Most people, both laymen and scientists alike, envision the process of evolution as a struggle for fitness relative to the environment. Charles Darwin identified a type of selection in addition to natural selection: sexual selection. He recognized that not only must organisms survive, they must also mate. When possible, males will maximize their reproductive success by mating with multiple females, thereby multiplying their output. When possible, females will maximize their reproductive success by mating with the most successful males, sometimes relying on cuckolding to optimize both fitness and support.
Sexual selection can take place in different ways in different contexts, with a common one being male territorial aggression. Many of the more fearsome horns, tusks, antlers, and fangs are selected for use against other males of the same species in competition for females. Race conditions emerge, with bucks evolving ever larger and more powerful antlers to assure reproductive success. Environmental selection favors bucks which don’t get caught in branches while running and don’t waste precious energy and nutrients on antlers, but it’s evident that the sexually selective pressure outweighed the environmentally selective pressure in their case.
Consider, as a thought exercise, what this condition would portend for paleolithic humans. If they were selected for success in combat, what would that selection be? Human males design tools to attack one another, so they would evolve more effective tools. But tools aren’t body parts like fangs or antlers. They’re products of creative thinking. Humans would be pitted in a race condition for increasingly innovative males. They wouldn’t get smart relative to any environmental factor, but relative to each other, with each generation producing more intelligent humans than the last.
They would weaponize their brains.
If male territorial aggression were pervasive, there would be an acute gender imbalance, with the most aggressive tribes having high death rates among their own warriors. They would also capture female captives of defeated tribes. Polygyny would probably become common, with gifted warlords acquiring harems of the most attractive females as concubines. The offspring of these pairings would be selected for increased intelligence AND attractiveness, and little else. Environmental fitness would decline, with the tribe becoming more intelligent but more feminized and less environmentally fit.
As the peacock demonstrates, sexual selection for appearance can result in some pretty dramatic effects. While environmental selection tends to favor camouflage, sexual selection tends to favor the opposite. With each successive generation, the humans (both male and female) would look more and more like fertile youthful females, with lighter skin, lighter hair, and more expressive eyes, maybe even with exotic colors like blue or green. Females would take on an ornamental appearance, converging on the archetype of aesthetic beauty embedded in male primates.
The primary purpose of the increasing intelligence would be to design strategies and weapons of aggression, but increasing intelligence to this degree would have side-effects. This intelligence could end up being used to design ways to more efficiently exploit the environment, which would only serve to increase population density and reduce environmental selection…exacerbating the sexually selective pressure. At some point, this would have to give, with these highly intelligent, highly aggressive, and brightly colored monkeys creating synthetic habitats for themselves, designing weapons powerful enough to literally explode the planet, and even propeling themselves onto the moon.
An Illustrative Demo
In this demo, males and females have only two attributes, “brains” and “looks”. In each generation, the male with the most brains becomes a warlord, acquiring the two females with the best looks. The male with the second most brains marries the female with the third most looks and the male with the third most brains marries the female with the fourth most looks. The male with the least brains dies in battle.
There are two offspring of each pairing, a male and a female. So the population remains constant at eight individuals in each generation. The brains and looks of the offspring are simple averages of the brains and looks of the parents, with a small mutative effect that both simulates mutations and relieves a programmatic problem arising from the ties which arise without them.
The screenshot shown above demonstrates the cumulative effect, with the brains and looks of the population increasing with each generation. It does not serve as a proof, but it does serve as a way to visually demonstrate what can be difficult to convey with text or speech alone. If you’re interested in HBD or sharp with Excel, you may wish to review the small worksheet which begins with random values for the individuals then sorts them according to the aforementioned algorithm.
This hypothesis, which I refer to as the Military Selection Hypothesis, is an alternative to the prevailing hypothesis that the White race’s features are the product of selection for survival in the Arctic tundra. I’m working on an attempt to put this hypothesis in a format worthy of peer review and serious scholarly consideration, which is a bit of a challenge for a layman. Perhaps some of you have some insights that could help me write a better paper or even drop this radical hypothesis altogether.
Willy,
You make a sharp counterpoint.
I live a short drive from the convergence of the Tippecanoe and Wabash Rivers, the very place at which Tecumseh’s confederacy was crushed by our forefathers. This is admittedly a bit queer for a White Advocate, but I respect and admire him as an uncompromising patriarch for his people.
Obviously things didn’t go as he planned, or my White ass wouldn’t be planted where it is. But I think he had the right idea and was using the right execution, but got bungled by his sidekick. His message was one of racial unity, militaristic discipline, and intelligently fusing traditional ways into modern contexts. He fought the White man, but the majority of his work was in trying to unify and discipline his bothers and sisters.
Does the article not associate polygamy with militarism and suggest that only high-status males get to reproduce? That’s all I’m saying. — Wiki
Doesn’t mention specifically ‘militarism’ but that once enough males are functionally excluded from mating and opportunities for wealth that you have the ‘makings of a jihad society’ — not quite the same thing (actually I think Anglo-Teutonic northern Europeans — the most militaristic, at least professionally, also happened to be the most monagamous historically speaking… Additionally, most ‘jihad societies’, especially those in the Mid-East, have lousy armies and navies).
Once again, I find these alleged problems with polygyny to be negated by its functional and fertile application among communities that actually exist right now.
I understand — and respect — your point here Wiki, and I also (like Steve) think their was (and may lie ahead) times where polygyny was necessary, predominantly due to a dearth of males who perished in war.
I hope in whatever the situation where this may arise that the man marries the women he intends to bear children with — not just look to defile them through promiscuity — and have some other guy pick up the pieces and raise the child — or even worse, the child have no father at all.
