Jordan Peterson explains just how obscene the current resurgence of interest in Marxism is:
The late great Benny Hill said it in fewer words 29 years ago:
Jordan Peterson explains just how obscene the current resurgence of interest in Marxism is:
The late great Benny Hill said it in fewer words 29 years ago:
Jordan Peterson explains what a sham much of higher education today is:
The Left poisons everything it touches. Higher education is largely in the hands of a cult that substitutes indoctrination for education, and hates traditional Western Civilization. Race and sex obsessions rank at the head of what is transmitted to youth at great expense under the guise of education. Thus our colleges and universities produce graduates who know little about the subjects they were purportedly being taught, but who are experts on Leftist grievances and a view of the world that bears little resemblance to reality. A German radical, the late Alfred Willi Rudolf “Rudi” Dutschke, came up with the plan of a long march by the Left through the institutions they wished to control, and so it has come to pass. Leftists are almost always Leftists first. Everything else takes a back seat to the political prism through which they view the world. Leftism is an aggressive substitute religion, highly dogmatic and intolerant. David Burge, Iowahawk, has summarized the usual mode of operation of the Left:
1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
Leftism is a deadly enemy of freedom. No truck or truce with it.
In a time when much of the Left seems dedicated to shouting down or ignoring most conservatives, Jordan Peterson gets different treatment. Due to his huge internet following among the young, Peterson is viewed as a threat. Along with their usual tactics of shout down and demonize, Leftists also attempt to debate Peterson which is for them a mistake. He is a clear thinker and speaker and in our debased times those are increasingly rare commodities, and allows him to take apart his adversaries in face to face settings. I appreciate Peterson’s zest for verbal combat and the cut and thrust of a true clash of ideas. Peterson is beginning to receive some criticism from conservative sources, some manifestly jealous of his success. Myself, I have always accepted allies in a fight even if we may not agree on all issues. Peterson calls to mind this statement of Lincoln in reference to criticism of General Grant after the battle of Shiloh as related by Pennsylvania Republican politician Alexander McClure:
“I appealed to Lincoln for his own sake to remove Grant at once, and, in giving my reasons for it, I simply voiced the admittedly overwhelming protest from the loyal people of the land against Grant’s continuance in command. I could form no judgment during the conversation as to what effect my arguments had upon him beyond the fact that he was greatly distressed at this new complication. When I had said everything that could be said from my standpoint, we lapsed into silence. Lincoln remained silent for what seemed a very long time. He then gathered himself up in his chair and said in a tone of earnestness that I shall never forget: ‘I can’t spare this man; he fights.’”
The king stablished all his knights, and gave them that were of lands not rich, he gave them lands, and charged them never to do outrageousity nor murder, and always to flee treason; also, by no mean to be cruel, but to give mercy unto him that asketh mercy, upon pain of forfeiture of their worship and lordship of King Arthur for evermore; and always to do ladies, damosels, and gentlewomen succor upon pain of death. Also, that no man take no battles in a wrongful quarrel for no law, ne for no world’s goods. Unto this were all the knights sworn of the Table Round, both old and young. And every year were they sworn at the high feast of Pentecost.
— Le Morte d’Arthur, Book III, Chapter XV
Jordan Peterson and Bill Maher discuss the fact that debating important ideas always involves offense, or the potential of offense. Language advisory as to the below video. One of the more pernicious taboos of our time is that ideas should be suppressed due to their offensive nature to some. Politeness is important but it pales in comparison to freedom of speech. Of course social justice warriors have mastered the art of the cry-bullying: suppressing other viewpoints over alleged offense, while being immensely offensive. Time, past time, to end this congealed nonsense.
“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”
Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
A civilization where belief in God is on the wane, is a civilization where people are merely objects and will be treated as such. The greatest thinkers of the human race have understood this. Benjamin Franklin, who was far from being an orthodox Christian, saw what the world would be like without religion in a letter dated December 13, 1757:
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For, without the belief of a Providence that takes cognisance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that, though your reasons are subtle, and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind spits in his own face.
But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantage of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person, whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a great deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?
We found out in the last bloody century the answer to that question. When we believe in God a dignity is conferred on each man and woman as a fellow child of a loving God. Abraham Lincoln saw this clearly:
These communities, by their representatives in old Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. [Applause.] Yes, gentlemen, to all His creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows. They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children and their children’s children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages. Wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began — so that truth, and justice, and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which the temple of liberty was being built.
Abraham Lincoln, August 17, 1858
If men are fellow children of a loving God, then our worth is infinite. If we are merely animals with pretensions, our lives of no more significance than those of gnats, we should not be surprised that men who believe this rubbish will act as if their lives, and the lives of their fellow men, are very cheap, and very meaningless, indeed.
I have a simpler explanation, at least for most Marxist elites. Marxism provides a useful disguise for many leftists for a gnawing ambition to grasp as much State power as possible, which is at least as old as the pharaohs. Traditional morality is done away with: cooperating with the inevitable historical process, the ultimate triumph of Marxism, is moral, and anything that opposes it is immoral. Thus morality becomes a mere matter of political labels. How convenient that this has allowed movements dedicated to Marxism to commit any crime, no matter how vile, in the scramble for supreme power. That Marxism has never been anything but a transparent fraud, with no more intellectual validity than a tale from The Arabian Nights, is a damning indictment of the human capacity to embrace any fable if it gives an excuse to engage in wretched conduct with an ostensibly clean conscience.
The basic ethos of Disney boiled down: monarchies are great, and disease-carrying rodents are lovable.
Iowahawk (David Burge)
Internet sensation Jordan Peterson, and the over the top hate directed against him by the Left, brings to mind one of the unspoken features of contemporary life: Leftism is completely unconvincing.
Think about it. Leftism tends to only flourish in locations where they can howl down contrary speakers, a prime example is academia, where they have a captive audience, public schools, or where they can blacklist opponents, ironically the entertainment industry. Leftists have largely forgotten how to argue and how to debate ideas. Their only “arguments” these day are an oblivious assumption that all “good” people share Leftist views, and some form of force. And that is not enough for the long term. Evidence of this? When Leftists have to compete head to head with non-Leftists, they tend to come a cropper. Examples of this in this country are Politics and Religion. In politics Leftists increasingly turn to the courts, because they are usually unable to enact their agendas by the ballot box. In religion, a church embracing Leftism is a death warrant since such an embrace is swiftly followed by ever increasing empty pews.
Peterson represents to the Left their inability to argue successfully and thus they respond with brownshirt tactics. Like their ideological forebears, a fist is their only true response to reason. A movement that rests almost entirely on force is a movement that is doomed in the long run.
In the video below Jordan Peterson speaks on the threat to free speech in Canada. The constant attempts by Red Fascists to interrupt his speech of course underlined what he was saying.
Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts notes the quandary for Mark Shea that Jordan Peterson presents. Being a Leftist now Shea realizes he should hate Peterson. However Bishop Barron poses a problem for Mark:
Hilarity ensues. Mark’s hatred of everything to the right of center, mixed with his slavish devotion to almost every narrative and doctrine of the political Left, should have put Peterson in the cross hairs months ago. With the exception of “gay marriage”, which Mark barely mentions anymore, and abortion, which he blames almost exclusively on capitalism and sexist men, there are few significant differences between Mark and Daily Kos, or MSNBS, or Vox, or any other radical secular Left wing rag.
The problem? Bishop Robert Barron has spoken and written somewhat extensively on the positive contributions that Peterson brings to the modern table. Of course Bishop Barron points out that Peterson is not a priest expounding the complete Gospel message. And he, like most I know who value Peterson, can tell where Peterson is in line with the Christian tradition and where he isn’t.
Nonetheless, Bishop Barron, who has not bowed before the Leftist juggernaut, obviously sees much value in Peterson and in the timing of Peterson’s ascension. This makes it tough for Mark. Mark has long praised Bishop Barron as a shining light in modern Catholicism. And rightly so. Bishop Barron brings much to the modern debate. And what’s more, he says the same thing about Peterson that most Christians I know say about Peterson. So Mark does what he can. I was going to write a lengthy piece unpacking Mark’s humorous attempts to twist and turn and desperately avoid the obvious points Bishop Barron makes, but I figured I’d do what he did to Barron’s review of Peterson – post a link. Read away. Especially read the comments, since they help explain why so many see value in Peterson, given the appeal to arrogance behind many of his critics. Not just arrogance aimed at Peterson but, as usual, aimed at any who don’t fall in line behind the Left (which one reader seems to think doesn’t really exist). There are exceptions of course. (NOTE: as of now, the comment explaining identity politics/Marxist influences has been removed, though it could be a glitch since there is no note saying it was removed – having been on Patheos, I know it’s a different animal to actually erase a comment than merely deleting one.. Perhaps check back later)
If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke conceal’d,
Your comrades chase e’en now the fliers,
And, but for you, possess the field.
For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.
And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
But westward, look, the land is bright!
“Ideologies are substitutes for true knowledge, and ideologues are always dangerous when they come to power, because a simple-minded I-know-it-all approach is no match for the complexity of existence.”
Karl Marx, 1852
“In the West, we have been withdrawing from our tradition-, religion- and even nation-centred cultures, partly to decrease the danger of group conflict. But we are increasingly falling prey to the desperation of meaninglessness, and that is no improvement at all.”