Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[JEEP]

Interesting that in the sequel to CALLING OUT Bravo-7, Beyond Bravo-7, JBP has a Truth soundbite 2 min in, and then his full thought that begins with "Nietzsche said" is expressed @3:13 - 5:11.

Beyond Bravo-7 is a 2:47:35 video. It is an amazing collection of extremely pertinent events and machinations that have brought forth the world as it is today. Jordan Peterson was chosen for the final words of this extraordinary, history revealing video.

 

[Voyageur]

Well, my post couldn't have been more timely:

Jordan Peterson: Nietzsche, Hitler, God, Psychopathy, Suffering & Meaning | Lex Fridman Podcast #448​

Could be wrong, it was either written by Robert Waite in his book the The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, or in The Psychology of Dictatorship' by Gilbert (think the former), and that was in how many soldiers tucked a copy of Nietzsche's book into their rucksacks as they marched to do battle, although the reference may have been WWI, yet WWII would suit.

The flip side today, is that some, like JP, can whistle Nietzsche as prisoners behind the 'walls' are exterminated in Gaza - to say go get em, Bibi, or whatever it was, it is not a war of invaders, its the very worst fist of human butchery.

As for Nietzscheism in Israel, there is a past fit:

FROM RIGHT TO LEFT: ISRAEL ELDAD AND NIETZSCHE’S RECEPTION IN ISRAEL
Abstract: The seven volumes of Nietzsche translated to Hebrew by Israel Eldad (1910 – 1996) in the1960’s and 1970’s established him as a major Israeli scholar of Nietzsche. Not only was Eldad a brilliant translator; he was also an innovative commentator. His instructive reading of Nietzsche made a decisive contribution to the propagation of Nietzschean discourse in Israel. As one of the leaders of LEHI, the Hebrew underground against the British before the founding of the State of Israeli, Eldad was considered a radical intellectual of the Israeli right and had a Messianic vision of the future of Israel. His outlook was influenced deeply by the Nietzschean Lebensphilo-sophie. In this article I will trace the role of Nietzsche in Eldad’s political biography, Messianic philosophy and intellectual enterprise.

More on Eldad:

Israel (Scheib) Eldad was born in 1910 in Eastern Galicia. He enrolled for religious studies at the Rabbinical Seminary of Vienna and completed his doctorate on “The Voluntarism of Eduard von Hartmann, based on Schopenhauer” at the University of Vienna. He joined the staff of the Teachers Seminary in Vilna in 1937 and rose in the ranks of the rightist Jewish youth movement “Betar” to the position of regional staff officer. When World War II broke out, Scheib escaped from Warsaw together with Menachem Begin, who became Israel’s Prime minister in 1977. He arrived in Mandatory Palestinein 1941 and joined the Lehi underground movement in opposition to the British authorities. “Eldad ”was one of several aliases Scheib adopted while living underground, and it became the name by which he is remembered. After Lehi founder Avraham Stern was killed by the British, Eldad became one of a triumvirate of Lehi commanders. For the next six years he wrote articles for various underground newspapers, some of which he edited. He also wrote some of the speeches delivered in court by Lehi de-fendants. Eldad was arrested by the British while fleeing a Tel Aviv apartment and was imprisoned in Jerusalem

 

[Mari]

I also clicked on the time stamp for the psychopathy part of the conversation. Lex introduces the concept of psychopathy from the point of view of how you would interview Putin in order to ask the right questions to expose him as a psychopath.

I skipped to the part on psychopathy and while listening to JP, I kept thinking how old he looks - in a aligning with evil kind of old. His posture and how he looked very condescending in general was like watching Obama talk. When I was watching his old lectures, there was some spark in him that has died now and only thing that is left is a shell of a bitter old man.

 

[Jones]

I also skipped to the psychopathy time stamp in that Fridman - Peterson interview. Petersen admits that he can be charmed by a psychopath in an interview, said that he wanted to avoid interviewing some. His producers told him, however, that since the interview would be aired, the audience would sort it out. Petersen then says that the audience generally does pick up the red flags with a good degree of accuracy.






Right there, he has a hint about the value of networking.

 

[Bluegazer]

Petersen admits that he can be charmed by a psychopath in an interview, said that he wanted to avoid interviewing some.

Well... he interviewed the demon Bibi, didn't he? Oh the irony...

 

[T.C.]

I commented on the YouTube vid, basically saying that if you want to identify a psychopath, you don’t focus on what they say but on what they do, and that if you can’t tell Netanyahu’s a psychopath then you don’t have any credibility as a clinical psychologist.

 

[Ricardo]

This is of course subjective ( as personal ) but , hasn't psychology , for the most part been a tool of the archons ? ( edit , at least Peterson seems to oblige )

 

[hobnob]

I took almost a clean break from Peterson for maybe a year or two. Now, while watching his interview, it is difficult not to bring in politics.

What if it's some Palestinian kid we're not encouraging?

What if Gazans or Lebanese people can't explore and participate in infinite play within the proper constraints? Constraints on genocide, for instance?

Why are we turning Palestinians into Job? Are we Satan in this scenario, asking God to prove the worth of Palestinians?

There may be sadistic malevolence in ourselves, which delights in mayhem, and this can lead to PTSD, says Peterson. Are we actively trying to give ourselves PTSD, then?

A little consistency goes a long way.

 

[Joe]

Petersen admits that he can be charmed by a psychopath in an interview, said that he wanted to avoid interviewing some. His producers told him, however, that since the interview would be aired, the audience would sort it out. Petersen then says that the audience generally does pick up the red flags with a good degree of accuracy.

Wonder who he was referring to....Did he ever interview Andrew Tate?

 

[Jones]

Wonder who he was referring to....Did he ever interview Andrew Tate?

He mentions Tate, but I don't know if he has interviewed him.

In the 2min vid below, he says that Tate is kind of pimpy and Peterson doesn't like that.

There is a more recent one here where he says the pimping behaviour is unforgivable:

 

[whitecoast]

Just found this video essayist Jonathan from Think Culture, and I enjoyed this material.

One of the first interesting things he brings up is the ongoing debate within progressive circles about whether Foucault should be included in their curriculum for education. This debate is based on the fact that, although Foucault is highly critical of sexual morality, he actually rejects enlightenment thinking outright. This according to Jonathan actually is problematic to the progressive worldview because it has since the French Revolution been a combination of enlightenment metaphysics and normative ideals around equality and inclusivity, et cetera. But since then progressive ideology has transformed into a set of normative beliefs completely cut off from rooted metaphysical and ontological beliefs about the world.

In response to enlightenment thought the counter enlightenment has arisen, which although it has been included as part of a lot of deconstructive thinking (eg critical theory) it has grown to become anathema to progressives because it also deconstructs and rejects a lot of enlightenment ontology and metaphysics which has historically underscored the progressive project.

Because of this as the norms of progressives continue to evolve they are less and less able to read any philosophical thought since the enlightenment unless there is an EXPLICIT homage or advocacy for the norms they purport. But apparently even this is not enough for some because the underlying critiques of metaphysical presuppositions about human nature themselves undermine any of the norms they espouse.

The most obvious example given in the video is the striving for equality between men and women. But they philosophically cannot have metaphysical or ontological beliefs about what a man is or woman is, or what they aren’t. Because it’s a nonsensical, discursive and historically conditioned term which according to them is meaningless. How can such a view be held while simultaneously thinking that men and women should be equal? It’s pure cognitive dissonance to engage with any meaningful questions about reality, so they judge thinkers and philosophical material less by its truthfulness and more by its ability to stifle and vector thought away from reality itself, namely deeper questions about metaphysics and ontology.

If you’re into philosophy I highly recommend it.

 

[palestine]

Hello @whitecoast, thank you for your post. It is concise, clear and (sorry!) enlightening.

I have recently come to the realization that the "enlightement" / French revolution has been kind of a critical milestone, and I think that it's thanks to Laura's Secret History of the world, if I am not mistaking (it could be Luctalks Substack too).

I find it great that (for example), Laura made it through and identified this period as being "a milestone", while others such as the Jonathan guy above, made it too, via different means.

This person must be very intelligent and having the capacity to intellectually discuss much as hypothetical, not remaining at whatever fixed step.

I remember Laura having written a serie of articles named "The context of Greek philosophers"; this suggests me that there is an anterior culprit, way before. Still, the French revolution seems to have been a real milestone. When Laura wrote her article serie, I did not have several key concepts at hand and, who knows, I might be today able to frame those in the context of your excellent (IMO) post.

Thank you again for it, it provides a precise basis for studying this evolution! A lot has been said, on Substack, in regard of this world view automatically discarding "inconfortable" elements. It has been labelled "progressivism", the term fits, but I *sometimes* feel it's not all there is. I would tend to see it as a generic form of decay (or, something else truly behind the scene - this requiring a better qualificative) - rather than a fixed outcome. It could still be, surely! That's "what we see" and how it manifests / seems to be its main manifestation (progressivism).

For example, a model "left" / "right" hemisphere would be more accurate and progressivism would be a sub-domain of it. I have no idea, as I need to study Ian McGilchrist's model more.