BEGINNING OF PART III
(http://www.westernvoices.com/audio/john_young/prost3of4.mp3)
It’s time, now, for some straight talk. It’s time to put aside all the romantic and chivalrous notions, and get down to brass tacks about the reality of relations between men and women.
The first thing I want you to understand is that, in general, people have no real clue about why they do what they do when it comes to sexual behavior. Because sex is integral to the procreation of our Folk, every possible aspect of sex has been subjected to the crucible of evolution. Because we are social creatures, evolution has affected us at a group level, at an individual level, and differently according to whether we are male or female.(26)
When I speak of how evolution has affected us, I am speaking in terms of tendencies toward monogamy or polygamy, fidelity, infidelity, promiscuity and even the physical traits and personalities we find attractive.(27) Some of these traits include factors unknown until recent times, such as the ability of a woman to subconsciously detect compatibility through discerning important traits of a prospective mate’s immune system.
Our evolution has endowed us, not with cut-and-dried traits in most circumstances; but rather with broad tendencies that are socially significant at a macroscopic level; though not necessarily predictive of a particular individual’s tendencies or behavior. This is appropriate because having sexual behaviors regulated by a combination of tendencies and environment generally makes us more adaptable and thus adaptive.
Like many psychological traits, such as the tendency toward honesty or dishonesty; these evolutionarily endowed tendencies are implicit within us; and subject to modification within certain limits through physical or social environment and explicit beliefs. There are also cases where we have developed social conventions and controls in order to emphasize or de-emphasize various tendencies; and thereby created a self-reinforcing feedback loop for our benefit.
Likewise, where we are dealing with the very powerful natural forces of our sexuality, especially if those natural forces run contrary to an established social norm, we will develop a sort of self-dialog in which the behavior is justified in our mind by a host of external factors unrelated to the actual tendency giving rise to the behavior.
In addition, our Folk have evolved over a long period of time. Some tendencies that evolved many thousands of years ago when they were adaptive may, in fact, be maladaptive within the context of today’s society.
Another thing to understand is that the expression of tendencies does not have to be widespread among our people for it to be problematic. As few as 4% of European-American men and 2% of European-American women can be said to have substantive psychopathic traits. Yet, just that small portion of our population accounts for police, a criminal justice system, jails and an entire multi billion dollar infrastructure along with leaving many of our Folk in fear.
The same applies when I speak of hypergamic and polygamic tendencies. Our people are not stupid — we can see what is happening all around us. The experiences of others … affect us. We don’t have to have been burned personally to shy away from a hot stove.
In these respects, then, human sexuality for European-derived people is extremely complex. One cannot just make a blanket statement about any aspect of our sexuality. Every tendency exists on a continuum rather than as an absolute; and these tendencies can be activated or de-activated based upon environment, social factors, explicit processing and even the content of television programs; as Ill be discussing later.
Not only is our sexuality complex, but because of the profound political implications of many aspects of human sexuality; it is one of the most debated and explored subjects around; and also one of those subjects most plagued by phony research.
Sometimes, because we are nowhere near as smart as we think, we rush into something as complex as our sexuality without considering or even contemplating all the potential ramifications. For example, we have recently learned that an important part of a woman’s mate selection lies in her ability to subconsciously sense certain genetic components of a prospective mate’s immune system. This is part of the all-important “chemistry” of attraction. We have also learned, decades later, that birth control pills cause women to choose, quite literally, the wrong mates in terms of immunity. This has profound implications. One article described the problems like this:
“Women who start or stop taking the pill, then, may be in for some relationship problems. A study published last year in Psychological Science found that women paired with MHC-similar men are less sexually satisfied and more likely to cheat on their partners than women paired with MHC-dissimilar men. So a woman on the pill, for example, might be more likely to start dating a MHC-similar man, but he could ultimately leave her less sexually satisfied. Then if she goes off the pill during the relationship, the accompanying hormonal changes will draw her even more strongly toward more MHC-dissimilar men. These immune genes may have a “powerful effect in terms of how well relationships are cemented,” says University of Liverpool psychologist Craig Roberts, co-author of the August paper.” (28)
My point in bringing this up is to illustrate how amazingly complex human sexuality really is, and how the smallest and most innocuous things can have tremendous ramifications when examined on a societal scale — ramifications that nobody even suspected at the time. In retrospect, this sort of thing isn’t exactly shocking. As Craig Roberts noted, “It wouldn’t surprise me if sabotaging our reproductive machinery would lead to faulty mate choice.”
