How did Western society go from completely non-degenerate (early 1910s before WW1) to completely degenerate (1970s) in...

He was already a well established doctor in the 1890s, although his writings would just approach the theme of sexuality from 1900-1910s. In fact he was already a very respected and rich professional whilst still treating histerics in the late XIXth century, though in respect to Veeky Forums's retarded vision of degeneracy I'm not even considering histeria as a symptom of a degenerate society, just the old sexually frustrated men with rats-in-asshole fetishes

>that went against the western tradition
confirmed for knowing jack shit. you realize that in civilization and its discontents he vehemently defends civilization and the necessity of suppression of passions for the betterment of all? he thought it was the price to pay for being civilized. according to him WWI was pure degeneracy because it was a collective suicide

>according to him
No one with a minimal capacity and/or study take those delusions he called options valid.

Why do people that defend this madman need to use his delusions about repression as an argument to show that his delusions are right? Circular argument is just bad.

Degeneracy is necessary to stop growth. Too much growth is bad the west needs to stop getting bigger and let China grow some.

I'll love to see when Chinese "tolerance" start spreading to the world

>Trying to stop degeneracy makes you a virgin stormweenie.
I guess billions of people in the past were virgin nazis then I guess.

It was not completely non-degenerate. People like Cobbett were noticing a decline as early as 1800. Carlyle, born in 1795, spent his entire life exhorting to halt the decline.

The industrial revolution was already dealing the first major blows to the old order. The nation state was beginning to supplant ancient manners of governing. The aristocracy now had to cater to a burgeoning class of commoners grown rich, the bourgeoisie. And democracy was on the rise.

All of this coincided with, and some of it worked to effect, the end of the old family based rural way of life. The necessity of the family unit lessened and the state as an abstract agent offering goods in exchange for votes superceded it. And it also presided over the rest of this change, for the state was guided mainly by certain special classes, boston activists in america, fabian socialists in britain. Universal schooling was decreed and these groups were going to be the ones deciding on the curricula and thereby the beliefs of a good portion of future voters.

And that's where we are now. The process of erosion is nowhere near complete. While familial, religious, local, monarchical ties have been weakened or extinguished, there still remains the march of the state towards even higher levels of abstraction as it consumes its the purpose of its conception by doing away with the idea of nationhood. Now the bonds of patriotism are to be broken, along with the fossils of the old order: gender roles, traditional modes of friendship, etc

Ask yourself whose voice was heard over time. Democrscy of the short term is pretty much worthless. Where are the voices of our great grandparents' generation? Wholly gone. Whose voice most nearly matches the direction of modern social order? Those of a few elites: fabian socialists, new england reformers, big money men.

>the world of Marx, Freud, Boas, Nietzsche, Goldmann, Baudelaire, etc
>non-degenerate

The modern Chinese approach to international relations is actually vastly more tolerant of other people than the West has historically been in the last 70 years or so

Degeneracy is a matter of perception. Things look bad now because mass media and the spread of cameras has largely eliminated the barrier between public and private, and now we get to see what people do in their private lives. In the era before privately owned cameras were a thing, all we get to see of the past is an intentionally staged version of the world generally focused on the upper classes.

In reality, the world was degenerate as fuck back then, even more so than today. In the pre-WWI era, every drug was legal. You could buy cocaine and opium at the corner store as readily as you'd but a beer today, and most people were users of at least one substance that we'd consider to be an illegal drug today. But the fancy historical photos don't show people lying around in filthy tenements high off their asses on laudnum.

look up what the roaring 20s were you underage tard

>The modern Chinese approach to international relations is actually vastly more tolerant of other people than the West has historically been in the last 70 years or so
Indonesia don't want to give some islands for free, go to UN and ask for islands, UN say no, send a fleet with nukes and permission to use those nukes, take islands by force, impose trade sanctions anyway.

Literal retard. You mean "opinions" no 'options' lmaooooo. How ironic is it that a dumbass like you is trying to claim the intellectual high ground.
Just leave the thread now you embarrassed yourself.

"you are dumb I is smart, hurrrr"
no surprise you take Freud serious

It goes in cycles

You have decades, or even centuries of puritanism, and then it gets switched out with decadence of varied sorts

People fucked prostitutes all the way through the ages
People gambled all the way through the ages
People killed, people raped, people stole, all through the ages

30 years ago parents and the public were concerned that their kids played Dungeons and Dragons and listened to Satanic Rock
Nowadays, parents and the public are concerned about their kids not being inclusive and nice enough and getting enough sex

oh no hes doubling down on damage control even after revealing himself as a total retard lol

parents aren't concerned about that today, just in movies and tv people care for it.

Never happened.
But last time I checked the Chinese never toppled a government because they didn't like the way they set up their governance system unlike Libya Iraq Afghanistan and nearly every other military operation after WW2

"you are dumb I in smart, hurrrr [2]"
Are you goind to argue or just repeat it?

Have you check it or just supposed that since it don't fit your worldview it's false?

This is also true. Internet was a horrible, horrible mistake.

i don't take him serious at all. I don't have to like him to defend his ideas retard. all i'm doing is showing you have no idea what you're talking about

You're the one spouting out unsubstantiated claims. Back up your claims with evidence and maybe I'll take you seriously

I'm saying that his claim of sexual repression and other dark aspects of society aren't to be taken serious... the only way that he show us some real degeneracy is in the case where people take him serious.

"the parenting success of those whose offspring reach adulthood imprints on the sexual preferences of those offspring when choosing their partners, in selecting partners whose traits - including physical - match those of their opposite-sex parent"

vs

"everyone wants to fuck their mum and kill their dad"

what a pervert

western tradition. societies rise, climax and fall just like a penis. society is invented by men and so follows this pattern.

romanticism leads to decadence.

everytime a society solves their economic crisis they begin to explore their emotions.

im starting to believe this was the 1960's hippie counter culture plays a huge role but im not sure? maybe the hippies are the american romantics?

Liberalism (in all it's forms), French Revolution and the ''Enlightenment''.

Liberalism (in all it's forms), French Revolution and the ''Enlightenment''.

>non-degenerate (early 1910s before WW1)
lol

thats what your post was idiot lol

"you are dumb I in smart, hurrrr [3]"
where did you guys learned these many arguments?

I don't want to be against your genius, mere saying a thing don't count as a evidence, no matter how smart you think you are. You are as empty, but at least he don't think his opinion is evidence,

>the Enlightenment and French Revolution happened in the early 1910s

>muh cultural marxism

jesus christ to see people shilling for that dinosaur Buchannan is unsettling

>jesus christ to see people shilling for that dinosaur Buchannan is unsettling
I also laugh at those that believe in this shit, every famous intellectual and expert say that it doesn't exist.

>this is honestly what /pol/fags belive
braindeadwojak.png

People were degenerate back then, it was just hidden because of social stigma.

And how you know if they hide it?

Our romanticists were Neoconservatives/Neoliberals that went on and on about free trade and democracy promotion

Because like you, all human beings have vices and arent perfect.

Not all humans are equal and that a education that teach you to avoid instead of go after vices can make a huge difference.

>Romantic
>Economical policy and laws
Chose one

Humans aren't perfect, but they aren't equals, are you saying to me that people from other time, other culture, other education, other religion, other society somehow have the exactly same sexuality?

I wonder if its pure coincidence that the moment Western society becomes "degenerate" is also the time when all wars between Western countries, a regular feature of Western Europe since ancient times, stopped, and we've been living with one another in peace ever since?

Really makes you think

Rome didn't have a single war for a century, before it's fall, same goes for Quin, Han, Tang, Manchus, Feudal japan, inca...

FPBP

I think this is the stupidest post I've ever read on Veeky Forums

"Hurr your dumb, not that I can argue with it"

>unsettling

>every famous intellectual
Imagine being this weak mentally

Imagine not understanding irony

>Rome didn't have a single war for over a century before its fall

If you just mean the Western Empire in 476, then a century before we're still in the reign of the Valentinian Dynasty. So there were plenty of conflicts, there was the fucking Great Barbarian Conspiracy and the invasion of the Huns.

Can't speak for Qin, Han, or Tang, but the Manchus had the Opium Wars and the Taiping Rebellion. And the Inca, they fell because of war, they were being invaded by Spain.

But before the wars that caused (with other things) the collapse, there were a long peace time.

Oscar Wilde was extremely well-educated and a deviant. Mozart was a savant and wanted to fuck his cousin, and also wrote a song called "Lick My Ass" that was a fairly graphic ode to rimjobs. James Joyce was a fart fetishist who exchanged obscene telegrams with his wife and jacked off to the contents. All of these people were very well-educated at a time when education had a strong moral component that was meant to discourage "deviant" behavior.

Looking further back, the Canterbury Tales and the comedies of Shakespeare are full of sexual deviancy. Yes, such deviancy was usually a punchline of some kind, but the context these jokes were in seems to indicate that the deviancy wasn't the absolute taboo most people concerned about degeneracy in the modern day believed them to be in that time period.

>I was pretending to be pic related

You now that sexual deviance was comedy and not to be taken serious, of course sexual deviance existed but in a far smaller scale, telling that were exactly the same as today without any source or decent evidence than some isolated cases...

>Oscar Wilde was extremely well-educated
kek'd, his education was quite average for the time.

No matter, he was a sexual deviant and above avenge, that all that's need to prove sexual deviance was always widespread in every society

People were just as degenerate then as they are now. The only difference is that the degenerates now have internet to talk about their degeneracy. If you didn’t spend so much fucking time on here, you wouldn’t be hearing or seeing much degeneracy. Faggot.

And, likewise, sexual deviance is uncommon today. Any increase in scale is because the world grew larger and more connected, and the taboos that confined plebian perverts to a deeply hidden underground vanished (noble perverts, of course, tended to have the bulwark of their lands and titles to allow them to pursue deviancy out in the open). I will also point out how the vast majority of drinking songs are about sex when they aren't about murder or drinking ('My Dog and I' is my personal favorite in this category). All of these songs were quite popular, hence why they survived down the years.
Also, please learn to spell.

And what about James Joyce and Mozart? Oh, and let's throw the Marquis deSade in there as well; highly well-educated and wrote several philosophical tracts that are still read today, and the SOURCE of the term "sadist".

>People were just as degenerate then as they are now.
People had an different education, different customs, different marriage laws, had children with a younger age, had far more physical labor, even different food. How does nothing of this change a little how degenerated someone is?

So, there is no data about how degenerated or not the regular folk was, and you are certain that were just the same as today

>And what about James Joyce and Mozart? Oh, and let's throw the Marquis deSade in there as well; highly well-educated and wrote several philosophical tracts that are still read today, and the SOURCE of the term "sadist".
If I cherry pick I can "prove" that ancient people were as atheist as today.

>degenerate
what does this even mean

>How did Western society go from completely non-degenerate (early 1910s before WW1) to completely degenerate (1970s) in only 60 years?
you have to define and quantify your claim of degeneracy

>his claim of sexual repression and other dark aspects of society aren't to be taken serious...
ok, but the original argument is that he was funded by malicious anti-western forces to promote degeneracy and freud was anti-degeneracy (yes he indulged it in his private life, and he wrote about it but only so as to study its causes as a scientist does, despite his bullshit ideas)

>ok, but the original argument is that he was
was?
>and he wrote about it but only so as to study its causes as a scientist does
without any scientific method or use of evidence, just like science

>If I cherry pick I can "prove" that ancient people were as atheist as today.
You should read spanish inquisition records they're loaded with all types of anti-religious daily banter

>without any scientific method or use of evidence, just like science
i already said that

>was?
i don't know what you're saying here.

Conveniently I've read those, sexual deviance was pretty rare

Why are /pol/tards such uneducated idiots?

>late 19th century called the age of decadence
>Fin de siècle: The "spirit" of fin de siècle often refers to the cultural hallmarks that were recognized as prominent in the 1880s and 1890s, including ennui, cynicism, pessimism, and "...a widespread belief that civilization leads to decadence."[2]
>decadence movement spreading throughout Europe
>Nordau writes his Degeneration in 1890s
>Spengler started writing his Decline of the West in 1911

because this thread is about moral decadence of the regular folk, not of the intellectuals

>Why are /pol/tards such uneducated idiots?
you answered your own question.

There are surviving 18th century records from Chester which show rather shockingly high rates of venereal disease.

So are you suggesting that there were no whores, drunkards, rapists and all kind of fuckups in 1910s? And who is even the regular folk? The working class? The middle-class?

i'm talking about anticlericalism and anti religious jokes

I'm suggesting that there were different amounts of different forms of degeneration, I know it's an alien concept.

I'm talking about actual records from other time, only a fedora would argument based on anti-religious jokes.

>go from completely non-degenerate (early 1910s before WW1)

What make you think I'm OP, you are new here, aren't you?

30,000 dollars says you are an American

You know degenerate is just a fancy word for "things I don't like"

>Dehrgunerasie

World War I destroyed moral ground of old times.
World War II perverted moral ground of the future.

Society was not completely non-degenerate in that era...

The biggest problem is that with the fall of religion and people abandoning the Classics, there was no source for morals anymore (morals in the sense of "how to live life"). This led to people becoming aimless. "If pleasure is good, why should I not be promiscuous if it is not hurting anyone else physically?" And so, it came to this.

I wonder how things are going to change, in the next few years. Some people are already seeing that the lifestyles of the late 60's/70's didn't exactly lead to happier people. "Deaths of despair" having increased a lot lately and with those who had the sex/drugs/rocknroll lifestyle being particularly bad hit with this. At the same time, religion is still not very influential and the old Classics are not read anymore because "they were written by old white men" and apparently students nowadays want to read "diverse writers" instead of Cicero, Plato or Marcus Aurelius.

Let's be honest, Classics can't solve the modern problems. For better or worse, they lives in simplier world.

In your opinion, every change in habits that happened in the last 100 years were positive?

I don't think so. Their philosophy was about the human condition and that didn't change. We are still human beings with human brains.

People don't murder each other in pointless world wars and insane revolutions anymore, this outweighs doiung selfies or whatever behaviour is seem problematic for you.