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.
Polygynous Evolutionist,
“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. ”
Yes, James Bowery has talked about this frequently. He has maintained that a high female to male ratio among Europeans in the past was crucial for Euro evolution. However, he also maintains that monogamy, both ecologically imposed and socially imposed monogamy, was a prominent feature of Euro societies historically. I’m not exactly sure how he articulates both these ideas though.
Comment #139, Hawthorne: Correct.
And, assuming we instituted Polygamy this generation: We have already lost the numbers game with the other races-almost even to American-resident Hispanics. We will have to deal with the Hispanics in America soon, and we won’t have the time to wait for the few benefits (higher birthrate, and even that requires an ideal setting; and aggressiveness) from polygamy. We would need a lot of evolution to have polygamy-related aggressiveness to catch up to the aggressiveness of the Hispanics and Blacks.
But with monogamy, at least for this generation: We would have more men and even women willing to contribute to the White Cause. This would entail more cooperation and ironically consolidation of military resources.
“I don’t think Bowery fails to understand this at all. He talks about it pretty frequently. Etc.”
******************************************
Hawthorne,
You make some very good points here.
I’ll just add that we are approaching the day Monogamy becomes nothing more than a Walking Corpse that leads the White Race by the hand to its Grave.
I think it’s crucial that the White Race pull away from Monogamy’s grip before it leads to our extinction.
Steve,
When can there be no more growth? If you mean the very big picture I would recommend worrying about one thing at a time but at that point space travel or mandating a set number of children become possible.
If you are worried about a well established community running out of women and community harmony shattered by the prospect of roaming gangs of supposedly murderous young men: it’s possible, in fact fairly easy, to weight sex selection towards female births without technology/abortion. I won’t get into how to do it here but I assure you a 2:1 female to male ratio is easily possible, 3:1 with a bit of juggling.
This is only relevant in the very long term, though. Obviously this could be used once everything is established to keep ratios ideal for the segment of the population that wants to do this.
There would be an additional surplus because not every one would breed for medical or personal reasons and of course many would choose monogamy.
It’s not like you set down this road without using modern technology! Screen for genetic disorders and apply and increase your knowledge over time. Everyone has some genetic failings so you would just have to weigh what matters more
“But, is aggressiveness always necessary against countries not even attacking you?”
*********************************
Steve,
It isn’t necessary, but is nonetheless the only way to expand your racial territory.
“A polygamous Russia could invade China, but that wouldn’t be too bright.”
**********************************
The leaders of Human Societies are intelligent agents to great enough of an extent that they can avoid follies like the one you describe.
Now a polygamous Russia invading non-Nuclear European Countries that have come to be taken over by Non-Whites? That would be very bright indeed, and an excellent way for Russians to benefit their genetic interests.
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.
Yes, all our primate relatives practice polygyny, and older ancestral human populations practiced polygyny as well. Monogamy, or perhaps more specifically the suppression of polygyny, arose relatively recently, and not universally among modern human populations. It is likely an artifact of technology that allowed us to expand into other climates (i.e. harsh climates with low carrying capacity, outside of our ancestral ecologies) where females had to depend on male technology and labor for survival and reproduction.
“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.”
*****************************
George Soros is much smarter than the average man.
I read a book by him once and the prose style showed the clarity and skill that demonstrates a very high level mind.
I admit he uses his genetic gifts in a way that harms society, but that’s because he views White Gentiles as his racial enemy.
Many men with high Verbal IQ and Manipulative Finesse, such as Shakespeare, have used their gifts for the good of society and have been a profound help to the advancement to their fellows.
“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.”
Just because it was referred to, and even practiced for a time-it doesn’t mean they generally practiced polygamy in their history. Greek genetic history did not start in the time period preceding the Greek Golden Age. And the correlation does not mean polygamy gave Greece its Golden Age. What you did not mention is the expanding trade routes and commercial activity.
“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.”
I never said monogamy lead to Germans producing great technology. But since you brought it up: during the shift, when Germany became much more technologically advanced, Germany was still practicing monogamy. And again, because you brought it up: while not saying monogamy in an of itself makes nations advanced, it does lead to specialization and heterogeneous genetic traits-including even different forms of intelligence. There is more than one form of intelligence.
“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.”
But in our 15 minute fame culture and entertainment industry, there are many below-average men getting super wealthy, like Mike Tyson and others who did not get rich and famous from intelligence. And there are many forms of intelligence not directly related to money-grubbing, but would be lost by polygamists preventing smart middle class men from marrying. There are also heirs with very unintelligent and sexually promiscuous mothers.
“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.”
It’s very hard to fight an infecting enemy, with internal instability. Spain was successfully invaded, presumably because a candidate for King invited the Moors to conquer the man who succeeded in becoming King. With internal fighting, the White race was divided; and the Moors controlled Spain for centuries.
I assure you the Hispanics will take advantage of our division resulting from forced polygamy.
“I think it’s crucial that the White Race pull away from Monogamy’s grip before it leads to our extinction.”
Monogamy itself is not causing our extinction. It’s the social pressures opposed to monogamy that are causing our extinction.
Many opposed to marriage altogether want polygamy. Ironically female adultery will probably increase with polygamy.
Since the relatedness of Germans and Greeks was brought up, this is a perfect opportunity for a “Nordicist” like me to post this information.
From On Genetic Interests by Frank Salter
Table 3.4: Number of immigrants between 26 European ethnies needed to reduce the ethnic genetic interests of a random native by the equivalent of one child
For Germans:
Basque 7.8
Lapp 4.4
Sardinian 4.2
Austrian 66.2
Czech 24.4
French 46.7
Polish 27.0
Russian 21.2
Swiss 125
Belgian 83.7
Danish 78.5
Dutch 78.5
English 57.2
Icelandic 12.2
Irish 15.3
Norwegian 59.9
Scottish 24.0
Swedish 32.4
Greek 9.1
Italian 33.3
Portuguese 24.9
Spanish 18.5
Yugoslavian 11.0
Finnish 16.6
Hungarian 27.5
Only Basques, Lapps, and Sardinians are more distant from Germans than Greeks are.
This table may interest those who have English ancestry like I do (a majority of my ancestry is colonial English)
(English ancestry among white Americans is probably significantly underestimated)
For English:
Basque 10.9
Lapp 3.5
Sardinian 4.1
Austrian 23.1
Czech 21.2
French 52.5
German 57.2
Polish 18.2
Russian 16.2
Swiss 45.0
Belgian 83.7
Danish 59.9
Dutch 73.9
Icelandic 16.8
Irish 42.0
Norwegian 50.4
Scottish 46.7
Swedish 34.2
Greek 6.5
Italian 24.9
Portuguese 8.9
Spanish 27.0
Yugoslavian 8.2
Finnish 11.2
Hungarian 18.2
From Roissy’s site today.
What a surprise. “Polygynous Evolutionist” is a fan of the sexually perverted degenerate Roissy.
Female adultery can’t get any more increased than it is now. I seriously doubt it would increase under polygamy. More likely the opposite because they would have more children.
There would also be no internal division as a community because polygamy would not be forced; it would be voluntary. Also supported by celibates, the childless, and monogamists. That provides the winning strategy.
Reginald,
I know George Soros is smart. That’s part of my point.
Steve,
While I agree that the liberation of female sexuality has been profoundly harmful to us, this in no way constitutes a valid criticism of Polygamy.
On average, Polygamous societies are actually better at preventing premarital female sex, thus entrapping female sexuality in marriage, where it does by far the most good.
MGLS, yawn.
MGLS,
The European Continent is remarkable for its genetic homogeneity.
I meant the Greeks and Germans are close in an absolute sense, and most likely would’ve been closer in earlier time periods.
There would also be no internal division as a community because polygamy would not be forced; it would be voluntary. Also supported by celibates, the childless, and monogamists. That provides the winning strategy.
In a polygamous society, altruistic celibates, childless, and monogamists that support the polygamous regime would be quickly selected out as they would not reproduce. The kin altruism of celibates, childless, and monogamists that help their relatives become dominant polygamists would be selected for, which is why polygamous societies tend to devolve into kin based clan struggles and warfare.
Polygynous Evolutionist: “I seriously doubt it would increase under polygamy. More likely the opposite because they would have more children.”
It could! If they can cheat when they are unsatisfied with a man they have to themselves (with most men sexually satisfied or willing celibate) than what about a scenario where a woman is unsatisfied with a man she has to share with many other women (and with many men not only unhappy with a lack of marriage prospects, but also seeking revenge against the men who took the women who would have married them)?
