Perverts have always existed here and elsewhere.About 45 years ago the Rat Party,as part of its coalition building efforts,has basically declared that “anything goes” and that “the 50’s were a repressive,despicable era”.After having specifically and proudly announced their acceptance of various misfit groups...from welfare parasites to illegal aliens to sexual perverts...members of these groups have gravitated toward the Rats and,in the case of parasites and wetbacks (at least) their numbers have grown substantially.It’s simple and,IMO,need not be explained by complicated scientific graphs and tables.
Absolutely fascinating theory, bravo to you for your research - which answers so many questions I have had about American culture and liberals for so long. Your website which I’ve been reading is like turning on light after light in a darkened room.
For example:
“To this end, the r-selected organism will seize every mating opportunity, no matter how unfit the mate. Since mate fitness is unimportant, extremely r-selected individuals will not bother with monogamy or mate guarding, instead following a strategy of mating as often as possible. This will result in individuals investing as little as possible in each offspring, through low-investment rearing strategies such as single parenting.”
First off kudos and thanks for posting the entire blog.
I liked it and will visit your site.
Second, liberals are soooo ghey...
Homosexuals and liberals- perfect together!
HOMOSEXUAL, because there’s nothing GAY about it.
Why isn’t this just a very short step from eugenics, Master Race concepts and all that horrific stuff?
So homosexuals and liberals should all be receiving therapy and genetic treatment to cure their problems. The kind thing would be to bring them back to normal from their insanity.
Horses, cows donkeys, goats, sheep, dogs, and Democrat womyn.... Wonder which end of that spectrum they start at.
just find a cure already
A question. You use the term "abundance." Have you defined it as resource certainty? I'm asking because your r-strategy model fits best with the baby-daddy welfare culture. If "abundance" matched up with total resources, you'd think that affluent liberals would be having lots of kids and affluent/powerful liberal males would further father kids from a string of mistresses. From what I've seen, though, affluent liberal males tend to have one or kids; many have none.
That disconnect between affluence and offspring could be chalked up to liberal Malthusianism, but that ZPG stuff could be a rationalization of feelings of uncertainty: the fear that the good times will run out.
While I'm on the subject, have you noticed that the greatest fertility rates in the K end of the spectrum are found in Christian cultures that aren't all that affluent? Familes like the Duggans, for example.
Also, the r-and-K seem to be mixed. There are lots of upper-middle-class liberals who seriously think that kids aren't worth having unless the parents can afford an expensive home in a quality-school district, Ivy League college, a large budget for extracurricular activites like riding lessons, etc. In terms of resource deployment, that "pre-Ivy" track is consistent with your K-strategy - namely, deploying a lot of resources on one single kid and deciding that, in the absence of such resources, there's no point in having a kid. As I noted, many professional-class liberals follow that strategy.
Have you worked socio-economic class standards into your model?
It looks like you're selecting the parts of the data that will support your creepy agenda, rather than looking at the whole picture.
Once an experimental or alternative lifestyle is scientifically proven to be biologically determined from birth, libtards who want them to be considered equal to traditional lifestyles will have an additional argument to use.Pedophilia and incest may be next.