At Padre's
Politics • Spirituality/Belief • Culture
More Thee, less me - Bonus post from Rod Dreher's Diary
A Lenten Series for Supporters
March 04, 2024
post photo preview
Please consider subscribing to Rod's Diary if you enjoy his material.

In the Orthodox Church, today is the Sunday of the Prodigal Son, the annual pre-Lenten Sunday in which we reflect on the Lord’s parable (Luke 15:11-32) in which He compares the Kingdom of God to a household in which a merciful father welcomed his wastrel son back home, even as a jealous older brother, who had never left home and rejected his father, looks on with resentment. I’ve been pretty sick all week, and was too weak to go to the liturgy this morning. Instead, I prayed the Divine Liturgy at home, and then re-read Henri Nouwen’s marvelous little study The Return Of The Prodigal Son, which I haven’t read in nine years. It is a short book — you can read it in one sitting, which I just did — but one of the most profound in my entire library.

Nouwen, a Catholic priest who died in 1996, writes about becoming fascinated by Rembrandt’s famous painting from 1669, one of the last before the great man died. In 1983, Nouwen traveled to the Soviet Union to see the original in the Hermitage Museum. The painting became an invitation and a motivation to deeper conversion, which Nouwen discusses in his book. In its pages, Nouwen examines his own life in terms of the prodigal son, the resentful brother, and the merciful father.

I last read this book when I was near the end of my own struggle to reconcile myself to my father — which was also, though I only realized it late, a struggle to reconcile myself to God the Father. In my book How Dante Can Save Your Life (which will be re-issued this week in paperback), there is a passage in which I discovered that my own alienation from God the Father had to do with my internal confusion between him and my own earthly father, whom I saw as the distant taskmaster whom I had to propitiate constantly, but whom I never could satisfy.

As you will recall, I had returned to my home in Louisiana after many years away — years of great worldly success, but success that my father saw as worthless, because I had been away from family. My dad, as well as all the others (but especially him, because they all took their cues from him), rejected me and my family as unworthy, because my original sin was to have left in the first place. I had come home expecting my dad to be the merciful father of the parable, but he and all the others were the resentful brother. As my priest at the time told me, the Lord’s parable is about the kingdom of heaven, not about how we in this world live.

You all know what happened next. I did find reconciliation with my father as he lay dying, thanks mostly to the healing graces the Lord gave me through Dante (the story is in my book). But everything went very bad from there. The Louisiana family dissolved after my father’s death (dissolved in the sense that my sister’s girls scattered, and we don’t keep in touch with them anymore). And my own family painfully dissolved from cracks in my marriage that widened after I became chronically ill as a result of my Louisiana family rejecting us. After years of agony between us, my wife filed for divorce two years ago. The result has been very bad. Our older son and I live abroad; the two younger kids live in Louisiana with their mother.

It would not be right to talk in any further detail about the situation, but it is, for me, a desolation — a desolation that I am utterly powerless to end (believe me, I’ve tried). I would just urge you strongly not to assume that you know what’s going on here. One of the most important things I learned through the last decade of my marriage, culminating in the divorce, is that nobody outside a marriage really understands what goes on within that marriage. I bring this up not to invite speculation, but simply to say that I have never been more desolate than I am today — and that’s saying something.

Please don’t think I invite your pity, or that I pity myself! One of the great gifts of grace that God has given me through all this is resilience. The pain from the loss of almost everything I loved is hard to describe, but at the same time, I feel safe, because my deepening faith has given me the sure knowledge that all this has meaning, and will be redeemed in time if I stay faithful. I live with the wisdom I gained from reading Silvester Krcmery’s memoir about his decade as a prisoner of the Communists: that he characterized his sojourn in that desolate place as an opportunity to be “God’s probe” — that is, to learn what he could about himself, his fellow prisoners, and their suffering, so that he could, in whatever ways possible, reconcile all to the Father.

Why not? What else is there? There is nothing else for me. That’s how I feel about it. It’s weird to say that without sounding wounded and self-pitying, but I assure you, that’s not me. I’m trying to be honest, though. Most of the things I used to care about in life I no longer do. Is this depression? Probably, at least to some extent. But I have a deep sense that it is also purification. Re-reading Nouwen’s precious book today has bolstered that confidence.

I too have seen Rembrandt’s original in the Hermitage, and yes, it is overwhelming. One thing Nouwen doesn’t say, perhaps because the painting wasn’t displayed then where it is today, is that across the narrow corridor hangs Rembrandt’s earlier painting of Abraham’s Sacrifice of Isaac:

  

Rembrandt created that painting, full of energy and pathos, in 1635, when he was twenty-nine years old, in the middle of the passionate and tumultuous journey of his life. He made the Prodigal Son painting when he was 63, at the very end of that journey. Compare the energy and drama of the earlier painting with the stillness of the later one. At the risk of sounding presumptious, in 2012, when I first learned of how my father and my Louisiana family really thought of me, I was full of the earlier Rembrandt’s passion. Then I entered the dark wood spoken of by Dante. Today, in 2024, having gone through a dozen years of suffering, I hugely identify with the stillness of the later canvas. Life will just beat it out of you. This matters, for a reason I learned re-reading Nouwen’s book today.

Nouwen says his reflection on the painting is “a story of homecoming,” and how he came to understand how he himself incarnates the Prodigal Son, the Jealous Older Brother, and indeed the Merciful Father. What prompted him to write the book was a colleague telling the priest, “Whether you are the younger son or the older son, you have to realize that you are called to become the father.”

I had forgotten that! That line pierced my heart, as it did Nouwen’s. I am only six years younger than Rembrandt when he died. It is time to become the father.

The Prodigal Son

But first, Nouwen considers his own prodigal-son status. As I read my battered copy of Nouwen’s book, I saw for the first time in many years the notes I wrote in the margins, as I was receiving its lessons for the first time back in the last decade. There’s a passage in which Nouwen writes about how a family in Jesus’s time would have seen the son demanding his inheritance and setting out into the world. They would have interpreted it as his wishing the father dead. They would have seen it as a betrayal of family and its values. They would have seen it as a rejection of love.

I wrote in the margins: “How they saw it” — meaning, how my Louisiana family saw my leaving. But it was more than that: it’s how they saw my being different from them. Had I never left, I would have lived under the constant disapproval. I bring this up now in the same sense that Harrison Scott Key, in his great memoir of the near-loss of his marriage, puts himself in the mind of his adulterous wife, so that he can better understand how she came to sin against him so greatly. In my case, I believed then and believe now that my family did a terrible thing to me, my wife, and my kids. At the same time, if I am to forgive them — and I must — I need to understand why they thought and acted as they did. The Jealous Older Brother cannot understand his father’s mercy until and unless he enters into the mind of his prodigal sibling, and tries to understand why he left.

Nouwen writes that for so many years, he has fled from God the Father. There are lots of reasons for this. Among them, the fear that he has disappointed God, that he has failed to live up to the Father’s expectations. He confesses that he has gone out into the world and tried to find satisfaction away from his Father’s house, but always fails. Writes Nouwen, “I am the prodigal son every time I search for unconditional love where it cannot be found.”

It was this realization the first time around that helped purge me of the deep but misleading connection I had made of my earthly father to God the Father. One of the most important lessons for me from Dante’s Commedia was coming to accept the truth that changing your mind is one thing, but infusing your heart (by which I mean, your will) with that change is quite another. Inferno is for convincing you to repent, to accept metanoia, the change of mind; learning how to live that repentance is the purpose of Purgatorio. It was good this morning to recognize once again my own need to return to the Father.

