#but.. its still just. western christian culture repackaged. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

logothanatos · 7 years

Text

The Insufferably Simplistic Scientistic Harris v. The Philosophically Clueless and Politically Confused Peterson

youtube

Introductory Evaluation of Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson as People

After my New Atheist days, I pretty much saw Sam Harris as largely, intellectually irrelevant. On the other hand, I have a rather more complicated opinion on Jordan Peterson because he sometimes seems well-meaning but at the same time philosophically and politically naive. That being said, the Zeitgeist seems to be signaling that Peterson has acquired a relevance, even if in a small cadre, and that some people still take Sam Harris seriously (which seems to in turn indicate that mass deconversion is still an ongoing process). I can only imagine Harris still being relevant to budding atheists who still hold on to aspects of conservative thinking and libidinal attachment as well as the Christian rights' historically muddled and confused political categories. Or alternatively to insecure right-wing evangelicals fearful of the recent church exodus of a good number of Americans (whether due to being SBNR or atheists), and thereby politically emboldened into repackaging purely intellectual issues of Christianity into a secular moral quest of maintaining the hegemony or integrity of white identity (white folks as "meritous" representatives of Western civilization and values and tasked with "saving" it). Admittedly that's about the same demographic I could imagine Jordan Peterson appealing to.

Granted that would make sense, as the atheist budding out of theism, especially if having a background in Southern U.S. culture and white, is likely to implicitly run with this politics of identity that incorporates an apocalyptic or "rapture" vision of the clash with Islam as a greater evil than Christianity. In addition they are likely stuck, within their performance of Americanism, in the historical mangle of highly simplified Cold War political categories, just like these evangelicals, leading to politically confused criticisms (it's no wonder many of them get confused when a Facebook meme page that frequently criticizes liberals and has some critical takes on identity politics turns out to be highly left-wing). In fact, there is a temptation amongst some of these atheists, I suspect, to reaffirm the social function of religion as a strategy in this perceived cosmic struggle, hence why some of them side with Peterson and betray the anti-theistic sentiments of the majority of the New Atheist crowd (especially those influenced by Dawkins in particular). It's a Hitchens-esque move.

In sum, both Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are cheap supermarket preprepared packaged ramen noodles for evangelicals or atheists who just discovered philosophy as politics. As you can tell, these sociological aspects are a lot more interesting than the debate itself--I am not here using them as a counter-argument contra Harris and Peterson (that would be an ad hominem), but it is certainly something to consider given my assessment of them as persons already suggests a larger normative framework that potentially does clash with both Harris' and Peterson's assumptions. In other words, this can function as entry point. In any case, it at least justifies, sociologically, why I'd be wasting any time on these two people, although especially on Sam Harris at this point in my life (at least Peterson is a newcomer into the public intellectual scene).

Onto the Meat and Bones of this Lame Debate

But here's what I think of the (insufferable) debate here, which assesses both Harris and Peterson as debaters as well as philosophers, in addition to both their rhetoric and argument--keep in mind this is an original Youtube comment I made on the video, but all redacted and divided into sections:

Basically this video could've been renamed to "largely unworkable implicit logical positivism / pure correspondence theory of truth v. poorly argued and inconsistent pragmatism from philosophical novice," the former being Harris and the latter being Peterson.

On Peterson's Egregious Failings

A lot of pro-Peterson Youtube commenters seem to agree with Peterson's conclusion and are reconstructing Peterson's argument to sound better than it is. Guess what--even if Peterson's main claim and conclusion were right, it doesn't mean he argued it well. He did not. Sam Harris made some PHIL101 points that made Peterson look out of his element due to Peterson's elementary missteps in building a conceptually precise and consistent argument (whether or not Harris' conclusion is wrong). Peterson instead made a suggestive, appeal to intuition, which is not the same thing (which is fine if this were merely a discussion, and not a debate, and if Peterson had admitted as much). Saying that, given Darwinism, it may be expedient to treat truth in terms of usefulness, and this seems to be what conceptions of truth would be selected for, goes against the very rules of rationality intuited by people which makes Darwinism conceivable as demonstrable--Sam Harris makes this same point. Consequently, while Peterson shows its a suggestive possibility, an obvious flaw is there that Jordan Peterson does not address, instead wasting time on clarifying what he is trying to get at as if the issue were Harris not understanding what he quite literally said rather than his weak argument. To be clear, Peterson does have a problem with clarity or at least transparency of purpose in the rest of the debate, but on this particular point I'd say that was not at issue.

I also think it would've been more helpful if Peterson had just accepted Harris' definitions of truth, but tried to demonstrate how truth and usefulness are nonetheless related in the way he thinks they are as opposed to how Harris thinks they are. (This can be done through internal critique, or simply convincingly pointing out that there is a non-accidental correlation between truth, whatever it might separately or differently mean, and usefulness, whatever it might separately or differently mean.) This would've lead to some clarity or, if not clarity, some nonetheless straight-forward argumentation on Peterson's part. Instead he fumbles around trying to avoid using the word 'truth' inconsistently given he conflated another idea with it that isn't always interchangeable. It's like Peterson can't tell the difference between a definition (that meaning of a term according to its general usage) and a meaning (the many associations and possible directions the term can take) as well as the difference between an abstraction ('truth' emptied of any of the different meanings or uses the term might have, and just in its general potential for use or signification, or 'truth' in all its possible senses) and a concept ('truth' understood through a synthetic, consistent system of relations amongst ideas or propositions). This is why he unproductively, and, in fact, counter-productively resists Harris' initial, basic point. In fact, out of desperation, Peterson shifts the goalpost to showing that truth and the good are the same. This is an age-old position that Peterson could've drawn on for his arguments, but he can't manage to even at least problematize the is/ought dichotomy Harris is drawing. Peterson just reiterates his intuition that there is some special relationship between truth and the good not found between the good and anything else without really defending why the relationships he sees between the good and the true are suggestively special compared to the relationship between the good and other things.

