The Jordan Peterson Biblical Series

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following is a long excerpt from a hilarious and sad critique, by Stephen Marche, of a debate between old-school Marxist, Slavoj Žižek, and Jordan Peterson. It turns out that they are both vapid and empty shells, which for me Peterson is no surprise here. What is very interesting to me is that the reviewer points out that both of them are apocalyptic minded based upon their pessimism.

Here, Peterson, at least, is a psychologist, and he doesn't see in his religious focus, discussed on this thread, that the world's religions (not necessarily their underlying mythos) have created (using psychological framing techniques - synthetic Culture) the stiff-necked meta-tribes of respective Chosen People. This is why I am pessimistic about humanity. As a former engineer, the mindset should be to make continual improvements, but such as Peterson are encouraging his adoring mobs to indulge in ever more mud wrestling.

The 2.5 hour debate is at the bottom. I have not watched it yet.


...
The great surprise of this debate turned out to be how much in common the old-school Marxist and the Canadian identity politics refusenik had.
One hated communism. The other hated communism but thought that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. The first one agreed that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. And that was basically it. They both wanted the same thing: capitalism with regulation, which is what every sane person wants. The Peterson-Žižek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil.
They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer. Peterson is neither a racist nor a misogynist. He is a conservative. He seemed, in person, quite gentle. But when you’ve said that, you’ve said everything. Somehow hectoring mobs have managed to turn him into an icon of all they are not. Remove him from his enemies and he is a very poor example of a very old thing – the type of writer whom, from Samuel Smiles’ Self-Help to Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now, have promised simple answers to complex problems. Rules for Life, as if there were such things.
The mere dumb presence of the celebrities on the stage mattered vastly more than anything they said, naturally. But there was one truly fascinating moment in the evening. It came right at the end of Žižek’s opening 30-minute remarks.
“We will probably slide towards apocalypse,” he said. And Peterson agreed with him: “It is not obvious to me that we can solve the problems that confront us.” They are both self-described “radical pessimists”, about people and the world. It made me wonder about the rage consuming all public discussion at the moment: are we screaming at each other because we disagree or because we do agree and we can’t imagine a solution?
Both of these men know that they are explicitly throwbacks. They do not have an answer to the real problems that face us: the environment and the rise of China as a successful capitalist state without democracy. (China’s success makes a joke out of the whole premise of the debate: the old-fashioned distinction between communism and capitalism.) Neither can face the reality or the future. Therefore they retreat.
Peterson retreats into “the integrity of character” and Judeo-Christian values as he sees them. Žižek is more or less a Gen X nostalgia act at this point, a living memento from a time when you would sit around the college bar and regale your fellow students about the time you saw that eastern European prof eating a couple of hot dogs in the street.
Unfortunately, this brief moment of confrontation of their shared failure couldn’t last. They returned to their natural subject: who is the enemy? Žižek asked what Peterson meant by cultural Marxists when postmodern thinkers, like Foucault, weren’t Marxist at all. Peterson was an expert on this subject, at least. He gave a minor history of the French critical theorists who transposed categories of class oppression for group oppression in the 1960s.
And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the “academic left”. They seemed to believe that the “academic left”, whoever that might be, was some all-powerful cultural force rather than the impotent shrinking collection of irrelevances it is. If the academic left is all-powerful, they get to indulge in their victimization.
And that was the great irony of the debate: what it comes down to is that they believe they are the victims of a culture of victimization. They play the victim as much as their enemies. It’s all anyone can do at this point. ...​


[edited 11/21/19 by Jerry Russell to fix broken video link]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
This is why I am pessimistic about humanity.
On the contrary, I see you as tremendously optimistic. You are predicting that the Globalist Enterprise (the Oligarchs, Space Jesus, whatever you call it) will move from one success to another, slowly wiping out any remnants of resistance. Of which, indeed, there are almost none, even now, except for limited hangout ops.

The Chosen Ones will usher in a new age, while the surplus population of zombie zealots will disappear on rapture day. And that's the fate that zombie zealots deserve anyhow, so where's the problem? The Oligarchs will get new robotic servants, and won't even have to waste their time anymore making propaganda. Nothing left to do but sip mint juleps. Global warming has never been a problem, there will be plenty of oil. And if there isn't, thorium reactors are clean and safe.

Considering how great it will all be, I don't see why we don't just join the CIA and go to church on Sundays. We could even take some refresher courses at Georgetown. With names like Stanley and Russell, we should fit right in.

Old Tom Lehrer, now, that's a guy I call a pessimist. Except that he seemed so cheery about it. Oh wait, he really is cheery! Joke's on me, maybe I'm the only real pessimist in the room.

 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
On the contrary, I see you as tremendously optimistic. You are predicting that the Globalist Enterprise (the Oligarchs, Space Jesus, whatever you call it) will move from one success to another, slowly wiping out any remnants of resistance. Of which, indeed, there are almost none, even now, except for limited hangout ops.
You are mistaking the combination of my natural (healthy) cynicism (ala the OG Cynics) and my attempts to 'objectively' report on the historical and current phenomenon with an endorsement of those (intimately connected) phenomenon, especially the vicious methodologies employed. I do get angry at humans (chimpigs) who insist on behaving as sheep, or sometimes as sheepdogs.

You are predicting that the Globalist Enterprise (the Oligarchs, Space Jesus, whatever you call it) will move from one success to another, slowly wiping out any remnants of resistance. Of which, indeed, there are almost none, even now, except for limited hangout ops.
Yes, your first sentence is correct, but as to the second I agree with Miss Kitty that there are a lot of the various resistance(s), both on the left and right. The weaponry and munitions on the right resistance (the American Taliban - Freedom Loving, Freedom Haters) is indeed formidable. Like Samson who married into the Philistines (so as to foment "an occasion against them", Trump has figuratively wed himself to America's figurative Philistines.

As such, I'm pretty sure the Shepherds that control the flocks, via framing propaganda, understand what they need and want to accomplish.

The Chosen Ones will usher in a new age, while the surplus population of zombie zealots will disappear on rapture day. And that's the fate that zombie zealots deserve anyhow, so where's the problem?
Again, yes to your first sentence, but as to the second, I have sympathy for the zombie zealots. As fake Jesus said, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do (but you and I certainly do know what they do)".

One might take the position that the Shepherds were forced, by default, to employ such cynical methods simply because so many adult humans are so stiff-necked about their baby 'cultures', like the Santa Claus of pagan Christianity. But maybe such humans are so formed more by nurture than nature? It is said that most children love to learn, in various individualistic manners, but that such dogmatic cultural institutions as Religion and rigid schooling replace this love with fear and disdain for learning. Fake Jesus said that the Truth would set one free, but most Christians (and others) only care for their limited subset of distorted Truth.

But, in any case, there is a crapload of money to be made in employing this particular Divide and Conquer methodology. The sheep have shown they have little inclination to wise up, preferring the 'Bliss of Ignorance (and hubristic arrogance)' and having their Vanity massaged (look sheeps you are Gentiles too). When the sheep are being fattened in the Lords' pastures they are quite happy, but eventually it becomes their "turn in the barrel", the BBQ smoker.

Considering how great it will all be, I don't see why we don't just join the CIA and go to church on Sundays. We could even take some refresher courses at Georgetown. With names like Stanley and Russell, we should fit right in.
As they say: "Youth is wasted on the young", and my expiration date is rapidly approaching (I hope). If I had understood what I do now, operating inside of a church would likely have been a much more effective vehicle than what we have accomplished. That is, if not outed by the Shepherds' various agents of Entryism.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I didn't mean to say that you were endorsing the rosy future you paint.

But, one can hardly blame me for finding this confusing. On the one hand:

I have sympathy for the zombie zealots.
But also:

I do get angry at humans (chimpigs) who insist on behaving as sheep, or sometimes as sheepdogs.
And quoting Fake Jesus like a preacher's kid! If you can quote Fake Jesus, the I can quote Fake Confucius.