Wiki (or anyone who may have an answer to this) –
*What was the mating situation in much of Europe after WW1 and 2, particularly in Germany and Russia — who lost so many men in the conflict??
Thanks.
“Once again, I find these alleged problems with polygyny to be negated by its functional and fertile application among communities that actually exist right now.”
–Wiki
On the side of pro monogamy we have over 2,000 years of Whites prospering (nearly universally) under monogamy.
On the pro-polygamy side we have the FLDS.
Once again, I find these alleged problems with polygyny to be negated by its functional and fertile application among communities that actually exist right now.
http://religionnewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/hidden-victims-of-mormon-polygamy-lost.html
“Alleged problems” like 70% of teenage boys being expelled from the compounds and heartbreakingly thrown out onto the streets. Any system which makes people treat their own sons in such a cruel way is simply evil.
The average person born into FLDS is still FAR better off because of the polygamy enhanced birthrate, even if 35% of the population in each generation is expelled.
You are failing to look at the big picture, and possibly making the mistake of overvaluing the male members by assigning them weights above those you assign the females and the unborn babies.
I’m certainly concerned about the welfare of the “lost boys”. But, as Reginald suggests, there could be a bigger picture to consider. The past couple millennia in Europe have been pretty equitable for the average dude, but I suspect that they might have been dysgenic and Europe’s growth rate may also be problematic.
Comment #56: Monogamy is not disgenic.
Monogamy is actually more effective in limiting genetic defects. But if just the wrong few men get all of the women, entailing a large percentage of birth defects or even weak Y chromosones, the whole population will be very sick!
The “But” typed after defects is a typo.
Monogamy is actually more effective in limiting genetic [advantages]. If just the [gifted] men get all of the women, entailing a large percentage of [highly intelligent people] or even [geniuses], the whole population will be very [smart]!
“Expendable” average (yet healthy) European men procreating is better than reserving everything for a small pool. With the latter, inbreeding is inevitable-just as it was with unchecked royalty.
Are you opposed to the average White American having a family of his own?
I also forgot to add, that somebody who is phenotypically smarter or wealthier is not necessarily of better genetic quality.
There are multiple variables, which are best utilized with genetic diversity within a given race. Whites need diversity and intra-racial specialization. We need thinkers and working-class type men. we need top-class officers and common privates.
You don’t get it. I don’t object to military rule,…
Sure you do. You admit to being a theocrat, not an aristocrat, in this very message.
I object to you. Nietzsche’s vicious, amoral philosophy is no better than Talmudism.
LOL. Nietzsche’s philosophy is even *much worse* than Talmudism and its cousin, Christianity, in this regard. It has none of the elaborate and silly moralizing, characteristic of the codes of the Jews, that so easily facilitates hypocrisy, fatuity, and double standards.
If there was a white nationalist coup I would support the white government so long as whites retained property rights and the right to bear arms.
And in your simple, uninstructed mind, that’s all that matters. But to that end, you will compensate for your deficits by gracing the world with the first complete and coherent definition of your “property rights,” such that the lack thereof, as is presently the case, does not lead to a speedy reversion to the present regime that you wish to displace.
You are at leisure to proceed. I will stand by, ready to phone the Nobel Prize Committee, in anticipation of your epochal achievement.
Most likely a white nationalist military government would be led by jew wise orthodox and fundamentalist Christians, moralists not nihilists.
Morons, not Gentilshommes.
The opposite of Nietzsche. Chances are you’d be the one subverting the state with your atheistic propaganda and I’d be in the posse rounding up the blasphemers for public burning.
No one needs to subvert a state run by unassisted morons. Such an entity is erected with a self-destruct button pre-set to “detonation sequence engaged”.
Well, if eugenics is your only goal, it can be accomplished without depriving average men of a wife. Modern technology allows for vasectomies and artificial insemination. If a dictator forced all avg. men to be sterilized, then allowed to marry and their wives were artificially inseminated by the sperm of the ostensible superior men, you could, in theory, achieve the best of both worlds in that avg men get sex and the best men’s genes are propagated.
BUT,
I’m not advocating this. Here’s why: Unless those avg. men were of the same mindset as today’s men who willingly adopt, you’ll undoubtedly end up with a significant incidence of the same social phenomenon we see today in the boyfriends of single moms — child abuse by the husband of the non-biologically related child.
ALSO, I use “ostensibly superior” purposely. Genes are a funny thing. While intelligence, to an overwhelming degree, maximizes competitive fitness, if everybody is as smart as you, then you, smart dude, no longer possess an advantage. So other, previously less apparent, traits then would come to the fore as the selection criteria. Violence? Barbarianism?
You could also end up with shocking rates of autism if the theory is correct that it is associated with high IQ / extreme male brain.
In addition, there are SOME boring jobs (sewer maintenance?) that must be done which an avg. IQ is bested suited to doing, the ennui of which would drive the unfortunate 150-IQ guy assigned to it out of his freaking mind.
If “limited” polygyny is your plan, then there really won’t be a significant-enough percentage of the “superior man’s” genes out there to make any real difference.
Birthrates jump when the young couples feel a sense of optimism for the future. The best solution to the White birthrate crisis? A community of monogamously-married WN men and their own wives working together, making babies because the means of sustenance (a farm) has been acquired.
What is the average IQ of FLDS? How many generations of them has there been now? IS the average IQ actually rising?
You have to be specific about what you mean by “eugenic” and “dysgenic.” Too often they become general idealisms, stand-ins for “good” and “bad.”
