Bravest Man in New Zealand ... and the World!

administrator's picture
Submitted by administrator on Sun, 2018-09-02 06:09

Award goes to Olivia Pierson for this post here on SOLO:

"Identitarian" is a pejorative term that wimps on the right use to distinguish themselves from the so-called alt-right, because many on the alt-right understand they were delivered something by their forebears that was extraordinary - and they don't want to see it surrendered to the darkest forces that humanity has to offer. Multiculturalism is the enemy and fifth column working to undermine that extraordinary inheritance and usher in those dark forces.

Personally, I think that if Europe does not re-discover its identity: Athens, Jerusalem, Rome, Judeo-Christianity and the Enlightenment, it's simply lights out for them in a very barbaric way. For a very long time. Europe is under threat from the darkest and most aggressive religion ever invented by man: Islam. Multiculturalism is the evil that has let that disgusting religion prevail in European culture, while Europe exercises itself about the correct terminology from a position of unearned guilt: Colonialism, Slavery, White Supremacy, WWII and Genocide etc....ad nauseam...as if more backward cultures were so unimpeachably freedom oriented. They were worse, much worse.

And now we have the term "identitarian," like looking around for solidarity within a historical identity as the inheritors of the greatest culture ever is a bad thing.

Well fuck that. Call me an Identitarian if needs must. I identify to the very depth of my bodily cells and my thinking brain that my European culture, inherited from the lights of my ancestors, delivered to me (and those I share a civilisation with despite their skin-colour) the best living conditions ever known to men and women, in the history of the entire world. Despite its flaws, it also offered us in the last two centuries science and technology, freedom of conscience, the emancipation of women and children, capitalism, religious tolerance and individual, personal happiness, which is more than can be said of any other culture on offer. Mass immigration into our civilisation stands testament to these obvious facts.

If I can't find some kind of identity within the culture of that powerful legacy... where else should I look for it?


Free Will

Jmaurone's picture

Peterson DOES believe in free will; if I'm correct, it's actually Sam Harris who's a determinist. (I have a suspicion that Peterson' views of atheism and objectivism get lumped in with Harris' variety, sadly.) Peterson believes that we can make choices, and need to have values; it's just that he disagrees that those values can be rationally or objectively determined, as both Harris AND Objectivism put forth, that they need to be derived religiously and "traditionally" (that we can't just throw off our biological hierarchy.) But yeah, it's weird, because he does believe in free will, but one wonders why, if he discounts it so much. It all has to do with his take on, and rejection of, Nietzsche's "transvaluation of values" and Jungian brand of witch-doctory, as Linz would put it, which claims to be both "spiritual" AND rational/empirical. Both he and Jung are cagey about their actual views on the supernatural, afterlife, etc.

As I read it he seems to be

Richard Wiig's picture

As I read it he seems to be saying that man is a product of his glands, with little to no free will. He also seems to be trying to protect his own world view from being undermined.

Peterson, Nathaniel Branden, and Erich Fromm

Jmaurone's picture

Coincidentally, what spurred me on the write the below was that I was just rereading Branden's "Alienation" essay in CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEA (which also discusses facts and values), and his description of Erich Fromm sounds like, in places, an argument against Peterson. (Which is fitting; even though Peterson is pro-capitalism, and Fromm, anti, they both depict man as a "freak of the universe", cowering in terror, as "a strangers and afraid", alone in a world they never made). Both Peterson and Fromm speak of "social orders" as a necessity.

Branden quotes Fromm:

"The social order was conceived as a natural order, and being a definite part of it gave man a feeling of security and of belonging. There was comparitively little competition. One was born into a certain economic position which guaranteed a livelihood determined by tradition, just as it carried economic obligations to those higher in the socieal hierarchy. But within the lmiits of his social sphere the individual actually had much freedom to express his sel in the work and in his emotional life. Although there was no individualism in the modern sense of the unrestricted choice between many possible ways of life (a freedom of choice which is largely abstract), there was a great deal of concrete individualism in real life.

To which Branden responds: "It is not uncommon to encounter this sort of perspective on the Middle Ages, among writers on alienation. But what makes the above passage especially shocking and offensive, in the case of Fromm, is that he repeatedly professes to be a lover of freedom and a valuer of human life." Again, that's how I feel when I read Peterson's Twitter posts celebrating individualism, capitalism, and technology, in contrast to his extensive writings about the necessity of suffering, of how pathetic man is, and how miserable life is, how we need to return to a conservative idea of tradition and hierarchy via sacrifice and religion, and the Kantian idea that we need to limit reason to make room for faith...

Peterson, ITOE, and Facts and Values

Jmaurone's picture

Linz: "In my view, he's not even one of the good guys. He's a witch doctor. In fact, he's worse than a witch doctor; most witch doctors manage to make themselves interesting."

Gregster: "Peterson needs to read and absorb the Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology and perhaps his acute floundering can be curtailed in future. He apparently was offered a copy after the Rubin moderated discussion which included Brook. If he is an honest intellectual he will learn how to integrate his thoughts without contradiction and BS."

Agreed to both the "witch doctor" observation, and the cure for that, which is why I noted this recent video regarding his post-thoughts of his debates with Sam Harris with interest, to see what he might have learned. He doesn't mention the OCON debate, or even mention Objectivism, but he does touch on the concept of objectivity when in comes to deriving values from facts (the "is-ought dichotomy"):

Peterson discusses some things he realized after his debates with Sam Harris, re: deriving facts and values (around the 9:30 mark.) Peterson says he understand the idea of connecting values to something "objective" vs.  relativistic, "revealed truth", but still struggles with it, because of the "difficulty" of doing so, because of the "infinite number of facts" vs.  by necessity, a finite number of values.  He says now that he can articulate better, now, the following:

"...that you look at the world of facts through a hierarchy of values, and that hierarchy of values is substantiated [instantiated? I can't quite understand his pronounciation, there] in your nervous system, and simultaneously, a social construct, because you pay attention to things of value that you and everyone else have established as valuable through a process of social negotiation. And you need to pay attention to what you think that's valuable that everyone else thinks is valuable, because otherwise you wouldn't have any basis for shared attention, and you wouldn't have any basis for trade with other people. ..So now I've figured out that you reduce the infinite world of facts to the finite world of values by viewing the world of facts through what's essentially a dominance hierarchy of value. And that exists both out in the social world and neurologically, at the same time. And so, that's been unbelievably useful to figure out, too, and part of a mystery that I've been trying to untangle for about three decades."



"Three decades"? Well, maybe if he hadn't been so dismissive of Rand as a philosopher, he'd have gotten it sooner.

This is vague enough that I'm sure this could be spun different ways. To me, it sounds like he either hasn't read ITOE, yet. But if he has, that he's either not a fan, or, if he has read it, he's still missing something. It does seem like there's some overlap with Objectivism in the talk of a "dominance hierarchy of values". But what I notice in the above is that in talking about "social constructs" and neurological/bioligical structures is a glaring ommision of the cognitive/conceptual faculty. NOT that he denies the existence of such, but that he downplays it in favor of "lobster hierarchy", social metaphysics, and values imposed by religion instead of reason. Peterson has long been critical of objectively derived values; to me, it still sounds like he wants to "limit reason in order to make room for faith." And if the religious aspect weren't enough, Peterson STILL holds the conservative views of limiting progress and innovation to preserve tradition and hierarchy, unless absolutely necessary.

To be fair, the first part of the video is full of optimism about how life can be better, which is a pleasant contrast to his usual "doom and gloom" emphasis on suffering. But then, it's just another contradition with Peterson; while he celebrates capitalism and individualism, it's of the utilitarian variety. (When I read his Twitter feed, and his pro-capitalism/individualism/techonology quotes, I sometimes can't believe it's the same person.) At any rate, I'm still of the mind that it's great that Peterson's fighting against nihilism, authoritarianism, etc, and that there's some good in Peterson's ideas, but that same good can already be found in Objectivism.

Jordan Fucking Peterson

Lindsay Perigo's picture

So are we finally agreed then?!

I can't bring myself to click on yet another link to Jordan Fucking Peterson. Am I the only one bored witless by being confronted by him at every turn? If he doesn't like "Identitarians" I'm pretty sure I'm one of them. One big bloviator with NOTHING to say apart from the blindingly obvious. Only The Age of Crap could spawn him. Rule for Life #1: professional psychologists are insane—ignore them. Rule for Life #2: academics are our modern-day witch-doctors—ignore them. A PhD is a guarantee of stupidity, charlatanry and/or outright evil.

In my view, he's not even one of the good guys. He's a witch doctor. In fact, he's worse than a witch doctor; most witch doctors manage to make themselves interesting.

The ballet...

Olivia's picture

is just rapturous! Beautiful.

Greg:
I missed the one that Joe posted. I just can't stand people who virtue signal "look how deep I am." Nauseates me. That display from Jordan is the worst example that I've ever seen of it. Blubbing is one thing and I have no problem with that, but blubbing into a webcam as one reads aloud one's own 'deep thoughts' to the world is quite another.

Olivia

gregster's picture

Yes, that one when he's in tears was posted here by Joe Maurone and is a shocker! As Joe and I agreed then, Peterson needs to read and absorb the Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology and perhaps his acute floundering can be curtailed in future. He apparently was offered a copy after the Rubin moderated discussion which included Brook. If he is an honest intellectual he will learn how to integrate his thoughts without contradiction and BS.

That of Which The Filth Would Deprive Us

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Here is the imperishable glory of Western Civilisation writ large. I can't help noting that no one associated with this is an Islamofa, a Social Justice Warrior, an Anti-White Racist, an Obleftivist, a Trump Derangement Syndromer, a screeching feminazi from the Ugly Wimmin Sisterhood, a pseudo-academic, a headbanging caterwauler, a pseudo-jounalist or any other variant of The Filth.

I feel the same ecstasy watching this as I did last night watching two geniuses in a different, but still uniquely Western realm: Rafa and Dominic in the US Open quarter-final. It went to the wire, a tie-breaker after the fifth set. Rafa won at the last possible moment, in sweltering heat and humidity, after a record-setting four and a half hours. Both men were beyond heroic. Rafa hugged Dominic and told him how great he was.

Here's the same spirit, which The Filth would destroy.

#We are ANTIFI (the Anti-Filth).

Not A Full Conservo-Progressive

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Jordan Peterson evidently has an extremely high opinion of the Objectivist Stephen Hicks and his ultra-important book Explaining Postmodernism (2004). So Peterson is a neoliberal of sorts. His thinking may be a small cut above, and insightful and valuable in brief sections.

Brrrrrruno!

Olivia's picture

I looked at the clip, obviously made by a somewhat rattled Christian, and thought how many similar throw together, hit-job clips I've seen like this but done about Trump. They're not worth very much.

I've always found Peterson's obsession with "complexity" thoroughly irritating and vain - as though he's the only one who thoroughly has a take on "complex" issues, when he himself complicates things beyond what is needed in conversation. But I was prepared to take that as just a quirk of his nature and profession.

So, I was about to go to bed and give you a response in the morning, probably along the lines of what I said to Linz.

But then I saw this:

It's unbearable to watch, aside from comedic value - and I confess that I'm shocked it's even up on Youtube.
What sane man would want to be seen by millions of strangers in this abjectly lachrymose state about human suffering?
Especially a man who has earned a reputation for encouraging young men to be men? Dear oh dear!

Nothing more to say here. Jordan and I are through - and I've been spared the bother of ever reading his books.

Olivia

Bruno T's picture

Olivia, he is not mixed.. he is plain horrible and mad.

I had only somewhat superficially looked at him when he came up first (only videos), and dropped listening to him pretty quickly, believing more or less "whatever!" (I later exposed his phenomenological approach, which is a form of anti-objective-reality philosophy).

Vox Day however has read his work and has exposed him and the effects of his influence, by reading his books, which are much more revealing. Not mixed, plain horrible and mad.

Peterson...

Olivia's picture

I don't feel that hostile toward him or what he has to say.
He has his value in today's culture, especially in combatting Cultural Marxism head-on in academia, and encouraging young men and women to sort their individual lives out through shouldering responsibility, since so many of them have been so poorly parented, or barely parented at all - which probably goes to your point that "only the Age of Crap could spawn him."

Nonetheless, I'm glad he is there doing what he's doing. Like most thinkers and speakers today, he is very mixed.

Honestly ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... I can't bring myself to click on yet another link to Jordan Fucking Peterson. Am I the only one bored witless by being confronted by him at every turn? If he doesn't like "Identitarians" I'm pretty sure I'm one of them. One big bloviator with NOTHING to say apart from the blindingly obvious. Only The Age of Crap could spawn him. Rule for Life #1: professional psychologists are insane—ignore them. Rule for Life #2: academics are our modern-day witch-doctors—ignore them. A PhD is a guarantee of stupidity, charlatanry and/or outright evil.

Here's Peterson getting worked up about Identitarians...

Olivia's picture

and then saying they have Middle Eastern roots. Oh really? I wish he could tell that to Charles Martel.
I've never heard them say "I achieved this." They say "I have inherited this and I want to preserve it." Quite different.

Here's a better one of him with some good advice about sorting your life out as an individual, but he still keeps going on about group identity being the problem, whereas from what I can see, the Identitarians are not so much seeking solace within a group (based on whiteness), but a valuable culture worth preserving.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I don't see anything wrong with it...

Olivia's picture

since it's a European pushback to counteract losing their culture to savages. But it's heavily criticised by people like Jordan Peterson - and many others - for being "collectivist" on the basis of "whiteness." I think that reading of Identitarianism is rather shallow. They want their culture to remain their culture, and I cannot see anything wrong with that.

They are against globalism, parallel societies in their midst and open immigration on the basis that it is their culture that stands to be swallowed whole. They are highly aware that multiculturalism has become an enormous enemy within.
I find myself in agreement with them. I only hope they can get clear about the best "ideas" of their culture and rise to defend those swiftly and clearly.

I'm completely befuddled, bothered and bewildered

Lindsay Perigo's picture

So is "identitarian" good or bad?!

I should say....

Olivia's picture

that wimps on the Right (and Left) use the term Identitarian pejoratively about the so-called Alt Right patriots. The Generation Identity Movement refer to themselves as Identitarian, in a non-pejorative way of course. Smiling

https://www.generation-identit...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.