terrorists planted 12 backpack bombs and the Spanish people surrendered.
They immediately switched from supporting a Spanish government that
had backed the war on terror to electing a socialist enemy of the
war on terror. We now have a scientific measure of Spanish instincts.
They can be described in one word: female.
Faced with the choice of whether
to fight against a violent invasion or surrender to it, men and
women face very different, sometimes opposite, biological imperatives.
Throughout mankind’s evolutionary history, if a man fought
against an invader he risked death in proportion to the strength
of his foe, while if he surrendered, he faced almost certain death,
at least in the biological sense. At best he would be enslaved and
denied further access to females. Thus the reproductively more successful
strategy for a man would almost always be to fight invaders, and
this is how we should expect the male instincts to be programmed,
according to the precepts of evolutionary psychology.
For a woman, fighting against
an invader also risks death, but surrender offers much better reproductive
prospects for women than for men. A woman’s reproductive capacity
is part of the booty, often the primary booty, that invaders have
always been after. Thus a fertile woman could almost be guaranteed
that, with surrender, her reproductive capacity would not be wasted.
This difference in biological incentives will have left women with
stronger instincts to surrender.
The disparity between male and
female instincts is watered down by the biological incentives that
men and women have in common. Both have incentive to save their
existing children from being killed or enslaved, especially their
boys. (Enslaved girls will still reproduce.) But the disparity still
remains. Women with children should have a marginally stronger instinct
to surrender than men do, while young childless women should have
a much stronger instinct to surrender.
The poll watching group Public
Opinion Watch has commented on what it calls the “interesting
paradox” that “women are substantially more worried
about being victims of a terrorist attack than men, yet appear to
be substantially less supportive of the Bush administration’s
Iraq policy, ostensibly designed to protect American citizens from
terror.” This “paradox” can be taken as a measure
of the greater female instinct to assume a submissive posture.
Demographers have also found that
America’s appeasement party—still officially called
the Democrat party—is the party of single women, while the
Republicans are the party of married women. In this case, however,
the statistical gap probably overstates the female lay down effect,
due to entanglement with other factors. Many single mothers effectively
marry the government by going on welfare, and since the Democrats
created welfare, they see the Democrats as the husband figure in
this relationship. Some of these women might well want to fight
to protect their children, but still go with the party of appeasement
because they are married in.
Anthropological evidence is available
from the discovery of the primitive Yanomamo people, hidden deep
in the rain forests of South America. When Napoleon Chagnon studied
the Yanomamo (“the fierce people”), he discovered a
violent society where a quarter of the men were killed by other
Yanomamo, mostly in woman-stealing raids between different Yanomamo
tribes. Having to survive as a prize of war was very common for
Yanomamo women. Add territorial conquest to the equation, where
fighting invaders becomes even more of an imperative for men, and
the difference between male and female instinct becomes even stronger.
There is no suggestion here that
male instinct is inherently better than female instinct. It is,
however, manifestly better as the rational strategy for a nation.
To appease aggressors is always and everywhere to encourage them.
Osama Bin Laden has listed the return of Andalusia to Muslim domination
as one of his primary objectives. To Al Qaeda, no Muslim state must
ever become non-Muslim, and Spain is the most prominent example
of Muslim reversal. Terrorist ambition is fixed squarely on Spain
as its first western conquest.
For a modern nation to surrender
to a band of primitives over twelve backpack bombs is insane. You
can always submit later, senoritas, after Spain has been defeated.
There is no immediate need to get down on your backs. That is just
your sex talking: the terrified Yanomamo girls inside, hoping to
survive. The personal must not be political, not the female personal,
not when the nation is under attack.
Unfortunately, everything is personal
for women, including politics, at least at the level of biological
disposition. Women, throughout our evolutionary history, have lived
their lives under the power of men. While men have looked outward,
engaging the world outside the home in order to provide for the
home, women have looked inward, managing the household and establishing
their status in it through their emotional relationship with the
resident political authority, the man. Men and women both have the
same open ended faculties to discover and pursue value, but the
difference in our instinctive natures is large.
Faced with an invader, the combination
of woman’s instinct to submit, and the tendency for her political
thinking to revolve around the personal, can be a disastrous pairing
for a nation that allows women to vote. The problem is even worse
in Europe because European society has become thoroughly feminized.
The European man no longer thinks like a man.
How is it possible for male instinct
to be occluded? Very simple: instinct is shaped by calculations
of reproductive benefit, crunched numerically by natural selection.
Our open ended faculties of intelligence grasp and reinforce these
calculations. By changing the conditions in which boys are raised,
the risk-reward calculations they face can be shaped so as to set
their rational faculties against their instincts, causing instinct
to be suppressed.
Consider the impact of European
civilian disarmament. Every Spanish man, from the time he was a
boy, has been deprived of the means to defend himself and others.
Faced with any serious violent threat, from as little as a knife
or a piece of pipe, he has always been at a total disadvantage.
His open ended faculties of intelligence have always understood
clearly that his only rational course is to flee.
The normal male biological calculation—
that it makes sense to fight in defense of self and others—is
conditioned (in our evolutionary number crunching) on a man having
done what he can to be prepared to fight. Our ancestors did not
disarm themselves! Europe, by not allowing its boys ever to be prepared
to fight, sets their rational faculties to overcome their biological
nature. Instead of coming to grips with the moral use of force,
European male character formation all occurs in conditions that
push males to the female calculation: that it is better to submit.
The result is a vagina monologue.
European males and females both see the world in the instinctive
female way, as the Spanish displayed last month. By choosing not
to fight for their survival, the Spanish are, at the biological
level, seeking to survive by making babies for the invader. Here
in America, our women (or at least our Republican women), grow up
thinking of themselves and their men as armed. Thus their rational
faculties grasp that it makes sense to fight. Faced with an attacker,
it is the female instinct that gets overruled.
Such good girls, even helping
out behind the lines while our boys methodically stuff the Jihadis
into the meat grinder. There is a long way to go, but women, don’t
worry. We will never let the vermin take you. You can go to them
if you want, the flakes amongst you. We allow you your weakness.
What we love is your strength.
Alec Rawls is a contributing editor
of The Stanford Review. He is currently writing a book on republicanism.
Contact firstname.lastname@example.org or visit www.rawls.org.