Technically, eugenics simply means self-directed evolution, selective breeding of a human population for “good” or “higher” qualities. “Good” and “higher” qualities here tend to be those atavistic concepts or qualities that we’ve evolved to consider “good” and “higher” in the first place. And these qualities likely became considered to be “good” in the first place because of their correlations with fitness. You may strictly mean by eugenics here striving to breed for those qualities that most contribute to fitness, but these depend largely on the immediate evolutionary environment and its selection pressures, which of course may disfavor many of those “good” qualities that we’ve evolved to consider “good.” So while there is correlation and overlap between what we’ve evolved to consider good and what in the present time leads to fitness, there doesn’t necessarily have to be one. And of course what leads to fitness in one time and environment may not in another.
I don’t see how you can seriously argue that polygamy is always and everwhere more “eugenic” than monogamy (or vice versa). In the economy of evolution, there is always a cost. A polygamous environment doesn’t simply select for a vague class of “genetic advantages” or the few “best” men. Other variables in the environment exert pressure as well and are important of course, but in polygamous societies the polygamy exerts quite a significant force, and we’ve seen that this often means favoring physical/social dominance and manipulation, violence, parasitism (manipulating resource, trade bottlenecks aka cities in order to centralize assets) at a cost to a number of other qualities.
barb,
Thoughtful points. I don’t know if there’s a real risk here of us ending up with a shortage of unintelligent people. Though if that did happen, I suspect that superior automation techniques could dramatically reduce the number of unskilled jobs.
Average test scores in school districts they’re disproportionately included in are at rates typical of magnet schools. I’m not competent enough with statistics to appropriately answer that question, but it’s one I believe could pivot this entire discussion one way or the other.
Monogamy is actually more effective in limiting genetic [advantages]. If just the [gifted] men get all of the women, entailing a large percentage of [highly intelligent people] or even [geniuses], the whole population will be very [smart]! — Wiki
—
Um, I am sure you are familiar with regression toward the mean??
Since, if your scenario was indeed true, then much of the ‘Third World’ would be absolute geniuses.
Instead what this really selects for and breeds (except in very limited circumstances) is male socio-pathy and thugish-ness — i.e. – the Ghetto or the Jungle.
ALSO, I use “ostensibly superior” purposely. Genes are a funny thing. While intelligence, to an overwhelming degree, maximizes competitive fitness, if everybody is as smart as you, then you, smart dude, no longer possess an advantage. So other, previously less apparent, traits then would come to the fore as the selection criteria. Violence? Barbarianism?
You could also end up with shocking rates of autism if the theory is correct that it is associated with high IQ / extreme male brain. — Barb
Thoughtful points. I don’t know if there’s a real risk here of us ending up with a shortage of unintelligent people. Though if that did happen, I suspect that superior automation techniques could dramatically reduce the number of unskilled jobs. — Wiki
—
Ah, I see a case being made right here for regression toward the mean.
“Ah, I see a case being made right here for regression toward the mean.”
Kulaks Never Learn: That’s one of the points I tried to make, though not as clearly as you did. Two very smart parents can have children less intelligent than them. And, even inbreed super-genius genes can lead to mental retardation and/or other brain diseases.
Regression toward the mean doesn’t negate the theory of evolution altogether.
Hawthorne,
I believe that the most reliable way to guarantee human progress is to pit men in competitive race conditions for fitness relative to each other in their current context. I believe the most reliable way to gauge fitness is with the man’s capacity to acquire mates.
“I believe that the most reliable way to guarantee human progress is to pit men in competitive race conditions for fitness relative to each other in their current context. I believe the most reliable way to gauge fitness is with the man’s capacity to acquire mates.”
So, that’s more important than Whites learning to keep foreign races from absorbing their genepool?
Steve,
Actually. It kind of is.
With enough eugenic pressure, a race can remain White despite some admixture.
Even if all admixture is stopped, the White race will gradually become less White without eugenic pressure.
But don’t twist this into pretending that I’m for admixture or that this is an either/or proposition.
“…I believe the most reliable way to gauge fitness is with the man’s capacity to acquire mates.” — Wiki
—
Let’s be careful, however, and not put the cart before the horse. Achievement before wimmin — not the other way around… like the ‘playas’ believe.
In other words, as we all know too well, there are plenty of Blacks and Browns — and for that matter, lower-class and atavistic Whites – such as the British ‘Chav’ underclass — that ‘score’ a lot of ‘poon’, yet they are still as dumb as dirt.
I still (respectfully) stand by my statement: What this type of sexual selection really screens for is thugish-ness in males, in many ways the polar opposite of selection for intelligence — and, more importantly, the ability to pair-bond to one’s wife and one’s offspring, raising them to be courageous, and especially selfless men.
Scoring “poon” is VERY different than scoring mates who are willing to be legally bonded to you.
Polygamy selects for men who are oriented to long term relationships in a way that the current perverse regime of Serial Monogamy in England today certainly does not.
NeoNietzsche
LOL. Nietzsche’s philosophy is even *much worse* than Talmudism and its cousin, Christianity, in this regard. It has none of the elaborate and silly moralizing, characteristic of the codes of the Jews, that so easily facilitates hypocrisy, fatuity, and double standards.
And in your simple, uninstructed mind, that’s all that matters. But to that end, you will compensate for your deficits by gracing the world with the first complete and coherent definition of your “property rights,” such that the lack thereof, as is presently the case, does not lead to a speedy reversion to the present regime that you wish to displace.
You are at leisure to proceed. I will stand by, ready to phone the Nobel Prize Committee, in anticipation of your epochal achievement.
