Safeguard Your Own Women, Steal the Enemy’s Women

In the comments section, Cyrus points out that some ethnic groups do place priority on breeding within the group, particularly the Jews and the Armenians:

Robert, in addition to Jews having a fixation on non-intermarriage, I might also add that I have noticed this pattern with Armenians as well. Just an observation. Though, I believe there exists a social rational behind Jews and Armenians holding such views. A similar history of persecution, perhaps? A Near Eastern cultural element?

Yes, the Armenians and the Jews do want you to marry inside the group. And many immigrants to the West do too. I have noticed that with East Asians, there is strong pressure for Chinese to marry another Chinese, Koreans another Korean, Japanese another Japanese, etc. Even among SE Asians, there is pressure to marry your own. Khmer are pressured to marry other Khmer and not those horrible Lao or Viets, etc.

What’s funny is that marrying your own tribe can’t really be natural, since in order to keep it going, you have pound it into your people’s heads how evil the other tribes are. Most of these accusations against the other groups are simply lies. So the only way to prevent mass miscegenation is with mass lying propaganda. Doesn’t sound like an inborn trait to me.

If you study tribes, it’s clear that most totally don’t give a fuck about genetic purity. I studied Amerindian tribes, and it was quite common to take a wife not just from another village, but even from another tribe. She left her tribe and came to yours, abandoned her language and culture and adopted yours, and she was automatically one of your people. It also makes sense from a genetic POV, as you are avoiding becoming inbred. It seems that primitives had some understanding of genetics after all.

Further, tribes have always conquered other tribes and raided them to steal their women. One thing you can do is raid the other tribe and rape all their women to force them to bear your genetic line. Or bring the women back to your tribe and breed them in with your tribe, and extinct their tribe in the process.

Primitives did not understand genetics very well, but clearly there was a prerogative to keep the tribe going and in many cases to wipe out the competing tribes. By kidnapping their women, bringing them back to your village, and making them bear your kids, you extinct their tribe while incorporating their genes into your own line.

Any group doing this cares not one whit about genetic purity. They just mass-miscegenated with the enemy! Come on!

However, they did keep their tribe going and extinct a competing tribe. These tendencies may well be genetically driven.

Kevin MacDonald says that humans have evolved traits to do two opposite things:

1. Guard the women of your own tribe from breeding with enemy or competing groups.

2. Conversely, the men have a drive to breed with the women of the competing group (in addition to breeding with their own)!

Maybe this is not so contrary as it seems. Women are the seed stock of your tribe. When they are gone, you are gone. You need to preserve them from the enemy taking them out and extincting your group. On the other hand, by stealing the enemy’s women, you weaken them, force them to carry your line, and possibly wipe them out altogether.

The result is the imperative in the title: Safeguard Your Own Women, Steal the Enemy’s Women.

All makes sense from a group competition POV.

9 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Cultural, Evolution, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Man World, Sex, Women

9 responses to “Safeguard Your Own Women, Steal the Enemy’s Women

  1. FG

    It’s interesting that Jews are quite inbred and as a group suffer a large number of genetic illnesses yet perform well at a large number of cognitively demanding tasks.

    • Bay Area Guy

      I’ve always wondered about that. I’ve been told that breeding within one’s own racial or ethnic group results in stupidity and various deformities. Yet, many Jews (and I’m in no way saying they’re all inbred) are quite successful in intellectual pursuits and other demanding endeavors.

      The funny thing is that current racial science tells us that there’s greater in-group genetic variation than out-group variation. If that’s the case, then wouldn’t it make sense to actually breed within your own group , since the offspring of homogenous parents will have greater genetic diversity than those who are products of interracial marriages?

      If there’s more genetic similarities between different races than within races, then one might think that interracial marriages actually create greater genetic problems than inbreeding.

      Again, I’m no biologist, so help me out here!

      • I am not a biologist either, but I am under the impression that the reason why inbreeding can lead to such effects is largely that there are many problems (e.g. disabilities) that occur only when a certain trait is inherited from both parents—and in an inbreeding situation this risk is increased considerably. In the long term, other factors can play in that e.g. limit the flexibility of the group with regard to adaption (because they have a smaller genetic pool with less variance).

        This does not conflict with the possibility that breeding for specific traits (including intelligence) can be highly successful, as can be seen e.g. among dogs: Here (perceived) excellence in various areas has been bought at the cost of medical problems.

  2. FG

    “The funny thing is that current racial science tells us that there’s greater in-group genetic variation than out-group variation. If that’s the case, then wouldn’t it make sense to actually breed within your own group , since the offspring of homogenous parents will have greater genetic diversity than those who are products of interracial marriages?

    If there’s more genetic similarities between different races than within races, then one might think that interracial marriages actually create greater genetic problems than inbreeding. ”

    I think when people say there’s greater diversity within groups than between them they mean that that vast majority of human biodiversity is accounted for by individual-level differences as opposed to between-group differences. That doesn’t mean people aren’t more closely related genetically to those of the same racial grouping.

  3. alpha unit

    Racism, tribalism, “tribal loyalty,” and so on appear to be male sexual strategies, more than anything else.

    They apparently use a combination of persuasion and force to get the women of the group to go along.

  4. Ken Hoop

    As far as studies of benefits and liabilities of inbreeding, there probably have been some of the Amish, and possibly the less numbered but ethnically similiar Hutterites and it might be worthwhile comparing & contrasting the results of these two Euro groupings.

    But one is starting with a sample of those who have chosen also to live rurally and simply, so
    the results must be analysed with this consideration.

  5. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: They Did it Back Then Too Edition

  6. Dave Coe

    I know white nationalist are against miscegenations period but what I find interesting is the gender double standards. A lot of feminist for example glorify it when white women are with blacks for example this annie liebowitz photo on the cover of Vogue.

    OTH feminist are outraged with older white males who go overseas to have sex with young non-white women. So they support miscegenation when it suits their interest but oppose it when men are doing it to escape from ultra feminist white western women.

    • I did a fair bit of reading on feminism last year (and a fair bit of writing), and one thing that struck me through-out was hypocrisy and double-standards. Among the many, many examples I saw, we have e.g. different valuations of crimes, different treatment in domestic violence situations, and a very different look on the same or equivalent sexual behaviours or depictions. (Notable examples include situations like the one you mention and the depiction of naked humans: Porn, e.g., is degrading towards women and exploitation of the actresses; however, they do not claim that it would be degrading towards men or exploitation of the actors…)

      I also have a strong impression that women in general tend towards double-standards, e.g. in relationships; however, not to the extreme degree that feminists do.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s