Tuesday, May 22, 2018

An apology to Jordan Peterson

In which I apologize to Jordan Peterson for an erroneous accusation.

These revelations about the man are entirely consistent with his philosophy. His philosophy is openly evil; His philosophy is not, contra most of his fans' assumptions, respectful of the Bible and respectful of Christianity in any way. You know, the fact that you talk about them as myth and you talk about the importance of myth and all this sort of thing is it's more polite than calling them fairy stories, but in some ways it's actually more damaging because if you're a frothing-at-the-mouth New Atheist who is just complaining about fairy tales and no evidence and that sort of thing, you're very easily dismissed. It's very very easy to demonstrate that what those people are saying is objectively false.

On the other hand, when you are talking about myth, and you're talking about tradition, and you're babbling away in this huge fog of barely penetrable citations and these meandering streams of references that resemble a Joycean novel more than anything else, more than anything coherent, it's it's difficult to disprove that because it's just nonsense. I mean, how how do you factually disprove ambiguous nonsense? You know, it's very, very difficult because there's nothing there. When somebody tells you 2+2 is 37, it's relatively easy to to prove that that's not the case, but when the person is going on and babbling about the snake in the tree is because the Garden of the Eden, and children in the trees, and vision over the horizons, and this relates to the shame one feels, and is not worthy of taking one's pills... I mean how do you disprove that?

There's nothing there to disprove, it's just this streaming salad of words. It's like being presented with a fruit salad and someone says "well critique that, critique that argument!" Yeah, you're looking at it and, I mean forget, Stefan Molyneux's "that's not an argument", I mean, it's a fruit salad! There's nothing to it, there's nothing to argue about it, and so, you know, it's it's very difficult for me to deal with Peterson's defenders because what they do is they inform you that he really means X when he says Y, and so how do you argue with that?

All you can say is well, no, he said what he said.  They say, no, but that's because he would get in trouble in Canada, you know, he has to be careful of what he says, and he has to speak this nonsense but what he really means is... you know, then they come up with something. Sometimes they come up with something sensible, more often they don't, but it's all nonsense. And so there's a reason why Peterson tells his fans not to read Maps of Meaning because when you read Maps of Meaning, if you are able to not be overly impressed by this stream of barely relevant citations and references, even if you don't understand the references well enough to understand that he doesn't always know what he's talking about, you still have to understand that the connection of these things isn't there.

It's because he's drawing such bizarre connections that if I were to simply prove that his syllogism doesn't hold up, the average person's response to me is going to be "well what does that have to do with it?" To which my response is EXACTLY! It's both wrong and unrelated at which point the sufficiently intelligent or the sufficiently open-minded individual realizes Jordan Peterson is crazy. But the Peterson defender just does the "I can't hear you, I don't want to hear it, you know he's doing so much good!" But what Peterson is functionally doing in terms of the "good" that he is doing is that he is helping young men jump from the fire into the frying pan. Now you might say oh that's good, you know, that's progress, but it's really not, because whether you're in the fire or whether you're in the frying pan you're still going to get cooked. There is no natural progression from the fire to the frying pan to getting out of the kitchen.

The revelations to which I referred in the video are these, which is the news that in 2009, Jordan Peterson attempted to dismiss as conspiracy theory the accusations of a police officer concerning a high-level coverup of a pedophile ring in Canada. It's hard not to recall that similar accusations of coverups by the authorities were similarly dismissed in the well-known cases Jimmy Savile, Rotherham, and Telford scandals, to name but a few, before being subsequently confirmed.
Commissioner G. Normand Glaude concluded Tuesday that children were sexually abused by people in positions of authority and that public institutions failed victims by mishandling complaints dating back to the 1960s.

But many were looking to him to lay to rest a more sinister explanation for those events, that it was the work of a pedophile ring and a cover-up that reached all the way to the Attorney General's office was at play.

He did not, saying in his 1600-page report that he would not make an unequivocal statement about the theory either way.

For some, it may not have mattered.

An explanation that to some appears to debunk a conspiracy theory just further confirms others' suspicions, said University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson.

"It's very difficult to disprove a conspiracy theory, because every bit of disproving evidence can be just written off as additional evidence that these conspirators are particularly intelligent and sneaky," he said.

