By H. Millard:
You are born to make more like yourself. Nature doesn’t care how you do it. It just rewards those who succeed.
Nature screams out to all living organisms: Make more like yourself. Expand always and contract never. More wives helps a male individual fulfill nature’s command.
To be clear. For humans, as with many species, this command from nature is to individuals, not to couples, and it requires that males and females of the species partner with those of the opposite sex in order to allow each of the partners to expand his or her particular DNA code. In other words, it is an individual responsibility to multiply your particular DNA code. It is not a couple responsibility.
A morality that says humans should only have children by being a married couple is a false morality invented by humans and is not what nature, with its true morality, says.
This “couple” idea has now been perverted to be the most important part of the relationship morality in our present Dark Age and this leads to the acceptance of same sex marriages. “Hey, they’re a ‘couple,’ so it must be moral, right?”
And, thus, it is not nature’s command to have children that is considered moral in our upside down present reality, but simply to be a couple.
Males and females are different for a reason
The reality of our species is that human males can have children very late in life. This is so because human males produce new sperm every day until they die. Why did nature engineer us this way? So we will continue having children and making more like our kind. But it is also so we will survive and prosper during the constant changes in our ever spinning and dynamic universe.
To be able to survive and prosper, we, as a species, must be able to also change to meet new demands. Yet we mustn’t change too quickly when there are temporary changes in the environment.
So, the way it works is that human males are the ones who provide most of the novelty or mutations for the species. And they do this by producing new sperm each day that can react to various internal and external changes in the environment. And it is the human female who gets all of her eggs at an early age who provides stability of the genotype as her eggs are fixed in their characteristics once they are produced.
And, what of this change in the “internal environment,” that I just mentioned above? This refers to various psychological and biological tensions and experiences that males encounter as they go through life which adjusts their internal chemistry as their genes react and trigger the release of various proportions of hormones and other natural chemicals. And, of course, the same internal process works to adjust for external changes in the environment — cold, heat, wet, dry, more sun, less sun, etc.
For example, in times of war and major conflicts, the sperm in males will react to the tensions and fears in male individuals and this will affect the sperm and the fluid it swims in such that it becomes more probable that certain sperm will gain a reproductive advantage over other sperm and be more successful in fertilizing eggs. Think race horses. Some horses do better on muddy tracks and some on dry tracks. The principle is similar. The eternal struggle for survival always involves competition and the competition we see in the ordinary world around us also happens right in our own bodies as sperm compete with each other and even our genes compete with each other.
But why can males produce children late in life and females can’t, if nature says individuals of our species must expand always and contract never?
Again, this has to do with not allowing too many changes too quickly in a ping pong fashion. Many of the external changes we see in the environment are cyclical. We have ice ages and then we have warm periods, for example.
Nature has engineered us so that we may change slightly during such changes, but if the changes are temporary — only several thousand years in duration — and if we were radically changed each time there was such a minor change (in the long view of existence) our survival would be in question when things changed again.
Polygamy and nature’s command to make more like yourself
As I said at the outset, in slightly different terms — nature doesn’t give a damn about human invented morality and human trends in social thinking. Nature simply says: Expand always, contract never.
Or, in other words: Go forth and multiply your kind. Or, in even different words: You are born to make more like yourself. This is your individual responsibility.
It is up to you to find a way to make more like yourself so your individual and unique DNA code will move into the next generation as the DNA code of your parents moved into the present generation in you as the unique individual you are.
If you choose to be in a one man/one woman couple marriage and your mate can’t help you make more like yourself, you still have to find a way to make more like yourself.
And, those who do find a way — such as those males in polygamous relationships — often have the greatest reproductive success since males can help produce a new child, like themselves, every few hours of every day if they have willing female partners, while the females, of course, are limited to producing only one child (or twins, etc) every nine months. This also means that females must be more selective in who they mate with if they want their DNA code to carry forward in the next generation as it is in themselves.
If you do not reproduce more like yourself, then you are a dead end in evolution and you have no stake in the future of this planet or existence. You are a broken link in the chain of existence that goes back to that first molecule of DNA that made the leap from so-called non-living minerals to the living minerals that we call life.
Those who have the most reproductive success — by having the most children like themselves–are the winners in the struggle for existence. They are ruled fit by nature. Those who do not reproduce are ruled unfit by nature.
And, there is no appeal from nature’s verdict. Nature works dispassionately — you either obey nature’s laws in this regard and are judged fit or you disobey them and are judged unfit.
No rationalizations or excuses such as saying –“Well, I’m a good person and I’ve helped others,” or “I accomplished much in life. I built cities, I wrote books, I composed great music, I was famous, I was rich, I was well liked” — will change nature’s verdict. If you have not made more like yourself, you are a loser in the struggle for existence. You are a dead end. Your fate is eternal oblivion.
By H. Millard © 2014
# # # #
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us/its-official-mormon-founder-had-up-to-40-wives.html
# # # #
PharmaPhil
- Edit
Ones enough as far as I’m concerned!
Problem is that some moslems here are having 4 wives & getting benefits from that as well as the all the kids contributing to their demographics.
Helena Hamilton
- Edit
Wow, what’s the difference between this concept and the Middle Eastern mentality and mimicks the behaviour of herd animals. I thought Aryan men had more control over their sexual drive. Sorry I’m dissapointed. Yes the white race must increase but this mentality favours quantity over guality. And if the idea of polygamy is a methods to dra men into the survival idea of our race then we are doomed already. The type of woman who would fall for this arrangement would be those of a lower mentality! Surely you would want an exceptional woman to be the mother of your children? This. Is like animals a prize bull covering as many cows as possible! Its actually disgusting.
I thought Aryan men had evolved past this. Polygamy is not the Aryan ideal.
Please refer to a book by Tacitus; Germania and Agricola – which is more of an anthropological study of the ancient Germanic tribes than an historical account. The best version is the translation by oxford university which gives, detailed accounts of these phenomenal peoples morality.
Polygamy was not a desired thing, amongst the ancient Germans, neither was adultery or any other depravity. Any deviation from their strict codes of morality were dealt with swiftly and finally by death.
Polygamy was a Celtic way of life, but then in Britain women also were allowed multiple husbands.
In germany a man who had sexual intercourse before the age of 20 was excluded from military service as he was not deemed trustworthy and was looked upon as hnot having any self-restraint. Adultery resulted in death for both the man and woman.
Polygamy is seen amongst the middle eastern people as a punishment to woman from god for having brought death/sin into the world.
Polygamy is an African ideal, the more wives they have, the wealthier the man is deemed
The fonder of mormonism was a randy old goat, who because he could not control himself, started a religion that catered for likewise males.
How many daft men have started religions, by either sitting in a cave or in the woods and claim to have had visions from god? Abraham, mohamed and Brigham Young. All were paedophiles and had abnormal sexual appetites.
Imagine any woman doing that, she would be called a trouble maker, a lunatic or lazy slut up to no good.
Survival – is for cockroaches, flies and animals, humans especially those who believe themselves to be ubermenschen, should live, not survive.
Read any ancient history book and you will notice that where the Aryans lived in the Middle East, women had rights, they practised monogamy but the moment they were driven out of the land by the arabics, polygamy became the rule, prostitution was rife and so was concubinage. Women lost all rights and the laws became draconian. If anyone doubts this I will gladly give you authors and titles of books they wrote, to do your own research. One such ancient group were the Sumerians.
With polygamy, women are reduced to commodities. It leads to misery. Anyway what makees these men think they are so special that they have to replicate themselves on such a massive scale?
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Helena,
The opinions expressed by H. Millard are his own and are not necessarily those of Western Spring as a whole. We publish Millard’s writing because the overwhelming majority of it is in accord with our own beliefs and because Millard is not afraid to think ‘outside the box’ and to challenge old mores in suggesting ways in which White people may overcome our present dilemma. Furthermore, while Millard has used polygamy as the attention grabbing ‘headline’ issue, the majority of this article is devoted to advocating ‘fecundity’ rather than polygamy, and fecundity is something that we at Western Spring do advocate.
.
The subject of polygamy has been raised by H. Millard on few occasions now and on each occasion I have explained that in my opinion, while I have no objection to polygamy per se — if that is an arrangement that consenting adults wish to enter into — it is not a measure that will enhance the future survival chances of the White race in our current situation. Polygamy is only effective in situations where there is a surfeit of women and very few men, which is the complete opposite of the situation in which we nationalists find ourselves.
.
Polygamous arrangements also reduce the role of the father in the nurturing of the children produced and in my view this would contribute to a lack of masculine development in male children. The very fact that monogamous societies have historically out-competed polygamous societies is evidence to support your assertion that monogamy is the Aryan way and I would support this view in most situations other than one in which, as I have said hypothetically, we found ourselves with too few men and a surfeit of women.
.
I agree with you that in the vast majority of circumstances, monogamy is the Aryan ideal.
Helena Hamilton
- Edit
Max Mussen thanks for the reply. Our true Aryan men are exceptional in every way.
Steed
- Edit
Fear not Helena. Most good European men would agree with you.
.
This harkens back to that old debate: Do the means justify the ends, even if in the process of achieving our goals we sacrifice (even temporarily) the very thing which we’re fighting for?
.
When some ‘White Nationalists’ talk about “being as deceptive and ruthless as ‘the chosen’ ruling tribe” I always maintain that do so would be to give up the very thing that makes Europeans worth saving. It is not just our phenotype which needs preserving (in my opinion that’s perhaps the least vital aspect to preserve), it is our values, our spirit (our religion), our creativity and our sense of justice and honesty which must preserved above all else. And if we forego those things in the short term can we guarantee restoring them some generations down the line?
Helena Hamilton
- Edit
Steed, thank God for men like you. I agree with you 100%. So beautifully written. If all Aryan men were like you, women would once more honour our men.
.
Aryan women were always protected by their great men. And because of monogamy: love, chivalry, fidelity, valour, spiritual values and mutual respect between men and women, became the basis for our race’s greatness.
.
We as a race have lost so much, due to the “insiduous race’s” poison – namely feminism, disrepect of elders, destruction of our belief system and our worldview. We are at war with ourselves. It will not be rectified by “baby mills”.
.
Thank you so much for your beautiful reply. I am stunned by it.
Steed
- Edit
Well you’re welcome Helena. I didn’t think what I wrote was particularly poetic but I’m glad you liked it. All the best.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
Have to admit to siding with Helen’s view on this, the polygamous idea is only workable were the women far outweigh the men but 3 or more is a crowd I think.
Max Musson
- Edit
I think you will find that is closest to the viewpoint that I expressed Phil, Helena wanted nothing to do with polygamy an any cost, ever!
PharmaPhil
- Edit
I think 40 wives is excessive & greedy, it’s a harem, it can’t be a normal relationship.
Also in a society if the divide between women & men is about equal, then this sort of behaviour will cause social problems.
I’m not sure that I particularly admire Mormonism anyway, some of what I have heard is just plain weird.
Walter Greenway
- Edit
The 1950 John Ford film Wagon Master features a band of hardy Mormon pioneers. In one scene the leader of this family of Mormons says he keeps his hat on so as not to show his horns because he is reputed to have forty wives.
I can’t find the scene because it cuts off just before the relevant part on these short clips. However here are the opening credits to the film which incidentally has been on TV quite a lot recently.
Eric
- Edit
I loved this article.
I am no fan of polygamy, or marriage for that matter, however, the thought of having many children and raising them with a “sense of purpose” that I was unaware of is extremely appealing.
Not sure about the UK, but in the USA, marriage is a failed institution and is seemingly the number one cause of divorce. Sam Battersby wrote a book in which he describes the future of Aryan reproduction. He proposes that Aryan children are the ultimate goal of our people, and that we will not be restricted by outdated monogamous marriage. Aryan mothers will be held in the highest regards for bearing children, and they will not be economically dependent on men. Honorable men will be encouraged to have many children with several partners. This is not for some sort of sexual fantasy, but instead it is positive eugenics.
Our cause needs fighters, farmers, workers, and thinkers. I would consider myself to be a decent balance of the aforementioned. My blood is calling me to help in the betterment of our people and I will do my part.
Lastly, I would like to mention that I have been to Colorado City Az. (Hilldale Ut.) numerous times and it is a fascinating area. These are the FLDS towns that practice polygamy. They have large houses that take up an entire city block, with well over 20 children playing at any given time. The entire town is clean, quiet, safe, and a solid example of what a “White Community” is. There is ZERO graffiti, ZERO blacks, ZERO muzz, and ZERO crime. Truthfully, the Mormon FLDS should be a group that is studied by any of our people interested in building White enclaves. Both the good and the bad should be analyzed.
Shaun
- Edit
It’s probably out the context of this article, but I would LOVE to practice polygamy all across Europe. You know, a red-head in Scotland, a blonde in Sweden, a brunnete in Italy — that type of thing….
It would be great, would it?
Max Musson
- Edit
Lol, for you it undoubtedly would be Shaun!
Walter Greenway
- Edit
Ground Control to Major Shaun. Take your protein pills and put your helmet on!
BritishActivism
- Edit
I tend to think this article is another bit of white nationalistic day dreaming – which is fine in terms of the idea of seeking to increase our numbers, but which is a bit delusional in how such a concept can be carried forward in the real world, particularly the world which liberals and corporate slavery has created over the last four to five decades.
.
The facts of the matter now are that many men and women in their 30s still haven’t had children with one woman, never mind siring scores of children with 40 different people.
.
None of my closest friends who are in their early 30s have them, be they men or women, although some in a wider circle of friends certainly do. Not all of them have their own home yet. Some still sit all day or night on their computer games and don’t even want to know a serious relationship.
.
Until around a year ago, about three out of five had never taken driving lessons, let alone passed their test. This is something that many used to do when they were 18. Some still do, without a doubt, but times have changed.
.
Whilst I would admit it is not the ‘normality’, this kind of thing is going on and is more rife than people may think. Even those who are more “adult” and have their own homes and careers are victims of ‘modern living’ and propaganda. For example, there are women in their early 40’s still trying to have “one” before it is too late, after their ‘career’ has blinded them to their forthcoming childlessness.
.
Young people are now tended to be herded into colleges and universities, pretty much told since birth that having children in their teens and twenties will ‘ruin’ their careers and life prospects, whilst the ‘costs’ of having children seem to continue to spiral out of control – especially if you go down the route of day-care and whatever else.
.
At the same time, real-worth wages are declining and being further depressed with mass levels of cheap labour from abroad. Everybody seems to fear losing their jobs, to either cheaper labour or by conglomerates moving whole companies overseas.
.
People can no longer plan ahead as much as they used to do. They can no longer walk from one job into another. People are frightened to take plunges on all sorts of things in this uncertainty of their futures. It may not be legitimate fear, but it is there in some people, lurking in the background of society, slaved to the conditions that have been created for them.
.
It was once the case that there only needed to be one bread-winner in a home to both afford that home and to run it. Now, thanks in part to some craftily framed “women’s liberation” and the decimation of ‘jobs for life’ in various heavy industries, it usually takes two bread-winners to establish a home – and the women are thus ‘work slaves’ (for taxes) just as much as men.
.
More and more people are growing up single, the “lads culture” has spawned a generation or two of people frightened to commit to somebody enough to get married and have children. There is definitely a ‘Peter Pan’ generation thing going on, where being a true adult has been postponed, particularly in men. (Think of the sitcom “Men behaving badly” for example, or even ‘The Likely Lads’, to go back a bit).
.
But this is part of a wider culture that has ‘time stretched’ life. Everything is happening later, but biology remains the same.
.
With jobs, education, lower wages, coupled with more escapism, hedonism, etc, has come a situation where people in their late 20s cannot afford to move out of their parent’s home to somewhere even half decent without getting into significant debt.
.
A situation where the life-skills are often just not there to cope with the harsh grind of life – things which our forefathers might well have been able to handle in their late teens and early 20’s. A situation where a weird peer pressure exists with this wider ‘lads culture’ to be a ‘player’ and never settle down or “be trapped” or “have baggage” (like children have often been seen to be!).
.
Many people now who do have children are no longer with the partners they had them with. Single motherhood seems rampant and in some cases that lay squarely with the father being utterly useless, but in other cases is a result of poor choices and lack of commitment from the mother. All cases are different, of course, but either way, it is not good. It is not good for children and it is not good for wider society.
.
Look at the fatherless figures of blacks and the kinds of repercussions it has in both the United States and here. They may be winning in the ‘numbers game’ (although recent studies in America actually suggest they are declining, not growing) – but they are largely dysfunctional societies where a myriad of problems grow to such a degree that they are extremely difficult to solve.
.
Whilst we might suggest that whites will not have the same degree of dysfunction thanks to our genes, I see no reason why it should be risked….other than the threat of being overtaken with others – which I do realise is the thrust of the thinking behind the article.
.
Demographics have always ebbed and flowed. So I would not be all that greatly concerned if ours dipped and rose and dipped and rose, or stayed static, except for the fact that others are now here and rendering us minorities in our own lands. Staying ‘static’ is no longer an option, and a decline is obviously disastrous.
.
I am pretty sure that there is also something psychological going on – just like with any animal species – that once their territory is invaded with others, the birthrates decline.
.
When there seems to be no future in a place, nothing to strive for, no purpose to life, no national ambitions or dreams, all the while having cuckoos in the nest pushing you out, not to mentioned you constantly being called lazy, useless, bigoted, worthless, ‘racist’, and responsible for all the ills of the world, surely it is going to have a subliminal effect on the willingness to expand our numbers?
.
So yes, it is a statement of fact that we need to boost our numbers. In fact, it is what I think I should be cracking on a bit more with instead of being a now part-time ‘nationalist’ on the sidelines!…
.
However, I would like to see Mr Millard head out into an average working-class English town centre on a Friday night and try and convince men ‘out on the pull’ that they should father scores of children (and face being legally and financially responsible for them all) – and likewise convince women that they should be vessels for these said men to ‘reproduce their genes’!
.
I think it is so biologically themed and far removed from what ordinary people in this day and age think like, that they would not even understand his point – and he might even get a bust lip for the privilege of informing them of their treachery to the white race….and that would just be from the rather loud and obnoxious ladette style women out own the town that are often more drunk, violent and foul mouthed than the men are these days!
.
Getting back to some stability, guidance, healthy relationships, security, monogamy, replacement-rate children in marriage themed homes, pushing memes of being a “success” to be a father (rather than it being a burden or a trapping), getting people to have children in their early 20s rather than early 40s etc would be a good enough start I reckon.
.
I cannot see people buying into polygamy any time soon, even amongst some of the most hardened nationalists!
.
The “Radford” family, going off the picture, seem to be in a stable family relationship and have scores of children together that will go on to give scores of grandchildren. That, if anything, should be the theme – not the idea of 40 wives, although I do realise it was meant for effect rather than a strategy.
.
Yet even the Radford situation is quite rare and would be hard to push in these times I think. If we had a nation where folks ‘just’ had three or four children instead of the increasingly common ‘one’ or ‘none at all’, we would obviously have a much better chance for the future and could even perpetually gazump the non-whites present here. We are still around 80% of the demographic I think. It may be the only advantage we have!
.
However, the chances of turning the whole nation around are extremely small. It is probably going to rely on nationalists and the more racially aware to try and buck the trend as part of a wider program that alleviates concerns and worries prevalent in the wider country – and where like minded men and women, particularly women, can come forward and be part of it.
.
There has always been a low ratio of women in the nationalist movement – and whilst I am not one for being “PC” or whatever else in terms of “gender balance” etc, without the backing and willingness of our white women folk to at least ‘put up’ with our positions or rationale, we nationalistic themed men can talk amongst ourselves until we go extinct.
.
Figuring out how to boost the women nationalist following is thus likely to be important. Describing them as (or implying that they should be) some kind of baby-farm to be used to carry forth DNA from scores of white-nationalist men may not be the best way to go about that…. but I suppose only a nationalistic woman could answer that!
.
They may like the idea of a large family, but perhaps not in such a scientific or blunt way put forward in the article.
Max Musson
- Edit
BA, I agree with just about everything you have written.
.
I also suspect that H. Millard probably agrees with you also and that the reference in this article is used by him as the shock attention getter, while his real message of the need for greater fecundity is what he really wants us to focus on.
Steed
- Edit
Excellent reply BA. You’ve put so many of my thoughts into words there. I used to argue on my blog that we need quality over quantity, and that the majority of our genepool may well fade away – and in truth, is that such a bad thing? Would it be terrible if we only managed to convince nationalistic-minded people to raise families?
.
But as you’ve also pointed out, society has been engineered in such away so as to deter indigenous North and Western Europeans from propagating themselves. I believe this is a deliberate agenda personally. Overcoming this will be tough, but must be done.
English girl
- Edit
It is incorrect that women can produce a baby or two every 9 months. This statement makes me think, that actually, the author of this piece does not have kids. Else he would be aware that women should not have sex for at least 6 weeks after birth, and usually do not feel like having sex for a far longer period. Also, if she breastfeeds, as nature intended, this usually prevents ovulation for the first 6 months. This is natures way of ensuring that a woman doesn’t wear herself out by having too many babies. Studies have shown that a woman’s body needs two years to recover its nutrients before getting pregnant again.
Also, women are more choosy about partners because in nature giving birth is a life-threatening business. The man she makes a baby for better be worth it. Even if child-birth doesn’t kill her, it will drain her physical resources for as long as she nurses, reduce her social status, and greatly reduce her attractiveness to other men. Without a man to protect her, a woman in nature would be vulnerable. On the other hand, sex has absolutely no consequences for the man.
Finally, do not disparage white nationalists who do not have children: some may be infertile. This doesn’t make them worthless. Some may have made bad choices before they were enlightened, and are now too old to have children. They still have a purpose in our movement, namely to educate people. Every white person is precious.
Max Musson
- Edit
You make a lot of good points, although I don’t think childbirth reduces a woman’s social status, quite the opposite in fact, and it does not reduce her attractiveness to other men.
.
You are right about the contraceptive effect of breast-feeding, but women do not necessarily need to wait six months before resuming sexual activity with their husbands. It all depends upon the individuals concerned and how gentle and understanding of each other’s needs they are.
.
Bearing a child demonstrates that a woman is fertile and given the right circumstances, will probably be willing to bear more children, something that is admirable in the eyes of all right thinking men.