Thursday, March 3, 2022

Jordan Peterson Interviews a Warmonger


Jordan Peterson decided to get educated on the situation in Ukraine.

I reached out to some of my contacts who have some intellectual credibility and political expertise to find out who could be contacted to provide an update for everyone, me included, on the unfolding situation in Russia and Ukraine and Dr. Frederick Kagan’s name popped up instantly.

I made it through about 15 minutes of this garbage.  I could have heard the same thing in about two minutes on CNN.  If the guest’s last name hasn’t provided a clue as to why, let me fill you in.

Frederick Kagan is Robert’s brother.  Robert is Victoria Nuland’s husband.  Frederick is married to Kimberly, president of the Institute for the Study of War.  Donald is the father of Frederick and Robert; the two of them wrote a book together: While America Sleeps: Self-Delusion, Military Weakness, and the Threat to Peace Today (2000).  I’d say, fortuitous timing on the book.

Frederick, Robert, and Donald were all signatories to the Project for the New American Century.

As to the fifteen minutes I heard?  Russia bad, Ukraine good; Russia bad, America good; Russia bad, NATO good.  Oh…and Putin bad, Putin bad, Putin bad.

Peterson, meanwhile, asked some of the most ignorant questions – which meant he was ripe for being fed bullshit.  But the one question that got me to quit watching was when he asked Kagan if the Russian Orthodox Church is under the authority of the pope.

While the discussion was horrendous, as you can imagine and for the few minutes I watched it, the comment section was encouraging – a clear majority (maybe overwhelming majority) pillorying Peterson and Kagan.  Some examples:

·         This interview was garbage from beginning to end.

·         NATO is not only a defensive alliance, it bombed Yugoslavia with no attacks from it on NATO members

·         I miss Prof Cohen.  And listening to this guy, who seems to be a typical Putin-hater, reminded me

·         Kagan is way off base. No mention of the Nazi brigades, no mention of bloated militarization of Ukraine, the illegal Maidan coup, etc. Everything is Putin, Putin, Putin. Donbas is mostly Russian speaking and they are a cancelled abused people. Kagan should take his academic ego and crawl back under his know it all rock. Bad choice JP! You can do better!

·         Kagan's failure to mention Ukraine's state sponsored neonazi forces shows his hand. I don't trust or believe him.

·         Frederick Kagan is schilling for the Neocons.

There were several suggestions that Peterson speak to John Mearsheimer.  This, instead of providing almost two hours of free air time to CNN and Fox News, would at least offer an alternative view.


With Peterson, it always seems to be one step forward, two steps back.


  1. Its simple than that. Have ucranians the rigth to leave free in liberty and democracy ? Yes they have , like americans and europeans. Putin thinks they don t have.The rest is just talk talk talk.

  2. I listened to the whole thing. You didn't miss much.

    The only time Kagan recognized an error that he (or the US or NATO) had made in the past regarding foreign policy and war, it was to say that he incorrectly surmised that Russia would not invade Ukraine. So, he's only wrong when he's a dove apparently.

    2 steps back indeed.

    1. Nice observation. America has not been militaristic enough, apparently.

  3. The difficult thing to me is I don't think Ukraine will ever be truly neutral. Either they will be aligned with Russia. Or they will be aligned with the US. It's wrong. It's sad. But I don't see a way out of the predicament.

    We know that ultimately Russia will go to nuclear war rather than let Ukraine align with the US. Putin bad, Putin bad, Putin bad. Russia, Russia, Russia.

    But from the perspective of the US, is Ukraine worth going to nuclear war over? Does it make the US more secure or more prosperous if Ukraine aligns with "us" vs "them"? No. Not significantly.

    Maybe someday if the US de-escalates and lets Eastern Europe politically align on it own and pursues only trade relationships through private action alone, at some point Russia would trust the West enough to not care what Ukraine did. We are no where near that point. We would have been much closer in 2022 if that effort would have been started in 1991.

    1. If Buchanan and the Paleocons had taken the reigns in 1992, then maybe we'd live in that world. Maybe if Ron Paul had won in 2008 or 2012, we could have repaired the relations with the East. But sadly, neither of these were meant to be.

      NATO should have been disbanded on the collapse of the Soviet Union. That would have been a real show of peace and good will - a real Cincinnatus moment. But there was too much money and power at stake, and this is a fallen world.

    2. If both Russia and the US wanted peace, the two would guarantee Ukraine as a neutral state - as a buffer between two otherwise potentially belligerent powers.

      If one or the other wants war, the the one who wants war (or both) would remove it as a buffer.

      This is what Stalin and Hitler did to Poland - agreed to remove it as a buffer. In that case, they both wanted war.

      In the case of Ukraine, one or both sides want war. And the evidence weighs strongly as to which side (or both) it might be.

  4. "A man’s got to know his limitations." - Dirty Harry

  5. I found it worthwhile just to hear Kagan's excellent explanation of 'gaslighting' and it's tactical purpose. He revealed it is a tool he completely masters and not only in theory.

    Kagan used gaslighting extensively during the interview, and accused his enemy for what he himself was doing.

    So I think it was an excellent interview, with Jordan's professional experience allowing Kagan to freely articulate his projections.

    On the other hand it has been very painful to conclude that gaslighting is the essence of most Western discourse and cannot be countered by any concept of truth.

    An Empire of Lies, right?

  6. Is that the same Robert Kagan who is Elena Kagan's father?

    1. Not likely. In this case, he is only two years older than her.

  7. I wondered about the Kagan name. It was plain this guy was MIC. A disappointing choice.

  8. It's almost like Peterson is going through every facet of the Establishment, trying to find something salvageable in each. He hasn't reached the point of saying "screw it, I'll just assume it's all worthless". The red pill must have gotten stuck somewhere in his throat!

    I've mellowed towards his flop-flops somewhat. Even young me took a while to ditch many stupid notions, such as the US government being a force for liberty internationally. Peterson comes from a successful career and still has much to lose in terms of respectability if he starts hitting too close to the mark on certain subjects. His will be a winding road.

    1. "...trying to find something salvageable in each."

      This is an excellent point. He is struggling to hold on to the established narratives of the Enlightenment, of democracy, of Western institutions, of science, of modern liberalism, of Christianity, etc.

      But he keeps butting heads with the idea that these may not be what he was taught to believe.

      It must be very difficult for him. So, yes. One should be more sympathetic toward his flip-flops.

  9. We now have an 'Ukraine Update | Frederick Kagan' from March 3:

    This interview confirms my impression that Jordan really do not bring any prejudice to the table, only process.

    On the other hand, unashamedly uninformed as Jordan is, he acts an excellent catalyst and allows Kagan to clearly express his mode of thinking.

    These interviews with Kagan I find immensely instructive and a general representation of the mindset of his ingroup.

    When asked about what compromise could defuse the situation Kagan replies with something to the effect of "unconditional surrender"...

    1. I am already too well aware of the mindset of the ingroup. It is available on CNN and Fox every day. I do not need Peterson to expose this.

      My comment at the video:

      I find it almost impossible to believe that no one in Peterson's inner circle mentioned to him the significant amount of push back in the comments to the first video with this warmonger. The first time, I could believe Peterson gave him an audience unknowingly. The second time it is difficult to be so charitable.

  10. Bionic, had you killed the messenger I would not have learned so much about evil incarnate.

    If we censor these people how can we then reject them in disgust?

    1. No censoring. They don't need Peterson's audience to dominate the conversation.

      But my confusion stems more with Peterson, although the point made by cosmic dwarf above really helps me make sense of what was somewhat confusing to me.