Polygamy Made America Strong

As a missionary in Europe, I once knocked on a door at a nondescript housing development. Half a dozen hot Middle Eastern girls answered the door, dressed in skimpy Jasmine-like costumes, peeking around the door and giggling. I assumed that they were someone’s harem. They pled with me to come inside, relax, and spread the good word.

This cultural exchange was shocking, but then it struck me that my ancestors were polygamous. Polygamy played a major role in history of the church I was representing, and yet it was something I didn’t really understand. I have been conditioned by western society to be ashamed of this history. But is polygamy actually something to be proud of?

Libertarian Opposition To Federal Government

Various groups including Native Americans and Muslims practiced polygamy in America. Top-ranking leaders throughout history have endorsed polygamy, including Martin Luther. But it is Mormons that are so indelible in the media narrative, so I will investigate Mormon polygamy.

The media sensationalized Mormon polygamy because of political circumstances involving Christianity and the federal government. Soon after their founding, Mormons were fiercely persecuted by local Christian and political leaders. Their property was stolen, men were tortured and killed, and women were gang-raped.

The Mormons repeatedly appealed to the federal government for protection, but were denied. The federal government was much weaker in those days and didn’t get involved in state affairs. Still, Mormons resented the government’s failure, especially because the federal constitution is considered sacred in Mormon theology. What is the point of a federal government if it can’t keep its people safe?

Joseph Smith was so dismayed by these events that in 1844 he ran for President. He ran a decidedly Libertarian campaign, calling for the end to prisons, to the intrusion into Indian lands, and to the national debt. But it was Smith’s strong anti-slavery message that made the persecution worse. Anti-slavery activist Elijah Lovejoy had recently been murdered by a Missouri mob and Smith eventually was killed by a government-related mob as well.

After the Civil War, the federal government’s power grew greatly. The Morril Act of 1862 ushered in its next grab for power. According to a book by Sarah Gordon, the federal government used the polygamy issue to assume more control over territories:

…because the Reconstruction amendments were themselves designed to erase slavery and its incidents, the happy blending of anti-slavery and anti-slavery theory in political and cultural venues spilled over into the government’s strategy. (Gordon, p.129)

Politicians equated polygamy with slavery, and “patriarchal despotism” became the next fight. Newspapers printed lurid sex stories and political cartoons of women chained up in dungeons. Mainstream Christianity and political activists campaigned to free women from “white slavery” in Utah. In 1857, James Buchanan sent the largest body of troops in American history to quell the Utah “rebellion.”

The same government that had refused to protect Mormons was now arresting them because it didn’t like who they were marrying. This further incited resentment for the government. Joseph Smith had even gone so far as to marry women who were already married and a 14-year-old girl (these marriages were never consummated, as they were considered defunct until the afterlife, thus making them technically not bigamous).

As Mormons became more stubborn, federal politicians exploited the polygamy issue to an even greater degree. Religion and government were just beginning to understand the power of control over sexuality and family.

Spiritual meaning and this-worldly power converged most poignantly in marriage. In monogamy (as in polygamy), husbands and wives blended faith with governance, obedience with power, spiritual growth with human sexuality. (Gordon, p.5)

The government started taking broad, oppressive measures, and as a result, defiance toward government oppression became part of the polygamous family structure. Human relationships began to be considered a fundamental freedom in America.

President Arthur (1881-1885) required territories to file all marriage certificates with the Supreme Court. He made polygamy a felony, and forced wives to testify in court against their accused husbands. One Republican-leaning newspaper praised these laws as the ax that would chop down the tree of polygamy:


One woman who was detained was Lucy Kimball. The prosecutor interrogated her about her sexual history, and when she refused to answer, calling the question insulting, he publicly shamed her.

Your feelings were not so tender when in 1843 you married a man who at that time to your knowledge had four or five other wives, and imposed yourself upon his innocent wife, and deceived her, by joining that kind of an alliance with her husband,– that was not insulting,–but now when I ask you a question, which under the law I have the right to ask you, you say it is insulting. (p.374, Richard Hill)

The very government that claimed to be liberating the poor oppressed wives was now publicly shaming them. Mormons, and to some degree the general public, resented this abuse of power. Opposition to government oppression was no longer tied to slavery, but became grounded on more legitimate reasons.


Strengthening The Patriarchal Order

One of the goals of Communism is to “discredit the family as an institution” and create a “need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.”  To this end, Communists have sought to tear down the role of the “father whose will was law.” Communist feminist Alexandra Kollontai listed three strategies for making the family unnecessary “either to its members or to the nation as a whole”:

1.Put women in the workforce, to undermine the father as the “family’s sole breadwinner.”

2. Make the national economy less dependent on the family unit.

3. The state raises the child rather than the parents.

The polygamous family structure countered each of these three strategies. The wife’s role was cemented as a mother and home-keeper. The man became the keystone that held everything together, and his rule was necessarily unquestioned.

Now, this was not easy for women. There are plenty of books and diaries out there from polygamous wives detailing the discipline and work that it required. Many women were broken-hearted that they weren’t the only wife. Families were rife with jealousies and feelings of neglect, and the man had to work harder to manage all the women.

But rather than bring them down, Mormon men boasted that polygamy made them stronger and healthier as they got older.

I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes in plurality looks fresh, young, and spritely. (Heber C Kimball)

Men were less dependent on women. If one woman acted up, he could just go to the next one. The first wife would then either have to humble herself, or leave and take her chances in the world. The man did not have to sacrifice his convictions. Mormon leader Brigham Young advised men not to get too attached to their women:

Elders, never love your wives one hair’s breadth further than they adorn the gospel, never love them so but that you can leave them at a moment’s warning without shedding a tear.

This social structure put the man above the woman, and the religious convictions at the top. Women obeyed and honored their husband, and the men obeyed and honored God. As long as men had morals and conviction, this worked beautifully.

Not many families were actually polygamous. Most marriages in Utah were monogamous, but Mormon leaders were expected to take plural wives, especially the widowed and poor. There was a vast number of widows, and food stamps and welfare didn’t exist for women in those days. Marriage was an arrangement necessary for survival, and women were expected to give as much as they received: sex and raising children. Today, women typically wait out the 10 years of marriage until they can divorce and get half of the man’s assets, but in those days women had a great responsibility.

Children were noticeably stronger and more intelligent because they received so much attention from their mothers. The women devoted more time to the children because “children are very important to women for personal, religious and status reasons.” (Zeitzen, p.101)

The Mormon community was a vast assimilation of different backgrounds, mainly of immigrants from around the world. The immigrants were strongly pressured to adopt these values for breeding their offspring, regardless of where they came from. The killing of many Mormon men by mobs, and the exodus out into the Western wilderness created a great need for reproduction. Polygamous marriages were held up as an example of how society benefited in these circumstances, both in the Mormon community and the country at large.

As the poison of Communism encroached on western nations in the ensuing decades, the values that spread from polygamy brought resistance that other countries did not have. The family broke down at a slower rate in America. Social decay has only begun to accelerate in the last 50 years or so.


End To Victorian Suppression

European reformers like Martin Madan pointed out that polygamy is a natural alternative to prostitution. The Victorian age had made secret prostitution a norm for upper class gentlemen. Hypocritical displays of propriety and the lack of responsibility in this kind of relationship made polygamy favorable. Polygamous wives had a much more important role to play than prostitutes.

Socialists tell us that marriage subjected and oppressed women, but quite the opposite is true. It lifted them up from the gutter. They didn’t get a free ride, food stamps and welfare, but it did fulfill their instinctual role as mother and wife. Unfortunately today, Socialism has intruded on and negated such benefits of marriage in American society, and we have fallen back to Victorian-era suppression.

Christian thinkers of the day such as James Campbell declared honest monogamy is impossible. Strict monogamous guidelines were a pagan invention of the Greek and Romans. Only one in six ancient civilizations made monogamy the norm. Forcing a man to live in this kind of rigid decorum is not healthy, he said.

It is important to point out that the Mormon community strictly banned women having plural husbands. It is not healthy for women to have more than one lover at a time, indeed divine revelation declared that if an espoused woman has more than one man, she “shall be destroyed.” (D&C 132:63)

The polyamory that currently exists in liberal areas typically involve girls that regularly sleep with multiple men at a time. From what I have seen, these girls quickly turn rotten and the men they sleep with are dull-witted and weak.


Our Legacy

We are in an age similar to the Victorian era. Social equality inquisitors demand rigid conformity to their ideas, which are based on old-fashioned Communism. Women are taught that their instinct as a mother and wife is sinful, and men frequently become repressed to the point of perversion.

I don’t think successful polygamy is possible in this environment. Things will really have to change for us to be able to go back to that. We must deal with the circumstances we are in. Every example of polygamy I have seen or heard of today has ended up in disaster.

But polygamy can still exist as a legacy that inspires us to audaciously stand up to government oppression, to demand our rightful role as patriarchal leaders in society and personal relationships, and to stop suppressing natural and positive instincts.

It is no accident that Mormons took a leading role in the fight against gay marriage. The media will tell you that “gay rights” is a liberating notion that takes church and government out of personal relationships. But the opposite is true. Gay marriage increases the federal government intrusion into state and personal affairs.

The federal government—not even voters or elected representatives but dictatorial judges—define what marriage is. Not the states, not churches, not the individual, but federal judges. Gay marriage is just one more detail in the federal government’s definition of whom you can or can’t have a relationship with, and it is a definition that is perverse. In their ruling on Proposition 8, the federal Supreme Court declared that private citizens have no right to compel their leaders to uphold laws:

We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to.

Think about that for a second, outside the context of gay marriage. Private citizens do not have the standing to defend constitutional statutes when political leaders refuse to? We are back to pre-Civil War times when the federal government refused to protect citizens from the machinations of local leaders. What other constitutional statutes will the federal government refuse to defend? Oh, but when it comes to tell you whom you can or cannot marry, they will send out an army!

The good news is many people are on the right side. People recognize that government intrusions like gay marriage are wrong, and that the government is failing to do what is right. We don’t put up with suppression in this new SJW-controlled Victorian era. We demand our rightful place as men, to lead our country, lead our communities, lead families, and lead our lives.

Read More: America Is Becoming A Homosexual Nation

157 thoughts on “Polygamy Made America Strong”

  1. I would not be surprised to see legal challenges to polygamy. Now that the dam has been broken on gay marriage, how is anyone going to defend the magic of the number “two”? Gay marriage is all about social recognition and the *economic* benefits of marriage (primarily the latter), but how is a court that permits “Adam and Steve” going to deny “Adam and Eve and Eve”, when participation in such relationships is entirely voluntary and b/w consenting adults?
    À bientôt,

    1. It’s time to legalize polygamy.
      It’ll serve the manginas right anyways. Let ’em marry two or three women thinking it’s a fantasy come true. Then watch ’em divorce two or three women and get what they deserve.
      Everyone’s happy. I don’t care either way, manginas get their “fantasy” life which will implode on them, and women who complain they can’t find a good man can all pile onto the same provider beta and steal all his stuff in divorce court.

      1. 1 man + 2 women is much stronger than 1 man + 1 woman.
        1 + 1 begets equality and enables the nagging needy wife, husband constantly has to oversee she her and keep her company, while if she leaves he is instantly single. He has to keep her happy to some degree.
        1 man + 2 women, is a far more powerful structure… the women keep each other company, the man is the king of his domain and lord of his home, while the women are competing for his favor and attention.
        There is a very good reason why women are so touchy about cheating – they are scared shitless of the competition that will ensue if another woman is openly involved with the man.
        Why do you think a cheating man is so aggressively shamed to the point he would never imagine to incorporate the mistress into his home ? We’re so programmed by the rules of society we can’t even imagine to think outside the box.
        We’re like zoo animals too frightened to leave the cage, even when the door is left open.

        1. In normal times with real women polgyamy leads to stronger families for a few reasons.
          In these times marrying two women is a 75% chance of divorce. Nothing more than that.

        2. Without trying it, it would be hard to actually say…. Columbus thought he could find the new world and everyone else thought he’d sail off the edge of the earth…..
          I think it would be tricky to establish, difficult in developed countries UK, EU, USA, easier in EE, Lat AM, Asia, but I am pretty sure within a few months the girls would settle into it…. like anything, starting is hard, maintaining is easier…
          I can tell you one thing for sure… it will be far easier maintaining a little clan, harem, 2-3 wives+ children, whatever you want to call it, than a monogamous wife, where the husband turns into her home help.
          There’s a big difference between Joe College kid who thinks it would be ‘cool’ to have 2 girlfriends at once, and the realities of a family home with children, which are a hell of a lot of work. Back in the day grandparents, brothers sisters, aunts, uncles etc. were all around to help out… today all that falls onto the husband…. he’s a slave in his own home…. Bring in 2-3 wives and all that changes. In the absence of extended family, you could build one from scratch with compliant women and sexual relationships.

        3. Currently every legally married couple is in an inclusive polygamous union WITH THE STATE!! You screw your wife and guess who’s watching and holding a nuse over you? THE BIG NANNY FRIGGIN STATE. So divorce the state and replace it with a real functional third wheel. 🙂

        4. True. My first comment was really more facetious and screwing around.
          I agree it would be interesting to see it tried somewhere. I still think that in today’s western world with this generation of women it would be a disaster. They would have to compete for the male attention, but in the end, they all know divorce is a phone call away and now you’ve got multiple wives that know this.
          But like everyone else, that’s just my best guess. I have no way of knowing this for sure. Unexpected things could happen, or I could just be flat wrong.
          I do think it would be very interesting to see how it played out if it were allowed.
          If you get women are truly into this and see the value of it, the family you can build in a polygamy setting with everyone willing and putting in 100% effort is definitely stronger than a standard man-woman couple.

        5. Even in Brigham Young’s day that was a problem. For some reason, he married Ann Eliza, who had divorced her earlier husband and publicly shamed him. She went on to publicly shame Brigham Young and won a sizable alimony. But she never received it because polygamous marriages were ruled invalid upon appeal.

      2. Is polygamy actually illegal? Or just not legally recognized? Because if it’s the second, it may be a way to avoid the crap marriage laws in the U.S.

        1. Polygamy is illegal, Reynolds vs United States 1879. An LDS church member was arrested and tried for polygamy. He sued under religious freedom grounds and lost.
          I found this recently while researching case law to support the separation of church and state. This decision shows that government can overrule church practice if it wants to, but it reality it is seldom done.
          This decision also forbids the government from trying to keep you from BELIEVING as you chose.
          The fundamentalist LDS churches get around polygamy laws by claiming the marriages are spiritual only, thus legal as a belief under this court decision.
          I love pointing this case out to the religious nazis who think the government cannot tell them what do in their hate factories/churches.

        2. As long as the government has bigger guns than the church, the government can tell the church what to do. That’s really all there is to it.
          Which is why the only major religion with seemingly much staying power left, is the one with Jihad baked right into it’s core. The rest of therm could stand to learn a lot from those guys.

    2. i doubt it, the maths doesn’t work :
      two faggots = two lesbians = 4 feminist activists.
      1 man + 2 wives = a king that needs to be taken down.

    3. Well, the thing is, currently all laws referring to marriage assume that any person who is married is married to exactly one person, and that the marriage goes both ways, that other person is married to exactly one person as well, and that person is you.
      Gay marriage doesn’t change this. You have exactly one spouse, so things like spousal benefits work just the same. That would not be the case if, for example, you were a member of a hippie commune and one member of a five-person marital union.

      1. Don’t pretend that SSM didn’t change marriage. It used to be that you had to be opposite gender, too. Now, in 30 states (+/-), you don’t. Two of the fundamental purposes of modern marriage are to protect (a) young children and (b) women during pregnancy and child-bearing years. Unlike homosexual marriage, polygamist marriage (at least, is typically the case, where there are multiple “wives”) will very often naturally result in children, whether intended (again usually) or not; homosexual marriage will never result in unintentional pregnancy, although certainly homosexual couples could adopt, use a surrogate or find a cooperating opposite sex partner to father/bear a child–my point is that they would have to “make an appointment” of some kind.
        As homosexual couples asked “What is so special about ‘man-woman’ marriage?”, polygamists will ask, “What is so special about the number 2?” There’s certainly a stronger historical case for multiple marriage, and a stronger case for it in terms of public policy as well. Of course feminist will *hate* it b/c it destroys them when a man is happy, which is what we’d see among “high status” men who could afford multiple, young, attractive wives–never mind that “low status” men will be marginalized (although a lot of those guys marginalize themselves). Nevertheless, as Scalia correctly foretold in Lawrence, “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity. . . . Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

        1. I don’t deny that there’s a fundamental difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage. My point was, very few of the laws, regulations, rules, etc that pertain to marriage would need to be changed because of the possibility of both spouses being of the same sex. The same cannot be said for polygamy.

        2. I don’t think that that’s necessarily true, nor, for those things that would need to be changed, it would be that difficult. Changing “spouse” to “spouse(s)” on a form isn’t more difficult than changing “Husband/Wife” to “Spouse/Spouse”.

        3. It’s not just about forms and formalities, but about the whole rationale those laws and rules are based on, and how some cease to work as intended, or work at all, if there is more than one spouse.
          Take, for example, something like spousal inclusion in a health insurance plan. As long as there’s only one spouse, it won’t matter for the insurer whether the spouse is of the same or opposite sex as the main member, it’s just one additional person to be covered. The same cannot be said if there are lots and lots of spouses that are now all suddenly included.
          Or, for example, the right as next-of-kin to make medical decisions for you while you’re in a coma or otherwise indisposed. Which one of your spouses gets to decide?
          Or, division of common marital assets on divorce. Does every pair of married persons have their own, or are one polygamist man and all his wives counted as one entity for the purpose? If so, how is it split if there’s a divorce between the man and one of his wives?
          Or, something like family reunification. It is widely recognized that spouses of citizens have the right to immigrate and assume citizenship themselves. Which is entirely reasonable if everyone is married to exactly one person, yet, if anyone can marry anyone regardless of current marital status, any citizen could unilaterally bestow citizenship on any arbitrary number of other persons via marriage.

        4. Actually, polygamy is closer the rationale for the existence of marriage–the protection of children and women (during their child-bearing years), whilst providing some guaranty to the husbands that they are the biological fathers of the children produced by the marriage. This is not at all a concern in homosexual marriage.
          Insurance – So we should be organizing our families according to what works best for insurance companies? Furthermore, in a “traditional” family, does an insurance company have any say in how many children are produced (and therefore how many insureds will be present in a household)? Furthermore, now that Obamacare has arrived, and *every* person must be covered, the “insurance” argument is entirely moot.
          Next of Kin: this is a simple matter of designation. My parents served as each other’s health care proxy, however, as they were unlikely to pass away simultaneously, they also designated alternates, one of whom was called upon to serve as my father outlived my mother. What would happen now if there were, for example, no designation, no surviving spouse and two surviving children? At any rate, this is not a difficult matter to resolved and should certainly not stand in the way of the Right to Marry and Mary. 😉
          Division of common assets: Well first, such laws are in need of reform NOW. That aside, division of assets is simply math. One could use intestacy laws as a model, i.e. adapt division of asset laws where there is no will which covers situations where there are multiple surviving children. One would simply enlarge (or not) the spousal share.
          Immigration? Please. We let plenty of putzes in already, and letting in additional women (which would partially solve your “What about the betas?” problem, I might add) who would be entering the country with a “landing spot” already would be preferable to letting in a bunch of whomevers for no reason other than “identity politics” (really, we should be making it easy for people with skills who want to flee the coming “Eurabia” but those folks tend to be inconveniently white). I could easily posit a situation where family reunification is *helped* by polygamy. Imagine two sisters living in some shithole country. One of them meets an eligible bachelor…Darcy, we shall call him. Darcy, being a man of means, could easily support two wives, but he is arbitrarily prohibited from so doing by laws made by betas and hopeful incels. So one sister must be left behind in the shithole, dividing families and preventing Darcy from further spreading his genes (which would result in better offspring, if his success is any indicator).
          Ultimately, I doubt that enough people would choose to engage in polygamous relationships alter the numbers for the betas. Obesity is the enemy of the beta and incel male (his own, and, more importantly, among women).

  2. The legal system shouldn’t be involved with marriage at all. It should have remained a religious practice. That way if a persons religion allows polygamy, monogmy, etc no one outside of the community of that religion will know about or care about it.

    1. This is what it should be. Which is a perfect example of both parties infringing on individual liberties.

    2. Excellent idea, if we did this the entire gay marriage problem would go away, but then there would one less thing to fight over, and more freedom to enjoy, this would intolerable to both parties.

      1. Good points. But remember this: Polygamy creates social problems too.
        Just remember, in polygamous systems the vast majority of men have NO girlfriend or wife whatsoever. And the top 10% have multiple wives.
        If you want to see what society looks like with a seething mass of un-laid young men, just look at the shitshow that is your average middle-eastern nation.
        Monogamy does have the effect of keeping the majority of people laid. And that tends to stave off violent revolution.

        1. I’m not sure it’s so different than what we have now–if you’re a rich guy with game you can have a bunch of women, and there will still be “incels” and MGTOW anyway. If anything, I think obesity is a bigger threat b/c it reduces the number of “available” (in quotes b/c while the fatties may be available, they are well nigh unfuckable, and certainly undesirable) women by far more than polygamy would.

    3. The legal system should be involved in marriage, but solely to defend it by providing economic and legal incentives to form strong heterosexual and monogamous (sad that these terms are no longer implied) marriages and family units. Without these incentives, family units are destabilized, and civilization declines.
      This is due to human nature; women are hypergamous, and will seek to mate with the strongest man in proportion to their ability to attract. Therefore, the most attractive men will attract a significant majority of women, leaving the men who cannot compete without a mate. Men who cannot mate, have little incentive to work hard or provide much to society, because without the capability to start a family and pass on their genes, they have little reason to invest in a system that cares so little for their legacy or well being. In this society, many men are sexless, while the rest are polygamous.
      The end result in an unproductive society because so many men are not providing their maximum economic output. When this weak society is confronted by a strong and productive society based upon the monogamous family unit, the weak society will be subjugated to the strong. This becomes abundantly clear when comparing polygamous societies, such as degenerate and impoverished African tribes, or those of the Middle East, to Victorian England or any European power. The power differential afforded by the monogamous system is astonishing. The power differential would never have existed if it weren’t for all men to have reasonable access to a mate, which was ensured by legal and economic incentives provided by the government as a way to combat the hypergamous nature of women, and by extension, polygamy as well.

      1. Your argument does not make sense. If humans need incentives to form heterosexual and monogamous bonds in order to preserve civilization, then how did civilization grow in the first place? That’s very predeterminalistic thinking.
        It seems to me nature doesn’t select traits that require outside incentives to perpetuate.

        1. For the sake of clarification, I am using one of the three definitions of civilization provided by the Google search “define:” feature:
          “the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area.”
          Therefore, when I refer to civilization, I am referring to this definition, and this was my intended meaning when I wrote my first comment.
          I bring up this point because if I use another of the three definitions of “civilization” provided by Google, we get this:
          “the process by which a society or place reaches an advanced stage of social development and organization.”
          In which case your counter-argument might have some merit if we assumed that “civilization” contained monogamy as an inherent characteristic. If this was the case, and there would still need to be some assumption on your part, then yes: my argument would not make sense because my argument would be contradictory; to exist, civilization needs incentives that can only be provided by civilization.
          Since I never intended to use the second definition as it would make my argument self-contradictory, I used the first definition of civilization simply to refer to “the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area.”
          Now that this meta-analysis of the argument in question has been dealt with, I shall now move on to my rebuttal:
          Civilization doesn’t need such incentives to develop, it’s just that civilizations that don’t evolve socially and adopt such incentives are weaker than those that do.
          I’m not arguing that monogamy is necessary for the “preservation” or “formation” of civilization. While I am arguing that without monogamy, our civilization would decline, I am not arguing that this would destroy it, or that it could form without it.
          I mentioned African and Middle Eastern tribes as examples of civilizations that are weak because of their adoption of polygamy. Clearly, these civilizations are argued to be weak, but they exist and formed without monogamy.
          Therefore civilization can exist independently of monogamy, it is not required for civilization to develop in the first place.

        2. Your knowledge of evolution and history are quick lacking. Civilization wasn’t a linear result of the average human society progressing forward steadily. It was one out of many ways to structure a society, but one which was so superior that it eliminated all of its competition.
          Men who want overt harems are free to move to Somalia or Sub-Saharan Africa. You’ll have all the freedom you want. But those with any sense understand that as soon as you start hoarding females, the left out men will come straight for you and destroy you. This is why no polygamous society has ever lasted for long.
          Covert polygamy has existed for all apex alphas in every society. But not for every jack and joe with a backhoe.
          If you’re such a devout defender of open polygamy, go to places where its legally sanctioned. Good luck.

        3. I think you misunderstood my comment. My gripe was with the idea that government incentives are required in order to have monogamy and heterosexual relations. It’s nonsensical to me that the foundation of a stable civilization requires incentives from that already stable civilization. Incentives imply that people would not do something but for the incentive. If that is so, how did civilization function prior to a government giving such incentives? That’s putting the cart before the horse.

        4. “Civilization doesn’t need such incentives or monogamy to develop, it’s just that civilizations that don’t evolve socially and adopt such incentives are weaker than those that do.”
          Thanks for explaining.That sentence made it click. I understand, I just disagree and believe that incentivising leads to more harm/less overall freedom.

        5. – Covert polygamy has existed for all apex alphas in every society. But not for every jack and joe with a backhoe. If you’re such a devout defender of open polygamy, go to places where its legally sanctioned. Good luck. –
          I am a defender of polygamy although, inasmuch as I hailed from the clan MGTOW, I myself absolutely have no intention to enter wedlock with even a single women, let alone several women. Polygamy, same as porn & prostitution, is despised by the feminazis because that holy trinity of the Patriarchy i.e. Porn Prostitution Polygamy are direct challenge towards the power they wanted to have over men.

        6. “How many armed and hungry betas with assault rifles do you think you can defend against in your little Mormon enclave with all your little bitches and kids as soldiers?”
          I just thought of David Koresh.

    4. But what is someone decides their religion is one that defines as legal marriage to a girl under 17? Some girls do mature physically earlier. Could be opening a can of worms.

  3. Seems too simple. And the only case study that comes to mind for me is the Middle East.
    But open to the idea

        1. this is true for only sheikhs in saudi an the few boudoins in a rural area of arabia. its rather rare an even then its inly 2. never hared of anyone with a 3rd in todays age

        2. but if we talkin unoffical like gf an mistresses then ya thats among all rich men. esp in fsu where women outnumber men

  4. I agree with many of the points here, but let’s not kid ourselves – as much as we like to think otherwise when speaking of “foreign” or “feminine” women, a woman is still a woman. And by nature that means that she has the potential to be an ungodly nagging pain in the ass. Given that, I can’t imagine a scenario where I would want to have to deal with more than one of them. Particularly in our current times, where raising your voice is “abuse” that may land you in jail before being assfucked by multiple wives in divorce court. All of this is to say, I have no opposition to polygamy, but none for me, thanks.

    1. everyone says the same thing, if one is bad then two must be impossible…. but i think 2 women openly with 1 man will STFU and compete like mad, while absorbing each others need for long winded emotional ‘relationship’ conversations…. it’s a bit like the way noise cancelling headphones work…

      1. This would never work the way you said it.
        The two women would probably unite against you and go lesbo with each other or some other weird shit.

  5. Mormon polygamists are and always have been perverted scum who run their own sons out of their communities so they can fuck the young women who should be being groomed to be their future wives. They are degenerates who choose to
    debase themselves by embracing life as animalistic savages. Just because they garnish their savagery up with a lot of pretty libertarian political rhetoric doesn’t change that. The majority of societies that practice polygamy (those in Africa and the Middle-east being perfect examples) are dismal, dirt poor, dictatorial
    failures. Those societies are full of angry displaced young men with
    little hope for their futures. The very young men who build nations like
    America. Honest monogamy is difficult compared to acting like a beast and fucking around, but it’s certainly not impossible as many generations of men have proven. Men make mistakes, some men fuck around, but most men are still monogamous by nature. Most just need the proper, positive incentives that have been removed from contemporary society. In my experience most men fuck around not because they desire other women so much more, but because they are cut off sexually and emotionally by their wives. What made America strong has nothing to do with the idiotic, holy underwear wearing clown cult in Utah; and everything to do with the
    strong western work ethics and monogamous family values of our forefathers.

      1. Well America does not have the value of a monogamous relationship, so that reinforces what logicalbitchslap said.

    1. Agreed. Monogamy is what allowed civilization to bloom. Humans are even physiologically made to have monogamous tendencies.
      Let’s not fight degeneracy with degeneracy. I know I used to fuck around because I generally couldnt find a suitable woman but now that I did, I cringe at the thought of doing other women on the side. It just destroys the intimacy and bond man and woman has.

    2. Yes, creepy old men marrying underage girls to explain pedophilia as religion. How come Grandpa never marries a 25yo.?

    3. The fundy Mormons do seem, generally speaking, to be total weirdos, but I have to disagree with this:
      “Men make mistakes, some men fuck around, but most men are still monogamous by nature”
      Not, we’re not. If we could get away with banging multiple hotties without consequences we completely would. We would spread our population paste far and wide–as far and wide as we possibly could. Monogamy acts as a counterweight on the male sexual/genetic imperative.

  6. Polygamy would exacerbate the current problem of the sexual marketplace, in which a small handful of men have sexual access to the vast majority of women, while the remaining men are left dry, with no incentive to be productive members of society.
    This is supported by trends in polygamous communities, both in the Middle East and in Mormon communities in America, which have higher levels of dysfunction compared to the rest of society.

    1. Whatever dysfunction exists in the sexual marketplace, or any other marketplace, exists because of government intervention. Removing this intervention would remove the dysfunction. It doesn’t matter what the ending balance of polygamy vs. monogamy end up being. It’s not like one is better than any other, as long as they are all arrived at absent official promotion or coercion of any kind.
      Based on my experience with polygamous Mormons, they display substantially lower levels of dysfunctions than the average American. Lower divorce rates, fewer children born out of wedlock, more children born overall, greater likelihood of supporting the least intrusive of two political candidates etc., etc. They do tend to go on welfare a lot, but at the same time, are more likely to support politicians (Ron Paul) that would abolish it……

      1. Dysfunction is partially the cause of government intervention to support promiscuous females, as well as other developments which have facilitated promiscuity, such as the reduction in STDs associated with modern condoms and medicine, along with other factors.
        As for polygamous societies, data shows that they have greatly increased crime and reduced economic productivity, compared to strong monogamous societies. If you are interested, here are links to a study on it:

        1. It would be limited to a small few. Those with high IQs or those with certain attributes one desires (decorated soldiers are one example.) If one comes at it from a eugenics point of view it makes absolute sense. Consider that the male IQ varies in comparison to the female IQ which is clustered around the mean. A larger percentage of males would be forbidden to breed which would leave a surplus of women.

      2. I have read that Morman’s have among the highest rates of success when levelling for things like parents wealth. i agree that market dysfunction especially sexual market dysfunction is a product of government. When there are social consequences and not benefits for low income earners to have children then birth control will be used, then they will invariably have children later and they will in all likelihood get married later. Rather than being a teen mom who gets popularity and bragging rights at school for having a child with some stupid jock that was too drunk too stupid or drunk to wear a rubber. These issues don’t seem to occur in Morman society as marriage is encourage early and there seems to be a strong family emphasis.

    2. Friend, no disrespect but you’re like, totally got it completely wrong for polygamy shall remedy the most egregious oppression befalling current day strong agile dexterous smart beautiful intelligent confident women :
      1) No more “where have all the good men gone” – Thousands if not millions of women will have their dreams of being married to the likes of Adam Levine or Brad Pitt or David Beckham came true.
      2) With the women’s poons and whims got satisfied by the kings of alphas then laidback loser men like myself will not need to endure the constant “Man Up” anymore.
      3) Realistic sexbot age shall dawn upon us, I mean it’s so like totally realistic it will make beta & omega males craves no more for women who, if you really think about it, 99% of them ain’t worth the hassles anyway.
      And so everyone’s a winner, well, everyone except for Angelina Jolie and Victoria Beckham who must share their men with 60,000,000 other women but that should be a neglectably tiny price for equality, aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?

    3. Exactly, One can either have polygamy or Civilization – You can not have both.
      I would be fully sympathetic to a group of men without a girl of their own forming a posse to kill the males who have more than one girl. They would be fully justified in doing so.
      As you can imagine, this sniping back and forth leaves no time or motivation to create civilization.

      1. – Exactly, One can either have polygamy or Civilization – You can not have both. I would be fully sympathetic to a group of men without a girl of their
        own forming a posse to kill the males who have more than one girl. They
        would be fully justified in doing so. –
        But why stop there? If I were as civilized as you are then I’d also be fully sympathetic to a group of poor men who can only dream of fucking hot consented women and therefore form a posse to kill rich men who have hot wives & daughters and then proceed to rape the said hot wives & daughters.

        1. Except they wouldn’t. Their sex drive would already be sated with their current wife. Furthermore, the police/army (composed of men with their own wife) would not allow it, whereas in my example the king would not have many loyal troops because of the aforementioned lack of women (why would a man fight for a king when he himself has no wife/motivation to do so?).

        2. -Their sex drive would already be sated with their current wife.-
          What kind of women can poor men get? Unattractive women, to put it mildly. Can’t speak for other men but rather than having to wife up an unattractive woman I’d prefer to go through life wanking myself happy or having sex with realistic beautiful sexbots.
          -Furthermore, the police/army (composed of men with their own wife) would not allow it, whereas in my example the king would not have many loyal troops because of the aforementioned lack of women (why would a man fight for a king when he himself has no wife/motivation to do so?).-
          Genghis Khan fucked so many women that today 1 out of 500 people in Asia bear his DNA, we may safely assume he also had lots of wives but best of luck to any dullard who tried to assassinate him thinking that ” Khan’s troops will let me or even help me kill him because hey they also don’t get laid just like me “.
          Polygamy 101 for lummoxes : Just because a king practice polygamy that doesn’t mean the king marry the entire freaking women within his realm, if anything then the king ONLY marry the MOST attractive women and therefore still leaves a sizable portion of less attractive for his generals, his ministers, his troops and his male subjects.

        3. It would depend how the alphas with the harems treated the beta males, especially the younger ones… if the younger males are ostracized as useless and left to fend for themselves, of course you soon find an angry mob in the streets, Arab spring revolution style….
          However if the alphas and their wives, worked together to prevent the younger males becoming disenfranchised, then the betas and younger men should be taken into the now large extended family units and guided, until they too are ready to build a harem OR not.
          Access to sex should be by Meritocracy. If the alphas lock down the women and prevent all this feminist nonsense and are pragmatic, you have a completely different social order.

        4. Genghis Khan probably fucked around quite a bit, but that doesn’t in itself explain why he has such an enormous amount of descendants. That’s explained by the fact that many separate branches of his descendants went on to become rulers and other high-status men in their own right, with all the potential for reproductive success that follows. He wasn’t just a massive fucker, his descendants were that too.

      2. I think we have moved passed the point where polygamy would become harmful. There are many reasons most of the world is a toilet and polygamy is not one of them. South America and south east Asia are just two examples.

    4. Salt lake City has the highest birthrate of any metropolitan city in the world and it’s relatively white.If anything i think polygamy there or at least the social atmosphere around their society is working very well.

    5. Polygamy only works when there is a relatively high level of attrition of males, either through natural attrition or through warfare. it does not work when the male/female ratio is approx. 50/50.

    6. Polygamy sucks for the majority of men. Only a small amount of men get all the women while the rest have none. Monogamy is better, plus humans are built for companionship with one person. Polygamy creates a dysfunctional society! The only way polygamy would work is if the male population is significantly lower than the female population but this isn’t the case most parts of the world. Some countries like China or Vietnam have a huge surplus of males so obviously polygamy wouldn’t work there. Most countries have about a 50/50 male to female ratio more or less.

    7. Polygamy works when you have vulnerable sheep, underage girls and pervert church leaders.

  7. …what about the men who dont get multiple wives? They usually have no investment in society, and act out in dysfunctional ways to themselves and to their community.
    Also, when a man has many children by multiple women, parental investment from the fathers side is decreased, thus leading to more feral children.
    I appreciate the dissenting point of view from manosphere conventional wisdom, but I dont buy it. Debunked.

    1. Historically there has often been more women around because men were dying in wars. This was also the case here, as I discussed. The lack of women to go around is one reason I don’t think polygamy works today. Also, few men were actually polygamous. Leaders showcased their polygamy as exemplary models for others to follow, as far as roles and responsibilities.

      1. Fair enough then. I misunderstood your intent. It seemed like you were implying that polygamy can make the US a strong country again should it be accepted by society again.

        1. No problem. I don’t think it is a good idea now. I’ve only met a couple polygamous people, and some who ran away from it. Polygamous efforts may be well intentioned, but our circumstances just don’t make it beneficial. But to each his own; I don’t think it should be outlawed. Government should stay out of adult, consentual relationships. My point was that we can still glean strength from the attitudes that men had in those days.

        2. It’s beneficial in some instances, not in others. Today as before. Which is why sensible people leave it up to the individuals themselves to choose.

        3. It’s not quite correct to call it outlawed. The state won’t prevent anyone from engaging in polygamy, it just won’t legally recognize any more than one of your marriages. Bigamy is only a crime since it entails defrauding authorities into recognizing a second marriage by omitting from them the fact that you already are married.

  8. I plan to buy land in a rural area where land is cheap and start my own polygamist community just like jeffs did in Colorado city az anyone can do this if he did anyone can

    1. The Twin Cities, and the FLDS, predate Warren Jeffs by generations. All the way back to before the split from the now monogamist LDS. The “buy land in rural area and start community” you are referring to, is more likely the Yearning For Zion ranch that the FLDS, then led by Jeffs, purchased in Texas, around the turn of this latest century, to make room for the rapidly expanding congregation. Like most congregations pf practicing Mormons, the FLDS are fertile people, not willing to just sit there like chumps snacking on contraceptive pills, while cultures and religions from afar displace them en masse.
      Polygamist Mormons have a long history of building “Twin Cities” like Colorado City/Hildale, one on each side of state borders. Back before the Federal Government became a completely omnipotent tyrant with no checks on it’s powers whatsoever, raids by one state’s oppressorate looking for publicity, could be dealt with in a non-violent, properly Christian manner by taking the day off to visit relatives across state line. Freedom, WY/ID (where the world’s best revolver is manufactured…) is another traditional example.

  9. Mathematically it makes sense for multiple women to pair with one man. The male has lifelong fertility and the female has a comparatively tiny finite number of eggs. One man can impregnate millions of women but NOT THE OPPOSITE.
    No cats can’t be herded, but a bevy of women nailed to the same man have a steady but plodding direction. Hands on deck are small lady hands yes but nimble ones.
    The jealousy and insanity you see in philandering ‘monogamous’ regulated areas results from having lives shamed and made taboo. Really no one can adhere to state regulation of procreation or sexuality. DECLARE EVERYTHING AS COOL and you don’t see the infamous ‘jealous dentist’s wife’ running over her hubby with her Mercedes.
    Man’s natural tendency is towards polygamy. Only mass lobotomies could stave off the course towards polygamy. . or death of the state. In absence of the state, king road warriors would look like lion kings for sure. I’m sure a palpable middle ground will be found though, that is a little state and a little more than JUST ONE wife.

    1. Ignorance of history and human nature is rife. History and simple observation shows that polygamous societies require a High male mortality rate in order to work, and in some cases this reality must be coupled with constant expansion in order to grab someone else’s women either as slaves or war-brides. When one or two of these conditions are not met, you get the Middle East kind of dysfunction.

      1. The Middle East only turned dysfunctional once the sons set to inherit the various thrones, returned from European universities with inferiority complexes that their societies didn’t match the dystopias Marx described closely enough. And then set about rectifying that situation.
        Progressivism and attendant faith in secular government, is THE great evil of the world. That is the dysfunction. The only dysfunction and all the dysfunction. Pure and simple.

        1. Yes, yes, because in the 17th, 18th and 19th century the Muslim world was the beacon of civilization…yeah right. By the way the polygamous ways of the Sultan Suleyman the Great sowed the seeds of the decadence and destruction of his great empire. The drama and intrigue in the High court, created by the multiple wives and concubines in the court ensure that no one disliked by them could keep his head for long. Even the most competent king of Suleyman the Great was killed because one the favorite wife of the KIng persuaded him that his son was plotting against him. Result: The most incompotent son of the Monarch was annointed king. The pattern repeated itself for long enough to cause the decline and end of that empire. Just an example to ponder…

  10. Allow me to point out the hypocrisy of the conservatives and the religious reich who whine long and loud about religious freedom, but will not allow polygamy.

    1. Not to mention their rhetoric on supporting monogamy on the grounds of it being “traditional marriage”, when in fact, polygamy is the real “traditional marriage.”

      1. That’s odd. According to Tacitus, monogamy was practiced by the Germanic tribes for thousands of years.

  11. My best friend’s great-granddad had a plural marriage in China before it was banned. In cultures that have such a thing, only the 1% had plural marriage. In fact it’s a symbol of being a 1%er similar to modern rap’s concept of having many bitches / hoes.
    It’s not exactly 20/80, but even 1% of guys having more than one wife can cause issues. If you’re an omega, lesser beta or just poor in a society that has polygamy, you’re fucked. It enhances class divisions, blue balls, and the general amount of anger in society.
    At least in the Far East you can join a monastery, and do martial arts and yoga, but in some other polygamous places the outcast guys get into terrorism, gangs and crime.

    1. – It’s not exactly 20/80, but even 1% of guys having more than one wife
      can cause issues. If you’re an omega, lesser beta or just poor in a
      society that has polygamy, you’re fucked. It enhances class divisions,
      blue balls, and the general amount of anger in society. –
      In any society, the omega or lesser beta or just poor men are basically fucked. Even in monogamous society, what kind of women whom the omega or lesser beta or just poor men can get? Yep you beat me to it, fat and/or fugly women.

    2. It would be interesting to learn more about polygamy in China. The “gender gap” is lopsided toward men today, so that the vast majority of men in China will never get a woman to himself. But I don’t know how it was in your great-grandfather’s day.

      1. It was the same scene around the world including in the Middle East I think. You had rich moguls with lots of women, especially poor women who moved to the city, you had a middle stratum of monogamous betas, and then you had omegas who relied on hoes and porn.

  12. Humans are not made to be polygamous. Polygamy will only make the current situation worse : some guys gets all the poosi and others none.
    There is a reason why monogamy is a foundation of human civilization and allows peaceful social coexistence.

    1. But see, not everyone can be expected to pair anyway. Just like every sperm doesn’t make it. OVER 99.9999% OF SPERM BITE THE DUST! And the ‘lost boys’, come on, sounds like a fat media lie if not distortion. The polygamous boys have dads with some of the best game in the world. THEIR DADS ROCK! I’d be much more proud of a dad that gamed six sister moms than one from the wasteland that got kicked to the curb by a despicable cuckolding wretch of a mother if you could even call it that.
      Face it – – POLYGAMY ROCKS!!

      1. There is a reason why the majority of humanity is monogamous, it is the very foundation of our civilization itself
        Feminists are destroying it and we can see the many problems arising with that. We do not need to destroy the monogamous institution any further.
        Also, good luck for dealing with more than one woman on a constant basis, and the divorce lol.

        1. – Also, good luck for dealing with more than one woman on a constant basis, and the divorce lol. –
          When polygamy eventually came to pass, the whole marriage and divorce law will be changed to accommodate polygamy.
          Humans are polygamous by nature, humans pair again even after their supposedly monogamous-soul-mate bite the dust.

        2. monogamy was an imposed system and i say ‘was’ because real monogamy is gone, dead and buried. as soon as you give women agency and allow divorce and make it socially acceptable to have serial monogamy, ‘girlfriends’ and general fucking all over town…. you take the whole thing back to the chaos of animal passions.
          you can’t champion the old monogamous dynamic whilst providing no alternative.
          we already informally have polygamy, where alphas dominate multiple women in their prime, soft harems etc. HOWEVER the women are left to their own devices.
          Allow the alphas to take the women under their wing properly, who knows what can result. Govt. is mighty scared of this dynamic.

        3. I think I should start a polygamy rights group and set it up as a victimized minority tax free organization. “You’re oppressing my right to LOVE!!!” lol

    2. If humans aren’t made to be polygamous then pray tell why married couple can fuck other people instead of instantly got disintegrated by celestial thunderbolt – courtesy of God who didn’t make humans to be polygamous?

  13. Excellent essay. Counter trend arguments are healthy, even if in the end wrong. I did not know the history of the Mormons in such detail, just some general notion of early persecution before moving to Utah. Very perceptive to point out that “We are in an age similar to the Victorian era.” This is counter-intuitive to most people. What is called PC may be of Marxist origin, but at the female psychological level it is an extension of the schoolmarm instinct and the hypocritical social shamming of that over-rated period. But in the end your argument fails for the reasons stated by others on this thread. Also, inbreeding is rampant among Mormons – I’ve seen close up in Utah, where we owned a ski townhouse. Mormonism’s greatest failing, however, is it’s barbaric arguments and practice of not drinking, truly an ontological issue. Polygamy, no alcohol, no drugs…reminds me of…Islam.

  14. The bad thing with polygamy is that it causes a lot of men to never get laid at all. This is a bad thing for incels like me. However it might help to increase the birth rate.

    1. Increased birth rate is bad bad bad, more people consuming from the same fricking planet translates directly into less goodies to go around for everybody.
      Increased birth rate is only good when we intend to use legions upon legions of men and women as laser canon fodder in order to invade & conquer the denizens of planet Zoltan and/or the land of Narnia for lebensraum and resources.

      1. yeah it definitely increases the birthrate. A big bonus of feminism is the decreased birthrate however the people who shouldn’t be having children are the ones popping out more than ever. Mormanism seems to be curb this at least for a small demographic of high achievers.

      2. Overpopulation is a myth spread by those who fly in private airplanes and dream of the day the “commoners” and useless eaters die in enough numbers to leave the planet for them. There are overpopulated countries but the planet as a whole is not overpopulated.

        1. – Overpopulation is a myth spread by those who fly in private airplanes and dream of the day the “commoners” and useless eaters die in enough numbers to leave the planet for them. –
          But those who fly in private airplanes more often than not are the ones who, whether they’re aware or not, supporting more population by dishing huge donation to this or that humanitarian cause like Bill Gates or the ones who tried to stop depopulation like George Clooney and Bono who spoke out against depopulation (read: Genocide) against the people of Darfur.
          Overpopulation is not something like there are too many people so you don’t even have enough space to do twerking or some other shits like that. Overpopulation is a state when your life quality decreased pulled down by the sheer weight of population, think about the house you live in and now add 50 strangers in your house, what you think would happen? For starter, your once 5-star-hotel-toilet will start to look like and smell like some public toilet at the outskirt of the Mongolian desert. Then you’ll have more difficult time to breathe due to excess of carbon dioxide and body odor, the condition will keep on deteriorating until 1 or 2 of you will eventually snap and goes Anders Behring Breivik.
          – There are overpopulated countries but the planet as a whole is not overpopulated. –
          70% of the planet is salt water, quite an amount of land are uninhabitable, fresh water & food production is getting more pricey by the day.
          Why do you think the wage goes down? Take your time………..think long and hard………….after all this is 1 of the most enigmatic mysteries ever known to men………….tick tick tick 5 hours passed by………….and finally………….EUREKA!
          Because there are more people than jobs!
          Now if in the next 10 or 15 years mankind can build some inter-galactic-lights-peed-travelling-battle-space-ships with Captain Jean Luc Picard at the helm in order to boldly go to where no homo sapiens have gone before and to colonize other planets, trust me by then it still won’t be too late to make it a law punishable by death and water-boarding to mandate the hoi polloi & the elites as well to start fucking each other en masse and add 60 more billion people onto this planet.
          Or perhaps we can go the way of the Krypton i.e. building genesis chambers to propagate the species? We only have to ensure that we don’t repeat their mistake by harvesting the planet’s core or allowing some egomaniacal jock like General Zod rose to power.

    2. Hmmm Polygamous societies almost never have higher birthrates than strictly monogamous ones (the West of yore). And that´s understandable for anyone with an IQ beyond room temperature. If I have one devoted and young wife and both are fertile with resources, we could, as in the days of yore, raise and nurture 5+ children with or without help for an extended family or servants. However if I were to marry 3 or 4 wives and have with each wive 5+ children, I would end up with a little army, most likely beyond my control, and needing a very large extended family or an army of servants, just to raise my children. And I am not considering possible strife from multiple fronts (women).
      That´s why China, an ostensibly monogamous and old society, has more population than the Arab World. Of course polygamy is a lot better than what we have now but women rights will have to be rescinded completely, so it can work.

  15. There’s poosey for everyone – it’s called the carousel and the red light drag strip. Every man gets serviced where polyandry flourishes. And that’s what it is effectively in the west – POLYANDRY.
    Classic patriarchal POLYGAMY on the other hand is completely divorced from whore polyandry. The male sets the moral standard in polygamy but THE FEMALE sets the albeit bankrupt moral standard for polyandry. The standard for the west is whoredom. I believe polygamy will soon blossom in central and eastern Russia next. Still in my opinion the best of the BRICS, I believe Russia would have welcomed the YFZ klan had they made an exodus sooner. The new ‘salt lake’ – the expansive savannah and tundra of wild Russia!

  16. I have often though tabour joining the Morman faith. It’s relatively white however is starting to recruit outside that demographic(Romney adopting the african child was in my view politically motivated) . Salt lake City has the highest birth rate of any Western metro city. It has a high level focus on education, is socially conservative and prohibits nearly all the corrosive elements of Western Society. I have however met Morman girls that have had their “fun” but they at least seem to be attracted to the educated type rather than the thug type and do not go about trying to get attention from their activities. I however think that’s important to surround oneself with those that even if one does not believe in the faith share common belief systems. Long term no man is an island and being an atheist places oneself in an odd position in any social environment except around other atheists and they seem to believe that Obama is Jesus and the Federal Govt is their Almighty.

  17. Theoretically there is nothing wrong with polygamy. But there is a big caveat – there have been plenty of examples from tribes in caveman times, the Aztecs, the latter stages of the Ottoman empire etc. In some of those cultures up to 60% of men did not have a woman to have progeny with and create a legacy. A man is more motivated when fighting/working for a wife & his children than if he is forced to live a drab, sex-less existence.
    However there were times when women were by far more numerous than men. Up until 100 years ago most European countries had a surplus of women over men even at child-bearing age. The same holds true for Mohammed’s times where men had to take second and third wives just to keep the numerous widows from starving. If you implement polygamy in our times where men outnumber women in most countries by far, then you would contribute to the destruction of civilization as most women would prefer to be the 10th wife of a High Value Man than a first wife to an average one.
    Polygamy is all fine and well, but only if young women outnumber young men.

    1. The men without women issue only arises if the alphas are completely selfish and keep their harems all to themselves.
      the hierarchy should look like this :
      alpha male -> alpha female -> beta females (several) -> beta males.
      If the alpha and his queen are smart enough to control the sexual resources of multiple beta females, they then have the choice (and power) to either ostracize the beta males, or invite them into the community with a huge ‘free sex’ / offspring carrot, and a big ‘no sex’ / outcast stick.
      The queen knows her place and knows she can easily be replaced, so the bitchy female aspect is neutralized. The women have community, company and help with children that they need, both logistically and emotionally. The alpha rules the roost. The beta males don’t have to be outcasts.
      Polygamy has never been tried where birth control was available, thus the alpha could not ‘pimp’ out his women for fear of them getting knocked up by betas AND the females were all competing to have kids with the alpha.
      ultimately sex and female reproductive capabilities, is a resource like any other, when resources are focused and controlled by a benevolent leader that wants the best results, incredible things can be achieved. It’s not dissimilar to the dynamics of the old family unit where the father controlled his daughters and approved their marriages.
      one thing is clear, leaving young girls to decide on the best use of their reproductive assets is a very poor, random and animal society at best.
      building some degenerate harem like Craster from Game of Thrones is obviously terrible for everyone, but an alpha, keeping his queen inline with several secondary ‘wives’ and then the two of them working to keep betas inline with ‘access’. It’s a dynamic that’s never been tried.

      1. Polygamy as a “better genes” selection criteria is idiotic for anything beyond a stone-age culture. Women are ingrained to find qualities attractive that are counter-productive to civilization building. A 90 IQ criminal good-looking Dark Triad Psychopath is preferable to most than a 150 IQ scientific genius who is average on all scales of looks to health. If it were left to females then the genius would have zero kids and the Dark Triad moron 50.
        That is why practically all successful cultures stressed the union between one man and one woman across all social strata. The Alphas always had mistresses in addition to their main wives.
        If you want polygamy, then you might just as well say goodbye to civilization and embrace the middle ages again after a few centuries.

        1. However IQ is not the only valuation point in success and there are multiple environmental factors.The most successful IQ range seems to be between 120-135. This levels leads you to still be high functioning and have a solid EQ.A text book example would be to look at 7th century Islam those with multiple wives tend to have large resources and the women except the initial one all come from lower socio economic background. What we then see is that a man with a large resource base is required to redistribute both his genes and his resources to lower level women and the men of the lower level are pretty much excluded unless they survive the cull of battle. This was the dynamic of early islamic culture and made for a strong warlike people. If a man died then it was expected his wife would be taken to be remarried by the tribe to someone who could afford it. I would venture that given how polygamy works within the animal kingdom that it is a far more successful breeding program. However human constructs such as welfare leave women with many options that allow men who would traditionally have low SMV to be a viable option where traditionally they would have been cannon fodder.

      1. Let me specify that: Men outnumber women in the ages of 18-35 in ALL WESTERN countries by a margin of 10%-20%+ at the least. You may not consider that big, but that is a huge margin – essentially a huge market advantage for women. Birth rate ratios are 106 males to 100 females anywhere in the world, but due to immigration all Western countries have a lack of women in the most crucial age gap. EE, FSU and the rest of the world of course look different, so by most I only meant ALL Western countries incl. the entire Middle East. You can check the OECD numbers which however are sorely lacking when also assessing the number of immigrants. And even then you will see that I am right. The funny thing that most Western governments know fully well that the demographics are shit for modern men, so they most often publish male female ratios of ages 15 to 59, as if we would be urgently need women in the 40-59 age category for dating & mating.

  18. Here’s the fucken news, polygamy is natural and addresses a man’s need for variety, and a woman’s need for companionship with other women. It is a FACT that the majority or cultures globally have practised polygamy, NOT monogamy. The reason polygamy has been demonized for a very long time now is because polygamy often produces large families who in turn represent large cohesive communities who stick the fuck together and back each other the fuck up. UNLIKE the pathetic mono – nuclear families we have today who do not support each other at all, and instead look to government for guidance. The serial monogamy we have today – and have had since the disease of Christianity – is destroying what families could be.

    1. Polygamy is shunned because no one has yet to figure out how to get men to produce at 100% when they don’t get a wife or kid. 80%of men get nothing under polygamy

      1. The answer for all men is GET GAME and get that prize woman. The state or church will never illuminate men to game. They want dumb mules with blinders. Every man cannot ‘get’ a woman handed to them but a man with game grows to become that man who busts out of the insideous imposed ‘shell’. Nature still dictates that not all eggs hatch and only a percentage of ‘seeds’ germinate. The nanny state is fighting nature. Best luck to it, but nature wll win in the end.

  19. Women shouldn’t be aloud to work or educate themselves past the age of 14 or 15. The fact that western governments go out of their way to encourage these dysgenic practices is baffling. Aside from diehard Christians and worm like men, what man wouldn’t want three or four playthings in the home. So what if women wouldn’t like it. The men that have the charm and finances to keep harems would and that’s all that matters.

  20. I believe that a large number of men who find monogamy easy simply have no other viable options. I was once such a man. I’m never going back.

  21. Polygyny is the almost universal standard except, officially, in Western and a few other societies. In most cases it is limited by the man’s economic situation.
    However, in a well off society females will naturally seek to be co-wives of rich, powerful men, who are usually middle aged or older. This would make the most desirable females unavailable to young men, who might destabilize society unless there are new worlds and females to conquer.

    1. Presumably such a society would round up the loser men and send then to war so they could steal other mens’ wives without destabilising their home society.

  22. This has the “as long I’m one of the guys who has multiple wives then everything’s going to just fine” vibe. It’s been easily pointed out that if every married man has two wives than half the men don’t get any woman. If every married man has four wives then three quarters of men don’t have any woman. Heck even Islam puts a cap of four wives to go a little way in stopping Alpha males hogging all the women.

    1. Precisely, they complain about not getting women at all…imagine if polygamy was acceptable? No men below the top 20% would have women.

    2. Yeah. I’m sure all. Men want to believe they would be the guy with two or three hot wives. But unless you are the fifty shades guy or superman you will be frozen out of a wife or child if polygamy was legal

  23. About the event you described at the start of the article, that’s quite a leap of assumption to think you had come upon a harem. There are countless other possible explanations for what you saw. What happened next, and did it confirm your initial hunch?

  24. Monogamy is state regulated heterosexuality. The state quaffs dreams and stifles creativity. It controls and taxes. It was artists and visionaries who dreamt Rome before it was – not the state. Morality and heterosexual loyalty is the rock. The state is a sock puppet.
    A monogamous union is easier for a state to police. THAT’S WHY STATES TEND TO CRACK ON POLY’S. Then they turn their guns on the garden variety monogamous family. Many men have had effectively polygamous but unrecognized unions which are broken by the state with forced separation of cohabitation, controlled visitation and blood money levied for every woman who bore children. These men with ‘ex’s’ and their kids usually don’t consider themselves polygamous, but you might as well call it polygamy broken by the state due to jealous bitchy poorly selected women who don’t get along. Fidelity and everyone getting along is the key to successful polygamy. The state preys on family infidelity.
    Open your eyes men, we’re being bent over and butt raped BY THE STATE. The women are encouraged to be adversarial both towards each other and towards the man. No state has ever been a friend of the family. Breaking the monogamous family is daily agenda for the state and the fortified polygamous family is a trend that brings the most heightened reaction from the hapless ilk of the state grogs. No state ever created or built anything. No state ever made any country great. WE THE PEOPLE get the credit for achievement. The primary footstone of civilization BEGINS with a heavy and WELL SWUNG HAMMER!!

  25. No wonder why Mormonism was called the ‘Islam of the Americas’. What the author fails to grasp is that aside from the math problem(high status males hoard large numbers of women leaving fewer women for other men) is that polygamy is rarely practiced by itself. In fact, the pattern of polygamy around the world that it is a handmaiden of a far more insidious social element: Consanguinity aka Cousin Marriage aka light inbreeding.
    More disturbingly the author fails to understand that these two forms of marriage and social structuring create an even more poisonous social dynamic-Tribalism. Yes, the kind of blood-soaked tribalism that is practiced by barbaric peoples around the world. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, isn’t it? Let’s take a look at the nations where polygamy is practiced(nations where polygamy is practiced are in black, lavender illegal but not criminalized, blue illegal & fully criminalized; http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Legality_of_polygamy.png
    Looking at this map is perhaps the best argument against polygamy as all of the countries where polygamy is legal are corrupt, dysfunctional basketcases of nations and the last sort of societies we should seek to emulate.
    Mormonism is a cult and heresy. Besides, I never trust anyone who doesn’t drink booze aka Mormons and Muslims. It’s no surprise that Mormonism is rife with affinity fraud aka all those MLM schemes out of Utah, not to mention Glenn Beck’s scam. Muslims are even worse.

    1. Heh we are talking here now. Let’s BLOW THE LID off the junk DNA coverup at last . . heh heh. The REASON EVERY COUNTRY both savage and tame outlaws marrying your sister is because human DNA is SPLICED with bovine, porcine and a few other native beasts of this orb. The original ‘creation’ ADAMIC MAN was gene spliced or ‘tweaked’ if you will to make him adaptable to life on earth with a digestive tract that can metabolize the specific plant and animal life found here and a respiratory system that can respirate on the specific mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and helium found here on this planet. WE’RE NOT FROM HERE and our DNA isn’t pure but spliced.
      A breeding rabbit or any native animal indigenous to earth can sire offspring from within its own litter BUT MAN CANNOT. With man, if the relation is too close, the JUNK DNA COMBINES and you have offspring with the common 116 human defects which include club foot, cleft palate, harelip, etc.
      EVER NOTICE how a severe case of inbred club foot LOOKS LIKE A PIGS HOOF? Now how the hell did PORCINE DNA enter the picture. WHODUNNIT? Read scripture or at least read between its lines. A pediatrician would say the child is defective BUT A VETERINARIAN would say ”OY, THAT’S A BEAUTIFUL HOOF, nothing defective about it whatsoever.”
      Ever been to the petting zoo and seen the pot belly pig’s asshole? LOOK FAMILIAR? Riiight. In humans, the large (pig) intestine appears pretty hard line fused to the small intestine and then there’s the problematic APPENDIX. A leftover colon of the herbivore small intestine.
      Thus original creation ADAMIC MAN had an appendix size colon and was herbivore. He would have left behind small ‘pellets’ like a rabbit.
      Truly the story of where we’ve been MAY BE BIGGER than the story of where we’re going. I still believe polygamy is the way. Circumcision is for peasants and for security in keeping our DNA baggage under wraps it’s best to marry OUTSIDE of the second cousin relationship.

  26. I’ve always been curious as to what point in history did Christians and Jews turn away from their polygamous roots? David, Saul, etc all had multiple wives and it wasn’t looked down upon. I see myself as a Conservative Christian and I think polygamy would be acceptable practice so long as no one is on welfare or living off the government inside those relationships.

    1. Maybe the example of Solomon or more recently Süleyman are the reasons behind this rejection. Oh and the fact that Polygamy relies on a high male mortality rate for starters…

  27. Beep beep . . what, screwing lots of women and tossing them is OK? . . but getting responsible and marrying them shouldn’t be allowed? WTF? The state horns of ‘silence this issue’ and ‘override the room with anti logic or backward think’ are sounding. This issue is as important as staving off the coming rape inquisition. Seriously.

  28. Polygamy is horrible. It leaves a mass of men without a stake in society…. No wife or genetic legacy. Polygamy destroys every society. You can’t have beta males working hard if the top men have 4 wives each and the bottom 80% of men get nothing. Monogamy was enacted and look what happened Europe rose up and dominated the globe. . The Renaissance occurred. . Good things happen when men get a wife and family. Bad things happen if they don’t

    1. The rise of Europe to world domination didn’t happen after monogamy was enacted. Monogamy was the standard in Europe after Christianity became the dominant religion in the Early Middle Ages. And yet, before its rise, Europe would spend another thousand years as a poor, backward, dysfunctional shithole, the utter ass-end of the Eurasian continent.
      I agree that leaving 80% of men without a woman is a recipe for social disaster, but care to point out any civilization that has actually had such an extreme incidence of polygamy?

        1. And how does that number compare between monogamous and polygamous societies? And besides, even if accepting that number at face value, it doesn’t imply that a few men are hogging all the women, or that the men who didn’t have kids would do if the elite men wouldn’t be polygamous.
          That figure could just as well describe a monogamous society where there’s a relatively high mortality rate of random causes, or where significant proportions of both genders are out of the marriage market for some reason or the other, or one where serially monogamous men snatch up several women in succession after the previous one died.
          You are attributing way too many implications to that 60% number. It’s irrelevant without a corresponding figure for women.

    2. Go further back than the Renaissance. In Western Europe alone you had the rise of universities in the 11th Century, Scholasticism, the construction of the great Gothic Cathedrals-often incorporating complex mathematical and geometric principles. I can go on here describing the social and technological advancements in the Middle Ages that laid the foundation for greater achievements. Tragically, that attempt at civilization was cut short by the Black Plague with mortality rates of 50% or more. Also, the narrative that nothing happened until the Renaissance is legacy of Vasari’s skewed version of history whereby by he made the artists and achievements of the Renaissance stand alone rather than reflect a progression of achievements.
      I leave the wonders of Constantinople and the plague of Islam for another discussion.
      I don’t think it’s any coincidence that it was the rise of Christianity that eschewed polygamy and Cousin Marriage aka consanguinity that led Europe back to high civilization. Christianity in essence broke down the blood defined tribalism of the barbarian tribes living in Europe and laid the foundation towards a more egalitarian society that defined itself along lines of nationhood rather than tribe.

      1. I agree. I never mentioned a date nor did I make an assumption that this just happened overnight or that the Renaissance was immediately a result or the only result. People make so many assumptions. It’s humorous. I saying that after the fall of Rome Christianity helped incentivize beta men to work and provide. . What eventually formed in Europe was built from Monogamy. It gave them a stake in society. . It’s hard for a civilization to grow and thrive if most of its men are left out in the cold.

  29. The orientalism is strong with this comments section. To think that the social dysfunction of the contemporary Middle East can be explained with polygamy. Heck, do you guys even know what the actual rate of polygamy is there at present day? How large a proportion of all men actually end up unmarried as a result of it?

    1. Not that high from what i have heard especially in East Asia notably Indonesia and Malay where it is only legal for Muslims and forbidden for Christians.

  30. There’s the age old question though; what then do we do with all the surplus males for whom there is no wife? I mean we don’t have the perpetual, internecine tribal conflicts to kill off a steady stream of young men, so the numbers of males and females are going to be roughly equal. You can’t run a polygamous society without a surplus of females relative to the number of males, it just doesn’t work.

    1. Back then they didn’t have the modern goodies we now have :
      – Cool games, online or not..
      – Internet porn,
      – Cheap beer and pizza
      – Soon-to-come realistic sexbots.
      4 things above should be enough to pacify the surplus males until God reclaims them back to the garden of Eden.
      And in the not-so-distant future we can also engineer the gender so that there’ll be 10-20 female baby born for each male baby, problem solved! All hails Polygamy!

      1. Some good points there, the things you mentioned do have an obviously sedating effect on males that we can see even now. As for creating a world with more women than men, I fear that will come in with it’s own load of problems. Who is going to build/maintain civilization? Women are incapable of doing so and that 1 man per 100 females who remain is certainly not going to see much reason to do so in between relaxing and enjoying his harem.

        1. – Who is going to build/maintain civilization? Women are incapable of doing so and that 1 man per 100 females who remain is certainly not going to see much reason to do so in between relaxing and enjoying his
          harem. –
          Well, women have been complaining far & wide that for far too long we men have been oppressing them and male oppression is the reason why we failed to see enough female scientists/surgeons/inventors/business-owners/whatever.
          So…..why not give women the chance to prove their boastful claim that they are as good as men? Let them build & maintain civilization while we sitback to relax and enjoy our harems……dayum! Life’s good!

  31. Might it be that a small amount of polygamy is a net benefit to a society compared with monogamy? Not some ridiculous straw-man of polygamy where the top 20% of men hog all the women, but rather, say, 2-4% of all women being additional wives of top men.
    One of the most established Manosphere community beliefs is that women are hypergamous by nature, and that a man marrying up and a woman marrying down is a recipe for relationship failure, while the opposite is a solid foundation for a relationship.
    The usual talking point for monogamy is that it gives every man a stake in society by giving him a woman, maximizing male productivity. Yet, in a monogamous society, to make sure every man gets a woman and no woman marries down, you’d need perfect assortative mating, for everyone to marry their exact SMV equals. Which isn’t going to happen. Women are going to be hypergamous, and any parents arranging marriages for their daughter are going to be even more so on her behalf. For every woman who marries up, a man somewhere will either have to marry up or not marry at all, both which are bad options.
    Enter polygamy. With a small number of top men having extra wives, it becomes possible for every woman to simultaneously marry slightly upwards, while only a small number of men at the very bottom of the SMV are left without a woman. The total number of married men might be slightly smaller than under monogamy, but the quality of marriages much higher. Women get their hypergamous impulse satisfied, and men get loyal, good wives worth working to provide for.

  32. Poligamy is dysfunctional, it’s one sperm and one egg, you can’t divide so many resources and attention with so many people, the end. Also, you guys in the comment’s section talking about “womun r evolutionaruly made 2 seek alphas liek mi” look, if you are going to make assumptions about “evolution”, you might as well accept feminism, cause women can evolve into men eventually and develop self-reproduction in time, the alpha male is a MYTH, every man can be un-fucked to not be emasculated and become so called “alpha male” which is only a functional man, what men are SUPPOSED to be when not fucked by feminist society, this whole alpha beta bullshit is competitive and not productive…but fine if your idea of functional is polygamy, where, if all men did it, it would leave so many men single they would go into a murderous rage or commit suicide or just lead sadsack lives. The test for dysfunction is global application, I don’t care if drugs and alcohol “help” you be more social, for example, or it’s great part in history giving liquid courage, it only means you don’t have enough balls to actually be open about you without it, same impracticality as polygamy.

Comments are closed.