Confucius Say: if you want to express sympathy for Zombie Zealots, start by not calling them Zombie Zealots, at least not to their face.

The weaponry and munitions on the right resistance (the American Taliban - Freedom Loving, Freedom Haters) is indeed formidable.
Not to mention the weaponry, munitions and armies raised by Russia, China, and other (seeming or actual) opponents of the Anglo-American Neo-Rome. And just like Trump, the rulers of these various factions all need to at least produce the appearance of standing up for their respective constituencies.

Fake rulers also have to worry about being replaced by their nationalist compatriots who aren't fake. That might have already happened: Putin might not be entirely fake, and we haven't even talked about Xi Jinping.

Economic pressures can only increase, as populations continue on their doubling path while resources run out, pollution increases, and the climate changes. I don't see how anyone can rely on all these stressed-out fake and/or not-so-fake rulers, to keep wartime casualties at a suitably symbolic level, and refrain from deploying any serious nuclear firepower.

If I had understood what I do now, operating inside of a church would likely have been a much more effective vehicle than what we have accomplished.
For you, maybe. I can't quote Fake Jesus without smirking. Best I can do is to sit quietly at the back of the class.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I didn't mean to say that you were endorsing the rosy future you paint.
Just because I doubt that nukes will play a big role doesn't mean I think the precipitous transition will be rosy. There are plenty of ways to achieve apocalyptic reductions in population numbers.

For instance, the Book of Revelation talks about the unleashing of what appears could be such as plagues.

Right now there is new concern for the global simultaneous outbreak of 4 strains of a fungus that is difficult to treat. They are telling us that existing as four separate and geographically remote strains, they must be natural and have been long hiding it the wild, until some freak of nature made them all arise, like zombie fungi. Seems rather dubious to me. One, OK; four, not so much.
But, one can hardly blame me for finding this confusing. On the one hand:

"I have sympathy for the zombie zealots."​

But also:

"I do get angry at humans (chimpigs) who insist on behaving as sheep, or sometimes as sheepdogs."​
Why can't I have sympathy for peoples' legitimate complaints, while at the same time getting pissed after spending significant efforts explaining to some of them how the system works, then they refuse to abandon their mind slavery? I realize there are a number of very strong psychological impediments to accepting rational reality after having spent one's entire life as a figurative mushroom, kept in the dark and fed BS. Abandoning a lifelong religio-political cult, like in the Matrix, is difficult and frightening prospect, leaving the many for a few. Safety in numbers.

The (not so) amazing thing is that there are those that even (bad) cynically leverage these phenomenon, like Alex Jones's Prison Planet meme, or Faux News's "Fair and Balanced" meme. Success in leaving the Matrix depends upon understanding how to navigate in the new understanding, and it would be easier if a better paradigm could go viral. But the stakes are so high that the Shepherds find it worthwhile to co-opt, destroy, or marginalize every threat that they can.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Just because I doubt that nukes will play a big role doesn't mean I think the precipitous transition will be rosy.
My attempt to depict your vision as 'rosy' is just my own sadly misguided attempt at humor. If there's any real point I'm trying to make, it's just that I don't believe the transition will be safe & comfy for 'the shepherds' either. And that any scenario that doesn't involve nuclear weapons, is far better than any that does.

Why can't I have sympathy for peoples' legitimate complaints, while at the same time getting pissed after spending significant efforts explaining to some of them how the system works, then they refuse to abandon their mind slavery?
I don't think I'm any perfect example of equanimity and calm, either. But emotionally speaking, it's not so easy to be both sympathetic and angry, especially not at the same time.
 
Finally we agree! Yes, Jordan Peterson is a vapid and empty shell! My understanding is that he is also a shill whose main purpose is to prevent the rise of white nationalism, which is the only thing that might defeat the oligarchs. His target demographic is lost young white men who are wondering if they might band together to take back America. His answer is no, you should stay an atomized individual and reject identity politics, and of course, go clean your room. He's also a a shill for the Jews. He wrote a ridiculous essay defending their racial superiority that is so bad it's a laugh riot! There simply are not enough Jews to account for their outsized influence without taking into account their own ethnic nepotism.

