[Sigma]

I think the coming collapse is going to solve this issue lol.

[Anonymous]

@Sieglinde I didn’t know there was another polygamous family! Nice to meet you!

[Anonymous]

I grew up around polygamist, and my dad practiced it when I was younger. Although I am not married at this point, I don’t look at polygamist in a bad light. Most independent polygamist are normal normal people who have a large family. You probably wouldn’t even know they are polygamous unless you were around or they told you. I think children benefit from polygamy.

[Oscar]

” In nature, it’s the alpha male ”

We ceased to be “in the nature”, eighty centuries ago. You speak about it as if this little thing called Civilization was a brief break in the normal course of things.

More, you have a very simplistic understanding of what is Darwinian selection and evolution : it is not a continuous process of eugenics through the selection of the best traits, but an infinite number of mutation possibilities at each generation, the best adapted to a given situation being passed on to the next generation.

if this were your Disney-esque vision, taking into account tens of thousands of years of “amelioration”, men would all look like schwarzenegger (and women like brigitte Nielsen, which is unfortunately not the case)

it’s a little more complex than that. Anyway, once again, I’m not trying to convince you, which is pointless since this is already your way of life and I don’t think you’re going to change it just because of an internet conversation with a stranger, but to remind you of some factual truths, to avoid this kind of false solution being presented as a panacea for our problems.

Your choice of lifestyle is obviously no more harmful than that of the average homo occidentalis, but it brings no comparative advantage to the entropic birth problem we have, where the birth rate is low because of the consumerist primacy, which itself is maintained by immigration, which increases the birth imperative of our own people.

We French lost our North-American empire to the British because we fought outnumbered 1 vs 17 (70 K colonists in New France, vs 1.2million in the 13 colonies) but the French-Canadians managed in 250 years to go from 60K settlers occupied by a foreign power to a people of over 7 million, which enabled them to resist all attempts at absorption by their English-speaking neighbors. Curiously, they were all monogamous.

[Anonymous]

@Oscar that’s not how it works at all. In nature, it’s the alpha male that has the privilege to continue his line. We are part of nature and securing a mate for absolutely every single man out there only secures the lesser genes of them. So many people today are corrupt that you can’t blame women who are more than ok in joining an already established marriage for the added security. You don’t know who you can trust but if another woman can attest to a man being a good father and husband then why deny that safety net?

@Riordan you’re not the only married Polygynist on the site. I’m the second wife to our husband and wholeheartedly believe it’s more proper to be a polygynist than a monogamist.

[Anonymous]

I feel like I am in a unique position to respond, since I think I am the only married/polygamist on the website.

There is a lot to say on this subject, but it comes with a caveat: I do not think polygamy is for everyone, nor do I think polygamy will “save the White race.” Polygamist societies have major issues that many have already outlined in this thread. I do, however, think polygamy is a personal choice that should be made with deep consideration for the facts, and, in my opinion, it should also be decided between a man and his wife.

In my case, my wife was the first to bring it up. We discussed it for years before deciding to pursue it. Our reasoning is based on our personal situation, and it is something that we feel makes sense for us. Having another wife in our life would help us immensely in so many ways, and I have the ability to provide for a second wife and children. (My profile gives details if you are interested in our reasoning.) Also, I plan on having as many children as God blesses me with.

We do need more White children, indeed, but polygamy would only help on a large scale if there was a catastrophic collapse of society/or dramatic war where a multitude of White men were killed.

On a related subject, there are 3 polygamist dating websites, all of which we have tried, and none of them are pro White in any fashion. One of them is absolutely terrible and filled with spies/bots/scams, another is filled with liberals looking for a threesome, and one is actually decent, but still not pro White in any way.

I am grateful for all of the replies in this thread. It is interesting to see everyone’s take.

[Oscar]

“Not everyone will get married ”

and that exactly the point. As I’ve said in my first comment just say you practise that because that your fetish and you live in a country that allowes every kind of it (it was funded this way)

what I can’t stand is the counter-factual nonsense of the pseudo-utilitarian alibi.

No, polygyny doesn’t help the demographic issue, in fact it’s the opposite:

1) it diminishes the stock of genetic variety, which is reduced by 50% for each child
2) it produces fewer children than monogamous couples who choose to have numerous offspring.
3) it provides fewer material and emotional resources for each child, since the “supervision” rate is mechanically lower.

“dating pool” means nothing : in their care home, grand-pas and grand-mas are “dating”, it won’t play any role in the demographic question.

again, facts :

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/South_Korea_Population_Pyramid.svg

I chose South Korea because if it is not a white country, it remains a Western country and its demographic structure is absolutely similar to that of any European country, with the added feature of to be the country on the planet most advanced in its demographic suicide (0.7 children per woman, i.e. 30% of what is required to just maintain the population at its level)

as I have already said and repeated, the so-called “surplus” of women only exists at the most advanced ages, after 40, where they cannot play any demographic role.

the REALITY is a male surplus, which exists for biological reasons and which for the part that interests us – the birth rate among whites with a political conscience – is further increased by the habitual adhesion of women (for reasons of evolutionary strategy ) to the paradigm in place, a paradigm which is obviously centered on our own erasure

So following a polygynous process only further increases the lack of women – and the male/female ratio on the site gives a very clear overview of this.

I add that in addition to the demographic realities previously highlighted, a polygynous practice has the first effect of reinforcing the feminine hypergamic logic – you have also admitted this yourself. So to strengthen cultural feminism – while claiming to destroy it – even though it is a central process of civilizational collapse.

so do what you want to do, but don’t pretend that this logic is positive for our fight in general, because it’s false.

[Hunter]

@Tradiman yes, I strongly advised my older brother NOT to send his children (especially his daughters) to public school, but his wife is ignorant and just wants to get the kids out of her ‘hair’ and she thinks she had a good public school experience so her children should too. For reference, my brothers are not pro-White, but my oldest brother did have some inclination in that direction if not for his fanatical submission to Yahweh (Judaeo-Christian Saturn)… yet he at least married White and is anti-Vax/Mark-of-the-Beast-666… it is on that basis and the threat of Neocommunism that I appealed to not send his kids to public school. But he deferred to his wife, so off to (((indoctrination))) and wasted potential the kids went. I noticed my niece, who used to love me to the point of jumping on me and asking me to give her a baby (yes really, very precious that one, probably saw what mommy and daddy were up-to), now completely ignores me in favor of her stupid ‘friends’ from either of her indoctrination centers (church and public education).

[Dude]

@Tradiman

Its almost like a family consisting of Asian, African, Native, and Oceanic members isn’t normal or something…

Anyways, I guess I should keep my dry humour to myself. Doesn’t convey well by internet.

[Anonymous]

The AIDs ridden parts of Africa are monogamous (christian) and the polygamous (islamic) portions do not suffer that.

[Tradiman]

@Sieglinde
I avoid most television, and entertainment for that reason.
Not a sports fan either.
Your comment gives a ray of sunshine.
Every culture on earth practiced polygyny.
Ones not currently doing so are the ones in decline.

[Anonymous]

@Tradiman That’s also all over TV, internet, music videos… all forms of media are filled with interracial couples that only serve to normalize that kind of behavior. I think what’s reassuring though is that even despite all that, white women are the most racially loyal still. I wish I still had the links to prove it since I know people will choose not to believe it because they’re far too “black-pilled”. That’s why in our house, most of the shows or movies we watch are older ones where all the characters are either White or at the very least they are not race-mixed. Homeschooling is definitely the way to go for all White children, which related to this thread, is just another reason why people shouldn’t just immediately dismiss polygyny. Dividing the work and teaching responsibilities helps to ease the workload overall.

[Tradiman]

@Hunter Sadly white children are inundated with race mixing.
I’m of firm belief No whites should put children in public schools. If I knew I’m 1990’s what I knew now mine never would have.

