Sodomy vs. Polygamy

It would seem to me that Christians are so determined to hang on to monogamy that a global Caliphate is practically inevitable. Apparently, to all too many Right-wing Christians, a society that allows Sodomy is [edit] intolerable, but questioning the goodness of monogamy as the only legal standard of marriage, even though there’s no scripture basis for monogamy, is unthinkable.

As for Left-wing Christians, they would appear to be appeasing and abetting Islam in record numbers.

I mean, really? Is that how Christianity will end? I’m not a Christian but I’m starting to feel sorry for all the henpecked Christian men, in a strictly maternal sense. Whereas most Arabic men I’ve known are essentially chemically castrated (epigenetically) given the completely decadent predation by their oligarchies; therefore, Islam is not an improvement, except on a highly piecemeal basis.

It just goes to show that there’s such a thing as too large of a harem, just for the sake of one that is. No man in his right mind would want more women than he can control, and by control I’m not talking about sophisticated surveillance, security, or even mind-control technology which comes increasingly necessary in a dystopic world.

In my world, game would suffice. Women of my world, love irrational control, and such can benefit from competition with other women rather than appeasement.

I’m not entirely opposed to decadence, don’t get me wrong. I just know that it’s love that makes life worthwhile. I’m not entirely certain that it would be worth it to collect an overlarge harem/coven without love, although doubtless those who do so can rationalize or irrationalize it (that is, “For Allah”).

Even sodomy can be irrationalized (“For Allah”) which is not to say that Islam allows for ordinary men to do what they want, ever, unless it’s for purposes of forcing submission or degrading infidels.

Among Christians, monogamy is what produces the decadence, demographically, in the long run. This causes that love they seem to believe they have a monopoly on to lose its savor. Love shouldn’t have to mean, “worship the woman!” That’s positively Egyptian!

Meanwhile, every over-inflated bubble produces a correction, and the bursting of the gynocentrism bubble will not be pretty.

Gay men don’t worship women! At least not sexually. Women demanding to be the center of attention get tiresome to mature gay men who take responsibility for their own outcomes, specifically, those on the Right.

I sympathize with the Lesbian-adverse views of Milo, among everything else he says in this video: Milo at Orlando Shooting Site (Queued at 12 Minutes)

I’d kiss him too! (Then he, like Gavin McInnes, might be the one to gag afterwards, but hey, what do you say, Milo?)

In a sense, the Jews perform a tremendous service for the Christians determined to demand that either children be produced within all populations or celibacy imposed, women be worshiped, and gay men reviled. That service, specifically, is to oppress the peasantry. Otherwise, farm nutrition plus reproductivity can cause the peasantry to over-expand their numbers, particularly when the ovulation cycle has been disrupted by grain-dependence. The engineered solutions which Jewish economics, sociology, and demographics have devised keep that population in check, to a point. In a technocracy however, there’s no check on either oligarchic or Jewish power. The balancing act has therefore become broken, and largely due to Feminism.

Overpopulation relative to resources not only produces homosexuality (and thank goodness!) but other sorts of abnormal sexuality to include behaviors which destroy culture, eventually, such as pedophilia, narcissism, Communism, and Anarchy. A preponderance of homosexuality is, in my view, the first piece of evidence that there are too many people relative to resources and opportunity, compounded by stale, entrenched oligarchy. It’s the canary in the coal mine. It can be found among all animals for the same reason.

But killing the canary won’t solve a thing! Besides, gay men and bisexual women are very useful to society! Lesbians (sorry!) less so. However, under monogamy, lesbianism is inevitable, followed by far worse, as demographic imbalance proceeds.

For more on Anarchy, I recommend Steve Sailer: Anarchy in the U.S.A.

My comment to the piece held in moderation due to my spelling out of the word “asshole” I assume, is here:

Whereas gay men and bisexual women are the canary in the coal mine, when lesbianism in society becomes more and more obvious and obnoxious, it’s only a matter of time before the canary dies.

Meanwhile, the Jewish version of monogamy is no improvement over the Christian version. But they have made themselves essential to the Christian oligarchy, who in turn have made themselves essential to the Islamic oligarchy. For now.

The Left, of course, is just fine with Islamic and Jewish money, and imposes their own ideology on pain of starvation and homelessness. When will Christians, Jews, and the unaffiliated Right come up with a legal challenge in terms of Islamic monopoly on polygamy? In my lifetime? Are they prepared to die for monogamy???

The Left however is fine with female-dominated group-marriage, and welfare to subsidize the reproductivity of single women, while many secretly hope that some handsome sheik will come along, and give them some of that “magic” they’ve been craving, such as is available to decadent European divorcées in Morocco for a price. Effectively castrated married men in the U.S. are mostly being homosexually serviced by Peggers and “Bulls” with the latter I suspect having more than its share of convicts. Convicts of course convert in order to gain some protection against being predated upon while in prison, as well as for a host of benefits such as better food.

Black American Muslims are blatantly used as tools in order to advance the Caliphate, for their largely stabilizing influence on communities predated upon by Leftism. However, if history repeats, Arabic Muslims will castrate them when no longer useful. Meanwhile, there’s no harm in pandering to them as well as to Leftist institutions of all sorts.

Speaking of Black American Islam’s views on homosexuality: Farrakhan responds to Pres. Obama endorsing Gay marriage.

Leftists who believe that Islamists have to “Hate” in order to slaughter homosexuals aren’t paying attention. Rather, one only needs to love Allah in order to commit Jihad. However, don’t expect a straightforward answer from an Islamic spokesperson on how that works, as they are required by Islam to lie to us.

18 thoughts on “Sodomy vs. Polygamy

  1. Pingback: Sodomy vs. Polygamy –

  2. Perhaps it’s relevant to say that, at age 79, I perceive that manliness is declining in the younger generations. Your assertion/observation that this is result of, or positively correlated with, overpopulation is interesting. I can attest to the tendency in a man to want, in some fashion, a harem (I am in my third and final marriage) and recall fantasies during very much younger days of having a harem. A problem with a society which permits harems is that some men have many women and many men have no woman. The men without a woman have no constructive place to put their male energy and tend to resort to violence.

  3. You have to keep in mind that the church created feminism when they threw out Biblical standards, because there is literally no such thing as monogamy or polygyny in the Bible, there is only marriage. As far as male homosexuality goes, the vast majority of them don’t claim to be Christians and the Bible specifically commands Christians not to judge them because God will take care of that. I suspect I’d enjoy debating with Milo. And the women? God didn’t care enough about what a woman might do in bed with another woman to even mention it, just like God didn’t care enough about men masturbating to even mention it. More power to them.

    I am in agreement with you about control issues but I think it’s a bit more nuanced than you might think because women like to compete. They may complain about it but that’s because they love the drama of all of it. And I suspect churchian men are so opposed to polygyny because they’ve never had one woman really submit to them, much less two. If they had, they’d understand. If they’d ever had two women giving them a blowjob at the same time they’d never argue against plural marriages again because they’d do what they had to do to get in one.

    But they have never experienced that and probably had a hard time finding one used up harpy to say yes, so they teach doctrines in the church designed to ensure that other men are demasculinized into feminist drones ready to be cucked.

    I don’t expect women to be capable of admitting they’re hypergamous because unless they’ve reached a certain point of self-awareness, they simply can’t. Pre-selection bias? No, they can’t admit that either. I don’t think the problem with lesbians is quite what you think it is though. My observation is that while there are a few genuinely mentally ill women who completely reject men, most so-called lesbians have a different problem. Their problem is they’re ugly (usually fat too) and can’t possibly attract a man to whom they could be attracted to. With their attraction trigger set too high, their response is to withdraw from the market.

    The greater numbers of lesbians is proof the demasculinization program is going well because as more and more men are demasculinized, the more women are left for those who aren’t. Obviously, many of those women are attractive and thus the masculine men who are left would never be interested in the fuglies who decide to go full-bore dyke because they can’t get an attractive man interested in them.

    Personally, I think younger married men should be encouraged to add an older woman to their marriage. Just because they’re no longer young and attractive doesn’t mean they have nothing to offer and in the past I’ve found that some of the older gals were real terrors when it came to wrecking the bed. And usually wise enough to know that when a woman starts saying no her man starts looking for a woman who says yes.

    • I am in agreement with you in terms of male-semantics, “manspeak”. LOL. I don’t speak “manspeak” as well as you do. Of course men don’t care what women do in private (and neither does God); and I appreciate your clarification of what God takes care of vs. what will get an Islamic believer closer to Allah. As far as I’m concerned, God takes care of gay men and every other creature, in a dextral or sinistral manner according to character. No rhetoric will convince me otherwise.

      Bisexual women, that is, women who have a hypnotic sexual attraction to men are not the same as women who are so hateful and indifferent that they go so far as to uglify themselves. It’s like a “female castration” as I use the term “castration” here. Even so, I perhaps should clarify that it is obvious “Lesbian Culture” that destroys greater culture. I’m not talking about bisexual women culture who look and behave in such a way as to arouse men.

      No comment on whether I’m interested in being the older woman added to an existing relationship. I have never seen such a relationship that I could imagine adding anything but entirely chaste maternal input, as well as say, watching the chickens, and caring for the livestock, rather than competing with whatever child-raising rhetoric imposed, and I avoid children.

      That doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist only that I doubt such exists in this country.

      • I was not aware that I did manspeak, as I was of the impression that I was Toadsplaining rather than mansplaining. I must object to your contention that men don’t care what women do in private though, because that’s not true at all. Men care a great deal about what you women are doing with those teeth, if you treat the balls with respect or whether you can learn how to give a good backscratching (sometimes better than sex). Of course, being able to hum all four verses of the Star Spangled Banner is always a good thing.

        As to the dykes vs bi-girls, I don’t know. Hypnotic attraction? Where did that come from?

        The women who want to get all inked up with staples in their face are just mentally ill in my opinion, but strangely my tastes have a few exceptions to that rule. I actually find this attractive:

        Of course, the fact she was attractive to begin with has a lot to do with it and if it turned out she has an Irish accent… wow. But at the same time, women who make themselves ugly just to make themselves ugly are sick. I think the problem is that it’s a matter of norms. Women betray just how willing they are to work against their own self-interest if everyone else is doing it in situations like this.

        This trend toward women deliberately making themselves ugly… almost as if it’s a competition to see who can out-uglify the other… I don’t know that any sort of propensity toward rug-munching has anything to do with it, the rug-munching is just as much a symptom of the deeper disease. I think it’s a deeper illness and in keeping with my belief on Romans 1:26, it’s literally the wrath of God being poured out on these women. What the apostle Paul described as a “degrading passion.” What they’re doing is making sure no man in his right mind will try to redeem them.

      • If men are watching, it’s not “private”. LOL.

        When I say, “Lesbianism” you hear “rug-munching”.

        I’m going to give up on trying to translate Toadspeak vs. Caprizchkaspeak and type at the same time. Damn it.

  4. Oh- and speaking of strange stuff like this, I recall seeing something on the decline of the bush that used playboy centerfold photos to plot the gradual erasure of pubic hair from women. I can see shaving/waxing south of the anterior labial commissure, but defoliating the mons pubis? Just more monkey-see, monkey do.

    • Are there videos which show this shaving you speak of, intended for your eyes with a whole lovely party of girls with shaving cream, mirrors, giggling, and laughing? How about waxing? I’ve made grown men cry just watching how thoroughly and completely I’m prepared to do the job myself, pleading that I switch to Nair, etc. I gave in.

      I’m going to say that there are various other reasons of scientific, prurient, and practical import without elaborating here, and otherwise making this comment thread into a FetLife group where the topic can easily go on for pages and pages and pages.

      Besides. It’s war. Here’s the other side:

  5. Islamists have to “Hate”

    Having read all of the various religious books when in college long ago, in Islam, all you have to do is decide someone is an “infidel” and you can kill, them in whatever way you want. Islam is a religion of hate – it is that simple.

    Judaism is more trying to codify things that today we understand – you don’t mix various foods due to salmonella and such. Of course, today it doesn’t make sense.

    Christianity is a good idea, but doesn’t work unless you adopt the view that – if you hit me, all holds are off, so I can cave in your skull and call it good. You just don’t start it – let people live in peace, unless they attack you, then kill them all and call it good. And go back to living peacefully.

    As to monogamy and such, that is changing as marriage falls by the wayside. I think monogamy is falling by the wayside as women will always seek out the same few men to get what they need. And the loser men will always lash out for being losers. But such is life… Of course, men will always seek out young, attractive, and fertile women for sex. We are as we are, and if anything Feminism has done more to help men than anything else – young women looking for “father-figures” are more than willing to spread their legs in payment. One of many reasons, that I laugh at the concept of Feminism is it’s based on a failed premise – men and women are inherently different, and always will be. Anyone that tries to ignore that is a fool..

    • Prostitution, that is the patriarchal bordello, would take care of a great portion of the marginal men and women. I’m not quite so harsh as to call them “losers”.

      Whereas the trend now toward independent operators is more of the same, and that’s just asking for invasion.

      Other than that, I’m mostly on board with your comments.

  6. A conservative gay man speaks:

    My disqus comment (the interface between discus and is tricky): “I appreciate this piece tremendously. I wish to add that as a heterosexual, the pain of growing up without hope of opportunity is also great. Such is not alleviated by social demands to reproduce and thereby perpetuate that loss of hope. Meanwhile, the aged using their own children as social security is simply indebting the next generation with the sins of the first. Using one’s childless spouse as social security is not enough either. Thereby I hope that those of us who recognize the pain of our less-than-hopeful circumstances can find ways of group-based social security. I for one do not reject all instances of using sex as sort of a loyalty oath for group cohesion. It would seem to me to be more moral than expecting breeders to “accept” such into their fold such as to provide for outliers who have chosen not to breed even if we may have endowed them with the benefits of our taxes, and even cared for their aged due to not being “sandwiched” by children, for that assumes that Government has been honest with us.”

  7. Pingback: Race Realism | caprizchka

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s