National Geographic has written a relatively balanced and comprehensive article on the FLDS (Fundamentalist Mormon) communities throughout the American Southwest. They’re explicitly racial, have one of the highest fertility rates in the world, are completely self-sufficient, and leverage media and technology in defense of tradition and family rather than against it. The government and the media are becoming increasingly concerned about and focused on Latter-Day Saint movement for good reason: it poses the last credible threat to their hegemony in the West.
“That’s what you’re doing when you argue that polygamists result in neglected babies”
We’re arguing, are we not, about large-scale social arrangements for recovery of the White race after the war of demographics reaches its climax, correct?
The FDLS, as much as they’ve isolated themselves, still benefit from the fact that they have the safety net of living in technological U.S., where modern hospitals with trained doctors and nurses, as well as commercially manufactured formula and the clean water to mix it with, are available if mom can’t get the nursing going and baby’s survival would be in jeopardy.
But after the Mexinvasion has resulted in Whites’ being in the minority numbers-wise and the inevitable collapse of technological civilization as a result, we all know what to expect: Incompetent doctors and nurses, hospitals shutting down, e-coli ubiquitous in the commercially-available food supply, death and disease far as the eye can see, etc. etc. etc.
When the technological civilization has crashed and White groups must make it on the basis of the skills individually possessed by the White people in them, when life is hard and resources are scarce, THEN we’ll see the ugly realities of hardscrabble life where unrelated women will, in order that their own children survive, undermine the survival chances of the childen of their rivals for the Big Man’s provisioning. THAT DAY we’ll see the starvation of babies whose inadequate latch means no milk transfer and the mothers cowives are unwilling to help — or even deliberately give wrong advice.
Wet nursing so the infant can survive? Ha. Fat chance.
Ah, but monogamy, there, the unrelated neighbor women likely WOULD be willing to give latching advice to that new mom so her babe can survive, because, since they are not in competition for resources from the same man, the favor costs them nothing.
.
Not a Mormon:”18 is baby time.”
Not necessarily, especially amongst many Whites. The more advanced a species or race is, the more slowly it becomes sexually mature. I don’t mean in the sense of puberty, but in terms of becoming of optimal breeding age.
Amongst human groups, we notice that Blacks have the lowest age of sexual maturation. Conversely, Whites have the highest age of sexual maturation. Blacks have a lot of children but often take rather poor care of them, whilst Whites are again the opposite of that. Infer from that what you will.
Either way, 18 year old White girls ought not be having children unless they are really of the dumb sort and not fit to do much else; better to wait a few years after that, until at least 21-22 or so. Even in past centuries White women often didn’t begin to have children in to their early/mid 20s.
ski:”Surely people break the rules quite a bit in any society, but monogamy definitely was one of “the rules,” for a long time and still is for the most part.”
Amongst Germanic Whites, and I assume most other Whites who were offshots of Germanics (such as Anglo-Saxons, etc), monogamy was the norm.
Tacitus tells us (I believe Dr MacDonald linked to this excerpt before):
“Few in the anti-Semitic community continue to believe that Khazar Hypothesis. The recent genetic evidence simply fails to corroborate it, and it wasn’t well-supported before then. …”
@Wikitopian
__
Wiki,
Could you provide some references for this?
I am a bit confused over the whole issue, and wish to see further studies, either pro or con, to come to a more informed conclusion. Thanks.
“Amongst Germanic Whites, and I assume most other Whites who were offshots of Germanics (such as Anglo-Saxons, etc), monogamy was the norm.”
__
Such as it was amongst the Germanic Langobardii (Lombards), and even among many Romans — particularly the Patricians.
@White Preservationist
I suspect that what you dismiss as “strange religious customs and archaic dress” may actually prove to be manifestations of subcultural components which are quite necessary. Your ideas are interesting to me, but as one geek to another geek. I don’t believe a layman or a normal woman reading that would be compelled to participate in your scheme, no matter how brilliant. That’s where the other parts may come in, the parts you dismiss.
According to Rushton, East Asians have the highest age of sexual maturation, not Whites.
What about Niall of the Nine Hostages? What about the dramatic decrease in Y Chromosome diversity relative to other populations? What about the high levels of intelligence and evidence of pervasive sexual selection?
@barb
Once again, I believe you’re unfairly speculating. These people have shown themselves to be quite capable of intelligently handling crises. My money would be against them blindly stumbling into a Malthusian infant death crisis.
@Kulaks never learn
Here’s Revilo P. Oliver dismissing the Khazar Hypothesis…
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Another_Jewish_Problem.html
I know it’s the NYT, but I believe the source data stands valid…
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/09/science/y-chromosome-bears-witness-to-story-of-the-jewish-diaspora.html
General summary of the issue…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Debate_about_Khazar_conversion_to_Judaism
I’m not really interested in the subject but John Marshall at Against the Robots is. I imagine he has lots of links on the subject if you ask.
Instituting polygamy would be a great way to divide Whites, and prevent potential White soldiers from serving their hypothetical pro-White elites. No White Soldier will want to serve a master who bought his girlfriend like George Steinbrenner buying free agents from other MLB teams.
It should also be noted-the possible increase in White birthrate notwithstanding-it could work both ways. It doesn’t have to be only White men married to multiple White women. It could be wealthy non-White men (like Tiger Woods, with a Billion dollars in earnings) hoarding all the White women they can set their hands on. I heard this is already happening (at least unofficially) in parts of Europe, with Brown Muslims hoarding White female converts.
“No White Soldier will want to serve a master who bought his girlfriend like George Steinbrenner buying free agents from other MLB teams.”
With extreme polygamy, this applies to a few top leaders hoarding the would-be wives of the male soldiers.
I wasn’t making a case for extreme polygamy.
I wasn’t making a case for inbreeding without abandon.
I wasn’t making a case for impregnating scores of women and leaving them and their offspring to starve.
I wasn’t making the case for involving minorities in the mix.
Wikitopian: Well, since we are already discussing it-do you support any form or degree of polygamy?
Steve,
Yes. Yes, I do. I believe that the compulsion to become a husband and father can extend to expanding one’s stewardship to being a husband to more than one wife and a father to scores of children. I respect that it’s not something which can be practiced “to the extreme”, but I believe it could be an important aspect of the early stage of a restoration.
I’m not implying a “collapse”, but I do believe we’re in for tougher times in the future. I believe that nature will reassert herself to some degree, and that she places a larger natural burden on women than men. Without the framework of tradition forcing men to be stewards and without the government’s artificial support required for feminist independence, women will become increasingly open to a traditionalist message and movement while most men will indulge in a Roissy-style exploitation of the situation.
As such, I believe plural marriage could prove optimal.
I also believe that Whiteness is applied polygyny, a very bold statement which I’ll be attempting to defend in a follow-up.
I’m not really interested in the subject but John Marshall at Against the Robots is. I imagine he has lots of links on the subject if you ask.
Thanks Daniel J and Wik.
Why polygamy? Where’s the benefit?
“a father to scores of children”
To father scores of children, assuming lifetime total fertility of the women at, say, six, means at LEAST 4 wives — likely more as, with
the healthcare system likely collapsing, the maternal death rate is likely to climb — all of them squabbling.
White children grow up to be creative productive adults due, at least in part, and likely large part, to the father’s provision of sufficient food AND sufficient father-love (encouragement) AND sufficient discipline. How does one dude do an outstanding job of disciplining and training dozens of rambunctious boys while also earning enough to keep ’em fed? How does one man pay close enough attention to a dozen silly, lovestruck teenage girls, in order to keep them from ruining their lives chasing bad boys? How does a White dude siring dozens of kids, (which the logistics means he can’t do a decent job of fathering — fathering, not merely siring — any of them) differ in any fundamental way from the Negro habit of knock ’em up and beat it?
No. Polygamy is essentially single-motherhood. Bad plan.
“women will become increasingly open to a traditionalist message and movement while most men will indulge in a Roissy-style exploitation of the situation.”
How is this going to work? Utter contradiction here. How are “most” men going to be getting any Roissy-type promiscuity in your polygamy-as-norm scenario? If all the women are living as cowives, then MOST men are going to be getting NO SEX AT ALL, as the few Big Men will have them all cloistered away. The only way “most” men will get any sex at all in a polygamous society is for them to sneakin’ in, behind the Sultan’s back, to visit the haremesses. Certainly THAT sort of high-risk adulterous behavior falls under no reasonable definition of “traditionalist message” that I can come up with.
One cannot be a father to “scores” of children. The nature of fatherhood excludes this possibility.
barb,
You seem to be arguing that the problem with plural marriage is that it results in pervasive infant mortality, neglected and rebellious children, and societal havoc. Would you please take five minutes to review the state of affairs in contemporary polygamist families?
I’m sure there are valid arguments against plural marriage. I just don’t believe you’re making them.
I agree with Barb; it would be unfair to reserve all of the women for a few men.
The silver lining is that their would probably be a revolution over that! (Revolution against the polygamous men, not the government).
“Would you please take five minutes to review the state of affairs in contemporary polygamist families?”
I just did. I reread the Nat Geo article. The “Lost Boys” — the excess males — were KICKED OUT of the compound and left to be runaways in Las Vegas. I’ll say that again. The boys were KICKED OUT for being REBELLIOUS. There’s your rebellious children. And I’d say kicking out boys so they are forced to shift for themselves in Sin City counts as neglect. Fortunately for those particular boys, American society still functions well enough that there were agencies to rescue those boys rather than them starving to death.
Again, the FLDS benefit from American mostly-monogamously-married beta-male-created technology, including cell phones and laser surgery. They built their compounds using dirt-moving equipment. Did the FLDS men build the D-9 Caterpillars? No. The D-9s would have been built by mostly monogamously-married beta male Americans.
POINT: WITHOUT the backstop of modern technological American civilization (built by beta males who are working to support their one wife and few kids) the FLDS system is UNSUSTAINABLE. When the system collapses, so will the FLDS.
As far as managing the fumerase deficiency, it should NEVER have arisen. What a sinful thing to indulge yourself in your sexual desires such that your children / descendants are forced to live a life of deformity, seizures and mental retardation.
This reliance on technology to ameliorate their dysfunction relates to mothering, also. Right now the babes are surviving, but there’s no particular mention that I’ve seen of how birth in the cowives is dealt with. If she’s gone to an modern American hospital, been tended by competent doctors and nurses with an on-staff lactation consultant to teach her how to breastfeed, then modern FLDS is no counterpoint to my argument. I’m saying WHEN the demo – war reaches the crisis point and competent doctors / nurses / functioning hospitals are NOT available, then the only people a pregnant / laboring / new mom will have to rely on is those around her. At THAT point human nature will assert itself, and we’ll see the cowives deliberately conniving to undermine (including failing to teach correct information regarding nursing techniques) the other women and their children so their own children can get more.
Yes, I’m speculatiing about women’s behavior in a polygamy-ubiquitous society with no outside support. But I am a woman and I know how deviously vicious we can be. Junior-high-school girls are my example to demonstrate what uninhibited female aggression looks like.
A woman wants a Big Man that other women want, all right — but she wants to have him TO HERSELF.
Wiki,
Get in touch.
http://www.isteve.com/2002_Problem_with_Polygamy.htm
Steve Sailer on polygamy and the tendency of people to ignore the men who get shut out
Polygyny is horrible for the vast majority of men and is not at all sustainable. It leads to a large number of men having no wife and children and thus having no stake in society and nothing to live and work for. It is a recipe for social unrest. If polygyny were instituted en masse in white societies, there would likely be a revolt against the few men monopolizing all the women by all the men who end up getting shut out.
MGLS,
Any truly eugenic social arrangement will have its losers. The practice should definitely be limited, and restricted to those with the means to support the lifestyle. Additionally, some social customs could be adapted to relieve the pressure of the gender disparity in creative ways.
