Out of all the "Harem talks" (a phenomenon created by the mentally unstable Walt Bismarck, but which is most amusing ) this is the only sane take I've read, which takes into account how things work instead of how they ideologically ought to work according to the very subjective morality of the writer. Thank you.
I can see now why you published books by AA, who is a fan of Evola, a guy who was unparalleled among the Right because he saw the world as it really was, by observing countless religions and tracing what they had in common in excruciating detail.
This is a tricky problem. A space-faring civilization requires that men be both aggressive in body and thought and also be cooperative and conscientious in maintaining the steel womb in space. I doubt there will ever be a ultimate solution but we will see various models over time.
A ruthless campaign against the criminal element and dysgenic element by removing the stupid and violent from the gene pool may be the best solution. It would clear the field for the better quality of men.
It’s possible that even a limited polygamy (say, only 3 wives) might be better than strict monogamy. It would allow the better genes to reproduce more while limiting the monopolization of females, giving the more lawful men to pass on genes for cooperation and conscientious attention to details. But this is where having many different cultures would be advantageous because it would allows for the best practices to emerge. More importantly, I think, is that the elite must be flexible regarding the mores, allowing greater polygamy at times and greater monogamy at other times to meet the evolving situation.
At the same time, there is a need for educating the public on the reproductive trade-offs. Age and genetic compatibility have a huge impact on healthy reproduction. The 19-year old couple who are third cousins is more likely to have more and healthier babies than a couple in their 40s from different races.
What I suspect is that the biggest advantage a man can have is by focusing on building his brotherhood first. It would improve his social, martial, and economic power as a brother. It would feed his confidence which is always a chick-magnet. The more powerful his brotherhood, the more women will be attracted because they want fun and security that comes from a greater social resourcefulness.
Stupid and violent aren't even the worst of dysgenic phenotypes. There are phenotypes which work directly against solidarity and social trust that should be even more ruthlessly stamped out.
As for women, unfortunately, the general principle seems to be a loathing of brotherhood, and a passive attempt to undermine it. I don't believe this is universal, but is peculiar to southern, middleastern, and anglo women. Northern European women seem most capable of being symbiotic with strong brotherhoods.
I have one guy who insisted on open border individualism despite being shown that even if he wanted a libertarian nation, he still need a libertarian people. That means a strong state who can control the border and can filter out the non-libertarians. And that if he wanted a small government, he’ll need a strong cultural norms and strong local institutions of clan, parish, fraternity, and guild to provide support to an individual instead of the state. Naturally, he didn’t like it and refused to challenge it. He wanted to do whatever he wanted. It’s just not going to happen. Trade-offs will happen. Some are hopelessly naive and idealistic. Such people should be drafted into the Peace Corp and shipped to Africa for 10 years.
A follow-up: since most Europeans tends to act emotionally rather than rational, the initial focus on the criminally stupid and violent will win faster support than just stupid. We have to change things step by step.
Men who are violent in reasonable circumstances are eugenic, hence why untethered female sexuality selects for it. The cyclical nature of history indicates that this is not an unnecessary atavism but, as the author suggests, necessary to rejuvenate the genepool. We have far too many males who seem to be incapable of violence, perhaps due to civilisation and monogamy selecting for low time preference. They are the lawful and consciousness types that you speak of, and they are not the ones being rewarded by polygamy.
Your last paragraph is great advice, though. The mannerbund breeds assertiveness which is irresistible to women. That assertiveness is not a negroidal extraversion but an indication to a woman that a man is high value, meaning that he will not tolerate poor behaviour, neither from her nor his state. He knows his value and will walk/rebel if it is not appreciated.
Right. Having a brotherhood must be the first order to achieve, and this is where many American fathers failed. It’s not entirely their fault as they grew up in the 50s and 60s where there were a ton of clubs and scouting to join in the 85% White America. So they naturally assumed that they will always be there, like everything else. This attitude is the reason why so many Boomers were shocked by the changes they never noticed while watching the football games and having fun. It’s up to we the older men to change this.
That gal blew the cover (at least for Melvin) of how most women operate, consciously or unconsciously. And I think in the current culture women have most of the cards. Actually, after the dawn of civilization they did. They were selling and men were buying. You can't buy if they're not selling. Now it's gotten worse. Men and women have separated. Throw in the lesbians and their propaganda, and sex toys, etc., and it's getting worse. But men are wiley, just like Wiley E. Coyote. Soon men will be able to send away to Acme Sexbot for a pneumatic companion, one that will give them all the sex they want and talk sweetly to them. But there will always be men who want real. What are they gonna do? Read, 'Talk to a Real, Live Girl and Other Stories' to find out.
The possibility of AI replacing female companionship is a real wildcard. I agree that it could tip the balance, but I'm not sure which way. It could make men far more docile since their basic biological imperative has been satiated. Or it could radicalize them by making them not care at all what women (and by extension society) think.
Yes. BTW, I'm looking for reviews of my book on this very subject. If you were willing to read it and review it I would send you a free copy. Talk to a Real, Live Girl and Other Stories by Paul Clayton
Out of all the "Harem talks" (a phenomenon created by the mentally unstable Walt Bismarck, but which is most amusing ) this is the only sane take I've read, which takes into account how things work instead of how they ideologically ought to work according to the very subjective morality of the writer. Thank you.
