Jordan Peterson

[Santiago Odo]

That is a bird that both flies and sticks to the ground, in my opinion. Does that make sense?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Alex Santiago Odo, let me try to clarify my references.

But what does this mean? The critical comment about *good old Empire* and *proper ancient order*

The reference to rebellion and Empire would be pointing to the mono-myth and its most visual portrayal in the Star Wars movie saga, which was a concept worked on by George Lucas & Joseph Campbell together. Peterson refers a few times to the mythical qualities of those movies but generally his teachings have similarities to Campbell's comparative mythology probably because of all the Jungian/Freudian inclinations present in Peterson's narrative and use of symbolism.

To have noticed *schizophrenia* implies that the viewer views from a position outside of it, like a psychiatrist perhaps.

Personally I'd view classical schizophrenia like Joseph Campbell did:, see also Mythological Heroes and Schizophrenia

A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder; fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow men.

Campbell drew an analogy between schizophrenia and the mythological mystical journey which he had been researching by comparing the fortunes of two divers, one who can swim, and one who cannot: ‘The mystic, endowed by native talents for this sort of thing and following, stage by stage, the instructions of a master, enters the waters and finds he can swim; whereas the schizophrenic, unprepared, unguided, and ungifted, has fallen or has intentionally plunged, and is drowning.’

However in the post above I used it more informally like from the Cambridge dictionary: "the state of having qualities or attitudes that are different from each other and do not work well together".

The larger question is What is the proper sort of rebellion of the soul that is posited here as *good*?

The "soul" might be defined as a battle field by many philosophers ranging from "Life is suffering" (Buddha) or " Love and Strife" (Empedocles) or Heraclitus of course: "We must know that war (πόλεμος polemos) is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily.".

The notion of "empire" stands for order and pacification, creating room for the Apollonian developments: disciplines of science & higher arts, but also moral high grounds like nobility, charity and assisting the weak. Any rebellion has no aim or order, it's aim is to disrupt and undo the order. Call it Dionysian if you like Nietzschean perspectives on this.

My point then boils down to highlighting a potential contradiction of promoting empire and rebellion in the same teachings. Although I'd say Peterson tends to embrace more the order and opposes the evils of chaos and general "unhinged" nihilistic forces of chaos. And yet the myths he also embraces clearly initiate a hero to be formed by both, often inspired by the ancient philosophies (pre-medieval) which tried to incorporate these oppositional elements into one vision, without invoking any devils behind the scenes.

Nietzsche desired to 'burn the old'? In what sense would a proper *Nietzschean* act then in his world? I mean, to properly live as an authentic Nietzschean?

Nietzsche always addressed the scope of ages more than simply the current life. In any case, I assume it's known he advocated a revaluation of values because he believed the underlying foundation ("God") was killed and with that the metaphysics which gave rise to that image.

Indeed, at hearing the news that 'the old god is dead', we philosophers and 'free spirits' feel illuminated by a new dawn; our heart overflows with gratitude, amazement, forebodings, expectation - finally the horizon seems clear again, even if not bright; finally our ships may set out again, set out to face any danger; every daring of the lover of knowledge is allowed again; the sea, our sea, lies open again; maybe there has never been such an 'open sea'. -- Nietzsche GS 343

Then you have some more questions.

Would he not, following the logic of the burning metaphor, then become a 'terrorist' (a reference to Baudrillard who you may or may not be familiar with ...)

Indeed following Baudrillard it would mean that any big or sudden change to the current state of the system, a dead-end super-sized system of natural decay which does not want to change, would take the form of terrorism, the most radical form of rebellion and system opposition available because of the highest stake being played: challenging the value of own life and those of any other.

Burning down is generally pretty easy, isn't it? A child and a moron could ignite things as could a *genius*. But you imply there is an intelligent pyrotechnology. What is it?

It's unclear to me if any thorough, complete destruction would be any easier than any thorough, genius creation.

If Peterson is therefor an 'interesting gateway drug', I need more clear intellectual information about what he is a gateway to.

A personal journey to wisdom of the infinite, that is, the undying and absolute. It's the only end station possible and unavoidable as we're all going to "meet our maker" at some point. Finding true wisdom is a lot about dying a bit earlier and voluntary.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Postmodernism Did Not Take Place: On Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life.

Interesting critique on Jordan Peterson. Quote from the last paragraph:

Peterson goes beyond Lilla, Chomsky, and Buchanan, arguing that what he calls “postmodern philosophy” is not merely a symptom of social unease, but its cause. By charging this poorly defined discourse of postmodernism with shaping contemporary society and bending the arc of history, he is doing precisely what he has accused his adversaries of doing: imposing a world of ideas upon the actually existing world, one which is more complex than he has the ability to grasp.

[jupiviv]

As for Peterson, can he be replied to? Right now his act seems very much rock-star like, touring all those large venues around the globe with Sam Harris etc. In a way it's where philosophy cannot help ending up these days as it cannot show up elsewhere but! On stage, in deforming limelight, with no replies.....

Philosophy was always like that (in general). Take "edgy" spiritualists/gurus like UG Krishnamurti or the exoteric reformer-types like Plato, Luther or Vivekananda.

But then again, human mirroring self-existence implies some stage, an actor, a drama or tragedy. All the world's a stage and such. When seen this way also our philosophy will always take that form. Ranging from the passion of Christ, the rhetorical diatribe(s) of the Greek, the long elaborate trial of a Socrates and his voluntary punishment by death, through the mythical towards the allegorical, self-published lampooning and ironic analysis, with each author pining for a larger, growing audience. Even all the rather truncated, fragmented publications and mixed bag forum on theabsolute.net are, in that way, a stage, telling you a lot, not just about the authors or the audience but also their era.