*I posted this on another thread, but it seems a bit more appropriate here –
—
Wiki and MGLS,
Polygamy may be appropriate under certain and very selective circumstances (such as, during and/or after a devastating war or famine – AND, as Wik points out, should be tolerated to those with the means to support the lifestyle – I.E. no negroid-like ‘pump-and-dumps’), otherwise, Monagamy should be the norm. After all, k-selection is what predominantly built Greco-Roman & Celto-Teutonic Western Civilization.
The American Spectator : Polygamy and Me
http://spectator.org/archives/2006/03/23/polygamy-and-me
*Eyes on the prize gentleman…, eyes on the prize.
White Preservationist
In a functioning society with elder women, grandmothers and great-grandmothers, “optimal breeding age” is a biologically, not socially determined, age.
“18 year old White girls ought not be having children unless they are really of the dumb sort and not fit to do much else”
Could not disagree more. White American women are sexually mature by 16 generally, and again with an extended family and not atomized nuclear families, an 18-20 year old mother has plenty of social support. That’s a good thing. Obviously, some women are smarter and should pursue higher education, and some should concentrate on domestic affairs, and a similar system works for men.
The social stigma of young motherhood should end – no, I’m not talking about single teenage mothers with baby-daddies, I mean young women married and raising children while her husband works. This has proven the best for society.
What you do NOT need is 18-24 year old women going to college studying some social science, women’s studies, or some other ridiculous thing instead of the basics of fertility. By 18 years of age sex is the primary motivation for most people, it’s unnatural and counter productive to postpone sexuality after that age.
So you have two choices – either marry them off and let biology take it’s course – sex and babies – or you have your daughter “hooking up” with a few guys at college until she settles down. The actual end result? STDs that may be with the white race FOREVER.
Women should get as much education as they are fit for, just like men, but society should be arranged in such a way it’s natural for young white couples to have children as early as is biologically optimal, for women, this is generally 18-20s. Virgin marriage and strict monogamy at least until the children are born should be promoted, otherwise you get STDs. Just look at the HPV statistics are be VERY concerned. We don’t have much time left. HPV causes CANCER and infertility.
Wikitopian,
The idea of incorporating White interest into a religion is a good idea, both in principle and practically.
From a practical angle, people in this country have been conditioned to oppose exclusive European political organizations but at the same time readily accept exclusive religions. Better, organizing around religion offers a great cover for ethnic interest. Additional, it would neutralize Jewish criticism. What could they say that could not be tossed back at them? What could they advocate against, which would not also hurt them. Rather then criticize, they would be forced to defend the very concept as they themselves are an ethnorelgion.
More importantly, religion — and I mean that in the broad sense, in they way that the Eleusinian Mysteries constitute a religion –offers people something they need in this society. People need meaning, identity, and community. Consider that Liberalism is really just cultural Marxism and Marxism is just an inversion of Christianity. When people flock to various manifestations of Liberalism (Progressiveness, Socialism, new Leftism, Environmentalism), it tells us the Chrsitianity is not filling the void —
That said, you are, however, wrong in seeing FLDs as a model for this. Consider the problem. All variants of Christianity, under conditions of affluence, openness, and modernity become anethnic, what you might call aracial. Christianity is a spiritually universalist religion. White (European) ethnic interest can be harmonized with Christianity, but, unlike with ethnic Jewish interest and Judaism, it is not reinforce by it. As we know, or should know, the strength of Ethnic interest is inversely related to social affluence. In affluent, modern societies, people are less interested in sticking together — that is, they can more easily be persuaded to go against their group and, what we see as their long term interest.
Worse, the Christian mindset seems rather susceptible to becoming liberalized. As we know, a spiritual universalism with can coexist with ethnic interest, say, in the model of Pope John Paul’s “Memory and Identity,” can easily devolve into a worldly universalism a la Marxism and Cultural Marxism, which is antithetical to ethnic interest.
The worldly universal and communist tendency, the tendency to treat people equally and identity with everyone equally, is not uniquely western. You can find it in cross culturally. The Mohists in China were arguing in a similar way 2300 years before Marx in their critique of Confucianism What is unique, is the evangelistic and eschatological dimension of Marxism — that is, its radicalism and fervor. We have a mohism with Christian characteristics.
