Agnostic has some biting words for proponents of the theory that (White) conservatives are K-selected and (White) liberals are r-selected.
Who has larger families, lives in low-density areas, where land has not been over-developed, with abundant resources, lower threats to their security, etc.? Not liberals.
Only a retarded and ignorant idea, i.e. that conservatives are K-selected, can lead to the prediction that conservatives would be pushing a “one child policy” rather than being the most fervently natalist.
***
Urban blacks shoving their open hands in the white man’s face is as r-selected as it gets — abundant resources (white people’s money), squeaky wheel gets the grease, intense competition amongst each other and against other non-white groups to get the biggest piece of the white money pie.
They have no fear of over-grazing the white cash commons, or killing the honky goose that laid the golden egg. See post-colonial southern Africa.
But that’s just the demand for welfare from blacks.
The actual provision of welfare comes from whites, and it’s K-selected — part of a stewardship strategy to take care of one another, now that in an industrial urbanized ecology, resources are no longer so abundant that anyone can sustain themselves and their family.
***
The demand for welfare by whites is of course not r-selected — they don’t shove their hands in the man’s face, trying to suck up as much as possible, more and more over time, with no mind toward whether there will be enough money for everybody.
Whites are ashamed to receive welfare, are loathe to use it because “it’s there for those who desperately need it,” and do not want to over-burden the system into collapse.
Those are all signs of K-selection.
***
The Trump “conservatives” (especially in the new ground zero of the GOP, Appalachia — not the Plains and Mountains) are K-selected and see welfare state policies as necessary so that our industrial urbanized ecology doesn’t allow people to slip through the cracks.
The heyday of individualist Frontier conservatism was the Reagan years. Anyone pretending that it’s still a pre-NAFTA, pre-HMO environment is going to be wildly out of touch, and acting on the wrong side of history.
To summarize, the anti-welfare fanatics on the Right are guilty of anti-white demonization, whereby they portray poor whites as having the same characteristics of poor blacks.
When TruCon fatboys like Kevin Williamson spitefully argued that Trump’s White base — downscale Whites who’ve suffered under runaway oligarchism, poz infection, and mass immigration — should be “allowed to die” in so many words, I felt disgusted (a K-selected trait, mind you) by his heartlessness. And I know why. Because he was in his way equating BadWhites with blacks and other rapacious, grasping nonWhites. Williamson was shitting on my in-group. My tribe…well, a few Whiteness degrees removed, but they’re more my kin than some squatemalan border jumper or arab islamofreak.
Principled Conservatism doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if your country turns into a beaner outpost. TruCons need to come around to the traditionalist notion that it’s Ok to support your fellow White Americans in need, and doing so doesn’t automatically mean you have to extend your charity to the whole fucking world.
Agnostic’s post is pretty good, but unfortunately his commenters don’t bring the same amount of sense. A couple of them even tried arguing that liberals are more forward-thinking than conservatives. Yes, the same liberals welcoming Dirt World rapefugees and opening the borders wide to any parasite who wants to suck at the White American teat in perpetuity. Real forward-thinking!
***
Update: Anonymous Conservative has responded to Agnostic’s post. It’s an effective rebuttal, imo.