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/
 
Greetings, Miss Kitty! You have provided a really good link to Peterson's way of thinking and I commend you for it, even though my commentary below only partly agrees with yours here.
Finally we agree! Yes, Jordan Peterson is a vapid and empty shell! My understanding is that he is also a shill whose main purpose is to prevent the rise of white nationalism, which is the only thing that might defeat the oligarchs. His target demographic is lost young white men who are wondering if they might band together to take back America. His answer is no, you should stay an atomized individual and reject identity politics, and of course, go clean your room. He's also a a shill for the Jews. He wrote a ridiculous essay defending their racial superiority that is so bad it's a laugh riot! There simply are not enough Jews to account for their outsized influence without taking into account their own ethnic nepotism.
Peterson begins by confusing association with cause.
Jordan Peterson said:
Consider that IQ is the most powerful single determinant of long-term socioeconomic success and influence
IQ is a social product, a correlate, not a determinant, which latter word reifies IQ into something physical – and hence potentially heritable genetically, permitting Miss Kitty to label him ‘racist’.
Jordan Peterson said:
Openness to Experience. Openness to Experience is one of the five cardinal personality traits (Wikipedia will fill you in rapidly). Openness to Experience has often been considered the reflection of general cognitive ability or intelligence in personality. It’s what you are referring to when you describe someone as thoughtful, smart, artistic or philosophical. People with high IQs tend overwhelmingly to be higher in trait Openness to Experience (particularly in the Openness to Experience aspect of Intellect).
Their openness actually reflects great confidence in the culture in which they live, which, in the case of Jews, even more than other elites, means that they have in some yet-to-be-defined way outsmarted the goyim in Western culture. Petersen then blindly claims that this means NO CONSPIRACY, rather than asking what the openness is based upon!
Jordan Peterson said:
Equal over-representation may also occur in political movements associated with the left, because high IQ is associated with Openness to Experience, which is in turn associated with liberal/left-leaning political proclivities.
So help me!!!!! Jordan Peterson might think that: I cannot possibly comment! (I’ll leave that to Žižek). However his true deceit, the “lifetime actor” moment appeared with his earlier phrase.
Jordan Peterson said:
New York Jews, in particular, snap up a disproportionate number of Nobel prizes, and Jews are disproportionately eligible for admission at elite universities, where they, along with Asians, tend to be discriminated against. It’s possible that we should be happy about this, rather than annoyed: is the fact that smart people are working hard for our mutual advancement really something to feel upset [about]?
Are smart people (whether Jew, Asian, WASP, Black or whatever) always or even mostly working hard for our mutual advancement? Given the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) from 2008 and the stagnation since, one would be extremely naïve to think so. Putting aside high-IQ Chinese whom some might think mostly do not work for the West’s benefit, where does this leave certain smart Jews who are part of the West by nationality and culture?

And if left-wingers are so much smarter than right-wingers why is the whole world moving politically rightward today?

Yours faithfully
Claude

(Here I am gradually leading everyone around to identify the intellects exactly at the centre of the manipulation, mainly Jewish (for historical reasons) but not exclusively so by any means)
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Finally we agree! Yes, Jordan Peterson is a vapid and empty shell! My understanding is that he is also a shill whose main purpose is to prevent the rise of white nationalism, which is the only thing that might defeat the oligarchs. His target demographic is lost young white men who are wondering if they might band together to take back America.
Thank your 'Jewish' God's Divine Providence that the indigenous peoples of the New World didn't complete their rise of Red Nationalism in time, eh? They didn't have a Trump of their own to build their Wall for them, to keep the barbarian invaders out.

Unfortunately for the Texas pale serfers, the 'Jewish' Texas Rangers disposed of the prior Trump, and look at all the invaders living in Texas since then:


Waaaaait a minute Miss Kitty. How did those Hollywood Jews know about Trump and his Wall way back then?

As I have told other trolls here, Miss Kitty, I expect members to engage first with the Postflavian content before spewing their myopic half-truths (at best) here. For one, learn the real history of the United States of America (Jerry can get you the link) and the real relationship of 'Jews' to Western Civilization.

Real surfers like tiki-torches, but now so do the serfers. Just don't tell the latter the name of your husband.

"Ave, Imperator, morituri te salutant"​

Putting aside high-IQ Chinese whom some might think mostly do not work for the West’s benefit, where does this leave certain smart Jews who are part of the West by nationality and culture?
What is your definition of "the West"?

And if left-wingers are so much smarter than right-wingers why is the whole world moving politically rightward today?
This appears to be a non sequitur to me, unless you can explain otherwise.

(Here I am gradually leading everyone around to identify the intellects exactly at the centre of the manipulation, mainly Jewish (for historical reasons) but not exclusively so by any means)
Just what is your definition of a 'Jew'? Are they a genetic ethnon, a religion, or perhaps a synthetic ideological construct? A shibboleth in their own right, or perhaps the figurative implanted irritant in a Western oyster that forms a pearl (in somebodies' gentil eyes)?

Please answer this on your new Dihybrid thread, not here. Or maybe here: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/racism-cultural-degradation-and-misplaced-paranoia-article-thread.1730/

What is "the manipulation", and what agenda is it serving? Is the 'Jewish' Old Testament globalist with its 120 expressions of globalism? Is the New Testament globalist with its 80 expression of globalism? Is former Catholic priest, James Carroll, in his Constantine's Sword wrong that Catholic theology, since the days of St. Augustine till John Paul II, tells Catholics that living Jews are absolutely necessary to the Christian construct, so: "please do not kill all of them".

And if your answer warrants, please answer this on a more apropos thread as well. thx

r
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The following is a long excerpt from a hilarious and sad critique, by Stephen Marche, of a debate between old-school Marxist, Slavoj Žižek, and Jordan Peterson.
I'm a little late to the party with this comment, but I finally started listening to the debate.

At about 39:20, Slavoj Žižek complains that he is supposed to be on stage to defend Left Liberalism, but he denies that he's qualified. "I'm sure that if the leading figures in this field were asked if I were fit to stand for them, they would spin in their graves, even if they still be alive," he says. And in his subsequent 30 minute introduction, I didn't hear much to indicate he was wrong about this. He is certainly not a modern Left Liberal personality. As to characterizing him as an "old school Marxist", I can't imagine where that comes from. Maybe it was a youthful indiscretion, long since abandoned? He did express a rather half-hearted complaint that Capitalism was failing to come to terms with environmental crisis, and that's about the most extreme left-wing sentiment I could detect from Žižek.

Equal over-representation may also occur in political movements associated with the left, because high IQ is associated with Openness to Experience, which is in turn associated with liberal/left-leaning political proclivities.
If Jordan Peterson said that, maybe he's really no more qualified to speak for "the Right", than Žižek is to speak for "the Left"? Which, I suppose, is Miss Kitty's point.

This is a debate between two centrists. The fact that they both seem to be considered beyond the pale of normality, on the far left and the far right respectively, is just a measure of how narrow the "Overton window" has become.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I'd also like to point out that Peterson first became famous at an international level in 2016-2017 for his opposition to Canada's Bill C-16, which prohibited discrimination, or public incitement of hatred, against transsexuals. Peterson said:

I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.
Now, on another thread, Miss Kitty mentioned her personal concern that transsexuals are portrayed as heroes. Whereas Peterson compares transsexual rights advocacy (including pronoun courtesy) as akin to murderous Marxism. Seems to me that Peterson is indulging in hate speech, not hero worship.

And, Miss Kitty didn't actually use the word "transsexual", rather she chose to use a hateful slur. We've had a transsexual member in the Forum in the past. I want her to feel welcome here should she return. So I've taken the liberty to edit Miss Kitty's post for respectfulness.

Miss Kitty and Richard have both seen the following video, but I'm posting it for Claude's amusement. Now, if the debate had been between Jordan Peterson vs. ContraPoints, THAT would've been a debate worth watching.

 
Last edited:
A necessary question indeed - as, not being of US background, I am not familiar with much of the Postflavian quoted material.
Richard Stanley said:
Claude Badley said:
Putting aside high-IQ Chinese whom some might think mostly do not work for the West’s benefit, where does this leave certain smart Jews who are part of the West by nationality and culture?
What is your definition of "the West"?
I define the West first of all as the First World countries of Europe and North America along with Australia and New Zealand. Other countries have de facto Western features e.g. Japan despite its different cultural basis. Greece too is a First World European country but those countries that experienced Communism (whether forced e.g. Poland and Hungary or intrinsic e.g. Russia, Albania, Yugoslavia, or both e.g. Ukraine) vary in their Western orientation and sentiment. Israel, given its Freemasonry, is clearly a Western country as well. Many Latin American countries fancy their Western connection too e.g. Argentina, Brazil etc. as do many White South Africans, people in India and Pakistan etc.

More narrowly, the truly Western countries are but the "core four": the USA, Canada, the UK and France (with perhaps Holland). On the wider definition (i.e. Western versus Eastern "cultures"), the Islamic world with its monotheism is actually part of the West, as opposed to Orientalist claims which lump Islam together with China and India. Nevertheless there are major non-Islamic differences in Islamic cultures which separate them from the West. Here I mean Islam's lack of a stable Feudal System (the Ottoman Empire being an attempted substitute for it). The basis of the Orientalist charge lies in the fact that the contiguous Islamic world (Morocco to Kazakhstan) falls into Wittfogel's Marxist category of "Oriental despotism" - along with India and China - where Feudalism could NOT arise. The reason for this is irrigation agriculture (due to the lack of rainfall or a thirsty crop like rice).

In stark contrast to Orientalism then, Japan IS a Western country because it too had the Feudal System like Europe - its rice requiring only local agriculture due to its high rainfall and volcanic soils.

Have I explained myself enough here - notice I didn't say Richard!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Have I explained myself enough here - notice I didn't say Richard!
Ha!!

Yes, this is a pretty good answer, and it's interesting that you've added Feudalism into the mix, which complicates the analysis. And maybe, again, better on a different thread.

I consider Feudalism to be a form of a caste system, and have been pondering that Christianity is thus modified or co-opted Buddhism (from its original form). Of course, Plato expressed his thoughts on the same as well, and Christianity is quite Platonic.

But, more importantly, you include Judaism as a (integral) Western component. Of which, it is surprising how many goyim (not gentil) resist, showing the effectiveness of the (Western) False Dialectic, just divide and conquer at the core level.

A necessary question indeed - as, not being of US background, I am not familiar with much of the Postflavian quoted material.
Neither are most Americans. :(
 
I leave out some intermediate material here as I wish to highlight the main implication...
Claude Badley said:
Jordan Peterson said:
Equal over-representation may also occur in political movements associated with the left, because high IQ is associated with Openness to Experience, which is in turn associated with liberal/left-leaning political proclivities.

...New York Jews, in particular, snap up a disproportionate number of Nobel prizes, and Jews are disproportionately eligible for admission at elite universities, where they, along with Asians, tend to be discriminated against. It’s possible that we should be happy about this, rather than annoyed: is the fact that smart people are working hard for our mutual advancement really something to feel upset [about]?
Are smart people (whether Jew, Asian, WASP, Black or whatever) always or even mostly working hard for our mutual advancement? ...

And if left-wingers are so much smarter than right-wingers why is the whole world moving politically rightward today?
...of our Canadian left-rightist!
This appears to be a non sequitur to me, unless you can explain otherwise.
Peterson states that high IQs are associated with "openness to experience" which he also associates with left-leaning sentiments.

He then claims that, at least if we restrict his comment to citizens of the West, "smart people are working hard for our mutual advancement". However, so many of these smart people are working in their own interests e.g. in finance. Other smart people are indeed working on the Left, but if they are that smart (e.g. Žižek whose cleverness is not masked by having English as a second language), why is the Left unable to dominate or outsmart its libertarian (and other Rightist) opponents? Especially given that the latter tend to be on the dumber side (according to Peterson) and so LESS open to experience.

That the Right has revived almost worldwide (the UK being in transition mode between Farrage's farrago and Traditional Left Corbyn) hardly proves Peterson's thesis of Right stupidity since the Right cannot be that stupid if it can garner some sort of popular support against the clever "open to experience" Lefties!

So one or more of his claims is clearly wrong: I doubt that the Left or Right is smarter than the other - and I certainly reject the notion that "smart people" are in the main working for our benefit, especially in our individualist age! (To argue the point further I would need to go beyond Jordan Peterson's claims - it is a question of human character which I will have to open a thread on).

Have I here cleared up the point enough Richard?

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Have I here cleared up the point enough Richard?
Somewhat. What has to be taken into account when talking about issues of Right versus Left, is that both sides end up having someone's thumb on the scale, depending on which way money or some other benefit (e.g. power) is being accorded. The thumb might belong to one or more corporations, an individual or more, or ... some other power interest. A basic tenet of human shepherding is to control both sides, without being seen.

This is why, in the USA at least, the higher one goes in the governmental system, the more similar in approach the Right and Left politicos appear on significant matters, leaving less important matters to demonstrate to the public that there is something to distinguish themselves.

In addition to our SSSM model, we have the Conquest, Colonization, Consolidation, and Schism (CCCS) cyclical process of the global Western rollout. It is the latter Schism aspect which provides the impetus to go forth and Conquer. Schisms can be 'organic', but what if, like an enemy, you don't have a schism at hand. Then you must provide one. Hence, 'divide and conquer'.

Jerry and I have been looking more at the issue of Individualism, and its hyper-actualization in America's Rugged Individualism. As former Libertarians, I was surprised to find that the major sponsorship of libertarianism is the Mont Pelerin Society. The MPS's players are the remnants of royal families like the Hapsburgs and the Bourbons.

Haa. "Remnants and Mont Pelerin". Mont Pelerin --- Pella? The apocalyptic 'remnants' flee to the safety of Pella in the mountains.

Until more recent times, the Catholic Church had great (official) antipathy to the USA, even somewhat towards its apostate Catholic flock in America (tended almost exclusively) by the Jesuits, because of issues such as Liberal Modernism. They've lost their serfs and such.

Soon after the rise of American Libertarainism, came the impact upon it of the Koch brothers. It was unsettling for many of the libertarian Old Guard, but we didn't know exactly why then. Well, the Kochs are conservative and traditionalist Catholics, which means that they, like the Mont Pelerin royals should, on the surface, be opposed to libertarianism.

This is the shepherds at play, or work rather, the hands somewhat hidden. The Individualism and libertarianism has created its societal problems (which can be conveniently blamed upon the Jews - per the system) and at the appointed time will be brought to reign, no pun intended.

The entire Protestant schism(s) can be viewed through this lens, and as I have discussed, the Protestants, or at least some of them, are being reeled back in. The zealous rest to be a blood sacrifice, a holocaust, to sear the collective memories of the surviving remnant. This is 'psychology'.

As the Roman Church is saying, Space Jesus is coming (on his Reigndeer Space Sled) and there will be a new Revelation, with a new Covenant, or contract. What will the contract entail they do not say, but based upon past performance, one will have to decide whether they will be naughty or nice. I'm guessing that Space Jesus will be the long expected Jewish messiah, the Christian Third Coming, and the Muslim's Isa wrapped into one bloody mess.

r
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
What has to be taken into account when talking about issues of Right versus Left, is that both sides end up having someone's thumb on the scale, depending on which way money or some other benefit (e.g. power) is being accorded.
This may be more than a little OT for this thread, but I've been reading an interesting article series about where the "Left" in the US is headed today. Namely, there's an increasing level of panic about the Global Warming threat. This is being orchestrated by the "non-profit industrial complex" consisting of various nouveau riche left-leaning foundations including Gates & Buffett, as well as old money like Ford & Rockefeller. They're currently focused on creating a movement among the youth, aka "Generation Z", currently ages 10 to 24 (born 1995-2009). The themes are "We Don't Have Time", "Zero Hour", "Extinction Rebellion" and so forth.

In her intricately researched six part series entitled "The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg", Cory Morningstar traces the machinations and vast resources of this movement. And, she points out that it's focused on high-tech capitalist solutions, including carbon trading and carbon sequestration, and nuclear power and vast industrial solar & wind farms. Very little about conservation beyond a personal level, and certainly nothing about the vast environmental destructiveness of the military. Morningstar also identifies a strong racist & colonialist viewpoint, as "overpopulation" transfers blame to poverty-stricken rural villagers who have nothing else but kids.

Morningstar shows that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was recruited to run for Congress by the "Justice Democrats" and "Brand New Congress", both intimately tied to this foundation-driven green movement. Thus, it's not surprising to find her pushing the "Green New Deal".

It's left for another article at the same "Wrong Kind of Green" website, "Scurrying Fascist Cockroaches", to identify the basically anti-democratic orientation of the movement. John Steppling quotes Left icon Noam Chomsky:

Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way underestimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.
— Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power, 2002
This faux eco-movement is still at the left fringe of US politics, while the right wing is more determined to burn every last drop of oil before Jesus gets back. Maybe it will take a testimonial from "Space Jesus" to tilt the balance of public opinion?
 
Thank you, Jerry, for the Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg link and for the Wrong Kinda Green website. While I knew of corporate sponsoring for Al Gore I was not aware that 350.org was in the same category. Though I should have known, as I had already dumped a former link to Avaaz news when it began spouting hate against Assad in Syria on behalf of the FSA, ISIS in disguise!

Yours faithfully
Claude

CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) is of course bunk since the CO2 will readily be released by earth tremors etc. Haven't these people ever heard of trees? I note that Greta Thunberg's claim to fame is that she is a descendant of Svante Arrhenius who discovered CO2 rise from industrialization in the first place. Note too that global warming began in 1977, the year Martin Heidegger died, having preached against Western technology for decades.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
This may be more than a little OT for this thread, but I've been reading an interesting article series about where the "Left" in the US is headed today. Namely, there's an increasing level of panic about the Global Warming threat.
I have no idea what this has to do with Jordan Peterson, I think you should post it and this here or on a new thread. Or on the thread about Globalist Warming Denial.

Somewhere in my library I have a book about the late Armand Hammer, the provocative leader of Occidental Petroleum. Al Gore's father was known as being Hammer's US senator, and thus garnered a ton of Occidental stock, which Al Jr. inherited. At some point Occidental got into some violent issues with an indigenous tribe in Columbia, and Gore Jr. managed to side-step complaints that he was quite aware of what was going on.

Hammer, of course, was an interesting figure based upon his long ties to the USSR and Nixon. But then, regarding doing business with the USSR, there were many other 'capitalists' like the rabidly anti-Semitic Henry Ford.

This is how the underlying imperium operates, with such as 'controlled opposition' fronts.

There is a claim that Man Made Global Warming began around 8,000 years ago when post-Ice Age humans began organized rice farming and agricultural deforestation. Its also interesting to note that the famous Joseph story about the 7 years of feast and 7 years of famine (leading to the Egyptian implementation of feudalism in Genesis 47) seems based upon the realities of short term weather patterns that are found to have driven the waves of emigration into and out of Mesopotamia and Europe for thousands of years. This is well discussed by Brian Fagan in his The Long Summer, which posits that the present Holocene interglacial period is artificially long.

Waves of emigration into and out of Mesopotamia and Europe?
 
Top