I’ll be talking about this again in a few minutes.
—————
Meanwhile, let’s look at monogamy and polygamy in European-derived people. Our Folk have innate tendencies toward both monogamy AND polygamy. As I described earlier, our tendencies lie on a spectrum.
Supporting the tendency toward polygamy, specifically the form of polygamy called polygny in which one man mates with several women, is the natural law that an average size differential between the sexes of a species wherein males are physically larger than females indicates a long period of time, thousands of years at least, of a form of polygamy known as polygyny. That is, the fact that the average European-American male is 20% larger than his female counterpart is scientific proof-positive that at some point in the past our Folk evolved for a considerable length of time with a reproductive model that paired one man with multiple women. This is also reflected by the fact that over the past several thousand years, while 90% of all European women made it into the gene pool; only 60% of men did. A little basic math demonstrates that polygyny occurred.(29)
Before you men listening to me get all excited, you need to do a little math and realize that under such a scenario, the overwhelming preponderance of men end up with NO women. Look at what has happened under those sects of Mormonism that practice polygamy: excess males are discarded with no support as though they didn’t even exist. If you take a close look at the fact that 1% of the population controls 38% of the wealth in this country(30), you will quickly realize that it is monogamy and NOT polygamy, that works the best for most men. As one authority stated: “Men in monogamous societies imagine they would be better off under polygyny. What they don’t realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all, or, if they are lucky, a wife who is much less desirable than one they could get under monogamy.”(31)
Under polygyny, then, the average man would have no wife; and the above-average man would have an extremely unattractive wife and be VERY lucky to have her.
Polygamy, then, is an adaptive strategy for most WOMEN. George Bernard Shaw expressed it this way: “The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first-rate man to the exclusive possession of a third-rate one.”
A recent Psychology Today article put the matter clearly: “When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man.
The only exceptions are extremely desirable women. Under monogamy, they can monopolize the wealthiest men; under polygyny, they must share the men with other, less desirable women. However, the situation is exactly opposite for men. Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that’s much better than not marrying anyone at all.”(32)
So polygamy in its polygynous form is a reproductive strategy beneficial to a small percentage of men but a very large percentage of women. It therefore stands to reason that, even without any specific conscious aim in that direction, when women write legislation pertaining to marital matters it will tend to favor economic polygamy. And, most certainly, that is EXACTLY what we see today with laws governing provision of child support. A man who has re-married but is sending money to his ex-wife every week is, in economic terms, polygamous in that more than one woman is deriving resources from one man.
Likewise, laws in most states which create sole or primary physical custody, leave the man without a child around for twelve days out of fourteen — leaving him free to play the sexual field.
It is no mistake that these sorts of laws — polygamic laws — are favored by major feminist organizations such as NOW whereas the exact opposite — joint parenting laws which are more friendly to monogamy than polygamy — are put forth by men’s rights organizations.
The high-end prostitutes we have been discussing have also adopted a strategy centered around polygamy; except instead of engaging in self-deception, most of them state outright that they favor such a system. The average high-end prostitute is very pretty, and much brighter than average. The trouble for these women is that the supply of relatively wealthy men is much smaller than the supply of beautiful and intelligent women. Thus, these women — under a system of monogamy — would be left to command far fewer resources. Rather than accept that fate, these women instead derive their resources, in aggregate, from the relatively small pool of men who can afford to pay $200, $300, $500 or even $1,000 for a single act of sex. This is nothing more than polygamy under the guise of sex-for-money.
Looking now to monogamy, Dr. Kevin MacDonald has stated that, at least for those of our ancestors who evolved in the harsh climate of Northern Europe, it is highly likely that a genetic predisposition toward monogamy was inculcated. Specifically, he spoke of ” … a strong tendency toward monogamy.”(33)
Any trait of this nature lies along a continuum; and some people will have stronger tendencies toward monogamy than others. It is clear from the scientific record, as I previously described, and from written history, that a certain amount of polygamy has been historically present among the high-status males of Europe. Caesar observed that the Gauls were polygamous(34) and Tacitus wrote that German chiefs usually had several wives. Even in later times, various high-status males were polygamous. The widespread presence of polygamy among the upper classes led one historian of marriage to state: “The white race has no divine investiture. Like all the others, it has been polygamous; and we have only to open our eyes to perceive that, in the present day, in the countries that are most civilized, and even in the classes reputed to be the most distinguished, the majority of individuals have polygamic instincts which they find it difficult to resist.”(35)
What this man is saying, we can see played out in the newspapers every day. Just recently, in Minnesota, a huge investigation finally brought down a sort of club called the “Minnesota Nice Guys.” This club was composed of 30 well-to-do businessmen, lawyers and doctors — and served to bring in prostitutes from all over the country who would be paid as much as $500/hour.(36)
If you are paying attention, at first blush these seem to contradict — but they don’t. Let me set it straight.
During pre-history, our ancestors were polygamous and strongly so, as evidenced by the average difference in size between males and females. Some of these polygamous tendencies remain with us today. As the environment grew more harsh, environmental conditions made monogamy more sensible as the wealth differential between males was too small to give many males, even chieftains, enough resources to support multiple mates and their offspring. Some of these monogamous tendencies remain with us today as well. As we went through a period of history where wealth differentials became more pronounced; high-status males such as kings adopted polygamy again.
So today it cannot be said that we are absolutely monogamous or absolutely polygamous by tendency. Tendencies in both directions are present; and will vary in degree with each individual. And the way those tendencies are expressed will be affected by environmental factors. But what we CAN say without reservation is that we share with birds the characteristic of being what is called “socially monogamous.”(37) Genetically monogamous species never cheat; whereas infidelity exists among socially monogamous species.
Probably the most objective proof of social monogamy rather than genetic monogamy being the norm for our folk lies in rates of non-paternity. “Non-paternity” refers to a circumstance in which a husband and wife raise a child that the husband believes to be his own, but is rather the product of the wife mating with another man. Tests consistently show that about 10% of babies born to married couples are not the offspring of the husband, even though the wife has led the husband to believe it to be his.(38)(39) Obviously, not all acts of adultery on the part of women result in pregnancy, especially with widespread use of birth control pills. So, clearly, a pretty large number of married women cheat on their husbands. According to WebMD: “One in five married women has had a fling — the highest numbers ever recorded, according to one group of researchers. In fact, the numbers of cheating wives now equals the statistics on cheating husbands.”(40) Once again, genetically monogamous animal species do not cheat.
So, as a people, though we have various tendencies, our traditional mode of monogamy is a SOCIAL norm rather than a genetic one. The reason I am stressing this is because a norm that is socially established is much more vulnerable to manipulation than a norm that is genetically-based.
As a people, we have consciously and deliberately chosen social monogamy as a social norm for a host of very important reasons.
Perhaps, in our pre-history, our children didn’t need to learn a lot in order to earn a valued place among the tribe. Pure genetics for size, strength and intelligence — in other words, hardware — were more important to life than education and knowledge — in other words, software. In such an environment, polygyny such that the strongest men had multiple wives made sense. And this is where the female tendency toward hypergamy comes from.
Today, our children often have to be educated for a couple of decades just to be economically viable. Our technologies, legal systems, customs and economic systems are infinitely more complex than they were. Now, a child given superior knowledge and education can achieve better success than a child with superior genetics in many cases. The software has become as important as the hardware. When the software becomes as important as the hardware, high-investment parenting becomes the rule.
Whereas, in our pre-history, a child probably didn’t need much one-on-one attention from his or her father to develop sufficient potential to survive in those times; at some point along the line, a thousand years ago and in some places even more than 2,000 years ago, we crossed a critical threshold where fairly intense parental involvement on the part of the biological fathers of our children became tremendously important for the wellbeing of our children. When the father must give one-on-one attention to children, monogamy rather than polygamy is the superior solution for those kids.
