I'm actually not Gen Z, but since I'm partly in a situation similar to a young man who's not yet married ... I'm not yet married ... and my style in some cases matches Gen Z better than my own generation ....
Dear Gen Z Men, I Think You Should Hear This
Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall | 31 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAmaaWc_EKQ
[omitting a comment]
10:56 I'm a Swede (partly, other part somewhat related to Mr. Wajsblat), so on that side Christian through St. Sigfrid, who was arguably Christian through the efforts of certainly St. Augustine of Canterbury (day before Ascension), and probably also St. Oswald.
I have described a certain St. Oswald's "bad years" in lines like these:
A relative of Ælla,
Who olden Ænglisc spake,
Who worshipt God in Latin
Though the monks might know some Græc
He was yclepëd Oswald,
Yes Oswald was his name,
But some foul impious hunter
Thought he would make good game.
In other words, he was hunted by his uncle Edwin (until that uncle converted):
Æthelfrith, who was for years a successful war-leader, especially against the native British, was eventually killed in the battle of the River Idle around 616 by Raedwald of East Anglia. This defeat meant that an exiled member of the Deiran royal line, Edwin (Acha's brother), became king of Northumbria and Oswald and his brothers fled to the north. Oswald thus spent the remainder of his youth in the Scottish kingdom of Dál Riata in northern Britain, where he was converted to Christianity.[8] He may also have fought in Ireland during this period of exile.
However, Edwin only converted 11 years later.
Do you seriously think, by the way I once imagined Oswald's life these years on the lines of Alfred's while on that moor, that of Oswald had played his cards right, he could have harmoniously lived a life home in Northumbria? If Oswald was not quite as badly off as Alfred those years, was it perhaps because of some factor outside his own control, like the hospitality of the Dal Riata (I've seen it spelled Dal Riada, probably the pronunciation, but Old Irish doesn't write out lenitions, perhaps)?
2009 to 2011, I was doing my best efforts as a writer and as a homeless parishioner of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet to pursue virtue. The problem is, the parish and I had very different tests for my virtue. The parish DEFINITELY wanted me to pursue the one virtue of Christian resignation, giving up all hopes of bliss in this life, as contentment with very humble conditions were, to them, the obvious virtue for the status of a homeless man. As to the status of a writer, they thought of that simply as a vanity at odds with the humility and resignation "I should" pursue.
If this is around the time you converted, part of your story may be graces bought by my sacrifices.
It's not the faith that's threatened. It's charity and hope, also necessary to salvation. And since it's not the faith that's damaged, reading my blogs is also not a threat to anyone's faith. I highly try to reduce references to my own situation, unless I hope to gain some justice by publishing a description of what happened.
And no, my problem isn't blaming others instead of taking responsibility for my actions. I am a hard working writer. But to some guys:
1) all my work is anyway tainted by my pride in not pursuing the normal virtues of a homeless man (as they were before the internet made it so homeless men could be writers)
2) all my work is also anyway tainted by paranoia about my situation ...
I tried St. Nicolas du Chardonnet out. It's not paranoia to state they boycott me because, like Muslims, Jews, Protestants and Freemasons, they look at my homelessness as a "status" and make this "status" incompatible with the one I claim, as a writer. No, homelessness is not a status, it's a misfortune. Having a toothache doesn't change your profession. You never ceased to be a teacher because you joined the labour union of tooth ache sufferers instead. You did, like I, cease to be a teacher, because you had a conscience about things you ought to say or not say to your pupils, and it didn't match that of your employers.
3) and they are totally free to read my mind through either a psychiatrist or psychologist, I presume, at least if he backs his statements up with quotes from my blogs. THEY are not competent to see if my blog posts are mostly (excepting the difference on the PQ -- Papal Question, sth they tolerate for Sedes, but not for Conclavists) good theology and good argument. But a shrink is somehow competent to see my writing as a window into my soul and see if it is bad mental health ... at such a distance, and no, I am definitely NOT spending the kind of time with shrinks in which good and honest ones with a good doctrine (you know, unicorns, basically, they are mostly dead by now) could arguably know me sufficiently well to make a fairly balanced diagnosis in terms that would not actually harm me, harm my freedoms and prospects of success ... because if not, that would mean they had to trust me on how I judge that kind of people, and they obviously can't that, as that judgement is precisely what you are right now warning against.
Probably on their nudging.
Is their founder and main inspiration Mgr Lefebvre or Jordan Peterson?
Even a Protestant like Melissa Doughterty would identify part of what you are claiming as New Thought ... a heresy she has left, but Oprah Winfrey hasn't. Basically, you get what you deserve. You shape your actual destiny and how everyone else (with few and depressing exceptions) perceives you by how you think.
Nope. You don't.
God has providentially stacked very big odds in my favour, and part of my misfortune is how some really insist in countering that they actually come to work in my favour.
14:20 I didn't use a computer until I was at university. It was a question of writing a longish word document (ten weeks essay project) on a floppy disk.
I didn't come to the internet until I was near 33. I came onto the internet for a pious purpose, personally. I found two absorbing interests immediately, Tolkien and debating Evolution believers (both Atheist and "Catholic"). They have stuck with me.
15:15 Oh, thank you.
Everyone where I am is very much invited to in real life get to know me through my blogs.
If what everyone where I am is hearing from sources more credited (if not more objectively credible) than myself is your shtick, that certainly deprives me of occasions of meaningful community in what you call real life.
My prison isn't the internet. It is what people around me think of my internet use.
In real life, I meet lots of people who think about me, like you about Gen Z men, but they won't say. Actually hearing it is actually an upgrade.
In real life, as you put it, I deal with people who will ask "how are you?" in a way which to my linguistic ear (and to the translation standards of Google translate) sounds like "are you OK?" ... on the internet, I can deal with people who care about subjects I care about. Some people make sure I definitely can't do so offline, and part of their arsenal is the argument you are proferring.
I knew about having a virtual life well before the internet. Reading, and not being very popular at school. But because the internet is freer of expression, Commie China decided in 2004 that a virtual life on those terms was far more dangerous than a life of reading had ever been. Somehow, whether in 2011 at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, or in 2025 over a Canadian youtuber, the SSPX has come to believe those doctors from Red China. Not to be too indiscrete, but where are you placing a certain scarlet beast and what would you call Catholics that are a bit too close to it?
By the way, my heart doesn't cease to beat, my lungs don't cease to breath, my brain doesn't go to flat line just because I'm before a screen with internet connection. The correct opposite of online isn't "in real life" and the correct opposite of virtual communication is not "in real life communication", they are rather, offline and viva voce (grazie alla bella lingua italiana / gratias ago maximas pulcherrimae linguae latinae, the spelling works both languages).
15:27 Sorry, but the reality of communicating over the internet is as real as the reality of communicating in other ways of writing or recording, and is as real, if not as direct as communicating verbally face to face, you are making a philosophical point which is not real philosophy.
If you take it from psychology or psychiatry, sorry again, those are not competent in philosophy and are a complete fraud about some of their doctrines on human behaviours.
A shrink from Hamburg, or even one who uses a paper written in Hamburg, can come to consider going to a cyber as a kind of gambling addiction. Note, in Hamburg, as far as I could see, unlike Paris, perhaps unlike Amsterdam, possibly by now unlike Berlin, though it wasn't the case in the winter 2004/2005, the only internet connection you can pay for is 6 € per hour or 1 € ten minutes, for a bad connection, you can hardly answer anyone on FB, you can certainly not blog from that connection. A shrink in Paris will read this paper and despite me having paid for a connection where I can do stuff, where I have hours paid in advance, this time thanks to a good deal 94 cents per hour, that shrink will pretend my writing on the internet is a form of gambling addiction.
I have come across the idea that writing and hoping for a publisher is gambling. No. If I bought a lottery ticket from Française des Jeux (lottery) in 2012, it's worthless now. But if I wrote a blog post in 2012 and didn't take it down and nobody else took it down, it may still be getting readers, like "I Like "Miacis Cognitus"" regularly does. Ten lottery gains of price back can't be combined over time to a more substantial gain, but ten blog posts that keep getting readers are more suited to become copied into a book than just one blog post that does. So, in the case of writing, the chance is being raised by a cumulative effect that's absent in lottery due to its ephemeral nature.
15:46 If you meant muscles for dealing with viva voce conflict, well yes. If I try to get the kind of justice I try to get from blogging about injustices in real life, as you put it, it means going to the police. And if the police lets you wait one hour, then another hour, then make the interaction one hour long, make sure it's interrupting me over and over for senseless clarifications, and preventing the one's I think needed and then make sure there is no investigation, I don't have the muscles to deal with that. I don't think I gain anything from trying to get them, except more police with Muslim and Jewish loyalties making sure I never get any satisfaction from Muslims or Jews who have done badly about my situation.
But I also had no muscles for dealing with that kind of thing back in 1996, when my misfortunes started, over Catholic life decisions, if not as directly over a confession of the Catholic faith, back then pretty strictly on SSPX lines. I am telling you, there are such things as "force majeure" and not just a single person handling his own affairs badly. And with your ideology, they are likely to continue over me even being at the internet for writing.
There is a time for someone to come to a conclusion, if he cares at all for someone's good, time to skip the good advice, time to start changing the response to a certain person.
No comments:
Post a Comment