More Jordan Peterson: on “equality” and where it leads
There are so many wonderful Jordan Peterson videos it’s hard to choose just one (or watch just one; they’re like potato chips).
But I think this is especially fine:
I’ll add that, having watched quite a bit of Peterson speaking without notes, it seems to me that one of the keys to his presentation (besides a great deal of knowledge and the ability to express it in language both clear and articulate) is his intensely sharp focus and marshaling of his energy to the task at hand and the question at hand.
It is something the listener can feel on a gut level, along with a sense of Peterson’s sincerity and urgency. I believe these qualities of clarity, knowledge, sincerity, and urgency are the main reasons for Peterson’s great popularity among people who usually aren’t glued to their seats when professors of philosophy opine.
[NOTE: By the way, on the subject of the kulaks and the Ukrainian famine (Holodomor), there’s a great deal of information available. The famine had many causes, but the war on the kulaks was certainly prominent among them:
[Stalin’s war on the kulaks] was formalized in a resolution, “On measures for the elimination of kulak households in districts of comprehensive collectivization”, on January 30, 1930. The kulaks were divided into three categories: those to be shot or imprisoned as decided by the local secret political police; those to be sent to Siberia, North, the Urals, or Kazakhstan, after confiscation of their property; and those to be evicted from their houses and used in labour colonies within their own districts…
Some researchers found that the famine of 1932”“1933 followed the assault on Ukrainian national culture that started in 1928. The events of 1932”“1933 in Ukraine were seen by the Soviet Communist leaders as an instrument against Ukrainian self-determination. At the 12th Congress of the Communist Party of Ukraine (CP(b)U), Moscow-appointed leader Pavel Postyshev declared that “1933 was the year of the defeat of Ukrainian nationalist counter-revolution.” This “defeat” encompassed not just the physical extermination of a significant portion of the Ukrainian peasantry, but also the mass imprisonment or execution of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, and artists.
By the end of the 1930s, approximately four-fifths of the Ukrainian cultural elite had been eliminated. Some, like Ukrainian writer Mykola Khvylovy, committed suicide.
Liberty and equality of outcome (whether a truly desired policy, or a fake front to appeal to the “masses”) are always at war. They are inherently at war. Equality of opportunity is the only type of equality that can coexist with liberty and in fact foster it.]
I’m just beginning to read Peterson’s book, “12 Rules for Life.” Did not know what to expect. Could a book be as interesting as video interviews? The answer is yes. The man has an enormous body of knowledge and he is a communicator. Or better – a storyteller. The way he has integrated various areas of knowledge into a synthesis of how the human psyche works is amazing to me. So far the book has been like eating a delicious, perfectly cooked and seasoned meal. An experience to savor.
Peterson is a man whose ideas are so cogent and right, it’s no wonder that the progs hate him. He’s very quickly become a treasure on a par with Thomas Sowell.
Whenever I’ve watched some of these Peterson videos I find that sense of “urgency” somewhat disturbing, and often get the feeling he’s close to a nervous breakdown. I watched this one that you posted over at YouTube, and then watched a few more parts of that full interview with the Australian fellow. In this part, Peterson actually starts crying when talking about young men who’ve not been encouraged in their lives. Then I found this one with another interviewer, and Peterson starts crying again over the same thing. Sort of worry about the guy.
“The kulaks were divided into three categories: those to be shot or imprisoned as decided by the local secret political police; those to be sent to Siberia, North, the Urals, or Kazakhstan, after confiscation of their property; and those to be evicted from their houses and used in labour colonies within their own districts . . . .”
Given the intense visceral hatred of the (so-called) progressives for the masses, and particularly for the deplorables, is it not reasonable, yea, *realistic*, that the above is approximately what the (so-called) progressives have in store for us normals?
And the above applied to “not just the physical extermination of a significant portion of the Ukrainian peasantry, but also the mass imprisonment or execution of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, and artists.”
he ignores methodology and inducement in history… He explains things from the point of the exploited biology’s natural programming – this removes responsibility and so, what would you defend from doing something natural.
No one does a payola kind of move and induces the thought which one chooses to follow and so he avoids the natural tendency of people to think whats being talked about applies to them (whether it does or not! even when it makes no sense to think that in many cases).
to the victim of a con, whatever they were doing was always something natural
(and political movements that mobilize people out of their lives and into a cause is kind of con given the number of causes to march for now and the loss decades ago of the shock of how unusual a protest is so it means something, to be gone)
on subject matter…
he gets accross the fact that these ideas (injected and supported and nurtured), lead to the wrong outcomes…
female prisoners are now worried that blazio will move men from mens prison who claim to be women inside into the womens prison…
and in the video above he ends up mostly explaining what “hoisted by your own petard” means symbolically by pointing out the end result of the arguments as the train with no brakes goes down the line.
you make the rule for the object of the idea
the rule is not one use, and so, is applied as the idea
it gets applied first to the things it works on and seems well
but as you run out of things to use it on, you start wanting to apply it in lots of other places, like diversity (the process of homogenization), and now and only now, is the rules folly being SEEN because most who cant see the end of what these prepositions flower too, refuse to belive THAT is the end you get on (even easier when others say, nah, thats wrong, just choose this side that says so, crisis solved).
so diversity is great.. its exotic its this. we are told its applied here and see what it did… so lets go into all the paint stores, and mix up all the cans of paint and increase all the local diversity of the colors…
and that is where society is going…
a homogenized miserable soviet gray..
he isnt saying anything new…
on other areas he says a lot of what the mens movement been saying for 30 years, so i guess the point was his intent way of thinking how to say the same thing without it being easily torn by a pre-thought cut out response (that might lead down a chain of such)…
but you only have to look at the facts without the magic charisma that is sadly necessary it seems for facts to register.
however, unlike most people, he first had to navigate academia till he got to this point to even make these arguments post tenure – and he had done so until his point was mistaken and the left bubbled him to the surface outside of the mens movement (which his first reaction was just as bad, and then he apologized)…
there is a woman that also comments well too, but not as well as Peterson..though unlike him she is coming from the perspective of the woman with kids that comes after the other that exploited what potential the system allows.
ALSO, Peterson is coming more from a practice in which your a horrible failure, no matter how good you think, if you don’t have really good control of your behavior and thoughts around others in the same category, which is not all that normal for most people.
so for him there is this confluence that gives him chops to say the same thing…
so why have most people not heard these arguments in these ways before or in such?
because the facts are not allowed
they are now normalized to be wrong
and for it to be normal not to give leeway to any such discussion
and there is a library of canned answers everyone “knows” are right, except that they aren’t, and even Jordan Peterson has pointed it out.
actually, a LOT of what Jordan Peterson says is just the same old mens rights facts and proofs and references but laid out better. For the most part, Mr Peterson does what i do, he READS a lot of studies and can point to the documents and so on and without a communication disorder disgorges it in a more palatable way
when he speaks of unequal pay he is basically saying the same thing been said and referenced by men for 30 years including the same proof papers and studies!!
another odd and fascinating thing?
Peterson says, i read bout kulaks, can you IMAGINE? he isn’t even giving second hand experience. technically he is saying, i read a book let me tell you what i imagined from that book knowledge (mostly) to convey the idea.
whats fascinating?
i didn’t read about it, my family didn’t have to IMAGINE, we could all have told you in detail more scary than the academic papers he read, and IMAGINED (and from a personal point)…
ah, the power of Svengali and Rasputin, who can speak of their imaginings, and be heard for it, while the reality is ignored all around till it dies out…
again, he is not only regurgitating, but he is making up an imagination that others who do not know and cant feel it, can get it, as those who do know, and can feel it, cant communicate the reality of it and go mostly unheard
the unreal is more real to the unknowing than the real is or can be conveyed to them…
fascinating…
definitely and always fascinating..
Its sad to think that every idea and group of knowlege that doesnt have a charismatic champion in some form, would die out and be erased, despite hundreds who would say or have said or have even provided that information to that charismatic keeper.
absence of that – where would all that same knowlege be?
waiting for the incurious to be entertained by the speaker enough, in some way, to listen long enough, to get the same facts.
Doesn’t bode well for a vibrant rich future
it doesn’t take a Peterson to know where these things lead, it takes a Peterson to be entertaining enough on some level, to get those who require it, to eat knowledge that comes with the sugar, or they don’t. [ergo the left loving to find their Hoggs]
that in a nutshell could explain dictators and more..
they are just Peterson with different pools of knowledge getting groups to listen and incorporate it – who listen when its entertaining to them enough for some reason, and then, do the natural thing once belief makes ANY knowledge real.
for all the others? Stand in the square, burn incense on your head and wear a diaper… no one will listen regardless…
definitely fascinating…
J.J.,
I agree, IMO Jordan Peterson is one of the 21st Century’s great men. His clarity of thought is very rare.
Ann,
I see a man who is deeply touched, when reflecting upon the tens of thousands of grateful responses to his lectures . As you no doubt realize, genius is often paired with instability and given Peterson’s prior depression, that may indeed be the case.
Whether that’s the case or not, his message however is of inestimable value. If Western Civilization falls apart, which it surely will do if the Left attains the dominance it craves, billions will suffer and hundreds of millions will die. Isn’t the probable prospect of that, worth crying over?
MJR,
“Given the intense visceral hatred of the (so-called) progressives for the masses, and particularly for the deplorables, is it not reasonable, yea, *realistic*, that the above is approximately what the (so-called) progressives have in store for us normals?”
Of that there can be no doubt. Sure, liberal useful idiots will be appalled but the power of a fanatical minority, of whom Peterson speaks, would sweep all protest aside.
“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” Lenin
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” Vladimir Lenin
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” – Adoph Hitler
“That’s the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want” Barack Obama
“We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” Hillary Clinton
“The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.” – George Soros
The price required to stop great evil is great sacrifice by the good. That sacrifice becomes evident when only that sacrifice has a chance of securing survival.
In his book, “The Gathering Storm”, Winston Churchill observed that, “You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish, than live as slaves.”
Another of his observations that, “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.” has once again gained particular relevance.
“Minnesota Anti-Gun Bill Outs Owners, Strips All Second Amendment Rights”
“Firearm owners could lose their right to own a firearm if an ‘anonymous’ complaint is made; all gun owners’ information would also be broadcasted to the public.”
Geoffery:
And many of the progressives from the 1960’s until the fall of the USSR would say “better red than dead’ regarding mutual assured destruction because they were already “red.” And of couse to them the “non-red” should be dead, but they didn’t say that. That’s what Gulags and Cultural Revolutions are for.
om,
Indeed, yes.
There’s a good argument to be made that Lucifer originally rebelled against the Divine Counsel (well, he did get voted off the island) because he wanted equality. And equality was against Divine Law in the form of free will.
The religion and church of Lucifer is a doctrine concerning the salvation of humanity. This is surprisingly not about what people think it was.
Ymar,
It’s a good thing that you were there to witness it all and straighten out our misconceptions for us.
But more seriously, since God created Lucifer… how could he rationally assert himself to be equal? Presumably, Lucifer lacked the ability to create God, so upon what basis could Lucifer claim equality? Ergo, the premise and logic of that ‘argument’ collapses into its own incoherence.
Which leads me to conclude that Lucifer is a leftist. John Milton hit the nail on the head in “Paradise Lost” when he had Lucifer say, “Better to rule in hell, than serve in Heaven”.
But more seriously, since God created Lucifer…
That dogma or doctrine was created by people in human organizations that wanted to use religion to control people.
In the primary sources, Lucifer is titled “God of this world” (think money), an elohim (think angel), Son of the Morning Star (Son of Venus, Venus being the star that shines in the morning). The ancients classified all that we call planets, as wandering stars. In the Sumerian primary texts detailing the same Divine Flood story, Lucifer and the heir of the Most High, were co equal once. One held the scepter of power of the Most High, called Anu, and the other one had very similar powers to the “Prince of the Air”. It’s hard to say which one was Enki and which one was Enlil, but Enki/Lucifer and Enlil/Jesus were brothers, Sons of Anu or in the Hebrew lexicon, Sons of the Most High: bene ha elohim.
how could he rationally assert himself to be equal?
It’s a good thing that you were there to witness it all and straighten out our misconceptions for us.
Don’t worry, I’ll straighten you out now. Be sure to remember this later on when you go back to the Source though.
The original argument was NOT that he was or should be made equal to the Most High. The original argument concerned why Lucifer was able to convince 1/3rd the host of heaven that they should follow him. Whatever deal or plan they had, must have been quite favorable for 33% of all the elohim to obey Lucifer as the leader instead of the Most High or the Lamb of God.
This breakdown is often seen in human populations as well, specifically civil wars like US War of Independence. One third supported Britain as loyalists. One third supported more autonomy from Britain. One third were neutral. Only 3% at the time, the Founding Fathers, were in favor of armed rebellion.
The issue of equality is the same above as below. People that can use free will, are not equal. They do different things and get penalties based on justice or what they deserve.
The rebels in the Divine Counsel of Watchers, back in Genesis six, did not want humanity to grow naturally. Instead advanced technology and teachings were given to humans (1st Enoch) to make life easier.This is why Ancient Egyptian history is very strange. The farther back in history they go, the more advanced the stonework and technology, almost as if Ancient Egypt fully formed out of thin air with no preceding technological levels. In the Hebrew Lexicon, North Africa, Egypt, Syria, and Babylon were all one territory, under Nimrod, the first human emperor after the Flood. Technology and other things decayed as time went on. It didn’t evolve or get better as time progressed. This is fully and adequately explained by Hebrew, Ugarithic, and Sumerian sources on where they got their technology.
Instead of allowing humanity to freely fail or succeed based on finding out the secrets of the universe, the rebels intervened. Now Lucifer apparently wasn’t one of them, but it’s not hard to see that they were related in terms of planning.
John Milton hit the nail on the head in “Paradise Lost” when he had Lucifer say, “Better to rule in hell, than serve in Heaven”.
Milton is not a primary source or a source of revealed revelation, although he was working from sources such as Isaiah.
As for Lucifer, the argument is that humanity was too low tech and Lucifer wanted to bring us to an equal level of living standard to the heavens. This is the Alternate Plan of Salvation in a sense. In Jesus’ plan, only humans who obey the Most High’s plan and rules get to be saved (from whatever). Lucifer says everyone can be saved (through technology or power or something else).
This conflict is not all that complicated. The South said that god advocates slavery, the suppression of the inferior race by the superior race. The Northern abolitionist believed in free will and in teaching blacks about the plan of Jesus. Indeed, the Confederate elites were correct. A god does advocate slavery, plus the equality of whites. That title belongs to the “god of this world”. It just wasn’t the God of Abraham…
As for the slavery listed in the Old Testament, that is better translated as “bondage” or “servitude”. In modern context, it means being under a legal contract where you have to work. Cellphone 2 year contracts. If you violate it, there are penalties. This kind of slavery 1.0 was very different from the USA’s slavery 2.0
Slavery 2.0 did not allow blacks to be educated in reading, because they might read the bible.
Slavery 1.0 taught servants to read and handle political and administrative tasks (what kind of slave is that when Joseph becomes prime minister of Egypt as a slave…)
Other than time travel, science has no way to peer back into the past when Lucifer was against Jesus, when Enki fought against Enlil. That’s why Biblical prophets used something called divine revelation. In order to qualify as a prophet, the person had to stand in the Divine Counsel, amongst the elohim. In modern parlance, people can think of them as super powerful psychics that could see the future via a mental download: X-men.
Now whether humans believe in divine revelation or not, completely different issue.
Which leads me to conclude that Lucifer is a leftist.
More accurately, Lucifer exercises his authority given to him by the Most High to reveal certain truths and methods to ALinsky, Ayers, etc. The Leftist alliance is merely one tool, not his entire arsenal. After all, Lucifer once took over the entire United States, if the Confederate caste system had spread.
Ukraine, Zimbabwe,… and South Africa is progressing to fulfill its progressive constitution (e.g. [color] diversity or institutional racism), and terrorizing its native populations. It seems that the “Fatah” and “Hamas” factions are progressing, despite the Mandela assault on competing black interests, and the left’s attempted genocide of the native white population. The native South Africans may recreate the trail of tears from Libya, Syria, etc.
Jordan P talking about the divine spark in humanity and about how people reading history should identify with the perpetrators is important in more ways than one.
I didn’t start identifying with what happened to the losers in World War 2, until I read Japanese points of view, which automatically identify with being losers of WW2, along with Italy and Germany. That in itself was more useful than all of American and World history taught in school, college classes or not.
One of the most common or easiest ways to receive divine guidance/information from what some call the Holy Ghost, is through Peterson’s analysis of the individual conscience. If you know something is right or wrong, but you don’t know why, chances are very high that this is a spiritual knowledge not an intellectual knowledge or worldly wisdom.
Jordan P himself is an example of someone who uses the power of the Holy Ghost, especially to chain fire change the lives of others. He even starts shedding some tears, but his brain is operating full in tandem and parallel with his emotions. There are people who start crying when they encounter things and they don’t know why. The spirit is connected most strongly with the human heart and emotions, and less well connected to the human mind itself.
Humanity has a literal divine spark, although most people do not know why because they were never taught anything about it.
Monotheism is an inaccurate portrayal of what Israelites believed in. It has to do with the original promise made to Abraham, that his descendants would be as the stars. The stars were not thought to be giant gasses in space back then. The stars were perceived to be souls, intelligent entities, gods and people: heavenly divine level entities. The original Abrahamic Covenant was much easier understand from an ancient perspective than a modern one. It’s also why people don’t get why 30 ish year old Isaac is ready to get killed in a sacrifice ritual.
just want to leave a few words here to let Ymar Sakar know how much his contributions on this community are appreciated by me. even though his stuff is often so advanced that it usually takes me multiple reads to digest the knowledge he tries to pass on to us.
Don’t think he cares though, someone as knowledgeable and proud as him probably doesn’t value open praises or sucking up as much as those virtue signaling loving lucifer worshiping liberals.
Equality of opportunity is also at odds with freedom.
Rich parents provide their children with significantly more educational opportunities. Basic attempts to level this field, like universal public education, necessitate limits on economic freedom.
In a free society, government cannot force taxpayers to subsidize education for poor students. Short of a group of private citizens creating a massive charity to make college free, I fail to see how even equality of opportunity could be achieved without some limits on freedom.
I think you have to water equality down to “equal protection under the law” for it to be compatible with liberty.
Ymar,
You MAY be mostly right but… you’re asserting your interpretation of prehistory from diverse ‘sources’ as established fact.
It’s biased, sloppy scholarship to do so.
Manju: Yes, very good point. Never saw it put that way before, and I absolutely agree.
And in any case, “equality of opportunity” has to be understood within a restricted context. Michael Jordan and I (an unathletic 5’5″ female) just don’t have and never did have equal opportunities to be supreme professional basketball players.
But there was nothing in the law that would prevent me from trying.
Which is why, in the political context, the meaning of “equality” does indeed mean ““equal protection under the law,” and is not a “watering-down” of the concept of “equality,” at all.
. . .
Side note: Seems to me “Ymar” isn’t a male at all. I could be wrong (I was wrong once before, hard though it be to believe; I think it was back in 1964), but I assume it’s just “Mary” spelled backwards.
?
I hate Obama, I hate Obama because he has been poisoning the minds of people by encouraging people to blame all their personal problems on society and teaches them that they can only solve their personal problems by fundamentally transforming the world we are living in according to what liberals tyrannically decided how the world supposed to be. This is not reality, personal problems can’t be fixed by transforming the society, by using the power of the media and government to force everyone into believing that an overweight woman is attractive doesn’t change the fact that she will not be able to find a desirable husband or she will more likely to develop health issues like heart disease, diabetes or joint problems beginning in her 30s.
liberalism is all about teaching people to have the instant gratification now and let the future be damned. look at Hollywood, everyone is miserable there despite the money and fame they all possess, look at Johnny Depp, look at Alec Baldwin, Jennifer anistonk, pink whoever, you think they are happy. everyone is suffering because of their life choices and they are teaching people their way of living is good, their way of living brings happiness give me a break. You know who has found happiness, Barbara Bush had found happiness, there is no better way to die than dying while surrounded by family and grandchildren. I don’t know how happy a person can be when you are childrenless in 60s with most of your relative long dead being all alone in holidays. of all the public figures in the world I envy Mitt Romney the most, despite hating his politics and his attacks on the president that is a life well lived and I can only imagine the joy he has everytime he is surrounded by all those wonderful grandchildren.
Manju:
Equality of opportunity is a term that refers to the lack of legal and/or institutional restrictions, not an ability to make everyone’s actual real-world “opportunities” (including, for example, innate gifts or physical attributes) the same.
conservatism teaches people the most sure fire ways to lead a happy and most fulfilling life with no regrets. their rules demand determination and self disciplines but they are beneficial to you in the long run.
Manju, my decidedly not-rich parents, neither of whom attended college for assorted reasons that are typical of the not-rich working class of flyover country at midcentury and before, did not prevent me from attending K-12 public school – sometimes in terrible neighborhoods, with “underperforming” schools – and attending a state university which back in the pre-loans-for-everyone days was stupidly affordable. (Today, if I didn’t go into a STEM field, I’d probably opt for a trade – college in itself is not necessary and for a huge percent of millennials is a monumental waste of time that has provided nothing but a mortgage-sized student loan.)
I suppose it’s true that you have a better chance of attending Harvard if you have rich parents but you don’t need to be rich to give your kids the mental skills and attributes that are critical to achieve a comfortable existence. We know what those attributes are: valuing the importance of education, skills, work ethic and responsibility; teaching kids that life isn’t a rose garden and that they will have setbacks which need to be dealt with and planned for; and that no one, not even one’s own parents, owes you a living once you are an adult – something which you should have been learning and planning for since grade school, not since your 25th birthday.
The correlation of wealth of parents and children primarily has to do with the attributes of the parents that led them to be rich or poor, and their ability to pass that on to their children. Give a lot of money to the average poor person and wait – they’ll be poor again. Take away everything from a successful person whose money came from their own efforts, and while they may never regain as much stuff as they had spent their lifetime acquiring, they will pick up the pieces and return to productive life. It has to do with actions and attitudes, not some kind of class system with no mobility. Lefties hate the inherent truth of this.
It’s worth adding that while my comment included the binary “rich/poor” reference, I’m not allowing the traditional lefty-imposed definition of success as “if you’re not a billionaire in the 1%, you’re not successful.” A lot of younger people are infected with this idea that success is defined by being super-rich or not super-rich, when in fact, success is defined by having a life in which you can comfortably live. The constant demonization of the super-rich is related to this: it doesn’t matter that I am comfortable, I should be outraged that someone, somewhere, makes more than me or has more stuff than me.
When I was a not-rich kid, that kind of thought process was drummed out of my head by the time I was five. Now, it’s encouraged.
It is a sad commentary about modern society that the general thrust of the comments above, undoubtedly true, when appearing in an op-ed co-authored by the Penn law professor Amy Wax, produced such a hostile reaction to her by her own peers. Saying the emperor has no clothes comes with a cost.
Don’t think he cares though, someone as knowledgeable and proud as him probably doesn’t value open praises or sucking up as much as those virtue signaling loving lucifer worshiping liberals.
I adhere to Red Pill doctrine and policies. Once I wished for recognition from fellow mortals, mutual understanding, so I lowered my cultivation to match others.
Now I disconnect from the knowledge of the world, without favoring people who agree nor people who disagree. It is better for people to experience the truth themselves, than to believe in a dogma or doctrine from humans: which of course also includes me.
People are free to research and obtain data if they can obtain it. I do not oppose their quest. It is merely that, just like Jordan P, each person’s path of improvement differs slightly.
What I care about is finding the truth, as any mad scientist would wish to unveil the secrets of the world. It is regrettable that most of humanity finds this incomprehensible, but so be it. If that is the price of the truth, I have already contractually bound myself to the payment.
I don’t even care if the world is Flat. If the Holy Ghost wishes to show me a truth that all of the world has rejected, I will take a look and try it out for myself. What is trash to others, may just be a treasure I value.
Socrates, another person that once talked about obtaining knowledge and truth from a spirit (a muse), was killed because people thought he was too proud to compromise. His actual words at his trial describes a different story.
Jordan P is doing good work. While I do not find everything he says new or interesting, at least he will have a chance to reach many people and give them a chance to choose: Change the World or Change yourself.
I have already made my decision on that, circa 2009, 2010, and 2011. I chose to change myself, and not the World.
Not much time will be gained, O Athenians, in return for the evil name which you will get from the detractors of the city, who will say that you killed Socrates, a wise man; for they will call me wise, even although I am not wise, when they want to reproach you. If you had waited a little while, your desire would have been fulfilled in the course of nature. For I am far advanced in years, as you may perceive, and not far from death. I am speaking now not to all of you, but only to those who have condemned me to death. And I have another thing to say to them: you think that I was convicted because I had no words of the sort which would have procured my acquittal–I mean, if I had thought fit to leave nothing undone or unsaid. Not so; the deficiency which led to my conviction was not of words– certainly not. But I had not the boldness or impudence or inclination to address you as you would have liked me to do, weeping and wailing and lamenting, and saying and doing many things which you have been accustomed to hear from others, and which, as I maintain, are unworthy of me. I thought at the time that I ought not to do anything common or mean when in danger: nor do I now repent of the style of my defence; I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at law ought I or any man to use every way of escaping death. Often in battle there can be no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he may escape death; and in other dangers there are other ways of escaping death, if a man is willing to say and do anything. The difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them. And now I depart hence condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death,–they too go their ways condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of villainy and wrong (unrighteousness); and I must abide by my award–let them abide by theirs. I suppose that these things may be regarded as fated,–and I think that they are well.—- Socrates before the Athenian Death Assembly
The Holy Ghost reached Socrates because Socrates was willing to question authority/wisdom and change himself. Without the aid of the Holy Ghost, it would be hard to comprehend anything of spiritual matters. As one Jewish person once said, how can people understand the teachings of the spirit when they do not understand the teachings of earthly things. A paraphrase of one Yeshua of Nazareth, also titled Messiah and Savior of Humanity.
(There’s another Savior of Humanity, people call him Lucifer heh. Humans are free to believe what they wish.)
The ability to stay true to one’s principles and beliefs, even in the face of death, is something warriors can respect. Well even if others do not, I still respect it and pay attention to the teachings of the ancestors.
Farewell on your voyage, Dave.
P.S. To explain what a Red Pill is, the Matrix first movie presented the protagonist with a choice. If you wished to know the truth of your reality, take the red pill and you will wake up. If you choose the blue pill, you will fall back to sleep and all of these interesting inconsistencies will seem as if a dream. It is, in religious lexicon, a baptism by water or fire. Yin vs Yang, Darkness vs Light, matter vs anti matter, Cold vs Heat, and Red vs Blue.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
April 20th, 2018 at 11:49 am
Ymar,
You MAY be mostly right but… you’re asserting your interpretation of prehistory from diverse ‘sources’ as established fact.
If they are not established fact or a fact, then merely present the counter argument. I await the effort.
These are merely summarized conclusions from various thesis papers, Ph.D. doctorate papers, and scholarly research. Just because I do not cite them, does not mean they don’t exist. These are decades of research in Ugarithic, ancient Semitic languages, and Qumran scroll translations. Not something that came from my hands. You will need more than a bit of “effort” if you wish to contest these arguments and facts that you believe to be X.
The essence of Divine Revelation in Job, in Isaiah, from Yeshua of Nazareth or Jesus the Christ, is that the past is documented in words through a Divine connection (download). Destroy Divine Revelation, GB, and all humans have left are religious control systems that use dogma to control people with made up fantasies and serial killer “gods”. As a Deist of many decades, I understand quite well the options here.
Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, all of these weren’t prophets that received wisdom and instruction in the Divine Counsel of the Most High if Divine Revelation is disabled. They would merely be con artists or crazy people. All of them claimed to receive knowledge of “pre history” using diverse sources.
So where is your work that refutes Job, the Qumran scrolls, the Sumerian and Ugarithic texts, GB? Are these false prophet authors or just delusional mad men?
Or do people think that logic and facts should only be thrown against the Left, that when talking to me they don’t need any “logic” or “facts”, just the assertion that they “know” and that would be sufficient… that is entirely insufficient.
The cultivation of a dozen springs and autumns is not washed away in the flood of a single season.
Rich parents provide their children with significantly more educational opportunities. Basic attempts to level this field, like universal public education, necessitate limits on economic freedom.-Cooked manju
It is true that President Hussein provided his two children with private education, while removing the economic ability of other black and lower class families from sending their children out of the public education system into a higher quality private education system.
Universal public indoctrination is designed by the elites to keep the lower and middle class children away from the scions of the most powerful dynasties and clans. The slots in private education cannot be given over to the dirty masses, President Hussein and Michelle O would never tolerate that for their children.
Side note: Seems to me “Ymar” isn’t a male at all. I could be wrong (I was wrong once before, hard though it be to believe; I think it was back in 1964), but I assume it’s just “Mary” spelled backwards.
?
I have never seen that interpretation, although most likely because people were trying to write out Ymarsakar. Sometimes leaving out one or more letters at the end. They most likely just did copy and paste afterwards.
When creating the login name, I used several sources, although Mary wasn’t one of them. I often do not think backwards to forwards, so English word games aren’t my specialty. I do pretty well reading Hebrew and Japanese picture frames from right to left though, compared to English’s preference for reading left to right.
Let’s try the backwards playing Rock n Roll trick then.
Ymarsakar
Rakasramy
Ymar
Ramy
As for male vs female, people can do a textual analysis of my writings to come up with a prediction on that. For several years, a person writing online I won’t name, seemed to me to have a rather feminine writing style, but said he was male. Later on, I found out that they were transgender (due to the recent Leftist social wars).
My spider sense was not wrong ; )
The constant demonization of the super-rich is related to this: it doesn’t matter that I am comfortable, I should be outraged that someone, somewhere, makes more than me or has more stuff than me.
I am surprised that people usually didn’t bring up Hollywood whenever Leftists talked about the super rich.
Now a days, of course, they do due to the Red Pill and Alt Right influence online. But Hollywood is one of the places that produces the most evil, makes the most money, and isn’t taxed at all for it. Movie profits literally have zero or near zero tax on them from the feds. It’s a WW2 era law that for some “reason” is still on the books, as a tax exemption. Everything the government raises more taxes on, except Hollywood propaganda. California being bankrupt all the time, and I often wonder why Hollywood and Silicon Valley weren’t paying their due. Cali had to be heavy corrupt to waste the tax revenues from them.
I find that… interesting.
Brain the size of a planet with an ego only a wee bit smaller. We know who to ask for all the answers.
Ann, I too worry about Jordan Peterson. Somewhere among all of his writings and videos, I remember reading something about how he feels about having been so suddenly propelled into worldwide fame and notoriety, and being at the same time a lightning rod for so many angry people on the left. I can’t find it now, but if I correctly remember, he expressed his awareness that all he has to do is put a foot wrong – say, just once, something ill-considered that could be mischaracterized – to be torn apart by the mob. Imagine how that must feel, especially for a person of his intelligence, intensity and remarkable sensitivity.
But he’s made it so far without putting a foot wrong – in fact, he keeps on putting his feet remarkably RIGHT, as in that famous interview with the British journalist. The longer that lasts, it seems to me, the stronger his reputation becomes and the harder it will be for the jackals to tear him down.
Ymar,
“If they are not established fact or a fact, then merely present the counter argument. I await the effort.”
You haven’t demonstrated them to be established fact and until you do… you have nothing other than subjective opinion that you are asserting to be factual.
“These are merely summarized conclusions from various thesis papers, Ph.D. doctorate papers, and scholarly research. Just because I do not cite them, does not mean they don’t exist.”
I’m not disputing their existence, though I’m somewhat skeptical that fragments from thousands of years ago, written either in a dead language or in a long obsolete vernacular… can be authoritatively and perfectly interpreted by non-native speakers. I AM disputing your “argumentum ad verecundiam” i.e. assuming a claim to be true because an ‘authority’ says it is.
“These are decades of research in Ugarithic, ancient Semitic languages, and Qumran scroll translations. Not something that came from my hands. You will need more than a bit of “effort” if you wish to contest these arguments and facts that you believe to be X.
I never claimed that your sources were self-created. And, I never claimed to believe anything to be “X”. I’m urging caution in considering your so far… unsupported arguments and ‘facts’ that you assert with certainty to be ‘X’.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying that I’m not willing to just take your word for it that you’re right.
And today there is another podcast by Jordon B Peterson
https://soundcloud.com/jordanpetersonpodcast
It’s probably also up on youtube, but I don’t run and watch videos; running with earbuds and audio is risky enough for this old wheezer.
You might find this article on Peterson interesting:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/04/jordan-peterson-unlikely-guru
You haven’t demonstrated them to be established fact and until you do… you have nothing other than subjective opinion that you are asserting to be factual.
I wasn’t aware that I was in front of my thesis board in which I had to defend a thesis. Since this is merely a casual discussion about Lucifer and what he was/is and the prehistory context, I don’t think you have the Authority to stand in judgment of this issue, GB.
If you do have this Authority, let’s see it.
If you want to know what I think, maybe you should ask questions like a humble person rather than an old person that thinks they know more than me. Well, if you do know more than me, let’s see it. All I’ve seen so far is that I can craft a response based upon citations to sources as well as my own words and story craft, but all you do is remain silent with this stony posture, attitude, and outlook that says “I won’t believe it”.
Not sure why you need to believe anything, as that is not my concern.
What I think is that your religious dogma just got triggered, GB. So maybe I should have wrote a trigger warning for those reading my narration of the Lucifer vs Jesus context.
The problem of those at a doctorate level debating those at an undergraduate level is that they are talking past each other. This is a solid reason why many people with doctorates look down on undergraduates or people with only a bachelor’s, even in STEM.
The refutations don’t even qualify as good intellectual sparring.
Primary sources are not “subjective opinion”, GB. If you want a contest of ideas at this level, you need to check your premises first.
I don’t care what you believe in or whether you buy into it or not. That’s not my problem, that is your problem and responsibility.
When you start going off the deep end and conflating “subjective opinion” with primary sources, that’s a problem I’m not going to ignore.
Watt:
I found it interesting, but I think that the author has almost zero understanding of what Peterson offers and what he’s about, sorry to say.
He tips his hand at the beginning by writing, “I could scarcely have less interest in Peterson’s ruminations on Jungian symbology, evolutionary biology, or psychometrics (whatever that is)…”
Since those things are a huge part of Peterson’s message and appeal, as well as the underpinnings of why he says what he says, I can’t imagine how a person who has such a complete lack of interest in those things could understand the Peterson phenomenon.
Nor is Peterson’s appeal limited to men, although I’m aware that men predominate in his audience.
Here’s another thing in that essay that seemed quite wrong to me: “Peterson is a latter-day Norman Vincent Peale, offering sympathy and practical advice.” Not in the least. Peale was religious and had no training in psychology. This is from Peale’s Wiki entry:
It’s almost the opposite of Peterson (except for the first two letters of the last name). The very parts of Peterson’s message that the author of that article has zero interest in are some of the enormous differences between Peterson and Peale. Peterson doesn’t guarantee results; he sees life as harsh and difficult, not something you can improve by positive thinking. Peale was criticized for being shallow and simplistic in his approach; Peterson is anything but. Not only does author Matthew Schmitz seem to know little about Peterson, he seems to know next to nothing about Peale as well.
Then there’s “[Peterson] flirts with positions that the Religious Right gave up on long ago, such as opposition to contraception and divorce.” No, those are not Peterson’s positions at all, nor does he “flirt” with opposition to them. He is aware, however, of their drawbacks and the problems associated with them, which is a very different thing entirely.
Etc., etc….
Neo:
The most recent Jordon B Peterson podcast was a Q/A format held at Lafayette College with 90 minutes of questions from the moderator followed by 90 minutes from the audience. It was very good and illustrated why the left fears and hates him IMO. Peterson came off as serious, engaging, and occasionally funny.
Generally the questions were serious and there were only a few “Cathy Newmans.” The silliest was a dude who asserted that Solzhenitsyn was a KGB agent (that’s what his professor asserted); because no one could remember all those details that are in the Gulag Archipelago. The argument “because I couldn’t do it, no one can.”
Ymar’s quote from Socrates hits on what IMO is the foundation of Peterson’s appeal to people on the right particularly: his refusal to back down and apologize for his principles. Because he already had an internet presence (unlike bakers and florists, for example) and the intellectual credentials to go with his deep knowledge, he made head-way against the Left in a way few others have been able to do.
He was willing to “die” — in a symbolic sense; to lose his academic position and livelihood — rather than acquiesce to actions that were contrary to his principles.
“I am speaking now not to all of you, but only to those who have condemned me to death. And I have another thing to say to them: you think that I was convicted because I had no words of the sort which would have procured my acquittal–I mean, if I had thought fit to leave nothing undone or unsaid. Not so; the deficiency which led to my conviction was not of words– certainly not. But I had not the boldness or impudence or inclination to address you as you would have liked me to do, weeping and wailing and lamenting, and saying and doing many things which you have been accustomed to hear from others, and which, as I maintain, are unworthy of me. I thought at the time that I ought not to do anything common or mean when in danger: nor do I now repent of the style of my defence; I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at law ought I or any man to use every way of escaping death. Often in battle there can be no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he may escape death; and in other dangers there are other ways of escaping death, if a man is willing to say and do anything. The difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death. “
Mrs Whatsit Says:
April 20th, 2018 at 7:36 pm
…
But he’s made it so far without putting a foot wrong — in fact, he keeps on putting his feet remarkably RIGHT, as in that famous interview with the British journalist. The longer that lasts, it seems to me, the stronger his reputation becomes and the harder it will be for the jackals to tear him down.
* * *
I hope so, but the jackals have proven themselves very persistent, and they outnumber him.
The danger is when the people currently “on his side” decide to side with the jackals, for some perceived offense.
That happens on the left all the time — look at the 99.99% pure leftists who ran afoul on the .01% position (Eich, Starbucks, others too numerous to list).
It can happen on the right as well.
Aesop:
Peteron knows that he is “surfing a 100 ft wave” and that it is not likely to end well, yet he persists.
He is also aware that there are differences between the left and the right as to what is acceptable; the left has no gaurdrails as long as the speech and actons push the current agenda. It is not the case with the right, as an example Peterson cites Bill Buckley and the John Birch society. He has no use for the identity politics/racial supremicist alt right fringe.