“Almost everything I said was untrue”

Jordan Peterson deceives his deluded followers even when there is no real reason to do so:

Jordan B Peterson
I spoke a few days ago in Ljubjana, Slovenia, at the behest of my publisher, Družina,  there, to an audience of about 2000. 

Sure, that’s why you were in Slovenia. Because your publisher wanted you there. Just a simple book tour, that’s all. Hey, wait a minute… are you sure your little trip to a rather out-of-the-way destination didn’t have anything to do with the 42nd European Meeting of the Trilateral Commission?

From February to Sunday more than 200 most influential individuals will be literally from all over the world in Ljubljana. Ten years after the collapse of Lehman Brother’s, which was the beginning of the global economic crisis, one of the worst in the last hundred years, the economic future of Europe will be discussed in Ljubljana. Former President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso, former President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy, three former heads of state, and six former presidents of the government come from many distinguished thinkers and businessmen from all over the world, including Nigel Higgins of the Rothschild & Co of London, Jacob Frenkel, JPMorgan Chase International, head of Munich Security Conference Wolfgang Ischinger, former Secretary General of NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, star globally-sold psychologist Jordan Peterson, Internet startup from Israel Yossi Vardi, former Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti, KBC Bank Group Thomas Leysen, former head of EBRD Jean Lemierre , Franz Fischler, Forum Alpbach, Lionel Barber of The Financial Times, President of the Atlantic Grupa Group of Companies Emil Tedeschi, Stanford’s Jure Leskovec and so on and so on. Vice-President of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans, the last moment of cancellation of the arrival due to urgent obligations in Brussels, is one of the candidates for the future President of the European Commission. 

One can’t help but wonder for what influential position Jordan B. Peterson is a candidate. Prime Minister of Canada? Witch-King of the Third Theosophic Temple? In the meantime, former Peterson fan Buck Daniels reviews Jordanetics. I think it’s a particularly valuable review precisely because it is presented from a perspective that does not view me favorably:

With most intellectuals, it is possible to summarize their arguments in a way that conveys their essence to ordinary people who have not read their work. For example, one could summarize Nietzsche’s “slave morality” argument by saying something like: “Nietzsche believed that ancient ‘morality’ was based around the polarities of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ He believed the good was aligned with the nobility; it is described by things like power, pride, and happiness. The slave-class were resentful of the nobility’s power and happiness, and so they used words to create a new system of values, in which up was down and down was up. They defined noble ‘bad’ (the slaves) as the new ‘good,’ and the noble ‘good’ (the aristocracy) as ‘evil.’ Nietzsche believed that because the noble ‘good’ are the most procreative and pro-life values, the reversal of values and invention of modern morality, and its institution in Christianity in particular, creates a culture that is, in its moral values, hostile to life itself.” Different people may phrase it differently, but I would wager that basically everyone who has read Nietzsche would agree that this is, in essence, his argument.

With Peterson, such a distilled summary is not possible. Ask five Peterson fans what his philosophy is, or what he means when he talks about “truth,” you will likely get three different and mutually exclusive answers. Does he subscribe to a pragmatic definition? A coherence theory? A strange variant of an identity theory? Based on his conversation with Sam Harris, it isn’t a theory that is easily understood or believed even by experts who are nominally on his side, politically.

In philosophy, adversaries are expected to respect the methodological principle of charity which requires interlocutors to interpret each other’s argument in a manner that is the most coherent and rational, if multiple interpretations are possible. If someone says, for example, that it is 11 AM and the sun isn’t up, we could easily conclude that they are delusional—of course the sun would be up at 11 AM. But it is possible that their language loosely meant that the weather was overcast; this interpretation would make more rational and coherent sense of their two statements than simply accepting them on their face.

So would it be possible to apply the principle of charity to Dr. Jordan B. Peterson? Might we be able to stitch together his seemingly disconnected and incoherent philosophy? And if so, what would it look like?

Vox Day’s book—Jordanetics: A Journey into the Mind of Humanity’s Greatest Thinker—is that charitable book. But it is only charitable in the philosophical sense of the term. The worldview that emerges is coherent, but it is not pretty.

It’s really not. That’s why it’s a very good idea to understand what the evil love-child of Tony Robbins and L. Ron Hubbard is actually teaching the unsuspecting.


Do it, Mr. President

The God-Emperor has GOT to start following through on his threats and warnings, no matter who attempts to obstruct him.

REPORTER: “Mr. President, what about the idea that the military may use lethal force against these migrants?”

TRUMP: “If they have to, they’re going to to use lethal force. I’ve given the OK. If they have to, I hope they don’t have to, but you’re dealing with a minimum of 500 serious criminals. So I’m not going to let the military be taken advantage of. I have no choice. Do I want that to happen? Absolutely not, but you’re dealing with rough people. You ask the people in Tijuana, Mexico, they opened up with wide arms, just come in, come in, let me help you, let us take care of you. And within two days, now they’re going crazy to get them out. They want them out. Because things are happening, bad things are happening in Tijuana. And again, it’s not in this country because we’ve closed it up. Actually, two days ago, we closed the border. We actually just closed it. We say nobody is coming in because it was out of control. But you take a look at Tijuana, Mexico. You see what’s happening there. It’s really a bad situation.”

REPORTER: “What do you mean you closed the border and nobody is coming in? What do you mean by that?”

TRUMP: “If we find that it’s uncontrollable, Josh, if we find that it’s — it gets to a level where we are going to lose control or where people are going to start getting hurt, we will close entry into the country for a period of time until we can get it under control.”

REPORTER: “Do you mean the entire border?”

TRUMP: “The whole border. I mean the whole border. And Mexico will not be able to sell their cars into the United States where they make so many at great benefit to them — not a great benefit to us, by the way. But at least now we have a good new trade deal with Mexico and with Canada. But we will close the border. And that means that Mexico is not going to be able to sell their cars into the United States until it’s open. But we’re going to either have a border or we’re not. And when they lose control of the border on the Mexico side, we just close the border. And we have a very powerful border. We built a very strong border in a very short period of time. And the military has been fantastic, the job they have done. And by the way, Border Patrol and ICE, all of the law enforcement we have involved, and we have local law enforcement, too, they have done an incredible job. And they have wanted this for you know, I’m the first president who’s done to this extent, but they wanted this for years. And some of the presidents, I guess they didn’t care or they wanted open borders.”

President Trump has proven to be an excellent negotiator. No question at all about that. And he’s also shown himself to be considerably more courageous than any politician of either party, up to and including Rep. Ron Paul. I’m not criticizing the man at all, I am aware of what a Herculean task he has taken upon himself, and in fact, the Aegean Stables had nothing at all on the Washingtonian Swamp.

But the time for positioning and posturing is rapidly coming to an end. The time to deliver on the single most important element of his presidency or become a lame duck is rapidly approaching. Pray for the man, pray that he will be granted all the wisdom and courage and resolve that he requires.


Darkstream: The Mirror Con

From the transcript of the Darkstream.

What Peterson is doing when he’s talking to Rogan, and I suspect that what he does on a regular basis, is what a lot of fake psychics do. He’s doing a cold reading, he is utilizing the clues that he’s picking up in order to make you think that he knows more than he does.

It is a guess that is posing as knowledge and you can get away with it, if you’re someone like Jordan Peterson you can get away with it a lot. One of the ways that you can tell that someone is doing this is that they’re very intent, they’re very intent on the other person. They’re listening very hard to the other person, but they’re not actually listening in order to understand what the person is saying, they’re listening for key words that they can target off and use. They’re looking for anchor points that they can take from the other person and use to launch to launch their own statement and use it in order to convince the other person of whatever it is they want to convince him.

So listen to this and keep in mind Jordan Peterson has a reason for this whole cockamamie story. You know, people got carried away, they got they got focused on the whole Cider of Doom thing, right, because this was such an epic disaster that it actually did manage to kind of conceal what Peterson was hoping to conceal. See, what he was hoping to achieve when he went on and talked to Joe Rogan about his terrible experience with cider was that he was trying to produce an excuse to cover up his disastrous performance with Sam Harris because that was one of the first times that he was unmasked.

