Those traits I list are good and bad. My point was that certain traditions kept them in check. Now the decadent aspects of the rich have spun out of control due to liberality and they have been adopted by much of the middle to all of our detriment.

“The few bastions of masculinity among the “higher-ups” have been obliterated by technology and liberalism. These softening practices have not only trickled down to the middle-class, but they have become a kind of holiness as the super-rich are subconsciously considered holier-than-thou by those who wish to emulate them. ”

Points like this require strict logical or statistical demonstration not merely assertion.

“I cannot ignore how huge an impact techno-luxurious life has been on society. Most of its social impacts are negative. You may have noticed this trend melt into the middle-class over the last decades. This has occurred because of overall technological advancement: the cheapening of once exclusive items of luxury, such as flat-screen TVs, microwaves, smartphones, personal computers, cars, convenient foods, and other increasingly cheap luxury-lifestyle items.”

Don’t you think this part was a little strong? It is also incorrect knowledge is not generated from assertion like this.

Your writing is among the best but I found the substance lacking.

I disagree with this only in the sense that I would put mindless reality shows and daytime drama ahead in terms of Modernity. These have surpassed even cinema in their decadence and low aesthetic beauty.

But would film making be one of these mediums of art? Film since, say the French New Waven as I am realizing, is probably the least capable film of producing beauty. Many say that blockbusters is the reflection of the “the masses” poor taste and anti-intellectual habits — I’m not sure if I completely agree with this. If blockbusters were the actual reflection of said group, then would more “serious” films be the reflection of the enlightened? I think film, out of all the mediums of art that can be deemed as “classical” — ballet/dance, music/symphony, painting, sculpture, architecture and writing [poetry, novels] — film can be said to be the most modern, therefore the least capable and the most contradictory when lauded.

Many “serious” actors and directors would view Hollywood (aka blockbusters/tent-pole projects, Oscars, Hollywood Film Awards, Teen Vogue photo shoots) as the “hicks” of the movie industry. If they view it as art then it’s low-brow art that they [actors, directors, elitist critics] look down upon and consider such a portion as an evil in terms of producing “real” art (in their view films that show up at Cannes, TIFF, Sundance, Berlin, Venice, etc). It’s a narrative that comes up every so often when the timing is right: Steven Soderbourgh’s rant in 2013 that could be summed up as “Studio’s don’t give us enough money and distribution.” It’s the corporate vs. indie, Fake vs Real talk.

The thing is, with the Soderbourgh camp, is that they think their art – movie making, acting etc. – is some sort of deep intellectual sociological medium that speaks truth that ‘the masses’ just are too dumb to realize.

The only director that I think makes “beautiful things” is Terrence Malick who was once described as “America’s cinematic poet laureate.”

Anyone who noticed out loud that the Bugs were destroying cities and killing men would be denounced as an xenoarachnophobe, a hater, and a human supremacist.

For the priestly caste, who in the Traditional world did wield enormous power, wealth, and prestige, there was always the ascetic component that kept men away from decadence (unfortunately dissolved in certain cases like the Medici Popes), the constant prostration that comes from serving as intermediaries between human beings and larger divine forces. The need for this requires of the priestly class that they be doctrinaire zealots and not milquetoast ‘health and wealth’ types. These men suffered in a way quite alien to the aristocracy and typically the monarch.

Unfortunately, for those classes that are so wealthy and prestigious but do not have an inherent ascetic or heroic component, a struggle must often be simulated.

It’s actually very helpful to have barbarians (however strong or weak) at the gates. This way, everyone from the poorest man in the street to the king on his throne feels the constant need to defend what is his and strive for greater victory. Man needs an enemy, and its a shame that on this planet, our predators always have to be other men. Introduce Robert Heinlien’s ‘bugs’ to the world and I guarantee you would have instant, functioning monarchical states, no faggotry required.

The cycle of rise and fall, I would describe a natural. Because there is a constant flux and unpredictability in many of the factors that determine societal success or failure, no specific civilization can last indefinitely.

However, when we’re speaking of the dichotomy between Tradition and Modernity, this is something very different to say Expanding Rome vs. Collapsing Rome. We are talking about a far larger alteration in the primary essence of civilization, and on almost a global scale, rather than a decline in the fortunes of a society that can usually be put down to a relatively small collection of compounding factors. The larger fluctuation out of Tradition beginning with the Enlightenment in wholly unique in size and scope as well as character. Whether or not this itself was ‘natural’ is very hard to say, and I’m not fully qualified in my research into the Doctine of the Ages to say. Cologero over at Gornahoor is probably the best go-to source on that score.

I wouldn’t want to specifically blame techno-materialism for all of the bad things that happen.

1 – The early period of the Enlightenment didn’t really see technological advances of the kind that foster the decadent lifestyle. The ordinary man’s work in this era could actually be classed as harder than before it

2 – Materialism doesn’t need a technological aspect to be wholly destructive, see Pol Pot’s Cambodia. People can have literally nothing and still somehow give into the materialist impulse.

However, in the West, I most certainly attribute the abolition of manhood in particular in large part to techno-materialism. This is especially true when you look at the effect that household appliances had on the rising tide of Feminism. I would also relate this to Evola’s critique of modern technological warfare which ‘ruined the art of war’ and blackened its reputation, another assault on men who of course in every society are the soldiers.

It’s an interesting topic, and I’m sure there are scholarly works on the subject of just how much technology has bastardized Western man, which is okay if you have some other societal factor to ‘de-bastardize’ him, but we don’t because the technological age is all about profits and not about the health of the body politic. I will probably write about this aspect of the continuing decline soon.

Right now, I’m a little perturbed about Bryce’s complete scrubbing from the net. Almost all trace of him has vanished. Hope something terrible isn’t afoot.