Blackpill How sex drives society

[cathuluelitist]

Our ancestors would laugh at the idea of inceldom and would find the entire depression of a peoples in such a manner farcical for the most part. This is because our ancestors had no concept of a world where women were to become autogenocidal Glaaki as they've now, there are of course exceptions to this with thinkers like Nietzsche but other than that, an sexual depression was almost entirely unheard of, though, one of the greatest thinkers of anthropology JD Unwin perfectly analyzes the current situation that we now face and since I've seen no threads on his work, I'll create one, but I'll also use his work to built upon the integral theory. Essentially, Unwin analyzed dozens of cultures across thousands of years and concluded that the degree of social energy a society exhibits is inextricably linked to the social treatment of a peoples sexual drive and he categorized these societies into tiers of sexual constraints, these societies are... the deistic societies, the monogamous societies and promiscuous societies. The deistic society's social energy is modeled around prenuptial chastity which requires high parental investment, the monogamous societies models around similar ideas but more individualistically which requires less parental investment and the promiscuous societies are boundless and allow all sexual expression which of course encourages net zero parental investment. We are evidently in a promiscuous society, in which the cosmopolitan elites are pushing for the sublimation of libido and oversocialization, this has made it so we are unable to collect the sexual energy of chastity to build civilization because there is no actual sex and the sex energy is now witheld and wasted. Now, I will give my own abridged analysis of this using cliodynamics, specifically Richard Turchin's SDT in which my favorite historian Richard Turchin uses computer models to track the irregularities of human nature to create predictions and observation.

Basically there are multiple levels and altitudes of consciousness and sex is the highest shirtail in the pyramid. Sex is Amber and is almost entirely subordinated to divine law. At the Amber level, sex is defined by taboos which creates civilizational surplus because it channels Amber sex into the individualist deistic society. Orange is the rationalist individualistic society that foolishly puts superficial material progress over channeling sexual expression, we are currently at Green which is basically just a pluralistic hellscape and is anti heroism as well as completely against sex taboo and sublimation. I personally believe the first two have a lot of merit but sexual expression and it being consociated with the taboo of chastity should be a divine mandate and should never be put before material progress which is secondary so I beleive in a sort of conscious conservation. We are at exponential kinetic net negative Asabiyyah and lack high levels of consciousness. I highly recommend buying frankincense and myrrh and eating ayahuasca to enhance your connection with your suppressed consciousness.


What we must take from this is that any peoples are free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation and that we must promote the former at all cost.

Bibliography

Sex and Culture by JD Unwin
The muqaddimah by Ibn Khald
War and peace and war by Peter Turchin
Ideas have consequences by Richard Weaver
The fate of empires and search for survival by John Glubb
The culture of narcissism by Christopher Lasch


Some people I think might be interested:

@Misogynist Vegeta
@D. B. Gooner
@IWWorkER
@GloomyGhoul

 

[fokusin]

The author argues that modern society is experiencing a form of “sexual depression” (e.g., inceldom) that would have seemed absurd to earlier generations. Drawing heavily on J. D. Unwin’s work, they claim that a society’s vitality (“social energy”) depends on how it regulates sexual behavior. Unwin categorized societies into three types:

Deistic societies (strict chastity, high parental investment, highest social energy)
Monogamous societies (moderate restraint, moderate energy)
Promiscuous societies (few constraints, low energy)

The author argues that modern society falls into the promiscuous category, leading to declining social cohesion and wasted “sexual energy.” They combine this with ideas from Peter Turchin and “integral theory,” suggesting that different stages of consciousness (traditional, rational, pluralistic) correspond to changing sexual norms, with modern pluralism seen as harmful.

The core conclusion is that societies must choose between sexual freedom and long-term civilizational strength, and the author advocates for stricter sexual norms (like chastity) to restore social vitality.

 

[Wizardmaxxer]

Instead of the Big depression it is now the Sex depression

 

[cathuluelitist]

Instead of the Big depression it is now the Sex depression

Nyarlathotep won. Brutal blackpill.

 

[AutistSupremacist]

Instead of the Big depression it is now the Sex depression

Great depression was fixed by ww2, the sex depression will be fixed by ww3 (incel uprising)

 

[D. B. Gooner]

Well I'll give my skeptic primitivist reductionist take.

