Jordan Peterson in Australia

Sounds just like JBP everywhere else. And here he is talking to Bettina Arndt.

And if you are just looking for the highlights.

And with Leigh Sales on the ABC.

And on a supposed comedy interview.

This is how this last interview is described.

Controversial Canadian psychologist Dr Jordan Peterson explains to Tom why keeping his room clean is important, why identity politics suck, and why the ABC should be less Marxist.

And the heading is absolutely right: “Jordan Peterson DESTROYS Tom Ballard.”

And this is the audio from his presentation in Melbourne.

Jordan Peterson with Mark Steyn

From June 2017. About Free Speech. You might even wonder whether this conversation could happen today, never mind a decade from now.

Some quotes from JBP but you need to watch it all for yourself. And there is also Mark Steyn!

I’ve studied the development of totalitarianism for a very long time and one of the things I know is the issue of ceding control over language, and the Government has carelessly made a precedent and the precedent is compelled speech essentially.”

“I think I am a classical liberal in the old school sense. I am an individualist.”

In reference on the form of sex and gender education that is happening in schools, “people have no idea it is happening. . . . The average person has no idea that it is happening.”

“We take free speech for granted, we actually take our whole civilisation for granted and we don’t understand that it rests on certain foundation blocks and if you remove those blocks all hell will break loose. And I think our civilisation is a whole lot more fragile that people understand and it is also in a lot more peril than people understand.”

“We’re also in a situation right now where your right to say anything about religious beliefs, unless they’re Christian, is seriously in danger, and that’s so dangerous that it’s almost beyond comprehension. It puts us back in Mediaeval times.”

“The patriarchy is just Western Civilisation. Patriarchy is just a code word for that. Governed by their Marxist dogma and post-Marxist dogma, they think it needs to be re-tooled from the bottom up. It makes them natural allies of any other system that opposes our system.”

“Jacques Derrida may be is the most dangerous person of the last forty years.” His writings are the basis for “an all out assault on Western categories of thought. . . . Categorisation is the basis of cognition. And so he has basically made the claim that thought itself is an agent of oppression.”

“As the politically correct movement inches forward. . . . [The Social Justice Warrior types] find a hypothetically vulnerable group – it doesn’t matter what it is – and then they use them as a protective shield while they move incrementally forward and so if you object you are targeted as if you are picking on the poor vulnerable people.”

Why I had stood out was not that I was speaking in generalities but that “I had said there was something I would not do and so had drawn a line so it was the combination of generalities with specificity that made the issue real for people.”

“Many of the kids on the left equate argument for free speech with racism.”

“Why I took these issues on now is because I believe it will be worse later.”

Peterson on how culture wars are fought with some advice of my own

I went along to hear Jordan Peterson speak last night, and went early since I did have it in my mind that our own ANTIFA types might show up. I suppose it was this story that spooked me. This happened in Kingston, Ontario on the Monday of the same week he spoke in Melbourne on the Thursday.

A woman in eastern Ontario is facing numerous charges after taking part in a protest against a lecture by a controversial Toronto professor.

Police say a 38-year-old woman was arrested near Queen’s University in Kingston Monday evening. . . .

Officials say officers searched her backpack and found a weapon — a metal wire with handles commonly known as a garrotte.

But as it happened, no demos and a very very pleasant night. I won’t discuss anything of what he said during his presentation since he has a couple more to give, but will say he received the loudest applause I have ever heard for anyone, both when he came in and when he finished up. A wonderful evening of reflective thought.

What I will reprint however, as best I can, is his answer to the question that was asked by the lad sitting next to us, who is a trainee teacher, dismayed to the farthest extent about the cultural Marxism he finds at every turn. So his question (one of only five among the around 100 who were still queuing up when the Q&A ended) was how to push back when surrounded by ideological enemies. This, to the best of my recollection and according to my notes, was how he replied.

You are in a war.

If you go along with them you are going to lose.

If you try suicidal forms of resistance you are also going to lose.

The question is how do you fight “ideological possession”*?

You pay attention looking for alternatives and ways to oppose what you see.

But do not make any unnecessary enemies.

If you are going to move forward you need to make a plan and think strategically.

Don’t burn yourself up early. Play for the long run. Do it intelligently and move forward step by step.

You have to always think about what the people you are fighting can take away from you.

And while all that is right, the bit that is missing is a recognition of the crucial importance to help your friends. I am amazed and no little angered by the lack of mutual support for those who take largely the same side but have some difference which becomes all it requires for all too many to separate themselves and declare a fundamental discontinuity between their views and yours.

To take what ought to be a trivial example but is not, Donald Trump deciding for a variety of reasons to place tariffs on aluminium and steel. As it happens, his reasons are sound and sensible – starting from the imperative of ensuring that basic requirements for its war industries, along with shoring up electoral support in potential swing states. But even if you don’t like this particular policy, why join his and our enemies in building an anti-Trump case?

The left never ever on any issue allows the slightest deviance from its core policy front. There are no end of issues for which there is exactly one answer permitted. On our side, it is one thing to explore an issue and wonder about the pros and cons. It is quite another to be subject to some kind of reflex reaction – ideological possession if you will – which does nothing other than help tear down the side you need to succeed if we are not going to be swamped by the next turn of the election cycle.

*Ideological possession = Rote and unthinking answers to genuine social questions. Or as described by someone unnamed somewhere else on a comment on a Peterson video:

“The noise made by a person that has been so fanatically indoctrinated into an ideology that they’re able, quite without conscious thought, to generate a constant stream of sterile, inoffensive, thoroughly orthodox and politically correct platitudes that are almost (but not quite) wholly removed from real meaning and (by design) totally devoid of any visceral human feeling.”

Here are examples from that same Peterson presentation at Queens – but first turn the volume down.

Many of these are apparently students studying at the university.

Jordan Peterson on how to fight the culture wars

jordan peterson melbourne

I went along to hear Jordan Peterson speak last night, and went early since I did have it in my mind that our own ANTIFA types might show up. I suppose it was this story that spooked me.

A woman in eastern Ontario is facing numerous charges after taking part in a protest against a lecture by a controversial Toronto professor.

Police say a 38-year-old woman was arrested near Queen’s University in Kingston Monday evening. . . .

Officials say officers searched her backpack and found a weapon — a metal wire with handles commonly known as a garrotte.

But as it happened, no demos and a very very pleasant night. I won’t discuss anything of what he said during his presentation since he has a couple more to give, but will say he received the loudest applause I have ever heard for anyone, both when he came in and when he finished up. A wonderful evening of reflective thought. But I will reprint, as best I can, his answer to the question that was asked by the lad sitting next to us, who is a trainee teacher, dismayed to the farthest extent about the cultural Marxism he finds at every turn. So his question (one of only five among the around 100 who were still queuing up when the Q&A ended) was how to push back when surrounded by ideological enemies. This, to the best of my recollection and according to my notes, was how he replied.

You are in a war.

If you go along with them you are going to lose.

If you try suicidal forms of resistance you are also going to lose.

The question is how do you fight “ideological possession”?*

You pay attention looking for alternatives and ways to oppose what you see.

But do not make any unnecessary enemies.

If you are going to move forward you need to make a plan and think strategically.

Don’t burn yourself up early. Play for the long run. Do it intelligently and move forward step by step.

You have to always think about what the people you are fighting can take away from you.

*Ideological possession = Rote and unthinking answers to genuine social questions. Or as described in one of the comments in the video below,

“The noise made by a person that has been so fanatically indoctrinated into an ideology that they’re able, quite without conscious thought, to generate a constant stream of sterile, inoffensive, thoroughly orthodox and politically correct platitudes that are almost (but not quite) wholly removed from real meaning and (by design) totally devoid of any visceral human feeling.”

Love and gratitude in the wild

From 15 Amazing Finalists From Smithsonian’s 15th Annual Photo Contest. This is the text that goes with the photo:

Affection
© Thomas Chadwick. All rights reserved.

This is my favorite black skimmer photo that I have taken in all the years following a little-known colony. Every year I select a nest when the parent is on eggs, then follow that same nest until they fledge. I choose one nest because colonies are chaotic; you will miss some shots by pointing the lens at hundreds of birds. One morning I got into position and lay there for an hour until sunrise when a parent flew in directly to feed the baby. The baby was inches away from me, so I couldn’t get the feeding photo. However, after the baby gobbled down the fish, I captured it running up to the parent and displaying the behavior pictured.

Category: Natural World

My Quadrant review of Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life

Here are the final lines of my review of Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life.

I can do no more than encourage you to read the book. There is nothing else like it and I cannot praise it enough.

This then is how the review begins.

STEVE KATES

The Future is a Judgmental Father

12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
by Jordan B. Peterson
Allen Lane, 2018, 448 pages, $35
______________________________

jordan petersonJordan Peterson (left) may well be the deepest, clearest voice of conservative thought in the world today. In the space of less than a year he has risen from being a relatively obscure professor of psychology at the University of Toronto to becoming perhaps the most articulate defender of the values of the West to have arisen in the last fifty years. I can think of no one in recent times who has been able to reach such depths of understanding, but with such an extraordinary ability to make plain his meaning to such large numbers of people. You should, of course, read his 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, but you should also watch as many of his online presentations as you can if you are interested in understanding, and preserving, the values of our Western civilisation.

This review appears in the latest Quadrant.
Click here to subscribe

 
The rest of the review you can read here, but not only do I think you should read the book, you should also subscribe to the magazine as well.

Biblical morality

She means more than just this, but in the world as it is, she cannot come right out and say it. Instead, she begins like this, as captured in the heading to the article: Understanding of the bible helps us decode western culture.

There has been some discussion lately about whether knowledge of religion, especially the Bible, is important. A founder of the Bible Literacy Project has recommended that all children study the Bible. He says: “If you don’t have knowledge of the Bible you can’t understand literature, history, art, music or culture fully … you’re not getting a full education.”

He is right. Our way of life is steeped in Judeo-Christian culture. We cannot decode Western culture without the Bible and some knowledge of religion.

What she actually means she saves to the end:

The anti-religionists demand that children just learn ethics, but from where do they assume these ethics spring? The most important thing about the biblical texts is that within the great biblical stories, youngsters learn our foundational ethical principles. Those first principles of ethical behaviour are contained in the Ten Commandments. To get to the Commandments we need to know the story of Moses, then the story of the Jews and, last, Jesus’ life and new teachings.

Many of the rather superficial, and destructive ideological fights that commentators are so keen on wouldn’t happen if they knew more about our cultural history and had more respect for the depth of our Judeo-Christian inheritance.

These precepts have governed our lives, our social organisation and our law for centuries, and are still valid. Whether we know it or not, they exist in our consciousness and ignoring them leads to confusion and chaos because as even the fashionable new agnostic guru Jordan Peterson admits, God didn’t give us the 10 suggestions, he gave us the Ten Commandments.

The only thing she gets wrong here is her assumption that Jordan Peterson doesn’t agree with her. Peterson on the existence of God.

And on atheism.

Providing moral perspective

A letter I’ve just sent.

I picked up a copy of The Penguin Book of Twentieth Century Speeches and came across the Wheeling WV speech by Joe McCarthy which seemed so up to the minute that I immediately wrote this post: Where’s Joe McCarthy when you need him?

I have in the last couple of weeks or so read three things that have really brought our current moral predicaments further into the light for me. The first one was a 1913 biography written by John Jay Chapman, someone I had never heard of until about a month ago, writing on William Lloyd Garrison, who derived his entire will to overcome slavery through his Christian faith. And then I came across a book published in 1944 titled The Ten Commandments which were ten short novels in which ten famous authors of the time each wrote a story on one of the commandments. Clear in every page how important Christian thought was in providing the moral perspective in the fight against the Nazis. And then there was McCarthy himself who based what he did and said on the perspective provided for him in Christian thought.

But in discussing all this with others, a few things came to light to make me see how much has changed that make what McCarthy said as recently as the 1950s almost a dead letter today. First, everyone I know is an atheist. That I think of the world as we know it as designed but without any real notion of who the designer was or for what purpose, but almost with certainty not the random outcome of molecular collision, makes me well outside the norms of our modern mis-educated elites, but still not a Christian in any traditional sense. Therefore, the distinction between Christianity and “atheistic” communism is something almost no one I would discuss these things with would understand. I think the absence of Christian morality makes someone in today’s world a leaf in the wind but so what? They don’t think they are and who is anyone else to say they are? Then, as Garrison emphasised himself, slave owners were Christian and used the Bible as the basis to justify what they did. Beyond that, with Islam on the other side of the ledger, however else we might describe them, they are not “atheists” in any sense of the word. They are at war with the Christian world, but which aspect of the Christian world unifies us on our side? And then where is the word that can replace communism? The Soviets completely discredited “communism” but have hardly lain a finger on “socialism”, even though the second “S” in USSR was “Socialist”. It is clear that the anti-Christian left are now teaming up with Islam in one final onslaught against what remains of Christian morality, but few among our elites will defend what passes for morality today as “Christian”, even though that is what it is even if they don’t know or understand it. As I am told, you don’t have to believe in God to be a good person – just look at me, they say, and of course they are right. But then I look at others, and am not as sure as I was.

Meanwhile, the editor of the 20th Century Speeches volume summary begins, “The smear tactics of McCarthy and his philistine contempt for intellectuals …”, and on my blog, even though I don’t publish comments I do get them, and the first one was, “even a stopped watch is right twice a day”. The real difficulty is to know where and how to get a secure footing today in dealing with moral questions. I put this post up a week ago about looking for a book of Bible stories for my granddaughter, but while the Bible as literature is important, the Bible as morality is more important. And now it may all soon be gone.

And then there’s this – “9 charts that prove there’s never been a better time to be alive”

The charts demonstrate that the creativity of our Western civilisation is bringing a new prosperity to the entire planet, but whether it is bringing contentment is a different story altogether. And then, by coincidence, I came across this just today, in Paul Johnson’s Intellectuals, p66:

What Gladstone said, commenting on the increase in national wealth, was: ‘I should look almost with apprehension and with pain upon this intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power if it were my belief that it was confined to the class who are in easy circumstances…. The average condition of the British labourer, we have the happiness to know, has improved during the last twenty years in a degree which we know to be extraordinary, and which we may almost pronounce to be unexampled in in the history of any country and of any age.’

Whether this is the best time ever to have been alive, I do not know, but it is certainly our time. Hope you are making the best of it.

Where’s Joe McCarthy when you need him?

You cannot, of course, find a copy of Joe McCarthy’s speeches in any context other than negative, except perhaps here or in the writings of Diana West and M. Stanton Evans. Other than a few additions just to bring things up to the moment, these are McCarthy’s own words, even truer and more terrifying today than when they were first stated because the enemy is now almost entirely within the gates.

Speech of Joseph McCarthy, Wheeling, West Virginia, February 9, 1950

Ladies and gentlemen, tonight as we celebrate the one hundred forty-first two hundred and ninth birthday of one of the greatest men in American history, I would like to be able to talk about what a glorious day today is in the history of the world. As we celebrate the birth of this man who with his whole heart and soul hated war, I would like to be able to speak of peace in our time—of war being outlawed—and of world-wide disarmament. These would be truly appropriate things to be able to mention as we celebrate the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Five years after a world war has been won, men’s hearts should anticipate a long peace—and men’s minds should be free from the heavy weight that comes with war. But this is not such a period—for this is not a period of peace. This is a time of “the cold war.” This is a time when all the world is split into two three, perhaps four, vast, increasingly hostile armed camps — a time of a great armament race.

Today we can almost physically hear the mutterings and rumblings of an invigorated god of war. You can see it, feel it, and hear it all the way from the Indochina hills, from the shores of Formosa Taiwan, right over into the very heart of Europe itself.

The one encouraging thing is that the “mad moment” has not yet arrived for the firing of the gun or the exploding of the bomb which will set civilization about the final task of destroying itself. There is still a hope for peace if we finally decide that no longer can we safely blind our eyes and close our ears to those facts which are shaping up more and more clearly . . . and that is that we are now engaged in a show-down fight . . . not the usual war between nations for land areas or other material gains, but a war between two diametrically opposed ideologies.

The great difference between our western Christian world the atheistic Communist world and those who are our enemies is not political, gentlemen, it is moral. For instance, the Marxian idea of confiscating the land and factories and running the entire economy as a single enterprise is momentous. Likewise, Lenin’s invention of the one-party police state as a way to make Marx’s idea work is hardly less momentous.

Stalin’s resolute putting across of these two ideas, of course, did much to divide the world. With only these differences, however, the east and the west could most certainly still live in peace.

The real, basic difference, however, lies in the religion of immoralism . . . invented by Marx, preached feverishly by Lenin, and carried to unimaginable extremes by Stalin. This religion of immoralism, if the Red half of the world triumphs — and well it may, gentlemen — this religion of immoralism will more deeply wound and damage mankind than any conceivable economic or political system.

Karl Marx dismissed God as a hoax, and Lenin and Stalin have added in clear-cut, unmistakable language their resolve that no nation, no people who believe in a god, can exist side by side with their communistic state.

Karl Marx, for example, expelled people from his Communist Party for mentioning such things as love, justice, humanity or morality. He called this “soulful ravings” and “sloppy sentimentality.” . . .

Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down—they are truly down.

Lest there be any doubt that the time has been chosen, let us go directly to the leader of communism today—Joseph Stalin. Here is what he said—not back in 1928, not before the war, not during the war — but 2 years after the last war was ended: “To think that the Communist revolution can be carried out peacefully, within the framework of a Christian democracy, means one has either gone out of one’s mind and lost all normal understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated the Communist revolution.” . . .

Ladies and gentlemen, can there be anyone tonight who is so blind as to say that the war is not on? Can there by anyone who fails to realize that the Communist world has said the time is now? . . . that this is the time for the show-down between the democratic Christian world and the communistic atheistic [and anti-Christian] world?

Unless we face this fact, we shall pay the price that must be paid by those who wait too long.

As one of our outstanding historical figures once said, “When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be from enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within.” . . .

The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because our only powerful potential enemy has enemies have sent men to invade our shores . . . but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this Nation. It has not been the less fortunate, or members of minority groups who have been traitorous to this Nation, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest Nation on earth has had to offer . . . the finest homes, the finest college education and the finest jobs in government we can give.

This is glaringly true in the State Department [along with, today, the FBI, and Department of Justice and who knows where else?]. There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been most traitorous. . . .

I have here in my hand a list of 205 . . . a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department. . . .

As you know, very recently the Secretary of State proclaimed his loyalty to a man guilty of what has always been considered as the most abominable of all crimes — being a traitor to the people who gave him a position of great trust — high treason. . . .

He has lighted the spark which is resulting in a moral uprising and will end only when the whole sorry mess of twisted, warped thinkers are swept from the national scene so that we may have a new birth of honesty and decency in government.

Two days later, McCarthy spoke again. It is impossible to adjust the words because the rot has been so deep and the anti-freedom party has grown so large. You will see the point unless it is your desire not to.

Joseph McCarthy, addressing President Harry Truman, February 11, 1950

In the Lincoln Day speech at Wheeling Thursday night I stated that the State Department harbors a nest of Communists and Communist sympathizers who are helping to shape our foreign policy. I further stated that I have in my possession the names of 57 Communists who are in the State Department at present. A State Department spokesman promptly denied this, claiming that there is not a single Communist in the Department. You can convince yourself of the falsity of the State Department claim very easily. You will recall that you personally appointed a board to screen State Department employees for the purpose of weeding out fellow travelers—men whom the board considered dangerous to the security of this Nation. Your board did a painstaking job, and named hundreds which had been listed as dangerous to the security of the Nation, because of communistic connections.

While the records are not available to me, I know absolutely of one group of approximately 300 certified to the Secretary for discharge because of communism. He actually only discharged approximately 80. I understand that this was done after lengthy consultation with the now-convicted traitor, Alger Hiss. I would suggest, therefore, Mr. President, that you simply pick up your phone and ask Mr. Acheson how many of those whom your board had labeled as dangerous Communists he failed to discharge. The day the House Un-American Activities Committee exposed Alger Hiss as an important link in an international Communist spy ring you signed an order forbidding the State Department’s giving any information in regard to the disloyalty or the communistic connections of anyone in that Department to the Congress.

Despite this State Department black-out, we have been able to compile a list of 57 Communists in the State Department. This list is available to you but you can get a much longer list by ordering Secretary Acheson to give you a list of those whom your own board listed as being disloyal and who are still working in the State Department. I believe the following is the minimum which can be expected of you in this case.

1. That you demand that Acheson give you and the proper congressional committee the names and a complete report on all of those who were placed in the Department by Alger Hiss, and all of those still working in the State Department who were listed by your board as bad security risks because of their communistic connections.

2. That you promptly revoke the order in which you provided under no circumstances could a congressional committee obtain any information or help in exposing Communists.

Failure on your part will label the Democratic Party of being the bedfellow of international communism. Certainly this label is not deserved by the hundreds of thousands of loyal American Democrats throughout the Nation, and by the sizable number of able loyal Democrats in both the Senate and the House.

That was then. Today it is a conspiracy so vast it is almost impossible to fathom its extent. The Democratic Party, the Greens, the left in general, the media, the “entertainment” industry, the academic world and even big business who are, as ever, too short-sighted to understand a thing other than the bottom line, are now almost beyond reach. Other than the American president, who is there in a position of authority and power who can be the counterweight to the fantastic array of enemies our freedoms and our way of life now face?