The Decline of Society is mainly due to Technology

Rob Banks

Pelican
KorbenDallas said:
A lot of people like to blame the liberals/the SJW's/Obama/Cultural Marxists, etc, for the decline in society, the standard of women, etc...and they would be mostly right, BUT I think nothing has been a greater force for the destruction of society than modern technology.

Let's pretend Republicans were the President since the 60's and you had had better immigration laws. You still would have had a spoiled boomer generation, and the rise of the smartphone and social media.

That's what's fucked up everything. In the 911 thread the OP says that society has declined more in 15 years than the previous thirty, and I would agree, but its because of the personal computer and personal cell phone.

This phenomenon has even effected the Muslim world. The vast majority of young Syrian men would much rather go to Europe while playing games on their cell phones than fight for their country.

Why? Because they see how much better life is on their phone, and find out about how to get there using the internet. Cell Phone's and computers have made everyone like a child.


This can't last can it? The millennial generation gets a lot of flack, there really are some great millennial's of every race, color, and creed, who, have got shit on by the way, and STILL rise above everything including less opportunity, young women who outearn on average them because of their pussies, bad ratios, and terrible social dynamics.

Having said that, the attitude of these young girls is unbelievable. There are a lot of exceptions (I find girls who actually have a job to be the most pleasant actually, easiest to pick up, most feminine, that's another thread) but on average, these girls are completely rejecting men from having high status in their lives, popping out 1.4 children and then expecting everyone to help them, then find out it doesn't work that way, and now their miserable. Almost every hot young girl in America is on that path. Not saying you can't bang them, but that's the path their on.

Colleges don't teach anything, young people have too much debt, the country has too much debt, this is going off the rails.

I can see it. I feel sorry for those who aren't preparing now.

Technology IS ultimately causing the decline of society, and this concept goes SO MUCH deeper than you probably think.

I will not go into it in too much detail because I could write an entire article on the topic, but I will say this:

1) We are not evolved for such a technologically advanced world. We are biologically evolved for a far more primitive, tribal world.

2) Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Nothing in this world is free. This means that for every benefit we get from technology, we pay for it in one way or another. Take modern medicine for example. It saves lives, but in the long run, it greatly weakens the gene pool. Telephones and computers help us communicate, but they also make it easier for the government to influence and control us. This basic dynamic is true for every single piece of technology out there, even if at first you don't see it.

No generation truly has it better than the last. If anything, each generation probably has it worse than the last. I'm sure many people here have heard someone say "today's working poor live better than a king from 500 years ago." This may be true if one defines "living better" as having access to more advanced technology. However, a counterargument to that would be that an upper-middle class man, or even a rich man, in this day and age has less freedom than a serf from 500 years ago.
 

Travesty

Crow
Gold Member
RBerkley said:
... future economy affecting women.

There will be universal basic income before that ever happens.

Everyone will earn around the equivalent of $35k off the bat... not many will be able to make much more due to taxes.

Sugar daddy Instagram game will skyrocket x10 for the few wealthy men.

Guys with game will also clear even more because wealth will be less and more evenly distributed among the lower 95% as time goes on.

A case, now a guy that earns $65k guy with little game and no real interesting hobbies vs a starving artist type making $20k that has a little bit of game. Let's say the $65k guy especially past the age of 30 where $ matters a bit more lives in a decent spot with a decent car. He may find a decent girl to settle down (mini beta bucks stability). That $20k starving artist probably lives in a crappy place with roommates, bad logistics, girls after a few months with him may realize even tho he has some game he isn't a good long term bet.

Well now in this future the $65k guy gets $35k UBI and can only find a part time job to make an additional $10k for $45k total. Taxes are higher, saving & investing is harder, so is getting any new job or raise in pay. Being diligent and responsible has a much smaller return for getting more cash in the long run. This guy gets discouraged. Gets lost in virtual reality porn, video games, marijuana, and worst of all... craft beer.

The starving artist makes $35k UBI plus some money from gigs here and there, doesn't have to sweat his bills ever, can Game full-time for months when he chooses to.

Their lifestyles are now practically even. Looks & Game, then $ for high side of the spectrum - mean more than ever. More average guys get lost in virtual reality and legalized weed.

Pussy becomes a complete free-for-all market with a good size portion rationed off as semi-pros to straight bought for the wealthy few.
 

roberto

Pelican
Gold Member
Rob Banks said:
Technology IS ultimately causing the decline of society, and this concept goes SO MUCH deeper than you probably think.

I will not go into it in too much detail because I could write an entire article on the topic

Crack on mate, that's the point of this place

1) We are not evolved for such a technologically advanced world. We are biologically evolved for a far more primitive, tribal world.


I cautiously agree. However, this argument is often used with supporting statistics to promote any viewpont one cares to mention. Common example is polgyamous relationships. People into sort of this are quick to point to Africa and say 'It takes a village to raise a child. When anyone could be the father they are all invested'. My counter argument is that food is abundant, they breed like rats (and die in times of hardship like rats also). Whereas in Northern climates, where food was much scarcer, the pair bonding played a greater role in the formation of that society. As these people built the world we all know today, I think it's safe to say which reproductive strategy advanced mankind the greatest. On balance, and referring back to my cautious agreement, I think humans can adapt faster than they are sometimes given credit for. It just may not be can adaption in the direction that you agree with. We are at a new frontier right now- in a few years time, kids will come of age who have been able to watch hardcore porn for as long as they have been wondering about the birds and the bees. What will they turn out like?

2) Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Nothing in this world is free. This means that for every benefit we get from technology, we pay for it in one way or another. Take modern medicine for example. It saves lives, but in the long run, it greatly weakens the gene pool. Telephones and computers help us communicate, but they also make it easier for the government to influence and control us. This basic dynamic is true for every single piece of technology out there, even if at first you don't see it.

No generation truly has it better than the last. If anything, each generation probably has it worse than the last. I'm sure many people here have heard someone say "today's working poor live better than a king from 500 years ago." This may be true if one defines "living better" as having access to more advanced technology. However, a counterargument to that would be that an upper-middle class man, or even a rich man, in this day and age has less freedom than a serf from 500 years ago.

I believe your peasant from 500 years ago may have begged to differ. Many on here have exceptionally free lives as they have seen what opportunities there are, and taken them. The peasant knew nothing other than growing turnip and handing 95% over to the Lord of the Manor.

Technology can be used as a measure of 'living better' as it provides opportunity and knowledge. However, it is self-limiting- as technology develops, every modern day peasant has access to it.

7a19622247aa82b03672a9a66994a308fc90bc4b8785120f08311b5701a1d4a9.jpg


(Sorry, could only find the meme version)
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
roberto said:
I cautiously agree. However, this argument is often used with supporting statistics to promote any viewpont one cares to mention. Common example is polgyamous relationships. People into sort of this are quick to point to Africa and say 'It takes a village to raise a child. When anyone could be the father they are all invested'. My counter argument is that food is abundant, they breed like rats (and die in times of hardship like rats also). Whereas in Northern climates, where food was much scarcer, the pair bonding played a greater role in the formation of that society. As these people built the world we all know today, I think it's safe to say which reproductive strategy advanced mankind the greatest. On balance, and referring back to my cautious agreement, I think humans can adapt faster than they are sometimes given credit for. It just may not be can adaption in the direction that you agree with. We are at a new frontier right now- in a few years time, kids will come of age who have been able to watch hardcore porn for as long as they have been wondering about the birds and the bees. What will they turn out like?

I know nothing about people using my argument (that we're evolved for a more primitive world) to try and prove ridiculous points (such as polygamous societies being superior). You're absolutely right that the "it takes a village...anyone could be the father..." example is quite ridiculous. Anyone who actually believes that is an idiot. However, I don't see how my argument about being evolved for a more (technologically) primitive world could be used to support polygamy and fatherlessness in Africa. Monogamy (true monogamy, not the perversion of monogamy we have today) has been the norm in European societies for millennia; since before Jesus Christ. I also don't have a problem with our colonization of Africa, Christianizing the Africans, and teaching them about monogamy and the family unit.