I don’t have to. The white race has created organic cultures that handle those questions well enough with law, tradition and white instinct. Your Talmudic questions won’t work on me. The white racial soul rebels automatically against fiendish ideologies like communism that deny property rights. Whites also rebel against depraved aristocrats who believe in nothing but power and their own glorification. That’s the fatal conceit of your ideology. You demolish the moral foundations every hierarchy depends upon. The kind of brave white men that will be needed to establish a white nationalist state will follow leaders who are virtuous. They will not follow confessed monsters like you, and they will be highly suspicious of any insincere amoralist who tries to wrap himself in the traditionalist flag.
What you spit on is the racial soul itself, the conscience that is the very basis of resisting Talmudic abominations. It’s the conscience, the soul, the pre-rational inner knowledge of right and wrong, that defeated communism. Your dead, heartless, evil philosophy can’t defeat the jew. It can’t even inspire a few dozen crackpots. It is as barren as you are.
Wikitopian
I believe the most reliable way to gauge fitness is with the man’s capacity to acquire mates.
So you believe Wilt Chamberlain was more fit than Isaac Newton?
Wikitopian,
Excellent work lately, especially on this topic.
While it may not have worked for other races, religious polygynous communities have been an effective strategy for Whites, leading to exactly what WNs want: a successful revolutionary movement and an ethnostate with an expanding and healthy population.
The Mormons did this despite murderous government oppression, too. People are always despairingly asking “but what can I do?”
If you want to know what you can do that actually works this is one of the few successful examples grounded in real world history and not untested theories.
It can also be a very pleasant way to have a revolution. Make love, not war. So there, hippies.
Once again, scoring Poon is NOT the same thing as scoring Polygamous legally bonded mates.
All the people against Polygamy can do is attack the strawman of serial monagamy, while ignoring that serial monagamy is exact opposite of Polygamy.
Wikitopian,
I believe that the most reliable way to guarantee human progress is to pit men in competitive race conditions for fitness relative to each other in their current context. I believe the most reliable way to gauge fitness is with the man’s capacity to acquire mates.
Competition is an evolutionary constant. It doesn’t go away. It isn’t sufficient for “human progress” which I’m not sure exactly what you mean, but I assume that you’re using it to mean some kind of vague, general sense of those atavistic concepts or qualities that we’ve evolved to consider “good” and “higher.” Of course “the most reliable way to gauge fitness is with the man’s capacity to acquire mates.” That is the definition of “fitness.” It’s a tautology. But it tells us nothing about what is being selected for, and whether or not this consists of “human progress” or not. The variables in the evolutionary environment that provide the selection pressures determine what is being selected for. The harsh environment of Antarctica selects for male penguins that invests in their offspring, whereas in certain tropical regions the sexual characteristics and colorful display of male birds is selected for. There is competition in both environments with completely different outcomes.
I don’t have to [- – you’re not the boss of me!].
LOL. Thus you confirm that you’re a child, with no grasp of the ethical dilemmas that are an intrinsic aspect of the human circumstance and that account for the intractable conflicts and tragedies that plague mankind.
Hence one is unsurprised to find a remarkably compact condensation of misconceptions contained in your silly sermonette, above – most prominently in your error in averring that “The white race has created organic cultures that handle those questions well enough with law, tradition and white instinct.” Oh yes, my fanatical little moron, that’s why the modern world is, rather, beset with multiple ideological misconstructions of reality because the ideology-free elements of law, tradition, and instinct have seen to the administration of affairs with such satisfactory historical result.
But who can be long impatient with your short-comings in the employment of adult intellect when you amuse with ironies such as speaking of a “monster” in reference to other than yourself? You who speak of setting living humans alight for failure to accommodate your bizarre superstition. Perhaps you can contribute further in this, your capacity as a jester, since we are not going to have that vital vindication of your proposals for our future regime as it concerns the central question of property rights.
Reginald,
Once again, scoring Poon is NOT the same thing as scoring Polygamous legally bonded mates.
All the people against Polygamy can do is attack the strawman of serial monagamy, while ignoring that serial monagamy is exact opposite of Polygamy.
It’s not necessarily accurate to say that serial monogamy (or to put it another way, serial polygyny) is the “exact opposite of polygamy.” The effects are what matter. People tend to conflate or identify serial monogamy (serial polygyny) with polygamy because they seem to have similar effects. That is, the serial monogamy (serial polygyny) common in the West today appears to favor socially dominant men as it does in traditional polygamous cultures in Africa, the Mideast, etc.
Now of course as you suggest polygamy doesn’t have to be like this. You could produce an artifical selection environment through a socially imposed polygamy that favors or rewards males with certain traits. However, the fundamental structure of polygamous societies seems to pose a significant challenge to this. It would be difficult to maintain this kind of social regime with a bunch of women, a few males, and gangs of angry males. Males aren’t and won’t be “gracious losers” when faced with exclusion from sexual reproduction. They literally will have nothing to lose and will be that much more violent and ruthless. Remember, natural genetic variation is a given, so if you try to select for, say, intelligence, well then there will be a bunch of physically strong, violent guys left over. If you try to select for strength, there will be a bunch of smart guys left over who’ll use their brains to fight back. If you try to select for the “well-rounded” best men, there will be a bunch of smart guys and strong guys left over. This is why polygamous societies tend to be unstable and “naturally” seem to select for social dominance, and why they have outlets to get rid of excess males (Muslim terrorists, LDS “lost boys,” etc.). And it’s conceivable that over the long term as males are culled from the population and voluntarily leave, competitive pressures are reduced and become less eugenic.
“Once again, scoring Poon is NOT the same thing as scoring Polygamous legally bonded mates.”
Reginald: Do you doubt Wilt Chamberlin could have married multiple White women if it were legal?
“All the people against Polygamy can do is attack the strawman of serial monagamy, while ignoring that serial monagamy is exact opposite of Polygamy.”
