The role of polyandry in nation building

 

Join My Facebook Group:

Genetic Engineering, Eugenics, Cloning & Non-Traditional Breeding Programs

Prior to the modern tech age, it was much easier to use polyandry to build powerful leaders. Polyandry is when one woman has multiple husbands, the opposite of polygyny. The basic idea was that inheritance went through the mother. In patrilineal societies, the father's wealth is continuously dispersed among many children, this dispersion of wealth is exacerbated by polygyny which may be eugenic but also comes with its own social and economic complications. Under polyandry, the wealth of several men is all inherited by the few children produced by one woman. In ancient times, before genetic testing, no one knew who the father was so each father adopted the child as his own and passed on his wealth, this meant that much social and economic power was handed over to a few people. 

I have discussed polygyny extensively on this blog and how I believe it is eugenic. Polygyny is the most primitive form of human breeding, it was what was practiced in the most ancient of times. The polygyny threshold model shows that females who breed with males who already have a mate increase the biological fitness of their offspring because she goes for the male with the best genes and most resources while skipping over other available males who have less. 

I have also argued that polygyny would reorganize humans in the modern age which is desperately needed, we are becoming atomized and fragmented and polygyny would quickly create large family networks which could centralize power, wealth, and social capital into the hands of those men who are capable of obtaining many wives, presumably those most capable of running larger society. Also, women who choose a greater man to share rather than have a single man to herself are the most prudent and sacrificing for their children and the race. Polygynous families, some say, are made up of the best of human stock. 

But polygyny leaves many men without a mate. Now to a degree, this is the point since only the most desirable men are wanted to breed. However, this could cause social problems by denying too many men sexual and emotional gratification. One suggestion I have made is for men to have wives but to also care for women in a harem-like atmosphere where they are free to practice free love while using birth control, thus allowing her to enjoy her life while also satiating the needs of those men who have no wives. Meanwhile, when it is time to breed with the desired male she could simply avoid contraception in that encounter. This would be an arrangement between the polygamous male and female, family building based on what is practical rather than love. Genetic flow would remain centralized and easier to control, and so would social power, yet the woman is given freedom. 

However, modern polyandry should also be considered. First, several men sharing a woman would alleviate some of the social tension created by polygyny. However, it would also perhaps partially erase some of the inheritance issues created by polygyny. Polyandry would allow a different and unique type of family to arrive, one where much wealth and power were centralized in a few children as they inherit the family wealth and social contacts of many men. The only issue would be that these men would need to agree to adopt the child despite the fact that we can now tell who is the father. It would be a certain type of man to engage in this practice, a more cooperative and less possessive man. Polygyny may select for men who are more aggressive and possessive, and we do not want everyone in society to be like this, we need all kinds of people, we need dominant and passive people, we need geniuses and laymen. What type of personalities would come out of polyandrous households needs to be investigated as they could perhaps make excellent natural leaders due to genetically and socially inherited traits and their ability to quickly accumulate power.

Women must lead the way in eugenic polygyny

 

 Join My Facebook Group: 
Genetic Engineering, Eugenics, Cloning & Non-Traditional Breeding Programs

There is a misconception that polygyny is always the will of the man, directed by the man. It is always assumed that if the woman had her way she would be the only wife. But if one studies both older Mormon culture and Muslim culture, they will find that polygyny is often initiated by the woman. 

Some believe that a woman who desires polygyny is the highest form of woman. She often does it out of love for her husband, wishing to give him the maximum pleasure, meaning she is self-sacrificing and very contentious as well as real; she would rather see her husband in an institution which would help avoid cheating rather than enforce him into monogamy which almost always eventually leads to cheating... again she has to be real. She also needs to be unjealous and unselfish, both qualities needed for building more advanced civilization. 

Polygynous wives often call themselves "sister-wives", meaning there is a degree of sorority there. The sorority is built around the fact that these women have all decided that it is best to congregate around the best man than to have an average man for herself. It takes a superior man to manage polygyny and the complex family system it engenders. In Mormonism it was thought best for women to engage in polygyny so that only the best souls would come on to the earth, polygyny was seen as a sort of eugenic duty. Women who practice polygyny are unified in their common effort to advance the human race. 

As I have seen it, and as I have said, it is common for a woman to suggest polygyny out of love for her husband, and as in the case of older Mormonism, eugenic duty. I would suggest that women who are currently married suggest and introduce their husbands to polygyny. However, I also think it would behoove women to pre-organize for polygyny. Associations could be made where women could go to meet to find other prospective sister-wives with whom they could build a relationship and test out whether or not they could live together. They could then offer themselves as a full package to perspective great men with whom they could then build a family, a sort of package deal. If they are magnanimous enough to organize for eugenic duty, such women could change the course of history.  

