Piers Morgan Jousts with Nick Fuentes with Embarrassing Results for Both

The old men who run the world are venal and vain fools; the young have little perspective, wisdom, or manners.

When Friedrich Nietzsche published Thus Spoke Zarathustra in 1883-1885, the author, who had just turned forty, became renowned for his bold and vivid challenge of the pieties of his day, and his vision of individual power and vitality.

Since Nietzsche died in 1900, many aspiring young male intellectuals have been inspired by the idea of ruffling the feathers of the old men who rule the world, and of exploding their pieties, most of which are hypocritical and self-serving.

The trouble with most aspiring young male intellectuals ever since is that they have lacked Nietzsche’s education, ability to think, and his literary style.

In our current internet age—in which carefully reasoned arguments often seem boring in comparison to exchanging garish, verbal barbs like gladiators in the ring—being controversial is probably the best strategy for attracting a large audience of young men— young men who perceive their elders as vain, venal, self-serving fools who care more about preserving their interests than leaving a better world for the young.

Old men are well-advised to listen to what young men have to say instead of simply dismissing them. This is perhaps a useful lesson that can be drawn from France in 1789 and Russia in 1917. However, in order for young men to be effective, they must learn to temper their vitality and impiety with perspective, wisdom, and manners.

Tucker Carlson was recently criticized for purportedly failing to be more adversarial in his conversation with Nick Fuentes. This criticism follows the erroneous logic that the older generation must censure the impious opinions of the young instead of discussing them.

Recently Piers Morgan decided to enter the ring with Nick Fuentes with embarrassing results for both men. Mr. Morgan came off as too eager to display his moral bona fides, while Mr. Fuentes came off as callow, rude, and lacking perspective and wisdom. Mr. Morgan would have been more effective if he had adopted a strictly Socratic method of talking with the young man, without any moralizing.

Watching the interview made me lament all the more that Charlie Kirk was murdered. He struck me as his generation’s best hope for articulating a mature vision of what would be best for American civilization at this perilous moment in its history. Other young conservative voices in the public forum strike me as lacking his maturity, depth, and restraint.