Thus we have become socially monogamous. In the complex society we have today, children raised without their biological fathers in the home start out with several strikes against them. If you think about it, the situation where a man has 10 wives and 30 kids isn’t much different from absence in terms of the father’s availability of time.
So even though we have tendencies toward both monogamy and polygamy; we have historically erected substantial social structures to encourage and protect monogamy. This is not to benefit either men or women as a class; but rather to benefit the next generation. The rise of our Folk to world dominance in practically every field under social monogamy is a pretty clear indication that monogamy is good for us. Therefore, anything that threatens monogamy is bad; whereas policies that support monogamy are good.
—————
Now, let’s take a look a female hypergamy. Hypergamy exists independently of tendencies related to polygamy or monogamy.
As I explained earlier, hypergamy is a tendency of women to seek men who are older, wealthier, better educated or in some other important way “greater” than themselves. If allowed to run amok or explicitly encouraged, hypergamy can certainly tend toward polygamy; but this isn’t automatic. Many monogamous unions — very happy ones — are hypergamous.
Some people contrast hypergamy with another tendency, known as homogamy, in which individuals seek to marry others who are like themselves in terms of status, class, ethnicity or religion.
Attempts to contrast these tendencies as though they are an “either/or” matter are faulty; in that such contrasts fail to recognize that hypergamy and homogamy are both multidimensional. Thus, a marriage may be religiously or ethnically homogamous but simultaneously hypergamous in terms of wealth, class or education.
Tendencies toward both hypergamy and homogamy exist within European-American women. And these will be exercised within different dimensions depending upon environment, social factors and individual values.
That having been said, fully 10% — TEN PERCENT — of the children born to married couples in this country are the result of cuckoldry.(41)(42) Among lower-status white communities, that figure is closer to 30%. And when women do this, they almost universally opt for a male that they view to be of higher status than their husband.(43) They aren’t out boinking the pool boy, they are instead getting naked with their boss or even their husband’s boss. Even average women — who, by definition are suitable mates for average men — often consider themselves to be “worthy” of men better than the ones they have. In practice, when these women divorce their first husbands, they seldom manage to remarry a better man than the one they divorced; and feel the world has cheated them.(44)
The male drive is simple: he wants to impregnate as many women with his seed as humanly possible in the shortest time possible. If he has a choice, he goes with the woman who looks physically healthiest and best-formed. Because sex within such a context is not very expensive to men; this “sowing of wild oats” was sensible at certain points of our history. Women, on the other hand, have to carry a baby for nine months and then undertake its care during its most vulnerable years. A single act of sex can be very expensive for a woman in terms of time and energy. Therefore, the woman’s drive is to always seek the most genetically fit man possible as well as the man who will provide the best odds of survival for children in terms of directly or indirectly rendered resources. Because you can’t see genes, the markers for superior genes such as wealth, education, status, height, health or authority become the attractants.
This is far from a foolproof strategy. Whereas, in our pre-history the man with the most resources was likely the smartest and/or strongest; that is no longer the case today. In fact, a strong case can be made that many of the men with the most resources in today’s world are among the most psychopathic(45) — most assuredly traits that we don’t need in the next generation. Except in the broadest of categories, there is no direct correspondence between IQ and wealth either. The average corporate CEO has an IQ of 104(46) and makes tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars annually; whereas the average engineer has an IQ of over 130(47), but earns a median wage of around $85,000 a year(48).
So while there is a general correspondence between IQ and wealth; that correspondence is rather broad such that once a woman has married a man in the top 25% of wage-earners; it’s unlikely that by divorcing and re-marrying or cuckolding her husband she is substantively improving the genetics she is passing on to her children; and there are a number of cases where she could be doing much worse.
