As a European I've had the same sterile attempts at conversing with boomer relatives; there's a strange ossification phenomenon taking place with this generation; I think it might be too much of a blackpill for them to admit so much of their ideals were false, so they seem to be going through a mass disengagement from serious discourse (though they remain glued to their TV screens, watching the BBC reality horror showing fascist zombies coming from all sides to eat them - ruskis, MAGA, 'populists' etc).
You mentioned losing your dad recently; if you don't mind me asking, would you approach your older relatives any different with this perspective in mind? Would you have avoided talking politics with him, or would you have tried to find common ground in non-political topics?
I personally stopped engaging on any meaningful matter, out of fear of alienating my older family members completely. But this just makes us all strangers.
I used to subscribe to a sincere Catholic substack. Commenters were instructed to speak charitably with each other, which they (mostly) did. However, I began to realize a problem that led me to unsubscribe and still bothers me.
We were all engaging in the comments in good faith, yet we were not a communion of persons. We were, ultimately, people talking at each other with no further reason to engage, no reason to build a relationship with each other. We had nothing at stake. We could walk away, as I did, with no penalty except the loss of access to the latest hot take and the chance to spout off about it.
I hear you mention something similar about online discourse. You focus on how no one seems to change as a result of the conversation. I would say that social media talks, no matter how heartfelt, allow us to stay unconnected. We have no reason beyond the immediate argument to even acknowledge each other.
We must be more than a community of commenters. I don't know how that works or what that looks like. I believe strongly that an online social network is valuable and worthwhile. As a society we haven't figured out how to become a communion of persons in the virtual sphere. It's a problem we need to solve.
The only true obstacle I see is faithlessness. All our problems are manifestations of it. Nothing can grow without faith. Our civilization is dead and it is obvious. How could one expect a dead culture to produce offspring, marry, have generative discourse or grow in any way? In that sense Kingsnorth is right. We who see things as they are exist in the seed phase, where the foundation of any larger developments are being set individually. For there one day to be churches, families, and organizations, we must learn to be servants of greater things; to set aside our egos and listen, take heed of advice, follow orders. If we do that in faith in God one day he will give us all that which is the fruit of that faith; people worthy of trust, institutions worthy of commitment, growth individually and collectively. I do not think we can build anything greater before individual people are worthy.
A relatable piece. I too was more invested in the fiery debate in the late 10's, and then realized that with battle-lines drawn, and ever-increasing polarization and tribalism, that it wasn't much use, and most people won't be converted easily. Even for myself, it was a difficult process -- it took years of observing the Culture War to figure out that wokeness was a direct descendant of Classical Liberalism and the Enlightenment, and that not only Progressivism, but the entire Liberal project was fatally flawed. But in order to come to this conclusion, I had to gradually dismantle life-long indoctrinated beliefs. Of course, it helped that I always asked questions and noticed inconsistencies, and that I'm relatively young. I think for the Boomers, who have spent their lives and careers within the post-war progressive consensus, the great Unraveling is too much for them to accept.
I listened to the Kingsnorth speech. All I really took away from it was that he was saying people who aren't Christians can't build a Christian society. Jordan Peterson isn't Charlemagne? Huh.
Great article. I think what you're talking about here is the big thing. I have written several Notes on this article, which will serve as my comments. I hope that you will find them interesting should you run across them.
I'm chipping away at writing and designing my graphic novel over on the side away from the online "discourse." Just that and focusing on my personal spiritual growth. Hopefully I'll have something of worth to contribute; it's definitely not my opinion on current thing.
From the perspective of a freelancer who teaches English at a public school, I’ve definitely encountered this problem. Readers and editors want the same old crap, and my mind is trying to move ahead. The solution to many problems is pretty simply: unplug, make some friends, and deepen your faith. This will help with the stress and emptiness of modern life, and if done collectively, can rebuild civilization.
Don’t lose hope on speaking out and pushing the discourse ahead of its current slump. We’re actually much better off than we used to be, and there’s plenty more to do. We’re past red pills and manospheres. Don’t wait on the Boomers and illiterate goobers to understand.
Case in point, my last article here on Andrew Tate:
Everybody without exception is just dramatizing their narcissism, its associated hell-deep fear of death. And their unresolved Oedipal drama too - on a moment to moment basis
Artists don't need collectives. They need patrons, critics (gatekeepers), museum curators. Ideally, there would be a kind of nobility that worshipped good taste.
As George Chapman wrote (or maybe even said): "The profane multitude I hate, and only consecrate my strange poems to those searching spirits whom learning hath made noble, and nobility sacred."
I agree with Kingsnorth in the sense that politics should not be our main course of action. In my humble opinion, we need to return to live a purpose-oriented life that aims beyond ourselves. Take responsibility for our families and those around us, build great Houses that together form strong communities which can resist the progressive centralization of power. It's much easier to talk about unnatainable political goals than to sacrifice oneself for others.
I realized that what I’m chafing against is the medium itself and myself in it. Just judging by the tenor and tone of my audience throughout the years, people increasingly seemed less mentally well the more they engaged. Idk if on the whole I left that many people better off or just more troubled. And I guess if my content wasn’t troubling enough, they just moved on to other, more cathartic stuff. I don’t think “pure” discourse is possible, but the incentives are strange and unproductive as it is.
1. news organizations that employ writers and sell sensationalism to dopamine addicted political news junkies
2. universities that employ professors that write papers that get funding from the government and money from students who get loans from the government
3. NGOs funded by government and big business that write white papers to be implemented by the government thereby getting funding for other NGOs and businesses
Actual things are institutions with funding and purposes. These institutions might do discourse. But discourse itself is only real when it is done by actual real institutions
The previous era was about intellectually and rhetorically destroying the credibility of our Adversary. Our job is done - even Marco Rubio is telling illegals to go home. Now we move into the era about building up our families, our parishes and our nation, and raising ours sons to inherit them.
What do we want to teach our sons? What stories of heroes are worthy to share with them? How should we train them to fight against the Enemy?
As a European I've had the same sterile attempts at conversing with boomer relatives; there's a strange ossification phenomenon taking place with this generation; I think it might be too much of a blackpill for them to admit so much of their ideals were false, so they seem to be going through a mass disengagement from serious discourse (though they remain glued to their TV screens, watching the BBC reality horror showing fascist zombies coming from all sides to eat them - ruskis, MAGA, 'populists' etc).
You mentioned losing your dad recently; if you don't mind me asking, would you approach your older relatives any different with this perspective in mind? Would you have avoided talking politics with him, or would you have tried to find common ground in non-political topics?
I personally stopped engaging on any meaningful matter, out of fear of alienating my older family members completely. But this just makes us all strangers.
I used to subscribe to a sincere Catholic substack. Commenters were instructed to speak charitably with each other, which they (mostly) did. However, I began to realize a problem that led me to unsubscribe and still bothers me.
We were all engaging in the comments in good faith, yet we were not a communion of persons. We were, ultimately, people talking at each other with no further reason to engage, no reason to build a relationship with each other. We had nothing at stake. We could walk away, as I did, with no penalty except the loss of access to the latest hot take and the chance to spout off about it.
I hear you mention something similar about online discourse. You focus on how no one seems to change as a result of the conversation. I would say that social media talks, no matter how heartfelt, allow us to stay unconnected. We have no reason beyond the immediate argument to even acknowledge each other.
We must be more than a community of commenters. I don't know how that works or what that looks like. I believe strongly that an online social network is valuable and worthwhile. As a society we haven't figured out how to become a communion of persons in the virtual sphere. It's a problem we need to solve.
We are told to touch grass.
Rarely are we told to go to lunch and converse with a stranger, make a new friend, hug a brother..
What brought people together was communal adversity requiring mutual support for survival. I.e., having a stake.
You touch a cord, that we can walk away without any significant loss.
That feels like all of society today.
The only true obstacle I see is faithlessness. All our problems are manifestations of it. Nothing can grow without faith. Our civilization is dead and it is obvious. How could one expect a dead culture to produce offspring, marry, have generative discourse or grow in any way? In that sense Kingsnorth is right. We who see things as they are exist in the seed phase, where the foundation of any larger developments are being set individually. For there one day to be churches, families, and organizations, we must learn to be servants of greater things; to set aside our egos and listen, take heed of advice, follow orders. If we do that in faith in God one day he will give us all that which is the fruit of that faith; people worthy of trust, institutions worthy of commitment, growth individually and collectively. I do not think we can build anything greater before individual people are worthy.
Revival will come when God ordains it.
A relatable piece. I too was more invested in the fiery debate in the late 10's, and then realized that with battle-lines drawn, and ever-increasing polarization and tribalism, that it wasn't much use, and most people won't be converted easily. Even for myself, it was a difficult process -- it took years of observing the Culture War to figure out that wokeness was a direct descendant of Classical Liberalism and the Enlightenment, and that not only Progressivism, but the entire Liberal project was fatally flawed. But in order to come to this conclusion, I had to gradually dismantle life-long indoctrinated beliefs. Of course, it helped that I always asked questions and noticed inconsistencies, and that I'm relatively young. I think for the Boomers, who have spent their lives and careers within the post-war progressive consensus, the great Unraveling is too much for them to accept.
I listened to the Kingsnorth speech. All I really took away from it was that he was saying people who aren't Christians can't build a Christian society. Jordan Peterson isn't Charlemagne? Huh.
Great article. I think what you're talking about here is the big thing. I have written several Notes on this article, which will serve as my comments. I hope that you will find them interesting should you run across them.
I'm chipping away at writing and designing my graphic novel over on the side away from the online "discourse." Just that and focusing on my personal spiritual growth. Hopefully I'll have something of worth to contribute; it's definitely not my opinion on current thing.
From the perspective of a freelancer who teaches English at a public school, I’ve definitely encountered this problem. Readers and editors want the same old crap, and my mind is trying to move ahead. The solution to many problems is pretty simply: unplug, make some friends, and deepen your faith. This will help with the stress and emptiness of modern life, and if done collectively, can rebuild civilization.
Don’t lose hope on speaking out and pushing the discourse ahead of its current slump. We’re actually much better off than we used to be, and there’s plenty more to do. We’re past red pills and manospheres. Don’t wait on the Boomers and illiterate goobers to understand.
Case in point, my last article here on Andrew Tate:
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/tate-who/
Everybody without exception is just dramatizing their narcissism, its associated hell-deep fear of death. And their unresolved Oedipal drama too - on a moment to moment basis
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-6.htm The Criticism That Cures the Heart
http://beezone.com/adida/narcissus.html
Two related essays
http://beezone.com/current/stresschemistry.html
http://beezone.com/current/authority_certainty_freedom2.html
On fear, death and its relation to both religion & politics
http://beezone.com/latest/death_message.html
http://beezone.com/whats-new
http://beezone.com/adida/ego-fear/index-47.html
Schizoanalysis is gay
On the Oedipal drama
http://beezone.com/current/beyoedip.html
http://beezone.com/adida/transcendyourinvisiblescriptedit.html
Artists don't need collectives. They need patrons, critics (gatekeepers), museum curators. Ideally, there would be a kind of nobility that worshipped good taste.
As George Chapman wrote (or maybe even said): "The profane multitude I hate, and only consecrate my strange poems to those searching spirits whom learning hath made noble, and nobility sacred."
If you are interested in patronizing artists, I probably can give you some contacts.
I agree with Kingsnorth in the sense that politics should not be our main course of action. In my humble opinion, we need to return to live a purpose-oriented life that aims beyond ourselves. Take responsibility for our families and those around us, build great Houses that together form strong communities which can resist the progressive centralization of power. It's much easier to talk about unnatainable political goals than to sacrifice oneself for others.
I realized that what I’m chafing against is the medium itself and myself in it. Just judging by the tenor and tone of my audience throughout the years, people increasingly seemed less mentally well the more they engaged. Idk if on the whole I left that many people better off or just more troubled. And I guess if my content wasn’t troubling enough, they just moved on to other, more cathartic stuff. I don’t think “pure” discourse is possible, but the incentives are strange and unproductive as it is.
I don't believe discourse is a thing.
Actual things:
1. news organizations that employ writers and sell sensationalism to dopamine addicted political news junkies
2. universities that employ professors that write papers that get funding from the government and money from students who get loans from the government
3. NGOs funded by government and big business that write white papers to be implemented by the government thereby getting funding for other NGOs and businesses
Actual things are institutions with funding and purposes. These institutions might do discourse. But discourse itself is only real when it is done by actual real institutions
The previous era was about intellectually and rhetorically destroying the credibility of our Adversary. Our job is done - even Marco Rubio is telling illegals to go home. Now we move into the era about building up our families, our parishes and our nation, and raising ours sons to inherit them.
What do we want to teach our sons? What stories of heroes are worthy to share with them? How should we train them to fight against the Enemy?
GLO is one of the only manosphere writers that takes a realistic view of self-improvement in 2025:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thedreamlounge/p/how-to-white-meat-asian-women?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=bb3i0
A deep, Nietzschean criticism of the effect of Christianity on civilization and the human animal:
https://open.substack.com/pub/uraniumgriffin/p/a-vitalist-argument-for-voluntary?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=bb3i0