The critical narrative

It’s a good thing Man has moved beyond thinking in narrative, unlike the human race before the Sixteenth Century, or one might suspect that the collection of Jordanologists at Steve Sailer’s place are guilty of doing so. Of course, this little collection doesn’t even begin to address the many comments at YouTube insisting that I am only criticizing Jordanetics because I am, and one really has to quote one particular gentleman in order to fully appreciate the sentiment, “jelly”.

I’m fascinated by the fact that Jordan Peterson has caused Vox Day to to go completely off the rails. I don’t get it, honestly. Can’t a man have many things to say that you find interesting and worthwhile, and others you disagree with without it causing you to condemn him unreservedly?

Vox Day is sort of a professional egotist. I suspect that Vox really hates Peterson because he thinks that he deserves Peterson’s large fanbase, salary and media attention.

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that Vox Day is loosing his cheese-wizz over this. As I said in other words in another post still awaiting moderation: Peterson may be the single greatest existential threat to the alt-right – and the Alt-right understands that. I think the Maoist left understands him as a enemy they are programmed to try to destroy at all costs, but they probably don’t understand that if he succeeds, he’s their death too, as much so as that of the Alt-right.

People like Vox Day are coming down with PDS (Peterson Derangement Syndrome). It’s most likely because they narcissistically think of themselves as more deserving of delivering the masses from evil.

Vox Day is an amateur troll who’s obviously chaffing at the reality of Jordan Peterson’s popularity and impact, while he toils away in obscurity, egged on only by his amen chorus of commenters who can’t tolerate even the mildest criticism. His latest Dorkstream is a rambling, incoherent assemblage of ad-homenims, such as saying Peterson is an “intellectual fraud”, whatever that means. Peterson is also claimed to have some five-degrees-of-separation link to John Podesta and George Soros. Yeah, whatever.

Vox has developed a strange obsession with Peterson, and at this point it’s rather pathetic. Vox is obviously a bright guy, but he has torn into Peterson with the fury of a scorned lover. He has convinced himself that Peterson is a minion of the Anti Christ, and Vox’s fanboys have gone all in with this supposed takedown. Not that Peterson cares, or even knows, who Vox is. Vox is sperging on Peterson and I think there is some serious projection going on.

Vox Day was never on the rails. Regardless of his ideology it’s pretty clear from his writing style that he’s a psycho.

I agree with your take on Auster and Vox Day, but Vox is in no way as intelligent as Auster was. Not even in the same league. Vox Day is an angry crank who babbles on and on about his 150+ IQ. If his IQ was above 110 I would be shocked.

You are right that Poz Day has lost his mind about this. Jealousy? Did JP bag Space Cunny?

The Vox Day vs. Jordan Peterson/Lawrence Auster vs. Mark Steyn thing is a sufficiently common phenomenon that it’s got a name: “the narcissism of small differences.” Back in the day, I was thoroughly dismayed by Auster’s constant attacks on Steyn, which seemed to surpass in vitriol anything he ever said about genuinely bad actors like, say, David Frum. And Day’s scorched earth tactics against Peterson are, if anything, still more “off the rails” – as you aptly put it. The word “narcissism” is particularly apropos in Day’s case – is there anybody on the internet so quick to toot his own horn – and to toot is so loudly?

it really is weird. i think VD is a very good ideas man and enjoy reading his thoughts on just about every topic (save sci-fi), but it seems like 15+ posts on JP in the last 3 days means jp is in his head like a blood clot.

I like Vox, but his reaction to Peterson is a bit cringey, he seems to be disagreeing with him on a different plane than Peterson intends to operate. He’s a shrink, not an Aristotelian philosopher – and he never claims to be. Vox’s reaction to Peterson’s sympathizers is also striking in that it feels unhinged.

VD is a joke. I stumbled on his blog one time. I saw he was making a big deal of his so-called American Indian heritage for some reason, so I mocked him by calling him Big Chief Blogging Eagle. Then he responded by saying “look how racist these leftist SJWs are” even though I had said nothing that could be construed as leftist. All I had done was mock him, which in his mind automatically makes me an “SJW.”

I find it mildly ironic that Peterson’s defenders are defending an emotionally unstable, mentally ill individual who proclaims his dependence on mood-altering drugs using the narrative that I have lost my mind. The thing is, they are constantly attempting to set up a “I win, you lose” scenario, which is quite funny when you compare the critics of one Darkstream to the critics of a later one.

  1. How can you criticize him when you haven’t even watched his videos?
  2. Well, maybe you’ve watched a video or two, but how can you criticize him when you haven’t even read his book?
  3. He’s just a psychologist helping people, he’s not a philosopher! Wait, he said what?
  4. Well, just because he is trying to create a new philosophy doesn’t mean it’s a bad one!
  5. Just because you write a UN report doesn’t mean you agree with it!
  6. Just because you worked with John Podesta was on doesn’t mean you’re associated with him.
  7. Just because the media asks you to appear on all the shows and leaps to your defense whenever someone calls you names doesn’t mean you’re not the legitimate opposition to the media.
  8. Why is Vox so obsessed with this? Something must be wrong with him! He must be jealous. Or crazy!

They can’t seem to grasp that all I have been doing is systematically responding to their various defenses of the man, which keep popping up anew every time I knock one down. I don’t care about Peterson himself, his life is a living hell of insecurity and fear. How stupid would you have to be to envy a man who sincerely believes that life is suffering; apparently the man can’t even eat chocolate. It’s his philosophy and his defenders with which I have the problem.

Of course as one wiser commenter noted, I agree in your description of VD’s personality, yet you do not address any of the arguments he has made. Weak sauce, that. And the differences between VD and JP are not small. They are at the foundations of their respective philosophies. Understanding this would require, again, reading what they have written. 

As far as the idea that I am jealous of Peterson, to the contrary, what profit a man to top the bestseller lists at the price of his intellectual soul? If I was prone to envy, I’d envy NN Taleb, or perhaps the guy who wrote Who Moved My Cheese. Anyhow, at this point, I’ve said pretty much all I needed to say until the book comes out. If you still take the man seriously at this point, that’s on you now. The information is there.

In defense of Jordan Peterson

You know, Jordan Peterson must be a real threat to the mainstream, a true dark intellectual renegade, when The Weekly Standard rushes to his defense because someone suggested that he just might possibly be less than entirely philosemitic. After all, we know that the mainstream media always makes it an absolute top priority to see that false accusations are exposed whenever someone is inaccurately accused of being insufficiently enthusiastic about minorities who are no different than anyone else except for being smarter and harder working and more successful or are falsely accused of membership in the defunct German National Socialist Workers Party, right?

I know I have always appreciated the forthright way with which The Weekly Standard staunchly defended President Trump, and all his loyal supporters, and GamerGate, and the Sad Puppies, and indeed, myself, from all manner of false and scurrilious charges.

Unscrupulously, Feldman also hid from readers all the notable Jewish individuals from across the political spectrum who’ve written or spoken positively about Jordan Peterson and his work. To name a few: Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Harvard’s Steven Pinker, psychiatrist Norman Doidge, professor Jonathan Haidt, author Howard Bloom, novelist Melanie Phillips, journalist Barbara Kay, professor Gad Saad, editor Jonathan Kay, comedian Dave Rubin, writer Cathy Young, biologist Bret Weinstein, author Ben Shapiro, comedian Bill Maher, New York Times columnists David Brooks and Bari Weiss.

It’s frankly astonishing that not one editor at the Forward had the professionalism to insist on gathering some testimony on behalf of the accused from any of these reputable people. Evidently, at the Forward, it’s perfectly acceptable journalism to ask a loaded question about a man and then stack the deck against him by quoting only his accusers. One of those anti-Peterson complainants—Heidi Beirich from the controversial Southern Poverty Law Center—even suggested (without any evidence) that Peterson could be seen as “a possible ally in Holocaust denial.”

In sum, what Feldman did was to 1) lie about a neo-Nazi’s opinion of Peterson; 2) use that lie to suggest he has a vast neo-Nazi following at the Daily Stormer; 3) conceal all the Jews who like him; and 4) seek out political partisans to smear him as a possible Holocaust denier.

It’s as unethical as it’s unconvincing. Even the most superficial reading of Peterson’s oeuvre suffices to show he’s an uncompromising enemy of anti-Semitism–and a real friend to the Jewish people. As he demonstrates in his detailed response to Feldman, he has spent the last 30 years “lecturing and teaching about the horrors of the Holocaust.”

It’s interesting, is it not, that it is so important for the media – supposedly Peterson’s enemy, who, we are told are just waiting to pounce on any mistake it can use to ruin him – to defend him from discrediting and disqualification? After this and The New York Times puff piece, how much more confirmation do you require to accept that he is Fake Opposition?

For backers only

I’m very pleased to be able to finally announce that the digital edition of Alt★Hero #1: CRACKDOWN has been released to the backers of the Alt★Hero project. If you are a backer who unsubscribed to the Castalia House bookclub or if you did not receive the email, please email me with BACKER in the subject and I will send out second mailing tonight with the link that will allow you to download the 11 meg file.

The digital edition is in the MOBI format, which will work on your Kindle. You can also use download the free Kindle Previewer for Windows  or Macintosh to read the digital edition on your computer. This is the same file that will be released for Kindle and Kindle Unlimited next week, we’re just getting it out early to the backers.

We anticipate having the first print edition out in about two weeks. It will retail for $3 and will be in the same royal octavo size as the QM and Jeeves comic books. French, German, and Italian editions will soon follow.

Please feel free to discuss the first issue of Alt★Hero in the Forums. I look forward to hearing your reactions. Thanks to all the backers who have made this possible, and thanks to the Arkhaven team, especially Cliff Cosmic and Matteo Mystic, for all their hard work in bringing this from concept to comic book.

Speaking of charlatans

The Weekly Standard attempts to redefine the term “protest”:

They’re not protests. They’re suicide-riots.

On Monday President Donald Trump fulfilled his campaign promise to move the United States embassy in Israel to the country’s capital, Jerusalem. As usual, the American and European media’s coverage interpreted the event in the worst possible light for the nation of Israel. One learns very little from our mainstream news sources about what the move may mean for the nations primarily concerned—Israel and the United States—but a great deal about the Palestinian “protests” happening along Israel’s southern border with Gaza: Headlines in the New York Times and Washington Post proclaimed (misleadingly) “Israel Kills Dozens and Wounds 1700 at Gaza Border” and “Over 50 Killed in Gaza Protests as U.S. Opens Embassy in Jerusalem.”

We put the word “protests” in quotation marks advisedly. In ordinary English usage, a protest is a collective action or gesture meant to bring pressure on a government or corporate entity. The Gaza “protests” are meant to bring pressure on Israel, but they’re intended mainly to kill and maim both Israelis and the Palestinian “protesters” themselves.

These demonstrations would be better described as suicide-riots. For nearly two months, Hamas and other militant factions have been encouraging young Palestinian men to storm the fence separating Gaza from Israel. The rioters cut holes in the fence, charge Israeli guards with crude weapons like axes, and lob fire bombs over the wall in attempts to set Israeli fields on fire. Hamas has pledged to massacre those on the other side of the fence, and these riots are expressions of that intention. Israeli defense forces are obliged to respond with force. An axe-clutching Palestinian insanely charging into Israeli territory isn’t a “protester” but a combatant and a terrorist. The fact that he doesn’t expect to prevail against the might of the Israel Defense Forces—he is in essence on a suicide mission—doesn’t somehow oblige Israeli soldiers not to use force to stop him. The Israelis have no choice but to fire back, and they do, often with deadly results.

If the Gaza protests are intended mainly to kill and maim Israelis, they are making an incredibly ineffective job of it, given the lack of Israeli casualties. On the other hand, these “suicide-riots” are proving to be very effective at bringing political pressure on the Israeli government from a broad global spectrum.

The Turks have expelled the Israeli ambassador. China has expressed serious concern. Russia has condemned the “indiscriminate” nature of the thousands of shootings. The UK government has urged restraint. These protests may be suicidal, but they are absolutely and without question protests, and to the extent their objective is to put international pressure on the Israeli government, they are successful.

Prime Minister Netanyahu clearly needs to read more Martin van Creveld than he has.

Seven signs of the charlatan


The Seven Signs of the Charlatan

  1. Redefines commonly understood words to suit his arguments.
  2. Prefers speaking to writing.
  3. Provides evasive answers to relevant direct questions.
  4. Utilizes his answers to self-posed questions as propositions for logical syllogisms.
  5. Cites secondary and tertiary sources instead of primary sources.
  6. Substitutes superficial knowledge about a subject for substantive knowledge of it.
  7. Advertises credentials and accolades and avoids addressing criticism.

Any time you see someone changing the definition of a well-defined, commonly-understood term, that’s a reliable sign that they are full of it.

The sign number two: they prefer speaking to writing. I realize this is a little ironic because here I am in a spoken medium, but you know, the genuine intellectual always prefers writing. Writing forces you to articulate more precisely. There are many things that sound pretty good, but once you put them down on paper, you realize that the argument has holes in it, you start to see the problems with it. It is much easier to baffle and dazzle and bypass people’s reason when you’re speaking to them. You know, speech is more intrinsically rhetorical than writing, and so anytime you see someone who is really big on speaking and who much prefers lecturing to writing, that’s a clue. It’s not as reliable as the first sign, but it is definitely an indicator

Sign number three: they reliably provide evasive answers to direct questions. Now, there are times when you have to avoid a direct question, you know, when someone poses you the equivalent of a “have you stopped beating your wife: type of question, it’s totally legitimate to refuse to answer it. So whenever you are dealing with somebody who is asked a relevant direct question, when you’re dealing with someone who is asked a pertinent question that is substantive, and is not a gotcha question, when it’s aimed at understanding or clarifying something the person has said, or what the person’s position is, and they respond evasively… if they respond to a question that is meant to clarify their position and their response is to try to fog it up even more, this is also a very reliable sign that you’re dealing with a charlatan.

Excerpt: The Stones of Silence

Peter Grant is self-publishing a new trilogy. An excerpt from The Stones of Silence:

On Colomb’s bridge, her duty watch felt no tension at all as they looked at the Plot display. The cargo shuttle was almost ten minutes out, arrowing toward its rendezvous with the first satellite. They’d all shared in a handsome bonus for capturing the first three satellites, some months before. If they picked up the next three as well, plus the monitoring station that they now knew existed, they’d get the same again – something to look forward to when they got back to Callanish.

Their anticipation was rudely shattered as three traces appeared in the Plot display, the first above them, the second thirty degrees below and to starboard, and the last thirty degrees below and to port. The Plot operator froze for a disbelieving second, then almost screamed, “Vampire! Vampire! Three missiles launched from… they’re all around us!”

Almost before he’d finished speaking, Lieutenant-Commander Macaskill’s voice cut over his from the Navigation console. “They’re not aimed at us! They’re offset to one side, sir!”

Lamprey felt as if he were wading through mental molasses as he tried to cudgel his astonished brain into action. He raised his voice over the sudden hubbub of startled cries and oaths. “Silence! Silence on the bridge!” Every instinct screamed at him to cut in the drive and head for safety right away… but those missiles proved it would be futile. Every one of them had been launched from only half a million kilometers away.

They watched in frozen, dumbfounded silence as the three missiles arrowed closer, then detonated in three starburst icons in the Plot display. Their laser beam cones were aimed away from Colomb, so they did no damage, instead slashing harmlessly through the vacuum of space.

Almost as soon as the last missile had detonated, a voice crackled over the Communications speaker on the interplanetary emergency channel. It was filtered through a voice modulator, so that it came over in a flat, mechanical monotone.

