Problems With Chris Cantwell’s Polygyny Proposal

In recent weeks Radical Agenda podcast host Chris Cantwell has proposed polygyny (not polygamy) as a way to bolster White demographics. Cantwell, a libertarian activist who has moved in a decidedly pro-White direction over the last several months, has spoken at length about the problems Whites face as a shrinking majority in the United States and a small minority world-wide. He has embraced the need for a White ethno-state, a popular proposal on the Alt-Right. But he has also repeatedly spoken at length about the benefits polygyny could offer White Nationalists. He envisions this arrangement as a way for White elites to spread their genes more widely. He also notes that this practice in a White Nationalist area or ethno-state could lead to a shortage of White women. Cantwell has argued that this would prompt young White men to leave the pro-White territory and go out into multi-racial or non-White areas to find women. He has described this as a way of Whitening the world. He says that Whites should be exporting their genes rather than importing non-White genes.

Cantwell has repeatedly asked listeners to his program to call in and give him good arguments against polygyny as a practice among White Nationalists. With that in mind I will give a few reasons why polygyny is not something our movement should embrace.

• If practiced intensely in a given area polygyny comes with some genetic health risks such as those which afflict certain polygamous Mormon communities in the Western USA.
• If successful it would lead to a shortage of women, thus encouraging men to leave the pro-White area. This would deprive the ethno-state or community of needed manpower.
• The exodus of White men from the ethno-state would likely lead to out-breeding with other racial groups. Cantwell embraces this idea for those outside of the ethno-state. This would create potentially dangerous ties between White families in the ethno-state and mixed-race families outside of it.
• Over time, if practiced intensely, this racial-mixing outside of the ethno-state would create lots of mulattos, mestizos and happas. This would blur the distinction between White and non-White. The Whitest of these racially-mixed people could present a problem for the ethno-state because of their mostly-White appearance and family connections to people in the ethno-state. This could lead to significant amount of non-White genes flowing back into the ethno-state.
• The creation of numerous castes of part-Whites would elevate the IQ of areas outside of the ethno-state. The part-Whites present a greater danger than the non-Whites because of their Whiter appearance, higher IQ and (generally speaking) greater animosity for Whites. The creation of large numbers of frizzy-haired mulatto women with problem glasses is a frightening prospect. In fact, we face that in the next generation in the current system. Adding to their numbers would be imprudent.
• The embrace of polygyny by the ethno-state would be a sharp break with White cultural norms. It would make the Whites of the ethno-state appear strange or cult-like to outside Whites who might otherwise be sympathetic. This is a needless barrier to entry or support.
• Finally, polygyny is un-necessary. Whites took over and re-populated most of North America, Australia, New Zealand, large regions of Latin America and parts of Africa. They did so mostly without polygyny. It was fateful and tragic policy decisions on citizenship, voting rights and (most of all) non-White immigration which has of late harmed these once pro-White areas and threatened the survival of our race. It is such policies which must be changed, not the White family structure as it has existed for centuries. If such policies can not be changed in existing polities then separation, secession or revolution are in order.