I believe that no matter the conditioning human nature always drips through the cracks. I believe polygamy is the natural state of human sexuality, and it can only be restricted through either violence itself, or the threat of violence. It's not as if the women of these deistic societies are any different from the women of the promiscuous societies. Despite all the restrictions muslim girls will be promiscuous if given the opportunity. It is only the threat of violence that prevents them from acting on their desires. This systemic threat of violence in desitic societies mimics the individual threat of violence that can be observed in nature. An alpha chimp ensures loyalty by fighting off any competition in the sexual market and punishing all of his female's attempts at disloyalty.

So what is the ideal? There is none. Everyone fights for what benefits them. Women want to be promiscuous and I will never blame them, they're acting in accordance to their desires. The issue is that the law restricts us from using violence to enforce loyalty like the chimps do. So we have a world with no systemic sexual restrictions, that also holds systemic restrictions on the violence required to ensure loyalty. Essentially it is a giant cuck fest where people get to fuck whoever they want, and nobody can do anything about it.

The best option, once again, is having no restrictions at all, neither sexual or pertaining to violence, let individuals enforce their own loyalty, and if they're incapable, they simply don't get to keep their girl. Deistic societies try to minic this systemically, but with that comes a plethora of other restrictions, which might prevent you from acting on other non-sexual desires. This is how the west started off, only to loosen up on sexual restrictions, and create this cuck fest. Once again, in my opinion, humans tried to make the world better through societal conditioning only to make things way, way worse.

 

[cathuluelitist]

Well I'll give my skeptic primitivist reductionist take.

I believe that no matter the conditioning human nature always drips through the cracks. I believe polygamy is the natural state of human sexuality, and it can only be restricted through violence itself, or the threat of violence. It's not as if the women of these deistic societies are any different from the women of the promiscuous societies. Despite all the restrictions muslim girls will be promiscuous if given the opportunity. It is only the threat of violence that prevents them from acting on their desires. This systemic threat of violence in desitic societies mimics the individual threat of violence that can be observed in nature. An alpha chimp ensures loyalty by fighting off any competition in the sexual market and punishing all of his female's attempts at disloyalty.

So what is the ideal? There is none. Everyone fights for what benefits them. Women want to be promiscuous and I will never blame them, they're acting in accordance to their desires. The issue is that the law restricts us from using violence to enforce loyalty like the chimps do. So we have a world with no systemic sexual restrictions, that also holds systemic restrictions on the violence required to ensure loyalty. Essentially it is a giant cuck fest where people get to fuck whoever they want, and nobody can do anything about it.

The best option, once again, is having no restrictions at all, neither sexual or pertaining to violence, let individuals enforce their own loyalty, and if they're incapable, they simply don't get to keep their girl. Deistic societies try to minic this systemically, but with that comes a plethora of other restrictions, which might prevent you from acting on other non-sexual desires. This is how the west started off, only to loosen up on sexual restrictions, and create this cuck fest. Once again, in my opinion, humans tried to make the world better through societal conditioning only to make things way, way worse.

Well, human civilization is the artificial state, the entire point of civilization was the triumph over heathenism and it's a civilizations duty to harness the expansionist energy of its peoples and it doesn't really matter what's natural or not though I agree with you that once a civilization reaches the Winter zenith it's pretty much over and irreparable.

 

[cathuluelitist]

@goyim next door I remember you made an adjacent though more ambit thread on this.

 

[D. B. Gooner]

Well, human civilization is the artificial state, the entire point of civilization was the triumph over heathenism and it's a civilizations duty to harness the expansionist energy of its peoples and it doesn't really matter what's natural or not though I agree with you that once a civilization reaches the Winter zenith it's pretty much over and irreparable.

I think you underestimate the ego. Nobody truly does anything for the progress of civilization, it is all rooted in ego. I believe that inventions are made so that the inventor may be recognized, and that charity is done so that the donator may feel virtuous. I don't believe in collectivism or altruism. I believe that humans are selfish at their core. So while that progress you're hoping to achieve may initially seem feasible, all civilizations will eventually turn into giant dick measuring contests. Civilization will operate on the premise of repressing individuality, only for all of it's mechanisms to be rooted in individuality anyways. So why not cut out the framework, why not cut out the restrictions, why not cut out the illusion of a united effort and be the self-serving egoists we were meant to be. This is all my personal belief (though I do believe it to come from rationale) and highly reductionist so it's a bit hard to argue.

