Warning! Warning!
Dangerous moral anti Marxist content ahead.
ED Noor: They came for all of us regardless of race. The destruction of families is not a racial issue; it is a Marxist issue. Once stability is gone, all the more simple to stoke racial issues, (((a liberal technique borrowed from antiquity))). (Ancient Rome, Greece, Venice, Egypt, France, Berlin....)
Sex & Culture
In Sex & Culture, J.D. Unwin famously studied eighty tribes and six civilizations and found that every time cultures abandoned the customs of premarital chastity and absolute monogamy, their civilizations declined within three generations. The evidence compiled since the dawn of the sexual revolution also strongly supports Unwin's conclusions. In fact, the social science backing the combined failures of sexual liberationist ideology is so expansive that one could easily make the argument that, as a means of improving society, the culture of sexual liberation is even more disproven than communism.
When arguing against the sexual revolution, it's important to understand the sexual liberationists opposing Unwin's main argument know they are wrong which is why they will never present substantial empirical evidence backing their position.
For those not familiar with the terminology, absolute monogamy refers to a parent culture placing a premium on both premarital chastity and lifelong wedding vows.
Serial monogamy, by comparison, is a slippery slope to de facto polygyny and cultural decline. Additionally, the hyper-normalization of serial monogamy in wealthy societies is often a precursor to Marxist feminism.
Subcultures of sexual debauchery always exist within any society but that goes without saying as we all know even the most strict parent cultures cannot eradicate all manifestations of subterfuge and perversion. So to those saying it's not an "either/or situation", please, understand the difference between parent culture, subculture, and counterculture. We are primarily addressing the relationship between parent culture and civilizational flourishing. Nobody is making the argument that either subculture or counterculture (even outright criminality) can, or should, be entirely eradicated.
If Unwin was right (and he was indeed right), those who aren't practicing premarital chastity and absolute monogamy are largely to blame for the fall of the West. The nuclear family is the building block of civilization. Therefore, it logically follows that anything which dismantles the social institutions proven to best strengthen the nuclear family also dismantles civilization itself. Mal-educated people, however, will have a hard time understanding such truths.
Just as the correlation between vitamin C and scurvy remains unclear to those who don't understand the underlying workings of the human body, the relationship between sexual propriety, family values, and civilizational flourishing also remains unknown to those who fail to comprehend the body politic's unconscious mechanisms.
To put it crudely, we are dealing with legions of useful idiots led by dangerously mal-educated quacks. Such is the problem with living in a postmodern era; the blind lead the blind and airy fairy theory devoid of empirical evidence all too often kills.
To put Unwin's findings into perspective, let us imagine a parallel world in which Unwin came to the exact opposite conclusions, observing a profound and recurrent empirical link between sexual liberation from premarital chastity/absolute monogamy norms and long-term civilizational flourishing. Without question, the pro sexual liberationists would hail Unwin's work as a timeless masterpiece.
Sex & Culture would dot the bookshelves of all self proclaimed freewheeling liberal academics right alongside the Kinsey Report. Unwin's masterpiece would be read in all women's studies departments across the Western world as proof of the fact that empirical social science had, once and for all, disproven the false and outdated theories of puritanical fools everywhere.
In such a parallel world, the sexual revolution would also provide us with the exact opposite set of conclusions, all of which would emphatically back Unwin's inverted analysis. Hence, we would have loads of data collected since the 1960's from dozens of countries across the Western world, all showing that sexual liberation from premarital chastity/absolute monogamy norms was empirically proven to reduce rates of divorce, STD's, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, fatherlessness, poverty, imprisonment, alcoholism, addiction, homelessness, homicide, family dissolution, suicide, delinquency, and poverty.
For those who still remain unconvinced regarding the total failure of the sexual revolution, please consider the following:
~ Do we have any empirical evidence proving the sexual revolution improved the average well-being of men, women, or children?
No. We have significant evidence supporting the exact opposite conclusion.
~ Do we have any empirical evidence proving the sexual revolution helped to strengthen the nuclear family?
No. Sexual liberation from premarital chastity/lifelong monogamy norms is heavily correlated with the decline of the family, illegitimacy, fatherlessness, poverty, divorce, and numerous other diseases of despair associated with the dissolution of marriage.
~ Do we have any substantial empirical data proving the culture of sexual liberation from premarital chastity/absolute monogamy norms lowers rates of loneliness?
No. We have significant evidence to the contrary. Both men and women are experiencing higher rates of sexual and familial loneliness and alienation. Additionally, children are experiencing higher rates of loneliness due to the dissolution of the nuclear family.
~ Do we have any empirical social science strongly opposing J.D. Unwin's well researched conclusions regarding sexual liberation and the decline of civilizations?
Not really. The pro sexual liberation ideology is akin to Marxism in that it mostly relies upon theories which are not proven to work very well once implemented in the real world.
~ But isn't sexual liberation the new normal?
Shouldn't we just accept that? In case people haven't noticed, the radical left never demonstrates such grotesque manifestations of cultural self defeatism as they are literally hell-bent on reordering global capitalism, the definitions of male and female, and numerous other international social norms. It would be wise to take a page from their playbook so as to stop rationalizing the further destruction of our sacred culture.
~ Do we have significant evidence suggesting a country can become both wealthy and sexually liberated and not become toxically feminist?
Female sexual liberation from premarital chastity/absolute monogamy norms in addition to an abundance of wealth naturally leads to a culture of toxic female narcissism most commonly typified by intersectional Marxist feminism. Sexual liberation also generally results in increased rates of womanizing and involuntary celibacy/wifelessness among men, both of which are also bad for society.
~ But men who want to culturally enforce premarital chastity/absolute monogamy norms just want to oppress women, right?
No. Women and children are increasingly unhappy since the dawn of the sexual revolution. The Marxist feminist lie that men who promote premarital chastity/lifelong monogamy norms just want to harm women is false. The belief that sexual liberation from patriarchal social norms is somehow "pro female" is generally rooted in superstition and completely unsubstantiated.
~ Do we have any significant evidence that a wealthy country can become sexually liberated and not radically increase its rate of abortion?
Not really. Perhaps Poland, but even Poland has a home grown feminist movement, rising demands for abortion, and a sub replacement fertility rate. Give Poland another few decades and it will likely go the same way as Ireland on the abortion issue. Although many poorer countries (in South America, for example), are both sexually liberated and generally pro life, there seems to be a subterranean correlation between first world wealth, sexual liberation, abortion, and cultural decline. Well over 80% of abortions occur outside of marriage in the US.
~ For those who blame welfare, not sexual liberation, for the decline of the family, do such people understand that few if any of the societies Unwin studied had significant welfare programs?
Of course. But the pro sexual liberationists are immune to facts, reason, and evidence. There's no amount of data that could possibly penetrate their ideologically possessed skulls. They are like communists in that no matter how many times their ideas fail, they simply can't let go of their civilization destroying delusions.
~ But what about no fault divorce? Isn't that good for society?
No. We have substantial evidence that the legalization of no fault divorce caused more harm than good.
~ What about the Nordic countries? Aren't they sexually liberated from premarital chastity/lifelong monogamy norms?
Although the Nordic countries are often hailed as the happiest places on Earth, the truth is they have fairly significant rates of depression and sub replacement fertility. Furthermore, it's doubtful such countries have enough cultural moxie to stand up to the looming threat of Islamic expansionism. It seems many Nordic women practically beg to be invaded and overthrown by more aggressively patriarchal cultures.
~ Aren't people who promote premarital chastity/absolute monogamy norms idealizing 1950's era American Protestantism?
People often hurl this inane accusation (a total red herring) at traditionalists who oppose the sexual revolution. The reason people so often resort to such absurdities is because they have no empirical data opposing Unwin's argument so they have to rely upon distracting and irrelevant accusations such as "You're just idealizing the 1950's!”
~ Perhaps it's not so much the decline of premarital chastity/lifelong monogamy norms, but rather, the loss of religion that is destroying the West?
This analysis is somewhat wrongheaded. Yes, religion is historically proven to be one of the most effective means of intergenerationally transmitting sexual and familial values. No, that doesn't alter the main topic of debate regarding which sexual and familial values are empirically proven to best serve society.
This headache-inducing monkey-wrench of a question put forth by select libertarians is a prime example of how people make us few anti sexual liberationists do all the intellectual heavy lifting while the other side of the debate continually pelts us with red herrings. Most all of the eighty tribes and six civilizations Unwin studied demonstrated no significant manifestations of "leftist ideology".
~ But weren't men unhappily enslaved to women before the sexual revolution?
We often hear this claim put forth by select portions of MRA's and antifeminists. This is basically the parallel to the Kate Millett argument that marriage is a terrible institution designed to enslave women.
Indeed, men, women, and children are,
in a sense, bonded to one another;
the ties that bind, as the saying goes.
It's called the human condition.
If men want to prove that they love, value, and respect the other men of their own civilization, the best way to do that is by providing each and every son with a two parent married household while enforcing cultural norms that are empirically proven to ensure such outcomes. The best known way to achieve these goals is to culturally enforce the customs of premarital chastity and lifelong monogamy.
~ But weren't women unhappily enslaved to men before the sexual revolution?
No. Women were happier on average than they are now. Sexual liberation can't be that great if it makes women increasingly miserable and children worse off all while contributing to fatherlessness and the general decline of society.
~ Is there a significant correlation between sexual liberation and open border policies associated with cultural self replacement?
Yes. Cultures that practice premarital chastity are not particularly keen on cultural self-replacement and mass immigration. You won't see Saudi Arabia sporting a sub replacement fertility rate and radically aggressive open border policies any time soon. There is in fact a psychic correlation between premarital chastity and cultural vitality.
~ For those who ask, "What about the fact that the Middle Easterners allow for polygyny? Doesn't that disprove Unwin's theory of absolute monogamy?"
Strict premarital chastity in combination with polygyny is designed to create a well of repressed male sexual hostilities which are then redirected towards the males of neighboring tribes. Although a force to be reckoned with, this polygynous approach to human pair bonding is not empirically proven to be evolutionarily superior to absolute monogamy.
No. In fact, the damage caused to gender relations is so pervasive that we have significant evidence people, on average, are having less sex. Additionally, jealousies related to the infamous 80/20 rule and the increasing sexual and familial devaluations of the average male are serious cultural concerns as well.
~ So given that virtually all of the social science supports the fact that Unwin's main argument was likely right, while all of the data suggests the sexual revolution has been a near total failure, why do so many people still promote the culture of sexual liberation?
Some chalk it up to ignorance, but I think it's more that many people simply don't want children to have loving fathers or men to have loving wives. We evolved from war mongering polygynous primates; hence, this is precisely the type of behavior we would naturally expect when humans are allowed to act upon basic instincts divorced from the purifying influence of high culture.
Marxist feminist, Kate Millett, high priestess of the second wave feminist movement and founding mother of modern day "anti-patriarchy theory", sought to destroy the cultural ideals of premarital chastity, absolute monogamy, and sanctity of the unborn, specifically so as to dismantle the underpinnings of Western civilization.
Those who enact such degeneracies are essentially working hand in hand with the Marxist feminists, effectively carrying water for Kate Millett's ghost.
The Marxist euphemism
for cultural destruction, however,
is change.
For those who doubt the correlations between sexual liberation and toxic female narcissism (aka modern feminism), be forewarned:
When a wealthy first world society removes even the possibility for female shame in the realm of sexual immorality, you get toxic femininity.
The mores of premarital chastity, absolute monogamy, and the sanctity of the unborn create the potential for female guilt. That potential for guilt acts as a dam against the ever pervasive flood of female narcissism in the same manner that laws against rape, murder, and theft help to keep men in check as well.
Another argument we occasionally hear put forth in favor of sexual liberation goes something like this:
In a truly capitalist society rooted in free market economics, freedom of choice and personal autonomy are all that matters. Therefore, any law or custom prohibiting total freedom in the realm of sexuality is fundamentally wrong. Please allow me to explain why this theory is painfully illogical.
There is no empirical data even remotely suggesting that either widespread promiscuity or asymmetrical pair bonding is evolutionarily superior (at least not since ancient times). Last we checked, neither promiscuity nor asymmetrical pair bonding are proven to produce legions of "alpha families" who then give birth to "alpha children" (quite the opposite).
Protestant ethics rooted in premarital chastity and lifelong monogamy provides a woman for every man and a father for every child.
This helps to ensure family stability, and when wedded to a capitalist free market system (modified by economic nationalism), such family values rooted in love, loyalty, sacrifice, service, and equality work in tandem with the modern day capitalist spirit of risk, innovation, fair play, and competition. It is this blend of sexual propriety and free market economics that helped to make the West truly great.
When societies place the individual above the family, they perish. As sacred as the individual may be, the individual must remain subordinate to the institution of the nuclear family;
God, country, family, individual
(in that order).
So-called "women's liberation" from the sacred institutions of wifehood and motherhood, for example, effectively placed the female individual above the family unit. There's a reason why many Christians believe this inversion of family and individual (as exemplified by women's liberation) is satanic; it's empirically proven to be extremely destructive to society. Once the culture of the all consuming self replaces the culture of familism, your civilization has entered into a state of decline.
The virtues of premarital chastity and absolute monogamy help to prevent the rise of toxic individualism from usurping familism by locking a given civilization into a set of sophisticated sexual and familial customs, the like of which act as bulwarks against toxic manifestations of selfishness and narcissism.
Once your women are going about worrying about their own particular sense of status and honor in relation to society, they won't have much time to plot the overthrow of "the patriarchy" because they will be all too preoccupied with the daily task of fulfilling their sacred familial responsibilities to God, country, and family.
Additionally, the ideals of premarital chastity and lifelong monogamy are empirically proven to help improve men's character as well. And for those who say it's not an "either/or" relationship regarding individualism and familism, please understand, it's a hierarchy. It's not about erasing one or the other, but rather, ranking them in their proper order of subordination: God, country, family, individual.
Power without the duel expectation of sacrifice and responsibility leads to the dark triad (narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism). A society either worships a set of clearly defined virtues, the like of which primarily revolve around family values and gendered responsibilities, or it otherwise worships the will to power devoid of moral rectitude. If you allow either gender to exercise their respective powers without the guiding forces of both expectation (what must be done for others) and limitation (what mustn't be done to others), your culture will decline.
It is naive
to think that only men's power
is dangerous when unbridled.
Unbridled female power is just as destructive to civilization as unbridled male power, something the West has clearly forgotten.
While unbridled male power
attacks civilization
like a violent and brutally unjust war,
unbridled female power
attacks civilization
like a seductive and pernicious disease.
We occasionally hear select portions of MRA's and antifeminists make the argument that we haven't made our way through the sexual revolution just quite yet and that once we "sexually liberate men as well as women", we will finally reach some new state of evolutionary bliss; a fully sexually liberated light at the end of a long dark tunnel. This argument is, unfortunately, a pipe dream.
The sexual liberation of men from culturally prescribed duties concerning premarital chastity, absolute monogamy, marriage, and responsibility to women and children, will result in the precise same circumstances we currently see playing out in inner city Chicago. Unwin already disproved the "sexual liberationist" approach (eighty tribes, six civilizations). And yes, men as well as women were "sexually liberated" in the societies Unwin studied.
Forgotten Truths Remembered
Such timeless truths concerning matters of sexual propriety and civilizational flourishing have been all but forgotten. Degenerate fools largely rule over our modern day civilization.
But that said,
let us not despair,
for despair is a sin.
Virtue can still win the day, if we try.
The tides of history have often turned upon the good deeds of the few. Don't forget Unwin's warnings: Premarital chastity and lifelong monogamy (absolute monogamy) are both essential to high culture. The evidence supporting Unwin's argument is vast, spanning many centuries. Ignorance is no longer an option. Most all of the empirical social science is on J.D. Unwin's side of the argument.
Will you be a moral degenerate?
Or will you tell the truth about the failures of the sexual revolution?
Be a leader.
Be righteous.
Choose virtue.
ED Noor: If you want to learn about the effects of Marxist feminism and the “sexual revolution” in the world today, especially North America, I cannot recommend reading Henry Makow enough. When I began exploring the modern situation about 15 years ago I stumbled across the site SAVE THE MALES by Henry Makow. My eyes were so opened that I was furious for months at the deception which I had fallen for, which had resulted in so much personal destruction in my life.
I was furious at the Marxists and their lies; I was furious at myself for my naivete; but what did a cloistered private-school Roman Catholic girl really know about much back in the early 1960’s? It was my ignorance combined with natural rebelliousness that led to my falling into self-destructive behaviours.
https://www.henrymakow.com/archives-subject.html
Might I also add, due to the timing, I went through the entire sexual revolution and have watched Western decline over 6 decades. Everything Unwin says is true from what I can see.
Our huge boomer generation, a great threat to the powers that were (are), needed to be changed; they were afraid of the strength of our numbers: what greater opportunity than to hit such a large population at once.
Feminism, free love, Bachelorism ~ these were presented at the same time to us all. Women could be free with their favours due to birth control; Playboy came into play and eventually turned the source of feminine mystery into an open urinal. The feminism sold then was NOT the feminism we see now; there was definitely a need to correct some elements of Western culture and its treatment of women, but as with all of these movements, things were taken to extremes.
As one who did all the wrong things when I look back, somehow I produced a child who is all in on the nuclear family and settled in to a very healthy playbook! Success. She lived cool and beautiful but kept to herself until, more or less, she found the perfect mate with corresponding values. I might not share those values but THEY do and that is what makes them work so well as they build their family.
There is currently a movement on to erase all references to the golden years of the 1950's in America. They do not want people to know just how good it was when things were still on an upward roll.
Pass this on. The entire article is so true. So very true.
Nature always knows best:
