Polygamy is the natural state of man

Polygamy is the natural state of man.

A man can impregnate multiple women, while a woman can only carry one baby at a time.

The only hindrance to having multiple wives is that it is more economically difficult to support. But a sufficiently wealthy man has no trouble supporting many wives.

Having many wives also mean having a bigger family i.e. more opportunity for children to socialise.

Because there are so many neckbeards and autists in modern society, who have relegated themselves to forever-alonedom, polygamy is more important than ever if we don't want to have population issues and single unmarried women into their 40s.

Wives can also support one another.

Monogamy is sexual socialism.

Deep

Politics, news, and current events.
Sage.

Inshallah, brother!

Is trump a poltard like Ben?

polygamy only works(meaning no divorce) if it's society wide
society wide polygamy is degenerate and causes population decline
SAGE!

This is what people wanted by fearmongering about "muh hugbox". Now Holla Forums is just shilling and shitposting.

The male to female ratio is almost 50:50, so a lot of poorer men who otherwise would get married and contribute to society will be left with nothing while the wealthy (i.e. jews) will be able to keep numerous poorer white women all for their own pleasure.

If polygamy was the natural state of man, logic would require the female population to be at least twice that of the male population, but that is simply not the case. Humans are designed by nature to be monogamous for the best results.

DANK NASHEEDS

The world is already in polygamy, this is polygyny.

No it's not you fucking idiot. It means it's fucking regressive. Like I fucking said, this is the shit I saw in Afghanistan. Where these morons actually believed some ultra retarded shit. Polygamy is ultra destructive for progress. It's a disease that has been rotting the middle east for years and led to more hated group of people. I.E. Muslims. To have ever lived.

Ah. Yeah I re-read it. Polygamy is fine for Lions and Gorillas. But we're not lions and gorillas

polygamy is the natural state of kebabs

what happens when a small number of rich people in a society get to hoard too many women, is that ordinary men resort to fucking animals, kids and each other

while some of this is down to shitty kebab dna, it's also down to shitty practices like polygamy

Because by his dumbass definition. Afghanistan has been doing it right, and we've been doing everything wrong.

Answer is easy you silly goy. You leave your shit hole, and move to non shit hole that is monogamous, and turn it into a shit hole.

They have, they get to rape blonde Europeans and instead of facing punishment they receive government money. That's life on easy mode.

Africa and the middle east are what happen when you have polygamy.

You are suggesting that we go back to tribal bullshit.

betas get their blood sucked out by succubus and then cucked. So in the end the children are still from more successful alphas but in this case the betas are cucked into providing for another man's offspring.

This is clearly an injustice.

Taking advantage of Liberal retardation is hardly an accomplishment. But I gotta admit. It is kind of funny.

Yes but at least they get kids (their own usually).

(checked)
that polygamy would lead inevitably to a beta uprising should be surprising to no one

>>>Holla Forums

and yet the elites in all prosperous societies are polygamous and continue to be rich while the thralls are all monogamous because 'god' said so.

At this point.
Any thing to get our birthrates up.
As long as the father is around to raise his kids and not abandon them to a single parenthood then sure whatever.

Into the trash it goes.

This board is getting more degenerate by the day.

I'm on to you, Joseph.

They are degenerates because they're rich. You can be a degenerate and poor. It's just harder.

Grow up, kid.

but society as a whole was almost entirely monogamous, I don't see an argument in your post

So is being naked and shitting in the woods.

if you consider a situation where a woman latches onto a man, takes his sperm then abandons him but still takes his money as monogamy, then yeah you are right.

True.
Sitting for hours is unnatural, does it mean we should ditch computers, desks, tables and chairs?

Civilization requires culture and suppression of 'natural' states.

Natural law a shit, and polygamous societies are ALL SHIT.

Polygamy a shit.

There are many factors that go into making these societies shit, not just polygamy.

Just as socialism steals the desire of men to accomplish great things, so does sexual socialism.

What's the point of anything if you are still gonna be banging the same woman for the next 20 years?

On the other hand if great material wealth results in a younger woman every 5 years or so, that is a great motivation.

The most successful people in society are all polygamous, they just do it in secret.