Only polygamy can save the white race

Please Join My Facebook Group:
Genetic Engineering, Eugenics, Cloning & Non-Traditional Breeding Programs

The white race is not only disappearing, they are declining in "purity" and quality, they are also totally lost politically. Polygamy is usually associated with early and primitive society, and so many scoff at using the institution to save the race now in our modern age, but some tweaking of polygamy can be what saves whites. Many white men dream of a revolution, where a strong leader arises and galvanizes everyone and patriarchy returns and women are sent back to the home to breed. White men sit and wait and wait and wait for the leader or the movement to arrive, yet they have no plans if this leader or movement never arrives or only arrives long past their lifetime. The White right has nothing that they can do right now, in the current climate, they have no subtle manipulations, they have no long term strategies. Hitler only rose to power because the Germans had a king far less than a generation ago, they were accustomed to having a fuhrer, they were used to centralized power under one man, this is not going to happen in America or modern Europe.

The idea that even right-wing White women are going to somehow immediately transform back into housewives is too idealistic, they have experienced a great degree of freedom and they are not going to so easily return to tradition. White men, no matter what they think, especially White men of the modern age, are not going to be able to beat their wives back into submission, modern civilized White man, no matter how offended he is by the modern world, just as woman is not ready to return to the housewife, he is not prepared to be the animalistic brute who puts her in chains and drags her back to the house, the idea that white men are going to become the beasts necessary to "re-tame" white woman is also too idealistic. It would take a generation of two of conditioning to make anything like that work, just as it took a generation or two of social revolution to bring us to the point where are now. Though I would suggest a new form of tradition which unifies modern and ancient. 

However, polygamy offers a way for woman to be eased back into a new motherhood, one that is similar to what she was before but which is also different and modern. The main issue with women in the workplace is that there is less time for children, and so it becomes harder and harder to raise many of them. But in our modern world, the way the economy is set up, it usually takes at least two parents working. Polygamy fixes this situation by the division of labor. If a man has more than one wife, preferably three of four or more, then some mothers can stay home with the children while the others engage in work. In such a system each woman could have 3 our 4 or 5 children, yet there would still be a way to make enough income to keep the family alive and not have to pay for babysitting. Polygamy would allow for such a blended traditional-modern family to arrive. Some mothers would be housewives while others engaged in work. 

But polygamy also has the advantage of more quickly purifying the race. Under monogamy, we have to deal with the fact that men of less desirable qualities obtain a wife and every man has a child. When I say race "purification" I am not necessarily speaking of straining out any remnants of other races as I am speaking about whites who have not bred with non-whites for centuries, I am talking about breeding in certain types of whites, bringing in a desired temperament and physique. In monogamy it is very hard to quickly breed in certain qualities across the spectrum of the population... a desirable man may breed his genes into a single family but they are lost on the larger population. In polygamy, a few more desirable men can breed their genes into as many women as possible, thus the race is "purified" faster. 

There is also the issue of political unity. Polygamous families create immediately larger family networks and can be used to more quickly consolidate social and political power into groups of smaller families. Monogamy is very atomizing, dispersing the power around. Some believe the theory that polygamous men and women are simply superior by the very fact that they want to practice polygamy. A man needs to be socially equipped to deal with many women and women need to be unjealous and desiring to congregate around only the best men to practice polygamy. It would be best for whites to have power in the hands of fewer polygamous families so that our political and social powers can become more centralized and less fragmented and perhaps in the hands of those who are best fit to rule. The path to power is less dictatorial and relies more upon strategy than force. 

Polygamy would allow our modern women to re-enter the home, yet still allow those who desire to work, this sounds more practical than waiting for a dictator who may never come. Polygamy would more quickly spread the most desirable genes in the population and would centralize power more quickly in the hands of a few, which is needed if we are going to radically transform society. For these reasons Whites need to start campaigning for plural marriage rights. 

Eugenics is supposed to make us kinder to the poor and disabled

The point of eugenics is to avoid slipping back into barbarism. Enlightened civilization depends on the population remaining strong, intelligent, and healthy. Under barbaric circumstances, there is no poverty because those who are unable to fend for themselves die off and are unable to pass on this social malaise to their offspring (though in modern society poverty is not always associated with dysgenic composition, social corruption can push the best of us into poverty and the worst of us into riches). In addition, there is no sickness or extreme mental and emotional dysfunction because such people also die off. 

Eugenicists fear that the comforts of modern society replicate social, mental, emotional, and spiritual traits which would otherwise die out in an uncivilized circumstance. Charity and social welfare keep the alcoholic, the lazy, the unintelligent, and the sick alive and allows them to reproduce. The fear is that this class will increase at such a rapid rate that they will outstrip the means of the healthy and industrious to provide, indeed becoming dominant. 

Overburden makes people resentful. One of the arguments of the early birth control eugenicists was that too many children lead to overburden in the parents, who eventually had more children than they wanted, and this caused them to love them less... some said that because of their sunken condition and absolute poverty that this allowed them to so easily throw their too many children into the dangerous industrious factories of the time, an enforced lack of empathy was keeping the ills of the industrial revolution alive. Indeed, having too many poor and sick people makes those who would otherwise want to help become resentful. We don't mind feeding one poor person, but millions becomes a strain. 

Eugenics seeks to reduce the number of the poor and the sick, first by checking their numbers through birth control and abortion, second by encouraging the intelligent and industrious to breed. If there were less poor and sick people, we would not feel so overextended in helping them, and thus we would feel less resentful and not become full of hate. When birth control and abortion become universally applied among the poor, then finally our hearts will become softened because there are not too many to care for and they are not replicating in society. Birth control and abortion should become freely available and incentives should be made for the poor and dysfunctional not to have children, birth control and abortion should be readily available in the developing world. When there are not too many poor and sick for the world to care for, we will see and kinder and more empathetic race. 

The raising of eugenics cult leaders

Join My Facebook Group:
Genetic Engineering, Eugenics, Cloning & Non-Traditional Breeding Programs

The modern breakdown of the nuclear family is actually the greatest opportunity in history to reengage the human race in selective breeding. The Bible proclaims that in hard time, seven women will cling to one man, they say they will provide for their own food and their own clothes but only wish to have his name, to be his collective wives: "Your men will fall by the sword, your warriors in battle. The gates of Zion will weep and mourn. The city will be like a ravaged woman, huddled on the ground. In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, "We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!" (Isaiah 3:25-4:1). When mass poverty is present, women would rather gather around a rich man than settle for their own man with no means. Today, we are not only seeing material poverty but the poverty of spirit. It would seem that most men are unworthy to become husbands and fathers, women will not take them as their husbands nor breed with them. But should monogamy have ever been practiced in the first place?

The most primitive and thus natural form of reproduction is polygamy and harem breeding. Before civilization the most fierce and intelligent man would collect as many women as possible for himself, leaving most, yes most men without a wife. This system strained out those men who were not the best... you could not just be great, you had to be the best to have wives or concubines and procreate. But when civilization arises it is obvious that under equality all men demand a wife and all women demand a single husband who pays attention to them alone, monogamy becomes enforced. When all men are given a chance at breeding we see a decline in the genetic quality of the race. No animal breeder worth his salt breeds all of his males, no animal breeding program relies upon monogamy, an illustrious race of horses is bred from only a few sires. 

But as our society degrades we are returning to a more primitive time... the average man cannot provide for a wife and as already stated, he is beyond the desire of most women, monogamy will no longer work. However, we also do not live in the more savage age, the best of our men are not claiming stake to women through violence, and because we have a modern economy, it is not always the best or brightest or strongest men who have all the money... corruption has sunk in. How are we supposed to use this opportunity to return to eugenic polygamy? It is possible that some charismatic dictator would rise and institute the system, but number one is is this probable, and number two is this desirable? What would be the worth of a eugenic state if it was draconian? Some men dream of being ruled by an authoritarian state, but things are different when you actually live in it. 

All around the world there are charismatic and handsome men who are able to collect loyal followers around themselves who give them money and women who give themselves to him sexually. These men usually have a spiritual message, but this message could be made biological for those who are of the right bend of mind. However, polygamy might not be taken up with enthusiasm by the average man as he knows that this would mean that he would be deprived of a wife. Who to go for first? The women. The Bible says the women will pay for their own clothes and food, but still wish to be guided by one husband amongst them... it is better to share a great man than have a mediocre man to yourself. However, this would only be the start as eugenics mean fecundity for women (not over fecundity though) and thus it would not behoove the system to overstress women with too much work (though they should not become inert either). Women would be used to start such a cult, but once it is established we can turn to the men. The polygamous magnanimous cult leader should be encouraged to be more liberal with women, enticing them into his harem with a culture which not only gives them degrees of freedom but also protection from the imposing monogamous men who only wish to cruelly dominate them. A polygamous cult leader should be of the right kind of feminism, creating a place where women can be educated and have some involvement in public life. How can we tell how intelligent a woman is if she is not educated and allowed to work with her education? Though a balance must be struck between involvement in life and having children. Polygamy would allow women to take turns caring for the children so that others could be free for leisure or light duties. The phenomena of epigenetic inheritance should not be discounted, the genetic transferring of acquired skills in one's lifetime... women who engage in physical fitness may pass on this muscle memory to their children... women who live in a state of heightened consciousness due to education and duty might do the same... an active woman is more likely to breed a superior race. Such a balanced woman can only be produced through the polygamous/harem system as long as the leader is sound enough to not be intimidated by her abilities. This is how to gain the trust and loyalty of the women. 

Early eugenics was marked by free love, it was believed that monogamy was based in jealously and selfishness, traits which should be weeded out of the human race. Women who share a husband cannot be jealous. The Mormon ideal was that women would share the best of the men so that only the best of children would be born to be vestures for the incoming souls of the world so that they would not be born to a lower order... the Mormon ideal was to put jealousy aside for the best of the race... women who choose polygamy are obviously the best of the race of women. However, there is the issue of stability to contend with. If most men do not have wives or sexual partners than they will be dissatisfied and may become a threat to the polygamous leader. Once polygamy is established a larger harem can be produced with too many women for any one man to satiate. These women in agreement could practice free love with the followers of the great polygamous leader, indeed creating a sex cult to keep his men obedient. Sex without the burden of children is very alluring to men. These men would then donate their time and money to the system in exchange for free sex. The women could be kept on birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, however if certain men are deemed to be eugenically fit then they could be allowed to breed with such women for the induction of novel and desirable genes. 

However there is another class of humans who should be considered for the cult practice and that is LGBTQs. At first this may seem like an odd addition to a eugenics cult but let me explain. In ancient Mesopotamia the sacred harems were marked by the presences of transvestites and effeminate men, indeed they were believed to be sent by the goddess Ishtar to supplement the royal courts of the polygamous elite. Homosexuality especially of the male sort, takes males out of the breeding game... with less males competing for women, the more women there are for polygamy and harem breeding. The effeminate homosexual makes a good loyal and passive servant (to some degree) and can be trusted with the women. Indeed the effeminate homosexual is a great companion to women and can serve as friend and guide to her in the chose mysteries of the polygamous leader. The hypermasculine type of homosexual makes a good personal guard as not only is he often more vicious than the average heterosexual, he has no incentive to topple the polygamous leader out of jealously of his position with women. Homosexuals are also overrepresented in the priesthood and so would be a perfect fit for protecting the mysteries of the leader. Homosexuality has always been more tolerated and present in the king's court, eunuchs (this is a barbaric practice which can be replaced with effeminate homosexuals) were much more common among the aristocracy. Indeed everywhere we look, homosexuality is more accepted among the refined classes and less so among the more course. The aristocracy provides homosexuals with safety from the less refined masses and so they are grateful and loyal to the power structure. A system should be devised where as many homosexuals are encouraged to drop out of the breeding system as possible and serve the polygamous male. Transvestites are often able to poach even heterosexual males and so can be used to satiate males to keep them away from the females, if necessary. Persecuting homosexuals causes social tensions and upheavals, it is better to integrate them into the system and use their talents than to cause social divisions... LGBTQs in included would be among the most fanatical supports of the leaders. They should be encouraged to engage heavily in race science as well. They make good evaluators of the eugenic worth of the subjects, particularly the women. They are more subtle and delicate minded, picking up on things others don't. Their position as outsiders allows them to see through internal hypocrisies and petty strifes. They also do not reproduce and so can be objective in assessing those who should breed. 

By first gaining the support of the women by providing them a wholesome, free and safe environment, then using free love to induct men, and also providing LGBTQs a position in his harem work, the polygamous leader can rise to the top with the social and financial support of his followers and a new polygamous cycle can begin. 

Eugenics used to be associated with free love... why?

Today eugenics is associated with the extreme traditionalism of Nazism, people were to build traditional families, though Himmler did propose state-run polygamy programs devoid of marriage where women would raise their children communally and be supported by the state (Lebensborn). However, the earlier era of eugenics was associated with free love. John Humphrey Noyes was an American spiritualist who established the Oneida Community. He coined the term "stirpiculture" which was an early form of selective breeding where only the most spiritual members of the community would breed. However, he also advocated free love outside marriage because he believed that monogamy represented selfishness, a trait he did not want to propagate in the community. Victoria Woodhull was an early suffragette and ran for President, she advocated free love and eugenics. Alice Vickery was the first women in Britain to gain her pharmacy degree... she advocated birth control and free love and campaigned to end the stigma attached to being born outside of wedlock. 

Today many find it funny that eugenics was first associated with free love, but it might not be all that hard to understand. Noyes was on to something when he spoke about monogamy being "selfish", it is associated with possessiveness and a lack of confidence. How does selfishness affect society and what kind of society would be built if we were all less selfish? Would it be a more cooperative society? Would it be a society filled with less pettiness? Would it be a society filled with less greed? The early eugenicists saw something in those who were capable of practicing free love, a sort of evolved spirit. Free love in my opinion is associated with intelligence, a free and inquiring spirit, self-confidence, and generosity. What would happen if these qualities were bred into the human over jealous monogamy?

Margaret Sanger advocated birth control partially on the premise that the release of inhibitions and fears in the human race would bring upon us rapid and profound perceptions and increase our intelligence and that free access to sex was the best way for us to lose our inhibitions (perhaps outside of bloody warfare... which free love should not replace). If interest in ecstatic sex were a sign of intelligence and virility, then free love would need to be made normal so as to find and select for those who were most enthusiastic about the ritual... in nature a lack of interest in sex would indicate a lower level of reproductive fitness and would thus be dysgenic. Eugenicists have lamented that the Christain obsession with homely women had deteriorated the race as a woman who was deemed to be too sexually provocative in appearance (even if she were chaste) was frowned upon and a more simple type of woman who seemed sexless was preferred. Thus Christain obsession with anti-sex may have had a deteriorating effect on the race. 