This not necessarily true. Just because you say we can’t come up with rational arguments, it doesn’t make it so. You are ironically committing a fallacy, with this statement!
I don’t know where you got the idea, we or at least I supported serial monogamy. With very extreme exceptions, I oppose divorce when minor children are involved!
I wish for stronger divorce laws, whereby women can’t divorce and get full child custody at a drop of a hat-or out of mere ‘boredom.’
“Do you doubt Wilt Chamberlin could have married multiple White women if it were legal?”
The extreme wealth Chamberlin got from playing Basketball made him very unusual. He was an economic aberration caused by a from of the entertainment industry that is of no larger importance, except culturally.
So while I agree Wilt could’ve done that, on average the men of an Economically Unproductive Race like the Blacks will actually have their mating opportunities greatly attenuated by Polygamy.
This is one of the central differences between the evil that is Serial Monogamy and the force for good that is Polygamy.
With Serial Monogamy Women are oriented toward a short term mating pattern, where they only take into account base feelings of sexual attraction and care far less about whether a man will be a good provider.
That’s why starving artists get so much sex, the Women won’t get anything but Semen out of the transaction anyway, so they reason: why not follow my loins?
In Polygamy, in sharp contrast, nothing is selected for so much as a man being a good provider.
This is inherently Eugenic as if being a Good Provider gets you multiple mates, Men will devote their efforts to being better providers than the next guy, creating a profoundly important sorting mechanism that will correlate highly with traits like Intelligence and Resourcefulness.
“It’s not necessarily accurate to say that serial monogamy (or to put it another way, serial polygyny) is the ‘exact opposite of polygamy.’ The effects are what matter. People tend to conflate or identify serial monogamy (serial polygyny) with polygamy because they seem to have similar effects. That is, the serial monogamy (serial polygyny) common in the West today appears to favor socially dominant men as it does in traditional polygamous cultures in Africa, the Mideast, etc.”
That is DEAD wrong. Serial Monogamy actually favors pick-up artists who are utterly lacking in the trait of dominating society, and who are allowed to sire bastards without even needing to have the wealth needed to support the children they father, or the social cachet needed to impress Women’s parents into granting permission for marriage.
Polygamy selects for Social Dominance. Think of Osama Bin Laden’s father, who in contrast to Roissy and his ilk was ACTUALLY an Alpha Male by the definitions of Biology, and all the children he fathered and then supported thanks to the eugenic blessing that is Polygamy.
Serial Monogamy selects for socially alienated men of no social importance or influence, who are allowed to use their callow charm to manipulate weak willed bitches into the sack.
Serial Monogamy selects for socially alienated men of no social importance or influence, who are allowed to use their callow charm to manipulate weak willed bitches into the sack. — Reginald
—
However, it is very unfair to call this ‘monagamy’ since these types are going out/sexing with multiple partners simultaneously… hence it is more accurate to refer to it as serial polygamy — or polyamory — instead.
Let’s at least agree on the terms and definitions.
Polygamy selects for Social Dominance. Think of Osama Bin Laden’s father, who in contrast to Roissy and his ilk was ACTUALLY an Alpha Male by the definitions of Biology, and all the children he fathered and then supported thanks to the eugenic blessing that is Polygamy. — Reginald
—
Really, the races of ‘man’ that comprise the Middle East have been ‘blessed’ with eugenics?
Wow, I would feel really, really sorry for them had they not been fortunate enough to have this luck and ‘good fortune’ bestowed upon them.
Hawthorne,
I’m failing to answer your question and I apologize. Let me try again. When I say progress, I mean the type of human selected by Military Selection, namely Whites ‘n Japs. I don’t purport to have special knowledge of objective superiority. It’s a subjective judgment.
I do feel that it’s superior in the sense that humans superior at warfare and patriarchal dominance are the ones that innovate, create, and renovate. To be a civilized caste adapted to a civilizational role is to be a part of a thing which was originally created by Whites and will be eventually replaced by White invaders when it reaches senility and runs its cycle. Martial Selection is the fountainhead of material progress and aesthetic beauty.
If we can figure out how to emulate the process of Martial Selection with a well-crafted tradition, we can break the historical cycle of Whites giving way to civilizational castes which are eventually toppled by uncivilized Whites. We’ll no longer have to choose between being peaceful and civilized or remaining White.
I have asked this question before with no response, so I wish to try again, since I am really curious about it in relation to the ongoing (and very interesting) discussion between us all –
*Does anyone have any idea what was the mating and sexual reproductive situation in much of Europe after WW1 and (especially) 2 was like, particularly in Germany and Russia — who lost so many men in the conflict??
Thanks again.
“However, it is very unfair to call this ‘monagamy’ since these types are going out/sexing with multiple partners simultaneously… hence it is more accurate to refer to it as serial polygamy — or polyamory — instead.”
Fine. The term Serial Polyamory is fine with me.
“Really, the races of ‘man’ that comprise the Middle East have been ‘blessed’ with eugenics?
Wow, I would feel really, really sorry for them had they not been fortunate enough to have this luck and ‘good fortune’ bestowed upon them.”
We don’t have direct evidence on the prevalence of Polygamy for most of the evolutionary history of Middle Eastern Populations.
As Wikitopian said, it’s far more relevant to look at the degree of Y Chromosome Diversity relative to Autosomal Diversity in modern populations, and this metric actually indicates Middle Easterners have less Polygamous Ancestries than we do.
Maybe this contradicts the History Books, but given that History is of no importance to this issue except so far as it effects Genetics, it is obvious that Genetic results should be given absolute precedence.
Also, most of White Evolutionary History precedes the History Books, thereby making it far more plausible that our average ancestor was a bigger Polygamist than the average ancestor of Middle Easterners.
Also you are forgetting that the blessing of Polygamy to Middle Easterners has been to a significant extent offsetted by their relative proximity to extremely low IQ African Populations.
Those Polygamous Races like the Iranians, who have been cut off from African gene infusion by cultural barriers, are very nearly the equals of Whites.
Also we must note what a blessing the Polygamy of Mohammed Awad bin Laden has been to the Yemeni and Syrian races that bred his famous son.
It is thanks to the activities of that extremely high quality man that Syria’s close relatives the Palestinians are much closer to gaining much needed Lebensraum in Tel Aviv, and that the Yemeni race has benefited in more subtle ways relating to the decrement
of pernicious American cultural and military power.
Also we must note what a blessing the Polygamy of Mohammed Awad bin Laden has been to the Yemeni and Syrian races that bred his famous son.
It is thanks to the activities of that extremely high quality man that Syria’s close relatives the Palestinians are much closer to gaining much needed Lebensraum in Tel Aviv, and that the Yemeni race has benefited in more subtle ways relating to the decrement
of pernicious American cultural and military power. –Reginald
—
In all seriousness and with all due respect, are you saying this in some kind of joking way?
After all, let’s be real here — in that not to even the most casual observer of Middle East affairs does it in any way seem apparent that ‘Arabs’ from the oil-rich Persian Gulf states care even one wit for the persecuted Palestinians… or their ‘Cause’.
Most from this region look upon the Palestianians with usually nothing but the greatest – and undisguised – contempt — feeling, in typical fatalistic cultural fashion common to that [sic] race — that the Palestinians are somehow ‘losers’ and hence ‘deserving’ of their fate. (Some of the greatest percentages of ‘foreign’ workers in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, for example, are ‘fellow’ ‘Arab’ Palestinians.)
Many of these spoiled-brat wannabe ‘playboys’ from the ‘oil-agarchies’ of the Gulf, have the money, resources and connections to help the Palestinians if they really wanted to. Obviously, this seems to be the furthest thing from most of their (small) brains, since they have much bigger priorities — like shopping in the latest mega-mall in Dubai (built by Western White men)… trolling for strippers and ‘call girls’ from Eastern Europe… or chasin’ after ‘White wimmin’ on the French Riviera.
Don’t forget as well, most of these faux-‘countries’ of the Gulf and their narcissistic, greedy and cowardly ‘leaders’ was the reason that George Bush the 1st was able to set up his NWO Pax-Judaica in the Middle East, policies of which was continued by his son ‘George the Lesser’ and his neoCON handlers up to this very day.
I especially think this was the case with the murky and mysterious circumstances of the social chimera aka ‘al qaeda’ (common Arab colloquialism for ‘toilet’ – ‘the base’) and ‘osama yo mamma’ ben levin (bin laden), with his American-born ‘spokesperson’ – ‘Adam Ghadan’ or ‘Azzam the American’ (born Adam Pearlman – grandson of B’nai B’rith California chairman and ‘zealous Zionist’ Carl Pearlman). http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092707.html
After all, an old geezer (on kidney dialysis, no less!) living in a cave and able to elude the combined forces of the Anglo-Zionist-American Imperium (Babylon), with all their advanced military and global financial power, for nearly a decade now — well, something has to attest to such miraculous strength and feats of ‘prowess’, after all? Guess ‘polygany’ must have been some kind of ‘blessing’ on this dude. 😉
(*Sorry, bad formatting — need to redo) –
Many of these spoiled-brat wannabe ‘playboys’ from the ‘oil-agarchies’ of the Gulf, have the money, resources and connections to help the Palestinians if they really wanted to. Obviously, this seems to be the furthest thing from most of their (small) brains, since they have much bigger priorities — like say, shopping in the latest mega-mall in Dubai (built by Western White men)… trolling for strippers and ‘call girls’ from Eastern Europe… or chasin’ after ‘White wimmin’ on the French Riviera.
Don’t forget as well, most of these faux-’countries’ of the Gulf and their narcissistic, greedy and cowardly ‘leaders’ was the reason that George Bush the 1st was able to set up his NWO Pax-Judaica in the Middle East, policies of which was continued by his son ‘George the Lesser’ and his neoCON handlers up to this very day.
I especially think this was the case with the murky and mysterious circumstances of the social chimera aka ‘al qaeda’ (common Arab colloquialism for ‘toilet’ – ‘the base’) and ‘osama yo mamma’ ben levin (bin laden), with his American-born ’spokesperson’ – ‘Adam Ghadan’ or ‘Azzam the American’ (born Adam Pearlman – grandson of B’nai B’rith California chairman and ‘zealous Zionist’ Carl Pearlman). http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092707.html
After all, an old geezer (on kidney dialysis, no less!) living in a cave and able to elude the combined forces of the Anglo-Zionist-American Imperium (Babylon), with all their advanced military and global financial power, for nearly a decade now — well, something has to attest to such miraculous strength and feats of ‘prowess’, after all? Guess ‘polygamy’ must have been some kind of ‘blessing’ on this dude.
—
*There, that is how I meant to format it. (You got to be so careful with the HTML codes, or it can throw it all off!) Thanks for hearing me out.
Reginald,
I think we’re working with 2 different ideas of polygamy here. The science or practice of eugenics (at least traditionally) involves breeding only the few for the “best” or “good” qualities, and I think you’re presuming that in polygamy, in which only a few men get to reproduce (or reproduce the most), only the “best” men necessarily get to reproduce. That is, you’re presuming that polygamy is eugenics, that a natural reproductive arrangement common throughout our history, among our primate relatives, and among other species in our animal kingdom, is the same as a self-directed system of artificial selection guided by advanced science and sophisticated value judgments. I’m trying to consider how it does and has worked throughout history and to consider the implications of the formal structure of polygamy.
You have to purge some of the semantic baggage that words like “social dominance” have and approach it more formally.
Formally speaking, social domination simply means that one is at the top of a hierarchy. Social domination is a zero-sum game. What matters is one’s relative position in the heirarchy. The quantity of status in any society is fixed. You can’t “create” more status. Such zero-sum systems will select for status acquisition (rising in the hierarchy) and/or demoting others’ status (lowering others in the hierarchy and thereby raising oneself). Which specific traits this selects for will depend on the many variables that comprise the environment’s selection pressures.
What we do know formally is that there are many losers, and that there is a tremendous cost to losing and everything to gain from winning. So the structure itself will exert enormous pressure for other strategies to arise, strategies that undermine or pervert any supposed “naturally fair” contests that reward the “best” man or few men with all the women. Strategies such as manipulation, lying, deception, subversion, mimicry, gang formation and violence, family/clan conflict, etc. In addition to this, because the cost of losing is so high, more energetically expensive and long term behaviors such as wealth and resource creation are that much riskier and lose out to more immediate wealth acquisition (i.e. status acquisition) and attack strategies.
And you’re mistaken when you say that serial polygyny selects for “pick-up artists” exclusively or at great expense to “real” alphas. By pick-up artists I suppose you mean “men who successfully mimic socially dominant alpha males.” Serial polygyny selects for socially dominant males (alphas) along with those who are able to successfully mimic. But this is also the case in what you distinguish as polygamy. Which is why I don’t find it that useful to distinguish between serial polygyny and polygamy. And in our serial polygyny environment today in the West, the few men who divorce and remarry and have children with multiple wives tend to be wealthy men rather than bar hopping PUAs.
Reginald,
You’re right that genetics, rather than sketchy literary histories, are better for determining how polygamous our ancestors and societies were in the past. But there is good evidence that the ancient German tribes were largely monogamous, excepting for a few relations for inter-tribal alliances, during significant periods in the past. How do we know if polygamous periods were more eugenic than monogamous ones?
“In addition to this, because the cost of losing is so high, more energetically expensive and long term behaviors such as wealth and resource creation are that much riskier and lose out to more immediate wealth acquisition (i.e. status acquisition) and attack strategies.”
I presumed we were talking about Polygamy in the context of a relatively law abiding Country like the United States, where there are serious risks involved in Robbing a Bank that would undermine it as a successful strategy for supporting and/or attracting multiple wives.
This objection would also apply to your gang formation/violence and family/clan conflict strategies.
I don’t understand how deception and manipulation would get you ahead in the Polygamy Game. There would be tremendous selection pressure on Women to avoid marrying a man incapable of supporting multiple wives at once, and to see through attempts at such deception.
“And you’re mistaken when you say that serial polygyny selects for ‘pick-up artists’ exclusively or at great expense to “real” alphas. By pick-up artists I suppose you mean ‘men who successfully mimic socially dominant alpha males.’ Serial polygyny selects for socially dominant males (alphas) along with those who are able to successfully mimic. But this is also the case in what you distinguish as polygamy.”
No it isn’t the case with Polygamy at all. Because Mate Choice has far longer term and more important consequences in a Polygamous Society, Women will be pushed to sexually select only for the reality of power in a Man, and not just the appearance thereof.
With legal Polygamy the number one barrier to a Man attractive to Women practicing it is the expense involved, and thus only Men who are clever compared to their average competitor and with the ability to plan financially for the future can manage to pull it off.
Show me a single mother, and I’ll show you the shiftless and powerless loser who knocked her up.
Show me the mother of a Polygamist’s child, and I’ll show you the intelligent winner who knocked her up.
…The quantity of status in any society is fixed. You can’t “create” more status. …
—
Ah, but in ‘Lake Wobegon’ you can!
You know, where all the men are ‘equally strong, rugged and handsome’…; where all the women are ‘equally beautiful’…; and where both are ‘equally intelligent’…, ‘equally healthy and fit’…, and just all around ‘equally fantastic’!
That’s the paradoxical rub with the whole (largely Amerikwan) ‘equality’ dilemma – Everyone claims to believe in ‘equality’ yet at the same time nobody wants to think of themselves as ‘just average’ and like ‘everyone else’ — nooo, everyone is ‘special’ in the US and A (like the critics of feminism say of women’s tremendous narcissism these days – ‘all women like to think of themselves as a unique and special snowflake’).
Hence, with the growth of ‘Game’ — too many angry men like to think in these ways about themselves as well. So, if every woman thinks of herself a ‘princess’ — then it’s only ‘fair’ that every man thinks himself a ‘prince’… or in modern parlance, ‘every man a Hugh Hefner’ (OK – or a ‘Soloman’).
Here the fatal flaw is revealed with this Wobagonian notion of the ‘equality of superiority’ — hence, if ‘everyone is special’ … then no one really is.
(Just like barb said a few comments back — if everyone born in the future is born to only – putatively – ‘smart’ ‘alphas’, then how would one then properly define what then constitutes ‘intelligence’, since it is properly understood to mean something that is out and different from the norm.
It is kinda like saying that you wish for all people to be ‘wealthy’ – since if everyone, or even most were, then how the heck would you even properly define or understand what true wealth really is?
(Of course, fantastic points you made there Hawthorne. As you probably could tell – much of what I said is tongue-in-cheek) 🙂
Hawthorne,
“You’re right that genetics, rather than sketchy literary histories, are better for determining how polygamous our ancestors and societies were in the past.”
I’m glad you agree.
“But there is good evidence that the ancient German tribes were largely monogamous, excepting for a few relations for inter-tribal alliances, during significant periods in the past.”
I don’t think there are any observations of Germanic Tribes from before roughly the time of Herodotus, who only lived 2,500 years ago. That’s a tiny sliver of their development on the European Continent.
“How do we know if polygamous periods were more eugenic than monogamous ones?”
That’s an excellent question. One significant line of evidence is that Ancient Greeks accomplished incredible things, things no White group since has equaled in terms of creative output per capita, while only being a few short centuries removed from Homeric times where almost all of the Elite Men had many Concubines.
This proves that Monogamy was not the engine that produced White Intellectual Greatness, leaving it more likely that Polygamy was the culprit.
I admit there’s a small chance that before the Polygamy of the Homeric Heroes, there was a Monogamous period that contributed to the birth of White Intellectual Greatness. However I consider this extremely unlikely given that such a thing would require a weird shift back and forth between Monogamy and Polygamy in Greek history that has never been observed in history or sociology.
Another good way to look at this issue would be to use correlations. If Polygamy tends to be more eugenic, than other things being equal the higher IQ Races will have lower Y Chromosome Diversity.
Whereas if Monogamy tends to be more eugenic, than other things being equal the converse will be true.
The impression I get is that the higher IQ races have less Y Chromosome Diversity, but still I’d like to see this issue looked at more closely, and with a more numerical eye than just my impressions.
Wikitopian, do you have any insights to offer here?
“In all seriousness and with all due respect, are you saying this in some kind of joking way?
After all, let’s be real here — in that not to even the most casual observer of Middle East affairs does it in any way seem apparent that ‘Arabs’ from the oil-rich Persian Gulf states care even one wit for the persecuted Palestinians… or their ‘Cause’.”
Kulak,
I was serious, but only speaking on a Genetic Level in my remarks on how Osama bin Laden has benefitted the Syrian race of his mother.
On a Genetic Level, the Anti-Zionist activities of Osama have helped to give the Syrians a brighter genetic future by increasing the chances that the Palestinians will move forward to take more living space, and decreasing the chances that they will be pushed backwards by the Jews to have less living space.
Studies show that Syrians are more related to Palestinians than they are to Jews.
“After all, an old geezer (on kidney dialysis, no less!) living in a cave and able to elude the combined forces of the Anglo-Zionist-American Imperium (Babylon), with all their advanced military and global financial power, for nearly a decade now — well, something has to attest to such miraculous strength and feats of ‘prowess’, after all? Guess ‘polygamy’ must have been some kind of ‘blessing’ on this dude.”
Osama isn’t that old, and he has a lot of loyal followerers who protect him.
I didn’t say Polygamy blessed Bin Laden, I said that Polygamy led to the blessing of his conception, in much the same way as the Horse “Polygamy” practiced by the great champion Bold Ruler led to the blessing that was the conception of the Triple Crown winner Secretariat.
When an outstanding individual like Mohummad bin Laden is allowed to father 150 children or so, it greatly increases the chances that one of them will be even greater than he was.
Show me the mother of a Polygamist’s child, and I’ll show you the intelligent winner who knocked her up. — Reginald
—
No Reginald, I have to strongly, but respectfully, disagree with this statement — since it is wholly subjective.
Here are some examples of the children of a polygamist — and they are in no way better off as a result of it –
Now one can say that their (biological) father was ‘successful’ from a ‘Darwinian’ perspective in siring them.
Perhaps, but it doesn’t end there from that same Darwinist perspective — since evo-lution and ‘biological fitness’ is measured not merely in one generation, but in many. So, obviously, the ‘fathers’ of ‘Ray’ and ‘Tom’ from the story in the article above, have ‘failed’ in the evolutionary sense in not preparing their son’s to properly ‘compete’ in order to pass on the family’s genetic inheritance, in spite of their dad’s alleged superiority.
Hence, not only is there no benefit in their lives from coming from such ‘illustrious parents’ of such ‘good stock’ — but their lives are actually worse off because of it.
On a Genetic Level, the Anti-Zionist activities of Osama have helped to give the Syrians a brighter genetic future by increasing the chances that the Palestinians will move forward to take more living space, and decreasing the chances that they will be pushed backwards by the Jews to have less living space. — Reginald
—
Yeah, I understand, and understood, what you meant here… it is just that I disagree with the whole supposed chimera of ‘osama ben ledeen’ being ‘anti-Zionist’ or being a genuine adversary of the Anglo-Zionist-American Imperium (or ‘Babylon the Great – lol).
You may disagree, and that’s fine of course, but many think this guy is the perfect 21st century ‘Lee Harvey McVeigh’, just in a turban.
After all, who has built the lands and fortunes of those formerly tent-dwelling Bedouin’s up from the hot, arid sand that they lived so unproductively for millenia on?? Yup – that’s right, the Anglo-Zionist-Imperium, that’s who.
Without the AZA, those sheiks (and freaks) would be back to riding their camels to the brothels to pick up the Slavic girls – and strippers — rather than driving in their German and European luxury cars that they buy with the oil loot (‘revenues’), instead of “helping” out their Muslim “brothers” – the Palestinians.
So no, the ‘anti-Zionist’ thing is their schtick, and boy oh boy, can they play it so darn well most of the time.
Like the old Latin saying goes: Cui Bono – Who Benefits?
Seriously, who really benefits from nearly anything the Muslims do in or as a coordinated group effort — the Muslims themselves … or the Anglo-Zionist-American Imperium???
I think we know how most would answer that question.
They are the proverbial …’best enemies’ that (bankster) money could possibly buy.