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.
Reginald,
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.
I tried addressing this above at #81. I’m not sure if you saw it.
“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.”
Reginald,
Are you familiar with any of James Bowery’s ideas on this? He argues that monogamy, both ecologically imposed monogamy and the socially imposed monogamy of the Germanic tribes and Christianity, was unique to Euro Man (relative to the other races of man) and crucial in shaping Euro culture and success.
“If Polygamy tends to be more eugenic, than other things being equal the higher IQ Races will have lower Y Chromosome Diversity.”
Not necessarily! Even in the old days, fornication was practiced. Many hunter-gatherer men could impregnate multiple women, without marrying all of them at once. I suspect many males died very young, and then in the following years, several of the male survivors were widowers, who kept remarrying after their wives died during labor (birthing of a child) and/or from a weaker resistance to the cold (compared to men).
With harsh conditions and heavy demands in hunting, there would be times when more males died than women.
Whites and North Asians are speculated to be “younger” races, and many young men did die in the Ice Ages.
Although there were probably rare-to occasianal incidences of European polygamy, they occured more later with stable political systems and more guaranteed ability to survive. In an extremely harsh winter, a man with primitive technology can rarely (if ever) raise two households. And he needed the help of other men in hunting. How many batchelors would want to hunt with a man monopolizing all of the women in Northern Eurasia?
I believe most cases of Northern European polygamy were rare (especially before the introduction of agriculture), and when they did happen, there was either a significant surplus of women and/or only a small minority of political elites having multiple mates.
Reginald,
The Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution were certainly a period of great creativity that followed a long period of monogamy.
“Studies show that Syrians are more related to Palestinians than they are to Jews.”
Maybe, if they include Ashkenazims and maybe the part-Arab Syrians. But, I doubt the part-Arabian and part-Egyptian Brown Palestinians are more closely related to the White Syrians than the (geographically closer) Hebrew Jews and the White Lebanese are.
Also Reginald, one quick point about the Syrians and Palestinains in a genetic context: I have met and known quite a few from my grad school days in DC (and Arabs in general) and for one thing, the Palestinains tend to be very poor (obviously) from Zionist repression (hence not the most suitable candidates for having multiple wives) … and Syrians have a good deal of genetic European ancestry — largely Slav and Byzantine Greek. They also tend to be the least polygamous of the Muslim peoples, perhaps in some degree due to their European ancestry.
(Hence probably a large factor with ben Ledeen’s mom and why she was so desirable to his pappy.)
I have also seen a fair amount of Palestinians who look not only like a southern Euro, but could say that some could even pass for a Frenchman (I think this is due to the genetic overlap with their Christian Lebanese neighbors to the north — MANY of whom are largely of non-Semitic and pre-Arabic Phoenician origin — as well as being descended from the Frankish and European Crusaders of the Middle Ages).
I think they derive a good deal of their unique and solid national character’s and personalities more from these influences (at least relative to other ‘Arabs’ – especially the Negrified Arabian peninsula) than from a eugenic and genetic ‘roll of the dice’ from multiple matings with (largely) mulatto fathers.
Let’s not pile on Reginald here fellows — he is an intelligent and fair debater, and probably needs some time to read, and consider, our questions and comments to him as well.
I believe most cases of Northern European polygamy were rare (especially before the introduction of agriculture), and when they did happen, there was either a significant surplus of women and/or only a small minority of political elites having multiple mates. — Steve
—
Indeed Steve, indeed. If their was any polygamy, it was rare, and often when their was a dearth of males due to a battle-induced shortage.
Even Roman statesman Tacitus commented on this in his epic work Germania, the ethnographic magnum opus on the Germanic peoples and their national character:
If y’all want to read this Wikipedia article on the book Germania, you have to cut-and-paste the following link into your search engine –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_(book)
*For some reason, anytime there is a Wikipedia article on a specific book (or film), it never seems to properly hyperlink to the correct page — and it redirects you elsewhere.
Also happened to me with the epic Third Reich German film Kolberg, as you can see (cut-n-paste the link as well if your interested to see what it has to say) –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolberg_(film)
Indeed Steve, indeed. If their was any polygamy, it was rare, and often when their was a dearth of males due to a battle-induced shortage. — Me
In this vein, does anyone know, or can provide a direction for finding out, the answer to this question –
What was the mating and sexual reproductive situation in much of Europe after WW1 and (especially) WW2, particularly in Germany and Russia — who lost so many men in the conflict??
Thanks again if anyone could respond, since it is hard to find any information on this.
Oh my God, this is one heck of an enlightening thread!
You guys, especially the last few of you, are tremendously interesting to read and follow along with. Your responses to each other are intelligent and spot-on.
Keep up the good work, fellas!
Landser: If you are including me, thank you for the compliment. This is a great site to exchange ideas.
I agree, the other commenters to make posts on this thread recently are doing well. I even respect Reginald’s research, even though he supports an issue I would be willing to die to prevent.
If Reginald and I can guarantee you at least one wife under our regime, could we convince you to lay down your weapons? 🙂
“If Reginald and I can guarantee you at least one wife under our regime, could we convince you to lay down your weapons?”
Well, as long as the girl weighs under 150 lbs, I am sure as heck game! 🙂
Ah, just kidding — LOL.
This is a *very interesting* thread – I must say. I also think we need to discuss dating and mating relationships a good deal more, from multiple perspectives, on this site. Surely a lot of us guys are interested in exploring this more in the context of and from a pro-White perspective, since, you know, this is like *never* (or RARELY) discussed virtually anywhere else.
Kulaks,
That’s been a minor mystery for some time. I recall watching a program years ago discussing the question of what Russians and Germans did after the war to replenish their population.
It seems it was a quiet form of polygyny where the survivors had relations with more than one woman. However it hasn’t been spoken of publicly. I don’t see how there is any alternative to this being the case.
This post war practice would have been likely pacifying and possibly dysgenic in some ways – the best warriors would have likely bred less, having died younger in war.
However, breed too many warrior types and you may have mindless expansionary wars and a group that consumes itself due to a disposition for conflict.
Balance is hard to come by when natural selection is always nipping at your heels.
“Balance is hard to come by when natural selection is always nipping at your heels.”
And balance is harder to come by with a significant degree of polygamy.
Steve,
I would say Mormons practiced it to a significant degree.
Despite the US government legalizing the murder of Mormons they still rapidly created a successful revolution and a de facto ethnostate with modern living conditions. Their descendants are thriving to this day.
The crux is what is meant by a “significant degree” of polygamy. Obviously not everyone can or should practice it, however history shows it worked well for Whites.
“Their descendants are thriving to this day.”
Except for abadoned male teenagers.
The teenage male situation could easily be corrected by doing what they did with original Mormonism – making them missionaries.
Keep in mind as well that teenagers today outside of FLDS camps in regular society are basically abandoned as well and don’t have the benefit of at least a decent family and positive values upbringing. Not to say two wrongs make a right, but it is as bad or worse in our society today.
If you’re so opposed to this on factual instead of just emotional grounds can you provide a counter example showing harm from polygamy on a scale equivalent to the success Whites had in forming the Mormon communities? I doubt it.
The fact is this worked. It’s a template for successful revolution and state formation that has been proven.
Polygynous Evolutionist: “Keep in mind as well that teenagers today outside of FLDS camps in regular society are basically abandoned as well and don’t have the benefit of at least a decent family and positive values upbringing. Not to say two wrongs make a right, but it is as bad or worse in our society today.”
In a closed polygamous system, the younger men wouldn’t even be abandoned; the top few weathy men could deliberately set up oppressive policies to prevent the average man from marrying.
“If you’re so opposed to this on factual instead of just emotional grounds can you provide a counter example showing harm from polygamy on a scale equivalent to the success Whites had in forming the Mormon communities? I doubt it.”
So, “can I prove the harm resulting from polygamy is as significant as the success the Mormons had in starting a polygamous structure?” Those are two completing different things; a better question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs and is it moral. And, I can make objective arguments against, like “It will lead to gangs of healthy heterosexual men with absolutely no chance at courtship or even sexual activities.” But, on the counterpoint: You are taking for granted that polygamy is superior to monogamy by default-that it’s better for a few men to hoard virtually all women, than to allow a fair chance. But, I guess if you like the old male sex with minors, incest, and unaccounted rape and domestic abuse, than I guess one could say polygamy is a necessity.
“The fact is this worked. It’s a template for successful revolution and state formation that has been proven.”
Yeah! Potentially a successful revolution against itself. If many
Mormons get their wish and the US Federal Government is violently overthrown-than do you really expect all of the violence and guerilla activity to suddenly stop? Imagine telling the soldiers who fought for the White Cause in this revolution are told they can’t get married, because (not in spite of) of whom they fought for.
Also don’t expect too many Average White men to fight for a regime which openly advocates forbiding them from having a wife and children.
I will concede one point, though-which is that many to possibly most men don’t disapprove of polygamy consciously (just as they oppose White “racism”). Becuase almost nobody wants to think about being a loser, just as many “trailer trash” poor White Southerners support economic Libertarian values-even though it’s against their interest; and they rarely think about it seriously to begin with.
But, with more thought, and seeing many attractive White women bought by the corporate big boys, they will start to think about it more and actually oppose it.
One question I have is: What if most of the male surplus population doesn’t want to be celibate missionaries?
If you’re so opposed to this on factual instead of just emotional grounds can you provide a counter example showing harm from polygamy on a scale equivalent to the success Whites had in forming the Mormon communities? I doubt it.
The fact is this worked. It’s a template for successful revolution and state formation that has been proven.
A homogeneous, White ethnostate based on monogamy will tend to outcompete a homogeneous, White ethnostate based on polygamy (assuming all the other initial conditions of the societies to be equal). Which is just another way of saying that the monogamous society will be more advanced economically, organizationally, and technologically.
Monogamous societies are simply able to scale at much higher levels than polygamous ones which tend to get bogged down in intra-societal conflict and squabbling. How do you get a bunch of men committed to a larger society when, being losers with no wives and children, they aren’t technically even a part of the society? You can’t. You have a slave army. They have nothing to gain reproductively from serving the larger society. The incentive to defect is simply too high. Polygamous societies also exert selection pressure for the formation of kin based clans. There’s no pressure for males to serve the wider society because benefitting others makes them better off and more likely to ascend the hierarchy and reproduce at your expense. However, there’s greater pressure more males to benefit relatives because even if the males don’t get to reproduce someone that shares much of their genes is more likely to as a result of their help.
Now, while I believe that monogamous societies will tend to be more advanced and thus outcompete polygamous societies, it’s certainly conceivable that polygamous societies may be able to outcompete monogamous ones. And there are many speculations that can be brought to bear on this. For example, perhaps polygamous societies devolve into intense inter-tribal clan warfare and squabbling, and this exerts great pressure for the evolution of sophisticated memetic warfare relative to monogamous societies. And then perhaps virulent memes from polygamous societies can be used to subvert and ultimately defeat the monogamous societies. And there are many other such speculations that we can come up with.
Polygynous Evolutionist,
In terms of fertility, it’s true that LDS communities have been relatively successful in the current environment of extreme anti-natalism. The mistake is in generalizing about polygamy and claiming that it is universally “eugenic” from this narrow example.
Those of us who are defending monogamy are the ones whose views are based on facts, reason, and logic.
The advocates of polygyny are the ones whose opinions are grounded in emotion. Most likely they have vivid fantasies of being African-style big men.
It is laughable for “Polygynyous Evolutionist” to act as though polygamy is the default position which we are required to refute.
“Polygynous Evolutionist” also attempts to make a tu quoque defense (while trying to deny he is doing so) of the immoral and cruel way in which the FLDS cultists treat their sons. I’m sure it must be a great comfort to the 70% of teenage boys in the compound who get thrown out onto the streets and treated as “dead” by their own family to know that they had a “positive values upbringing.”
Steve in the Swamps,
One question I have is: What if most of the male surplus population doesn’t want to be celibate missionaries?
Yes this is an important point. No males want to be celibate anything. So this unavoidable structural feature of polygamy exerts a selection pressure. As we’ve seen throughout history across different societies, some of the evolved responses to this feature include social structures such as eunuchs, memetic/religious doctrines such as the promise of 72 virgins following martyrdom, gang formation by young males, and so forth.
The missionaries wouldn’t be celibate; that was Steve’s assumption/modification.
They would be trained to spread the word and lifestyle.
“Reginald,
The Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution were certainly a period of great creativity that followed a long period of monogamy.”
**************************************
Hawthorne,
The relevant question is where the genetic capacity for great creativity came from in the White population.
Given that the Ancient Greeks achieved even greater levels of Creativity WITHOUT undergoing a long period of Monogamy, it is clear that the genetic capacity for great creativity in Whites preceded Monogamy, and was in no way the result of it.
MGLS, on the contrary. The facts are that this has been successfully practiced by Whites.
When you say you cite reason/logic there is no logical reason this can’t be done if it has been done. Your ideas of “logic” do not trump reality.
What I hear from most of these supposed refutations are fears of what might be or assumptions based on a small sect instead of what was done successfully.
As I asked Steve above, if you have an example that shows harm equivalent to the benefit I’ll be glad to entertain it. But there is no such example.
“The missionaries wouldn’t be celibate; that was Steve’s assumption/modification.”
But the “missionaries” was your answer for men who would not be allowed to have a wife.
“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.”
*******************************************
Kulak,
You are utterly mistaken in your understanding of Darwinian Fitness.
From the standpoint of measuring the Darwinian Fitness of a Man the relevant metric is how many Grandchildren he has IN TOTAL.
Thus it cannot be determined by looking at the reproductive history of only one child.
FLDS Polygamist Men are evolutionary winners, even if most of their sons never get to breed, as:
1. They have so many daughters.
2. Their daughters have so many children.
3. The loss from many of their sons not reproducing is perfectly compensated by the minority of their sons who reproduce at a tremendously high rate.
The chances of a Monogamist having as many grandchildren as an FLDS Polygamist Man is essentially nil.
Therefore it is clear which mating pattern is stronger from a Darwinian perspective, and which will give the most benefit to the race that follows it.
Reginald,
Look at Warren Jeffs. He has achieved social dominance. Insofar as everyone in his society looks up to him as a prophet and god-like figure, he’s as socially dominant as a man could possibly be. He’s so socially dominant, he’s transcendent. People in his society don’t view him simply as atop their hierarchy but above them on another plane altogether. He didn’t achieve this social dominance by necessarily being the most inventive, creative, intelligent, resourceful, etc individual. He did it by exploiting atavistic, hard-wired religion/fantasy modules human beings have in their brains. He had charm, could tell a good story, played guitar and sang well, could make people look up to him, etc. This obviously requires intelligence, at least a certain kind of intelligence, along with other traits. But the point is that there’s no reason to believe that polygyamy, by selecting for social dominance which is technically just a relative position in a heirarchy, necessarily must be eugenic. Do you really believe that Jeffs was the brightest, most talented man in his society? Or just the guy most able to socially manipulate and exploit the religious impulses of others?
Hawthorne,
The problem I have with Bowery is that he fails to understand that many of the cultural traits facilitated by Monogamy are actually harmful over the long term.
If you look at a Country like Sweden, you see that too much of the cultural traits encouraged by the absence of Polygamy have destroyed profoundly valuable traits like Intensity and Assertiveness that are absolutely essential to the long term survival prospects of a people.
Reginald,
Therefore it is clear which mating pattern is stronger from a Darwinian perspective, and which will give the most benefit to the race that follows it.
There are different levels of selection to consider. An individual polygamist may be more successful than an individual monogamist. But the larger society or group which the monogamist is a part of may be more advanced as a byproduct of its monogamous structure and thus be able to outcompete and wipe out the polygamous society.
“Do you really believe that Jeffs was the brightest, most talented man in his society?”
***********************
No.
However the comparison shouldn’t be between Polygamy and a Platonically Perfect regime of Eugenics. Rather, the comparison should be between Polygamy and Monogamy, and there’s no doubt in my mind that Jeffs is far more intelligent and talented than the weighted average man who gets to breed in a Monogamous society.
Also there can be no doubt that he has a deeper intensity of spirit and internal strength.
Reginald:”Given that the Ancient Greeks achieved even greater levels of Creativity WITHOUT undergoing a long period of Monogamy, it is clear that the genetic capacity for great creativity in Whites preceded Monogamy, and was in no way the result of it.”
Please stop your incessant fallacies! The Greeks do not have more capacity for creativity than the Germans do. Now, with virtual equal access to resources and ideas, the Germans have at least as much technological development as the present-day Greece.
Before Germans could develop a more prestigious society, they were in more of a hunter-gatherer environment; and didn’t have the agriculture and./or direct access to the already established international (particularly China, India, the middle East, South Europe, and North Africa) Civilization.
We also can’t determine whether pre-historic Greece was monogamous or polygamous. It’s only presumed, by the evidence we have discussed. I presume it was more beneficial and more practiced to be monogamous in even Greece. But, I can’t prove what the Greeks did throughout all of the history, just as you can’t prove the Greeks are naturally polygamous-unless you have certain evidence you are not posting.
An irony is that monogamy could have been “preceding monogamy.”
And what proof is there that being genetically creative is caused by a small number of men hoarding all of the women? What if the least creative men get wealthy someway, and hoard all of the women for themselves?
Steve,
They wouldn’t necessarily have a wife in the community. The community would support them as they spread out and acquired wives. From elsewhere.
The surplus White population of the polygamous community … expands. Do you see?
This is in contrast to FLDS just kicking out the young men and asking them to fend for themselves.
“There are different levels of selection to consider. An individual polygamist may be more successful than an individual monogamist. But the larger society or group which the monogamist is a part of may be more advanced as a byproduct of its monogamous structure and thus be able to outcompete and wipe out the polygamous society.”
********************************
Hawthorne,
Given that Monogamy in a Society is correlated with a greater orientation to arcane forms of technology, I could see the Monogamous culture being more advanced in a purely Technological sense.
Whether the Monogamous culture would actually use its technological edge to compete with the Polygamous culture in savage enough a manner to make up for the birthrate differential is very questionable to me, though.
White Americans are using their technology to kill a lot of Iraqis, and yet the Iraqi Races grows faster than the White American Race does.
While at the same time the lack of male assertiveness that is exacerbated by Monogamy has caused the technologically advanced White Americans to allow their group to be subjected to Demographic Genocide.
The most advanced technology in the history of the World, and high levels of intragroup trust, isn’t doing White Americans any good.
While Polygamists like the Muslims and the FLDS grow stronger every year.
Reginald,
The problem I have with Bowery is that he fails to understand that many of the cultural traits facilitated by Monogamy are actually harmful over the long term.
I don’t think Bowery fails to understand this at all. He talks about it pretty frequently. I think he acknowledges it as a dangerous pitfall of monogamy, which is why he asserts that certain important measures must be taken (separationism, the seeking out of new frontiers, etc.). Bowery argues that technological creativity is a unique feature of Euro Man, and that Euro Man’s monogamy was crucial in developing this creativity. And he thinks this relative strength and unique feature should be preserved and used in environments that are suitable for them and reward them, such as in frontiers like space. I’m obviously sympathetic to this view.
If you look at a Country like Sweden, you see that too much of the cultural traits encouraged by the absence of Polygamy have destroyed profoundly valuable traits like Intensity and Assertiveness that are absolutely essential to the long term survival prospects of a people.
I think the crucial point is that different environments matter and that no reproductive structure is universally good. Monogamy is fit for a certain environment, which is why separation and frontiers are crucial, and polygamy is better for another. They both have costs. Polygamy may develop traits such as intensity and assertiveness, but like I’ve argued above I think this comes at a considerable price such as favoring short term thinking, manipulation, less creativity, etc.
” People in his society don’t view him simply as atop their hierarchy but above them on another plane altogether.”
As if it’s great to worship a man who helped another man commit child rape!
“Or just the guy most able to socially manipulate and exploit the religious impulses of others?”
As if that’s the pinnacle of civilization!
My apologies, I thought the quotes were from Reginald, not Hawthorne.
I recant my last comment; I thought Reginald made the statements, which he didn’t.
Reginald,
Rather, the comparison should be between Polygamy and Monogamy, and there’s no doubt in my mind that Jeffs is far more intelligent and talented than the weighted average man who gets to breed in a Monogamous society.
Also there can be no doubt that he has a deeper intensity of spirit and internal strength.
Right. Or he could just be a predatory, manipulative flim-flam con man with a silver tongue. Certainly no Henry Ford. Maybe a George Soros, someone else who’s good at manipulating zero-sum games to his own benefit. The point is that this kind of system seems to select for the best parasites.
“If you look at a Country like Sweden, you see that too much of the cultural traits encouraged by the absence of Polygamy have destroyed profoundly valuable traits like Intensity and Assertiveness that are absolutely essential to the long term survival prospects of a people.”
Are you claiming the Vikings practiced polygamy to a significant scale? Especially for their general history, with the very, very harsh winters-when little more than clothes and a fire could keep you warm?
Even if so, I don’t believe polygamy is necessary to maintain ethnocentrism. American Whites used to be ethnocentric even for early 20th century Northerners. And American society was even more opposed to polygamy than it is now. The same also applies in Europe.
The non-Muslim Tropical Races are practicing monogamy in America. And, they support their racial interests. Even the Tropcial and non-Tropical Asians apply here.
“Please stop your incessant fallacies! The Greeks do not have more capacity for creativity than the Germans do.”
**********************************
Steve,
They most certainly did in the time Socrates and Aristophanes (etc.).
This was after a period of Polygamy, as is confirmed by all the Epic Poems concerning the time period that preceded the Greek Golden Age.
Since the Germans are very close to the Greeks genetically, it must follow that the genetic capacity for intellectual greatness in Germans was not dependant on Monogamy for its development.
“And what proof is there that being genetically creative is caused by a small number of men hoarding all of the women?”
Successfully hoarding women in a society where the Man is expected to support his wives is a skill that certainly correlates with g, so long as greater economic success correlates with higher intelligence.
In all societies now known, the Wealthy Man is much more intelligent than his countrymen, on average.
“What if the least creative men get wealthy someway, and hoard all of the women for themselves?”
Even if that happened the creative men by definition would be well equipped to think of creative ways to dispossess the plodding idiots of their women.
From Roissy’s site today. He did not list the source. Only genetic analysis may reveal the truth, however it is interesting and supportive of polygamous mating habits for pre-modern Europeans used for enhancing certain traits such as beauty.
“One evo theory suggests the reason for Euro women’s exemplary beauty stems from a time in the distant past when large numbers of eligible paleobachelors were killed off hunting big prey, leaving the remaining men to choose from among the hordes of lonely women. These men likely chose the hottest babes to pass on their genes, ushering forth the big-eyed neotenous era we have today.”
Pasted from
Reginald:
“Rather, the comparison should be between Polygamy and Monogamy, and there’s no doubt in my mind that Jeffs is far more intelligent and talented than the weighted average man who gets to breed in a Monogamous society.”
The “expendable” average White man doesn’t help others commit child rape. Warren Jeffs was convicted on two counts. And, this disregards what he may have done, but just didn’t have any leaked evidence of.
Also, what if Warren Jeffs has hidden genetic defects? And with this not controlled, a very significant percentage of the future White population turns out to have a debilitating genetic illness? So much for eugenics.
“This is in contrast to FLDS just kicking out the young men and asking them to fend for themselves.”
But, what about when there can be no more growth?
Is everyone familiar with the recent DNA study showing that in the past only 40% of men successfully mated yet 80% of women did?
The practice of genetic polygamy if not socially validated polygamy has clearly been common in our ancestral past.
“While at the same time the lack of male assertiveness that is exacerbated by Monogamy has caused the technologically advanced White Americans to allow their group to be subjected to Demographic Genocide.”
Monogamy doesn’t cause men to lose masculinity and assertiveness-although I will concede that it does limit excessive aggressiveness.
But, is aggressiveness always necessary against countries not even attacking you? A polygamous Russia could invade China, but that wouldn’t be too bright.
Reginald,
Whether the Monogamous culture would actually use its technological edge to compete with the Polygamous culture in savage enough a manner to make up for the birthrate differential is very questionable to me, though.
White Americans are using their technology to kill a lot of Iraqis, and yet the Iraqi Races grows faster than the White American Race does.
This is an important point. A monogamous society may develop a territory well enough technologically that defecting against the societal norm and being polygamous becomes adaptive, that is there is no cost to defecting and being polygamous whether by legal or political sanction or by material effects (i.e. reducing the technological capacity of society and thereby directly harming the defecting polygamist’s strategy).
I’m not sure that monogamy and the lack of polygamy is simply the reason for the “Demographic Genocide.”
Also, an advanced technological monogamous society doesn’t necessarily have to deal with the polygamous culture in a savage manner. For one thing, the great demographic rise of traditionally polygamous cultures is largely due to tech transfer from monogamous societies (agri-tech). Colonizing space is the way to go. Only an advanced tech monogamous society can colonize space, which has potentially infinitely more carrying capacity than Earth.