Matt Forney
Spread the Word!

The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics by Anonymous Conservative

evolutionary-psychology-behind-politicsThis book in one word: revolutionary.

I’ve been a fan of the Anonymous Conservative blog—and the radical evo-bio theory it espouses—for a few months now. Anonymous Conservative postulates that liberalism and conservatism are the result of fundamental psychological and biological differences between people, and that both sides are following a reproductive strategy that is completely rational from their perspectives. Conservatives seek to propagate their genes via raising strong, competitive, healthy children who can survive in a harsh world; liberals are lazy cowards who want to bang everything they see in the hope that one of their lays will bring the baby to term.

It sounds like the typical self-aggrandizing theories that liberals come up with to “explain” why they’re so much smarter than conservatives… or does it?

Anonymous Conservative’s theory has reams of scientific studies backing it, most notably the countless studies showing that liberals and conservatives have significantly different brain structures. Now you can read all about it yourself in the new Kindle edition of his book, which covers every possible angle you could think of, from biology to human history.

Evolutionary Psychology is a must-read for the simple fact that there’s nothing out there quite like it.

For starters, the book’s tone is surprisingly even-handed and polite. Despite Anonymous Conservative’s (obvious) political bias, he reports his findings and speculations in a clinical, scientific tone. This goes wonders towards convincing the reader of the correctness—or at least plausibility—of his theory. The battalion of sources and footnotes buttressing his argument also helps:

For example, diminished age at mortality, free resource availability, environmental instability, diminished population density, and the degree to which competitive stresses are absent within a species may all function as r-selective stresses. All such pressures will usually favor increasing reproductive rates. However, it is possible that unique factors may change this. If population densities are diminished due to predation, this will likely speak to an r-type strategy. However, if population densities are diminished due to resource shortage, this may speak to a more K-selective stress. If a species is preyed on by a predator whose predation is random in its application, this will likely produce an r-stress. However, if the predation favors some form of complex, energy-intensive adaptation, this may produce a K-strategy. Likewise, these pressures may all differently affect such specific factors of reproductive strategy as brood size, mating strategy, or sex-specific parental investments.

Despite this, Anonymous Conservative doesn’t lard up the text with overly-complex terminology or obscure terms; his writing is clean enough to convey his ideas in one shot.

The other reason why you need to read Evolutionary Psychology is because its central thesis is the most accurate and plausible explanation for our current state of affairs that you’ll ever find.

The gist of Evolutionary Psychology is that liberalism and conservatism are outgrowths of two types of evolutionary strategies in humans, K-selection and r-selection. K-selection breeds children to compete (and win) in a hostile world with scarce resources through a high-investment, two-parent upbringing, late sexual maturation (and monogamy), sexual dimorphism, and loyalty to the in-group. r-selection breeds children for a world with abundant resources through a low-investment, single-mother upbringing, early sexual maturation (and promiscuity), androgyny, and no in-group loyalty. Think of wolves (K-selected), who are tight-knit, loyal, brave and sexually restrained, versus rabbits (r-selected), who fuck with wild abandon, ignore their fellows when they get eaten, and run away from danger instead of facing it:

As a species is exposed to these conditions, individuals will also be best served by mating as often as possible, with as many different mates as possible, beginning as early as possible in life. To mature later, and wait to reproduce, is to risk being killed before reproducing, and by extension, to fail from a Darwinian perspective. To mate rarely, or with a single mate, is to be out-reproduced by faster-multiplying peers, and simultaneously risk that one’s few offspring themselves may fail to reproduce. (Promiscuity also offers advantages with regards to producing diverse offspring, referred to as risk-spreading/ bet-hedging.) This environment will also favor lower-investment single-parenting, as a way of maximizing offspring production, by minimizing the rearing effort invested per-offspring.

Or, for a human example, compare a white middle-class family from the suburbs to a black welfare queen in the inner city with five kids from four different daddies.

Going by Evolutionary Psychology, the political conflict in America—and the West at large—is a struggle between K-selected and r-selected humans trying to maximize their reproductive potential. K-selected people believe in sexual restraint and individual competition to propagate their genes, hence the conservative predilection for laissez-faire economics, gun ownership, chastity and other social policies that allow men and women to rise on their own merits. r-selected people want an environment where life is easy and resources are freely available, hence the liberal love of welfare, gun control, and a government with maximum control over peoples’ lives. You could say that leftists stand for “sexual freedom,” but sexual freedom is an oxymoron; absent government subsidies and laws, women have no choice but to behave monogamously (see: Sandra Fluke crying about how taxpayers have to foot the bill for her birth control).

