^Watch the propaganda video in this link, which is meant to ricochet people into yet another descriptively lacking belief system.
Where does Jordan Peterson get it right? Where does he get it wrong?
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I definitely see he is so appealing. The students of today are more sensitive to the ideas they dislike than the students decades ago. I am saying it based on my experience in US campuses. Everything else that came out of his mouth seemed like a blatant lie. He didn't give a single evidence for all the claims he made. This is almost criminal in an academic sense. None of his arguments were self-evident either. How do we know the radical left are the professors of today? What is the evidence to support the claim that the problems in Venezuela are entirely or partly caused by its "socialist policies"? When part of Marx's idea led to the death of millions? I have read The Communist Manifesto and economy and politics. I am still looking. The freedom of speech argument is also void. There has always been a restriction in the United States to speak on certain issues. The likes of Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Zinn have rarely ever enjoyed that freedom.
He seems like an expert propagandist who knows his audience. Someone who hasn't read Marx and has suffered minor problems as a result of more inclusions would love his unverified statements. Not once did he quote a number for so many statements that he made except for the time he said Marx's ideas led to the death of "millions of death". The only dangerous ideologue that I am certain of from this video is Jordan Peterson.
ambesh18
Level 3
June 17, 2018
1
I agree with most of Jordan Peterson's views. I ran across the man on Youtube about a week ago, and I shared this video on Facebook.
The only issue Peterson gets wrong in my opinion is equating Marxism with Neo-Marxism, or what I call cultural Marxism. Although I believe both Stalin and Mao were unnecessarily brutal, they both must be given credit for taking rather backward nations and quickly bootstrapping them into the industrial revolution, and in the case of China through it. Their repressive forms of state socialism did not long outlast Stalin or Mao before collapse came to the Soviet Union and internal economic reform came to China. But I will argue that the good Stalin and Mao did for Russia and China far outweighs the bad that global capitalism is doing to the United States and Western Europe, "the West" that Peterson keeps referring to.
China has adopted state-directed capitalism and so far has done brilliantly with it. While there may be some bubbles in their economy that may burst, I see nothing so threatening as the immense debt that all Western nations have accumulated in recent decades. Even Russia's economy looks healthy compared to that of the US. It has immense natural wealth and modest national debt. Meanwhile, the US economy would have collapsed under its present debt load already if it didn't have the luxury of the US dollar as the global reserve currency and the world's most formidable military to back it up.
It is not the threat of imminent economic collapse hanging over the West that is the grave danger. It is the adoption of social liberalism (or social Marxism, if you prefer) in tandem with global capitalism that will lead to chaos and collapse. The US, Britain and all of Western Europe have thrown open their borders and invited in tens of millions of aliens from the Middle East and Africa (into Europe) as well as from India and Pakistan (into Britain) and from Mexico and Central America (into the US.) Nothing like this has ever happened in all of history. Already one can easily see civil war erupting throughout Western Europe and Britain in the next ten to twenty years. Some countries such as France will see it sooner than others. One will have to HOPE the Europeans take up the challenge of civil war, because any less response means the replacement of their existing populations by the invaders, a process that may take a few generations, but one that is certain nonetheless.
Regarding the United States, what is there to say about our grand social experiment other than it's failing at every level. The United States has been recently described as a place where a lot of diverse people agree to more-or-less get along for everyone's mutual economic advantage. But when the possibility of mutual economic advantage evaporates, these peoples who have nothing fundamentally in common will stop agreeing to get along. This will happen just at the time governments at all levels are collapsing due to bankruptcy. (People can sense this future, and it is the true reason nobody wants to give up their guns.)
Compare the terminal cancer now eating away the vitals of the West with what we find in the formerly Marxist nations. They all seem to be doing fine. Even Eastern Europe and Russia still have healthy populations who have resisted the neo-Marxist agenda. China and Vietnam are also in comparatively good shape compared to, say, Great Britain or the US. Why is this? For one thing, both Stalin and Mao were essentially nationalists. Neither tried to mix different ethnic groups within their established nations. The USSR divided its member republics up along distinct national boundaries. The Chinese, like all East Asians, abhorred the idea of alien immigrants entering the motherland. For these reasons all the former Marxist nations are still fundamentally healthy and can look forward to favorable futures. Not so with the West. This is the difference between traditional Marxism and neo-Marxism, or what we in America call contemporary liberalism. It is the difference between temporary poverty and terminal cancer.
Perhaps Jordan Peterson understands this difference but chose not to highlight it, not wanting to complicate his argument beyond what he thought his audience was prepared to accept. Let us hope so.
skeptic99
Level 5
June 14, 2018
0
I also agree with some of his views, and he says some things that people badly need to hear.
I am noticing some memetics that are meant to encourage votes for right-wing parties there, but clearly you have given lots of thought to this matter, anyway, and I don't think you are an automatic believer, you come off as one of the more intelligent ones (in which case, you are too smart for politics, get into metapolitics, macropolitics along with micropolitics, go to a library and binge or take a hobby in STEM where you will be engaged mentally, just whatever your brain says to do when it's well-tended)
Don't fall for the trap that "The republican or libertarian guy is going to do the right thing." All they're going to do is put their cohorts in positions, and they will shut out innocent and well-deserving people from the pork-barrel, while piggy-backing completely ignorant regulations, like they always do.
You seem to be very convinced that a socioeconomic apocalypse is at hand. It's not, okay? The USA is a modular, cloud-based design, and we're nowhere weak enough to be conquered through violence.
I agree on your implied attitude about immigration. We need to be more bio-hygienic when it comes to letting people live here for a residential amount of time.
I don't want to attack the technocracy because they get access to the most, if not all the necessary teachings for understanding policy, but when it comes to such fluctuations in the health of a civilization, the best the analysts will do is just say some meme from an economics textbook like "well everything has diminishing returns"
^This is one of those points where I notice that mind is retreating.
The sciences are supposed to be absolute, but for some reason, disagreement about the value of immigrants has caused the government to just allow whoever.
So in looking at the profile of the issue, it seems that control-nexuses of central power like the banks, military, police, metabusinesses, PMC's, voting blocs, supercomputer outlets and such have adopted a suicidal strategy of admitting in low-intelligence people from other countries, for the purpose of boosting the sales of products and services (materialism, impulse expenditure, and such will go up with lowered intelligence, as hard as empirics will try to hide it)
Now, you seem to be convinced that China, Vietnam, and Russia are in good shape. This is not fully supported by the relevant data. The US's platform is still, luckily, more supportive of economic growth, social progress, and general improvement because it plays host to basically all belief systems, and the dominant system is a system that is about economic growth, promoting innovation, etc. with no help from the conservative population who still thinks that they make the country a better place by doing the same basic things.
We just have a problem with chronic degenerates and people of low-intelligence who want to continue the same failed cultures over and over, while feeding the "bads" market. When we work against those things in a respective and rapidly progressive manner, the people will shoulder the mantle of the USA better, which is to always out-compete everybody, and seek to stay #1.
I also want to note that the american left, as incorrect and destructive as most of their ideas are, is a good way of reminding the right that not everything is based off of faith, toil, homeland infatuation, conformity, strength, aggression and hardship, and that's why most of the ideas that are on the right are incorrect and destructive.
The Soviet Union practiced state capitalism. Means of production owned by the state is not socialism."But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit."
- Engels.
@DZhukovin I am pessimistic about the future of the US for two reasons: 1. Racial/ethnic differences; 2. economics.
First, I'll give my own axiom: two nations cannot long share the same country... much less three, or four or a dozen more. And that is what we have in the United States. The country began as a single white nation with a non-white slave population and a native population we were actively at war with. We have never resolved the distinct differences that separate the white nation and the black nation. Native Americans were either killed, put onto reservations or absorbed into the lower class of the white population. Now we are adding a huge new Hispanic population, a third nation, to the United States, as well as a significant Asian nation, which is itself comprised of people from several Asian nations. So that is four distinct racial groups, or nations, assuming the various Hispanics and Asians all combine into unified wholes.
There is no example I can think of where such a thing has ever worked. The only two countries in Europe that are comprised of two or more distinct nations that did not wind up in a civil war are Belgium and Switzerland. In both countries there is a weak federal government that allows peoples from different national backgrounds (French speaking and Dutch speaking in Belgium, and German, French and Italian speaking peoples in Switzerland) to live in distinct and separate regions or cantons (in Switzerland). There is no liberal government forcing the peoples together. The local regions all have a great deal of autonomy on things like education and all the other affairs that can be handled by local government. Other countries comprised of more than one nation, such as the former Yugoslavia, all break apart after episodes of violence and civil war. I honestly see the United States heading towards the same kind of conflicts as beset the Balkan nations, but because we are so much more diverse racially than the Balkan nations were, we have the possibility of much more violence.
Economics is the second reason I am pessimistic about our future. Our social experiment has worked so far only because the federal government has an unlimited ability to write checks to buy off the people. After coming out on top in WW II the US won the right to have the world's reserve currency. Having the dollar as the global currency gives us a huge advantage in international finance. We are much more wealthy as a result of this status. We are able to print the extra money to finance our debts only because we have this special status for the dollar. I don't think we will enjoy this status ten years from now. China is growing too fast while the US is mired in endless internal conflicts stemming from our "diversity." Economic collapse is coming. It's only a matter of time and the right spark to burn down the existing economic structure. The last time this happened was during the 1930s. The country was a single united nation then with immense untapped resources. Today we are comprised of at least four nations, and probably a fifth and sixth if you include the Jewish nation within the US and the growing Muslim nation here. Most of our underground oil has been pumped, and so have vast underground water aquifers. I'm not bullish on the United States long term.
The only possible way to make the United States work would be to follow the Swiss model, allowing different ethnic groups to exist in distinct regions with immense local autonomy, thus avoid all the constant conflict; however, I see no reason for this arrangement. It worked in Switzerland and Belgium only because these were two small countries even by European standards, and if you broke them down into their respective ethnic components there would not be enough left to be a viable state. In contrast, the United States is an immense country. I could see it easily carved into three large ethno states with a smaller fourth state for Asians on the west Coast of California. All would be plenty big enough to be viable states. And what reason would they have to remain together?
Okay so up until now, we have not necessarily disagreed, but I find some malformed statements there.
I think that the US has played host to an array of conflicting distinctions of people since basically the very beginning, which goes far beyond race and ethnic origin. Trying to untangle this problem is not unfeasible due to the scale, but I think what we are seeing is that we're producing such an abundance of incapable types, while not improving as a political system, which is underlying all of our problems.
In the future, we may see one or two economies become wealthier than ours, but these will all be symptoms of how we live our way of life, our systemic traditions, and such.
We may see fantastic people who are born in financially horrible circumstances have absolutely no means of saving themselves, and that is going to play a significant part in the up-swing of our nation's downfall (right now, we are in a passive phase. Everything we have been using to invigorate our people, like promises of riches, religion, etc. have failed because we don't understand the essence and mechanics of what we are working with.
We have a monolithic, moody political system without the faintest clue of what certain policies mean.
We are at a point where, in our advisory cabinets, we can have two Ph.D economists from the top universities discuss policy, but start to disagree because they don't understand the essence of what is being talked about, and things like that are the very underpinning of why our bottom standard of living is too low, why our businesses are not earning well enough, why our military needs work, why we don't have enough rights, why college students come under attack for study, why we have become conformist, why we are a nation of mostly complete idiots, why people don't respect the rights of others, why we have nationwide health issues, and all of that other stuff which is going to play into why economically ambitious countries like China will out-do us.
@DZhukovin China will out-perform and out-compete the United States because it has a lot more brains than we do. East Asians have higher average IQs than we have in the US -- and our average IQ is declining due to lax immigration standards; and it has over three times our population. Plus, China is a homogenous nation. They have none of the internal racial and cultural conflict that now defines the United States. China can focus on improving their nation, while we struggle to define and even comprehend ours. As I said, two or more nations cannot share the same country. Look at the history of India and Pakistan for an example. Racially, I see little to no difference between the two peoples, yet because of religion alone they split apart after breaking away from British colonial rule and have been deadly enemies since.
@DZhukovin In a nutshell I agree with Peterson that all the ideas and values that liberals are instilling into our society and our young people are pernicious. Granted, much of what passes for conservatism is filled with its own contradictions and poisons, but liberalism is not the solution to conservatism.
What tripe. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are bad?
Lop-Eared-Mule
Level 7
June 13, 2018
0
Those words do not always mean fair terms for people who do not meet the political preferences of the organizations in charge. This has been talked about for over two years now, there is no reason for people not to pick up on this. We do NOT use a fair and impartial system in some spheres of our country, and it violates the rights of people who wish to enter certain organizations.
This is a really good response video to your questions!
Shanabanana
Level 4
June 11, 2018
0
I have been long-aware of CultOfDusty, and such channels. I'm not really a fan of those channels for a long time now (maybe over a year), because they don't really back their views up with good sources, or talk about any good sources, but thank you, now discussion on this post is opened up because someone paid attention and had input.
I also want to note that Jordan Peterson takes truth in a normative sense, but will never be able to prove this, because basically all statements can be evaluated with analytical techniques to show why they are true, or false, and this is taught in basically every college. I don't know why Jordan Peterson finds any merit in using stream of consciousness in the midst of intelligent discussion, it just doesn't work.
However now, I see what you were trying to say, even though the response was packaged in an insult to the intelligence-Jordan Peterson is just expressing the type of person he is, and is expressing his own mistaken thinking.
His ideas are not going to permeate far, because they're not necessary conclusions from necessary points of reference.
He is not an affirmable perspective, and it's because he's kind of corrupt in the mind from all of this nonsense about religion, tradition, etc. along with his own emotions. He's not an outlet for solutions, any new knowledge of value, etc. and he's not better than other authors with thoughts.
I stopped the video at the 3:30 minute mark. The speaker had been building his emotional attack to this point, but I patiently kept waiting for a serious argument, hoping one might develop. The screed gained intensity. When the speaker called Peterson "a fucking dick" I stopped the video, admitting further listening would be a waste of time.
@skeptic99 Well since you won't listen, Peterson is being FUNDED by some crazy ass right wing Christian fundamentalists to push their agenda in a more "hip and seemingly more intelligent manner" he makes long winded arguments to come to basic ass conclusions. I cannot believe that skeptics are falling for this conman. Its so obvious what hes doing.
@skeptic99 Quote from Peterson "NAZISM was an atheist doctrine. So was Marxism"
"Quote from Peterson "NAZISM was an atheist doctrine. So was Marxism"
...and that is exactly how he is ping-ponging people into right-wing beliefs, and furthering stupid ideas. That is the main impetus for my normative disagreement with him.
Recent Visitors 52
Photos
Posted by DZhukovin[prod-cdn-static.
Posted by johnnyrobish US Now Officially Has a Space Force and a Space Command While no one seems quite certain as to exactly what they will actually be doing, President Trump has signed into law America’s newest ...
Posted by johnnyrobish Trump’s Favorite Cable-News Channel is Now One America News President Trump’s current favorite cable-news network is no longer the Fox News channel, which sometimes disagrees with him, but ...
Posted by johnnyrobishTrump Claims Women Tell Him Dishwashers Don’t Work Right Anymore: President Trump continued addressing the great plumbing issues of our time during a recent Michigan rally, by telling followers ...
Posted by RenickulousGun control perspective