Hello Mohammad, how does it feel to be a stupid dune coon? The second Crusades are coming soon. You're going to be hanged like a shit skinned buffoon.

kek, niggers aren't men.
Whites were selected for high investment offspring and high trust communities which meant one partner and loyalty to them. Monogamy is the white way of reproductive success, not pozzing as many holes as possible. Being a slut is likewise unnatural behaviour for white women too and one of the many attacks on the white race through jewish subversion.

no idea what you are talking about, do you mean current western society or what? You do realize that monogamy is dead and has been for decades?

Then how come white societies have very high divorce rate and low marriage length??

Because people are going back to what is a natural state of man.

FTFY
If polygamy was so great, you'd see at least one good polygamous society by now. It's a well documented effect that marriage makes men more productive (to pay for their kids and wives), less females available and less marriage for men (guaranteed in a widely polygamous society) then less productivity from men.

We're already seeing depressed productivity now with the orgy porgy going on and men having the age of marriage pushed up on them by whoring women and seeing less incentive to start providing or signalling themselves as providers.

They didn't always.

Early /polmeta/ was nothing BUT what you just described. Remember the pedo spam and how they whined about "muh freedumb of speech"? And other gullibile idiots supported them.

Just a friendly reminder to anyone that wants to promote this sort of thing outside 8/pol/: call it "polygyny" or else you open the floor to the most insane variety of cucks to join the discussion. Also, it's probably better off if you refer to it as such here as well because chances are some can't even pay attention long enough to see this doesn't include a woman owning several cucks.

which would usher in the end of civilization unless stopped

Because modern society is degenerate, you should expect degeneracy in every aspect of western culture. Are you really going to pretend like it's always been like this or are you going to stop being an uneducated faggot?

[citation needed]

Idiot, wasted dubs.
Men don't want 000s of sexual partners, they want 1 great woman by their side, a nice big happy family and to work hard.

Stop LARPing christcuck, the original crusades were a failure and the second ones won't happen, ever.

...

All evidence point to the contrary.

The most successful men always have multiple female partners.

Fuck off mouth-breather

Flawed thinking: It reduces all women to a role of fuckable cattle, ignores male and female capacity for love that tends to be monogamous among humans by default and leads to a historical problem of surplus young males that are unable to settle and are willing to follow aggression to secure something for themselves - including civil wars and revolutions.

Monogamous societies are the most stable and productive on account of each man's sexual needs being satisfied and investment in a family that each of them has and wants to work for. This in no way collides or prevents the outliers of single men with multiple women or single woman with multiple suitors, but those have been always social outliers that existed among the rich ( and no always) or among those outside of traditional bounds of society.

tl;dr - polygamy a shit, civilization happens with monogamy.

As long as the sex ratio of your society is 1:1 it isn't.

Christcucks are the only reason jews ever became rich and prominent.
See court jew.

you do know revolution is the mechanism for improvement, right?

without any of that we would still be living in a pre-industrial feudal society.

and if people are so willing to go to war for some pussy, how much would they be willing to do in a peaceful society? The productive capacity of men would be increased.

No you faggot, Christians had a level of dignity to not steep as low as the kikes, whenever the kikes got out of line they'd get massacred by the local populations.

At times the Jews were even forced to convert regardless of the papal bull.

Of course but not to their full potential, A life without a wife and children is a life without purpose. It gives people at reason to give a fuck about something rather them about themselves. What purpose does anyone have to do anything if Chads and Jews are the only ones that can hold down a family.

Wew, you really didn't study histoy at all did you?

Speak for yourself you gene-cuck.

>>>/reddit/ might be more appropriate for you.

So Hitler was without purpose?

You're fucking retarded.

Humans are a K select species (Large body types, long gestation periods, offspring requiring significant care prior to self-sufficiency.) which tend towards bonded pairs/monogamy.

Niggers and Mudslimes are r-select which is why you see them engaging in harems, turns the other males into cannon fodder to protect the elites.

Polygamy is fight for Israel tier.

You have to go back, Chaim.

Typical pisstian.

Not always - French and Russian revolutions unleashed the Liberal-Marxist cancer on humanity. Most advancement is actually made by way of incremental changes during time of prosperity, where surplus capital and time are spent on leisure and innovation.

Do go on, tell me. I am curious because all I ever saw was people being monogamous, upset that they are lonely or upset at others aren't monogamous to them. Polygamy is stone age concept perpetrated purely for the benefit of the top caste to the detriment of the WHOLE society - just look at shitskins and niggers in Africa, that should tell you everything about the value of polygamy

I'm not a christcuck, invader slime. What I am is a racially aware white man. A second crusade is needed. You shit skins and degenerates need to be repelled. I will put an ice pick through the skull of at least one of your brethren and watch the light fade from his eyes in the coming wars.

He was the father of Germany.

I can't be fucked for shit that's been repeated countless times to deaf ears, plus I'm on my phone.

Do a little bit of research regarding the treatment of Jews in European society, not your biased fantasies taking things out of context.

/islam/ please go and stay go.

So is living in a cave and eating raw meat

Civilization means transcending nature. Which is why monogamy is prevalent in the most civilized countries, while polygamy is common in thirdworld shitholes.

Go be a nigger somewhere else, OP.

...

And? The military is also socialist by your feeble American definition. National Socialism is socialist. Every single successful civilization in the history of the world has, with the exception of aristocracy, practiced monogamy.

Stop trying to justify your degeneration OP.

pick one faggot

...

Or meaning NO MARRIAGE

FUCK BITCHES

LET THE STATE PAY FOR THEM! GROW THE ARYAN RACE!

I don't support polygamy but you sound like a woman when you speak like this, monogamy is best but there's certainly a 'muh dik' appeal to polygamy.

What's up hipster? Do you get tricked into believing a woman could love you no matter what? hahahaha

He's speaking the truth, you're too much of a normalfag to not get triggered when confronted by truth in plain words.

That's a wonderful dream, user. I hope it happens for both you and me.

why don't you look beyond humans and into the animal kingdom and see your ignorant spastic response crumble to dust.

...

heh

It's this type of extreme ignorance that makes discussing polygyny difficult. It's only 50:50 at birth. Most countries that are not shitholes with one child policy actually tend towards more women than men.

Men tend to die sooner than women.
There are more male homosexuals than female.

There could also be more male celibate than female, but I have yet to read on that topic much.

Bottom line is that there tends to be a surplus of women so that some men can get extras without disturbing the gender balance.

I don't think that a society that allows polygyny keeps ramping up the wife hoarding indefinitely until tons of men are shit out of luck either. Instead I expect it would happen in bursts over generations as the number of surplus women rises and falls.

But here's the positive thing that some of you thirsty cockblockers seem to miss: when a society suddenly starts participating in polygyny, birthrates skyrocket compared to monogamy birthrates and magically more women are born giving you more potential mates.

Quit indulging in this fantasy that everyone mates with their own age group or that you're obligated to treat women as equal partners for any reason.

I just see this as a way a population temporarily booms. After the boom, things will just go back to monogamy for a while until the gender balance is out of whack again.

You're a very bad goy if you think you can get away with having as many white children as possible.

Homosexuality in animals is never the norm, always a deviation from the norm practiced by very few aberrant individuals or unnatural conditions (unless you are talking about social sexuality as in bonobos, not reproductive).

On the other hand there are as many examples as you may wish to hear of species that do not practice monogamy, including lots of human populations through history. In terms of genetics and social order, the main consequence is that more powerful males tend to monopolize the most desirable females, thus increasing the fitness level of the group.

Monogamy as is practiced now in the West is indeed a form socialism intended put into practice to ensure that every idiot gets a fair chance at reproducing with somebody, and alpha specimens do not impose their genes.

Society is allowed to continue when people have something to lose should society falls. This generally means property, a career, and children. Where most men have wives and children, society is strong and flourishes. Where men are unable to obtain women, they have less ties to a stable society, and are more likely to turn to violence.

There is also a problem with having 1 father to many children – the man cannot properly play the role of a father. We have already seen what happens when large numbers of children are raised by a single mother. Where a man is unable to devote his time to the children of one woman due to having too many children, he is effectively producing many children who are raised by single mothers.

Polygamy is objectively bad for society, and we should actively shame people who engage in it.

even celibate permavirgin will stand to lose the internet if society falls. Pussy isn't the only source of motivation for men you rabid feminist.

...

Counter-example: shitholes with preference for boys like China and India suffer from terrible imbalances as a result, on top of historical global preference for boys as they make better farm workers and high girl mortality due to birth and unwillingness to pay for dowries and expensive weddings. There was always more men than women and 40% of all males that ever lived never reproduced because of the female shortage, war and disease. Polygamy was always the ultimate display of barbarian loot economy and aristocratic decadence, not making a demographic difference in either case.

You have no examples, no factual evidence, just personal musings and conjecture. Fuck off.

Noty.

Temporary new sexual order is just fantasy politics, not to mention the part where anyone successfully gets people to agree to it.

Nigga you mean the 16th Crusade. Learn som history an get woke

You think I'm going to ask a weak minded cuck like you for permission to have 3 wives?

You can tell how much of a cuck somebody is by how they respond to suggestion of polygamy.

The beta cuck, afraid that their guarantee of one female will be taken away, lashes out in anger to defend the status quo.

Meanwhile, those that are willing to make the best of opportunities, the mavericks, the entrepreneurs, the fighters all are willing to go for the greater challenge and greater reward.

Monogamy is sexual socialism, intended to allow idiots to breed at the expense of the high-performing high-IQ pop while the elites will do whatever they want in either case.

It's just genetic control of the population and the betas all go along with it because they are betas.

Are you aware of how many people in our generation want to see the world burn and completely deconstructed?

user, I am suggesting that the majority of the population should have children. What the fuck are you smoking?

This is just your hedonistic sexual desire talking. It is better to breed for quality and not quantity, you can not get the same effect if you have children with many women.

Fuck off back to your failed civilization you muslim

...

Big families with one father are just fine. When your father isn't available, chances are you'll have several big brothers around for guidance, and if you're the oldest, you're the closest to the father anyways usually.

see

If you really want polygamy, move to Saudi Arabia and start worshipping the cube, maybe then they'll let you join a suicide squad and promise that you'll get your virgins in the afterlife. Moron.

You just said you are against the absolute best tactic to give whites a population boom and that you want everyone to shame those who try to participate in the boom.

You are presupposing a peaceful society, where IQ matters. But if polygamy was the norm, and the low IQ people suddenly found themselves genetically dead, they would form groups and fight to destroy that society.
And what do you know, you get to a tribalistic, violent state of affairs, as it was throughout most of our history. Say goodbye to culture and civilization, since success here is no longer dependent on IQ and trust, but on brawn and low cunning.

This, of course, has been done in the past, and the monogamous societies proved to be far more stable, wealthy and culturally rich than the polygamous warlord driven ones.

quality is determined almost entirely by genetics. you can't change your genetics so your only option is the female choice.

but females already only choose high value males, so free breeding would be the optimal solution to the human optimization problem. it is not surprising really because free breeding resulted in the development of most of the animals you see today.

This is just the triumph of the will talking. Stay a good goy. I'll make sure these women don't die childless for you.

This is false. Just apply the same logic to the current western society but replace women with money, no revolution in sight.

People don't find themselves 'genetically dead'. They might be genetically dead, but they don't know. They have the chance to struggle to not be genetically dead, and that's what they do, even when there's no guarantee. The idea that all the cucks have some hivemind connection and future sight is completely bonkers.

Yet 6000 years of civilization kinda disproves your theory.

What do you call the millions of cucks in western civilization? You can not blame it on genetic quality. They were nurtured to be that way.

Yes let's ignore the billion years of life on earth preceding the last 6000 years. it's completely irrelevant we went from single cell sea glob to elephants, humans, dolphins, cheetah, birds etc.

Name one thing humans have created in the last 6000 years that can rival the complexity and beauty of all the animals of the earth and the seas that were brought about by free breeding.

So you wish to regress society into a state of tribal government?

The result of centuries of sexual socialism.

Without it, these cucks would never get the chance to breed and multiply.

