The Rational-Scientific Basis of Legally Enforced Monogamy
Is there a fundamental right to monogamy?
The male desire for sex and female companionship is a natural biological instinct, like eating or sleeping. If a man is unable to satisfy this fundamental impulse, he loses his powers of concentration and becomes unproductive. Eventually, he is forced to drop out of society or lash out. A growing underclass of unmarried and undersexed men will inevitably lead to massive civil strife and social disruption, including bloodshed. Expecting these men to just exercise self-control is both unreasonable and absurd. Lifelong celibacy has never worked, not even for the Christian church, which degenerated morally and intellectually because of it. Imagine the agony of the inferior male, who is forced to endure a life of unwanted bachelorhood, his libido mercilessly titillated by a liberal society that allows women to dress as scantily-clad whores in public. In reality, it is only the liberal totalitarians who must practice self-control; their nihilist and self-destructive obsession with feminism, multicultural policy and immigration from the Third World are more akin to the dancing and flagellation manias of the Middle Ages than the beliefs of rational men.
If it is in society’s best interest to ensure that all men reach their full innate potential, then society must provide the necessary conditions allowing men to exercise their right to monogamous family life whenever they so choose. Does recognizing a universal right to monogamy necessarily infringe on the rights of women? Of course not; rights are not absolutes, but must be balanced against the collective interests of society. If universal monogamy is in the best interests of society, then it is only fair that women curb their hypergamous instincts. And why shouldn’t women curb their hypergamous instincts? Men have curbed their polygynous and aggressive instincts for the sake of civilized life, women should do the same. Without mutual reciprocity, civilized life would be impossible. And if the original social contract is ruptured, then what? Should we all return to a state of nature because the female wishes to fully indulge her primitive sexual instincts? Clearly, women wish to have their cake and eat it too, but one cannot live in the Stone Age and modern society at the same time, not without destroying the latter. Society would not exist without men; this alone should give men greater say in whether monogamy is to be legally enforced or not.
Is the right to monogamy positive or negative? Here, we must tread carefully to avoid the language of human rights and their tremendously destructive influence upon Western civilization. Let us return to John Locke’s treatises on government, the original source of modern natural law. Within this classical liberal framework, monogamy must be viewed as a negative right. If sex and female companionship are viewed as commodities to be earned or vital services to be rendered because of marital contractual obligation, then monogamy is simply the right to enjoyment of one’s private property, which entails the principle of non-interference. It can also be cogently argued that right to monogamy, like the supposed right to eat or right to sleep, all biological functions, is really a part of the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” that all governments are expected to recognize and not meddle in.
There is a fundamental right to heterosexual monogamy, even if the dominant males who control the liberal totalitarian police state refuse to acknowledge it. But perhaps, all this rights-talk does not go far enough. The problem with rights is that they are either completely disregarded or selectively applied. In social welfare liberalism, rights are often invented out of thin air. If the institution of monogamy was presented as a form of sexual egalitarianism, one rooted in the biological realities of human existence, and as a means of channeling the natural instinct toward a necessary social end, it would make the legal enforcement of monogamy much harder to ignore, as no society can go against the biological constraints of human nature without causing significant disruption on a societal level. Only an Aristotelian biopolitical understanding of male-female relations can do this.
Aristotle is the best interpreter of the woman’s mind; he understood women far more than women understand themselves. He was, first and foremost, a scientist and philosopher who based all of his reasoning on empirical observation, unlike feminists, “multikulti” liberals and globalists, who know absolutely nothing about female nature, apart from a few obviously false a priori egalitarian assumptions. Aristotle’s understanding of the woman’s mind is refreshingly non-ideological; he writes about what he saw with his own eyes in the Greek city-states and western Asia. His wisdom on female nature is like a breath of fresh air in an atmosphere poisoned by the quasi-religious dogmas of liberal totalitarian ideology.
In the Politics, Aristotle outlined the proper relationship between male and female:
[F]or the soul by nature contains a part that rules and a part that is ruled, to which we assign different virtues, that is, the virtue of the rational and that of the irrational. It is clear then that the case is the same also with the other instances of ruler and ruled. Hence there are by nature various classes of rulers and ruled. For the free rules the slave, the male the female, and the man the child in a different way. And all possess the various parts of the soul, but possess them in different ways; for the slave has not got the deliberative part at all, and the female has it, but without full authority, while the child has it, but in an undeveloped form.
