Trump Hate = Germanophobia?

[Alonzo]

True, but they still are in many areas. I hate this fact but for all my study I cannot find it false. DiversityLack of resources/access to resources+Proximity=War.

Fixed that for you. I’m guessing your “studies” never led you to behavioral ecology and the wealth of knowledge gleamed about human nature by way of studying small scale human societies AND our closest primate relatives, bonobos and chimps, the former sharing 99% of their DNA with humans. Bonobos and chimps evolved into distinct species with distinct behavioral traits over the course of 1 million years, separated by the Congo River (chimps being to the north of it and Bonobos to the south). Bonobos, inhabiting more resource rich terrain, are more peaceful and egalitarian than chimps, nurturing amiable bonds in a matriarchal society. On the other hand, chimps inhabit an environment where resources are more scarce, and are characterized by intensely aggressive, hostile and competitive behaviors rooted in hierarchical, male dominance**.

From a behavioral ecological perspective, which links behavioral variation to environmental differences, behavior (e.g., cooperation and conflict) is context-dependent, as individuals and groups across species flexibly adjust their strategies to the perceived fitness (the ability to survive to reproductive age, find a mate, and produce offspring) costs and benefits in their current environment. Humans, like bonobos and chimps, have evolved behavioral reaction norms to cooperation and conflict that predictably shift in response to socio-ecological conditions > the degree to which they can defend resources such as food, material wealth and females, and the degree of bargaining power differentials between dominants and subordinates (fighting ability, mate quality, social support, etc...).

When speaking of human conflict, shallow, short sighted takes that focus and center ethnicity and race based “diversity” OVER the availability and distribution of resources (which is better correlated to “class” and directly impact inequality margins) and the ability to acquire them, egregiously miss the mark. And though race and class have often been intertwined in America, Trump, for example, would still have much more in common with Jay Z and Oprah, as far as values based on mutual benefit/access/lifestyle, than he would Joe the Plumber, who would almost certainly NOT be invited to Maralago, skin color and ethnicity be damned.

**I also think it's interesting to look at this dynamic through the lens of the quadral progression from Alpha to Beta.

[Metamorph]

Fixed that for you. I’m guessing your “studies” never led you to behavioral ecology and the wealth of knowledge gleamed about human nature by way of studying small scale human societies AND our closest primate relatives, bonobos and chimps, the former sharing 99% of their DNA with humans. Bonobos and chimps evolved into distinct species with distinct behavioral traits over the course of 1 million years, separated by the Congo River (chimps being to the north of it and Bonobos to the south). Bonobos, inhabiting more resource rich terrain, are more peaceful and egalitarian than chimps, nurturing amiable bonds in a matriarchal society. On the other hand, chimps inhabit an environment where resources are more scarce, and are characterized by intensely aggressive, hostile and competitive behaviors rooted in hierarchical, male dominance**.

From a behavioral ecological perspective, which links behavioral variation to environmental differences, behavior (e.g., cooperation and conflict) is context-dependent, as individuals and groups across species flexibly adjust their strategies to the perceived fitness (the ability to survive to reproductive age, find a mate, and produce offspring) costs and benefits in their current environment. Humans, like bonobos and chimps, have evolved behavioral reaction norms to cooperation and conflict that predictably shift in response to socio-ecological conditions > the degree to which they can defend resources such as food, material wealth and females, and the degree of bargaining power differentials between dominants and subordinates (fighting ability, mate quality, social support, etc...).

When speaking of human conflict, shallow, short sighted takes that focus and center ethnicity and race based “diversity” OVER the availability and distribution of resources (which is better correlated to “class” and directly impact inequality margins) and the ability to acquire them, egregiously miss the mark. And though race and class have often been intertwined in America, Trump, for example, would still have much more in common with Jay Z and Oprah, as far as values based on mutual benefit/access/lifestyle, than he would Joe the Plumber, who would almost certainly NOT be invited to Maralago, skin color and ethnicity be damned.