What you need is an ethnoreligion. A religion that reinforces group identity.
What we want is, as a poster above mentioned, to have our cake and eat it to. We want to have a sense of group, a sense of meaning, and to be able to live in modern society, which for us, is going to get more and more diverse.
Let’s consider how we might get this. To do this we need to discuss what Christianity was and why it was successful.
The world we live in is materialistic. Christianity divorced the worldly impulses form the material impulses. Unlike pagan religions, which believed in sacred earth and sacred god, Christianity located the spiritual dimension in the otherworldly. This divorced people’s spiritual concern from the earth — which was one reason why European Christians were so materially productive. There was a mental dissociation.
Christianity, for most of us, is no longer tenable. In a parallel history we may have had a repeat of the European 1800 and 1900’s. Or, after a period of Marxism, we might eventually have had a return to ethnoharmonious Christianity much in the model of Russia’s orthodox Christianity. With mass immigration and third-world Christianity that won’t happen.
Mass immigration and the constantly reinforced notion that white interest is dangerous, has made a mass prowhite political movements unfeasible. You will be lucky to not end up as the new homosexual and Jew for the new secular Christianity. Mass non-white Christianity and the constantly reinforced notion that white interest is evil, has made an ethnoprotective version of Christianity untenable. If people leave Religious conservatism or if they stay with it, they will not be inclined to your position.
Most of you can not appreciate how thoroughly routed you have been. Only a total economic collapse could save you.
That said, I say accept this. Accept that at best you will be a minorities minority and work at salvaging what you can. To do this, while putting up a political fight, you have to become like the Jews and build a religion around you ethnic interest. Would it really matter if all 99% of Europeans disappeared but you were secure in the knowledge that 1% were Treu?
Most people, at one point or another, want continuation. This is what Christianity offers in its otherworldly after life. They also want a sense of security and meaning. All these can be found in a group identity, in the particular association ones people. But secular tribalism is simply not functional in our given society — given its ever increasing diversity. Because we are often separated in space, because such separation is often legally enforced, and because in this modern time we must be willing to engage with others and travel about, secular tribalism offers us little. At best, we could be a more intellectual consistent version of FLDs.
I am suggesting a spiritualized particularism, in contrast to spiritualized universalism (a la Christianity), secularized universalism (a la Marxism), and tribalism ( a la Judaism or White nationalism).
As for the later, Judaism is largely a tribal religion. It is a mix of secular tribalism and spiritual particularism. Jews work in groups and see themselves as tied together by their Mythology. White nationalist is just secular tribalism, it is Judaism without the spirituality — it lacks the richness of mythology and we all sense that emptyness. Ether way, we are not tribal people.
As for Marxism, or secular universalism, it’s successful because it speaks to x-Christians because it’s intellectually compatible. It materializes the Univeralist Christian spirit. It also speaks to those disaffected with Christianity — society has changed and Faith based religions are slow to adapt.
Spiritual particularism, moves in the reverse direction. It particularizes the spiritual, a spiritual impulse which has been sowed into our collective unconscious over the centuries. It’s compatible with our post-Christian mind and can speak to the inevitable disaffection with Marxims — while society has changed people have not, they have a spiritual dimension.
If offers meaning through identity and continuation in the Germanic sense, where we are what the latins would divide into the present and the past. There is a sense of collective consciousness as our identity extends through time and space and relates us to others of our people. Our spirituality is our culture, our westerness and historic Europeanness.
All this means moving beyond the geneocentric focus. The idea that meaning, identity, and purpose is to be found in perpetuating a genetic line is progressive nonsense (the rightwing kind). Meaning is groundedness, it’s having a communal identity that feeds ones needs and having a positive feeling about this. Identity is a sense of who you are, are not, where and where not. Purpose is an expression of your identity. There is something rather problematic about defining any of these in terms of genetic preservation — let’s accept the fact though our culture is decadent and the culture of our nation is largely no longer ours. This means we have to start over and reform some sense of identity — to do this there is no reason we shouldn’t take advantage of our nation’s religious tolerance.
Mike,
Very sharp thoughts, except for the thought that Jews wouldn’t attack it because it would be hypocritical to do so. I’m afraid that was a stupid thought. 🙂
The LDS movement contains features and influences which may immunize it to some of the traditional criticisms. Though I’m not suggesting that I’ve found an ideal solution or even a workable one, yet.
I’m completely behind you in transcending arguments in favor of “genetic interests”. I’m not suggesting that they need to be refuted, rejected, denied, or even ignored. But it’s a sandy foundation to build a movement on, one which appeals to a very narrow band of academic and highly-functional autistic types.
“Polygenic polygamy is the default of humankind. Monogamy has one important societal benefit: it decreases violence by minimizing intra-species conflict.”
That isn’t a benefit.
“In a polygenic society, some men are going to be left out mateless and they won’t be satisfied by it.”
There are very few things more needed now than dissatisfied and potentially violent White Men. Just look at how the Races subscribing to Islam have benefitted from dissatisfied and potentially violent Arab Men!
If you don’t have skin in the game, you can’t win the game, and the name of game is RACE WAR.
“I agree with Barb; it would be unfair to reserve all of the women for a few men.”
To paraphrase Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven: “Fairness don’t have nothing to do with it.”
To hell with fairness, we’re in a war.
“Yeah but the Biblical evidence points only to the strife it causes!”
And of course you think that’s a reason not to do it because according to scum like you the only point of life is to avoid strife.
You’ll have plenty of peace in the Grave, so why are you so obsessed with maximizing the peace of this short life?
“Although it happened it was still against the law.”
That’s a complete and utter lie.
The Mosaic Law didn’t breath a word against Polygamy, and explicitly assumed its prevalence.
BTW, I’m glad Wiki mentioned Niall, the example of how much his Y Chromosome spread in Ireland puts the lie to the idea that the White Race was always against Polygamy with any kind of real rigor.
Polygenic polygamy is the default of humankind.
This whole discussion, assuming the truth of the above statement and the other forms it has been stated in so far, is a perfect example of the naturalistic fallacy in action. It is also silly.
Polygenic polygamy is the default of humankind.
It may be, but it is not necessarily the ‘default’ of North West European MANkind.
And of course you think that’s a reason not to do it because according to scum like you the only point of life is to avoid strife.
I just disagree with that kind of strife.
You’ll have plenty of peace in the Grave, so why are you so obsessed with maximizing the peace of this short life?
I’m not obsessed at all with maximizing ‘peace and comfort’ peace. I tend to take the opposite view. However, as is evident from your internet connection, you’re just as scummy as me.
I’m glad Wiki mentioned Niall, the example of how much his Y Chromosome spread in Ireland puts the lie to the idea that the White Race was always against Polygamy with any kind of real rigor.
The Irish are extremely promiscuous and always have been. So what?
You’re not one for hermeneutics huh? Nowhere did it assume its prevalence and nowhere did it justify or accept the practice. The exact opposite is the truth here.
danielj,
I’m not one for hermeneutics, either. Would you mind clarifying. Both St. Augustine and I are a bit confused on what the Bible teaches, here.
“The Irish are extremely promiscuous and always have been. So what?”
So they weren’t Monogamous, practicing a form of Concubinage, and yet were/are as White and worth preserving as any other White Ethnic Group.
They lost nothing from failing to practice the sort of enforced Monogamy you seem to find ideal.
“You’re not one for hermeneutics huh? Nowhere did it assume its prevalence and nowhere did it justify or accept the practice.”
The Mosiac Law had Multiple Laws which served no purpose but to regulate Polygamy. For instance, you could marry two sisters, but couldn’t marry a mother and daughter pair.
Also, you were prohibited from mistreating a Wife just because you liked your other Wife better.
If the Mosiac Law was written by a Man or God who had a problem with Polygamy, that Man or God was a worthless fool to keep his true feelings mum when writing those sections.
“To hell with fairness, we’re in a war.”
Reginald: Well, then I guess the polygamous men wouldn’t deserve any mercy or ‘fairness,’ either. It works both ways, not just the men you view as unworthy for marriage (and mates).
It should be noted that concubines were usually daughters or very close relatives of the King, probably not scores of random women indiscriminately picked off the street-especially not from married Men.
Steve,
You have an understanding of my position on this issues that is very incisive.
I fully support the right of Reproductively Marginalized Men to show just the sort of Fighting and Unconquerable Spirit that so becomes the Men of a Race.
After all, intensified Mate Competition can’t help but be Eugenic.
In addition, it would help us to avoid a situation where Men get to have multiple wives too much because of heredity privilege, and not enough because of Individual Merit.
Reginald: I am opposed to polygamy, regardless of whether his status wins him his women or he steals 5 wives from his neighbor. The gang of rebellious males I thought of, would most likely promote monogamy.
Pologamy is actually dsygenic, as it easily leads to incest. Thus, birth defects are more likely and more common-expecially when the wealthy 68 year-old impregnates 6 women in their early twenties. (I have read that autism and dwarfism are more common when the father is older).
“The gang of rebellious males I thought of, would most likely promote monogamy”
Curses!
“Pologamy is actually dsygenic, as it easily leads to incest.”
Incest is only dysgenic in an extremely short time frame. The negative Genetic Effect only lasts for one generation, as it has no effect on Gene Frequencies, and only has the negative effect of making negative recessives more likely to be expressed as opposed to being hidden (waiting to wreck havoc on future generations).
Anyway, I don’t see how Polygamy leads to incest. What leads to Incest for some Polygamists is that they live in small and highly isolated Communities.
“Thus, birth defects are more likely and more common-expecially when the wealthy 68 year-old impregnates 6 women in their early twenties.”
There is an actual (by which I mean heritable) dysgenic effect from a father being above the age of 50.
I’m just not sure to what extent Polygamy actually leads to a major increase in the percentage of children fathered by men over 50.
Just look at Michael Douglass knocking up Catherine Zeta-Jones. You don’t need Polygamy to have the elite men reproduce long after their genetic prime.
Also, to the extent that older men are having children with women in their early twenties, the negative effect of older paternal parental age will be greatly mitigated.
“Anyway, I don’t see how Polygamy leads to incest. What leads to Incest for some Polygamists is that they live in small and highly isolated Communities.” (end of quote)
With much fewer men reproducing, people will be more closely related. The odds of unknown or encouraged incest will increase. Also, like royalty and aristocracy, the highest-status men will look into incest, to retain their elite positions. (end of response)
“I’m just not sure to what extent Polygamy actually leads to a major increase in the percentage of children fathered by men over 50.
Just look at Michael Douglass knocking up Catherine Zeta-Jones. You don’t need Polygamy to have the elite men reproduce long after their genetic prime.
Also, to the extent that older men are having children with women in their early twenties, the negative effect of older paternal parental age will be greatly mitigated.” (end of quote)
But polygamy does increase the incidence. Very old men procreating with very young women is happening not because of monogamy, but in spite of it. The reason for this occurrence is extreme wealth. And now, a super-wealthy man can spread his love and money to more than one young woman.
With polygamy, people marry not for love, looks (if you are a woman, looks matter even less than in monogamy), real intelligence, or even genetic health. It’s all about money and status.
An irony is, if polygamy were legal and widely promoted, Tiger Woods could and possibly would take the women of his most loyal fans! (It has already happened to a degree, for one obsessed fan. I believe an article stated the fan was playing a Tiger Woods video game, while Tiger Woods was copulating in the nearby bedroom. If this was true, he was completely oblivious.) I know this was with a Monogamous society. But, in a polygamous one, the boyfriend/Tiger Woods fan wouldn’t even be allowed to share (the girl he found first).
Steve,
While I see your points, it’s very important to understand that in a sufficiently homogenous Polygamous Community, even the Men who lose out end up with their Genetic Interests being taken far better care of than us Monogamists have our Genetic Interests taken care of.
If you were a FDLS Man who died a Virgin, you’d still have your Sisters, Nieces, and Cousins having so many Babies that you’d be FAR better off genetically than even a Monogamist Man who managed to father 10 children!
