Sign into an existing account

I don’t want to give the impression that I’m an expert on this stuff. Only that Ive researched it in a somewhat haphazard way for a few years, for fun. But the thinking on this subject is that a matrilineal polygamous regime seems to have been much more common until the agricultural revolution. In this sort of society there would be more female promiscuity and matrilocallity, and maternal uncles would tend to fill the role of dad. Because of the uncertainty of paternity.

It seems that polygamy in general and specifically matrilineal polygamy is more doable in the tropics among gatherer-heavy hunter gatherers, and maybe some more primitive agriculturalists. The further away you move from the tropics, the more likely you will see patriarchy and monogamy. This is related to the heavy reliance on meat in colder climates, which is not shit girls are good at getting. Males can then have a stronger bargaining position. Inuits might be a good proxy for ancient northern eurasian hunter-gatherers. They are pretty monogamous and patriarchal. Having many wives and children does not seem to be practical to such a group. Also its been suggested that full blooded brothers have an advantage as a hunting team. Its even been suggested that polyandry could have moderate success under these conditons but only among full brothers (or perhaps half brothers by brothers). This is the only instance of polyandry that is known to occur with any regularity in certain societies, at least where there’s a committed marriage with cohabitation, afaik. It does not pay for males to invest in kids they are not genetically related to.

Herders seem to be more patriarchal and polygynous and also more warlike. For instance arab bedouins, and mongols and probably aryans. I was learning about the comanches recently and they seem to fit this sort of pattern pretty well: focus on hunting, following the herd, but also frequent raids of young females from other tribes, including whites. Girls 6-12 were the prime target because they could care for themselves but were young enough to transfer loyalty to the new tribe. Settled agriculturallists could be easy pickins for skilled warriors and the reproductive payoffs are big.

Native americans are in general a good stand in for mesolithic european societies, probably, and they are somewhat varied. But there is more promiscuity and matrilineality near the tropics.

Really what I have been realizing as I read about the origins of different groups is that shitskins— like middle-easterners, indians, and SE asians and I guess Native Americans too— are all heavily descended form cold climate people that were patriarchal and higher IQ and that as these groups moved in to warmer climates and pioneered more argricultural economies, they mixed with more nigger/abo like groups (like ancient southern idians for example) , most of which are now extinct, and consequently became became stupider/less efficient. Maybe even the “prosperity” of the tropics alone may dumb populations down. Cold climates seem to select strongly for high iq and monogamy and lower violence, generally. Cold climates punish inefficiency. Polygamy is inefficient. Men spend too much time fighting and fucking, not enough time working.

I can’t really say how many groups of european hunter gatherers or neolithic farmers or herders engaged in kinky group sex or had prostitute priestesses. But it doesn’t make sense for males who work for a living to allow other males to fuck their females. Men who have to support their familes have to ensure paternity and that would be anywhere that winter occurs. Mother nature would punish cuckolds in that situation. But maybe that changed as societies became more urbanized and prosperous? My guess is that prostitute priestesses who had children might have just sacrificed them to the gods, which would be a sort of abortion equivalent of the ancient world.

And I can also show why incestuous relationships are more frequent in polygynous societies.

High levels of tribal warfare make it very risky to marry your daughter off to men outside of your extended family. These societies are so violent that every time a tribal feud brakes out, wives from the other tribe get slaughtered for revenge. Practices like bride burning are an instance of this. This incentivizes creepy arrangements like girls being married off to their half uncle.

In light of this, I would say that avuncular hook ups like Elon’s dad engaged in will be more common in polygamists, as will cousin marriage. Polygynist package.

You act like this genre of porn comes out of nowhere, but although these behaviors have been taboo in white culture, there are many males that will be genetically predisposed to this type of kink because at some point in our evolutionary history it “worked”. But it undermines the white monogamous regime obviously. Jews will weaken a society however they can.

I don’t really have a big problem with the ivf stuff. I don’t like the surrogacy shit.

Why do you work yourself in to such a lather?

:’(

But why are warmer climates always inhabited by genetically inferior savages? Aren’t you interested in why that happens? There is an evolutionary mechanism at play. Its not just like everything above 40 deg N is magic dirt! Why is northern europe better than southern europe? Why are japan and korea better than thailand and malaysia? Some groups of males are just better more reliable dads that invest more in their children and live more cooperatively and productively with other males.

The number one reason for this is monogamy. I can PROVE why it is the most economically efficient model. I can show why it occurs at high latitudes more often. I can show why it leads to more cooperative male populations and why polygamy always leads to male violence and theft and why IQ is deprioritized in these populations.

This property of polygamy is not only true of humans, it seems to be true of all complex animals with two sexes. Wherever there is a large differential between the amount of physical investment the female invests in reproduction relative to the male there is a potential for huge incentives for the male to be polygamous at the expense of male investment per offspring.

In an r/K paradigm, in K species that take a quality over quamtity approach to reproduction, under the right circumstances, the male can take a more quantity over quality approach (polygamy). This only happens where he is not needed for food or protection. And wherever this happens the incentive is so high for reproductive success that murdering the competition becomes a positive adaptation.

The genes controlling maleness aren’t really that different across many species because the same strategies that are useful for roosters are also useful for men. Violence, territoriality, high libido, are always more useful for males because of the potential success they can gain from polygamy that females don’t have. Generally this is implemented through the melanocortin systems and androgens. There may be some other mechanisms at play that Im not aware of.


Thats really not a good explanation. I wanted to know why they are retarded. Of course its genetics. But why did their genetics evolve differently than ours. I researched it and I found out. Anthropologists totally understand how this works. It’s why they sent Jane Goodall and Diane Fossey to study primates.

Middle easterners are basically white people. We are heavily related to them within 20 k years or so. Far more so than we are related to Japs. So why do japs behave more like us? Why are Turks or Albanians or Syrians so much worse than Greeks or Italians or Armenian? That’s just what polygamy does in 1200 years. Imagine the differences that occur over 50,000 or 500,000.

Polygamy favors violent thieving greedy rapists over good dads and good neighbors. These are the two extreme ends of a strategy continuum in human males.