Perhaps free love should not be practiced among the average classes as they are not ready for it and its institution could wreak social havoc, however it should be promoted among cults which are formed and organized for no other reason than eugenics. People would be selected based on their ability to responsibly engage in free love. Birth control would be used so that when the time came to producing children it could be done selectively. I would suggest that an adeptness at sexual proclivities and a particularly generous spirit when it came to sex should be used as selective criteria for mating, if less sexed and generous persons are needed to maintain society then this would be brought forward by the monogamous laity. Free love should be used to produce a leading eugenic class who are open, tolerant, generous, not selfish, intelligent, creative, and adventurous... all aspects which may be associated with those who can practice free love.

If abortion were relinked with eugenics, less women would get abortions

Once upon a time abortion was linked with eugenics. Abortion is inextricably linked to the previous birth control movement with was founded an run entirely by eugenicists. If you read the original birth control pamphlets and books of the 1920s and 1930s, they were almost all against abortion and instead advocated preventing the conception in the first place. This could have been because abortion was much too radical an idea at the time and to tie abortion in with birth control would harm the cause (Margaret Sanger's first addition of "Family Limitation" listed abortion as a method but was removed in subsequent copies). 

However, in the 1950s and 1960s, those eugenicists who came out of the birth control movement began to promote abortion. Alan Frank Guttmacher who not only was president of Planned Parenthood but also Vice-President of the American Eugenics Society, it was likely Guttmacher's dedication to eugenics which pushed him to launch the Association for the Study of Abortion in 1964. Vera Houghton was Vice-President of the British Eugenics Society, Executive Secretary of International Planned Parenthood Federation, and Chair of the Abortion Law Reform Association. The eugenic birth control movement became the eugenic abortion movement. The aims of the birth control and abortion movement was always to even out the classes, it is believed that the more industrious and intelligent have less children while those who are less engaged in the rigours aspects of society have larger families... it was hoped to even out these numbers. 

But the question today is is abortion eugenic? Yes, abortion is used more by the poor (who are not always dysgenic, social ills can prevent the best of us from gaining wealth) and so the hope that the classes would be evened out is working. However, those who were desired to stay in society may because of abortion have less children still then they already would have had, which would have been small to begin with. Is the tradeoff worth it? How do we allow abortion to have its eugenic effect? 

After the 1960s, abortion became less about eugenics and more about women's individual rights, and eugenics was eventually totally pushed out. Today, women don't think about abortion having anything to do with eugenics and there is no class consciousness inserted into the debate (accept by those who say abortion disproportioonatley affects non-Whites). However, if abortion were relinked with eugenics perhaps we would see a fall in abortion among the more conscious class. When abortion is associated with eugenics, this means that those who are getting abortions are a less desirable element in society, and women who wish to be viewed as more valuable would obtain a negative association with abortion because it is associated with elimination. 

How could such a consciousness be cultivated in the best of our women. By getting them deeply involved in the birth control and abortion movement. First, women of high caliber should be motivated to read the writings of female eugenicists like Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes who were direct and frank about the purpose of birth control (and then apply these ideas to abortion). Women who became directly involved in preventing births from women who perhaps should not be procreating would become conscious of their own procreation, to not procreate would be associated with being undesirable and so perhaps these women would be less reluctant to abort their own and indeed would want to increase their fecundity. Women should be totally engaged in directing abortion propaganda back toward eugenics so then higher conscious women began to slow their abortions and abortion becomes associated only with the most desperate and least conscious amongst us. 

The "alt-right" and anti-Zionist Christians should still vote for Trump for accelerationism

Trump's presidency is in danger, Trump did not win by large margin in 2016, but he was definitely helped by the "alt-right" (or whatever they call themselves) and anti-Zionist Christians. Trump dog whistled a degree of anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism, or at least people read this into his rhetoric, maybe they conflated nationalism with anti-Judaism. But now Trump has proven himself to be the greatest support of Zionism, and those who so ardently supported him in 2016 are abandoning him in droves, indeed some of the most influential people in the alt-right and anti-Zionist Christendom are actively trying to get people not to vote... perhaps not vote for Biden... but just not to vote at all. 

The alt-right and anti-Zionist Christians perhaps have different motives though. I believe that the alt-right has a two-fold plan. First is to end the pro-Zionist stance of the government, the second is to welcome the Leftist instability that a Biden government will bring. The alt-right seems interested in having things excel to the point that violence is needed to thwart Leftism, they want a revolution. This is stupid at this time as the alt-right is completely disorganized, too small, fractured, full of infighting, and ideologically disjointed. The idea that anyone would win a revolution against a Biden government with the military is ridiculous, if Biden gets in Leftism will only become more organized and integrated into the government. I would believe anti-Zionist Christians have less interest in stoking a revolution. While they may disagree with Biden's policies, they are simply desperate to get the government away from supporting Zionism with they find to be evil, it is more about spirituality for the anti-Zionist Christians, they also have their sentiments for Palestine which also has Christian citizens. 

