I've come across this interesting article, which speaks in explicit material terms about the sexual marketplace and how polygamy is undesirable since it deprives low status men of wives and thereby destabilizes society:
This is all true. But the notion that polygamy should therefore remain illegal is dubious, since ensuring a safe and stable society is not the primary mandate of a liberal democratic government, but rather preserving negative rights, otherwise known as "freedoms."
For example, it is a fact that racial desegregation -- allowing Black people the freedom to live and wander wherever they want -- has ended up making American society less safe and stable overall. But this doesn't matter because the US government ostensibly views the rights of its citizens as more important than any considerations of safety and stability. Imagine how absurd it would be to argue in court that Black people should be reverted to second class citizens because they increase crime rates and make society less stable with their perennial rioting and looting!
As a matter of fact, the decisive question of "stability" that the US Supreme Court was concerned with regarding racial desegregation was strictly in the purview of the Cold War: sparing America from continuing to be embarrassed by communist propaganda, which was using the agitation of Black Americans to gain international support and sympathy for its ideology -- particularly in the Third World. Racial desegregation therefore just "looked good" on an international stage where America's main adversaries were now egalitarian communists rather than eugenic fascists -- no matter its deeper domestic consequences such as increased crime and violence!
The fact that Black people demonstrably increase crime rates, and that their individual acts of violence and even collective rioting became worse -- not better -- after the Civil Rights Act, does not factor into the calculus of respecting their rights as US citizens. So why should projected fears about increased crime rates factor into the calculus of respecting the rights of high status males, who wish to formalize their dominance over the sexual marketplace by engaging in polygamous marriage?
Because the proverbial "elephant in the room" here is that monogamy is not really sacrosanct in American culture anymore, as the author of the article implies. High status males already dominate low status males in the sexual marketplace:
Yes, these things are legal, and they happen a lot. But they actually used to be illegal: "Until the mid-20th century, most U.S. states (especially Southern and Northeastern states) had laws against fornication, adultery or cohabitation."
The author continues:
So it is legal to have sex with multiple people, but people who do this should not have their conduct legitimized by marriage certificates?
Hmm... this is exactly the argument that opponents of gay marriage once made: "it's already legal for homosexuals to have sex, but the government shouldn't sponsor it by letting them get married!"
The author's hollow retort that opponents of gay marriage could not find a single good reason to claim that society is made worse by homosexual conduct is simply not true. One need only point to the AIDS epidemic to justify emotional disgust towards homosexuals (within the living memory of most boomers and millennials), or use the rational, scientific reasoning that promoting sexual conduct which does not result in the birth of children is degenerate (it spreads STDs, it decreases the fertility rate or is associated with a decreased fertility rate, it is part of a culture where people are expendable to one another, etc.)
Indeed, at least if Chad was forced to marry and provide for all of the women he wished to have sex with under a legally binding polygamous marriage contract (as under Islamic law), this would actually have a moderating influence on his sexual market value. He could only marry as many women as he could afford to marry.
But in the current situation, his ability to monopolize women (and liquidate their assets, if you will) is completely unrestrained, which is literally the main impetus for the rise of incels.
If anything, I would venture to say that the government should view the issue of the sexual marketplace realistically: acknowledge the fact that monogamous marriage is an increasingly bankrupt institution, and seek to "legalize but regulate" the postmodern, polygamous reality -- not unlike what the government should do with regard to narcotics and the War on Drugs!
But even this alternative would require that women be viewed as mere commodities again, which is not something our soyciety is prepared to accept, until it is forced to reset its moral values after some sort of social collapse:
The horror
Or would this marginalization of women even be required? Couldn't Chads just have a collective harem of foids, where they can bang each other's bitches virtually at will (with the bitches' input) -- perhaps in exchange for favors/barters, like leasing out their Bugatti's or mansions to each other? This would give a new meaning to the phrase "socialism for the rich"
Anyway, until the purifying social collapse to come, it is in our interests as blackpilled incels to accelerate the decline of soyciety, and exacerbate these contradictions in progressive/feminist jurisprudence. Yes, it is true that polygamy makes life worse for low status males, but life already sucks really badly for low status males, and pretending that it doesn't by continuing to prop up the eroding tradition of monogamous marriage (now virtually indistinguishable from cuckoldry) will only prolong the pain.
If gay marriage was made legal because of "muh freedumbs," then so should polygamy.
A C C E L E R A T E
Last edited:
