The benefit for females is that many of them can have access to the high value alpha sperm— their children can be sired by the “best” male.
The most ambitious or aggressive males are the only ones that are reproductively successful.
How is this any different than the desires of Western women? They literally all want the same high-status man. In that scenario, women get exactly what they're after! The difference is that Western values do not allow polygamy, which forces Western women to settle, increasing the desire for promiscuity. The reality is that for both humans and animals, most do not breed: the natural order dictates that the best reproduce.
The problems in the middle-East stem from their society of ultra-masculine beliefs which promotes and glorifies violence. Whereas the West has become too soft, they are too strict; none of this has to do with their women however.
Monogamy is the reason why white countries are nice
No, it's because they are White.
Im going to have to explain evolution to you, its tiresome.
Whites’ ancestors were not always white and they did not always behave like whites. Things like climate and culture shaped us as a population GENETICALLY.
You didnt read the article. : https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/monogamous-societies-superior-to-polygamous-societies
Following either a polygamous or monogamous culture causes certain genes to be favored which predispose the populations toward certain behavior. Muzzies are ultra masculine (violent, rapey, dominant) because those are traits that polygamy favors. Only hypercompetitive males who hoard females and fuck little girls succeed reproductively in muslim societies. Their genes are propagated. Everyone in the middle east is descended from a hypercompetitive alpha who chopped up his brothers with a sword so he could fuck a different 15 year old every day of the week. That behavior is determined by genes. You think its the culture which glorifies violence because you are dumb. Polygamy increases violence which is reflected in the culture.
I contend that this happens pretty rapidly with noticeable changes in violence levels within a few centuries or less. Pakistanis and bengalis are noticeably more violent then neighboring buddhists and hindus an theyve only been islamized abou 500 to 800 years I think.
All polygamist communities are high violence regardless of “culture” or race.
How is this any different than the desires of Western women?
Oh you’re so close grasshopper. Traditionally western women have been monogamist as have western men. But we have removed the rules and even trained whites in a different set of rules, essentially polygamy. Women dont see this as polygamy yet, just sexual freedom. Neither do males genrally. Some of the unintended consequences have already cropped up— large numbers of angry incels. The feminists will laugh this off because they dont understand what the monogamist package is and what the polygamist package is. They are voluntarily demoting themselves in terms of social power and trading prosperity and stability for poverty and chaos. Because like you they dont understand evolution. The other genetic shoe will drop in a few generations, because soy boys too sensitive to reproduce— only the most agressive and greedy males are.
Things like climate and culture shaped us as a population GENETICALLY.
You're right: in the far Northern climates, Whites had to collaborate peacefully as a group to prepare for winter, or die. White geniality is a survival instinct unique to them. That same instinct, often referred to as pathological altruism is abused by the other races, whom do not posses that quality. What happened before the ancestors of the modern altruistic Whites is irrelevant.
Muzzies are ultra masculine (violent, rapey, dominant) because those are traits that polygamy favors.
This desire is the standard for males throughout the world, regardless of race. The difference is that Whites are more compliant to a culture which does not allow for it -- you're not a man, so I don't expect you to understand that.
Given the opportunity, women of all races will seek the strongest man with the most resources, as long as that society deems their behavior as acceptable, of which we are witnessing exactly that as monogamous tradition is being replaced with 'sexual freedom', and the destruction of those monogamous relationships with it.
You appear to be confusing adherence to tradition as genetic instinct. The natural law is the same for humans as it is for animals.
White geniality is a survival instinct unique to them. That same instinct, often referred to as pathological altruism is abused by the other races, ...The difference is that Whites are more compliant to a culture which does not allow for it
Why dont any of these traits result from monogamy? Monogamy is compatible with high male trust and low male competition.
No one is arguing that white men are never dominant, rapey or violent. No one is arguing that muzzies never cooperate. We are talking about relative tendencies from one population to the other.
Given the opportunity, women of all races will seek the strongest man with the most resources, as long as that society deems their behavior as acceptable,
Generally this is true. And it is true of males as well. Men really embraced polygamy first, in the earlier part of the 20th century. It doesnt really kick in for a few generations. But for a little while you will see whites running on the fumes of enforced monogamy— the genetic traits of lower promiscuity, lower violence, later marriage age, etc. Thats what you see now. Whites are still behaving better than other groups generally. But that will degenerate as more people are born as the product of polygamy (second marriages, out of wedlock birth)
You appear to be confusing adherence to tradition as genetic instinct.
Im not. Culture (tradition) can drive genetic change an genetics can drive culture. They are in a constant feedback loop within evolution. You seem to think culture is separate from genes. It isnt. If a population is forced to live under monogamy or polygamy, it will profoundly effect the genetics of the population. You or a leftist might interpret that as a cultural difference. But it is as much genetic as anything. You can take the jew out of judaism but guess what? You still have a problem. Reconquista Spain thought they could just convert them to Christianity. Its not the tradition.
What do you mean by natural law? That sounds like some christian concept. I believe in evolution, evolution is the same for humans and animals
(post is archived)