“There would also be no internal division as a community because polygamy would not be forced; it would be voluntary.”
Officially. But, with mass urban poverty, women will be forced in effect to marry the ultra-wealthy, if they want even a meager standard of living.
“Also supported by celibates, the childless, and monogamists.”
So, the childless don’t want marriage? I know plenty of married people who can’t resist a life partner and regular sex, but hate children. And even monogamists are taking from the matepool-just by a balanced principle where all qualified men are equal to marry a woman. The Polygamists would eventually compensate for the willingly celibate.
“On average, Polygamous societies are actually better at preventing premarital female sex, thus entrapping female sexuality in marriage, where it does by far the most good.”
Which will actually anger the wife-less males even more! It’s bad enough when men can’t get married. But telling men who are sex-obsessed and/or at least marriage obsessed (which is almost the whole male population), that they have to die as virgins will entail a very interesting social experiment! Have fun forcing all of these men into their place!
Comment #168: Which is an intra-race War! A great way to ironically reduce numbers, if you ask me.
Hawthorne,
That’s an interesting point but I see it as relevant only in a closed system where the community pulls inwards instead of what I am recommending which is having non-celibate missionaries who push outwards to other similar communities or the wider world. The increased contact would mitigate against excessive in-grouping.
Reginald: In your ideal world, I will concede a scenario where you succeed in preventing these males from mating. But, even if that happens, I predict they will defect to the Brown Hispanic Race-like the Spanish Conquistadors did without White women.
We would have a genetic outflow benefiting the Browns, at a time when we will be fighting these very Hispanic Browns.
“That’s an interesting point but I see it as relevant only in a closed system where the community pulls inwards instead of what I am recommending which is having non-celibate missionaries who push outwards to other similar communities or the wider world. The increased contact would mitigate against excessive in-grouping.”
But, the expansion will have to end eventually.
Or at least decelerate to a point where it becomes a problem.
“Reginald: In your ideal world, I will concede a scenario where you succeed in preventing these males from mating. But, even if that happens, I predict they will defect to the Brown Hispanic Race-like the Spanish Conquistadors did without White women.
We would have a genetic outflow benefiting the Browns, at a time when we will be fighting these very Hispanic Browns.”
*******************************************
Steve:
The Spanish Conquistadors had the absolute power to kill the men of the Brown-Hispanic Race, and this allowed them to carry out their mongrelization with the Brown Women.
There is no realistic scenario where celibate White Men will have anything resembling such a power over Hispanics in America.
Steve,
I’ve already addressed how to deal with containing the expansion issue naturally in #154.
“There is no realistic scenario where celibate White Men will have anything resembling such a power over Hispanics in America.”
True; they won’t be able to conquer the Hispanics. But the men who are left out may try to make a deal with the Hispanics. For a large number of reasonably smart men (average White men have IQ’s around 100, which is certainly not bad at all), they might make a deal with the Latinos militarily.
I know Brown Hispanics are very ethnocentric, and don’t like it when Whites mate with their women (even though they mate with our women); but, I can see a small number of very smart (but left out) White men being co-opted in a more open small Latino population-if not at least miliarily aided.
Polygynous Evolutionist: Oh! That’s right.
“When can there be no more growth? If you mean the very big picture I would recommend worrying about one thing at a time but at that point space travel or mandating a set number of children become possible.”
Well, space colonies is never going to happen. At least when humans are in their present form, it will never happen.
Limiting number of children:Who wouldn’t be allowed to have certain number of children. The few-if any-monogamists, polygamists, or both? The most successful polygamists will oppose such a measure against themselves. And it could ironically increase the male-to-female ratio, as many would start aborting female fetuses (especially if the limit is one or two).
We do have the power to raise an elite. They’re not holding us back to the extent that you think they are. It’s very dangerous to conclude that they’re stopping us from diverting our loyalty to an indigenous elite when they’re not. They may be discouraging us, but I don’t see a convincing case that White Americans have tried to even raise up an alternative.
You can’t be serious.
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. — Steve
—
Steve,
I gotta give you massive props on this comment!
Excellent call and observation about people supporting — or at least assenting — to policies because they don’t want to seem as if they are somehow “losers”.
When I did some social activism in Washington DC at various conservative conferences over the years (such as CPAC), so many times I couldn’t barely find even one self-styled ‘conservative’ who could properly articulate just what he genuinely valued about Conservatism or its belif system. Other than some pratter about the ‘Constitution’ or ‘democratic values’ (or the neo-Con favorite at the time – “exporting democracy” – through war), even sadder, virtually none even knew what he wished to conserve about traditional America and its Anglo-European values.
The biggest pain, however, as you touched upon with mentioning the ‘Libertarian’ issue, was trying to get these marks to see some sense over the issue of “Free” Trade — and all it’s concomitant bs about being ‘pro-free-market’ and ‘good for business’… cause you know, whatever is ‘good’ for big business, is ‘obviously’ good for ‘Amerikwa’ as well (some of these fools even thought the Chamber of Commerce was a governmental agency)!
The saddest part is that many of the ‘foot soldiers’ of the CONservative movement are most definately from the lower-middle classes, and don’t comprehend — or, more accurately, don’t wish to comprehend — that they are supporting policies, economic and otherwise, that are detrimental to their well-being and long-term interests, and especially, the well-being of their families and their People.
This is especially so with economics, since this has been a most fundamental reason for the divorce and break-ups of so many marriages and families since it has taken away a man’s ability to be a provider and protector for his wife and children.
Hence, this is the reason for so much passioned debate, even on this very thread, on the topic of sexuality and mating. Just like so many guys are obsessed with being perceived a “winner” in an economic sense in Babylon, er, ‘America’, — even fewer men still don’t wish to think of themselves as social “losers” and, even worse, sexual “rejectees”, in this “modern” dating and mating game (actually, this is hardly ‘modern’ at all and is actually a throwback to what our Anglo-Celto-Teutonic ancestors evolved up and away from).
So, like so many average people, instead of looking reality cold and hard in the face and accept the truth and then go about doing what is necessary to genuinely remedy the situation, so many men go about living a kind of fantasy of what they think their ideal sexual and mating prospects should be (as do women, of course), rather than what is more soberly and realistically available to them (cause remember – this is ‘America’ after all – where every man is a ‘Prince’ … and every woman a ‘Princess’ – and dammit, if you are not one, or aspire to be one.. well then, your ‘just a loser’).
This type of narcissistic attitude, which has become so commonly prevelant throughout so much of society, either from the ‘rich’ or ‘poor’ — ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ — amongst ‘monagamists’ and ‘polygamists’ alike, is utterly of an alien origin. To even entertain the notion that We would countanance the possibility that we have ‘expendable’ men (or women) that are young, healthy and intelligent, that somehow are not, or rather should not be entitled to have a wife (or husband), and raise good, decent families, raising courageous son’s and compassionate daughters, is completely un-Aryan. If we went down this path, whatever society would emerge or follow, it simply would not, and indeed cannot be a Western and Aryan one anymore.
I really liked your last comment, Kulaks Never Learn.
I really liked your last comment, Kulaks Never Learn.
—
Thanks buddy, I like all your comments too.
Kulak,
“To even entertain the notion that We would countanance the possibility that we have ‘expendable’ men (or women) that are young, healthy and intelligent, that somehow are not, or rather should not be entitled to have a wife (or husband), and raise good, decent families, raising courageous son’s and compassionate daughters…”
Any system where every single man who deserves to breed gets to is a system with an inadequate degree of selection pressure.
Now you and I may both agree that only allowing 30% of men to breed, in imitation of the FLDS, would be taking things too far.
But nonetheless it is at least as clear that to whatever extent the FLDS doesn’t allow enough Men to breed, we allow too many.
Do realize that 50% of White Men have IQs lower than 100?
From the standpoint of genetic welfare of future generations, I really fail to see what good is done by allowing them to breed when Polygamy would make their exclusion from the breeding pool a benefit even on a purely numerical level.
“Do realize that 50% of White Men have IQs lower than 100?
“From the standpoint of genetic welfare of future generations, I really fail to see what good is done by allowing them to breed when Polygamy would make their exclusion from the breeding pool a benefit even on a purely numerical level.”
__
Wow, this is a little creepy.
Reginald, if you are going to take this approach, what then of *the women* who as well have IQ’s ‘under 100’?
I suppose they get a pass because ‘…all women are special & unique little snowflakes…’, right?
The arguments for polygamy (and I am not singling you out, Reg) are beginning to sound more and more rationalizing than rational.
Z,
Women have far more reproductive value than Men. This is because they are the limiting factor on reproduction.
Therefore concentrating selection pressure too much on Women would be idiotic and racially suicidal.
It has nothing to do with the idea that Women are better than Men.
“The arguments for polygamy (and I am not singling you out, Reg) are beginning to sound more and more rationalizing than rational.”
You are wrong. I actually do support Polygamy for largely Eugenic reasons, though the improving effect it would have on White birthrates is an even more compelling factor.
If you want to talk about a creepy level of Polygamy, you should look at Thoroughbred Racehorses. FAR less than 50% of Thoroughbred Stallions are allowed to breed.
And guess what?
They are a superrace, and other breeds amalgamate themselves with Thoroughbreds out of a desire (on the part of their owners) to improve their blood.
“From the standpoint of genetic welfare of future generations, I really fail to see what good is done by allowing them to breed when Polygamy would make their exclusion from the breeding pool a benefit even on a purely numerical level.”
I would support a system whereby family size was positively correlated with genetic endowment.
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. — Polygynous Evolutionist
—
Hey thanks man for the response, and yes, this indeed has been a minor, yet amazing, mystery for me as well.
Even in grad school I could find virtually nothing on this virtually unexplored topic. Even when I spoke to people who lived during that time, they seemed to know little to nothing about it.
One of my buddies is a Southron and had many of his ancestors fight for the Confederacy, and said he vaguely remembers hearing of stories from the older folks that ‘soft polygamy’ may have happened (no one really talked about it either way). He did say, however, that the local communities did their best to help raise the children of the deceased veterans, however, which was good to hear.
Thanks.
…Any system where every single man who deserves to breed gets to is a system with an inadequate degree of selection pressure.
Now you and I may both agree that only allowing 30% of men to breed, in imitation of the FLDS, would be taking things too far.
But nonetheless it is at least as clear that to whatever extent the FLDS doesn’t allow enough Men to breed, we allow too many.
Do realize that 50% of White Men have IQs lower than 100? …
—
…Women have far more reproductive value than Men. This is because they are the limiting factor on reproduction.
Therefore concentrating selection pressure too much on Women would be idiotic and racially suicidal. … — Reginald
____
Reginald,
Well, first off, I think there may be a contradiction here, since if you feel that only, or primarily, intelligent or ‘superior’ men should be breeding in order to pass on their high IQ genes — well then, they would really have to be doing it with a compatively intelligent and/or similarly ‘superior’ women — otherwise the child of that union would not be as smart or ‘evolved’ as his father.
Again, a great case for regression toward the mean.
So yes, while women indeed may have greater reproductive capacities, there are still many dull, unattractive and unintelligent women out there who would be dysgenic ‘dead weight’ for the greater good of the tribe/race/people, since they would be breeding misanthropes and ‘losers’, again if you follow this paradigm (which I do not fully accept, BTW).
You know, as it was pointed out, it is sounding about right when it is said that the arguments for polygyny seem more and more ‘rationalizing than rational’ — a justification for feeding the male ego more than anything else.
I also strongly but respectfully disagree with the concept/statement about “allowing” men to breed. That just is a completely (as I said in my previous comment) un-Western and un-Aryan way to plan and guide a society — and if it did take this route, it would no longer be Our society, but something more akin to George Orwell’s 1984 or Animal Farm.
No, man cannot play God, no matter how much he may be thinking what is being done or called for is ‘for the good of the people and society’.
Again, religious convictions aside, a natural order and structuring of society along aristocratic principles should insure that the stronger and more intelligent members of society will have the most opportunities for them to date, mate and procreate with each other. Also, polygamy can and should be tolerated in times of necessity, such as a great loss of men from war or other disaster.
Otherwise, future White men and women need to be properly raised and developed by White men and women, i.e. — their parents. This really can only be optimally accomplished with a father actively involved in his son or daughter’s life, which no ‘big man’ polygamist with his brood would ever really care to, or even logistically could, accomplish.
In a sufficiently eugenic Polygamist system, only the REALLY dull, unattractive, and unintelligent women would produce unacceptably unfit children, thanks to the fact that the fathers of their children will be of much higher quality than they would’ve been under a Non-Polygamist system.
The question isn’t whether the children of a Woman will necessarily be the genetic equal of his father.
Rather the question is whether the weighted average person allowed to breed is of better genetic quality than the average member of the race.
As long as high quality in a Man is rewarded strongly enough, a Polygamist system will achieve this profoundly important genetic goal even if some nontrivial portion of the female breeding population is lower in quality than might be ideal.
“So yes, while women indeed may have greater reproductive capacities, there are still many dull, unattractive and unintelligent women out there who would be dysgenic ‘dead weight’ for the greater good of the tribe/race/people, since they would be breeding misanthropes and ‘losers’, again if you follow this paradigm (which I do not fully accept, BTW).”
For one thing, there’s the point I made above about it being the AVERAGE quality of the father and mother that matters to the quality of children, as opposed just the quality of the mother.
Actually there’s a greater margin for error for Women in a Polygamist system, and a Woman of lower than average intelligence will be highly likely to produce children who are above average in that trait.
For another thing, you are mistaken in thinking that the children of lower quality women will be losers and misanthropes in a Polygamous system.
Though their sons may not meet the extremely high standards demanded of men, the great majority of their daughters will become perfectly useful genetic contributors to the next generation.
Then those daughters will marry high quality men, creating grandchildren of the lower quality Woman who will be 75% of superior Genetic Ancestry!
Then the next generation after that, the Great-Grandchildren will 87.5% superior, etc.
“…also strongly but respectfully disagree with the concept/statement about “allowing” men to breed. That just is a completely (as I said in my previous comment) un-Western and un-Aryan way to plan and guide a society — and if it did take this route, it would no longer be Our society, but something more akin to George Orwell’s 1984 or Animal Farm.”
Nothing says we have to stay the West. Do you think the fathers of Western Civilization took the attitude that it’s wrong to mutate the previous system into something new?
If they did, we’d still be living in a Classical Civilization, to the extent that we’d be living in any sort of Civilization at all.
Unlike a race, a Civilization is an inherently mortal thing. And given how things have been going lately for the West, you have no excuse for not understanding that.
“No, man cannot play God, no matter how much he may be thinking what is being done or called for is ‘for the good of the people and society’.”
By your definitions, Women are already playing God!
Plenty of Men are found unattractive by Women, and the Women act on this usually poorly thought out preference by playing God, and stopping those men from reproducing.
What you object to about Polygamy is already being done.
All Polygamy would do is:
1. Change the qualities used to determine which men won’t be allowed to breed, with the change being much for the better.
2. Increase the number of men who aren’t allowed to breed.
Supporting Monogamy but opposing Polygamy because it involves “Playing God” is like supporting a Terrorist attack that kills 3,000 people but being against one that kills 6,000 people because the one that killed 6,000 people was “mass murder”!
It’s hypocrisy.
Polygamy wouldn’t institute anything different than what we have now without you complaining. It’s just that there will be more of it, and it will be to a better purpose.
“Again, religious convictions aside, a natural order and structuring of society along aristocratic principles should insure that the stronger and more intelligent members of society will have the most opportunities for them to date, mate and procreate with each other.”
That wouldn’t do the lower classes any good.
Being against paternal Gene Flow from Aristocrats to commoners is, in my opinion, a massive error.
“Otherwise, future White men and women need to be properly raised and developed by White men and women, i.e. — their parents. This really can only be optimally accomplished with a father actively involved in his son or daughter’s life, which no ‘big man’ polygamist with his brood would ever really care to, or even logistically could, accomplish.”
You might think that having a father playing big part in a child’s life would be beneficial, but this idea is contradicted by studies of children who had their fathers die between their conception and birth.
They weren’t any worse off in life outcomes, crime rate, etc.
So if not having a father play a big role in raising you doesn’t do any good in the long term, we must conclude that the importance of the non-genetic contribution fathers make to their children is profoundly overrated.
This is consistent with Evolutionary Theory. So many of our ancestors had fathers who died early in their lives, that genes that made you worse off without a father would’ve been STRONGLY selected against.
If you claim something is bad when the evidence shows that it worked to get what you want then it is you who is doing the rationalizing.
The facts are polygamy worked for Whites. It was the core practice of what built a de facto ethnostate in record time.
Try to rationalize away the facts all you like, but doing so won’t change the reality.
All Polygamy would do is:
1. Change the qualities used to determine which men won’t be allowed to breed, with the change being much for the better.
2. Increase the number of men who aren’t allowed to breed.
I agree. This is simply the definition of polygamy.
What I disagree with is your assertion that the qualities used to determine which men will breed will necessarily be “good” or “eugenic” as we generally understand those terms.
You may have a high opinion of Warren Jeffs, but I’m not convinced that he’s the “best man” of his community, rather than simply its slickest flim-flam man. How do we know that a system that consistently rewards the Warren Jeffs of society with an exclusive monopoly on progeny isn’t simply selecting for manipulative, parasitic “Big Men” whose only skill is in preying on others?
Ultimately, polygamy simply selects for the best polygamists. There are many ways of being a good polygamist.
Our primate relatives and the Negroes have been practicing polygamy since time immemorial. There’s no indication that they have been moving in a eugenic direction.
“You may have a high opinion of Warren Jeffs, but I’m not convinced that he’s the ‘best man’ of his community, rather than simply its slickest flim-flam man.”
I didn’t say best, rather far above the average.
Also, even if one were to agree with that characterization of Warren Jeffs, one should avoid selling “flim-flam men” short.
Skill in the arts of Manipulation are highly correlated with Verbal IQ.
Besides being valuable of itself this is important because, within a race at least, high Verbal IQ is highly correlated with positive epistasis and a low genetic load.
In other words, it is correlated with a more positively functional genotype that are less burdened with deleterious alleles.
That sounds to me a lot like something that would be eugenic to propagate.
“Our primate relatives and the Negroes have been practicing polygamy since time immemorial.”
In traditional Negro Society the Females produce most of the wealth. Therefore Polygamy in those societies has not rewarded Male Economic Proficiency, and the g factor of intelligence it correlates with, due to an African Woman having far less to gain from following her brain over her loins in mate choice.
The same objection applies to Primates, where most of the food is gathered by Females.
Thus neither of your examples are analogous to the type of Polygamy practiced by the FLDS, or any type of Polygamy practiced in a society (such as America today) where Men make more money per capita than Women.
Reginald,
Thus neither of your examples are analogous to the type of Polygamy practiced by the FLDS, or any type of Polygamy practiced in a society (such as America today) where Men make more money per capita than Women.
Do you really believe it will be possible to maintain and enforce a winner-takes-all polygamous system that rewards things like “Male Economic Proficiency” for a non-trivial period of time with a few men and a bunch of women?
Especially considering that there will be enormous selection pressure for things like “Bumping Off Top Dog Proficiency” and “Ganging Up With Other Betas on Alpha Proficiency”?
There will also be enormous pressure for male kin to organize together to fight other groups of non-kin males. Since under polygamy non-kin altruism is much less likely to yield genetic benefits relative to kin altruism, where even if you don’t get to reproduce at least it makes it much more likely that someone who shares a lot of your genes will. This has all kinds of side-effects and implications.
Actually there’s a greater margin for error for Women in a Polygamist system, and a Woman of lower than average intelligence will be highly likely to produce children who are above average in that trait. — Reginald
—
Reginald,
I feel that this is a contradiction, since the child inherits his/her traits from mother and father alike.
For another thing, you are mistaken in thinking that the children of lower quality women will be losers and misanthropes in a Polygamous system.
Why not, since they wouldn’t be of as ‘high-quality’ as those born of smarter and more all-around genetically ‘fitter’ mothers, hence, they likely wouldn’t be as valued by the members of their own extended family — why would their broader society value them any more or better as well?
After all, I would suspect that many of the ‘lost boys’ of the FLDS likely would have come from mothers who were the ‘lower quality’ ones — and if not, all the more reason to see the reality of regression toward the mean.
*Just curious Reg, are you a Mormon yourself?
You might think that having a father playing big part in a child’s life would be beneficial, but this idea is contradicted by studies of children who had their fathers die between their conception and birth.
They weren’t any worse off in life outcomes, crime rate, etc.
So if not having a father play a big role in raising you doesn’t do any good in the long term, we must conclude that the importance of the non-genetic contribution fathers make to their children is profoundly overrated. — Reginald
—
Wow, this is what liberals and feminists often say. This is also typically cited as justifications for single motherhood.
So what are the studies that supposedly show this?
____
The facts are polygamy worked for Whites. It was the core practice of what built a de facto ethnostate in record time. — Polygynous Evolutionist
—
No, Western man, for nearly all of his recorded history, was monogamous rather than polygamous.
If you claim something is bad when the evidence shows that it worked to get what you want then it is you who is doing the rationalizing.
Well, what is the evidence of polygamy in Aryan civilization? And what was the de facto ethnostate that was built in ‘record time’?
“I feel that this is a contradiction, since the child inherits his/her traits from mother and father alike.”
Kulak,
You seem to be failing to take into account that Regression to the Mean works both ways.
Both those above and below the mean Regress toward it, with the above average regressing downward and the below average regressing upward.
Let’s take a trait like IQ as an example, as it is well established that IQ regresses 50% to the average of the relevant population group (with a few exceptions that we can ignore).
If a Polygamist Man from a population with an average IQ of 100 has an IQ of 140, on average his contribution to his children’s genotypes will influence them to have IQs of 120.
Now if one of this Polygamist’s wives comes from a population with an average IQ of 100 has an IQ of 80, on average her contribution to her children’s genotypes will influence them to have IQs of 90.
Thus the child of these two will have half his genes pushing him to have an IQ of 120, and the other half pushing him to have an IQ of 90.
This will lead to this child having an IQ of (120 + 90 = 210) % 2 = 105.
105 is 5 points above the average member of the population, even though the child’s mother was way down in the 9th Percentile (!) for her race.
“Why not, since they wouldn’t be of as ‘high-quality’ as those born of smarter and more all-around genetically ‘fitter’ mothers, hence, they likely wouldn’t be as valued by the members of their own extended family…?”
While to some extent more intelligent and/or attractive members of a family are given preference, this effect is muted.
“— why would their broader society value them any more or better as well?”
On average the daughter of a stupid wife will be less intelligent than her Paternal Half-Siblings who were the products of higher quality wives, I admit, but nonetheless the common father will greatly moderate this variation.
If a 140 IQ man had two wives, one with an 80 IQ and the other with a 120 IQ, the children of the smart wife will average out to 115 in IQ and the children of the stupid will average out to 105.
10 points is few enough points that there will be a great deal of overlap in the two populations of children, with some of the children of the stupid mother being smarter than the children of the smart mother.
Therefore the idea that the Polygamist society will view the children of the less intelligent women as useless subhumans, on account of their inferiority, is absurd.
Now a lot of the sons of lower quality mothers won’t be allowed to breed, but this doesn’t change that almost all the daughters of the lower quality mothers will be able to, with no harm to the group.
This is because the eugenic soundness of the system is built on subjecting the male portion of ancestry to intense selection, leading to a situation where in a few short generations the average pedigree will be completely dominated by men who passed intense selection tests, with only the female line as a trivial sliver of weakness.
“*Just curious Reg, are you a Mormon yourself?”
No.
However, I have studied the cultural and demographic habits of different Mormon groups very closely.
My curiosity was piqued by the robustness of their birthrates (especially that of the FLDS) as compared to other White groups.
I also like how the Mormon Church was founded on a reactionary return to Old Testament values, as I have long considered the Old Testament a superior work of Literature to the New.
“Wow, this is what liberals and feminists often say. This is also typically cited as justifications for single motherhood.
So what are the studies that supposedly show this?”
Kulak,
I can’t find the study that looked just at the children of fathers who were killed in accidents right now. (If you want, I recommend contacting GNXP poster Jason Malloy on this subject as he has made frequent reference to it.)
But a work perhaps equally devastating for the Environmentalist Position is “Growing Up With a Single Parent”, by the sociologists McLanahan and Sandefur.
It found that:
1. The presence of a stepfather in the home doesn’t improve the chances of successful life outcomes in the children of single mothers at all. This is in spite of the finding that the children of single mothers with stepfathers in the home received exactly as much supervision as children with both biological parents in the home.
2. Frequent contact with the Biological Father is of NO detectable benefit for the children of single mothers.
And most importantly:
3. The number of years the Biological Fathers lived with the mother before leaving had NO EFFECT on the life outcomes of their children.
In other words, if your mother became a single mother when you were in the womb, you’d be just as well off as if she only became a single mother when you were on the brink of adolescence!
Thus it is proven by Science that years of Parenting by a Biological Father will have absolutely no impact on how the child turn out.
Reginald,
My understanding is that the reasons for why the fathers leave matters. If the father died in war, for example, there was no negative effect but if the child was abandoned by the father there was a negative effect.