Conspiracy theories are usually started by people who are very untrusting and it gathers steam among others who are somewhat untrusting, Peterson said.

They're psychologically compelling because they neatly tie together troubling facts or assertions, he said. When things go badly there are often many explanations, and an orchestrated conspiracy "should be pretty low on your list of plausible hypotheses," Peterson said.

"A good rule of thumb is: Don't presume malevolence where stupidity is sufficient explanation," he said.

"Organizations can act badly and things can fall apart without any group of people driving that."

While Glaude made no definitive statements about a ring, he declared there was not a conspiracy by several institutions to cover up the existence of any such operation, rather that agency bungling left that impression.
I recall to your attention my reliable heuristic for detecting evil: does it justify, rationalize, excuse, defend, encourage, advocate, or require sex with children in any way, openly or covertly, directly or indirectly? Then it is evil, topped by an evil sauce, with a side of evil.

And given that we already know Jordan Peterson's philosophy is evil, given that we already know that the man himself is seriously disturbed, we can't pretend to be too surprised to discover that its true depths may be considerably deeper than anyone imagined.

Labels: ,


Blogger tublecane May 22, 2018 6:05 AM  

I am suspicious of people who take public stands against conspiracy theories. Not anyone who calls this or that a conspiracy theory in a negative sense, but people who stand against conspiracy theories as such.

A guy like Peterson who buys into Official Conspiracy Theories like the Holocaust hook, line, and sinker is on no position to cast stones .

Blogger Dr Sarcasticus May 22, 2018 6:15 AM  

Thank you for bringing attention to the pedophile ring in Cornwall. At first I thought JBP was just an academic being propped up as controlled opposition. After doing some research I see it's much more malevolent. I appreciate all your efforts in exposing this cretin.

Blogger Helldoge Desotryer May 22, 2018 6:47 AM  

Vox's form of speech is highly literate. Wonder what would happen if you wrote down what Peterson said in one of his videos?

Blogger stareatgoatsies May 22, 2018 6:53 AM  

> does it justify, rationalize, excuse, defend, encourage, advocate, or require sex with children in any way, openly or covertly, directly or indirectly

But he didn't do any of those things. He questioned the veracity of one specific aggregation of evil. All of those verbs require a presumption of existence.

These things matter in general, but particularly when you risk unjustly tarring an innocent with the paedophile brush.

Blogger VD May 22, 2018 7:06 AM  

Vox's form of speech is highly literate.

In fairness, I eliminate the repetitions and some of the "you know" and I mean" vocal tics that I habitually commit from the transcripts.

But he didn't do any of those things.

Of course he did. He indirectly defended it. There is absolutely NOTHING innocent about Jordan Peterson and his incestuous cannibal fantasies. He didn't have to insert himself into the situation and very publicly dismiss to excuse the behavior of the see-no-evil authorities as mere stupidity.

As a general rule of thumb, anyone who claims stupidity is sufficient explanation for malevolence is in league with the malevolent.

Blogger VD May 22, 2018 7:08 AM  

Seriously, what sort of unmitigated idiot buys the "agency bungling" defense anymore? How many times do you need to see it put forth and then disproved before you dismiss it out of hand?

Blogger The Kurgan May 22, 2018 7:20 AM  

Hahahhahahaha that was awesome.

Blogger English Tom May 22, 2018 7:21 AM  

Agency bungling.

The euphemism used constantly over the years by the media in UK (and other countries) was: 'missed opportunities.'
This gave the impression of bungling incompetence but really was deflection for deliberate organised evil.

Blogger Wanderer May 22, 2018 7:28 AM  

""It's very difficult to disprove a conspiracy theory, because every bit of disproving evidence can be just written off as additional evidence that these conspirators are particularly intelligent and sneaky," he said."

Nah, it's pretty easy to disprove conspiracy theories if you actually look at the evidence and can explain why they're wrong. But hardly anyone ever does that because often conspiracy theories deal in extremely uncomfortable topics that will result in social repercussions merely for acknowledging them at all. For example, Jordan Peterson himself talked about the JQ, had a pro-Jewish stance on it and attempted to debunk the theory, and nevertheless was still labelled an anti-semite dog-whistler for his merely acknowledging the thing in the first place.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey May 22, 2018 7:42 AM  

This begs the questions, what did Jordan Peterson know and when did he know it? And what is up with those crazy masks he and his wife were sporting? We do know from his writing about his dreams that the man does reveal some pretty creepy fetish tendencies.

Blogger Daniel May 22, 2018 7:51 AM  

JP has a clear example of this 3rd tier defense when, while musing whether a patient of his was raped or not, seemingly launches on a tangent about how child sexual abuse isn't always "terribly damaging," in order to explain why false pedophilia abuse conspiracies between victim and psychologist so frequently succeed.

Blogger Rickaby007 May 22, 2018 7:52 AM  

Peterson fans cling convulsively to their false conception of Peterson and have made every effort to ignore the fact that their hold on reality is no firmer than that of a tuft of grass which one might grab to save himself from being carried away by a wild current.

Blogger Johnny May 22, 2018 7:55 AM  

""It's very difficult to disprove a conspiracy theory...

The opinion has its merits, but unfortunately it is used to avoid, not harming the innocent, but looking into the alleged misconduct. What is starting to make me a little crazy is the absence of prosecutions despite the many revelations of sexual misconduct that have come out in the last year or so. The system isn't so interested in prosecuting those who are well placed in the system.

Blogger Johnny May 22, 2018 7:58 AM  

I don't care enough about Peterson to look into this stuff beyond what I read on this board. But going by what I read here it would seem that Peterson's worldview is actually typical of what is common in the social science community.

The idea that knowledge gained through the social sciences should displace conventional culture with its scientific wisdom has been around for a long time. I would put the start of it at the late nineteenth century, and it became more popular throughout the twentieth century.

The self evident difficulty with the doctrine so far has been that the attempts at implementation have produced colossal failures. Marxism is just one version of it, and that doctrine produced the long sad history of the Russian population while operating under communism. And now we have the damage that Europe is currently doing to itself as yet another version of it. The taught in the name of science cultural norms they are operating under haven't blown up yet so they still seems viable. And much of the rest of Western Civilization is following along on the same track.

The apparent problem of applying science to culture is that the science part gets lost and the whole thing become nothing more than another culture. Society ends up being run for the purpose of serving the interests of those who claim to rule in the name of science. And despite the apparent benign intent and intelligence of the individuals in the profession, their implementations are a curious mix of incompetence and tyranny.

Blogger Rickaby007 May 22, 2018 7:59 AM  

@10 pizza masks

Blogger tublecane May 22, 2018 8:02 AM  

@9- It's like when people say "you can't prove a negative." Of course you can; why else would cops ask suspects to provide alibis? But people have a particular kind of negative in mind when they say that. A kind difficult to prove. For instance, like contradicting the claim that someone has a microscopic, invisible leprechaun in his pocket.

There are conspiracy theories like that, admittedly. Easy to prove David Hogg didn't assassinate JFK, because he hadn't been born at the time. However, if a theorist posits that Future Hogg invented a Time Machine, well, he could be responsible for anything.

Pretending every conspiracy theory is like that renders one intellectually dishonest.

Blogger Stilicho May 22, 2018 8:02 AM  

As the Ilk will appreciate, it's not just a word salad, it's a Tad salad.

As for Peterson's take on Christianity, of course he's anti-Christian. What else would you call someone who equates Christianity with fables and fairy tales meant to teach a lesson. In Peterson's view, the bible is just another collection of "just so" stories: somewhat useful, but otherwise insignificant. I would have expected John C. Wright to pick up on that, but he appears enamoured of the word salad and seeking truth where there is none. In this sense, Jordan simply provides another Obama mirror where those so inclined see what they want to see.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums May 22, 2018 8:15 AM  

"A good rule of thumb is: Don't presume malevolence where stupidity is sufficient explanation,"

I have said it before here. Always assume malevolence FIRST. I can't think of a single example of wrongdoing of that level that was due to "stupidity" and neither can the people who always assume stupidity first.

Funny thing is I not only heard Peterson use that phrase over and over again, but Ben Shapiro also uses it ad nauseaum too.

It's a major red flag for me at this point.

Blogger Johnny May 22, 2018 8:25 AM  

@18 and @20

One way of thinking about this stuff is to label it outcome based logic. The logic exists for the sake of the conclusion. In this case Peterson uses a generic conclusion, "you can't prove a negative" and uses the general to justify the response to the specific that is of current interest. The logical model (implied) is: you can't prove a negative in general thus we should not look into it in this specific case.

The argument confuses difficult with impossible and then passes on looking into the specifics in the particular case. It invites mental confusion because it distracts the listener into thinking about a general conclusion, and thus ignores the specifics in the case at hand.

Same thing with "Don't presume malevolence where stupidity..." Even if true as a general category, talking about that distracts the listener from the current material specifics.

The political lefties do this sort of thing a lot. They get into talking about something else and use the something else to avoid giving attention the specifics at hand.

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 22, 2018 8:38 AM  

On agency bungling I’d note that the FBI has killed approximately 150 people without trial in recent decades but claims to have never killed an innocent person.

Basically, anyone they kill is axiomatically guilty.

Regarding conspiracy theory labels, I’d note that every single government that uses the label to blunt criticism has criminal conspiracy laws on their books and pursue criminal conspiracy charges every single day of every year.

Blogger Rocklea Marina May 22, 2018 8:39 AM  

Dr. Peterson (Ghostbusters edition)

There's something strange
In the Halls of Power
Who ya gunna call?
Dr. Peterson!

They were diddling kids,
The were doin no good
Who ya gunna call?
Dr. Peterson!

He ain't afraid to sellout

He ain't afraid to sellout

The UN plans
To destroy the West
Who can ya call?
Dr. Peterson!

Immigrants invade
Young girls get raped
who ya gunna call?
Dr. Peterson!

He ain't afraid to sellout!

He ain't afraid to sellout!

Who ya gunna call?
Dr. Peterson!

Is ya house on fire?
Go an clean your room
And call
Dr. Peterson!

He ain't afraid to sellout!
I hear it likes the girls

He ain't afraid to sellout!

Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah

Who ya gunna call?
Dr. Peterson!

Gender fluid bubba
Freaky trannys, baby
you'd better call
Dr. Peterson!


Let me tell ya somethin
Crazy Doctor makes ya feel good

He ain't afraid to sellout!

He ain't afraid to sellout!

Don't get called on the lord

When it comes to the JQ
I think ya wanna lie some more
I think ya better call
Dr. Peterson!

Who ya gunna call? (fade out)

He's ready to deceive you!

Blogger KBuff May 22, 2018 9:20 AM  

Same with the FBI, in my view (Garland, Boston Marathon, Parkland, etc.). At some point, it doesn't look like mere incompetence.

Blogger Arthur Tintagel May 22, 2018 9:59 AM  

Funny thing is that in my atheist days I used to say the same thing JBP said about Christianity.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 22, 2018 10:08 AM  

Arthur Tintagel wrote:Funny thing is that in my atheist days I used to say the same thing JBP said about Christianity.
It's a common approach among non-Asshole Atheists.

Blogger Welsh Woodsman May 22, 2018 10:20 AM  

The shiv cuts like a well honed scythe. Article by article, Peterson's guru status - is laid to waste.
Ahhh... nothing warms my heart more than to see prominent frauds and hucksters - exposed and naked in front of the jeering masses.

Blogger jaericho May 22, 2018 11:05 AM  

That was great, and it reminded me of Sheridan's apology:

Blogger bw May 22, 2018 11:31 AM  

..but Peterson's academic pedigree without a doubt goes straight back to MKUltra and the CIA. Peterson did his post-doc under a man named Maurice Dongier. Dongier obtained his degree in psychiatry in 1954 at McGill University, training at the Allan Memorial Institute. The Allan Memorial Institute was founded and directed by Donald Ewen Cameron, who was contracted by the CIA to conduct MKUltra mind control experiments there between the years 1957 and 1964. After completing his post-doc, Peterson then went on to teach at Harvard for five years, taking up Timothy Leary's old position.

