Greetings, proud Sons of Europa-
The following is an interview with ‘Anonymous Conservative’.
Anonymous Conservative is the nom de guerre of the editor of (appropriately) anonymousconservative.com. He- and apparently some connected thinkers who have worked with him on it- is the creator of the “r/K Selection Theory” as it relates to modern politics.
I had seen the term “r/K” on various comment sections and websites and message boards over the last year or two, but never actually knew what it meant until I stumbled upon his site. I always assumed it was some old idea that had been around for awhile, or something to do with human biodiversity (which I guess it sort of does, in a way). Once I read the description on the site and fully understood it though I was highly affected, and have referenced it regularly in the times since.
Anonymous Conservative, or ‘AC’, has a variety of ideas on modern politics and the situation in Europe, and I am very pleased to offer this interview with him below. I think the proud warriors for reconquest who frequent this site will find a lot of value in it, and it also has prompted some ideas that will be included in my upcoming book. I think r/K theory is quite possibly the most important concept for our people to understand as regards the existential threats we currently face, and I encourage folks to share this interview, and share his ideas/website/book as widely as you can.
ECW: Can you tell us a little bit about your website and what prompted you
to start it?
AC: The Website’s purpose was to try and seed the public consciousness with r/K Selection Theory as the origin of our political battles. I originally thought it would reveal the idea, and the idea would then spread like wildfire. But I was somewhat clueless on how such things worked.
It turns out people need a much longer exposure to an idea, before it really sets in, and takes over their thinking to the point they talk about it. So the blog then morphed into a regular examination of how r/K Theory was revealing itself in the world’s daily news stories.
ECW: The name of the site is ‘Anonymous Conservative’ but can you tell us about your own political journey and what lead you to your current beliefs? (without compromising your identity obviously)
AC: I am of the thought that political beliefs are somewhat hardwired by the environment you are adapted to, and that we create intellectual justifications to support what feels right to us. Those who were, as children, capable, self sufficient, and able to enjoy the world on their own tend to want freedom, while those who were victimized, incapable, and generally afraid of the world as kids tend to want a controlling authority to make the world safe for them.
As kids interact with other kids, they also head toward one side, where they fit in with the group and want to compete freely, or they tend to not fit in with the group, view the group as dangerous, and want it all controlled by some greater authority.
I grew up fairly isolated in the wilderness, constantly exploring the woods so I tend toward third psychology, libertarianism, which correlates with the psychology that arises when r/K Theory breaks down due to insufficient population density.
As a kid, I enjoyed doing what I wanted with no authority and with no need to fit in with a larger group and abide by their mores, so now as an adult I tend to think government should butt out of my business, and people should leave me be, so long as I do nothing to them.
From an evolutionary perspective, I feel like I am designed to colonize some place like Alaska, where people are spread out, life is challenging, and nobody interferes with your life, and I suspect I was programmed that way based on my childhood experiences. I think that kind of not fitting in with either Conservative or Leftist, right or left, is why r/K jumps out at me so clearly. In a world of wolf packs (K-strategists) and fields full of rabbits (r-strategists), I’m kind of like a Grizzly Bear (The case in r/K Theory where population density drops, and r/K’s rules break down since individuals don’t interact constantly with others, either fleeing conflict with them, or trying to dominate them). I don’t quite fit perfectly with the wolves, and don’t like the rabbits’ ideal world either, so I am freed to look at the system somewhat unemotionally, detached from both sides.
ECW: Can you briefly explain R/K theory to us? I had seen the term floating around on the internet a little bit but never actually knew what it was until I stumbled upon your site.
AC: r/K Theory is an idea in ecology which says a population will tend to, over time, produce individuals with one of two psychologies. Which psychology is produced depends on the amount of resources available to the population. It takes the “r” and “K” from variables in equations that evolutionary ecologists use to model population growth, where r represents a maximal reproductive rate possible, and K represents the carrying capacity of the population, or how many individuals it can support before individuals begin dying.
Basically each psychology drives the individual to follow the perfect plan to produce offspring and pass their genes forward in their respective environment’s conditions of resource availability. So as time goes on in each environment, the resource-rich and the resource-starved, those who adhere most closely to each plan are the individuals who reproduce, and become the archetype of the species in that environment.
If there are more resources than the population can consume, such as a glut, then you get what the theory calls an r-strategist. This individual best survives and reproduces in a resource glut by following five rules. First is avoiding conflicts over resources and territory at all cost (Since resources are free everywhere, they can always flee for a lower cost than fighting, and they will still get the same resources somewhere else since resources are ever-present).
Second is mating promiscuously. This maximizes offspring production, and since resources are free, the faster and more freely you mate, the more offspring you produce, and the better for your gene’s spread. Third is single parenting with minimized rearing investment. This is partly because males mate promiscuously and are never around, and partly to speed the assembly line of offspring production, if you will. Since resources are free, and competition/aggression is nonexistent, how well your kids are reared is immaterial. So long as they can eat and mate, they can reproduce, and evolution will consider them a win.
Fourth is mating early in life, and mating with mates who are as young as possible. The younger you are when mating begins, the more offspring you produce, and if you can impregnate a ten year old girl, your offspring will likely get the gene to mate earlier as well from her, and your genes will reproduce faster and more effectively. Sexualization of children is normal to an r-strategist, and advantageous reproductively.
Finally, r-strategists tend to have no group or pack they are loyal to. The game is, mate as fast as possible, avoid danger and conflict, and never let yourself die. So as a result, you don’t get individuals who are wedded to a pack.
The opposite psychology in nature is the K-strategist, which is the perfect archetype for surviving and reproducing in an environment of limited resources, where there is not enough food for everybody, and somebody must die from going without it. This psychology has five traits, exactly the opposite of the r-strategist.
First is aggressiveness/competitiveness/protectiveness. In K-selection in nature there is not enough food for everybody to survive, and somebody is going to die. So the survivors will never be conflict avoidant because if you avoid conflict, you will certainly be the one who goes without food. Only the fighters survive.
The second trait is a preference for pair-bonding, or monogamy. You, and your offspring, need to be more successful in the competition for food than everyone else, so you will carefully select the fittest mate possible, and then try to monopolize their fitness by not letting anyone else mate with them and produce other offspring which will benefit from your mate’s fit genes. Working both ways, as each mate tries to monopolize the other’s fit genes and block access to them, this tends to produce a drive toward monogamy over promiscuity.
The third trait is high-investment two-parent rearing, with a very strong urge to protect the children. Again, your children need to be as capable as possible in competition, so both parents work very hard to maximize their chances of winning, and carrying the family genes forward.
The fourth trait is later age at first intercourse. Here the goal is not mating early, but rather waiting until full maturity to make sure both you, and your mate, are as fit as possible. Since you only take one mate with monogamy, rather than try and mate with an inferior female when you are a 112 lb thirteen year old, you wait until you are a fully filled out 200lb 22 year old, and then you try to get the fittest girl possible.
The fifth trait is a tendency to form loyal packs to compete in, with each individual feeling a loyalty to the pack, and a callousness toward out-groups. This tends to produce an emotional bond you don’t see in r-strategists. If you look at K-strategists in nature, you see wolves, and elephants, and dolphins, animals who have an emotional bond with their peers. If you look at r-strategists, you see rabbits, and mice, and deer – all animals who are much less emotionally invested in their peers, and much less loyal to any sort of in-group.
Of course what struck me is the political analogy. In the political left you see avoidance of all direct conflict, promiscuity, single parenting with women who provision the children alone, a tolerance for early sexual exposure, sexual education, and sexual activity among children, and a reduced loyalty to an in-group. The left even tries to reduce rearing investments in offspring (and maximize mating) through the use of birth control and abortion, and views those as so important to an individual’s “human rights” that they want them state funded. The political left is a very rabbit-like psychology, embodying all five facets of the r-strategist’s strategy.
Meanwhile, on the right, you do see a wolf-like psychology, that wants to exist in a pack where every individual is loyal to their fellow pack members, where competition and resource limitation is a fundamental part of the world, where family values, marriage, monogamy, and two-parent rearing are all vitally important, and where children are shielded from any graphic sexual exposure early in life, and protection of children is paramount.
In the scientific literature, an animal’s r/K status appears to be imbued through three mechanisms. First is genetics. There is a dopamine receptor gene in humans, which governs how an individual’s brain responds to resource acquisition, and the pleasure it produces. The same gene is also associated with the sexual/monogamy/reproductive aspects of r/K in humans. So in humans, there appears to be a genetic foundation to r/K underlying everything.