You need to understand Jordan Peterson is exceptionally dishonest. Jordan Peterson is one of the most dishonest people in the public eye other than Hillary Clinton. His level of dishonesty can only be described as Clintonian.


Portrait of a non-leader

Gavin McInnes disassociates himself from the group he founded:

The founder of the Proud Boys, Gavin McInnes, has said he is quitting the group “in all capacities” and “forever” a day after the FBI designated it “extremist.” McInnes blamed Democrats and the media for vilifying the group.

“I am officially disassociating myself from the Proud Boys, in all capacities, forever. I quit,” McInnes announced on Wednesday in a newly-released YouTube video

The co-founder of Vice Magazine has been making headlines as the de-facto leader of the pro-violence right-wing organization, which McInnes himself describes as “Western chauvinist.” McInnes took an active part in the group’s protest activities, showing up at rallies across the country, including the infamous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, that left three people dead.

In his final appearance as the group’s public face, McInnes argued that he “was never the leader, only the founder” and that the term “stepping down” cannot apply to him.

Regarding his motivations for ditching the group, McInnes said that he was told by his lawyers that him disowning the group could help “alleviate sentencing” for nine members of the group who were arrested by the NYPD following a brawl with Antifa in October. The clash erupted outside the NYC Republican headquarters with both sides engaging in acts of violence. Three left-wing activists were subsequently arrested on misdemeanor assault charges.

McInnes said that, while he was following the lawyers’ advice, he was doing “all of this reluctantly,” blaming “terrible journalism, rumors and lies” for penetrating the court system and demonizing the group.

While it’s perfectly understandable that McInnes doesn’t wish to endure the arbitrary and unfair media and legal pressure to which he is now being subjected, leaving those you have led into trouble in the lurch is no way to accomplish anything. And I very much doubt that “not stepping down, but quitting” is going to help McInnes or any of the members of the group he founded avoid the attacks of the SJWs to whom he has now publicly shown his weakness.

It’s important to understand that these media celebrities are not, and can never be, leaders. They don’t possess any of the characteristics of a good leader and their primary objectives seldom involve anything beyond personal fame and fortune. Once more we see the fate of those organizations and movements that fail to learn the most important lesson of GamerGate: no leaders.

Leaders are a point of organizational weakness, a point of structural failure. That’s precisely why the media is constantly seeking to determine who is the leader and to anoint someone, anyone, no matter how improbable their claim, as the leader, because that is how they seek to destroy the organizations and movements they consider to be threats. The All-Seeing Eye of Sauron focuses like a laser on those who are climbing to the top of the various glass pyramids, and cannot be defeated, cannot even be effectively resisted, by anyone who is outspoken and in the public eye.

Think about how easy it would be to turn back an army of ants, or an army of locusts, if they were dependent upon leaders. It’s so much easier to squash a single insect than turn back a rampaging horde; the only thing that saved the West from the Mongol invasions was the fortuitously-timed death of Ögedei Khan. The most counterproductive thing you can do for any anti-establishment movement in these days of the panopticon is to run to the front of the parade and declare yourself to be leading it, which, of course, is why you should always be inclined to reject the various the various narcissists, shills, and fame whores who will invariably attempt to do so.


Are you joking?

Tucker Carlson demonstrates how nationalists care about their nation more than they do about maximizing corporate profits in a very public spanking of Fake American Ben Shapiro.

So would you, Tucker Carlson, be in favor of restrictions on the ability of trucking companies to use this sort of technology specifically to, you know, sort of artificially maintain the number of jobs that are available in the trucking energy?

Are you joking? In a second. In a second! In other words, if I were president and ran the DOT, Department of Transportation, we’re not letting driverless trucks on the road, period. Why? Really simple. Driving for a living is the single most common job for high school educated men in this country in all 50 states. Okay, that’s the same group whose wages have gone down by 11 percent over the past thirty years. The social cost of limiting their jobs in a ten-year span, five-year span, thirty-year span is so high that it’s not sustainable, so the greater good is protecting your citizens.

Look, capitalism is the best economic system I can think of, I think that anyone’s ever thought of, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a religion and everything about it is good. There’s no Nicene Creed of capitalism that I have to buy into, what I care about is living in a country where decent people can live happy lives, and so, no, I would say, no, are you joking?

The duty of the nation’s leaders is to strive to benefit the actual nation, not “the economy”, not the corporations, and certainly not foreigners who happen to be in possession of paperwork that permits them to live among the nationals.


Licensed to kill

The U.S. military now has permission to use force to defend the border:

The White House late Tuesday signed a memo allowing troops stationed at the border to engage in some law enforcement roles and use lethal force, if necessary — a move that legal experts have cautioned may run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act.

The new “Cabinet order” was signed by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, not President Donald Trump. It allows “Department of Defense military personnel” to “perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary” to protect border agents, including “a show or use of force (including lethal force, where necessary), crowd control, temporary detention. and cursory search.”

However an earlier “decision memo” that came to the same recommendations that were contained in the “cabinet memo” was signed by President Trump, according to documents obtained by Newsweek. There are approximately 5,900 active-duty troops and 2,100 National Guard forces deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border.

It’s fascinating to observe that the mainstream media has no problem at all with the U.S. military “defending Americans” by killing large quantities of civilians everywhere from Afghanistan to Yemen, or engaging in actual shooting wars in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, and Niger, but pitches a fainting fit at the idea that it might shoot the only people actually invading the country.

If the U.S. military won’t defend the border, then it should be defunded and disbanded. Americans have literally zero need for it.


L’inverno viene

Winter is coming, as are the mass deportations from Europe:

Police in Rome have begun the demolition of eight illegal luxury homes built by an alleged mafia clan renowned for its violence and gaudy lifestyle, as Interior Minister Matteo Salvini swore to knock down ‘every last villa belonging to these damn people’.

More than 600 officers kicked 30 members of the Casamonica Mafia clan out of their illegal abodes in a Tuesday dawn raid, and today many of those evicted were at the scene crying foul, claiming they had not been allowed to fetch their belongings. Authorities showed no mercy as bulldozers tore walls apart and destroyed walls and garden fences in the Quadraro district of southeast Rome.

The Casamonica are not Italians, but Roma, or gypsies. They are a rootless minority that survives entirely through predatory, non-productive activities. Italy is beginning a census of Roma, many of whom are not legal and none of whom are Italian nationals.

This is just the very beginning of the trend that will restore the nations of Europe. Remember, the globalist trend lasted more than 60 years. The nationalist trend has barely even begun.


Darkstream: Answering the Pharisees

From the transcript of the Darkstream:

The subject is Answering the Pharisees, and what got me thinking about this is the way in which the trolls and shills and alt retards and philosemites are constantly trying to trap people verbally. They’re constantly trying to get you to commit yourself to a position in public that they can then use to discredit you. So you know, with me, they will bring up questions from articles that I’ve written 15 years ago that they think will be that will be damaging to you. There is this constant attempt to get you to disqualify yourself, to get you to discredit yourself, and what it occurred to me is that this is exactly what the Pharisees did to Jesus Christ.

This is exactly what the people who are doing this, whether they’re SJWs, whoever they are, they are functionally Pharisees. They are little satans, by which I mean they are little accusers, and so when you look at what they’re doing, they are attempting to get you to admit that you’re guilty and then they will proceed to prosecute you. And so how did Jesus handle that? I think that as in pretty much everything else, we’re very very well-advised to follow Jesus’s example whether you’re a Christian or not. What did he do, what did he say, when they came to him, when they said people are saying that you are the Son of God, that you are the King of the Jews?

What did he say? The thing that was awesome is that he answered both his enemies and his friends in the same way. He said ‘who do you say I am’ because he knew what they were doing. He knew exactly what they were up to, and so this was really meaningful for me.

There’s a question, wasn’t he silent at first? No, that was later that was when he was actually on trial. So when you when you turn it around on them what you’re doing is you’re making it clear to them that not only do you know what they’re doing, you’re letting them know that you’re not going to play along. That’s why it’s always a mistake to answer the question honestly. It’s a mistake to answer the question in a Socratic manner, and you know it’s a mistake to answer the question in the Petersonian manner.