When I say we're evolved for a "tribal" world, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm against the nation-state. Nations have existed in Europe well before the Industrial Revolution and all this technological advancement. Some people would argue that the problem with nations is that, over time, the nations tend to get bigger and bigger, and there tends to be fewer and fewer of them. Essentially, power gets more and more centralized with time. I would argue, however, that this is only true due to technological advancements, namely automobiles, communication technology (computers and phones) and advanced weaponry. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, nations usually did not grow that big, and national borders were constantly changing. There were many, many small city-states throughout Europe. For a long period of time, Italy and Germany were just made up of lots of little city-states who would often go to war with each other. Large empires surely existed, but usually conquered the lands of primitive Africans and Native Americans (like the British Empire) or conquered mostly uninhabited land (like the Russian Empire). You would have never seen something like today's European Union prior to the Industrial Revolution.

"I think humans can adapt faster than they are sometimes given credit for"

This is biologically impossible. Maybe you're referring to an individual person adjusting to his surroundings and adjusting (mentally and emotionally) to the modern world. But I am referring to biological evolutionary adaptation of our minds and bodies. The Industrial Revolution happened 200-300 years ago. It is physically impossible for us to have "adapted" to anything, or evolved at all, in such a relatively short amount of time. We are still biologically the same people we were 500, 1000, and even 10,000 years ago.


2) Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Nothing in this world is free. This means that for every benefit we get from technology, we pay for it in one way or another. Take modern medicine for example. It saves lives, but in the long run, it greatly weakens the gene pool. Telephones and computers help us communicate, but they also make it easier for the government to influence and control us. This basic dynamic is true for every single piece of technology out there, even if at first you don't see it.

No generation truly has it better than the last. If anything, each generation probably has it worse than the last. I'm sure many people here have heard someone say "today's working poor live better than a king from 500 years ago." This may be true if one defines "living better" as having access to more advanced technology. However, a counterargument to that would be that an upper-middle class man, or even a rich man, in this day and age has less freedom than a serf from 500 years ago.

I believe your peasant from 500 years ago may have begged to differ. Many on here have exceptionally free lives as they have seen what opportunities there are, and taken them. The peasant knew nothing other than growing turnip and handing 95% over to the Lord of the Manor.

You're buying in to the media/elites' bullshit. I'm sure that you learned in your school textbook that peasants and serfs were basically slaves who were tortured and killed at the slightest display of insubordination. I'm sure you learned that monarchy is baaaaad, and that most people spent their entire lives obeying the king's every command and kneeling before him, with young women even giving up their virginity to him, out of fear of being killed.

While I'm sure these stories you learned about in school actually happened, it's easy to cherry-pick through thousands of years of history and find stories of monarchies being evil and people not having freedom. What your high school history textbook doesn't cover are the thousands of years when a society was at peace, under a monarchy they respected. Remember when you learned about the ancient Chinese dynasties? Each dynasty lasted several hundreds or thousands of years, until they were overthrown. The reason each dynasty lasted for so long was because the people were satisfied and did not revolt.

Your textbook only covers wars and conflicts, and only the ones they want you to learn about. Did you learn in school about the Barbary Wars that America fought against North African Muslims shortly after the American Revolution? I didn't think so.

Even if a king was evil, people still had more freedom than they do today, simply because the technology to track and control everyone did not exist. There could not be all the laws and regulations we have today, because there would be no way of enforcing them. There could be no wide-spread gun control, because they did not have a database of who owned the guns, and if they tried to confiscate them, entire villages would revolt, and the governments did not have today's advanced weaponry to subdue them.

There is a reason why first-world governments don't get overthrown anymore, and it ain't because we're any more satisfied with our governments than in the past. It's because it has become close to physically impossible to overthrow them, which empowers them to enact whatever laws they want (on behalf of donors and lobbyists).

The peasant or serf from 500 years ago also didn't have to deal with living in a society where everyone was brainwashed by the mainstream media and would then go out and vote for the next king based on who the media told them to vote for. They didn't have to marry sluts. They didn't have to accept their daughters were going to experiment with sex before marriage, and they didn't risk life in jail for marrying their daughter off at 14 to a good man. There were no lifelong criminal records database that ruins your life if you committed a petty crime in your youth.

I could go on and on. Sure, technology has made our lives easier. The serf from 500 years ago had a rougher life, obviously. But he was also freer to make decisions in his life without societal and/or governmental interference.

Technology can be used as a measure of 'living better' as it provides opportunity and knowledge. However, it is self-limiting- as technology develops, every modern day peasant has access to it.

Not sure I understand what you mean by that.
 

James Bond Next level

Robin
Gold Member
The problem is big corporation creating needs where there isn't any just to make money. From the title of the thread, I immediately thought about Facebook, Selfie stick which made people more self-centered, gave female ways to have continuous attention 24-7. More bad than good IMO.
I was surprised no one mentionned (or I'm mistaken maybe) porn and soon VR porn : huge decrease in testosterone, guy don't (and won't) talk to ladies anymore and become a stay-at-home pussy. So sad and getting worse...
 
Technological determinism is a Marxist idea. I think it's rather ironic that people have swallowed it whole without even considering that. I'm not going to argue that technology doesn't have an influence, but it seems really silly to think that no other forces operate besides it. Technology is a tool, and like any tool it only acts on the intention of the man wielding it.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Meister Eckhart said:
Technological determinism is a Marxist idea. I think it's rather ironic that people have swallowed it whole without even considering that. I'm not going to argue that technology doesn't have an influence, but it seems really silly to think that no other forces operate besides it. Technology is a tool, and like any tool it only acts on the intention of the man wielding it.

If you're referring to my comment, I never said I think "no other forces operate" besides technology. However, it is undeniable that technology has vastly, vastly changed the environment in which we live, and that all this globalist one-world-government horseshit would not have been possible a few centuries ago.

I just saw someone today talking about how Plato said that the invention of writing made people lazy in memorizing ideas and speeches. WRITING, for fuck's sake. Not exactly an advanced technological invention.

All technology and societal "progress" has negative effects on society that are at least equal to (and possibly greater than) the positive effects.

"Societal progress" is a Marxist idea, and it's rather ironic that people on the right have swallowed it whole without even considering that.
 

britchard

Pelican
In saying technological determinism is a Marxist idea, I'm not sure if you mean that the determinism itself is created by Marxists (facebook, apple, twitter, etc..) or that the idea that technological determinism even exists is a Marxist idea.

Technological determinism does exist. It doesn't mean I, or anyone else on this forum, likes it but it does exist. The culture of me-me-me, the culture of everything having to be instant or effortless is driven by the creation of personal devices and consumerism. That is not to say that human's evolutionary instinct doesn't play a part- of course our ancient ancestors wanted the easiest possible way to do things.

It is simply undeniable that the internet has ground down the diversity of every aspect of human life. There are fewer living languages, fewer regional accents, less authentic regional food, I could go on and on. This is obviously coupled with technology such as aeroplanes, but that is still technology in itself.

Technology without technological determinism would be great. But it's a pipe dream.
 
Rob Banks said:
If you're referring to my comment, I never said I think "no other forces operate" besides technology. However, it is undeniable that technology has vastly, vastly changed the environment in which we live, and that all this globalist one-world-government horseshit would not have been possible a few centuries ago.

I just saw someone today talking about how Plato said that the invention of writing made people lazy in memorizing ideas and speeches. WRITING, for fuck's sake. Not exactly an advanced technological invention.

All technology and societal "progress" has negative effects on society that are at least equal to (and possibly greater than) the positive effects.

"Societal progress" is a Marxist idea, and it's rather ironic that people on the right have swallowed it whole without even considering that.

I wasn't singling you out, and indeed it is ironic that people buy into "progress" as being something inherently true. As you pointed out, it was simply invented as a notion for Modern thinkers, especially in the 18th Century with people like Voltaire and Rousseau, to crap on Medieval Scholasticism as stupid and not worthy of attention. It worked splendidly, as most people think anyone prior to the Renaissance was an ignorant moron devoid of any culture.

britchard said:
In saying technological determinism is a Marxist idea, I'm not sure if you mean that the determinism itself is created by Marxists (facebook, apple, twitter, etc..) or that the idea that technological determinism even exists is a Marxist idea.

Technological determinism does exist. It doesn't mean I, or anyone else on this forum, likes it but it does exist. The culture of me-me-me, the culture of everything having to be instant or effortless is driven by the creation of personal devices and consumerism. That is not to say that human's evolutionary instinct doesn't play a part- of course our ancient ancestors wanted the easiest possible way to do things.

It is simply undeniable that the internet has ground down the diversity of every aspect of human life. There are fewer living languages, fewer regional accents, less authentic regional food, I could go on and on. This is obviously coupled with technology such as aeroplanes, but that is still technology in itself.

Technology without technological determinism would be great. But it's a pipe dream.

Is it? Or is technology simply an extension of the Narcissism of Men who make it? Language death began once again, with the rise of Modernity and the Enlightenment. It was the Jacobin project that sought to stamp out dialects and force a monolithic National identity upon everyone. It wasn't printing presses, radio, television, or even the internet that caused this. It was the idea that people in a government said, "You don't speak a dialect, you're speaking bastardized French/German/Spanish, etc."

This all stems from Enlightenment philosophy which hated regionalism as being iconic to Feudalism. With monarchy gone, and religion as a unifying force not seriously considered, that meant culture had to be pressed upon people. Bretons couldn't just be loyal subjects to the King anymore, they had to speak and act like Parisians do or else you'd have disunity. It's this radical shift in thought that would contribute to the destruction of the Habsburg Empire, which lasted for centuries as a patch-work of people with vast regional variations until modernity forced ethnic nationalism and its demands of centralized government.
 

klosck

Robin
According to the esoteric concept of Polarity, anything that brings a benefit, also carries an equal and opposite downside. This also applies to technology. Try to think of any technological innovation which this doesn't apply to: cars pollute , computers make us more sedentary, etc etc

If this is true, then it might also be true that Society doesn't decline or progress based on technology alone. Rather the real factors of progress are determined by changes in human consciousness.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
klosck said:
According to the esoteric concept of Polarity, anything that brings a benefit, also carries an equal and opposite downside. This also applies to technology. Try to think of any technological innovation which this doesn't apply to: cars pollute , computers make us more sedentary, etc etc

If this is true, then it might also be true that Society doesn't decline or progress based on technology alone. Rather the real factors of progress are determined by changes in human consciousness.

Modern medicine saves lives, but ultimately leads to the weakening of the gene pool.

Hard drugs (which are, in fact, a technology) make you feel good, but cause addiction and other social problems.

The "esoteric concept of polarity." That's what I was getting at in this thread. I didn't realize it had a name.
 

elRey

Sparrow
the ascent of society is mainly due to technology. Society is not declining. Well, it's declining (slightly due to globalisation) for the top 10-2% (lower/middle class in Western countries). But for the world's rich, and the vast majority, it is improving massively.

The basis of a nation is not the family unit. It is the economy. If the economy is strong, society improves.
 

Elster

Pelican
Gold Member
I'm a bit on the ropes in that sense,evolution is inevitable an dit often take strange turns,I for one am not overtly fond of the technologization gopingt on which is becoming anachronic of penny sci fi novels of the 50's and the cyberpunk but then again I do use and abuse the resources offered by the internet and other gadgets.

Though I am not quite ready to let go of the flesh just yet, the adrenaline,the joy,the rage,the smells..!
This does worry me now as I am wanting to sire some children and I ask myself how technology will make their growth different from mine (then again,story of every generation,right?).
Though I grew up in a urban environment my early reality had been quite physical,had a geeky period but came full force back on the physical eventually. My bird had an even more hands and feet on dirt and twigs upbringing than mine and is quite fond of physical engagements and critters so agan,I wonder if our combined emphasis on the physical will prove a conflict in the raising of children in a progressively virtualized society (provided it doesnt go haywire and on to mad max levels).

EDIT & addendum:
To cite an example,I was wonderiing how many people already of my age have absolutely no idea what a cow really looks like,and some people my age that i know who have children are teaching them to use tablets before they are even able to learn to speak.
Now here is what concerns me,I remember how We Ambulance who served in armed forces said [i["in a crisis ,you don t raise to the challenge,you revert to basic training"[/i]
Now as I understand it,childhood is the primary basic training, you learn what are your physical limts,how hierarchy is established,how to react.etc
How would an adult that as a child was never exposed to say,animals or situations of physical challenge but instead to using touch screens and phones react to encountering a potentially dangerous animal such as a bear or a boar?
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
elRey said:
The basis of a nation is not the family unit. It is the economy. If the economy is strong, society improves.

You're absolutely wrong. The US economy during the 1960s was at its strongest, and yet societal values and morality declined.

Rob Banks said:
Money (and gold, diamonds, precious metals, etc.) only has value because we say it does. If enough people were to stop accepting it as currency, it would be worthless. If you're rich but you don't have survival skills, you are dependent on the global economic system. You cannot survive without it. Even somebody that knows a trade (e.g. auto mechanic) is still dependent on there being someone willing to hire him. That is why there is no substitute for survival skills (i.e. hunting, combat/firearms training, cooking, outdoor camping and backpacking, etc.) and friends/family you can trust.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't focus on making money. You just need to have a backup plan. I just feel like you're not really a man if you are dependent on a system of men who you don't even know for your own (and your family's) survival.

PS: If anyone thinks I am describing a doomsday scenario that will never actually happen, just look at the Great Depression. That happened less than a century ago. Many hard-working responsible men were suddenly unable to support their families because the system, which they had no control over, had failed them.

"But Rob, the Great Depression only happened once. That was the first time in history that an economic depression of that magnitude affected so many people."

Exactly, because prior to the Industrial Revolution, most men still had survival skills. Even if most men had jobs and depended on someone else for income, you did not see entire societies turning over control of their lives to the system, like you saw post-Industrial Revolution.
 

rockoman

Woodpecker
I am damn glad to be alive in December 2016.

Technology is a tool which makes many things in life easier - and sometimes more interesting. I find that if you are a proactive man dedicated to self-improvement then almost everything works to your advantage. Life is always throwing challenges at you in many different ways and our ancestors have always found a way to survive. Stop throwing up your hands and wishing we could undo anything. Even if it were desirable it would be impossible.

I share many of the typical manosphere views about the changing nature of society - it's decline if you will, for example the negative behavioural changes of western women - and men - in the last several decades. We cannot change that on the societal level. Our duty to ourselves is to be the best men that we can possibly be and get out there into the world to do as well for ourselves as we can. In that way we can perhaps serve as role models for others.

It is certainly true that in the last several decades the pace of societal change has accelerated - largely due to technological developements. This has produced a more challenging environment, but accepting challenge and overcoming it is part of what being a man is about.
 

MarkVG

Chicken
It's not technology per se, but instead Modernity that has ruined society. Modernity as defined as a rejection of the traditional world and a prioritization of the individual above all else. Roosh spoke a bit about this in his first podcast. We have certainly reaped the benefits of Modernity, such as technology, the ease of travel, the fact that we all live better than the kings who lived more than a 100 years ago. Modernity has unshackled individuals from community, heritage, and religion so that we can pursue our gratification and find our true selves without any reference to tradition.

Modernity is what has led to globalization, diversity, and secularization dominating the West. Without those we probably wouldn't even need Game or the Red Pill.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
↑ I don't think you can really separate the two (modernity and technology). Modernity and technology go hand in hand. Modernity is not possible without technological advancement. Prior to the Industrial Revolution and the advent of modern technology, we needed religion, community, tradition, etc., in order to survive. Any woman who attempted to live a "feminist" lifestyle would simply not be able to support herself.

You can't have modernity (as you describe it) in a world without modern technology. And I also believe you can't have modern technology without influencing society to reject traditional values and accept modernity. Sure, some events (such as the election of Trump) can slow down the march towards modernity and globalism, but ultimately, it would be very hard (if not impossible) to get society to embrace traditional values in a technologically advanced world.

MarkVG said:
...the fact that we all live better than the kings who lived more than a 100 years ago.

I've heard this before, and I'm not sure I agree. Sure, the average person today lives better than a medieval king, if you define "living better" to mean having an easier, more comfortable life with access to modern technology and modern medicine. However, if you define "living better" as having a meaningful life, having the freedom to fight for what you believe in, being free from globalist control of your life, living in a society that believes in traditional values, finding a good woman, etc., then a medieval king (or any respectable person from that time period) lived far better than almost everyone alive today.

Like I've said before, technological advancement solves some very important problems, but it also creates new problems. I don't think it is possible to get around this. In my opinion, anyone who believes it is possible to avoid the downsides of technology is just as wrong as anyone who believes that "socialism will work this time." Human nature simply doesn't allow for it.

Sure, you can get some people to believe in "red pill" ideas, but there is no way to get society at large to re-embrace traditional values in a technologically advanced world, in my opinion.
 

Kid Twist

Hummingbird
^This is why the direction of the world and "prophecies" are so plainly obvious and true --- but note that so many people have rejected tradition and virtue that they are currently unaware and will be even more clueless as things unfold right before their eyes, as we see currently. The Matrix is here in so many ways but without the background to really understand the meaning of it all, it just seems like another fantasy for the mass man to entertain himself with. There are a few waking up to things just "not being right" ... they have a glimpse inside them to figure out where to seek virtue ... and I think with patience and a good heart they will find it.
 

GlobalMan

Hummingbird
Gold Member
I always like when this topic comes up, as it allows me to repost this superb text by the Lizard which serves as a perfect antidote to this particular -and especially destructive- part of the mythology of decline

Don't Lose the World Because of Ideology

The Lizard of Oz said:

...look around you
. You are privileged to be in an indescribably beautiful, indeed mystical place: a perfectly air conditioned city gym with top 40 music playing in the background. I'm not even going to lecture you about gratitude; I'm not even going to bore you with a long discourse (all of which would be true) about how centuries of work, of thought, of human (male) ingenuity have gone into making every single apparatus you see arrayed before you, how physicists had to invent the beautiful ideas of thermodynamics and engineers had to slave to put those ideas to use to design devices that maintain the ideal temperature for human beings to live and thrive in; how the cloying confectionary strains of "top 40 music" were optimized by canny and skillful operators over time to achieve a kind of sublime banality. I'll even spare you the harangue about the amazing, and constantly improving, materials that went into making your Under Armour tanktop a kind of weaponized weightlifting uniform. Relax -- you've been spared all this.

But look around you. Do you see the mixed raced hottie with her ass in yoga pants bending over, stretching, and seating herself on a pussy machine so that her pussy can get just a little tighter? Do you see the Misc-reading IRT perform his deadlifts with inspiringly terrible form, essentially trying to wreck his delicate subcontinental frame in his terrible quest for muscle; do you see the fag and his mincing bicep curls; do you see the gutted out contractor who looks 60 if he's a day actually squat 225 to the absolute paused bottom for 15 brutal reps? DON'T you see all these things? Don't you see the insane, endless, magical variety of life around you -- life that, as Henry James said, is no illusion, no phantasm, no evil dream of a night. Life that is as real and as authentic as any ax wielded by any fool in Siberia or elsewhere -- indeed, more glorious, more interesting, more various than any of these villagers could ever conceive of. Don't you see it?

Look around you. Technological advancement, the progress won by centuries and centuries of men's toil and creativity, has not made life less "real", less "genuine", less meaningful -- it has added to the beauty, to the variety, to the comedy of what we are privileged to experience at all times. An air conditioned gym is every bit as much a part of "nature" as any stretch of Siberian tundra; it is nature transformed and enlivened by the most singular and superb of nature's creations, the human being. Don't let mere ideas, in their heated thinness, cause you to lose the world. Welcome experience as it comes, and give it what it demands; don't be so absorbed in your thought -- so often futile and devoid of reality -- that the very ground on which you walk becomes abstracted and unreal, that you fail to see the hottie in yoga pants, and also the ill-fated IRT, the fag, and the contractor. Don't lose the world -- it is as worth living in and attending to as it ever was; more so if you ask me. Give life as it is a chance, in all humility; and it will reward you a thousandfold.
 
Top