You don't see cuck lions do you? Because there's no sexual socialism with lions.

Money is not nearly enough of an incentive as women. Money is status and peer ranking, while women is survival. Even if we don't consciously understand this, everyone acts as if they are aware of this.

So yes, you are right that in our current society there is no revolution because of money, as the small socialist currents are kind of weak, and non revolutionary, yet.
But if people become aware that they will never reproduce, that is when they will take drastic action. The closest example I can think of is the Islamic world, where superfluous young men, with no chance at marriage, are encouraged to at the least move abroad to get wealth, and at the most to fight against their perceived oppressors.

My arguments are not without reason. Even if you might get more children, you would be creating a new generation of fatherless children, along with a large population of violent men. If you want to hasten the complete destruction of western society, go ahead and encourage polygamy.

That said, I would also note that polygamy isn't necessarily going to solve our population issues. The problem isn't entirely due to men being undesirable. Most men aren't neckbeards or autists. If you're perceiving them in large numbers, perhaps you should consider where you are hanging out. On the contrary, the greatest problem is both men and women completely dropping out of the sex game altogether. For men, it's the realization that marrying a woman carries a serious financial risk. For rich men, this is doubly so. The poor are more likely to breed, because they don't really consider or care about the possibility of divorce, alimony payments, or child support. For women, feminism has brainwashed them into thinking that having a child is shameful. They want to pursue careers first, and maybe have a kid in their 40s (which is of course too late) if that gets boring. Or they might think that the economy is too shitty to have a kid, or have the bullshit excuse of not wanting to contribute to overpopulation. Polygamy isn't going to fix either of these problems, and given that a number of our generation have grown up with absent fathers, it may be likely that a generation raised in polygamy (which WILL have a problem with absent fathers) might have the exact same problems.

If anything, the regression will come from low IQ people who can't logic like you.

To further support this, consider the following: Men are willing to throw away the majority of their income on a family.

You are arguing over "the natural state of man". The natural state of man is tribal, to run around in the woods shitting and throwing rocks at each other.

never said it is

as said, people can never become aware that they will never breed, because that would require prescience.

What they will have is a chance to breed if they work hard enough, and that has proven to be sufficient.

the dominant cultural influence in the islamic world is islam, not polygamy.

also most muslims actually have one wife, only the rich have multiple.

My argument is not that it is only 'natural' but it is also superior.

...

I don't see lions using computers, cars or tools either.

Your theorizing is garbage. I'd be there for those kids, and I'd set good examples to the eldest so they can help raise their younger siblings.

When a man can provide for and protect a larger than normal family, that family respects him even more and competes for his attention. This is how patriarchal order is established, by becoming your greatest potential in the presence of others, not by acknowledging a lesser woman as your equal partner.

that has nothing to do with polygamy. you only want to combine irrelevant factors and pretend them relevant.

The more kids you have, the less attention you are able to give to each kid. To support men having many wives, a man must have an extraordinarily high income, which requires a great deal of time spent on his job, thus also decreasing the amount of time for his kids. You might be able to provide for your family (or so you say), but the majority of men who take upon polygamy would not be able to perform the fatherly role.

An ideal family structure is 1 husband, 1 wife, and 2-5 children, with a supermajority of the country following this structure. Every man should be a dad if he can.

On the contrary, you are the one using lions as an example for human evolution. It only reveals the absurdity of the comparison and as an example because humans can and are monogamous in all ADVANCED societies, outliers aside.

I'm not convinced this is true in all situations. You are definitely correct that in our stable societies this is the case, as there are always opportunities and chances. I think we might have a difference of perspectives here. I can picture a situation in which enough people become completely disillusioned with the state they are in, where they see no more opportunities within the rules. IN other words, what happens when people don't get their chance to breed no matter how hard they work? The worrying thing for me is that we seem to be heading in that direction, with our current laws and western culture. And the proposal of polygamy in this thread would only exacerbate that problem.

True, but even a small percentage of women being taken out of the marriage market creates a surplus of men. And this surplus must be dealt with somehow. If you ignore them, you'll constantly get this class of malcontents from where challenge of authority comes.
In Islam they are repressed with very harsh laws regarding interaction with women, and they are also trying to redirect their energy into religious practice and colonization. In the west, excess men are pacified with entertainment, and with the promise of opportunity. And historically these men were sent to war.

False, not all children need the same parental attention at all ages, with teens requiring it the least when compared with newborns and toddlers, not to mention traditional families made use of extended family members like grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings and older children.

Excluding the old-style family however, your 2-5 estimate on children in a modern nuclear family is about right.

It's self limiting in that most can only become so rich, so normally I don't imagine most men suddenly getting more children than they can handle at once. Who says all the wives happen at the same time anyways? If these kids are all different ages, why does it have to be a juggling act? You don't need serious father involvement for babies or for those in their 20s.

If I don't have a second wife by the time the first hits menopause, it'll be time to get another younger wife who is actually fertile, and in that case it's just like making the same amount of kids as a guy with one wife again.

They won't be, so it's up to others to step up to the plate.

How many times do we need to have this debate?

The betas of society won't produce anything if they're not given incentive to contribute. That incentive is a mate.

Also, wealth is a horrible indicator of intelligence or healthy genes these days. Most wealthy people are literally kikes.

Now, if you were proposing a breeding program where we matched up men and women with the best genes (I'm out with my scrawny 5'10 frame and 130-140 range IQ so this doesn't come from a place of bias) then you have my ear, that's something worth having a discussion about.

Ancient Europeans practiced monogamy but only amongst the royalty so people wouldn't end up screwed over because the king died with no heir.

2-5 averages 3.5. 3.5/2 is 1.75 replacement rate. At this rate after 10 generations we would have 270 people for each 1 starting person. If generation time is 25 years then in 250 years we would have 81 billion people starting from 300 million americans.

your ideal is stupid.

No I used lions to prove a point of natural biological evolution.

You just miscomprehended my point due to your own personal ignorance. That's on you.

Jim pls

I can come up with contrived hypothetical scenario to make any social organisation looks bad.

It is on you to show me a realistic plausible scenario which you have failed.

except there is already a natural surplus of women due to neckbeards, autism, higher male death rate, higher female birth rate, voluntarily celibacy and other factors.

sexual socialism won't make a neckbeard any more attractive. If he got married he would just get cucked. So you end up with the same situation as a polygamous society except the betas are not deluded.

So your proposal is really that we should delude the betas to keep society going.

How many times this has to be shot down?

Plenty of betas contribute to society with no prospect of female companionship.

Your pussy-worship is evident, little cuck. Not everyone's sole purpose in life is pussy.

Lol lashing out like the faggot you are.

I don't worship pussy, I treat women like shit and they love it. But that's neither here nor there.

Just because you suck cocks doesn't mean what I said is invalid.

It's like they think nerds get into computer science not because they think computers are fucking cool but because they think they'll get all the pussy in the world by programming in C.

I almost took the bait, OP.

Do you think these guys did it all because one day they might get stale leftover pussy that the alphas were finished with?

No, actually it looks more to me like to betas don't contribute anything to society. These guys were alpha in that they most likely pursued a nerdy path just because that's what they liked to do.

You are assuming a perfectly even distribution. Most people will have around 2.

Just like there are niggers with IQs above 130? The majority of the unmarried contribute far less and have less motive to do so. Importantly, they don't contribute to the creation of new citizens. Now, whilst this is nullified under polygyny, the point of demotivation still stands. Additionally, you end up with a shitload of sexless and angry young men, which is crap for social development.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

Yeah, and those species have never created civilizations. You're literally advocating reversion to a more primitive state of man, as well as destruction of society to focus on internal sexual competition instead. That's fucking retarded.

Buddy…

Birthrate is a function of women. Polygamy doesn't affect it at all. If anything it would lessen it, as one man is less and less likely to be able to support two children or more per woman as the number of women increases.

Not even mentioning that two dozen children to a father would require such an extreme social restructuring in order for proper parenting that you might as well just take the easier (and more successful) route of monogamy.

Nope. Biologically you're lucky if you reproduce, and every man having one woman is basically more than they, as organisms, can reasonably expect. Not to mention the "monogamy is boring :((((" attitude is entirely artificial and borne from Jewish propaganda.

More like:
That's the real motivator for civilizations.

Clearly they are what make civilizations great, rather than being social defects. That's why they had to offer Newton a harem before he did any of his best work.

Only when all other options are exhausted, retard. They're not desirable thing in and of themselves. We certainly don't want them ingrained in our social fabric.

Genius.

We must look to the animals for how to build civilization, of course!

[citation needed]

Literally just an emotional appeal, combined with disgusting elitism.

lol fuck the plebs, right? They obviously can't compete with a superman like you!

Polygamy does not create population booms. You still have the same number of women, which means the upper limit of child-bearing is still the same.

That's the case nowadays, you ignoramus, and we're seeing a drastic IQ decline. And no, it's not just due to subhumans.

How specious. Civilization was not created by what you crudely call free-breeding. Precisely the opposite.

Explain how blind evolution somehow leads to civilization when every civilization goes against your bullshit.

I think it'd become pretty obvious when they do not foresee a high possibility of getting a woman without violence. Or do you not set an alarm because you can't be sure the Sun will rise tomorrow?

Don't be a moron. When the majority of women are married to a handful of men, and most men find themselves unmarried, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that they'd assume a low probability of reproduction without resorting to violence.

ca8e89 can't into inductive reasoning.

They'll take the easy path, and when you make that easy path "destroy the system, seize the woman" instead of "work hard" you virtually guarantee it will happen.

Well, at least you admitted you hate civilization. Now GTFO.

More productive energy is harnassed by given betas low-fitness wives. That is fact, and is not at all affected by your flimsy "S-Some betas…!" disagreement.

That's a laugh coming from a poster going on and on about his absurd woman-claiming fantasies. How many women are you going to personally going to steal from all us other men (who are obviously betas) again? Please, regale us about what an Aryan übermensch you are, and how much you deserve extra women.

But don't worry, it's not pussy-worship!

Your ridiculous post is predicated on the assertion that "alphas" automatically get all women, as well as an absurdity that most men don't want to reproduce.

It can IF and ONLY IF there is a large population of women and a small population of men, most likely as a result of war. Polygamy is an emergency repopulation strategy that works really only in one circumstance.

But it shouldn't be allowed for more than 1 or 2 generations, and it certainly shouldn't be used in our current situation, where the problem isn't "most of the men have died off"

Go outside. 4chan and Holla Forums are not reflective of the vast majority of the populace. Fat and ugly women are about as common as socially awkward men.

Much lower than it's been in the past. There's no draft, and we don't lose that many soldiers these days in wars anyways because it's mostly just bombing Muslims.

It's not significantly higher. In the US, women are 50.4% of the population.

Here's the problem: women are doing that too

Polygamy is for kings, we don't have kings anymore.

The most ideal scenario would be the most fit man breeding like bunnies.

The problem is that the most fit man nowadays are not the 'best' man, but the most treacherous bastard

A man can kill a lot of people too, that does not mean that this is the natural state of man

being able to do it, and it being the best way are different things

The natural state is for the most genetically superior Chad to get all of the women while the betas are left out to rot. This ensures that the race is continuously bred upwards. Meanwhile, the inferior genetics are periodically culled by sending the betas out to die by the thousands in Chad's petty wars and land disputes.

Low body fat and lack of subdermal water isn't particularly good for survival. Look at zyzz for example.

...

At this point, fuck it. Women are turning more and more un-loyal as the years go by.

Too many feminists telling them all men care about sex, but what we really want in a wife is loyalty.

Bullshit. This is literally nigger tier. Civilization depends on much, much more than ooga-booga muh alffa. Your "chads" are cannon fodder, nothing more. Once in a while intelligent alphas come around, like Trump, and that's great and necessary. Your football playing mouth breather jock? I couldn't care less. Leave that for the nogs. Beside, the guy on the pic - do you even OHP?

Gold, man…. Gold.

Women are gold diggers by INSTINCT.

IT's in their chromosomes.

And if you let someone else hold your gold, they get your women too.

Savvy?

...

Post yfw you realize that animals are attracted to shiny shit because it looks like

it might be water.