8/23/20

[My Thoughts are in brackets.]

Hi James,

What are thoughts on monogamy vs polygamy?

[As a polygamist I’m of course biased.]

In one of your articles you mentioned that the Native American word for father was the same as for uncle.

In a recent article “Sin”, you state:

“primal masculine virtues such as aggression, risk taking and sexual dominance, while enabling survival on one level may encouraging suffering when placed in civilized context, with perhaps the best quote of the book, “Man’s sins may be the relics of his rise rather than the stigmata of his fall.”

[The limp-wristed academics, the Durants, understood, that such as they, an actual academic apex of civilized discourse, would be low status people in a barbaric setting.]

Also the passage about how 15 centuries of Christian toil with socially enforced monogamy is the pillar of western society.

[I will punt on the Christian question, as biblical patriarchs had multiple wives in some instances and that traditional societies of all races and creeds have had polygamy, monogamy and celibacy as masculine conditions in a simultaneous fashion. In medieval Christendom the Pope would have multiple common law wives, as would various lords and merchants, while an artisan or peasant would have a single wife and a slave or monk practiced celibacy.]

My thinking is that this is a construct to motivate incels to accept slavery.

All civilisations do this to some extent.

In the west it’s about material wealth,

in the Arab world it’s about bowing and scraping and killing in the infidel.

In the subcontinent marriages are arranged by the family.

As there is limited mate selection on the behalf of the woman, all a man must do is follow the rules and he will be given a woman, in this life or in the next in the case of the Islamist.

[The real difference in mating traditions depends on the type of society. I would encourage the reading of Sex in History by Reah Tannahill.

[Hunting societies may or may not practice patriarchy, matriarchy, monogamy or polyandry. Just because the Amazonian girl might have sex with a strong man, a smart man and a funny man so that her son will have all of these gifts, it does not follow that all hunting societies were Bonobo like in promiscuity. Many Native American societies would have celibacy, monogamy and polygamy in the same band, based on a man’s fitness to mate and provide.. Keep in mind that the roll of a woman in primitive societies is only secondarily reproductive and primarily economic, with her doing almost all of the non-hunting and non-combative work. A man who can amass horses, captives and goods through hunting and war needs someone to manage his assets while he is out away from camp. A woman might see that battle losses have left her little sister without a mate and beseech her husband to take her in as a wife. As degenerates at the end of Masculine Time we might think mating is all about sex, but it was primarily logistical in primitive settings.]

[In a farming society, the ruling class might retain harems but their subjects will be paired as monogamous pairs so that the man who could not win a woman in war has one provided for him and that she will now serve as a hostage to keep him from running off. And if his daughter is beautiful she will be taken by the elite as a sex slave or even wife.

[In herding societies such as the Arуan and the Mongol, high status men will have many wives, mid status men some or one, and low status men will be forced into celibacy, whore usage, rapine—a great engine of war—or raiding for a mate. This drives the herding society to conquer the farming society. Indeed all ancient European DNA seems to be matrilineal and the patrilineal DNA all Arуan, which means the herders killed or castrated or marginalize every indigenous man and took the women to wife. This brings about the classic society of the cultural pyramid, with an upper warrior and priestly class living as warriors and shaman of the old big sky lifeway, and the middle class having one or more wives depending on their prosperity and the lower class either dependent on whores or assigned the ugliest women as wives and obedience hostages.]

[In the industrial era you get the largest proportion of monogamy even as whoring blossoms to take care of those men unfit as mates and also the perversions of the upper class.]

[In the information age society, an immediate collapse of monogamy brings about the greatest diversity of simultaneous mating practices from those of all earlier ages.]

The taboos referred to as degeneracy such group sex and partner swapping appear to be something humans do in a primitive state of existence.

[Be careful following anthropology, as all studies of remaining primitives were of their most degenerate and most marginalized types, those pushed to the barest margins and remaining primitive for the longest. It is the case that most women yearn for monogamy, and that forcing this on the mid and low status man is a feminizing aspect of civilization, an aspect not forced on upper class men, ever.]

Not to mention the scandalous acts elites Are doing everywhere Over all times.

Is the concept of one man and woman for life just another aspect to motivate people to nest and pursue material things?

[The monogamous relationship, when it works, is the most stable kind of mating structure, especially for conquest warfare requiring men who can double as warriors and then settlers on the conquered land. This was the key to Roman, Macedonian and American expansion. It works best in extended family settings, with the nuclear family tradition imposed in early modern Europe and Plantation America extremely corrosive to monogamy, and immediately resulted in an increase in spousal brutality, whoring and orphanage. These results increased the economic and coercive power of both government and the elite, making massive amounts of orphans available for slave labor and placing the woman locked into marriage with an unfit and/or brutal man as a moral linchpin for fear-based suffrage and the advent of the police state.

[By my estimation, 95% of the women I have known have been highly fit for life in a monogamous household, but only if it is economically balanced below thriving and above suffering on that thin margin of relation-ship strengthening struggle, avoiding the sloth of success or the misery of failure. When this balance is not maintained, the absent of extended family and clan shatters the marriage.

[Conversely, cruel reality has demonstrated to me that, fully 70% of the men I have known, are incapable of maintaining a give-and-take relationship with a woman. They must either be cucked beta boys, disappointing their wife’s need to be dominated, or they are control freaks, suffocating their mate. This may be an ancient sorting legacy, pointing back to earlier times when the best men had multiple wives and low status men made do with celibacy, rape and prostitution. Note that the Zulu did not permit their men to marry and have intercourse until they had wetted their spears in battle. That was a great monogamous tradition of a mixed agricultural and herding people. Another African people, the Selek [see George Frazier’s The Golden Bough and possibly the ancient Minoans] had a kingship tradition by which the king had many wives and if her ever failed to satisfy their need for sex he would be strangled by order of the elders and that if any of his sons came of age he would have to fight those who wished to usurp his kingship, basically calling for Evander Holyfield levels of manliness as the king was symbol of tribal virility. In such societies, such a Dahomey, where the king had 5,000 wives, many men of low status would be consign to a life as an incell, a rapist or a patron of whores. Perhaps the fact that so few civilized men are ever able to provide for, protect, satisfy and counsel their wife, is a legacy of this ancient fact of life well known to many races and creeds of folk the world over. Additionally, in the absence of war to cleanse unfit mates from the male population, perhaps testosterone suppression is a balancing factor.]

[Most of our men should not reproduce. Today I walked in an old rural area of Utah where half of the inhabitants are now coastal rich, demi-rich and uber-rich, living in million dollar houses. Eight men biked by me in their 30s, speaking of investments in at least four distinctly low-T voices. As I rounded the old bench road past a million dollar home, two untrained dogs, an Aussie and a pit bull barked at me, making like they were coming through the fence, but just letting me know I needed to keep going on my way. The owner, a soft, girly-voiced man of 50 with 70 extra pounds around his waist, shrilly pleaded for the dogs to stop barking and I waved to him indicating I was not offended and they continued to bark. He continued to plead as they barked on and I rounded the corner, whining to his canine masters, “Who wants a cookie,” as if he were a grandmother trying to calm two feuding toddlers. To me, the doom of Western Civilization is that those bicycle faɡɡots and this dough boy, are supposed to each take a woman who might better serve a real man, and breed down into dysgenic sissydom and sloth.]

Is it a way to prevent incels from going nuclear and thinning the herd out of jealous rage?

[Incels are the ones culling themselves, as the unfit portion of the human herd, as they are incapable of developing pack ethics and acquiring frail companionship and loyalty, which is very easy for a capable man to do, so long as that man realizes and acts on the fact that women are very different from men. Most incells I know insist on the liberal feminist fantasy construct that men and women are psychologically and spiritually identical and only differ physicality. It is the height of irony that these men are mostly right wing in mind but liberal in action. That is an example of how powerful our media and school conditioning has been. This means that many of our incells have been duped into mating dysfunction by the media and educational priesthoods dedicated to their diminishment. Think about it. I can name and will not, three prominent leaders in neo-masculinity and European Identity philosophy who are gay, who do not even like women and have no basis for understanding them. How can you really know a Cսntry until you have conquered Her? Yet many men who describe themselves as incells follow the advice of men who get blow jobs from lower status men. How involuntary is such celibacy?

[I have nothing against involuntary celibacy, seeing it as a social sorting mechanism to the good. Put it this way, as an old, twerp breeder, I could have sex with a young woman this morning, even as I cough up blood from my recent bout with chronic lung infection, and then successfully do combat with stick or fist or blade against 99% of incells half my age—I have done it before, with up to five post-coital sparring partners declining to spar with me a second round under the blazing Baltimore sun as I wobbled some 70 pounds overweight. There is no potential incell army. The warrior and even the soldier is characterized by his parallel war and sex drive, Thanatos and Eros providing the tension necessary for his action. The unmaimed man is possessed by enough wits to whisper what she needs to hear as well as the courage to face an enemy that is near.]

And finally are there any cases of societies through history where Lust and promiscuity were considered virtues?

[The Selek above, though I surely misspelled the tribe as well as classical and early modern men of “lusty” character and Chinse patriarchs with numerous wives, being praised for their ability to satisfy women as well as feats of extreme dining like Milo or Babyrs the Mameluke eating an entire lamb.]

It seems that civilisation always outcompetes tribalism due to repressing the sexuality of women and parceling it out as an award for obedience.

[Actually, this happens via assimilation of the conquering tribalists into the indistinct mass of anti-heroic money-grubbing sloth, and that civilization is eventually brought down by tribalists again in its weakened form. In the mid-time such civilizations wax strong when a middling warrior class like the oarsman, Hoplite, Legionnaire, Yeoman, man-at-arms or rifleman go off to war with a loyal woman supporting them at home. When this middling military cast is stripped of its feminine—including civic—support and the nation begins to rely on whoring mercenaries, decline is the result.]

Safe travels,

Marius