Decadence

I've decided to give this topic its own thread.

I believe decadence is they key to everything, to understanding humanities condition, especially as it is in the 20th and 21st centuries.

I disagree with the Nietzscheans, about what decadence is, and its origins. In my view, the Jews originally (before the Christ Construct) fought against decadence from a material/practical POV, even though they embraced it from a spiritual/theoretical POV.. same with Plato, the former being rooted in religious thought, the latter in philosophical. Like Platonism, Judaism was an ascetic religion, and asceticism is diametrically opposed to decadence. It fought against hedonism, and all the other things we associate with decadence - materialism, globalism, scientism and technology, or in other words, against excess, against artifice in service of nature, they countered with nature in service of artifice. Sure, they believed in God, the afterworld, etcetera, sacrificing the truth for seductive lies, which is a form of decadence, but such was only an attempt to satiate man's near insatiable heart. The Jews took their assault on man's desires too far, it was too rigid, too retarded and extreme, and thus, Christianity was born, which was a liberation from the law, and an embrace of full on decadence. The same thing happened in Europe, after accepting Catholicism for a 1000 years, which was a return to the law, they totally gave themselves over to Protestantism (a return to liberation), and then subsequently hedonism, materialism, and all the rest of it, which was how they reacted to all those years of having their desires under lock and key, repressed. Just as Jews had their Christianity and Hindus had their Buddhism, so too did Platonism and have its Epicureanism. Although Epicurus was an ascetic hedonist, later variants of his philosophy took his hedonism too extremes, especially when it found its way to Rome.

So if the Jews weren't anymore decadent than the Greeks, Romans and others, what were the origins of decadence? It helps to contrast water with food. Our desire for water isn't a problem. We get thirsty whenever our bodies need water in order to sustain our life force. Compare that with food, people (some more than others, which is interesting in itself) can't get enough of it, especially fats, sugars and salts, compromising their health and longevity in the process. Why are our desires for food so inordinate, why have our appetites turned against us, so that we're often more at war with ourselves than we're at war with otherness?

In the state of nature, man's primary enemies are the elements, other predators, and other men, in the state of artifice, civilization, his primary enemy becomes his self. In times of scarcity, when food is scarce, when wealth and resources are scarce, you can never get enough of them, it usually pays to collaborate and/or compete for more, if you don't need it now, save some for rainy days, which are frequent. In times of abundance, like when man moves from hunter gatherer, to subsistence agrarian, to superfluous agrarian, and finally, to industrial and post industrial economies, man's desires, and his fears, become a burden, and the passions work against reason, rather than with it, because the head can adapt to a new environment in a day, where as it takes thousands of years for significant and substantial changes to take place in the heart. The same principle that we derived from contrasting food with water, can be applied to so many other things, whether it be sex, socialization, wealth, power, fame, fortune, even knowledge or rather, information, conjecture/speculation, idle talk.

Both our egoistic and altruistic desires can be excessive, we can care about ourselves and others too much at the same time even, egoism and altruism aren't necessarily opposed.

There is this sort of general angst man has, if you know what I mean, that compels him to shoot for the stars, to his limits and beyond, and while such an angst is by no means intrinsically evil, it's part of what defines us as a species, it needs to be tempered, along with our all other desires/fears.

From a cultural and perhaps even a biological standpoint, man's evolutionary development is still early, in my estimation, some men/races are further along than others, and the ones with more material, aren't necessarily superior to the ones with less, especially if the ones without, willingly choose to do without, as jeopardizing yourself and others for more needless things can be ones undoing.

You have to count the cost, think of the cost of everything, not only the benefit, sometimes less is indeed more. I'm not inherently against development, of all kinds, rather, we must take things gradually, be patient, careful and cautious not to sacrifice too what we have, or we could wind up with all sorts of abominations, chimeras and monstrosities in our midst.

Think of a glass. The objective is not too leave it empty, but nor is it to fill it up to the brim or beyond, lest it spills, and topples over. Atrophy is something to be avoided also. There's limits, to what he can attain, physical and intellectual finalities.

It's not that the passions are evil, that's extremist, we can't let ourselves make the same mistakes Jews and others did, we should accept and cherish our nature, allow ourselves this and that, but there's cut off points, when giving in is far more detrimental than beneficial, and if one were to become an addict, sometimes it's necessary to go to the other extreme, in order to attain balance, balance, not being something uniform, but relative to different individuals living in different times/places and going through different stages of development. One size doesn't fit all, but human nature is sufficiently similar that we can meaningfully talk about balance in the abstract.

Women are particularly prone to decadence, as their heart more readily/easily seduces their head, and they are an abyss, a gaping black hole, for evolutionary reasons, which I've explained elsewhere. Man's major weakness consists of his desire for women, his willingness to compromise his morals and values no matter what the cost, because of his appetite for them, and his envy of other men for having them, which can be maddening. This is why a patriarchal society, like Rome, or even medieval Christendom or ancient Greece, might be (partly) necessary.

Degrees of elitism might be necessary too, as some men are more like women than others, and give into their women more easily/readily than others, but such elitism shouldn't be confused with the elitism of today, we're talking a moral elite, rather than a debauched one, at least ideally. Go too far in one direction, and you wind up with rebellion, class warfare, war between the sexes, war between man's heart and his head, that's why there needs to be balance. I, however, could never accept an elite that would not make me a member. Perhaps such virtue could manifest in an anarchist society of sorts.

For the most part I use the terms decadence/hedonism interchangeably and synonymous.

Asceticism has always been the traditional response and reaction to hedonism. The result is the political ideology of conservatism. Conserve resources, do not over use. Protect yourself and loved ones. Do not indulge. Preserve and conserve the successful environment that we, white europeans, have built for ourselves and maintained. Maintain your culture. These are ascetic and conservative values.

Liberals want to indulge, "freedom", "free love" hippy movement, sex, drugs, rock and roll. Shit-smears lifestyle and mindset. Liberals want to expend the extra resources. Liberals want to spend the inheritance on partying and socialite lifestyle. Pro-hedonism. Liberals do not want to conserve resources, but to use them, often towards idealistic ends. "renewable energy".


Asceticism, like you say, is man's willing and conscious self suppression. As a male, I must control myself. I must suppress my sex drive. Females are privileged. They inherit the resources, not me. As a male, I am excluded, expendable, and unwanted by the society of my birth. It is not until after I pledge my loyalty to guard my society, that I am "allowed back in", but even this is under suspicion. Because males are always unwanted within society.

My asceticism is how society tolerates my male nature. My male nature is criminal. I want to take from others, steal. I want to fuck without asking permission, rape. I want to hurt those that insult me, murder. I must never, ever allow my male instinct to get out of control. I must lock myself up and throw away the key. The male beast, the male animal, the manimal, must never be allowed loose.

And this ascetic quality, self restraint and self consciousness, is becoming harder and harder to maintain. Because what is society and civilization? What is the trend of globalization and the NWO, new world order? The trend, the direction, the predictions, the stars are all aligned in one direction........we know the future already. More government, more control, more "security" in the name of peace, more "terrorism" as terrorism becomes redefined to any small inconvenience of the state, any potential, future threat....

The future is extreme fascism, oppression, thought crime, liberalism, totalitarianism, international banking kabals, regulations, restrictions, thousands and thousands of new laws. Illegal to look at women and children. If you are male, avert your gaze downward. Males must blind themselves at birth. Males must cripple themselves at birth. Males must amputate 1 or 2 limbs at birth. Voluntary self crippling.

Because man must weaken himself, so as to not threaten "the system". The body of the system is females and children, which are allowed to indulge in hedonism, but even this has a degree, regulated by the system itself.


The future is more civilization, not less. This is where Joker has it wrong. The need for "chaos", anarchy, revolution, will only become exponentially more and more difficult. And any "successful" anarchy is going to be met with overwhelming governmental backlash and force. An excuse to condemn new "terrorist" acts. An excuse to impose new forms and degrees of fascism.

Æon wrote:

For the most part I use the terms decadence/hedonism interchangeably and synonymous.

I see decadence as encompassing hedonism, among other things I've covered, like materialism, dandyism, etcetera.

Quote :

Asceticism has always been the traditional response and reaction to hedonism.  The result is the political ideology of conservatism.  Conserve resources, do not over use.  Protect yourself and loved ones.  Do not indulge.  Preserve and conserve the successful environment that we, white europeans, have built for ourselves and maintained.  Maintain your culture.  These are ascetic and conservative values.

Right, there's definitely some overlap between liberalism and hedonism on one side, and conservatism and asceticism on the other. Contrary to the Nietzscheans, I see Judaism, along with Platonism, Hinduism and Confucianism as patriarchic, conservative and ascetic traditions. There really isn't a right or a wrong in any intrinsic, objective sense, rather, we must find a balance between the two, either a synthesis, or a pendulum rocking back and forth, like we've been doing for the last 2000 years or so. Unlike most, I see competition both in the market place and outside of it as essentially the same. The underlying premise of both coercion and collaboration when taken to extremes is the same - globalization, more science and technology, more consumption and production. I'm more of an isolationist, not in any absolute sense, but in a relative sense. For the time being, we need to think more about sustainability, even a graceful decline, allow nature to recover. Therefore, the left and right as currently defined are unappealing to me. However, what I'm saying doesn't have to be political, we can all cut back in our daily lives. I'm not telling anyone to do so, rather, I'm just putting it out there, like maybe there's another, better way of doing things. All popular ideologies of the 20th century were fundamentally liberal in my mind, even Fascism and Nazism, just to a lesser extent.

Quote :

Liberals want to indulge, "freedom", "free love" hippy movement, sex, drugs, rock and roll.  Shit-smears lifestyle and mindset.  Liberals want to expend the extra resources.  Liberals want to spend the inheritance on partying and socialite lifestyle.  Pro-hedonism.  Liberals do not want to conserve resources, but to use them, often towards idealistic ends.  "renewable energy".

Yes, liberals always want a little more, but they're not necessarily retarded, although they often wind up that way in the long run, some of them are very clever at attaining more of what they desire, but not in discerning desires from needs. Some even push themselves to want more, like they're discontent with their contentment, or they should be. If you're satisfied, there must be something wrong with you. Always traveling, always splurging. Activities, they're obsessed with activity.

Quote :

Asceticism, like you say, is man's willing and conscious self suppression.  As a male, I must control myself.  I must suppress my sex drive.  Females are privileged.  They inherit the resources, not me.  As a male, I am excluded, expendable, and unwanted by the society of my birth.  It is not until after I pledge my loyalty to guard my society, that I am "allowed back in", but even this is under suspicion.  Because males are always unwanted within society.

Yes, and some males must suppress themselves more than others, some are more, highly evolved, more able to suppress themselves if need be, but there's less need be. Females have a harder time of saying no to themselves or others than males. Males are the personification of the word no, females, of yes. Women, like Nietzsche, say yes to life, men are naysayers. I wouldn't say males are unwanted in society, I'd say males are unwanted in This society.. lest they castrate themselves on the altar of progressivism.

Quote :

My asceticism is how society tolerates my male nature.  My male nature is criminal.  I want to take from others, steal.  I want to fuck without asking permission, rape.  I want to hurt those that insult me, murder.  I must never, ever allow my male instinct to get out of control.  I must lock myself up and throw away the key.  The male beast, the male animal, the manimal, must never be allowed loos

Yes, female aggression is more tolerated than male aggression, because it's generally more covert, but all the more insidious and subversive. Males are more able/willing to take what they want by force, females use lies, deceit, manipulation, passive-aggressive behavior, playing the victim card, and so on. Females get a free pass. Additionally, females are needier, and they're less capable of repression, or, (re)directing their superfluous energies.

Quote :

And this ascetic quality, self restraint and self consciousness, is becoming harder and harder to maintain.  Because what is society and civilization?  What is the trend of globalization and the NWO, new world order?  The trend, the direction, the predictions, the stars are all aligned in one direction........we know the future already.  More government, more control, more "security" in the name of peace, more "terrorism" as terrorism becomes redefined to any small inconvenience of the state, any potential, future threat....

The future is extreme fascism, oppression, thought crime, liberalism, totalitarianism, international banking kabals, regulations, restrictions, thousands and thousands of new laws.  Illegal to look at women and children.  If you are male, avert your gaze downward.  Males must blind themselves at birth.  Males must cripple themselves at birth.  Males must amputate 1 or 2 limbs at birth.  Voluntary self crippling.

Because man must weaken himself, so as to not threaten "the system".  The body of the system is females and children, which are allowed to indulge in hedonism, but even this has a degree, regulated by the system itself.

The system is being taken over by Jews and plutocrats. It's fundamentally still liberal, progressive, hedonistic, etcetera, but business and government is being consolidated in the hands of a tiny minority, a 1 of %1, and yes, public enemy number one, is conservative males, but even alternative forms of progressivism are a threat to their monopoly if they can't be assimilated and incorporated. All this should come as no surprise.. 1, liberalism eventually and inevitably leads to 1, a new world order, one world government, whether it be a democratic one, or a plutocratic one, or even a warrior aristocracy, and at the present, it's looking like the Jews and the landless, soiless plutocrats, who've sold their own flesh and blood out, are "succeeding". However, it's cyclical, because the elite is so imbalanced, the human race, including them, will either go extinct, or be catapulted back into the stone age, because they're far too ambitious for their own good.

Quote :

The future is more civilization, not less.  This is where Joker has it wrong.  The need for "chaos", anarchy, revolution, will only become exponentially more and more difficult.  And any "successful" anarchy is going to be met with overwhelming governmental backlash and force.  An excuse to condemn new "terrorist" acts.  An excuse to impose new forms and degrees of fascism.

I tend to side with the Joker more on this one, I think things are declining now, and will likely decline much, much more in the future. There may be some ups and downs, but overall, the march of civilization is unsustainable, and people are slowly but surely waking up, less are participating in the rat race, and that's a good thing, a graceful decline would be preferable to the kind of economic and environmental collapse the Joker is predicting. I'm not inherently against progressivism, science and technology, don't get me wrong, but from my experience and research, I think it's a case of too much, too soon.