“It was the loss of everything that brought him to the bottom line of his identity,” writes Nouwen, of the Prodigal Son. “He hit the bedrock of his sonship. In retrospect, it seems that the prodigal had to lose everything to come into touch with the ground of his being.”

When I first read these words, I thought I had lost everything. I had no idea what was to come. So: what now? Almost two years after she filed for divorce, and Matt and I left for a kind of exile, and I’m still pondering that question. That said, the little boat in which I’m sailing across these rough waters feels more stable this time, because I have more confidence in God’s love for me. That is an extremely precious grace.

And yet, I am still guilty of this (the quote is Nouwen’s): “I still live as though the God to whom I am returning demands an explanation.” And: “Sometimes it even seems as if I want to prove to God that my darkness is too great to overcome.” What is it within us that resists grace? Maybe it’s not in you, but it sure is within me. Less than it used to be, but this temptation to believe the voice of the Accuser is something I’ll be battling for the rest of my life.

Nouwen makes a radical claim, one that we should take seriously: that Jesus himself was the Prodigal Son, in a sense. He too left his father’s house, and sojourned in a strange land. He returned to the father having been stripped of everything: all his worldly possessions, all his dignity, even his life. And yet, this return was for our salvation. He knew, as he sweated blood in Gethsemane, that there was no way back to the Father for any of us except through this fire.

The Elder Brother

The first time I read the Nouwen book, I recognized that my own dad had been not the Merciful Father, but the Father-As-Elder-Brother. That is, he received me, but with a hard heart, because I had strayed. He was determined to make me suffer distance from him because of that. The difficult truth is that my dad did not see it that way. He really did think he was welcoming us as he ought to. He wrote me to say so, even! What he did not understand about himself was that even before I grew older and left home, he had been the Elder Brother. I think that grace finally broke through in the final weeks of his life. In any case, he died with us at peace with each other.

Nouwen is very wise about the figure of the Elder Brother. Nouwen sees the figure of the Elder Brother living within himself, and observes that the hardest conversion to go through is not the humbling that caused the Prodigal to return, but the humbling of the Elder Brother’s righteous but rock-hard heart.

The lostness of the Elder Brother is harder for the Elder Brother to grasp precisely because it is tied to righteousness. He did all the right things, and yet this is his reward? For his father to slay the fatted calf for that wastrel young brother of his? Nouwen says that all of us face temptation to dwell in resentment over the things that we felt were our due, that we did not receive. The Elder Brother cannot go into the feast because his heart cannot receive the joy of his brother’s return.

This was how my dad was with me. He couldn’t allow himself to feel unbounded joy at his son’s return, because even though his son was there in the flesh (with wife and children too!), he wasn’t exactly like he, the father, wanted him to be. His prodigality was not just his moving away at a young man, but also his choosing to value different things in life, and to have different tastes, than the father had chosen for him.

As I’ve written in my earlier books (and my dad read this before I submitted it to the publisher, so he didn’t mind it being made public), Daddy had lived a life of submission to the will of his parents, and felt strongly that he had been shafted by it. He believed himself to have been righteous through and through (he even told me a few months before he died that he had never committed any sins in life — and he believed it — though thanks be to God he repented of that). I was able to observe the destruction to himself and to his family (= me and Ruthie and our kids) from his hard-heartedness, which Ruthie adopted too, and resolved not to be that way to my kids.

This is why I’m in a much better place today, dealing with the desolation, than I was when it all fell apart with my Starhill family. But I’m still in need of grace. I toss and turn and am tormented by nightmares of loss. When Harrison Scott Key writes in his marriage memoir that he has most deeply understood himself as a husband and father, and now all of that was at risk of being washed away by his wife’s adultery, I very nearly wept. Again, infidelity was not part of the breakup of my marriage, but having to unlearn the role of husband, and having my fatherhood questioned has been agonizing. There is a part of me that resents the injustice of it all. And yet, because of what I went through before, and because of what I learned from Nouwen, and of what I learned from Dante (in particular, Piccarda telling him that earthly notions of justice do not matter in the House of the Father; it is enough simply to be Home), this pain doesn’t hurt as bad as it otherwise would have. For that, I am grateful. Yet I must always be on guard against the Elder Brother rising within me, for I do have a self-righteous streak. In that way, I am my father’s son.

The Merciful Father

The most wonderful and life-giving insight I gained from reading Nouwen this morning, on this Sunday of the Prodigal Son, came from the last part of the book: the one in which he recognizes that he has to embrace the Merciful Father within.

The loving father, says Nouwen, has to allow his children to be free to leave him, to sojourn in a far country, even if it is bad for them. This is what love is: not to assert control, or to be angry and resentful when a child refuses your control. Says Nouwen of the father in the parable: “His only desire is to bless.”

Nouwen says that to become like the Merciful Father of the parable is to become the kind of man who experiences pure joy. It is to become the kind of man who rushes towards good news, to “celebrate every little hint that the Kingdom is at hand.

This is a real discipline. It requires choosing for the light even when there is much darkness to frighten me, choosing for life even when the forces of death are so visible, and choosing for the truth even when I am surrounded with lies.

“Joy never denies the sadness,” says Nouwen, “but transforms it to fertile soil for more joy.” More:

From God’s perspective, one hidden act of repentance, one little gesture of selfless love, one moment of true forgiveness is all that is needed to bring God from his throne to run to his returning son and to fill the heavens with sounds of divine joy.

Nouwen concludes:

A child does not remain a child. A child becomes an adult. An adult becomes father and mother. When the prodigal son returns home, he returns not to remain a child, but to claim his sonship and become a father himself. … The return to the Father is ultimately a challenge to become the Father.

In other words, theosis. The love and mercy that the Father has shown to us prodigals must not rest in us, but must flow through us to others.

Jesus told us, says the priest, to “be compassionate as your Father is compassionate.” Rembrandt shows us what that means. It means to offer mercy and welcome to all who repent. It means to lean into joy and light, and away from sorrow and darkness.

Nouwen writes of looking in the mirror and seeing the image of his late father in his own visage:

As I suddenly saw this man appearing in the mirror, I was overcome with the awareness that all the differences I had been aware of during my lifetime seemed so small compared with the similarities. As with a shock, I realized that I was indeed heir, successor, the one who is admired, feared, praised, and misunderstood by others, as my dad was by me.

I have had that kind of recognition when I see my fifty-seven year old face in the mirror. I was thinking the other day, watching Jonathan Pageau’s four-part Daily Wire series about the end of a world, about Pageau’s advice that we have to learn how to honor our ancestors even as we repent of their particular sins — this, as opposed to wanting to tear down their statues, as if they had nothing to teach us. This is how I relate to the memory of my own dear father. I may not ever have known a greater man in this life than him — nor a man who was more tragically flawed. In my journey, I hope to embody his strengths, and to repent of any of his weaknesses that linger within me. Because of his deathbed repentance, I have faith that one day, if I remain faithful, he will be there to welcome me into our Father’s house, with its many mansions.

Yet my repentance consists in part of refusing the despair that was the prodigal son’s until the moment of his father’s embrace, and the more subtle and complicated despair of the righteous elder son, who felt himself hard done by. For me, the elder son’s hardheartedness these days manifests, I think, in being too eager to see the darkness and disorder in the world, and its injustice.

For years now, I have focused on that darkness and disorder, partly in an effort to wake people up, so that we can resist it. But I told a friend recently that I know I’ve come to the end of that mission. There’s really not anything more I can say. This coming book, Living In Wonder, marks the end of that and the beginning of my next chapter as a writer, at least I hope. It will be a new role, one as someone who tries to show people hope, because it’s what I’m looking for myself.

Seems to me that Nouwen understands my next challenge:

As the Father, I have to dare to carry the responsibility of a spiritually adult person and dare to trust that the real joy and real fulfillment can only come from welcoming home those who have been hurt and wounded on their life’s journey, and loving them with a love that neither asks nor expects anything in return.

There is a dreadful emptiness in this spiritual fatherhood. No power, no success, no popularity, no easy satisfaction. But that same dreadful emptiness is also the place of true freedom. It is the place where there is “nothing left to lose,” where love has no strings attached, and where real spiritual strength is found.

More:

Living out this spiritual fatherhood requires the radical discipline of being home. As a self-rejecting person always in search of affirmation and affection, I find it impossible to love consistently without asking for something in return. But the discipline is precisely to give up wanting to accomplish this myself as a heroic feat. To claim for myself spiritual fatherhood and the authority of compassion that belongs to it, I have to let the rebellious younger son and the resentful elder son step up on the platform to receive the unconditional, forgiving love that the Father offers me, and to discover there the call to be home as my Father is home.

There it is. I have a lot of anger in my heart over what has happened, though it has been buried under a mound of ashes representing sheer emotional and spiritual exhaustion. Still, the embers burn, and I need to allow grace to extinguish them somehow. They somehow seem childish, in light of what I read today, both in Scripture and in Nouwen’s book, and in “reading” Rembrandt’s painting.

Dear readers, I strongly urge you to pick up a copy of Nouwen’s The Return of the Prodigal Son, which is truly a life-changing work. And if you haven’t yet read How Dante Can Save Your Life, it follows the same kind of trajectory, in that it applies the lesson of great and profound Christian art to the lives we actually live. You don’t have to have read Dante to get the message of my book. As with Nouwen’s journey through Rembrandt’s painting, my pilgrimage through Dante is one in which the reader learns that there is nothing any of us can do to be reconciled to the Father except get out of the way of God’s love.

community logo
Join the At Padre's Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Fun with Parrot ai - The Speakeasy invite from earlier
00:00:24
00:00:23
September 19, 2025
Ask your Doctor about Transition

In fairness, side effects don't appear to include rectal bleeding/anal seepage, making it preferable to every medical intervention I've seen advertised on American television.

00:01:06
It's been a rough year..
It's been a rough year..
November 22, 2024
Voltaire's birthday 11-21-1694 - A brief essay by Steve Weidenkopf

Today marks the three hundred and thirtieth birthday of the Frenchman François-Marie Arouet, better known by his nom de plume, Voltaire (1694-1778).

Born into a bourgeois family during the reign of Louis XIV, the “Sun King” (r. 1643-1715), Voltaire suffered tragedy at a young age when his mother died. Never close with his father or brother, Voltaire exhibited a rebellious attitude toward authority from his youth. His brilliant mind was fostered in the care of the Society of Jesus, who introduced him to the joys of literature and theater. Despite his later criticisms against the Church, Voltaire, throughout his life, fondly recalled his dedicated Jesuit teachers.

Although he spent time as a civil servant in the French embassy to the Hague, Voltaire’s main love was writing—an endeavor where he excelled in various genres, including poetry, which led to his appointment as the royal court poet for King Louis XV. Widely recognized as one of the greatest French writers, and even hyperbolically referred to by ...

Voltaire's birthday 11-21-1694 - A brief essay by Steve Weidenkopf
January 01, 2025
Local's Lounge - All are welcome

Padre - Tom Miller invited you to a Microsoft Teams Meeting series:

The Local's Lounge with the ADD Irregulars - Home of Coffee Talk, Speakeasies, Schmoozes, Tea Times, Afterhours and other gatherings.

Coffee Talk - 6:00 AM Central - Daily
Afternoon Chats - Tuesdays, Friday & Sundays at 2:00 PM Central
Other Chats as scheduled by the community.

Please look for notifications for Speakeasies, Tea Times, Schmoozes & Afterhours for gatherings of the gang. New comers welcome, become an Irregular today!!

Wednesday, January 1, 2025
6:00 AM - 8:00 AM (CST)
Occurs every day starting 1/1 until 12/31

Meeting link: https://teams.live.com/meet/9392334144614?p=4Lr3AcWswEWjbzgHsZ

post photo preview
Fred’s Golden Rule
post photo preview
post photo preview
September 15, 2025
From VDH - The Blade of Perseus
Was the Current Madness Birthed in the University?

Was the Current Madness Birthed in the University?

September 15, 2025

Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness

America is currently sick.

The young conservative organizer and media personality Charlie Kirk was just murdered in a political assassination by a 22-year-old ‘anti-fascist’ and trans advocate, Tyler Robinson. As planned, he eliminated the most astute and successful political activist in a generation. Indeed, Kirk may well have ensured that Donald Trump won the 2024 election by not just increasing his youth vote by 6 percent since 2020 but, more importantly, by margins in the swing states of 15-24 percent, ensuring Trump’s victory.

No sooner was he killed than thousands on left-wing social media erupted in celebration—among them scores of teachers and professors. Their venom was eerily reminiscent of their earlier canonization of left-wing murderer Luigi Mangione. Recall, Mangione was the spoiled nepo baby who lethally ambushed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Thereby, he became an icon to the Left as a social justice warrior fighting the evil capitalist system, which had so enriched himself and his own family.

Such utter moral bankruptcy was on display as well by the social media praise of Palestinian activist Elias Rodriguez (“Free Palestine”), after he brutally murdered a young Jewish couple at the Jewish museum in Washington, D.C. Rodriguez supposedly showed the world how to deal with Zionists—reifying the hateful rhetoric that pervades the modern campus.

Was that ghoulishness confined to such anonymous left-wing nuts and fringe trolls?

Not really.

MSNBC’s guest “analyst,” Matthew Dowd, casually raised an asinine suggestion that the lethal shot came from a Kirk supporter firing off a round. And then, in Pavlovian fashion, he blamed the assassination of Kirk—on Kirk himself—for being an unapologetic “divisive” activist.

Dowd, who was subsequently fired by an embarrassed MSNBC president, only took his cue from anchorwoman, the untouchable Katy Tur, who first editorialized Kirk as a “divisive” figure. By her logic, would that mean that, say, a Bernie Sanders or Zohran Mamdani would also be divisive? What does Joe Biden, by Tur’s logic, deserve after labeling half the country as “semi-fascists” or reducing them to “garbage,” “chumps,” and “dregs”—or boasting he’d like to take Trump behind the gym and beat him up?

Does Tur mean that anyone deemed “divisive” then should naturally expect what befell Charlie Kirk?

Yet, in truth, Charlie Kirk was an upbeat, happy warrior not unlike William F. Buckley in his youth, willing to politely debate political opponents without anger and bias.

The multimillionaire socialist Rep. Ilhan Omar, who once claimed that the Trump “dictatorship” was worse than what she had fled from in her native Somalia, claimed the slain Kirk mourners were “full of sh-t” in a long, incoherent rant. Such creepy examples could be easily multiplied, such as the accustomed lunacy of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She now claimed that those who block gun control legislation could not blame others for inciting the violence: i.e., Charlie Kirk should have expected to reap what he sowed.

A dense AOC seems clueless that not even her fellow leftists seriously advocate confiscating bolt-action .30-06 hunting rifles of the sort that the assassin used to kill Kirk. Perhaps it might be wiser not to try to hunt down and round up 500 million guns in America, but rather to enforce existing unenforced gun laws that prohibit felons, the mentally ill, and domestic terrorists (“anti-fascists”) from possessing them.

Just prior to the murder of Charlie Kirk, a video had been issued of a 23-year-old Ukrainian immigrant, Iryna Zarutska, brutally murdered on public transit in Charlotte, North Carolina. Her throat was slashed by one Decarlos Brown, an African-American, 14-time felon, recently and prematurely released from custody.

The horror followed the now familiar left-wing script. The left-wing mayor, Vi Lyles, immediately tried to stop the release of the transit video, lest it cause anyone or anything to be blamed. Then she followed with the usual DEI boilerplate that excuses evil: do not judge the homeless, arresting people solves nothing, and the murder was merely “tragic,” as if there is no culpability, just bad luck or fate.

As expected, most of the media suffocated the murder story. After all, it upset the dominant racial narrative that must remain unquestioned. We have been told for decades that systemically racist Americans prey on victimized blacks, and thus, Ibram X. Kendi-style antiracism—de facto stigmatizing and demonizing whites—is needed to stop racism.

The left knows that black males, age 15-40, commit well over 50 percent of the most violent crimes in America, while comprising about 3 percent of the population. They know it and privately navigate accordingly, but few speak of it, and none seem to have answers to it. So the topic remains taboo.

Any “tragedy” that highlights that fact—such as the murder of Ms. Zarutska or the recent brutal strangling of Auburn retired professor Julie Schnuelle by a young black man with a felony record who was released back into the public—must be suppressed. So too we rarely hear of the recent murder of the elderly Queens couple by the alleged career felon and released criminal Jamel McGriff. He robbed them, he tied them up, he murdered them, and then he torched their home. And on and on the crime continues, the narrative continues, and we dare not say a word.

In our post-Daniel Penny world, three young black people, sitting just feet away from Zarutska, witnessed Decarlos Brown slit her throat—and did nothing. Perhaps they were afraid, we were told. Perhaps, we were advised, no first aid could have staunched such horrific wounds. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…

Nonetheless, when Zarutska was staring out at eternity in her death throes, bewildered that someone or something had just ended her life, none of the three lifted a finger to help her—or even console her in her final moments. Instead, the killer, blood dripping from his person, calmly walked off the train unmolested. And even then, in his absence, there was no effort of any of the nearby witnesses to tend to the dying Zarutska. Instead, they sidestepped her and left her behind on the train as she lay gasping her last breaths.

The killer, Decarlos Brown? He can be heard on the video mumbling twice, “I got that white girl.” Yet we were told either that the video was doctored, or too unclear, or irrelevant. If accurate, it demolished the media elite’s insistence that Decarlos Brown had not a racial thought in his mind.

Instead, we were to listen to media analyst Van Jones pontificate that the late Charlie Kirk should have been ashamed for connecting Decarlos Brown to racist hatred. Perhaps Van Jones should reconsider. He should review the entire narrative of how Zarutska found herself a target of a killer. Brown was a 14-time felon. He was out on cashless bail. The magistrate Teresa Stokes, who freed him, had no law degree. Such a “judge” had never taken, much less passed, a bar exam.

She owned an out-of-state alternative treatment center and was involved in another local one. In a prior sane world, magistrates had law degrees. They had been certified as competent by the bar exams. They followed conflict-of-interest protocols that prohibited them from even indirectly profiting from their judicial decisions.

But again, that narrative too is passé, given the power of diversity, equity, and inclusion to exempt norms and protocols for the supposed greater collective good.

From where does all this hatred, violence, and moral vacuity arise? Why did the shooter inscribe his bullets with “anti-fascist” messaging, cruel taunts, and trans jargon?

Is the hatred caused by the media, who talk about toxic “whiteness” nonstop? Is it the collateral damage from the racial obsessions of a Jasmine Crockett, Joy Reid, and septuagenarian Al Sharpton, now ending his racialist career where he started it?

Or is the promulgator the Democratic Party and the Left, out of power, impotent, and angry that their superior intelligence and morality are not properly appreciated by 51 percent of the people? Who put a photoshopped Trump on a New Republic cover as Hitler?

If a General Milley (“now I realize he’s a total fascist”) or a General Kelly (“certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure”) calls a current or ex-president a fascist, and presidential candidate Kamala Harris agrees (“a president…who admires dictators and is a fascist”), then does an unhinged 22-year-old “anti-fascist” college student feel the popular culture might approve of his own efforts in dealing with “fascist” Trump supporters?

Milley, Kelly, Harris, and the rest can call anyone a fascist but without ever defining the term. Did Trump suspend immigration law to let in 12 million illegals? Did he invite into the DOJ or White House the prosecutors Nathan Wade, Jack Smith, and the revolving door Michael Colangelo to coordinate lawfare against an ex-president?

Is Trump ignoring the improper usurpation of executive power by left-wing lower-court judges or instead appealing their decisions through lawful channels?

Did he hire a foreign national to undermine his presidential rival with a fake dossier?

Did he round up “51 former intelligence officials” to lie to the American people to warp the election?

Did he pardon his entire criminally minded family and then cover it up by in absentia outsourcing to his aides the pardoning of hundreds of criminals through an autopen? So please define fascism before smearing a president and lowering the bar of the acceptable.

What is the point of the past violent braggadocio of Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority Leader, posing with a baseball bat, or huffing that he will take the “fight” against the Trump agenda “to the streets?” Was he merely following on the earlier example of Rep. Maxine Waters, who urged supporters to whip up a crowd and physically confront Trump officials in stores and restaurants?

Why are congresswomen kickboxing and punching the screen as they video their seriousness to assault Trump?

What does now-campaigning California Governor Gavin Newsom mean when he promises, “It’s not about whether we play hardball anymore—it’s about how we play hardball. We are going to fight back, and we’re going to punch this bully in the mouth.” What would a potential third assassin think of that promise?

If the governor of the largest state in the union wants to bloody the face of the President of the United States or physically attack his opponents (“We’re gonna punch these sons of b‑‑‑‑es in the mouth”), then might lesser underlings and sympathizers try to outdo that?

Or, finally, is the culprit for the madness found ultimately in the elite university? Who, after all, mainstreamed the idea of racial re-segregation in dorms and graduation ceremonies and taught America that racial essentialism is part of the new tribal America?

Who ignored court rulings and civil rights legislation in their arrogance to recalibrate admissions by race? Who taught the anti-Jewish assassin Elias Rodriguez his hatred of Israel and his pro-Hamas zealotry, and who influenced Luigi Mangione, an honors graduate, to despise “capitalist” CEOs?

Where did the practice of identifying one’s pronouns at the end of memos start, or demanding that biological males could compete in women’s sports, and demonizing anyone who objected that there were still two, not three, biological sexes?

Where did the critical race theory and critical legal theory that empowered Black Lives Matter, Defund the Police, Cashless Bail, and all the laws that assured the public that thefts less than $950 were not really thefts?

From where did the new anti-Semitism come, and so strangely after the slaughter of October 7—if not from the campus?

Where else in America were young Jews fleeing to a library with the mob pounding on the windows? Where else are Jews roughed up by a thug who is subsequently given an award by their university? Where did demonstrations arise on behalf of those who murdered 1,200 on October 7?

Why, in the aftermath of the murder of Charlie Kirk, are so many teachers, professors, and college-graduate bureaucrats so eager to gloat over and cheer his death? Who taught them that?

Are universities critical to America’s prosperity and security now only in terms of the sciences, math, engineering, and medical schools?

As for the humanities? They scarcely exist at the elite universities as we once knew them. Either de facto or literally, they have been overwhelmed and distorted by endless studies-courses, DEI radicalism, 90 percent leftist faculties, and suppression of free thought and free expression.

Where did the envisioning of violent crime as the fault of a flawed society, the institutionalization of modern racialism, chauvinism, and essentialism, and the empowerment of militant transgenderism that in so many insidious ways has filtered throughout society—if not originally birthed in the university—come from?

Those sins of commission are force-multiplied by those of omission. Hundreds of thousands of students emerge from campuses not just indoctrinated with contempt for the Western tradition and American exceptionalism, and not just often thousands of dollars in debt from inflated tuition, but also poorly educated by the standards that once defined education.

The working classes and high school graduates, supposedly the losers of our society, are not those who are dividing the country. They are not often advocating violence or trying to use any means necessary to overturn the established order. But so often the products of the modern university are doing just that.

Sadly, in all these recent horrors, the ideology behind them—the premise that either birthed or appeased them—was birthed in modern higher education.

Read full Article
September 15, 2025
Rod Dreher's Diary
The times they are a changing
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Ffetch%2F%24s_%2169GR%21%2Cw_1100%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%252Fpublic%252Fimages%252F4e41ba02-3526-4a61-9f28-e5a1b5243898_1860x380.png&t=1757936629&ymreqid=d41d8cd9-8f00-b204-1cc6-3e0004011c00&sig=x3QeWDwY16jgVKTPPDINOg--~D

The Times, They Are A-Changin'

How Charlie Kirk's Murder -- And Two Other Deaths -- Should Radicalize Us

Sep 15
mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Ffetch%2F%24s_%21dnYe%21%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%252Fpublic%252Fimages%252F762a4764-c24d-4d8a-87f0-ff761d14f527_1802x2355.jpeg&t=1757936629&ymreqid=d41d8cd9-8f00-b204-1cc6-3e0004011c00&sig=HFDU9Im8KdTvsUrjFIIDpA--~D
 
 
 
 
 
READ IN APP
 
  
Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk: one week, two murders, a changed world

Yes, this is going to be another Charlie Kirk post, because I am convinced that a moment of reckoning has suddenly arrived, in many ways.

I woke up Sunday to learn that Tyler Robinson, Kirk’s assassin, was living in romantic partnership with a man, Lance Twiggs, who was transitioning to female, and who was also, it appears, a furry (a weird subculture of people who costume as animals, and often sexualize their costumed selves). (Read Andy Ngo’s excellent online sleuthing.) It could be that Charlie Kirk died so Tyler Robinson could defend the honor of his troon (tranny) lover. Of course we knew already that Robinson was steeped in radical Left/Antifa politics.

Robinson and Twiggs were ex-Mormons raised in conservative families, who were radicalized by going deep online and living there as if it were reality.

Let me offer you this full post by Robert M. Sterling, which he uploaded to Twitter. It’s long, but I think it’s very true. If you’re on X, follow Sterling:

My liberal friends are completely oblivious about how radicalizing the last week has been for tens of millions of normal Americans. Zero clue.

I’m not talking about people who are “online”; I mean regular, everyday Americans. “Normies.” People who scroll through Facebook posts and Instagram reels from the Dutch Bros drive thru line. Political moderates who have water cooler chats about Mahomes touchdowns and Bon Jovi concerts, not Twitter threads or Rachel Maddow monologues.

Millions of them. Tens of millions. They’re logging on, they’re engaging, and they’re furious.

And I’ll be candid: They blame you guys. They blame the left. Regardless of whether you believe it to be justified, they think you’re the bad guys here. And they are reacting accordingly.

I can already hear some of you racing toward the comments to start screeching in moral indignation, so I’m going to be blunt: Shut up and listen to what I’m telling you. Your movement will lose any semblance of relevance if you don’t develop some small measure of self-awareness, and—absent someone force-feeding you bitter medicine—you guys collectively lack the humility to do this on your own.

Here are the facts:

Fact 1. Tens of millions of Americans started the week seeing a 23-year-old blonde woman—a young woman in whom virtually every parent watching pictured their own daughter—stabbed in the neck by a career criminal. These people then found out the murderer had been released from jail 14 times over.

Fact 2. Two days later, tens of millions of Americans watched a video of Charlie Kirk get murdered speaking to college students. Millions of these people knew who Charlie was; millions of them didn’t. Upon seeing the video, however, these normal Americans from across the land and across the political spectrum agreed that he was the victim of a terrible, fundamentally unjustifiable crime, and their hearts broke in sympathy for his family. Good people who had never even heard the name Charlie Kirk before wept.

Fact 3. Immediately after seeing the footage of a peaceful young man get shot in the neck, these same people logged onto Facebook and Instagram (remember, we are talking about regular Americans, not perpetually online Twitter or Bluesky users) and saw some of their local nurses, school teachers, college administrators, and retail workers celebrating this horrific crime. Not just defending it, but cheering it.

These are all facts. You may not like the implications of these facts, and we can certainly debate the underlying causes thereof, but, indisputably, they are nevertheless factual statements.

Here’s what it means for you, the Democrats reading this: These normal, middle-of-the-road, non-political citizens just become politically active. They realized that politics cares about them, even if they don’t particularly care about politics. After watching Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk both bleed out from the neck, they think their lives and the physical safety of their families—the bedrock of human society, the foundation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—depend on political activation, whether they desire it or not.

These people are now sprinting—not jogging, not walking, but racing—to the right. Because they blame you guys for everything that just happened.

When they see footage of Decarlos Brown stabbing a Ukrainian refugee to death, they don’t see just one demon-possessed man. They picture every university administrator, HR bureaucrat, and DEI apparatchik that ever lectured them about systemic racism, the “carceral state,” or the need to release violent crime suspects without bail in the name of social justice. They then think back to conversations they’ve had with their cop friends—their buddy from high school who quit the force after getting tired of being called a racist, their friend at the local YMCA who vents about having to release career criminals because Soros-funded prosecutors aren’t willing to file charges—and they realize everything the left has told them over the last five years has been utter bullshit.

And they blame you. Because, even if you count yourself as a moderate Democrat, your party supported the district attorneys, city council members, and mayors that let fictitious concerns about mental health and racial justice supersede very real concerns for their family’s safety.

When these Americans see blood erupt from the side of Charlie Kirk’s neck, they don’t see just a martyred political activist. They think of every extreme leftist they’ve ever met who (1) calls anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton a fascist and (2) constantly jokes—“jokes”—about punching Nazis and “bashing the fash.” They realize that there really do exist people who wish to see them dead for their moderately conservative political beliefs, their Christian faith, and even the color of their skin. They ask themselves if the violence visited upon Charlie might one day show up on their own doorstep.

And they blame you. Because, even if you’re just a center-of-the-road liberal, you lacked the courage to police your own ranks. You let modern-day Maoist red guards run loose across every facet of society, and what started with social-media struggle sessions has now turned to 30-06 bullet holes. When these Americans log onto social media and see their neighbors justifying, celebrating, glorifying murder, they realize that some who walk among them are soulless ghouls at best, literally demon-possessed at worst.

These people—whether they faithfully attend church every Sunday or only attend with relatives once a year, on Christmas Eve—start talking about things like spiritual warfare. They implicitly understand that no normal human casually celebrates the mortal demise of a peaceful person. And they blame you.

Because, even if you condemned Charlie Kirk’s murder, they probably haven’t seen you condemn those in your own movement who cheered it on. They view you as complicit in allowing heartless fellow travelers to celebrate death, and it repulses them.

For all of these situations, what has your response been? Nothing but bullshit. In response to Iryna Zarutska bleeding out on the floor of a train, you post bullshit statistics about reductions in reported crime, when everyone who’s ever been to a major urban center in the last decade knows that actual crime has skyrocketed, only for victims not to waste their time reporting it to cops that don’t have the manpower to respond and prosecutors that seek to downgrade as many felonies as possible to misdemeanor citations.

In response to a 31-year-old man taking a bullet to the neck in front of his family, you post nothing but bullshit whataboutism.

> “What about January 6th?” (Honest answer: After you let Liz Cheney spend two years operating a star chamber in the House, combined with countless other failed attempts at “lawfare” against Trump, no one cares anymore.)

> “What about Mike Lee making a dumb joke on Twitter about some guy in a mask in Minnesota?” (No one outside of Utah, DC, or Twitter knows who Mike Lee even is.)

> “What about Paul Pelosi?” (That’s not comparable to Charlie Kirk getting shot, and we all know it. And, again, Paul who?)

> “What about regulations on assault rifles?” (That’s not going to get you very far when one of these killers used a knife and the other one used a common hunting rifle.)

In response to teachers, healthcare workers, and thousands of other liberals cheering on Charlie’s murder, it’s nothing but more bullshit and misdirection.

> “It’s not THAT many people celebrating!” (Yes, it is. Everyone has seen it on their Facebook and Instagram feeds.)

> “I thought you guys didn’t support cancel culture.” (We don’t cancel people over their opinions; we’re more than happy to see people lose their jobs—especially their taxpayer-funded jobs—for actively cheering on murder, though. If you can’t see the difference, that’s your own shortcoming.)

All bullshit. Not even smart bullshit, but stale, mid-grade, low-IQ bullshit. Ordinary Americans see right through it, and they don’t like how it smells.

You probably don’t like hearing this. But you need to hear it. Because I’m right, and, as you reflect on this, you know I’m right. The ranks of my political movement gained millions of righteously angry new members this week. We have a mandate to ensure these crimes never happen again, and that’s exactly what we are now going to do. If you want to keep a seat at the table as we do so, you’d better clean house and start policing your own.

A friend back in the US texted me this overnight:

FB blew up in my face. Family and friends celebrating Kirk’s death. The best man at my wedding that I’ve known for 35 years blocked me becuase I called him out for cheering on his death. I deactivated Facebook. I don’t need to see this. It genuinely hurts to know so many people in my life have such bloodthirsty and are so callous.

My friend has a heart condition. This experience caused him chest pain, which he had to medicate to keep it from turning into cardiac arrest. Yep: his heart literally strained to the breaking point from shock and anger at seeing people he cared about to have a relationship with him cheering the slaughter of a man who held the same opinions, pretty much, as he did.

I agree. Prior to last week, the only thing I knew about Charlie Kirk was that he was some kind of successful MAGA influencer. That’s not my world, so I didn’t investigate further. Now I know there was so much more to him than that, but even if all he was was a MAGA influencer, I would feel the same way. If I find that anybody in my life cheered on, or is cheering on, Kirk’s murder, they’re now out of my life. I have nothing in common with people who celebrate political assassination of a man simply for holding and stating opinions contrary to their own.

Killing Osama bin Laden? Fine. He was a terrorist and a mass murderer. But Charlie Kirk was about as average-American as you can get. He used words of persuasion, not weapons. One of the most extraordinary things about him, something that lifted him above average, was that he was willing constantly to engage his opponents in civil debate. This is what made him so popular and influential. At his campus appearances, he made a point of giving people who disagreed with him the privilege of moving to the front of the question line. He welcomed disagreement! In today’s NYT, there’s an account by a conservative college student that shows you the kind of movement Kirk started. This is from Jeb Allen, a conservative at Amherst College, a liberal bastion:

Last spring, I received a death threat in response to an article I wrote. My friends at Turning Point USA encouraged me to request the Amherst administration drop all disciplinary action in exchange for a one-on-one dialogue with the student. That request was granted, and I found our conversation informative.

Today, I believe that among the things the state should do is to ban all gender transition. Close the clinics. Forbid cross-sex hormones, and prosecute doctors who persist. If that is politically untenable, then strictly forbid it to anyone under the age of 30. Outlaw any policies that in any way grant privileges (e.g., bathroom and locker room access) to transgenders. Agreed, the great majority of transgenders are not murderers, and deserve to be treated with ordinary human decency. But we must abnormalize this condition again.

There’s not a lot the government can do about computers and youth, but there is a hell of a lot parents can do. This image, from Tyler Robinson’s mother in 2013, ought to be on the minds of every mother and father in America:

  

Note this commentary on it:

  

We need to once again abnormalize letting kids get computers and smartphones. It used to frustrate me to see the Christian school my kids attended forbid students to have phones during school, but parents — conservative Christian parents — permitting it out of school hours. It was like all the good the school tried to do was totally undermined by the kids’ parents.

It has been very heartening to see clips all weekend on X of people saying they are going back to church for the first time in ages, or going for the first time ever, because of this (watch this incredible short clip). Or picking up a Bible. Or leaving the Left. As the WSJ reports, the Charlie phenomenon is going global. You should also know that in the European media, Charlie is being described as a right-wing extremist and freak (strong implication: who had it coming). Here’s a report from German media about how a professional soccer team is coming down on a Christian player, Felix Nmecha, of African background, who is in trouble for posting mild, apolitical support for Kirk. The clip I post is from the translation:

  

This outraged some fans, and has prompted the team to say they are going to be having a talk with Nmecha. And you wonder why Europe is in so much trouble!

Here’s a fascinating take on the meaning, especially historically, of Charlie Kirk by T. Greer on his excellent Substack, The Scholar’s Stage. Excerpt:

To understand these emotions, you must first understand what the young Republican on campus was feeling at the height of the Great Awokening.

The young Republican felt afraid.

The young man who believed that a transgender woman is not a woman, or that white privilege is not a national crisis, or that Donald Trump should be president, was a young man who lived in fear. He feared what would happen if he expressed his beliefs. He feared humiliation. He feared that his classmates would blackball, bully, or haze him. He feared becoming the subject of a viral wave of hate. He feared having advisors and professors turn on him, damaging his grades or sabotaging his future career. (While I have used “he” here, all of this was even more true for the conservative young woman, who faced even greater social pressures to conform and more vicious tactics when she did not.)

These young conservatives feared because they took the rhetoric of their professors and classmates seriously. They expected to be treated with the same grace, respect, and friendship that the median progressive reserved for the Ku Klux Klan. Time and again they were told that their beliefs were the functional equivalent of a Klansman’s. In this environment, only the most disagreeable or the most courageous were willing to stand up for their beliefs.

It was in this air of fear that Turning Point USA began to rise. For years progressives have looked at Charlie Kirk’s campus events and lampooned him for spending so much time debating 18-year-olds. They missed the point of these events. By walking onto hostile campuses and planting TPUSA chapters, Kirk showed young conservatives that they were not alone. By arguing with anyone willing to stand in line—professor or protester, heckler or hanger-on—Kirk was demonstrating that conservative beliefs could withstand the scrutiny and social pressure of the college environment. Their creed could take the blows and keep its shape. Every clip he uploaded was evidence that a man who openly championed this creed could walk away looking better and wiser than the progressives who attacked him—no matter how many of these attackers there were. Kirk cut against the spirit of the age. He was no anon. He did not hide behind a handle or bury his convictions in the darker corners of Discord. Every time Kirk or his proxies praised Trump or made some inflammatory declaration, they were showing young conservatives that they could not be silenced.

Behind all of this was one overarching message: Do not fear. You have truth behind you. An entire fellowship of young conservatives stands behind you too. Charlie is here today to show you that conservatives like you can stand tall in hostile spaces. You can also do this. You should also do this. They do not own the public square. You do not need to be afraid.

That was the message of the man who was murdered this week.

You know, this is a variation on the message of both Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Vaclav Havel. They both said that people who are willing to live not by lies, and willing to suffer for their convictions, will attract more and more people to their cause by their courage, such that eventually a system built on lies will collapse.

Charlie Kirk embodied that. He was willing to suffer the scorn of campus haters for the sake of engaging them in public debate. Indeed, he said many times that the alternative to discussion and debate is violence. He paid for that conviction with his life. I don’t feel comfortable calling him a Christian martyr, because he was not murdered for his faith per se. But he was absolutely a martyr for free speech, like Socrates.

And now we see so very many people who were afraid no longer willing to be silent.

I’m also seeing on X a lot of people complaining that their churches were packed over the weekend, but their pastors said nothing at all about Kirk’s murder. To be fair, I don’t believe clergy are obligated to preach on current events. But this one — my God, it was news around the world, and had so very much to do with faith and courage and the wages of sin! And so many pastors, it appears, blew it. How out of touch with the needs of your flock can you be? I am reminded once again of the Orthodox priest I once met who refused to talk about gender ideology to his congregation, even though parents in it were confused, because he didn’t want to be “political.” Men of God, sack up! People need to know that the church is a place they can go for wisdom and leadership on how to live godly lives in a world that has turned its back on Him. If all you can provide are canned sermons that have little or nothing to do with the actual lives people live, then you are failing.

The American pope had nothing to say about it, aside from expressing condolences to the new US ambassador to the Vatican. Our Catholic reader Anne Heath sent this commentary, written by an angry Catholic, with a broken heart. Excerpt:

  

And Leo? On the very day of the assassination he tweeted not about Kirk, not about truth, not about martyrdom, but about migrants at Lampedusa. His only mention of Kirk came two days later in a private conversation with the U.S. ambassador, where he warned that “political differences must never be resolved with violence.” A diplomatic platitude, whispered in private, while the nations chanted in the streets.

Leo indicated that his first foreign trip will be to the island of Lampedusa, same as his predecessor’s first foreign trip, to highlight the plight of refugees. If so, then that is a signal that nothing much is going to change in this pontificate. Would that Leo go to Lyon to comfort the family of this wheelchair-bound Chaldean Catholic, who fled his native Iraq to escape ISIS persecution, slaughtered on a livestream by a machete-wielding Islamist for preaching the Gospel:

  

Say his name: Ashur Sarnaya. He was martyred by the same sort of person Pope Leo is urging Europe to keep letting in, and whose violent presence is driving Europe to the brink of civil war. Such is the pastoral wisdom of so many Christian leaders. Europe, and all the West, ought to be a haven for Christians fleeing Islamist persecution. But the Leos of the world want to keep letting Muslims in. No wonder Christians are losing faith in their institutional leadership — but not, let us hope, in Jesus Christ! (BTW, that same report Anne sent features a report of a German Catholic bishop going on TV to say that the Bible is wrong about homosexuality.)

Yes indeed, Charlie’s assassination has been an apocalypse. We are seeing who people are — and who they are not. We are seeing Good, and we are seeing Evil. We are seeing ourselves too. The words, or lack of words, from religious leaders say nothing to us, or are even counsels of despair. But the blood of Charlie Kirk, the blood of Iryna Zarutska, and the blood of Ashur Sarnaya shouts to us: You must change your life!

Tertullian: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” Strictly speaking, Sarnaya is the only true Christian martyr of these three. But there is not a Christian alive — indeed, not a person of conscience anywhere — who cannot read these signs, and choose to live in a different way. A better way. A braver way. A holier way. Me too.

Bob Dylan said it well two generations ago:

For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled

The battle outside ragin’

Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls

For the times, they are a-changin’

Read full Article
Nihilism in our time (More Rod Dreher)
And: Order VS Chaos

Nihilism In Our Time

And: Order Vs Chaos

 
Aug 29, 2025
∙ Paid
 
 
 
 
Robert “Robin” Westman, failed man

This Minneapolis shooting turns out to be much darker than I realized yesterday, when I first wrote. The killer was quite clearly possessed, I think. I mean that literally. This story from the New York Post details some of his chaotic, anti-Semitic, hateful beliefs, which seem to have no ideological core. His transgenderism seems to have been not so much at the core of his identity, but rather one manifestation of a malignant, radically disordered mind. Here is the 11-minute video he left behind, before the shooting. It is a horrifying glimpse into the mind of a madman.

This page from his journal jumped out at me when I saw it yesterday:

 

The Russian says:

 

Again: possessed.

Let’s not forget the valorization of revenge violence among trannies. Watch this. And look at this:

 

Peter Savodnik takes the measure of this lunatic. He goes through the various “explanations” people have offered, in an attempt to make sense of Westman’s heinous act, and concludes:

All that finger-pointing obscures a deeper point: Westman seems to have been driven by an all-consuming, destructive force, a nihilism—the conviction that life is meaningless; that words like truthjustice and God are empty slogans; that everything must be razed.

Nihilism is not some obscure academic notion. It stretches back to the 19th century—early Russian radicals were called nihilists—and it has waxed and waned across the past 150 years. Today, you can feel the nihilist impulse coursing through America, which has been mostly stripped of its faith and a shared national culture and has seen once-great institutions—universities, corporations, churches, nonprofit organizations, the media, the military—become engulfed in scandal and politicization.

It is an understatement to say America is struggling to infuse young Americans with a sense of purpose.

Earlier this year, the FBI introduced a new category of criminal: the Nihilistic Violent Extremist, or NVE.

If jihadis kill for Allah, and anti-government extremists like Timothy McVeigh killed in the name of some demented notion of freedom, then NVEs kill simply because they want to kill. They don’t have much in the way of ideological commitments—as the confusing hodgepodge of aphorisms Westman scrawled into his rifle, pistol, and shotgun makes clear—beyond a commitment to chaos and evil themselves.

If we are dealing with true nihilism, then we are all in for a hell of a ride. There’s no way to counter people who want to murder and cause havoc simply for the pleasure of doing it. Last week at the Midwestuary, I heard lots of talk about the spread of nihilism among young American males. This is the far fringe of victims of the Meaning Crisis. Max Remington texted me overnight:

America's Years of Lead are going to be driven by this kind of nihilistic violence by people of all ages. America has so many lone wolves, I wouldn't rule out the possibility it could collapse the country, honestly.

I don’t know the extent of this problem in the US, nor do I know if Europe has a similar problem. But see, this is the kind of thing that David Betz is talking about when he raises the prospect of “civil war”. It will almost certainly not be anything well-organized, he says, but rather random acts of killing, violence, and sundry mayhem, committed by people with different motives, or no motive at all other than destroying a society that they believe has failed them.

The great contemporary literary critic Gary Saul Morson explains the nature of 19th century Russian nihilism, which is not the same thing as what Robin Westman might have instantiated. Excerpt:

“Nihilist” and “nihilism”—terms typically attributed to novelist Ivan Turgenev—originally referred to a group that arose in Russia around 1860. Today we often call people nihilistic if they extend no hope that conditions can improve. Unqualified pessimists, they regard all grounds for optimism as illusory. We also use the term “nihilism” to describe extreme relativism about the bases of human knowledge. Science, in this view, is just another ideology, based, like all ideologies, on the interests of a ruling class. Accepted knowledge is nothing more than power made into a philosophy justifying it. This kind of nihilism often interprets various philosophers—Hume, Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Feyerabend, and others—as justifying the claim that one can build on no certain “foundations.”

Neither understanding of nihilism applies to the original Russian nihilists. Far from despairing, they believed that they knew just how to build the perfect society, which, they also held, could be realized in a few years. Regarding “science” as a set of infallible (and mostly metaphysical) dogmas, they deemed their favored social theories scientific and therefore utterly beyond doubt. As their critics observed, these science worshippers missed the whole point of science, openness to contrary evidence.

The group’s leader, Nikolai Chernyshevsky (1828-1889), exercised immense influence. His utopian fiction, What Is to Be Done? (1863)—the question was anything but rhetorical—became the most widely read book among the intelligentsia before the Revolution. Lenin credited it with making him a revolutionary, and the Soviets hailed Chernyshevsky as a thinker in the same league as Marx and Engels. Tolstoy, on the other hand, referred to him as “that gentleman who stinks of bedbugs,” a loathsome figure who has persuaded his followers that “to be outraged, bilious, and spiteful is a commendable thing.”

In his novel Demons (sometimes translated in English as The Possessed), Dostoevsky illustrates and condemns the nihilism popular among young people of his era. His character Verkhovensky is a political nihilist, aiming to disrupt society for the sake of creating a utopian future. By contrast, Stavrogin is an existential nihilist, who truly believes life has no meaning, and who lives to channel his despair into destruction.

I have this sense that we are living in a culture accelerating towards a general calamity. Recall that when an audience member in a screening of Live Not By Lies asked me earlier this year if I thought the threat of soft totalitarianism was waning because Trump is in power, and pushing back on woke, I said no. All the conditions that Arendt identified as conducive to totalitarianism are still very much with us: mass loneliness and alienation, a loss of faith in institutions and hierarchies, a love of transgression for its own sake, a willingness to believe that “truth” is whatever satisfies one’s desires, and so forth.

We know very well where wokeness take us. I am particularly aware of how wokeness validated racial identity, and privileging racial identity. The right-wing version is now emerging ferociously. The very right-wing demons I warned many years ago that wokeness was summoning are now here. God only knows how this ends. I’ve always had a superstitious belief that the Jews are a canary in the coal mine of society: that anti-Semitism is a sure sign that a society is giving itself over to radical evil. Now we see that rising on both the Left and the Right.

Last night in Rome I was at a social event with some people from all over Europe. A couple of British interlocutors expressed extreme worry for their country. There’s the migrant crisis, of course, but also the economic crisis, about which I knew little. They talked about how the cost of living is becoming unsustainable, and how the government is barreling towards a fiscal Armageddon. Last week, the Telegraph reported that the government might be forced to appeal to the International Monetary Fund for a bailout. If that happens, my British interlocutors said, there’s a very good chance that the IMF simply will not have the funds to cover Britain’s debts. And if it does, the IMF will demand radical reforms, including either the slashing of pensions, the gutting of the National Health Service, or both. These are moves that the Labour government cannot politically do. So … what, then?

Britain is a post-Christian society. What holds it together, and prevents it from descending into chaos and violence should the economy collapse, particularly at a time of increasing racial and religious tension?

Notice that after Nigel Farage’s deportation speech, Reform has surged in popularity to the point that it has more support than the Tories and Labour combined! Has that kind of thing ever happened?

 

What if the same fiscal disaster happens to France, which is facing its own fast-approaching day of fiscal reckoning? Francois Bayrou, the prime minister, will have to resign in the days to come over the budget impasse. He appeared on French TV this week to say bluntly that the core problem is the Boomers’ pensions, which are politically untouchable.

I also talked to a German woman, who said that her own country is headed towards fiscal disaster. She told me that she used to fear and loathe the AfD (Alternative For Germany), but after seeing how extreme the German establishment has been in trying to crush the AfD, she now sympathizes with them. A German man earlier in the evening told me the same thing.

A German court has banned an AfD candidate for running for mayor in a German city. You’ll never guess why:

The exclusion began when incumbent Mayor Jutta Steinruck (formerly SPD) contacted the SPD-controlled Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Interior, requesting information about AfD candidate Joachim Paul from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The SPD-led ministry had already made headlines by announcing that civil servants expressing sympathy for the AfD would be excluded from state positions.

The resulting 11-page report claimed “good reasons to doubt Paul’s loyalty to the constitution,” citing:

  • A photograph: Paul posted an Instagram photo of himself with Austrian activist Martin Sellner, who was banned from Germany for advocating the deportation of migrants, including those with citizenship who fail to “sufficiently assimilate.”

  • The concept of “remigration”: Paul gave a November 2023 lecture titled “Immigration: A Matter of Destiny—Why Remigration is Necessary and Feasible.”

  • Literary references: A 2022 article by Paul in the Austrian magazine Freilich referenced Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, stating, “Tolkien’s entire work reflects a conservative mindset of particular value to contemporary conservatism … The protagonists fight for a cause greater than themselves: their homeland, the survival of their culture, a just order, the defense against a global threat.”

  • Cultural interests: Paul’s appreciation for Wagner’s Nibelungenlied, which the report claims holds significance for him in terms of “national pride.” The report notes he offers video seminars on the medieval epic.

For Germany’s liberal and cultural left, all of this undoubtedly smacks of “Nazi.” But in a democracy, the question of what to make of Paul’s ideas and associations should have been left to the public. Paul might not have won—some polls didn’t favor him despite the AfD’s strong February performance in the region, where it came a very narrow first with 24.3%. But the establishment wanted to take no risks, knowing full well they have lost the public struggle on migration and national values.

The dude likes Tolkien and Wagner. Clearly a Nazi!

Meanwhile, the Chief Imam of Ireland would like you to know that it was sad that an asylum seeker raped a Dutch woman and later murdered a Dutch girl the other day, but society is also to blame for :::checks notes::: not telling him that rape and murder is wrong:

 

Poor marginalized asylum seeker. How was he to know it was wrong to rape women and murder them?

Somehow, I think the Irish, like many other Europeans, are in no mood to be talked to like this.

‘We Murder To Dissect’ — Wordsworth

A great visual representation of the Medieval versus the Modern:

 
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals