Luke Ford

From the Chateau:

Twatter tartlet @clairlemon passes along a study sure to get on the nerves of neckbeard atheists and secular anti-Christian (((feminists))). She writes,

Interesting paper suggests that monotheistic religion is a paternity-certainty facilitator.

With paternity certainty, comes paternal investment. Men who don’t know if the kid is theirs are less likely to stick around and support mom and child. The blowback from that is an exercise in imagination I leave for the readers.

From the abstract,

The sacred texts of five world religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism) use similar belief systems to set limits on sexual behavior. We propose that this similarity is a shared cultural solution to a biological problem: namely male uncertainty over the paternity of offspring. Furthermore, we propose the hypothesis that religious practices that more strongly regulate female sexuality should be more successful at promoting paternity certainty. Using genetic data on 1,706 father–son pairs, we tested this hypothesis in a traditional African population in which multiple religions (Islam, Christianity, and indigenous) coexist in the same families and villages. We show that the indigenous religion enables males to achieve a significantly (P = 0.019) lower probability of cuckoldry (1.3% versus 2.9%) by enforcing the honest signaling of menstruation, but that all three religions share tenets aimed at the avoidance of extrapair copulation. Our findings provide evidence for high paternity certainty in a traditional African population, and they shed light on the reproductive agendas that underlie religious patriarchy.

The major world religions sprang from patriarchal societies in which the resources critical to reproduction, whether in the form of land or livestock, were inherited from father to son down the male line (1⇓–3). Consistent with patrilineal inheritance, the sacred texts set forth harsh penalties for adultery and other behaviors that lower the husband’s probability of paternity (4⇓⇓⇓–8) (SI Discussion). The scriptures also place greater emphasis on female than on male chastity, including the requirement of modest attire for women and the idealization of virginity for unmarried females (6, 8). Previous studies have considered the evolutionary biology of patriarchy, but have focused on primate antecedents or cultural factors rather than religion (2, 9⇓–11). Here we test the hypothesis that religions that more strongly regulate female sexuality are more successful at limiting the incidence of cuckoldry, defined as offspring sired by extrapair copulations (EPCs).

SCIENCE! lands another sloppy wet kiss on the Chateau’s turgid…ego. Female chastity and fidelity really are more valuable to men than male chastity and fidelity are to women. (Male chastity is actually a subtraction from women’s appraisals of men’s mate value.)

The study population is the Dogon of Mali, West Africa, who practice four religions: Evangelical Protestantism introduced by conservative American missionaries; Catholicism introduced by French Jesuits who focused on humanitarian projects; Islam; and the indigenous Dogon religion, which is monotheist. Our quantitative analysis supports the hypothesis that religious ideology serves the purpose of defense against EPCs.

CH is on record (check the archives) predicting that the wholesale abandonment of religion by Western societies will lead to higher rates of cheating and cuckoldry, by both men and women. Recent CDC data on infidelity supports the CH observation that cheating is up, especially (and critically) among women. And as I have argued, unrestricted female sexuality is FAR MORE dangerous to civilizational health than is unrestricted male sexuality, and this is why thousands-year-old religions have evolved to specifically curtail the existential threat of female infidelity.

Muh dik is the slogan of the black ghetto; muh muff is the dirge of the dying White West.

Discovery of the reproductive consequences of religious practices is helpful for understanding the interface between the sacred and the secular, a neglected terrain despite growing interest in the evolutionary biology of religion.

Atheists and other irreligious types nursing an exaggerated spite against (mostly) Christianity have no idea the forces of chaos they are working towards unleashing. If they can’t tolerate pious platitudes and Sunday Church services, they are gonna have a really hard time getting accustomed to the worldwide Zimbabwe that an areligious “state of nature” will portend for their sexdoll time. Once you kill paternity certainty, you have signed the death warrant on Western Civ.

We show that paternity certainty was higher in the indigenous religion than in Christianity, which we attribute to the abandonment of menstrual taboos by the Christians.

The liberalization and feminization of Christianity will mean its death, either through attrition or transmogrification.

Women in the traditional religion are exiled for five nights to uncomfortable places called menstrual huts; during the day menstruating women work in the fields (23, 24). The indigenous religion uses the ideology of menstrual pollution as the supernatural enforcement mechanism to coerce women to disclose their menses by going to the menstrual hut. Hormonal data showed that fear of breaking these religious taboos enforced honest signaling to the men of the husband’s family, who situate the menstrual huts in close proximity to the toguna, which is a shade shelter specific to the males of a given patrilineage.

“Modern” feminists balk, but there’s a good reason for the existence of these religious rituals that appear, superficially to the comically stunted shitlib mind, to be relics from an antediluvian past. Stupid shitlibs think they can ignore the wisdom of their ancestors without consequence.

These findings for an evolutionary purpose to religion are often hard to disentangle from the native traits of the people that constitute the major world religions. Maybe Africans and Arabs have a psychology that requires draconian religious strictures to ensure paternity? And maybe White European women are sufficiently swayed by less onerous religious dictums? However you approach the question of causality, it’s fair to be concerned that the rapid demise of Christianity, and the concomitant rise of feminism, in the West will have downstream effects on the basic reproduction structures of civilization, and that in the future atheism and agnosticism and secularism may even influence the process of sexual selection and change the genetic characteristics of the people to something that resembles the anti-civilization shitholes of today.

COMMENTS:

* “Christian” churches and good “Christians” have done a LOT to spread feminism, interracial relationships, and homosexuality in the last 40 years…so good riddance to a religion that is NOT helping defeat the enemy, but instead has become yet another tool in their tool belt to use against us.

And let’s not forget their brainwashing of us since children at school to the “feed the children” campaigns to give money to children in Africa, India, etc., and more recently bringing them into the USA. Literally, to HELL with them.

* The modern day Mormtards (i.e., The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Cucks) sold out their “Mormonism for Whites Only” restriction for priesthood in 1978, overturning Brigham Young’s own ruling that they cannot be priests! They now have many non-White missionaries and members. Yeah…diversity.

* Reading the Bible straight through after being red-pilled convinced me that a major function of religion is achievement of desirable social outcomes.

For example, Judaism (Old Testament) makes a big deal about how menstruating women are “unclean” and should not be touched. Also very severe rules and punishments re: adultery. Of course, the rules “come from G-d” (erm…yeah). But it’s clear to me that these rules evolved to achieve a desired social outcome — greater certainty of paternity or whatever. This makes the tribe (*heh*) ingroup/outgroup identity stronger and increases group fitness.

What I find fascinating is how religions seem subject to the invisible hand of evolutionary pressure just like biological organisms are.

Religions that increase group fitness tend to survive and become stronger. Religions that don’t increase fitness (or increase it less than other groups’ religions) tend to die off.

Viewed through this lens, Judaism is perhaps the pinnacle of religious evolution to support group fitness. It’s awesomely effective at sharpening ingroup/outgroup distinctions and increasing group fitness (while undermining the fitness of competing groups).