Monogamy: The last Christian poison pill to spit out

The occident did not benefit from our conversion to Christianity. Christianity began as a fanatical apocalyptic sect, led by a messiah who proclaimed the end of the world would occur within the lifetime of his followers. His followers were men and women who had completely renounced the world at his insistence and were willing to commit themselves to preaching their creed in situations where it would mean de facto suicide. The big taboo in Western culture seems to be even to this day that Jesus was not a particularly nice guy, but a cult leader like any other. He becomes popular by saying things that appeal to the masses, but then he uses the fame for his own purpose. As happened to most prophets, his followers were even more fanatical and evil than the man himself.

What separates Christianity from the religions that preceded it is its religious intolerance. The Roman empire interacted with the various tribes it subjugated as part of a two-way cultural exchange. The Interpretatio Romana meant that Romans acknowledged that the deities of other people were their local equivalent of their own pantheon. The Celtic Belatucadros was worshipped by Celts as well as lower-ranked Roman soldiers, because he was equated with Mars. The religion that would have beaten Christianity to continent-wide dominance if we had been lucky was the cult of Mithras, the deity of Roman soldiers inherited from the Persians. Religions and cultural practises flowed freely from one side of the world to another, because under polytheism different deities could coexist.

A problem began to emerge only when a tribe in the Levant that had begun to worship a cruel envious tyrant known as Jahweh gave birth to a prophet known as Jeshua, who proclaimed that his own creed should be spread around the world. As Jahweh insisted that we should have no other Gods before him, the religious practises that had characterized the European continent since times immemorial became intolerable. Thus began the start of Christian civilization, if we wish to characterize it as such.

Over the past two hundred years, under the leadership of the French intellectual class, we have slowly managed to shake off the Christian yoke. We’re secular now and we’ve started opening closets that were filled with skeletons. The Catholic church is a place where sexual predators find refuge, under the governance of a theocracy that actively seeks out to cover up their crimes. This is what tends to be lost in the discussion. It is not so much the fact that pedophiles abuse their position of power that should outrage us. It is the systematic manner in which their crimes are covered up by their own hierarchy. Out of 39 Dutch bisshops, four abused children themselves, sixteen more covered up abuse by relocating priests to new parishes, where they went on to abuse children. In one case a priest was moved from parish to parish, until he was eventually sent to a school for children who were deaf and mute.

The priests, nuns and brothers are merely faced with the imposition of a cruel negation of nature. They are supposed to devote their lives to a God who is out there somewhere. A sane religion would recognize human beings and the world around them as expressions of the divinity they worship and encourage such love, but Christianity is not a sane religion. Human beings are not meant to live like that. It leads them to abuse their position of power by imposing themselves on children who are told not to reveal to the world that they can not live up to the behavior expected of them.

This is perhaps the biggest issue I see with Christianity, the fact that it problematizes sex, as part of its Abrahamic baggage. There are without a doubt subsects of heathen traditions that endorse similar toxic mentalities, but the broad rule among heathen traditions that I encounter is that there is more room for the expression of forms of love beyond that for the nuclear family. The nuclear family is ultimately an impoverishment of the tribe, in a manner akin to the impoverishment of love into monogamy.

Let’s look at this in simple terms. On one side of the spectrum we find places like Morocco. In Morocco, a woman is inspected before marriage by women related to the groom, to make sure her hymen is intact. If they for whatever reason conclude the woman must have had sex, the marriage is canceled and she is sent back home. This is an extreme outgrowth of the desert mentality, but we’re faced with an incarnation that is not much better.

Aubrey de Grey, non-monogamous transhumanist and classical example of a man who ripes like fine wine.

Men who take good care of themselves ripe like wine, but a woman is prettiest in her twenties. In Western culture, if you meet a woman in your twenties you happen to like, you impose sexual exclusivity on her. Meet her at twenty and the two of you are expected to have one partner until death, without ever having any romantic attachment to anyone else. I have to wonder, is this really something we can consider fair? I often see people panic about declining marriage rates, but we have to keep in mind that marriage now comes with unnatural expectations that were not taken as seriously back in the 18th century, when “royal mistress” was a more or less official title for a woman the French King liked to shag.

The implication of monogamy is that two people are somehow made perfectly for each other. You’re a unique human being, but there is one person out there who can somehow completely monopolize both your intellect and your bodily lusts. In practice, we always find out within a few years that this is not the case. We don’t conclude that this person might be a good partner, but rather they are not “the one”. Then another person shows up who must be perfectly made for you, within a few years you grow alienated again, then you’ll try it again ad infinitum until you look in the mirror one day with disgust and conclude you’re lucky you don’t have to spend the evening watching Dancing with the Stars on the tube by yourself.

Unless she’s really genetically blessed, a woman finds herself losing most attention from men in her late twenties. It’s not that she becomes ugly overnight, it’s just that the number of women who look even prettier grows. This is not fair and we’re working hard on solutions to that problem, but it is the way things currently stand. A Dutch woman aged around forty tends to cut her hair off and dye the remnant red, as part of some sort of folk-feminist rebellion against reality, but women who enter their late twenties don’t tend to go gentle into that good night yet.

There’s another problem with monogamy that’s not sufficiently discussed, which is the simple fact that some people are bisexual. In our day and age this is mostly suppressed. For women it’s tolerated in bars when everyone is drunk and no man present sincerely believes he’ll end up forever watching TV on the couch with her, but men who show the most minor symptoms of bisexuality must automatically be gay. Men are envious when it comes to sex, women when it comes to love, so the insecure woman forever feels threatened by her boyfriend’s friends.

The idea in a feminist society where men live at the mercy of women that a man might love his friends is so outrageous that women institute a caste system. There are two types of men: Men and gays. The gays have to be outed at all costs. There is an entire industry of gossip papers that make sure to carefully scrutinize every move of every prominent man, to make sure he is not a secret sodomite. Peter Thiel succesfully bankrupted one of these feminist clubs as revenge for outing him, but generally speaking men are losing. The gays in turn are not expected to behave like men, they must at all times behave like some kind of ridiculous stereotype to ensure that no woman might make a mistake. Ideally they would stop behaving like men altogether, “marry” like lesbians do and adopt a few orphans.

It’s cruel enough for the bisexual men (who mysteriously died out when the feminist two-caste system came into existence that destroyed male bonding), but for the women it’s worse. I’ve seen it often enough that a woman who is bisexual lives in denial until she’s in her forties, at which point she has missed out on most of her opportunities in life. Then she decides that she’s “lesbian”, only sees her ex-husband in entirely negative terms and starts cohabiting with a woman, forming a relationship that becomes entirely devoid of passion within months. Deciding that they no longer have to look pretty, they gain weight, start wearing ill-fitting blue jeans and cut their hair. This is entirely different from gay men, who generally do make sure to take care of their appearance.

There is of course another issue here, which is that women don’t comprehend male bonding. In much of Southern Europe men can kiss each other, in India bank robbers walk outside while holding hands. In the $Current_Year totalitarian feminist dystopia, all of these would be symptoms of the fact that a man would like to put on a tiara and have a train pulled on him before infecting his wife with every STD known to mankind. Male bisexuality is interpreted by society in the light of the charactistics of uncloseted male homosexuals. It is the equivalent of trying to understand female sexuality by studying cam-girls and prostitutes.

But the biggest issue with monogamy is not even the burden it places on bisexuals. It means in practice that you’re forever going to lose contact with people you really liked. Worse, love might turn to hate. Relationships in Western society don’t end with “I’ve known you for five years and although I had a really good time and hope to keep in touch with you there are other aspects to my personality that I would like to explore with other people”. They tend to end with lawsuits, divorce lawyers, hatred, betrayal, lies and frustration. That’s how Jesus would have wanted it.

There are two main critiques I expect to face, from the usual suspects. On the one hand, there are the guys who think that in a non-monogamous society, a few good looking wealthy guys would monopolize all women and the rest would sit in their basement browsing porn. On the other hand there are the guys who have been so indoctrinated, they can only think of not enforcing monogamy on your wife as meaning you’re a cuck. I’m going to address the first point first.

It’s easy to imagine that some guys would be left out, but in reality, that doesn’t tend to happen. Although most men can grow used to the idea of no-strings attached sex, the majority of women want emotional depth with guys beyond just sex. Men are dealing with biological limits that prohibit them from having a harem and making genuine use of it. Both of these issues ensure that you can’t realistically expect one guy to end up with a lot of women. In addition, in a monogamous society there are a lot of women with one partner who would like to be with a guy who’s presently single. In our current society, some guys are being left out, simply because of the dumb limits imposed upon us by monogamy. Parts of India have 1.3 male births for every female birth. This ensure that some guys must end up without a female partner. Even without gender-selective abortions, we have more male than female births. The better solution for India and China would be that some women have multiple partners.

Finally I’ll address the “you’re just a cuck” argument. Non-monogamy needs to be fair, in the sense that both partners need to benefit. The bigger issue however, is that these people wish to interpret non-jealousy in the context of a specific sexual fetish involving humiliation and experiencing feelings of inadequacy. This is really a separate phenomenon. I’m interpreting non-monogamy in its broadest form here, which is the simple fact that love and affection don’t have to be monopolized by one single person.

There is a subset of people who don’t have a desire for non-monogamy so much, they have a desire to cheat. The desire is not love, but power over others. This is where the cuckolding idea comes from. Some alt-reich guys are stuck with toxic women (because people in dark places tend to be attracted to each other) and imagine that non-monogamy must mean that you get off on the idea of a neurotic woman who violates your trust. I think that envy and the desire to cause envy even moreso, is a toxic product primarily of trauma, low self-confidence and cultural conditioning. A woman who wants to cheat, rather than agreeing to an open relationship, tends to be a woman who had her own heart and self-image shattered at some point. The solution to that is healing. With psychotherapy and psychedelics, such traumatic experiences can be properly buried.

2 Comments

  1. But did Jesus even exist at all? You might be interested in the work of Richard Carrier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79Lmmy2jfeo
    Interestingly, Carrier is into non-monogomy.

    Have you read “The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World.” by Catherine Nixey? Here’s a good interview:
    https://soundcloud.com/laphamsquarterlyworldintime/episode-30-catherine-nixey

    The BBC’s In Our Time program on marriage is instructive: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00548c2
    Our marriage patterns resemble those of the upper classes in times past because, in Western societies everyone is fairly well off by historical standards.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*