Polygamy and Decadence

When reevaluating what the organic stance on sex should be, it would be helpful to take a look at the current sick paradigm. Promiscuity is rampant, promoted and held up as the highest good. Objectively we can see its deadly fruits. Mental illness, unhappiness and unfulfillment are all symptoms of this sick inversion of values. This is especially the case in women, who are effected disproportionately with the acute symptoms of following dangerous sexual perversions. Degenerate decadent fetishes soon follow with trend of the rise of the unending alphabet of LGBTQ. What do all these decadent sexual manifestations have in common? They are STERILE. Could we have the sexual decadence that exists if this one factor was changed? Likely not.
Men and women want to fuck each other because the entire biology entity of themselves is screaming at the top of its lungs to have offspring. This is healthy, normal and sane. All healthy biological beings have this drive. If we wish to drill down further into Nature’s view on sex, it should be quite easy to discern some trends. Is pair bonding present in nature? Of course. Is polygamy? Equally so. In a healthy population having hordes of involuntary celibate men probably isn’t the best for stability, considering how men often “settle down” when they have kids in order to raise them. This stability could be considered the life giver of civilization as we know it. But what if your population is sick, and deadly so? Does pair bonding make sense then? With only a few healthy males able to see through the filth, striving to maintain their racial nucleus, it would be biological suicide to pen them down to one woman. If racial success is our goal within the context of our current sick society, why not procreate as much as humanly possible if you are fit to do so? Notice how this is completely opposite of what the Church would have you believe, but I never doubt Christians ability to deny biological facts. Putting yourself on top of biology is the cancer that is hollowing out the evil system of the West. Strapping the suicide vest of Christian morality to yourself is only going to wipe you out in the process; good riddance.
The closer we are to seeing harems and polygamist communes (or something more decentralized) within our circles, the further we are from racial stagnation and death.

Attached: SA_swastika.jpg (750x541 46.19 KB, 73.72K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Or you could just stop treating women like slaves and chattel and let them fuck who they wanted if you are winging about numbers of children. That makes a lot of babies as well. It is difficult to argue the 'family' narrative when you are a polygamist father because you are too busy anyway to raise children. Also, polygamist genes have NOTHING to do with merit and fitness and are not European in nature or Nat Soc. We would be much better off with STRAIGHT EUGENICS rather than this retarded 7th-century vestige of semitic values.

Pick one

Quality over quantity.

not nearly as many
only a specimen of good genetics would be able to pull off a harem. it works fine for other animals, why not us?
too bad the kikes are in charge and will be until we violently overthrow them
strict monogamy is semitic

More likely he'd just be rich.

Romans practiced monogamy as well as Greeks, Celts, and pretty much every other pure European society.

Wrong. Concubinage has destroyed marriage as an idea, your solution to just breed like rabbits has no foundation it's just some horny rhetoric.

This guy understands.

If you can get multiple women to sign on for the polygamy like a Mormon, go for it. I highly doubt you will, but if it works, cool. Polygamy isn't something expressly forbidden in the Bible.

IMO, It's only useful if you have more women than men though. Otherwise you end up like ISIS with a bunch of angry incels who can't get a wife.

I have one wife, and am popping out kids. That's a step above the pure Aryan hand.

This guy gets it.

Single moms do not produce mentally healthy well adjusted children. By and large this trend is super obvious. Track ANY stats from the IRS to HHS.

Aside from the fact the "liberated" DON'T have more kids. They have more abortions.

Communality of wives failed in the infancy of the Soviet Union.

I don't see any problem with having sexual intercourse as long as they're not selling it or hoarding the means to do it, like some sort of communist butt pirate.

Whatcha sliding moshe?

Aryan civilization were all highly monogamous. Kys schlomo.

I think it's funny. I don't care what other people think. Not CIA so, so there's that.

Not really monogamy, sleeping around just isn't free. This is why white people are white niggers. They have a different colored excuse fir not letting people do free sex.

You seem opposed to men having multiple wives OP. Your title even seems to suggest it's somehow decadent. It's not. For an alpha man capable of supporting multiple wives and big families, he should be free to.

Of course there is no actual 'equality' between the sexes so a woman should be married to only one man. Men could have multiple wives successfully if they and their kids can be supported properly.

This is the natural order for most megafauna the world over, and it's a reasonable choice for humans in my opinion. Top men would be producing top kids. Families are more likely to be healthy and functional when a healthy and functional Dad is in charge of it.

And one other prime benefit in current_year–this system would gut feminism and cut it's loathsome heart out.

They're having sex, not babies. This is the era of birth control.

Post-senescence is going to fuck over breeders. You’re going to live like you’re dying. Forever. Help people adapt or watch them suffer.

What happens in reality is you think you'll get a harem but end up with serial monogamy. You can get multiple women pregnant but getting more than one to live under the same roof until death is highly unlikely. So it's not a strategy that most of us will be able to pull off. For those who can and will, go for it. Marriage isn't even real unless you have a virgin wife anyways. The game is rigged. Playing by the rules is suicide so figure out a way to succeed on your own terms.

Attached: 3a338fe8e649b5abd40ab0ded51aa2a51af810850d09bfc8a0b222c3df5c8fdd.jpg (1600x1200, 428.03K)

This is retarded.

Marriage was create to ration reproduction. It's explicit. 1 man and 1 woman.

It was created, because societies which did not do this, collapsed.

They collapsed because unattached males, had no "skin in the game". They had no investment in the society and a hell of a motivation to change the situation.

So, they overturned their societies.

A polygamous society is a short lived society especially when women naturally choose only the top 10% of males.

The only societies which survived, invented, or re-invented marriage.

The era of birth control being shown to cause infertility via studies based on the reality. That era you speak of is long gone, and such ideology speaks for itself. Sponsoring nothing more than hedonistic degeneracy with such smut doesn't help one's shit shine any brighter than the rest, unless it's really that hard to escape the complex which universities have planted into your brain.

Polygamy when taken into account gives rise to narcissism and mental health issues over time, especially when the numerous partners over the years just serve as vessels for disease and decay in the ideals of a relationship, thus it only serves to advocate a style of life that complies with selling one short and not aiming for higher ideals. Go read up on the stoics and end the desire for lower values.

Victory begins with the pursuit of virtues, rather than the pursuit of vain pleasure.

It's like you didn't even read the whole 3-line post

is saying that OP's logic is flawed because he's arguing in favor of a system which will theoretically achieve his stated goal of increasing white birth rates, but which in practice would actually undermine the health and stability of the society he's claiming to save.

We used to make fun of you illiterate niggers here.

Attached: shredolf riffler.jpg (550x671, 63.54K)

Polygamy did not work out good for Mormons. It creates a population too closely related. Fortunately the government forced them stop and the ones who continued in secret became even more inbred and created large amounts of unwanted men who were disowned from the community so old men could take on more teen wives. Polygamous cultures are really disgusting and produce nothing of worth.

Not to shit in your corn flakes, however, man is separate from the animal kingdom, and this is not merely supported by hierarchical systems such as religion. To consider man as a part of the animal kingdom, you are concerning yourself with lower pleasures when the subject of the matter pertains to polygamy as a whole. Man is free to do as he wishes, yet those who strive towards higher ideals eventually lead more successful lives, so long as they hold to it with sincere resolve. Otherwise, we merely have a free-for-all frenzy only regulated by what society deems as appropriate, and thus we replicate their ideals as our own over time via the dysfunctional psychology supported by the very system that aims to contain and eventually constrict us however to their choosing. If one cannot view their genetics as valuable, ergo, spreading it around however they please, then their legacy will eventually come to the fruition of a solemn life not lived with aims of success.

TGSNT - mandatory homework, child

also lurk moar

This is actually 100% truth.

It will achieve higher birthrates but not higher quality. If you want to become a retarded mess like the semites, be my guest. I am going to use pure eugenics to breed quality over quantity. That way I and my offspring will dominate and rule over your MONKEY dumb fuck asses/masses.

good eye user.

