Tucker Carlson interviews & ideologies

[SlipNet]

lol, I remember hearing her talk about the profits of elevator firms. I run a consultancy which manages construction costs & contracts amongst other things, and a major frustration was the seemingly inexplicable power wielded by the 'lift guys' in contract negotiations. It was always, regardless of who you went to, 'our way or the highway.' Any then Fitts explained the phenomenon at a stroke - bingo!!

It's electrifying when you truly know what we're dealing with, what we're up against, and Fitts perfectly condenses the problems in everyday language. The C's described JBP as a "great soul", but I'm far more partial to the likes of Tucker and Fitts. Their care is universal, whereas Peterson's is conditional with being au fait with a form of ponerological religion. I know which side I prefer....

 

[Asa]

It's electrifying when you truly know what we're dealing with, what we're up against, and Fitts perfectly condenses the problems in everyday language. The C's described JBP as a "great soul", but I'm far more partial to the likes of Tucker and Fitts. Their care is universal, whereas Peterson's is conditional with being au fait with a form of ponerological religion. I know which side I prefer....

Totally agree. Tucker and Fitts are, in my view, palpably great souls. I can't explain it in words very well, but there is a kind of strength and purity of heart about them both, coupled with excellent intellects.

 

[SlipNet]

Totally agree. Tucker and Fitts are, in my view, palpably great souls. I can't explain it in words very well, but there is a kind of strength and purity of heart about them both, coupled with excellent intellects.

Yes my friend! The difference is stark when you consider how they each respectively feel about the genocide in Gaza. It's not that I hate Peterson, it's just that I feel so desperately disappointed in him. So many innocent souls have been vanquished, callously destroyed. How can you balance that in your mind while not wanting to alienate your liberal Zio buddies who have afforded you a very decent life, after losing a professorship for fighting the culture wars like an absolute diamond? Yes, disappointed is how I feel. He could have been a truly inspiring figure. As such, he's relagated to the level of The Rolling Stones, where we love his early work but feel he lost his way in trying to please others at the expense of his inner integrity of mind. I still love the early Stones though, until 1975 they were mint!

 

[Asa]

Yes my friend! The difference is stark when you consider how they each respectively feel about the genocide in Gaza. It's not that I hate Peterson, it's just that I feel so desperately disappointed in him. So many innocent souls have been vanquished, callously destroyed. How can you balance that in your mind while not wanting to alienate your liberal Zio buddies who have afforded you a very decent life, after losing a professorship for fighting the culture wars like an absolute diamond? Yes, disappointed is how I feel. He could have been a truly inspiring figure. As such, he's relagated to the level of The Rolling Stones, where we love his early work but feel he lost his way in trying to please others at the expense of his inner integrity of mind. I still love the early Stones though, until 1975 they were mint!

Stones analogy is spot on

 

[SlipNet]

Stones analogy is spot on

I'm probably being self-indulgent in saying this, but I say what I feel these days. In 1969, Brian Jones died and the Rolling Stones needed a new guitarist. They found a young kid from John Mayall's blues band, and gave him the job. He was the wonderful Mick Taylor, a tremendous, precocious talent, gifted with a perfect, emotional guitar tone and a liquid grace on the fretboard. Between 1969-74, they created all the great perennial classics that still afford them joy, respect and love even today. But, and it's a biggie, the Stones were a druggy band, and Taylor didn't fancy a life as a high-functioning junkie. He quit the band in 1974 for health reasons, and they subsequently hired Ronnie Wood for the vacant slot. He's a great rock n' roller, but he's not in Taylor's league for feel and tone. The Stones continued (to this very day, amazingly) to perform but never scaled the heights of their early pomp. They sacrificed purity of intent for continued relevance, chasing the latest trends and fads in popular music and always coming up short. They lost some of their essence.

And so it is with Peterson. He fought postmodernism and the LGBTQ+ throngs with razor sharp intellect, married to an impressive moral force. He was, in essence, a "great soul" in these days. Maybe he got too much praise, too much hot air and opportunities? He got wooly in his thinking. He bent over backwards to accommodate Liberal Judeo-Christian thinkers, to the cost of his own intellectual integrity. So, to conclude the Stones analogy, Peterson sacrificed purity of intent for continued relevance, chasing Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro and the Judeo-Christian orthodoxy, yet always coming up short. And he suffered drug-related problems! The similarities are potent. He lost some of his essence! I know it's a bit of a cheesy comment, but I think there's a point in there....

Just for the record, I love the Stones, Mick Taylor and Jordan Peterson. But don't make heroes out of human figures, and the same message I'd relay to the Groypers crowing today. Be careful with heroes, because mostly they are very human figures once you get past all the bluster and hyperbole.

 

[SlipNet]

The Stones continued (to this very day, amazingly) to perform but never scaled the heights of their early pomp. They sacrificed purity of intent for continued relevance, chasing the latest trends and fads in popular music and always coming up short. They lost some of their essence.

This is an oblique point to make, but I think it illustrates a general point about confusing the message with the messenger. In the old Stones music (1968-74 to be precise), Jagger's voice was used as an extra instrument, punctuating the sounds, blending in with 2 interwoven guitar textures, drums and bass. The effect was incredible on their best albums. In later years, Jagger was the iconoclastic "frontman" for the band, and for some reason their record producers and sound engineers thought it would be a good idea to separate his vocals from the woven music, placing him "front and centre" in the mix. It totally ruined the sound of the band, yet they've been doing it consistently since the 80's. It makes me scream inside with frustration, thinking, "Aaaaargh! You're all still brilliant, why can't you go back to the old mix, it was so much better?".

And also this applies to JBP too! He was at his best when part of the vanguard, call it what you will, the IDW, revolutionary thinkers, but he was "part of an orchestra". In later years his profile got bumped up considerably, and then we see Peterson "front and centre", just like Jagger. And, when the spotlight shines down on him, he's not coming through so well. He's not "part of the band" any more. Increasingly in his Liberal-Zionist cloister, the sound of man and band doesn't resonate with the quality of the old, classic Peterson. It's just so bloody infuriating. Somewhere in the multiverse, there's an alternate reality where Peterson is still amazing and the Stones are still rocking like the grand old bluesmen they were born to be! Stop the world, I wanna get off, lol. I wanna be on THAT planet, naturally.