Author Archives: lawofmarkets

Compilation of the best reactions to Jordan Peterson/Cathy Newman interview

Posted on by
1

The first is a compilation of reactions to the Jordan Peterson v Cathy Newman interview on BBC4. The one below is Peterson being interviewed on Fox.

Quotes from the Fox interviews.

His single most important piece of advice: “Stop saying things that make you weak.”

Dealing with critics: “They are not just trying to shut you down but to discredit you. If you are very careful in what you say AND YOU DON’T BACK DOWN ultimately things turn around for you.”

On the question, are you dangerous: “Yeah!” . . . “You should be able to be a monster and then not be one.”

On one form of censorship now very common: “If you are a conservative it is highly probable that your youtube content will be de-monitised. . . . It will not be associated with advertising content” and therefore not be promoted and viewed.

LET ME ALSO NOW ADD THIS: Why Can’t People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying?. An example provided in the article.

Peterson begins the interview by explaining why he tells young men to grow up and take responsibility for getting their lives together and becoming good partners. He notes he isn’t talking exclusively to men, and that he has lots of female fans.

“What’s in it for the women, though?” Newman asks.

“Well, what sort of partner do you want?” Peterson says. “Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with who is going to help you?”

“So you’re saying,” Newman retorts, “that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity.” But that’s not what he said. He posited a vested interest, not a duty.

“Women deeply want men who are competent and powerful,” Peterson goes on to assert. “And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power. That’s just corruption. Power is competence. And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why, actually, you can’t dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination—”

The interviewer interrupts, “So you’re saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?”

And then there is the discussion on the pay gap between men and women, which of course refers to the difference in the averages. An old old story among economists for which the answers are all well known except to those who prefer not to know. But Peterson is a psychologist so takes a very different tack.

The next section of the interview concerns the pay gap between men and women, and whether it is rooted in gender itself or other nondiscriminatory factors:

Newman: … that 9 percent pay gap, that’s a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.

Peterson: Yes. But there’s multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but that’s not the only reason. If you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break its down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.

Newman: But you’re saying, basically, it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what is skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying that’s just a fact of life, women aren’t necessarily going to get to the top.

Peterson: No, I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, either. I’m saying there are multiple reasons for it.

Newman: Yeah, but why should women put up with those reasons?

Peterson: I’m not saying that they should put up with it! I’m saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong. And it is wrong. There’s no doubt about that. The multivariate analysis have been done. So let me give you an example––

The interviewer seemed eager to impute to Peterson a belief that a large, extant wage gap between men and women is a “fact of life” that women should just “put up with,” though all those assertions are contrary to his real positions on the matter.

Throughout this next section, the interviewer repeatedly tries to oversimplify Peterson’s view, as if he believes one factor he discusses is all-important, and then she seems to assume that because Peterson believes that given factor helps to explain a pay gap between men and women, he doesn’t support any actions that would bring about a more equal outcome.

Her surprised question near the end suggests earnest confusion:

Peterson: There’s a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than disagreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.

Newman: Again, a vast generalization. Some women are not more agreeable than men.

Peterson: That’s true. And some women get paid more than men.

Newman: So you’re saying by and large women are too agreeable to get the pay raises that they deserve.

Peterson: No, I’m saying that is one component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary. It accounts for maybe 5 percent of the variance. So you need another 18 factors, one of which is gender. And there is prejudice. There’s no doubt about that. But it accounts for a much smaller portion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim.

Newman: Okay, so rather than denying that the pay gap exists, which is what you did at the beginning of this conversation, shouldn’t you say to women, rather than being agreeable and not asking for a pay raise, go ask for a pay raise. Make yourself disagreeable with your boss.

Peterson: But I didn’t deny it existed, I denied that it existed because of gender. See, because I’m very, very, very careful with my words.

Newman: So the pay gap exists. You accept that. I mean the pay gap between men and women exists—but you’re saying it’s not because of gender, it’s because women are too agreeable to ask for pay raises.

Peterson: That’s one of the reasons.

Newman: Okay, so why not get them to ask for a pay raise? Wouldn’t that be fairer?

Peterson: I’ve done that many, many, many times in my career. So one of the things you do as a clinical psychologist is assertiveness training. So you might say––often you treat people for anxiety, you treat them for depression, and maybe the next most common category after that would be assertiveness training. So I’ve had many, many women, extraordinarily competent women, in my clinical and consulting practice, and we’ve put together strategies for their career development that involved continual pushing, competing, for higher wages. And often tripled their wages within a five-year period.

