Jordan Peterson on postmodernism
Pass it around:
Does he even take a breath?
On Marxism’s appeal:
Last summer I wrote a post on that latter subject. Here it is:
When I first saw this tweet, I thought it very clever:
Difference between Nazi and Communist is when you say how horrible Nazis have been, they don’t say “Well, real Nazism has never been tried.”
It brought forth a wry smile from me.
But then I started thinking about the distinction. Because of course, both have been tried, and in fact the trial of Communism was a whole lot longer in terms of time. And in terms of suffering and death, although the geographic distribution and victims was somewhat different, the Soviets probably won that sweepstakes from the Nazis in terms of sheer numbers killed.
So, why the difference in attitudes of people these days towards each system? Communism is a theory with a philosophy that is more likely to appeal to naive but well-meaning people who just want everyone to get along, no one to be poor, and for us to be just one big happy family with no one so much richer or poorer than anyone else. The clearly demonstrated fact that this particular vision works very poorly in real life, and that its leaders tend to be of a very different mindset, is the source of both its appeal and the claim that the ideas are good but it’s just that somehow the wrong leaders got control of the ship.
Some of the original Nazis may have considered themselves to be do-gooders in the sense that they would do good for Germany and rid the world of people they considered problematic. But that’s not exactly a vision that appeals world-round. No, on its face (and deep down as well), Nazism sounds pretty repellent, or perhaps very repellent, to the majority of people. Even its vision seems dystopian rather than utopian, and instead of appealing to the “can’t we all just get together” aspirations of people, it appeals to their “I’ll smash you and I’ll come out on top” desires.
So although Nazism still has its adherents, they are a more isolated and less numerous group. And yet, I bet somewhere, somewhere, there’s a neo-Nazi who says that the problem with German Nazism was that Hitler went too far, too fast, or some such thing, and that if a more attractive and patient leader took charge Nazism would rise again.
The socialists claimed they could create heaven on earth and that made it very attractive. I like to point out that Communism, Fascism and Nazism were all socialist. They were like the Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians, all Protestants but with doctrinal differences.
We’ve discussed the Hicks book here before, and left links to its free download.
At bottom, Communism is the base logic of motherhood: from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.
That logic works perfectly when its a mother’s decision and the dependants are her own children.
This ^^^ Is why Communism keeps popping back up with every generation.
The average prole wants Big Mama to take care of need.
Nazism is Socialism with a masculine decision tree: the Leader will decide what needs be done. It’s tough love, then; really tough ‘love.’ And ‘daddy’ will decide even who qualifies as being in the family.
&&&
The problem with a democratic republic is that the polity has to function as adults — and self-actualize.
That’s something that was extremely apparent to Alexis de Tocqueville. [ Democracy in America ]
Hence the left’s preference for “positive liberty” over 40 acres and the right to buy and use a plow; that is to say their demand for a smorgasbord of sacrificial choices provided by others for the delectation of these precious ones. “I want to live in a society where my educational choices are valued, and where my emotional satisfactions are important to my society!”
Yeah …
And Big Mama decides who with ability must labor, so as to provide for he whom she determines it is that has needs deserving of social respect.
Some years ago I was listening to the TTC lectures on “Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition.” I was hoping to understand how postmodernism got so weird.
I practically cheered when I hit the Alvin Gouldner lecture with this summary:
In the trilogy “The Dark Side of the Dialectic,” Alvin Gouldner presented a Marxist critique of Marxism itself. His analysis of the “new class” of intellectuals and others who earn their living from their education, not their ownership of capital, provides a necessary corrective to the Marxist idea of class struggle and helps explain why so many Marxists and radicals were not proletarians, but intellectuals.
I’m persuaded by Peterson’s argument that postmodernism is basically Marxism retooled. So I await an honest postmodernist, if such is possible, to critique postmodernism as severely as they do Western civilization.
I don’t buy the postmodernist argument that everything boils down to oppression and power, but it’s clear that postmodernism is little but.
The only difference between nazism and communism is whether individuals are sacrificed to the fatherland or the motherland.
I was listening to the Adam Carolla show and he had Jordan Peterson as a guest.
As much as I have been enjoying Peterson’s videos, I enjoyed him much more on Carolla’s show. The atmosphere was different, light-hearted, and I was struck by how personable Peterson is. He comes off as uber-intellectual in his videos. Or in the case of his now infamous interview for the BBC, coldly logical.
But he was genuinely entertaining and even gracious at times, in a way that had nothing to do with politics or post-modernism.
Liberals want private ownerships with government running everything, that is textbook fascism, as correctly called out by President Reagan many years ago.
Young naive people believe because we elected government officials we get to control the government. Things Are not that simple, majority of those in the government were not elected who outlast any elected officials with unchecked powers
Peterson continues to impress. So much so that I’m beginning to consider him the first ‘great man’ of the 21st century.
Here’s another man who impresses mightily. Articulate, thoughtful and exhibiting a deep understanding of both the issue and the underlying factors that the liberal/leftists are willfully blind to; “WATCH: Speech on Guns by Virginia Senate Candidate Causes Democrat Walk-Out, Goes Massively Viral Online”
Why do evil politicians like Mao Zedong and democrats love to use the children as their useful idiots to attack their political opponents? Because putting the children on the frontline can easily paralysis your opponents and neutralise their attacks as no matter how wrong the children are attacking children will always be a move of self destruction in public opinion. Identity politics will always win unless we can make the public understand the party putting children on the frontline thus in the line of fire, and using this sort of dirty emotionalism to try to shame the other side into surrendering, is the evil party.
huxley:
I don’t buy the postmodernist argument that everything boils down to oppression and power, but it’s clear that postmodernism is little but.
In my opinion, it’s much more and much less than that. It’s the destruction of human reason, using reason, and the destruction of everything flowing from reason. If this sounds like nihilism, yes, but there is a purpose. That purpose is the acceptance of chaos as the only reality, an ever changing reality that allows for the whim of the moment to rule. It’s as if there are planes of reality coexisting side by side, a kind of multi-dimensional universe where anything goes depending on the particular plane of human construct. Unlike the esoteric beliefs, these are not spectral planes of preordained existence, but human creations. In this kind of ever changing world there are no absolutes except the absolute of chaos. Politically the target is the Enlightenment, but that is not the main purpose IMO. The fact that you found a Marxist who deconstructed Marxism doesn’t mean you will find a similar postmodern philosopher. They are much more intellectually dishonest.
There is a long history of similar destructive patterns in other fields, i.e. music. For years I’ve tried to understand why western music, serious music, has seen the near total destruction of its diatonic tonal origins. In the 200 years after Bach defined, invented diatonic music, all of the great composers followed his genius with their own additions and at times wild creations. It all started to break down at the end of 19th century, about the same time that Marxism came to the fore. The clearest example of a purposeful, almost postmodern composer is Aaron Copeland. His 12 tone chromaticism was a well thought out attempt to deconstruct western music. While it never gained a wide popular following, it was a giant FU in the face of Bach’s heritage. That heritage was a cumulation of specific rules of harmony and counterpoint which was eventually and scientifically verified by Helmholtz in his Sensations of Tone in 1875.
You can see the same degradation in other arts, literature, and culture in general. I don’t have an answer as to why, only to observe that the end point of it all seems to have arrived with postmodern philosophy.
I guess I showed my total ignorance here, after a long day. Of course I meant Schoenberg, NOT Copeland. Mea culpa
While Copeland wasn’t a 12 tone guy, he didn’t follow the absolute rules of 19th century harmony either.
I don’t know WHY or HOW I could have made a mistake like that. Old age? Anyway, if it shows my borderline dyslexia in full force, that is the least of it. Again, sorry for the stupid mistake.
And anyway, Copeland did compose some stuff using 12 tone theory, but Schoenberg was the inventor.
The Other Chuck:
Careless mistake; don’t worry about it. I make them often.
On the other hand, I was thinking: Copeland? “Appalachian Spring” Copeland?? Seems pretty tuneful to me.
blert Says:
March 5th, 2018 at 6:01 pm
.. presents a longer version of this …
http://neoneocon.com/2017/08/08/nazis-vs-communists/#comment-2241758
Matthew M Says:
August 9th, 2017 at 9:21 pm
I have come to sum it like this: in the Nazi country individuals were sacrificed for the fatherland; in communist countries individuals are sacrificed for the motherland.
Neo:
On the other hand, I was thinking: Copeland? “Appalachian Spring” Copeland?? Seems pretty tuneful to me.
But not always that tuneful. Consider Vitebsk (1929). Back in high school I did a report on this piece.
Sarah Hoyt ran a series of guest posts on her blog recently, by a woman who read through Lenin’s book “The State and Revolution” and fisked the foundations of Communism quite soundly.
https://accordingtohoyt.com/2018/01/25/the-state-and-revolution-pt-1-by-amanda-s-green/
Much levity ensued in the comments regarding the acronym formed by the book’s English title.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
March 5th, 2018 at 8:06 pm
…
Here’s another man who impresses mightily. Articulate, thoughtful and exhibiting a deep understanding of both the issue and the underlying factors that the liberal/leftists are willfully blind to; “WATCH: Speech on Guns by Virginia Senate Candidate Causes Democrat Walk-Out, Goes Massively Viral Online”
* * *
That was an amazing speech (and not a teleprompter in sight !!). I was especially impressed that someone was finally willing to come right out and say to the Democrats’ faces what they never seem to hear in person, because they don’t read conservative news or talk to conservative people — even in the Red States — and I don’t remember ever even hearing that something like this was done in the ante-Trump era.
Overton window movers at work?
Slightly O.T.
Have you seen this video of Dr. Peterson? You (Neo) commented on his appearance recently. Check out his appearance about 15-20 years ago.(The first few minutes.)
He discusses why he isn’t an atheist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n9jAKvejRs
thank you, Jean Robart, for that one. Seminal.
I am just now finishing up Hicks book, “Understanding Postmodernism.” I highly recommend it with the caveat that you can skim through the first half of the book where he summarizes the anti-Enlightenment philosophers in too much detail. It’s important to understand how Kant and Kierkegaard and Rousseau contribute to the foundation of postmodernism, but not in that much detail. Once that’s done then Hicks really comes into his stride in explaining how PM really works.
Jordan does a decent summary, but one thing that stands out from Hicks is that the PMers have weaponized language. They see it as a bomb to throw at their opponents, not as a means of communication. It really explains their seemingly irrational use of pejoratives and ad hominems. Reading that, it suddenly struck me as to why Trump drives them crazy: he is turning their weapon against them as he also uses language as a weapon. He really is the first large public figure to fire back at them. After reading Hicks book, I’m thinking we should all emulate Trump a bit more. And just yesterday, Kurt Schlichter seems to agree:
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/03/05/against-fake-civility-n2457141
On a somewhat lighter note … Crass commercialism meets nihilistic manipulation and grins ….
“Why Is Modern Pop Music So Terrible? “
“Listeners psychologically manipulated”? “Only two virtually unknown men write many of the big pop tunes using the same repetitive formulae”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVME_l4IwII
It’s interesting that conservatives (I am not referring to anyone here) have finally begun to face this in a big way, despite having presumably seen some of the same kinds things take place in the 1960s as leftist radicals hijacked common terms and twisted them … or even earlier I suppose, cite: George Orwell.
But complete cynicism as to the possibility of objective communication, or as to the status of the possibility of anything approaching objectivity in communication does seem to have developed after that; as nearly all communication became according to certain interpretive principles mere rhetoric .. a kind of bleating or vocalization the purpose of which was merely to induce another to act in some way the emitter desired … or felt it desired.
I don’t quite understand what took so long for this awareness to arise. Because, references to “deconstruction” and its pernicious effects, and the philosophy (or philosophical anthropology which guided it) were pretty commonly made in newspapers over 20 years ago.
Maybe people just couldn’t, or simply were not forced to, confront it.
I remember reading Vincent B. Leitch’s “Deconstruction, an Advanced Introduction” (1982) in the early ’90’s and sharing some of what I had read with others, who were either baffled or horrified. Kind of like some may have felt reading The Genealogy of Morals for the first time. An almost vertigo inducing experience.
One middle aged man in particular reacted to the anti-logocentric stance of the deconstructionists as I described it, as if he had literally heard me announcing the contents of the mind of the Devil.
And in some ways it might have been.
In any event, Leitch’s book does not seem to have gotten the attention I think it deserves: generating hostility from both those who think Leitch is an apologist for an intellectual evil, and those postmodernism sympathizers who would try and nitpick his survey – for that is what it really is, a survey – apart.
Lot’s of emotional investment all around …
Nazi beliefs were partially derived from world wide fascism, which included US slavery 2.0 proponents and eugenicists like Margaret Sanger.
Nazi true believers, the upper echelon not the cannonfodder at the bottom, also believed in the existence of supernatural entities and powers. Some of which the Nazi scientists the US imported (thousands upon thousands upon thousands), reported that their superior tech came from outside help.
Communism derived their modus operandi from Western philosophers, the Enlightenment, and probably Jesuit liberal arts “knowledge vs knowledge” plus Counter Reformation concepts. Thus Communism or Marxism, is the direct heir of the Western Enlightenment: everything was modern, up to date, and superstitious beliefs in gods were wiped out. Mao did the same to the traditions of China. What one sees as the main land of China is merely a decrepit shadow if its former self, much as Christianity is a mere shadow of its former original self. It took China so many decades to modernize and become westernized, because the very core of Marxism is to Westernize a country and dispel all traditional superstitious or just any traditional belief system by replacing it. The State is merely a convenient necessity, because they cannot transform China or Russia, without a powerful State keeping the rebels down.
The methods Nazis and fascists and communists use are generally about the same. They serve Lucifer more or less, even if they think they are serving some other goal or entity.
That is why Alinsky and Ayers, if you look at their modus operandi, are basically the same. And the people controllers and mind control Leftists, are the same. Their alliances are different. There’s the Deep State hierarchy and combination, as well as the Leftist alliance which is also a combination of diverse and disparate groups and interests.
https://soundcloud.com/tristin-john-hopper/recording-of-meeting-between-lindsay-shepherd-and-wilfrid-laurier-university-professors
Post Modernism sounds like the perfect antithesis that leads to the Last Days thesis of one world religion.
Consider Cloward Piven strategies. The best way to obtain a one world religion under say, the Vatican, is to create a post modern world that collapses on its own ideological barren dystopia…
Religion is going to hit a new high in State Totalitarianism. That’s because the demand will go up. When demand goes up, the market seeks to meet it by raising the supply. However, some of these suppliers are megalomaniacs.
The Nazis promised a place for everyone. At least, everyone who was one of US, not people of different races or whatever. It was probably a very satisfying creed for a people who had been buffeted by war and Depression and desperately needed to find a reason for that experience. Take a look at the Nazi Socialist Program, which contains their goals. Being against banks, they condemned usury. Being against big department stores, they defended small shops. Etc. Very progressive, I’d say.
[A 38-year-old] woman, who isn’t a Queen’s student, stood on one of the building’s window ledges. Police said in their news release that she then started to bang on the window causing it break.
Once handcuffed the woman became violent and started kicking one officer. Additional officers responded to take the woman to police headquarters, but on the way there she tried to kick out the cruiser’s window.
Once at police headquarters the woman refused to walk on her own and continued to be uncooperative. Police said that she bit one of the officers and had to be physically carried into her cell as she continued to be violent.
Police searched her backpack and inside they found a weapon inside. Commonly known as a garrote, the weapon consists of metal wire with handles on each end.
— disrupted a Jordan Peterson lecture against compelled speech at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario