Jordan Peterson and propaganda

I had forgotten about good old Jordan Peterson until I read this. I was one of the deluded who thought Peterson was legitimate back in 2016, though I never thought him more than a gifted synthesizer of Jung and Piaget (among others), with an especially good take on classic Disney films. I didn’t understand the adoration he aroused, especially among women and cucks.

I watched his lectures and enjoyed them a great deal. They contained many insights and brilliant asides, and he seemed to be a decent enough chap.

I still think Vox Day’s attack on Peterson was to some degree overly polemical and rhetorical, with accusations of occultism, but then VD is a Christian who has either said or strongly implied that meditation is a Satanic practice so there you go, he has higher standards than most. However, I think VD is broadly correct, and there is something rotten in Peterson.

The way I now see it, Peterson was approached by Cabal and offered wealth and fame; and he accepted. He was “created” as opposition to Cabal’s SJW toys, to give normal men a harmless outlet for their natural aversion to the screaming blue-haired landwhales. I think his purpose was to stop young men drawing correct (racial) conclusions, and to create a kind of watered-down, harmless Christianity.

I don’t think he was always an evil, Satanic occultist or whatever VD claims; I think Peterson was merely a fragile, unstable individual with some dark tendencies (the occult aspect would not surprise me, and it is imprudent for the ungrounded & neurotic to “dabble”; however, it is precisely the ungrounded & neurotic who are most drawn to the occult).

The “early” Peterson (2014/5) was an interesting professor in comfy academic woollens and ghastly suits, speaking to perhaps 30 students about Disney films: I liked this Peterson; but when I watched his post-fame stuff it seemed very thin; I felt increasingly ill at ease, as he himself looked uncomfortable and evasive and frankly bizarre at times. As he settled into 10,000 dollar suits and a semi-prophetic beard I found him less & less interesting and just stopped paying any attention to his particular word salad and endlessly recycled concepts and tropes. I wasn’t too surprised to find him speaking at a Trilateral Commission event, looking deeply uncomfortable.

My feeling is that he knew, on some level, that he was selling his soul to the worst people in the world and tried to grit his teeth & get on with it in return for wealth & fame; but being an inherently unstable individual the guilt and shame got to him – nor would I be surprised if Vox’s book was the final nail. There is also the possibility that he was offered the usual trappings & entrapments of the elites – underage sex – and having a strong interest in suffering and horror he suddenly & unsettlingly became aware of the wickedness of his new masters.

Unlike Vox and seemingly most of his readers, who all sensed the Satanic as soon as Peterson opened his mouth, I was taken in and thought, oh good an academic who’s willing to take a stand. I obviously lack the discernment of VD and his readers but I see now a red flag that should have given me pause, back in 2016; it is this video, my first encounter with Peterson on Computing Forever’s channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OsWXBjY9W4

Looking back, I notice how evidently staged Peterson’s speech was; whoever was filming him was using good quality equipment, the speech was either well-practised or well-edited, the audio is oddly perfect; and it was immediately afterwards that he exploded into the edgy but not too edgy Youtube scene, appearing on Stefan Molyneux and then on Joe Rogan; but refusing to talk to Millennial Woes.

I recall Peter Hitchens once remarking of photos of a riot in (I think) Lahore, where protestors were burning Union Jack flags; Hitchens asked, “is there a shop where you can buy two hundred identical, pristine Union Jack flags in Lahore?” As a journalist, Hitchens had noticed the implausibility of the scene; the careful artifice of the photographs. I should have paid more attention to Peterson’s speech, and wondered, “is this organic? is this real? or is this managed?”

Another note: I don’t think Peterson is evil, merely weak. And I believe that when such a man “takes the ticket” and sells his soul, he will be destroyed in this life and in this world. The utterly evil (e.g. the Bushes and Clintons) will typically enjoy good health & wealth until death, being undivided and whole in their devotion to evil; but those who are not thoroughly evil will be ruined: they are akin to the Kid in Blood Meridian, who is slain by the Judge because he was not wholly committed to evil:

There’s a flawed place in the fabric of your heart. Do you think I could not know? You alone were mutinous. You alone reserved in your soul some corner of clemency for the heathen.

In spiritual matters – which includes the selling of one’s own soul – it is all or nothing. Some think they are merely selling a part of their soul, but that is an error: for the soul is fractal. Perhaps one could as it were cut off a little finger and live thereafter maimed, just about; but with Peterson it was as if he began with a finger, then a hand, then an arm, then they wanted his torso. In such a business, either be as the Bushes and Clintons, or do not partake.

book report, Black Swan (Nassim Taleb)

A book I’ve heard about for at least a decade, but only now got down to reading after my Kindle broke and I decided to get into my many many unread paper books. It’s a great read, albeit one best taken in small doses; you certainly could read the whole thing in a few afternoons but it’s better to read a few pages then think, I think.

Taleb’s central point seems to be that our humanly-devised models of reality cannot predict everything, and we can’t even determine the limits of our competence; so we don’t know what we can’t predict – at the best, we can assume there are things we can’t predict, which stand on the margins of our science like sea serpents drawn on maps – here be dragons, Hic sunt dracones on the Hunt-Lenox globe.

It is therefore imprudent to build systems which will fail too heavily upon contact with the unexpected.

Taleb’s style is not for everyone. He leads to philosophical points through personal anecdotes, usually about unshaven, hairy-handed working men from the 2nd or 3rd-world who can barely read but are smarter than all the Harvard PhDs; there are several anecdotes about Taleb at conferences where he outrages academics with his blunt manner & wisdom. I don’t really mind the near-constant sense of Taleb’s ego, as he has the ballsiness, achievement, and intellect to justify a certain self-satisfaction; I merely withdraw from his worldliness, his lack of a spiritual dimension. He’s an exemplar of Rene Guenon’s Reign of Quantity, a man who sees everything in quantitative terms; thus missing the element of Fate.

There is nonetheless a great deal to enjoy, many passages I marked, e.g. :

In real life you do not know the odds; you need to discover them, and the sources of uncertainty are not defined.

and

The notion of future mixed with chance, not a deterministic extension of your perception of the past, is a mental operation that our mind cannot perform. 

and

Likewise, do not try to predict precise Black Swans – it tends to make you more vulnerable to the ones you did not predict.

Taleb’s worldview is alien to my own; he’s one of these rootless cosmopolitans who lives in major cities – could live nowhere else – even as he talks about his ancestral hometown as the source of his wisdom and clarity. He would probably regard anyone who prefers to be rooted among his folk as a provincial loser and a racist, as if for all his intelligence he cannot quite bear to scrutinise the magic R word (or he doesn’t want to forfeit his conferences and interview requests and literary celebrity).

There is a slight sense of emptiness about his great intellect and learning – I want to ask, what is all this for? why be so smart? just to make more money? But that’s also testament to his greatness – were he a mediocre pop-science writer, the question would not arise.

TV report: The New Pope

Season 2 of Paolo Sorrentino’s papal drama, Season 1 being The Young Pope. I was pleasantly surprised at the unpozzed and uncucked Young Pope, so naturally assumed The New Pope would savagely undo all that and revel in degeneracy and filth.

At the close of Season 1, Jude Law’s righteous Pius XIII falls into a coma; Season 2 begins with the decision to elect the meek Don Tomasso Viglietti – Pius XIII’s humble confessor from Season 1 – as the new Pope; he chooses to be known as Francis the Second, and in a horrifying moment the audience realises he looks exactly like Bergoglio.

– the same look of inane, mouse-like niceness, laid over a profound, difficult nastiness.

It is the nastiness of the loser who is suddenly in the winner’s seat, with a winner’s ability to take revenge. His only mode of power is niceness, so he exercises it with ruthless, long pent-up resentment. He unleashes Franciscans, as the Catholic equivalent of Bolsheviks, to destroy the Vatican from within, confiscating gold and jewellery, freezing bank accounts, admitting “refugees” to the Vatican – for unlike the Cabal puppet Bergoglio, Francis II is a simple idiot and decides to open the Vatican to the hordes; except that the hordes are presented as the media and the affluent white liberal elite imagine them – all women and children and handsome, meek young men who are ready to sexually service menopausal cat ladies and nuns. This was the first point at which I winced, but it probably would have been too Red Pilled to have shown the “refugees” as they truly are:

Francis II is swiftly disposed of, and his replacement is Sir John Brannox, wonderfully played by the wonderfully-attired John Malkovich.

He is a curious character: indolent, vain, passive, largely removed from concerns both worldly and divine; it is as if he is so self-absorbed, so self-centred that his vast estates & wealth mean nothing to him; no more than does God or religion. He comes across as a man for whom God is a bit-part player in the grand drama of Sir John Brannox and his guilt and monumental emotional difficulties.

Brannox advocates “the middle way”, a kind of cuckish non-extremism, which basically means “don’t go too far in any direction.” That is to say, it doesn’t mean anything.

Towards the end of the season, Jude Law’s Pius XIII awakes from his coma. He is a welcome presence, as if a Medieval or Renaissance pope were to appear in the present day. I wasn’t entirely happy with the remaining episodes, which felt to me not wholly clear in intent or execution, but there were many fine moments as the “emeritus Pope” interacts with the enthroned Brannox.

I viewed the series as a study of personality and power. All three popes have different understandings of what it is to wield power. Francis II is a materialist like all Marxists, the Franciscans here being akin to various sects (Fra Dolcino, etc.) – in modern terms he is, like Bergoglio, a Marxist who hates not merely Papal corruption and wealth, but Western civilisation as a whole. His understanding of power is wholly negative: he wishes to destroy, to break down. He views wealth as inherently bad, and wishes to disperse the Vatican’s wealth, not for the benefit of others (since having more money would merely corrupt them) but to ameliorate the original sin of having anything at all; the original sin of existence. For such people, the point of “charity” isn’t to improve the lives of the recipients, but simply to take money away from the rich – they would just as happily burn the money. At its extreme, in the Soviet Union, the triumph of the Left is the triumph of death; life & existence are an affront to the absolute equality of nothingness, the true workers’ paradise of non-being.

Francis II has a very Bergoglian/Blairite love of attention, the approval of the affluent liberal elites. There is nothing remotely religious to Francis II; he is a nihilist and narcissist who wishes to revenge himself upon all the fancy Cardinals, the fancy world which kept him down. Were he to meet God, he would try to dethrone Him.

Brannox’s power is very different; it is the power of detachment, of distance, of indifference. He only cares about his self, his appearance; but it is not your standard narcissism – he doesn’t so much care how he appears to others, as how he appears to himself.

This is a man who spends hours at the mirror every morning, for his own satisfaction. The approval of others is secondary, since everyone outside of his own internal melodrama of self must be, at best, of spectral heft.

His non-action is itself a kind of power; he most wavers when he attempts to act, to impress his will (such as it is) upon others. The Brannox “middle way” is more the absence of action, the absence of decision.

Jude Law’s Pius XIII is as startlingly strange as ever. His power is spiritual. God is as real for him as cosmetics and publicity are for Brannox and Francis.

He is much as I understand pre-Modern Popes and indeed many rich/powerful men to have been – simultaneously spiritual, with a magical/superstitious understanding of reality; and worldly and material. He transcends the materialism of Francis II, and the vanity of Brannox. His worldly luxuriance – insisting on being borne into chambers in a ceremonial throne – is not the mirror image of Francis II’s Marxism; it is rather that, for the pre-Modern, everything exists simultaneously, so there was no felt contradiction between the worldly and the spiritual; indeed, spiritual power should be attended by wealth and splendour.

Pius XIII gives a sense of such overwhelming spiritual force that the jewels and magnificence seem somehow irrelevant, as if he could – and he does – step away from them without loss.

My only critique here is that his character is not consistently presented, so he is at times authoritative & puissant, then unsure and human; with no overriding identity to unify the two. It would have been interesting to explore Pius XIII as a man of power who is bereft, unable to sway God, stripped of his titles. For spiritual/magical power is often so – as if it must inconsistently operate in this world, if it is to operate at all.

 

 

understanding misunderstanding

I was reading Nassim Taleb’s Black Swan on my balcony, in the few hours of direct sunlight I can enjoy,

and found myself repeatedly baffled by his mathematical/statistical explanations. To be fair, Taleb provides warning notes like “the non-mathematical reader can skip to the end of this section”, however he also strives to make it explicable enough to the layman.

Each time my brain came up short, I read on with disengaged gears for a while, then realised I hadn’t taken anything in, and paused. I then went back and re-read, to identify and analyse my mental breaking point. It was always a term that Taleb hadn’t defined and a layman couldn’t possible figure out from the context. I realised I couldn’t make head nor tails of it and just read on to the next patch of firm ground.

I would estimate my IQ as firmly midwit, i.e. about 105-110. I have neither aptitude for, nor interest in, logic or mathematics or abstractions. My cognitive resources are definitely limited, in relation to my ambitions & interests; however, I often outperform people who are clearly smarter than me, I think because of some ingrained habits of thought & study: one of which is, when perplexed, to ask Why don’t I understand? What don’t I understand?

There is a great difference between casting the book aside, and analysing the specific point of difficulty. For example, with Plato my problem is broader, more general: I just don’t get his point, as often there is no point, just Socrates babbling and leering about wisdom at some adolescent boy, and the reader is supposed to be positively struck by it all. With Taleb, it’s always just a question of terminology.

I would recommend the exercise of questioning one’s own cognitive limits: for one thing, instead of feeling utterly retarded, one can identify a specific difficulty; and for another, it most likely sharpens whatever intellect one has.

name clusters

Living in Italy, I am constantly encountering people called Giuseppe, Giacomo, Andrea, Nicola, Filippo, Francesco, Franco, Marco, Alessandro, Lorenzo, Davide, and so on. There is something deeply traditional about Italy, for all its political Leftism and the usual embrace of smartphones and Facebook; it occurred to me that one could perhaps do a rough approximation of a society’s traditionalism by mapping out given name clusters: so, a non-traditional society like America will have a wider array of names, with lower frequency per item, whereas a highly traditional society like Pakistan will have a narrow cluster of names, each bearing a high volume.

So, in America there will be names like Todd, Ricko, Jamarcus, DeShawne, Tyrone, Chuckie, Tyler, Austin, Brandon, Kyle, Logan, Cody, Brad, Chase, and so on, but in Pakistan everyone will be called Mohammed.

Plague Journal, April 12

Life continues amidst Plague. Masks are now mandatory to enter the supermarkets, as are plastic gloves. I only have two masks. The pharmacies are often sold out, indeed I only procured my two through charity – a couple of girls were distributing them to anyone they found without a mask; I would otherwise be unable to even go into a pharmacy to ask if they have masks, because I wouldn’t have a mask.

Most supermarkets have now instituted a maximum shopper-number policy, so there are often lengthy queues.

As I walked home, tearing my mask off, I reflected on the curious sense of constraint and spacious freedom – there are so many new rules to obey (I suspect they will soon make it illegal to even go outside without a mask) that everything becomes awkward; and yet the streets are almost empty, as if the city now belongs solely to me.

I find myself largely untroubled, even relishing the atmosphere of emergency. I always felt ill at ease and out of place in peacetime; the smug confidence of the average apple polisher, getting on the property ladder, gonna get a Volkswagen Scirocco, DVD boxset weekend, holiday in the Sarf of France, always (unreasonably) repulsed me. I felt, all the time, as if these people were living in a bizarre fantasy of plenty & prosperity while the Red Army artillery came closer and closer.  I am, it seems, not designed to do well in times of peace and plenty.

film report: The Gentlemen

Extremely enjoyable. A quite basic plot but of course convoluted in presentation, with Ritchiean bravura; the joy of it is very catching – one feels that Ritchie was probably chuckling as he wrote the script, and there’s a similar sense of ebullience from the entire cast. The characters and casting elevate this otherwise standard film: Matthew McConaughey is a perfectly-cast crime boss (ruthless and human), Charlie Hunnam is a likeable lieutenant, and there are two excellent surprises with Hugh Grant as a sleazy blackmailer (by turns terrified and gloating) and Colin Farrell as a mythic Irish Londoner – down-to-earth bad boy turned into a local boxing gym mentor.

It has a pleasing sense of structural elaboration and fractal harmony. So for all the Ritchiean chaos, I note that one can apply Vox Day’s Social-Sexual Hierarchy quite well:

Matthew McConaughey’s boss Michael Pearson – Alpha

Charlie Hunnam’s Raymond – Bravo

Hugh Grant’s Fletcher – Gamma

Colin Farrell’s Coach – Sigma

with various stolid Delta henchmen

I see it as a film about male dynamics and loyalty, and a man’s own standards of masculinity and virtue – their own sense of what it is to be a “gentleman”. The etymology of gentle:

early 13c., gentile, gentle “well-born, of noble rank or family,” from Old French gentil/jentil “high-born, worthy, noble, of good family; courageous, valiant; fine, good, fair” (11c., in Modern French “nice, graceful, pleasing; fine, pretty”) and directly from Latin gentilis “of the same family or clan,” in Medieval Latin “of noble or good birth,” from gens (genitive gentis) “race, clan,” from root of gignere “beget,” from PIE root *gene- “to give birth, beget,” from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

There is a sense here, both in the social climber Michael Pearson, and in Colin Farrell’s Coach, that through loyalty and consistent deeds of power a man can create his own tribe, his own belonging – it is this which Raymond instinctively senses and acts within, and Fletcher or the upstart Asian gangster Dry Eye would regard as foolish outdated nonsense. The film is, in this sense, a very old-fashioned and even honourable work – even as it is chaotically modern and degenerate.