What little time one has with children at home will never overcome all the hours of brainwashing schools impose on their young impressionable minds. Then there is the media, advertising, peer pressure…..

Walked in Walmart 2 days ago and it was everywhere.
Air mattresses, tents, pop up canopies all showed mixed race couples on the boxes. I was so mad I had to take pictures of the mind manipulating changes.
(There was 1 that showed white people, but I know that one had been there for a while.)

I guess we could always go back to the egalitarian “tribal” ways.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by Tradiman. Reason: Clarity

[Hunter]

The signs that Whites are now actively targeted for genocide—by almost all institutions and in every previously White country—are exceeding obvious at this point, and the Synagogue plans to replace us with non-Whites, especially, niggers. Also, White women may (often) have the final decision on whether or not they should commit the most severe of mortal crimes—but ultimately many ‘decisions’ were already made for them. All the messaging from (((power))) tells them to reproduce with ‘good’ niggers or, at least, not with ‘evil’ White men. The Synagogue raises up niggers, and other ‘useful’ non-Whites, and shits on White men. Then there is the fact that non-White males with an early development curve and higher testosterone and White females—that are biologically women at 9-12—are forced together at very early ages and (((indoctrinated))) together for 12+ years. All normal women have the instinct to mate with men they perceive as powerful. White men have been castrated by their (((society))), we are perceived as weak. Women, all women, choose the ‘winners.’ White men as a group have been losing continuously since the Third Reich was destroyed, and that trend has only accelerated. Indeed, at this absolutely disgusting and tragic point, it would be far better—perhaps necessary—to have gangs of pro-White White males acquire (virgin) White females (regardless of age) to keep collectively as ‘gang wives.’ Recruiting White men to the gang would be a simple transaction of loyalty to the gang in exchange for sexual access to the ‘gang wives.’ Of course, such a White gang would be targeted for extermination by the Synagogue and they would use all the weapons at their disposal, cuckservatives first among them. Meanwhile, the non-White, especially mudslime/nigger brutal rape gangs continue to be protected by the (((system))). I don’t have a simple answer, but if you’re smart-wise you will either prepare to live as a commando behind-enemy-lines while organizing a serious revolution, or flee to some safer place.

[Anonymous]

To Oscar about demographics… I don’t think that would play as big a part as people would think. Not everyone will get married eventually, especially with modern-day influences where men aren’t as appealing as they could be. There will still likely be more women than guys in the dating pool. And it isn’t a given that every man gets one wife to have kids with anyway. Assuming a perfect 1 to 1 ratio of couples isn’t feasible in the real world.

There are a lot of factors that go into lowering the number of viable men anyway. Like gay men, low-quality men, obesity, trannies or fine men who just haven’t had enough time yet to be capable of supporting their own families. I’ve had conversations on this website with other women who will tell me one of the reassuring things about Polygyny is there must be something to be said about the quality of a man who already has the trust of other women. And not needing to take the risk on someone they don’t have assurances of.

[Tradiman]

While we sit here a ponder the ethics the other side is making full use of “polygyny” to wife up as many white woman as possible.

Haven’t been on Facebook in ages.
Looked today and feed is disgusting.

Several black men with multiple white, and pregnant, wives. One Claiming (showing) 8 wives total, and scores of children.

If have a Facebook, look up “Yahweh Yahweh” (queen Yahweh), #propolygyny, or #multiplewives, or “king Yahweh”. That’s just one of many. All black.

They are taking out our gene pool, and getting invited to the White House to receive lifetime achievement awards.
This supposed “king Yahweh” who claims kingship of Ghana is repudiated by the Ghanaians themselves as they are a republic, I digress.

Someone who born in US, with multiple homes in US, openly flaunting multiple wives, being invited to the White House should put those of us of European descent on notice we need to quit debating and grow up.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by Tradiman.

[Oscar]

all this nonsense again ?

To put an end to these fantasies, I’m going to post a typical example of the demographic reality in these countries

Ukraine is a country at war. In a war, young men in their prime die. So, in theory, there should be plenty of women available for the remaining men. Well, what we see is that the demographic surplus of women that gives so many illusions to some is the exclusive result of the oldest women, i.e. those who cannot play any role in the birth rate. For women of child-bearing age, there are ALWAYS more men than women available, so there are no women theoretically available. Polygamy can therefore only be of theoretical interest for post-menopausal women, since they are actually outnumbered by the men in their age group. For all other categories, it’s an outright lie.

https://images.populationpyramid.net/capture/?selector=%23pyramid-share-container&url=https:%2F%2Fwww.populationpyramid.net/es/ucrania/2023/%3Fshare%3Dtrue

There is a simple and massive way of stimulating the white birth rate, and that is to ensure that the age of the first child is no longer 30, as has become the norm in Western countries. And that means working on attitudes (my mother’s generation had their children at a young age, whereas today it seems to have become a welfare queen thing) and practical measures concerning housing and crèches.

[Dude]

@Hunter

Some of the Swedish women seem to be marrying off to the foreigners willingly.

Anyways, some dry humor on my part.

[Hunter]

@Dude, that would only maybe work temporarily if I went black-face, and I likely couldn’t stand the mudslimes/niggers for one moment let alone live undercover with them just to ‘taste’ young Swedish girls by force and get away with it…

[Dude]

@Hunter

Identify as a refuge with a special book in hand. Then, I hear you can have as many wives as you want in Sweden… Or was it Germany?

[Hunter]

I find the discussion about polygamy to be at best intellectual entertainment. Under current laws across the West, women (married or not) can have sex and reproduce with whoever they want. Women/girls under the age of Majority can as well, although, if the men are Majors they can be imprisoned as ‘pedophile-rapists,’ and this is especially likely if the men are (non-elite-traitor) White.

[Dude]

@Tradiman

So far as your population statistics go. Have you accounted for M/F ratios across the age range. Men tend to die off faster, so I would imagine the ratio would skew towards women. Particularly towards older ages.

I would be hesitant to get behind the polygamy train. I have thought though, that in a proper self protecting society, perhaps there could be agreed upon implantation. For example, a particularly high IQ individual from the past is chosen by some random or non random selection method. Then, a vault of their genetic material goes towards an embryo. Finally, a consenting women is chosen or volunteers to bring that child to term.

Essentially genetic polygamy without the relational polygamy.

[formerwagie]

YEAH!

[Anonymous]

I think birth control has been more destructive than polygamy could ever be. Look at the amish they are growing by leaps and bounds. It also made women have to be selective who they had relations with, which in turn made men have to be responsible and successful in order to attract a mate.

[A_Spartan_Speaks]

I would be in favor of allowing polygamy but only after we establish our ethno-states. I would also be in favor of establishing Lebensborn style programs to increase our birth rates.

[Anonymous]

I have witnesses polygamy first hand in many different settings. The children are well adjusted and the families are quite normal others than there being more mothers (I am excluding cults). Secondly polygamy breads competition with is good. It makes men more aggressive which is something that might be good in this society of passivity. As to the ratio of men to women I think is irrelevant. Not all men should breed. 95 percent of them that lived in the past have no living descendents. The best of men should have multiple wives to have more high IQ children. Why should an idiot be allowed to have as many if not more kids than our best. I have never seen polygamy done for sex. It’s not a fetish but a very disciplined life style. I believe most problems would vanish if polygamy were made legal. Furthermore if polygamy were legal most of the time no more than 2 percent of the population practises it. It advantageous to women as they can see what kind of a man she is marrying as she can see how he is as a husband already with his family. As Joyce brothers once said “it’s better to be number two to nice guy than number one to a jerk”.

[Tradiman]

I have found those who dogmatically oppose something which hurts no one feel something will be taken from them personally.

My father was youngest of 12 siblings from a monogamous marriage. (5 boys 7 girls)
With exception of my father his siblings had large families.
Yet there were women who couldn’t find a “good” man and became “spinsters.

When one considers the ratio of men to women Us has 3million women who have no opportunity to have a stable marriage.

BUT when one considers incarceration rates of males (all races) there are roughly another 800k more women who are banished to live lonely lives.
Count those men on probation as unlikely good husbands; 2.9million; insisting on monogamy condemns ~7million US women to either raising a child alone, or to not having children.
Of those women approximately 3.5 million are of European descent.

As to birth sex ratio. I don’t care what statistics say cause I know what I see.
Everyone I know has way more girls than boys.

[Hunter]

On the issue of polygamy though, I will end by stating that contemporary Saudi Arabia proves, without a shadow of a doubt, the success of that form of social organization. Also worth pointing out that, since Hitler declared war on the USA, Saudi Arabia has had better rulers than the entire West. The average Saudi Arab lives an upper-middle-class lifestyle without working. The typical Saudi man almost certainly has it better than the typical White man.

[Hunter]

Oscar, I find it curious that you are reacting so strongly against the concept of polygamy especially given that, in the contemporary west, sexual relationships (including one night liaisons) outside of marriage (even when married) are not illegal and are in fact celebrated. In other-words, this thread is purely an academic exercise. A more relevant topic of discussion would be pro-White ARRANGED MARRIAGES.

[Oscar]

“If you are not interested then nobody is trying to sell you one it. ”

we are not discussing here individual preferences which are of little interest, we are discussing if polygamy is – or not – a viable alternative to the monogamous structure which happens to be the basis of Western civilization for centuries (a detail).

in case you didn’t make the effort to read the title of the group and the opening post : “Have you considered polygamy as a way to boost white birth rates?”

polygamy does NOT increase birth rate (and polygamy does NOT increase social stability, quite the opposite). if people fantazise about it and even practise it, it’s not a concern for me. In a time when bearded men can be “pregnant”, there are fmore worrying trends. Just don’t use pretexts of so-called political militantism for that.

[Jingo]

Or then there might be people who simply see it as a viable alternative to the current failing system.

If you are not interested then nobody is trying to sell you one it.

I can tell you that a lot more women are seeing the advantages over and above the cultural of serial monogamy in an increasingly uncertain world where our group is in the cross hairs of those who can see our vulnerable Achilles heels.

[Oscar]

“that a single woman who marries young is capable of having 10 or more children ”

that was your typical French-Canadian family few decades ago (Céline dion : 14 siblings). And despite the neo-pagan anti-Christian bullshit narrative, it was the result of the important role of the christian religion (and I say that while being agnostic, only culturally catholic and of course not a big supporter of what the Church is becoming, espacially with the current pinko-commie Argie)

Could say the same for the Irish.

if it’s a question of boosting the white birth rate, polygamy is useless; if it’s a question of waging war on Christianity by reinventing a pseudo-tradition (exactly as the Jews did at the end of the 19th century, as I would note if I were being sarcastic), it’s a lot of effort for very little: christianism is dying.

Leonem mortuu, etima catuli morsicant (since we are in an ancestors’ revival, let’s play the full symphony right?)

[Oscar]

“Discovered even then, for some reason, they lie about ratios.
2022 men/women
US:
male 165 million
Female 168.3 million
3,244,880 More women than men.”

Perfect example of how quoting figures is useless if you can’t interpret them and put them into perspective rationally: I never said that there were fewer women in absolute terms in any country, I said that <b>there are naturally fewer women being born, which is a biological fact known and irrefutable to anyone who does a bit of demography : for 105 boys born, there are only 100 girls</b>

coonsidering that women’s life expectancy is higher than men’s – by three to four years on average, depending on the country – it’s obvious that in the total population stock, we’ll end up with more women, since the imbalance will increase in the oldest strata of the population: your extra 3 million are all those widows/catladies, certainly not fertile wombs.

I haven’t managed to get an answer to the simple question I was asking: considering that there are already naturally more men than women born, how can we imagine that artificially increasing this natural imbalance will in any way increase social stability – in addition to increasing the birth rate? it just doesn’t make any sense, it’s counter-factual and simply cargo cult.

[Jingo]

Correct. Most claims against it are misleading.
Most have almost no exposure to it in real life and have spent very little time questioning the dogmatic positions they have absorbed via cultural osmosis. Then most spend very little time questioning what they absolutely know.

Personally I do not give a damn for what everyone knows. The mass of people knew you needed to to be locked down and take a shot while wearing a face diaper by way of an example.

If a family comes together and is making a happy healthy family with more internal support and more potential flexibility, then good for them.

[Tradiman]

I did in-depth population study years ago.

Discovered even then, for some reason, they lie about ratios.
2022 men/women
US:
male 165 million
Female 168.3 million
3,244,880 More women than men.

Canada:
Male 19.35 million
Female 19.6 million
236,585 more women than men.

Mexico male population 62.2 million
Female 65.3 million
3 million more women.

It would be best to study why Utah gave women right to vote in 1870 then revoked it in 1887. Women weren’t voting against polygyny as was hoped.

Second would be why there was such a concerted effort to stop polygyny in the US.
(To paraphrase quote, “if allowed to continue there will be such a large voting blocks as result of so many children listening to grandfathers, based on family ties the polygynists would rule the elections, and after a few generations would be to powerful [cause of the numerous children] to control!”)

History proves most current cult/ural claims against it to be misleading.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by Tradiman.

[Anonymous]

While I think that Oscar made some good points on the subject, I also acknowledge that his more aggressive communication style may make it more likely for people to react emotionally, rather then considering the matter from a more rational point of view.

So I would like to outline some points which I consider important in a most neutral way possible, to allow anyone reading now or later to understand the factual side of the discussion.

I think the first question which comes to mind on the subject of polygyny is that of what benefits society would gain from adopting it – since remember that monogamy has been the standard for a long time, and departing from an established system always carries with it certain risks, hence why a clear, significant benefit would need to exist for a remotely rational civilization to take the risk of such a change.

If the argument is about birth rates as I’ve seen mentioned a number of times, then I would agree with what Oscar pointed out before, that a single woman who marries young is capable of having 10 or more children – and I have even personally met some individuals who came from such families, so at this stage I fail to see a gain on this front which couldn’t be obtained otherwise.

And that is assuming that pure numbers of European children would even be the right goal to have – as if they’re not raised with great care, especially in the modern world, they will be mentally kidnapped by the state, media and/or other members of our sick society, and turned into self-hating Whites instead, our greatest enemies – something Oscar touched on previously as well.

However when it comes to the drawbacks – I can see some very real consequences, which would follow.

A major one has already been mentioned by Oscar, which is that this would cause a disturbance in the gender balance within society.

What he didn’t mention is that Helmuth Nyborg confirmed in a 2015 study that average intelligence covers a wider range in men than it does in women, i.e. there are more dumb men than dumb women, but there are also more smart men than smart women.
The higher/lower the intelligence, the more men will outnumber the women, and for instance at an IQ level of 145, the ratio is 5 men for every 1 woman.

And since highly intelligent men will want to find a woman who is of a similar intelligence, due to factors such as the lack of impulse control and thus increased conflict which are found in lower IQ individuals, and also that a proper relationship can only exist with proper communication, which is impossible if the woman is physically incapable of understanding what the man is saying – many highly intelligent men will end up without a single wife.

So nature is already creating some instability here in not allowing many of these highly intelligent men to find a wife, and since polygyny is only really accessible for higher IQ men due to the level of intelligence required to accumulate and keep the necessary resources – the result is that every woman in such a polygynous relationship is an additional highly intelligent man who goes without a wife.

And considering this, it would then be quite reasonable to expect these men to become resentful and lose their loyalty to a society in which a small number of men are hoarding all of these women who are now unavailable for them to marry.

I do understand why individual men in particular would prefer an arrangement such as polygyny, as it increases the genetic diversity of their offspring and thus makes their future survival more likely, since if one of the wives passes on a genetic defect, the children of the others won’t be affected.