And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. Genesis 9:7 KJV

Gibbons, swans, french angelfish, wolves, penguins, termites, prarie voles, bald eagles, parasitic mansoni worms, and cockroaches are all monogamous animals found in nature. The Old Testament shows king after king engaging in polygamy. It's not necessarily condoned, but it happens. It's not a good thing to engage in. I suggest being more direct and musing less in your OP. Oh, shit. I almost forgot:

You are a degenerate faggot.

Breeders are retarded, what's the point of having children if they are going to be born into slavery to kikes? Better spare them that. Monogamy creates the best offspring, polygamy is for niggers. Monogamy is much older than Christianity, and it's one of few positive points that it has. Sacred marriage was one of ancient Aryan customs, something that almost no other race had (coupling was seen as a matter of convenience).


Fertility is going down, miscegenation going up. Not a good idea.

Could you elaborate on that? I would argue that religion itself isn't at fault for this, but instead secularized societies and ignoring tradition.

Families are hostages to fortune. Unattached men are the bane of tyranny.

Don't lose yourself in sick fantasies OP, or you might start believing them and making threads like this. Polygamy was commonplace in the ancient world because men would die constantly from war. However even during the time of Jesus this was no longer commonplace.

Attached: Boo this man!.gif (350x233, 1.47M)

Pic related was for OP btw.

polygamy is right
it is how nature would have it
where the strong are sexually selected and the weak are removed
monogamy undoes the single most important reproductive advantage masculinity gives

biology 101

That's why China is not a nation of backstabbing pseudoaristocrats right? Sure polygamy couldn't have any unintended and negative effect on evolution of a race, right? Sage for retard thread.

Jesus condemned it. God didn't make multiple wives for Adam because he was considered 'unclean'…the Anunnaki did not take multiple wives for the men when they rescued humanity from the Flood because they also considered man 'unclean'. It is only 'clean things' that have a herd, so that excludes mankind because at this point he is little more than an animal.

That is not what happens though user. What happens is that you get a fat assed disgusting harry thieving rich fuck who can afford many wives and leaves all the rest of the men without a chance to mate. This is biologically proven to be an unstable system that leads to retardation of the species because men are incapable of selecting proper mates (women with strong brains and character). The ones who do select strong women end up with a lot of dead children or dead wives because it becomes a war zone in their own house. If you think 'kings' were happy, think again. They weren't allowed to love ANYONE in their house because it brought on murderous jealousy. If you want that lifestyle you should probably move out of EUrope and back to the middle east where you can have your choice of animal pussy to breed with.

Who the fuck makes these ridiculously ignorant threads??? If you actually read fucking books and didn't spend all day watching porn you would clearly know why polygamy is dangerous

Fact of the matter is that masculinity as we know it has evolved to improve the fitness of those who have it.
With monogamy, the source of that fitness is forfeit, and so masculinity is made not only obsolete, but disadvantageous.
Can polygamy cause problems for a race or civilization? Maybe. Does monogamy cause problems for masculinity? Absolutely.

You rationalize that and get back to me.

Yea I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention to the last half century butttt uhh that policy isn’t exactly working especially with a radical top down shadow cabal that conveniently controls culture ( where they base their objects of desire from) and money ( inherently linked with a women’s biology that she will survive). You need to stfu and lurk moar or Kys

Yep. What’s with the fucking alpha loving faggots that completely ignore we don’t live in a society based on strength and might only an artificial rendering of it. The strongest, boldest most attractive alphas all have to answer to schlomo shekelstein and have their entire existence threatened by a limp wristed Semitic bean counter. This pilpul of the strongest surviving only serves to hyper primitivism which is right in the jews master plan as he conveniently floods our countries with 3rd world scum that can’t plan ahead a fucking week and will not hesitate to slaughter the weak pathetic white men that squeal over soy lattes and aborting their own children. The only true generation of physical fitness left to boost the morale of white men is a monogamous system that mirrors that national socialist state of Germany and encourages both child bearing and a high standard of civil and military participation. The only way the primitivism you claim is God would do wel is if humanity were to revert back to small city states, zero technology and the complete disappearance of money beyond said city state. Anybody who doesn’t understand this is delusional.

Obligatory sage

Who said women would have any choice?

