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.