But on a societal level such a man is comparable to a thief.
A thief who takes the property of a productive man harms society not only in the sense that the productive man will now have less means to be productive with, but also harms social trust as people will be looking over their shoulders from then on, in case they may be his next victim.
Only the thief benefits from this interaction, while society as a whole suffers.

In closing, based on all the arguments I’ve read and evidence I found to be available, this is my view on the matter – that polygyny is a greater harm than good, and should not be practiced.

Though I will gladly read arguments or evidence to the contrary if there are any, as my goal is wisdom, not social status.

[Anonymous]

It isn’t limited to just those two groups of people. Although, some might have different ideas of what is “rich”. Money management is a big thing for everyone and too many people turn their kids into something expensive which discourages them from having more children. They are not as expensive as most people make them. I currently have two kids and my cousin has one, she spends so much more money because she refuses help or advice and instead uses money to try and raise her kid.

There is a gender ratio difference, yes, but that can really hardly be applied to a massive overall population. In the modern world, there are so many different factors going into the 1-1 ratio of men vs women that it becomes impossible to calculate. Men and women who are put off from marriage, homosexuality, bisexuality, men who do not want single mothers, women with a bunch of different “baby daddies”… And not to mention there’s also evidence for a gender ratio to be different in colder/warmer climates. With more males generally being born in warmer climates and more females being born in colder climates. There are far too many factors to make a linear 1-1 argument on the gender ratio. Opposing political points, values, faiths and so many things that affect it. I doubt polygyny makes much of a difference as opposed to all of the above. I don’t speak from some dumb fetish fantasy viewpoint, I speak from personal experience and am presenting a solution to those. I have too many friends who go from boyfriend to boyfriend making no progress because of the culture that’s been fostered in our world. When there’s a much better solution than just endlessly dating from a pool of unworthy men.

[Oscar]

“Polygyny offers stability in an evergrowing unstable world. ”

opinions don’t become facts by the sheer force of wishful thinking.

all the facts, and logic, point in the opposite direction. How can we imagine that by creating an additional imbalance in the sexual supply – more men are naturally born than girls – we are contributing to social stability?

polygamy brings absolutely nothing in terms of social structure, and even less in terms of the white birth rate, since a man who disperses his material resources to several women will naturally have fewer children than a normal couple who decides to have a large number of offspring.

we’re not here to discuss people’s personal fantasies, but social structures in the context of the political situation in all European countries or countries populated by Eurodescendants.

as I said, two types of profile can afford this kind of fantasy: the very affluent, and the trailer-trash underclass.

It’s worth noting that most of the very rich who resort to de facto polygamy – a mistress – have limited offspring. They don’t contribute anything to the general birth rate, they do sterilize a resource.

I’m not even insisting on the fact that, given the nature of the current system, the most comfortable material positions – and therefore the most likely to attract women who accept polygamy – tend to be co-opted by pressure groups, none of which are good for us: Jews, fags, coloreds, not to mention crypto-lesbian feminists.

as for the latter, they produce genetic material that has no civilizational value: trailer trashes producing offspring with zero ability to be a part of a civilized, productive, technological society won’t save us from anything, quite the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Polygyny offers stability in an evergrowing unstable world. There’s been a decline in people and culture as time has gone on and I don’t think it’s right to force someone to choose to settle for a man she would not deem worthy of being a father to her children. The same goes in reverse towards us women.

There’s a lot that goes into this that are inherent biases on my part but I strongly believe that women lack as much agency as men and would eventually adopt the overall attitude of the man if he proves himself worthy. Not to mention there is a special bond to be shared between sister-wives who support each other and are not in constant competition with each other. From my perspective, if I have a best friend who struggles to find a boyfriend, and I am already married to who I believe is a very good man, I truly believe I’d be selfish to prevent those two from being together. I don’t share these opinions about any other form of polygamy for the record, only polygyny.

[Anonymous]

yall are still arguing about this?

itś a moot point honestly, because despite centuries of enforced monogamy, men of means and status (who are the demographic for whom this topic is even a thing) who have the desire will continue to find ways to build a harem.

government: you can only have one wife!
high-value man: they aren’t my wives your honor. they’re just friends with benefits.

I’d argue we’ve had functional polygamy the entire time and moreso now than even before the church banned it.

[Oscar]

“Regardless, supporting restrictions on White male sexuality (with the exception of bringing non-Whites to White lands) is only detrimental to the pro-White cause. ”

you mean like polygamy ? Since some truths have to be repeated : the polygamy currently exists, and as in ancient times, it’s limited to people with not only material comfort but also symbolical status in our “société du spectacle”.

And i’m convinced that this world does not need more hollywood shiksas or NBA-stars coal burners.

[Tradiman]

Oscar, you act like those are my statements.

They are not.

Quote in early Christianity: “Many of them were Essenes, who believed in celibacy. They simply could not replace their numbers from within or without. And it probably would have died out if not for a man named Paul of Tarsus…..
Paul went out to sell this to the pagan world. And there was no better salesman than he.

He had an enormously receptive audience because he was selling the moral dream of Judaism – love, fairness, honesty, monotheism (albeit imperfect monotheism; it was certainly monotheistic in comparison to the Roman theologies of the time). He was also selling the coming redemption of the world. The early Christians believed that the “Second Coming” of Jesus was imminent.”
The Roman Empire, which had reigned supreme for almost 300 years and been in existence almost 500, started to DECLINE.……
One of the MAIN REASONS WAS CHRISTIANITY. Rome was not strong enough — or able enough or ruthless enough — to destroy the Christians. Yet, in persecuting them they guaranteed their popularity among the downtrodden.” End quote.

Who is responsible for current anti-white agenda now?

Who was responsible for the “War against Germans?…….

Who was responsible for Great Depression?

Who was responsible for spread of Christianity weakening Rome?

Original Christianity never banned polygyny.
That came later.
I’d suggest doing a deep dive of entomology of “agape.” Agape didn’t mean platonic.

Flavius Josephus was an infiltrator in my book, just like many others.

I find it too much to be coincidental that the pope’s edicts (bans) on polygyny coincided with Rabbeinu Gershom, a renowned French talmudist, bans on polygyny circa 1,000.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by Tradiman.

[Hunter]

By the way, with regards to women—especially those that are not mine—I’m done telling them anything they don’t like, especially over the internet. Since, as soon as you do, they will no longer communicate with you, it is better to stroke their ego. Fundamentally, my thought on women is thus: could you love more than one child? Then you could love more than one woman. Women are (generally) different though, they can only really love one man at any given time, and they are more ‘holistic’ in that they cannot separate love of the body from love of the heart and mind. Regardless, supporting restrictions on White male sexuality (with the exception of bringing non-Whites to White lands) is only detrimental to the pro-White cause.

[Hunter]

@Oscar, the last Aryan society to not submit to non-Aryan memetic-domination in the West, the Norse, practiced polygamy and concubinage. The last Aryan society in the East, the Scythian elite of northwest India, also permitted polygamy and concubinage. Buddha was a prince from one such society, but he famously rejected the material world (mater; of the mother; represented by women) as pointless. Classical Rome and Greece also placed few restrictions on (especially male) sexuality. Strictly enforced monogamy leads to serial monogamy. If divorce is also not permitted, it would lead to a drastic increase in ‘separated’ couples. “Christianity is a religion that europeanized a levantine narrative.” Fundamentally this is incorrect, Christianity Judeanized Europe more than Europe Europeanized Christianity. The Jewish Yahweh replaced Zeus/Jupiter/Odin et al., Europe was conquered spiritually with the treason of Constantine against Aryan civilization.

[Oscar]

“Yes, Majority, of our white ancestors were polygynous ”

a fallacy doesn’t become a factual reasoning because you repeat it.

