Originally published January 2018.
Richard B Riddick
Let us put aside what it means from a romantic and personal perspective and ask what is the purpose of this practice in a societal context. My view is that monogamy is desirable from a civilisation perspective as it effectively reigns in the natural polygamous desires of men (or at least the vast majority – kings and billionaires will do what kings and billionaires wish to do).
This is crucial because the natural man, unmodified by civilisation’s norms or morals, will always seek to maximise his sexual and breeding opportunities. Unrestrained by morality, kidnapping and raping would be arguably the most effective way to go about this. Obviously, if fighting for opportunities to kidnap and rape and kidnapping and raping themselves are the primary activities of men (being 50% of the population and physically dominant), there is not going to be a lot of family formation, above replacement fertility, stable living or agriculture. It probably took a few thousand years of selection pressure (in the form of killing rapists and adulterers) before the naturally predisposed rapists and adulterers were sufficiently oppressed by society into monogamy, in order for our ancestors to cease being disorganised foragers, and form the more organized and hierarchical hunter gatherer tribes that would eventually continue the ascent of mankind.
Effectively, monogamy allows the possibility of men to work together. In essence, instead of seeing every other man as a direct physical threat and sexual competitor like certain animals do, men were able to look at other men and conceive of opportunities by which, through their co-operation, they could all benefit. This includes organized hunting & fishing, larger communities, trade etc., safe in the knowledge that their success would afford them breeding opportunities with a particular female, exclusively. Juxtapose this behavior with the victorious lion, whom after winning control of a pride will literally kill all the cubs of the previous male lion he has supplanted. It is natural, for males (and human men are no exception) to seek to maximise resources for themselves and their own direct genetic descendants. If that means killing the infant children of another man, “so be it” grunts the primitive natural polygamous man.
Monogamy also had the flow-on benefit of assuring fathers of their paternity of a particular child. It cannot be overstated how crucial this is. This is what creates in a man the desire to be altruistic and invest his own resources and efforts in protecting and providing for a child. It is these family ties that form the literal bedrock of our society.
The various forces in this world that seek to upend and fundamentally change said world, know the importance of monogamy.
This is why they (consciously or unconsciously) seek to undermine monogamy in the West. They know that if a critical mass of men disengage from the work & family formation process, that the bedrock will collapse. Undermining monogamy and the incentives it provides men is but one of the ways they achieve this.
Sadly, I don’t believe that many otherwise “woke” people realise how rapidly our society has changed. Mainly because the cultural vanguard of these forces is in control of the government departments and academia who could compile this sort of data, and they certainly make no attempt to disseminate it out to broader society.
Below is a graph from Norway showing the rates of childlessness for men and women by age 45. The gap between the lines tell us that that in 1985, approx 6% of women had children to men who had fathered children to a different woman or to multiple women. This means that this 6% of women were as breeding opportunities not being “paired” off so to speak, but were via marriage or child support, effectively sharing a male provider, and if said provider was not sufficient, being supported by the state. As the graph progresses, you can see that by 2012, this gap has literally doubled. Meaning now, more than one in ten women is not being paired off with a male, but are now sharing a male provider via child support, or are dependent on the state.
Obviously, some of these women who have borne a child of Man A, will pair off or be married to some other person, namely Man B. However, even with almost a century of programming, being Man B is decried as being a “white knight” or “captain save a ho” by nearly all male sub cultures and seen as an admission that one cannot obtain a higher value female.
So to the extent that there isn’t a Man B, you have the single mother phenomenon, and the rise of the single mother voting bloc is why government and taxes must keep getting bigger, because the replacement provider role that government has taken on is not just huge, but is rapidly growing due to subsidization. That is to say, funding measures designed to ease the plight of single mothers will result in more single mothers. This cycle of destruction is particularly dangerous because any attempts to address the actual root problem are no longer socially palatable, measures such as societal endorsement of monogamy, shame as a tool of compliance, endorsing gender roles etc.
Further, increased taxes on net tax payers (the majority of which are men) make it even harder for them to provide for their own families, de-incentivising men who are still participating in the work/family-formation/provider process, and any would be entrants. Even more disastrously, a whole generation of men observe this process and know that their ability to procure resources (as hard as it is) isn’t even enough to attract and retain a female, because consumerism and feminism has fully activated the natural state of women, which is hypergamy.
The unwinding of the societal institution of monogamy is but one of the ways by which these forces of “disorder” seek to remove the mechanisms that suppress the polygamous and hypergamous natures of men and women respectively. It is not an exaggeration to say that if a sufficient critical mass of men or women are allowed to let their unrestrained natural high-time-preference natures out, it will literally be the end of our economic system and society. Therefore we have to return to rule by reason, not the psuedo-democratic rule by feelz, we have now.
I know that in our current moral paradigm it is too harsh to cut welfare or say that single mothers should receive no government benefits for instance, or that it is considered sexist to be anti “no-fault divorce”. But my riposte is that it doesn’t matter how any of this makes anyone feel, our present system is unsustainable and rapidly heading to a point of no return. If the collapse of the ponzi social welfare state brings down society, there won’t be any welfare for single mothers, there won’t even be any marriages for anyone to get divorced from!
For the men who are aware of the issues there are two schools of thought on this topic, the Enjoy the Decline crowd (Men going their own way, “lay down and rot”-ers and Red pill slayers) and those that want to secure a future for Western people and Western civilization. I can’t offer any guarantees. It is possible that our civilization and people are doomed to suffer the fate of the Romans, hence the enjoy the decline crowd. But if they believe that, then they have despaired, and given up the hope of victory, of survival itself.
I haven’t, and neither should you.
Our civilization carved itself from the chaos of nature by grim determined hand. That potential for righteous order and greatness remains within us.
Photo by John Pavelka