Comparing Monogamous & Polygamous Men, Part 2: Case StudiesJames Dunphy
Part 2 of 2 (Part 1 here)
Case Studies of Polygamous White Men
Although white men have probably been the most monogamous historically, not all exhibit the phenotype:
- Charles Lindbergh, the first man to fly an airplane across the Atlantic Ocean, sired six children with his American wife, Anne Morrow, in addition to a combined five children to two women from Bavaria, as well as two with Valeska, an East Prussian aristocrat who was his private secretary in Europe. Altogether, he had 11 children by three women.
- Rock star Rod Stewart sired eight children by five women, having been married three times. He once said, “Instead of getting married again, I’m just going to find a woman I don’t like and give her a house.”
- Movie star Clint Eastwood has sired eight children by six women. It’s funny how the whitest-looking guys sometimes do the blackest things.
- Billionaire Elon Musk sired five children by his first wife, Justine Wilson; two by the singer Grime; and two with an employee named Shivon Zilis, for a total of nine children by three women.
Musk’s segmented polygamy, though hurtful to his first wife, resulted in his high-IQ DNA being passed on to nine children. At least Lindbergh was a skilled pilot, but I’m not sure Stewart’s rampant breeding was a good thing. His talent seems to have been more for being provocative than composing good music. As for Eastwood, he was a decent actor in his prime, but sort of one-dimensional as the quiet angry man.
Oddly enough, all of these white polygamists are Right-leaning. Musk associates with the neoconservative Jordan Peterson and the editors of the Rightist satire website, The Babylon Bee. He also talks about white demographic decline, albeit in a roundabout way, claiming that depopulation is a threat to civilization and citing the case of Japan, even though it affects about five times as many whites as East Asians.
Eastwood is a moderate Republican, having given a speech for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney at the Republican National Convention in 2012. In 2016 he supported the moderate Jew Michael Bloomberg over Trump. He’s more of a moderate than a Rightist, but when compared to the average Hollywood actor, he’s a Rightist.
Rod Stewart dislikes political correctness because it prevents him from using informal endearing terms with his female staff such as “darling” and “love,” which evidently is a longstanding habit of his. He can probably still get away with it, though, because he is a high-status, unthreatening old man, and extroverted men can get away with a lot more as well. But a new form of Victorian-style scrutiny over relations between men and women seems to ensure that men in the opposite category — low status, big and manly, and introverted — can’t afford to do it without suffering severe punishment.
As far as Lindbergh’s Right-leaning beliefs, he was the spokesman of the original America First Committee which opposed American involvement in the Second World War. Lindbergh joined in the action after the US entered the Pacific theatre, however, instructing pilots on how to make their fuel go farther and gunning down a Japanese plane on one mission.
There is one polygamist — well, potential polygamist — who was further to the Right than Lindbergh or Musk. William Shockley, who obtained a PhD in physics in 1936, won a Nobel Prize in 1956 for his work on developing the transistor, a key innovation in the development of modern-day computers. Shockley was a eugenicist who donated his sperm to a sperm bank tasked with spreading humanity’s best DNA. The institution attracted three other Nobel laureates as donors. Shockley noted, though, that his biological children didn’t seem to inherit his abilities and represented a regression to the mean of their race. While intelligence is to a large extent heritable, genius seems to come as much from lucky gene combinations as smart parents.
The Cold War-era satire Dr. Strangelove makes fun of eugenicists who sought to reproduce polygamously. In the final scene, as the world is being destroyed in a nuclear holocaust, the German scientist Dr. Strangelove tells the American leaders that they must abscond to mine shafts which can protect them from the radioactive fallout. The problem is that there will only be enough room for a relatively small number of people. He proposes that only the most brilliant men of the nation — along with the politicians, of course — be allowed to go, along with a ratio of ten women to each man so that they can eventually return to the surface and quickly repopulate the world once the radiation clears. He gleefully notes that women will need to be selected based on their ability to “highly stimulate” men in this duty. Strangelove is a sort of Hugh Hefner/Joseph Smith hybrid.
Shockley was married twice and only seems to have only had children with one woman, so he doesn’t make a good polygamist, but if in fact women chose his sperm at the sperm bank, then he might be super-polygamous.