In Aristotle’s bipartite psychology, the soul is defined as “the first actuality of a natural body that is potentially alive.” Unlike Plato, Aristotle does not view the soul as a metaphysical essence that exists independently of the body; when a man dies, his soul dies with him. Rather, the soul is a “first actuality,” a kind of life-force animating the body or, more accurately, the capacity of the living organism to perform a certain function, known as the “second actuality.” These functions, such as self-nourishment, growth and perception, promote the survival and general well-being of the organism. The irrational soul is further subdivided into its respective nutritive and appetitive faculties or souls. The nutritive soul regulates nutrition, growth, reproduction and other activities necessary for physical survival; it is the only soul found in plants. Animals possess a nutritive soul, but also an appetitive one as well, which regulates desires and emotions. In addition to the nutritive and appetitive souls, humans possess a rational soul, the faculty responsible for reason or logos. In a truly happy and free citizen, the irrational soul is controlled by the rational; through rationality, the appetitive soul is persuaded to conform to the dictates of reason.
Only from this relationship between the rational and irrational soul is it possible to discern the archetypal relationship between ruler and ruled. Who belonged where in Aristotle’s hierarchical conception of reality was determined by each person’s underlying psychological characteristics. This bipartite psychology was used to inform the proper relationship between male and female, parent and child, master and slave, ruler and citizen. The male is superior to the female because his rational soul governs the irrational. The female represents the irrational or alogical half of the soul; she possesses the faculty of reason, but it is “without full authority” because her irrational soul is allowed to rule over the rational. Because the female is a creature of desire and emotion, she must be ruled over by the more rational male; this he does for her own good.
It must be emphasized that the relationship between male and female is not a despotic one. The relationship between master and slave is necessarily despotic because the slave lacks autonomous rationality, although he is able to understand his master’s reasoned instructions; unlike the slave, the female possesses the capacity to reason autonomously. Far from being despotic, the relationship between man and woman is an aristocratic or a constitutional one. However, there is no change in government, which regularly occurs in the political life of the Greek city-state, as female equality and even gynecocracy would be a disaster; in Aristotle’s ideal political order, the man is the permanent kyrios of both the woman and the household, a fact established by biology and psychology.
One of the great advantages of Aristotelian philosophy, unlike the other philosophies of antiquity, is that it can always be updated with the findings of modern biology and psychology. This is more a reflection of Aristotle’s brilliance as an empirical observer than any real interpretive ambiguity in his writings. Evidence of women’s inferior logical abilities can be easily demonstrated by the virtual absence of great female achievement in philosophy, mathematics and the hard sciences. This is further supported by the under-representation of women in STEM fields and their generally poor performance in mathematics. The neuroscientist Simon Baron Cohen’s popular empathizing-systemizing theory of sex differences has empirically demonstrated that men are more logical and analytical than women, whereas women are more “empathic.”
Instead of using rights, we can justify legally enforced monogamy on the basis of the common good, a fundamental concept employed by Aristotle in both the Politics and the Nicomachean Ethics. Nature has made the man superior to the woman in terms of rationality and spiritedness; the man not only rules over the female for her own good, but for the good of society as well, just as the rational soul rules over the irrational for its own good and for the good of the citizen. In practice, unless she is a courtesan, every woman must be ruled over by her own kyrios. If this were to be legally enforced, it would mean that, assuming a symmetrical sex ratio between prime age males and females, all women in a monogamous society would be married to all men. In ancient Greece, surplus males were allowed to purchase slaves to satisfy their need for sexual release and lifelong female companionship.
Legal Solution to the “Bachelorhood Crisis”
Numerous legislative avenues may be pursued to ensure equitable distribution of Western society’s sexual resources. The government could impose a “spinsterhood tax” on prime age women who refuse to marry and have children. This would become more onerous the longer they remain single. There could be additional civil or even criminal penalties, such as the forfeiture of assets, heavy fines and imprisonment. Since mass immigration generally increases the ratio of men to women, the government could bar all male foreigners from entering the country, but allow prime age females, who would only be allowed to immigrate as long as they were willing to become the spouse of any of the country’s eligible bachelors; failure to do so on the female’s part could result in revocation of citizenship and immediate deportation.
The government could provide rewards and incentives to families to have more females than males, using sex-selective IVF, abortion, etc.; a larger percentage of females relative to males would significantly reduce incidence of rape, increase women’s safety and go a long way towards alleviating male suffering. There should be national recognition that sex and female companionship are vital to a man’s physical and psychological health; instead of prostitutes, who pose a risk to public health and do not satisfy a man’s need for emotional and physical intimacy, the government could subsidize sex and relationship therapists who would provide long-term female companionship for unwanted bachelors. The government can do away with the welfare state, which has encouraged the rise of single motherhood, by embracing the free market policies of classical liberalism; if women can no longer rely on welfare to subsidize their breeding habits, they would be forced to marry the many beta and omega males ignored by women for shallow reasons like poor cranio-facial structure or lack of a six figure salary. In the education system, feminist propaganda is to be abandoned; in its place, housewifery and motherhood should be presented as legitimate full-time careers. The state could incentivize women to become stay-at-home wives and mothers by allowing them to make purchases without having to pay local or state taxes. There should even be college and university courses on home economics and how to be a good housewife.
Technological and scientific solutions to declining marriage rates in Western countries may supplement or even inform legal enforcement of monogamy. Of course, because all women manage to breed, no matter how vile, negative eugenics could be used to curb female reproductive choice, which is presently unrestricted. This would significantly reduce the number of unmarried men; because women are predominantly attracted to a man’s facial features, more good genes widely dispersed throughout the population gene pool would mean that more men will have the facial features to attract sexually desirable females of child-bearing age. If implementation of negative eugenic policies is found to be impractical, then state-subsidized reconstructive plastic surgery for inferior males is always a possibility. Corporations could invest money in developing realistic androids or virtual reality simulations, powered by artificial intelligence; these would serve as the wives and intimate companions of unwanted men. Female sexuality could be genetically engineered to be more inclusive, so as to give unwanted men the opportunity to experience the joys of marital bliss; this may be accomplished by increasing female androgen levels to strengthen the woman’s libido without masculinizing her physical appearance. Alternatively, women could be cloned in laboratories to make up for the shortage of marriageable females in the general population.
Declining marriage and fertility rates are not difficult to solve. In fact, the list of possible solutions could be expanded considerably. If the liberal totalitarian governments of the former Western democracies wanted to raise fertility rates and reduce the incidence of unmarried men to 0%, they could do so almost overnight. The liberals have been dumping hundreds of thousands of unwanted dark-skinned foreigners into Western countries for decades; if they can do that, then surely they can solve the bachelorhood crisis. To the liberal totalitarian, it must be asked why Darwinian sexual selection is somehow more acceptable than Darwinian racial selection. Indeed, it is hard to see what benefits there are to racial equality; the human races are, at least until recently, isolated geographical populations with widely divergent behavioral and intellectual traits. This universal tendency towards differentiation – and not the homogenization as predicted by multicultural theory – indicates that each human subspecies evolved to live within their own separate societies and physical environments. On the other hand, sexual equality, unlike racial equality, serves a vital biological function: it ensures the survival of each human subspecies by reining in the female instinct towards hypergamy and hyperselectivity, allowing the subspecies to adequately replenish their numbers by giving each man the opportunity to continue his genetic lineage; furthermore, it contributes to general social and political stability, the necessary precondition for high civilization such as that achieved by whites, by eliminating the need for sexual competition between males.
The reason why the liberal totalitarians would rather let the bachelorhood crisis spiral out of control, rather then fix it, is because they are gripped by an irrational obsession with the non-white and non-male Other. Multiculturalism, social welfare liberalism and feminism are best understood, not as political ideologies, but as religious manias. The liberal totalitarian cannot be reasoned with, since his beliefs are beyond rational argument. In the liberal mind, feminism must continue until women become so hyperselective and the sex ratio so unbalanced that less than 1% of males are deemed suitable for breeding purposes, just as mass Third World immigration must continue until less than 1% of the remaining population is indigenous white.
We have witnessed the explosive growth of a marriage-deprived male underclass. It is not at all certain how long these men will continue to peacefully endure a life of forced solitude and, in many cases, forced chastity. This has been inflicted on them by a liberal totalitarian government that refuses to hold itself accountable to the electorate. But one thing is certain: if the population of unattached males is allowed to continue its explosive growth, societal stability will be threatened and there will be civil war. Feminists and their liberal totalitarian allies play with fire when they substitute a priori reasoning for actual experimental knowledge of human behavior in politics. Of course, the long-term purpose of feminism and women’s sexual liberation was always the destruction of Western society anyway, so to them, it doesn’t matter if fewer and fewer males are able to satisfy their most fundamental biological drives. The men who are currently denied access to monogamy are weak, inferior beta and omega males, so as long as the bachelorhood crisis affects the men who don’t matter to society, it will continue. The ancient Greeks and Romans were so much wiser than modern Western man; they knew that a class of unmarried males would lead to widespread civil unrest and social upheaval. They institutionalized monogamy to pacify inferior males. If there were surplus males, the slave trade would provide them with the needed sexual release and female companionship.
Unfortunately for us, feminists and their allies in the liberal totalitarian governments of the West are weak-minded fools in the grips of a deep-seated religious mania. Democratic reform is impossible. Only rebellion against the leftist tyrants or inevitable collapse of a decaying social order will return us to a more wholesome living arrangement, one that finally gives all men a stake in the society they are forced to wage-slave in and contribute to until retirement. In the meantime, why would any rational man wish to contribute to a society that does not provide him with the minimum conditions allowing him to satisfy his most fundamental biological drives?