“Attention! Colomb, you are surrounded by armed vessels. Any attempt to flee will result in your instant destruction. Your ship and crew are under arrest. Order your cargo shuttle to return to your ship immediately. Your crew is to enter Colomb’s lifeboats, taking nothing with them, and remain there until further orders. The Commanding Officer, plus a skeleton bridge and drive room crew, are to remain at their stations. Send your Executive Officer to meet an armed boarding party in your docking bay. They will give you further orders. In the meantime, you are not to damage your ship in any way. Leave all systems and equipment in fully operational condition. Do not erase any records, files or programs. If you do, those responsible will face the most severe consequences. Acknowledge. Over.”

There was a stunned silence in the control center as Lamprey reached for his microphone. He somehow managed to keep his voice steady, even though his body was trembling with the shock of his reaction to the missiles that had come out of nowhere.

“Colomb to unknown vessel. Who are you? Identify yourself! By what authority are you trying to arrest us? There is no System Control Service in the Mycenae system, and no laws or regulations authorizing you or anybody else to arrest anyone for anything. This is an act of piracy! Over.”

“Colomb, we are the new security service for the Mycenae system. That’s all you need to know. We don’t care whether you recognize our authority. You’d better recognize the authority of our missiles, if you value your lives! As for your arrest, what did you expect after you stole three satellites from around this planet? Your presence here was recorded, and your ship identified. You are now being brought to justice for that theft. It may be frontier justice, but it’s justice nonetheless. Your ship is forfeit for your crimes. You and your crew will be placed under guard while Colomb is taken away for disposal. After that, plus a suitable interval to make sure you haven’t sabotaged her in any way, you’ll all be returned to Callanish, to explain to your bosses how you lost their ship. Over.”

Lamprey wanted to spit on the deck next to his console, but restrained himself. He was filled with bitter anger and frustration. He knew they had no defense against… whoever these people were. They’d heard vague rumors that the New Orkney Enterprise was considering system security in Mycenae, but his superiors had assured him that nothing had been done about it yet. They’d claimed it would take months, if not years, for NOE to buy patrol craft, hire qualified and experienced crews for them, and set up a formal security operation. What’s more, NOE didn’t have the money to spare for that right now. He couldn’t help thinking bitterly, It looks like they had a lot more money than we thought. They must have hired an existing outfit, rather than taken the time to raise their own. Who the hell are these people? There aren’t many space security companies out there, and I don’t know any who can afford to expend nuclear-tipped missiles as a demonstration like that. They cost too much.

Slowly, he raised his microphone. “Colomb to… whoever you are. We shall comply, under protest. I am recalling my cargo shuttle, and will send my crew to the lifeboats and my Executive Officer to the docking bay. We await your boarding party. Over.”

“Very well. Do as you’re told, and no-one will get hurt, and you’ll all get home safely. Stand by.”
Lamprey switched to intercom. “Drive compartment, stand fast. Bridge, stand fast. The rest of the crew is to proceed to their lifeboat stations at once, and take their places in the lifeboats, but do not launch, I say again, Do. Not. Launch. This is not a drill. I repeat, This. Is. Not. A. Drill. Lifeboat commanders, call the roll. Report to me as soon as all assigned personnel are in their places.”

Faintly, echoing up and down the main passageway, he could hear shouts of astonishment from the crew. Most of them knew nothing of the drama outside the hull, he reminded himself. He’d have to broadcast to them in the lifeboats, and explain what had happened.

He nodded approvingly at Lieutenant-Commander Macaskill, who’d taken it upon himself to radio the cargo shuttle and order its immediate return. “Thank you, Exec. You’d better head for the docking bay to meet the boarding party. Be careful. They may be trigger-happy.”

“I’ll be careful, sir.” Aidan’s voice was tight with anger and concern. “I wonder where they’re going to put us while they take Colomb to… wherever she’s going?”

“I daresay we’ll find out soon enough. As to where she’s going, surely that’s obvious? They’ll take her somewhere they can sell her for a lot of money, cash on the barrelhead. A newly refurbished repair ship, with all its equipment intact, is worth hundreds of millions, even in a no-questions-asked under-the-counter sale. They’ll want to recover as much as they can of the value of the satellites we took from them.”

“I wish we could hand them a worthless, burned-out hulk!”

