Monday, May 14, 2018

The Unmentionable

I won’t go into all of the neo-Nazi Hitler comparisons in this piece; you know them all because this is standard operating procedure.  Instead, this:

In an April blog post, [Peterson] attributed that alleged influence to Jewish intelligence — an old anti-Semitic dog whistle.

That’s it.  Suggesting – with some evidence – that Jews are more intelligent than average is anti-Semitic.

Yet can it be denied that Jews have an outsized influence in business, politics, entertainment, etc.?  If I am wrong about this, I am really missing the boat.  But if I am right, to what might this outsized influence be attributed, if not intelligence?  Because the other possible answers are, shall we say, less flattering.

In any case…Jews don’t need help enabling Jew hatred; they do well enough on their own.  Just today, we have this:

At least 1,700 Palestinian demonstrators were also wounded along the border fence with Gaza, the Health Ministry reported, as the mass protests that began on March 30 and that had already left dozens dead erupted again.

The relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv was set for Monday, timed to the 70th anniversary of the formation of Israel — a move that many Israelis have celebrated but that has enraged Palestinians.

I take that back.  The Jews do need some help enabling Jew hatred.  They get it from the United States government.  As to which is the puppet and which is the puppet-master, to each his own.

Tomorrow is supposed to be worse, as even larger protests are planned:

…May 15 is observed by Palestinians as the anniversary of what they call the nakba, or catastrophe. It marks the expulsion or flight from the newly formed Jewish state of hundreds of thousands of Arabs in 1948, who have been unable to return or reclaim property they left behind.

I am waiting for these who make the libertarian case for Israel to address this current issue of the murder and wounding of almost 2000 protestors (along with the hundreds of other similar issues of the past); I am further waiting for the open borders libertarians to offer their same prescription for Israel.  I know I will be waiting a lifetime.

I am waiting for Christians to actually reflect Christ when it comes to Israel and also to torture by the United States government.  I know I will be waiting a lifetime.


In the west we live in a world full of contradictions and hypocrisy and lies.  The most serious hypocrisies come from those who profess evil in Christ’s name; almost equally troubling to me personally is the fact that libertarians also profess evil in the name of the NAP.

Contradictions and hypocrisies cannot stand forever; they are being exposed out throughout the west, as can be seen in the political discourse over the last several years.  They will be resolved, and this resolution will include all that is happening in the Middle East.


  1. Link to the article is a bit messed up.

  2. I don't get what you like about Peterson. He's a complete charlatan.

    Get him to explain his support of Zionism in the context of his conflating of respect for one's ancestors with chauvinism.

    The more I see of this guy the worse he gets.

    1. I don't plan on getting him to do much of anything.

      What do I like about Peterson? A few things. Let's start with a couple easy ones:

      1) He has done more to combat the idiocy of social justice warriors than all of the libertarian / conservative bloggers and talkers combined.

      2) He has placed a strong emphasis on the patriarchal tradition of western civilization, and communicated reasons far better than anyone on the alt-right.

    2. "I don't get what you like about Peterson. He's a complete charlatan."

      Second that. A charlatan on SSRI drugs.

    3. BM, I submit that he has not communicated the reasons better than you.

      Liberty Mike

    4. Mike,

      Maybe I should have written that he has reached a far larger audience more effectively?

      For sure, larger than mine!

      But I thank you.

    5. I Agree BM..

      Kinda like how Milton Friedman was to Economics good on a couple fronts, but failed on the Big Picture. Once again paid operative or just imperfectly human?

    6. Sagunto / Matt

      Charlatan: "a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; quack."

      The man doesn't walk on water and he thinks too much of himself; he isn't a perfect vessel.

      Is that your biggest complaint? I will take that when compared to the benefit of just the single Cathy Newman interview.

      All wheat comes with chaff. We each are responsible for figuring out how to separate the two.

    7. I can't comment on Peterson's primary content, I have never listened to his lectures but there have been some instances where he has shown himself to be hypocritical and disingenuous.

      1. When he kicked Faith Goldy of a panel related to free speech and explained his reason as her being insufficiently hostile when she interviewed white nationalists after Charlottesville. This is especially significant considering this was the exact rational for why Lindsay Shepherd was reproached by her school admin when she showed Jordan Peterson clips (insufficiently hostile).- very clear hypocrisy.

      2. When Peterson was asked about Solsenytsn's 200 Years Together which explains the Jewish-Russian relations that lead to the crimes of the NKVD. Peterson was completely aghast and couldn't even respond to the question ("I just can't.." or something to that effect). This is significant because Peterson does promote the work of Solsenytsen but apparently doesn't want his fans to read all of his work or draw lessons that would lead to an understanding of the jewish role in Soviet Communism- example of him being disingenuous in his posture of intellectual freedom.

      That is not to say I don't think Peterson has value, I honestly don't know if does since I am not very familiar with his work beyond a few things I have absorbed second hand (like his promotion of individualism and Solsenytsen- who btw wasn't an "individualist").

      Despite my ignorance of his specific content I can comment on the accusation that he enables "jew hate." The fact is Peterson is criticizing elements of the current academic/intellectual/cultural paradigm and jews are dominate in this milieu. Any criticism of this paradigm is ipso facto a criticism of jewish cultural/intellectual influence. The proof is in the fact that the article you linked to comes from the Jewish Daily Forward (a hardcore Jewish Supremacist publication), so they clearly see it as such.

    8. Hi BM,

      I'll try to be more specific (this is gonna be a two parter).

      So now Mr. Peterson is rubbing a few Kosher Nostra supremacists the wrong way, besides angering some North American college SJW's. That's great.

      Some specific "complaints" though. Of course, I like to call them well founded criticisms:

      A) Peterson frequently invokes Freud & Jung, two charlatans of times past. Freud a lying cultist and Jung a Rockefeller sponsored occultist. Peterson's work leans heavily on Jung (and Rene Girard) who had a prophet complex, an affliction Peterson also seems not entirely immune to. In order to appreciate and understand the Peterson cult, it really helps to understand the Carl Gustav Jung (oc)cult. I don't btw, blame the man for the cultish behaviour surrounding his persona, I blame his public. Sad times when this fake Christian prophet is hailed as a great "conservative" visionary. So read this:

      The mysterious Jung: his cult, the lies he told, and the occult

      B) As for "self-help," another celebrated forte of Peterson, it should be noted that the man is a longtime user of pharmaceutical drugs and says he forever will be, so thank you very much on behalf of the Pfizers of this globe and farewell to all that self reliance:

      Jordan Peterson: "I take antidepressants & will forever”

      So the clip is basically about how you overwork yourself (Peterson's 4 jobs equivalent claim), then after ten years when your body finally says "that's enough," you decide to put some chemicals in it to shut it up. Then you proceed to pontificate to youngsters about 'true manhood," cleaning rooms or whatever and "taking back control of your life." To top it all off, you receive praise for being upfront about your use of pharmaceutical drugs (Pharma says thanks), while as a psychologist you know full well that right before doing this interview, GSK was fined a whopping 3 BILLION for burying the deadly truth about their SSRI drug, driving a subset of patients (10%) to suicide or even homicide (think school shootings here).

    9. (continued..)

      A shill for Big Pharma and truly the prophet many North-Americans apparently seek and deserve.
      Helps to explain, why Peterson's theme of "the suffering individual" bears so many narcissistic characteristics, see:

      Jordan Peterson crying about individualism

      C) A high profile defender of free speech (his battle with a bunch of SJW's), here is Peterson in a different role of having to defend it when he himself is calling the shots (he does a poor job):

      Jordan Peterson and panelists explain why Faith Goldy was uninvited from Free Speech event

      D) And lastly, in a recognizably North-American "conservative" way, he is an apologist for open borders. No good from the standpoint of European nations trying to survive the US inflicted onslaught of the orchestrated "Weapons of Mass Migration". Peterson rejects identity politics both left and right. It is in this context that he describes himself as a "classical liberal" or even a "libertarian". His message is that people need to shed their group identity and focus on "cleaning their own room first." But what if nationhood as a group identity had a little some to do with Western (i.e. European) culture and tradition?
      Part of his plea seems to come straight out of the open borders narrative, when he equates "xenophobia" with primitivism and quite literally a "gut reaction" which he claims has evolutionary roots.

      Listen to this nonsense when he tip-toes around this kosher nostra Weinstein guy:
      Jordan Peterson on identity politics and the evolutionary basis for xenophobia

      His sudden rise to stardom (and that's putting it mildly), the company he keeps, the policies he advocates all scream fake and thoroughly controlled gatekeeper opposition.

    10. Sagunto, thank you for this. To varying degrees, I take the same issue with many of these criticisms.

      Of course, the question I was asked that began this dialogue was "I don't get what you like about Peterson." I answered the question I was asked.

    11. Jeez, it's a tough crowd in here.

      I don't claim to be an expert on Peterson, Girard or Jung but I have appreciated some of the work of all three, particularly their work on the importance of mythology and the social truths the myths reflect. Perhaps all three had/have problems with grandiosity or an over-inflated ego, but this doesn't change the veracity or validity of their work.

      Jung recognized that the receding importance of Christianity or God in the West is what allowed the 20th century tyrannies to rise to power. This is not all that dissimilar to what Bionic has been writing about.

      Girard recognized the uniqueness of Christianity against all other religions and myths throughout history in that it was a rejection of societal violence toward scapegoats (since God played the role of the heroic scapegoat).

      Peterson recognizes that extreme leftism and the rejection of absolute truth are societal viruses which lead to tyrannical modes of political organization.

    12. "Jeez, it's a tough crowd in here. "

      Yes it is! LOL

      Don't feel bad, I abstain from commenting here at times because it can be mentally exhausting and sometimes I'm not up for it. I have too many competing priorities to devote my mental power to the high level discussion(s) at times.

      It's also the reason I also come back almost every day and read here. The proverbial double edged sword.

      The reality for me though is this:

      I physically workout/excersize depending on my life right now 4-5 times a week. Some days are "good" workout, some not so much.

      It's the same with my mental state and ability to contribute here. Some days are good, others not so much. I'd like to think I know when I'm having a bad "mental acuity" day and refrain from making comments, but unfortunately that's not always the case.


      Your honesty is refreshing.

    13. Umm... he's not on drugs anymore. Turns out that some people are susceptible to depression based on: (1) really difficult times in their life - in Peterson's case, his daughter's infirmity for 15+ years; and (2) diet.

      From his daughter's blog:

      "So Dad’s going on the zero carb diet – that’s the all meat, carnivore diet. With salt and sparkling water.


      He had good results with the previous diets. In the greater scheme of things, I would say excellent results. We managed to keep the extreme depressive episodes away, he’s off medication, he lost 50+ pounds, his autoimmune symptoms went away. All in all, great results."

      Now... are we going to pick on people for not realizing that the diet that governments have pushed on them for decades results in some people getting clinically depressed? Hmm...?

    14. Also, as to immigration and borders, JP has stated:

      "Borders are reasonable. How about that?! The law is the border that stops someone from stealing your laptop. If it's an apple laptop, it's the sort of laptop that a social justice warrior would carry. And then, the SJW is going to be very irritated if you happen to purloin their laptop. And then you might point out to them that you know, it's a border that protects you from having that thing taken...

      That doesn't mean that we have an 'our arms are open to everyone' immigration policy. Because it's complete rubbish. All that means is you're not thinking about it...

      It should not be assumed that citizens of societies that have not evolved functional individual rights predicated polities will hold values in keeping with such polities. So we could say, look... there are a lot of countries in the world that are not governed well. The vast majority of them, right? And they've been not governed well... forever. And to me that means that there's something wrong with the values that are held COLLECTIVELY by the people who have established those polities.

      Well, you shouldn't be naive and assume that merely because you move them to a new country they're going to let their innate democratic longings flourish. It doesn't work that way.

      So if you stand up and say, look, let's be a little cautious. Let's make sure that we don't transform our society so rapidly that we lose what we have. Let's be careful about that. That doesn't mean you're a morally reprehensible demon."

  3. The link at the beginning appears to be a bit goofed up.

  4. This is too funny... I was just reading over at Vox Day's alt-right blog (that's not a slur/mischaracterization; they are proudly and vocally alt-right) and they are all up in arms over Jordan Peterson not answering the "Jewish question" correctly, i.e. not believing that there is some vast, multi-millenial cabal of Jews running the world. They see Peterson's view -that Jews are smart, and smart people run the world- to be an insufficient explanation for the prevalence of Jews in positions of influence and affluence.

    I guess when you're accused of both anti-Semitism and Zionism simultaneously, you must be doing something right.

    1. >i.e. not believing that there is some vast, multi-millenial cabal of Jews running the world.

      This is a strawman. The Jewish Question is simply evaluating the influence and power of Jews as a group, something the Forward (linked at top of article) provides an abject lesson in. On the one hand they spend article after article celebrating jewish cultural influence and political power and on the other hand castigate any gentile who dares point it out. This is why they have a problem with Peterson talking about Jewish IQ. They don't like to be noticed as a coherent and particular group by gentiles.

      You are half-right in your explanation about why they object to Peterson talking about their IQ but really they should embrace that argument because it too is a deflection on the question of Jewish nepotism (which has far more explanatory power than IQ). Ron Unz (himself jewish) demolished the IQ explanation for Jewish over representation at Harvard.

      It is curious that Peterson would use IQ to explain Jewish over representation in elite institutions when I highly doubt he would do the same to explain negro underrepresentation. Makes you think.

    2. No. The criticism was that Peterson was out of his depth in using statistics to continue the advancement of the Jews are well above average IQ.

      Go to Vox Day's Vox Popoli webblog and read the issues with Paterson actually are. Among them is Paterson work for the UN.
      I really have not followed Paterson but what I have read, by Paterson himself, is that he only interprets Biblical passages through exclusively an anthropological lens.
      If Vox's is correct about Paterson, Paterson is indeed an existential materialist. At best, a lousy Budhist.

  5. The problem does not seem to be JP himself, het has said on occasion that he considers himself a "classical liberalist".
    The problem is that many of his followers are of the alt-right(-isch) persuasion, and do not seem to get this aspect.

    Me, I think the world is a complex place. Simple solutions are usually false. People will do good and bad things. Peterson is just this guy you know... has done good things, has done bad things, and seems to have more psychological problems than the average citizen.

    Overall I like his bible lectures, I like his basic approach to life's questions. (I even read and like his 12-rules book). I do not like how he seems to feel the need to have an answer to all questions, nor how he seems to be very 'calculating' in his answers. With that I mean that he is aware of the impact his answers will have and adjust them appropriately to achieve his goal.

    And btw: I do believe that he is genuine about wanting to help people. I do not believe that he has a nefarious intent - which is not to say that the effect isn't nefarious in some cases (!)

  6. The comments to this post have taken an interesting path. Something like 10% of the post referenced Peterson, and this only to introduce the topic. Ninety percent was about one more murderous action in a long list of murderous actions by the Jewish state against the Palestinians (Syrians, Lebanese, etc.).

    Every single comment (up to this moment) is about Peterson. It seems to me that my commenters are all paid by various pro-Zionist organizations to deflect conversations away from any criticism of the state of Israel. You have done your job well!


    1. Well, right back at ya BM,

      Though I like your comment. You contributed to the deflecting just as well, by starting this topic with a link to an article starring, well.. Mr Peterson. Followed by an extra quarter of this post devoted to.. Mr Peterson.

      This post is about criticism of Israel? Fair enough. Why then start with Peterson in the first place? Why not start with the criticism and leave Mr Peterson be?
      Many articles critical of the state of Israel have been written without any reference to our beloved SQW. It can be done, you know.


      Up next: Is Jordan Peterson enabling Climate Denialism?

      (article about global warming)

    2. Segunto

      You are more intelligent than this. Why do you think I began with this specific item about Peterson when it came to write a post about the murderous Israeli state?

      The Peterson reference had nothing to do with Jung, Peterson's apparent wish-washy attitude about someone else's free speech, his work for the UN, his pharmaceutical use, his less-than-satisfactory (for some) description of over-representation by Jews in positions of power and influence. I introduced none of these - you and others did.

      Come on, Segunto; what was my point, what was the context? It isn't that complicated.

    3. Mosquita

      "You are more intelligent than this."

      Yes, I am. Guilty as charged ;)

    4. Mosquita? Finally, I am found out.

      "Yes, I am. Guilty as charged"

      Well, then you are intelligent enough to know why your previous comment was pretty nonsensical.


    5. Okay Mosquita, you're just no fun. But I'll try again. Let's see: you start a topic with Mr Peterson and after comments about Mr Peterson you complain jokingly about people not commenting on the subject of your fancy. You get teased in kind about your complaint and after this look in the mirror, you've lost your subliminal sense of humour already. How's that? Did I make it to the high percentile ranks of Ashkenazi IQ?


    6. BM,

      Good point. I guess Peterson is just more interesting or thought provoking than the news and normalization of more Israeli war crimes. We're all on board with condemning the latter; it's Peterson we seem to be divided on.

      "The most serious hypocrisies come from those who profess evil in Christ’s name; almost equally troubling to me personally is the fact that libertarians also profess evil in the name of the NAP."


    7. "The most serious hypocrisies come from those who profess evil in Christ’s name; almost equally troubling to me personally is the fact that libertarians also profess evil in the name of the NAP."

      Amen x 2.

  7. Vocal support of a pro-Israel American foreign policy is basic for the leaders of American Protestant fundamentalism. This has been true ever since 1948. Pat Robertson and Rev. Jerry Falwell have been pro-Israel throughout their careers, beginning two decades before the arrival of the New Christian Right in the late 1970’s. These men are not aberrations. The Trinity Broadcasting Network is equally supportive. So are the best-selling authors who speak for, and influence heavily, Protestant fundamentalism, most notably Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth (1970), and Tim LaHaye, the husband of Beverly LaHaye of Concerned Women for America, which says on its Web site that it is “the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.” Rev. LaHaye and his co-author have each earned some $10 million in royalties for their multi-volume futuristic novel, Left Behind. They have a very large audience.

    People may ask themselves, “Why this support?”

    1. Max, thanks for this link. On this topic, I suspect Gary North is about as qualified as anyone to write the history. It is a worthwhile read.

  8. Within the post-World War II American conservative movement, there has been a tiny contingent of apologists for Hitler. Most of them are simpletons who want to "get them Jews." They are ineffective souls who have spent their lives on the sidelines, blaming the Jews for their failure to achieve much. They had to blame someone. They target Jews, who have visible economic success.

    Jews, Scots, Armenians, Dutch

    What do these seemingly disparate groups have in common, other than money?
    All four groups have this in common: a strong sense of the covenant.

    Family and cultural ties are common to most groups, especially prior to the Industrial Revolution.

    Covenantal relationships enable participation to be practiced and inclusive groups to be formed.

    Persecution held them together. They have had a sense of religious solidarity, and this persisted even after they arrived in Protestant-secular America.

    The Jews were traders for centuries. Religious ties made possible a network of international communications and transactions.

    The country is tiny. It has few natural resources. If they wanted to prosper, they had to trade. They did.

    Members of all four groups have seen themselves as hand-picked by God to dominate trade. They have regarded themselves as possessing an advantage over everyone else, either in brains, trade, or the ability to prosper under the radar. This outlook came earliest to Jews, then the Armenians, then the Dutch, then the Scots. Their sense of group solidarity was not unique, but their sense of participation in a covenant that promises economic success has been unique.

    Jews had enormous talents. They also had a tremendous drive to get ahead, because for centuries they had not been allowed to enter most of the professions in the West. So, when humanists gave this tremendous opportunity to everyone in general, it was Jews in particular who took advantage of the offer. The result has been the dominance of Jews in the professions and in academics,


    ps. sorry for too many articles from Gary North

    1. This is the one time that you need not apologize for this. You are bringing the conversation back to the main point!

    2. Have read the promotional article by Mr North.

      With regard to "the Dutchmen"-part, I can only express my deepest condolences to anyone still buying the worn-out myths and half truths surrounding the so-called "Calvinist" Dutchmen. For that's what in yet another glaring example of simplistic American parochialism, the Dutch of old have once again been reduced to by Mr North.

      Sure, I can understand why an author who himself belongs to a sectarian branch of Protestantism, likes to reinforce the historical myth of "Calvinist Holland", a myth retroactively invented by the (alas) extremely influential 19/20th century Dutch political leader/founder of the "Reformed Party," also founder of his own national "Reformed Church" and even the Dutch "Reformed University," the renowned Mr Jordan B. Peters.. excuse me, Mr Abraham (what's in a name?) Kuyper. In the same way as Mr North favourably caricaturizes Holland and the Dutch, Mr Kuyper in his time was known for his admiration of "Calvinist" America. Self serving myth making passed off as "history".

      Won't go into Mr North's portrayal of "the Jews," except perhaps for a tiny little historical detail. A quote (from the part about "the Armenians"):

      "But, like Jews, Armenians climbed their way to the top of the Communist Party’s hierarchy"

      One would perhaps expect Mr North to devote some kind of follow up with regard to the "overrepresentation' of Jews in the genocidal Bolshevik machine, but that space is conveniently reserved for crickets..
      After a nod to the Rothschild banking family fortunes under Napoleon, without any mention of how this notorious family came by their fortune, Jews get praised by Mr North for their "entrepreneurial flair". The section ends with the mention of Talmudic Jews (without mentioning Jewish Talmudic supremacism) and then comedy, because, dixit Mr North: "Jews started making people laugh."

      I'm sorry, but if this vintage Gary North revisionism is supposed to bring us back on-topic, I'd rather be slightly beside the point.


  9. BTW, I found this whole "Jews more intelligent" baloney also being allowed to occupy the minds of Hoppe's 2013 PFS meeting as well.

    Richard Lynn, "Why Are the Jews So Smart" (PFS 2013)

    I mean, what the..?

  10. I do not read Gary anymore. On this issue I especially do not need to read him since I lived through my early church experience, after conversion, immersed in the pre-tribulation rapture eschatological world. I went to conferences on the issue and central to that eschatology is Israel and the "God will curse those who curse Israel" mantra. Of course, cursing Israel is not really defined and anything that hints at criticism of Israel is viewed as cursing Israel.
    Over time I concluded that the pre-tribulation rapture and the necessity of he nation of Israel before Jesus' return are wrong.

    Currently, I think that modern Israel is an idol for too many Christians. A most dangerous position to be in if true. And these uSA being Israel's idol of protection is also a very dangerous place. Of course, it all depends whether the Bible is truth and Jesus is indeed the Messiah.

    At minimum, we are in a moral hazard situation. Incredibly stupid foreign policy that gives a free hand to Israel to do anything, expecting these uSA to come to get Israel's ass out of the fire when commanded by Israel's need.

    1. "Over time I concluded that the pre-tribulation rapture and the necessity of he nation of Israel before Jesus' return are wrong."

      I am much more of a simpleton. I have concluded that every belly-button in a pew has an opinion on this, and every generation was convinced they were in the last times. In other words, I have decided to leave it in God's hands.

      Further, if this is now the time and Israel is now the vessel... well, God doesn't need my help (or the help of any bible-thumping yay-whos) to bring on Armageddon. He has done OK so far without Christians war-mongers.

      With this said, while I have a pretty good understanding of the reasons behind protestant support for Israel, I appreciated the detail in North's piece.

    2. I do not claim revelation from God but if the pre-trib is a reason for foreign policy why not any other? At least, when I make decisions based on me having to live or suffer the consequences I tend to have a longer view.

    3. Jamie - this pre-trib stuff is serious blasphemy and heresy, and those teaching it are in deep peril for their immortal souls.

      70 AD was the end of the story of the Hebrews and "Israel". What is there now is nothing more than a mockery.