Unfortunately for Shockley (and perhaps humanity), women typically don’t choose scientists’ sperm in sperm banks. If given the choice between having intelligent or extroverted children, modern women opt for extroverted children. On dating apps, they like chefs, salesmen, and entrepreneurs (more accurately, they dislike all men — just those ones the least). The men they prefer are less intelligent and more extroverted than scientists.
Because the bell curve for men’s intelligence is flatter, there will always be a surplus of intelligent men, and some will need to give up their preferences for similarly intelligent women and pair up with women less intelligent than they are. Women, however, have no incentive to downgrade in intelligence unless they have far below average intelligence and must get men from even lower IQ echelons. However, this doesn’t explain why women overall subordinate intelligence to extroversion.
Extroverted men have more children than introverted men the world over, but their kids don’t fare as well, so there’s a continual die off of them, kind of like how each generation makes bland happy music in the popular style that everyone soon forgets. One must wonder, though, whether the extrovert’s advantage in procreating has increased in recent generations.
While extroverted men may be siring a higher surplus of children than in the past, intelligent men have been having fewer children for two centuries, according to researchers Richard Lynn and Michael Woodley. But at least the men of the future will have a good attitude through all the strife and incompetence their weaker minds bring about. Maybe the sinking ship full of jolly sailors will please women more than one that is staying on course but is filled with more stoic ones.
Case Studies of Monogamous White Men
The following monogamous men either remained true to their wives for their whole lives, or have done so thus far:
a. Henry Ford oversaw more of a leap in automobile technology than Elon Musk has. His Model T revolutionized transportation so that everyone could buy a car. Only the rich can afford Musk’s Tesla electric vehicles, which cost more to fuel than gasoline-powered ones. Musk’s PayPal seems to have in fact been a more impressive accomplishment.
Musk has spoken about the decline in white demographics, and seems to have perhaps sowed his wild oats in an effort to forestall it. Ford was very much a red-pilled sort of man in his own right. He penned The International Jew, a series of essays on Jewish power which remains among the strongest critiques of organized Jewry today. Ford was quite the opposite of a Jew, because while Jews in the garment industry were running low-paying sweatshops, he was paying his workers an efficiency wage — meaning he paid his employees more than necessary so that they were motivated to produce more per hour. It’s said he also paid them enough so they could themselves afford a Model T. Ford preferred to reinvest profits in his company and workers rather than dole them out to shareholders who did none of the actual work to help his company grow. His sense of fidelity to his workers mirrored his sense of it to his wife, Clara Ford, with whom he had one son, Edsel.
Ford wasn’t perfect, however. Along with other automakers of his day, Ford hired many African-Americans, enticing them to move to Detroit from the South. As we all know, Detroit is now the urban equivalent of a failed state due to African-Americans destroying it. This is why we shouldn’t stake all of our ideals on monogamists, because they are imperfect people and will fail us in some ways. Supporting monogamy in the abstract is better, but it’s still good to know the sorts of people who tend to be monogamous.
b. Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, started working on his invention because he wanted to develop a hearing aid for his wife, who had lost her hearing as the result of a childhood illness. He was also a eugenicist, not in the sense of conducting macabre experiments but rather in judging the quality of people for their suitability in relationships — the very sort of thing this essay is about. He had four children with his wife, Mabel Bell.
c. 16-year journeyman NFL quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick isn’t going to make the Hall of Fame. He never won a Super Bowl and never even played in a playoff game. He is tied for scoring third-highest on the Wonderlic test, however, getting 48/50 questions correct. The Wonderlic is an IQ test that scouts give NFL draft prospects. His score is no surprise given that he attended Harvard University, which is impressive for a white guy who attended public high school in Arizona (and probably didn’t have rich donor parents). Now, the Wonderlic mainly measures thinking speed and attention to detail, and doesn’t test abstract thinking ability, but Fitzpatrick has demonstrated that by majoring in economics at Harvard. According to one study, intelligence makes people think like economists. Fitting, as the average IQ of economics majors is 128, being among the highest of all college majors. Of course, at Harvard the average is likely even higher.
Fitzpatrick doesn’t have seven Superbowl rings like Tom Brady, but unlike poor Brady he’s still got one ring that matters. He shares it with only one other person: his wife, Liza Barber. Fitzpatrick reportedly never removes his wedding ring for NFL games or any other reason, which almost no other NFL player does. As he told a New York Times reporter:
It stands for something. It’s not like I’m trying to throw a message in anybody’s face. It’s just a personal thing between me and my wife. It’s important for me not to take it off.
d. Alan Ritchson is an actor with a different life pattern than Clint Eastwood. He has three children with his wife, Catherine. I like him for the scene in the TV series Reacher in which he defends his white friend from a “Bubba” in jail who is fixing to forcibly sodomize him. I don’t like seeing any man’s head bashed in, including a black man’s, and I doubt prison rape is as legion as it is movies. Nevertheless, it’s nice to see a white guy standing up for another white guy. Ritchson is great in this scene, but admittedly, the polygamist Clint Eastwood is the better actor:
Putting It All Together
In the first part of this essay, we saw how monogamy is correlated with being white, intelligent, humble, and honest. It’s also associated with deep-set eyes, a V-shaped face, arched eyebrows, appearing to have a calm demeanor, and seeming to have a strong interest in things and other people. Polygamy, meanwhile, is associated with non-whites of non-East Asian origins. It correlates with stupidity, psychopathy, an oval-shaped face, a wider mouth and jaw, upturned eyebrows, and appearing to have an agitated energy or disdain for other people. Here, we will compare polygamists with monogamists to see if they reflect the phenotype from the facial averages.
To start with, let’s look at the comparison of Henry Ford and Elon Musk, marked by a “1” between their photos. Ford looks way more like the monogamists. His expression of intense interest matches the 2021 monogamist, while Musk’s cold, Machiavellian look matches the 2021 polygamist. Now, Musk is older in this photo and has lost his V-shaped face, which is more common among youth, but he seems to have had less of one when young as well. His eyebrows are more upturned. His forehead is taller, which is typical of older men, but it was even that way when he was younger. Ford, of course, has more arched eyebrows than Musk and his eyes are much more deep-set.
In comparison 2, Alan Ritchman (to the left) has an interest in the observer, like Ford, whereas a young Clint Eastwood looks rather annoyed and self-satisfied. In this case, Eastwood is younger and has a more V-shaped face, but despite being in his 30s, Ritchman has one, too. Eastwood is squinting in the Sun (he made a career of that in cowboy movies), which may make his eyebrows appear more arched. He’s got more shadow over his eyes, but this is likely due to the Sun. In Ritchman’s outdoor photo with his family that we saw earlier, he has much more extensive shadowing over his eyes and seems to have more deep-set eyes. Eastwood has thinner lips than Richman despite being younger, given that lips thin out with age.
Comparison 3 shows a young Alexander Graham Bell on the left and Charles Lindbergh on the right. Bell has a look of outgoing concern on his face, fitting for a man who invented the telephone while trying to help his deaf wife regain her hearing. Lindbergh has a cold, disagreeable look on his face. He has a bigger forehead, too, though he’s probably a few years older than Bell here, which can influence that. Lindbergh does appear to have thicker lips, though, which is more typical of monogamists. He also has a strong, V-shaped face. Lindbergh is an unusual polygamist in this regard, but we must remember that facial averages don’t imply the difference in each case. Finally, Bell clearly has more deep-set eyes than Lindbergh.
In comparison 4, we see NFL quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick early in his career, when he was with the Rams, and to the right of him a young Rod Stewart. Stewart’s gaze is much colder, and his lips thinner. His eyebrows are more upturned.
Most of the traits which correspond to the facial averages of monogamous and sociosexual men seem to correspond to real-life examples — all except for the narrowness and V-shaped quality of faces. I deliberately didn’t compare their intelligence levels, because I selected the polygamists for their ratio of baby mommas to children, and three of four monogamists for their intelligence.
Divorce is negatively correlated with intelligence and enables segmented polygamy, so we can probably conclude that polygamy negatively correlates with intelligence. This makes sense, because whites and East Asians are the most intelligent on average and the most monogamous historically.
African-American Polygamists versus White Polygamists
Blacks, and particularly African-Americans, gravitate more strongly and often to segmented polygamy. African-American men coined the term “baby momma,” after all. They also use terms like “side bitch” instead of “mistress,” putting their own linguistic stamp on womanizing. They are the true champions of segmented polygamy. According to one study, African-American siblings are more likely to have different fathers due to their mothers sleeping with various men. As evidence of this, the children of ghettoized African-American women frequently have different surnames. Some African-American men in the ghetto seem to take turns cross-pollinating black women, buzzing from one section 8 housing unit to another.
It’s useful to examine the phenotypes in African-Americans because we can perhaps be more objective, since they are all equally different from us. This will help us see what correlates with polygamy and monogamy across race. Let’s start with African-American polygamists.
The rapper Future has seven kids by seven women, with one other case being litigated. He was married to the singer Ciara for a period, but she left him due to his infidelity. Don’t worry, though; he’s not heartbroken over it. Rapping a year after the divorce in 21 Savage’s “X, featuring Future,” he opined:
I don’t give a fuck about no ring
. . . Failing love was a good move.
A year later he rapped in “Low Life,” “If she catch [sic] me cheating, I will never tell her sorry . . .”
Showing no remorse and having many short-term relationships are both facets of psychopathy. Future doesn’t seem to be clinically psychopathic but displays many psychopathic traits, a common facet of polygamous men.
Former NFL running back Travis Henry, who transitioned into a career of illegal drug trafficking after retiring from football, has sired 11 children by ten different women. (One let him impregnate her twice, so he must have some saving graces.) He scored a 9/50 on the Wonderlic test. Because the Wonderlic has 50 questions, with nearly all having five multiple choice answers, he probably could have marked the letter “A” for each answer and scored a 10/50 — one point higher than his actual score of 9/50.
The late rapper DMX wasn’t quite as rampantly polygamous as Henry or Future in terms getting a high ratio of baby mommas to kids, but he has had more kids overall — specifically, 17 by 11 women.
Finally, Nick Cannon, a rapper and TV host, gets the award for siring the most children in a short time span: 10 with six women in six years. That’s almost two per year. He criticizes Jewish power, but he does so from a Black Israelite perspective that makes saner critics of Jewish power look bad. Still, at least black celebrities such as Cannon, Kyrie Irving, Kanye West, and the football player DeSean Jackson have the guts to do it, though perhaps it’s out of foolhardiness rather than courage, since they often relent once the Jew hand that feeds them withholds the money — or gets the white hand that feeds them to do so.
Having identified several black polygamists, it’s only fair to identify several black monogamists. They are not as common as white monogamists, but they’re out there.
a. Benjamin Watson played for 16 years in the NFL at tight end, which is a long career for that position. He is known for chasing down “Champ” Bailey, who had intercepted his quarterback, for over 100 yards and then knocking him out of bounds right before he could reach the goal line. Watson scored 48/50 on the Wonderlic. This is tied for the third-highest score ever among draft prospects, and almost no blacks score within 20 points of him. Although the Wonderlic (see practice test here) doesn’t test abstract thinking ability beyond an IQ of approximately 120, since it mostly tests attention to detail and how quickly someone thinks, scoring 48 is still a great accomplishment. Watson majored in finance in college, and such people have an average IQ of 125. In other words, it’s not a made-up major like communications or sports studies. Like the other monogamous blacks pictured, he is strongly religious. He wrote a book in 2017 titled The New Dad’s Playbook, which many African-American men could sorely use.
b. Calvin Johnson, a former perennial pro bowl NFL wide receiver, scored 41/50 on the Wonderlic, which is also quite high. After retiring from football, he returned to Georgia Tech to complete his degree in engineering, having left before his senior year to enter the NFL draft early. Engineering majors have an average IQ of between 123 and 129 and score an average of 27 on the Wonderlic. He scored 41, so he’s probably smarter than the average engineer.
c. David Robinson, a former NBA all-star, scored a 1320 on his SAT. The SAT tests studiousness more than intelligence, but that’s still a great score. After years featuring Robinson as their number one shooter, the San Antonio Spurs drafted Tim Duncan to take over the role. Robinson didn’t like it, but he relied on his religious faith to help him stay humble, and he and Duncan went on to win two championships together. He didn’t need Duncan or the NBA to have a good life, however, because prior to playing he was set to become a naval engineer like his father. He has three sons with his wife and generously donates to charities.
d. Marcus Garvey, the Jamaican-born black nationalist and racial separatist, is considered a hero by many Jamaicans today. He opposed desegregation in the US and debated integrationists such as W. E. B. Du Bois on the subject. Garvey believed in a pan-racial black identity and black self-sufficiency, while Du Bois, as a lackey for the Jew-run and -financed National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, supported integration. Garvey had amicable relations with pro-segregation whites in the American South because he understood that desegregation would eventually lead to both blacks and whites being mixed out of existence. Unfortunately, the Jews and black integrationists won out against separatists such as Garvey, as several decades after Garvey’s death a consortium of Jews, blacks, and white liberals led by Stanley David Levison and the womanizing Martin Luther King, Jr. pushed racial integration through.
Garvey was a man of conservative, ascetic tastes, being a teetotaler who believed drinking alcohol was wrong. He had two sons with his wife, Amy Jacques Garvey. One of his sons became an engineer, and the other, a surgeon. It’s funny how three of four monogamous African-American men have engineers in their families.
One may notice from these photos that monogamous black men prefer lighter-skinned women. There seems to be a continual genetic die-off of them, because light-skinned women presumably have less black blood. All-black societies would prevent them from breeding monogamy out of the black gene pool.
If, once they are in an all-black society, monogamous African-Americans could outbreed polygamous ones, they’d be better off. If African-Americans in the category Du Bois called the talented tenth — the top 10% whose IQs range mostly from 105 to 120 — could maintain their numbers, and if the state could impose a century-long one-child policy on criminally-inclined ghetto blacks, then their population would undoubtedly improve. Of course, there would be some regression to the mean — their polygamous, average IQ of 85 mean — but there would also be some improvement.
A one-child policy for ghetto African-Americans is not practicable, though, because policymakers can’t perfectly delineate the two groups, nor prevent them from intermarrying, and even if they could, whites don’t have the political will to enforce it. If the Chinese take over America several centuries from now, they may have the political will to subject polygamous ghetto blacks to a one-child policy just as they did with their own people, but by then America may be very mixed racially, with few pure blacks or whites left.
The Dilemma of the Information Age
The developed world is in the throes of a Singles Epidemic. There are more single women in their twenties and thirties than ever. Many are finally beginning to choose men. The sane ones will choose men of their own race, but after that, they’ll have to make decisions along a continuum of monogamy and polygamy.
Monogamous men tend to be more intelligent, religious, and seem to have more deep-set eyes. They show paternal concern for those in their group. They often gravitate to technical fields such as engineering, which require continued dedication to learn. Their work often helps people for a long time after they pass from this world, though no legacy lasts indefinitely among the living.
Polygamous men tend to be less intelligent and have shallower-set eyes. They also tend to be more psychopathic and to gravitate to fields requiring charisma, convincing others to give them money in exchange for performances or services which usually don’t benefit anyone in the long run but themselves.
After the rise of agriculture, the proportion of men passing on their genes went back up, but never fully returned to pre-agricultural levels. The question is whether it will happen again as we enter the information age and whether there will be a permanent shift toward reduced equality of opportunity in passing on one’s genes. Religious people are outbreeding irreligious ones, and monogamists tend to be more religious, but it seems men having the polygamist phenotype get more women, and women are increasingly taking turns dating fewer men. I don’t know which way we’re headed, but I hope whichever way it is will be for the best.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Remembering Madison Grant (November 19, 1865-May 30, 1937)
Karl Pearson’s “The Groundwork of Eugenics”
“Are You So Severe upon Your Own Sex?” Femininity According to Jane Austen
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 503 Sam Valleus Interviews Vincent James
Comparing Monogamous & Polygamous Men, Part 1: Race, Ancestry, Character Traits, & Physical Characteristics
Buying Freedom: Musk’s Last Laugh
Doors & Bolts & Bars in Place: Ethnonationalist Policy in the Bible
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 501 New Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson