Sign into an existing account

Yes, obviously I didn’t believe them.

Polygamy of any kind is less supportable in colder climates. Thats why people are more promiscuous the closer you get to the equator. Pastoralists who generally live in arid areas with poor farming tend to be polygynistsand there have been several waves of them who invaded europe and east asia from the central asian steppe. All extremely violent. Pastoralists will kill each other to seize each other’s women. They are low trust societies. They often conquer agriculturalists and enslave them and steal their women, as happened with the mongols and the turkics and the huns and probably the yamnya. After several generations of admixture these groups become less agressive (like corded ware) especially in more humid environments where monogamy is favored.

Whether the elites which might account for less than 1% can be polygynous is not a high determiner of whether a society is violent. More important is whether a significant number of women are in a marriage with a man who has other wives. If that number is more than 5 or 10 %, you will have severe scarcity of available women for the average guy. This situation favors the most agressive males and the males of the population can be increasingly categorized as pursuing a violent competitive quantity over quality of reprodution relative the the highly monogamous “good dads” quality over quantity reproductive strategy.

This happens with all kinds of animal species as well. Its a mathematical certainty. Polygamy is the cause of middle east violence. Those people were less violent before their region dried out. Polygamy was practiced in albania for 500 years and the result is that albanians are the worst most criminal europeans on the continent.

IQ varies independently of sexual aggression. Its most heavily controlled by severity of winter and population size or frequency of contact with other high IQ societies. Niggers are not criminal because they are stupid. There are smart niggers who are still violent and promiscuous.
But monogamy not only promotes peace among males but it also favors males who are “good dads” i.e., clever, hard workers who help their families survive winters. North eurasians developed high iqs because enough of them were rewarded reproductively for their ingenuity to survive and thrive economically in harsh conditions. In warmer climates, men were rewarded for violence and high promiscuity, a so called ‘r’ strategy. 100% monogamy is the most ‘K’ a society can be. It should be obvious to you why that is true mathematically. The lower the monogamy frequency, the more male effort will be invested in male-on-male violence and the less it will be in invested in actual productivity.

Plus polygyny relies on exploitation of lower status, non-reproductive males (slavery) to support the harems of elite “dynasties”. Polygyny never works without slavery. Women will never choose to marry a man who has 2x as much resources but alread has a wife when she can marry a guy with average resources who has not wife. That is a bad deal for women, and in a meritocracy it is very unusual for a man to earn 2x as much as the average male income. Which is why polygyny is extremely rare in a meritocracy.


Not meritocracies. Duh. Highly exploitive paradigms.


The highly polygynous ones were warlords who enslaved and murdered their fellow whites. Europe is notable for its extremely high rates of monogamy— not 100%, just higher than anyone else in the world. You think that’s cooincidence because you have a bias. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Clandestine polygyny was no doubt practices by many powerful europeans during the christian era but having to hide it limited the behavior. Compare that with the harems of the sheiks and emirs of the middle east, all notoriious rape cultures. Whites ( and the European climate ) limited male sexual promiscuity which promoted more peaceful productive societies, genetically. GENETICALLY. Violent rapists are favored in polygyny.

You’re gonna try geography… again… and then you’ll wonder why it didn’t work if you’re still alive.

There are "ideological muslams" and "cultural muslums"...same as there's "ideological Christians and cultural Christians"...one controls the mind, the other simply designates a social taxonomy...I consider myself to be culturally Christian by
virtue of the fact that the constitution or bill of rights of Western 1st world countries recognizes God as a supreme being, although I no longer hold a belief in a "biblical god" I am still subject to a constitution that is fundamentally formulated within the aspects of the biblical god.