To polyhump or not to polyhump. That is the question.

In his April 1998 Liberty Bell article, Mr. Guillermo Coletti referenced an earlier article in the October 1997 issue which touched upon the practice of legalized, multiple humping. His initial remarks prompted me to actually read both articles which is slightly out of character relative to myself. I am an old farm boy who long ago became accustomed to the "shoot first and ask questions later" approach to life. Grandfather often remarked, "All right boys. You can discuss it for a while, if you like, but then it's back to work." Endless babble never grew one potato.

Legality is often mistaken for reality. It's one thing to scribble a few rules on a piece of paper and quite another to have those abstracts pop up as real life goings-on. Lawyers -- those people so divorced from honest work in a real world -- love to "make reality happen" by signing their names to some piece of illusory mischief in the belief that wishing will make it all wonderfully true. In this regard, they differ little from the charlatans who offer prayers in the hope that some eavesdropping god really gives two gassings about the welfare of some insignificant blight on the protoplasmic landscape.

Polygamy, in the legal sense, covers the entity: plural legal unions occurring concurrently. A woman with six husbands is polygamous. A man with six wives is polygamous. Hey! How about polypolygamy -- six wives and six husbands all in the same Clinton-sized bed? Clintonamy anyone?

Polyandry is a subset of polygamy. It refers to a woman (wyfman, i.e., woman/wife of a man) with more than one concurrent husband. No special term, that is known to me, exists for the man which just might indicate some chauvinist basis. Heaven forbid!

Apart from the legal whoopee, polyhumping notions swim about in many brains. In a practical sense, Negroes are generally polygamous in regard to their observed nature and I know of no African tribe worth emulating. Isn't what we refer to as a "slut" little other than a woman practicing polygamy, or polyandry, if you please, without the proper documents? All of this represents a supposed natural inclination to stuff any available orifice. Nature seems to say, "Spread your sperm, or your legs, as often or as wide as possible." "Skrälings of the world, hump! You have nothing to lose but your virginity."

Art Schopenhauer (we all called him "Art" back in those days) was an interesting fellow to read, as were the 'Lil Abner cartoon strips which appeared many, many, many moons later. However, any fellow who spends his last days living with a batch of poodles and his old maid sister, is not someone I feel is living out a natural destiny. He, according to Mr. Coletti, plunks women into a second slot on his inequality table. I have extreme difficulty with this. Nuts and bolts are different and quite unequal, but one without the other is useless even though one can be screwed into, or onto, the other. A rational number expressed as "a/b" is utterly meaningless if either the "a" or the "b" is absent. A missing foot, of the pair, renders one a cripple. So it is with man and woman, male and female. My mother was superior at feeding me breast milk. My father was superior at kicking the ass of anyone who bothered my sisters. Together they formed a team! A team! Get it? A brigand is the last one we should consult when it comes to honesty, and Art, or fearless Freddy Nietzsche for that matter, are perhaps the last people we should consult about women, men, their unions and families. Nietzsche spent a portion of his life dying from a syphilis-caused brain rot and when he was lucid, he argued in favor of separating a man from his kin -- all in the name of some brand of Superstud. In this respect, he paraphrased the christian call: "Come to Jeezus -- to hell with your family."

By this time, you should be aware that I am arguing outside of the artificial realm of legality. If we are to be proponents of the "natural order" then we should go directly to the source and mostly ignore all of those "experts" who tell us what the natural order is. It remains sad that so many people simply have no direction other than following the tail of the one in front of them. When the world picture becomes little other than a panorama of swaying rumps, then we are obliged to walk in the effusions of those rumps.

Chicken eggs obtained from the nearby coop, were a source of our food. On the other side of our great barn, was another coop where fertilized eggs were allowed to mature and hatch. Here, if your senses were not asleep, you could discover the natural ratio of hens to cocks. In the enormous wisdom of the god of "what works," we do not find that the count of the males equals the count of the females. It is a natural example of what constitutes polygamy.

During one part of a wild life TV show, I observed a female fish laying thousands of eggs. Shortly later, a large batch of males poured into the egg mass and ejected volumes of sperm -- the sperm apparently in duels the male fish avoided. Those females were polyandrous and the eggs, when hatched, always produced hordes of males relative to the number of females.

Female lions are always born in greater numbers than male lions and their successful society revolves about this. Eagles produce nearly equal numbers of each. There are always more female holly bushes than male. Nature is telling you something and you should pay attention to the fact that, for all practical purposes, Homo saps are born, male and female, in equal numbers.

A suspected promiscuous co-worker's wife once proposed that it would be nice if she could have more than one husband. Her argument had something to do with the comforts of a double income and the fact that she could supply all the "needs" providing the husbands exhibited a generous level of amicability. Mr. Coletti's argument seems to support the other side of the coin with the rationalization that it is necessary to increase the number of White people pummeling this planet. I would suggest, that if his argument contains merit, artificial insemination would be far more efficient -- something the feminist crows would support. Imagine: a huge factory with thousands of women conveniently prostrate, and ordered, with computer guided injection arms squirting their fluids assembly line fashion, with appropriate titillation to make the women's presence enjoyable. In the next building would be a few, properly selected, males routinely milked for their future contributions. I shall never understand this point of view whereby one proposes to defeat his enemies by out-breeding them -- especially on an over crowded planet. There China sits, out-numbering White Americans by over 12 to 1, and yet, with sufficient will and purpose, we could today fricassee them in numbers which would cause righteous jews to add a few more zeroes to their holy number.

It is not desirable to increase the number of White people on this earth. What is desirable is to seek a means to halt the "we feed, they breed" suicidal cycle. Our racial enemies are only a concern as long as we supply them with technology and food. The non-Zionist General Douglas MacArthur knew what to do with China as did the non-Zionist General George Patton know what to do with the Soviet Union.

Mr. Coletti is astute enough -- and certainly interesting enough -- to pay attention to, but I'll never be dissuaded from my conviction that for us, a one-on-one relation is the natural course. It should be very evident that the day-care communes, which are a thriving business in this country, are causing severe emotional, and physical, damage to the young and a family of several mothers, that is, unless you belong to the genus Leo or the species Crocuta crocuta, cannot produce a viable Aryan. (The Mormons, by the way, and if my information is correct, have declared Mestizos to be White people. Thus, we can shortly expect Salt Lake City to resemble Tenochtitlàn.) We should be striving to develop a higher type of individual -- not just increased numbers of the same.

The purpose of family is much more than having a brood to feed. It is to insure the sound development -- mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually -- of the offspring and this cannot be accomplished under a system allowing polygamy whereby there are no true bothers or true sisters or a true much of anything. More damage has been done to young people by freaked-out family environments than has by poor genetic material. The proponent of drug-soaked, free-for-all humping, Charles Manson, had his family -- didn't he?

As a practical matter, childbirth is dependent upon the number of available women. One man fertilizing sixteen women in one week will have the same outcome as sixteen men fertilizing sixteen women in one week. Gestation will remain the same as well as the produced number of offspring.

If the number of men roughly equals the number of women, and each man has seven wives -- on their way to St. Ives -- then where do the other six out of seven men get their partners? Perhaps we could brand them as "war criminals." Thus, we could keep the jews busy chasing them all over the planet and the inconvenient six out of seven would be so occupied that the "lackanooky" syndrome would never even surface.

I am afraid that the polygamy argument is nothing but a variation of an old theme: screw your way to success.

by Robert Frenz

6 April 1998