An Old Thesis I wrote.

On the Origin and Principle of Monogamy

It can be noted, whether through research or simple observation that, that the human species, and most apes for that matter, are not naturally monogamous. According the the Divine Marquis, "The Woman's role is to be wanton, like the bitch, the she-wolf, she must belong to all who claim her." This is also supported by Jean-Jacques Rousseau's belief in the origin of monogamy. To paraphrase him, essentially he claims that women were useless to men, except through sexual intercourse. So once they had fucked, and the man emptied his balls, he no longer needed her, and they parted ways. Woman is naturally weaker than man, and thus needed his protection, and bearing children made her even more vulnerable to the wild beasts of the jungle. So, to ensnare a protector, she invented the fabrication known as love. I'll refer to this later. More evidence of the artificiality of monogamy can be found at any party or group of young adults. They are extremely promiscuous, unless it is culturally unsound to be a whore, such as is the case in Japan. More evidence can be found in the MGTOW theory of male and female sexuality. Man is naturally attracted to several women, and several women are attracted to one man. This is the origin of the term "Alpha-Male", the most desirable among the pack.

To discuss the Origin of Monogamy, and its importance on modern society, all of the above must be taken as true. So, why did early man see fit to implement the concept of sexual fidelity for a lifetime. It can be assumed for religious reasons, but monogamy appears across various cultures and religions, often in faiths that are directly in contrast to one another on the basis of other social and philosophic topics. So it cannot be written off as mere religion. Neither can it be thus attributed to culture.

To address the question of the Origin of Monogamy, one must first solve the Slut's Double Standard. Why is it that a man who sleeps with multiple women is praised, but a woman who sleeps with multiple men is ostracized? The answer is innate psychology. That is how the two genders' brains are wired to deal with the Laws of Nature. Woman, being weaker, traded sexual services (which evolved into the psychological concept of Romantic Love) for protection. Man needed somewhere to dump his sperm, so he offered his protection. Thus the Alpha-Male received his choice of women, and the remaining women went down the pecking order.

So how does this answer the Slut's Double Standard? Well, a woman traded sexual favors for protection, guaranteeing the man offspring, which is a biological need. If she bore the children of another, she had betrayed the man who had protected her from the wilderness, and was thus shunned by him. He used whatever forms of language early man had developed to inform his comrades, and she and her bastard offspring were sentenced to either seek protection with the bastard's father or brave the wilderness. Man, on the other hand, required many offspring, both because of the need for a more powerful clan (meaning increased size in hunter-gatherers, and later led to an increase in farmers, warriors, workers, or whatever the father did), as well as a high infant mortality rate. A single woman is unable to have typically large litters, generally giving birth to one at a time, sometimes two; and this takes nine months. So he required numerous mates for numerous offspring.

So, if this is true, why is it that Alpha-Males did not take every woman? Why are we all not descendants of those early Alpha-Males? The first reason is individual sexual selection. That is, each individual has certain sexual desires, each one slightly differing from his comrade. Your truly finds Asian women particularly attractive, but my good friend finds white women attractive. This means in a State of Nature we would not take from what the other wanted because is was deemed unnecessary to us. I would prefer Airi Suzuki and Marina Hebiishi while he would prefer Katy Perry and Taylor Swift. How does the female tie into this? Well, this is called Briffault's Law. "The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place."-Robert Briffault. Thus, before primitive me can take primitive Suzuki back to his hut, he needs to demonstrate that he can both protect her and feed her. This has evolved into a man paying for dates, regardless of the income of either party; and why men are so humiliated to have a woman pay for them.

So, how does this winding road lead to monogamy? One must accept that in the State of Nature, where the Alpha-Males had multiple wives, their Betas took a good portion of the remaining women, and the few that were left went to a few bottom men, Gammas, if you will. So, this leaves Omegas without anyone to love, or more appropriately for the State of Nature, to fuck. Any man can testify, and history shows, that a man without a woman descends into anger and anger begets madness, and madness begets violence. So the outcast reacts to being outcast and becomes a menace, a sociopath, and reeks havoc, having no other option. Imagine a primitive Elliot Roger, and there you have the primitive sociopath; forced into celibacy by not having meeting the proper requirements to mate. Thus he holds no stake in the primitive society, and, in desperation and having nothing to lose, feels compelled to overthrow the dominant Alpha, and take the wives as his own. Look at how angry modern, socialized sane man is when he is rejected, but instead of alcohol and pornography, primitive man has only his brooding hatred and the weapons he finds in the jungle to rectify his problems.

The female, on the other hand, loses when she becomes ugly and/or barren from age. Then her protector would cast her out, no longer having a use for her. She is no longer protected, and as Rousseau points out, her offspring no longer have need of her nursing, and so they are not likely to offer protection. Even if they would want to, she poses just another mouth to feed. So the old woman, once a cherished wife and beloved mother, waits to be eaten by a non-human carnivore, the alternative being starvation or hypothermia.

Earlier, I said woman invented love. So I grant primitive woman this monumental accomplishment for the human species. By demanding to be loved, and not just fucked, primitive woman demanded more than just protection and provisions. What else could she demand of her mate? She could demand monogamy, as a demonstration of his love for her. Still in the wedding vows today, this demand of primitive woman for access to her vagina, that the man "forsake all others." Now, the first woman to do this probably did it because she had the foresight not to want to die a painful death in the jungle once she could no longer reproduce, but by demanding this, she limited primitive man to a single wife as long as they both lived. This meant the Alpha still had first pick, but only one, and then the Betas took one each, and then the Gammas. So now, the Omegas, these primitive outcasts, were saved by woman's demand for love in the form of monogamy. Now they were allowed to reproduce, and thus, as I'm sure Jean-Jacques Rousseau would agree, you have a class system. The Alphas are the strongest an most beautiful, followed by the Betas who lack some strength or skill, followed by the common gammas, followed by ugly, albeit happier Omegas. Or, more obviously, Alphas became kings and queens, Betas became lesser lords and ladies, Gammas became regular folk, and Omegas became the serfs. For more information on this, the development of society, and in far better detail, please refer to Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality.

So, we have provided a theory how monogamy developed primitive society, granted it must also be known that Rousseau says it was property (something I will not discuss here). So, what does this institution, created by woman for man that originally meant her lifelong safety but was at least a catalyst in the creation of civilization; what does monogamy do for modern society?

My friends, I propose that monogamy kept societies afloat. You see the most renowned and developed of cultures embracing it, while those that defied it and cared not for it vanishing. Rome vanquished the Greeks, the Catholics vanquished the Pagans, Spanish Europeans vanquished the Aztecs and Inca. Not only that, but monogamy actually was a driving force in the development of the Rights of Man.

You see, in Woman, his Wife, Man found some one in whom he could confide. No wife, even the primitive ones, would dare betray their husbands over to his betters. By doing so, she was certain to lose all protections and provisions. Even the sluts would lose, being turned out into the streets after humiliating and cuckolding their Men. As Camille Paglia said "Man needs to dominate, and woman needs make him believe he is dominating her." I wish to add to that statement, because she only refers to sexual intercourse. Woman allows a place for a Man to vent. Originally, in primitive matrimony, this meant rough sex. As civilization developed, it meant some one he could complain to about the state of affairs in civilization, and this some one would could be trusted with his hatred for the State, the Elites, and his Betters. She provided counter arguments to his arguments; whetstones on which sharpen his tongue. It was through this debate within marriage that Man was able to develop the proper rhetoric to take before his fellow Omegas and Gammas. As ideas spread, Women encouraged their Men towards Revolution. This is because as a primitive Gamma's woman would want the properties of an Alpha's woman, so too did civilized woman, serf and commoner, envy the jewels and status of ladies and queens. So came, for various reasons, the concept of the Democracy, the Republic, and the Human Liberty. I do not make the claim that monogamy was the sole reason, but it kept a Man's desire for equality a secret while still granting him a second opinion. Even today, spouses are not forced to testify in court against one another; a shadow of those ancient tables where Man and Wife debated hotly in secret.

So, why does this matter today? We are so distant from those first monogamous couples, why should we consider them or even their descendants? My dear friends, my theory states that the State of Nature tyrannized both primitive Man and Woman into a need for society and a need for monogamy. It also stated that early societies, which depended upon the leadership of an Alpha-Male, and thus existed as monarchies, evolved into Republics because Man had a Woman who would not betray him to be the first to hear his concerns, and, when the time was right, to encourage him to Revolution.

There are those, mainly from the Progressive Elites, who champion an end to monogamy. Feminism is the leader here, encouraging Woman, the inventor of such a monumental pillar of civilization, to abandon her Man and embrace her natural wantonness. They disguise this as liberation and freedom. What kind of people would want this?

The answer is simple. Only the Tyrants demand an end to monogamy. Modern feminists will never admit it, either because of stupidity or malicious intent, but their Third Wave movement paves the way to Oligarchy. The destruction of Monogamy is he most important stone in this road. Modern Man is deceived into believing he is loved by all because he fucks so many, yet is denied a Faithful Companion who will be his only friend in times of trial. To prevent the Omegas from venting their rage, (and now, because of an enlarged Welfare State, the Gammas and even some Betas join them), they seek to disarm the Peoples of the World; at least this is their excuse. In fact, it is to prevent any Revolution against an Aristocratic Elite. Modern Woman is deceived into believing she is empowered, and although this war on monogamy places her into a privileged class in society, it robs her of a close lover, and makes her entirely dependent upon her Masters. To reference the Divine Marquis and his quote "Lust's passion will be served; it demands, it militates, it tyrannizes", a people ruled only by the heat of their genitals return to a State of Nature; except now they will have an Oligarchy of Masters to "protect them." They will no longer have the strength or wit or instinct to defend from the dangers that Nature holds, so an All-Powerful State shall do that for them.

This should terrorize you. I believe only a week ago two prominent feminists went to the UN and suggested that the internet be censored so that they may feel more safe. This means they wished to have all people's Freedom of Speech censored so that they may be protected from what was threatening. What if they should succeed? Without monogamy to whom shall Modern Man turn to once again conceive of Revolution? There shall be no faithful Wife, no companion to speak his mind to at night. Instead, at best, he shall have only a slut. A feminist slut who shall act as Orwellian thought police, hearing his words of dissent against Oligarchy (an Oligarchy that provides her every need) and reporting him to the authorities for what is currently termed a "microaggression". Without monogamy, there shall be no more George Washingtons or Thomas Jeffersons, no Robespierres or Dantons, no Martin Luther Kings or Mahatma Ghandis. There will only by Stalins, Maos, and Hitlers, opposed only by obscure Tank Men who grow more and more infrequent with the passage of time. If we drink the feminist kool-aid, we will give up a gift given by an anonymous primitive Woman, who was only looking out for her own interests when she gave birth to society. Without monogamy, we will only be Winston Smith, and they shall be Big Sister, Controlling our Minds through sex and lust, reducing love back to primitive action.