Traditionalist Millennials and Woodstock Elders
January 5, 2015
SVEN writes:
Thanks as always for your blog. I would like to ask your opinion on the future of traditionalists in the millennial generation. I’m in my mid-twenties, and hold “old-fashioned” convictions on heritage, family, and church. We are taught to respect our elders, but as I realize the importance of old and ancient ways more every day, I cannot help but feel a sense of betrayal at how liberal (for lack of a better word) most of them are. My fiancée’s mother, for instance, who considers herself a conservative Catholic, often says things that would not have been out of place on the Woodstock stage in the summer of ’69. How can I reconcile the respect one should show for one’s elders with the fact that most of them have no respect for their elders, our forefathers? Do you think that there are a growing number of young folks like me who are rejecting the nihilism and meaninglessness of the modern Western culture to opt for the safety of the old ways?
Laura writes:
You’re welcome.
You say that you believe in “old-fashioned” convictions. I realize you put that word “old-fashioned” in quotes, but you also refer to your belief in “old and ancient ways,” implying that you agree with the idea of being “old-fashioned.” I think that’s surrendering to the enemy.
As far as sexual morality goes, which is probably the main area of “old-fashioned-ness,” sexual sins are ancient and very “old-fashioned.” Although there was a cultural revolution in values, it’s pretty old now and besides there is nothing really new about sexual liberation. It’s just been marketed as new and cool and exciting. Moral order is never old. It is always new. It is always a form of progress. The important thing is truth and falsehood, not what is new or old. You’re a radical. The problem with thinking of yourself as a “traditionalist” is that it implies that you want to go back to some previous era. I know you admire parts of the past, but that’s only because you want to live in reality. Current reality. So you’re not choosing behavior or practices because they are old. You are choosing them because they are true and good. You also refer to the “safety of old ways.” The old ways you are referring can actually be pretty dangerous socially, as you probably realize. So give yourself credit for choosing what is in fact not easy and not safe.
As for your main point:
Yes, you must honor your parents and the parents of your future spouse. That is an absolute command from God. You would be unhappy if you did not show love for those who have raised and sacrificed for you and your future wife.
However to honor them does not mean to accept or participate in what they believe. It means treating them with deferential civility, charity and understanding. At the same time, you should establish the sort of distance that makes it possible for you to live without friction or serious compromises. Perhaps there needs to be a very great distance (not necessarily geographic). Perhaps prolonged separation. You must honor them but you don’t have to form a close extended family. You should think about that carefully now when you are just starting out. Abandon expectations of changing others while also letting them know what you believe and why.
You write:
Do you think that there are a growing number of young folks like me who are rejecting the nihilism and meaninglessness of the modern Western culture to opt for the safety of the old ways?
To be honest, I don’t know. I know the Sexual Revolution won’t last. It causes chaos. It’s contrary to human nature. It’s evil. But how it will end, I don’t know. In general, I don’t care how many people are for or against it. I really don’t. There has been a tremendous loss of grace in our world and so many people are stumbling in the dark. There have been abundant warnings of mass apostasy. Be thankful that you can see and humble with what you know. Be civilized and prepare to be hated on occasion — or prepare at least to be strongly disliked.
And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it. He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. (Matthew 10: 31-40.)
— Comments —
Anti-Globalist Expatriate writes:
‘Do you think that there are a growing number of young folks like me who are rejecting the nihilism and meaninglessness of the modern Western culture to opt for the safety of the old ways?’
No, of course not. And a big part of the reason is that the young folks are so poorly-educated and deliberately misinformed by so-called ‘public schools’ controlled by Leftists that they don’t even know that the old ways ever existed, in the first place.
This is deliberate; most Leftists have no compunctions whatsoever about misrepresenting the past in order to control the present and dominate the future. And since most Leftists these days are themselves so poorly-educated and ideologically indoctrinated in Gramscian notions of cultural hegemony (though most of them have no idea who Gramsci was), they don’t even consciously understand that they’re distorting and misrepresenting the past.
This is why I miss the Old Left. They knew what they were doing, and why, and they could be rationally debated. Most modern Leftists have such impoverished intellects that it’s pointless even attempting to debate them, as they’re so profoundly ignorant of actual history and bereft of the rudiments of logic that it’s impossible to engage them in any meaningful way.
Laura writes:
C.S. Lewis wrote a book called, “Surprised by Joy.”
Some millennial should write a book titled, “Surprised by Logic.”
You will never win debating someone who does not believe in logic. Never. That is not to say that everything can be reduced to logic. It can’t. It would be arrogant to think that it could.