The problem for the r-selected Rabbit People is that we don’t have unlimited resources.

Thus we see the cycle of history, from Rome to Victorian Britain to the present-day U.S. K-selected pioneers carve out a civilization from chaos, and increased prosperity eventually allows r-selected parasites to gain a foothold. At a certain point, the Rabbit People seize control and alter the culture to make resources freely available and tamp down the wolves’ ability to compete and produce. Eventually the ratio of r-selected parasites to K-selected producers gets too large and everything collapses, and the whole process begins again.

Gee, this all kind of sounds familiar.

Evolutionary Psychology also makes sense out of many other aspects of our political climate. Ever wonder why leftist/feminist women are strident and bitchy while leftist men are timid and effete? Or why American women in general are more butch and obnoxious then, say, Asian or eastern European women? r-selection, for all its love of indiscriminate sex, works to eliminate differences between the sexes. Since women in r-selected environments like sub-Saharan Africa are left to support their children alone, they develop more masculine characteristics, while men become more effeminate due to their competitive/provider abilities being largely irrelevant in the mating process.

Additionally, Evolutionary Psychology also explains why leftists are at best lukewarm about their country, and at worst treasonous. Since Rabbit People know they can’t best wolves in a fair competition—imagine a village of North Dakotan men going up against a gaggle of Portland hipsters—they survive by playing different groups of wolves against each other. The immigration debate is a great example of this; leftist whites are using K-selected foreigners as a way to weaken conservative, K-selected whites in a big game of “Let’s You and Him Fight.”

The Zimmerman debacle is another great example of why Rabbit People have to constantly keep wolves fighting each other. George Zimmerman is a K-selected wolf, a man who by all rights is a model citizen, tirelessly working to make his community a better place. Trayvon Martin was an r-selected rabbit, a coward who beat and robbed people and sought to game society for his own benefit. In a fight, when all else is equal, the wolf will always roll over the rabbit (and will usually be justified in doing so), so our rabbity overlords tried to use another group of wolves—the police and justice system—to roll Zimmerman.

There is nothing a rabbit fears more than a wolf who can take care of himself, who doesn’t need them.

What really makes Evolutionary Psychology valuable reading—and what ultimately convinced me that Anonymous Conservative was right—is the book’s analysis of amygdala function. The book points to numerous studies showing that liberals have atrophied amygdalae compared to conservatives. The amygdala is the section of the brain responsible for gauging the emotional significance of perceptions, and repeated studies have shown that animals with damaged amygdalae behave like they’re completely insane:

“Prior to the operations he was very wild and even fierce, assaulting any person who teased or tried to handle him. Now he voluntarily approaches all persons indifferently, allows himself to be handled, or even to be teased or slapped, without making any attempt at retaliation or endeavouring to escape….”

“Every object with which he comes in contact, even those with which he was previously most familiar, appears strange and is investigated with curiosity. Everything he endeavours to feel, taste, and smell , and to carefully examine from every point of view…. His food is devoured greedily, the head being dipped into the dish, instead of the food being conveyed to the mouth by the hands in the way usual with Monkeys. He appears no longer to discriminate between the different kinds of food; e.g., he no longer picks out the currants from a dish of food, but devours everything just as it happens to come…”

Reading that chapter was like being smacked across the face with a cat o’ nine tails. The effete, pacifistic nature of the left; their obsession with “non-judgmentalism” and opposition to stereotypes and generalizations; their lack of impulse control and justification for it (fat acceptance, anyone?); it’s all a form of brain damage. And it’s brain damage that only gets worse: as successive generations are even more affluent and mollycoddled, they become increasingly incapable of behaving like normal, rational people. Hence our current epidemic of 16-year old girls on Tumblr forming hysterical lynch mobs whenever anyone makes a rape joke and feminists attaching “trigger warnings” to every article that isn’t about cute fluffy kittens.

This is all a massive oversimplication of Anonymous Conservative’s ideas; for the full flavor, you need to read the book.

There are two flaws with Evolutionary Psychology. The first is that Anonymous Conservative glosses over the significant role that climate plays in r/K selection. The colder a climate is, the greater it tends towards K-selection, because winter has a habit of killing off those who don’t prepare for it. It’s no accident that the most r-selected peoples on Earth are clustered around the equator in places like sub-Saharan Africa, where the weather is relatively pleasant and forgiving. You can even see this play out on a micro level; the states with the highest rates of teenage pregnancy are southern ones like Texas, Arizona and California. Moynihan’s Law of the Canadian Border would seem to apply here.

The other problem with Evolutionary Psychology is that Anonymous Conservative seems blind to the traitorous, r-selected nature of modern conservatism. He correctly analyzes Nazism as a fusion of r- and K-selected ideologues, with r-selected opportunists like Hitler using K-selected German nationalists to seize power, but he ignores that post-Reagan conservatism is effectively doing the same thing. As Mark Ames pointed out in Going Postal, Reaganite reforms of downsizing, outsourcing and union smashing have done nothing but harm the average American and benefit corporations. Additionally, the majority of corporations are run by leftists (Microsoft, Facebook, Google etc.) or “conservatives”/libertarians who are openly hostile to America’s interests (Rupert Murdoch, the Koch brothers).

K-selected whites, in their support for Republicans and Reagan-esque policies, are being sold out.

But given the sheer groundbreaking nature of this work, these dings are minor. The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics is one of the most important books of our time, and one you absolutely must buy. Even if you have an instinctive distrust of works like this (I know I did), Anonymous Conservative’s are so well articulated and supported that they’re worthy of a hearing. Plus, the fact that leftists go frothing-at-the-mouth insane when presented with his ideas is a big point in his favor.

Deep down, everyone knows that leftists are inferior, including leftists themselves. Read this book to find out why.

Click here to buy The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics.

Read Next: The Rabbits Go to War; or, How Your Haters Will Try to Destroy You

  • So where does luck and chance come in? Thats the first thing stephen jay gould would ask.

    The grand meta narratives that explain everything as Well as confirm your worldview and Politics should be viewed with more suspicion. The book probably reads better as a novel.

  • Jesse Myner:

    Thats the first thing stephen jay gould would ask.

    You’re referencing that old fraud? A guy who fabricated his research and lied so he could advance a leftist, anti-white agenda? Way to establish your credibility.

  • Are you referring to that Morton business? But ok, leave gould out of it then if he bothers you. My point was there are always holes in these big, history sweeping narratives, which incidentally both the left and right use against each other.

  • Remnant

    The people who are pitting different K-selected groups against each other — the people you refer to as Rabbit People above — are mainly elite white liberals themselves, and it is worth noting that while elite white liberals espouse r-selected policies (welfare, apologetics for crime and dysfunctional behavior, pro-affirmative action) they are themselves living very much K-selected lives. See Bill and Hillary Clinton: one child.

    Many of the most liberal whites are themselves either childless or have small families. And THEY are the ones who are driving r-selected policies: I don’t care how many Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons there are; it is the while liberals leading K-selected lives who are actually formulating policy that allows the r-selected to proliferate.

    To the extent AC is advancing an evolutionary / biological argument, it would be interesting to know why K-selected people did a volte face from supporting policies that benefit their own strategy, to supporting policies that benefit r-selected people plus a small elect of K-selected people. When the Brits and the French ran an empire in r-selected regions (Africa), they were able to do so in a way that did not compromise their vision of what was good for Brits versus what was good for Africans. Yet those same Brits and French have now split into different factions, with some K-selected people (conservatives) essentially wanting nothing to do with r-selected people and seeking de facto segregation, and other K-selected people (liberals) becoming the new de facto colonial leaders without admitting it.

  • The people who are pitting different K-selected groups against each other — the people you refer to as Rabbit People above — are mainly elite white liberals themselves, and it is worth noting that while elite white liberals espouse r-selected policies (welfare, apologetics for crime and dysfunctional behavior, pro-affirmative action) they are themselves living very much K-selected lives. See Bill and Hillary Clinton: one child.

    No, they aren’t. It’s only because of birth control and abortion that liberals are able to have so few children. Anonymous Conservative has addressed this; while wealthy white liberals may only have one or two children, it’s only after a good decade of riding the cock carousel (or the pussy pole in the case of men). That’s not K-selection. Were it not for the pill, most white liberals would have humongous broods of bastards.

    Bill Clinton is the essence of an r-selected asshole; raised by a single mother, he couldn’t stop sticking his dick into every halfway attractive woman he met. No impulse control = r-selection. As for Hillary, given Huma Abedin’s continued nonchalance in the face of her husband’s sexting escapades (now there’s a real r-selected asshole), I’m more willing to believe the rumors of their lesbian relationship every day.

    Jesse: I had the same misgivings before I read the book. I wouldn’t give it my endorsement if I didn’t believe it was worth considering at the least.

  • Cameron

    Love these grand sweep type books. I’ll be buying this one.

  • let it burn

    chelsea clinton looks alot more like webb hubbell than bill clinton. r-selection indeed.

  • RX-78 Alex

    The article links referenced in the hyperlink in this sentence…

    >The book points to numerous studies showing that liberals have atrophied amygdalae compared to conservatives.

    …are almost all liberal biased articles that spin the amygdalae size (along with anterior cingulate size) into “proving” that conservatives are all hive-mind cowards, who are afraid of change and difference.

    If such a theory can be so easily spun to cater to the bias of both liberal blog and media sites, and an anonymous crank on the internet, I fail to see how the amygdalae theory is anything but “Luburals/Consurvurtaves iz infurior cuz of jenetiks: version 5,023, 845.”

    Same old shit; just a different day.

    Hell, there’s even this article:

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/26/social-life-brain-amygdala

    That implies that introverts (like yourself and roughly 80% of the manosphere) have smaller amygdalas (not to mention the potential for the amygdaleas to change depending on life experience); but only a lunatic would suggest that the manosphere is liberal.

  • Pingback: Lightning Round -2013/08/21 | Free Northerner()

  • Shenpen

    Dear Matt,

    The obvious problem with this theory is that if it is biological, then it should not only be true for one country only. In most of the world, or at least the parts of Eastern Europe I am familiar with, K-type right-wing wolves are NOT favoring individualism or free markets – they favor nationalism, tribalism, tightly knit hierarchical communities. Yes, there is a certain sense of individual status competition, but that is within the group, such as in politics, power struggles, not in the free market sense. Their idea of a high quality man is a hierarchical ruler, an aristocrat, not a free-floating free market person without attachments.

    For example while an American conservative would solve unemployment by cutting welfare, a Hungarian conservative would demand public labor in return for welfare. Neither are focused on the “fairness” ideals of the Left but the later is much more collectivistic in a hierarchical way.

  • Mina

    I have been reading the Anonymous Conservative blog all day and just found your review of the book. Read the entire article out loud to my husband. This is on my must-purchase list for our upcoming vacation.

    Great review. I look forward to reading the book in its entirety.

  • Anonymous

    Questions for Matt: If this theory were to be true, why are Black American men so hypermasculine? It seems that they have a higher muscle content in their bodies, and they seem to have deeper, more booming voices, so how does this reconcile with Anonymous Conservative’s view that r-selected cultures produce feminine men?

    Also, if the SWPL liberal elite is using K-selected immigrants to beat down K-selected White Americans, then why are so many immigrants Hispanic? Is it just me or do they have a high rate of teenage pregnancy and out-of-wedlock births? How can they possibly be K-selected?

  • If this theory were to be true, why are Black American men so hypermasculine?

    No, they’re not: they’re hyperfeminine. T. aka Ricky Raw covered this in his article “The Myth of the Ghetto Alpha Male”: underclass black men are controlled by their emotions, act like drama queens, don’t know how to let anything slide, and they hold grudges forever. They even dress like girls with their overly-long skirt-like shirts and pants around their knees.

    As for Latinos, while the second and third generations are r-selected, the first generation is K-selected insofar as they have in-group loyalty. The problem is that they see their in-group as their fellow Mexicans or what have you instead of Americans at large, and are encouraged to do so by leftists.

  • Jason

    Re: RX-78 Alex

    You’re right that the difference in amygdalae could be spun either way. But the last part of what you said wasn’t logical.

    “That implies that introverts (like yourself and roughly 80% of the manosphere) have smaller amygdalas (not to mention the potential for the amygdaleas to change depending on life experience); but only a lunatic would suggest that the manosphere is liberal.”

