Sign into an existing account

Sorry. Its a big subject and I try to hit all the major points and I end up rambling for too long.


Somebody like Donald Trump or Mel Gibson is funtionally polygynous. That is, their behavior will have the same dysgenic repercussions as some 12 century sheik with 4 simultaneous wives. They support all their wives and all their children by those wives and they do it through rent seeking behaviors. This is not a tiny group of rich men. This is any guy that has kids with more than one woman and pays child support. Polygyny definitely does not require a marriage contract and it doesn’t in Islam either.


There are two types of polygamy happening here. One is the kind you see blacks engaging in alot. Brave single moms living with their moms (and maybe brothers) while they raise children from multiple baby daddies who don’t contribute. That is analagous to matrilineal polygamy, seen in some african, polynesian, native american groups. The other type is closer to polygyny— that is what Trump and Mel do. There are multiple models in play here.


Any hookups which don’t result in children are pretty much irrelevant. Maybe not irrelevant— you could argue that females chasing after Mr Right for sex rather than settling for Mr. Good Enough for marrieage is a penalty to the average male—time is a resource. But any rich guy who knocks up a woman is on the hook. Isn’t that what you mean by “few men”? This seems like the standard hypergamy argument. Maybe Im misunderstanding. But you seem to take issue with the unequal distribution of females . You are right that its a problem. How does your strict definition of polygyny help this? Its functionally the same. The most equal distribution of females possible is monogamy. Everything else is less efficient. .


Thank you for the compliment. I hope in the future I can do better at making this case to you. Polygyny is the reason for the rapid expansion of islam and also why its prosperity sputtered and stalled. Its the reason for almost all the differences between Whites and middle easterners. These people are really pretty closely related to us. The region was settled by ancient Europeans. Understanding the differences between their environment and ours is key to identifying where they went wrong over thousands of years. The major factor is polygyny. It accounts for all the grooming gangs in britain, all the terrorism in islam, all the corruption. When you reward males reproductively for quantity and not quality of paternity, the trust, the fairness, the work ethic among males evaporates.


There was a struggle between matrilineal and patrilineal societies in the middle east up until the advent of Islam. Of course bedouin pastoralists like the early israelites were practicing polygyny in the more arid regions. Matrilineal agrarian societies who worshipped female deities began to go extinct largely because of the aridification of the middle east. Islam seems to have sped up this process to me. I think these pastoralist muslim warlords conquered a bunch of more monogamist people including a bunch of non-arabs with greek, roman and byzantine ancestry, including their intellectual elites . But their system does not favor intellectual curiosity in the way that ancient greece did. It favors aggressive male strategies— alot of killing, alot of fucking. Its a quantity over quality strategy. That does not raise average IQs. And of course these islamic empires imported alot of sex slaves from nigger world. That didn’t do them any favors.


You understand me pretty well. Not all children of polygamy are bad seeds, just like not all niggers are bad seeds. Statistically they are very dangerous. They are a dysgenic group. Reproducing with more than one person is the poison pill of civilization.


I agree. He was a man of his time and place, same as Jesus or Ceasar. Things that they believed and practiced we know now are harmful or untrue.


I don’t agree. They do worse than Europeans, or did until they started living off Europeans. They invented very little compared to earlier civilizations of the region. They fell behind Europe. Dramatically. You can point to the fact that middle easterners have cars now which they didn’t have before Islam, but cars are not a success of Islam.


Hmmm. Cousin marriage is not that bad if practiced infrequently. Its practiced excessively in low trust societies where brides’ familiies may be extorted for money by the groom under threat of murder. This tends to be muslim countries more than christian ones. It could be that more heavily inbred tribes (who practice high endogamy) may tend to be more warlike, but their could be some more palatable benefits to this strategy too like higher group unity and higher cooperation. Whites may be too outbred, leading to low group cohesion, which exposes us to exploitation even by other whites. Group selection is a white strategy that is undermined by greater and greater genetic variation.


I agree. It should be legally enforced. I wonder why you think its virtuous though. I wonder why you think its preferable to polygyny or other forms of polygamy. I know its preferable because I understand how it affects natural selection. I encourage you to examine why you think its better.


I think its hard to eliminate genetic polygamy completely. 1 to 3% polygamy is what I would consider low. 10% or more is high and cause a strongly dysgenic effect. In such a scenario, about 10% of males will be killed, enslaved, or exploited in such a way by the regime that their reproductive success is zero. How does that favor group unity? Wifeless men have no loyalty to such a regime, their incentive to do so is non-existent. They will be lawless spoilers, theives, rapists, rebels, cheats. I don’t think its hyperbole. I think our morals are instincts and we are selected for those instincts. If we have a strong preference for monogamy its because it must have served us extremely well in the past. But it doesn’t work unless everybody is doing it.