 

[cathuluelitist]

I think you underestimate the ego. Nobody truly does anything for the progress of civilization, it is all rooted in ego. I believe that inventions are made so that the inventor may be recognized, and that charity is done so that the donator may feel virtuous. I don't believe in collectivism or altruism. I believe that humans are selfish at their core. So while that progress you're hoping to achieve may initially seem feasible, all civilizations will eventually turn into giant dick measuring contests. Civilization will operate on the premise of repressing individuality, only for all of it's mechanisms to be rooted in individuality anyways. So why not cut out the framework, why not cut out the restrictions, why not cut out the illusion of a united effort and be the self-serving egoists we were meant to be. This is all my personal belief (though I do believe it to come from rationale) and highly reductionist so it's a bit hard to argue.

For the most part, your ego will just succumb to nature. The most self-serving egoist need a society of other egoists to recognize their superiority, and once this comes about, they're will be a cadre of ruling egoist. And, without civilization, human transaction levy would be too high so there needs to be a belief in a common good, the main problem of civilizations now is that they kept the restrictions of the individual and removed the illusion and mythos that gave the restrictions a point, this is why I predict a revolution in the next four years.

 

[D. B. Gooner]

For the most part, your ego will just succumb to nature. The most self-serving egoist need a society of other egoists to recognize their superiority, and once this comes about, they're will be a cadre of ruling egoist. And, without civilization, human transaction levy would be too high so there needs to be a belief in a common good, the main problem of civilizations now is that they kept the restrictions of the individual and removed the illusion and mythos that gave the restrictions a point, this is why I predict a revolution in the next four years.

We already have a structured collective, the family. The problem is that unlike family, civilization is untrustworthy. All "progress" relies on trust. When a new invention comes out, you have to trust the "experts" when they say implementing that invention will improve your life. They refer you to a study you don't understand, based on unconfirmed assertions cosigned by other "experts" you've never met in your life.

As an infant, you rely on others to guide you to a prosperous life. You can trust your mother, your father, your grandparents, to want what's best for you and give you guidelines with good intentions. If your own family does wish to fuck you over, civilization isn't going to stop that anyways, bad parenting will ruin any child, civilized or uncivilized. Family isn't necessarily reliable either, but unlike civilization, it is inevitable. A child needs someone for guidance, so might as well embrace family Surely your parents have more of an incentive to raise you well than strangers.

Civilization has hijacked that trust. As a child you're separated from your parents, put in an institution, and guided by strangers whose intentions you will never truly know. Our population is unhealthy, depressed and anxious. Even if you realize how ridiculous it is to put your well-being in the hands of strangers, they might enforce their "progress" upon you through coercion. If you fight back, civilization will form a witch-hunt against you by convincing the other individuals it has indoctrinated that your denial of their values is an attack on them and their identity. "Who is this guy to say what we've been taught is wrong? Does he think he's smarter than us? He's dangerous."

Who knows? Civilizations "progress" might be real, it might actually benefit you. But you can't know that for sure. The ego makes it so every single civilization is corrupt. To expect consistency from civilization is foolish. It is just way too untrustworthy to rely on, so I believe it is beneficial to reject it all together.

 

[cathuluelitist]

We already have a structured collective, the family. The problem is that unlike family, civilization is untrustworthy. All "progress" relies on trust. When a new invention comes out, you have to trust the "experts" when they say implementing that invention will improve your life. They refer you to a study you don't understand, based on unconfirmed assertions cosigned by other "experts" you've never met in your life.

As an infant, you rely on others to guide you to a prosperous life. You can trust your mother, your father, your grandparents, to want what's best for you and give you guidelines with good intentions. If your own family does wish to fuck you over, civilization isn't going to stop that anyways, bad parenting will ruin any child, civilized or uncivilized.

Civilization has hijacked that trust. As a child you're separated from your parents, put in an institution, and guided by strangers whose intentions you will never truly know. Our population is unhealthy, depressed and anxious. Even if you realize how ridiculous it is to put your well-being in the hands of strangers, they might enforce their "progress" upon you through coercion. If you fight back, civilization will form a witch-hunt against you by convincing the other individuals it has indoctrinated that your denial of their values is an attack on them and their identity. "Who is this guy to say what we've been taught is wrong? Does he think he's smarter than us? He's dangerous."

Who knows? Civilizations "progress" might be real, it might actually benefit you. But you can't know that for sure. The ego makes it so every single civilization is corrupt. To expect consistency from civilization is foolish. It is just way too untrustworthy to rely on, so I believe it is beneficial to reject it all together.

You would be better off meretriciously conforming to the illusions of the institutions then and really the only rational egoist response after that is to build your own parallel structure or espousing this is pretty much pointless.

 

[D. B. Gooner]

You would be better off meretriciously conforming to the illusions of the institutions then and really the only rational egoist response after that is to build your own parallel structure or espousing this is pretty much pointless.

But you might never reach the point of maturity required to build your own parallel structure, the indoctrination might make you fully dependent on the civilization, or might maliciously impair your physical and mental health to the point where no amount of after-the-fact individuation will make you competent or happy. Plenty of civilized people have already been dealt a shit hand, born with poor bone structure, disorders, deformities, they don't get to become self-willed. Selective reproduction found in the uncivilized makes it so those inconveniences are bred out, and that people they are present in die in their infancy. Meanwhile civilization keeps people like that alive just so they can be of use to that same civilization, they lead miserable lives.

 

[cathuluelitist]

But you might never reach the point of maturity required to build your own parallel structure, the indoctrination might make you fully dependent on the civilization, or might maliciously impair your physical and mental health to the point where no amount of after-the-fact individuation will make you competent or happy. Plenty of civilized people have already been dealt a shit hand, born with poor bone structure, disorders, deformities, they don't get to become self-willed. Selective reproduction found in the uncivilized makes it so those inconveniences are bred out, and that people they are present in die in their infancy. Meanwhile civilization keeps people like that alive just so they can be of use to that same civilization, they lead miserable lives.

Mhmm, yeah. Individuation is a luxury atp.

 

[cathuluelitist]

Mhmm, yeah. Individuation is a luxury atp.

I do agree once a civilization reaches finality of the city, there's no fixing it and that it's intractably degrading.

 

[LonelyATM]

Well I'll give my skeptic primitivist reductionist take.

I believe that no matter the conditioning human nature always drips through the cracks. I believe polygamy is the natural state of human sexuality, and it can only be restricted through either violence itself, or the threat of violence. It's not as if the women of these deistic societies are any different from the women of the promiscuous societies. Despite all the restrictions muslim girls will be promiscuous if given the opportunity. It is only the threat of violence that prevents them from acting on their desires. This systemic threat of violence in desitic societies mimics the individual threat of violence that can be observed in nature. An alpha chimp ensures loyalty by fighting off any competition in the sexual market and punishing all of his female's attempts at disloyalty.

So what is the ideal? There is none. Everyone fights for what benefits them. Women want to be promiscuous and I will never blame them, they're acting in accordance to their desires. The issue is that the law restricts us from using violence to enforce loyalty like the chimps do. So we have a world with no systemic sexual restrictions, that also holds systemic restrictions on the violence required to ensure loyalty. Essentially it is a giant cuck fest where people get to fuck whoever they want, and nobody can do anything about it.

The best option, once again, is having no restrictions at all, neither sexual or pertaining to violence, let individuals enforce their own loyalty, and if they're incapable, they simply don't get to keep their girl. Deistic societies try to minic this systemically, but with that comes a plethora of other restrictions, which might prevent you from acting on other non-sexual desires. This is how the west started off, only to loosen up on sexual restrictions, and create this cuck fest. Once again, in my opinion, humans tried to make the world better through societal conditioning only to make things way, way worse.

very interesting, here in the more rural areas of my nation (in the amazon) where the state is too far away to reach the citizens, people often remove restrictions on violence, cheating on your husband is a 99% chance of getting killed since there are no cops or any kind of deep infrastructure, people form their own rules, the place is too far away to ship gasoline (no road and no bridges over huge waterways) so the "police" (mostly isolated and too few in number and resources to keep a hold on behavior) often ignore this cases and even partake in them when they are affected too, and yet the number of spouse murders or violence in the end is much smaller than the ones in the more "civilized" urban centers since the women in the isolated states are very hesitant to risk being promiscuous, while the ones in "civilized" centers have an entire multi billion dollar apparatus to ensure they cannot suffer any kind of violence or threat of violence for their promiscuous behavior.

 

[Misogynist Vegeta]

The rise of promiscuity is the source of almost all of the problems the west is dealing with today, It's not direct but all roads eventually lead back to it.

 

[vic624]

Too complicated. Sex drives society because society in G20 countries is about selling useless shit to holes who are defined by that hole.

 

[cathuluelitist]

Too complicated. Sex drives society because society in G20 countries is about selling useless shit to holes who are defined by that hole.

This only happens because the capacity for sublimation has collapsed. I'm speaking of the first phenomenon and the greater issue.

 

[cathuluelitist]

The rise of promiscuity is the source of almost all of the problems the west is dealing with today, It's not direct but all roads eventually lead back to it.

What people don't understand is how reproduction and sex are absolutely everything. If a man can't be certain of his lineage, he definitely isn't gonna sacrifice his life, his wealth, or his time for the next generation. This is why you have to conserve your ethnic peoples homeland, there is zero reason for a man to go to war or really do anything otherwise. Men went to war and gave everything for their nation because they wanted their bloodline to live the life they had lived.

 

[PhineasSpear]

Bookmarked this.

 

[vic624]

What people don't understand is how reproduction and sex are absolutely everything. If a man can't be certain of his lineage, he definitely isn't gonna sacrifice his life, his wealth, or his time for the next generation.

That's demonstrably wrong though. There's motivation just to make life better to live even without a loyal hole. Bloodlines is also an archaic concept from before population genetics. People will sacrifice their being to save genes they share with other people, like the emergency workers at Chernobyl preventing the deaths of people who carried many of the same genes.

 

[IWWorkER]

Some people I think might be interested:

@

@Misogynist Vegeta
@

@D. B. Gooner
@

@IWWorkER
@

@GloomyGhoul

Very interesting thread, thanks for the tag.
I don't have the energy write a worthy reply now but I will, tomorrow hopefully

 

[cathuluelitist]

That's demonstrably wrong though. There's motivation just to make life better to live even without a loyal hole. Bloodlines is also an archaic concept from before population genetics. People will sacrifice their being to save genes they share with other people, like the emergency workers at Chernobyl preventing the deaths of people who carried many of the same genes.

Shared genes isn't nearly enough to command high levels sacrifice for high trust civilizations. All the Chernobyl project stuff only worked because it was a micro project and they had inherited a lot of the heroic culture of the monogamous societies.

And discarding bloodlines is just absurd given the entire stirps noeme built the West.

 

[cathuluelitist]

@SlayerSlayer this is the logical conclusion to your other thread.

 

[SlayerSlayer]

@SlayerSlayer this is the logical conclusion to your other thread.

wonderful high IQ post worthy of the the .co era.

I only have stupid reactionary comments to this. One, it makes me want to have even more sex, I AM SEXUALLY STARVED INCEL, so as an socioeconomic corrally: I am also like a dumb nigger high on his own delusions and rap videos, the only impulse I can relate to, in a sexual porn addled sense, are primitive delusions of grandeur. I've been so traumatized by my own situation I simply can't relate to the 'middle' or the idea of 'modest' success. I laugh with cynicism at the idea that I can marry my looksmatch in the same way a dumb nigger from the hood laughs at the middle class guy just telling him to go to college and get a degree and a simple office job to escape the hood. The middle is such a lie that all I feel the entitlement and desires of a Chad: I JUST WANT TO FUCK SLUTS IN AN INFINITY POOL, in the same way a dumb nigger without a cent to his name wants to be a rapper and fuck sluts in an infinity pool. I just want to be a piece of shit hoarding all the sex for myself as I ruin civilization so that by the time I die they everyone else is worse off than me. And JD Unwin's theories I think hold water to that same idea, where there's been a lot of SEXUAL ENERGY HOARDING going on. These Chads and elites HOARD SEXUAL ENERGY like water, and everyone else is now left dry in the desert seeing mirages.

The sources you cite actually sound interesting. How do you find books THAT ARENT TOTAL SHIT? This is the problem with jews and jewish control.

 

[cathuluelitist]

wonderful high IQ post worthy of the the .co era.

I only have stupid reactionary comments to this. One, it makes me want to have even more sex, I AM SEXUALLY STARVED INCEL, so as an socioeconomic corrally: I am also like a dumb nigger high on his own delusions and rap videos, the only impulse I can relate to, in a sexual porn addled sense, are primitive delusions of grandeur. I've been so traumatized by my own situation I simply can't relate to the 'middle' or the idea of 'modest' success. I laugh at the idea that I can marry my looksmatch in the same way a dumb nigger from the hood laughs at the middle class guy just telling him to go to college and get a degree and a simple office job to escape the hood. I JUST WANT TO FUCK SLUTS IN AN INFINITY POOL, in the same way a dumb nigger wants to be a rapper and fuck sluts in an infinity pool. I just want to be a piece of shit hoarding all the sex for myself as I ruin civilization so that by the time I die they everyone else is worse off than me. And JD Unwin's theories I think hold water to that same idea, where there's been a lot of SEXUAL ENERGY HOARDING going on. These Chads and elites HOARD SEXUAL ENERGY like water, and everyone else is now left dry in the desert seeing mirages.

The sources you cite actually sound interesting. How do you find books THAT ARENT TOTAL SHIT? This is the problem with jews and jewish control.

I use a chain of recommendation from a bunch of authors I consider trustworthy and genuine. I would also recommend disregarding any polemical or political work post-1960s because academia has been pretty much despoiled with neo-Marxist propaganda since at least 1972. Here are some of my favorite authors of a wide variety of topics you can check out

Peter Zeihan - greatest geopolitical analyst of the 21st century. He goes into great detail about methods of deglobalization and bloodlines
Ian McGilchrist - He analyses brain divisions and basically says that there's two hemispheres of consciousness in the brain, the right hemisphere and the left hemisphere, the right hemisphere is the holistic and understanding side and the left hemisphere is the mechanical individualistic narrow minded side and you can easily extrapolate this to analyse civilizations now
Fernand Braudel - one of my favorite historians who used a map of patterns to analyse civilizations.
Christopher Lasch - one of my most cherished authors who analysed Western cultural dynamics
James Scott - A well respected anthropologist that I liked who analyzes the power of bloodlines on civilization
Gustave le Bon - arguably the greatest social psychologist of all time in which he primarily analysed groupism and the behavior of malicious collectives
Carle Zimmerman - my favorite sociologist who maps family types
Pitirim Sorokin - the most innovative and in my opinion greatest social theorist ever who basically tracked the oscillation between the sensate materialistic side of culture and the spiritual ideational ones
Brooks Adams - one of my favorite historian who basically analyzed the energy cycles of sexual sublimation
Curt Doolittle - Doolittle is probably one of the greatest thinkers in the world right now and he basically analyzes different evolutionary strategies and the effects of each one on civilization

 

[MoroccanFarmer]

Our ancestors would laugh at idea of inceldom and would just decide to rape another woman as the always did.

 

[GloomyGhoul]

Mhmm, yeah. Individuation is a luxury atp.

Collectivism for the masses, and individuality for the elite

 

[vic624]

very interesting, here in the more rural areas of my nation (in the amazon) where the state is too far away to reach the citizens, people often remove restrictions on violence, cheating on your husband is a 99% chance of getting killed since there are no cops or any kind of deep infrastructure, people form their own rules, the place is too far away to ship gasoline (no road and no bridges over huge waterways)

Sounds like that Powaqqatsi depicted mine that had 11 year old whores.

 

[SEX NIGGA]

That's demonstrably wrong though. There's motivation just to make life better to live even without a loyal hole. Bloodlines is also an archaic concept from before population genetics. People will sacrifice their being to save genes they share with other people, like the emergency workers at Chernobyl preventing the deaths of people who carried many of the same genes.

We can‘t say for sure what motivated the chernobyl workers to sacrifice their lives for humanity. But what we can definitely say is that the nihilistic-hedonistic man of today would never sacrifice his life to save those of others.

I personally think that the heroes of Chernobyl either had a strong moral compass and maybe a family back home as well or where simply mind slaves although I think it is the first one.

You also have to keep in mind that hyper individualism and whore culture wasn’t so well established back in the day, so society was a lot healthier and actually worthy of sacrificing for.

 

[cathuluelitist]

Collectivism for the masses, and individuality for the elite

We're in the final necrotic state of Zivilisation and on the brink of total reprisal.

 

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

I would also suggest reading Roger F. Devlin.

 

[cathuluelitist]

I would also suggest reading Roger F. Devlin.

I remember Duchesne talking about his stuff.

 

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

I remember Duchesne talking about his stuff.

I don't know who that is but one feminist correctly summed up Moore's (Devlin is his pen name) views on society:

Moore argues in the same essay, are driven by their “hypergamous instincts,” meaning they “are inclined to believe that only the ‘best’ (most sexually attractive) man is worthy of them.” The sexual revolution and feminist movement, in Moore’s telling, have not sought to make men and women equals; rather, he argues, they gave way to an “eternal dream of irresponsible freedom.”

“In the feminist formulation, [it’s] freedom for women, responsibility for men,” Moore writes.

Devlin blamed society for giving “large numbers of men no possibility of finding a mate.

That's why is he worth of reading.

 

[Wither]

Our ancestors would laugh at the idea of inceldom and would find the entire depression of a peoples in such a manner farcical for the most part. This is because our ancestors had no concept of a world where women were to become autogenocidal Glaaki as they've now, there are of course exceptions to this with thinkers like Nietzsche but other than that, an sexual depression was almost entirely unheard of, though, one of the greatest thinkers of anthropology JD Unwin perfectly analyzes the current situation that we now face and since I've seen no threads on his work, I'll create one, but I'll also use his work to built upon the integral theory. Essentially, Unwin analyzed dozens of cultures across thousands of years and concluded that the degree of social energy a society exhibits is inextricably linked to the social treatment of a peoples sexual drive and he categorized these societies into tiers of sexual constraints, these societies are... the deistic societies, the monogamous societies and promiscuous societies. The deistic society's social energy is modeled around prenuptial chastity which requires high parental investment, the monogamous societies models around similar ideas but more individualistically which requires less parental investment and the promiscuous societies are boundless and allow all sexual expression which of course encourages net zero parental investment. We are evidently in a promiscuous society, in which the cosmopolitan elites are pushing for the sublimation of libido and oversocialization, this has made it so we are unable to collect the sexual energy of chastity to build civilization because there is no actual sex and the sex energy is now witheld and wasted. Now, I will give my own abridged analysis of this using cliodynamics, specifically Richard Turchin's SDT in which my favorite historian Richard Turchin uses computer models to track the irregularities of human nature to create predictions and observation.

Basically there are multiple levels and altitudes of consciousness and sex is the highest shirtail in the pyramid. Sex is Amber and is almost entirely subordinated to divine law. At the Amber level, sex is defined by taboos which creates civilizational surplus because it channels Amber sex into the individualist deistic society. Orange is the rationalist individualistic society that foolishly puts superficial material progress over channeling sexual expression, we are currently at Green which is basically just a pluralistic hellscape and is anti heroism as well as completely against sex taboo and sublimation. I personally believe the first two have a lot of merit but sexual expression and it being consociated with the taboo of chastity should be a divine mandate and should never be put before material progress which is secondary so I beleive in a sort of conscious conservation. We are at exponential kinetic net negative Asabiyyah and lack high levels of consciousness. I highly recommend buying frankincense and myrrh and eating ayahuasca to enhance your connection with your suppressed consciousness.


What we must take from this is that any peoples are free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation and that we must promote the former at all cost.

Bibliography

Sex and Culture by JD Unwin
The muqaddimah by Ibn Khald
War and peace and war by Peter Turchin
Ideas have consequences by Richard Weaver
The fate of empires and search for survival by John Glubb
The culture of narcissism by Christopher Lasch


Some people I think might be interested:

@Misogynist Vegeta
@D. B. Gooner
@IWWorkER
@GloomyGhoul

Men always had access to sex

 

[andrej]

Where can one aquire Ayahuasca without cops sending him to prison where he'll be raped?

 

[cathuluelitist]

Where can one aquire Ayahuasca without cops sending him to prison where he'll be raped?

You can buy some of the botanical parts and then extract DMT from it DIY, it's legal to do this in Colorado for the most part.

 

[MajorThomas666]

Our ancestors would laugh at the idea of inceldom and would find the entire depression of a peoples in such a manner farcical for the most part. This is because our ancestors had no concept of a world where women were to become autogenocidal Glaaki as they've now, there are of course exceptions to this with thinkers like Nietzsche but other than that, an sexual depression was almost entirely unheard of, though, one of the greatest thinkers of anthropology JD Unwin perfectly analyzes the current situation that we now face and since I've seen no threads on his work, I'll create one, but I'll also use his work to built upon the integral theory. Essentially, Unwin analyzed dozens of cultures across thousands of years and concluded that the degree of social energy a society exhibits is inextricably linked to the social treatment of a peoples sexual drive and he categorized these societies into tiers of sexual constraints, these societies are... the deistic societies, the monogamous societies and promiscuous societies. The deistic society's social energy is modeled around prenuptial chastity which requires high parental investment, the monogamous societies models around similar ideas but more individualistically which requires less parental investment and the promiscuous societies are boundless and allow all sexual expression which of course encourages net zero parental investment. We are evidently in a promiscuous society, in which the cosmopolitan elites are pushing for the sublimation of libido and oversocialization, this has made it so we are unable to collect the sexual energy of chastity to build civilization because there is no actual sex and the sex energy is now witheld and wasted. Now, I will give my own abridged analysis of this using cliodynamics, specifically Richard Turchin's SDT in which my favorite historian Richard Turchin uses computer models to track the irregularities of human nature to create predictions and observation.

Basically there are multiple levels and altitudes of consciousness and sex is the highest shirtail in the pyramid. Sex is Amber and is almost entirely subordinated to divine law. At the Amber level, sex is defined by taboos which creates civilizational surplus because it channels Amber sex into the individualist deistic society. Orange is the rationalist individualistic society that foolishly puts superficial material progress over channeling sexual expression, we are currently at Green which is basically just a pluralistic hellscape and is anti heroism as well as completely against sex taboo and sublimation. I personally believe the first two have a lot of merit but sexual expression and it being consociated with the taboo of chastity should be a divine mandate and should never be put before material progress which is secondary so I beleive in a sort of conscious conservation. We are at exponential kinetic net negative Asabiyyah and lack high levels of consciousness. I highly recommend buying frankincense and myrrh and eating ayahuasca to enhance your connection with your suppressed consciousness.


What we must take from this is that any peoples are free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation and that we must promote the former at all cost.

Bibliography

Sex and Culture by JD Unwin
The muqaddimah by Ibn Khald
War and peace and war by Peter Turchin
Ideas have consequences by Richard Weaver
The fate of empires and search for survival by John Glubb
The culture of narcissism by Christopher Lasch


Some people I think might be interested:

@Misogynist Vegeta
@D. B. Gooner
@IWWorkER
@GloomyGhoul

"...choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom..."

Well I do neither, hermitcel.

Also, shrooms are nice.

 

[MajorThomas666]

You can buy some of the botanical parts and then extract DMT from it DIY, it's legal to do this in Colorado for the most part.

You need harmalas as well. I'd say stick to your own grown psilocybin mushrooms from spore kits. Mushrooms can be far more forgiving and you can dose accordingly, although 8g+ and shrooms can be far more intense and spiritual than dmt.

Lots of studies of psilocybin. Come down and afterglow of mushrooms is divine, which I don't get on DMT/LSD/LSA/LSH.

Shrooms for life.

FUCk devil's lettce THC, that's for normies and makes me schozophrenic.

 

[cathuluelitist]

I see, I see.

 

[cathuluelitist]

Our ancestors would laugh at idea of inceldom and would just decide to rape another woman as the always did.

If you looked at the genetic map of any warring and chaotic region you are essentially simultaneously looking at a mass rape map kek.

 

[GloomyGhoul]

Mhmm, yeah. Individuation is a luxury atp.

Well when you have a society that favors instant pleasure over self-preservation, the complete collapse of a civilization is inevitable. The normalization of causal sex in the West has led to declining birth rates and overall moral degradation. I am honestly unsure on how we can remedy that

 

[cathuluelitist]

Well when you have a society that favors instant pleasure over self-preservation, the complete collapse of a civilization is inevitable. The normalization of causal sex in the West has led to declining birth rates and overall moral degradation. I am honestly unsure on how we can remedy that

Jacobin reprisal