Red pill me on degeneracy

is it really that bad? will the world end because of it? please try and control your autism while responding.

Other urls found in this thread:

dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/on_time/text.shtml
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16084184
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>a leaf

...

Having a few fags in your population is not bad. its just as it is. They are ostracized by default. The current normalization of this shit and getting youngsters to imagine that they are "transgendered" and such is a whole other story. This has to be stopped and is harmful. I don't even want to imagine all the attentionwhoring failures in a few years who thought that sex-change surgery is reversible like removing tattoos .

Yes the world is that bad. However as long as we are comfortable then we will be apathetic to the poz.

So we have two choices, either wait for Jews to push the "it's okay to fuck kids" angle.

Or two, become an accelerationist and always try agitate or enemies to attack whites.

Either way improve yourself and try to make others aware.

true, I do think the ridiculous level of social influence is creating an abnormal amount of youth to pursue this "love yourself" shit. not that I disagree with loving yourself its just that shame should still exist in a person to some degree. But for the people who are genuinely comfortable with who they are, and aren't the types who flaunt their lifestyles, they can't possibly be hurting anyone can they? and they shouldn't be ostracized for their lifestyle choices?
fair enough but I don't honestly think we would ever find it ok to diddle kids. There are some very clear lines that exist across humanity and I really can't see pedophilia ever becoming acceptable, again.

Picture 2 versions of your final moments in life.

One in which you are surrounded by people who owe their lives to you in the most strict sense of the phrase. They are portraits of your diligence and worth as a human for everyone to see. You think about your life spent in the service of these people and there is not much to regret because for all the mistakes you have made, they are still here. No abstraction, no justification, just sons and daughters and grandchildren thanking you for what you did for them.

In the other version of these moments, you lie there. Maybe your 2nd or third life partner is with you, more likely you are alone. Because your world horizon has shrunk to its final moments in an austere hospital room with no reflection of all the thrills you experienced in your wild and unique life, you turn inward, to your memories. Alas, they have faded with time and continued exposure to powerful pharmaceuticals. Not to worry, you can still fall back on your justifications. It felt good, I was being myself, nobody understood me... As you work through these abstract notions with the last sparks of your fading consciousness you realize your thoughts are forming a sort of legal defense of your life. You wonder if swayed will be the judgement of whoever it is you are trying to convince.

most things can be enjoyed responsibly
the problem is that most people don't

That's the point inward making. Once that comes up then it's game over for the heebs

fucking degenerate leaf.

thats quite profound, but it implies you can't have those happy memories in both situation. the person you described is clearly someone who brought regret to their deathbed, and you don't need a room full of children and grand children to die happily.

Degeneracy means doing things that cause you to degenerate. Thus the word. Of course it's fucking bad. You really need someone to explain to you why degenerating is bad!?

Hedonism is fun until you're in your late 30s or maybe even 40. Unfortunately you live to be 80+, so all those short term relationships fade over time. You will end up lonely and a husk.

On the other hand if you foster relationships through your 20s and 30s you will have those people for the rest of your life. Maybe a wife, maybe a family, or maybe just a good set of friends, but they will be with you for who you are instead of what you were.

A recommended short read:
dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/on_time/text.shtml

Try it, see how it goes leaf

Gays were never a problem as before being persecuted by some cultures and religions, people just accepted them as they were basically like everyone else except they loved someone of the same sex.
Problem now is that progressives are pushing the gay agenda into new territory. They're making people think that being gay is a cool thing and that you can be whatever gender you want. I'm actually more surprised that there aren't more gay people who are condemning the progressives for making homosexuals, bi's or trannies look as if they're super sluts who crave dick 24/7.

Post the original from early 2016

Yes, it's really that bad. On one side is regeneration, where problems are fixed, bad actions are minimized, and each generation is a bit better than the one before. On the other side is degeneration, where problems grow, bad actions flourish, and each generation is a bit worse than the one before.

It can't end the world though. Not even nuclear war can do that. Only God can do that.

it is an angiprop meme, people are actually having sex less than previous generations

here you go op

You've read absolutely nothing on the subject of sexual behavior if you fell for that meme study, user.

In comparison to previous generations, the current one is having less sex than before. Here's why that doesn't really matter.

>They're focusing on the wrong metric.
Look at the statistics regarding promiscuity's impact on divorce, likelihood to cheat, and/or report a negative relationship aspect or outcome. There's a startling jump when going from 0 (virgin wife) to even 1 previous partner. That number has been steadily declining. So even if people are having less sexual partners over all, more and more of them are coming into marriages as used goods, thus making those marriages more likely to fail.

>Previous statistics were skewed.
A lot of early statistics on sexual behavior were either conducted by or influenced by the work of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey. Kinsey shot to prominence with his three major works "Sexuality in the Human Male," "Sexuality in the Human Female," and "The Kinsey Reports."

Kinsey's statistics are usually the ones referenced for cross-generational comparisons of sexual behavior. Unfortunately, Kinsey's statistics are flawed for a number of reasons
>He relied solely on volunteers
A later Stanford study found that volunteers for sex studies are ~2-4 times more promiscuous than the overall population.
>He didn't properly define terms
"Married Woman" was defined as a woman living with a member of the opposite gender for over a year. The data published in "Sexuality in the Human Female" includes a number of literal prostitutes living with their pimps, and tosses them into the same category as housewives.
>Kinsey oversampled groups that are far more promiscuous than average.
Volunteers aside, Kinsey's data drew extensively from homosexuals, victims of sexual abuse, and literal prison inmates convicted of sex-related crimes. All three of these groups are alarmingly more promiscuous than normal, well-adjusted heterosexuals.

1/2

(Keep in mind that Kinsey's earliest works [40s-50s era] suggested society was less promiscuous than it has been post-sexual revolution. Don't let people tell you that promiscuity has always existed and was just kept hidden. There's not a single shred of evidence to suggest that it was a widespread phenomenon; conversely, there's a plethora of evidence [even biased against such a position] which supports the notion that the sexual revolution sent promiscuity and premarital sex through the roof.]

Now that the "golden era" of Kinsey is long over, studies on sexuality are far more respectable (provided you avoid some of the more "modern" individuals who come into the field from Anthropology). Sample sizes are correct, promiscuous groups aren't overrepresented, etc.

It's a little unfair to compare properly compiled data to data that's proven to be horrendously skewed, and pretend that there's anything of value to take away.

With regard to the OP's point specifically, I'll address that in a separate post.

2/2

>puritanical mumbo jumbo

Hello, r/the_Donald. Basic bitch Faceberg-tier memes aren't arguments either.

"Puritanical" is not an argument but degenerate mumbo jumbo

>what's wrong with being a faggot?

Nudding wrong at all, cut your cock off for Israel like a good goy.

Degeneracy is why muslims will outbreed us in two generations.

If you think the permanent loss of human civilization is bad, then you think degeneracy is bad.

No, because they inevitably self destruct. Their legacy will be to normalize their behaviour and have a more diluted and distilled form.

Like how normies are okay with porn, gays, excess drinking, recreational drug use, some gaming, internet consumption etc.

All those behaviours were once on the fringes of society. Those people are still on the fringes of society but their behaviours have been adopted in some form by the mainsteam.

That will be the legacy of SJWs, what they give a shit about may become the norm to some extent, but with none of their autistic screeching.

The gays won't condemn it because they're self centered degenerates and it furthers their cause. No different from mexicans and blacks voting dem for their gibs and shit.

>Is it really that bad.

Yes, actually. At this point, everything I've read leads me to believe that the collapse of society's moral foundations, especially regarding sexuality, is going to be far more damaging in the long-run than demography could ever be.

It's not terribly hard, relative to history, to expel large chunks of hostile, foreign populations. It's been done time and time again. People who see it as being impossible take a very narrow view of history where they separate the post-WWII era entirely from the rest of recorded human history, and pretend that those great "disasters" simply aren't going to happen again.

Conversely, if you look at civilizations that have liberated themselves historically, it hasn't gone well.

I'd encourage you to read, and think about, the post in image. Yes, it's a Turkroach on Sup Forums; however, he does concisely articulate one aspect of Oxford-educated Anthropologist (back when the field was respectable) J.D. Unwin's argument in "Monogamy as a Condition of Social Energy,”

Unwin looked at various civilizations throughout history and found that sexual liberation tends to be predictive of civilizational collapse, a more "chaste" and regulated civilization overtaking the "liberated" civilization, or, best case scenario, a near irreparable waning of said civilization.

The only thing "sexually liberated" society that has existed since the release of Unwin's initial arguments is the Soviet Union (And the modern West, but it's clear which direction we're going in).

The USSR actually managed to avoid all 3 outcomes. Unfortunately, there's no real hope to be taken from it. Lenin & Trotsky tried to push an idea roughly analogous to "free love" in the early USSR, it caught on amongst party-members, but didn't take root elsewhere. They also penned "no-fault" divorce legislation, making the process speedy and largely consequence-free.

1/2

This "liberation" really only happened at the legislative level, and didn't have time to truly fester in the realm of culture. When Stalin came to power, he repealed the aforementioned legislation, made marriage matter again and started pushing borderline-puritanical moral standards.

Essentially, to date, no "organically" liberated (that is, a society which has sexually liberated itself first through culture) society has done so without facing disastrous consequences down the line.

tl;dr:
>premarital sex increases likelihood to cheat, divorce, etc.
>premarital sex increases likelihood of out of wedlock pregnancies.
>children of single mothers are far more prone to criminality, poor academic performance, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, drug use, and self-reported mental issues
>single mothers soak up a large portion of the public dime
>Welfare state grows, dysgenic underclass grows
>marriage rates fall (Currently ~40% of millennial women are projected to never marry)
>bachelor taxes become a thing
>overall birthrate goes down

It's really not hard to see the kind of disaster that comes into play in a sexually liberated society. Women become awful and irresponsible, men historically have "checked out" to varying degrees

I cannot recommend Unwin enough on this subject.

>Sexual Regulations and Human Behaviour. London: Williams & Norgate ltd., 1933.
>Sex and Culture. London: Oxford University Press, 1934.
>Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behaviour. London: Oxford University Press, 1935.
>Sex Compatibility in Marriage. New York: Rensselaer, 1939.
>"Monogamy as a Condition of Social Energy,” The Hibbert Journal, Vol. XXV, 1927.

You should be able to pull these up fairly easily on Google Scholar, that and JSTOR are where I found most of his stuff. Truthfully it should be mandatory reading for these discussions on Sup Forums.

Beyond that I'd look into the Calhoun Mouse Experiment.

2/2

Now that I'm done trying to condense essay-material to a few 2000-character limit posts, I've begun digging around for some CDC statistics I had a while back.

I believe they suggested that ~15% of American women ages 18-22 were virgins.

Given cultural differences, I'd expect the number to be a little lower in Western Europe, but things aren't THAT bad. Granted, they're still absolutely horrible, and I'm blackpilled as Hell on this topic.

That's fucking sad. I'm a nightclub promoter and I fuck between a coupe to a dozen random women every weekend. That doesn't include my fuck buddies and of course my girlfriend.

Ironically Goebbels took a few shots at "moralists acting under the banner of the NSDAP."

In truth, the NSDAP was pretty degenerate. Sexuality might be the one subject where I have to break firmly with the historic far-right.

Hitler's Lebensborn program was, in part, intended to let German Women of good stock give birth without shame and stigma. There was, of course, a eugenic and demographic aspect to this as well, but removing the shame from out-of-wedlock births was a stated goal. Hell, if I recall correctly, I believe he's quoted somewhere as wanting to scrub the equivalent of the phrase "single mother" from the German vocabulary.

The Italian Fascists, who the Germans took inspiration from, were horribly degenerate as well. I'm not referencing Mussolini's mistresses, either. Casual sex and something resembling, really, modern "hookup culture," was a cornerstone of (especially early) Squadristi culture.

The Futurists, under D'Annunzio, who were "proto-fascists" of sorts, and really inspired the entirety of the Fascist movement, had drug-fueled orgies in Fiume.

Julius Evola dabbled in "sex magic," etc.

The interwar Far-Right was horrendous on the subject of sexuality. I'm fairly certain that the only ultranationalist movement at that time period that got things right on the topic were the Iron Guard in Romania.

...

Well my dad had 10 kids, with 2 lovers and 2 wives, he gave everyone of us education till we found a job, he does or did when he was young a lot of degenerate shit, but he haves a lot of friends and a good job as a doctor

i know for sure he will not be alone when he dies

Maybe this is the case in the west,

In Poland, I knew some gay couples (one of those are my pretty close friends) And they fucking despise that whole faggotry-snowflake-dickcraving attitude the western fags have.

Goebbels cheated on his wife so much that Hitler had to tell him to sort himself out. I get it tho, he was a robot earlier in life.

Also regarding women who had children outside marriage, they got a name: "Hitler's brides".

Anyways I don't think moderate sex degeneracy is that bad. Drugs, being fat, alcoholism, leading a shitty life in general is far worse.

Theres time and place for everything and in the case of hedonistic degenrancey it is deeeeeep in the closet.
Honestly people have all kinds of fucked up ideas of fun and it is usually not a big harm in itself.
Bad thing is if pursuing your fetishes is set up as a mainstream goal and at first tolerated then defended then propagated.
Society who's main creed is to find a way to produce more and better titillating kicks to its members probably won't last a long time.
Which is a good thing.
(To end it like a clickbait headline from Buzzfeed)

I have to whole-heartedly disagree. Previous partner count tends to be predictive of likelihood to cheat and/or divorce. There was a study done on Prarie Voles (One of the better animals to extrapolate results onto humans) which suggested that promiscuity impaired the ability for them to pair-bond properly at the neurochemical level.

Plus, after reading Unwin, I've become a bit of a hardliner of the subject. At this point, I'm no-hymen-no-diamond, and legitimately wishing the Puritans would make a comeback.

>I'm no-hymen-no-diamond
good luck with that bro...

posts on point, user

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16084184
not only does it make it biologically harder to bond, the offspring are not guaranteed to have the current male's DNA

t-thats a big nose!!