/fascist/ - Surf the Kali Yuga

Fascist and Third Position Discussion

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

More

(used to delete files and postings)


Polygamy Vs Monogamy Blackshirt 10/24/2020 (Sat) 04:13:08 ID: f58bab No.11375
The title says it all gentlemen. This should be a heavy topic that can generate a lot of conversation. Polygamous vs monogamous could drastically change the culture, genetic composition, and thus the destiny of a nation. I think that a mostly monogamous society that accepts polygamy, for higher value males, would be ideal and would most accurate reflect the natural breeding design of men vs women. Common misconceptions is that polygamy wouldnt respect the ritual of marriage (marriage would still be a thing) and that if 1 person becomes polygamous or wants to be monogamous then suddenly everyone has to be. I dont know how to quote a post from another thread but anon in the book thread dropped a bunch of pro monogamy resources and theres anons derailing the dharmic religion thread over this right now.
Even as a supporter of polygamy myself, I’m not sure I’d allow something like what you pictured in the OP in society. I think it is smart to have a cap. Islam, for example, does not allow a man to have more than four wives. I can see some wisdom behind this. In something like shown in the OP pic, it starts to feel much more impersonal. I’m not sure I could deal with a dozen plus wives or really form connections with them. Something like in my pic is reasonable and manageable, and still feels like a family. Though hypothetically a man could have a hundred children in a year through a hundred women – we’d start have to asking ourselves whether we are still trying to build a familial society or if we’re trying to run human stud-farms. The question would be whether any man is truly high enough quality to warrant that. The reproduction rate of superior males must be higher though. It’s a eugenic imperative.
Nobody has ever named a society bigger than a collection of clans which had open polygamy without being the likes of Achmed's. Romans in their prime didn't practice it. Neither did the Greeks.
>>11381 Looking to the past for the future's questions doesn't always work. If the US was pro-polygamy for men of good stock the country would look very different (read: better) today. I am not a proponent of a man having more than two or three wives at most, but if good men could have twice as many children we could imagine ourselves in better shape. Of course one would need to pass a physical and mental examination to have children at all marry multiple times in my ideal world.
>>11375 Open polygamy actively leads to questions of succession in the progeny. I can see it only leading to chaos.
>>11375 >This should be a heavy topic Only if you are the sex-obsessed type, this is on the same league as circumcision, age-of-consent, artificial wombs, sex-robots, government match-making, and the like Yet another Elliot issue polluting the catalog, concentrate on whats important and in front of you, discussions like these are just a proxy for real discussion with consequences
>>11381 Tokugawa Japan. This was a stable feudal society that lasted for more than two centuries, and was a hierarchical society divided into four classes. Besides, the question is irrelevant. Properly regulated, the eugenic benefits of such practices would far outweigh any potential downsides. Our people are degenerating badly now as well. Eugenics is needed more than ever. >>11410 Sex is all-important, believe it or not. Of all the people to really drive this home, Schopenhauer was the most thorough. Since he put the "will to life" as primary (even if he sought to deny it, he rightly understood that sex is something ever-present in the minds of the humans, a public secret that everyone tries to ignore, something which influences all human efforts, and which is absolutely necessary for the future of the species. He even went so far as to say that it is essentially the ultimate goal of all human effort. Sexual issues are life and death matters for the White race. The meaning of life is to reproduce yourself and create even better and more fit offspring.
lol incels think if polygamy was allowed massively they'd stop being incels rather than being even bigger incels since the men who'd profit the most would be the likes of Jeffrey Epstein.
Open file (126.05 KB 927x783 hole posts.png)
>>11415 >two centuries >stable
>>11424 OK, how about The Great Kahn, Ghengis? Quite a high percentage of the world's population now share his genes. I'd say he did pretty well for himself and for us tbh.
>>11429 >using an empire that collapsed in a couple centuries and depended on foreign collaborators to win wars against non-tribes. Mongolia today is impotent and is already getting Chinkified.
>>11424 I provided the example of a single shogunate. Polygamy was not a feature of the Tokugawa shogunate alone and then never existed before that. Also, the Tokugawa system never collapsed, it was phased out and modernized in order to compete with European imperialist powers.
>>11429 Was Mongol society polygamous? I know Genghis got around, but you'll need to tell me if he took multiple wives, and more importantly if most Mongol men took multiple wives. >I'd say he did pretty well for himself and for us tbh I fail to see how he did well for us. I doubt outside of East Asia there is a significant descendancy from Genghis Khan
>>11437 I doubt that of the most people with the last name Khan or claim to be a descendant of him are actually related to him at all.
>>11415 >Tokugawa Japan. There is no evidence nor can you use Tokugawa Japan as an example that polygamy is good, considering they didn't really use it for eugenics.
Open file (125.29 KB 203x253 ClipboardImage.png)
>>11437 Genghis Khan was a White man. Y-haplogroup R1b-M343. The Borjigin family name likewise refers to blue eyes. It was a hard redpill to swallow when I saw that Savitri Devi claimed this in The Lightning and the Sun, but sure enough it it's true. >Persian historian Rashid-al-Din reported in his “Jami’s al-tawarikh” written at the start of the 14th century that most Borjigin ancestors of Genghis Khan were tall, long-bearded, red-haired, and bluish green-eyed, suggesting that the Genghis Khan’s male lineage had some Caucasoid-specific genetic features >He also said that Genghis Khan looked just like his ancestors, but Kublai Khan, his grandson, did not inherit his ancestor’s red hair, implying that the addition of Mongoloid-specific alleles for determining hair color to the genetic makeup of Genghis Khan’s Borjigin clan was probably from the grandmother or mother of Kublai Khan, that is, the wife or daughter-in-law of Genghis Khan. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622
>>11440 >nor can you use Tokugawa Japan as an example that polygamy is good, considering they didn't really use it for eugenics. No one asked for examples of polygamous societies that explicitly used for it for genetics. This would be an absurd thing to ask for, because no such society has ever existed, and the term "eugenics" itself has at most 150 years behind it and no more, not counting the natural eugenics of the Spartans which was more concerned with removing the bad than creating newer and better babies. >There is no evidence Bullshit. It was legal until ZOG occupied them in 1945, so even beyond the time of the Meiji Restoration. >Until 1945, when Japan was defeated in World War II and a new constitution was promulgated, polygamy was still legal. Multiple wives, their children by one father, and their relatives were regarded as one family. http://family.jrank.org/pages/994/Japan.html
>>11442 >No one asked for examples of polygamous societies that explicitly used for it for genetics. That's literally the only good thing about polygamy anon.... >This would be an absurd thing to ask for, because no such society has ever existed, and the term "eugenics" Ah yes the Romans and Greeks never practiced nor talked about the desire for removing negative qualities and improving children through breeding.
>>11441 Savitri Devi being right about this will likely get shut down by (((academia)).
>>11435 Just poking fun. I am a bit curious about how polygamy worked there. Was it only for certain classes? In the context of your original point, I do think that monogamy arose in European culture because that was what worked, biologically and socially. Some men definitely had mistresses, but at the end of the day they typically weren't recognizing bastards. I believe the greater stability and resources lead to better children. As a caveat, I don't view our modern issues as a eugenics problem but a cultural problem. Get rid of the poison and shit diets, and you'd have a respectable population within a generation or two. >>11439 IIRC, genetic studies estimated about .5% of the world's population being descended from him. Very well done for a man only 800 years ago, but not terribly significant for the rest of the world, Europeans included.
>>11445 She also claimed that Muhammad was White man as well. It is very possible. One day the realization will dawn on people that nearly every historical figure of note was connected to Whites in some way. I never wanted to become a "we wuz kangz" poster, but the evidence is just too much to deny.
>>11441 This is pretty interesting. Still don't think we have a direct political or genetic legacy from him, but the "he did well for us" statement makes sense now. I've only gotten through part of Impeachment of Man, so I'll have to check out more Devi when I finish up.
>>11448 The Lightning and the Sun is definitely a must-read. People like to just focus on the Kalki and Hitler parts, but it's a real tour de force that explores Akhenaten, Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler, with talk on important things like cyclical time, the natural order and the Kali Yuga dispersed throughout.
>>11444 >used for it for genetics *Eugenics. >That's literally the only good thing about polygamy anon.... Perhaps in the main, but the exact question that led to Japan being mentioned was in response to >>11381, so it makes total sense as to why it was brought up. I don't think it's quite as relevant either in the grand-scheme of things, as it's a type of polygamy that is not an end in itself, but part of a larger morality of improvement. >Was it only for certain classes? It seems to have been. Concubines were long associated with the rich and powerful in Japan. I found another source which says that contradicts the other source to an extent. This link seems to say that they took steps towards legally recognizing the children born from concubines as a type of legal relative, but it received criticism from the West, and this was the era of "bunmei kaika" / Westernization, so it was dropped but the practice continued to be socially acceptable. > In 1879, a new provision recognized both wives and concubines as a husband's legal relatives in the second degree. An 1873 law had already made the children born to concubines as legitimate. However, this legal endorsement of polygamy was condemned by Westerners as barbarous and therefore, under the 1882 Old Criminal Law, concubines lost status and their children were considered illegitimate. Even though the Meiji Civil Code legally adopted monogamy, mistresses continued to be accepted as a matter of social practice. https://web.archive.org/web/19991115020247/http://www.students.haverford.edu/east/meiji/glossary/concubinage.html
how can anyone deny polygamy when men are able to impregnate literally as many women as will line up for it. its clearly a eugenic function and fits in with men doing the fighting and taking risks probably dying in battle or even just hunting. the eugenic implication of polygamy and how it fits perfectly into a tradition culture of strict gender roles is extremely clear to me.
>>11494 R vs. K selection. Pretty much any male of any species could theoretically mass impregnate, but that doesn't make it the natural mode. The fact that women don't go through estrus would imply monogamy
>>11496 Abrahamic influence is what warps these peoples' views of monogamy versus polygamy. Pro-monogamy individuals think that their views are so natural and normal, so perfectly adapted to the human condition, but they fail to realize that the anthropological record testifies to the fact that 85% of human societies have permitted some form of polygynous marriage. It seems quite natural! People need to understand that the driving engine of racial evolution is competition between males for breeding females. Monogamy sabotages this, disrupting upward evolution and leading to degeneration due to the depression of the reproductive rates of the strongest and best elements of society. An egalitarian distribution of women will doom the White race.
>>11498 >Monogamy sabotages this, disrupting upward evolution and leading to degeneration due to the depression of the reproductive rates of the strongest and best elements of society You are making a lot of assumptions here, namely that there is some huge gulf within the race for genetic quality. Because of this assumption, you are under-weighing the benefits of increased resources and parental care monogamy is more capable of providing. Open polygamy opens all sorts of succession issues in the different branches of the progeny, inviting chaos and instability. I'm not convinced polygamy would promote an environment for healthy young. I also want to add that there still is competition for mates in a monogamous society.
>>11494 Humans can do all sorts of shit that is not conducive to a healthy civilization. If you can get it for yourself, good for you. But an entire top tier European civilization will not be arranged around it. >>11498 Polygamy was the exception not the norm in almost all of western civilization. Top tier men sometimes had concubines and love children but rarely were they living together as one happy family and there was a social stigma attached.
>>11502 what about the fact that men and women are born in roughly equal ratios, but by natures design men are more disposable and will engage in higher risk activities than the women by both nature and by duty. this means that you are guaranteed to have more women than men. what are you to do with the excess women after everyone is already paired up?
>>11498 >Monogamy sabotages this, disrupting upward evolution and leading to degeneration due to the depression of the reproductive rates of the strongest and best elements of society. This literally makes zero sense, our ancestors have been in monogamous relationships for thousands of years, it sounds to me that you want to shill monogamy, for a selfish desire to satisfy your lust or out of desperation. Polygamy is only useful for eugenics, other than that it should be percieved as degenerate, every man should be content with his relationship with his singular woman and vice-versa for the woman. Monogamy is not egalitarian at all, unless you want to say that Rome, Ancient Greece, Ancient Germans and celts were all egalitarian?