That is exactly what should be happening in a system where masculinity is rewarded and lack of it punished.
And there is nothing wrong with being a "fat assed disgusting harry thieving rich fuck" when you are a man. Neoteny is for the weak.

Further women are not men. They only need to be as strong as a woman needs to be and as smart as a woman needs to be in order to raise children.
In fact, I resent the idea that men like myself should be responsible for picking a quality mate at all. It is effeminate to be picky with mates.
Or rather, it is the job of the sex which contributes more to the offspring to be picky, which in most natural circumstances is the female.
To be thinking about finding "one good woman" is faggotry. A man should settle for nothing less than to mate with every woman he can get away with.

Let natural selection decide who wins and loses, not law or tradition. Anything else is actual degeneracy, because it progressively forgives weakness.
This is not a debate of some shifting morality of the times, but of simple and unchanging biological fact.

This is a big no no. Not only is polygamy not apart of western culture, but there is a movement right now (especially in Canada) that seeks the acceptance of polyamorous relationships. They’re using the argument of “if we progressed to allow gays to marry, than why not allow a woman to have multiple cucks around her and her kids.” It’s an extremely slippery slope and no person with a sense of normalcy will support this. We shall not succumb to this degeneracy

Looking at the presences of pair bonding and polygamy in nature doesn't really factor in the fact that humans are intelligent organisms capable of long term emotional bonds between one another that polygamy endangers.

Is love a virtue? If so, promiscuity in all it's forms is a vice that must be avoided.

Where were you when I made my Rape, Crimes and European Culture OP?

Don't ask me; I am having a Nihilist existential crisis right now and 'love is unprovable' in this realm. I think polygamy is a terrible idea that causes endless problems from inheritance to violent murder and fratricide as well as infanticide. I prefer independent choice and eugenics for both partners, shouldn't they both breed as high up the ladder as they can? Someone posted something on Zig Forums the other day that said (and I haven't verified it) but that a child had a 60% higher risk of being killed if they lived with step parents I can only imagine that when inheritances are involved it is substantially higher than that.
If 'God', as you understand him, is in everything, can there be any mistakes? Nope, not really…so there can't be any vices either. There are only 'things we want in our society' and 'things we don't'…killing someone for not conforming to societal standards can't be wrong either because God is in all.
This eliminates any worries or guilt of any kind about exterminating kikes or any other degenerate filth.

Call me a heretic or whatever but I don't believe in or need a god to give me guidance, so worrying about a perfect being making an imperfect world means nothing to me. There is only us and the future we craft.

Why would I call you a heretic? There is only 'one religion' and that is the one you craft for yourself on the inside using your experience and reasoning. It would take your entire life for you to explain to me why you held particular beliefs, even if you talked to me about it the entire span of your days…then could I 'make a decision' about whether or not your were 'correct' with your thinking? Nope. So what does that mean? You believe what you want to believe and I do likewise with (((no one))) to mediate between ourselves and God as we understand God. There is only one person who could make any sense of whatever mess you want to construct out of your life :) and its not me. lel
I am fine with the secular government and the enforcement of proper societal norms given whatever people desire.


Don't be a daft. How can we advance our species if we are only looking to care for 50% of the DNA? You are going to have to be a bit smarter than this if you want Europeans to succeed and become the dominant life form on this planet. This would be like breeding dogs and only paying attention to the breeding of the males, thinking the bloodlines of the bitch is irrelevant. Do you really think you are going to get a pure breed of the highest quality if you let your german shepherd breed a chihuahua? I mean this is basic eugenics user.


This is why we must not settle for anything except a European/White Ethnoglobe user. We do not deserve to be slaves to every race on this planet forever and to never realize our true destiny. We have been enslaved by those who are lesser than we are and worked to bring them up to a standard that they cannot understand or maintain without our constant assistance (these were all terrible mistakes on our part; thinking that animals could be human was nothing but a devouring destruction of our own people). It is time to give that up and slaughter them all and live quietly in peace and comfort developing technology and promoting higher eugenics and advancement for HUMAN DNA that can actually benefit from it.

Attached: 10ee4ce8c1799bab0cb671d7081ea38ca37b1c80ef79212b5378f669710f1374.jpg (501x501, 49.43K)

Oh look, it's not like we have a thread like this every week. Is polygamy the new aoc concern trolling?


Everything you just said is a melange of semetic

Attached: civilization screencap.jpg (2405x917, 798.05K)

The Rig Veda mentions that during the Vedic period, a man could have more than one wife.
Some pre-Christian Celtic pagans were known to practice polygamy

Promiscuity, and Sexual dysfunction is akin to pissing in a river that everyone else draws water from. Nothing occurs in a vacuum and "might makes right" or "ALPHA/BETA" spiel means little to nothing to subjects or the rest of the herd if they feel as if they're getting fucked over, eventually those same people will take the logic to it's natural conclusion and burn it down, or be burned down by it.

Ironically, those at the top very rarely have self-awareness and do everything in their power to hamstring others to ensure their competitors don't have a chance to apply said reasoning to their resources, essentially maintaining whatever "power" they have through illusion or implicit threats of force wrapped up in abstract concepts. How often did monarchs past the 15th century use their individual strength to challenge contenders? Not often, they usually had threats to their power throne in a cell or executed, which separated them long enough from any objective display of force, and making them weaker and complacent in the process, because instinctively at some level, they understood that it wasn't "Every man for himself" especially from the precarious position that they themselves were in, it's an application of force that doesn't work. You also can't apply an ALPHA/BETA mentality to shit either primarily because A.) That's not how shit actually works in Nature and B.) It's applied as a Dichotomy as opposed to an explanation. Alphas ensure the Betas live and prosper, while Betas ensure resources are gathered for the Alpha and the rest of the pack, An Alpha doesn't stay Alpha if he fucking eats everything and leaves nothing for the Betas, the Betas wouldn't even fucking bother.

Also sage for a gay thread.

Attached: watchingthedays.jpg (480x360, 9.09K)

Weren't ancient gods generally downright degenerate?

The incels will join the military - this is the elite's reason behind keeping large cohorts of poor men.

Totally organic bump of a totally organic thread
The absolute state of this fucking board

What do you think should be at the top of the catalog?

Mormons are the least dysgenetic and outbreeding population in US. We should learn from them.

Attached: mormon_IQ.png (640x382, 30.83K)

I have begun my descent into female psychology/biology. First on the PUA recommended book list was "the female brain" by loanne something. Quite a nice piece that explains their nature quite well, looking at the references and the research done in that book I would have to say that its quite grandiose. Definitely a recommended read. In it perhaps there are some very important hints to help us on the way, one very important one for me was

meaning that the human genetic spectrum is broad, and not every single man or woman has the capacity for pair bonding, and for being loyal (may intertwine with the r/K theory)

and it also neatly explains the way females operate, adding upon much of the…to be honest, quite stupid and basic lore that we have here. I have not read any of the lore here that is even remotely comprehensive as I read it in this book.

Let me summarize it for you a little bit:

so you know that probably, but what does that mean in practical terms? Nobody mentioned this to me yet. Even though I browsed this shithole for god knows how long

there is even variance inside the male, between races even. There are some men who are even non gay who are quite good at this, who may be even able to learn it. But apparently nobody can be as great in this regard as women. Many men and women have great skill for all sorts of things, but this is generically mostly only for women.

And with these skills, how do you exactly think that they use them, and for what? What is their main mode of operation? What do they seek?

Again, do you know what this means in practical terms? They will use their emotionally attuned brain, to try to make men provide for them, and to defend them. This eventually means that they will try to avoid conflict, and they also are compromisers. Not knowing anything else. Though what the book doesnt mention is that they still have fewer neurons than me. They may be good at this one thing, but we are great at a many things. We can overpower them.

They are not very great with poker faces, since they would otherwise dominate in poker against men, they dont do that. I have seen a great many places where the skills of the women, are overpowered by learned men. So its possible, and it would explain the mastery of "fuckboys" who have innately grasped at how they operate. And the idea that we indeed must keep society from collapsing, and conforming to old standards prevents us from doing so. I believe that women HERE are actually proponents to keep us enslaved.