One observer described female hypergamy in stark terms that all too many men listening to me today will recognize from their personal experience:
“Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may be only one “alpha male” at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is fickle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime. In bygone days, it was permitted to point out natural female inconstancy. Consult, for example, Ring Lardner’s humorous story “I Can’t Breathe”—the private journal of an eighteen year old girl who wants to marry a different young man every week. If surveyed on her preferred number of “sex partners,” she would presumably respond one; this does not mean she has any idea who it is.
An important aspect of hypergamy is that it implies the rejection of most males. Women are not so much naturally modest as naturally vain. They are inclined to believe that only the “best” (most sexually attractive) man is worthy of them. This is another common theme of popular romance (the beautiful princess, surrounded by panting suitors, pined away hopelessly for a “real” man—until, one day…etc.).
This cannot be objectively true, of course. An average man would seem to be good enough for the average woman by definition. If women were to mate with all the men “worthy” of them they would have little time for anything else. To repeat, hypergamy is distinct from monogamy. It is an irrational instinct, and the female sexual utopia is a consequence of that instinct.”(49)
One more thing is important here, and its effects cannot be understated.
In a society in which resource concentration among males is relatively equitable; both men and women are better off mated together and the consequences of the female hypergamic drive are minimal.
BUT — when large inequities of resources start to surface, such as what we are seeing today; the female hypergamic drive kicks in.(50) You then have mating patterns that look a lot more like “Sex and the City” than stereotypical middle-America. And when you add easy access to no-fault divorce into the mix; you can now easily see why 70% of all divorces are filed by women and only 30% are filed by men. And when you take into account that men usually file on behalf of their spouses, it turns out that fully 90% of the divorces being filed in this country are being initiated by women.(51)
And why shouldn’t women initiate divorce? In cases where child custody is disputed, they win 90% of the time and thereby establish a direct pipe right into the wallet of the man they are rejecting. There is little or no disincentive.(52)
Shere Hite reports that “ninety-one percent of women who have divorced say they made the decision to divorce, not their husbands,” so it is absolutely no wonder why men are more than just a little hesitant to “commit.” The commitment, it turns out, is now a one-sided deal. Though many feminists argue that women are initiating divorce in order to escape abuse; objective data says this is untrue. In fact, only a tiny number of divorces are for reasons of abuse, violence or adultery. The most prominently featured reasons for ending a supposedly life-long commitment are “growing apart” or “not feeling loved or appreciated.”(53) One comprehensive study explained why women file these divorces very simply: “who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce.”(54)
So, while women are supposed to pursue their personal satisfaction, men are not only expected, but often legally compelled to sacrifice their time, resources and freedom to fulfill the traditional roles of protector and provider for wife and family, even when the wife has decided to leave him in pursuit of her whims. And woe betide the man who fails to comply with his wife’s whims!
And this, too, is why the married men I interviewed would rather have their needs for companionship and intimacy met by a WHORE than confront their wives. Because of the combination of polygamous child support laws, no-fault divorce laws that cater to female hypergamic tendencies and biased courts that are still mis-rendering noblesse oblige to the stronger rather than the weaker party; marriage isn’t even CLOSE to an equal partnership. It is a one-sided partnership where the power of the female is so much greater than that of the male that he dare not even raise his voice to secure what should be a basic right of marriage.
Furthermore, the closest thing we have to a “saint” in modern society is the much-lauded “single mother.” The single mother is given practically anything she wants or needs. Special work accommodations, special tax incentives, free educational opportunities and on and on and on. Anything you incentivize as a society, you get more of. And, sure enough, 30% of our children — European-American children — are now being born without fathers in the home; and another third end up without biological fathers in the home due to divorce. So 2/3rds of our kids are being raised without their dads. Half of those by women who actively chose unwed motherhood, and 91% of the remaining half from divorces initiated by the mothers.
Then, of course, female hypergamic tendencies tie in very closely to the high-priced prostitution that is dominated by European-American women. As I described earlier, the supply of pretty and intelligent European-American women is far greater than the supply of wealthy European-American men. In a world with high saturation of materialistic values buttressed by feminist philosophy specifically advocating prostitution as a positive and empowering lifestyle; these women knowingly CHOOSE prostitution for the specific purpose of sharing an overwhelmingly already-married population of wealthier than average men.