Due to intensive maternal child care requirements, great apes can form societies on only two models: bonobo or chimp. Humans are great apes, and our societies are hybrids of these two models.
Bonobo sexual liberation eliminates murder by letting males fuck every female, children and each other. See sacred prostitution. There is still violence, and alpha males sire many if not most children, due to concealed ovulation. Population growth is suppressed via STDs, contraceptives and infanticide. Property is communal and distributed by status. Government is matriarchal; bonobo males obtain status from their mothers. Males are disorganized; sometimes females lead hunts for small antelope. Bonobo societies are militarily weak, but bonobos outcompete chimps intrasocially. The few chimps who cross the Congo river vanish into bonobo society with nary a trace, because chimp behavior is low-status in bonobo society.
Chimp patriarchy permits the cohesion necessary for warfare. Women's sexual freedom is restricted, encouraging paternal investment. Property is individual. The chief is selected in part via internal violence. Chimps mainly kill each other, but also people and gorillas. Thanks to their fascist structure, they are able to hunt larger prey than bonobos do, such as warthogs.
The most bonobo human societies cannot advance past a primitive lifestyle, since they do not permit enough private property and paternal investment to develop future orientation, industrial economy and large scale unity. Modern human societies have militaries, which is a chimp trait.
Anacyclosis is in part a transition from bonobo democracy to chimp chiefdom and back. That is why Napoleon followed Revolution, Stalin followed Lenin, Hitler followed Weimar, etc. Usually the transition is not so dramatic, and the form of government remains outwardly stable. FDR was the USA's last dictator; Putin and Xi are current chiefs.
Bonobos tolerate outsiders and lack territory; chimps are violently territorial towards out-group males. The modern human equivalent is mass immigration vs mass deportation. The USA is divided between Obama and Trump. When the MSM says Trump is "a threat to our democracy," it means they fear that Trump's chiefdom will end the USA's bonobo-matriarchal phase which has been become dominant since the 1960s sexual revolution. Bonobo matriarchy violently attacks males who threaten its rule.
Thus Communism and Fascism are merely the modern scaled-up human versions of bonobo and chimp societies respectively.
The common Libertarian reaction to this binary choice is to depart into the mountains or badlands. This approximates the orangutan's solitary existence. Libertarian human societies can exist given low population density and high cultural individualism.
Now we have three competitive strategies. This pattern is universal:
Universal adaptive strategy theory (UAST) | Wikipedia
- Ruderals (bonobos)
- Competitors (chimps)
- Stress tolerators (orangutans)
I understand it is confusing to call chimps "fascists" and bonobos "communists", but few know what "ruderal" means. If more people become aware of UAST, we can adopt more precise political terminology.
I think "r vs K selected" works for "ruderal vs competitor". For #3, I suggest "e-selected", for "environmentally". "Republicans are competitors" is ambiguous; "Republicans are K-selected" is not.
- Ruderals ~ r-selected
- Competitors ~ K-selected
- Stress tolerators ~ e-selected
Relevant links:
- The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans | by Anonymous Conservative | GoodReads
- full text
Anonymous Conservative's "r vs K theory" is a good start, but fundamentally flawed due to missing the Stress tolerator strategy, racial implications, anacyclosis, etc. It is a parochial polemic heavy on biological examples and moral sermons. However, there is no better text I can recommend.
UAST does not imply that every country should adopt the ideology of American conservatism. Western European individualism is not the global norm. Dogs, wolves and coyotes can interbreed, but they are not interchangeable. UAST doesn't capture their differences.
(If you are unaware that human "races" are more accurately "ring species", see Thuletide's infographics.)
The USA's two-party political structure has divided her into Red vs Blue, r vs K. This is a fatal design flaw. Multi-party European parliamentary systems avoid institutionalizing civil war. Writing on the eve of r vs K civil war, at peak imperial degeneracy, has skewed Anonymous Conservative's perspective. r is not inherently bad, and K is not inherently good. A government must suit its people to achieve lasting peace and prosperity.
To omit race is to exit reality. As Lee Kwan Yew said, "In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that…"
As White USA becomes a minority, the old ideological divisions cease to matter, being replaced by Whites vs non-Whites and Christianity vs Progressivism. This shift is already happening, as the races segregate along party lines.
Harvard Progressivism pretends not to be a religion in order to skirt the 1st Amendment prohibition on a Federal state church. Progressivism is nevertheless a religion, like Communism and imperial cults from medieval China to modern Juche. It has merely become formless in its memetic evolution to counter its predecessor, Christianity.
Progressivism has its sacred priesthood and forbidden blasphemies that will seem absurd to future generations. Progressivism is not native to the immigrants it now imports, and will thus cease to exist when the imperial petrodollar can no longer subsidize it. The ensuing dictator typically honors the failed religion superficially and insincerely; he certainly removes the parts that are militarily inconvenient, such as feminism.
Discussion
Ape vs human traits
Chat4949
I don't want to misinterpret what you are saying. Is having a military a fascist trait? And not having one is a communist one?
Additionally you mentioned STDs in bonobos, but not chimps, when chimps do seem to have them.
I was a little concerned that switching rapidly between describing ape and human societies would be confusing, but didn't want to bog down the essay. It is easier to answer as Q&A.
