J.D. Unwin on the correlation between sexual liberty and cultural downfall

Fulton Sheen – The level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood

In Sex and Culture (1934), British anthropologist J. D. Unwin “studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe.” Writing in his blog, “Disfigured Praise: Affliction for the Comfortable,” Jonathon McCormack comments on Dr. Unwin’s findings:

“After studying cultures as diverse as the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, and dozens of other groups, Dr. Unwin found a 100% perfect correlation between the practice of heterosexual fidelity and cultural development. As Unwin wrote, across 5,000 years of history he found absolutely no exception to his rule:

“These societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.

Without exception, once restrictions on sexuality are lifted, especially female sexuality, a society destroys itself from within, and is later conquered from without. When not focusing mental and physical energy on building strong families, members of a culture lose the impetus for upkeep and innovation [emphasis added – The Angophilic Anglican].”

“Author Daniel Janosik puts Unwin’s findings this way:

“If the British anthropologist J. D. Unwin is correct in his assessment of society, this present generation in the Western world may be the last one. He found that when strict heterosexual monogamy was practiced, the society attained its greatest cultural energy, especially in the arts, sciences and technology. But as people rebelled against the prohibitions placed upon them and demanded more sexual opportunities, there was a consequent loss of their creative energy, which resulted in the decline and eventual destruction of the civilization. Remarkably, he did not find any exception to this trend.”

“The fact the world’s three major religions, which date back to the Bronze Age, have been structured around the ideals of monogamy and sexual restraint for thousands of years should tell us something about tampering with the set and frame of civilization, then calling the resulting degeneracy ‘progress.’

“Unwin concluded that the fabric that holds a society together is sexual in nature. When life-long heterosexual monogamous relationship is practiced, the focus is on the nurture of the family and energy is expended to protect, plan for, and build up the individual family unit. This extends to the entire society and produces a strong society focused on preserving the strength of the family.

However, he found that when sexual opportunities opened the door to premarital, post-marital, and homosexual relationships, the social energy always dissipated as the individual focused more on self-gratification rather than societal good.”

To which The Anglophilic Anglican can only quote that great philosopher of the earlier and more innocent 1960s, Gomer Pyle:

Gomer Pyle – Surprise, surprise, surprise!


[Disclaimer: No offense to Mr. McCormack intended, but I would not have titled the linked blog-post “How Women destroy civilization,” if I had been the one writing it.

It is not women per se who destroy civilization: it is masculinized women and feminized men; it is decoupling sexual relations from the gift and blessing, but also unquestionably the responsibility, of procreation and parenthood, and especially the vocation of motherhood; it is, as the above quotes make clear, privileging personal gratification over the good of families and societies.

Women who understand their primary and proper role being to act in support of their husbands, families, and homes are no threat to civilization, but indeed, one of its most essential pillars! Feminism, not femininity, is the problem.

Classical architecture is truly multicultural, because it is truly human.

This is what so many people who claim to love multiculturalism, but yet claim to dislike classical architecture, utterly fail to understand!

Screenshot_2020-03-09 (4) Wrath Of Gnon on Twitter Classical architecture is not of one single culture or people or era It [...]

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

Rev. Thomas Harbold’s review of “Defending Boyhood: How Building Forts, Reading Stories, Playing Ball, and Praying to God Can Change the World” | Goodreads

43309920

When Anthony Esolen – among the most able defenders of Western civilization, and Western Christendom in particular, active today – chooses to discourse on a subject, the wise person reads or listens attentively…

Source: Rev. Thomas Harbold’s review of Defending Boyhood: How Building Forts, Reading Stories, Playing Ball, and Praying to God Can Change the World | Goodreads

When Anthony Esolen – among the most able defenders of Western civilization, and Western Christendom in particular, active today – chooses to discourse on a subject, the wise person reads or listens attentively, nor does he or she lack reward for having done so. Esolen writes with exuberance, penetrating insight, and equally-penetrating wit, and Defending Boyhood is no exception to that rule. I was alternately delighted, intrigued, inspired, and moved.

As a former boy myself, I resonate strongly with the former boy that shines through Esolen’s mature, erudite, and engaging writing, and frequently found myself nodding in emphatic agreement. His treatment of boyhood, and boys – what they value, how they view life, and the goals and ideals that are common to boys across time, geography, and culture – has the ring of truth, and stands as a much-needed antidote to the venomous miasma that much of modern culture seems bent on creating around such formerly straightforward concepts as manhood, masculinity, and boyhood…

Read my whole review here.

 

Life Without Prejudice | The Imaginative Conservative

https://staytuneandalive.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/faceless-man-shst-130205.jpg

“Life without prejudice, were it ever to be tried, would soon reveal itself to be a life without principle. For prejudices are often built-in principles. They are the extract which the mind has made of experience…” (essay by Richard Weaver)

Source: Life Without Prejudice – The Imaginative Conservative

Indeed. Prejudice, and its close cousin stereotype, does not exist in a vacuum. Prejudice, which simply means “prejudgement,” is most often the fruit of individual or collective experience – a recollection of and response to either one’s own experience, or that of those whom one has reason to trust, or both. It is a process of first learning, and then predicting based upon what one has learned.

Prejudices, like stereotypes, aren’t coming out of nowhere – they do not exist in a vacuum, and even basically false or incorrect ones have at least a grain of truth in them somewhere, else they would not exist. If one has no prejudices, one has either failed to learn from past experience, or one has consciously chosen to set those experiences aside. One may reasonably question whether either is a wise course of action!

This is not a radical (or reactionary) concept, nor is it anything remotely new in the human experience: as this article accurately points out,

“in the controversial literature of a hundred years ago—or even of a couple of generations ago—you do not encounter the sort of waving of the bloody shirt of prejudice that greets you on all sides now. Men did not profess such indignation that other men had differing convictions and viewpoints. They rather expected to encounter these, and to argue with them as best they could.”

In other words, the underlying assumption of socio-political argument – however vehement it may have been in practice – was along the lines of, “I understand that you have these beliefs, these prejudices, but I want to offer evidence to convince you that you’re wrong, or at least to offer additional points to be considered.” People were not, by and large, thought to be horrible human beings simply because they had – quelle horreur! – analyzed and learned from experience, and used that experience to make predictions about other people and events, which might or might not be in error.

Richard Weaver, author of this insightful article, argues that the shift in perception of prejudice as an innate human characteristic – and by and large a helpful one, although one must be open to having one’s presuppositions challenged by facts on the ground – to something unacceptable and anathema stems in large measure from the influence of communism, in its cultural manifestation: that is to say, cultural Marxism.

Weaver points out that this ideology (which, much as Islam is much more than a religion, is much more than an economic system) insinuates itself into a culture, a society, by inducing “a general social skepticism.” Not, he notes,

“that the communists are skeptics themselves. They are the world’s leading dogmatists and authoritarians. But in order to bring about their dogmatic reconstruction of the world they need to produce this skepticism among the traditional believers. They need to make people question the supports of whatever social order they enjoy, to encourage a growing dissatisfaction and a feeling that they have inherited a bad article…

“To this end, what it knows that it must overcome is the binding element, or the cohesive force that holds a society together. For as long as this integrative power remains strong, the radical attack stands refuted and hopeless. This will explain the peculiar virulence with which communists attack those transcendental unifiers like religion, patriotism, familial relationship, and the like.

“It will also explain, if one penetrates the matter shrewdly, why they are so insistent upon their own programs of conformity, leveling, and de-individualization.”

However paradoxical it may appear at first sight, he goes on,

“we find when we examine actual cases that communities create a shared sentiment, a oneness, and a loyalty through selective differentiation of the persons who make them up. A society is a structure with many levels, offices, and roles, and the reason we feel grateful to the idea of society is that one man’s filling his role makes it possible for another to fill his role, and so on…

“[T]oo little attention is given to the fact that society exists in and through its variegation and multiplicity, and when we speak of a society’s ‘breaking down,’ we mean exactly a confusing of these roles, a loss of differentiation, and a consequent waning of the feeling of loyalty [to one another, and to society itself]…

“The point is that their hostility to distinctions of all kinds as we know them in our society conceals a desire to dissolve that society altogether. And we see that practically all traditional distinctions, whether economic, moral, social, or aesthetic, are today under assault as founded on a prejudice.”

Go ahead and read the rest of the essay. It’s worth it!

 

Research: The Industrial Revolution Left Psychological Scars That Can Still Be Seen Today

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-351127818a4223de67ee15ed3b79278c-c

Our research shows that a region’s historical industries leave a lasting imprint on the local psychology, which remains even when those industries are no longer dominant or have almost completely disappeared.

Source: Research: The Industrial Revolution Left Psychological Scars That Can Still Be Seen Today | Harvard Business Review

I have long believed, and occasionally commented, that industrialization (and I would include its close ally, urbanization, since the two are closely and perhaps inextricably linked) is an unnatural and therefore intrinsically harmful condition for human beings. This study tends to give credence to that belief.

I certainly concur with its conclusion, that “the effect of the Industrial Revolution seems to be more toxic and far-reaching than previously thought. While massive industrialization brought unprecedented technological and economic progress, it also left a [negative] psychological legacy that continues to shape the personality traits and well-being of people currently in these regions.”

It is true that some people seem to thrive in urban environments. But if you look at the phenomenon closer, I believe you will discover that most, if not all, of these are people who occupy a sufficiently high socio-economic bracket that urban living is a choice, not a necessity – that is, they come to the city, or even live there, for the cultural and other amenities, but are able to escape to less-congested areas on a regular basis – or whose personality is such that the more diverse and intense opportunities found in urban areas outweigh the more negative aspects.

(Or, in some cases, who are highly predatory, and find urban areas to be an amenable hunting ground!)

Also, at least in the United States, most urban areas these days are post-industrial, the U.S. having – for better or for worse – managed to “off-shore” or automate a lot of its heavy manufacturing and other industrial production; so that the worst effects of the industrial era, from extreme pollution to grinding assembly-line work, are largely things of the past.

That does not make urban living benign, however. For most people, most of the time, studies have shown repeatedly that urban environments have more negative effects – psycho-emotionally, physiologically, and even cognitively – than more natural areas. Indeed, there is a large and growing body of research conclusively demonstrating the benefits of nature on physical and mental health and overall well-being.

I am reminded of G.M. Trevelyan’s warning that,

“We are literally children of the earth, and removed from her our spirits wither or run to various forms of insanity. Unless we can refresh ourselves at least by intermittent contact with nature, we grow awry.”

Indeed.

Reflections on the Southern Agrarians and their lessons for us today

eastman-johnson-american-painter-1824-1906-man-with-a-scythe-1868-1340986648_org
Eastman Johnson (American painter, 1824-1906): Man With a Scythe – 1868.

I finally had the opportunity to acquire a book I have long wanted to read: “I’ll Take My Stand: the South and the Agrarian Tradition” by “Twelve Southerners,” a collection of essays written specifically for that publication (called by its authors a “symposium”) and published in 1930. Continue reading “Reflections on the Southern Agrarians and their lessons for us today”

Wisdom from our Roman Catholic brethren

vitruvian_man - Da Vinci

“The human body shares in the dignity of ‘the image of God’: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit: Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.”

— Catechism of the Catholic Church, ❡❡ 364

Far too many Christians fall into the Gnostic heresy of devaluing the material world, including the human body, and believing that only “things spiritual” have ultimate worth. Do not be like them!