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.
Kulaks,
Western man was not genetically monogamous. The culture was overtly monogamous in form, sure, but keep in mind the huge mate turnover that occurred from men dying in war, women dying in childbirth, and a higher level of mortality for various reasons such as disease or injury. Also, people did sleep around a lot regardless; they had affairs. Monogamy was a cultural myth that had its time and uses, but it wasn’t a remotely consistent reality.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread recent studies show that in human history only 40% of men have successfully had children but 80% of women have. That is de facto polygyny. The culture may not openly support it but it’s what happened anyway. Also, as I address above evolutionary theory posits that there must have been polygamy to create the physically unique traits that European women possess.
My reference to it working for Whites and forming a de facto ethnostate refers to the Mormons, of course. Early Mormonism, a White religion with White followers, created what was basically a successful semi-peaceful revolution. They were brutally attacked and suppressed by the government (murdering Mormons was legalized for a time in US history), and still they won out and settled in Utah and are thriving to this day in a watered down form.
There couldn’t be a better template for a successful movement in the face of brutal attempts at suppression.
To summarize, genetic history, evolutionary theory, and recent political history all show a template that works for Whites and demonstrate success with polygamy.
Look, I know this doesn’t suit some people’s ideals and I respect that – I’m not asking any one person to go against their preferences. But in the spirit of generating solutions with a proven track record, of which there is a serious scarcity, I have to point out this has worked.
Monogamy is largely a mirage. It may make some people feel good but so does liberalism and enforcing “equality”. It simply will not come back on a widespread, genuine scale.
I want a realistic alternative. I don’t expect everyone to follow it; I’m just hoping people see the facts and are open to it if the possibility arises. Like anything people will have a genetic disposition to support it or not but it definitely isn’t so simple as to say it’s Aryan or not.
Monogamy as a cultural ideal sets people up to lie and cheat and requires huge social pressure to enforce. By contrast, Whites have done polygamy well even though other races have not done as well with it.
If you want a successful ethnostate that managed to form despite oppression, you’ve got one example in the Mormons that worked for Whites like nothing else I can think of.
If a polygamist leader has 10 wives and has an average of 3 children each he will produce 30 children.
The resources for raising these children will be whatever 11 adults, he and his 10 wives, can earn, beg, borrow or steal. The 9 men who go without wives due to the polygamist’s success will contribute nothing to raising any children, and may even sabotage the community.
If 10 Christian couples have an average of 4 children each they will not only out breed the polygamist but have the resources of 20 adults to devote to raising them.
Encouraging natalist religion can raise the white birthrate with none of the damaging side effects of polygamy.
You know, there are a LOT of problems with the polygamy proposal. There are serious moral and practical issues that would need to be addressed if such a strategy were to be seriously considered.
HOWEVER
It’s genetically sound. All of this prattle about “deviation to the norm” and “inbreeding” and even anti-hereditarian dogma flies in the face of millennia of folk knowledge and decades of hard scientific knowledge about the nature of mammalian breeding and trait selection techniques.
Furthermore, the more shrill “slippery slope” things don’t deserve a serious hearing because there are several active and sustainable polygamous communities to disprove the more alarming conjecture.
“It’s genetically sound. All of this prattle about “deviation to the norm” and “inbreeding” and even anti-hereditarian dogma flies in the face of millennia of folk knowledge and decades of hard scientific knowledge about the nature of mammalian breeding and trait selection techniques.”
Bwfore this thread, I had kind of respect for you, but it is clear here that you are just one more of those that choose an exotic theory, and then find everything in support of your argument, while you dismiss anything skeptics might say.
What I am sure of, is that you don’t remember a single one of your oponents arguments, since they are just a hindrance to get over, and not really serious critique? right?
Volk,
That’s not accurate or fair at all. I was very explicit in stating that there are serious issues. Several of the objections raised here have forced me to explore this issue in more depth. It’s not that I’m ignoring the objections, it’s that I don’t have a response to many of them.
I’m thinking it over, especially the “lost boy” problem. It’s very possible that non-martial polygyny is only sustainable within a host society. For example, the LDS pretty quickly flipped to monogamy once they secured an exclusive ethnostate, implying that they might have been succeeding with the strategy only due to the influx of wives from surrounding “gentile” communities.
What I was trying to get at with this post is something you must surely agree with, which is that the replies which fly in the face of basic biology or demonstrated reality are silly. I know the type of person you’re talking about and I’m not that person. I’m constantly revising and adapting my worldview to account for intelligent people calling me out when I’m incorrect.
Furthermore, the actual activism I’m doing is unrelated to this tangential fascination with the success of the FLDS community. Personally, I think the presence of an explicitly racial group of White Americans breeding like crazy and establishing a vast network of small industries with an emphasis on self-reliance is worthy of intensive review and discussion. I’m sorry if my fixation is drifting into obsession.
A lot of you are fooling yourselves. Polygamy is a male fantasy. It’s not practical and the vast majority of men don’t have the time, patience, energy or financial resources for multiple women and many children, not to mention the many in-laws that would drive you crazy.
