Why polygamy is good

Fundamental ideas
Post Reply
adolf512

Why polygamy is good

Post by adolf512 » Tue Aug 09, 2016 9:47 am

Without enforced monogamy the most successful/attractive males will have multiple wives, this will lead to a lot harder competition for females and a less stable society, which is a good thing. A less stable society will be needed for racial improvements and hence stability isn't desirable. With shortage of females the men will be needed to take larger risks and the stupid cowards will be eliminated from the gene pool.
Image

The disadvantage with polygamy is that it decreases the evolutionary pressure on females due to the shortage of them, there exist no humane solutions for this but one inhumane solution is to draft stupid stupid/ugly females to dangerous wars, this is the real advantage with female draft. Even with female shortage a lot of low value females will prove themselves out of the sexual market and not get any children, their lack of self awareness will lead to an evolutionary failure.

Without Polygamy it will only be possible for a man to impregnate a female once a year which isn't desirable. The best example of Polygamy is Charles Lindbergh. Polygamy will also make it possible for a female to find begin a relationship with a more attractive male(all females will benefit from it due to less completion for good males).

The emotional aspect
It is a matter of preference if you prefer to have a monogamous relationship or several partners. The emotional benefit for the male with more than one wife is that it will be emotionally easier for him if a wife divorce him(more than 50% of marriages end up in divorce) since he will be less emotionally attached to each woman. The females will get the emotional benefit of being with a very good man and a lot of females prefer sharing a good man over being alone with an unattractive man.

The media wants us to believe that humans are naturally monogamous. We are not. Men have always been intended to be polygamist, while women are what their men make them, which is monogamous. The basic concept of marriage is that the man invests in the family in return for the sexual fidelity of his wife. This way, the man can invest in kids who he knows are his. It is well known that women prefer men who are successful with other women. The evolutionary benefits are obvious. A man who has the opportunity to spread his genes to many women will probably produce sons with the same opportunity, thereby also spreading the mother's genes. This would indicate that women would actually prefer to marry men who can have sex with other women.

So why do western women insist on the opposite? western women do not want a good man. They are taught that they should dominate and control their men, a position which women were never intended to fill. If the husband agrees and commits to sexual fidelity, then he has shown that he is weak and has failed the test. By committing to sexual fidelity, he is showing that he has no backbone and will give in to his wife on all issues. If his wife believes her husband's commitment, she will view him as a doormat and will soon find him boring and lose interest in having sex with him. If she doesn't believe his commitment, she will consider him a lying bastard and the marriage will be full of drama until it finally falls apart. Either way, the husbands loses. By refusing to commit to sexual fidelity, the husband passes the shit test. The wife will then feel that she still needs to compete with other women to hold on to her husband, so she will continue to be sexually attracted to him.

Copied from http://datorissten.clanz.co/topic6.html

User avatar
Wade Hampton III
Posts: 2339
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
Location: Pontiac, SC

Re: Why polygamy is good

Post by Wade Hampton III » Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:42 pm

Looks like the Mormons may have been onto something!

:idea:

adolf512

Re: Why polygamy is good

Post by adolf512 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:22 am

I did some research on the vikings, it appears that they practised polygamy a lot, this explains why their society never become stable and why they were so aggressive, they had to man up or be weeded out of the gene pool.

David Lane suggested that only a few men should be permitted to be polygamous after we take power http://heretical.com/miscella/lanepoly.html i do not agree but in any case widespread polygamy is currently a very good thing since it will destabilize the current dysgenic society. I do not think a stable big government society is a good thing even if the ones in power is good racially aware people.
Wade Hampton III wrote:Looks like the Mormons may have been onto something!

:idea:
Yes they were, why do you think the us government inprisoned several of there leaders until the mainstream church abandoned polygamy? (the charlatan Joseph Smith clearly stated that polygamy was an important part of mormonism).

Image
Image

User avatar
Wade Hampton III
Posts: 2339
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
Location: Pontiac, SC

Re: Why polygamy is good

Post by Wade Hampton III » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:12 pm

adolf512 wrote: Yes they were, why do you think the us government inprisoned several of there leaders until the mainstream church abandoned polygamy? (the charlatan Joseph Smith clearly stated that polygamy was an important part of mormonism).
Apparently the IRS did not take kindly upon all those dependent deductions, among other things!

:roll:

Emily Henderson

Re: Why polygamy is good

Post by Emily Henderson » Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:24 pm

adolf512 wrote:Without enforced monogamy the most successful/attractive males will have multiple wives, this will lead to a lot harder competition for females and a less stable society, which is a good thing. A less stable society will be needed for racial improvements and hence stability isn't desirable. With shortage of females the men will be needed to take larger risks and the stupid cowards will be eliminated from the gene pool.
Image

The disadvantage with polygamy is that it decreases the evolutionary pressure on females due to the shortage of them, there exist no humane solutions for this but one inhumane solution is to draft stupid stupid/ugly females to dangerous wars, this is the real advantage with female draft. Even with female shortage a lot of low value females will prove themselves out of the sexual market and not get any children, their lack of self awareness will lead to an evolutionary failure.

Without Polygamy it will only be possible for a man to impregnate a female once a year which isn't desirable. The best example of Polygamy is Charles Lindbergh. Polygamy will also make it possible for a female to find begin a relationship with a more attractive male(all females will benefit from it due to less completion for good males).

The emotional aspect
It is a matter of preference if you prefer to have a monogamous relationship or several partners. The emotional benefit for the male with more than one wife is that it will be emotionally easier for him if a wife divorce him(more than 50% of marriages end up in divorce) since he will be less emotionally attached to each woman. The females will get the emotional benefit of being with a very good man and a lot of females prefer sharing a good man over being alone with an unattractive man.

The media wants us to believe that humans are naturally monogamous. We are not. Men have always been intended to be polygamist, while women are what their men make them, which is monogamous. The basic concept of marriage is that the man invests in the family in return for the sexual fidelity of his wife. This way, the man can invest in kids who he knows are his. It is well known that women prefer men who are successful with other women. The evolutionary benefits are obvious. A man who has the opportunity to spread his genes to many women will probably produce sons with the same opportunity, thereby also spreading the mother's genes. This would indicate that women would actually prefer to marry men who can have sex with other women.

So why do western women insist on the opposite? western women do not want a good man. They are taught that they should dominate and control their men, a position which women were never intended to fill. If the husband agrees and commits to sexual fidelity, then he has shown that he is weak and has failed the test. By committing to sexual fidelity, he is showing that he has no backbone and will give in to his wife on all issues. If his wife believes her husband's commitment, she will view him as a doormat and will soon find him boring and lose interest in having sex with him. If she doesn't believe his commitment, she will consider him a lying bastard and the marriage will be full of drama until it finally falls apart. Either way, the husbands loses. By refusing to commit to sexual fidelity, the husband passes the shit test. The wife will then feel that she still needs to compete with other women to hold on to her husband, so she will continue to be sexually attracted to him.

Copied from http://datorissten.clanz.co/topic6.html
I don't necessarily have a negative opinion of polygamy or polyamory in and of itself, but there are several points of contention one can have with your post based on White Western thinking vs. Third World thinking.

Chivalry is entirely a White Western phenomenon. The attitude of protecting and valuing the female is not the forte of Arabs, for instance.
Most European women would not, and for good reason, tolerate sharing their husband with multiple women, nor splitting their resources up between the care for another woman's children and her own. That is a common trait of high primates, interest in one's own offspring.
Although you do see some high primates where the male has several female partners, and many children. He will kill any child from another male.
Thankfully we aren't actually gorillas.

As for women in war-ugly or not-no thanks. :? :lol:

Helmut Stuka

Re: Why polygamy is good

Post by Helmut Stuka » Sun Sep 25, 2016 5:05 am

I have a pet hypothesis (to my knowledge, original to me) that absent external influences, such as Christianity, the general level of sexual regulation which develops from instinct to culture in a society is proportionate to the society’s level of contact with foreigners.  In short, that monoandry by females and cultural emphasis on female fidelity are in the first instance racial protectives; and in the Aryan, who is peculiarly susceptible to notions of fairness and equality (whether right or wrong), monogyny sometimes follows.

Otherwise stated, I predict that an isolate society would tend more toward a Tahitian¹ lifestyle; whereas a new society developing in geographic Europe in 2016 would either rapidly develop restrictive sexual mores, or melt into the multicultural pot within a few generations.  Compare also even pre-Christian Germania (if you believe Tacitus) with even post-Christian Iceland (if you believe Rockwell).  Though counterexamples and various counterarguments could be made—and of course, complex social phenomena are almost always multifactorial in their causes.

(¹ Although Tahitians are non-Aryan, I do not think that renders the example inapplicable.  Individual instincts against cross-breeding with interfertile aliens seem to be actually stronger in mice than men, here using “men” with poetic licence to denote anthropoids of any kind; whereas anthropoids seem more to express their such instincts collectively, through culture, which can be very suddenly upset by external influence such as contact with an alien species.  Noting that Tahitians freely mixed it up with White explorers, who did no better.  Noting too that the upset can also be gradual, as by Jewish subversion.)

Himmler dropped a tangential hint in his famous speech on homosexuality which makes me suspect that I am not the first to think of this, and others may have discussed it in old literature with which I am simply unfamiliar.  References would be appreciated.

I will avoid expressing my general opinion of monogamy versus polygamy on WB, either way (and nobody will guess, for my thinking on the topic is rather subtle).

Emily Henderson

Re: Why polygamy is good

Post by Emily Henderson » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:03 pm

Helmut Stuka wrote:I have a pet hypothesis (to my knowledge, original to me) that absent external influences, such as Christianity, the general level of sexual regulation which develops from instinct to culture in a society is proportionate to the society’s level of contact with foreigners.  In short, that monoandry by females and cultural emphasis on female fidelity are in the first instance racial protectives; and in the Aryan, who is peculiarly susceptible to notions of fairness and equality (whether right or wrong), monogyny sometimes follows.

Otherwise stated, I predict that an isolate society would tend more toward a Tahitian¹ lifestyle; whereas a new society developing in geographic Europe in 2016 would either rapidly develop restrictive sexual mores, or melt into the multicultural pot within a few generations.  Compare also even pre-Christian Germania (if you believe Tacitus) with even post-Christian Iceland (if you believe Rockwell).  Though counterexamples and various counterarguments could be made—and of course, complex social phenomena are almost always multifactorial in their causes.

(¹ Although Tahitians are non-Aryan, I do not think that renders the example inapplicable.  Individual instincts against cross-breeding with interfertile aliens seem to be actually stronger in mice than men, here using “men” with poetic licence to denote anthropoids of any kind; whereas anthropoids seem more to express their such instincts collectively, through culture, which can be very suddenly upset by external influence such as contact with an alien species.  Noting that Tahitians freely mixed it up with White explorers, who did no better.  Noting too that the upset can also be gradual, as by Jewish subversion.)

Himmler dropped a tangential hint in his famous speech on homosexuality which makes me suspect that I am not the first to think of this, and others may have discussed it in old literature with which I am simply unfamiliar.  References would be appreciated.

I will avoid expressing my general opinion of monogamy versus polygamy on WB, either way (and nobody will guess, for my thinking on the topic is rather subtle).
Helmut,
Thank you for the linked article to Himmler's speech. I'd never heard it, and it is fascinating. It's in keeping with a lot of similar things I've read from those that are more 'pro white' in the field of psychology and their thoughts regarding homosexuals.

Excerpt:
"..Interconnected with this is the fact that the homosexual lies pathologically. He is not lying-to take an extreme example – as a Jesuit. The Jesuit lies for a purpose. He says anything whatever with a beaming face and knows that he is deceiving you. He has a moral foundation: for the glory of God; majorum dei gloriam. The end justifies the means. There is a whole moral philosophy, a moral doctrine that Saint Ignatius worked out.

The Jesuit therefore is lying and knows it; he does not forget for a moment that he is lying. The homosexual however lies and believes it himself. If you ask a homosexual about something: Have you done that? Answer: No. I know of cases where homosexuals interviewed by us said: with my sacred oath, in honour of my mother, or may I immediately drop dead here if this is not true. Three minutes afterwards, when with the help of our evidence we said to him, „Please, and this?” [this = the irrefutable evidence], he unfortunately did not topple over, but is still alive..."

Further down he discusses the denigration of the role of the female by the Church, and how it serves Bolshevism, driving a wedge between German men and women. Wonderful speech.

KenPatrick

Re: Why polygamy is good

Post by KenPatrick » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:40 am

Indeed there are many good reasons why polygamy is a fantastic practice, but because of time and space, only ten reasons have been proffered. Indeed, supporting polygamy is a sensible thing to do because men already like having many partners, it enhances personal freedom, helps to prevent or minimize adultery, is an integral part of some culture, was practiced by great men of Christianity and Islam and other religions, helps to decrease the number of single women in society, helps men with leadership ability, it indicates that men are humanitarian, and it is a normal human practice.

Ken | FL Divorce Papers

adolf512

Re: Why polygamy is good

Post by adolf512 » Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:22 pm

KenPatrick wrote:Indeed there are many good reasons why polygamy is a fantastic practice, but because of time and space, only ten reasons have been proffered. Indeed, supporting polygamy is a sensible thing to do because men already like having many partners, it enhances personal freedom, helps to prevent or minimize adultery, is an integral part of some culture, was practiced by great men of Christianity and Islam and other religions, helps to decrease the number of single women in society, helps men with leadership ability, it indicates that men are humanitarian, and it is a normal human practice.
It's not even healthy for males to attach themselves too much to a single women https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_XiYGb7vn0 the emotional argument against polygamy does not hold up to scrutiny.

I forgot about one big advantage: less females breeding out since it will be easier for females to get the males they want.

How can people claim monogamy is natural when divorce and adultery is skyrocketing? what we are seeing more and more of now is some males that have one partner after another while other struggle to get any female attention, females generally prefer being single over compromising(due to less sex drive). It's just a question of time before we see formal polygamous relationships becoming mainstream, of course a lot of idiots will be against it but it is probably futile, nature eventually wins.

Of course structures such as polygamous families is a treat to the power structure and for this reason the church worked against nature https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Eosd1BzZA

Post Reply