>>11420 I think that was just bait
>>11506 >our ancestors have been in monogamous relationships for thousands of years And? >it sounds to me that you want to shill monogamy, for a selfish desire to satisfy your lust or out of desperation. Ha, I am not deluded enough to think that I am among the top percentage of males. >Polygamy is only useful for eugenics This is the whole point of this thread. >Monogamy is not egalitarian at al One man - one wife — is an egalitarian distribution of women among men. >>11502 >Top tier men sometimes had concubines and love children but rarely were they living together as one happy family and there was a social stigma attached. So you admit that women accrue to top-tier men, and only the mutable opinions of society are what discouraged its further development. Concubinage of course is a form of degeneracy. These are relationships of mere sense-gratification, not development of the race. >>11501 >namely that there is some huge gulf within the race for genetic quality. There is though. Less than between races, but even within a people the vast amount are of middling, mediocre quality. Not very highly developed intellects. NPCs, shudras – whatever you want to call them. >the benefits of increased resources and parental care monogamy is more capable of providing. More wives = more hands to care for children
>>11514 >And? Are you daft? So that means there is no problem with monogamy nor does it degrade the White race. Most great people come from a family of two spouses. >Ha, I am not deluded enough to think that I am among the top percentage of males. Lol, sure buddy nice narcissism, I like how you didn't prove me wrong and outed yourself as a degenerate. >This is the whole point of this thread. But your point is even more asinine, because you're trying to extend it to being a common lifestyle for the supposed "top men". Polygamy is not needed for every man nor every top men, only for in a desire situation, and a lifestyle of a child having two or three mothers or fathers is not a healthy one. >One man - one wife — is an egalitarian distribution of women among men. No it's not you're being moronic, the Ancient Athenians encouraged monogamous relationships and were very strict with women and men like Aristotle who completely rejected Egalitarianism values had a monogamous lifestyle. You're not understanding anything about monogamy and what it values at all.
>>11527 >You're not understanding anything about monogamy and what it values at all. definitely not eugenics or a teleological understanding
>>11527 >that means there is no problem with monogamy nor does it degrade the White race The White race could be much greater. >it's narcissistic to not claim that oneself is not some top-quality gigachad who deserves multiple wives Top kek, whatever buddy >Polygamy is not needed for every man nor every top men Was never argued for. >No it's not you're being moronic Allowing every man one wife and no more is an equal distribution of women. It's not hard to understand.
Doesn't matter what you want, polygamy doesn't foster high civilization so it will lose out in practice as a large-scale insitutionalized system. You'll only see pockets of it for men who are above the rules.
>>11529 You aren't even arguing you're just stating what you think is factual. >>It's narcissistic to not claim that oneself is not some top-quality gigachad who deserves multiple wives Yes that is narcissism, and I'm pretty sure people like you don't "deserve" polygamy considering men who have a good look can also be an illusion. Polygamy is not earned because you use plastic surgery and lift weights otherwise a nigger is worthy of White women for simply editing himself. You can go back to cuckchan with your illusion of "giga-chad".
>>11532 >You aren't even arguing you're just stating what you think is factual. I'm merely stating truths which no one has been able to satisfactorily debunk. Arguments are spread throughout the thread. I'm not going to reiterate in every single post. >Yes that is narcissism It's not narcissism though, because it has nothing to do with having an over-inflated sense of one's own self-importance. >Polygamy is not earned because you use plastic surgery and lift weights otherwise a nigger is worthy of White women for simply editing himself. You're arguing against a strawman now. Typical.
>>11529 Also you don't understand the word egalitarian", stop being a faggot and understand the concept of monogamy. There is no equality between man and woman, it's about discipline and stability, hell even the Vedic and the Gods are and encourage monogamy, because it's conceived to be natural and divine, something that brings true happiness to an individual. You're very persuasive that we should support polygamy, for the so called "uberchad".
>>11533 >I'm merely stating truths which no one has been able to satisfactorily debunk. You have brought no facts whatsoever, if you have facts then show them and stop being vague. >It's not narcissism <Ha, I am not deluded enough to think that I am among the top percentage of males <Mudslimes practice it because they see that women have no value or qualities and see only worthy of breeding Sure no narcissism whatsoever. >You're arguing against a strawman now. Typical >Muh strawman You're an idiot, I said this because you're using giga-chad as an example of who's worthy of polygamy, a guy who uses plastic surgery and works out probably using steroids.
>>11534 You're so dumb it's not even funny. Fuck. >There is no equality between man and woman This was never claimed, not even once. We're strictly referring to men and how in strictly monogamous societies all men have only the ability to attain at most a single wife. This is an equal right, ensuring that each man at most can only attain one woman, regardless of social position or individual quality.
>>>11535 >taking my use of "gigachad" literally I want to hope that you're pulling my leg. >You have brought no facts whatsoever, if you have facts then show them and stop being vague. The main argument was already laid out here: >>11498.
>>11536 Quite frustrated huh? >This was never claimed, not even once. We're strictly referring to men and how in strictly monogamous societies all men have only the ability to attain at most a single wife. Restricting men is done to prevent them from being too lustful. Every religion with monogamy restricts men for this reason, because they are agaisnt the idea of one man being holding himself so highly and forgetting his duty of what a father or spouse is supposed to act. you're basically implying that buddhism and dharma this whole time saw women as equal as men, because they were too strict on how many woman they could knock up. Monogamy restricts men to prevent them from being too lustful. Look any great leader who was a faggot or had multiple wives, usually they were massive degenerates. Children and their care and proper mother and father figures are of concern as well considering they don't need multiple parents raising them differently. >This is an equal right, ensuring that each man at most can only attain one woman, regardless of social position or individual quality. No, anon you're just an idiot. >>taking my use of "gigachad" literally Don't use it as an example next time >The main argument was already laid out here Your argument is wrong, considering most indo-European pre-christian practiced monogamy, there is no abrahamic influences shitting on polygamy, because abrahamics support polygamy to various extents as well, aka Islam, Judaism, moronism. I'm still waiting for those facts and statistics.
>>11540 >you're basically implying that buddhism and dharma this whole time saw women as equal as men, because they were too strict on how many woman they could knock up No, this is not being implied at all. Again you fail to understand what is being said. So go back and read >>11536 again. >No, anon you're just an idiot. If we have a group of men, and the law allows them to have one wife, and one wife only, regardless of any other factors in the society that might make them unequal under the law in other respects, this limitation on wives is an equal right. You'd have to be purposely dishonest to deny this. > Look any great leader who was a faggot or had multiple wives, usually they were massive degenerates. Look at you muddying the waters with faggotry now >Your argument is wrong, considering most indo-European pre-christian practiced monogamy, there is no abrahamic influences shitting on polygamy, because abrahamics support polygamy to various extents as well, aka Islam, Judaism, moronism. Nice job focusing on the term "Abrahamic" and ignoring the rest of the post. The only Abrahamic religion relevant to that post is Christianity, which has never supported polygamy and has stamped out it where it has occurred.
