Degeneracy or “subtle suicide”?

http://www.subtlesuicide.com/

It’s an interesting topic and needs more traction.

At what point do self-destructive choices (deathstyles, as Common Filth would have it) becomes suicidal self-harm?

Is this degeneracy, or does it express an unwillingness to live in these conditions?

Link: Self-destructiveness

http://personalityspirituality.net/articles/the-michael-teachings/chief-features/self-destruction/

Self-harm is probably an attempt to assuage the amygdala once the threat has passed.

Contrary to popular belief, I’ve seen more destructive men, who conflated it with masculinity. This makes them repurpose a weakness as a strength, an egoistic thing to do.

There are still men in prison claiming their unacceptable behaviour (including rape) is merely their masculine nature. You don’t really see this in women.

Men tend to make more risky decisions overall, especially with their personal life and career.

It’s easier for a man to be slim than a woman, they have lower natural body fat % and supportive hormones, so the obesity crisis has a male face. When you see a fat man he can’t be pregnant, so he’s definitely given up on life.

It would be easy to take a stab at feminists and SJWs on this one with Before and Afters, but there are many male borderlines that slip under the radar and lose their purpose in rage completely. They blame the outgroup, in this case women. Women are evil, giving him the handy identity of Good. That’s the typical misogynist. As for the women? Aside from the same? They’re probably trying to make themselves less attractive to other r-types.

If the world/Man/Matriarchy won’t ‘let them’* be good, they’ll punish it like a parent, by being very, very, very bad.

*That’s an excuse to avoid the painful work to self-stabilize before self-improvement.

Don’t pity them, it’s a choice. They choose to spread that pain than correct it.

Hedonism (any self-indulgence, inc. laziness) is a very slow suicide, to make everyone ‘sorry’ and blame themselves, when that person finally goes.

They try to leave the world a worse place.

Why does the manosphere think it has the moral high ground?

It doesn’t. At all. In fact, it’s actually worse than feminism in some respects because they know full well how wrong what they encourage and do really is, they see the damage to society and keep doing it because other people are (begging if they jumped off a cliff…). They seem to be dallying with the Alt Right since this EU crisis (whatever) and some dipping their toe into Neoreaction (fine) ideas and acting shocked and pearl-clutching like the worst SJWs when these traditional people reject them. Like, actually traditional, as in living it. Or in politer circles, when they ignore them, hoping they’ll go away.

They don’t get it.
They don’t have the moral high ground.

I have a mixed readership so allow me to explain a bit.

Off the top of my head, like Feminist vs. PUA … let’s consider the so-called ‘degenerate’ behaviours they verbally lambaste when (feminist) women do it while hypocritically enacting them or endorsing them in their common conversations with others who are/will do them aka incitement. (Looks misogynist to an outsider because it is, in some cases, like how dare a single woman support herself with a job – when the alternative is welfare).
I’ve gone for the practical, somewhat PC term destructive because it’s easier to agree upon.

fuckingdegenerates

None of those people with the spare time to push these Zeitgeist online have a real job or an actual life. Their Apocalypse Value is zero. They deserve zero respect. AKA r-types gonna r.

And they wonder why the traditional people are giving them the side-eye.

Really?

She sLAYS them

It comes from a puerile understanding of masculinity, including the laughable attempt to ape Neoreaction’s success with ‘Neomasculinity’, where r-types pretend to reform and play both sides (I guess you could say, game both sides) by talking about K-ideas, what an effort... and bitch “Why won’t women (who aren’t married to me and owe me nothing) submit to me?” when they’ve done literally nothing to prepare for that role and on the contrary, much to disqualify them from the MMP.
As if anyone in their Right mind (pun wholly intended) is going to take pointers on how to be a man from Roosh. Do you want his life? Is it aspirational for traditionalists up until now? What’s your gut telling you? A person’s past and choices can’t lie for them.

Their troubles seem to come from a very convenient excuse to avoid maturity.

Men aren’t exempt from prosocial behaviour, far from it, they’re supposed to be more virtuous to lead women and establish societal standards.

p.s. I see the spelling error and I don’t care.

Cultural Marxism and World Cup propaganda

http://nwioqeqkdf.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/big-brothers-rugby-world-cup-propaganda.html#more

Cultural Marxism is often misunderstood as having, or wishing to create, something new, it isn’t, it is a wrecking ball with no further purpose than to destroy. This is why its internal logic is so often paradoxical and, generally, an incoherent mess. One example of this is the way the modern Left claim to stand simultaneously for Islam and Gay Rights. It doesn’t make sense, it isn’t supposed to, what matters is that both gays and Muslims are groups lining up to attack the traditional society Europeans have created. Placing blacks as aristocrats, or coming soon, characters in Beowulf, opens up yet another paradox in New Leftist thought. If blacks are a historically oppressed and abused group at the hands of racist Europeans then by the Left’s own logic it is absurd to cast them as being a historically integral part of European civilization, as aristocrats and viking warriors etc. If we are now supposed to believe that blacks made up the classes of the British ruling elites are they, then, culpable and guilty for slavery too? what do today’s blacks think of this?.

If they can convince you into insanity once, they never need do it again.

Asch’s lines. How many lines do you see?

“Three.”

*slap*

“F-F-Four?”

Or Moscovici’s blue/green study appropriately dubbed “minority influence”.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/minority-influence.html

In many of the conformity studies described so far it was a minority group who were conforming to the majority.  Moscovici (1976, 1980) argued along different lines.  He claimed that Asch (1951) and others had put too much emphasis on the notion that the majority in a group has a large influence on the minority. In his opinion, it is also possible for a minority to influence the majority.  In fact Asch agreed with Moscovici.  He too felt that minority influence did occur, and that it was potentially a more valuable issue to study – to focus on why some people might follow minority opinion and resist group pressure.

They want all histories on a wiki so they can edit as times go on as is expedient.

Moscovici made a distinction between compliance and conversion. Compliance is common in conformity studies (e.g. Asch) whereby the participants publicly conform to the group norms but privately reject them.  Conversion involves how a minority can influence the majority. It involves convincing the majority that the minority views are correct. This can be achieved a number of different ways (e.g. consistency, flexibility).  Conversion is different to compliance as it usually involves both public and private acceptance of a new view or behavior (i.e. internalization).

Why does that push for “awareness” and “acceptance” sound familiar?

Slavoj Zizek implementing next step to US of Europe, supranational ‘culture’

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/slavoj-zizek-greatest-threat-to-europe-is-it-s-inertia-a-1023506.html

The European leading culture is the universality of Enlightenment within which individuals view themselves through this universality. [DS: That isn’t what it was at all. Plus, I’ve never met a European, nobody abides by that identity.] That means you have to be capable of dispensing with your characteristics and to ignore your particular social, religious or ethnic positions. It’s not sufficient to tolerate each other. We need to have the ability to experience our own cultural identity as something contingent, something coincidental, something that can be changed.

Encourage the stupid it will make less of them

The Destruction Principle

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/the-destruction-principle.html

In short, The Destruction Principle is:

“Worthless people, in order to validate their egos, but avoid any real work, will take the production, success, and work of others, villainize it, protest against it, and ultimately destroy it.  Not because other people’s production, success and work was evil, but because it is easier to destroy other people’s work that already exists, rather that build up something of genuine value yourself.”