On Harris' Rhetorical Banality and Lack of Nuance as well as the Laughable Accusations Harris, but especially Peterson, throw at Each Other

On the other hand, Harris' responses were uninspired and extremely limited, failing to provide nuance where opportunities were available (not surprising, since Harris sucks at that). His own position is also, while common-sensical, philosophically uninteresting, insufficiently systematic and too scientistic. In addition, Peterson's ignorance is on full display when he accuses Harris of postmodernism--Harris may or may not be wrong, but a lot of what Harris says would be heavily criticized by the archetypal postmodernists if there ever were any (e.g., Lyotard & Baudrillard).

What is Postmodernism? Neither Sam Harris nor Jordan Peterson Really Seem to Know

One of the major points of the archetypal postmodernists is that the very fragmentation and isolation of identities and disciplines create contradictory normative contexts that constrict rationality in such a way that rational discussion cannot fully penetrate or resolve disagreements. Basically, for a lot of postmodernists, intellectual disagreement are often expressions of social power struggle, desire, etc., that are not rationally resolvable. (Notice that rationality here is just constricted; this means its still conceivable some truths are still objectively decidable, even if largely context-sensitive. The rules of logic still apply.) There are some postmodernists one can argue go the full length into pure relativism (i.e., the position that, not only is nothing or most nothing rationally resolvable and fully accountable, but nothing is rationally decidable), but this is over-all a strawman. One can also argue this particular [aforementioned point] leads to relativism, but that's not the same as to say that postmodernists deliberately endorse relativism. Not to mention that requires more leg work from Peterson, for example, beyond using "postmodern" as a pejorative stand-in for relativism (which he never conclusively demonstrates to be present in the argument being made).

Situating Sam Harris in Relation to Actual Postmodernism

In any case, the point is Sam Harris seems to be committed to an entirely opposite claim than the postmodernists, since he basically puts a lot of stock on conversation, on language, for finding the truth. I feel his inability to take critiques of this position to be his most serious flaw, and it bleeds into his more minor flaws (its his prerogative to try and naturalize morality, but he fumbles in his attempts because of this invulnerable epistemological approach he takes). This is why Harris might seem "close minded" to people--it has nothing to do with his argument itself being somehow unwilling to entertain possibilities. Harris actually entertains possibilities all the time (just witness his unbound use of hypotheticals in the debate!)--the problem is that he is unimaginative when he tries to do it.

Situating Jordan Peterson in Relation to Actual Postmodernism

In addition, its ironic for Peterson to accuse Harris of being postmodernist because the pragmatist epistemologists (e.g., Richard Rorty) were the philosophers most famously and controversially heavily influenced by writers I'd think Peterson would often consider (albeit sometimes incorrectly) postmodernists or proto-postmodernists (e.g., Heidegger [more of a phenomenologist that was a precursor to post-structuralism as well as postmodernism] & Derrida [actually more of a post-structuralist than a postmodernist]). In fact, Nietzsche's Darwinian critique of rationality looks like an early version of aspects of the postmodernist critique of rationality. Yes, Nietzsche was critiquing rationality, not creating a theory of truth. The only thing close to a theory of truth given his critique of rationality was his concept of Will to Power, which is a concept Nietzsche created as an alternative to Darwin's idea of survival instinct/drive. The fact that Peterson endorses Nietzsche but subscribes to conventional Darwinism while applying this to the topic of truth is a sophomoric mistake. Indeed, Peterson is so ignorant that he frequently pairs Marxism with postmodernism as if there aren't disagreements or potentially conflicting implications in the positions and critiques of the two traditions (for example, postmodernism tends to challenge the Marxist notion of historical determinism and the proletariat as universalizing [therefore revolutionary] subject).

Conclusion

Harris is an absolutely terrible philosopher, but Peterson gives the impression of a fucking novice that can't grasp basic distinctions and is mired in the scientific world where data precision and gathering as well as inductive reasoning tends to matter a bit more than argumentative competence and deductive reasoning (scientists distribute this last task into a division of labor, whereas a philosopher is at least supposed to be competent in a holistic way when it comes to argumentation). It is embarrassing Harris sweeps the floor with him when his credentials as a scientist give him an initial advantage in terms of public perception and when Harris himself doesn't hold significant status within the larger philosophical community. It's interesting to point out (and I'm saying this as someone interested in sociology, a socially exemplar soft science for a lot of people), that his area of science isn't even as quantitatively heavy as physics and other sciences. In fact, the replication crises in science seems to be most glaring in psychology. The reason these observations are interesting is that Peterson likes to present himself as having a hard-on for science while making incompetent but confident forays into philosophy, the latter likely for the sake of validating his religious longing. This doesn't put him that far away from Harris' more secular philosophically boring scientism, and also may suggest insecurities about his own field. At the same time, he lampoons and tries to discredit the field closest to his own by psychologizing them in unwarranted ways as a replacement for actually criticizing and engaging sociological methodology. Here I'm psychologizing Jordan Peterson, but only after I've already assessed his debate performance.

The fact that anybody finds either of these two people in the context of this debate worth their while is laughable considering how fucking limited not only the positions presented here are, but how fucking limited either of their arguments for their positions were. The mistakes I pointed out here are the most egregious and most frequent, but there are others such as their oversimplification of the issue of identity politics. I suggest budding atheists and self-doubting evangelicals actually read books, and I mean primary source accounts about a representative array of a tradition or world-view rather than relying on secondary source discussion as if they were unbiased simply because they conform to popular folk notions of things and present and argue against positions within the narrow political spectrum that has prominent mainstream representation. In other words, I hope these sincere Christians leave the bad Biblical hermeneutics and deferral to a messianic figure behind for once for fuck's sake. Their concerns about religion are legitimate, but they'd get much more out of directly, critically reading Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich, etc., as well as the philosophers of modernity (both French and English) without force-fitting them into their monolithic and hegemonic preconceived boxes.

2 notes · View notes

newsnigeria · 6 years

Text

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/bear-hubris-suicidal/

When dealing with a bear, hubris is suicidal

[This analysis was written for the Unz Review]

Assuming mankind finds a way not to destroy itself in the near future and assuming that there will still be historians in the 22nd or 23rd centuries, I bet you that they will look at the AngloZionist Empire and see the four following characteristics as some of its core features: lies, willful ignorance, hypocrisy, and hysterics. To illustrate my point I will use the recent “Skripal nerve-gas assassination” story as it really encompasses all of these characteristics.

I won’t even bother debunking the official nonsense here as others have done a very good job of pointing out the idiocy of the official narrative. If you are truly capable of believing that “Putin” (that is the current collective designator for the Evil Empire of Mordor currently threatening all of western civilization) would order the murder of a man whom a Russian military court sentenced to only 13 years in jail (as opposed to life or death) and who was subsequently released as part of a swap with the USA, you can stop reading right now and go back to watching TV. I personally have neither the energy nor the inclination to even discuss such a self-evidently absurd theory. No, what I do want to do is use this story as a perfect illustration of the kind of society we now all live in looked at from a moral point of view. I realize that we live in a largely value-free society where moral norms have been replaced by ideological orthodoxy, but that is just one more reason for me to write about what is taking place precisely focusing on the moral dimensions of current events.

Lies and the unapologetic denial of reality:

In a 2015 article entitled “A society of sexually frustrated Pinocchios” I wrote the following:

I see a direct cause and effect relationship between the denial of moral reality and the denial of physical reality. I can’t prove that, of course, but here is my thesis: Almost from day one, the early western civilization began by, shall we say, taking liberties with the truth, which it could bend, adapt, massage and repackage to serve the ideological agenda of the day. It was not quite the full-blown and unapologetic relativism of the 19th century yet, but it was an important first step. With “principles” such as the end justifies the means and the wholesale violation of the Ten Commandants all “for the greater glory of God” the western civilization got cozy with the idea that there was no real, objective truth, only the subjective perception or even representation each person might have thereof. Fast forward another 10 centuries or so and we end up with the modern “Gayropa” (as Europe is now often referred to in Russia): not only has God been declared ‘dead’ and all notions of right and wrong dismissed as “cultural”, but even objective reality has now been rendered contingent upon political expediency and ideological imperatives.

I went on to quote George Orwell by reminding how he defined “doublethink” in his book 1984:

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it (…) To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality“

and I concluded by saying that “The necessary corollary from this state of mind is that only appearances matter, not reality”.

This is exactly what we are observing; not only in the silly Skripal nerve-gas assassination story but also in all the rest of the Russophobic nonsense produced by the AngloZionist propaganda machine including the “Litvinenko polonium murder” and the “Yushchenko dioxin poisoning“. The fact that neither nerve-gas, nor polonium nor dioxin are in any way effective murder weapons does not matter in the least: a simple drive-by shooting, street-stabbing or, better, any “accident” is both easier to arrange and impossible to trace. Fancy assassination methods are used when access to the target is very hard or impossible (as was the case with Ibn al-Khattab, whose assassination the Russians were more than happy to take credit for; this might also have been the case with the death of Yasser Arafat). But the best way of murdering somebody is to simply make the body disappear, making any subsequent investigation almost impossible. Finally, you can always subcontract the assassination to somebody else like, for example, when the CIA tried and failed, to murder Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Hussain Fadlallah by subcontracting his bombing to its local “Christian” allies, killing over 80 innocent people in the process. There is plenty of common crime in the UK and to get somebody to rob and stab Skripal would have probably been the easiest version. That’s assuming that the Russians had any reason to want him dead, which they self-evidently didn’t.

But here is the important thing: every single criminal or intelligence specialist in the West understands all of the above. But that does not stop the Ziomedia from publishing articles like this one “A Brief History of Attempted Russian Assassinations by Poison” which also lists people poisoned by Russians:

Skripal by nerve gas

Litvinenko by polonium

Kara-Murza poisoned not once, but TWICE, by an unknown poison, he survived!

Markov poisoned by ricin and the Bulgarians with “speculated KGB assistance”

Khattab by sarin or a sarin-derivative

Yushchenko by dioxin

Perepilichny by “a rare, toxic flower, gelsemium” (I kid you not, check the article!)

Moskalenko by mercury

Politkovskaya who was shot, but who once felt “ill after drinking some tea that she believed contained poison”

The only possible conclusion from this list is this: there is some kind of secret lab in Russia where completely incompetent chemists try every poison known to man, not on rats or on mice, but on high profile AngloZionist-supported political activists, preferably before an important political event.

Right.

By the way, the gas allegedly used in the attack, “Novichok”, was manufactured in Uzbekistan and the cleanup of the factory producing it was made by, you guessed it, a US company. Just saying…

In any halfway honest and halfway educated society, those kind of articles should result in the idiot writing it being summarily fired for gross incompetence and the paper/journal posting it being discredited forever. But in our world, the clown who wrote that nonsense (Elias Groll, a Harvard graduate and – listen to this – a specialist of “cyberspace and its conflicts and controversies” (sic)) is a staff writer of the award-winning Foreign Policy magazine.

So what does it tell us, and future historians, when this kind of crap is written by a staff writer of an “award winning” media outlet? Does it not show that our society has now reached a stage in its decay (I can’t call that “development”) where lies become the norm? Not only are even grotesque and prima facie absurd lies accepted, they are expected (if only because they reinforce the current ideological Zeitgeist. The result? Our society is now packed with first, zombified ideological drones who actually believe any type of officially proclaimed of nonsense and, second, by cowards who lack the basic courage to denounce even that which they themselves know to be false.

Lies, however ridiculous and self-evidently stupid, have become the main ingredient of the modern political discourse. Everybody knows this and nobody cares. When challenged on this, the typical defense used is always the same: “you are the only person saying this – I sure ever heard this before!”.

Willful ignorance as a universal cop-out

We all know the type. You tell somebody that his/her theory makes absolutely no sense or is not supported by facts and the reply you get is some vaguely worded refusal to engage in an disputation. Initially, you might be tempted to believe that, indeed, your interlocutor is not too bright and not too well read, but eventually you realize that there is something very different happening: the modern man actually makes a very determined effort not to be capable of logical thought and not to be informed of the basic facts of the case. And what is true for specific individuals is even more true of our society as a whole. Let’s take one simple example: Operation Gladio:

“Gladio” is really an open secret by now. Excellent books and videos have been written about this and even the BBC has made a two and a half hour long video about it. There is even an entire website dedicated to the story of this huge, continent-wide, terrorist organization specializing in false flag operations. That’s right: a NATO-run terrorist network in western Europe involved in false flag massacres like the infamous Bologna train station bombing. No, not the Soviet KGB backing the Baader-Meinhof Red Army Faction or the Red Brigades in Italy. No, the USA and West European governments organizing, funding and operating a terrorist network directed at the people of Western, not Eastern, Europe. Yes, at their own people! In theory, everybody should know about this, the information is available everywhere, even on the hyper-politically correct Wikipedia. But, again, nobody cares.

The end of the Cold War was marked by a seemingly endless series of events which all provided a pretext for AngloZionist interventions (from the Markale massacres in Bosnia, to the Srebrenica “genocide”, to the Racak massacre Kosovo, to the “best” and biggest one of them all, 9/11 of course). Yet almost nobody wondered if the same people or, at least, the same kind of people who committed all the Gladio crimes might be involved. Quite the opposite: each one of these events was accompanied by a huge propaganda campaign mindlessly endorsing and even promoting the official narrative, even when it self-evidently made no sense whatsoever (like 2 aircraft burning down 3 steel towers). As for Gladio, it was conveniently “forgotten”.

There is a simple principle in psychology, including, and especially in criminal psychology which I would like to prominently restate here:

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior

Every criminalist knows that and this is why criminal investigators place so much importance on the “modus operandi”, i.e. the particular way or method a suspect or a criminal chooses in the course of the execution of his/her crimes. That is also something which everybody knows. So let’s summarize this in a simple thesis:

Western regimes have a long and well-established track record of regularly executing bloody false-flag operations in pursuit of political objectives, especially those providing them with a pretext to justify an illegal military aggression.

Frankly, I submit that the thesis above is really established not only by a preponderance of evidence but beyond a reasonable doubt. Right?

Maybe. But that is also completely irrelevant because nobody gives a damn! Not the reporters who lie for a living nor, even less so, the brainwashed zombies who read their nonsense and take it seriously. The CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro over 600 times – who cares?! All we know is that the good folks at Langley would never, ever, kill a Russian in the UK, out of respect for international law, probably…

That willful ignorance easily defeats history, facts or logic.

Here is a simple question a journalist could ask: “would the type of people who had no problems blowing up an large train station, or bringing down three buildings in downtown New York, have any hesitation in using a goofy method to try kill a useless Russian ex-spy if that could justify further hostile actions against a country which they desperately need to demonize to justify and preserve the current AngloZionist world order?”. The answer I think is self-evident. The question shall therefore not be asked. Instead, soy-boys from Foreign Policy mag will tell us about how the Russians use exotic flowers to kill high visibility opponents whose death would serve no conceivable political goal.

Hypocrisy as a core attribute of the modern man

Willful ignorance is important, of course, but it is not enough. For one thing, being ignorant, while useful to dismiss a fact-based and/or logical argument, is not something useful to establish your moral superiority or the legality of your actions. Empire requires much more than just obedience from its subject: what is also absolutely indispensable is a very strong sense of superiority which can be relied upon when committing a hostile action against the other guy. And nothing is as solid a foundation for a sense of superiority than the unapologetic reliance on brazen hypocrisy. Let’s take a fresh example: the latest US threats to attack Syria (again).

Irrespective of the fact that the USA themselves have certified Syria free of chemical weapons and irrespective of the fact that US officials are still saying that they have no evidence that the Syrian government was involved in any chemical attack on Khan Shaykhun, the USA is now preparing to strike Syria again in “response” to future chemical attacks! Yes, you read that right. The AngloZionists are now announcing their false flags in advance! In fact, by the time this analysis is published the attack will probably already have occurred. The “best” part of this all is that Nikki Haley has now announced to the UN Security Council that the US will act without any UN Security Councilapproval. What the USA is declaring is this: “we reserve the right to violate international law at any time and for any reason we deem sufficient”. In the very same statement, Nikki Haley also called the Syrian government an “outlaw regime”. This is not a joke, check it out for yourself. The reaction in “democratic” Europe: declaring that *Russia* (not the US) is a rogue state. QED.

This entire circus is only made possible by the fact that the western elites have all turned into “great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies” (to use the wonderful words of Boris Johnson) and that absolutely nobody has the courage, or decency, to call all this what it really is: an obscene display of total hypocrisy and wholesale violation of all norms of international law. The French philosopher Alain Soral is quite right when he says that modern “journalists are either unemployed or prostitutes” (he spoke about the French media – un journaliste français c’est soit une pute soit un chômeur – but this fully applies to all the western media). Except that I would extend it to the entire Western Establishment.

I would further argue that foreign aggression and hypocrisy have become the two essential pillars for the survival of the AngloZionist empire: the first one being an economic and political imperative, the 2nd one being the prerequisite for the public justification of the first one. But sometimes even that is not enough, especially when the lies are self-evidently absurd. Then the final, quasi-miraculous element is always brought in: hysterics.

Hysteria as the highest form of (pseudo-)liberalism

I don’t particularly care for the distinction usually made between liberals and conservatives, at least not unless the context and these terms is carefully and accurately defined. I certainly don’t place myself on that continuum nor do find it analytically helpful.

The theoretical meaning of these concepts is, however, quite different from what is mostly understood under these labels, especially when people use them to identify themselves. That is to say that while I am not at all sure that those who think of themselves as, say, liberals are in any way truly liberal, I do think that people who would identify themselves as “liberals” often (mostly?) share a number of characteristics, the foremost of which is a very strong propensity to function at, and engage in, an hysterical mode of discourse and action.

The Google definition of hysteria is “exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of people (…) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior”. Is that not a perfect description of US politicians, especially the (putatively) “liberal” ones? Just think of the way US Democrats have capitalized on such (non-)issues as “Russian interference” (externally) or “gun control” (internally) and you will see that the so-called “liberals” never get off a high-emotional pitch. The best example of all, really, is their reaction to the election of Donald Trump instead of their cult-leader Hillary: it has been over a year since Trump has been elected and yet the liberal ziomedia and its consumers are still in full-blown hysteria mode (with “pussyhats”, “sky-screams” and all). In a conversation you can literally drown such a liberal with facts, statistics, expert testimonies, etc. and achieve absolutely no result whatsoever because the liberal lives in an ideological comfort zone which he/she is categorically unwilling and, in fact, unable, to abandon, even temporarily. This is what makes liberals such a *perfect* audience for false-flag operations: they simply won’t process the narrative presented to them in a logical manner but will immediately react to it in a strongly emotional manner, usually with the urge to immediately “do something”.

That “do something” is usually expressed in the application of violence (externally) and the imposition of bans/restrictions/regulations (internally). You can try to explain to that liberal that the very last thing the Russians would ever want to do is to use a stupid method to try to kill a person who is of absolutely no interest to them, or to explain to that liberal that the very last thing the Syrian government would ever do in the course of its successful liberation of its national territory from “good terrorists” would be to use chemical weapons of any kind – but you would never achieve anything: Trump must be impeached, the Russians sanctioned and the Syrians bombed, end of argument.

I am quite aware that there are a lot of self-described “conservatives” who have fully joined this chorus of hysterical liberals in all their demands, but these “conservatives” are not only acting out of character, they are simply caving in to the social pressure of the day, being the “great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies” mentioned above. Again, I am not discussing real liberals or real conservatives here (regardless of what these terms really mean), I am talking about those who, for whatever reason, chose to place that label upon themselves even if they personally have only a very vague idea of what this label is supposed to mean.

So there we have it: an Empire built (and maintained) on lies, accepted on the basis ignorance, justified by hypocrisy and energized by hysterics. This is what the “Western world” stands for nowadays. And while there is definitely a vocal minority of “resisters” (from the Left and the Right – also two categories I don’t find analytically helpful – and from many other schools of political thought), the sad reality is that the vast majority of people around us accept this and see no reason to denounce it, nevermind doing something about it. That is why “they” got away with 9/11 and why “they” will continue to get away with future false-flags because the people lied to, realize, at least on some level, that they are being lied to and yet they simply don’t care. Truly, the Orwellian slogans of 1984 “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” perfectly fit our world. However, when dealing with the proverbial Russian bear, there is one lesson of history which western leaders really should never forget and which they should also turn into a slogan: when dealing with a bear, hubris is suicidal.

The Saker

#russia #u.k #U.S.A

0 notes

nicemango-feed · 7 years

Text

Professor Jordan Peterson: Charlatan Conservative Christian Perpetually Paranoid about Pronouns & Postmodernism

Trigger Warning: If you don't like feminists or leftists, avert your eyes. This could be upsetting.

***

I ran a little contest for the title on Twitter, while there were so many great suggestions

Well, an anagram of Jordan B Peterson is desert banjo porn

— Martin (@NataliasDad) July 28, 2017

Kermit the Monologue

— Liam van der Spek (@SpekOfTheDevil) July 28, 2017

Misunderstanding Bill C-16 for $55,000 a month

— JD-800 (@thejd800) July 28, 2017

"Old Man Yells at Cloud: the Jordan Peterson Story"

— brane bzkl (@Buzzkill_AOC) July 28, 2017

I went for the wayyy too long alliteration angle, since I felt it captured the essence of his nonsense best..

He's so verbose I can't narrow down 11 paragraphs about NESTING into a title

— Paul City (@RealPaulCity) July 28, 2017

Shout out to @somestingray for inspiring that!

professor peterson’s postmodern paranoia

— Ray (@SomeStingray) July 28, 2017

-----

Pic From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awot-d8U9Cc

Ah...Jordan B. Peterson - I remember a time when I had no idea who that was, and my life was better for it.

Who is this guy? Well...For those unfamiliar he is a ‘controversial’ conservative university professor, in my own progressive city *sigh*....at University of Toronto.

He's your average conservative Christian, with an added dose of hardcore gobbledygook with the audacity to criticize postmodernists for the same. Step aside Deepak Chopra! There's a new snake oil salesman in town. And this time he's smuggling in extreme conservatism AND atheists love him. Apparently one of the *most requested* guests of all time on Sam Harris' podcast!

Why is 2017 like this. Nothing makes sense anymore.

jordan b peterson: a looney twist on the old school Christian conservative

— peppermint (@strengthgentle) July 28, 2017

Gosh, remember when the atheist scene used to ridicule charlatans like Deepak instead of embrace them as some of our favourite intellectuals simply because they ‘trigger’ libtards, and dump on trans ppl, ‘the left’ and feminism - all the favourite bogeymen of the internet atheist movement! ...resulting in this strange alliance with a man who literally brought himself to tears while reading his own essay which mentioned ‘a loss of faith’.

Goddammit, make atheism great again.

It really amazes me that he criticizes flowery 'postmodernist' language for much of the same type of nonsense that comes out of his own mouth. He rose to fame last year when he had an unbelievable temper tantrum about Ontario’s bill c-16 somehow taking away his freedoms by protecting trans people from discrimination. He’s been shown to be misrepresenting the law, but his popularity only grows in this climate where facts hold little value, and anything of substance is dubbed 'fake news'.

Peterson has no qualms associating with people on the far far right...he even appeared on a nazi's podcast. A woman who has literally advocated violence against people of colour refusing to leave the hypothetical ethnostate.

Host of that show is another extreme race & IQ obsessive wanting to deport non-whites. http://pic.twitter.com/QF00K9Tr3d

— Nikolashvili (@ViniKako) March 12, 2017

He may very well not be aware of all her views, but googling someone or looking at their social media is the least you can do before appearing on their show and lending them your legitimacy as a professor. If you are this blinded by your hatred of the left that you're going on Nazi shows to talk about 'Western Civilization'...you probably should not be teaching kids.

As a critic of leftist mumbo-jumbo, its funny he describes the average university class as a postmodern neo-marxist indoctrination cult (h/t @somestingray). He wants to start his own online university scarily enough...He plans to 'cut off the supply to people running the indoctrination cults', i.e., universities. And don't you worry... he's working on a way to differentiate between 'post modern course content' and 'classical course content'.

In a time where mainstream media institutions are being discredited by right wing nutjobs, so too are educational institutions. Now, hold on to your kekistani undies, i’m not saying there aren’t ever crazy instances on campus, I’m not saying never criticize universities or The Left. There’s plenty to criticize... but there’s no proportionality….this response, as in...idolizing Jordan Peterson the guy who’s somehow repackaged old school conservatism as something new and hip…as an antidote to 'the left gone wild, drunk on the power of premarital sex, immorality, independent career women and loss of faith'…I mean come on...I've heard this shit before...

I grew up in Saudi Arabia.

Just check this rulebook for men he wrote a few yrs ago. (h/t @21logician)

It’s full on insanity.

And spare me the obvious - 'these are metaphors'… yes I know he’s not calling for literal child sacrifice.

Still crazy.

Build the crystal palace. O-kay then.

Look I consulted with my ancestral spirits…and they warned me not to watch Jordan Peterson content…but silly lady-brain of mine.. didn’t listen. So here we are.

Now I’m trying to compile as much of JBP’s bs into one blogpost as I can tolerate sifting through in one sitting. For someone sooooo upset about his free speech allegedly being taken away over bill c-16, he certainly doesn’t extend that courtesy to other groups.

Here he is in 2011 discussing how atheists aren’t an oppressed or excluded group in the west, perhaps even dominant, and how he’s not a fan of atheist advertising. An Ad on a bus pissed him off ffs, meanwhile calling people what they want to be called is a violation of his rights. Full video of his ad chat here

Jordan Peterson on pro-atheism billboards. This would be a good topic for discussion @SamHarrisOrg http://pic.twitter.com/JQdhfvgyo8

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) December 28, 2016

Why maybe Dawkins *should* be oppressed he said. Jeez Jordan, why so angry?

maybe @RichardDawkins should be oppressed @jordanbpeterson http://pic.twitter.com/MiaGNIosA3

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) December 28, 2016

"If you don’t have any faith in an ultimate authority that says life is sacred, what’s to stop you from mobilizing everything you can to kill as many people as you can…." That's real original Jordan.

Jordan Peterson talking about Stalin's lack of religion. This is as feisty as Canadian TV gets I think http://pic.twitter.com/gzzpDcfXVj

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) December 27, 2016

Here’s some more laughable god stuff:

Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without an axiom (as Godel proved). Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof.

— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) November 26, 2013

To think of how popular he is among atheists cracks me up (and makes me sad). This anti-left stuff in the era of the rise of the right...sure makes for some strange bedfellows.

In his two hour conversation with Sam Harris he couldn’t really define 'truth'. He is basically the religious conservative version of what he criticizes re:postmodernism. Dislikes the pronoun Xir because apparently thats just leftist nonsense….but can’t decide on what truth means.

Just a quick glance at his Twitter timeline will show that he posts bs memes of his own gibberish quotes..and people love it!

I honestly can’t understand…has the human population become this dumbed down? Is this reflective of a failure of our education systems?…that people hear a string of multi-syllabic words and are immediately wowed/lulled into some sort of illusion that they are smarter than they thought? His fans also have a habit of saying “but you haven’t heard ALL his lectures… if you had, what he was saying would make sense” - come on. Surely something of his has to be able to stand on it’s own.

I mean what the fuck does this mean?

one last meme before bed http://pic.twitter.com/KQQkPTRYAq

— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) July 25, 2017

To be fair though, somehow I guess it's possible you've stuck to his .. I dunno..mythology, psychology lectures which are supposed to be better....but still, how are you unaware of his crazy side? The side that's made him rich and famous?

Peterson is a top earner on Patreon making over 55K *a month* (remember this number) last time I checked…which he’s planning to use to launch an online university, to influence more young minds into his way of thinking.

I just googled him right now and came across a reddit thread asking whether he was a prophet, because he’s turning Western Civilization back to Christianity….FFS.. this guy’s following is legitimately creepy.

This is the person who thinks college SJWs are bad, but is upset that Disney’s Frozen is *propaganda*…

Why...you ask?

Because it showed that two female characters did not need a man to be successful. (h/t @21logician)

Heaven forbid we indoctrinate our kids into evil-leftist-feminist-cultural-marxist-postmodernism.

Shameful Disney…don’t you know that all female characters should need a MAN….that’s how God intended it after all.

No wonder he’s spooked by the Trans Agenda of jailing him for mistakenly saying the wrong pronoun some day. Poor guy.

This man is in charge of teaching young minds. And with his own online postmodernism-proof university he will be more influential than before, 'radicalizing' more people. Alarming.

***

He also has some very disturbing ideas about sex. In his mind the left encourages ‘sexual predation’ by saying that sex is for pleasure and you can have it when you want…we should allow any form of sexual expression and not discriminate against any of them. But at the SAME TIME they want to jail men who make unwanted sexual advances.

Yes Peterson, its called consent. We can have free sexual expression and consent simultaneously .. this isn’t hard.

how the hell can you have free sexual expression and also not rape people http://pic.twitter.com/AWM0gu7rHR

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) February 13, 2017

And who's he discussing this with? None other than Stefan Molyneux - known extreme misogynist who blames women for all evil in the world, crazy conspiracist and racist.

This isn’t the first time i’ve heard Peterson rail against casual sex. If I close my eyes, It’s almost like I’m back in Saudi Arabia.

everything is so fucking melodramatic with this dude. if you don't do sex and procreation his way you're getting ENSLAVED @jordanbpeterson http://pic.twitter.com/lawOmTOxlm

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) December 18, 2016

***

Which brings me to the JBP lecture clip I watched, that all this build up is for:

What. The. Fuck. Did I just see/hear, and what decade am I in… one can forget they exist in 2017 and not 1950 while listening to Peterson. The fact he’s giving lectures like this to young people and they aren’t laughing him out of the room, means that there are some real regressive people out there who want to take us back in time, and hey guess what.. these ones aren’t on the left.

It's horrifying how popular he is.

So the video is posted, not by him but some other YT user (called biased asshole lol) and titled “Peterson on Western Women”.

I’m already gritting my teeth, I hit play… despite the warning from my ancestral spirits, and my crystal palace is crumbling before me, letting the howling winds in. I offer myself to god as a sacrifice...but alas, it's too late.

At the start of his talk, there’s the obligatory mention of declining birthrates of course, civilization is failing because women are working more procreating less. This is the stuff that endears him to the #TradLife Alt Right nutters.

This is the woman from his Western Civilization podcast appearance.

(screenshot via @vinikako)

This young mom is the face of Mormonism's Hateful Alt Right. Full article here

Next in the lecture, Peterson questions why women would want positions of power at all. I’m paraphrasing here,

‘ladies... trust me you don’t want these powerful positions, men are crazy to have ‘em in the first place… but you know how men are lulz….crazy hardworking and competitive. You also don’t want powerful positions because extra money doesn’t help, and billion dollar corporations are reaaaally complicated to run ok? There are lawsuits, and you have to travel a lot. & shit Just…trust me ladies u don’t wanna get involved in this mess.”

7:29 (now this is an actual quote I’m no longer paraphrasing) he continues on to deter women from wanting positions of power

“If you’re half crazy and you have a lot of money, you’re going to be crazy a lot faster I can tell you, because it frees you from all sorts of constraints”

[some weak excuse abt how lottery winners are unhappy and if u are prone to a drug problem, then the money will just speed it up]

THIS IS ONE OF PATREON’S TOP EARNERS FFS. What business does he have telling women that money is no good and will just make you crazy. He makes 55K a fucking month.

This shit continues:

7:46 “being broke stops you from dying if you’re a cocaine addict” ok JBP ..lol...you’re realllllly trying hard to stop women from having careers here.

7:56 “If somebody dumped an infinite amount of money on you what makes you think you wouldn’t unravel completely?” - is he describing himself?

(Click to enlarge)

9:30 “The older I get the more I understand marriage and family are of primary importance” - yeah ok.. I think we get it. #TradLife

9:32 - "The more I see women in particular, they hit 35-40 …and they’re not married…and they don’t have kids…and they are not happy. Cuz what the hell are you gonna do from the time you’re 40 till the time you’re 80?! You got no family… you got no relationships? What are you gonna do?! Go run your company?!!! Yeah well… if you’re 1 in a 1000 that will satisfy you.”

LMAO Peterson, you nutjob. If someone just says this shit in Urdu or Arabic, it will be no different than the mullahs who are afraid of women being empowered and independent. More polished sure, but he is a professor at one of Toronto’s best universities after all. This is an embarrassment. I mean, he should be far off from Mullah-rhetoric, not spouting essentially polished versions of the anti-woman turds that come out of their mouths. Having babies isn’t the only thing that gives women meaning, purpose or happiness in their lives, you absolute dinosaur. And there are other forms of relationships out there. My dad is way more progressive than you, and I’m certain he’s a lot older..heck so is my granddad.

The idea that running a company would be satisfying to a woman...as opposed to raising children is simply unfathomable to him, no wonder he spends his time freaking out about this (and pronouns) in 2017 because he’s unable to adjust to modernity. I got news, there are other things women do aside from having kids. They are complete human beings even without kids….imagine that!

I mean this is some serious insecurity around women succeeding. And lets not forget his bullet points for men:

Hmm.

***

11:22 - Then we get into the “yeah women have it rough but you do live 8 years longer, so thats not trivial…TESTOSTERONE IS KILLING MEN.” (emphasis mine)

“Men do almost all the dangerous jobs and outside work. There’s lots of reasons that men get paid more than women that have *nothing to do with prejudice*” - ok by this point in the video I’m laugh-crying. This is so ridiculous….

“each sex has it’s own unfairness to deal with, but to think of that as a consequence of the social structure….come on really?!"

*lolz guys…there’s plenty of injustice to go around, men do all the hard work around here, why do you whiny women think its some sort of systemic thing, sexism is a leftist cultural marxist myth*

The video ends on note of JBP saying there’s no gratitude for how far we’ve come because we aren’t outside all day lifting rocks and shit. I kid you not.

Sexism isn’t real because bad things happen to everyone, and we are no longer lifting rocks. So quit yer whining cultural marxist feminists….do what you were actually put here to do and fulfill your life’s role, make some babies…otherwise what are you even doing with your life. Money sucks (for you), positions of power are way too hard (for you ladies). K thanks bye. Donate to my patreon.

Lecture summed up right there. (Ok he didn't actually plug his patreon there)

According to his logic he should be grateful about how privileged he is to earn so much and be a professor and quit *his* whining about cultural marxism and postmodernist SJWs...because you know, he's not out there lifting rocks and shit.

*The Truth* about Jordan Peterson is...he's full of shit and he's dangerously bridging the gap between the far right and the mainstream...and young people are falling for it.

----

Thank you to my Patrons who make this work possible. Truly, truly appreciated.

If you'd like to support my work you can do so here via Patreon

It's no Peterson level gold plated patreon, but if you want to counter people like that, do consider supporting content creators who push back against this stuff, there aren't many and they need your support. Say what you will about right wingers, but they definitely $upport their people in combatting the evil leftist agenda.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; min-height: 16.0px} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; color: #9e4a2f} span.s1 {text-decoration: underline ; color: #9e4a2f} span.s2 {text-decoration: underline} span.s3 {color: #000000}

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2hagTda via IFTTT

0 notes