Reginald: For some reason, I don’t see many virgin batchelors (who desire children of their own) repeating that statement with a smile.
Also, did you not realize that most men have only one or two siblings now; and many of these siblings are brothers. So, the average family: one son and one daughter OR two sons and a daughter. The daughter has the same genetic capacity as the son with a mate (even disregarding hypothetical ‘love children’); and with polygamy, the average unlucky man or two men would end up with their genes expressed much less replicated-not more!
We can debate the abstract all we want, but I will fight for my right to a White mate. I will not put up with even a White Kennedy or a (White) Bush buying up all of the White women in my area.
“Also, did you not realize that most men have only one or two siblings now; and many of these siblings are brothers. So, the average family: one son and one daughter OR two sons and a daughter. The daughter has the same genetic capacity as the son with a mate (even disregarding hypothetical ‘love children’); and with polygamy, the average unlucky man or two men would end up with their genes expressed much less replicated-not more!”
That would depend on how Fertility Optimizing Polygamy would be.
Let’s say that you are genetic equivalent of the average American White Man, which would mean you’d have a Half Brother and a Half Sister.
Then You, your Half Brother, and Half Sister join a FLDS type group where the Completed Fertility Rate is 12 children per Woman.
Further let’s say you and your Half Brother both die as Virgins, while your Half Sister has 12 Children, 6 of whom are daughters who each go on to have 12 children of their own.
Then you and your Half Brother would have no Grandchildren, while your Half Sister would have 72 Grandchildren.
Since the Grandchildren of your Half Sister share 6.25% of their Genes with you, that means the second generation removed from you would have 4.5 Genotypes worth of your DNA in it.
In contrast, if you and your Half Siblings had stayed Monogamists and had 2 Children each who went on to have 2 Children each, the second generation removed from you would only have 2 Genotypes worth of your DNA in it.
So by becoming even a Polygamist who failed to have any children of his own, you’d MORE THAN DOUBLE your Genetic Fitness.
Thus , the average unlucky man would end up with his genes expressed much more in a Polygamous Society, so long as the Polygamy sufficiently improved fertility.
And actually, I miscalculated slightly, so it turns out that if you stayed a Monogamist and you and your 2 Half Siblings had 4 Grandchildren Each, the second generation removed from you would only have 1.5 Genotypes Worth of your DNA in it.
Thus the 4.5 copies worth of your Genes that you’d have gotten by becoming (with your Half Siblings) a Polygamous Virgin would have been THREE TIMES as great a Genetic Bounty than you’d have gotten as even a successful Monogamist.
No! Monogamists would not necessarily have only two children. If a couple has the determination, they could have a farm, and have as many children as the polygamist woman. And they could spend all of their resources on their children, instead of sharing it with the other children who are not their’s. This has worked in the past.
I know a polygamist man is very wealthy almost by default, but even he has his limits. A monogamist farmer can take care of his 10 kids (births well separated) better than a fundamentalist mormon can take care of 100+ children and all their mothers. Fiscal wealth is not everything.
You share about as many genes with a half sibling as with a first cousin. Wtih the traditional method, they and I can have many kids-better than just them doing so.
You have described the ultimate ideal, a program that would even be much preferable to Polygamy.
One small correction, though, is that you actually share as many genes with a half sibling as you do with an Uncle or Aunt, as opposed to a first cousin.
“One small correction, though, is that you actually share as many genes with a half sibling as you do with an Uncle or Aunt, as opposed to a first cousin.”
You are right; I forgot siblings share only 50% of genes, and took for granted that they had exactly the same ancestors and ethnic composition.
I am happy we agree the traditional model (usually large families on a farm) is superior to polygamy. I also prefer it over our current system. At least on the micro-level, finding a plot of land, and starting at least a mini-farm is much easier than it sounds and than today’s cultural leaders want us to know.
The reason it’s so hard is because land speculation makes even small plots very expensive for those under 30. And even small-scale construction can be expesive. But, after procuring land, and constructing half-decent shelter, it’s not as hard or foolish as the Big Money Men and Feminists would want young White Americans to believe.