1) judaism didn’t influence Rome or Greece, it was the opposite (ever heard of the hellenistic kingdoms in the Levant ?

the only influence the jews had on Rome is that they pissed them so much than they destroyed jerusalem and expelled the annoying tribe (so we can enjoy their presence everywhere in Europe)

christianity is a religion that europeanized a levantine narrative (which wasn’t even hebraic at the beginning) : it’s main influence is the Romanitas
to assert that Christianism, which has structured all the social, cultural, political and even economic forms of the European peoples for more than a millennium, would be a form of foreign body having corrupted the pure soul of the peoples of Europe is a discourse of cardboard neo-pagans inventing a pseudo kitsch tradition whose sole aim is to fabricate a utopia in reverse, i.e. existing not in the future but in the past, which I call Whitekanda.
I’m not even saying this in defense of Christianism, which is dying in Europe, as I’m agnostic, but just out of respect for historical truth.

2)by definition, polygyny can’t be generalized even in a polygamic society : it’s a privilege of a small fringe of the male population, the most affluent.
So your project is to intitutionalize something that already exists in our societies : it’s called feminine hypergamy.
spoiler alert : modern-day concubines or second wives are called ‘mistresses’.

the polygamist rhetoric is just a pseudo-solution to the real problem of feminism. i note that the nasty monogamists have been solving the problem for a thousand years, and without trying to invent a false model that doesn’t add any value (a well-formed, solid couple will produce far more offspring in adulthood than their ancestors did, even if they were polygamous) and that can only produce social instability, since the sexual instinct is both powerful and shared by most men.

[Tradiman]

Since its appearant so few are aware of the culture stolen thought I’d post a couple snippets:

“Normative practices of Polygyny and concubinage, which have been shown by anthropological studies to legitimize behaviours that reinforce male power. Our survey found that many of these behaviours have been prevalent among Viking-Age societies.”

“A range of evidence indicates that Viking-Age Scandinavian societies practised both polygyny, meaning that men could take multiple wives, and concubinage – a semi-formal relationship in which men and women engage in sexual activity and sometimes cohabit without marrying. These practices could be simultaneous (i.e. a man could have both one or more wives and one or more concubines) but are distinct from one another and will be treated as such below.”

(Polygyny, Concubinage, and the Social Lives of Women in Viking-Age Scandinavia
Ben Raffield, Neil Price, and Mark Collard
Introduction: (Un)tangling Viking-Age Social Relations)

“It may have become clear that the concept of polygyny proposed in this book differs from Reichert’s in all essential respects. I am going to argue that polygyny is not a form of marriage, but marriage can be a form of relationship within overall polygyny;34”
(All the King’s Women
Polygyny and Politics in Europe, 900–1250 By
Jan Rüdiger)

“ Greco-Roman SIUM was preserved and gradually reinforced by the Christian church
which Labored TO SUPPRESS POLYGYNY among GERMANS and SLAVS at a time when the Arab conquests lent ideological support to polygamy in parts of the Mediterranean and across the Middle East. The Middle Ages, as SIUM spread as a by-product of Christianization, witnessed the church’s struggle against divorce and elite concubinage, practices whose curtailment would render monogamous precepts more effective.
26 Ashkenazi Jewry followed this trend, highlighted by Gershom ben Judah’s ban”
(Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics Monogamy and polygyny in Greece, Rome, and world history)

End snippets:
Now was Rome really monogamous when men were allowed to have concubines, sex with their slaves etc?
NO!

Those today who consider polygyny grotesque have no such animosity for “serial monogamy,” or a serial divorce’ when it is actually worse, for at least those of old were mostly loyal, and faithful.
Serial divorces are fine. Sleeping with a different person every week, but somehow more than one woman being faithful to one man is sick?

How twisted is such reasoning? Shows the truth of my previous post).

One more snippet:
“ and perhaps for the first time in recorded history, society at large is happy to celebrate both, as witnessed in countless pop songs, novels, films, rv serials, sociology reports and newspaper analyses. Yet in most of its cultural representations, satyria-sis is at an uncomfortable angle to some other central tenets of cultural self-imaging. However easily partners may switch in film, television, and life, for as long as they last, ‘couple’ relationships are supposed to be exclusive, and if they are not (which is often), we readily apply to them a near-feudal vocabulary of loyalty and betrayal. “I’lI be true to you, yes I will,” fidelis ero tibi, is the formula straight out of a twelfth-century charter as sung by the Hollies.”
End:

Yes, Majority, of our white ancestors were polygynous before Jewish inspired Christianity crushed, and destroyed our cultural traditions, and history.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by Tradiman. Reason: Clarity

[Tradiman]

Oscar, being honest for your benefit, you are a victim of mind control as shown by your choice of words.
Psychological warfare works unless you know how to protect yourself from it.

I’ll Let some of those in the know state it loudly.
“We are governed, our minds are MOLDED, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”

Edward Bernays
“The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that MIND IS MADE UP FOR IT BY THE GROUP LEADERS IN WHOM IT BELIEVES and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of INHERITED PREJUDICES and SYMBOLS and CLICHES and VERBAL FORMULAS supplied to them by the leaders.”

Read your own reply to me, and look at world around you, and how you align with it realize the truth of those statements.

I’m not going to right a book to connect the dots so just know Every choice given, but truth, is controlled opposition by same the same groups.

Learn. Although rather advanced “Rape of The Human Mind; Joost Meerloo is rather decent, one to start with.
Than Propaganda, by Edward bernays.
Then, then, then……
See what I mean.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by Tradiman.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by Tradiman.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by Tradiman.

[Oscar]

“I see the concerted effort to erase culture and history, has been quite successful. ”

there’s a slight difference between tradition and Whitekanda pseudo ancestral bullshit.

“It was basically Jewish inspired Roman Catholicism that changed culture. ”

you have no clue. Ancient Judaism accepted polygyny. Romans, the civilization in which christianism was born, didn’t.

in any case, this discussion is so grotesque as to be humiliating.

Polygamy has no social interest in a society that does not suffer from a lack of men, as after a devastating conflict. On the contrary, given that naturally more men are born than women, the simple fact of concentrating even more of a scarce resource produces social imbalances: we talk enough about the case of these polygamous Mormons where young people are deprived of access to the marriage market.

the fact that there are still fewer women than men in our sector of opinion further increases, if possible, the totally counter-productive nature of this idea.

we are on a site where the ratio of male/female is an illustration of what it would look like, following this scheme. Brilliant, no?

I note that the people who are most radical about this kind of little delusion are often those who are at the bottom of the social ladder and who, in fact, would have absolutely no access to what they say they want most.

[Hunter]

Any restriction on male sexuality increases the value of female sexuality and thus reduces birth rates. Birth rates are highest where the female needs the male most. Normally, the female is only sexually attracted to the male when he possesses superior power, including over all male competition. If high birth rates are the objective, there should be no restrictions on male sexuality, while significant restrictions should be placed on female sexuality. Islam is the clearest real world example of this… it seems contradictory at first, but this is only if you think the sexes equal. That said, I value liberty not merely high (White) birth rates. In a stable (White) society only (slightly above) replacement birth rates would be necessary, however, such a society must be purely White with essentially closed borders—allowing only eugenic White immigration.

[Tradiman]

Had look up dates.
I was a little off on timeline.
Basically enforced monogamy started in the early Middle Ages, enforced by catholic torture
Posting for historical only.

http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm

Excerpts:

In 726AD, it was acceptable for a man with a sick wife to take a second wife so long as he looked after the first one. With concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance however, offspring could not inherit church property and it was later declared that all sons of priests were illegitimate. In 1022, Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages for priests (monogamous or polygamous). Finally in 1139, Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. All these were done to possess and protect money and church property. Making polygamy a sin and marriage unacceptable for a priest was a slow and purposeful process.

The idea of Catholic celibacy is especially foolish when you realize the reason behind it. Before the middle ages it was allowable for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses (concubines). But with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could not inherit anyway in society).

In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality, multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times, but it was about MONEY! In biblical times many wives, concubines and breeders was common and never spoken against other than by Paul to the Elders of Timothy and Titus. In the Tanakh, Jewish priests suggest 4 wives was probably about the right number.

End!

It was basically Jewish inspired Roman Catholicism that changed culture.

• This reply was modified 2 years ago by Tradiman.

[Tradiman]

Oh, my!
I see the concerted effort to erase culture and history, has been quite successful.

Polygyny (marriage of 2-3 women to one man), not polygamy (which could be polyandry, or polygyny), was accepted practice until pope in circa 9 century declared it against the church.
Another pope Circa 1100 declared all such marriages null, and void for everyone thereby instituting an immediate class of homeless women and children.

Until then it was considered moral, and just.
Even a duty, of a man to look after and protect women.

[Anonymous]

No.

Especially in Europe.

Correction: the majority of conservative, traditonally-minded whites

So, what the point of having 3 wives ? To have 50 kids

No, to have the standard 10 kids spread out over three women.

if we leave it a few more years, i’m sure we’ll read about a return to the clan, to drink mead in an aurochs horn and to clothes made of animal fur.

Honestly, the world would be better off if everyone swallowed the Varg pill. It seems that the more civilized a society becomes, the more degeneracy it produces.

most of them will never manage to find a companion who is not a consumerist half-whore…so to imagine finding three of them

If you believe it will never happen anyway, why are you arguing about it?

we are not an endangered species, our Weltanschauung is

Unless you plan to have a Charles Martel moment and literally drive the swarthy, Turkish hordes back across the Mediterranean at gunpoint, I’d have to disagree. Allowing those people to stay is going to affect the gene pool and change what it means to be white. I can easily see a day generations down the road where being white is akin to being native american in the US today; so admixed that they are usually indistinguishable from the rest of the horde. I sincerely hope I’m wrong about that.

I would agree, however, that preserving the white race is a pointless exercise without a proper and unifying philosophy (Weltanschauung); though I would contest the implication that we have one at. If we do, I’ve never heard a clear articulation of it.

[Oscar]

That is, after all, the book the majority of white people wish to use as their moral Constitution.

No.

Especially in Europe.

You clearly didn’t read my initial response to the OP in which I explicitly state that I do not intend to seek a polygamous marriage for myself

I know to read. A PhD usually helps in this kind of occupation

We were not discussing your personal situation but the utility – or not – of this theoritical situation

this kind of totally out-of-reality discussion would be the perfect illustration for a leftist observer of a certain variety of clownish-radicalism that tends to be more extreme as it losses all means to weigh on reality.

You do realize that having upwards of 6-10 kids/family was considerably more common in the past?

Yes with one woman. And I don’t even speak of many French Canadians who used to have ten of them (Céline Dion’s 13 siblings)

So, what the point of having 3 wives ? To have 50 kids whose you won’t remember the name of the date of birthday. and since modern days conditions – and I don’t even speak about being a follower of the consumerist neurosis – makes that impossible except if you aspire to some trailer trash life, what’s the point of this kind of fantasies presented as “an hypothesis that has to be discussed”

there is a – quite pathetic – tendency among some people, as civilizational decomposition accelerates, to manufacture a junk radicalism that seems to follow in parallel exactly the trend of blue-haired clique.

if we leave it a few more years, i’m sure we’ll read about a return to the clan, to drink mead in an aurochs horn and to clothes made of animal fur. To become a herd of paranoid and incantatory hillbillies what a great gift to the (((system)))

Reality check: most of them will never manage to find a companion who is not a consumerist half-whore with a brain eaten by the system and whose comprehension of the world will be organised around the concepts of “muh weemen rights, muh liberty, muh fulfilment”, so to imagine finding three of them, how can I say…

Turks are at the gates and you’re discussing about sexual transition of angels

I repeat myself : we are not an endangered species, our Weltanschauung is, we just need to create moderately prolific families with, above all, an excellent intellectual and political training and the creation of a relational environment that allows these efforts to be prolonged (in other words, to have one’s children evolve in a friendly and sentimental environment where they will be with children whose parents have the same convictions, which will avoid the deleterious effect sent out by the usual social environment), and this is not possible with a short period of time spent with each of our children.

this said, have fun in chatting.

[Anonymous]

In my opinion, as well as studying about it some in history as well as in the Bible, it is horrible for a stable and healthy family. One man and one woman is the way we are designed. The man to be stout and masculine in order to protect, provide, and deeply love his wife and children (true strong men are bold, but also very affectionate and caring for their own) along with the woman to be modest and feminine in order to nurture and care for children as well as love her husband and fulfill all of his needs (emotionally and physically) so he wouldn’t even think about wanting another woman. It’s simply called “intimacy” that truly bonds the right people together. This severely degenerate society of today knows nothing about true loyalty and intimate-bonding, but only prostituting themselves on social media and destroying culture with their foolishness.

So, it would be best if you can find the right man to marry and have a big family like in the good old days, while teaming up with other pro-whites and traditionalists to begin a community together. Hope this helps like the other posts already sent.

[Hefeweizen]

Polygamy is dysgenic relative to monogamy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaNzkQApI4Q), and causes in-group conflict and violence (competition over women). Monogamy is a social technology that allows a group greatly reduce in-group conflict and focus male aggression outward (i.e. against other groups) instead of at each other. The European norm of monogamy has been in place for centuries (at least) and was one of the reasons Europe outcompeted the Muslim world. The norm of monogamy must be ruthlessly enforced. Polygamists are breaking the social contract and small numbers of them can disrupt the entire system. Once men see that some men have multiple “wives” and are not punished for it, they’ll start asking why they can’t have multiple “wives” too. From that point, the only outcome can be a slide into in-group conflict and dysgenia.

[Anonymous]

if the people you talk to don’t look at you strangely when you go off on a rant about establishing a polygamous system à la Conan the barbarian, it’s probably because you don’t meet many normies anymore

Well first off, I don’t discuss topics like polygamy with normies at all. Second, I don’t rant about the topics I do discuss with them. Third, I don’t associate the concept of polygamy exclusively with a CtB-style harem. In fact, the association never even registered with me until you mentioned it. I was thinking more along the lines of the polygamous relations found in the Bible of all places. That is, after all, the book the majority of white people wish to use as their moral Constitution.

producing more white children is not in itself of any interest if you’re generating blue-haired kids

Not all of them would be destined to turn into blue-haired freaks, depending on how they were raised. The chance of them turning into blue-haired freaks goes down considerably if they are homeschooled; which would be easier to do with more women in the house. You do realize that having upwards of 6-10 kids/family was considerably more common in the past? What’s the difference in blue-hair-producing-probabilities between raising 10 kids with one wife vs two or three?

the idea that you are in a material as well as a moral position

I never said I was personally in a material position to do so. I fully admit that I’m currently not. But if some white men are, I’m not going to hold it against them. That’s natural eugenics in action as far as I’m concerned. As for morals, which ones are we using? I presume biblical morals, in which case, please cite the verse/s that explicitly labels polygamy as a sin?

fantasising about new Adam who’ll get both Eve and Lilith to recreate their own little perfect humanity

You clearly didn’t read my initial response to the OP in which I explicitly state that I do not intend to seek a polygamous marriage for myself, but don’t have a problem if other white couples can make it work.

and that the billions of individuals around them will just comply and disappear

By “individuals,” I presume you mean other white men. Well there, certainly aren’t billions of us. And of the millions of us there are, the losing ones will disappear. They’ll just disappear with a non-white woman. They’ve been doing it for centuries. In the absence of white women, white men are more than willing to adjust their expectations.

it is already difficult enough to find ONE companion who satisfies our character, our life plans and our Weltanschauung, not to fantasize that we are going to find two at once and live like in the perfect Disney

Again, you suffer from this delusion that I view polygamous marriages as some sort of harem utopia for a man. I don’t. Polygamous marriages have their challenges. I don’t deny that. All I’m saying is that white couples should be allowed to take on those challenges should they choose to do so. And I stress that I use the term “couple.” I cannot support any polygamous marriage in which all the wives, let alone the first, does not consent to the addition of another.
——————————————————————————-

Of course all of this assumes that every white women wouldn’t have a problem being a 3rd or 4th wife. I beg to differ. If the man has enough money, even being a 10th wife might be worth it to some women; but you’d have to be Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk to get that kind of a harem. And even then, plenty of women would still prefer to be the first wife to less wealthy man so long as he can sufficiently provide.

