Search the Community

Stefan Molyneux has mentioned that Western Europe is so r selected because so many of the K selected men were killed in world wars. I'm sorry I can't remember the specific podcasts where he says this, but he has mentioned it several times. The argument that Europe is r selected is largely available elsewhere on FDR podcast, but consider the Gene Wars series for the definition of r selected[1]. Consider immigration, single motherhood, and public debt (public debt is low-investment parenting because it involves stealing from your children) in European nations. I think it's easy to dig up lots of evidence for the r selected behaviors of European nations and peoples, so I won't spend much time on it. It's covered by FDR podcasts. What I'm less certain about is the cause of the r selected character of Europe, and Stefan's assertion that world war deaths is the cause, so this is the idea that I'd like to explore in this post. Let's try to figure out if war deaths could explain why Western European nations are so r selected. K selected men are more likely to volunteer to join the military. r selected men are more likely to dodge the draft, fake an injury, and avoid military service of any kind. Conflict avoidance and deception are the foundations of r selected survival. Militaries IQ test their soldiers. High IQ, K selected men will be the officers. Officers were expected to "lead from the front", and suffered disproportionately high casualty rates[2]. High IQ, r selected men will be especially skilled at avoiding this dangerous job. This could explain why the present day elites in the Western countries are heavily r selected. K selected men are more likely to die in combat than either women or r selected men. Civilian deaths in modern wars are likely to kill men, women, children, r, and K selected equally. If a bomb drops on your house, there is little chance for bravery; no chance for putting the women and children first. If we want to identify factors that would kill K selected men disproportionately, we should focus on soldiers killed in combat. Nation, WWII military deaths, Total population[3], Percent UK 383700 47760000 0.8% France 210000 41680000 0.5% Germany 5318000 69300000 7.7% But we're not done yet. If we want to consider the effects of WWII deaths on the hereditary population of Europe, we need to figure how many men that would have had children were killed before they were able. We don't care so much about the percent of the total population killed. We care about the percentage of potentially fertile men killed. I was able to find demographic data for 1939 Germany[4]. I'll use males aged 15-44 as my "fertile men" metric. Much younger, and fertility is impossible. Much older, and fertility is still possible, but I will argue that in a traditional, Christian, monogamous society, it is less likely for a 45 year old (or 14 year old) to start a family. However, the high number of male deaths in German society at this time could affect this. Life expectancy was around 60. I'll show data if we broaden the range to males 15-65. German males 15-44 in 1939: 17,718,714 German males 15-65 in 1939: 24,620,748 I don't have the age ranges for military deaths, but most will be in the age ranges expressed above. Germany military deaths as percent of 15-44 men: 30.0% Germany military deaths as percent of 15-65 men: 21.6% If we assume that half of the 1939 German male population was K selected (see Gene Wars series[1], but European populations tend to have a balance of r/K), and all of the military deaths were K selected men (argued above): Percent K selected males 15-44 killed: 60.0% Percent K selected males 15-65 killed: 43.2% Could this shift German society from K selected to r selected? I say yes. What about Sweden? Almost no WWII[3] deaths, and yet heavily cucked[5] with their feminism and migrant crime. WWII deaths cannot be the explanation for Sweden being r selected, so we know that other possible causes of the r selectedness of Europe must exist. This does not rule out WWII deaths as being a possible cause for German r selectedness, but it does mean there are other factors. [1] Gene Wars: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMNj_r5bccUw40CpD-JYXJyVsDYsj7ITD [2] Couldn't find great data for officer casualties, but see http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000069.html [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties [4] https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-Germany-Statistics-and-Numbers [5] Sweden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25VVmCviVao

My father once told me, "In my opinion, there's no such thing as a pro-war movie." He never swallowed the red pill, but that's one area where I think he's right. Films such as Saving Private Ryan and The Best Years of Our Lives remain two of my favorites because they heavily criticize state action and its effects when viewed rationally. Now I can add Fury to that list. The film chronicles the downward spiral of a good-natured recruit (Logan Lerman) into a violent, indoctrinated pawn, even earning the nickname "Machine" near the climax. It becomes clear just how lost Brad Pitt's character is when, on the verge of tears, he refers to their tank as his home. Even if the protagonists win the day, they're already dead. Anyone else see it? What were some of your favorite moments?