2004 October 08 Friday
Most Turks In Favor Of Polygamy

The European Union is on course to add a member state whose majority is in favor of polygamy.

A RECENT poll in a Turkish newspaper included an eye-catching statistic. A substantial majority of the population — 63% — thought it perfectly acceptable for a man to have more than one wife.

It may not seem as surprising as some of the country’s other distinguishing features: in parts of mainly Muslim Turkey, some people still live in cone-shaped mud huts whose design dates from the dawn of history.

Yet Turkey’s penchant for polygamy may well become more of an issue in the debate about where to place the eastern boundary of the western world — and whether to let Turkey become a member of the European Union.

As Steve Sailer recently pointed out even intellectuals in our own elite such as Jonathan Turley are so foolish that they can't see the problems posed by polygamy. Monogamy reduces the amount of rivalry between males because it increases the odds that each male will be able to find a mate. Among males this tends to build support for society as a whole.

Far too many intellectuals seek to ignore the biological factors that influence human behavior. Many intellectuals seem to want to believe that humans can escape their biological nature and that the best way to do so is to deny its relevance. But both consanguineous marriage and polygamy contribute to making societies where there is less trust and less a sense of shared common interests.

We can not safely take for granted that the conditions that have made Western cultures more free and open will always be there no matter what cultural changes take place. Change the ratio of religions and religious beliefs in a society through immigration and differential rates of reproduction or change the laws that govern family formation and the result will be changes in values and cultural practices. If you are living in a Western country care about your country's culture and do not have a desire to see it commit suicide (as the West's intellectuals and political leaders seem intent upon doing) you should oppose immigration and legal changes that will dilute and destroy what makes the West distinct.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2004 October 08 04:30 PM  Europe and America

John S Bolton said at October 8, 2004 7:29 PM:

A lot of this may come from the failure of the anti-western, anti-capitalist and conspicously sacrificing scholars and politicians to find convincing arguments for their positions. Since they can't convince people that we need to become more like the 3rd world, such a state of affairs being so manifestly undesirable, professoriate and officialdom try to stampede the lemmings over the cliff. They have to use indirect approaches, such as : don't be racist, bring the polygamists in by the tens of millions. The government schools can only lead us to 3rd world conditions, therefore annihilation is the only choice which may reasonably be allowed such institutions, as degraded by power-seeking as they now have become.

gene berman said at October 8, 2004 8:47 PM:

John S. Bolton:

It's peculiar that you associate the specific matter under discussion with the package of societal wrecking strategies characteristic of the
levuloscenti (TM and smiley!). I say it's peculiar because I share in the opinion and have others specifically along that particular line (as well as contrarian views on maximized opposition to the process in progress). I'd appreciate your e-mail for private correspondence on the subject off Randall's blog-space (I'm at gene.berman@verizon.net).

Invisible Scientist said at October 9, 2004 5:06 AM:

Polygamy is an intrinsically feudal system, where the strong (more successful, more intelligent, richer)
can afford to monopolize a lot of women, at the expense of the weak. This causes genetic stratification,
too, in the sense that the separation between the high IQ and low IQ classes would increase, as a result.

But more alarmingly, polygamy causes a shortage of women, and increases the national aggressiveness
towards other countries, either in the form of immigration, or direct military invasion. This is why,
the countries which have a shortage of women, should be feared, militarily speaking.

Luke Lea said at October 9, 2004 7:03 AM:

Excellent post, Randall; it's on subjects like this one that you really shine. Surely, the European Union will come to its senses on this one. If not, I predict the individual countries, Britain especially, will start withdrawing. It is hard not to believe that the Eurocrats are just stringing Turkey along for some temporary political advantages; it used to be NATO and containment of the Soviet Union, not sure what it is now. Inertia?

Matra said at October 9, 2004 8:32 AM:

On the question of Turkish membership of the EU I believe the French government, which supports Turkey's bid, has promised a national referendum on the subject. The most recent polls show the French people are against it. There may also have to be referenda in other countries so I wouldn't bank on Turkey joining. Of course, the elites have managed to bamboozle the people before so it might happen again. If Turkey is allowed to join it will make it even harder for Blair to get a Yes vote to joining the single currency.

Invisible Scientist said at October 9, 2004 9:11 AM:

This comment is for Matra:
You said above that the French people are against Turkey's admission to the EU.
But note that the Turkish people are among the most pro-European and the most
multi-cultural nations in the world, even though Europeans are prejudiced
due to the fact that Turkey is a Muslim country. I am not saying if the French majority
is right or wrong about their views on Turkey, ALL I am saying is that France has a
growing North African Arab Muslim minority ( 10 % of the population are Muslims, and
among kids, perhaps 20 % are Muslims already, meaning that in 20 years, perhaps 25 % of the
French voters will be Arab Muslims ), and in this case, why are the Arabs of France
considered better than the Turks who have been the most pro-Western and the most loyal
to the USA and even to Europe?

Matra said at October 9, 2004 10:20 AM:

Invisible Scientist - "why are the Arabs of France
considered better than the Turks who have been the most pro-Western and the most loyal
to the USA and even to Europe?"

The ordinary French people were never thrilled by mass immigration from the Arab world in the first place. Now the prospect of even more Muslims moving there has scared them. This time they get to vote on it - that's the difference.

BTW I'm not so sure the Kurds would agree that Turks are all that multicultural in their outlook. And I suspect their pro-Europeanism is really just about the EU and getting rich of it. I doubt if there is a desire by Muslim Turks to become as secular as Europeans. The Turkish state may be secular - though an Islamic party is in power - but the Turkish people appear to be quite religious.

Randall Parker said at October 9, 2004 1:08 PM:

Matra, It is my understanding that France is one of the countries that have agreed to have a vote on the new EU constitution. I expect that more than one country that is having a vote on the constitution will have that vote go against that new constitution. Whether that rejection will prevent Turkey from joining the EU remains to be seen.

However, I have not read anything about a referendum in France for Turkey's EU membership. Are you sure about that? I doubt it.

Kurt said at October 9, 2004 1:21 PM:

I was in Germany in late 2000 for about a month, near Frankfurt. As with England and Switzerland, the whole place is looking more and more like a retirement community. Never seen such a high percentage of old people to young people (except in certain places in Arizona). Many of the youg people with kids were Turks or some other middle-eastern looking people. Not many white people with kids.

My understanding is that Russia and Eastern Europe are loosing population even faster than Western Europe. The good news is that fertility seems to be declining even in much of the muslim world (Iran and Turkey are below replacement, Egypt is at 2.5).

Frankfurt is a rather quiet place, even during the week. Its dead on the weekends (except for a few night-clubs). I've seen more action in Tucson. Frankfurt is considered one of the major cities of Europe. In comparison, the place I returned to from Frankfurt (Kaoshiung, in souther taiwan) is teeming with energy, in comparison. Kaoshiung is barely on the map as far as Asian cities go. Its more fun too.

Europe is a nice, quaint place to visit. Asia has more opportunities and is funner to live in.

The future does not bode well for Europe. Call it Eurabia.

Invisible Scientist said at October 9, 2004 2:11 PM:


On September 11, 2001, I was in Shanghai, visiting Buddhist temples and monasteries,
and China overall seems to be a fun place. Since their buildings in Shanghai were already even
higher than the World Trade center, they did not have any reason to celebrate the destruction of the
twin towers. Hong Kong was also a fun place, but I have not been in Taiwan.

What kind of intellectual energy do you see in Asia? Is it mostly entrepreneurial? If the world economy
gets worse later, how will this affect the region over there? Will they remain equally friendly to
the West?

Matra said at October 9, 2004 4:34 PM:


This article from MSNBC says Chirac wants there to be a referendum every time a new country wants to join the EU.


It would not be unprecedented. The UK was only allowed to join the EEC - as it was known at the time - after the French public voted in a referendum to reverse De Gaulle's policy of not allowing such a close Anglo-Saxon ally of the US to join.

This article from the Washington Times is interesting: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041004-010856-4544r.htm

It says: "A survey published by the German Marshall Fund of the United States last month found that only 16 percent of French people, 26 percent of Germans and 33 percent of Britons thought Turkish membership of the EU would be a good thing -- although almost 40 percent of respondents said it would be neither good nor bad. In Austria, where both the government and opposition are against Turkey joining the EU, a staggering 76 percent are opposed to the Eurasian state becoming a member of the Brussels-based club. The biggest supporter of Turkey's entry is Italy, with 45 percent of those questioned backing the country's membership bid."

Brenda said at October 10, 2004 10:33 AM:

Polygamy is usually not a lifestyle choice among equals, but is a way for men in misogynous cultures to maintain their control over women. Often the "wife" is a child who is purchased by the prospective husband.

In the United States, the law specifically states that anyone who intends to practice polygamy in the U.S. is ineligible for entry. Unfortunately, the provision [Immigration Act Section 212(a)(10)(A)] is often willfully ignored, which is why we have thousands of Hmong polygamists living in this country on the taxpayer's dime as refugees.


In the book "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?" Susan Okin noted the cost to France of accommodating polygamist immigrants...

In part because of the strain on the welfare state caused by families with 20-30 members, the French government has recently decided to recognize only one wife and consider all the other marriages annulled.


Invisible Scientist said at October 10, 2004 2:30 PM:

This comment is for Brenda:

Polygamy is sometimes practiced by celebrities and very rich or powerful individuals in the
form of extramarital affairs... This form or polygamy is called "abuse of power" and
people who practiced it included Albert Einstein. And also some succesful powerful people also practice
polygamy in the form of divorce and new marriages, once again a form practiced by Einstein, who
is documented to be a mysogenist ( various books listing his conversations and letters written by
Einstein, document this.) The modern polygamy is best practiced by rich and powerful celebrities,
who can get away with psychological murder. However, I must tell you that I have also met
polygamous women who practiced this form of inequality by divorcing and remarrying, in addition
to having affairs. Incidentally, some of these powerful women I have met, also hated their
powerful or authoritarian fathers, only to replace their fathers as an authoritarian
woman who can dominate a lot of men, just like Einstein did not have a good relationship with his mother,
and ended up manipulating a lot of women.

Let me quote a letter written by Einstein (from the book "The Quotable Einstein" written by Alice
Calaprice), page 306... Einstein wrote to one of his friends that women are basically made to be
taken advantage of, and on other occasions, Einstein also said that women are not smart enough for
science overall.

As you can see, the "inequality" is practiced in many dimensions, and not just men of bad character.

Kurt said at October 10, 2004 3:52 PM:

Invisible Scientist;

Asia is very entreprenuerial, particularly "Greater China". Also, there are lots of tech start-ups in Taiwan. Keep in mind that many of the entreprenuers that founded companies in silicon valley are Asian (often Chinese) and that they maintain contacts back home. Certainly China's economy is export driven, which means a slow down in the West will adversely affect them. This is why they say when the U.S. sneezes, Asia catches cold.

However, their domestic economy keeps growing as well as intraregional trading (i.e. trade between Japan abd China or S.E. Asia and China). In the long run, the Asian region will gradually lessen its dependence on the wellbeing of the U.S. economy. Of course, if the whole world grows, its better for everyone. But if we or, especially the Europeans, insist to doing stupid policies that inhibit economic growth, Asia will continue to grow anyway, but at a lower rate than otherwise.

What I find disgusting about the West are the negative attitudes towards technology, economic growth, and prosperity. These attitudes seem especially prevalent in Europe and, I believe, are part of the reason why that civilization is sick and dying. One of the reasons why I like Asia is because very few people seem to have these negative attitudes. Perhaps people need to experience poverty and deprivation in order to appreciate the virtues of economic prosperity. If that is the case, Asia will certainly excel in the future and the West has a long, hard road ahead of it.

I read a book in the late ninties called "The Long Boom" by Peter Shwartz, which I liked very much, as well as the Wired article. This was around 1998 or so and I was living in Japan and Malaysia. I was stunned (and depressed) by many of the on-line comments that expressed openly hostile attitutes toward the premise of the book as well as towards growth and prosperity, in general. The fact that this was during a time when young people had more job opportunities than any time in over a generation, made it even more shocking to me. My impression was (I was in Asia at the time) that many U.S. young people did not care about economic prosperity and the social-economic conditions necessary to realize them. The Seattle riot was about a year later. Given the fact that I was trying to start a company in the worse economic conditions that Asia had experienced in 20 years (this was the currency crisis), I had a very harsh attitude towards the Seattle protesters and felt that the national guard should have machine-gunned them all. Had I been there (on a business trip) and have been granted legal immunity, I would have done so in a heart beat.

When you are struggling financially, you take a very dim view of spoiled kids who question the virtues of economic prosperity.

Invisible Scientist said at October 10, 2004 10:38 PM:

Kurt wrote:
" I read a book in the late ninties called "The Long Boom" by Peter Shwartz, which I liked very much, as well as the Wired article. This was around 1998 or so and I was living in Japan and Malaysia. I was stunned (and depressed) by many of the on-line comments that expressed openly hostile attitutes toward the premise of the book as well as towards growth and prosperity, in general. The fact that this was during a time when young people had more job opportunities than any time in over a generation, made it even more shocking to me. My impression was (I was in Asia at the time) that many U.S. young people did not care about economic prosperity and the social-economic conditions necessary to realize them. The Seattle riot was about a year later. Given the fact that I was trying to start a company in the worse economic conditions that Asia had experienced in 20 years (this was the currency crisis), I had a very harsh attitude towards the Seattle protesters and felt that the national guard should have machine-gunned them all. Had I been there (on a business trip) and have been granted legal immunity, I would have done so in a heart beat.

When you are struggling financially, you take a very dim view of spoiled kids who question the virtues of economic prosperity."

The young people who rioted in Seattle and many other parts of the world, were not complaining so much
for the new possibilities of economic prosperity, but they were revolting against the inevitable
inequalities that result from the new opportunities for economic prosperity. Namely, they were
complaining against the fact that the individual's net worth grows (or declines) as an exponential
function of one's average IQ. Note that in 1980 the top 1 % rich families in the US owned only 20 %
of the wealth, but right now, the top 1 % own close to 45 % of the wealth. Right now, the top 10 %
rich families own close to 90 % of the wealth in the USA, and similar figures exist elsewhere in the world,
and this stratification will continue, in such a way that after one more generation, by 2025, the top
1 % richest families will almost certainly own more than 95 % of the world. The riot was about this
inequality of wealth accumulation which displaces those who cannot compete against the strong.

Invisible Scientist said at October 11, 2004 6:07 AM:

I said above that after one more generation,
by 2025, the top 1 % rich families will own 95 % of
the wealth in the world. This was a typographical error.
I meant to write that the top 5 % rich families will own
95 % of the wealth by 2025, not the top 1 %.

gene berman said at October 15, 2004 6:38 AM:

Invisible Scientist:

What you have posted is nonsensical (and nonsequiturial), regardless of the inconsequential "correction" of the second post. In addition, it makes a prediction 20 years into the future which would be irrelevant even were it supportable, which it is not (the proceses on which it is based cannot even tell us whether we will be "better off" after that passage of time than we are now). Nor do I believe there is (or even might be) any such relationship as would link wealth and IQ in any fashion as could be demonstrated to be "exponential." Moreover, though it might certainly be supportable to note that the relatively intelligent, taken as a group, are vastly more wealthy than the lesser, nothing in that statement supports the idea that some "unfair" or (in any other sense than in that some people don't like it or imagine, unrealistically, that some other arrangement would render conditions more to their liking) or arbitrary process has produced that result.

Capitalism, the general system of production under which most of the world is unofficially organized, has not been "installed" or forcibly imposed but, rather, has evolved along various but similar lines inextricably consequent upon the basic idea of human self-ownership, i.e.,
liberty. This is a simple and inescapable fact of existence; the two (liberty and capitalism) are inseparable and tightly correlated; the mind cannot even conceive any another relationship that is not a logical conundrum. And, if logical argumentation is rejected or deemed in some way insufficient, all the (empirical) evidence of history point to the same conclusion.

Capitalism is organized around the processes--buying and selling--in which all humans engage: producing that they may consume. It makes no recognition whatever of persons but only of the contributions made to the process by which all serve in order that they may, in turn, be served. The penny or dollar of the richest man has not the slightest difference in significance from the penny or dollar of the poorest nor is there any indicator of their origin whether as to IQ or any other aspect of individuality. In the main, and to very great extent
(though income and wealth are actually separate categories, they tend to coincide), the incomes of individuals are directly and intimately related to their specific contributions--their values--not determined arbitrarily by any authority or subject to the whim of a prejudiced autocrat but by the enormous majority of their fellow men who make their estimations felt in the spending of their pennies and dollars and, in so doing, in preferring some things to others. It is a system in which no one, rich or poor, high or low IQ, can determine what he may be given--but only that which he is willing to give others. It is the consumer who determines the wealth of the wealthiest investor or property-owner, the wages of employees and managers, and the profits and losses of both savers, investors, and specultors. That is the market.

The market is an impersonal taskmaster that rewards contributions only to the extent recognized by the spending of its members. It is a relentless pressure from which none are immune. It's justification is that it serves the interests of the immense majority in obtaining the most and the best of the output of others with the least of their own: it is, at every instant, competitive. But the highest recommendation for its continuance is the nearly total degree to which it makes each man a manager of his own destiny (at least in economic terms), a captain of his own ship, not subject to the arbitrary whims or personal prejudices of specific individuals, as would any other thinkable system.

Many have a personal estimate of their own worth which is at odds with that of the market--and are, therefore, dissatisfied to some extent. It could even be generalized that many share this view but are, nevertheless, powerless to do anything about it: they have no means by which to over-ride the consensus of the market and to force their fellow men to behave as they would dictate. In the persons of those "protesters" and in the expressions of agreement from their supporters are to be found not seekers of justice, nor even of truth or beauty, but rather of conformance of all others to the narrow dicates of their own preferences; they--each and every one--is a would-be dictator or one deluded that some other dictator or dictatorial regime will precisely mirror his views and bring about just such perfections of all interhumn relations as he, himself, would if given the opportunity. It would be a utopia, i.e., a madhouse and a slaughterhouse.

Invisible Scientist said at October 16, 2004 7:18 AM:

Gene Berman,
This is to clarify the exponential formula for the wealth growth of the higher IQ people,
which you find impossible. The formula is exponential, as I will derive below, but the validity
of the formula gets INTERRUPTED every 2 generations (approximately) by cyclical depressions
and major wars. In the latter sense, you are right, but before I elaborate on the cyclical
breakdown of the formula, let me first write it down for you to see if you disagree even more:
In general, approximately, your interest income, in average, grows as
C[n] = C[0]*(1+ %i)^n,
where C[0]= your initial capital, %i = your average percentage annual interest, n= year.
So far, this formula is exponential because (1+%i)^n = exp(b*n) where b=log(1+%i)
so that C[n}=C[0]*exp(b*n).
Now more generally, instead of your annual percentage interest earned %i, we can
write a = "your percentage economic growth that includes your interest income, your
salary as pecentage of your net worth, and all your other income as percentage of your
net worth, all computed in average"
Then your net worth is given by
C[n]=C[0]*(1+a)^n = exp(b*n) where this time b=log(1+a).
Now you disagree and say that that the number "a" changes every year, but then you get
C[n]=C[0]*(1+a[1])*(1+a[2])* ..... (1+a[n]) where a[1], a[2], ..., a[n] are the
annual percentage growth in your net worth, but once again, this is an exponential growth,
where the lower bound is given by computing b="log(1+a)" where a is among the few lower values
of a[1], a[2], ... a[n]. For simplicity, we can find a modified average of the a[1], ... ,a[n]
and call it "a" to make the exponential formula still valid in C[n]=C[0]*exp(b*n).

But now, I claim that the net worth percentage growth coeffieient "a" above,
is influenced by the average IQ of the individual... Of course, there are geniuses who are
poor for one reason or another, but in average, there is a correlation between
your ability to accumulate wealth and your IQ.
This is why, I claim that IF you agree with the latter observation about IQ and wealth,
is demonstrated byRandall Parker's previous articles, then
it is clear that the coefficient "a" is really an increasing function g = g(IQ) of the average
IQ of the social class, in such a way that g can be negative if the IQ is too low.
This is why
C[n] = C[0]*exp(n*b) where b = log(1+g(IQ)) with g=g(IQ) as above.

But like I said, for some reason, mother nature cyclically makes the formula INVALID
by causing wars, revolutions, or political legislation that results in distrupting the free
market. But whenever there is a free market where the strong people are allowed to do their
free enterprise, the weaker ones simply fall behing EXPONENTIALLY due to the fact that
g is an increasing function i.e. g(x)

Invisible Scientist said at October 16, 2004 2:06 PM:

Continued from above, g(x) functional depencence a=g(x) where x=IQ= average intellectual quotient of the social class
makes the net worth and power of the social classes grow at EXPONENTIALLY different rates.

This formula does occasionally get disrupted and becomes invalid during cyclical
events like wars, revolutions, or political legislation that restricts competition.
But as sooon as competition starts again, the laws of nature return back to work,
and the natural exponential rates of growth (or possibly decay, if the IQ of the social class is below
average) return back to "normal" again.

Hector said at January 24, 2007 12:57 PM:

When reading these comments I don’t know which one is the most surprising one. I’ll very brief:

1. Turks don’t have our permission to have their own ideas about sex among consenting adults and marriage. If they have their own opinions, they should be excluded. We may legalize prostitution and same sex marriage, for instance, but they may not even have OPINIONS about polygamy. This is called democracy. Bravo!

2. The prohibition of polygamy causes an excess of women, who cannot married. Since women are less important than men, it doesn’t matter; but that there might be a shortage of women because of polygamy, would be a tragedy for that superior being called man. After all, excess women may become prostitutes, locked up in a convent or make a perpetual vow of chastity. Bravo!

3. Have we ever thought of leaving people alone organizing their private lives as they consider fit and, and the same time, repressing only violence, cheating, buying and selling women as cattle (this is prostitution) and limiting our control to guaranteeing that everybody is really consenting the way of life she/he wants to have? This would be freedom and democracy.

Hector said at January 26, 2007 1:39 PM:

I really get amused when I read about “the negative effects of polygamy”, as if there was anything without negative effects and as if the alternatives to polygamy for–a maximum-5% of marriages didn’t have negative effects, much more negative. Has serial polygamy not negative effects? Has divorce not negative effects?

Has prostitution not negative effects? Have monoparental families of single mothers not negative effects? Has not negative effects that we have to praise disproportionately virginity, for the sake of preventing women, who won’t find a husband, from becoming promiscuous?

I will tell you, on the other side a few positive effects -for everybody- of allowing polygamy to a tiny minority (the population pyramid doesn’t allow more):

- Drastic reduction of prostitution (very negative for those who make millions on it and on pornography)

- Redistribution of income (very negative for the greedy ones)

- Since every woman knows that she will find a husband, decrease of casual sex (very negative for Casanovas)

- Melting of social classes, nations and races –if you want to be polygamous, you have to look outside your social class, nation and/or race, because the excess of women is very small (very negative for racists, classists and nationalists)

Have you never wondered why the West, which admits every kind of sexual (let us say “fantasy” to avoid the expression “perversion”) reacts almost hysterically against polygamy? I’ll tell you: the rightist parties, because it redistributes income and melts togehter social classes, races and nations; and the leftist parties, because the prohibition of polygamy is the “run”, which has destroyed the stocking of family values in the West and opened the way to communism, from which Moslem countries were immune.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©