I can see now why you published books by AA, who is a fan of Evola, a guy who was unparalleled among the Right because he saw the world as it really was, by observing countless religions and tracing what they had in common in excruciating detail.
Thanks for the kind words.
This is a tricky problem. A space-faring civilization requires that men be both aggressive in body and thought and also be cooperative and conscientious in maintaining the steel womb in space. I doubt there will ever be a ultimate solution but we will see various models over time.
A ruthless campaign against the criminal element and dysgenic element by removing the stupid and violent from the gene pool may be the best solution. It would clear the field for the better quality of men.
It’s possible that even a limited polygamy (say, only 3 wives) might be better than strict monogamy. It would allow the better genes to reproduce more while limiting the monopolization of females, giving the more lawful men to pass on genes for cooperation and conscientious attention to details. But this is where having many different cultures would be advantageous because it would allows for the best practices to emerge. More importantly, I think, is that the elite must be flexible regarding the mores, allowing greater polygamy at times and greater monogamy at other times to meet the evolving situation.
At the same time, there is a need for educating the public on the reproductive trade-offs. Age and genetic compatibility have a huge impact on healthy reproduction. The 19-year old couple who are third cousins is more likely to have more and healthier babies than a couple in their 40s from different races.
What I suspect is that the biggest advantage a man can have is by focusing on building his brotherhood first. It would improve his social, martial, and economic power as a brother. It would feed his confidence which is always a chick-magnet. The more powerful his brotherhood, the more women will be attracted because they want fun and security that comes from a greater social resourcefulness.
Stupid and violent aren't even the worst of dysgenic phenotypes. There are phenotypes which work directly against solidarity and social trust that should be even more ruthlessly stamped out.
As for women, unfortunately, the general principle seems to be a loathing of brotherhood, and a passive attempt to undermine it. I don't believe this is universal, but is peculiar to southern, middleastern, and anglo women. Northern European women seem most capable of being symbiotic with strong brotherhoods.
I have one guy who insisted on open border individualism despite being shown that even if he wanted a libertarian nation, he still need a libertarian people. That means a strong state who can control the border and can filter out the non-libertarians. And that if he wanted a small government, he’ll need a strong cultural norms and strong local institutions of clan, parish, fraternity, and guild to provide support to an individual instead of the state. Naturally, he didn’t like it and refused to challenge it. He wanted to do whatever he wanted. It’s just not going to happen. Trade-offs will happen. Some are hopelessly naive and idealistic. Such people should be drafted into the Peace Corp and shipped to Africa for 10 years.
What are those final three words doing there? Historically, if you were sentenced to transportation to, say, Botany Bay, *you weren't coming back*.
A follow-up: since most Europeans tends to act emotionally rather than rational, the initial focus on the criminally stupid and violent will win faster support than just stupid. We have to change things step by step.
Men who are violent in reasonable circumstances are eugenic, hence why untethered female sexuality selects for it. The cyclical nature of history indicates that this is not an unnecessary atavism but, as the author suggests, necessary to rejuvenate the genepool. We have far too many males who seem to be incapable of violence, perhaps due to civilisation and monogamy selecting for low time preference. They are the lawful and consciousness types that you speak of, and they are not the ones being rewarded by polygamy.
Your last paragraph is great advice, though. The mannerbund breeds assertiveness which is irresistible to women. That assertiveness is not a negroidal extraversion but an indication to a woman that a man is high value, meaning that he will not tolerate poor behaviour, neither from her nor his state. He knows his value and will walk/rebel if it is not appreciated.
Right. Having a brotherhood must be the first order to achieve, and this is where many American fathers failed. It’s not entirely their fault as they grew up in the 50s and 60s where there were a ton of clubs and scouting to join in the 85% White America. So they naturally assumed that they will always be there, like everything else. This attitude is the reason why so many Boomers were shocked by the changes they never noticed while watching the football games and having fun. It’s up to we the older men to change this.
That gal blew the cover (at least for Melvin) of how most women operate, consciously or unconsciously. And I think in the current culture women have most of the cards. Actually, after the dawn of civilization they did. They were selling and men were buying. You can't buy if they're not selling. Now it's gotten worse. Men and women have separated. Throw in the lesbians and their propaganda, and sex toys, etc., and it's getting worse. But men are wiley, just like Wiley E. Coyote. Soon men will be able to send away to Acme Sexbot for a pneumatic companion, one that will give them all the sex they want and talk sweetly to them. But there will always be men who want real. What are they gonna do? Read, 'Talk to a Real, Live Girl and Other Stories' to find out.
The possibility of AI replacing female companionship is a real wildcard. I agree that it could tip the balance, but I'm not sure which way. It could make men far more docile since their basic biological imperative has been satiated. Or it could radicalize them by making them not care at all what women (and by extension society) think.
Yes. BTW, I'm looking for reviews of my book on this very subject. If you were willing to read it and review it I would send you a free copy. Talk to a Real, Live Girl and Other Stories by Paul Clayton