In other words vanity, which is precisely what genuine philosophy seeks to transcend. The need for a "thou" = the need for an "I". Two of your examples are about death, and indeed that (whether empirical or metaphysical) is the vainest thing of all.

Now, okay, this is almost a text book postmodern approach with the form communicating essence, the spirit hunting all surfaces.

I would say essence - perceived according to various biases/desires - communicating form. Postmodernism sees *only* essence, which is whatever is left after rejecting all forms except the one holding it captive at the moment, which is broadly speaking just modernity. Thus it is the only feminine philosophy, and as such older than modernity and indeed all other philosophies. It is a woman's vanity; her love of and devotion to the truth (again, broadly speaking) that modernity has brought a lot of changes. Unlike Pilate it does not inquire after truth before turning away. Instead it proclaims "I'm with stupid". It is the embodiment of the particular vanity of our age which can afford to be feminine on a truly global scale by virtue of the obvious unique material characteristics of our age. It is also deeply unsettling, just like a woman's vanity. A man's vanity is posited *against* suffering and uncertainty; women are most vain precisely when they are most assured of themselves.

[jupiviv]

Following article is not strictly about Jordan but about his daughter and her ... dieting.

It's a f̶a̶s̶c̶i̶n̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ bizarre read altogether. Not sure what to think of it. Anyone?

The Jordan Peterson All-Meat Diet

What the Petersons are selling is rather a sense of order and control. Science is about questions, and self-help is about answers. A recurring idea in Jordan Peterson’s book is that humans need rules—its subtitle is “an antidote to chaos”—even if only for the sake of rules. Peterson discovered this through his own suffering, as when he was searching the world for the best surgeon to give his young daughter a new hip. In explaining how he dealt with Mikhaila’s illness, he writes that “existence and limitation are inextricably linked.”

The allure of a strict code for eating—a way to divide the world into good foods and bad foods, angels and demons—may be especially strong at a time when order feels in short supply. Indeed there is at least some benefit to be had from any and all dietary advice, or rules for life, so long as a person believes in them, and so long as they provide a code that allows a person to feel good for having stuck with it and a cohort of like-minded adherents. The challenge is to find a code that accords as best as possible with scientific evidence about what is good and bad, and with what is best for the world.

It has been scientifically proven that a) beef has unique testosterone-boosting properties b) a 30/70 mix of testosterone and estrogen is endocrinally speaking the optimal level of sexual attractiveness for both aging trans-thots and wank-memory-repressing alt-bois. No doubt their bodies are ready for this diet.

[David Quinn]

From the "Serious conversations about important issues, Part I: What is Truth?" thread:

It remains remarkable that you keep on opposing so strongly the very people who are in the mainstream out there pushing out ideas which seem quite compatible with your own stated views on genius, masculinity, decadence and decline. Or at least more compatible than most other speakers in that arena. Admittedly my exposure to these names might have been little.

It is like passing a fundamentalist preacher on the street who happens, in that moment, to be decrying the degenerate and soulless age in which we live, and you think, "Yes, he's right. We do live in a degenerate and soulless time. A valid point. Well done, sir", and then in the very next moment he starts ranting about "the final judgment and the eternal hell-fire and resurrection of Jesus", and suddenly your whole perception of the moment changes. That is what it is like for me to hear Jordan Peterson or Milo Yiannopoulos or Kevin Solway speak nowadays.

It would be interesting to hear from you some actual examples on what you'd call equivalent of "eternal hell-fire" and "resurrection" when it comes to Peterson and perhaps Solway's public statements.

I have been in two minds about doing this, as I don’t really want to participate in a discussion about Jordan Peterson. I don’t find him that interesting and there are other things I would rather be doing. Moreover, I’ve just read through this particular thread and can see that you and jupiviv have already dealt with the matter pretty well. I agree with most of what the two of you have said. There is probably not much more that I can add.

So what I’ll do is post a few observations that I jotted down a year or two ago. It can serve as a general depiction of Peterson from my perspective as a non-political/non-academic thinker:

Some of the things Peterson says are correct and necessary. I like it when he speaks about the need to transcend tribalism and hyper-partisanship (that is a very important message) and some of his criticisms about political correctness and women are spot on. But overall I find him to be an incredibly poor thinker with a dark, malevolent spirit. Since he loves to invoke percentages, I would estimate that about 10% of what he says is truthful and valid. The other 90% is pure guff. And that’s the problem.

This 90% is usually a mix of academic long-windedness, incoherent reasonings, bluster, angry rages, extreme political bias, and waffling self-help platitudes. And this is just when he is discussing his so-called expert subjects of clinical psychology and political correctness! It is even worse when he starts philosophizing. Then he becomes truly painful. His mediocrity and lack of insight shine out for all to see - except to his followers, of course, who have all banded behind him to form a personality cult. Joining personality cults seems to be all the rage at the moment.

The main problem with his philosophizing? The way he shamelessly dives into the postmodernist fog whenever anyone starts to direct their attention to his deeper beliefs. Watching him stammering and hemming and hawing whenever he is asked a question about, say, the nature of God is just embarrassing. Particularly when he has just spent the previous twenty minutes haranguing the “radical left” for their reliance and espousal of postmodernist thought.

Even his attacks on the “radical left”, his supposed strong point, are incoherent and divorced from reality. For example, he often likes to say that identity politics began with the radical left. Granted, he acknowledges that the right is now also engaging in identity politics and, to his credit, he does describe this as abhorrent, yet he immediately undoes this rare foray into the lofty realm of non-partisanship by claiming that it is a justifiable reaction to left-wing identity politics. The left started the rot, he says, while the right is merely reacting against it.

Anyone with even the slightest grasp of history would know that this is a complete load of bollocks. What was the African slave trade by American whites and the subsequent oppression of them in American society but a giant exercise in identity politics? And before that, you had the Catholics and the Protestants in Europe beating each over the heads with identity politics. This sort of thing has been around since the dawn of the human race. The radical left identity politics of recent times is a reaction to the conservative/white identity politics that had already been entrenched in society, just as the current right-wing version is a reaction to the emergence of the radical left. And yet, somehow, Jordan Peterson has it in his head that the radical left woke up one morning a couple of decades ago and started the whole identity politics caper out of thin air, just for the hell of it, just to annoy people like him.

The most striking thing when you watch his videos is the visible change that comes over him whenever the conversation wanders over in the direction of political correctness, feminists and social justice warriors. Almost immediately, something ugly and dark takes possession of him. He morphs from a relatively dispassionate speaker into an aggressive thug full of hostility and rage. Usually he speaks softly and thoughtfully, but as soon as the dark mist descends he starts spitting out his words with undisguised violence. It is clear that he regards these people as evil and subhuman. Although he regularly likes to boast that he loves nothing more than to listen to others and treat them open-mindedly as sources of information, all of that suddenly goes out the window whenever the spectre of the "radical left" arises. He becomes as close-minded and hostile as anyone can be.

Interestingly, a similar thing happens to Kevin Solway......

He proclaims to value facts, science, reason, well-constructed arguments, etc, and yet he is utterly silent on the momentous and grotesque far right movement which is currently usurping society and which blatantly does not care about these things at all. Think of it! Here is a movement which started over a century ago with the rejection of the theory of evolution in favour of hare-brained creationist fantasies that are totally at odds with scientific evidence, which then fed into climate change denialism (again totally at odds with the scientific evidence) and now has come to full fruition with Trumpism (which is nothing less than a full frontal attack not only on science, evidence and reason, but on A=A itself). And yet there is not a peep from Peterson on any of this. It is truly astonishing.

There is a lot of money to be made in the current right-wing propaganda industry, whether it through the use of Fox News, Breitbart, Drudge etc, and Jordan Peterson definitely has his snout in the trough. With his new-found fame, Peterson is raking in a lot of money from his fans, to the tune of $80,000 a month (according to this article: Meet the Renegades of the Intellectual Dark Web). Given that his fans are generally from the right, and that the vast majority of them are Trump supporters, it is hard not to join the dots here and see that the composition of his fan base is putting a large brake on his own free speech. What do you call a self-proclaimed free-speech intellectual who exercises self-censorship for the sake of fame and profit? A common, two-bit, garden-variety guru. A charlatan. A fake.

Despite the constant attacks he makes on the radical left and his near silence towards the many alarming transgressions from the right, he manages to sound offended whenever anyone accuses him of being a right-winger. “I’m not right-wing”, he whinges plaintively in pure bizzaro Trump mode. “My words are meaningless”, he could have said. It means the same thing.

This relates to one of the main problems I have with Peterson. His thinking is very insulated in an academic way. It’s all close-looped theories on paper that have little or no connection to the reality of people’s lives. For example, he often likes to say that the radical left's aim to achieve equality of outcomes is reprehensible and would invariably lead to a society-wide imposition of communism. While “equality of opportunity” is a worthy goal, he says, the idea of “equality of outcome” should automatically be dismissed with contempt.

Only someone who is essentially cut off from the reality of people’s lives could say something like this. For example, there was an article recently about how blacks and latinos in New York are being unfairly targeted for possession of marijuana. Even though marijuana use is relatively the same across all ethnic groups, including whites, ten times as many latinos and blacks are being arrested for marijuana possession than whites (according to Politifact). So here is an instance where “equality of outcome” is a valid and worthy goal. There is no possible justification for maintaining such disparate incarceration rates among the various ethic groups and certainly not on the grounds that it might usher in communism.

This business of alt-righters like Peterson invoking the threat of communism is so dishonest. It is nothing but a piece of propoganda, a scare tactic, designed to whip up mob frenzy and bludgeon those who advocate left-wing goals. It is the right wing equivalent of accusing opponents of being Nazis. It is irrational and counter-productive. Jordan Peterson likes to say that if political correctness is taken too far it will lead to communism, but you could say that sort of thing about anything. If you take drinking water too far it will lead to your death. That doesn’t mean you should stop drinking water.

[Pam Seeback]

Jordan Peterson's identity is linked to that of 'clinical psychologist' which has its own Hero's Story see here to tell (thanks to Diebert for bringing it into the conversation), but that Hero's Story is different in purpose and content than that of one who identifies with 'mystic' or 'philosopher', one who seeks to permanently resolve the inner conflict of opposing forces (he or she sets out to find the One or the Absolute).

It seems logical to conclude that those who are fascinated with or are interested in Peterson's works are entering or have entered their own 'how to culturally manage my inner Jekyll and Hyde" Hero's Story, perhaps a pre-cursor to the next stage wherein one ceases desiring to manage their perceived opposing energies and instead, begins to question the idea of opposition.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

...usually a mix of academic long-windedness, incoherent reasonings, bluster, angry rages, extreme political bias, and waffling self-help platitudes. And this is just when he is discussing his so-called expert subjects of clinical psychology and political correctness! It is even worse when he starts philosophizing. Then he becomes truly painful. His mediocrity and lack of insight shine out for all to see - except to his followers, of course, who have all banded behind him to form a personality cult.

And yet he seems philosophically and psychologically more informed and insightful than 99% of the others in this field, to invoke another percentage. This is a reason to support his appearance instead of burning him down to the ground and promote instead... what?

The main problem with his philosophizing? The way he shamelessly dives into the postmodernist fog whenever anyone starts to direct their attention to his deeper beliefs. Watching him stammering and hemming and hawing whenever he is asked a question about, say, the nature of God is just embarrassing.

You don't describe what you find foggy or postmodern about it. Especially when your own understanding of the topic of postmodernism has been challenged by various forum members, including one professor teaching this at a main university. At least have the modesty to admit you have no idea what post-modernity really means. Then again you have that perhaps also in common with Peterson.

. The left started the rot, he says, while the right is merely reacting against it.

It's unclear what your problem is here. This is just one possible view and in line of how conservatism is generally seen: born as reaction to revolutionary movements on the left. According to Oxford Dictionary: "in liberal democracies, the political right opposes socialism and social democracy".

The above means that it's simply mainstream thinking to propose the right as reaction to the left. The word "conservative" already implies that: it's attempting to "conserve" against a certain rate or speed of change which is seen as damaging or rotting.

These ideas cannot be held against Peterson as it misses a grounding in how these terms are used in the real world.

What was the African slave trade by American whites and the subsequent oppression of them in American society but a giant exercise in identity politics?

You are defining slave trade as identity politics while the rest of the world sees it as ruthless exploitation combined with warped ideas on race. And even racism is not "identity politics". Identity politics simply means "forming exclusive political alliances based on religion, race or social background". The slave trade was not any political alliance. In the end we can perhaps call all human activity ego or identity based but that's really widening the goal posts. Peterson is using a specific term with a confined meaning.

And before that, you had the Catholics and the Protestants in Europe beating each over the heads with identity politics.

Yes but neither Catholics or Protestants could be mapped to left or right. The Protestant were "left" in terms of revolutionary and "right" in terms of demanding orthodoxy: to go back to scripture and older forms of Christianity. In any case, there were no democratic times at all.

The radical left identity politics of recent times is a reaction to the conservative/white identity politics that had already been entrenched in society

Now you are mixing things up. The left identity politics oppose perceived systemic social inequities based on things like race and gender identity. It's their claim that for example some "whiteness" is involved in the structural inequality. These movements came up in the '60s and are now such outspoken that you can see a political response growing based on nationalism, frustration, anti-globalism etc.

You can state that "white identity" is entrenched in society, which is indeed the view of left identity politics but that does not equal there being some politics entrenched in some way, like presented by a political party system at the right in particular. The claim of the left identity politics is about for example "white" or "patriarchal" being systematic meaning part of whole of society and its structures. It seems you are not understanding that.

Usually he speaks softly and thoughtfully, but as soon as the dark mist descends he starts spitting out his words with undisguised violence.

Personally I see a passionate speaker but to each his own impression I suppose.

Think of it! Here is a [far right] movement which started over a century ago with the rejection of the theory of evolution in favour of hare-brained creationist fantasies that are totally at odds with scientific evidence, which then fed into climate change denialism (again totally at odds with the scientific evidence) and now has come to full fruition with Trumpism (which is nothing less than a full frontal attack not only on science, evidence and reason, but on A=A itself). And yet there is not a peep from Peterson on any of this. It is truly astonishing.

The reason seems far more simple: there is no significant movement "rejecting the theory of evolution" or somehow trying to ban reason or science. There's no serious evidence for that! You are confusing it with the charge from many conservatives and Trump that one specific scientific topic has become politicized and distorted when the science is invoked to force certain extreme policies on the world. This doesn't mean all science is under attack. Even when "97%" of scientist agree with the conclusion that humans are causing an important part of global warming, it doesn't mean they are in any type of agreement on the damages, effects or policies to counter it. It's important here to understand the difference.

Also Peterson is Canadian and perhaps is less obsesses with the politics of other countries? He should also comment on Putin and Xi Jinping?

Peterson endlessly peeps about it, but in a more detached sense. One of many: Peterson on Donald Trump (Youtube 6m19 video).

With his new-found fame, Peterson is raking in a lot of money from his fans, to the tune of $80,000 a month

Lets limit ourselves to the content for now. Since he's not a communist, getting rich might as well be glorious and consistent with his views.

Given that his fans are generally from the right, and that the vast majority of them are Trump supporters

His fan base, world wide, cannot be really called Trump supporter. But conservative leaning in terms of anti-left: yes.

it is hard not to join the dots here and see that the composition of his fan base is putting a large brake on his own free speech.

Free speech is generally a conservative claim and concern. But nevertheless, yes, this brake might be a problem but is a concern for anyone having a public persona where status and/or income depends on people showing up and admiring you. It's not unique to this appearance.

His thinking is very insulated in an academic way. It’s all close-looped theories on paper that have little or no connection to the reality of people’s lives

He's a clinical psychologist having treated thousands of patients over the course of his life. His public appearances and books generate massive flows or positive response of people feeling helped or empowered to make changes. Even on this forum and on other places I read daily people reporting connections and positive effects. To call him "disconnected from people's lives" doesn't seem well grounded in reality. He's not connecting to everyone obviously and that's normal.

For example, he often likes to say that the radical left's aim to achieve equality of outcomes is reprehensible and would invariably lead to a society-wide imposition of communism. While “equality of opportunity” is a worthy goal, he says, the idea of “equality of outcome” should automatically be dismissed with contempt.

Only someone who is essentially cut off from the reality of people’s lives could say something like this.

You mean you disagree with this political and economical views? And as such the views of around half of the population in most Western countries. And you call him cut off from reality simple because of disagreeing with your ideas on economy?

Even though marijuana use is relatively the same across all ethnic groups, including whites, ten times as many latinos and blacks are being arrested for marijuana possession than whites

This might also represent another socioeconomic reality, that lower classes more often have run-ins with the law. In any case, Peterson claims openly it was irrational for marijuana to be illegal in the first place. Not exactly a conservative thing to say either.

Jordan Peterson likes to say that if political correctness is taken too far it will lead to communism, but you could say that sort of thing about anything. If you take drinking water too far it will lead to your death. That doesn’t mean you should stop drinking water.

But when you see people drink more and more water without anyone speaking out, perhaps something should be said with a passion?

[David Quinn]

...usually a mix of academic long-windedness, incoherent reasonings, bluster, angry rages, extreme political bias, and waffling self-help platitudes. And this is just when he is discussing his so-called expert subjects of clinical psychology and political correctness! It is even worse when he starts philosophizing. Then he becomes truly painful. His mediocrity and lack of insight shine out for all to see - except to his followers, of course, who have all banded behind him to form a personality cult.

And yet he seems philosophically and psychologically more informed and insightful than 99% of the others in this field, to invoke another percentage. This is a reason to support his appearance instead of burning him down to the ground and promote instead... what?

And:

The main problem with his philosophizing? The way he shamelessly dives into the postmodernist fog whenever anyone starts to direct their attention to his deeper beliefs. Watching him stammering and hemming and hawing whenever he is asked a question about, say, the nature of God is just embarrassing.

You don't describe what you find foggy or postmodern about it. Especially when your own understanding of the topic of postmodernism has been challenged by various forum members, including one professor teaching this at a main university. At least have the modesty to admit you have no idea what post-modernity really means. Then again you have that perhaps also in common with Peterson.

If we combine your two statements here, you're saying that Peterson is “philosophically and psychologically more informed and insightful than 99% of the others in this field” and yet has “no idea what post-modernity really means”.

What was the African slave trade by American whites and the subsequent oppression of them in American society but a giant exercise in identity politics?

You are defining slave trade as identity politics while the rest of the world sees it as ruthless exploitation combined with warped ideas on race. And even racism is not "identity politics". Identity politics simply means "forming exclusive political alliances based on religion, race or social background". The slave trade was not any political alliance.

It is a classic example of identity politics, as per your definition above. The policy of kidnapping and enslaving people who were not part of their own group was a highly organized operation enacted by a wide-ranging group of white Christian political and business leaders working together. It literally became state policy. It became the bedrock of the American economy.

I doubt that we could find a clearer example of state-sponsored identity politics than this. For generations, an entire group of people were consistently denied their freedoms and human rights, simply because they were part of that group and because another group considered it advantageous to exploit and abuse them. Individual blacks who tried to escape their imprisonment or improve their lives were routinely beaten or killed, simply because they were black and tried to rise above their station.

In the end we can perhaps call all human activity ego or identity based but that's really widening the goal posts. Peterson is using a specific term with a confined meaning.

And in doing this, he is blocking out the real reasons why minorities have recently decided to imitate the whites and band together to engage in their own brand of identity politics.

Peterson is either being very stupid or very dishonest.

The radical left identity politics of recent times is a reaction to the conservative/white identity politics that had already been entrenched in society

Now you are mixing things up. The left identity politics oppose perceived systemic social inequities based on things like race and gender identity. It's their claim that for example some "whiteness" is involved in the structural inequality. These movements came up in the '60s and are now such outspoken that you can see a political response growing based on nationalism, frustration, anti-globalism etc.

You can state that "white identity" is entrenched in society, which is indeed the view of left identity politics but that does not equal there being some politics entrenched in some way, like presented by a political party system at the right in particular. The claim of the left identity politics is about for example "white" or "patriarchal" being systematic meaning part of whole of society and its structures. It seems you are not understanding that.

I understand it well enough. The basic dynamics are not that difficult to discern. There is a power struggle going on. The traditional centre of power - namely, the group consisting of so-called hard-working, Christian, heterosexual, white people - is being increasingly challenged by the rest of society who have had to suffer being marginalized and persecuted over the years. The Christian white group can sense the danger, hence their panicked and hysterical reaction to “political correctness”, “socialists”, “the radical-left”, "greenies", and so on, and hence their desire to elect a reckless buffoon in the hope that he can somehow disrupt the looming threat. It all reeks of desperation and self-destructiveness.

How conscious is Jordan Peterson of the reality that he is basically a pawn engaged in a racial power struggle and has chosen to side with the white Christian group? It is difficult to say, but I don’t get the sense that, outside of academic theorizing and obsessing about his pet hates, he is conscious of much at all.

Peterson endlessly peeps about [Trump], but in a more detached sense. One of many: Peterson on Donald Trump (Youtube 6m19 video).

Yeah, I watched this last year when I was compiling my notes. Rewatching it now, I observe yet again a very blinkered view that blocks out so much.

For example, he says that Clinton played identity politics and that it cost her the election. In saying this, he ignores the fact that Trump also played identity politics (and that it won him the election).

He euphemistically calls Trump an “entrepreneur”, when he is clearly a criminal/gangster type.

He says that Trump “doesn’t curry favour” with people, yet he clearly does, particularly with rich people, authoritarian leaders and other criminals.

He says that Trump is an “anomaly”, that he isn’t a "typical Republican”, whereas in reality he is the logical culmination of decades of Republican paranoia, hysteria and anti-intellectualism.

He hopes that "things will soon return to normal”. Dream on, buddy!

Finally, he states that Trump’s main virtue is that he has “not engaged in a stupid war”. But given Trump’s psychological addiction to recklessness and brinkmanship, it is surely only a matter of time.

So what I'm getting from Peterson in that video and elsewhere is that because he has subconsciously chosen to defend the Christian white group in the current power struggle, he is motivated to overplay the threat posed by the "radical left" and underplay, or even ignore, the dangers posed by Trump, the Republicans and white identity politics more generally.

[Rhett]

The wealth of evidence is that caucasians overall make the world a better place for everyone, over and above the contributions of other races.

Have a look at the colonies. Hong Kong is a much better place than China. South Africa was heavily impacted by tribal wars and was very undeveloped, now its a much better place than it would have been if not colonised. India is also much better than it would have been, and Australia. And so on.

Then there are the places where the caucasians stayed in power, where you will typically find a successful developed society, such as Australia, America, Canada, etc, and the places where they have left, and things are often bad, such as Zimbabwe, Papua New Guinea, etc.

You can try and pick a non caucasian race that has been enslaved or persecuted for some period of time and highlight their oppressors, but look at those races and what they do to others of their own race and to people of other races, and you will typically see less virtue than what you see in caucasians.

This is a reaction to uninformed, anti-caucasian, racist statements, wherever they are found.

[David Quinn]

Looking into the underlying psychology of Rhett’s post, one can observe how the romantic/mythical aspects of fascism come to be embraced. A once-dominant race staring bleakly into its own demise, impotent to do anything about the gradual tide of reality slowly eating away at its own power base, tries to jump-start a violent pushback with extravagant claims and florid boasts about itself.

As history shows, such pushbacks rarely succeed. They are the last gasps of a dying culture.

[David Quinn]

I can agree that caucasians (for the record, I’m not exactly sure what “causasians” are; for me, the term is too arbitrary and vague to be meaningful; I’ll assume that we are talking about Anglo-Saxons and Europeans (for the record, I’m not exactly sure what “Europeans” are; for me, the term is too arbitrary and vague to be meaningful; I’ll assume that we are talking about a collection of disparate individuals whose genetic origins trace back, at least in part, to one of the disparate groupings that make up the current European Union)) have contributed a lot to the world. I’m thinking here of the development of modern science and modern representative democracy, the promotion of advanced ethical principles such as universal human rights and equality before the law, and a cerebral approach to life more generally. These are good things that help promote a lofty state of mind. Caucasians weren't the sole creator of them, but they did play a predominant role.

However, not all caucasians contributed to these advanced achievements, and not all of them supported their implementation. There has always been a great deal of violent pushback from large segments of the white community who are ideologically opposed to progressive reforms of any kind. A long history of persecuting scientists, journalists, civil right activists and social reformers gives testimony to this.

Skipping forward to the present, when we look at the Trump administration and its Republican allies and the American right more generally, what we see is a large segment of the white population that completely rejects the kind of cerebral mentality that created those wonderful achievements listed above. Trump behaves as though he were an African tin pot dictator, the Republicans have effectively become a horde of warriors with spears and machetes eager to lop off the heads of any who dare criticize their supreme leader, and the Christian belief system underpinning the whole farce is so wacky and off-the-planet that it might as well be voodoo magic. There is no hint of anything superior here. It is simply a variant of primitive African tribalism.

[David Quinn]

It is easy to use labels like “caucasian” in a way that places all white people in the one basket on the assumption that, genetically, all these people are nearly identical. But in reality, the word “caucasian” canvasses a wide variety of genetic structures, which explains why there are so many different subcultures in places like America and Australia, and why there is an enormous difference between the cultures of liberals and conservatives.

There have been quite a few studies in this regard. For example:

This article in Psychology Today, entitled Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives' Political Attitudes, highlights how conservatives are genetically predisposed to being more negative and fearful, which makes them want to support authoritarian leaders.

Here is another interesting article, These key psychological differences can determine whether you're liberal or conservative.

So the current power struggle is not really about causasians against everyone else, or preserving white genes against the invading barbarians. After all, half of the white population in America is firmly against Trump and his nativist agenda. Rather, it is about an inferior/immature segment of the white population that is unable to cope with the modern world and has spat the dummy over it.

[Rhett]

Looking into the underlying psychology of Rhett’s post, one can observe how the romantic/mythical aspects of fascism come to be embraced. A once-dominant race staring bleakly into its own demise, impotent to do anything about the gradual tide of reality slowly eating away at its own power base, tries to jump-start a violent pushback with extravagant claims and florid boasts about itself.

As history shows, such pushbacks rarely succeed. They are the last gasps of a dying culture.

Caucasians have been so self critical, so inclusive, so willing to help the needy, so anti racist, that they havent looked after their power base. It is entirely within their capacity to maintain dominance by force, but their strong moral compass means that option hasnt been put on the table yet.

I was talking to a guy from England the other day. He said ethnic and particularly muslim forces are so entrenched in England now with political representation, its near impossible to politically steer their society away from damaging influence.

[Rhett]

It is easy to use labels like “caucasian” in a way that places all white people in the one basket on the assumption that, genetically, all these people are nearly identical. But in reality, the word “caucasian” canvasses a wide variety of genetic structures, which explains why there are so many different subcultures in places like America and Australia, and why there is an enormous difference between the cultures of liberals and conservatives.

There have been quite a few studies in this regard. For example:

This article in Psychology Today, entitled Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives' Political Attitudes, highlights how conservatives are genetically predisposed to being more negative and fearful, which makes them want to support authoritarian leaders.

Here is another interesting article, These key psychological differences can determine whether you're liberal or conservative.

So the current power struggle is not really about causasians against everyone else, or preserving white genes against the invading barbarians. After all, half of the white population in America is firmly against Trump and his nativist agenda. Rather, it is about an inferior/immature segment of the white population that is unable to cope with the modern world and has spat the dummy over it.

I deliberately used the term "caucasian" because that is the group i wanted to refer to, which is a somewhat different group to "white".

[Rhett]

I can agree that caucasians (for the record, I’m not exactly sure what “causasians” are; for me, the term is too arbitrary and vague to be meaningful; I’ll assume that we are talking about Anglo-Saxons and Europeans (for the record, I’m not exactly sure what “Europeans” are; for me, the term is too arbitrary and vague to be meaningful; I’ll assume that we are talking about a collection of disparate individuals whose genetic origins trace back, at least in part, to one of the disparate groupings that make up the current European Union)) have contributed a lot to the world. I’m thinking here of the development of modern science and modern representative democracy, the promotion of advanced ethical principles such as universal human rights and equality before the law, and a cerebral approach to life more generally. These are good things that help promote a lofty state of mind. Caucasians weren't the sole creator of them, but they did play a predominant role.

However, not all caucasians contributed to these advanced achievements, and not all of them supported their implementation. There has always been a great deal of violent pushback from large segments of the white community who are ideologically opposed to progressive reforms of any kind. A long history of persecuting scientists, journalists, civil right activists and social reformers gives testimony to this.

Skipping forward to the present, when we look at the Trump administration and its Republican allies and the American right more generally, what we see is a large segment of the white population that completely rejects the kind of cerebral mentality that created those wonderful achievements listed above. Trump behaves as though he were an African tin pot dictator, the Republicans have effectively become a horde of warriors with spears and machetes eager to lop off the heads of any who dare criticize their supreme leader, and the Christian belief system underpinning the whole farce is so wacky and off-the-planet that it might as well be voodoo magic. There is no hint of anything superior here. It is simply a variant of primitive African tribalism.

Do you acknowledge, for instance, that globalisation is causing economic problems in developed countries? For instance, the loss of manufacturing. Who do you think is seeing this problem the way it is right now, who do you think is in touch with this reality, who has their mind turned on and is adapting their thinking to this evidence?

Do you deny the least intelligent caucasians who are the most negatively influenced by these globalisation issues the right to voice their concerns? The left, like tin pot dictators, are great at ignoring the voices of the lower socio economic groups, at the same time as they increase their taxes to look after foreigners.

[Maximiliano Vignaga]

.. A once-dominant race staring bleakly into its own demise, impotent to do anything about the gradual tide of reality slowly eating away at its own power base, tries to jump-start a violent pushback with extravagant claims and florid boasts about itself.

As history shows, such pushbacks rarely succeed. They are the last gasps of a dying culture.

But David, it's the liberals dying out, by having less or no children compared to conservatives and immigrants. See https://www.fatherly.com/health-science ... -children/


.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If we combine your two statements here, you're saying that Peterson is “philosophically and psychologically more informed and insightful than 99% of the others in this field” and yet has “no idea what post-modernity really means”.

Yes. Although I also maintain that you don't know what post-modernity means in the larger world out there. And yet I think that you're more insightful than 99% of others who are posting philosophy. Perhaps it helps to know what post-modernity means, in relation to modernism. In any case it's not a particular philosophical term or movement. It's in fact very fluid that way. And Peterson does not like things to be all too fluid!

What was the African slave trade by American whites and the subsequent oppression of them in American society but a giant exercise in identity politics?

You are defining slave trade as identity politics while the rest of the world sees it as ruthless exploitation combined with warped ideas on race. And even racism is not "identity politics". Identity politics simply means "forming exclusive political alliances based on religion, race or social background". The slave trade was not any political alliance.

The policy of kidnapping and enslaving people who were not part of their own group was a highly organized operation enacted by a wide-ranging group of white Christian political and business leaders working together. It literally became state policy. It became the bedrock of the American economy.

It's not clear where you're seeing political alliances here. Perhaps when anti-slavery movements started, this whole abolitionism, during the Civil War, yes, this point could be made to some degree. However I think that it's not a very interesting topic. You can call everything identity politics this way, if you like. The point is that it doesn't have to be a shared definition.

I doubt that we could find a clearer example of state-sponsored identity politics than this.

But there is no "state" here --a broader culture perhaps? Culture is all about identity. However, it's unclear why it would be politics since there was little opposition. Again, perhaps not that interesting. But I see politics basically as complex debate and negotiation between parties having power while you seem to include way more. For you politics seems a very fluid term to be applied way back in time to many things. So be it.

