What is 'Degeneracy', anyways?

An expression of the visceral disgust high-RWA personalities feel when they encounter people liking what they don't like.

What is "morals" anyway.

Anything /pol/acks dislike.
Think of it like how Tumblrinas use the word problematic.

To understand what is degeneracy and why does it matter, first you must understand what are the basis of civilized society.

Basically, we all know that men in the state of nature is little above an animal. Hobbes was right, Rousseau was wrong, and the struggle for existance makes necessary the practice of violence, deceit and promiscuity. But civilized society requires different behavior. You must not be violent and duplicituous, otherwise there would be no safety or social trust, you must, through inhibition and self-control, learn to delay gratification and to rise above your primitive instincts and primal desires. It's hard, and many people, like Brazilians, simply cannot do it, but it's necessary nonetheless for life in civilized society.

As Will Durant said, in the "Story of Civilization":

>Every vice was once a virtue, necessary in the struggle for existence; it became a vice only when it survived the conditions that made it indispensable; a vice, therefore, is not an advanced form of behavior, but usually an atavistic throwback to ancient and superseded ways. It is one purpose of a moral code to adjust the unchanged- or slowly changing- impulses of human nature to the changing needs and circumstances of social life.

So what is degeneracy? Degeneracy are these atavistic practices that turn men into the animal he used to be before civilization, it's things like promiscuous sex, which makes him addicted to instant gratification and pursuit of pleasures, or idledom and lazyness. Such traits usually appear at late stages during societies that are already on the decline, such as Western civilization since the 1960s.

Pretty good post despite meme pic of the worst kind.

>Such traits usually appear at late stages during societies that are already on the decline

No evidence of that whatsoever.

Anything that makes me uncomfortable. All other definitions are demonstrably bullshit.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Degeneracy is anything that makes a virgin teenager on /pol/ work to get laid.
Instead of making an effort in their lives, they can just advocate a system that guarantees them a slave wife.

>since the 70s

You mean since the 1790s

ITT: /Pol/acks vs everyone else

"Anything I dont like"

Degeneration is the only way Progress is made.

>Ennoblement through degeneration. History teaches us that that part of a people maintains itself best whose members generally share a vital public spirit, due to the similarity of their long-standing, incontrovertible principles, that is, of their common faith. In their case, good, sound custom strengthens them; they are taught to subordinate the individual, and their character is given solidity, at first innately and later through education. The danger in these strong communities, founded on similar, steadfast individual members, is an increasing, inherited stupidity, which follows all stability like a shadow. In such communities, spiritual progress depends on those individuals who are less bound, much less certain, and morally weaker; they are men who try new things, and many different things. Because of their weakness, countless such men are destroyed without having much visible effect; but in general, especially if they have descendants, they loosen things up, and, from time to time, deliver a wound to the stable element of a community. Precisely at this wounded, weakened place, the common body is inoculated, so to speak, with something new; however, the community's overall strength, has to be great enough to take this new thing into its bloodstream and assimilate it. Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest importance. Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help to advance it.

(1/2)

>Something similar also happens in the individual. There is rarely a degeneration, a truncation, or even a vice or any physical or moral loss without an advantage somewhere else. In a warlike and restless clan, for example, the sicklier man may have occasion to be alone, and may therefore become quieter and wiser; the one-eyed man will have one eye the stronger; the blind man will see deeper inwardly, and certainly hear better. To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest does not seem to me to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or of a race. Rather, two things must coincide: first of all, stable power must increase through minds bound in faith and communal feeling; and secondly, it must be possible to attain higher goals when degenerating natures partially weaken or wound the stable power; it is precisely the weaker nature, as the more delicate and free, that makes progress possible at all. If a people starts to crumble and grow weak at some one place, but is still strong and healthy in general, it can accept being infected with something new, and can incorporate it to its advantage. The task of education is to make the individual so firm and sure that, as a whole being, he can no longer be diverted from his path. But then the educator must wound him, or use the wounds that fate delivers; when pain and need have come about in this way, something new and noble can also be inoculated into the wounded places. His whole nature will take it in, and show the ennoblement later in its fruits.

2/3 (3 parts actually, stupid limit)

>Regarding the state, Machiavelli says that "the form of governments is of very slight importance, although semi-educated people think otherwise. The great goal of politics should be permanence, which outweighs anything else, being much more valuable than freedom." Only when permanence is securely established and guaranteed is there any possibility of constant development and ennobling inoculation, which, to be sure, will usually be opposed by the dangerous companion of all permanence: authority.

t. Nietzsche

>No evidence of that whatsoever.

See: Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler

>Spengler
>Evidence

I'm gonna need to get the top-shelf kek down for this one.

problematic