Start liking it As the middle class is picked clean and discarded like the poors, as every would be savior proves to be a self-serving fraud, we will only see more and more young men lashing out.
"Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvelously: for I will work a work in your days which ye will not believe, though it be told you." Habbakuk 1:5
I doubt there will be any collapse. Just the West will increasingly resemble Brazil, albeit a Brazil with less attractive females and a more hyperbellgerent foreign policy.
(1) this is why I renew my subscription — systems level thinking that isn’t beholden to partisan affiliation (you have it on education and carceral institutionalization too)
(2) horrifying spectacle watching the US turn into something … not what I grew up with. I’m pessimistic for us in Canada though. Our own war of all-against-all led by young men is much more nascent and still might be halted, but as they say, when America coughs, Canada gets a cold. It’s going to drag us down too. Oh and, you know, there’s only two countries that you can roll tanks into, and we’re one of them, and we have all the water and a lot of oil.
Good perspective. America came back from the brink before.
But that was before the internet and the fracturing of reality into a million individual self-selected silos — how does that change things for the current situation?
The difference between 2025 America and 1968 America is that, in 1968, there was still an unwritten agreement - work moderately hard, play by the rules that matter, and you will live a fairly comfortable life, especially if you are white. Not only that, but your children have a good shot at living a better life than what you had.
It's hard to be a revolutionary, or even a malcontent, when if you'd just go with the program and act like you're supposed to, you could be pulling your Buick into the driveway of your nice little bungalow.
However, that unwritten agreement no longer holds. The only thing that working hard and playing by the rules will get you is old.
EDIT: the genesis of the european social welfare state is not, european self-regard notwithstanding, the civilized and enlightened nature of the european, but fear of Communism after 1945. The elites had to offer the proles a bigger slice of the pie, a Better Deal.
Now that Communism is no more, the rulers want that piece of the pie back.
Outstanding point, surprised it isn't mentioned much here.
That agreement has been killed by a thousand cuts over the last 50 years, to a point where it simply no longer holds true. It used to be the promise of American citizenship, now it's used to try and shame old people. The level of economic well-being disconnect between the 60's and now is off the chart. And that is a HUGE reason why so many Americans are so damn pissed off.
We think things are bad now? Just wait until something really important breaks, like the dollar standard, and we will start getting really nasty with each other.
China is right to sit back and wait for us to self-fail, those are really good Vegas odds right now.
A lot of problems can be papered over with money. I've seen a lot of families, a lot of businesses where the participants cordially hate each other, but they stay together because the money is so good.
It's when the money starts to run dry that the knives come out.
Many/most of the online commentary community have likely not experienced the regular violence that was a part of the United States through the 1970s (and still exists in most other countries around the world). This is coupled with our susceptibility to be overwhelmed with coverage of particular events that fit the algorithm. Which is to say, there will more such days and exponentially more coverage, and the cycle will continue.
Honest question: how much of the political violence of the last few years has actually been committed by _young_ men? The first attempt on Trump, sure. But the second attempt was by a man in his late 50s, Paul Pelosi's attacker was in his 40s, the Michigan congressional assassin was also in his late 50s.
Young men are massively overrepresented among the ranks of spree shooters (mass shootings at malls, etc.). I think it's reasonable to wonder if there's a link between mass shootings and political violence, although I personally couldn't explicate what such a link could be.
The link is men. It is amazing to me that here, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we've created generation after generation of pathetic men [edit: who are committing this daily violence] who blame the world for all of their problems.
What part is incorrect? Or do I need to add a "not all men" catchall at the end? Frankly, I do not feel very charitable to the men who continue to shoot and kill others in every corner of our country day after day after day.
Of course there are problems and challenges facing boys and men in this country- I see those things in the poor rural community where I grew up and I discuss the same with my sons. And, at the same time, there is no place on earth with more opportunity for those same boys and men.
The system is inherently unfair and, as always, there is no alternative but to push through that system.
"Young males are the principal troublemakers in any society, even elephant or feline society."
I am being reminded of this constantly by my ~1-y/o cat who showed up under my deck day one day and is now earning his keep by murdering every mouse, shrew, bird, and baby rabbit he can get his paws on.
The link would be men who feel either powerless and trod upon or powerless and seeking meaning and power and who find it in foolish, terrible places.
I'm not asking you for a "not all men." I'm asking you to actually narrow your identification of the problem meaningfully. 50% of the population is not a meaningful grouping, and does not tell you anything about what the problem is.
Understood (and I added some context in my original comment)- I was responding to the comment about the men who commit this violence, and those are the men I'm referring to: the shooters/perpetrators, who appear to come from every walk of life and every background.
Interesting point. Regardless of the specifics of these attacks and how you choose which to highlight (for example, Luigi is a young man) - young males are the principal revolutionaries, troublemakers, whatever you want to call it, in any society.
Being there as an empire or polity collapses is pretty banal by historical standards, I think. Even long-lived empires like ancient Egypt, China, Rome, England had periodic civil wars and times of great death.
Anyway, living through such a time means you’re extra-not-likely to be raptured up to wirehead heaven by an omnipotent AI, so I think Freddie’s earlier essay today still stands. Even if we might live out our lives in slightly more “interesting times” than we had anticipated in the end-of-history late 1990s.
My opinion is that a few shootings does not an inevitable slide into anarchy make. A full examination of US history would probably find that there have been more violent periods since the civil war than today. Events always seem of massive importance immediately after they happen, but whether they actually lead to changes is much harder to predict.
Nonetheless, that is incredible and complex writing on short notice, and while I am glad (from your plans letter) that you will do whatever is necessary for your mental health it’s a shame we would have less of your voice in that space
I have an alternative theory, which is that politics are meaningless and the only thing that matters is demographics. There are attractive forces that hold societies together and centrifugal forces that fling them apart.
One of the big dividers? Too many elites. Peter Turchin writes that elites who can't find elite jobs are as destabilizing as a surplus of young men who cannot find mates. There's a theory that in the old days, nations would launch wars to burn off their surplus population. A comparable solution for the present day does not come to mind.
I think the whole "nations launch wars to burn off surplus population" is a very poor way to make the statement. Better might be that nations with surplus young male population are more likely to find politically acceptable reasons to go to war.
I have friction with this violence just bc it’s social violence to me; violence after ecology rather than emergent before or through it. But you’ve written more and this is yet another sign to write for me….
I think deBoer deserves credit for catching sight of the shift early. The article that springs to mind is the one where he wrote about how the Red Scare girls hanging out with Alex Jones was symptomatic of a breakdown of the sociopolitical status quo. And of course, the old way of doing things has to break before the new way of doing things can replace it.
The Annunciation shooting was politically motivated. Even if Westman's motivations were incoherent, the political-ness of them is obvious. Westman seems obviously influenced by the current political environment - doomer, aggressive, partisan, desperate, deferent to extremes - in forming her justifications.
Just because children aren't elected officials, doesn't mean targeting them isn't political.
A church is a public voice. A community is a public entity. These things are sources of collective political and civic action.
What you mean is, the people, the kids, were ordinary. And we don't care about ordinary people.
As an ordinary person myself, I am much more afraid of my ordinary family being used as leverage in some crazed person's agenda to prove a point, than I am of being the target of some kind of political assassination. And that effect - which no doubt troubles and impacts many people - is indeed political.
Start liking it As the middle class is picked clean and discarded like the poors, as every would be savior proves to be a self-serving fraud, we will only see more and more young men lashing out.
"Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvelously: for I will work a work in your days which ye will not believe, though it be told you." Habbakuk 1:5
The system hasn't collapsed...but it gets more and more hollowed out.
I doubt there will be any collapse. Just the West will increasingly resemble Brazil, albeit a Brazil with less attractive females and a more hyperbellgerent foreign policy.
Fewer mosquitoes, though.
But fewer bikinis, if the Bible-thumpers get their way.
(1) this is why I renew my subscription — systems level thinking that isn’t beholden to partisan affiliation (you have it on education and carceral institutionalization too)
(2) horrifying spectacle watching the US turn into something … not what I grew up with. I’m pessimistic for us in Canada though. Our own war of all-against-all led by young men is much more nascent and still might be halted, but as they say, when America coughs, Canada gets a cold. It’s going to drag us down too. Oh and, you know, there’s only two countries that you can roll tanks into, and we’re one of them, and we have all the water and a lot of oil.
Yes but. We're not yet at the levels of political violence I grew up with -- 1960s America.
Good perspective. America came back from the brink before.
But that was before the internet and the fracturing of reality into a million individual self-selected silos — how does that change things for the current situation?
Like I said above -- I'm buying a shotgun.
I recommend a Mossberg pump, and then practicing with it.
That's the one. Had one or two back in the day.
God yes. If you are going to buy a gun, for the love of god, learn how to hit what you're shooting at.
This isn't over.
The difference between 2025 America and 1968 America is that, in 1968, there was still an unwritten agreement - work moderately hard, play by the rules that matter, and you will live a fairly comfortable life, especially if you are white. Not only that, but your children have a good shot at living a better life than what you had.
It's hard to be a revolutionary, or even a malcontent, when if you'd just go with the program and act like you're supposed to, you could be pulling your Buick into the driveway of your nice little bungalow.
However, that unwritten agreement no longer holds. The only thing that working hard and playing by the rules will get you is old.
EDIT: the genesis of the european social welfare state is not, european self-regard notwithstanding, the civilized and enlightened nature of the european, but fear of Communism after 1945. The elites had to offer the proles a bigger slice of the pie, a Better Deal.
Now that Communism is no more, the rulers want that piece of the pie back.
Outstanding point, surprised it isn't mentioned much here.
That agreement has been killed by a thousand cuts over the last 50 years, to a point where it simply no longer holds true. It used to be the promise of American citizenship, now it's used to try and shame old people. The level of economic well-being disconnect between the 60's and now is off the chart. And that is a HUGE reason why so many Americans are so damn pissed off.
We think things are bad now? Just wait until something really important breaks, like the dollar standard, and we will start getting really nasty with each other.
China is right to sit back and wait for us to self-fail, those are really good Vegas odds right now.
A lot of problems can be papered over with money. I've seen a lot of families, a lot of businesses where the participants cordially hate each other, but they stay together because the money is so good.
It's when the money starts to run dry that the knives come out.
That's a very fast and trenchant take. Doesn't seem to lead to socialism, tho. I'm buying a shotgun.
Hate to say I think you’re right. We took a weird detour for a few decades….
Many/most of the online commentary community have likely not experienced the regular violence that was a part of the United States through the 1970s (and still exists in most other countries around the world). This is coupled with our susceptibility to be overwhelmed with coverage of particular events that fit the algorithm. Which is to say, there will more such days and exponentially more coverage, and the cycle will continue.
Honest question: how much of the political violence of the last few years has actually been committed by _young_ men? The first attempt on Trump, sure. But the second attempt was by a man in his late 50s, Paul Pelosi's attacker was in his 40s, the Michigan congressional assassin was also in his late 50s.
Young men are massively overrepresented among the ranks of spree shooters (mass shootings at malls, etc.). I think it's reasonable to wonder if there's a link between mass shootings and political violence, although I personally couldn't explicate what such a link could be.
The link is violence itself and also fame.
The link is men. It is amazing to me that here, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we've created generation after generation of pathetic men [edit: who are committing this daily violence] who blame the world for all of their problems.
That's a very uncharitable take on several levels and will only contribute to the problem.
What part is incorrect? Or do I need to add a "not all men" catchall at the end? Frankly, I do not feel very charitable to the men who continue to shoot and kill others in every corner of our country day after day after day.
Of course there are problems and challenges facing boys and men in this country- I see those things in the poor rural community where I grew up and I discuss the same with my sons. And, at the same time, there is no place on earth with more opportunity for those same boys and men.
The system is inherently unfair and, as always, there is no alternative but to push through that system.
Whenever I hear N.A.M. I think, "well of course 'not ALL men' but it only takes ONE to make you dead."
Young males are the principal troublemakers in any society, even elephant or feline society.
They also are the visionaries, the doers.
"Young males are the principal troublemakers in any society, even elephant or feline society."
I am being reminded of this constantly by my ~1-y/o cat who showed up under my deck day one day and is now earning his keep by murdering every mouse, shrew, bird, and baby rabbit he can get his paws on.
Usually it's females that are the better hunters. Having a litter to feed will do that to a cat.
Toms like to roam, fight and fornicate.
If you have coyotes in your area I strongly recommend keeping the cat inside.
Source: personal experience.
The link would be men who feel either powerless and trod upon or powerless and seeking meaning and power and who find it in foolish, terrible places.
I'm not asking you for a "not all men." I'm asking you to actually narrow your identification of the problem meaningfully. 50% of the population is not a meaningful grouping, and does not tell you anything about what the problem is.
Understood (and I added some context in my original comment)- I was responding to the comment about the men who commit this violence, and those are the men I'm referring to: the shooters/perpetrators, who appear to come from every walk of life and every background.
Fair enough. That clarification makes much more sense. Perhaps I should have intuited that you'd meant "men" more narrowly in context.
(or I should have written a more effective comment)
Male aimlessness is extending into later life as the system doesn't absorb more and more into constraining purpose giving institutions.
Interesting point. Regardless of the specifics of these attacks and how you choose which to highlight (for example, Luigi is a young man) - young males are the principal revolutionaries, troublemakers, whatever you want to call it, in any society.
I'm late here, but I'll add that Las Vegas sniper from a couple years back to your list.
Also, haven't there been a couple of guys over the last few years who drove cars into crowds who weren't that young?
We’ve seen it before: Cambodia, 1975.
I can't disagree on the merits...but it's interesting reading this mere hours after the "paean to banality" this morning.
Being there as an empire or polity collapses is pretty banal by historical standards, I think. Even long-lived empires like ancient Egypt, China, Rome, England had periodic civil wars and times of great death.
Anyway, living through such a time means you’re extra-not-likely to be raptured up to wirehead heaven by an omnipotent AI, so I think Freddie’s earlier essay today still stands. Even if we might live out our lives in slightly more “interesting times” than we had anticipated in the end-of-history late 1990s.
One is moral instruction. The other is the observation of a decaying system. Here I advocate nothing.
My opinion is that a few shootings does not an inevitable slide into anarchy make. A full examination of US history would probably find that there have been more violent periods since the civil war than today. Events always seem of massive importance immediately after they happen, but whether they actually lead to changes is much harder to predict.
It’s going to be barbarism, isn’t it
It would be easier to say that the internet is making us crazy
Jesus Freddie, that's dark.
Did you write that all TODAY?
Applause, brother.
well yes but I have been gnawing on this particular bone for a long time and the shooting really captured my attention
Nonetheless, that is incredible and complex writing on short notice, and while I am glad (from your plans letter) that you will do whatever is necessary for your mental health it’s a shame we would have less of your voice in that space
I have an alternative theory, which is that politics are meaningless and the only thing that matters is demographics. There are attractive forces that hold societies together and centrifugal forces that fling them apart.
One of the big dividers? Too many elites. Peter Turchin writes that elites who can't find elite jobs are as destabilizing as a surplus of young men who cannot find mates. There's a theory that in the old days, nations would launch wars to burn off their surplus population. A comparable solution for the present day does not come to mind.
I think having external enemies is helpful as well.
Politics can change demographic effects by altering the categories, changing the attractive and repulsive forces in the society.
I don't think people (by which I mean governments or other large organizations) have any real control over demographics.
Marx was wrong about many things, but one thing that he was correct on was the centrality of economics.
Surplus elites is a concern.
I think the whole "nations launch wars to burn off surplus population" is a very poor way to make the statement. Better might be that nations with surplus young male population are more likely to find politically acceptable reasons to go to war.
Yeah, but what's the real driver? Demographics, not politics.
I have friction with this violence just bc it’s social violence to me; violence after ecology rather than emergent before or through it. But you’ve written more and this is yet another sign to write for me….
I think deBoer deserves credit for catching sight of the shift early. The article that springs to mind is the one where he wrote about how the Red Scare girls hanging out with Alex Jones was symptomatic of a breakdown of the sociopolitical status quo. And of course, the old way of doing things has to break before the new way of doing things can replace it.
I've seen more "be better" commentary on the Kirk shooting, than on the Annunciation mass shooting in MN that lead to the death of children. Why?
Media and political figures in a position to offer commentary are not particularly likely to be the victims of an unpredictable shooting spree.
The Annunciation shooting was politically motivated. Even if Westman's motivations were incoherent, the political-ness of them is obvious. Westman seems obviously influenced by the current political environment - doomer, aggressive, partisan, desperate, deferent to extremes - in forming her justifications.
Just because children aren't elected officials, doesn't mean targeting them isn't political.
Of course the Annunciation shooting was political, but public voices were not the target.
This is personal to them.
A church is a public voice. A community is a public entity. These things are sources of collective political and civic action.
What you mean is, the people, the kids, were ordinary. And we don't care about ordinary people.
As an ordinary person myself, I am much more afraid of my ordinary family being used as leverage in some crazed person's agenda to prove a point, than I am of being the target of some kind of political assassination. And that effect - which no doubt troubles and impacts many people - is indeed political.
Perhaps we have different definitions of "public voice".