Wikitopian,
I’m thinking it over, especially the “lost boy” problem. It’s very possible that non-martial polygyny is only sustainable within a host society.
This is a major issue that informs my disagreement with Reginald. The sustainable polygyny of LDS communities, or of the Medieval Ashkenazim that significantly raised IQ, may indeed be successful and sustainable due to the presence of a relatively stable host society. I know you consider it a “slippery slope” but I don’t see how polygamous societies in isolation won’t eventually become martial and petty violence ridden due to the enormous pressure.
Polygamy strikes me as a viable, temporary strategy appropriate in certain environments and contexts.
Hawthorne,
That might indeed be the case. Much pondering will need to take place.
“While the Chinese have higher IQs (105) than the average white, they have tormented their females for centuries.”
But what “whites” are we talking about, as different “white” ethnics have different average IQs. If you take all of Mongoloiddom, you get a much lower average IQ.
Average IQs don’t create civilization, geniuses do, and whites have many more extreme geniuses than Asians. That’s why Asia must use white genius and be trained by us whenever they want to build something extraordinary, such as the Three Gorges Dam. They’re mostly notable for their work ethic and slavish labor.
I’m thinking it over, especially the “lost boy” problem.
You also need to think over the pedophilia problem, the welfare fraud problem, and the female slavery problem.
Wiki,
If there is a “lost boy” problem that I have not satisfactorily resolved in this thread let me know how.
I believe it is easily resolved through changing the polygamous culture to make the boys missionaries to the outside world. In other words, they are sent out to convert women into being wives.
In the long term there are also natural means to increase the ratio of women to men.
“I think the presence of an explicitly racial group of White Americans breeding like crazy and establishing a vast network of small industries with an emphasis on self-reliance is worthy of intensive review and discussion”
Exactly. This works!
And in today’s hedonistic and distracting society, no less.
…Before this thread, I had kind of respect for you, but it is clear here that you are just one more of those that choose an exotic theory, and then find everything in support of your argument, while you dismiss anything skeptics might say.
What I am sure of, is that you don’t remember a single one of your oponents arguments, since they are just a hindrance to get over, and not really serious critique? right? — Volksverhetzer
—
I completely agree with what you say here, ‘Volks’.
While I will respect P.E . and Reginald as men, and their right to belive in what they wish, I cannot accept the highly speculative and subjective arguments they mustered in defense of their ideas — since, as you say, it seems as if that anything that we have to logically say to them is treated as a ‘hindrance to get over’. (As the old saying goes: Everyone is entitled to his own opinions… but not to ‘his own facts’.)
One great example of this –
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. — Reg
This is an argument typically used by feminists justifying promiscuity, single-motherhood and the divorce culture.
This is a total contradiction to all that was said in why polygamy was so much better than a man merely ‘scoring ‘poon’ — that with polygamy, the women would be legally bonded to the father of her children and hence the father would have a role in raising that child.
__
Or this one –
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. — P.E.
P.E., not only were the Mormons ever an ‘ethnostate’, de facto or otherwise, but they, as you pointed out, were rather marginalized and suppressed by the rest of White society (hardly a ‘successful’ example of something) — and the larger Mormon society that did ultimately survive to the present day was one that evolved along monogamous lines, rather than polygamous one’s.
So polygamy then can best be seen as an aberration to the norm of White Aryan reproductive history, not the exception to it.
As Kevin MacDonald so rightfully points out about Us –
What Makes Western Culture Unique?
So then, monogamy then for White folks was what built up our traditional societies and turned them into the great civilizations they ultimately became — whether Greco-Roman or Anglo-Teutonic. Polygamy, to the rare extent it presented itself, was evident either in the early phases of our people’s pre-civilizational, and largely tribal, origins — or, in their post-civilizational decay, just like what we are experiencing today, especially with the degeneracy of feminism and the equally foolish male response of ‘Game’ and the ‘Roissyite’ PUA degeneracy.
A lot of you are fooling yourselves. Polygamy is a male fantasy. It’s not practical and the vast majority of men don’t have the time, patience, energy or financial resources for multiple women and many children, not to mention the many in-laws that would drive you crazy. — Mark
This is true, and it seems as if the arguments for polygamy are essentially intellectual justifications for promiscuity and egotistical irresponsibility.
We have a lot of more important issues to deal with as White men, so let’s not get sidetracked by one that, except in emergency and rare situations, is character-diminishing rather than character-enhancing for the men and women of our race.
*All that being said, it was good debating this issue with you all and fleshing out and demonstrating what was/is the social policies and attitudes that is in the best long-term interests of Our People.
(Oops, HTML code error — should of formatted like this) –
So then, monogamy for White folks was what built up our traditional societies and turned them into the great civilizations they ultimately became — whether Greco-Roman or Anglo-Teutonic. Polygamy, to the rare extent it presented itself, was evident either in the early phases of our people’s pre-civilizational, and largely tribal, origins — or, in their post-civilizational decay, just like what we are experiencing today, especially with the degeneracy of feminism and the equally foolish male response of ‘Game’ and the ‘Roissyite’ PUA degeneracy.
A lot of you are fooling yourselves. Polygamy is a male fantasy. It’s not practical and the vast majority of men don’t have the time, patience, energy or financial resources for multiple women and many children, not to mention the many in-laws that would drive you crazy. — Mark
This is true, and it seems as if the arguments for polygamy are essentially intellectual justifications for promiscuity and egotistical irresponsibility.
We have a lot of more important issues to deal with as White men, so let’s not get sidetracked by one that, except in emergency and rare situations, is character-diminishing rather than character-enhancing for the men and women of our race.
*All that being said, it was good debating this issue with you all and fleshing out and demonstrating what was/is the social policies and attitudes that is in the best long-term interests of Our People.
🙂
I agree, the debate was a good one. Thank you to everyone for your thoughts and feedback. It helped me clarify a few issues regarding this approach.
I for one don’t think polygamy is much of a male fantasy – it’s a lot of work. And I don’t think that being fatherless is okay. I would only support polygamy if there was a community of men supporting it, not just atomized individual males running around with a large number of women.
The most important thing is we continue to explore what possibilities we can and move forward.
My personal thought is that we may be approaching an emergency situation that will require the measures outlined in this thread, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.
I agree as well that this was a very informative and productive debate.
It has made me rethink some of my views on the issue. I am still somewhat skeptical of polygamy, and I certainly don’t consider it to be universally good. But I’m less immediately opposed to it in a knee-jerk fashion and think it might be positive in certain situations for at least a temporary basis.
“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. — Reg
This is an argument typically used by feminists justifying promiscuity, single-motherhood and the divorce culture.”
Kulak,
Promiscuity, single-motherhood, and the divorce culture are bad for other reasons.
It is a profound error to base your opposition to those things on an Environmentalist Dogma that has already been disproved, and which never had a rational basis.
Also, I detest the notion that empirical work should be ignored in favor of adopting whatever position happens to be the opposite of the one taken by this or that group of people.
It is perfectly possible for a group of people to believe many things that are untrue, while also believing something that is as true as anything can be.
“This is a total contradiction to all that was said in why polygamy was so much better than a man merely ’scoring ‘poon’ — that with polygamy, the women would be legally bonded to the father of her children and hence the father would have a role in raising that child.”
I never said that.
While it is important that a Polygamist Father can play a role in raising his children, the “Nurture Advantage” supposedly gained by this was never given as a reason why Polygamy is better than ‘scoring poon‘.
The important advantage of Polygamy over Single Motherhood is that when a Woman is legally bonded to the father of her children, this changes the NATURE of the children, as opposed to the Nurture.
This beneficent effect is achieved via the mechanism of changing the selection criterion that determines who the father is going to be.
Our current sexual system rewards genes for producing Men who often lack any skill beyond talking women out of their pants, and no ambition but scoring sex that utterly lacks the meaning that comes from a long term relationship.
Polygamy selects for different traits such as an interest in raising children that are, in aggregate, correlated with a better character and which are far more desirable and sustaining to the health and character of a people.
I am not opposed to polygyny for eugenic purposes and if the male is capable of sustaining a healthy and supportive relationship with multiple women. There are so many factors that go into a relationship though. And as we can see from the divorce rate, men have trouble enough maintaining a monogamous relationship.
The FLDS uses religious dogma and authoritarianism to control the women. It’s not like the women voted for polygyny. Ultimately it’s just not fair for the women, and if women have a choice they will take a man who they have 100% of rather than a fraction of.
http://books.google.com/books?id=2NNLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA249#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Lothrop Stoddard, The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man, pp. 249-252
Eugenics is a major theme in The Revolt Against Civilization, with Stoddard advocating both negative and positive eugenics. Polygamy is not mentioned even one time in the book. If, as certain posters tell us with such certainty, polygyny is unequivocally and self-evidently eugenic and superior, one would have to wonder why a eugenicist like Lothrop Stoddard did not advocate or even discuss polygyny.
“If, as certain posters tell us with such certainty, polygyny is unequivocally and self-evidently eugenic and superior, one would have to wonder why a eugenicist like Lothrop Stoddard did not advocate or even discuss polygyny.”
Great point, MGLS! I agree with the assessment that monogamy (as opposed to polygamy) allows the genetic defects to be diluted within an ethnicity/homogenous race.
Polygamy, on the other hand would not only increase the likelihood of birth defects in ethnic groups and homogenous races, but especially once incest occurs.
Mark,
I would only support a system or society where women can freely choose. The Mormons offer an interesting example and model but it would have to be improved upon.
MGLS,
Anyone writing in the past may have simply never considered polgyny for cultural reasons or a blinkered viewpoint.
He also may have done what some posters here ironically do but shouldn’t (considering this is a racialist website): assume non-white polygynyous practices lead to the same result for Whites.
It just isn’t so. Race distinctly alters the effects of this practice.