[Oscar]

@natcolio : I received a notification about an answer by you but nothing on the screen

[Anonymous]

Responses are blocked by ZOG.

[Oscar]

I chose the term ‘movement’ because it was the closest to the original term ‘mouvance’, i.e. a gathering of people of the same ideological sensibility. the periphrase itself would not be satisfactory because the people here are defined more by the common refusal of the current order than by identical views and solutions.

and if the people you talk to don’t look at you strangely when you go off on a rant about establishing a polygamous system à la Conan the barbarian, it’s probably because you don’t meet many normies anymore.

Of course, it’s a numbers game, it’s always a numbers game, it’s just that it’s not purely a numbers game on a racial level.

i’m repeating myself because some people didn’t seem to get it: producing more white children is not in itself of any interest if you’re generating blue-haired kids and other mental niggers that will only increase the numerical volume of our enemies.

the idea that you are in a material as well as a moral position to generate enough children on an individual scale to reverse a general and multiform process is silly. of course you have to have children and even make a few more than the average to compensate for all those old catladies who will remain sterile, but that’s not the point. A more immediate and tangible result can be achieved by acting with and on the compatriots who already exist than by fantasising about new Adam who’ll get both Eve and Lilith to recreate their own little perfect humanity (and that the billions of individuals around them will just comply and disappear).

in the modern world, it is already difficult enough to find ONE companion who satisfies our character, our life plans and our Weltanschauung, not to fantasize that we are going to find two at once and live like in the perfect Disney. yes, we can theoretically discuss everything, but i still think it would be good to be satisfied with things that have a connection with practical reality

chet nick : I saw absolutely no connection between what you wrote and the message I had formulated. Perhaps if you had put less energy into tracking down my possible syntax errors in a foreign language, you could have worked on this logical link.

[Anonymous]

What movement; the nebulous community of various right-wing dissidents arguing white identity politics on the Internet? I think discussions debating the the finer merits of polygamy is probably low on the normie list of reasons to avoid.

I don’t see how subreplacement birthrates and increasing immigration from non-white groups wouldn’t lead to endangerment of the white population. It’s a numbers game. We either have more kids than the other guys do or we end up like South Africa.

[Oscar]

with all due respect, these lunar and somewhat childish debates are the perfect illustration of why the movement is often seen by normie sheep as a den of freaks and therefore avoids dealing with them.

we are not an endangered group that should be securing the immediate means to increase its gene pool by a factor of 10. there have never been so many people of european descent in history. what we are facing is the irruption of outsiders who, supported by our establishment, will one day be in a position – less quickly in europe than in the new world – to prevent us from exercising political control over our own countries in accordance with what we believe to be our interests and the preservation of our identity.

It is therefore a question of at least maintaining the replacement of the age groups AND of raising the rising generations as citizens conscious of their duties towards the ethnic and cultural heritage of the society in which they were born. Laying down dozens of children as Africans or Afghans do is of no interest whatsoever if they end up dyeing their hair blue and becoming mental niggers

a form of relative polygamy has always existed, it was the fact that a man had a – or several – mistress(es). this was the result of a double factor: the existence in the natural state of more women than men – a phenomenon accentuated by the constant state of war – and on the other hand by the phenomenon of female hypergamy (the fact that women very generally aim for a spouse superior to their own level and that some prefer the status of a partial companion to a man with a higher status than a full-time spouse, but judged to be of inferior rank)

for all that, there is nothing in our anthropological substratum that pushes us towards official polygamy, and it has no vital interest in demographic terms: a woman can bear more children than you will be able to raise properly (I stress the term)

so it’s a pointless debate, because it’s pointless and makes you look like half-demented.

Mes 02 centimes d’€uro.

[Anonymous]

For me todo polygamy I would have to be super rich.

That would have been the case in the past before the women’s liberation movement when men were the primary, if not sole, breadwinner of the family. But if you have multiple women bringing income into the house, even part-time, it makes the lifestyle more accessible to less wealthy classes. Honestly though, a man who could afford to have all his wives be homemakers 24/7 arguably deserves the genetic advantage. That’s always been my position. Let the best genes propagate the most. It’s how natural selection works.

The only way to boost birthrates is to have white men/woman fuck more often and avoid birth control/abortion. Unless you want that happening out-of-wedlock and on welfare, you’re best bet is to convert all white Protestants into Quiverfull fanatics or Catholics.

[Freddy]

For me todo polygamy I would have to be super rich. I also think their could be better ways to boost our birth rates than polygamy. I honestly don’t think it’s the moral thing todo. I think we should look at how other groups have high birthrates and how others have boosted their birthrates in the past and present.

[Oscar]

This about _donating_ to new parents. I wonder if it could be done in a more organised way:

why complicate what already exists you can easily make a donation to the site for this purpose

(lol, just realising that Denmark doesn’t use €uro. Anyway i suppose it’s easier to you you to deal with it than to the yanks who have also to trade here with this currency)

[Anonymous]

In reading your primary post, it seems that your objection to polygamy is that it’s more trouble than it’s worth, because more often than not, the wrong people would be engaging in it and the negative attitudes towards it in Western societies would make life hell for those who engaged in it, thus alienating the children from carrying on such a legacy?

I find these rather shallow objections considering you could make those same arguments of monogamous relationships. I think you would agree that there are plenty people in this country who shouldn’t be reproducing and the men in particular need not be lawfully married to multiple women simultaneously to sire multiple bastards.

Also, as I said, polygamy isn’t for everyone. So why is it even a concern that not ALL the children would follow in their polygamist father’s footsteps? You should consider that a good thing; less unworthy people reproducing out of control.

And since when has societal persecution of alternative lifestyles been a guarantor of genetic doom? As I recall, Christian communities blossomed under societal persecution for several centuries and grew stronger because of it.

And speaking of Christianity, the Christian holy book contains specific instructions for men who wish to engage in polygamy, not to mention that some of the most important figures of the Old Testament engaged in polygamy with God’s blessing. If polygamy was such a terrible thing for a population group’s survival, strange how God would allow them to practice it for so long until Jesus came along and not even he spoken anything against it; at least not explicitly. It’s almost as if the anti-polygamy narrative was a cultural borrowing from the Romans. It certainly wouldn’t have been the only thing Christians copied from them.

If you want a real argument against polygamy, all you need are the divorce stats. At least here in the U.S., they are through the roof and have been for decades. If monogamous couples are having trouble staying together, I don’t have high hopes for a polygamous one.

[Anonymous]

I’m already part of an exclusively monogamous community; it is known by many names, but I prefer “The Occident”. The Semitic degeneracy that’s being promoted here is antithetical to Western culture and tradition spanning the last couple thousand years, and was largely rejected by Whites centuries before the introduction of Christianity. Polygamy is effectively unworkable for highly K-selected peoples for the reasons I specified in my previous posts on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Ostracize and shame to your heart’s content. You wanna go form an exclusively monogamous community, more power to you. Go be the change you want to see.

[Anonymous]

The tolerance of libertine degeneracy within the Occident is the reason we are in the mess we’re in right now. It is very much our place to tell people how they should live their lives if how they do so is harmful to the community in the long term. We need to bring back shame and ostracization if we have any intention of surviving as a race, even in very small numbers. The faggotry and miscegenation will continue until those people find themselves cast adrift and shunned by the only people who do not want to see them sterilized and dead.

[Anonymous]

Like I said, it’s not for everyone. Let each couple choose whether or not they want to bring on another woman and how many. Not my place to tell them.

[Anonymous]

“At some point, adding more women becomes more burdensome than helpful.”
Many would argue that that point is “Two or more”, and some would argue that that point is “One or more.”

[Anonymous]

I think it could work for some people, but I wouldn’t ever expect to become commonplace. Centuries of Christian brainwashing that polygamy is a sin, reinforced by the association with Islam, is not easily overcome. And I would reckon it takes a certain type of mentality, on the husband’s part, to maintain an orderly household with multiple wives that most modern men lack. I used to imagine myself in that role as a teenager, but these days, I wouldn’t want the drama that came along with it. Being President would be less stressful. My hat off the men who do make it work.

I’ll say that it certainly would be economically beneficial to the individual family to have an extra hand or two around the house. At some point, adding more women becomes more burdensome than helpful. The Muslims have a right idea in capping the number at 4. But it would allow children to be raised at home more easily as opposed to being raised by the State, because both parents need be working to maintain a decent income.

[Anonymous]

Monogamy is better for intimacy. It is what the higher classes of a European agrarian society tend to practice.

The anti-social underclasses have always had more sexual partners because they have less to lose, it’s just that now we don’t call it “polygamy”. We should call it Idiocracy.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. Every culture which has tried to adopt or normalize polygamy in recent centuries (post-revolution France, Mormons, the USSR for about five minutes) all abandoned it as unworkable; it’s even losing popularity in the Islamic world, since the primary thing that polygamy produces is social unrest. Average males are left without wives, neglected 2nd, 3rd, and 4th wives have greater incentive to be adulterous, and the children of later unions stand to inherit almost nothing from their father’s estate, regardless of their talents. Polygamy should be discouraged unless nukes are going off in various places.

[Anonymous]

No, I am totally against liberal relationships, each couple must find their balance.

Polygamy makes the man weak and the woman used without any spiritual purpose …

For me love is something else, polygamy is not love, therefore, I am totally against that kind of open relationships that have no pure purpose.

And if you have a family, polygamy is totally out of place, personally speaking of a closed couple, polygamy is not wanting to tie yourself to a family life and that is called weakness and not having enough strength and courage inside to face it.

[Anonymous]

Historically, polygamy was not undertaken because there was a huge need to prop-up a group that being outbreed in the homelands of their ancestors due to a sustained, well-funded conspiracy by (((special interest groups))) to replace them with more easily managed groups, but rather, because of war in the classical sense. Men do the fighting, and the dying, for the most part in classical war; this left a lot of widows and orphans who will die of hunger and want, even on the side of the victor, after the conflict ends. This was rightly viewed as dishonorable, as they were left destitute through no fault of their own, as a result of the heroic sacrifice of their menfolk. These women were forced to turn to prostitution, or sell themselves into slavery if they were from the losing tribe. Women who were of the victorious side were more likely to receive charity, but how to make that permanent?

Obviously, if they were given shelter in the home of a new male, human relationships being what they are, sexual intercourse would often occur, and most societies adapted to this likely very common occurrence by saying “Yeah, but as long as you vow to take care of her and her previous children, as well as your new children, it’s okay; we’ll call it a marriage.” In most societies, the first (and usually the oldest) wife would retain authority over newer “sister wives”, since she was there first, may have been mother to the majority of the children, and their oldest son would be the sole inheritor of the estate in the father’s passing.

For example, my earliest ancestor in America was a French Huguenot who escaped the despotic Dragonnades, but arrived in New England (as opposed to New France) as a penniless teenager. He fought in several wars (King Philip’s War, Queen Anne’s War), and co-founded a town with his best friend (which was the semi-cleared area which was previously settled, but burned by Indians), and married a widow, whose husband had been killed fighting Indians. They had several children before she herself (and two children) were killed by Indians. He then married another widow (whose husband had been killed by Indians), and had yet more children before he himself was killed by Indians in one of their occasional raids; he died of burns sustained while trying to rescue three of his young daughters from their cellar after the Indians set their home alight. No matter how bad you think things are now, they’re not that bad.

We find ourselves in a unique situation in the West where especially fit white males who can provide for multiple wives for the purposes of having as many children as possible should be encouraged; however, this would pretty much exclusively apply to especially accomplished men with significantly greater resources than, say, myself (unfortunately). If you’re the scion of a successful cattle rancher, whose family owns several thousand acres in a Western state, and stands to inherit a large manor or mansion, or you’re a successful, debt-free lawyer or doctor or architect, then have at it. This is very unlikely, since people in a profession which is highly paid will likely be living a lifestyle where most of their income is wasted, in communities which are openly hostile to having children, letalone lots of children. Unless you happen to also be, say, a Muslim, your community will likely shun you for engaging in such activities. Even Hollywood celebrities who are of (((The Tribe))) that have illegitimate children out of wedlock are shamed for it; try to find a Hollywood type that hasn’t been married multiple times, usually not having more than one child per marriage. If your children are born of a polygamous social outcast, it will likely not inspire your children to follow your path, and the alternative being forced upon them by (((Pop Culture))) is likely as not to negate any gains you make; having 15 kids does you no good if you only have 3-4 grandkids.

Thusly, Christian sexual morality is probably the best path to stick to, since trying to re-invent the wheel with neo-paganism, or creating a sex-cult are dicey propositions that sound alot more fun and easy than they’ll actually turn out to be in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Polygamy is not for everyone, but it is better than some alternatives. Polygamy has to be kept in check by sound leadership to make sure it is being done for the right reasons. The worst man with all the women would be a disaster.

[Dave]

If I can find and marry a women who gives a damn about her survival, her children’s survival, and the survival of her race, then I would never even contemplate polygamy. We’re European, the environment we evolved in had significantly less resources, as such we had to adapt and have less children. This gave us the adaptation that allowed the father to be involved in the nurturing, educating, and training of their children. Which results in a few exceptionally capable people, rather than a bunch of incapable morons.

In the event I cannot find such a women, then I, like many European men, will be forced into making disturbing choices such a polygamy.

[ItsNatural]

I don’t have a strong feeling on this one, but for me right now I think it’s good.

[GreatDane]

Sorry, last post for today. – And I forgot _how to start_ a new topic?

I just noticed this in the Baby Gallery https://wd.easytodo.in/baby-gallery/ :

This about _donating_ to new parents. I wonder if it could be done in a more organised way: Hopefully there will be a lot of candidates, and WD could in any which way promote those worthy and deserving. The rest could be done off-site pop-up on various donation sites. Even Amazon has baby showers. It would be a way of feeling that one is doing something for the cause and fighting back.

– Well,I could also be just be whining: “WHY CAN SOME BRTISH GUY DONATE POUNDS TO A NEWBORN, WHEN I CAN’T???!!! NO FAIR!!
IT’S D I S C R I M I N A T I O N !!!

Just a modest proposal. Thanks for your attention.

[GreatDane]

Even the Ruski ambassador agrees, so there…

[GreatDane]

[Marcus]

polygamy whether it is male or female is not fair for the children they deserve to grow up in a strong stable loving home with a mother and father who are role models for them and are each others rocks through hard times bringing other adults into this situation creates problems and weakens bonds since that person is unable to give his full attention to his wife and children. Another thing is we don’t want to dive into a culture that sees the other sex as nothing more than an object.

How would you feel in life if the man you loved was having sex with another woman?

[Anonymous]

I always considered polygamy as a sign of instability of society when it occurs.
Would only be viable in a collapsed society or if there was a heavy female to male birth rate.

You have to consider the mental and morality state of not just your immediate family but also the entire civilization as a whole for long term.

[Anonymous]

Have you considered polygamy as a way to boost white birth rates?
Edit: In case it wasn’t obvious, I’m talking about male polygamy, not female.

[Author]

Posts