The second means of imbuing r/K is epigenetics, a newer field in genetics. When your cells use genes, because an environmental calls for them, the cell will adjust the structures around the genes to make them more accessible in the future, kind of like bookmarking a webpage, and this will have the effect of amplifying the gene’s effects, as if the gene were replaced with a slightly more potent version. It is a sort of passive adaptability that can be passed to offspring. There are studies which show that a rat exposed to conditions of r or K, and adapted to r or K by those conditions, will have offspring which are more prone to exhibit the parent’s strategy, and which will do so more potently. So as a nation enjoys free resources, each successive generation can go more r than the last, even in the absence of outright genetic selection for the r genes, simply through epigenetic adaptation.
Finally, third is actual physical adaptation. This includes both, dopamine receptor sensitivity, and the structural development of a brain structure known as the amygdala.
I think of receptor sensitivity as being like the addiction effect. If you take a dopamine-like drug like cocaine, it mimics free resources, and the brain adapts by reducing the number of receptors to the drug, as a way of blunting future drug effects. Soon, an addict needs ever more drugs to get to normal, because their brain has reduced the number of receptors. This is like being adapted to free resources, and you become more desperate for those resources, and need them more to feel normal. Much of the left’s freaking out every time we point to impending problems, is merely their addict-like brains encountering the idea that their debt-fueled, free-resource high is coming to an end. It is the same thing.
The amygdala is the brain structure that, when developed, produces the K-strategy, and it does it though encountering problems, and finding solutions to them. As the amygdala does that, it develops and grows, and it’s volume increase is associated with increased conservatism in the studies.
So the “leftist at 19 and conservative at 39” idea is a real mechanism, and the means behind it is amygdala growth in response to use and experience in the course of encountering, and dealing with, hardships. However, don’t use it, such as a trust fund kid with millions per year in free discretionary income who rarely encounters problems, and you can end up leftist at 19 and leftist at 39 too, thinking that welcoming the migrants is just grand.
In short, liberals encounter ease and free resources, and their brain adapts its dopamine-pleasure systems, and atrophies it’s hardship/coping amygdala, and their brain ends up needing high-pleasure and unable to foresee problems, and cope with a dangerous world. The right-wing psychology, by encountering problems, and not being swamped in free resources, doesn’t overload it’s pleasure system, adapts to shortage and hardship, and develops a brain designed to function in a harsh world by foreseeing problems and dealing with them.
I really believe what you are seeing in the political battle between left and right are two different “brain programs,” the r and the K, which want two different worlds because they are each designed for two different worlds. The left craves that rabbit like environment of fields of grass nobody will ever deplete, and they want to follow that r-strategy because it is how they are programmed.
The right sees a world with not enough resources for everybody, and they want to in-group and protect their own in the coming storm. They are just programmed to want to follow that K-strategy, and see everyone in their pack do the same.
There is a third psychology in r/K Theory, as I mentioned earlier, and that is the Grizzly bear. The conflict-avoidant-or-competitive aspects of the r/K psychologies only evolve when individuals are packed closely enough together that interaction between them is required. Then individuals will adapt to either compete, or try to stop all competition.
When you look at animals in nature where they exist spread out, like Grizzly Bears who wander over vast territories and rarely see each other due to their food being so spread out, the urges to either compulsively compete or avoid conflict don’t arise. Neither do drives to in-group, or abide by some group’s rules, and even the mating/rearing urges can shift, since mates may be encountered rarely, and the ffffterritory may not have enough food, present in dense enough concentrations, to support a whole family of 1500lb animals in one place. Under these conditions, the rules of r and K stop applying, and you get a psychology which avoids others, and does its own thing.
I see this psychology too in humans, indeed I suspect I developed it while, as a child, roaming the woods alone and not interacting with other kids often. But as one would expect of a psychology that can’t persist in dense populations as well as r or K, it seems to only exist in small numbers, and mostly in very rural areas.
ECW: Are there any other related theories you have? Other ways of looking at things that help to explain modern politics and culture in the West?
AC: One thing which grew out of r/K theory was a recognition of the role the amygdala plays in the brain. The amygdala is like the captain of the brain. All parts of the brain wire into it, and it is constantly scanning the various data streams, looking for anything important to focus the rest of the brain on. Once it finds something important, it will irritate you with angst until you resolve it.
If we looked at your brain in an fMRI scanner, and a lion jumped into the room and roared, your amygdala would light up in the scanner as it fired off wildly, because it would see something very important, and it would set to work focusing the rest of your brain on it.
The way the amygdala focuses the brain is by producing what is called aversive stimulus – an unpleasant niggling sensation which in massive amounts becomes fear and discomfort. So a report you have to finish by tomorrow is a niggling irritation, while the aforementioned lion becomes a sheer terror. Same phenomenon, different degree.
Now the amygdala is actually trainable throughout life. Encounter a stress, it niggles you, and as it does, it searches for a solution in the rest of the brain using its many connections. If it finds a solution, and you implement it (driven to by aversive stimulus), and the solution works, the amygdala creates a shortcut to that solution, driven by relief. The next time you encounter that problem, your amygdala guides you to the solution quickly, and you are trained.
Since the amygdala processes stress, such as limited resources, it is developed by those circumstances, and that is what is seen in political ideologues. Leftists have smaller, less developed amygdalae than the right leaning ideologues. I suspect this is a measure of the environments they have encountered.
The left is adapted to free-ish resources, where threats, problems, and stress is rarer, so their amygdalae (plural) are not adapted to them. On the right, conservatives are K-strategists because they have adapted to an environment where limited resources have molded their brains, and as a result they have trained their amygdala with problems, stresses, and even threats. As a result, their amygdala have developed, and that adaptation gives them a more K-psychology, and can be seen in increased structural volume in MRIs.
I think of it like the trust-fund leftist millionaire r-strategist who welcomes all the migrants into their nation with no concern how to pay for them, and the blue-collar, former military K-strategist who grew up in a rough neighborhood, and doesn’t want all the Muslim migrants flooding in, nor does he want to pay for them.
Interestingly the research shows that all aspects of r/K Theory are tied to amygdala development and functionality. In humans and monkeys, reduced size, infection by a brain parasite, and injury to the structure are all tied with compulsive eating, sexual promiscuity, poor rearing investment, low levels of loyalty/morality, and inability to perceive threats. So it is that niggling force the amygdala produces which drives all the virtues those on the right hold dear, and when you remove it you get a leftist.
In my day to day life, I find an understanding of the amygdala, how it works, and what it does to be invaluable for hacking my own brain. One example of that might be the Dale Carnegie example. The amygdala will amp up in the face of threat, so if something is bothering you, and you remove the perception of threat, you can throttle down the amygdala stress.
In a Dale Carnegie course, they tell you to drop your pants, and willingly get up on stage in your underwear, and focus on feeling the rush that produces not as shame but as an invigorating energy you can feed off of. Many participants, who would have been horrified if their pants had accidentally dropped, report being able to convert the stress to positive energy which they can feed off of, merely by turning off the perception of that type of event as a threat or a negative. Many introverts, who had been limited by that type of threat perception in the brain, report becoming easy extroverts after such an event.
In my own life, I view stress as amygdala activation, and I view it like the burn in a muscle when lifting weights. I imagine it hardening and developing the structure, and making me more stress tolerant in the future. That makes stress much more tolerable and even a welcome experience, compared to stressing out over the stress, and wanting it to go away.
Since the amygdala is the seat of motivation, an understanding of it can also help you to understand how to motivate others to do things they might not otherwise see as important.
So the amygdala is a fascinating structure, and learning about it has practical applications with respect to hacking the brain, developing yourself, and understanding the world around us.
What are your thoughts on the situation in Europe today? [It seems to me that the Europeans and the Muslims are about as perfect of human examples for R vs K as one could come up with]
AC: Exactly. One aspect you pick up from the genetic evidence supporting r/K is that the dopamine genes the literature identifies had to evolve because we had two forms of humans, one of which was exposed to easy free resources, and one of which was not. In my opinion, these two humans were probably evolved as the glaciers retreated, and humans who survived that genetic bottleneck spread up into the new territory, eventually covering the globe.
When that happened, you would have one human form which stayed put as populations grew to the point that there was not enough food for everybody. That would be a K-strategist. But then you would have the model which migrated into the unpopulated areas, and sought free resources and an escape from the threats behind them. That model would land in an area with free resources and no threat, and as the population grew there and conflicts began, it would again flee to the new frontier, and enjoy free resources again.
As it kept picking up and fleeing to the free resources at the frontiers of the species’ range, it would evolve to become the r-strategist. Indeed, the very gene which predisposes to a leftist ideology, and which controls the features of the r-strategy in humans, like promiscuity and addiction, is also found in very high proportion in migrant populations.
So what you are seeing today, is the modern r-strategist migrants fleeing K-selection behind them, and seeking free resources in Europe, just as the first r-strategists probably did back when the glaciers receded, and then as they migrated out in front of our populations, spreading our species over the globe.
Interestingly, you also note that many abandon families back home, embrace free welfare in Europe, expect even greater luxury and wealth be given to them, complain of lack of entertainment, and they follow a very high-sexed, r-mating strategy including rape.
If you or I were offered a safe room to sleep in for free after escaping death, we would be tremendously appreciative, because we are adapted to much greater harshness. But to an r-strategist migrant, that is barely acceptable, if even.
ECW: What happens when R and K selected groups come into contact? Obviously within nature such behaviors are fixed evolutionarily (like with actual rabbits for instance), but is there any data or historical information to suggest what happens when R selected humans encounter K selected ones?
AC: Basically the r-strategists will consume the resources until they produce K-selection, and then they will be killed back. In animals it will produce regular fighting for resources, where somebody starves. In humans, historically, it is not fun – it is war and people must die.
Until then, I would expect a lot of crime. One aspect of the amygdala concept is that the r-strategist’s poorly adapted amygdala does not have a lot of well trained pathways to solutions, so it tends to panic and seek simplistic solutions to shut off the panic.
This can make K-strategists calmer in mild resource restriction – and less prone to opportunistic violence. Money gets scarce in an economic collapse, and your amygdala will calmly scan through a myriad of ways you can make money effectively – grow a garden, weld steel for money, fix gasoline engines, do security work, and so on.
An r-strategist may not make it that far, and they want free resources, so their amygdala may see an old, infirm senior, and they will just knock them over, and take their wallet. It is the best their brain can do. Since the r-strategy also entails high sex drive and promiscuity, you will also get a lot of sex crimes, and pedophilia. And since the amygdala’s niggling aversive stimulus is also the source of moral adherence, they don’t have to worry about that either.
My guess is the migrants are going to slowly bankrupt Europe, increase crime rates, hasten what was an already approaching economic calamity, and when it hits they will begin a systematic program of victimizing any weak Europeans they feel they can attack freely, in an effort to avail themselves of free resources. In the interim, they may seek free resources from gang crime, and increase sex crimes on women, so there will be that as well.
The real problem is that K-strategists, given technology, will produce a well-oiled machine that generates a resource glut. Once they do, r-strategists will show up, import more r-strategists, seek free resources through debt spending by government, and eventually the whole thing will come down. Then it will take a period of harshness to re-K-ify the population, greatness will reemerge, and the cycle will begin anew. It is a natural cycle which you can see all throughout history. You would think a nation would achieve the pinnacle of success, and just keep advancing once it has all those advantages and experience plus the wealth and power, but they never do. The go on to collapse (often will all sorts of sexual hedonism), and some other place comes out of harshness to produce a moral greatness, and it all happens all over again.
What remains to be seen is if widespread recognition of the r/K mechanism could produce a means and a will to try and prevent it by limiting the expression of r-strategist urges in a population.
One way I see that might help avert the migrant problem would be if, as the money runs out, nations pulled all welfare from migrants as they bribed the migrants to return home. Then the migrants would have free resources on one side, and an elimination of free resources on the other. I think they would mostly migrate peacefully out.
ECW: What do you believe will happen in Europe going forward in the short and long run?
AC: In the short term, the populations are beginning to see their amygdalae trained, and as a result they are starting to turn rightward politically as they adapt for K-selection. I think that is how nature designed things, because if resources are free, it is not very smart to be pursuing a K-strategy. Your genes are actually better off following a somewhat r-strategy, avoiding conflict. We are designed, as a whole to adapt to our environments, and like it or not, K-selection is approaching in the form of not enough free money to keep the economic systems running. And we are definitely adapting.
The long term is tougher to predict. Traditionally, humans will go just as K as they absolutely have to, and no more. The problem is, real, extreme K is usually required for real greatness.
So if you want a glittering Europe, you need a majority of the populations exhibiting a very K-selected psychology. Historically, to get a very K-selected population you have to have a tremendous amount of K-stimuli to make the amygdalae adapt, hone the epigenetics, and maybe even select for the genes. That is not pleasant to undergo, even if the end product is magical.
That will happen, because it always does. The question is when and how. The means are usually major war and shortage. Clearly after WWII, Europe was destined for a period of greatness, and that was because everyone was heavily K-ified. But it has happened fast through pandemics, which tend to cull the threat-blind, and disgust tolerant r-strategists preferentially. Neither way is particularly pleasant.
In short there are a lot of ways for Europe to get to greatness and safety, even as the economic Apocalypse bears down on all of us, but all the paths will require some hardship first, and entail the migrants being repatriated somehow. So long as the migrants remain, Europe will mimic the long fall of Rome, with it at present being at the very beginning of the slow, stagnating decline.
ECW: What has been the response to R/K Theory from people you have interacted with?
AC: Most K-strategists suddenly see the world, its history, and the political battles in it, in a new light. We all always wonder, why are the leftists so eager to appease Muslims, that they will import them into our nations, and give them free money? But if you see them as r-strategists, then it makes sense. You always give up resources and appease to avoid even the faintest possibility of conflict, because in r-selection there will always be more resources elsewhere. Reflexive, preemptive appeasement is in their genes. It is why Chamberlain was so proud to give Hitler what he wanted. That was his programming.
From leftists spending freely, to their need to give everyone free resources through welfare, to their need for free birth control to minimize rearing investment to zero, to their willingness to tolerate pedophile rings grooming girls, to their embrace of sex-ed for children, to their glorifying the single promiscuous, feminist, careerist mother, to their revulsion at regular monogamy, to the way their governmental philosophy always fails due to limited resources, it all fits in. They are programmed as r-strategists, they want an r-selected environment of free resources, and that is what guides all of this weird behavior.
Most K-strategists spend a year or so blown away by it. After that, it kind of becomes second nature to see everything in light of r/K.
Leftists are uniformly repelled by it though. I think because it postulates that the K-selected environment as a normal state, they get all triggered, and freaked out by it. They need to believe the world is r-selected, and always will be. Hence their ideas are always couched as progress, in a world that is only heading more leftist all the time.
ECW: What are some other areas or things that interest you, and why?
AC: I’ve noticed most of my interests are mechanisms. Saltwater reefs, guns, electronics, microbiology, the human machine, and so on. If there are moving parts that can be understood and manipulated, I am entranced.
ECW: Any other thoughts and predictions?
AC: The age of right wing politics is upon us, and it will increase immensely once the economic system begins the final collapse in a little over a decade. That, and in a decade or so the world is going to get cold again, probably right around the same time, if the solar activity cycles are any indication. It will not be a fun ride, but it will bring back right-wing politics in a big way, and there is nothing anybody can do to stop it.
ECW: How can people learn more about you and- importantly- how can they support your work?
AC: Simply stop by http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog, read up on r/K Selection as it exists in the world, and tell others about it. Spreading all of this is the only thing I cannot do myself. I need people’s help on that.
There is even a book which is made free in electronic form every few months at http://ww.anonymousconservative.com, and can be purchased at Amazon called “The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics.” It contains all the scientific studies supporting the idea, and delves deeply into the biological mechanisms for those who want to check out the idea in depth.
But if you understand the basic mechanisms of r/K, and you can tell others about it, you can help spread an idea that seems uniquely suited to inoculate the world against the self-destructive virus of political leftism. Whenever the younger generation is exposed to it, none of them want to be the political rabbits – they all want to join the wolf-pack.
I feel like there has probably never been a better time in history for this idea to spread, and if it does, it might just hold the key to avoiding future episodes of trouble like what we will probably have to endure in the coming decade or so.
Thank you again for the opportunity to do this interview!
Editor’s Note: Big thanks to Anonymous Conservative for this interview! I am still grappling with the myriad implications of these ideas. One thing I thought of is that my own book could basically be described as a story of K-selection leading to conservative awakening. Amygdala growth as well.
The amygdala stuff in the context of self-improvement was also something I found profound, as I have long theorized and said that each person’s relationship with fear will be the chief influence on their success in life.
Finally, however, I think the chief question we must ask is what implication r/K selection theory has for us as European-Preservationists. Chiefly, what methods does it suggest would be most effective for achieving change both metapolitically (today), and physically (in the future)? I am not sure about this, and would highly welcome thoughts on it from readers…