Forgive us our debts

A new book by Michael Hudson puts an intriguing economic spin on the Lord’s Prayer, according to a review by Jon Siman:

So let us reconsider Hudson’s fundamental insight in more vivid terms. In ancient Mesopotamian societies it was understood that freedom was preserved by protecting debtors. In what we call Western Civilization, that is, in the plethora of societies that have followed the flowering of the Greek poleis beginning in the eighth century B.C., just the opposite, with only one major exception (Hudson describes the tenth-century A.D. Byzantine Empire of Romanos Lecapenus), has been the case: For us freedom has been understood to sanction the ability of creditors to demand payment from debtors without restraint or oversight. This is the freedom to cannibalize society. This is the freedom to enslave. This is, in the end, the freedom proclaimed by the Chicago School and the mainstream of American economists. And so Hudson emphasizes that our Western notion of freedom has been, for some twenty-eight centuries now, Orwellian in the most literal sense of the word: War is Peace • Freedom is Slavery • Ignorance is Strength. He writes: “A constant dynamic of history has been the drive by financial elites to centralize control in their own hands and manage the economy in predatory, extractive ways. Their ostensible freedom is at the expense of the governing authority and the economy at large. As such, it is the opposite of liberty as conceived in Sumerian times” (p. 266).

And our Orwellian, our neoliberal notion of unrestricted freedom for the creditor dooms us at the very outset of any quest we undertake for a just economic order. Any and every revolution that we wage, no matter how righteous in its conception, is destined to fail.

And we are so doomed, Hudson says, because we have been morally blinded by twenty-eight centuries of deracinated, or as he says, decontextualized history. The true roots of Western Civilization lie not in the Greek poleis that lacked royal oversight to cancel debts, but in the Bronze Age Mesopotamian societies that understood how life, liberty and land would be cyclically restored to debtors again and again. But, in the eighth century B.C., along with the alphabet coming from the Near East to the Greeks, so came the concept of calculating interest on loans. This concept of exponentially-increasing interest was adopted by the Greeks — and subsequently by the Romans — without the balancing concept of Clean Slate amnesty….

After all these centuries, we remain ignorant of the fact that deep in the roots of our civilization is contained the corrective model of cyclical return – what Dominique Charpin calls the “restoration of order” (p. xix). We continue to inundate ourselves with a billion variations of the sales pitch to borrow and borrow, the exhortation to put more and more on credit, because, you know, the future’s so bright I gotta wear shades.

Nowhere, Hudson shows, is it more evident that we are blinded by a deracinated, by a decontextualized understanding of our history than in our ignorance of the career of Jesus. Hence the title of the book: And Forgive Them Their Debts and the cover illustration of Jesus flogging the moneylenders — the creditors who do not forgive debts — in the Temple. For centuries English-speakers have recited the Lord’s Prayer with the assumption that they were merely asking for the forgiveness of their trespasses, their theological sins: “… and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us….” is the translation presented in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. What is lost in translation is the fact that Jesus came “to preach the gospel to the poor … to preach the acceptable Year of the Lord”: He came, that is, to proclaim a Jubilee Year, a restoration of deror for debtors: He came to institute a Clean Slate Amnesty (which is what Hebrew דְּרוֹר connotes in this context).

So consider the passage from the Lord’s Prayer literally: … καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν: “… and send away (ἄφες) for us our debts (ὀφειλήματα).” The Latin translation is not only grammatically identical to the Greek, but also shows the Greek word ὀφειλήματα revealingly translated as debita: … et dimitte nobis debita nostra: “… and discharge (dimitte) for us our debts (debita).” There was consequently, on the part of the creditor class, a most pressing and practical reason to have Jesus put to death: He was demanding that they restore the property they had rapaciously taken from their debtors. And after His death there was likewise a most pressing and practical reason to have His Jubilee proclamation of a Clean Slate Amnesty made toothless, that is to say, made merely theological: So the rich could continue to oppress the poor, forever and ever. Amen.