Having a military is a chimp trait. Large human societies that lack a military get conquered. Hippie communes can be pacifist, but they don't scale to country size.
Chimps are the leftover apes from the hybridization event that made humans out of bonobos. I doubt any human societies go full bonobo.
I couldn't find whether STDs reduce fertility more in bonobos than chimps. Bonobos have had millions of years to evolve tolerance to their STDs, and to calibrate their fertility to avoid overpopulation. Modern humans are estimated to have existed for 2-300k years. In promiscuous pre-antibiotic human societies, STDs reduce fertility substantially.
Matriarchy and rape
Bonobo females can decline sex with males.
They are sluts, not sex slaves. Bonobo matriarchs use profound promiscuity to prevent male rebellion. Containing male violence does not require accepting every sexual advance.
Sperm is cheap; eggs are dear. Thus men are always offering.
High-status chimps can rape, but bonobo females beat attempted rapists.
Correct; patriarchy overrides female sexual choice. Patriarchy is concerned with rape when it reduces paternal investment, for example by adultery.
Technically, bonobos do not have concealed ovulation.
"Bonobos are sexually receptive for a large portion of their reproductive cycle, even when not near the time for ovulation. This trait has sometimes been called concealed ovulation because the male has no clear signal for the optimum time for mating." ref
In fact, bonobos even sire a higher proportion than chimpanzee alpha males. ref.
This is a consequence of female hypergamy. Patriarchy redistributes paternity to lower-status males in exchange for loyalty in combat. In other words, patriarchy reduces cuckoldry. Otherwise women seek insemination from the alpha during ovulation.
Infanticide
Chimps commit infanticide, not bonobos.
Infanticide can be a patriarchal behavior, as in lions. Infanticide of girl babies due to the one-child policy in China is patriarchal. Ritual infanticide in ancient fertility religions was matriarchal. Human fathers are mostly unwilling to sacrifice their children when they have paternal certainty, but step-children are in great danger from step-fathers.
Chimp fathers are more invested in their offspring due to paternal certainty, whereas bonobos fathers are not. However, chimps commit murder; bonobos do not. Thus chimp infants still get murdered more.
Both maternal and paternal infanticide are rare in non-human primates. ref However, non-human primates have the advantage of living in their natural environment, whereas humans are under much greater environmental stress. Humans are murderers, so the bastards of bonobo-feminist humans suffer more infanticide.
Both bonobos and chimps form stable, prosperous societies. The same cannot be said for modern human bonobo-feminist societies. One reason for this is that anti-reproductive technology such as contraceptives and abortion has improved greatly, bypassing emotional taboos against infanticide. This causes population collapse, requiring external immigration, leading to replacement.
The postmodern USA distills matriarchy vs patriarchy via the two-party system, revealing that the essence of matriarchy is fertility collapse via mass abortion, contraceptives and STDs. The cause is that female hypergamy prevents stable nuclear family formation. Collapsing birthrate in feminist countries is a global phenomenon, as well as an historical one documented by Sir John Glubb.
Patriarchal societies such as the Taliban have a high birthrate because the women are securely held by the men, who are therefore willing to invest in their offspring, and insist that the women bear them. Obviously this can become abusive, leading to early death for mothers due to exhaustion.
Property
Bonobos and chimpanzees have neither property nor government.
Their status hierarchy is a proto-government. Food distribution is a form of communal property. In chimpanzees, patriarchal ownership of mother and child is the analog to human private property. Bonobo-style human societies have much less respect for individual property.
More often than not, human hunter-gatherers, for example, are egalitarian (all goods are shared) and hunt very large prey.
Lifelong membership in a same small tribe of kin would make any human prone to share, particularly when there is no refrigeration for meat. Scale and agriculture increase the relevance of private property.
If bonobo = communist, why was the U.S.S.R. the first to send a human into space?
Have you ever met a Russian? They're quite patriarchal. Russia's Communism was briefly bonobo sexual liberation before Stalin, who discarded it as disastrous. Bonobo-communism is a program of total social revolution which can be pursued in many ways, appealing to the same basic egalitarian ideals. It can even be discarded in all but name, as in the "Communist" PRC, which is now obviously Fascist.
More generally, countries with centralized economies often concentrate national resources on monumental projects, to the severe detriment of the civilian economy, requiring external economic aid, without which they collapse.
Civilization really started to take off with the accumulation of private property.
Which happened among the fascist-chimp-patriarchs, not the communist-bonobo-matriarchs, because patriarchy is the basis of private property, starting with paternal investment. I suppose in sapient ants it would have a different basis.
Cohesion
Bonobos have better cohesion than chimps because they socialize less violently.
I chose "cohesion" for its military connotations. What you describe is "rapport".
Patriarchal chimp cohesion permits them to sustain combat without abandoning each other like cowards. Matriarchal bonobo cohesion is only strong enough to police the occasional rambunctious male. It has no military viability.
Fun
MrHeavenTrampler
I am reading this totally wasted and tbh it does make sense
Pd: I've had 2 beers and 10 shots.
name-of-the-wind
This is a fascinating post. I’ve been saying we need more poverty because progressive decadence is a function of having too much money.
The technological singularity is a helluva drug. We'll have the biggest bust soon.
Bingobango20
May OP blessed with all bananas 🍌 existed within this universe for writing this glorious piece of literature
Great post which is rare, expected a shitty one at best.