“Civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.” – Werner Herzog
2.) Individuals, Families & Civilization
3.) Freedom & Human Instinct
4.) Promiscuity Threatens Civilization
5.) Religion Subjugates Promiscuity
6.) In Closing
7.) Relevant Reading
As is typical, I was browsing the red pill forum when a gentleman’s question caught my eye:
Monogamy isn’t the norm in the animal kingdom, by far. So why do we so hungrily desire this form of relationship?
The questioner is, as is quite common, falling victim to the appeal to nature fallacy. The fallacy is the assumption that because something is natural, it is optimum. In this case: “promiscuity comes naturally to humans, therefore, promiscuity is a good thing.” Of course, such thinking is not only fallacious but solipsistic.
It appears a given that the average mind conflates naturality to be synonymous with “good.” Such thinking is used to great effect in marketing to give the word “natural” a positive connotation. Objectively the word is neither negative nor positive, merely neutral. Therefore the ubiquity of the assumption that “natural” can be equated with “good” is nothing more than a culturally programmed memetic infused into the collective consciousness. We typically associate the word “nature” and its derivative forms with health, enchanting trees and lush green lawns. But such an association is an inaccurate synonymity for “good,” as cancer, manure and vomit are as equally natural – if not quite so appealing.
To briefly demonstrate the irrationality of such an idea, consider you use a computerised device to read this. Computers are incredibly useful, but they are anything but natural. So why do we use computers if they’re unnatural creations that aren’t the norm in the animal kingdom? Well of course because computers, like all technology, confer benefits upon human lifestyle we would not otherwise reap. The unnaturalness of computers is considered, on the whole, to be a net positive, not negative. As such, computers have become a bedrock of civilization. They do not need to be natural to enhance our quality of life. They merely need be the most efficient in performing the duties assigned to them. In this regard, monogamy and computers have a lot in common.
2.) Individuals, Families & Civilization:
The institution of family does for social dynamics what computers do for electronics. Both inventions revolutionise and dominate their respective spheres. Property rights, law, marriage – all these things were invented to stabilise civilization by exerting environmental pressure on human instincts. Without such things, we revert to a base tribalism: violence and petty territorial barbarianism.
Although one may not see it, for an idea, social grouping or principle is less tangible than a computer, the family unit is a prerequisite for the functioning of more complex social order. One cannot have committees, courts, institutions, panels, religions or even nations without first establishing family.
As the individual bonds with the family, the family bonds with the civilization it inhabits. But individuals deprived the bonds of family by outcome of immutable social factors are often at odds with civilization. Such individuals give up on community, opting for a more parasitic survival strategy. They are the shameless narcissists, the angry barbarians and each and every shade of dysfunction there between. Scarcely do such people care for civilization. And how can we expect them to care for something as grand and abstract as civilization when such individuals were never fully subject to the bonds of family? How does one come to love something as grand as nation when they had not even the love of kin?
Far from statesmen interested in the public good, vagabonds and the estranged are typically apathetic to the plight of civilization. Make no mistake in thinking it is only the estranged who behave in such a manner, indeed, entire families have pillaged civilizations in pursuit of internal interests. However, I think this more an affectation of excessive power rather than a quirk of family. As such, this contention is a generalisation rather than an absolutism.
Familial estrangement manufactures apathy. This is how promiscuity and divorce undermine social progress, and in turn, civilizational progress. The effects of such action cause pain, which in turn, promotes excessive individualism and a disdain for collectivism. And so the cosmic recurrence that is a need for balance is tipped too far in one direction. That is, an obsession with the self (individualism, narcissism) and a disregard for the whole (collectivism, abstraction.)
Naturally, this is bad for family. And what is bad for family is in turn bad for civilization. Each family represents a building block in the construction of civilization. Families (in the traditional sense of the word) contribute more value to society than lone individuals. Generally speaking, they have better mental health, a higher sense of civic duty, are more productive, and pay more taxes than broken homes or one person households. And this seems only rational. Family is bound by blood, civilization forms around the desires and needs of such bonds. People work harder and produce more when they care for and are cared for by others.
Familial social pressure urges individuals to excel, to make the family proud, not to disappoint. Of course, there are always exceptions. There are highly motivated self starters devoid of family married to nothing but narcissism and money, but such individuals are the exception rather than the rule. In general, the prevailing notion is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, that families achieve more as units than they would if their members were autonomously estranged. This doesn’t mean that family life is suited to all; it simply “is.”
3.) Freedom & Human Instinct:
Rebels have always been attractive, as truth be told it is the not-so-secret desire of human nature to defy social order and do whatever, whenever. To have one’s cake, and eat it – to relish in the destructive aspects of human instinct without suffering consequentially at the hands of civilization. Civilization does not punish the individual out of sadism, but rather, it punishes destructive behaviour because that behaviour threatens the social order necessary to sustain civilization. Now of course, I realise in my statement of this that we endure a contemporary exception to this maxim. That is, the normalisation of adultery via the feminist spearheaded collapse of the traditional family, but I digress.
It is human nature to be infatuated with freedom in spite of considerations pertaining to the stability of such. And so, the minority who manage to stylishly defy society and get away with it are near universally idolised by the masses who are less free. Rock stars, rappers and social butterflies looking to make a name for themselves all encapsulate such attitudes.
In truth, if all enjoyed the near absolute freedom of the few, social order would break down. Civilization would be but a shadow of its former self. And then those left would quickly call for order and more conservative social mores. Indeed, boom and bust, rise and decline, the attitudes and social mores of a civilization’s people appears quite cyclical. It appears that with prosperity, comes the rise of the feminine. Like children with access to the cookie jar, this leads to excessive freedom, which in turn leads to destruction and general apathy. Then when collapse comes, the masculine takes over – leading to order, conservatism, creation and empathy.
Civilization is a process of domestication, without it, we are more beastlike than man. For humans evolved far longer in a pre-civilizational state than in a civilizational one. One need only look at cases of feral children to see how without civil domestication a human becomes a beast. Your ability to indulge your curiosity and intellect to exponential heights, to grow, to expand your mind and to travel vast distances – these things are possible only by the discoveries and sustenance of civilization. As such, to enjoy the furnishings of higher civilization, we are required to, for better or worse, forgo some of our more primitive aspects. Unfettered hedonism is just one of these aspects, although it is popular to think this is a piece of the proverbial cake that can be eaten and enjoyed without consequence.
4.) Promiscuity Threatens Civilization:
I would hazard a guess in asserting that promiscuity costs our civilization dearly. Indeed, in the pursuit of orgasmic pleasure, we have a higher national debt (welfare,) a burgeoning divorce industry, lost boys and girls growing up fatherless, increased mental illness, higher rates of crime etc. I could go on, but I think the point has been sufficiently made. This is more a statement of reality than it is a judgement on the behaviour of those who contribute to the decline. It is what it is and so what will be, will be.
And even in spite of moral considerations, it is most apparent that promiscuity diminishes the quality of a civilization by merit of its societal consequences. Should promiscuity not undermine family it would be all well and good. And so it appears that families cannot insulate themselves with an open-door sexual policy, just as nations cannot insulate themselves with an open-door immigration policy. Civilizations that do no protect their culture lose their culture. In truth, a family is a micro-civilization. It has its own rules, customs, politics and opinions distinct from the larger culture. A strong family, much like a strong nation, is therefore selective rather than liberal in who it allows into its domain.
And this is the incredible thing about the social engineers who compose much the intelligentsia of western civilization. They ignore the history of human social development in favour of pursuing ever-evolving obscurities dreamt up in the solitary detachedness of the ivory tower.
A man’s innate power is in his bodily strength and logic, a woman’s, in her bodily beauty and cunning. The social engineers ignore such immutable human intricacies in their egalitarian idealism. The social contract is the set of social rules that makes civilization possible, social engineers create and perpetuate ideologies which alter the terms of said contract, damaging civilization by swapping what works with what is desired to work. Swapping what is functional if imperfect, with what is dysfunctional and even less perfect. Then, quite satirically, it labels this regression progress.
5.) Religion Subjugates Promiscuity:
Almost every religious institution to ever dominate the hearts and minds of a society has preached quite mightily the importance of monogamy. Religion as untrue as it appears, is therefore not only a pre-science way of explaining reality, but likewise a civilizational mechanism for social order. It is the imposition of order on creatures capable of order, but lacking the self-discipline to exercise such order without theological arguments permeating the hive mind. Human instinct is not without fault, and thus by merit of its destructive aspects will undo civilization if left unchecked. Religion inherently acknowledges the flawed nature of the human character and so brainwashes humanity in an effort to reconcile human flaw with human ingenuity.
Civilization is a construction that balances on the fragile precipice between human instinct and human imagination. Civilizational progress is therefore contingent on the balance of conflict between our instinct to seek what we momentarily desire, and the loftier pursuits of what our minds envisage. The trade-off’s one must make in the pursuit of either is a warring battlefield, one that permeates the root and core of all that we do. Civilization demands imagination, whilst instinct, the mediocrity of self-gratification. Without the subjugation and noblest oppression of the prior, the freedom-seeking of the latter has a propensity to win. And with that victory, civilization falls.
6.) In Closing:
From time to time I like to diverge from the chatter of Machiavellianism and evolutionary psychological explanations of female behaviour to explore the grander picture. Indeed, the state of civilization aka “the decline” is of great interest to me. These pieces tend not to be popular because they imply judgement, self-sacrifice and collectivism. Excessive selfishness and apathy is the spirit of the time. And yet in spite of that, I think such pieces necessary for stimulating a more nuanced worldview. As such, I hope the article compelled you to think, which for better or worse, is characteristically the intent of this blog. In addition, I kindly ask the reader to note their opinion in the enclosed poll. Criticism is as ever, welcomed in the comments.
7.) Relevant Reading:
Fate of Empires (out of print and very hard to get hold of, so I’ve linked the PDF)
Guns, Germs and Steel
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive
The Testosterone Hypothesis: How Hormones Regulate the Life Cycles of Civilization
29 thoughts on “Promiscuity & Civilization”
Wow! 180 flip in perspective. I can without a doubt say that your writing has become succinct and effectively communicable. Brilliant.
As a child growing up in an abusive single-mom family,I became extremely individualized such that even basic chatting with my friends became a problem.
So I understand the plight of ‘lost boys’ and the indifference they face,especially since teens are very solipsistic.I guess one has to abandon family altogether when there was none in the first place.That’s the only way to grow,otherwise the resentment would build up till it consumed you.
An excellent piece. I can see many parallels between this and Krishna’s speech to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. I don’t recall the Sanskrit, but the meaning is this: when men indulge in lust and act like beasts, marriage falls and when marriage the building block of dharma falls, dharma(righteous conduct) falls, and with the fall of dharma, civilization comes to ruin.
This was written thousands of years ago. Apart from technological progress, it appears that social systems have remained constant over millenia. Unsurprising, since our biology hasn’t changed at all in the last few thousand years.
Your twitter friend whom you have blocked for whatever reason – @arviman
Quite amazing really how little has changed in all this time isn’t it? I have no idea why you were blocked on Twitter. I’ve unblocked you.
I’m blocked too. There have not been any hostile exchanges between us whatsoever. Perhaps mistakenly? I’m @AAbhijatya .
No idea why, lifted!
“I guess one has to abandon family altogether when there was none in the first place.That’s the only way to grow,otherwise the resentment would build up till it consumed you.”
Used to think this way a lot.
Family always meetet more to me than anything in the world.
seems like your brain has got similar ways of thinking about the world aroud us like some great dudes in history – Einstein, Richard Feynman etc.
Loking at object from many many angles and connecting dots makes reality u desribe very exact.
Feynman: Take the world from another point of view (1/4)
Feynman: Take the world from another point of view (4/4)
Men, thanks a lot, ,this guy is awesome. How I never saw him, and never heard of him… He inspired me to get interested in physics again. Thank you so much.
Go out and get struck by lightning.
Wasn’t a command. Rhetorical response to the animal kingdom natural philosophy.
Had a twitter compliment got taken as an insult couple days ago.
Questions that I’m left with is the effects of normalized promiscuity in society and how those effects will reflect what the the defined “social norm.” On a larger scale, I’m curious if std rates go on a rise, will contraceptive injections/operations become normal, and if this shift in promiscuity only respark monogamy. I don’t think I’ll live to see the final destination to the road of regression.
Strange that the more women have control over their reproductive rights, the more abortions seem to be in the offing. You would expect fewer and fewer abortions, but that is not the direction things have taken. And, then, with all of the viagra, and similar substances, so that men who have no interest in sex with their hairy old wives can pop a pill and pop a boner, and all is supposedly well in the world. And then, all the games and all the manipulations, meant to make losers turn winners into losers through negging, and mind games, so as to turn tables on them, and convince the girl that the chump is a champ, and if they need booze and drugs to convince themselves of it, so be it, bring on the petty drama!
The poll is unclear….”family”: brothers and parents or children?
Very well put together and extremely thought provoking. I shall chew on this over the weekend. TY
Great article, although would needs stats about crime. At least violent crime has been going down, maybe people are so checked out it is too much effort to fight about anything.
I would add that unchecked hedonism can be a default goal in a materialistic ideology, “the future is the heat death of the universe that I won’t be around for anyways.”
Maybe the fact that people aren’t happy in such a system, is that humans have higher needs that material things can’t meet.
I enjoy this documentary. I don’t think it is blue pill to examine beauty, it explains why so many men fall prey to it; that it is transcendent need. It might be the case that is it easier to be red pill in a Cathedral than an office cube; female beauty can be enjoyed but not sacrificed for when you have an abundant mindset towards beauty.
Check out the Roger Scruton BBC documentary called “Why Beauty Matters”
As long as you are responsible enough to maintain your family and careful enough to not get caught while being promiscuous to satisfy your sexual urges while not getting attached emotionally, its alright I guess. Ex. A character like Tony Soprano.
Too much sexual repression because of religion on the other hand can cause another set of problems. It gives rise to blue pill betas or violent rapists.
Promiscuity sure does cause damage to the family unit on one end of the spectrum , so does extreme sexual repression on the other end. The key is balance. You know what they say- “it’s only a crime if you get caught” !
Remember, God is watching you! Religion suggest that you be monogamous, and that gives the wife a bit more power, the church going wife, the woman who is supposed to avoid contraception, and breed a large family, a church going family, a woman who attends church with her family, a woman who then knows the teachings of the church, a woman who may decide that sex is for reproduction, and not for recreation, a church going woman who controls the mans access to sex, oh, the power! NOT.
Great thought provoking article! My criticism, if it even posted, was geared towards the fellow who said it’s not a crime if you don’t get caughts. What a jerk…..and I’d like to say that I would like to call you worse, bUT I won’t sink that low. Just know you are a vile human.
For every Promiscuous man… there also is a promiacuous woman out there… !
So why blame men only!
I love reading your views on Western Civilisation and how they relate to the present international and economic issues in Europe and the US. I guess as an Australian, it’s good to hear from someone who is somewhat “closer to the action” that I can relate to on a consistently similar philosophical level.
I’d love to see more posts under your ‘Civilisation’ category! For now, I’ll settle for your all-too-brief political tidbits in Twitter.
Hi, I would like to say that consumerism and greed have their main goals to disintegrate the family. Because, you need to rent 2 places instead of one, you need to pay for 2 meals instead of one and you throw away much more food when not in family… and examples can go on… also, it seems that creating-destroying families is profitable for current law systems, both in short and in long term…
a mental parlor trick. Unfortunately wrong on several accounts: 1) many cultures and religions have existed polygamy, 2) depends on the species on pair bonding humans are really serial monogamous–4 years is the extend in many researchers’ views. You presented no empirical evidence for your assertions. Evolutionary Psychology has a great deal of work that you should research to gain a stronger foundation on the subject.
Nonsense. Monogamy was a trick that the rich used to demographically dominate poor. Consider Gregory Clark’s research (A Farewell to Alms Book): 90% of English at the down of the industral revolution came from just 10% of the richest of the Medieval times. It was because the offspring of poor were dying off from starvation etc.
Poor mother + poor father = dead-end genetic lineage, below replacement survival.
Rich mother + rich father = doubling lineage with every generation.
This is crucial to understand Hypergamy! Had poor woman been allowed to form soft harems with the rich (rich man + N poor women), as Hypergramy dictated they would have avoided demographic extinction/irrevelance of their genes.
Your argument against what is natural is good is really excellent. Vomit,shit and every other dross substance is natural but one cant ingest that. This is a logic which the gay community uses for legitimising and justifying their gay behavior namely “it happens in the animal kingdom”. Gay behavior is both biological and due to social conditioning. IM can you tell me if that can be exorcised from the mind of these pathological specimens. Gay movements have caught fire even in the most ultra religious cities in India where i live.
You all say that religion preaches monogamy. Maybe you’re talking about Eurocentric religion. African Traditional Religion and Islam preach polygamy, and in pre-colonial Africa, there was balance and harmony even with polygamy.
African Traditional Religion is fluid in the sense that it allows a man to have multiple wives and to have one if he wants. Also of note is the fact that in African Traditional Religion, there is no option of divorce. Once you’re married, it’s till death do you part.