Newman: And you celebrate that?

Peterson: Of course! Of course!

And so on and so forth.

AND THEN THERE’S THIS:

The Marxist takeover of our schools should make you really really worry

Posted on by
Reply

My favourite Canadian website by a long long way is Small Dead Animals. You should make it a permanent rest stop as you go through your skiing the web (it does originate from Saskatchewan).

A couple of related pieces from today, both worth reading along with everything else, which you will have to link to SDA to find. But first these two, on the taking down of our education system by Marxist know-nothings. They are as ignorant as it is possible to be, entirely ideological in their thinking, with minds so filled with empty slogans and manufactured facts that they have almost no ability to understand what others are saying. Carefully considering what others have to say is the last thing any of them ever do. Indoctrination is all they know: reasoned debate never. Two examples below.

SDA regular Ken Kulak left a brilliant comment earlier that everyone should read:

There are many great comments above.
If I may add my two cents. No doubt some of you might think One Trick Kulak. While reading and listening to the material presented by Robert the thought occurred to me that I have seen this before, not literally, but on paper.

Not to brag or blow my horn, but I have close to 200 Russian history books in my library. Almost all are by recognized historians who are or were recognized authorities in their field of study. Some like Richard Pipes were advisors to governments during the cold war. I have read everyone of those books and parts of some more than once and have been used as background resource material for the four family history books I have written.

What has been happening in our universities across North America to stifle free speech and any opposing views to the entrenching of Marxism and seems to be escalating in intensity. Thank goodness there are a few brave warriors like Jordan Peterson and Lindsay Shepard and possibly others attempting to stem the flood.

However, the increasingly more open Marxist controlled events in our higher learning schools is not new. The same thing happened 100 years ago in Russia. What has and is happening in our schools has just been slower, more subtle, and thus more insidious in nature.

Prior to the Russian revolution there was a covert socialist/Marxist/Bolshevik presence in Russian universities. After Russia entered the Great War the agitation in the schools increased and became more overt in the late fall of 1916. When the February revolution broke out and was successful the radical left took over all the schools. Then, after the Bolshevik coup, the effort to expel any opposition by professors and students began, and by the spring of 1918 the Bolsheviks took direct control of the schools.

The troika that Lindsay experienced was the standard method of operation and control in the schools and enforced by the Komsomol under the direction of the education commissary.

So, what happened in Russia in a relatively short time frame has been happening here slowly over a couple of decades and basically come out into the open only recently.

Make no mistake, after they shut up Jordan and Lindsay they will get around to shutting us up. Bill M-103 and the federal refusal to help pay for summer student help unless you tick off the box expressing obedience to full on abortion is all a part of turning up the heat on the pot with the frog in it.

Let’s hope a sufficient number of Canadians will seize the warnings that the likes of Ken and Jordan Peterson and Mark Steyn have been proffering for years. The sheeple are likely too far gone with the “Progressive” indoctrination to wake up though.

And then there’s this. I take it that “alt-right bingo” is played by these post-modernist clowns with the notion being that you get a space filled in every time one of these ridiculous notions is mentioned, you know, things like “Orwellian”, “virtue signalling”, “ideololgical agenda” and my special favourite, “classical”. Anyway, you’ll see for yourself.

Yesterday Lindsay Shepherd posted a very interesting tweet:

Lindsay Shepherd@NewWorldHominin

Some literature handed out at the panel discussion I was on at @smuhalifax today. The bingo is kind of funny, but it is a SEVERE mistake for these activists to associate terms such as “critical thinking”, “viewpoint diversity”, and “open exchange of ideas” with the alt-right.

A supporter of hers published a related video.

The “Alt-Right Bingo” game the leftists in the audience were playing seems to imply that they think it is hilarious, and cause for derision, to talk about these things:

  • Critical thinking
  • Viewpoint Diversity
  • Open exchange of ideas
  • Traditional values
  • Free speech space

These people apparently grew up in Canada but clearly don’t hold anything resembling Canadian values.

And the same unfortunately also goes for Australia.

C’mon, who’s really clueless about trade?

Posted on by
Reply

From Forbes, the kind of thing you find in among Chamber of Commerce types: Trump’s Tariffs Are A Reminder He’s Clueless About Trade. Sure he is, and the evidence keeps piling up day by day. If we lived in a crony-capitalist-free world, and no one ever cheated in their trade relations,* maybe such blanket statements would make sense. But truly lacking in any penetration is the manipulation of arithmetical statistical identities as if they were actual theoretical constructs where a change in one variable is the cause of a change in another. In reality, with such identities, these are accounting balancing items which have no effect on actualities in the real world, but are only a record of what took place.

Now here is where the simple analytics of the trade deficit can be used to prove the cluelessness of the Trump trade team on “trade,” of all things, and the utter futility of its policy prescriptions having any impact on America’s aggregate trade deficit. In economics, identities play an important role. These identities are obtained by equating two different breakdowns of a single aggregate. Identities are interesting, and usually important, by definition. In national income accounting, the following identity can be derived. Indeed, it is the key to understanding the trade deficit.

(Imports – Exports ) ≡ (Investment – Savings) + (Government Spending – Taxes)

Given this identify, which must hold, the trade deficit is equal to the excess of private sector investment over savings, plus the excess of government spending over tax revenue. So the counterpart of the trade deficit is the sum of the private sector deficit and the government deficit (federal + state and local). The U.S. trade deficit, therefore, is just the mirror image of what is happening in the U.S. domestic economy. If expenditures in the U.S. exceed the incomes produced in the U.S., which they do, the excess expenditures will be met by an excess of imports over exports (read: a trade deficit).

This is the same as fiddling with Y=C+I+G and pretending that an increase in G can cause an increase in Y. Complete sophistry. There is much more to say about free trade and I have been meaning to say it for a while. This might therefore be what finally stirs me to spell it out in more detail, but this will have to do for now.

* See, for example, Australia takes Canada to WTO over rules on selling wine. My dual nationality obviously makes it impossible for me to see the rights and wrongs of this, but let me say that no Australian will ever understand the liquor laws of Canada, which were introduced as temporary measures during World War I. There’s a lesson in there as well.

More comment on that interview

Posted on by
Reply

Karen Straughan’s Take on Jordan Peterson’s Channel 4 Interview. It lasts 38 minutes but never wavered for a moment. So much to get and she gets it very well. Interesting first comment by Karen Straughan in the youtube comments:

Within ten minutes of this video going up, Channel 4 had hit me with a copyright takedown. I filed a dispute based on fair use and it’s now viewable again, but have lost my monetization privileges on this video for up to 30 days, the fuckers.

The beeb didn’t want to see their shame spread any farther, but too late for that. Good to know that the BBC is embarrassed by the interview, and so they should be.

Via Small Dead Animals

FACEBOOK RESPONSE: A mate of mine put this post up on Facebook and this is the note I just received from him:

Facebook just marked as spam my post of your post

I’m not on Facebook so I don’t know how any of it works, but the response time had to have been less than an hour. These people are evil, genuinely evil.

“Thank you Mr President for your inspiring speech”

Posted on by
Reply

Trump declares the U.S. is ‘open for business’ in Davos, as he tells global bigwigs ‘America First does not mean America alone. Speeches on the vid begin around 4:45 in. PDT at around 8:30.

  • President Donald Trump defended his aggressive trade posture before world leaders and business moguls in Davos
  •  He declared the U.S. ‘open for business’
  •  Trump also tried to explain how he would cooperate with other nations
  • Trump has said he’ll withdraw from global climate pacts and trade deals 
  • ‘I will always put America First. Just like the leaders of other countries should put their countries first also’
  • Pitches investment in the USA 
  • ‘America is roaring back and now is the time to invest in the future of America’
  • Says he’ll ‘denuke the Korean peninsula’ 
  • Hails retaking ISIS territory ‘once held by these killers in Iraq and Syria’

The words in the heading are from the President of the World Economic Forum.

UPDATE: The text of Remarks by President Trump to the World Economic Forum.

This is the ‘this’

Posted on by
Reply

I always read the comments and usually learn a lot from them but this seems a lot more informative than usual and with a very unusual take on things. From John Smith 101 discussing Why isn’t this reported as the scandal it is?. The above, via Leo G, is also from the comments.

What’s happening?

Mueller is working for Trump and has been all along re the Russia connection. Mueller has been handed a get (or rather a stay) out of jail card by Trump. Mueller is implicated in the 9-11 psyops as well as signing off on the Uranium 1 scandal whereby HRC and the Clinton Foundation sold about 20% of the US’ uranium to a Russian company, Rosatom. Mueller was threatened with death if he spoke out about 9-11/Uranium 1. Mueller is basically a good guy (white hat) in the wrong place.

The Trump Russia collusion supposedly being investigated by Mueller is actually a ruse to, firstly, out the ‘Deep State’ (certain members of the FBI, CIA, congress members, business leaders, globalists, etc) leakers seeking to disparage or remove Trump from office – this ‘outing’ has occurred, with great success, over the past 12 months. The leakers (not necessarily all Democrats but also RINO Repubs) have now exposed their connections to the Deep State. Secondly, Mueller has exposed these principal players/leakers and their role in the treasonous act of wiretapping a presidential nomination (ie Trump) through illegal means incorporating a number of leading figures in the FBI and the Democrats, reaching all the way through to Lynch, Obama and HRC.

There are many reasons why the Deep Staters/globalists wanted/needed to wiretap Trump in the lead up to, and beyond, the 2016 elections. Some of these reasons include corruption and some extremely heinous crimes (think Madeline McCann), which will become clear in the coming days, weeks and months. In fact, as of yesterday, Obama has organised nine lawyers in various countries, to deal with the fallout from these inquiries. Furthermore, McCabe, a senior FBI official closely connected with the Russian dossier and the following wire tap, is, let us say, helping officials with what his, and others, roles were in this situation. Presumably he has been charged with high crimes because his ‘interviews’ occurred at Gitmo.

Gitmo, in fact, is currently accommodating a number of people (more than 30 at last count), many of whom you have already heard about over the years. Anyone heard from Soros lately? Anyone noticed a diminution in Getup trolls on certain news blog sites. Anyone noticing Lady Rothchild is getting a little testy on Twitter. Anyone heard from the Bushes lately? And what about Las Vegas? Does the bad Saudi ‘uncle’ really own the top floors of the Mandalay Bay Hotel. Join the dots.

The ‘memo’ mentioned above, while relating to these findings of criminal activity, is a document produced by the Nunes congressional inquiry into these matters. (There are four, I think, inquiries currently underway, including the Inspector Generals report – which Trump (or congress – not sure) already has. The IG report runs to 1.5M pages and includes, afaik, the Wikileak emails. Julian Assange & DT jnr have been working closely together on this).

In other words, a number of people working for the globalists (NWO) within and beyond the administration are soon to be charged with capital treason, not only for the corruption of the US judicial system (false and misleading information leading to a FISA warrant to (illegally) wiretap a presidential candidates) but also, and I’m unclear about the timing of this, being the masterminds behind the 9-11 psyops. This latter point also includes some other famous people who are currently ‘out of action’ and behind bars, etc. You have heard of most of them.

Implicated in this process is the MSM, particularly, by way of example, CNN (CIA-run station), Washington Post (Deep State outlet), etc. Think Project Mockingbird.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

This filth exists in Australia too; think Rudd/Gillard/J Bishop sending Australian taxpayers’ money to the Clinton Foundation. Where did that money end up? To what purpose was it put?

Big things are about to happen that will shock you, perhaps even as early as tomorrow. Trump’s State of the Union Address next week might be well worth listening to. MSM will lie and distort to keep this covered up. You need to source the new media online or follow twitter accounts like MAGA to follow what is happening. Fox news provides good coverage too, along with the Conservative Treehouse blog – this latter site provides excellent in depth coverage re the FISA-Russian collusion wiretap imbroglio.

How do I know all this? Easy. Trump promised to return the power to the people. Starting last October a person (or group) known as Qanon as been dropping what has become the largest intel drop in human history (though it excludes operational and security matters). Anyone can join in. We are the intelligence assessors now, a loose global alliance of weaponised autists spreading the word on /pol/, 4Chan, 8Chan, etc.

You can see the Qanon drops here. (Hope I’ve done that right!) They are in code though the code becomes clearer the more you read; also, links at each ‘drop’ lead to 8Chan comments. Also read the Twitter feeds as many of the anons are busy decoding the drops to help you understand. This is a process that will take all year and even then a lot will be better left unsaid – do not go there if you value your sanity. Otherwise, get some popcorn, the world is about the change, bigly.

Sinc, this is the ‘this’ that Steve Kates is referring to.

We shall see. It really is a wilderness of mirrors and always will be. This, then, is from the “Qanon drop” just now but have not seen it before. Watch!

Why isn’t this reported as the scandal it is?

Posted on by
Reply

Watching this unfold, with the united actions of the FBI, CIA, the media, the Democratic Party and even some Republicans, and then realising that none of this happened under Obama, the conclusion is that Obama and his cohorts represented, in their entirety, the values of “the deep state”. That is, Obama represented the values of the governing elites of the United States which completely includes 90% of the media. Why isn’t this reported as the scandal it is? That is why. This is what they want and who they are. Without the internet, you would not know a thing.

 

The entire left, at each point its actions overlap with the political, is utterly corrupt. This, too, is very much part of it all: The Problem Isn’t Just Corruption at the FBI and Main Justice, It’s Also The Media….

But where are the maple trees?

Posted on by
Reply

This is the title of the article – G’day mate: 1.7-billion-year-old chunk of North America found in Australia – and this is part of what it says:

Rocks recently discovered in Australia bear striking similarities to those found in North America, a study finds. The sandstone sedimentary rocks the scientists uncovered are not “native” to present-day Australia, but instead are common in eastern Canada.

Must help to explain why I find living in Australia so similar to my life in days of yore.

A nuclear Australia?

Posted on by
Reply

Via Instapundit which notes “China is going to end up hemmed in by nuclear powers at every turn, if they don’t rein in Li’l Kim”: Going Nuclear? The Optimal Posture and Force Structure for Australia. Bottom line:

“Australia would not consider such a step lightly,” but history has shown that changes in geopolitics can sneak up on nations before they are aware of the dangers they face, Let’s not fall victim to this. Let’s be ready and discuss options now before it is too late.

If you look at the map you must wonder why it hasn’t happened already.

Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman interview reactions

Posted on by
Reply

These are reactions to the Cathy Newman interview of Jordan Peterson. His own reaction, as discussed in the final video below, is that the interview is an example of “the instability of the times we are in.” It is a forewarning of the dark times ahead for us all.

These are a series of quotes from the last interview with Peterson not necessarily perfectly transcribed [and now for some reason no longer available]:

“She laid out two sets of ideological presuppositions, two sets actually, her set and my set. The set of ideological position she laid out from my side bore very little relation to what I think or say.”

“She would ask me a question that wasn’t really a question but a barb with bait on the end of it. She would say what I said which had nothing to do with what I had said. She was fabricating on the sly the person – the villain – that she hoped I would be and insisting that was me and denying that it was a lie. That is what the interview was.”

“I was watching her after the first minute like a clinician and watching what she was doing. And I truly don’t believe that anything she said in that entire interview was true on its own.”

The form of conversation was not one designed to further our knowledge of the truth which is the highest form of conversation. Indeed, there is quite a fascinating discussion of the nature of her approach to the discussion. “Playing the devil’s advocate and asking difficult questions are not the same thing.”

“Her claims became so preposterous and self-contradictory that it was difficult to remain completely detached. And this was the crux of the interview . . . she had asked me in her self-righteous manner just what gave me the right to offend someone and hurt their feelings, and I thought about six things at the same time, but the first thing I thought was, you’re a journalist, that’s the last question in the world you should ever ask someone, if you have any genuine integrity as a journalist because that’s all you have as a journalist. You have the right to offend people and hurt their feelings. So I called her out on that.”

“There was a three-fold ideological battle going on. There was a battle between her position which was radically neo-Marxist post-modernist. She was arguing against who she thought I was. And then there was the position I was trying to put forward which had virtually nothing to do with what she was discussing.”

“I was able to keep reasonably detatched during the interview because whoever she thought she was talking to bore very little resemblance to me.”

“But she couldn’t make her reputation and her living that way using those tactics – those were not tactics of seeking the truth but they were almost tactics of domination.”

But the outcome should not be seen as a win since “virtually everyone watching it online . . . are not happy with the way the interview went. . . . That should be crushing for her. . . . If we are forestalling a correction and we keep putting it off, then when it comes it will be much worse.”

Newman was driven by “ideologically motivated lies”.

In regard to his life’s work: “My conscious goal was the hope it would make people immune to ideological possession” an ambition which he himself notes he has not been successful at.

Anyway, don’t ignore the last of the videos the first half hour of which are Peterson’s own reflections. That is the most disturbing part of this entire episode and is worth your close attention. You should also listen to the last hour and a quarter as well but the analysis of the conversation is quite profound and something you will rarely encounter. He is a very dark prophet of our time. These are his own words about the kinds of outcome Cathy Newman, and indeed the entire post-modernist world of the neo-Marxist left, are leading us towards.

“We are playing with fire. Polarisation can only go on for so long before we start acting it out.”

I don’t think when we start acting these things out that the outcomes will be in any way positive at all. Meanwhile, here are the various videos but don’t forget the one that comes last.

And if you haven’t seen it yet, this is the original interview. And what makes this so remarkable is that the BBC was so certain of the outcome that they scheduled a half hour interview that went very very wrong, for them.

And the following provides some commentary about Cathy Newman and the entire outcome by Peterson. The first 33 minutes and then the rest is his discussing his philosophy and work.

And now that the above has disappeared, here is part of that video.