Fornicator Immensus et crudelis – Human aristocrats are neither r nor K


White aristocrats are interesting people – or rather, they were interesting, when they existed.

Here is a description of a Mighty Whitey, lightly edited from a book blurb:

Endowed with exceptional talents as a warrior, diplomat, and ruler–not to mention a temperament that earned him the epithet fornicator immensus et crudelis … –Vladimir of Russia (960?-1015) began his career at the age of twelve as Prince of Novgorod, rising to be known as “The Red Sun.” … years of conquest, violence, polygamy, and pagan ritual as the remarkable prince seized his brother’s throne, expanding his rule over the whole of Russia. A shrewd, hospitable, and progressive ruler, he adopted the Christian faith from the Greeks, bringing Christianity to Russia. A “second Constantine,” he was later canonized as a saint.

Now, by contrast, Ex-Army has a different idea of aristocracy, and as usual, I am going to disagree with him (and Baloo):

there are 5 r-rabbit traits:

Aversion to competition (as there are lots of resources, rather than compete, rabbits just move to eat; fighting takes energy and rabbits lose all fights anyway)
Tolerance for promiscuity (as all rabbits are the same, it makes no sense to distinguish between potential mates – r folk don’t do morals)
Single parenting (rabbit life is simple. There is nothing to teach. So quick birthing and leaving is sufficient)
Early onset sexuality (early menarche makes more rabbits)
A lack of in-group loyalty (rabbits who go to protect other rabbits get eaten. There is no payoff for rabbit group solidarity). Liberals!

There are 5 K-wolf traits:

Accepting competition, (and that there are winners and losers)
Rejecting promiscuity (wolves must select mates with the best genes if they’re to have offspring capable of hunting)
High investment parenting (cubs must develop skills in order to pass on their genes)
Delayed sexuality (you must wait for a wolf with means or at least see his skills prior to mating with him)
Fierce in-group loyalty (they hunt and fend off predators as a team, so cannot carry lukewarm adherents, this is why wolves are found in packs). Conservatives!

White people produced a lot of aristocrats for about 3000 years of recorded history.

White aristocrats did not reject promiscuity. They killed their competitors when possible, and they had as much sex as their circumstances allowed. White people had harems. Even when the majority of whites were locked into monogamy, white aristocrats had mistresses, concubines, and harems. Many white men tried to maximize the number of their children, regardless of parenting investment.

White aristocrats had moments of “fierce in-group loyalty,” but mostly they were just fierce. The history of Rome doesn’t show a whole lot of long-term in-group loyalty; even the Roman Republic enjoyed “competition” so much that they undermined collective loyalty. The history of Christianity (and before it, white philosophy) shows fierce loyalty to abstractions, not to people.

The theories of r and K may apply well to wolves and rabbits – I’m not a zoologist, so I’m not an expert on that topic. But the theories of r and K don’t apply very well to white history, particularly to the history of aristocrats.

Consider what Gibbon wrote in his first volume:

With the venerable
proconsul, his son, who had accompanied him into Africa as his
lieutenant, was likewise declared emperor. His manners were less pure,
but his character was equally amiable with that of his father.
Twenty-two acknowledged concubines, and a library of sixty-two thousand
volumes, attested the variety of his inclinations; and from the
productions which he left behind him, it appears that the former as well
as the latter were designed for use rather than for ostentation.

White Romans were quite promiscuous enough to have harems, whenever they could afford them. Possibly the ancient Germans were never so libidinous, and possibly Tacitus was exaggerating.

Kevin MacDonald has claimed that white people are inclined to monogamy. That may be true. But certainly history tells us that most white aristocrats did not instinctively abstain from promiscuity.

Monogamy and high-investment parenting do not need to be instinctive to be a genuine phenomenon in the behavior of white humans. Group survival strategies do not have to emerge fully-formed from the unconscious mind, like Athena springing from the brow of Zeus. But beware the whites who claim that monogamy is biologically inherent to white genes; they are preaching ideology, not science.

This entry was posted in battle of the sexes. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Fornicator Immensus et crudelis – Human aristocrats are neither r nor K

  1. History has a way of repeating itself:

    That’s what comes of too much Kipling and not enough zoology. In my feeble defense, I was of course being poetic and using the wolf as an inspiring symbol, just like the sheep. And no, people are never quite like sheep, either. But, given all that, it’s still better to be a pack member than a unit of a herd.

  2. tz says:

    There is a difference between having a lot of sex, and having a lot of children, and having a lot of children you invest in.
    The patriarchy protected virginity and motherhood.

  3. baloocartoons says:

    Is this szygy? Or intersectionality? Or interNETsectionality? Or the Wolf-Rabbit Ouroboros? Hey, rabbits can be scary, too!

Comments are closed.