Charles Synyard[Reply to <a href="https://gab.com/ShemNehm/posts/105911607409836508" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://gab.com/ShemNehm/posts/105911607409836508</a> on Gab]<br><br>A classic statement of the case from the monogamist side. As with much of what passes for republican ethics, this reasoning has little to nothing to do with right or wrong, but is driven by satiating popular envy. Reading this summary brought back my reading of the Life of Publicola in Plutarch’s Lives; that Roman foe of the Tarquins had his own mansion demolished (shown) just to pander to those among the masses who though he lived too like a monarch himself.<br><br>I have to wonder if this cited authority really deserves plaudits for noticing that there is generally a parity between the sexes, but mathematical models said to produce rules that will maximize happiness have a way of holding people in awe, of convincing them that the trappings of what they’d considered the good life are actually an evil, and that strict adherence will make some unlikely utopia become reality.<br><br>Maybe the case is not so farfetched here. Single marriages are, and always will be, the most prevalent, and can certainly be very happy. Nonetheless, humans are not such uncreative creatures: it’s clear that there’s more than one way to reach an equilibrium. In Polygamy Reconsidered, Fr. Eugene Hillman remarked on how lifelong single men were rarer in African tribes that practiced polygyny, than in the Europe of half a century ago. Impossible? Men simply married years later than women, so a growing population meant that there were always extra women for plural marriages. To be sure, in general White birth rates are well below replacement, but polygamous communities are an exception, so they could easily reach an equilibrium in a different way now.<br><br>Even more importantly, and to finally bring in some thinking about right and wrong, in these plans that treat men and women as needy abstractions we have only to pacify, that human experience shows a good man can be husband to two or three women just as well as to one, whilst a woman can only be a true wife to one man, is taken to be some minor detail that is both irrelevant and inconsequent, as if our bodily nature doesn’t imply anything about what’s permitted in pursuing one’s own good. Ignored, too, is the consideration that if we were speaking about possession of money, or of land, we would decry as naive and ignorant socialism the claim that others had to pony up and give the have-nots an equal share, simply because they were indigent. Yet, when it comes to women, “we are all socialists now”… unless we believe in plural marriage!<br><br>Is it right to try to penalize a man for taking a second wife? A woman for pledging to have children exclusively by a man who already has a wife? Or a wife for generously welcoming another woman to be her husband’s faithful mate? Other men were not barred from seeking the plural wife’s hand: she simply did not choose them. Here, multiple ethical viewpoints should be in alignment. Libertarians seeking to respect individual rights, as well as virtue ethicists (such as myself) who look to the good of natural excellence implied by nature, should be at one in seeing plural marriage as an option. In spite of the word “socialist” in the name, for National Socialists and other racialists, it is a no-brainer than men are unequal, and some have more desirable traits that may merit multiple women. Whether plural marriages should be arranged by the woman’s father, by permission of the state, or solely by the spouses, is a matter for heated contention, but here irrelevant, as it just shows that polygyny is recognizable as a good across many contexts and belief systems.<br><br>Finally, does polygyny inevitably cause destruction of the social order, barbarism, and chaos? That doesn’t sound good. The key point is recognizing that this plausible-sounding claim is a theory, and as the great American sage put it, In theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. The claim sounds plausible if limited to the White western world, which has been monogamous as a rule for a very long time. But it breaks down when we ask if civilization, here, simply means White. Japan and China had polygyny until the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively, while the Arab world continues to have it to this day, and they have been known for some of the most celebrated civilizations of all time. According to some airtight definition, are Heian Japan, the Middle Kingdom, and the Abbasid Caliphate all some Hobbesian state of nature? I think we need a new theory. As a matter of fact, as I showed recently, whereas an occidental visitor to the Sublime Porte or the Forbidden City who caught a glimpse of the harem might’ve imagined he was seeing a survival of barbarism, some commonsense reflections show that such glorious harems in the grand style only became possible precisely because of civilization, such things as walls, morals, and laws. <a href="https://gab.com/CharlesSynyard/posts/112633985842145446" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://gab.com/CharlesSynyard/posts/112633985842145446</a><br><br>Of course, I don’t deny that the Ancien Régime, monogamous or polygamous, could be tumultuous, rife with dynastic intrigue. But whether the kinds of immortal, immutable states republicans aspire to build and maintain with social engineering (shown) have been conducive to human happiness, I very much doubt. It is perfectly understandable that the central state’s mandarins despise polygyny, which tends to build very sizable families that can become very influential on the local level, and even become rival nodes of authority to state functionaries. But there is every reason those who cherish moral goodness, liberty, family, and race should welcome it. There is no doubt in my mind, that peaceful, freely chosen plural marriages, entered into for their own sake, will be of the most decisive importance in finally ending the New World Order, or lifting the Iron Heel (shown) from the neck of man. <br><br>(Okay, one last thing “shown”: a shaming ritual in China’s Cultural Revolution. Why? If you needed one more redpill, it was only when Mao took power that polygyny was outlawed in China. Communism, in the end, is but a tendency within republicanism. This pic the desired treatment of those who disobey the arbitrary, tyrannical “a girl for every boy, a boy for every girl” social contract?) <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/pluralmarriage" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#pluralmarriage</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/polygyny" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#polygyny</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/polygamy" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#polygamy</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/monogamy" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#monogamy</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/williamtucker" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#WilliamTucker</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/utopianism" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#utopianism</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/republicanism" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#republicanism</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/republican" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#republican</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/socialism" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#socialism</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/socialist" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#socialist</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/communism" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#communism</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/communist" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#communist</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/culturalrevolution" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#culturalrevolution</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/socialcontract" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#socialcontract</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/anarchotyranny" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#anarchotyranny</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/theoryvspractice" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#theoryvspractice</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/ethics" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#ethics</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/morals" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#morals</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/liberty" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#liberty</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/freedom" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#freedom</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/family" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#family</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/race" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#race</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/newworldorder" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#NewWorldOrder</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/nwo" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#NWO</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/socialorder" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#socialorder</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/civilization" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#civilization</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/stateofnature" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#stateofnature</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://bae.st/tag/ironheel" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#IronHeel</a><br><br><br>[Edit: I posted the above before reading Tucker’s two National Review articles, the longer 1993 and shorter 2014 one, as linked in the quoted post. I was in a hurry (I was supposed to be sleeping), but given the terms of the argument, I surmised that reading them was not necessary for an adequate response, and am happy to see I had guessed aright.<br>“Monogamy Made Us Human” <a href="https://archive.ph/HIvyq" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/HIvyq</a> (what a claim!) has an interesting picture of what promiscuous mating looks like among chimps. In that as many as half of offspring are born to a female preferred consort, rather than at random, it bears an astonishing resemblance to the fatherhood deception described in Plato’s Republic. As in the summary, Tucker inveighs against would-be polygamists for no greater crime than breaking an implicit social contract…<br>In the more detailed “Monogamy and Its Discontents” (the link is dead—you have to read it here <a href="https://archive.ph/SEfTV" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/SEfTV</a>) we can see that the narrative that monogamy is some unique development that makes us human was very overstated: humans have pursued a lot of different mating strategies, and many more are apparent among other primates and in the rest of the animal kingdom. Tucker claims that the most advanced civilizations are monogamous, but doesn’t put much work into downgrading polygynous examples such as I pointed out (the Orientals are an interesting lot: Tucker says they are even more monogamous than Whites, but clearly this was out of free choice, rather than by force, as there are many examples of plural marriage there until recent times).<br>One very irritating thing Tucker does repeatedly is use sleight of hand to substitute monogamy, when he is talking about matrimony. The premise of the article is that monogamy had weighty ”discontents” that were causing its decline—but in virtually every instance where he brings up how things stood in American culture as of 1993, he is clearly talking about assaults on marriage as such. Viz.,<br>”Dislike and distaste for anything that challenges the monogamous contract easy divorce, widespread pornography, legalized prostitution, out-of-wedlock child bearing, blatant homosexuality-are not just narrow or prudish concerns. They come from an intelligent recognition that the monogamous contract is a fragile institution that can easily unravel if dissaffections become too widespread.”<br>You will notice that none of those five things are challenges to monogamy specifically. At one point Tucker acknowledges,<br>“Yet even where polygamy is openly sanctioned, childrearing is always built around the formation of husband-and-wife households--even if these households may contain several wives.”<br>In other words, none of these criticisms apply to plural marriage (and that would include when it is practiced among White Americans)—but National Review let Tucker‘s piece see print with him merely labeling promiscuity as polygamy. Today, this happens when “polyamory” is taken to be interchangable with polygamy.<br>How much Tucker needs him some religion, to be able to grasp that right and wrong are not determined by a consensus or a majority vote, and that idealism and altruism should have some place in our social order, becomes painfully clear by article’s end. Even if he still reached the wrong conclusion, at least he might have done it for the right reasons. By his calculation I should hate polygyny, yet on seeing something so ideal and desirable, how could I think it wrong for others to really have it? I don’t want a truncated or abridged humanity, in which lucky guys can’t build big, beautiful harems, and plural wives can’t abjectly and faithfully give themselves to one man, without demanding he won’t himself take many mates! How ALIVE it makes me feel just thinking of it!<br>Finally, it is quite funny, given that the 2014 piece came out less than two years before National Review’s infamous “Against Trump” issue, that the 1993 one calls him out, by name, for pursuing a younger wife, and violating the social contract!<br>“Marital infidelity, the lathering of illegitimate children, the pursuit of younger women, the ’bimbo‘ and ’trophy wife’ syndromes--all are essential breaches of the monogamous social contract. When a Donald Trump deserts his wife and children for a woman almost twenty years his junior, he is obviously ’wrecking a home’ and violating monogamy's implicit understanding that children should be supported until maturity. But he is doing something else as well. By mating with a much younger, second woman, he is also limiting the mating possibilities of younger men. One swallow does not make a summer, but repeated over and over, this pattern produces real demographic consequences.”<br>Aside from duly noting that, fact check, Trump didn’t leave any of his kids at orphanages, I won’t defend how Trump lives his marriages, but how telling! The virility and ambition that endears so many to Trump, NR and Tucker found a turn-off and against the rules even then! All I can say is, had polygyny been an option for The Donald, there may have been (at least) three first ladies when he (first?) took office in 2017. Now, wouldn’t that have been nice?]<br><a href="https://bae.st/media/476beb20116fe52190d00930244800220ca48b3b712d1cf1dfd645392990dd1b.jpeg?name=IMG_1503.jpeg" class="" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">IMG_1503.jpeg</a><br><a href="https://bae.st/media/4504ce261160a762d2631bab35a91181a8dd8c73dcf913f7114efee1d66c2ec4.jpeg?name=IMG_1504.jpeg" class="" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">IMG_1504.jpeg</a><br><a href="https://bae.st/media/bbdb1014d26acc5c71fc0c732dacd4805d3ee546ad166867a58536e19e252d22.jpeg?name=IMG_1505.jpeg" class="" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">IMG_1505.jpeg</a><br><a href="https://bae.st/media/7ecc191f70dba74705eeab1215973a88f97090b50862311bca730e23081ba305.jpeg?name=IMG_1506.jpeg" class="" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">IMG_1506.jpeg</a>