>>11514 >within a people the vast amount are of middling, mediocre quality. Not very highly developed intellects. NPCs, shudras – whatever you want to call them. Considering how unhealthy society is today, it's not fair to use the prevalence of NPCs today as an argument for perpetual polygamy. >More wives = more hands to care for children How many women, who have a vested interest in promoting their own children and their own politics, do you want raising your sons? >The only Abrahamic religion relevant to that post is Christianity, which has never supported polygamy and has stamped out it where it has occurred. In the context of European society, did this even matter? How much do you think Christianity fundamentally rewired the European mind and spirit?
>>11542 The number of NPCs in a society is always about the same. They merely conform to the current Zeitgeist. Usually this is nothing bad in and of itself, but because the current system is so openly destructive and degenerative, the NPC phenomenon is much more noticeable. That's not the main argument for polygamy, though. Of course, even though the vast majority of the population consists of NPCs, the vast majority of NPCs would be permitted to have a family and reproduce. Why? - because though they are of mundane quality compared to the highest specimens of the race, they are not necessarily of bad quality, and it is from these average specimens that the higher can easily arise, this happens quite a lot. The vast amount of NPCs though does mean that on average those of lower quality will reproduce at much higher rates than those of higher quality. I wouldn't say the goal even would be to necessarily outnumber those of the average quality, but merely to make steps towards raising gradually the average quality of the race, especially at the top levels. When we talk about polygyny, we need to realize that this would not likely be taking place on a massive scale. The average person would not even know someone, I think, that would be permitted to have more than one wife. This would most likely be restricted to elite members of something akin to the Allgemeine SS, who, as you know, had extremely strict entry requirements and levels of racial purity as compared to the rest of the population. They were true aristocrats of nature. >How much do you think Christianity fundamentally rewired the European mind and spirit? Over two millennia of exposure, I believe that is has had massive effects on Europeans. Today, I think, the spirit of Rome, Greece, ancient India, and every other traditional society on the planet is completely gone from the European soul. There might be embers that can be stoked to cause new flames to grow, but by and large there only remains a Judaic spirit of slave morality, brought about by Christianity and other Abrahamic doctrines.
>>11545 >>How much do you think Christianity fundamentally rewired the European mind and spirit? do we really have to have every single conversation here turn into abrahamism bad? we know its bad, we dont have to derail every thread back into this topic. also polygamy is based and monogamy pundits dont have any solid arguments against it.
>>11494 >how can anyone deny polygamy when men are able to impregnate literally as many women as will line up for it I can deny it since we already live in a society with effectively legal polygamy thanks to not regulating the behavior of women. Contra all the polygamy memers here women when left to the their own devices select for Actual Polygamy (all the males around them fighting viciously until the winners hoard them). This is the situation in Stone Age tech societies which overall have less regulations on female behavior than post-Stone Age but pre-modern ones. > its clearly a eugenic function and fits in with men doing the fighting and taking risks probably dying in battle or even just hunting. >eugenic None of the highest scoring societies in measures like IQ practiced open polygamy post-Iron Age. >>11498 >Abrahamic influence You haven't actually read any of their sacred tomes. They all permit polygamy or at least have no rules against it. >Pro-monogamy individuals think that their views are so natural and normal, so perfectly adapted to the human condition, but they fail to realize that the anthropological record testifies to the fact that 85% of human societies have permitted some form of polygynous marriage Neat of you to conveniently leave out how many of them were either in the Stone Age or have higher murder rates than Detroit. >>11503 >nunneries and vestal virgins and other designated duties for unclaimed women >prostitution >spinster work >nannies and other caregivers Traditional societies already answered this. >>11514 All that babble and you still haven't named any non-Stone Age societies European societies with open polygamy. Especially not in Sparta. >More wives = more hands to care for children Sure which is how children raised outside of monogamy are more functional than ones that are. >>11531 I'm sure the ones advocating for polygamy are just crypto-primivists/outright primitivists . >>11541 >The only Abrahamic religion relevant to that post is Christianity, which has never supported polygamy and has stamped out it where it has occurred. >The Catholic Church is the only Christians. >>11545 Just go to Detroit already. >>11559 Go build your mudhuts already.
>>11560 nice reddit spacing >I can deny it since we already live in a society with effectively legal polygamy thanks to not regulating the behavior of women. Contra all the polygamy memers here women when left to the their own devices select for Actual Polygamy (all the males around them fighting viciously until the winners hoard them). This is the situation in Stone Age tech societies which overall have less regulations on female behavior than post-Stone Age but pre-modern ones. you are making the assumption that polygamy means the marriage rite is no longer a thing. marriage is what prevents that type of behavior, why does every monogamyfag do this? it shows that you havent really thought about it you just have a knee-jerk reaction against it. >nunneries and vestal virgins and other designated duties for unclaimed women celibacy is not something you can just force someone to do because of their circumstance. this will result in stupid women ruining the image of such orders by trying to seduce men to get out of a lifestyle they were never meant for >prostitution there will be no prostitution in the ethno-state >spinster work thats for women that arent fuckable, which is a much much smaller percentage than men that are unfuckable (again, another clue that polygamy is the natural way) >nannies and other caregivers this doesnt make sense. all women should be able to nannie and give care to their own children, there wont be stronk career women in the ethnostate to come. none of those suggestions really deal with the fact that an attractive woman with a sex drive is going to be driven to subvert seduce and destroy anything she has to in order to have a child, there is no law that can stop her from having this natural drive, so if there are too many sexually viable women and strict monogamy is enforced then you might as well be forced to kill them. the excess viable women should go to the top tier males. >Just go to Detroit already. >Go build your mudhuts already. not an argument
Goddamit, just say that you want a harem and leave it at that, no need to drag fascism into this You are like leftists trying to link every aspect of life into 4th-dimensional radical feminist theory, it does not make your issue any more important, it only dilutes the definition of your ideology
>>11531 >nice reddit spacing Not an argument. >you are making the assumption that polygamy means the marriage rite is no longer a thing. marriage is what prevents that type of behavior, why does every monogamyfag do this? it shows that you havent really thought about it you just have a knee-jerk reaction against it. >marriage rites have nothing to do with polygamy There aren't any European societies which had both meaningful marriage and open polygamy. >celibacy is not something you can just force someone to do because of their circumstance. this will result in stupid women ruining the image of such orders by trying to seduce men to get out of a lifestyle they were never meant for Tell that to Romans. More importantly, women have always been kept in check with threats of shaming and exclusion. If their community found out about them getting fucked by unapproved males they would have their standing within society be damaged. >there will be no prostitution in the ethno-state >he says this when he thinks a non-spearchucker society in Europe can have open polygamy All women are sluts unless they get too old/fat/have some dysfunction in their body. Prostitution is merely how unowned women act for resources/protection while the men around them get more access to passable women. FYI, societies with open polygamy prostitution by the way. >thats for women that arent fuckable, which is a much much smaller percentage than men that are unfuckable (again, another clue that polygamy is the natural way) You asked for what to do with excess women and I listed what's been done. You not accepting it doesn't change it. >this doesnt make sense. all women should be able to nannie and give care to their own children, there wont be stronk career women in the ethnostate to come. Nope, plenty of premodern women who belonged to nobility had wet-nurses and nannies. >none of those suggestions really deal with the fact that an attractive woman with a sex drive is going to be driven to subvert seduce and destroy anything she has to in order to have a child, there is no law that can stop her from having this natural drive, so if there are too many sexually viable women and strict monogamy is enforced then you might as well be forced to kill them. the excess viable women should go to the top tier males. The point of monogamy is ruling males making an alliance with other males to regulate female sexuality and kill off/subordinate untrustworthy/hostile males for their loyalty. This brings societal cohesion since the men can trust each-other to not try to muh dik's each-other's women. Women are always on some level automatically opposed to monogamy since they've evolved to function at the level no higher than that of the tribe (not at societies that build pyramids or pantheons), with their sexual choices that of offering their asses and tits around all non-overly related males in sight until all but the winners are dead. Women have no loyalty to any organizational set-up beyond their immediate blood. The likes of you have never named an example of a society with open polygamy having higher societal cohesion than its polygamous neighbors. >>11563 The ones who peddle polygamy live in the delusion that the men who'd benefit the most from polygamy are genius millionaire STEM Lords made from sheer muscle rather than crime lords or treacherous cultists like Mormons or entertainers or drug dealers. Even someone like Jeff Epstein.
Open file (429.17 KB 399x614 not an argument.png)
>>11560 >I can deny it since we already live in a society with effectively legal polygamy thanks to not regulating the behavior of women. Fornication and casual sex is not polygamy, dummy. There are societies which allow polygamy which will still kill or flog someone who has sex outside of the bond of marriage. And they're right to punish it. >None of the highest scoring societies in measures like IQ practiced open polygamy post-Iron Age. Irrelevant. >nunneries and vestal virgins and other designated duties for unclaimed women Enforced celibacy is degenerate, both for men and women. >prostitution Degenerate. >Just go to Detroit already. >Go build your mudhuts already. Seethe, faggot. >>11565 >This brings societal cohesion since the men can trust each-other to not try to muh dik's each-other's women. This part of your post makes me think that you falsely think that polygamy means some sort of "free love" free-for-all. You realize that the "gamy" part means marriage, no? >The ones who peddle polygamy live in the delusion that the men who'd benefit the most from polygamy are genius millionaire STEM Lords made from sheer muscle rather than crime lords or treacherous cultists like Mormons or entertainers or drug dealers. Even someone like Jeff Epstein. You regulate it. It's not hard. This was discussed here >>11545 but you were seething so hard that you just replied "Just go to Detroit already."
Open file (31.33 KB 506x380 prabhupada.jpg)
>People have become so degraded in this age that on the one hand they restrict polygamy and on the other hand they hunt for women in so many ways. Many business concerns publicly advertise that topless girls are available in this club or in that shop. Thus women have become instruments of sense enjoyment in modern society. The Vedas enjoin, however, that if a man has the propensity to enjoy more than one wife—as is sometimes the propensity for men in the higher social order, such as the brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas, and even sometimes the śūdras—he is allowed to marry more than one wife. Marriage means taking complete charge of a woman and living peacefully without debauchery. At the present moment, however, debauchery is unrestricted. Nonetheless, society makes a law that one should not marry more than one wife. This is typical of a demoniac society. >The social structure allowing a man to marry more than one wife can be supported in this way. Generally in every society the female population is greater in number than the male population. Therefore if it is a principle in the society that all girls should be married, unless polygamy is allowed it will not be possible. If all the girls are not married there is a good chance of adultery, and a society in which adultery is allowed cannot be very peaceful or pure. In our Kṛṣṇa consciousness society we have restricted illicit sex life. The practical difficulty is to find a husband for each and every girl. We are therefore in favor of polygamy, provided, of course, that the husband is able to maintain more than one wife. >waahhhh but a civilized society never did it before not even the vedic civilization!! D-E-B-U-N-K-E-D
>>11572 I'm starting to think that Prabhupada was right about everything
Open file (559.52 KB 533x380 ClipboardImage.png)
>>11563 >Goddamit, just say that you want a harem and leave it at that no, i dont want a harem. >no need to drag fascism into this do you know the name of this board? >You are like leftists trying to link every aspect of life into 4th-dimensional radical feminist theory No. not even an argument. >it does not make your issue any more important polygamy vs monogamy is an extremely important issue in the destiny of a nation. you are a retard if you cant understand how this is relevant to fascism or why we should be discussing this on a board named /fascist/. you do know that this is the facist board, right? this isnt /pol/, its /fascist/. >>11565 >There aren't any European societies which had both meaningful marriage and open polygamy. i highly doubt that, but still not a reason to shun polygamy. this isnt really an argument its just monkey see monkey do logic. the point of this thread should be to understand the pros and cons of each side and what their longterm effects are, not use herd mentality to prop up a position that you are emotionally but not rationally invested in, like you. >Tell that to Romans. More importantly, women have always been kept in check with threats of shaming and exclusion. If their community found out about them getting fucked by unapproved males they would have their standing within society be damaged. so why not approve the fucking by marrying sexually and reproductively viable women with high tier men who have the resources to support them? why should we waste such a precious resource by locking it away in a monastery just because faggots like you are irrationally invested in monogamy? >All women are sluts unless they get too old/fat/have some dysfunction in their body. Prostitution is merely how unowned women act for resources/protection while the men around them get more access to passable women. there will be no prostitution in the ethnostate. if the problem is unowned women, why not marry them to appropriate men who have the resources to support and make use of such a precious resource, reproductively viable women? what kind of sick fuck are you that you would rather turn the excess women into prostitutes instead of lawfully wedded wives who will raise children by high tier males? what the fuck is wrong with you? >FYI, societies with open polygamy prostitution by the way. are you implying prostitution doesnt happen in monogamous societies as well? on one hand you say that the only solution with excess reproductively viable women (the ethnostates most precious resource btw) is to turn them into prostitutes or shut them away in monasteries, and then you say that prostitution is a polygamy thing. you make no sense. you make no argument. >The point of monogamy is ruling males making an alliance with other males to regulate female sexuality how is this different from polygamy? its not, unless you are still arguing the retarded trope that in a polygamous society marriage will be thrown out the window (it wont). a polygamous society would still be an alliance between men to regulate the sexual behavior of women. >This brings societal cohesion since the men can trust each-other to not try to muh dik's each-other's women. this is not a function of monogamy, this is a function of marriage. >Women are always on some level automatically opposed to monogamy i doubt it. whores are a symptom of a degenerate society. polygamy means that men can have multiple wives but the women can only have one husband, just incase you didnt understand that. >The likes of you and just what is the likes of me? what are you implying faggot? >have never named an example of a society i dont have to, thats not the point of this thread and whether or not something has been done before is not the way we should be making decisions. we should understand things rationally and how they work and be able to make decisions that why, not on a monkey see monkey do herd mentality basis. start arguing anytime faggot. >with open polygamy what is open polygamy supposed to mean to you? >having higher societal cohesion than its polygamous neighbors. open polygamy vs polygamy? i thought this was about monogamy vs polygamy. what kind of a shitty word game are you trying to turn this into. fuck off with your shitty points and your reddit spacing. >The ones who peddle polygamy live in the delusion that the men who'd benefit the most from polygamy are genius millionaire STEM Lords made from sheer muscle rather than crime lords or treacherous cultists like Mormons or entertainers or drug dealers. Even someone like Jeff Epstein. baseless accusation, not an argument.
>>11572 Who cares? All he ever does is say stupid shit that appease fascist Dharma faggots so they can larp, Dharma is fucking gay and dharmist are fucking dumbasses, who ruined this board and probably couldn't give a shit about fascism and what it is idealologically. Polygamy is not supported in the ethno state get over it. Not even the NS supported polygamy, cucks out.
Open file (96.73 KB 252x252 ClipboardImage.png)
>>11715 The ancient Vedic religion is wholly compatible with National Socialism. I don't even follow it, but that much is obvious. Savitri Devi was 100% correct. >Not even the NS supported polygamy, cucks out. *blocks your path*
>>11716 >The ancient Vedic religion is wholly compatible with National Socialism. I don't even follow it, but that much is obvious. Savitri Devi was 100% correct. No is going to follow it, other than /r9k/ niggers, so it doesn't matter whether you think it's compatible or not. He's one guy...and the NS never could pass polygamy within Germany, so double stupid.
>>11720 >He's one guy...and the NS never could pass polygamy within Germany, so double stupid. Himmler was extremely influential within the Third Reich. Being involved with the SS as he was, even more important. Hitler foresaw that the SS would, within a few generations, produce the leadership of the Reich. You have some meek version of the Third Reich in your mind. If they had won the war they would have radically changed German society. There's a reason why the issue with the churches was deliberately postponed after the initial failures of the Reich church, or why Hitler, according to Goebbels, put off the meat problem as well
monogamy fags here just dont have any good arguments and they never address the valid points brought up by someone arguing for polygamy.
Monogamy for most (97% of people), polygamy for the best. And temple of pussy for the king.
>>11789 It won't happen. You can argue all you want but it's a fantasy and won't sustain a civilization that can compete with others. You are living in a fantasy in your head.
>>11792 thats what i think would be best. polygamy for the common man isnt mathematically practical nor is it in line with the natural dynamics used to justify the practice. >>11797 >It won't happen. not an argument words heard by many a great man who has changed the world before. >You can argue all you want i can and have been, im just waiting for camp monogamy to (actually) argue back. >it's a fantasy >You are living in a fantasy in your head. not an argument. >won't sustain a civilization that can compete with others this seemed like the beginning of an argument, but you never delivered on it beyond an initial statement. can you elaborate more on this part?
>>11792 Agreed. >>11789 Wow the point was proven quickly >>11797
Open file (134.69 KB 719x1080 1577225920862-1.jpg)
>>11798 You want a system that is utopia. It's like saying "There should be peace on earth. prove me wrong". You have no means to institute a system of polygamy. You have no means to maintain one. Monogamy harnesses the energy of the common beta male and is more economically productive because the masses of men are incentivized to contribute. I'm not offended by the idea of a guy having multiple wives, it's just that any society based on that will be outcompeted by others who are based on monogamy. It's been that way for basically all of western civilization. There have been few if any great civilizations based on polygamy in the past couple millenia. Yes, a system can be logically sound if you ignore the constraints. I can even agree with you, but it doesn't matter, because even if you think you are right that institutionalized polygamy is best it simply won't happen. The only way you can "prove me wrong" is by making it happen. If it doesn't happen, then I'm right. That's the trial of reality.
>>11809 >You want a system that is utopia. It's like saying "There should be peace on earth. prove me wrong". Having a system where a small percentage of men have more than one wife is a far cry from a utopia and world peace, please. You monogamist faggots are delusional >You have no means to institute a system of polygamy. You have no means to maintain one. Yes, because we don’t control a government. >Monogamy harnesses the energy of the common beta male and is more economically productive because the masses of men are incentivized to contribute. Given the fact that the polygamy being advocated for by most in this thread would hardly even be noticeable to the average person in society, this is irrelevant. You people are imagining some sort of society where there are millions of men without wives. This just simply isn’t what is being argued for. Almost every nation on the planet has more females than males in the first place, and at a younger age males are more likely to die prematurely due to various causes anyways. More females are around than there are men to marry. >There have been few if any great civilizations based on polygamy in the past couple millenia. “based on polygamy” — no one wants a society “based on polygamy”. As far as I understand it – other pro-polygamy anons correct me if I’m wrong – this would be a small facet of a much more complex society focused on the development and improvement of the Volk. Polygamy is a sensible feature, but by no means the bedrock. It’s merely a form of positive eugenics promoting the breeding of the best elements, while simultaneously other important forms of eugenics would be carried out to remove the bad elements from society and to promote a healthy natalist culture among the couples who make up 99% of the population through interest-free loans and other incentives.
>>11812 >no one wants a society “based on polygamy” If you only want polygamy for a small restricted set of men then that is basically monogamy for the masses. So not really a problem. A far cry from "monogamy fags btfo no arguments lol"
>>11825 Monogamy fags are BTFO because you have spent the entire thread arguing against a fucking strawman entirely of your own invention.
Open file (20.66 KB 474x355 pepe sunglasses.jpg)
>>11825 >So not really a problem. I think we're done here, boys
I think we should try to gather some relevant data and put together a hypothetical picture of what this would look like. For example the 80/20 rule is well known, but in a non degenerate society will that same rule apply? I think the percentage of breedable males will go up. Should it be pushed to 100% of the males have partners, then the surplus females go to the top tier males? Or should we be expecting to at least cut off the bottom 10% of males from breeding to accelerate eugenics?
>>11869 The 80/20 rule only applies, I think, in a situation like we live under today, where there has been (((sexual liberation))). Traditional societies, polygamous or monogamous, have regulated sexuality and no sort of culture of casual sex or dating, which are what really make the type of destructive hypergamy that we are all so familiar with today truly noticeable and inescapable. Women are naturally hypergamous, and are concerned with the status and attractiveness of their partners far more than men. This won't go away, of course, but that does not mean that we have to allow female nature absolutely no restrictions. A healthy system would take hypergamy into account, while also putting guidelines and guardrails around it for the benefit of the whole. I don't think I am able to speculate on the distribution of females, but I think it is important to try to find anyone who is healthy (physically, genetically and mentally) a wife. Outside of that, one should not be entitled to a wife. In fact for people who are not healthy, they shouldn't reproduce. It should be illegal for them to marry or to have children, whether male or female. Most of them will probably be mandatorily sterilized. To get an idea of how many people this type of program may effect, Kikepedia claims that between 1933 and 1939, the Third Reich sterilized 360,000 people, so some 60,000 people a year, or less than 0.1% of the population of Germany's population in 1933 of 66,000,000 annually. If we did this at the same rate in America today with its current population of 328,000,000, we'd be doing something like 300,000 sterilizations every year.
https://counter-currents.com/sexual-utopia-in-power-order/ >About Sexual Utopia in Power >Like many political revolutions, the sexual revolution of the 1960s began with a euphoric feeling of liberation. But when utopian programs clash with dissenters — and with reality itself — the result is chaos, which revolutionaries seek to quash with repression and terror. In Sexual Utopia in Power, F. Roger Devlin explores today’s sexual dystopia, with its loose morals and confused sexual roles; its soaring rates of divorce, celibacy, and childlessness; and the increasingly arbitrary and punitive attempts to regulate and police it. Devlin shows that the breakdown of monogamy results in promiscuity for the few, loneliness for the majority, and unhappiness for all. >Every revolution gives rise to a reaction. Devlin, however, is very critical of mainstream conservative responses to the sexual revolution, which often eerily echo feminist complaints about innocent women being preyed upon by wicked men who must be scolded and punished. The most controversial aspect of Devlin’s work is his argument that today’s sexual dystopia is rooted just as much in women’s nature as men’s, exploring such taboo topics as female hypergamy (mating up), narcissism, infidelity, deceptiveness, and masochism. By showing their biological basis, F. Roger Devlin offers a non-traditional defense of traditional sexual morals and institutions and shows us the way out of today’s sexual dystopia.
>>11869 >Should it be pushed to 100% of the males have partners This is unrealistic but we might try to get close to 90%. If marriage is again understood as a sacrament, then it could help push people getting wedded.
>>11429 >how about The Great Kahn, Ghengis? Dude was a mutt with a conspicuous White admixture that allowed him to stand out among chinks. Rice pussy was all sticky for him. Not the same story in a full White environment, you don't get a massive life advantage cheat like that.
Open file (46.85 KB 720x720 disgusting whore.jpg)
>>12554 Again, this is promiscuity and sexual liberation, not the institution of plural marriage. Rather than referring to the practice of one man and multiple wives, Devlin is known for putting light of the practice of "rotating polyandry", where whores ride the cock carousel with multiple male partners before "settling down".
>>12572 Really? Well then the summary of the book hides this very well, making it sound very trad. Perhaps then the best thing about this book is this summary I quoted?
I'll write my thoughts on this without looking at all the previous arguments ITT and looking at the purely practical benefits and downsides and not any possible moral issues. Polygamy can be beneficial from an eugenic standpoint if the men with the best genes are allowed to have more wives than those of lesser genetic stock. This was the case in both Islamic and pre-Christian Germanic societies, with men at the top of the social hierarchy, who were generally healthier and more educated than the lower classes, being allowed to have more than one wife. Himmler also realized this and wanted to bring this back (although you can debate the extent to which he wanted this legalized for personal gain since he himself wasn't physically the healthiest person). However, the practical problems which arise from polygamy, which is clearly present in Islamic societies, is that it may eventually lead to a lack of female partners for the male population. Women are generally hypergamous; they prefer to marry a man who is genetically and/or financially superior to them. So if a woman from a poor upbringing gets the option to marry a rich man, even if he already has other wives she has to compete with, she will prefer this over marrying a man from the same class, even if he has no wives. Of course, if the poorest members of the male population are all unable to marry because of this, they will grow resentful and may end up becoming criminals or extremists, to claim a wife for themselves outside of the boundaries of the law. This is clearly seen in the case of various Islamic terrorist groups literally abducting women as war-brides. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/19/why-polygamy-breeds-civil-war
>>12574 I'm sure the book is very trad, I've not read it myself. He seems to be pretty well-versed in the failings of feminism, promiscuity and the "sexual revolution" in general, I just don't think that men having multiple wives within a legally-recognized marriage can be equated to widespread promiscuity, hookups and casual sex. Since for example, even if an Islamic man with say, four wives, is found fucking a woman that isn't from among this four, he'll be stoned to death for adultery. >>12575 The article you link seems focused on a society where polygamy is extremely common (it mentions South Sudan and perhaps 40% of marriages involving multiple wives) and on societies where where there is a very high barrier-to-entry for marrying a woman, for example the article mentions having to give 30 to 300 cattle as a suitable bride-price. I'd think that this factor alone would bar more men from marriage than anything else. If this were a factor in society, all of the poor men would be completely unable to get wives, and the rich men would buy them all up due to possessing more means and wealth. This seems like the real problem. If approached intelligently, such problems need not arise at all. We do not need or want to establish "bride prices" or exchange women for cattle, or to allow 40% of marriages to be polygamous. Not in the slightest. In all societies, the number of women outnumber the amount of men, and taken together with the fact that men are far more likely to die young for various reasons than women, there will always be a surplus of females in any society.
>>12554 camp monogamy keeps making the same mistake where you assume polygamy means no more marriage. the marriage ritual will still be practiced, and women will remain exclusive to their husbands and will be punished and exiled and outcasted for adultery and fornication. >>12575 thats a good argument against polygamy. i think the polygamy should be limited, and not like the OP pic (lol). other issues with a small amount of men getting all the women would be tightening the gene pool increasing inbreeding. a limited polygamy rationed by a surplus of women is what i think would be ideal. >>12603 the idea if bride prices is interesting because vedic culture did the opposite, the dowry system. the family would give the new husband gold, cattle, land, etc, for marrying their daughter.
>>12575 >grow resentful and may end up becoming criminals or extremists, to claim a wife for themselves outside of the boundaries of the law. This is clearly seen in the case of various Islamic terrorist groups literally abducting women as war-brides. Quite sad, really. No woman to hug just bc you're born poor.
Open file (324.52 KB 1260x1260 sex-ratio-europe.jpg)
>>12603 >In all societies, the number of women outnumber the amount of men This is changing in our era because of the lack of war though. The amount of men per 100 women is already like 98/99 in many western countries. And because of the waves of mass-immigration being majority male, the problem only keeps increasing. If current trends keep up, it won't be long before there's a male surplus instead. >>12618 >tfw no gf
>>12575 >This was the case in both Islamic and pre-Christian Germanic societies, with men at the top of the social hierarchy, who were generally healthier and more educated than the lower classes, being allowed to have more than one wife. Read The Germania. Tacitus states that only in extremely rare cases did Germanics practice polygamy and only in the cases of martial alliances for the most influential chieftains. The majority of social elites and rulers still practiced monogamy.
>>12618 >No woman to hug just bc you're born poor. Heh...yeah...
Open file (125.47 KB 1200x630 war eternal peace dream.jpg)
>>12636 Yes, with replacement immigration and a lack of war many problems like this arise in the long term. Interestingly Nature seems to directly respond to the losses in wars in order to ensure that the balance of the sexes is not too disrupted, just see the returning soldier effect. An overly large amount of males likely leads to problems as well (incels, etc)
>>12636 >>12649 I mean, am I wrong? I'd feel a lot better if I had a gf really. Would change my current perspective of women. Not saying that I'll start being a feminist but you get it.
Open file (841.83 KB 1019x895 6y72qjD.png)
>>12671 >I mean, am I wrong? You're not. Sadly, it's just very difficult to attain a healthy marriage in the west right now. While it's mostly men who suffer from it, I have also seen some women online state that they would actually be happier as housewives and mothers but cannot be ones because of financial reasons. Who knows, maybe a part of the new generation of women will see how depressed and alone the career-women of previous generations end up and this causes a revival of the traditional marriage.
>>12677 Honestly the meme "have sex incel" has some meaning to it. Are we all angry in the imageboards because we have no one to talk to? At all?
>>12679 The conquerers are getting laid not you. They are fucking your women and ethnically replacing you. How much introspection do you need to justify your anger?
>>12682 What about non-Whites who stick to their own race?
>>12679 Celibates will have more time and reason to ponder political issues but it's not like you wouldn't be concerned about mass-immigration if you were married and had a family. In fact, if I had a wife and children, I would be much more terrified by current events than I would in my current situation. At least as a single male, I don't really have a lot to lose.
>>12671 No, you're right. I've never had a girlfriend but it would be nice to have one. I think I'm too far out of the normalfag sphere at this point to get anyone though. >>12679 No, the meme is silly because it reduces everything to idea that one's lack of sex is the entire reason for what one believes. I'm angry because our lands are being flooded with subhumans who are mentally-retarded by White standards, because everything is being turned into some soulless anti-Nature concrete hellscape, because women are being turned into poor imitations of men and imitating the worst aspects of men, because everything in our lives is controlled by a tiny clique of hooknosed bastards who want to turn us into cattle. Views such as these were absolutely mainstream even one-hundred years ago. Everything that is happening today is the deviation from the norms of literally all of human history.
Open file (143.07 KB 1200x750 Claude Sinké 2.jpeg)
>>12686 >sticking to their own race while occupying your lands Gas yourself ethnopluralist
>>12686 Even if they stick to their race they are outbreeding us in our own lands. Invaders must die.
I think it is good for making lots of White children, but I do not think it would work out because of modern technology. Females would not be able to cope with their husband being able to have sex with a variety of women when they are only allowed one man. This would lead to the women cheating easily through use of technology and getting pregnant by other men. You would end up raising a ton of babies that would not even be yours. I think the social concept of love within monogamy is what keeps women loyal and good mothers. I do not see love being possible in polygamy, the women would just resent it and act out.
>>13824 One important thing to remember of course is that when men are "able to have sex with a variety of women", this is still subject to restrictions. The man doesn't just pick up women and fuck them, but he would have to actually marry her to have sex with her in a socially-permissible manner. The best way to think of this is incorporating another woman into the family that will actually live with the husband and is equal with the other wife / wives. Even then, the first wife's opinion certainly matters to an extent, especially if there are children involved. I even think that it would not be unreasonable to make the consent of the first wife mandatory for the polygamous marriage to be recognized. This solves the issue of resentment by and large. >This would lead to the women cheating easily through use of technology Either way adultery is something which should be criminalized harshly for men and women, just as it was in every society on earth prior to (((modernity))).

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?