I definitely have to read this book, especially in light of Rothbard’s economic history that essentially reduces the development of modern economics to the gradual relaxations of Christian society’s ban on usury over the centuries. As crazy as it sounds, it is entirely possible that what we think of as a necessity for economic growth is, to the contrary, an integral factor in reestablishing large-scale human slavery.

To paraphrase Philip K. Dick, Jesus Christ’s war against the moneylenders never ended.

Just because some people are inclined to binary-thinking, allow me to be very clear and state that I do not think this literal interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer negates or adulterates in any way the metaphorical debt of sin to which Jesus Christ was without question referring. But given what we know of these matters after centuries of additional evidence concerning the matter, it is the exact opposite of far-fetched to imagine that the literal context is also relevant.


JFG reviews Jordanetics

I have no idea whether he’s praising it or ripping it a new one, but for better or for worse, here is JF Gariepy’s livestream review of Jordanetics. Keep in mind that he’s a smart guy who spotted Jordan Peterson was a charlatan before I did, so at the very least he is not inclined to mindlessly defend Peterson like the 12-Rule Path cultists.

There is also a review worth reading at Caffeine and Philosophy. What is particularly interesting about it is that it was written by a blogger who previously wrote an open letter to me criticizing my criticism of Jordan Peterson.

Every rule in Peterson’s 12 new Commandments is provided with a coherent interpretation. As you can see, these interpretations are not particularly flattering, nor are they very attractive to most people:

1. Stand up straight with your shoulders back.
Translation: Be mediocre.
2. Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping. (Why won’t you just take your damn pills?)
Translation: God is the balance between Good and Evil.
3. Make friends with people who want the best for you.
Translation: Leave the wounded behind to die.
4. Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today.
Translation: Your head is the only truly safe space.
5. Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them.
Translation: Do not excel, because excellence endangers the balance.
6. Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.
Translation: Inaction is always preferable to action.
7. Pursue what is meaningful (Not what is expedient)
Translation: To reach Heaven above, you must descend into Hell below.
8. Tell the truth–or, at least, don’t lie.
Translation: You can speak a new world into existence through your lies.
9. Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t.
Translation: Dominate the conversation and control the narrative by keeping your mouth shut.
10. Be precise in your speech.
Translation: Transcend the material world and very carefully choose the words that will alter this reality.
11. Do not bother children when they are skateboarding.
Translation: Heal the world by assimilating its evil.
12. Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street.
Translation: To lift the world out of Hell, you must be willing to accept its pain and suffering into yourself.

If it seems uncharitable to offer “translations” of an intellectual’s stated words, recall that Peterson has fundamentally changed some pretty generally-accepted definitions, including “truth,” “God,” “being,” “order,” and “chaos,” and these new definitions permeate all of the above rules. They literally cannot be understood properly (i.e., through Peterson’s own worldview) without a translation from Jordanetic language into common parlance. Rather, these translations represent an honest upholding of the obligation to charity, not its neglect, as Vox Day is offering the most coherent and internally consistent view of Peterson’s ideas that I have seen.

The fact that this view is not very attractive to most people is no more Vox Day’s fault than is the confusing language which made more coherent interpretations necessary.

Nor is it Vox Day’s fault that Jordan Peterson regularly misrepresents data, theology, history, and sourced articles. It is not his fault that Peterson turns around on people like Milo Yiannopoulos, Faith Goldy, or Brett Kavanaugh, backing down on his support for free speech when push actually comes to shove, and condemning people as hateful or bigoted when they point out a problem with his argument.

Ultimately, it is hard to pick out one of Vox Day’s translations from the 12 Rules and argue that it falsely represents Peterson’s worldview. Just a few examples: Peterson exemplifies rule 3 — leave the wounded behind to die — in his treatment of Milo Yiannopoulos and of Faith Goldy. He exemplifies rule 10 — transcend the material world and very carefully choose the words that will alter this reality — in his various alternative definitions, as well as in his now-infamous interview with Joe Rogan, claiming to have gone 25 days without sleep (presumably as an excuse for his poor performance on the Sam Harris podcast; he claimed the incident happened the day of the interview with Harris).