Strategies for reproduction

I had a question about passing along my genes.

Satyr, in one of your videos, you imply that a man having multiple children with different women is undesirable. It seems like the optimal plan for spreading one's genes through various filters. When you bring up "the negro" however, you speak of soft polygamy as a bad thing. Having multiple children is now a poor mating strategy. Suddenly you care about the "quality" of the woman, as if one woman is so great that she is better than the quantity of 2 or 3 others. That seems to contradict your entire view of women, that they're genetic filters and have little quality outside of reproduction.

Can you clarify? Polygamy seems like the best bet, especially if the women are all under my direction. What am I missing here?

Thanks

Polygamy is good when your goal is quantity over quality.
In the past having more children was meant to ensure that one or two would survive or that at least one of them would surpass the parent in some way. .

I did not imply that a man having multiple children with different women was bad only that it was increasingly the norm which was more proof that with the emancipation of the female the male adopted his own primordial practices.
I just pointed out that given this slow decline or regression back to primordial sexual practices and coupled with the monogamy pressures, in the west, that this condemned many children to grow up with no or with little male influence.

Polygamy works in Islam...and this results in an excess of males which must be dealt with by sending them off to be martyrs.
War has always been a method of cleansing the genetic pool since other culling methods are prohibited and only state violence is permitted.
I have no problem with polygamy sine the male has a role and control over his own offspring. Here female subjugation is greater than anything experienced in the modern west.

In the west polygamy is practiced but remains unsanctioned due to the liberal or Judeo-Christian infection.
So, the state to curb these natural tendencies of promiscuity place a high price on having a child.

My positions was one based on a more refined conception of humanity.
Having children with sub-human males is for the female like procreating with an ape.
The more intelligent the female, the more aware and refined her mind is all the more difficult her task becomes in finding a mate to reproduce with.
This because for a female quality means finding a male who appears to be superior to her.
In this case monogamy is possible for the female since her own quality prevents her from fornicating with just any male; it becomes a matter of self-respect and a sense of self-worth.
Most females in the modern west are so dull and unrefined and have such a poor sense of self-worth that they act as conduits for the propagation of genetic filth or of more base and primal types.

Satyr wrote:

War has always been a method of cleansing the genetic pool since other culling methods are prohibited and only state violence is permitted.

How do you mean that?

Doesn't war always make the best and the brave of the genetic pool to volunteer first as sacrifice? Of course modern jihad relies on recompense with money and fame for the martyr's family and this could be a sort of cleansing... is this what you had meant?

War was between tribes...mimetic unities.
The stronger one defeated the weaker one; natural selection on the level of SuperOrganisms.

When a warrior perished, if his culture allowed, left behind a brood carrying his attributes which were then taught his principles.
In modern systems the "best" send others to die for them.

Thanks for your response.

I'm still not sure what the distinction is between quality and quantity. Currently, I am able to attract a certain quality of woman. Let's say 7/10. If I can impregnate two 7's, instead of trying to have 2 kids with one 7, it seems like a better strategy.

The choice isn't really between one 7 and three 4's, so it's not an issue of quality vs quantity. Whatever quality of female I can pull once, I can pull twice. I'm pretty amoral, so I'm wondering if there is some logical reason I shouldn't spread my genes around as much as I can afford to.

No, the issue is how you perceive, appreciate and define quality.

If beauty (physical symmetry) is your standard then this is not the same as intelligence (mental symmetry).
The former is the product of a past manifesting in a presence; the latter is a product of the presence (inter)acting with the environment.

I have, ever so autistically, conjured forth a way in which to constructively engage with the purported better half.

First, make her laugh. As the jawls irresistably pry open, your eyes have just been invited a peek unto a very physical certification of health and ancestry.
And the very fact of her laughing will be indicative of your symmetry. For laughter cures all.

Then there is the hair and the oh so very pacifying smell thereof.

And the structure. A face that would look irresistable with blood splattered all over its jowls, is a "good" bet. Chin up.

There's the stink as well. A good stink, like right after a hunt, a long trying running.

For the foundation of unhappiness is the lack of instinct.

Maybe the sight of her tilting back her head to expose her throat will suffice as an indication of her surrender.

Laughter is a a release of anxiety usually accompanied with a display of surrender to the other who exposes the mind to an unforeseen possibility.

Satyr wrote:

Maybe the sight of her tilting back her head to expose her throat will suffice as an indication of her surrender.

Heh, and this is where we find ourselves caught in the web, in the indication. What I was trying to say is that there are archaic physical signposts on this narrow, windily road before us. Any fool can ride a fine steed, don a scarlet cloak and talk the talk. Appearances are deceptive, iz all. Dentures less so.
.

Quote :

Laughter is a a release of anxiety usually accompanied with a display of surrender to the other who exposes the mind to an unforeseen possibility.

I was once faced with death, I could not help but laugh. The possibility (of death) was quite unforeseen. I guess that's the rubber in the whole joke.

Lyssa wrote:

[url=/femail/article-2190065/The-woman-wants-abolish-sex-Genetics-expert-urges-embrace-future-virgin-births-women-AND-men-sex-marriage-redundant.html#ixzz244CwkYCy]Like a Virgin[/url]

I found this fascinating. Not least of all because of her apparent narcissism... and that she had a child with a European.

"Inferitility is on the rise in the world", she says. Yet we are constantly told in the news the world is over populated. Apparently the Y chromosome - the male chromosome - has been disintegrating over time.

‘Why can’t a man be a mother?’ she asks.
To that I would respond what is the point, as his genetic material will be in there, as the father, anyway.

(I just remembered where I've seen her before, on a TV documentary about race mixing, in which she was a vociferous supporter. But as you can see here, her race mixing - like that of most Asians - only goes as far as whites).

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[quote="Recidivist"](I just remembered where I've seen her before, on a TV documentary about race mixing, in which she was a vociferous supporter. But as you can see here, her race mixing - like that of most Asians - only goes as far as whites).

She's an Indian from Trinidad living in London [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

An excerpt from her book:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

You're right; most East Asians do not miscegenate with Blacks; in India, the shudra blacks in the Vedic caste system, compounded by British treatment and exploitation of them has left an inferior imprint that can't be easily erased. One reads the 'Dravidian' hypothesis of Indus/Saraswati civilization doing everything to trace a Indo-Sumerian Black/Austroasiatic continuity, etc., so that PC machinary seems to be on its own 'secularization of Aryan' agenda...

The small geographic partition begins?...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Look how bad inbreeding has been working for the Jews.
Let's fuck chimpanzees to invigorate the human gene pool with some primal potential.

Opposites attract is rubbish. Like attracts like. If the genders were attracted to their own bodies everyone would be homosexuals.

Einstein married a physicist woman. Question is, why did they have retard babies? If two geniuses get together and map out their plan for a perfect gene pool, yet have retard babies, is there really no hope for humanity?

Sex is central to the human psyche because reproduction is a form of survival - overcoming mortality, passing forth 50% of oneself.
A sacrifice to facilitate the process and to allow combinations to emerge that may be more fit within a given environment - an acceleration of the adaptation process.

Selfish genes lead to selfish memes.
Morality is an extension of genetics, selecting behaviours that facilitate cooperative survival strategies - including reproductive.
These behaviours become innate, after generations of natural selection.

Behaviours that inhibited survival - including reproduction as an extension of survival - became innately abhorrent - emerging periodically due to mutations, and then filtered out of a population, either through female agency or social dynamics that punished such behaviours due to their negative effect no group dynamics - decreasing group survival, including group self-replication.

Americanism shelters certain of these mutations in accordance with its nihilistic memes - ideals.
Compounding mutations, over time, lead to an overload, manifesting bizarre, antisocial, destructive and disruptive to the group, behaviours.
This is why Americanism contradicted it sown principles, until recently.
All nihilistic dogmas/ideologies must contradict their own values if they hope to survive and replicate in a world they attempt to "correct" substitute or negate, e.g., Christianity.