Polygamy, despotism, and degeneracy

A while back I tried to formulate how Alpha males have an individual interest in undermining social/material constraints on female sexuality. This is because, absent social or material constraints, women will have validational sex with Alpha males exclusively. It represents a societal dilemma for Alpha males because empowering women causes them to burn the rest of society out of spite, but the Alpha male also maximizes his differential reproduction.

Turns out this book is basically what I was getting at: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079NJZZ38/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

I just heard about it from this video, which summarizes the book:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Pz54zQpqoZAI/

(Also, the concept of asymmetry discussed here explains why you aren’t allowed to criticize Jews in high elite defection, k-selected, white societies.)

Undermining social controls on female sexuality of course leads to the promotion of neurotics, i.e. “worship of the broken”, via agreealluminati, as explained here. Social epistasis then leads to extinction of the race (if the breeding population is truly isolated; in reality many of the women breed into a barbarian race and some other Promethean race fills the power vacuum).

I think the first draft of Pyrrhic Cycle theory may actually be finished. It just needs some collating and some references.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Polygamy, despotism, and degeneracy

  1. William Owlson says:

    Believed in this pattern of behavior for such a long time. If females are promiscuous with one another then alphas will find women being promiscuous with them.

    Sigmas are the most evil since they rely on verbal and mental manipulation.

    In this way I understand but dont comply.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Sigmas are the most evil since they rely on verbal and mental manipulation.

      Sigmas are “evil” under universalist morality, but quite good under particularist morality.

  2. Mycroft Jones says:

    You don’t understand Alpha males, Aeoli. This post of yours is wrong on so many levels. Do you Bible, bro? Marriage age differential means there is always a large surplus of women, even if the birth rate for both sexes were equal. Monogamy is promoted by eunuch omega males, and the women either suffer, or you end up with a lot of women labelled “whores” and “mistresses”, traditionally, or today you have “serial monogamy”, which is just as bad. Monogamy is a satanic perversion that promotes whoredom, bastardy and divorce by trying to punish the alphas. Monogamy is a societal for of coveting. Coveting is like theft, but without the stealing part. Coveting is to deprive someone of the use or enjoyment of something that they have a right to the use and enjoyment thereof.

    Women will always find their way into an alphas bed. It isn’t the alphas trying to weaken the constraints on women’s sexuality. They don’t need to. No social force is strong enough to keep women away from the alphas, except women themselves. For women to agree to social enforcement, you have to give them a fair shot at Alpha. Instead of saying “no”, put a price tag on it and let them decide. Alphas benefit from strong sexual restraints as much as the Betas, Deltas, and Gammas do. It is definitely in an Alpha’s interest to undermine monogamy. By nature, they would do God’s own work, enforcing a code of morality that defends every man’s marriage, whether the harem has only one woman, or many more women. Since the alphas are prevented from doing this, their natural impulses, like every natural impulse denied, festers and becomes a pustulent infection, odious and disagreeable to all. Alphas whoremongering? Offer them the option of a harem (carrot) and loss of alpha status (stick) and watch how zealously they defend good moral order and eliminate whoredom. Deltas and even Gammas would have a good chance of marrying virgin brides again. And due to the aforementioned marriage age differential, there is NO SHORTAGE OF WOMEN. Low n-count guys just can’t seem to get it through their heads, even if you allow polygamy there will be NO SHORTAGE, every man gets at least one. Under a system of polygamy you will have a much higher rate of virginity at marriage also.

    In every African society where they introduced monogamy, whoredom and sexual diseases exploded through the roof. By putting a price tag on alpha (being in a harem), marriage is taken out of the realm of gambling “winner takes all” and made into something more rational and practical… something everyone can have access to.

    God legislated polygamy for Israel for a reason.

  3. Heaviside says:

    >This is because, absent social or material constraints, women will have validational sex with Alpha males exclusively.

    Putting my empiricist’s hat on for a moment, this isn’t testable. There is no situation where an anthropologist can observe women “absent social and material constraints”. The situation here and now, whatever you perceive it to be, is no less artificial than the one that prevailed 100 or 1000 years ago. My belief is, blue pill or red pill, “just say no”.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Putting my empiricist’s hat on for a moment, this isn’t testable.

      Sure it is. I predict single mothers will show pupil dilation for a mode of male faces which do not inspire pupil dilation in single young women, which could then be used to create composite morphs.

      • Heaviside says:

        Are any of these women going to be “absent social and material constraints”?

        Evopsych is just like fables in economics or Hobbes’ “natural condition”.

        “Howsoever, it may be perceived what manner of life there would be, where there were no common power to fear, by the manner of life which men that have formerly lived under a peaceful government use to degenerate into a civil war.”

        In other words, Hobbes has no way of knowing what the original state of mankind was, he simply observes civil war in the present and posits that this must be a return to it. Likewise evopsych “redpill” types have no way of knowing what the original state of relations between the sexes was like, they simply posit women’s bad behaviour today as being representative of it. Moreover, they assume that human nature is essentially biological, (which implies that you could in principle genetically engineer away immoral behaviour).

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          >Are any of these women going to be “absent social and material constraints”?

          I’m assuming you’re familiar with the idea of controlled experiments, so I don’t see your point.

          >Evopsych is just like fables in economics or Hobbes’ “natural condition”.

          There’s a difference between Stephen J. Gould’s idea of “just so” stories and reasonable, parsimonious explanations that are coherent with other things we know. This is not a very good criticism.

          >Moreover, they assume that human nature is essentially biological, (which implies that you could in principle genetically engineer away immoral behaviour).

          Evopsych only needs to assume that human nature includes a biological component. Its practitioners may also be strict materialists, but it’s not necessary.

          • Heaviside says:

            >Evopsych only needs to assume that human nature includes a biological component. Its practitioners may also be strict materialists, but it’s not necessary.

            “The assumption that natural selection was the cause of a specific phenomenon is something that is not, and cannot be, tested – because this assumption is outside science, comes before science, structures scientific investigations.”

            http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2013/08/natural-selection-as-religion.html

            I’ll tell you what my real point is here. Other people will tell you that love is a product of sexual desire and biology. I believe that sexual desire and biology are products of love.

            • Heaviside says:

              When someone says that love is just an expression of biology, this is a metaphysical claim. Sexual desire is really an ignorant groping in the dark for romantic love, and we are drawn to it like moths because through love shines a little bit of the reflected light of paradise.

              “The effect in the evolution of humanity would be that certain instincts connected with the sexual life would arise in a pernicious form instead of wholesomely, in clear waking consciousness. These instincts would not be mere aberrations but would pass over into and configure the social life, would above all prevent men — through what would then enter their blood as the effect of the sexual life — from unfolding brotherhood in any form whatever on the earth, and would rather induce them to rebel against it. This would be a matter of instinct.

              So the crucial point lies ahead when either the path to the right can be taken — but that demands wakefulness — or the path to the left, which permits of sleep. But in that case instincts come on the scene — instincts of a fearful kind.

              And what do you suppose the scientific experts will say when such instincts come into evidence? They will say that it is a natural and inevitable development in the evolution of humanity. Light cannot be shed on such matters by natural science, for whether men become angels or devils would be equally capable of explanation by scientific reasoning. Science will say the same in both cases: the later is the outcome of the earlier … so grand and wise is the interpretation of nature in terms of causality! Natural science will be totally blind to the event of which I have told you, for if men become half devils through their sexual instincts, science will as a matter of course regard this as a natural necessity. Scientifically, then, the matter is simply not capable of explanation, for whatever happens, everything can be explained by science.”

              https://wn.rsarchive.org/GA/GA0182/19181009p01.html

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Okay, but my theory can still put out testable predictions.

              This is like that time when Murdoch was arguing with Nietzsche and Schopenhauer in the episode “Waiting for the Ubermensch”

              *cutaway joke*

            • Heaviside says:

              >Okay, but my theory can still put out testable predictions.

              At least in your personal life, don’t let it become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

              Each of us has his own illusions about the world, but which ones would you rather dwell in?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s