The Jordan Peterson movement
Jordan Peterson is an old friend of this blog, which I'm sure he reads, even though for obvious PR reasons he can't quite admit to the fact. Mr. Peterson is getting increasing amounts of mainstream attention after he utterly and completely destroyed some dumb journo British woman a couple of weeks ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
I won't pull the hipster move of saying I was into Peterson before he was cool. But I have written quite a lot about the man, his ideas, and why he's so popular. Do check it out.
In short, the reason why Peterson is so successful is that he's selling a single proposition. It's OK to be Christian. More precisely, he's selling It's OK to be a White, Christian Man. That is of course a revolutionary slogan, as White Christian men are the officially most low-status people in the West. They're not even just deprivated, they're the enemy of the state. Not just low, positively evil. Well, we know that selling hope and validation to low-status people is very good business. And as it happens, the low status of White Christian Men is not the result of any natural law, but the highly unnatural result of a centuries old political endeavor. Peterson slightly hints at that. Just pull yourselves together, White Christian Men, and you'll be the ruling class again. Nature Says So.
Anyway, the mainstream media has started to notice our good Dr. Peterson. That is not good. It's good short term, in that some sympathetic people will find them and give him money. But mid term it's very bad. The hornet nest won't allow anyone to give hope to White Christian Men. Some trolls in the US printed some fliers across the country saying: It's OK to be White. It went to every single Cathedral outlet and the response was unanimous: Nazis! It's most positively NOT OK to be White in the Current Year. So it follows that someone is going to come down on Jordan Peterson like a ton of bricks. And eventually someone smarter or more resourceful than the Channel 4 broad will be put in charge of taking Peterson down.
I wonder what it will be. Some fabricated (or not) #metoo scandal? Surely plenty of nubile co-eds have thrown themselves at their handsome alpha professor over the years. Accusations of racism? They've already found an old Tweet of him making a (pretty accurate) race joke. Maybe that sticks.
The question is what he will do later. Apologize? We all know where that leads to. Instant death. Mr. Peterson is walking a very thin rope here. Conquest's Second Law is very clear: Anything that isn't explicitly right wing turns left-win over time. Will Peterson cuck down and submit? Or will he stand on his feet and fight back as the leader of the deprived young Christian masses?
54 comments
[…] The Jordan Peterson movement […]
Right now, I'm more concerned about something a blogger called "Grey Enlightenment" has been proposing: Jordan Peterson finally was able to stop the Overton Window shift to the RIGHT. He took roots in the center and is acting as a massive barrier now, something that lesser people (Such as Sargon) failed to do over and over - even at our worst moments (Charlottesville), we were still managing to push the Window towards us. And Peterson manages that because he has both the Credentials and he's incredibly well Outspoken - he knows how to lay out his ideas and is well versed in debate. Now, it was no secret that, as we at the Vanguard of the movement pushed for more "extreme" ideas, the major gain was being made is moving people out of Cuckservatism and into Libertarianism and similar, like in a Pyramid, where what the Minority Top does get irradiated (and diluted) until reaching the Mass Bottom (critical mass), and then these people were ready to climb one more step in the pyramid and the Redpilling/Overton Window process followed. Leftists tried to prevent people from flocking towards us by creating a narrative about us. The people wouldn't be hearing what we had to talk from our mouths, but the distorted narrative from the Media's. This worked wonderfully at the extreme left and very well at the center left, but everyone else to the center and to the right were still flocking towards us. Until Jordan Peterson, when he decided to say: YOU SHALL NOT PASS.
Grey Enlightenment is coming out with some pretty lame stuff atm supporting Harris in his argument with Taleb over, of all things, Taleb's lack of peer-reviewed research papers. If anyone is moving to occupy the centre it's Grey "Enlightenment".
It requires a fair amount of delusional purism to think that a highly articulate and respectable person speaking your truths in diluted form and thereby incurring the full wrath of your enemies is somehow bad news for the cause. There are a LOT of people you can't reach if your only champions are trolls, Jew-baiting morons, and weirdos who write lots of text and refuse to show their faces or use their real names, all of whom are highly vulnerable to the charge of being sympathetic to Nazis. A very old friend of mine, a somewhat apolitical, somewhat cucked normie, would never really tune in when I tried to present him with alt-right or anti-feminist ideas, or when I tried to point him to various blogs. I've been doing this for years. "Eh, sounds kinda Nazi," he'd say. A few days ago he says, "Hey, have you heard of this Jordan Peterson guy? He's amazing. I've been listening to his videos nonstop."
Good thing you're patronising a guy who's clearly controlled opposition, who's trying to push people towards Cuckservatism all over again. https://www.bitchute.com/video/kLQ0XFkc3zGy/
No playing with people's usernames. Next time get banned. I don't mind anons.
I didn't watch that whole video, but the gist I got is that he's a cuck because he distances himself from Jew-baiting. Guess what? Blatant anti-Semitism is highly unpalatable to normies, such that they won't listen to a word you say once you start going on about the JQ. What Peterson is selling is that social conservatism is personally enriching. Jews have very little to do with his message (though I understand that for some, the JQ is central to EVERYTHING). If Jews are at the root of every social problem, I still think there's something to be said for battling their ideas with other ideas. The Grey Enlightenment argument I'm hearing is that people who would otherwise be reading, say, The Daily Stormer, are instead listening to Peterson and stopping their rightward movement there. But those people (if a single one exists) are vastly outnumbered by those who would instead be listening to, say, Dr. Phil or Ben Shapiro or even the Daily Show, or maybe their cucked out local pastor, people who would take one look at the Daily Stormer, dismiss it as Nazi bullshit, and move on.
>I didn’t watch that whole video Then I don't expect anything from you, think what you want.
Anti-communism is anti-communism. I don't care if it's coming from alt-right "Nazis" or classical liberal "Grey Enlightenment". Either is good.
But it is what JP sells (when he takes on the role of a seller, which I believe to be the 10% of his speech, activity, identity, and intention) what can find good reception in the market. He's as off-the-center (to the right) as it can be politically expedient to be. That's why, should his popularity continue its uprise, one expects the Cathedral to torpedo him.
Stop trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. There's always been moderates and mainstreamers. To the extent they convince people to overtly speak and behave in a more rightwing manner than those people would otherwise, they are a net benefit. The time to criticize him will be once his position is considered centrist, rather than "surprisingly well-spoken alt-righter".
He already cucked by disinviting Faith Goldy from a "free speech" event and has nothing but effusive praise for Jews. Dude's just a brighter than average boomer. He's Tony Robbins for millennials. Don't expect too much.
Faith Goldy is badly in need of a manager, I think.
No thots is good policy in my book.
I don't know. One hot girl pimping you ideology in media can be more powerful than a thousand LARPing males.
Yeah, but the farthest right you can get there is Ann Coulter.
Because he is getting loads of money, cancelling his tenure would fail and backfire, so they have to murder him, The attack on Ethan Van Sciver indicates that they are reluctant to murder Jordan Peterson under present circumstances. Any full on attack on him as an islamophobic homophobic transphobic racist sexist fascist sexist nazi would backfire. They want to isolate him first. Just as it will require extraordinary means to neutralize Trump, will require extraordinary means to neutralize Jordan Peterson. Extraordinary means are certainly being considered and given a dry run. Whether they will be carried out, hard to say.
[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]
JP won’t fall unless found in bed with a dead girl or live boy...anyways why nay-say the exposure? Mr. Potter: “Confound it man! Are you afraid of success?”
They are not equals and there is no real exchange of ideas. The journalist is beautiful, high class, but rather stupid. Only worth talking to her if it leads to the bed.
You would even fantasize relations with that scold? Son, there are some women you only talk to if it keeps them out of your bed.
Hah your are forgetting that J is by his own admission a fat, old, jew. Sure if you are a millennial man in the prime of their life, then that woman is distinctly unappetizing but considering his advanced age and the reality of Anglo-American women of that particular age cohort, that Shrew is actually likely in the top decile. That and maybe the Shiksappeal?
没错
Is that Chinese for "Don't be nasty to other commenters, please; it's not helpful"?
It's Chinese for 'let's you and him fight"
I hadn't seen this Cathy person till now, and thought with these comments it was probably failure to appreciate 'the mature beauty', but holy shit--this broad cultivates a feminist ugliness and it will definitely get worse and more slatternly--bra-less, armpit hair, hideous blowzy-dame hair, even worse than that endless parade of PBS English girl-skeletons as in Downton Abbey and the like. Ancient Gloria Steinem looks younger. This 'Cathy' harebrain probably thinks she looks more 'serious' without the desperately-needed facelift. She's 4 years younger than Melania, who's more gorgeous than ever (at 47!) since she rightfully became furious at her husband's incredibly grotesque taste (having been around a block or two, she was fully aware of the 'infidelity', a strange word to use in conjunction with Trump) and TEN years younger than Katty Kay of BBC, who's still a beautiful, classy lady and she and her husband Tom Carver are a classic 'purty couple', as is said in the South. briefly off-topic--the 'official photos' of 'Stormy Daniels' look like a corpse, but I also saw the whole google of her 'images', it is one horror after another--not even a cow, just a pig. Melania has the chops, though, slaughtered her husband's piggishness and Hillary's dread bottom-heaviness in one fell swoop by wearing Dior version of Hillary's pantsuit. Made Ivanka look like ordinary schoolgirl. I had difficulty thus far getting much of this, often do with youTube, but will keep trying. Have read about him--elegant fellow I thought would be more macho, but that doesn't happen in Canada much in the stereotype way. I'll read some of your old pieces about him, but thought Brooks's piece did dispense with Miss Newman admirably, definitely good for introducing him. I did catch Peterson laughing at her stupidity once so far though. Looking forward to more.
Why is irony so hard to detect?
So what you're saying is that it's not OK to be White?
I think the correct strategy is neither apologizing nor fighting back but simply ignoring the charges. No reaction whatsoever. The media lives off attention and sensationalism, that there is a conflict going on, a controversy, and it always takes two to fight. When someone launches accusations and the other just does not say a word, it stops being an interesting sensation pretty quickly. What can they do? They can remind readers every week that there is still no answer? How quickly readers get bored of it? I know it is very hard not to answer, that is why their strategy usually works. Imagine someone in a bar accusing you of stealing their wallet or something. It is very hard to not answer to that. But if you do and keep arguing you never come well out of it because people have blurry memory and all they will remember you are the guy who was involved in some sort of a wallet stealing scandal or something like that. They will not remember you innocence, they won't even remember who was the accused and the accuser they just remember those two dudes had some wallet stealing trouble going on. And that means both of you are now suspicious and "off". But if you are capable to not say anything then all people will remember that some crazy dude threw accusations left and right but nobody gave a damn, they won't even remember whom he accused. So the way he should want people remember these future charges is "Yet another case of some chick accusing someone with sexual misconduct. Whom? I am not sure. Some professor." and the only way to do that is no reply whatsoever.
Exactly so. Similarly, the most consistent and reliable Game technique is the deadpan. Nonreactivity is the key. Strive to be stoic and laconic punctuated by sudden flashes of brilliance to spike emotion.
Like Disraeli said: never complain, never explain. Ignore them.
That the state has to suppress white Christians perversely is to trumpet their supremacy. Especially when they do things like 'stereotype threat' they're saying white Christians are so powerful that the state's official persecution of them isn't working.
He has been doing very well so far.
"I wonder what it will be. Some fabricated (or not) #metoo scandal? Surely plenty of nubile co-eds have thrown themselves at their handsome alpha professor over the years. Accusations of racism? They’ve already found an old Tweet of him making a (pretty accurate) race joke. Maybe that sticks. The question is what he will do later. Apologize? We all know where that leads to. Instant death. Mr. Peterson is walking a very thin rope here. Conquest’s Second Law is very clear: Anything that isn’t explicitly right wing turns left-win over time. Will Peterson cuck down and submit? Or will he stand on his feet and fight back as the leader of the deprived young Christian masses?" Relevant. I don't think he would cuck. His whole philosophy is "speak the truth". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BoOdMx\_zDU
spandrell, I still believe you have Peterson significantly wrong. You say: "he’s selling a single proposition. It’s OK to be Christian. More precisely, he’s selling It’s OK to be a White, Christian Man." Peterson's Christianity has nothing to do with robust, sincere religious belief. You are apparently European in origin, so maybe the idea of civilization that you would like to see restored within Europe, would involve Christianity primarily as moral code, cultural legacy, civilizational glue. Peterson's Jungian interpretation of Christianity I suppose is on that level. It's Christianity as symbolism. This is a philosophy that a modern, secular, scientific-minded individual could accept. I can't see Petersonism becoming the philosophy of a nation, but it could be one thread in a robust intellectual culture. In Victorian England, there must have been intellectuals who accepted that science was undermining the basis of literal belief in Christianity, but who still defended it as worthwhile from other perspectives. Peterson is like that. But it seems to me that his main relevance for the future of Christianity, is that he might get secular-minded nonbelievers to think twice about attacking Christianity or agitating to replace it with something else. It will open the minds of his fanbase, and maybe a few apparatchiks or talking heads will question the wisdom of their ways. However, this is not the kind of thing that is meaningful to actual believing Christians - people who read the Bible as a guide to reality, and who listen to other people who similarly believe the Bible to be the word of God. They have their own resources and seek strength elsewhere, like in Trump or the Pope! And I see no indication that Peterson sees himself as a shepherd and savior of *those* people. Peterson unquestionably defends masculinity, he defends European civilization and thus implicitly the European race (up to a point), and he attacks the anti-biological, blank-slate constructionism which justifies the new left's "bioleninism". Maybe what he really stands for is bourgeois civilization, family values, and respect for tradition. The 1950s version of the West.
Christianity is collapsing among millennials. Lots of young people in North America are leaving the faith. I believe Peterson talks to that kind of people. He's making Christianity cool again. I might be wrong, but lots of other people are defending masculinity and civilization and bourgeois values. None are getting the amount of money Peterson is.
Listen to one of Peterson's talks where he looks at the Bible through a mythic/Jungian lens and then listen to one where he does the same thing with Pinocchio. To him, Christianity is only true in what it reveals about the minds and psychological needs of man. In the land of Maoist academics I suppose a classic liberal might seem rightist but I can't see how anyone in these circles would make that mistake.
Christianity is only true as it pertains to the state of man as low-entropy organism in a chaotic and uncertain world. “Rightist” just means “whoever’s losing at the moment”.
The right is whatever opposes the left. I can't see how anyone in these circles would not understand this definition by now.
Left is entropic, right is any sort of anti-entropic tendency? (Billions of dissociated exactly similar particles hovering in the void at random distances from each other would be the entropic end-state?)
Look at the Pepe video. When pressed he acts as if he’s been photographed with teens throwing Crip signs. Just trying to save some lost boys from a dangerous ideology. Yeah, he’s a regular Evola. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jordan peterson crying&t=h_&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=IvBm0ZUfe7I
His ideas in his academic field are interesting, if somewhat limited but they are at best orthogonal to our goals. They are also, in the end, subversive an universalizing towards religious belief. In terms of his political ideas, I’m glad he’s a fly in the ointment to Canadian human rights radicals but anyone not on the bleeding edge of the singularity is attacked by the left. That’s not much of a standard. He pushes the meme that we are the flip side of the SJW. He’s at best a gateway thinker and an unwilling one. We should be spamming his media with links to truer stuff.
That's kinda what I did on my posts about him.
You’re missing the point. There is one and only one thing that matters, and that is mainstream acceptance of Darwinian thinking. Darwinism is the most powerful force in this world. It tells us what is and explains why it is. There is a reason that the foundation of the teetering zombie that is Progressivism is founded on the single precept, “we hold these truths self-evident, that all men are created equal”, and that reason is that Darwin wasn’t yet around to smash it to smithereens, just like he did Christianity and which he will do, inevitably, to Progressivism. Get Darwinism right — i.e. take evolution seriously — and everything downstream will take care of itself.
There is a lot of truth in this comment. I also strongly recommend Frazer's "The Golden Bough" to anyone interested in Peterson's take on Christianity. The 1994 Oxford Classics edition (edited by Fraser, with an s) is a very good compilation of fairly rambling original work. It may seem like it takes a while to get to the point, but the overall patterns he demonstrates, and the relevance to Christianity, and the implications for a modern society that is largely disconnected from agriculture, are of critical importance.
I’ve sampled various Christian denominations in various geographical regions and strata of society, and while the specific forms it takes differ greatly, it is virtually universally empty. And even strangely creepy and unsettling in a way that real Progressivism is not. There’s no reason for anyone to adhere to a dead religion.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy is thriving it seems.
Catholicism? Depends how you look at it. The Pope is a hard-core leftist. Lots of South American Catholics are liberation theology devotees. You've got traditional Catholics among black Africans, I guess. That's pretty much a guaranteed way to split whites away from Catholicism, if the only place "real" Catholicism survives is in Africa. In the USA, Catholics are either leftists or stone-age mentality Biblical literalists. (Ann Barnhardt is a good example here. She says plenty of things that are true, but keeps ruining it when she starts talking about the mystical chemical transmutation of communion wafers into flesh and blood. No, that's not actually happening, no matter how much your belief needs it to be so.) I don't know much about Orthodoxy. It is widely credited with helping the eastern europeans get past communism, for sure.
He also hides his powerlevel extremely well. When he presented a psychiatric case for the relative lack of success of women in the workplace he spoke about Agreeableness. Yet an actually far more significant factor is women's higher Neuroticism. Which would have been quite on point given the journalist's behaviour. But an argument on Agreeableness is vastly more pleasant to hear, so he picked that instead, and what a homerun it was. Relatedly, when asked about the current hard immigration policy of our new nationalist government, a former socialist minister answered: "The only difference between their policy and mine is that they look like they enjoy it. So lesson today: hide your powerlevel, don't make it look like you enjoy it.
White Christian Men, and you’ll be the ruling class again. Nature Says So. Well, not to be annoying on purpose... but I think history always follows nature's rules, and, by those rules, the ruling class is... the ruling class we have now. That could be changed with discriminatory laws, sure. Watching some of his late videos, I'd say a) He is very Cathedral-wise b) He's taking a low profile, agilely skirting all political/social pits I also don't think he's much racially-minded, or politically-minded, no more so than his being overall truth-minded leads him to be. To me he looks as a blend of a philosopher and psychologist who's doing a job nothing does. Basically, teaching (without much depth, and non-superficially) what a school system would be teaching if there still were one. But he could be driven by the motivations you guess, and just be very ably hiding them.
> I won’t pull the hipster move of saying I was into Peterson before he was cool. The ultimate hipster move is of course to say you were into [person] but you won't brag about it. That said you've wholly deserved non-bragging rights for noticing Peterson way back.
typo: "response was anonymous" -- should be "unanimous"
Thank you.
...reason why Peterson is so successful is that he’s selling a single proposition. the reason Peterson is so successful is he's a good salesman and there's a big market for his goods. the reason why xtianity is so successful is that 99% of us are looking for a way into the 1%.