Convicts, Conservatives, and K-Selection

sexy-felonA Swedish study has confirmed what we all intuitively suspected, that playing by these rules is for suckers.

Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners. We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy.

It’s unsurprising to everybody except for our asylum’s most firmly committed inmates that Western civilization has become not only degenerate but outright dysgenic, with each generation being selected for a bit less intelligence, impulse control, and time preference than the previous one. Without considerable K-selection pressure favoring intelligence, impulse control, and time preference, our society will favor quantity over quality. Heartiste and others have focused on the social construct of “criminality”, declaring that “chicks dig jerks“, but the parsimonious conclusion is that reproducing in this society is, like criminality, a simple matter of impulse control for both the males and females involved.

There is indeed a racial component to this trend in our borderless society, with more r-selected populations elbowing in on K-selected populations. Though this trend is acute within populations, as well. White Americans with poor impulse control are breeding faster than White Americans without it. This is very bad news for this society as a whole, but it’s not quite as bad as it appears. If one ceases to think in mass societal terms and begins thinking tribally, the challenge shrinks from the impossible task of repairing this mass society to the manageable (if still immense) challenge of socioeconomically segregating oneself into a tribe separate from this mass society.

Heartiste claims that the study discredits Traditionalist Conservatives, gloating in his familiarly flamboyant fashion . . .

Did you hear that thpppft? That was every prostrate manlet, peeved tradcon, and jizzebel gorgon loading their diapers in unison.

It’s as if ❤SCIENCE❤ thumped the great brass triskelion knocker on the oak doors of Chateau Heartiste, asked to be let in, and uttered upon entrance, “I’m home”.”

Yup, and doubly so for most “tradcons”. The solid majority of self-described “tradcons” remain scientifically illiterate, deracinated, and committed to preserving and conserving this mass society. All they bring to the table is their castrated and controlled religiosity. They don’t grasp that Tradition is irrelevant unless it’s thoroughly tribal and politically dominant. In fact, it’s worse than irrelevant. Going around treating vulgar feminists with chivalric gentility, obeying the law, and investing love and resources in one’s neighbors and society at large only prolongs and perpetuates the decadence, delaying the reckoning.

The only virtuous traditionalism is radical traditionalism, and the only virtuous patriotism is a narrow and fierce loyalty to a small set of kin who are comrades, and comrades who are kin. Being loyal to this State–even just a little bit–is degenerate. Furthermore, being loyal to our kin within this State is degenerate. If you’re a White American, you can’t afford to pretend that your extended family of ethnic kinsmen are your “tribe”. Unless you’re a member of the small (but growing) number of White Americans who are working together to break apart from society into insular communities of shared faith and vision, then you have no tribe. Projecting tribal identity and loyalty onto degenerate rank strangers is itself suicidal.

From the outset of our project, our mainstream conservative and milquetoast traditionalist critics have been as harsh as our “antifa” critics (if somewhat less physical in their attacks). They perceive us as radicals whose message is sure to alienate mainstream audiences, and they’re right. The problem is that at this late hour, the only way to conserve anything the conservatives claim to be conserving is with a radical vanguard which eschews altogether the taboos against identity and the taboos against zealotry. Any tribalism short of a true tribe is useless against Modernity, and and any traditionalism short of Radical Traditionalism only enables and encourages the degenerate order.

If we could afford to be any less radical than we are, we would be.

The altruism Christ demands is only possible within a traditional social order. Just as one’s commitment to a marriage is only as strong as the weakest partner, one’s commitment to society is only as strong as its weakest and least moral members. Without some form of Authority policing morality and holding people publicly and socially accountable for misbehavior in an effective manner, charity, altruism, and “manning up” will remain self-sabotaging farces. Our criminal justice system no longer even pretends to be confluent with a coherent moral framework, and only impedes men to the extent that they’re inconvenienced by incarceration and financial penalties.

Theocracies are the only political orders which fully account for the tragedy of the commons, the only political orders which impose the hormetic pressure on societies necessary to maintain their moral, social, and genetic fitness. Forget transhumanist sci-fi eugenics with test tubes and grainy WWII horror footage. All the eugenics we need can be accomplished by establishing a social order which truly rewards altruism and truly punishes deviance.

Putting this into practice requires a collectivist, tribalist, and traditionalist revolution in politics from both the top-down and the bottom-up. It requires more than even most “tradcons” can bear, as they’re still integrally individualistic rather than collectivist. They’re still integrally global rather than local. They’re still integrally secular rather than theocratic. They’re patriotic to a regime and a mass society that stands against and fights against everything they claim to represent.

Mainstream tradcons represent a last gasp effort to keep America from coming entirely unraveled and spinning off in a thousand different directions. Their advice to young folks is terrible. They’re better off listening to nihilistic opportunists like Heartiste than men like Rod Dreher and Mark Shea. Rod, Mark, and their local Christian youth group leaders are preaching a lukewarm gospel of unsustainable altruism and unreciprocated chivalry which encourages and incentivizes parasitism, criminality, and their own dispossession. They’re a greater threat than the antifa, Marxists, and neocons they pretend to oppose. Their true enemy is folks like ourselves, the radical and authentic tribal traditionalists.


  • Lew

    Nice essay. Also, it’s Rod Dreher.

    • Matt Parrott

      Thanks. Fixed.

  • SimplyFred

    The answer is to make full time attendance at a college or university a pre-requisite for ADC payments. We need married housing, day care centers and tution discounts for young men and women in love and in college.

  • Trainspotter

    Matt makes a great case for an authentic tribalism, which I agree is necessary and good, but then throws in the non sequitur that the tribe must be a theocracy in order to ensure its survival. This simply does not follow. Theocracies, at least of the Christian sort, if anything, tend to place other values above that of protecting the blood, the tribe. Maybe that worked in some circumstances in the past, but we live in a new world.

    In the absence of evidence to the contrary, my view is that all historical forms of government are, in effect, obsolete. None of the historical forms had to contend with the conditions of the modern world, including but by no means limited to ease of mass transportation and communication. And to say nothing of the past, forms of government in the current era have obviously shown that they do not, will not, and perhaps cannot, protect the existence and continuity of the white tribe(s).

    Of course, the mileage of various tribes will vary under modern circumstances. Blacks, for instance, generally have little problem securing their living space. Except for the few that happen to live in neighborhoods that are subject to gentrification, other races generally prefer not to live in black areas (and it should be remembered that areas subject to gentrification were, almost always, originally white).

    Short of that, it takes a truly massive demographic influx of non-blacks to displace them, as some black communities in southern California have found out the hard way. More importantly, there are numerous overwhelmingly black nations in the world, and they show every sign of remaining overwhelmingly black.

    Point is, the current order does not threaten the existence of the broader black tribe. If anything, it is highly beneficial to their growth and proliferation.

    Some tribes thrive in the current order, and some dwindle. Whites are dwindling. Non-whites want to invade our communities. Under the current order, our percentages relentlessly shrink, not just in America, but around the world. Basically, it’s only a question of how fast we disappear, of when and not if. Further, with our recessive genes, even a modest amount of race mixing fundamentally alters and destroys what we are.

    We need something new. Something that is explicitly designed to protect the existence, continuity and development of our people, of the tribe. Something that is tailor made for our particular needs and requirements.

    We can look to the past for lessons and best practices, but again, there is nothing in the past that we can simply adopt in turnkey condition to solve our problems in the modern context, for the simple reason that no past institution was designed with the modern context in mind, pretty much by definition.

    The past is alive in us in the sense that we honor our ancestors, seeing in ourselves part of an unbroken chain that stretches from an ancient past in dark forests to a distant future in the stars. Our ancestors had tribal forms that met their needs and circumstances, but do not meet ours. We do them no honor by attempting to resurrect dead forms that do not solve our problems.

    Therefore, we don’t get out of this by simply adding a king here, or instituting a theocracy there. Again, we need something new. Something explicitly designed for our particular needs as a particular people. National socialism was at least an attempt in that direction, but I would argue that it was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, and in any event it too is obsolete.

    In the short run, of course, we needn’t fully answer the big questions. Today, whites must start forming communities, or just simple networks, wherever they can, however they can. That’s starting to happen. Many, perhaps most of these networks will only constitute a handful of people, maybe only two. Yet these networks, however humble and small, will ultimately provide the genesis for the future white ethnostate. It will give us at least something to work with.

    But to actually create that ethnostate, and to guarantee its survival and continuity once created, will require new forms. These new forms will certainly draw heavily upon the past, but will also look to the future, and must not be overly beholden to that which is obsolete, that which brought us to the present state of decay and destruction and cannot protect us from it. Let the dead bury the dead, as we must look to the future.

    • Matt Parrott


      throws in the non sequitur that the tribe must be a theocracy

      Only an alignment of moral and political Authority can resolve the altruism vs. parasitism conundrum. Moral altruism under an amoral or immoral political regime selects for social parasitism and cuckoldry. I use the term “theocracy” because that’s the most intuitively direct manner of explaining what I’m referring to. In this context, the point isn’t about a specific religion, or religion in general, but a unified moral and political order.

      A political order which straddles multiple tribes and/or multiple traditions will necessarily universalize both socially and morally in a manner antithetical to the survival of abstraction-oriented populations which rely on exogenous conditioning rather than instinctive behavioral patterns (read: white folks).

      We need something new.

      I’m certainly not suggesting that a simple turnkey solution to our problem exists in aping bygone political orders.

      Today, whites must start forming communities, or just simple networks, wherever they can, however they can.

      And the ones succeeding are all united around a singular moral framework in addition to ethnic and racial bonds, with the churches or longhalls or whatever religious institutions being one and the same with authority and enforcement in the community. Micro-theocracies. They’re popping up in “new forms” and they are the future.

    • Trainspotter

      Matt Parrott: “In this context, the point isn’t about a specific religion, or religion in general, but a unified moral and political order.”

      Thanks for the clarification, and I would agree that the successful white communities of the future will likely have a unified moral and political order. I’m just not satisfied that we have yet found the right moral/political order for the job. With the relative ease of modern communication and transportation, the moral/political order of the future will need to be stronger, more resilient and more sustainable than earlier models that survived in large measure due to their isolation. Those models, including the communities that most of us live in today, are obsolete and unable to protect themselves from demographic invasion. They lack the political and moral will to even attempt to do so.

      Matt Parrott: “And the ones succeeding are all united around a singular moral framework in addition to ethnic and racial bonds, with the churches or longhalls or whatever religious institutions being one and the same with authority and enforcement in the community. Micro-theocracies. They’re popping up in “new forms” and they are the future.”

      Certainly one of the best examples of an authentic and intentional white community is Orania. It is clear that the Christian faith is important to the project, and that it can provide a degree of unity to the town, but I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to call Orania a theocracy. Its fundamental purpose is clearly that of providing a home, and some measure of autonomy, for a particular people: Afrikaners.

      In any event, I think you make an important point about a unified political and moral order, one that rejects an illusory and juvenile “freedom” that ends up meaning oligarchy, corporate control, financial exploitation, degradation and extinction. My own view is that the unified political and moral order of the future must be explicit in its commitment to the survival, continuity and upward development of our folk. Said community will also likely have something approaching a religious consensus, but as in Orania, it would not constitute a theocracy.

    • Matt Parrott

      My money says that Orania’s implicit rather than explicit Christian kinism is a design flaw which will allow Jewish and Judaized influences, and market forces, to infiltrate and subvert the project if and when it becomes a target.

    • Jeff

      My money says that Orania’s implicit rather than explicit Christian kinism is a design flaw which will allow Jewish and Judaized influences, and market forces, to infiltrate and subvert the project if and when it becomes a target.

      What about the Amish? They are explicitly Christian.

  • Kievsky

    I corresponded with the Oranians back in 2007. I told them to select some of their single men or political fellow travelers to infiltrate the aid organizations like Heifer and UNICEF and scam them to raise money for Orania and for Whites to emigrate.

    South Africa is ripe for “Potemkin Village” farms where you get Boers to run them, but when the publicity photo op shows up, you put a black worker on a tractor, a black worker pretending to operate the milking machines, and a black worker in front of a computer with a spreadsheet. Use these photo ops to get lots of money out of the aid organizations to help Orania and help Whites in general.

    Also, Boers are already farmers, already have the know how and the livestock. They could be contracting with Heifer to sell their livestock and help black Africans pretend to set up farms. Scam those damned liberals for all they are worth!

    The Oranians replied to me, “We’d rather not work with black Africans.” I think they didn’t understand the scamming part. The whole idea of grifting was just so foreign to them.

    • Matt Parrott

      The Amish will be encouraged to adopt third world orphans. What better way to resolve their supposedly intractable inbreeding problem?

      The Amish are less theologically exotic than they appear, and are vulnerable to the same subversions deployed at other American Christians. The only difference is that the arguments have to be delivered in a more labor-intensive and direct manner. They will be.

      The Amish have one half of the puzzle, the Oranians have the other.

    • Orthodox Mike

      The least vulnerable to infiltration are Old Believer communities in Eastern Europe.

    • JPOutlook

      There is no foolproof plan, but as a Protestant, I am most confident in similar groups.

      Why wouldn’t those of the Eastern Church have similar biases?

  • JohnEngelman

    The emphasis of the criminal justice system should be on plenty of executions, and a larger number of long prison sentences at hard labor enforced by the whip. That is the way it was for white people and Orientals for thousands of years.

    That eugenic process removed those with criminal inclinations from the gene pool. Unfortunately, many Europeans and those of European ancestry have become too civilized for their own good. They have difficulty understanding individuals who are less evolved than they are.

By: Matt Parrott

Matt is a founding member of TradYouth and is currently the project's Chief Information Officer. He's been active in the White Identity cause for years, primarily as a blogger but also as a street activist and regional organizer.
%d bloggers like this: