Posted on 03/17/2012 4:52:45 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Supermodel Elle Macpherson Loves Obama: 'I’m Socialist - What Do You Expect?' By Noel Sheppard Created 03/17/2012 - 6:02pm
By Noel Sheppard | March 17, 2012 | 18:02 Change font size: A | A Noel Sheppard's picture
Supermodel Elle Macpherson told shock jock Howard Stern Tuesday that she's pulling for Barack Obama to be reelected.
"I’m living in London and I’m socialist," she told her host. "What do you expect?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
HOWARD STERN: Who should be the next President of the United States Elle MacPherson, go ahead.
ELLE MACPHERSON: I think Obama’s going to do it.
STERN: You like Obama?
MACPHERSON: Yeah, I’m living in London and I’m socialist. What do you expect?
STERN: And you’re living in London and you sense what other foreigners feel. Do they like him?
MACPHERSON: I think foreigners like him. He’s very popular.
STERN: Don’t we look good having a black president and everything? Makes us kind of cool.
MACPHERSON: I think it’s more about his policy. But you know there are I understand that there are a lot of people who don’t, you know, don’t want change. “We want change. We want change.” And he says, “I’ll implement change,” and you go, “Oh, actually, I don’t bleeping feel like I want change. It’s too difficult.”
And Obama's media wonder why folks think he's a socialist.
She’s paid to show her a$$ not to think ... I assume she excels in both categories.
"True" Socialist/Marxists would expect her to share "much more." Karl Marx argued that "everything" must be shared. South American Communists embrace this ideal...
we want change too. We want to undo socialists policies already implemented.
I'm sure there are many who would like a piece, know what I mean, know what I mean, nudge, nudge?
I would have zero interest, based on her ideology and hypocrisy.
>”There must be something wrong with these people. (Maybe a short circuit in the brain?)”
You are close. You need to understand r/K Selection Theory.
In biology there are two psychologies. All animal behavior in nature tends towards one or the other, as these psychologies guide the organism’s strategy for reproduction.
One psychology is designed for environments where there is little test of an organism’s fitness prior to mating, usually due to copious resource availability eliminating any competition for resources. Since there is no test for fitness, the only thing which confers Darwinian success is reproductive power. This is the r-strategy, and those who hold it will have four traits. They will be averse to any competitive tests of fitness within their population, they will tend towards promiscuity and away from monogamy, they will support mating as early as possible, and they will support low investment, single parenting. Each is an attempt to reproduce as many offspring as possible as quickly as possible, while avoiding any test of their own fitness relative to their peers.
This occurs most often in prey species, due to predators killing back the population to the point that they are well below the carrying capacity of the environment, eliminating the competition for resources. Hence Rabbits exhibit a pacifistic nature, they mate as early in life as possible, they mate with whatever rabbit they happen across (rejecting monogamy), and the mother alone, invests just enough to get the kids out the door, so she can get knocked up and start on another brood. Grass is freely available, so they need not compete for it, and this is what you get.
The opposite psychology is called the K-strategy (the names come from the variables r and K in equations describing population dynamics). The K-type psychology is what is produced in organisms which do not have sufficient resources for free expansion of their population. There, all organisms must compete for limited resources. Those who survive are competitive, and highly fit, while those who are not fit and able end up dead. As a result, those organisms who produce lasting genetic lines do so by adopting behaviors designed to produce competitive success in their descendents. This will comprise four traits, each exactly opposite to those of the r-type organism. First they and their offspring are aggressive/competitive, which moves them to engage in competitions for limited resources whenever possible. Parents don’t just mate with any idiot they happen across. They carefully seek out the fittest mate possible, and attempt to competitively monopolize their fit mate’s genes through monogamy. To protect their children in the competitive environment they inhabit, they discourage them from engaging in mating behavior until they are fully mature and capable of competing, while children evolve to avoid early sexual behavior due to it’s danger. And the parents engage in high investment, two parent child-rearing, both to protect their child better, and to maximize it’s competitive ability at maturity through careful, high-investment rearing.
Obviously, our Conservative/Liberal divide is just an intellectual version of the same r/K psychological divide in more primitive animals in nature. This is why support for competitions like capitalism travels with support for abstinence until monogamy, and two parent child-rearing. Likewise, Communism is a way to bring about the r-type environment of free resources for all with no competition, and leftists also tend to support promiscuity and single parenting.
r vs K comes down to either a strategy by which to produce a ton of idiots, knowing that a few will survive and reproduce themselves (since there is no competitive test for fitness prior to reproduction), or a strategy to produce a few children, but make them very competitive through heavy investments of time and energy, since only fit and competitive offspring survive. Which predominates depends on whether the less able are prone to be culled, or see any other impact on their reproductive fitness. If they aren’t (like when government pays their parents handsomely to raise them using other people’s money), then the population will slowly devolve into an idiot mass production line, at least until resources become scarce, and K-selection returns by force.
Humans have both strategies within our population (as a result of an early duality in environments that our ancestors were confronted with), so it is as if we have physically identical animals, living side by side in one population, but one group has a bunny rabbit’s mentality, while the other has a lion’s mentality. The problem is the bunny rabbits have further evolved to try and gang up to create the r-type environment. Their end goal is to eradicate any competitive disparity between individuals through oppression and the elimination of freedom.
I have written a book on this, but it’s not out yet. In about a week, check my website for a pdf I’m updating called “Modern Political Thought in the Context of Evolutionary Psychology.” I’m about to update this paper with some monkey studies, and should be done in a week or so. Turns out if you excise the amygdala of monkeys, you get animals one researcher described as, ”...retarded in their ability to foresee and avoid dangerous confrontations.” Research indicates amygdala damage also produces increased libido, low investment parenting, and docility - all r-type/Liberal traits. Interestingly Liberals have reduced amygdala volume in MRI’s, so yes it is probably a brain defect, but one which evolved purposefully, to facilitate a bunny-like reproductive strategy of avoiding competitions and mating with whomever they happen across.
Liberals sustain themselves based upon the premise that their Liberalism is a result of superior intellectual analysis and reasoning. As this work spreads, it will reduce Liberalism to a simple Darwinian psychology, devoid of any intellectual reasoning, and prone to devolve and destroy any culture it infects.
Even worse, it will align Liberalism (correctly) with the r-type reproductive strategy, which in biology is recognized as a sure fire way to idiocratize a population, through the suspension of competitive tests of fitness. In many texts, the r-strategy is even described as being about emphasizing quantity of offspring over quality.
Liberalism goes from some superior intellectual evolution of man to just a bunch of imbecillic r-strategists, unconcerned with children and just looking for promiscuous sex, and freedom from any need to prove themselves competitively prior to resource acquisition and mating. And on top of that, all of them are too stupid to even realize their own motivations.
It will alter the teaching of political science profoundly.
If you can spread this theory, please feel free to pass it around, especially among Liberals. The sooner it is out there widely, the sooner Liberals will begin to feel vastly inferior, and the sooner Liberal morale takes the hit.
I’m guessing that was a little longer than you’d have expected a response to be?
Since she is a socialist, she should join the national socialist party.
I’d hit that twice and film it.
Yep; 'look at me'. It is all about 'them'- and their voting for a 'black man'. We knew that of course.
How long can their 'high-fives' last? The novelty has yet to wear off; nor their their 'self-congratulations'.
“Where liberty dwells, there is my country." –Benjamin Franklin
Islam Delenda Est!
Another of those 1% socialists who just LOVE the 99% for making them rich.
Uganda had a black President. I don't think the people of Uganda thought that made them cool.
Supermodels shoud not be asked serious questions. We should not listen to anything they have to say about anything other than what it means to be a supermodel. Period. End of Paragraph. End of Story.
well, isn’t that special...
hope she texts while she crosses the street
At least she’s an honest Socialist.
Over here all the Socialists try to pose as Thomas Jefferson.
The United States has become a place where entertainers and professional athletes are mistaken for people of importance.
— Robert Heinlein
Not with everybody. My Brit cousins live in London. They are ardent Tories. They tell me that Obama is a joke amongst the Brits....and not well liked due to his trail of unabashed insults to Queen and country.
Supermodel Elle lives in an insulated, media-driven world of faggy fashion and show-biz, artsy-fartsy, and slumming-elites types....what else would she be but a pseudo-socialist.
Intellect, education and reasoning are not a requirement in this fairy-tale world. They all say they're socialists just to get along with each other career-wise. In actuality, they are the worst kind of self-centered capitalists to the core. Pretending to embrace a socialist ideology to be "one with the people" just helps, in their minds, to keep the peasants with the torches and pitchforks away from their castle doors.
None of these air heads could accurately define socialism, marxism, communism or capitalism in accurate, intellectual terms if their lives depended on it. But, they don't have to. In their industry, only if they said they were Nazis would they be blacklisted. And they wouldn't be able to define the word Nazi, either.
To clean up an old phrase.....garbage floats.
Leni
To KNOW him; is to despise who he is; an what he does.
Thank you for helping to spread it. It is one of the most obvious things I have ever seen, so as it moves out through the biological sciences, it should greatly impact Liberalism’s respectability.
Of course we knew all of this innately already, but it is funny to see it laid out in black and white terms even a Liberal will have to acknowledge.
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.