    Let’s assume for a second that it’s true 80% of the manosphere consists of introverts (I have no idea if this is true but lets run with it for a second). If the EV Psych theory holds correct, everything else being equal, you would expect manospherians to have larger amygdalae. That is, comparing two individuals of the same social inclination (both introverts), you would expect the k-type “manospherian” to have a bigger amygadala than his r-type counterpart. Or, comparing the average k-type individual to the average r-type individual, again you would expect the same result. But you can’t compare a k-type on one end of the bell curve (introvert) to the average/ population at large(mix of introvert and extrovert)and then conclude that that the theory is wrong because the introverts have smaller amgdyalae. You’ve made a classic category error.

    It can be simultaneously true that manospherians are both more introverted AND more likely to be K types, everything else being equal. Whether manospherians are actually more likely to be introverted as a question of fact I’m not sure. I’m not sure what the Manospherian counterpart on the left would be (Internet Manginas?), but that would be the more apt comparison- not the population at large.

  • Jason and RX-78 Alex,

    I think it’s fairly obvious that the Guardian article Alex linked contradicts the one linked in Matt’s post about the effects of amygdala size, which also talked about another part of the brain called the anterior cingulate. The basic takeaway seems to be, “it’s more complex than big amygdala = conservative and little amygdala = liberal”. It could be a matter of overall complexity, of how the brain processes symbolic data specifically, of empathy, or of the capacity of the brain to control empathy. I’m not buying a straightforward, all-inclusive historical narrative based on the size of a brain region that resembles a fucking almond.

    http://praxamericana.blogspot.com/2013/07/attack-of-extroverts.html

    Shenpen’s comments scan better with me, as I do think conservatives are more hierarchical (and that’s a good thing; men work better in teams than women because they can deal with the rigors of hierarchy better). We like ordered, reliable, predictable relationships, where you can count on people to do what they’re supposed to do, and where it’s understood just what that is, a psychology designed more social specialization, not raw individualism. Shenpen’s comments about free markets don’t take into account that markets are extremely hierarchical systems that reward organizing and rational evaluation while damning parasite douchebaggery. The faith in markets versus the faith in democratic government constitutes the biggest sociological difference between Europe and the US: the American government is a marketing machine that legitimizes its power with handouts, while Europe’s aristocratic past gives those people a very different view of what government stands for.

  • Brigadon

    This would probably be easier to digest if the protagonists were depicted as eloi and morlocks, instead of R/K.

    The problem is, of course, that over the course of real evolutionary pressure, the morlocks would be the brilliant technologists, attractive, strong, and competetive, living on the surface, while the eloi would be the r-selected rats living in the warrens below, ugly, foul, breeding insanely and scrabbling about before eventually getting harvested for food.

    The greatest irony on the planet is that unlike ‘revenge of the nerds’ psychology, those brilliant, beautiful, successful athletes in high school go on to be brilliant, beautiful, and successful adults, while the geeky antisocial nerds grow up to be geeky antisocial nerds living in their mom’s basement. There are exceptions (rare) to this rule, but steve jobs was a jock and bill gates was a ‘talker’, neither of them were really geeks.

  • nunyabidnessfoo

    r selection produces androgyny not feminine men per se. If you haven’t noticed, black women tend to be extremely unfeminine. And black males may act all tough and macho but they do not provide for or protect their women like white men tend to do.

  • The Stormer

    This doesn’t pass the smell test for me, for a few reasons. First, most conservatives believe in the biblical creation account, not Darwin (and religiosity correlates to lower intelligence).

    Highly intelligent people usually are androgynous – males who are neither “swishy” nor NFL players dominate the sciences. I suspect their testosterone levels are below the average male but higher than the average female.

    Lastly, people’s’ views change, and many of today’s conservatives were 60’s radicals in their youth.

  • pauldrake

    I go off on a tangent here I suppose but I believe in neither creationism nor Darwinism. Creationism an interesting, fascinating for some, symbolic allegorical tale. It takes just as many leaps of logic to accept evolution as it is taught. The last time I was told there was no such thing as macro or micro evolution I just gave up. I know the “enlightened” ones consider those that don’t accept evolution or Darwin as knuckle dragging fundamentalist troglodytes but both philosophies have great evidentiary gaps and require so much to be accepted on “faith.” Even more so, many adherents of Darwin show they don’t even understand what he was saying. Especially with regards to “survival of the fittest.”

  • craig0r

    A rabbit probably fears a wolf that’s going to eat it a lot more…