However I ask the alt-right and anti-Zionist Christians to consider the point of accelerationism. The slower the water heats, the less likely the frog is to notice the water is getting hot and cannot jump out. With the growing influence of Zionism over the USA, the more people are waking up to Zionist intrigues (such as Noahide Law). While there is the danger of Zionism gaining a stranglehold over the nation, is it not better for the water to boil faster so that more people wake up and radicalism spreads faster? Also, Trump's presidency is a galvanizer for anti-Islam sentiments. Where anti-Islam goes, so will anti-Judaism as people will equate all foreign laws and movements into one package. What would be more prudent would be to vote for Trump but for it to come with a propaganda qualifier, and that is we are voting for him in order to accelerate Zionism in the nation and thus faster lead to anti-Zionist sentiments. 

polygamous straight men, women and gays - a eugenic alliance

Join My Facebook Group:

Genetic Engineering, Eugenics, Cloning and Non-Traditional Breeding Programs

Eugenicists have always said that eugenics is the only way to keep civilized society alive without reverting back to barbarism. During barbaric times the least healthy and least intelligent of the race perish and fail to pass on their genes, while only the most intelligent and healthy survive to mate. When the primitive age is over, the natural checks on human population come to an end and so those who would normally perish under a more cruel situation live to create offspring. The eugenicists say that if we do not check our breeding that society will collapse due to an accumulation of dysgenic traits in the population and we will return to barbarism. Opponents of eugenics say that the system is barbaric, but it is just the opposite, it is designed to stave off barbarism. However, it cannot be denied that civilization as we know it does depend on more gentle and delicate demeanors, some of our greatest minds are delicate and perhaps would not survive in harsh traditions. We must also cultivate garden types of humans who would likely not survive outside the hothouse of eugenics.... eugenics must be balanced. 

One of the greatest checks to dysgenics which was abolished in the civilized age was polygamy. Genetic testing shows us that 8,000 years ago that the norm was that only one man bred for every 17 women, this means that only a few men had large harems of women. While it may have driven out the more delicate types needed for advanced civilization, this type of ancient polygamy was based on the fact that only the strongest and smartest man could accumulate so many wives, while those who were not all the way at the top of the pyramid could not accumulate any... you could not even be great to have a wife, you had to be the best, that was it, nothing less would do. In animal breeding we only breed the very best males, the very top, the top 10% or so, the other 90% fail to breed in many breeding programs. 

I would also like to say that having very few males breed will lead to hypergamy, meaning that children who had different grandmothers or great grandmothers, but the same grandfather or great grandfather, they might breed together and thus there would be a level of incest. The only problem with incest is the chance of negative recessives being accumulated in the gene pool, meaning that diseases that would normally be less likely to show do show. However, in more primitive times, those who did inherit two copies of the negative recessive would die. Is there a benefit to incest in barbaric times?  I would say yes, that a degree of incest accumulates a particular personality type in the tribe, making social cohesion greater. In our modern time, with genetic testing and egg/sperm sorting, negative recessives could be weeded out of polygenic incestious lines and thus a degree of a psychic conformity could be induced in a family tree without the threat of accumulating diseases... this is a modern and eugenic solution to simply allowing those offspring who had accumulated the negative recessives to die... which we must admit even in barbaric times is inefficient, but perhaps not less inefficient than having a tribe which is not mentally and emotionally aligned. 

However, there is the social aspect of polygamy to look at. A man who sought to acquire large numbers of females would need to fend off large numbers of jealous men who would be denied a wife due to the very nature of the system. This would mean that the leader would need very strong alliances and protections from an elite guard, and he would need a network of loyal subjects, even though this network might be small in comparison to the other 16 men or so who would not breed. There is the question of how this was accomplished in ancient times. There might be something in our psychological make up which allows a man who is strong and wise enough to accumulate large numbers of females to psychologically manipulate large crowds and that this ability to manipulate might be so great that he is able to control men even over the degree that they desire sex, and this would need to be great indeed. In ancient times cruel measures could not be discounted in accomplishing this, and the passing on of cruel and sadistic traits, the immediate turning to force, needs to be considered if it would be a detriment in creating the more cooperative types needed to build social society marked by softer civilization. The king might have also gained control by allowing his loyal men to have access to his harem. 

However, there is some data to be gleaned from a time where there was more civilized polygamy, thought it was practiced to much less a degree, and that comes from the fertility religions of ancient Mesopotamia. While it was more likely to be only kings who held multiple wives and concubines, the average citizen still seemed to be able to have a wife. However, there was also believed to be sacred prostitution where women were kept in harems available to the public. If enough women were engaged in sacred prostitution, and kings had multiple wives and large harems, there would still be segments of the male population who had no wife... though it would be believed only the least "fit" and intelligent would be able to acquire a wife. However it must be noted that in civilized times "fit" becomes a muddy word because just because a man is not as wealthy as another man or as politically powerful does not mean he is less "fit". Kings got there status through heredity and the first born son may not be the most eugenic son, yet he still would have more access to women. Also if a society if corrupt more noble men may find it harder to find suitable wives with whom to procreate, or he may feel so depressed by social conditions that he retreats from live, unfortunately becoming a monk of celibate as more noble men all to often do. Civilized society is where dysgenics begins. 

Now for the part where women and homosexuals come in. It was known that in ancient Mesopotamia homosexuality was more open. In the Christian era all men are expected to have a wife and to breed and homosexuality is shameful, and a man who is innately homosexual would likely want to hide his "shame" and thus he would look for a wife, thus taking another woman out of the breeding pool. However, if the maximum number of homosexuals are encouraged to drop out of the mating pool, this leaves a large surplus of females who can join harems for polygamy while still allowing heterosexual men who desire a wife to acquire one. Now it would seem that the Mesopotamians understood that homosexuality aided the polygamous system as the harems were known to contain transvestites and homosexuals, the Bible speaks of them heavily and was vehemently opposed to them. More effeminate men were believed to have been created and sent by the goddess Ishtar to the ruling class to aid them in their religious ceremonies. The ancient were known to desire eunuchs, a savage practice of castrations, however homosexuals and transvestites are natural eunuchs, at least effeminate homosexuals are more passive, and that is what was desired from a eunuch. Eunuchs were much more common among the ruling class for a reason, though it would seem that they were intelligent enough to see that effiniate men were natural eunuchs as well.  Now, not all homosexuals are effeminate, indeed masculate militant homosexuals tend to be more masculine and more militant than even heterosexual men and are known to be more militant... the original skull crushers of the Nazi party which allowed them to rise power was led by a vicious homosexuals named Ernst Rohm. Kings could use masculine homosexuals as their elite guards and military commanders, they would also be free from family and children, allowing them to devote all their time to the military. 

Homosexuals and transvestites could be trusted to run the king's harems without impregnating his women. There is also the issue of loyalty. I am of the pursusion that there is the biological tendency is a great number of humans to be naturally anti-homosexuals, I would also say that this tendency to be anti-homosexual is most aggravated in the less refined classes, while it is more absent in the more refined classes. Transvestites and homosexuals would likely find that they were better protected by the aristocracy then by the common people and so they would have a vested interest in being loyal to the king and his system. However, that would also mean that homosexuals and transvestites would be disproportionately involved in propping up tyrannies. 

It was known that in ancient Mesopotamia there was a certain high-ranking type of woman, the priestesses. Priestesses were often called upon to sire the royal children of the king. The laity's wives probably lived more traditional lives away from education and stately duties. Is there a eugenic effect in allowing child-baring women to become educated and engage in duties of the state?  First, how can we know just how intelligent and educated a woman is if she is not educated and allowed to express herself? If all women are kept submerged that it is impossible to tell the difference between those who are dull and those who are bright. And if women are not given the opportunity to engage in duty than it becomes impossible to know who is talented not just in letters but also in practice. Then there is the possible science of epigenetics to consider. Epigenetics are genes which can switch on and off depending on the life experience of the individual. It is now known that the living life of especially the woman is passed on to her offspring, for example if she engages in physical fitness in her life she may pass on immediate muscle knowledge of this on to her offspring... it must be investigated where or not this also applies to mental and emotional states... the ability to learn math or persevere under pressure. Allowing a degree of freedom for women likely gave the ruling class a eugenic advantage. 

How could something like this be accomplished today? We do not live in the times of kings. One method would be to start polygamous eugenic cults which would originally be organized by groups of polygamous men who are willing to work together in tandem. Though this cult would be small at first it could grown. I would suggest that the cult encourage homosexual men to be who they are and drop out of the mating scheme so that more women would be available for polygamy, also making the LGBTQ population loyal to their cause. In modern times with gay marriage, homosexuals should be asked to use the legal gains they have made to advocate for polygamy to be legalized as well. As for women I suggest that it be made known to them that in such polygamous cults they would be highly educated and would be encouraged to engage in certain duties which would exercise their minds. They should feel as though the polygamous system protects them from the dullard life of monogamy run by lesser men who would be threatened by their intelligence and independence, polygamous men must be shown and painted to be more magnanimous. Thus, with this alliance, eugenic polygamy could be restored. 

Why gays are like Jews, but not quite, and are instead benifecial for the race

Why do so many people dislike Jews? The vast majority of people live away from urban centers where they will meet many Jews, indeed many people who dislike Jews have met very few Jews in their life. People who dislike Jews will often point to their overrepresentation in causes that they disapprove of, usually showing how Jews are disproportionately engaged in nefarious methods on both sides of the spectrum, both left and right, and that these work together in synergy to be disruptive to the majority population. 

