Before I first discovered philosophy through the random purchase of Pierre Hadot’s “Philosophy as a way of Life”, there was another book I had randomly purchased. This book was called “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill which was first published in 1937. In “Think and Grow Rich”, Napoleon Hill tasked himself to find out what made the top 500 wealthiest men in the United States the top 500 wealthiest men in the United States. Napoleon Hill wanted to find some common cause or causes on which he could ground a theory on which one might himself join the ranks of the wealthy. There is a chapter near the end of this book that I found very striking. The chapter is called “The Mystery of Sex Transmutation”. In it, Napoleon Hill describes how these men for the most part all lived to one degree or other the ascetic condition of abstinence; abstinence from sex as well as masturbation. In fact, abstinence, Napoleon Hill painted as one ascetic ideal for wealth generation. This book, “Think and Grow Rich”, is based on an earlier work by Napoleon Hill entitled “The Law of Success”. “The Law of Success” was originally published in 1925. Between 1925 and 1937, Napoleon Hill continued his research and refined his theories.
Now, J.D. Unwin, a British ethnologist and social anthropologist, wrote a book entitled “Sex and Culture” which was published in 1934. In Sex and Culture, 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.
Unwin’s conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, or rationalistic. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most.
Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity.
According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it’s cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible. The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs. If Unwin is correct, then the consequences that follow are terrifying.
Hill and Unwin in a way concluded the same thing at different scales. Hill concluded that the impetus for a man to generate wealth, his source of motivation, energy, and resolve is anchored in his sexual energy. Now, it should not be understood that this sexual energy is directed at its expulsion through gaining sex. No, the rich man retains his sexual energy through the ascetic practice of abstinence, then transmutates, or sublimates, or directs it towards the goal of generating wealth. Though Hill does not attribute wealth generation to transmuting sexual energy alone, it should be understood that sexual energy is ultimately the fuel that causes the man to put into motion activities that lead to success.
From this it follows that a man who is continually releasing sexual energy through either masturbation or sexual intercourse, is in fact running on fumes and has little impetus to do what needs to be done to achieve wealth. Such a man has in fact handicapped his ability to attain great things. Such a man would be slothful and most likely content with what he already owns and has achieved. Where Hill speaks of this transmutation at the personal level. It seems that Unwin has put into place a theory on how this works at the level of a society. If indeed access to sexual release is heavily controlled in a society, then it follows that said society will have an abundance of sexual energy to apply to civilization building activities. Where opportunity for sexual release is abundant, then those necessary activities of growth begin to stagnate and ultimately regress. So it follows that bans on pre-marital sex, the social stigma of prostitution, the social stigma on masturbation, and containment of post-marriage sex to reproduction and so on are mechanisms by which to charge the batteries of a society as it were. If you can have loads of sex before marriage or loads of sex after marriage, societal energy will be low. Only when you can have little or no sex before marriage and low volumes of sex post-marriage, is societal energy high. Unwin drew from the theories of Freud and wanted to verify if indeed sexual sublimation existed. Unwin through his research found that the sublimation of sexual energy was usually repurposed in two ways; expansively, and productively.
Activities like exploring territory, conquest, colonization, and commerce were deemed expansive. Productive activities designated an advancement within society or a societal flourishing, such as the development of algebra or the power to harness electricity. Thus, the sexual energy of human beings could be re-directed towards other aspects of civilizational advancement, such as technological progress, art, architecture, or conquering other peoples. After a careful evaluation of a variety of civilizations—including the Romans, Greeks, Sumerians, Moors, Babylonians, and Anglo-Saxons—a clear pattern emerged for Unwin: a perfect correlation between sexual fidelity and civilizational flourishing.* Unwin found that discipline in sexual matters appropriated social energy to more civilizational ends, validating Freudian sublimation on a societal level. Unwin remarks:
The evidence is that in the past a class has risen to a position of political dominance because of its great energy and that at the period of its rising, its sexual regulations have always been strict. It has retained its energy and dominated the society so long as its sexual regulations have demanded both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence. … I know of no exceptions to these rules.
But what exactly were those strict sexual attitudes and regulations that contributed to societal flourishing? The answer: heterosexual monogamy. For Unwin, the fabric of society was primarily sexual, and heterosexual monogamy was the optimal arrangement for planning, building, protecting, and nurturing the family. If enough heterosexual partners made a monogamous commitment, civilizational energy was directed toward promoting the firmest societal foundation possible: the family. Unfortunately, each civilization allowed its success to alter its moral code and actions. Though each civilization’s success correlated with strict sexual ethics, attitudes toward sex became increasingly liberalized and loosened. Premarital, extramarital and homosexual relationships proliferated and individuals began placing their individual desires over the common good.
An increase in promiscuity corresponded to a subsequent decrease in the social energy required for civilizational maintenance and innovation.
Ultimately, each civilization became less cohesive, less aggressive, and less resolute. Civilizations in this liminal phase then collapsed from either 1) an internal anarchic revolution, or 2) conquest by invaders with greater social energy. In Unwin’s words, the cycle that he saw with civilizations irrespective of any other qualities was as follows:
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.
TFM has his theory of the gynocentrism cycle. His theory stands mostly vindicated by the work of Unwin. However, I feel that Unwin’s theory is somewhat incomplete. Though I do not have a very well developed argument to support my next set of claims, I believe my theories will provide a good direction that can be explored by the MGTOW community.
If women are hedonistic by nature and women are hypergomous and men desire sex from women, then it follows that men will attempt to satiate women’s hedonistic desires and to do so will need to distinguish themselves in ways that appeal to female hypergamy. If this is true, then it can be argues that civilization is ultimately a fulfillment of female hypergomous desires via male sexual energy. Basically, men built civilization just to get laid. As hypergamy has no upper limit, every grander things need to come into being on the part of men as it is no longer impressive to a woman that you can regularly feed her.
Again, this is not a decisive or completely thought through argument so please take it less as a conclusion and more of a direction of thought. To what extent is civilization, as it exists, it’s rules, it’s inventions, and it’s art a product of male activity guided by female desires that leads to sexual access? Another way to ask the question is as follows. Since washing clothing was a light job compared to mining, and women were in charge of washing clothing, is the existence of washing machines in society owed to hypergamy? To what extent does hypergamy dictate what comes into being at the hands of men? Is hypergamy necessary for the creation of civilization? As in, would civilization still emerge absent hypergamy? Would men bother building it otherwise?
Now, aside from these questions we have another horrifying problem to deal with. If indeed, as Unwin states, there is no reversal of sexual liberation, only internal anarchic revolution or conquest at the hands of a more energetic culture, which of the two awaits Europe? In the first case there will necessarily be complete societal collapse followed by a new regime that reshapes an existing culture or we will be swallowed up by another culture during that period of anarchy. Perhaps Japan, due to its isolation and anti-immigration policy, has the potential for saving itself with revolution. However, in Europe, the story looks different. Muslim countries are sexually repressive, therefore, according to Unwin, have high expansive cultural energies which we can clearly see Muslims applying. What is the likelihood that if a European country falls into civil unrest, and has a meaningful Muslim population, that restoration of order will in fact happen by this Muslim population putting into effect their own rule? It seems that if I was hell bent on destroying a culture, I would first put into place sexual liberation, then when the internal anarchic revolution looked to be on the horizon, I would start importing vast amounts of people from a stronger culture so that when the sexually liberated culture finally falls into anarchy, there was a demographic laying in wait to seize the opportunity and restore order under its own terms. Somehow I get the feeling that a typical male hipster will be no match for the more boisterous Muslims making their way into Europe.
If indeed what has been said is true and If one were to be prudent in all matters of survival in certain European countries, one would plan for anarchy and one would make sure he was well versed in the Qu’ran just in case. It would also be prudent not to be notoriously atheist as the Qur’an does allow conversion of an infidel, but reserved only death for the atheist. But I will stop here less I find myself falling too deep into conspiratorial speculation.
I hope this video compels other content producers to give their own insights into Unwins work as well as the Freudian concept of sexual sublimation which Unwin appears to vindicate. TFM, do you have another gynocentrism cycle video in you?
Thanks for listening.