How conscious is Jordan Peterson of the reality that he is basically a pawn engaged in a racial power struggle and has chosen to side with the white Christian group? It is difficult to say, but I don’t get the sense that, outside of academic theorizing and obsessing about his pet hates, he is conscious of much at all.

Here it seems more like you are first asserting the existence of some looming "racial power struggle" as some conspiratorial personal view and then wonder why Peterson doesn't get it. Maybe because he simply doesn't believe in that theory? And it's not a mainstream theory in any case.

For example, he says that Clinton played identity politics and that it cost her the election. In saying this, he ignores the fact that Trump also played identity politics (and that it won him the election).

Yes, that's valid criticism. One might say that Clinton lost because she played the game she shouldn't be playing, not with that opponent.

He euphemistically calls Trump an “entrepreneur”, when he is clearly a criminal/gangster type.

But it doesn't change the fact that he is or at least was an entrepreneur and Peterson specially mentioned the Apprentice showbiz gig. And yes he did co-produce that show and had 50 percent ownership of it after which it was franchised world-wide. Maybe the one thing that he earned with real money beyond his father's legacy?

He says that Trump is an “anomaly”, that he isn’t a "typical Republican”, whereas in reality he is the logical culmination of decades of Republican paranoia, hysteria and anti-intellectualism.

He's indeed seen by many (and I agree) as the logical outcome of what the party evolved into since around G.W. Bush times. But to equal decades of Republican politicians with paranoia, hysteria and anti-intellectualism seems in itself a rather paranoid and anti-intellectual view.

Finally, he states that Trump’s main virtue is that he has “not engaged in a stupid war”. But given Trump’s psychological addiction to recklessness and brinkmanship, it is surely only a matter of time.

Predicting the future is always tricky -- it's just opinion in the end. All we know is his stated intention to get out of the war and not into new ones. And that so far he has tried to move in that direction. Personally I can only hope he will succeed despite his recklessness and brinkmanship. God knows moderate presidents before him couldn't resist it despite not being reckless.

[phil]

Humankind ‘places so much importance’ on man’s relationship to woman that it cannot now and will not ever be avoidable. The relationship to women and a woman, that is as a wife and as a mother, is right at the very foundation of all major considerations. If a man avoids it, he is either a rogue, a child or a faggot. And to end up a faggot and in various other offered perverse alternatives is in no sense of the word a ‘success’. To uncover the neurotic lie in the man who represents his solitary faggotry as *spiritual*, is simply false. It must be confronted at the root.

Traditionalism trumps ‘conservatism’, obviously, and in the project of self-recovery (in my view) one recovers the essentialist definitions, not the least being a man’s relationship to woman and family. While it is true that the American attitudes of the Fifties are, in their way, shells and mirages, it is not true and will not ever be true that *therefor* the essentialist definition of a man’s relationship to woman can be denied. A closeted faggot can deny it, this I admit, but this cultural disease must be addressed. Therefor, to recover a man’s relationship with women and with a woman is part-and-parcel of general recovery.

.................

The entire Woman Definition Project of GF is based on a distortion and a perversion and what it does to a man is just as you observe here: it turns him into a cattish, argumentative, willful chump with homosexual tendencies. All this must be seen and reversed.

Because we all exist in, perceive from, organize our understanding, within a hyper-liberalized circumstance (the term hyper-liberalization does require special definition) we tend to have embodied all manner of different erroneous views. They *careen out of control* and pull us along with them. To correct this, as a start, one must establish proper foundational definitions.

One must certainly come under the influence of a *properly foundationed woman*. In fact, such a woman is in my view what man must ultimately serve. Man does, in fact -- in a certain ultimate sense -- serve woman. His life revolves around *woman* (as QRS pretentiously uses the demonstrative).

Wow!
Well I know it is a long time since... what was it June 2018? And I'm sure by the end of the thread some self-professed genius has done his best to set this fellow straight, but I don't know that I have it in me to read the rest of this stuff. Still, here I am better late than never.

Such passion, eh. If I understand you correctly, Mr Odo, your claim is...what? that you cannot live without women, is that it. Therefore, neither can anyone else, is that it?
I suppose you'ld go bonkers stranded on some island with everything but a vagina. no joke.

Odo, much of what you say is true of ordinary men, but are you not familiar with the concept of superman (men)?
Supermen, as I understand it, are not "closeted faggots" you imbecile, the're simply ordinary flesh and blood men who see the world differently, in fact with a kind of God's eye view.

You do know, don't you, that many religions and spiritual teachings assert that God is our true Father.
Well in the same way supermen, or godmen, see all people as their children.
Now you wouldn't screw your own child now, would you Mr Odo?

For such men (I hear) it is not difficult to see people of each and every gender similarly, since they know and see all things as part of themselves. This is what it means to be Enlightened, or a Buddha or Jesus of Nazareth (presumably).
Since in actuality, since in truth, All indeed is One, well...if you are IT then everything is part of yourself.
Consequently, one who is perfectly and entirely transformed is no longer hampered by the attachments and lusts brought forward from our evolutionary past. It would make as much sense as being obsessed with one's own foot or ear.

I realize this may be difficult for you to believe, but this is the whole idea behind - for instance- a pope's way of life and relationship to the people. That modern popes and other religious leaders do not or may not be fully transformed is neither here nor there. A church operates this way because this is the way it has been since the founding of such a church or religion, said founder being a superman himself.

Now wipe up that saliva and stop using women to compensate for your weaknesses.