It is often honestly stated by anti-Jewish persons that if left undeterred, Jews rise to the top of society and naturally control it, that without a positive system of suppressing Jews that they are by default rendered dominant. Some say that this is not necessarily because Jews are smarter or more industrious, and arguments can be made that Jews might have these traits in greater concentrations, but that because they are immoral and unethical in their dealings, clannish... working for themselves as individuals and as a group to the detriment of the host population. 

Others hate Jews because of a general tendency they find in the Jewish personality. We all recognize that there tends to be something Black-ish about Blacks, Indian-ish about Indians, White-ish about Whites, Muslim-ish about Muslims... each race and religion and ethnic groups tends to have clusters of traits which make it stand out as unique from the others... though this cannot obviously always be universally applied, but there are tendencies. To some degree, many people dislike Jews "because there is just something about Jews", idiosyncrasies in their personality that others dislike. 

But the Jews themselves have recognized that there seems to be a natural tendency in non-Jews to dislike Jews... that it has a deeper almost spiritual basis. Many Jews believe that the non-Jews are simply created that way, or that they are jealous, or that they are resentful because Jews are closer to god, but still, many Jews say that somewhere deep inside it is simply natural for non-Jews to dislike Jews... and they may even believe that this stress and persecution has actually been part of their success... forcing them to work harder and be more cunning and manipulative than the non-Jews. 

There is another group which seems to be just naturally hated by many (but not all), innately hated, even though it can also be learned, and those are homosexuals. Like Jews, some people say homosexuals have certain personality tendencies among them which they find distasteful. But like it is with Jews, there is also a slight fear of homosexuals becoming overrepresented. Those who oppose homosexuals are usually not only afraid of the feminization of society (though effeminate homosexuals are only one side of the coin) but are also afraid of a sort of homosexual militarism or gay fascism where homosexuals become the dominant force in society which can even be physically threatening. 

It might be true that if left unchecked, both Jews and homosexuals will naturally gain a disproportionate amount of control and influence in society, but should these two phenomena be viewed the same?  What is the difference between Jews and homosexuals?  Jews are by definition a different people... they have a different genealogy generally than the people they live amongst and a different religion and culture. Homosexuals however are of the same race and culture of the people amongst whom they are born... they are the sons of the nation's mothers and fathers. 

Anti-homosexual Christians are quick to point out the role homosexuals had in the fertility cults of Mesopotamia, homosexual priests-prostitutes were viewed as a spiritual nuisance to the Israelites invading Canaan and they placed a great deal of emphasis on wiping out homosexuality particularly. Homosexual spirituality was seen as almost a competing force with the Jewish religion, a natural antagonist.

When homosexuals are integrated into society, when they have mystery cults and castes where they are specifically relegated, they do not become an opposing force to mainstream society, when they are integrated they are much more adept at promoting and protecting their race and culture against invasion, as they were doing in Canaan against the Jews. 

But there is also this just natural hatred for homosexuals that many people have... they seem to some degree to be born to be harassed. The harassment of Jews does indeed make them work harder, work smarter, be more clannish, be more manipulative, and wizened... opposition makes people fight harder. Like Jews, homosexuals need to be more creative than the general public if they are going to succeed, they need to out-think and out-maneuver those who would dispose of them. Because of this, homosexuals gain some of the more cunning tendencies of Jews, and when they are smart, they work together in groups which is only facilitated by their sexual desires for one another. 

The only reason today so many find that homosexuals are aligned with Jews is because homosexuals have traditionally been harassed in Christian culture and no place has been made for them. Jews who need allies are clever enough to exploit homosexual misfortune for themselves, offering an alliance where homosexuals can find equal footing in society. But if homosexuals had been integrated from the start, this would not be the case, indeed homosexuals would view Jews as competition more than allies. 

It is likely true that if any general dislike for homosexuals is controlled, that yes homosexuals would become overrepresented in seats of power and culture, and yes even in the military, militant homosexuals can be particularly limitless. But these represent more benevolent despots than the Jews who are of another people... homosexuals would be leading among their own fathers and mothers and brothers and sister, not some alien race and culture. To keep at least equal footing, homosexuals would and will have to work twice as hard, and only the best could be at the top, there would be no room for mediocre leadership amongst a pseudo-elite who needed to watch their backs, homosexuals would act like Jews, but Jews of their own race, not of another alien and invasive species. 

People notice there is a tendency in homosexuals to be dedicated to culture, and when they are scientists and politicians and military leaders they can very easily reach the top of these fields as well, just like Jews do. Homosexuals are the natural Jews of their own race, partially hated because they do have unique talents that others do not possess, and this harassment forces them to work smarter and harder and together to get to the top. But when homosexuals have a degree of governing power over the society they rule it as a member of their own race and religion, not as a foreigner. Homosexuals have many talents, not that they should dominate, but when allowed to be brought to the forefront to a degree, and when channeled for racial and social betterment, homosexuals do become a sort of elite who can, though some disagree, use their talents to advance society, especially if these sentiments are purposefully engrained in them.