that hit. Otherwise, life remains an increasing agony.
[1:43:52] And all of this is a way of adjusting for R&K strategies on the fly. Not waiting for intergenerational stuff to happen, but adjusting to it based upon social cues on the fly.
[1:44:07] This is very important for humans who may win or lose significant competitions, right? Competitions for mates, competitions for resources, and competitions for power also. So let's look at depression and R. Those identified as ideological liberals tend to be more on the depressed side of the spectrum.
[1:44:30] There's a theory, a lot of this of course is theory, but there's a theory which says that depression helps you avoid competition that could be negative for you so the way it works is this and we'll put this in a cycle at the end so kids why do they play why do they want to do sports why don't they compete with each other all the time well to find out how good you are at stuff so that you can figure out whether you do or don't want to compete as an adult so if you are you know les nestman who fails at sports all the time some woody allen type fails at sports all the time and then you're in the pecking order right and and so basically sports is a prerequisite for war or it's a stand-in for war or it's a training ground for war, and so if you lose all the time at sports you're really not going to be very good at war so it teaches you to avoid competition because you are not up to scratch and again for whatever reason doesn't particularly matter at the moment lots of courses and you can go to bombinthebrain.com for more on this. So, if you can't compete in sports, it tends to promote depression and competition avoidance, which is really important for you to not get killed in a sword fight. If you can't dribble a basketball when you're six, you can't win a sword battle when you're 20.
[1:45:45] So, competition avoidance reduces negative adult consequences, right? If you're the runt of the litter, you don't want to be taking on the alpha male of the pack because you're going to lose, and that's really bad. Now, one of the LLs of the DRD4 dopamine receptor gene increases tendencies towards depression. And that's another really, really important thing to understand. If you don't do well in competitions as a child, and not only do you not do well, because this always happens. I mean, everybody starts off doing badly. It's whether you feel that you can do well, whether you feel you can compete if you work hard enough. I mean, the amount of hours of practice it took for me to become good at racket sports. I'm going to teach you my daughter this at the moment and remember it. You need some patience. It takes forever to get good at racket sports and a lot of frustration. I remember throwing my racket in frustration because it's just, I know where I wanted to go. I just can't make it reliably get there. And so we all start off badly, but do you have the dopamine hit to get you motivated to keep moving forward? I don't want to sound like we're just programmed.
[1:46:54] By our dopamine by our acc by the pfc by the amygdala by the hippocampus as well i don't want to say we're just machines program because there's choices involved in it do we battle through do we push through to get the dopamine reward which then leads to the testosterone leads to the oxytocin which further motivates us right i really think that just about everyone would try if they knew how great it was to really achieve something and win at something it feels so good that it's worth the sacrifice that that goes on so if you are conflict avoidant right if you lose and then for whatever reason whether it's genetics whether it's epigenetics whether it's environment whether it's feedback from coaches whether it's choice big combination of all these things you try it something and you just fail fail bad fail hard right i mean when i was you know you fall off that horse you get right back on and you ride that horse again if at first you don't succeed to try, try, try. Again, that's what was hammered into me when I was a kid. And it's good advice, and it's case-elected advice. And it's designed to keep you out of promiscuity. It's designed to keep you with an in-group preference, loyalty to your peers. It's designed to keep you out of teen pregnancy. It's designed to keep you from being crippled by a lack of dopamine efficiency to the point where you have to go to novelty-seeking crazy stuff that's dangerous, like trestle bridges and so on.
[1:48:16] So it really is designed to help you all of this keep trying and keep trying, keep trying, so that you get the value of competition, the necessity of competition. If you avoid all of that stuff, you will grow up to be competition-averse, hostile towards the free market, wanting the quality of outcome, prone to depression, hypersexuality, all of that stuff, lack of investment in kids, all of that stuff that goes along with it, and a desire to set up rules only to give you advantage by breaking them, also known as statism.
[1:48:45] We're going to finish this part off with epigenetics. So epigenetics is a system that turns genes on or off based upon environmental cues. The process works by chemical tags known as epigenetic marks. And they attach to DNA and they tell a cell whether to use or ignore a particular gene, right? So they can't change the DNA itself, but they can say listen or don't listen to a particular sequence. So environment and experiences can program genes and some of these genes can replicate to the next generation, right? So when you throw in something like the welfare state, you're not just changing individual experiences, you're changing the genetic pathways of entire groups of individuals. You are creating a well-fed Petri dish for the flourishing of the R-selected gene set, right? Everything from smaller amygdalas to higher levels of promiscuity, higher sexual hormones, lower dopamine receptors. All of these are a gene set that in the welfare state and in protectionism for rich corporations...
[1:49:52] You end up creating an environment that feeds that gene set. And that gene set, to colloquially anthropomorphize it, if you don't mind, anthropomorphize it, that gene set wishes to continue that environment, right? An excess of resources produces our selection.
[1:50:08] And welfare and protection of competition, that is preferential legislation for corporations, creates an excess of resources. Fiat currency, money printing, money borrowing, weight, all create an excess of resources that feed the R-selected gene set. The R-selected gene set will fight like hell, will fight to the death, literally genetically fight to the death to prevent the limitation of resources desired by the K-selected conservatives who say, turn off the money printing, bring back a gold standard, stop borrowing, stop spending more than you have. Because of course, the K-selected people see where that heads. They get the anxiety, their amygdala is like, danger, danger, danger, danger, stop, stop, stop, stop. You know, whereas the liberal mindset, the R-selected mindset is, hey, this is great. Limitations, what limitations? They don't have the brain structure to process where this is going to lead. And so they pretend to be bewildered. Maybe they are bewildered. I don't know. You can get it intellectually, but emotionally is another matter.
[1:51:13] So epigenetics is one of the ways in which this occurs, right? So epigenetically, if there's no father around, that programs you for an R-selected environment, because that means that your dad is either dead, which means you're in a situation of extreme predation, or he's just screwing around and moving on, right? He's just a spray and pray kind of seed bearer, and so he's just moving on, and so it's programming you for an R-environment. And then that R-environment wants to keep fathers away from the next generation. Generation, the R gene set wants to keep fathers away from the next generation, which is why you end up with this big mess.
[1:51:50] So, this is from an article against sources below. Many view epigenetics as an annotation or editing of the genome that defines which genes will be silenced in order to streamline protein production or squelch unnecessary redundancy. That annotation, they say, does not and cannot permanently change the original manuscript, i.e. the DNA, but merely access to the manuscript. So, listen to this gene, don't listen to this gene. It doesn't change the DNA itself. How has this been shown? A fascinating 2008 study, this is a quote, that looked at people born during the Dutch Hunger Winter, this is a time of terrible privation in the Second World War, 1944-1945, hints at the possibility that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance also occurs in humans. Adults who were conceived during the famine had distinct epigenetic marks that their siblings born before or after the famine did not. These marks reduced the production of insulin-like growth factor 2 and affected the growth of the famine-gestated children.
[1:52:48] Notably these marks were retained for several decades in the afflicted individuals while these observations suggest the possibility of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance the modifications could also have occurred in utero as a result of famine conditions rather than being inherited in the germline therefore whether such a distinct phenomenon occurs in humans remains to be definitively determined right so moms didn't have enough food and as the fetuses were developing, they came out with particular epigenetic macrophages that lasted, I think, up into the sixth decade.
[1:53:28] Here's another example. Quote, However, in model experimental systems, there is strong evidence for transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. In one study carried out in mice, an environmental stress that resulted in aggressive behavior in males caused the same behavior in their offspring. Notably, the offspring had changes in the DNA methylation patterns of particular genes. Collectively, these and other transgenerational studies all point to the notion that selective pressure can be applied from the environment and passed on to daughter cells and offspring. So there's another example like mice. They heard a sound and sharks were applied to the mice. And then Pavlovian style, after a while, whenever they'd hear the sound, they'd have a startled response, even if no further sharks were. So the sound did not startle them. Originally, they got sharks. Eventually, even after the sharks were withdrawn, they still had a startled response to the sound. When they had children, when the children were born, the children themselves had the startle response to the er sound, though they had never been shocked. So here we have an experience of alarm being passed along to the offspring. This makes sense. It's incredibly efficient. It doesn't have to wait for generations to get weeded and needed. So if you're a bunch of rabbits and some new predator comes along.
