One cannot simultaneously pursue technological progress and conserve traditional mores. Any attempt to do so is delusional and doomed to failure, with the victory going to tech and the concomitant disintegration of traditional mores.
Industrial-age technology’s essential purpose is none other than the promotion of the survival of men who are physically, mentally, and spiritually weak. Stripped of all its pomp, it literally has no other fundamental function.
Tech’s promotion of the survival of weak men is necessarily a promotion of degeneracy, including, but not limited to, “bugman”-ism, metrosexualism, feminism, hedonism, homosexuality, and the disintegration of family and ethnic nationhood. This problem is compounded by the fact that the increasing portion of these weak men in the population is exerting an undeniable change in the overall demands of the market, ergo a steady progression towards goods and services which satisfy infantile and effeminate tastes. This in turn leads to yet greater survival of unworthy men, and so on.
The industrial world exalts an ideal of hedonism while practically ensuring that an ever smaller portion of the population possesses such qualities and circumstances as to actually enjoy hedonistic pursuits. This is not limited to – although it is especially true of – the sexual sphere of life.
Tech has all but eliminated the confrontation of the average man with existential threats – such as starvation and traditional warfare – which were formerly overcome through highly skilled cooperation between men. The tech-generated world of abundant idleness, security, and comfort has robbed men of camaraderie and true friendship. A plague of male depression and suicide has ensued as the character-building challenges of old were replaced by the soul-draining challenges of today.
As an iron rule, tech always introduces new problems to humanity at a faster rate than it can provide solutions to problems, that is, if an attempt is even made. The reason for this is that, even in the hypothetical absence of bad intentions, tech evolves incomparably faster than humanity and always ends up introducing secondary problems usually unforeseen by innovators.
Most of our problems today in the social and political sphere, though they appear to the casual observer to be the result of an ideological agenda, are in fact only the misdirected and confused reactions to industrialization. It may be true that sinister people are leveraging the average person’s struggle to come to terms with industrial life against them, but the thing being leveraged pre-exists the leverager and supersedes in importance. Feminism serves as a great example: If you attempt to maintain the industrialized system while hunting down those who leverage feminism as a political tool, you will constantly be overwhelmed with both work and failure. On the other hand, if the industrialized system is defeated, feminism automatically dies with it.
Exactly contrary to what proponents of tech claim, tech never makes people less busy. At best, all it can do is divert human focus from one area to another. “At best” because given the extreme sensory-stimulating nature to which practically all consumer-level tech’s development is devoted, the great probability is that tech will offer an ever growing smorgasbord of distractions too enticing for the average consumer (who is, after all, the target) to turn away from. In practical terms, this means that people will constantly feel busier and busier and despair more and more of ever having the kind of “free time” they need to pursue anything worthwhile.