Tuesday, January 31, 2017

“For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.”

Guest post from:
Jonathan David Baird

The natural state of man in the wild is the same as a wolf pack. An extended family group that works and hunts together over a large territory. In nature Man packs and Wolf packs rarely fight among themselves. The idea of the Alpha dog is a myth in a hunting and gathering society. Packs are lead by the parents or grandparents. This alpha mentality only exists when packs are cobbled together from different family groups. Men and wolves when forced to live with unrelated pack members resort to an Alpha dog mentality that puts the strongest at the top of the heap. This unnatural state became man's primary mode of governance when he is no longer a nomadic hunter. Tribalism, feudalism, and totalitarianism grow out of the unnatural state of being settled in one place for too long.

Ex-Army talking now. I've over-romanticized wolves and wolf packs in the past [link], but what Baird says here has the ring of scientific truth about it. Somebody said once that primitive man could be described as an offshoot of chimpanzees who adopted a wolf lifestyle. That's not quite true, because I believe wolves are exclusively hunters, and basically carnivores, while our species certainly hunts, but also gathers, and is omnivorous. 

But the suggestion that a lot of bad stuff happened when human groups got too big, and in getting big, tended to become sedentary (or vice-versa — the causation may go both ways), I've heard elsewhere, and it's rather revealing. We've learned that savages are seldom noble, but very often very free by our standards. And one of the purposes of statecraft is to create and preserve a polity that provides room for freedom in spite of the fact that we're very urban and tend to live in very large groups.

Now, coincidentally, over at the Anonymous Conservative, there's a piece that melds nicely with Baird's, and goes a little deeper into the wolf thing, and compares it to other animals that don't live in packs. And I'm given to wonder just how much difference there is between Koch and cuck:

Koch-servative Brothers Go To War With President Trump

Tea Party founder and conservative billionaire Charles Koch has attacked Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban, branding it as ‘authoritarian’. Koch said he will oppose the billionaire president if and when he deviates from a commitment to ‘free and open societies’. Commenting on the travel ban controversy, he said: ‘[The] travel ban is the wrong approach and will likely be counterproductive.’
The pro-jobs tax plan being developed by establishment Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, is now being opposed by the Koch brothers’ advocacy group, Americans For Prosperity. 
The opposition of the Koch-funded group shows a widening clash between the GOP’s donors and Donald Trump’s expanding populist “Buy American, Hire American” coalition. 
So far, the two groups have clashed over cheap-labor immigration and Trump’s successful candidacy. That clash was garishly demonstrated late December, when Trump publicly booted a friend of David Koch off one of his golf courses, prompting Koch to also leave. 
Brothers Charles and David Koch opposed Trump during the Republican primary season and refused to help him against Hillary Clinton, partly because Trump and many of his voters oppose unrestricted trade and mass immigration.
As I have said, libertarianism is a reproductive strategy designed to function alone, in spread out areas with low population densities, where large groups do not form. In r/K Theory, it is akin to the breakdown in r/K that occurs when population densities drop.
Koch is designed to function alone, avoid trouble with others, and only fight as a last resort, if it is absolutely necessary. He lacks the group-forming and reflexively competing urge of the K-strategist. Without that urge, he cannot fathom why we should have borders, or try to out-compete other nations by only buying American. He wants to avoid all conflict, and he is driven to do that by minimizing any constraints we impose on others. 
He will formulate all sorts of arguments for why his position is superior. He will talk about the need to treat all religions as equals, he will argue against discrimination, and so on. But he is just trying to punch amygdala buttons that are supportive of his underlying urges, which lack any drive to associate with or form groups or initiate aggressive actions with others in a direct fashion.
He is very much akin to the Grizzly Bear, who wants to avoid others, avoid conflict, and leave everyone else alone. The Grizzly bear can’t grasp why the wolf wants to join a pack or why they attack others they happen upon in their territory for no reason other than the trespass.
Koch would be right, if there were only a few humans around, and we could all avoid each other. But in a densely packed world with other K-strategists actively trying to defeat us, and the insanity of radical Islam lashing out at us, his strategy, no matter how “moral” it “feels”to him, is destined for failure. Amazingly, if he had his way and President Trump imported millions of Muslims, they took over the nation, and suddenly gays were being thrown from rooftops, women were being forcibly circumcised and murdered in honor killings, and all non-Muslims ended up subjugated and taxed for being unbelievers, Koch would proudly say that we should take solace in the fact that we had acted “morally.”
What he wouldn’t grasp is that his morals are just his reproductive strategy, and it was not properly adapted to the K-selected world he was living in. 
I understand this, because as a programmed libertarian, I feel his urges. It has only been through intensive observation and contemplation that I came to understand that outside of select areas like the forests of Alaska and the Midwest, the world is too densely packed for libertarianism. r and K will always beat it out, because there are too many people, and they are all driven to either compete or betray. As a result, the only choices we have that will be enacted are r or K. Given the inherent resource scarcity of the world, the only practical option is the K-strategy, and fortunately for libertarians, you can find enough common ground there to provide enough freedom to make the world it creates tolerable.
As the Apocalypse approaches, K will be the only option, because the entire nation is going K.

Quibcag: That's Princess Mononoke on her wolf, from Princess Mononoke (Japaneseもののけ姫 HepburnMononoke-hime, "Spirit/Monster Princess"), not to be confused with Kagura on her dog, from Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul").

Oh, the title is a quote from Kipling.

No comments:

Post a Comment