**I also think it's interesting to look at this dynamic through the lens of the quadral progression from Alpha to Beta.

*whoopee cushion noise*

[Alonzo]

Do you think this actually makes the case better, though? If anything, wealth disparity is an even greater impetus to group-conflict than genetic disparity. Once you realize the "oppressed" group wants to seize everything you have, you have a real incentive to start exterminating them instead of just passively ignoring their plight.
And can we please dispense with this fiction where there's a solution where "everyone wins?" If it's a conflict over resources, a prerequisite for that is that there's already not enough to go around no matter how you distribute them, so someone absolutely has to die. The natural corollary to this is "Better them than me."



Americans wouldn't sit still and allow the MIC to keep churning if they had any possible way to stop it. They're all too occupied with issues in their own lives to bleed and die for the sake of others. These structures keep going not because we want them to, nor because we accept them, but because it's only the strongest who have the strength to dismantle them, only the most creative who can construct a positive replacement, and only the bravest who can make the leap of faith.

If realistically correcting the problem/finding solutions is the aim (and it is for me), I think that, first and foremost, it’s important to accurately identify, label and define whatever variables are contributing to the problem (in this case, conflict over resources). I’m not saying that there is an easy fix or that the problem is truly fixable, at all, but it damn sure doesn’t serve the cause to be looking in the wrong direction. So, to answer your question, no, not “better” per se, just more accurate, and, therefore, better positioned to address the issue with greater focus and precision.

Yes, the combination of evolved in-group preference and competition over resources have often resulted in ethnicity/race/creed/etc... based systems of oppression– for example, it’s no coincidence that modern racism as we know it began with the European age of exploration and burgeoning capitalism. But what’s telling is that up until that point (and even after in many instances), the Europeans, all degrees of “white folk,” had been whole sale slaughtering each other over resources for thousands of years. Lol

The fact of the matter is that people will fight over resources whether they look like each other or not > the Japanese Vs Chinese Vs Koreans; Yoruba Vs Igbo; Scottish Vs. English, the Irish Vs. Northern Irish, I could go on, forever. That being the case, it’s ridiculous to make phenotype/race/ethnicity the primary feature in humanity’s ability/inability to peacefully co-exist–as has been proven time and time again, differences along those lines can be over come, and usually when there is lower wealth inequality/greater access to resources. Furthermore, it’s important to remember that what constitutes an in-group is not static and changes according to context and a plethora of other variables.

More to my main point, perhaps if there had been an equitable and mutually beneficial trade of ideas and resources with the Native Americans and with Africans (who occupied a continent with resources that would’ve arguably made them the richest on the planet) instead of relegating them to an inferior status in order to justify their disenfranchisement, the USA as we know it, with racial/ethnic brutality, inequality and injustice being the beginning of our foundation and most persistent illness, would not exist. Perhaps something better and far more egalitarian would have come to fruition.

Or even if Africa would’ve provided human labor, it could have been human labor that they were amply and justly compensated for in the form of contracts, equal pay for equal work, etc…. Perhaps less war and conquering in the name of unabashed greed and more even-handed trade would’ve allowed for a peaceful, more stable world order, with different nationalities, ethnicities and cultures living tolerantly side by side, similarly to what exists today in Western Europe.

I think of Africa being the most genetically diverse continent on earth, which means that both the lowest and highest IQs exist there–what if instead of centuries of their muted and diminished potential, they had developed alongside Europe? Perhaps by this point in time, we could have had the finest minds on the planet develop equitable/stable/just/effective means of resource distribution AND renewability.

Look at all the needless bloodshed in the Middle East that’s been spilled over oil, with ethnic/religious sectarianism being the convenient scape goat. And yet heaven forbid they focus on the actual problem and look to more renewable energy sources like solar energy (in the middle of the fucking desert). Lol More than half of the energy used in Sweden (a country with lower income equality and a higher standard of living than most countries) comes from renewable energy sources, combining high energy consumption with low carbon emissions. Sweden plans to be completely renewable by 2040–and guess what? Nobody bothers us and we don’t bother anybody. My point is that if humanity were no prioritize rectifying the true root of conflicts, i.e., competition over resources, we would probably be MORE likely to not only rid ourselves of the superficialities that divide us but the deeper ones, as well. But to your point, I'm doubtful that people have the will/guts/courage/intelligence, but I try to be hopeful (in addition to speaking "truth to power") so as to not put a bullet in my skull. lol