Peterson also has ties to hardcore Zionist organizations. Last year, Peterson was a keynote speaker with Ezra Levant at an event put on by 'Canadians for Balfour 100' where he gave a speech about how wonderful Jews are and how everyone is envious of Israel. This organization has direct ties to B'Nai Brith and a host of other Canadian and international Zionist organizations."

Etc..from comments over at IrishSavant, from Flanders and 8chan; "Pol thread at 8chan titled, "Jordan B. Peterson's connections to the UN, Soros, MKUltra, and more"

Blogger Xellos May 22, 2018 1:26 PM  

I have a shorter and more general formulation: Does it support child sacrifice? Then it is evil.

Anonymous Anonymous May 22, 2018 1:57 PM  

Jim Balsillie isn't just the founder of the CIGI think tank that's funded by and partnered with George Soros' INET think tank, Balsillie actually co-founded INET with George Soros.

Get this: The 'Intellectual Dark Web' was created by Eric Weinstein, who is an official "expert" at INET.

Full research with sources and association graph:

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 22, 2018 2:12 PM  

What a brazen liar Peterson is. The sad thing is that he's managed to fool a lot of people.

"Organizations [i.e., groups of people] can act badly and things can fall apart without any group of people driving that."

Anonymous Anonymous May 22, 2018 4:40 PM  

> Vox's form of speech is highly literate. Wonder what would happen if you wrote down what Peterson said in one of his videos?

I wonder if William Shatner would read it out as beat poetry? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Anonymous Anonymous May 22, 2018 5:03 PM  

"Jordan Peterson himself talked about the JQ, had a pro-Jewish stance on it and attempted to debunk the theory, and nevertheless was still labelled an anti-semite dog-whistler for his merely acknowledging the thing in the first place."

Well, those are the rules.

All the tales about the disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, all the research papers that come out purporting to show that Ashenazi have high IQs? You are supposed to inculcate those but not ever acknowledge them or (even worse!) say anything out loud.

Lipstadt even said the fact that someone talks about Jewish success is a red flag for her. How odd.

As for the rest, very interesting tidbits emerging about his connections...

Blogger tublecane May 22, 2018 6:44 PM  

@32- Lipstadt, who got the Hollywood Treatment for a cinematically unexciting and frankly not very meaningful trial. Portrayed by an actress I remember as being pretty at one point, with her antagonist made to look like a ghoul. A man who is one thousand-times the scholar she is.

This is Why We Fight the Culture War. Though David Irving really shouldn't have bothered suing her .

Blogger Thomas May 23, 2018 4:36 AM  

I saw one interview in which he handled the interviewer well on the subject of free speech. I wondered why I has trouble understanding him since then. Many reviews of the 12 Rules said he mentioned the Bible more than they liked drawing lessons. So by that you mean he's just using the stories of allegorical lessons? By the way, what happened to Alphagame blog? Little activity these days.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 23, 2018 8:35 AM  

jbwilson24 wrote:Lipstadt even said the fact that someone talks about Jewish success is a red flag for her. How odd.

The worst thing for a Jew is being called out as a Jew. We praise Jewish success and they hear ``Jewish.'' ``The goys know! Time for more squid ink! Attack!''

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 23, 2018 8:37 AM  

It's almost as if the Jews think being Jewish is bad. They better watch out - if they go on like that long enough, folks might start to believe it.

Blogger stevo May 23, 2018 12:53 PM  

I still want JPB to be a good guy but the other day I heard him say "Atonement means at-one-ment" which is just so dumb.

Blogger stevo May 23, 2018 12:59 PM  

Slightly OT but To paraphrase Gilbert Gottfried - I've never been bar mitzvaed, never attended synagogue, don't really believe in anything supernatural, but if the nazis come back I know I'd be in a boxcar before too long.

Blogger Okrane S. May 24, 2018 2:12 AM  

Very interesting topic, you do makes a lot of good points about peterson's writing and the quality of his speech

One thing intrigued me and I'd like to hear you go more in depth about it. When you said that JP leads young men from the fire into the frying pan, I would like to hear more about what the ideal philosophy/path is in your view which would take people out of the kitchen, as you put it, and how that contrasts with peterson's view on sorting yourself out.

Many thanks

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts