On Morality
And Fools
On December 8, 2025, on the British show Piers Morgan Uncensored, the American right-wing commentator Nick Fuentes, in conversation with the host, uttered (or rather reaffirmed) the phrase “Hitler is fucking cool.” The pipes immediately lit up. Today, I’ll step onto a stool and give two short lessons: one in history, the other in morality.
Boomers — as Zoomers label the 60+ cohort — are trying to pressure Zoomers with a morality they have turned into dogma.
A morality built on a single interpretation of history: the one canonized after Germany’s defeat, institutionalized in Nuremberg and The Hague, elevated to an absolute, and declared final.
This morality is not debated, not refined, not updated. But it rusts beautifully.
It gets pulled from the pocket whenever there’s a need to justify the next piece of institutional nonsense — restrictions of rights, economic self-sabotage, censorship, selective humanism. Millions of dead Jews are transformed into a universal argument that shuts down any discussion in advance. Not as a tragedy, but as a cudgel.
The fight against fascism has effectively been privatized by left-liberals. The very people who, with high probability, would never have picked up a weapon or risked their own lives against fascism — or against anything at all. For them, fascism is not a threat; it is a convenient moral asset.
Judgments of events grow more polarized the closer the observer is to direct participation. History demonstrates this relentlessly. Today we speak of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne with academic reverence. Yet Phoenicians, Persians, Gauls, Picts, and dozens of exterminated or displaced peoples saw them as butchers. And they were right — from their vantage point.
That is why today’s sacralized criticism of Schmidt and his “Reichs” looks especially grotesque in a world that is racing back toward exactly that logic: bloc-based, imperial, Reich-like structures. An American Reich. A European one. A Chinese one. A Russian one — with a question mark that grows fainter by the day. Moral condemnation of the past unfolds at the very moment the present reproduces the same architecture of power, merely under different flags and vocabulary.
And this is where a young man appears — unpleasant, provocative, often stupid — whose very existence exposes the shortsightedness and toothlessness of boomer moralizing. A moralizing that explains the scale of historical tragedy solely through the lived experience of its victims, while pretending this is a universal and eternal criterion for political judgment.
History does not work that way. It never has.
The conflict between fathers and children has always existed. And it always will.
Artificially transmitting guilt across generations does not work. It does not produce responsibility; it produces cynicism and rejection. Children must have their own mistakes. Their own illusions. Their own catastrophes.
And if you, the boomers, lack the capacity to preserve restraining institutions yourselves — if today it is you who are dismantling them with your own hands, not “thirty-year-old kids” — then what exactly are you demanding from the latter?
Morality without personal responsibility and institutional competence is not morality.
It is grumbling.
And it is no better than crude provocation.
That’s how it is.