[1:54:56] You want the fear of that predator to go to all of your offspring. You don't want to wait until the offspring will go up and say, hi, new friend, and get eaten. All of that stuff is very slow and inefficient and could get you killed. Evolve before we all get eaten. Quick, concentrate, focus, evolve. Wait, that's philosophy. But if you can pass along your anxieties to your offspring, they're going to have a much better chance of survival. But this is what I say. You hit a child, it echoes through the generations. You abuse or neglect a child, you are changing their offspring genetically.
[1:55:32] Another article, quote, For the first time, genes chemically silenced by stress during life have been shown to remain silenced in eggs and sperm, allowing the effect to be passed down to the next generation. The finding obtained from detailed DNA scans in developing mouse eggs and sperm backs up mounting indirect evidence from statistical studies that the genetic impacts of environmental factors such as smoking, diet, stress childhoods, famine, and psychiatric disease can be passed down to future generations through a process called epigenetic inheritance. Many geneticists had considered this an impossibility.
[1:56:11] And this is what I'm talking about when you create an environment, a socialist environment, an environment where the government takes from the successful and gives to the unsuccessful. You are altering the DNA, accessibility of the population. You are changing. Put it as colloquially as possible. You're changing the genetics. You're reprogramming the genetics. And you're reprogramming the genetics not just of the people who first experienced the welfare state. You're changing the genes they pass along to their children. They are adapting to the welfare state. They're adapting to socialism. They're adapting to communism. They're adapting to a situation of excess. We can see this going on in Greece at the moment, in Puerto Rico at the moment, where you've had this ridiculous borrowing, this ridiculous access, people have genetically adapted to that. They've ceased to be able to distinguish threat from non-threat. They have promiscuity. 50, 60, 70% of certain populations addicted to welfare grow up in fatherless homes. This is our selected stuff.
[1:57:20] You create welfare, you create promiscuity, you create a lack of a sense of consequences, you create a weaker moral sense, you break down the oxytocin that results from competition that binds communities together. You fragment the entire human experience. You de-civilize, you devolve the entire species. It is genetic warfare to fundamentally change the social equations, to reduce competition, petitioned to eliminate people from the capacity to fail and to crash out and to burn. You destroy civilization, not just in terms of the intellect or in terms of people's individual choices, but you reprogram the entire organism. You reprogram the entire organism to only survive, which is in that environment. Why when you talk about limiting resources, people feel like it's It's going to kill them.
[1:58:15] It's not. But to their gene set, it is. The R-selected gene set needs the welfare state. It needs fiat currency. It needs all of the excesses of socialism. It needs to keep competition at bay. It needs trigger warnings. It needs safe rooms. It needs to not be exposed to aversive stimuli because otherwise it dies. It's weeded out. It's pushed aside by the K-selected gene set that embraces competition, accepts failure, is able to organize society through ostracism rather than through endless regulations and laws.
[1:58:53] It's win-lose for these gene sets. This is why I'm saying politics is gene warfare. So let's tie a little bit of this together. Theory about conservatism. And I know I've been somewhat negative towards the R-selected gene set? I don't mean to be. We'll talk about that more later. So, childhood success. You strive and you achieve, you get the dopamine hit. This leads you to a pursuit of competition. If you play by the rules. You only get the dopamine hit if you compete while playing by the rules, if you don't cheat.
[1:59:34] Pursuit of competition leads to an acceptance of inequality. I've won and you've lost. That's the only way I'm going to get the dopamine hit. And if I lose and you win, you get the dopamine hit and I don't. An acceptance of inequality leads to the value called the free market. Let some people win, let some people lose. Those who win should get the resources so that they can create further resources and so on. A free market creates the win-lose, which develops the oxytocin bonding, right? So the win-lose, remember, you get dopamine, you get increased testosterone, which releases oxytocin, which binds families and communities together. Strong families with monogamous, pair-bonded parents who stay together leads to childhood success because single moms are terrible at raising kids and single dads are terrible at raising kids. And so childhood success, embrace competition, accept inequality, love the free market, create strong families, leads to more childhood success. This is one way of approaching it. There's some evidence of this. Men who have greater upper body strength are more likely to take a conservative stance. Weaker men support the welfare state. It's a little bit more complicated than that, and you can look at the details in the studies below. low, but there is a link between a man's upper body strength and his political views. There's no link between a woman's physical strength and her political views.
[2:01:02] Genetic factors, I just wanted to mention this. A 2005 twin study examined attitudes about 28 different political issues, capitalism, unions, x-rated movies, abortion, school prayer, divorce, Divorce, property taxes, and so on, to draft. Twins were asked if they agreed or disagreed. While uncertain about each issue, genetic factors accounted for 53% of the variance in overall score. So again, politics and genetics are very closely linked. A study of political attitudes among Hollywood actors found that while the actors were generally leftist, male actors with great physical strength were more likely to support the Republican stance on foreign issues and foreign military intervention, right? It's the Woody Allen versus the Arnold Schwarzenegger left versus right continuum.
[2:01:54] Let's look at the liberal theory, childhood failure. And failure doesn't mean you tried something and you failed, but you gave up trying something else. Childhood failure leads to competition avoidance. Competition avoidance has you thirst for an equality of outcome. In other words, you want the benefits of competition without the stress and anxiety of competition. So you want to get food without hunting, right? You want the equality of outcome, which requires a big state, requires socialist redistribution or communist or fascistic redistribution of resources. That leads to weak families. For reasons we've talked about, it weakens the necessity for social bonds, but a lack of competition also reduces the production of oxytocin, which bonds people together. Weak families lead to childhood failure, which is why the kids of single moms do so disastrously. And so this cycle just goes round and round and round until society collapses in an economic hellstorm that reestablishes the value of the K selection.
[2:02:58] Again, remember, there's no certainty of cause and effect, but these associations are very strong. Do you want an all K society? I don't think so, because you want the randomness and the creativity and the skepticism and the weasliness to some degree, the questioning of established rules that comes from the R. I think an all-K society ends up very, very stagnant. And so again, I think a combination, I think you want a lot of Ks, but I don't think you want all Ks. It tends to be too stagnant a society. So.
[2:03:28] It is scientifically absolutely, completely, and totally impossible for an organism not to devolve once natural selection effects are removed. I'm not talking about, I don't know, whether they say dysgenics or do nasty things to control people's breeding. I'm not talking about anything to do with that. What I'm saying is that right now we have a system where the least successful breed the most, and the most successful breed the least. So we already have genetic programs in place. The welfare state is a genetic program, without a doubt, and it's just going the wrong way. If you let competition accrue, then those with the most resources who've been the most successful will breed the most, and those with the fewest resources will breed the least. The effects on R&K when children go from an asset, sorry, from a liability, in other words, they cost money to an asset where the government gives you money to breed is staggering and absolutely astonishing when you think about it. This fundamental thing where children are not a cost that the expertise and competence and resource provision of the parents pays for, but they are a resource which other people who haven't bred fundamentally pay for. I mean, it's just astonishing the degree to which this affects things in a fundamental way.
[2:04:58] And the R-selected gene set, it's not trying to create utopia, it's not trying to create right in communism where all competition is eliminated and all the outcomes are the same. R-selected psychology and gene set, it's not trying to create utopia, it'll say all of that stuff, it's not trying to create a utopia. But what it does, it's designed to simply increase the population until the resources run out. You increase the population until the resources run out. And just breed, breed, breed, breed, grow, grow, grow, grow until the resources run out.
[2:05:37] And that's foundational to what R does. If you care about the environment, if you care about the future, you have to understand the world from this perspective. Perspective that when we see political debates occurring, we're seeing opposing genetic organisms, the R-selected gene set and the K-selected gene set, you are seeing opposing organisms fighting each other to the death, each of them trying to create environments wherein their own gene set will flourish. This is how far, we're still a long way from philosophy. They'll use philosophy. Oh, sympathy for the poor. Oh, the rule of law. Oh, you know, whatever. They'll use philosophy or ideals and so on, but it's all nonsense. Because what's fundamentally occurring is the genes are struggling to dominate each other. The R-selected trying to drive out the K-selected. The K-selected attempting to drive out the R-selected, each using ethics and virtue and compassion and all this kind of crap. But it's not what's actually occurring. What's actually occurring, as we've been talking about in this entire series, is genetic warfare. The gene sets are striving to dominate each other.
[2:06:44] Now, on the plus side, they're not trying to do it through violence. When you have dysgenic processes going on in place and you have a massive overbreeding of our selected people, what generally happens is there's a big war. And you send them off, they all die. And that's really quite tragic. And that's not what we want. The more sophisticated a society gets, the more K-selected you need, which is why they say send your kids to college. That's K-selected. But will pay to send your kids to college that's R selected because you're supposed to have the resources yourself to invest in your kids right so, if women have to provide if women's offsprings are more successful when they get a lot of resources but those resources have to be earned through competition they'll choose high value high quality mates which means men have more value in accumulating resources and working on their high quality their ability to compete their willingness to take on risks and to win in.
[2:07:41] When the state comes in and fires resources at women, it lowers the quality of their parenting, it diminishes their desire for quality mates, it diminishes pair bonding, which is why divorce keeps going up, and it creates the perfect storm for the R-selected breed fest, which brings about the end of civilization, unless we understand these things and intervene significantly ahead of time. This is Stefan Molyneux for Freedomain. Thank you so much for watching. I look Look forward to your feedback below. If you find these presentations valuable, please, please, please, please, please donate and support this show, support this conversation. You know we need it. You know this is the best thing out there. Freedomainradio.com slash donate. Thank you so much. I will talk to you in part three.
[2:08:28] Hi everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
[2:08:30] I hope you're doing well. Welcome to my part three labor of love. This is GeneWars part three 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 correspond 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.
[2:09:28] 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.
[2:10:06] 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 that's 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 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.
[2:10:52] 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 oh 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 R&K is not just pursued.
[2:11:52] 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 if you're a giraffe you're going to nibble at those um 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 a 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 um 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.
[2:13:10] 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. I see this, your rabbit gets eaten by something, and the other rabbits are like, well, 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.
[2:14:38] K-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 on 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 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 and have other rabbits and deer surround the tree or anything, but that's not the way it works with...
[2:15:12] 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. year. 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. If you have an entirely K-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.
[2:16:12] Now, Ks 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 Ks in humanity, think of sports 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 they don't 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.
[2:16:58] 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. 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, because 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. 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 the 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 sudden change in the availability of resources. Compare this to K organisms. They generally have a longer lifespan. They tend to be large and complex animals, robust and well-protected.
[2:18:23] 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. portion. 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.
[2:19:38] 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 reproduced. 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.
[2:20:03] Offspring which interfere with more offspring are a negative.
[2:20:06] 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 organism strategy.
[2:20:25] 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.
[2:20:34] Breastfeeding lengths as part of this continuum as well and so babies are not precious yeah you could just make another that's just undifferentiated blobs they're just blobs of cells in the 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 your 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, it's pro-choice and pro-abortion. And by that, I simply mean that they accept that abortion. It's the woman's choice. It's the woman's choice. Parental preference is 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. 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 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 either any of the positions I'm putting forward here, I'm simply pointing out the biological markers.
[2:21:56] 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 right a wolf who's really good at hunting is a lot more valuable than the 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 right if you think of it in terms of sports right there aren't many 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.
[2:23:16] 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.
[2:23:50] 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.
[2:24:06] 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. Child preferences vastly outstrip parent preferences, right? 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.
[2:24:50] 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. The soul is a metaphorical way of saying how important offspring and human beings are. Now, just to clarify something that was confusing to other people, I apologize for that in previous presentations it's true in general religious people have more babies but birth control is still a very important part of uh 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 uh, lysol in order to kill whatever bacteria the last person left you with so uh you know mormons have 3.4 babies per family. I think for the US as a whole, that'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 that 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.
[2:26:14] So let's look at economic versus sexual freedom. I talked about this with Bill Gairdner 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.
[2:26:57] And so they prefer sexual liberty to economic freedom. You know, I'm not going to win in economics, but I'm really horny and want to have sex with a lot of different people, so I would love it if sexual restrictions were blown away. The 1960s, you know, purely R-selected time in a lot of ways. They prefer sexual subsidies to low taxes, right? So if you're R-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 home or female availability and so uh sexual subsidies uh welfare uh single mom welfare and free government schools and free health care 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.
[2:27:58] 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 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.
[2:28:45] 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 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.
[2:29:41] 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.
[2:29:58] 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 that are just looking for variety and sexual release. So glory hole, pencil sharpener, cupped hand, sorry, cupped hand. I mean, what do they care? 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 not have, 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 at 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 uh 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 right i know that this is bringing things down to the base element and so on and again i'm I'm talking from a male perspective largely here.
[2:31:13] 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.
[2:31:25] 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.
[2:31:54] So, they reject government policies which lower sexual standards, right? They want Mallory Towers, not every Woody Allen film ever made, right? 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. This 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 case-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.
[2:32:56] So let's look at radical feminism. So our organisms, which we'll talk about in the single mom presentation in a sec, our organisms flourish, the our organism gene set, the our 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.
[2:33:23] 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.
[2:33:38] Or your father just doesn't stick around, in which case you're in a low parental investment situation, in which case your R gene set is what needs to grow to succeed within that. That so radical feminism in general promotes hostility to men and because it it makes and 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 day so often go for you know bad boys with abs you know and hella good hair as taylor swift says you know they they want um physical cues of excellence rather than stable cues of strong and 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 gonna get raped you rape 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 K-selected preferences.
[2:34:57] 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.
[2:35:17] 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 taking on some 250-pound, six-foot-six tall guy with pure muscle. And she just wins. You know, just wins. Meanwhile, it's, you know, 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 prettier. Think of ducks, right? The men tend to be prettier and the women are kind of plain. And think of peacocks, the male peacocks, right? Like those giant feathers coming out of their ass, you know, much like some kinky Stephan Ledfest. Hey, from Saturday Night Live, not this show, in some, I assume, Berlin dungeon. And so, promotion of masculinity among women, well, yeah. 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.
[2:36:30] 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.
[2:36:46] So when you promote masculinity among women uh well men become more promiscuous more hedonistic less responsibility they become more effeminate and and the women become more masculine and aggressive and uh shrill and competitive and all that kind of stuff and um so the, this is the rise of the metrosexual this is the rise of manscaping this is the rise of 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 K-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.
[2:37:53] 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, that 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 to dominate and 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 um if you uh whereas if somebody says to you here's some free stuff and you say wait wait a minute who's going to pay for that well that's your r selected let's okay selected sorry it's your k selected aspect fine we can say demon uh and so when people offer you free stuff if you respond positively like yay that's r selected and if people say oh here's you know free college education here's free this is 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 k selected in other words you understand there's no such thing as a free lunch.
[2:39:10] 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.
[2:39:23] And radical feminism, in a weird way, they deny responsibility to women. I get into this all the time.
[2:39:30] 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 quite 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.
[2:40:55] And if you're K-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 enemy, so to speak. That's breeding out the K gene set and subsidizing the R gene set, right?
[2:41:47] And the Ks know it's essential to ostracize R 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 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 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 well adapted to have and to impose and so on. And 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.
[2:42:52] So, our 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. Reduce and um there's not any particular help in in empathy right empathy is not a very our our selected trait for a variety of reasons right if you if you really care about your friend who's getting eaten by a wolf or the wolf's probably going to eat you too so you 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.
[2:43:41] 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, Like, oh, we need to, you got to help these kids. You got to save these kids. And Ks respond to that because for Ks, kids are incredibly precious. So when a single mom says, I can't feed my children, that's really tough for Ks because Ks really, really care about kids. And the Rs don't as much. I'm sorry. It's just biologically the case. And so, but Ks, but the Rs 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, um, yeah, you can see this, um, uh, showing up, uh, all over the place. What about the children care about the children? And, um.
[2:44:41] 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 as uh single moms have been to some degree characterized as a conveyable 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 uh it's not particularly great as data shows that a one percent increase in single motherhood in a neighborhood is associated with a 3% increase in an adolescent's level of violence.
[2:45:39] 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.
[2:46:12] 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 are selected genes that needs in order to manifest itself epigenetically. Sorry, I know this is a mouthful. You can watch it again slower if you like.
[2:46:47] 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, right? I mean, women who hold on, 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 are 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-selected society, you don't get resources to raise your single kid. You've got to give it up to someone else.
[2:48:11] 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 what. And that reduces breeding opportunities for R. R, 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. Anyway, but enough about me.
[2:48:54] 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-selected 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.
[2:49:19] 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 so like that old poster i remember this from years ago i've talked about this on the show before that um 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 k selected um 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.
[2:49:51] 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 a future cost, right? 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.
[2:50:28] So let's look at sexual maturity. So our organism, because the earlier that sexual activity is stimulated, the more the R 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 R-selected. Government schools are R-selected factories, which is why the West has gone so R to the point where, hey, who needs borders?
[2:51:06] We'll get to government teachers into sex, 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 equality. quality, right? 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 out 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. These are anything where quality gets lowered. And even physical beauty is part of that. Physical beauty renders men idiots, if so low as their demand for quality. Early sexual activity increases the span of fertility, because remember, fertility is our organism's way of optimal survival.
[2:52:30] 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 thirties.
[2:53:05] 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 worship of base physical qualities, sexiness rather than virtue. And so, yeah, the, our selected people are constantly focusing on early childhood sexual sexual education and the promotion of non-traditional sexual standards and so on.
[2:53:36] Because you know if you can expose kids to sexual ideas earlier and well that is going to help the our 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 You can have, you know, the wall-to-wall mango-soaked bang-a-thon.
[2:54:01] 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. 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 um books i read that were very influential to me when i was a kid by enid blighton called mallory towers m-a-l-o-r-y towers constantly promoting the quality of character and great skepticism towards you know the girls who just spend all their time primping and putting makeup up 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.
[2:55:09] 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? 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.
[2:56:30] So economic equality has to result from injustice, because remember, to the R gene set, it's like you, you know, you helicopter over a field of 10,000 rabbits in Australia.
[2:56:43] 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.
[2:56:56] 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.
[2:57:33] And if it's not even karaoke, just some guy off the street. Okay, you can be our lead singer. Oh, 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-elected 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.
[2:58:23] Uh the are selected 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 i mean think of the head start program what 100 billion plus dollars trying to get to inner city kids to do as well as non-inner 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 the K organism is to prefer the innate differences and breed to enhance them. And um so yeah they have to advocate free will personal responsibility and so on, um 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 right but for the k organisms which is why high tax on the wealthy is an r selected trait whereas the K organisms, anything which punishes quality is the enemy.
[2:59:48] There's an old statement about Americans. Americans are never poor. They're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires. I want that ring. I want that brass ring. I can get there. I grew up in a really poor environment, a really poor single mom household. 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.
[3:00:13] So, economic inequality for K-selected organisms, it results from intelligence and decisions. Whether that intelligence is something you've worked for, is something innate, 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 Ks are like, That's great. And ours are like, well, that's horrible. And that's the result of injustice. And let's go screw up the rich people.
[3:01:14] 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. 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.
[3:02:11] 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 explode in the matter and antimatter. How could you be skeptical towards the value of a quarter of the 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. The Ks know that it's different.
[3:03:29] The importation of R-selected women in particular is of great value. If you can import more R-selected women, and 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 Rs 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 Rs. I mean, if the state is what's used to take resources from the Ks and give them to the Rs.
[3:04:20] 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're 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 from the Hispanics because they now have an American in-group preference.
[3:05:40] So skepticism towards the value of insiders is incomprehensible, right? So when, in Europe, right, 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, right? 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, we can't We gave them supplies and we said, move on. Got to 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.
[3:06:26] 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 set. That, fantastic, lowers the standards and creates a big voting bloc for a bigger government and blah-de-blah-de-blah. Again, not all, right, but just in general. But for the K organisms, the shift of immigration in the U.S. From K-selected Europeans to R-selected foreigners, a complete disaster.
[3:07:10] Now, while the Rs focus on variety and diversity, the Ks focus on tradition and quality. Because everyone is not the same. Culture matters. Intelligence matters. Religion matters. Everyone is not the same.
[3:07:28] So, kindness, charity, we've got to help these people. Well, that doesn't mean a government program, right?
[3:07:35] 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 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, and 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. You can help people a lot better with private charity. So welfare promotes sexual irresponsibility because you don't have to be that careful who 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.
[3:08:58] Welfare 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.
[3:09:07] 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 class 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, spring 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 your kids because you 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 go on off and have sex with your new new boyfriend, um, that's going to produce your next artist, right?
[3:09:56] 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 K-selected, which is why you see the K-selected people on the free market side, the libertarians and the republicans who are genuinely free market, they're 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?
[3:10:38] 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 R gene set. It's perfect. I mean, it is really just like feeding the R gene 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, the father dies somewhere or whatever by accident, then you're you know it's not the single mom as you choose to get married sorry you chose to get divorced or you chose to have children out of wedlock and that's your 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, blah, right?
[3:12:00] 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.
[3:12:36] The reality of finite resources feeds the K gene set, and charity punishes hostility towards men, right? 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 her to her kid, 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. So get teachers unions. So for our organism, 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. ability. 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.
[3:13:49] Now, only high-quality K people get no excuses. Excuses are for the R people, by the perception, right? K 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. Right? It's the difference between the guy who, you know, takes his money and blows it on the racetrack, but you can't give him more money. Right? But a guy who's on his way to put the money in the bank and he gets robbed by some people, yeah, let's help him out.
[3:14:44] 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 parents, sorry, 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 machine.
[3:15:12] Remember I was 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. Infidelity has just happened. Pity for sadness is unbearable. So selfishly, they've got to get rid of it. It's very uncomfortable. Since everyone is the same, well, the tragedy that happened to someone else, well, it could just happen to me. Suffering, 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.
[3:15:50] 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. 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 Ks 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 it's how they get better.
[3:16:45] 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 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? K's like their weight 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, right? 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 resource, it's infinite. Conservation for the sake of the future is irrational for our selected environments. For K-selected environments, any debt creates the obligation of repayment. You're just making it worse for yourself down. They 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.
[3:17:54] 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 societies. 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?
[3:18:30] 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 what do they care, right? It's like John Maynard Keynes, the famous fiat currency addicted economist. People would say, well, what about the long run? That's a K-selected question. What about in the long run? What happens when we have to pay this money back? K-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.
[3:19:44] 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. It's all environment, right? Rabbits have no control over their environment. They just, 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.
[3:20:10] 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.
[3:20:54] 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. There'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 Rs plus government power, right, which is why Ks are dying in the West. Ks ally naturally with limited security powers, and they want to compete with Rs 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.
[3:21:54] 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. Decreases. Low investment in your kids, rampant materialism, a lack of bonding, and a lack of saving means an insecure 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 Rs 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 subsidized subsidization of selfishness. And this is why they're so opposed to ostracism.
[3:22:50] K organisms. Okay, not everyone is the same. There's good people, bad people, noble people, base people, lovers and 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 or a 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.
[3:23:31] 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.
[3:23:49] Government, and we'll end here, and I appreciate your patience, lengthy presentation. Our organisms, they want unlimited majority democracy, where verbal abuse and praise shape social policy. Right? 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, right? That's what they want.
[3:24:19] Now, they constantly react to anxiety with aggression. This is where you get political correctness. It'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. 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. So, 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 run out of money, and then everybody flots back to the K's, and the women are all like, okay, let's pretend the R thing never happened, and you're so sexy with your accounting belly.
[3:25:45] So verbal abuse and praise is in the mission of failure. Like if you try and manipulate people by just, oh, I love you so much, you're so great. Nah.
[3:25:54] 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 hurt 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.
[3:26:33] 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 kid's in the future's fault, right? So this is, again, this is not exactly 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.
[3:27:06] 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, you know, 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. So thank you so much for watching, as always. Have yourself a wonderful day. I will see you next time.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