So yea, you are probably a shill op, but I believe that you are still on the right path, as am I. The woman is simply a shitty and useless creature, and instead of reasoning with her, it is better to outlearn her, and to manipulate her, if we can manage to do that. Hence the pua books. Next up, the red queen!

Attached: fc47722d73161488dcd7aa54088405873be0ce823b60ff7c04074b60dee056ec.jpg (500x357, 79.57K)

another CRUCIAL thing that I wish to share with you guys is this: Oxytocin. The love hormone, you probably think it only activates with physical contact…IT FUCKING DOESNT. DO YOU KNOW HOW ELSE IT ACTIVATES? BY GAZING AT A WOMAN AND A WOMAN GAZING BACK AT YOU. PROBABLY IN SMALLER DOSAGES BUT STILL IT DOES



srsly, do not make this mistake, pls dont. One itis, as /fit/ describes it is hazardous for our health. The only real option is to outmaneuver them.


Damn that graph is Estonian as fuck.

Fucking SAVED!

You know an author is out to prove something when she states that she attended Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley within the first page of her book. Furthermore, you know she wants to be taken seriously when she keeps repeating this claim to fame every few pages and also reminds you of all the thousands of cases she has seen while working at her clinic. What you don't know, however, is why someone who claims to be so experienced relies solely on anonymous studies and personal anecdotes about herself, unidentified friends, and nameless patients (besides one biochemistry professor who was a pole dancer in college) as the basis for generalizations for the behavior of ALL women and men. Brizendine spends the majority of her book discussing such stories. When she tries to support her claims with scientific data, she is very specific; for instance, a Swiss experiment proved that oxytocin acts as a pleasure stimulant for the brain. Who conducted this experiment? When was it conducted? How many subjects were tested? Such information is conveniently left unmentioned throughout the book in order not to trouble readers' minds with cumbersome facts. Well, if that's the case, then an experiment conducted in NY proved that the brain is actually located in a person's neck and not the head. Brizendine did provide over 70 pages of notes and references, but readers are sure to be able to take the time to match anecdote with reference number when the references are alphabetized without any mention to the chapter they support. Many of the "facts" this books provides are also very questionable. Men think about sex once a minute while women think about it a maximum of three times per day? Do these chaste women turn on the television, ever? And I'm sure every teenage boy thinks about sex two hundred forty times during the four hours that he spends taking the SAT. (And yet, some boys STILL get perfect scores. They must be great prodigies indeed.) As another example, Brizendine states that women speak an average amount of 20000 words per day while men only speak 7000, a fact that Brizendine obtained from a self-help book written in 1997 called "Talk Language: How to Use Conversation for Profit and Pleasure." I'm sure years of meticulous research were made to prove THAT hypothesis. Overall, on an academic scale of 1-10, I would give this book a 3. The basic premises of the book is that women and girls seek acceptance and are remarkably intuitive due to possessing low testosterone levels, while men are domineering, aloof, and incapable of reading other people's body language when it does not indicate a direct threat to them. On an entertainment scale, however, I would give it an 8. I had such a great time watching Brizendine try to get me to take her seriously and every few pages evoked quite a few laughs. Some great quotes presented in this literary masterpiece: "Girls who expect their boyfriends to chat with them the way their girlfriends do are in for a big surprise. Phone conversations can have painful lulls. The best she can often hope for is that he is an attentive listener. She may not realize he's just bored and wants to get back to his video game." "Testosterone has been shown to decrease talking as interest in socializing—except when it involves sports or sexual pursuit." "Their [adolescent boys'] reluctance to talk to their parents comes out of magical thinking that grown-ups will read between their spoken lines and the look in their eyes and know that the subject of sex has taken them over, mind, body, and soul."
gen lib rus ec/book/index.php?md5=55576EBEE6BE236270AB2ADD4CBF9148

christ almighty I now have to defend her citations? Jesus man your crusade against her is absurd. Much of her research falls in line with other research that I have read elsewhere? Like a question-are about "what do females want most" "love/belonging, and safety" which ranked on the top most of all things. And the symmetric faces causing better orgasm in women, god I remember quite a lot of well citated things in it. So…yea.. I loved this book.