“It’s a tempting thought, but what would happen to our crew if we did?” They stared at each other for a wordless moment, then Lamprey shook his head. “No. We can’t risk it. Our people deserve better than that.”

“I… yes, sir. You’re right.”

“I’ll broadcast to the ship’s company once they’re in the lifeboats, and make sure they understand that too. No resistance, no sabotage, no funny business at all. Our families want us back alive, not in coffins!”

Please to disavow

Sam Rocha would like to make it very, very clear that he does not approve of me, this blog, the Israeli government, or anything else that can possibly be described as Alt-Right.

PUBLIC NOTICE & STATEMENT:

I have been informed that the Alt-Right blog *Vox Populi* has a sympathetic post excerpting and linking to my critical review of Jordan B. Peterson that ran yesterday morning at Catholic News Service and listing my 12 rules parody thread.

I fully, completely, and totally reject any form of sympathetic association to this site and its ideology.

More than that, I see these people’s ideological platform as a grave evil. As a Mexican-American, I cannot assume if they take me to be “white” or not. So let me assure them that I am a racial mestizo and proud of it.

All intellectual debates aside, I want nothing to do with any person who advocates for anything approaching any form of political ethnonationalism, most of all that falsely conceived, racist ethnos called “white.”

I have been extremely critical of Rod Dreher and Jordan Peterson and others for not distancing themselves immediately from any form of alt-right sympathy. I hold myself to the same uncompromising and absolute standard. As soon as I found out, I posted this thread.

My Roman Catholic faith — and every other institution I am affiliated with — also condemns this ideology, but, tragically, it is the particularity of my race that is now the clearest bright line. All the same, I condemn the Alt-Right, totally.

Since we’re playing identity cards here, let me state that it is mildly amusing to me, the great-grandson of a Mexican revolutionary, to see a Catholic wildly waving his Mexican identity like a flag in defense of his desire to continue living as a mestizo invader in an Anglo-Saxon Protestant country. While my great-grandfather was of the revolutionary faction that more or less tolerated Catholics instead of slaughtering them out of hand, there is an irony there that will likely escape those who are insufficiently familiar with La Reforma, La Cristiada, and the Calles Law.

But Mr. Rocha need not worry. I can assure him that I have zero sympathy for him or his Bronze Catholic pride in La Raza Cósmica. I merely found it both interesting and informative that even people as ideologically divergent as we happen to be can find common ground with regards to the observation that Jordan Peterson is an intellectual charlatan.

12 Rules for Life: A Catholic review

Sam Rocha does not think much of Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life either, and reaches much the same conclusion about the charlatan that I have in his review of the book at the Catholic News Agency.

In 12 Rules for Life, Peterson makes a number of claims that obliquely relate to his opposition to the C-16 bill and to the points he has raised in his media appearances since then, but he does not credit any of this as contributing directly to this book. Instead, he cites his hero, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, as articulating Peterson’s core idea for the book: an opposition to the view that human beings are created for happiness. In this respect, Peterson unwittingly picks a fight with Aristotle’s ancient and enduring ideas of human flourishing and the good life within the first three pages of his 2018 book about how to live.

Peterson also provides an early footnote explaining his usage of the capitalized word “Being,” a term he uses throughout the book’s nearly 400 pages. Peterson credits his repeated usage of this term to Martin Heidegger. Anyone who has read Heidegger’s Being and Time, however, will find no resemblance between Heidegger’s and Peterson’s notions of Being, including the undifferentiated spelling (Heidegger distinguished between Being and the beings). Peterson’s reference to Heidegger is ultimately an appeal to authority, attempting to justify his use of the term “Being” as an abstract neologism. But it is not remotely true that Heidegger was using Being as a neologism. After all, Heidegger did make up an abstract neologism, Dasein, to explain the way in which Being is experienced through our particular existence. Peterson’s repetition of the word “Being” throughout the book is impossible to understand on Heideggerian terms, and Peterson provides no explanation for it but this one, in his footnote. This example is par for the course: Peterson employs a litany of big names without substantive engagement, while missing the sources that his own ideas are in passive dialogue and conflict with.

In other words, Peterson’s book begins with an oddly incomplete account of its origins and motivations, followed by an unconscious dismissal of Aristotle’s most compelling account of the purpose of life, followed by a lazy attempt to justify using a specialized term as a mystical buzzword for the rest of the book. Yet in some respects, these are the most reasonable eight pages of the book.

In case you haven’t noticed, the more intelligent and the better-read the reader happens to be, the less he thinks of Jordan Peterson and the ludicrous pseudo-intellectual bafflegabbery that comprises Jordanetics. In case Sam’s review convinces you to give the book a pass, Sam has helpfully put together this list of twelve rules for approaching life as Jordan Peterson and his fans do.

Rule #1: Dominance Hierarchies Dominate, Hierarchically ( OF COURSE!), But They Don’t Really Know How to Make Upright Arguments or Provide Broad-Shouldered Reasons or Offer Serious Examples That Don’t Involve Psychologizing Crustaceans

Rule #2: “Postmodern Neo Marxists” Refers to Lacan But Not Jung, To Derrida But Not Nietzsche, To Foucault But Not Freud, But Please Don’t Ask Peterson About Terry Eagleton, Slavoj Zizek, Alain Badiou, Or Anyone Else Alive Today Who Is This Thing He Repeats Over And Over

Rule #3: If You Write One Book In 1999 With Routledge About Being Scared Of Nuclear War And You Cannot Get Enough Attention, Find A Good Culture War In 2016, Open a Patreon Account, And Get A Book Contract With Random House.

Rule #4: If Someone Critiques Peterson in 2017, Ask Them To Stop Being A Scaredy-Cat And Get In Touch With Him Directly; If Someone Critiques Peterson In 2018, Call Them Jealous And Bitter And Question Who They Are To Think They Could Debate JORDAN B PETERSON

Rule #5: As You Are Working As A Tenured Full Professor At A Major Research University, Convince Culture Warriors To Pay You Tens Of Thousands Of Dollars ON Patreon To Protect You From Something Bad From Happening To You

Rule #6: When You Are Promoted To Full Professor, Instead Of Writing An Opus Or Taking Joint Appointments Or A Chair Or A Distinguished Professorship, Publish A Rule Book Based on Your Quora Profile, YouTube Channel, And Your Only Other Book From 1999 Instead

Rule #7: If Jordan B Peterson Is Ever Criticized, Be Sure To Follow His Lead And Never Provide Reasons, Examples, Evidence, Counterfactuals, Arguments, Or Anything That Is Substantial Because You Are More Into The Phenomenon Of Peterson And His Effect On Society And He Is AMAZING

Rule #8: Quote Tons Of Philosophers In Your Books And Claim To Base Your Ideas Off Of Philosophical Ideas But Always Refuse To Debate Philosophers, Excepting Sam Harris Who Owned You In Your First Debate So Much You Wrote Him A Letter Afterwards—Debate Journalists Instead

Rule #9: Talk A Lot About IQ And Your IQ And Social Darwinism And Jungian Psychoanalysis And The Ying Yang And The Dragon Of Chaos And When You Get To The Book Of Genesis Christians Will Immediately Count You As An Exegete And An Evangelist For Their Cause

Rule #10: Anytime You Try To Defend Your General Position Against ALL Forms Of Marxism, Find A Way Back To Hitler And Stalin And Make Anyone Who Disagrees With You A Moral Monster, But Be Sure To Get VERY MAD About It And Show Them You Mean Business And Quote Adorno—Oopsies…

Rule #11: Talk More Than You Write Because It Is Hard To Be Pinned Down On What You Say, Also Use Your Professor Position To Add Credibility As A “Scientist” While You Try And Destroy The Corrupt Social Justice University—It Really Covers All Your Bases, Like The Salary + Patreon

Rule #12: Don’t Tell Marshall McLuhen, George Grant, Naomi Klein, Or Charles Taylor That Jordan Peterson Is Canada’s Greatest Intellectual And A Prophet For Our Time And When Someone Shows You Exactly How Nutty This Is Tell Them “Okay Man; I Only Think Peterson Is Just All right”

Foundation follies

The NGO class is comprised of high-level financial predators who have refined the art of capturing and converging new foundations and charities in order to control the resources they contain, as they’ve been doing this for more than 100 years. Not even the Left is safe from their rapacious predations:

In the Democratic Party’s reckoning following the election of Donald Trump, an unlikely feud has erupted inside an organization at the heart of the progressive movement. Earlier this year, the board of directors of Wellstone Action — an influential training group formed after Paul Wellstone’s death — dumbfounded Minnesota Democrats when it voted the late senator’s sons off the governing board.

Founded after Wellstone’s death in a plane crash in 2002, Wellstone Action has trained thousands of progressive candidates, campaign operatives and community organizers throughout the country, with alumni serving in local and state offices and in the U.S. House. In 2016, the last year for which tax filings are available, the group reported providing training to 2,135 data and digital strategists, 723 nonprofit leaders and community organizers, and 854 aspiring political leaders.

David Wellstone and other Democrats close to his father began objecting last year to what David Wellstone described as Wellstone Action’s abandonment of disaffected Democrats in the rural Midwest — the rural poor were an early focus of the late senator — with an increasingly narrow focus on gender politics and people of color.

“I said, ‘After Trump, we’ve got to figure out how we are going to go back after those Democrats that we lost,” David Wellstone said. “We can do all the stuff we do. We do great stuff on communities of color; we’re doing great stuff on gender identity politics. But we need to do some of these other trainings. … Nobody wanted to have a discussion about that.”

In a prepared statement, Connie Lewis, chairwoman of the Wellstone Action board, said the group’s “mission has not changed.” But the group’s staff and board of directors appeared to suggest a shift in the progressive movement since Paul Wellstone’s death, asserting in a statement on its website that “a lot has changed over the last fifteen years” and that “the progressive movement also looks different today than it did when we first started.”

If you’re a high-wealth individual, the world would be much better off if you left all your money to your cats or simply set it on fire instead of putting it into a trust or charitable foundation. It took the predators just 16 years to capture the Wellstone Foundation, and they did so despite the man’s own sons being on the board. It doesn’t matter how clever you think you are or what preparations you make, they’ve been doing it a lot longer than you’ve been alive and all it takes is one weak director to be bribed, bullied, or otherwise convinced to start packing the board with their people.

Massive immigrant fraud in Minnesota

Somalis and other African immigrants in Minnesota sent more than $100 million in welfare-provided cash back to Africa:

Last year, more than $100 million in cash left the Twin Cities airport in carry-on luggage, bound for the Middle East and Africa: As Kerns dug deeper, he found that some of the individuals who were sending out tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of remittance payments happened to be on government assistance in this country.

How could they possibly come up with such big bucks to transfer back home?

“We had sources that told us, ‘It’s welfare fraud, it’s all about the daycare,’” said Kerns.

Five years ago the Fox 9 Investigators were first to report that daycare fraud was on the rise in Minnesota, exposing how some businesses were gaming the system to steal millions in government subsidies meant to help low-income families with their childcare expenses.

“It’s a great way to make some money,” Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman said.

In order for the scheme to work, the daycare centers need to sign up low income families that qualify for child care assistance funding. Surveillance videos from a case prosecuted by Hennepin County show parents checking their kids into a center, only to leave with them a few minutes later. Sometimes, no children would show up. Either way, the center would bill the state for a full day of childcare.

Video from that same case shows a man handing out envelopes of what are believed to be kickback payments to parents who are in on the fraud.

It absolutely boggles my mind that anyone is still able to publicly subscribe to any form of civic nationalism at this point. How can anyone possibly believe that a people who are capable of engaging in this behavior on such a massive scale are even remotely capable of living in peace and mutual harmony with other people who would never even imagine doing such a thing?

And how can anyone imagine that there is going to be any outcome that does not eventually involve a considerable amount of bloodshed, ethnic cleansing, and other serious unpleasantries, given the entire written history of human behavior?