Simulated Conviction

and some holy ghosting...

Get Me Outta Here, Acrylic on Wood, Frank Walls, 2025.

This recent note sent me down a rabbit hole regarding the ‘make Christian Orthodoxy great again’ shtick proliferating the internet (I’m also putting trad Christianity under this umbrella for this essay). I’ve developed more ranty thoughts on this than I care to admit, so here we are.

A post.

Most of this isn’t really about God…or at least not the God you’re supposed to find and feel on Sundays. It’s about the desire for moral clarity in a culture that can’t give you anything but the illusion of options and choice. It’s about the fantasy of finding a system so total…so ready-made…that you don’t have to invent yourself anymore. A system that allows you to embrace the restrictions on your choice…and then pronounce it to be moral virtue.

The trad turn isn’t new…it isn’t some coming spiritual revolution…it’s nostalgia for authority disguised as enlightenment.

So, to them I say…you want the aesthetic of conviction because our modern culture has made conviction look dangerous and rare. Is there a better way to package your submission? With this package… you become an identity performing conviction that allows you to feel rebellious, dangerous, moral, and something totalized.

The problem: I think you clearly have a hunger for a moral system that operates in more of a totality but are too lazy to read Kant (same though). And to be fair Kant is probably not as memetically sexy to quote as some of the wild and fantastical biblical text we have (so fair I guess).¹

But to keep this post somewhat relevant to the Note…

1 The Maslow Stuff

Wiki

First, the note misses the entire point of Maslow's hierarchy of needs (MHN)². At least from a sociological perspective. The MHN pyramid is not a blueprint for self-actualization through comfort…it's a brutal reminder that actualization is a privilege, one that depends on shelter, food, safety…not in theory, but in the material conditions of daily life. These aren't aspirational bullet points…they're the foundation…of living. To suggest otherwise is like telling someone drowning that they should really focus on their breathing technique.

"The saints found God in starvation, in exile, in prison, and even in death.”³

Yeah, and i've been high on some psychedelic brew, I saw something like God. My suffering was self inflicted…a controlled incubator for me to suffer on a cushiony floor mat, with the relative hope that the other people in the room will keep me alive in the process. I found the experience valuable, sure. But it was a choice…and one built to be a controlled incubator for me to suffer and be kept safe so that I could LARP an expression of spiritual awarness.⁴

Now, credit to the priest or the monk. Their self-inflicted suffering often serves a higher purpose, a deliberate confrontation with the raw edges of existence. This is good. The priest chooses the desert…not because the starving peasant was already in Eden, but because the peasant had been violently exiled from it…so the priest descends, not to bypass MHN, but to scream from that desolate place, demanding a world where we do not ignore the bodies of those crushed by conditions they did not choose. The monk’s emaciated form isn't an advertisement for enlightenment-through-starvation…it's a living indictment of a world that allows said starvation.

So yeah…the Note i'm addressing is profoundly wrong. The priest or monk who renounces food is not an argument against MHN…they are a theatrical, often desperate, reminder of it. The priest is meant to bring attention, to force our gaze towards the pain of those who do not have the luxury to choose between need and some spiritual transcendence. You are not called to reject the hierarchy…you are called to ask…who is systematically denied the chance to even start climbing said hierarchy? And why? What structures are holding them down?

To be fair…the soul may require communion to flourish. But the body requires sustenance to survive. And for those who cannot secure the proper sustenance…I can assure you…they're not thinking about some proximity to God for some new philosophical realization…they're trying to acquire their anesthesia for the systemic abandonment they're experiencing. Their most fervent prayer is for the next meal, not the next mystical insight.

2 New Age Christian BS

I have no proof of this…only what I've observed. But there's this growing trend of edgy women on Twitter and Substack who have this whole philosophical Christian Orthodoxy/Catholicism thing going. And it’s definitely making a mark on Substack. Now, do not be fooled: this is not about theology in the traditional sense. I consider this more of a direct example of Gen Z hyper-irony collapsing in on itself…in a way it started off as insincere and has turned into something almost sincere.

They perform the aesthetics of a Christian philosophical perspective…and you can’t help but wonder: when they consume their own thoughts on the matter, do they really believe it, or are they just trying to convince themselves that they do? There’s a digital barrier—a curated feed—that seems to help these 'creators' let their irony fold in on itself until it becomes belief. Or at least…a very marketable image of belief.

I’m sure Baudrillard would have some words on this simulation. What I’m critiquing is not the return to religion, but the simulacrum of religion. It’s not even faith…it’s a ritualized copy of the aesthetic of faith…now endlessly self-replicating on platforms optimized for spectacle. The irony folds in on itself until it pretends to be Truth.⁵

“Is it about aesthetics then?”

Probably. When isn’t it? We’re talking about internet culture, where the map not only precedes the territory…it is the territory.

Anyway, this return to Trad Christianity isn’t really a return to tradition—or even a genuine desire for tradition. It’s a simulation of conviction. You’re not seeking belief…you’re seeking the feeling of having once believed. When the self fragments, nostalgia become your narcotic.

It’s a craving for the feeling and aesthetic of conviction. When everything feels uncertain—when truth itself seems to have crumbled in an endless fragmentation with infinite pathways—how do you find conviction? You seek out nostalgia…a powerful opiate for the terminally online. And that nostalgia gives you attention, which in turn lets you perform conviction, with all the trappings of tradition, because it hits people’s feelings and desire for their own nostalgia.

It’s a self-reinforcing loop. You think you’re rejecting consumption by embracing some denial of worldly pleasure, but what you’re really doing is consuming aesthetics of that denial. Even your “tradness” is content, meticulously curated for the feed. Consume! Consume! Consume the restraint of others!

Your desire for nostalgia wishes to take your soul.

Okay…so I’m not calling these types grifters or Christian LARPERS, but I’m also not about to say they have real (whatever is real? topic for another day) conviction. Maybe they’re just auditioning for the role, hoping that if they wear the costume long enough, it’ll start to feel like skin.

“You’re reading a lot into their psychology from one note.”

I’m reading into the fantasy I’ve constructed in my brain about these types over months. It’s not a perfectly accurate image…but it’s definitely touching on something raw and true. You should judge me. This whole rant is its own performance, isn’t it? My catharsis as content. Do not find me wise when I could be another priest!

Now, let me continue to critique the simplified image I’ve created.⁶

3 Morality

So, you desire moral clarity? You think Christian Orthodoxy will provide it? Let’s stop pretending this is about theology. You’re not becoming Orthodox because you had a spiritual awakening. You’re becoming Orthodox because you’ve realized the neoliberal order has no idea what to do with your soul. It promised freedom…but gave you choice without meaning. It promised liberation…but delivered you into an algorithm that auto-fills your identity.

So…you don’t want to obey God because you love Him or something. You want to obey God because the algorithm made you hate your own reflection (or it made you hate that it made you overly aware of your reflection).

Here’s a psychoanalytic layer: the nostalgia for God becomes the return of the superego Other. The Other that was lost from having to constantly see the reflection of yourself.⁷

Modern neoliberalism sells you infinite choice…then accuses you of picking wrong. You thought freedom meant fulfillment. You crave the rules…not because you love them…but because you can hide behind them.

You don’t want order. You don’t even want moral clarity. You want a pretext for obedience, a reprieve from the crushing weight of self-authorship. You retreat to tradition, to Orthodoxy, to patriarchy, to piety…not because you believe, not because these systems are inherently better, but because they don’t ask you to invent yourself. Because they precede you. Because they feel like something outside the market.

Which sounds better: “I’m obedient to God’s moral system,” or “God’s word made my path clear”? The latter sounds like divine guidance; the former, like a conscious choice to submit.

Both achieve the same end…the outsourcing of difficult thought and the comforting illusion of certainty. Your embrace of “trad” becomes the fantasy of meaning without freedom.

You’re tired of consuming and the inevitable resenting that your choice in consumption leads. The fragmented self, a product of modern liberalism’s demand to be anything and everything, all of the time…discovers the endless cycle of resentment. But do not worry—there’s a product to consume that will help you get over that resentment(for a time). You only have to choose.⁸

But think about it…if Christianity is “The Truth”, then you don’t have to ask further questions…about sex, about ambition, about God, about the child you don’t have and the purpose you don’t feel. You want the rules. You desire them. You want them not necessarily to follow with integrity, but to hide behind. They become a shield against the terrifying void of self-responsibility. The return to religion, to moral absolutism, to “based” truth…this is not a spiritual revolution. It’s nostalgia for repression. A deep, unconscious wish that someone would take your freedom away so you no longer have to feel guilty for wasting it.

I wish I could believe you…not really. I’m just saying that to sound more humble and wise. My arrogance knows no bounds. Truthfully, I don’t think any of these online Christian philosophers or anti-West lifestyle types care about the truth. You care about finding a system that looks like it knows what it’s doing. This is why you seek nostalgia, why you seek old systems. It gets attention. It gets clicks. It gives you another reason to become obedient to that system. You want God’s authority because you hate how narcissistic the liberal God of “be your best self” made us. Again, I don’t blame you. But it doesn’t make you truthful. It makes you a priest that presents the aesthetic of certainty.

4 Liberal Overload

This is the core of it, isn’t it? The “liberal system overload.”

The subject becomes paralyzed by too much self-awareness, too many mirrors, too many possible selves. It’s exhausting. It’s not just that liberalism dangled the carrot of freedom, liberation, and choice…it beat us with the stick of mandatory self-creation. You must be unique. You must have a personal brand. You must optimize every facet of your existence—from your gut biome to your political takes—all while performing for an invisible, ever-judging audience. All the while the stick that kept hitting you was the invisible hand guiding your every choice…and your perception of what it is to be free and liberated.⁹

The promise was liberation. The lived experience, for many, is a low-grade, persistent anxiety attack fueled by comparison and the terror of irrelevance. And the only escape from the pending rent payment is further consumption or an even more dreadful work-life balance.

But here’s the part no one wants to admit: You didn’t reject liberalism because it was too permissive. You rejected it because it colonized your desire. Every ad, every feed, every ideology told you what kind of person you should want to be, what kind of sex to have, what kind of relationship to pursue, what kind of ambition to cultivate—and, worst of all, what it meant to be free. You didn’t feel liberated. You felt curated. It taught you to desire, then accused you of wanting the wrong things (Choice meet stick).

The sheer volume of information, the cacophony of competing narratives, have shredded any shared sense of reality. In this epistemic fog, the appeal of a system that claims singular, unchanging Truth becomes almost irresistible. It’s a lighthouse in a sea of mental fragmentation. We have endless fragmentation! Why do you think the schizo genre of content has become more common place? We relate to the endless fragmentation and desire to become centralized again.

Liberalism, in its modern guise, often dissolves the very communal bonds that provide meaning, leaving individuals adrift. So of course, a ready-made community with the nostalgic backing of tradition looks like another opportunity for liberation.

You are not rejecting liberalism! You’re fulfilling it. You’re taking the logic of personal branding, moral performance, and commodified identity to its late stage: total self-erasure and submission to the status quo…and then claiming your lack and your lie as something profoundly True.¹⁰

Then there’s the burnout—the relentless pressure to produce, to become. The idea of surrendering, of simply being within a preordained structure…it must feel like an incredible exhalation.

“Just tell me what to do, what to believe, and I’ll do it. I’m tired.”

But here’s the problem: your desire was already stolen. And now your rebellion is too. Even your nostalgia is manufactured. You think you’re escaping liberalism, but you’ve just become a different kind of liberal subject: one who chooses discipline over defiance, hierarchy over the uncertain, and an unending desire to see yourself through the digital screen.

This turn to Tradition, or any other all-encompassing system, isn’t necessarily a deep spiritual awakening.¹¹ It’s often a symptom of postmodern despair…a symptom of liberal society’s discontents…a desperate search for guardrails in a world that feels like it’s spinning off its axis. It’s a desire for the perceived solidity of the past, an escape from the uncertain, demanding, and often deeply alienating…present.

The tragic irony?

This “escape” is often just another lifestyle choice, another identity consumed and performed within the very liberal, market-driven framework it purports to reject. The algorithm doesn’t care if you’re selling crystals, courses, or slop content…it just wants your engagement. And it will get it.

You’re not rejecting the liberal order. You’re begging to be rescued from it—not because it’s too permissive, but because it left you alone with your own hollow, pre-programmed desire.

Or maybe worse…it began to show you how pre-programmed your desire actually is…

So here we are, endlessly circling the drain of self-discovery and self-abandonment, desperate for a system…any system…that will finally deliver us from the anxiety of being both the author and the audience of our own lives. The irony is suffocating: in our search for meaning, we become even more entangled in the machinery that first made us feel so lost. Maybe that’s the real revelation. Not that New Age Christianity, or some trad Christian aesthetic, or any “return” to order, will save us, but that the desire to be saved is itself the most all consuming product of a culture that can only market escape as another form of capture.

So, what now? Do we double down on tradition? Do we drape ourselves in the symbols of borrowed certainty? Or do we face the potential reality that there is no exit? Maybe the only honest move is to sit with the discomfort, to admit that the DESIRE for someone else’s rules is just the ghost of our own uncertainty…our own lack. In a culture built to sell you every answer, perhaps liberation is learning to live without one.

1. Here…something I didn’t feel like getting sidetracked on in the essay…”Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that the supreme principle of morality is a principle of practical rationality that he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Kant characterized the CI as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must follow despite any natural desires we may have to the contrary. All specific moral requirements, according to Kant, are justified by this principle, which means that all immoral actions are irrational because they violate the CI.”

2. I didn’t want to assume people know the definition so here…“Abraham Maslow's pyramidal "Hierarchy of Needs" model is a highly-influential way of organizing human needs from the most "basic" to the most advanced. Maslow's argument is that the most basic needs must be met before people can move "up" to the more advanced needs. It's important to note, however, that Maslow did not argue that each person must have met 100% of each need in order to "move up." For example, a learner can be a little hungry and still learn, but chronic hunger is a problem.”

3. Is this where we are? The belief that the saint suffers in order to further reinforce themselves as what? A saint. Is the saint a saint if the saint tries to do more saint like things to become more like a saint? Is the saint a saint or merely performing what it is to be a saint…are they then still a saint?

4. The priest or monk, ideally suffers as an act of solidarity. But in a spectacle-driven culture…that solidarity is easily commodified…turned into content, reduced to aesthetic posturing. The wise priest suffers for something beyond the self…but today’s “trad” converts suffer performatively to affirm a self already curating its online image.

5. Zizek would have some thoughts…i think his idea of hyperconsciousness applies here. It’s not that they don’t know it’s a performance. They know. This is the modern condition…to be aware of your performance. Yet, they perform anyway. The simulation then becomes a defense against nihilism…and the more fragile the belief, the louder the performance becomes.

6. I had someone recently complain about how I seemingly ask the reader for permission to continue. If you’re reading this…I will not be stopping this. Now, I wish to do it more. And the more I grow…the more I hope you resent me.

7. Obedience becomes your jouissance. Also, as you feel forced to consume your reflection…you face the awareness that is your fragmented self. So yeah…people are bound to desire a reunification of that…and the Daddy of the bible is a tried and true option for many.

8. Fuck… this rant is an inevitable projection of my own experience, despite my best efforts to pretend I’m thinking less about myself. (Spoiler: I’m not.)

9. I still believe the answer is not a reimposition of static form…i’m still in favor of finding peace in dynamic flux.

10. Do not let yourself be fooled by fake priest! Fake priest that attempt to present themselves as wise. You might see me as fake wise! You should! Doubt me! Doubt my existence!

11. It’s another fantasy built from the desire to find something that will finally make you feel whole. CC Lacan probably.