Jordan Peterson Article


In Defence of Jordan B. Peterson
written by Uri Harris

A few days ago, Canadian author and English professor Ira Wells published an essay expressing concern about popular Canadian psychology professor and social critic Jordan B. Peterson. The essay was written in the wake of an incident at Canadian university Wilfred Laurier, where a teaching assistant was reprimanded for playing a short clip of a televised Peterson debate over the compelled use of gender pronouns. (I analysed the incident in Quillette last week.)

Regrettably, Wells’s essay is littered with inaccuracies and casual insults, accompanied by a moralistic undertone that is sure to turn off Peterson’s supporters, and perhaps even neutral observers. Nevertheless, I think he succeeds in condensing many of the common criticisms of Peterson, which makes the essay worth responding to as the foundation for a genuine debate of these issues. I suggest reading it if you haven’t already done so.

Wells’s main criticisms, as I understand them, are as follows:

Peterson is celebrated in the news media as a champion of free speech and liberal, democratic values, while in fact promoting a far-right worldview.
Peterson has made no substantial contribution to academia and misunderstands the views he is criticising under the label of ‘postmodern Neo-Marxism.’
Peterson’s criticism is based on a desire to cling to old-fashioned social structures and a society of winners and losers.
I’ll address each of these points in turn, before summarising. For the record, I don’t consider myself a supporter of Peterson, although I agree with his core assertions. (I am not a donor.) The arguments presented are my own, or in the case where I am representing Peterson’s views, my interpretation of his views.

* * *

Criticism #1: Peterson is celebrated in the news media as a champion of free speech and liberal, democratic values, while in fact promoting a far-right worldview.

After beginning the essay by summarising the Laurier situation and noting that it has led many in the news media to proclaim that Peterson was right, Wells writes:

Peterson may be correct that, in some cases, universities have failed to strike the right balance between protecting minority rights and preserving liberal, democratic values, including freedom of speech. The Laurier incident is one of those cases. The problem is that Peterson folds this argument into a politically reactionary and often downright paranoid worldview that appears designed to curry favour with the alt-right.

The term ‘alt-right’ was coined by white nationalist Richard Spencer in 2010 and centres around ideas of white nationalism, white identity, and white supremacy. Wikipedia defines it simply as “a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism.”

Peterson has been careless in several of his tweets, with regard to the alt-right. Taken out of context, they could conceivably be interpreted as indifference towards the alt-right and their ideas. Peterson’s body of work, though, shows that he has consistently condemned white nationalism. He discussed the issue at length in a podcast he appeared on a few months ago with biologist Bret Weinstein and host Joe Rogan. I recommend that anyone in doubt about Peterson’s dislike of white nationalism watch the entire podcast. It’s very long and unscripted, thus allowing for an in-depth and off-the-cuff articulation of his views.

Here is a more recent tweet of his on the matter:

Furthermore, in his most recent online Q&A session, Peterson addressed the ‘Jewish Question’ – a common alt-right belief that Jews are intent on destroying the white race and/or Western civilisation – by applauding the fact that there are many Jews in positions of authority. Peterson could hardly have made a statement less appealing to the alt-right. This, combined with his condemnation of white nationalism, is not the behaviour of someone whose views are “designed to curry favour with the alt-right.”

Setting that part aside, what does Wells mean by “politically reactionary and often downright paranoid”? He offers several accusations in that same paragraph, presumably intended as evidence of the aforementioned phrase. I won’t address all of them, but a few do merit attention for being especially misleading.

Wells references a tweet Peterson sent out in April, with the wording “Islamophobia: a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.” By including it in the paragraph, Wells implies that it is further evidence of Peterson’s far-right worldview. What Wells does not mention, however, is that Peterson was quoting a line in the article in USA Today he was retweeting, written by an American Muslim apostate relating an incident at a Pakistani University where a young man was beaten to death by a mob who thought he had made fun of the prophet Mohammed. The article argued that the fear of being labelled an Islamophobe was preventing people from criticising Islam and its practice.

This followed a tweet Peterson sent out the month before, in which he criticised a motion put forward in Canadian Parliament calling on the Canadian government to condemn ‘Islamophobia.’ Peterson’s tweet implies that Islam is a set of ideas, as distinct from its adherents, and should therefore be open to criticism. Which is precisely what the USA Today article was saying. In fact, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Sarah Haider and several other social critics made a similar argument a few months later when Dawkins was de-platformed by a Berkeley radio station for the same reason.

Bear in mind that Islam is not just any set of ideas. It is the world’s fastest growing major religion with approximately 1.8 billion followers worldwide, and the majority religion in 50 countries. Not being able to criticise one of the world’s most influential belief systems is deeply problematic for obvious reasons. One could make an argument that Peterson using words like ‘fascists’ and ‘cowards’ and ‘morons’ is unnecessarily inflammatory, even when quoting someone else. The underlying message, however, is hardly far-right.

A second piece of evidence Wells puts forward about Peterson is that: “In a conversation with Camille Paglia, he lamented that men can’t exert control over “crazy women” by physically beating them.” This is so misleading that I recommend you go to the segment of the video in question and watch it yourself. What Peterson is saying is that men typically know how to deal with other men, where the escalation of a conflict is generally understood by both parties to lead towards physical confrontation. But because that is forbidden with a woman, men have no method of dealing with the type of non-physical aggression that is more typical of female conflicts, which are escalated and dealt with differently. All men can do, Peterson suggests, is throw their hands up in the air.

Wells also points out that Peterson “echoes Donald Trump on fake news, telling followers they can’t trust the media.” Earlier this year, Peterson was locked out of his YouTube account, where he at the time had more than 350,000 subscribers (now it is more than 500,000), due to an alleged violation of its Terms of Service. This occurred during a widespread crackdown from YouTube on conservative channels. When Peterson reported the story to a conservative news outlet, his account was restored without explanation. The comparison to Trump seems to imply some sort of right-wing conspiracy theory, but this was no such thing; it happened to Peterson personally.

Peterson closely followed the controversy involving former Google engineer James Damore, who was fired a few months ago after an internal memo he wrote was leaked to technology website Gizmodo, which mislabeled it an “anti-diversity screed.” An article at CNN.com reported that Damore was claiming that women are not biologically fit for tech roles, an article at Fortune.com called it an “anti-woman screed,” and an article at Time.com called it an “anti-diversity tirade.” These headlines are so misleading that it is no wonder Peterson would advise followers to be sceptical of the news media, especially when dealing with politically charged issues. (Damore’s memo is worth reading in its entirety.)

In short, none of Wells’s claims prove that Peterson is far-right. In fact, in a recent discussion with psychologist Jonathan Haidt, Peterson suggested that society needs a balance of liberal and conservative forces to function properly. Peterson seems to quite proudly embody elements of both, although he refers to himself as a “British classical liberal.”

* * *

Criticism #2: Peterson has made no substantial contribution to academia and misunderstands the views he is criticising under the label of ‘postmodern Neo-Marxism’.

Wells goes on to write about Peterson:

What he is not, however, is the author of any lasting work of scholarship, the originator of any important idea, or a public intellectual of any scientific credibility or moral seriousness. Peterson’s sole discovery is that “postmodernism” can be usefully exploited alongside the more familiar, established populist scare tactics. His message, as the intellectual guru of the alt-right, is that humanity’s natural hierarchies are under attack, that the future of Western civilization hangs in the balance of this “war of ideas.” Every form of populism needs its scapegoat and Peterson’s is the academic humanities, which he caricatures as “indoctrination cults” for “postmodern neo-Marxism.”

Psychologist Gad Saad ran a check of Peterson’s citations against those of the two professors in the Laurier meeting who, like Wells, had denigrated Peterson’s academic credentials.

of their respective Google Scholar citations: Rambukkana = 112; Pimlott = 49; Peterson = 8,928. Yes, Peterson is a “quack fraudster” whereas the “real scientists” collectively have been cited roughly 2% of the “fake scientist.”

— Gad Saad (@GadSaad) November 29, 2017

Much more important, though, is the second part of the claim. Wells elaborates:

But what exactly does Peterson mean by “postmodern neo-Marxism”? In a recent series of lectures and interviews, all available on YouTube, Peterson traces this supposedly lethal strain of totalitarianism back to Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, two French philosophers whom he accuses of waging an “all-out assault on categories of intellectual thought.” The central claim of these postmodern thinkers, Peterson argues, is that “there are an infinite number of ways to interpret any finite set of phenomena.” As a direct result, our moral or aesthetic evaluations—our efforts to discern good from evil, beauty from ugliness, truth from falsehood—are arbitrary and therefore meaningless. The postmodernists left us in a relativistic fog from which we have yet to emerge.

This misses the essence of Peterson’s argument, which is that Derrida and Foucault combine the view described above with what he refers to as ‘neo-Marxism,’ and that the relativism of postmodernism and the universality of neo-Marxism are incompatible. What Derrida and Foucault are actually doing, he suggests, is using postmodernism as a cover for neo-Marxism, allowing them to reject positivism and logic as universal values under the guise of relativism, while in fact proceeding with a very specific universal normative theory. This “postmodern turn,” Peterson suggests, was necessitated by the collapse of Marxism as a viable theory during the 1960s. (Peterson’s talk on the subject can be seen here.)

So, when Wells goes on to suggest that Peterson misunderstands Derrida and Foucault because they argued that meaning was contextual, rather than infinite, he misses the point. When Peterson mentions Derrida’s labelling of the West as phallogocentric, he isn’t just talking about Derrida claiming that the West must be seen through a masculine and determinate/logical framework, but also that Derrida is implying it should be dismantled. The problem Peterson has with postmodernism–and Derrida, in particular–is that beneath the guise of relativity lies a universal normative framework of power, oppression, and liberation. Hence, his addition of the term ‘neo-Marxist.’

The mistaken belief that Peterson is only talking about postmodernism, rather than the conflation of postmodernism and neo-Marxism, leads Wells to make what he seems to think is a triumphant statement:

While only a tiny minority of humanities professors teach Derrida, a majority of the courses are dedicated to critical thinking, which is precisely what Lindsay Shepherd had hoped to nurture by showing the TVO clip in the first place. What makes critical thinking “critical” is the tendency to read against the grain of accepted wisdom and to question the inherited power hierarchies that structure human relations.

Derrida’s (and Foucault’s) ideas have been integrated into other fields of study. Whether or not they are taught directly is not that important. In fact, Wells manages to demonstrate just that in his very next sentence. Wikipedia defines critical thinking as “the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment.” Notice that there is no mention of power hierarchies. What Wells is referring to is not critical thinking, but Critical Theory, a methodology developed by Marxian social scientists during the early-to-mid 20th century, to which Derrida and Foucault can be described as contributing later on.

What distinguishes Critical Theory from traditional inquiry is that it articulates an explicit purpose for itself: to liberate people from oppression. The Critical Theorists were heavily inspired by Karl Marx, and one of Marx’s most famous statements articulated the distinction that would come to separate Critical Theory from traditional science and philosophy: “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.”

What’s left unstated here is that the purpose is not to change the world arbitrarily, but according to the particular goal of liberating people from oppression. Science thus becomes a tool for achieving a predefined societal state. This reflects a significant departure from traditional scientific methodology, which discourages defining purposes. Consequently, the use of the term ‘critical’ is misleading. The idea is to criticise power structures within the context of liberating people from their oppression. The purpose itself is above criticism.

The fact that Wells confuses critical thinking with Critical Theory supports Peterson’s claim that neo-Marxism has taken over the humanities. Proper critical thinking would not just question power hierarchies, it would also ask why we should question them. In other words, it would question the foundation of Critical Theory itself. But, as the Laurier incident demonstrated, these questions are not to be asked.

In practice, this declares all power structures indefensible, since virtually all power structures can be cast as oppressive, and justifying oppression is forbidden. This leaves students with only one method of inquiry: to criticise power structures with the intent of dismantling them.

As this gets more extreme, students don’t engage in inquiry at all, and everything becomes about fighting oppression. A very interesting comment below my previous article compared Critical Theory to Marxist praxis:

I was briefly a Marxist whilst studying philosophy at an English university in the Sixties, where I took a course on it. The lecturer, himself a keen Marxist, pointed out that Marxism was not a theory but a ‘praxis’, and its postulates were simply whatever ran counter to the current status quo, the idea – borrowed from Hegel – being to create an antithesis to the thesis and bring about a synthesis, namely the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In other words, any sort of nonsense was fine as long as it countered the establishment viewpoint, the aim being to use any means whatsoever to tear it down. This included violence of any kind, physical, social, cultural, intellectual . . . including the complete disregard of truth. Whatever would bring about revolution was good, because an egalitarian society would surely arise from the ashes. […]

Critical theory and post-modernism seems to be the continuation of exactly the same thing, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and a dumb wolf at that, with its adherents intellectually dissociated from reality (which they don’t believe exists anyway) psychologically and emotionally regressed (being conspicuously childish or adolescent) and completely oblivious to history and to where all this inevitably leads.

There is one important difference, I think, between Marxist praxis and modern Critical Theory: the former tries to take a sledgehammer to society, trying to tear it all down in one go, while the latter uses a million tiny hammers, each chipping away at little bits of societal structure. It is this view that Peterson expressed when he appeared on a TVOntario television debate last year and made the following statement:

Is it a cabal of radical left-wingers? Yes, it’s a cabal of radical left-wingers, and they’ve been active behind and in front of the scenes increasingly over the last thirty years. And my estimation is that departments like women’s studies have trained between three hundred thousand and three million radical left-wing activists.

These activists have increasingly begun to populate mid-level administrative positions in society, eager to apply their praxis to dismantle societal structures in the pursuit of vaguely defined ‘equality,’ and it is about this state of affairs that Peterson has been sounding the alarm for the past year. This situation is also what got James Damore fired a few months ago, when he tried to warn against an increasingly dogmatic and stifling left-wing environment at Google. Damore was not fired because what he said was false, but because challenging the dogma of Critical Theory is forbidden. And this is surely just the beginning.

* * *

Criticism #3: Peterson’s criticism is based on a desire to cling to old-fashioned social structures and a society of winners and losers.

Wells argues:

Peterson’s immense popularity on the far right lies precisely in his intellectual validation of those traditional power hierarchies as natural and necessary—a message perfectly attuned to those who feel dispossessed and threatened by movements for sexual and racial equality. Most of Peterson’s videos offer variations on the theme that human behavior is the product of an ancient “male dominance hierarchy” that separates winners from losers—and that any attempt to question or subvert this hierarchy will result in unhappiness for the individual or chaos for society.

This suggests that Peterson believes in a society of eternally fixed hierarchies, which is simply not true. In fact, Peterson has consistently argued that part of the value that people on the Left bring to society, especially very creative people with high openness to experience, is that they are able to challenge existing structures and improve them. What Peterson is arguing against is the belief that power structures are inherently bad and should be removed. He’s arguing against the idea of radical liberation that underlies modern leftist thought, believing that if carried far enough it will lead to societal collapse and the absence of meaning.

Students have only been given one tool – to identify flaws in societal structures and dismantle them. They haven’t been given the tools to look holistically at the world, to understand that societal structures have functions. Structures hold society together, they allow competence to rise, and they provide meaning. But increasingly all that students can see is power and oppression, Peterson argues.

Wells continues:

To fully grasp the depth of Peterson’s belief in power hierarchies, take his commitment to IQ testing: “If you don’t buy IQ research,” he has told his students, “then you might as well throw away all of psychology.”

This seems to imply that Peterson believes all of psychology rests on top of IQ research, but that’s not what he’s saying, at least not to my knowledge. What he’s saying is that IQ research is among the most reliable research in psychology. In other words, if you don’t find IQ research reliable, there’s almost no research in psychology that you would find reliable.

After criticising the reliability of IQ research, and painting an overly rigid picture of Peterson’s view on IQ, Wells ends his criticism of Peterson with this:

In the tradition of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century pseudo-scientists, phrenologists, quacks, and scientific racists, Peterson’s commitment to IQ is simply the reflection of his commitment to an unalterable hierarchy of human beings. […] For Peterson, transgender people and powerful women upset the “male dominance hierarchy” that forms the centerpiece of his thought. His worldview is predicated on the promise of restoring authority to those who feel disempowered by the globalism, feminism, and social-justice movements he derides.

To repeat, this is not what Peterson is saying. He’s arguing against the idea that societal structures are inherently bad, and thus against the far-Left belief that they must be dismantled on principle. Peterson freely admits he doesn’t know where to draw the line. But his point is that there is no longer any counterbalance to far-Left orthodoxy at universities, which has led to indoctrination about the evils of societal structures.

* * *

Wells ends with an appeal for the humanities to meet Peterson head on. But what is there to meet about? Praxis may work well in dismantling societal structures, but it serves no purpose in an actual debate. As long as the humanities are entrenched in a quasi-religious ideology that holds its core views sacred, there is no real debate to be had. As soon as Peterson were to advance his criticisms, he would be met with claims that his words are violence, that he is denying people’s right to exist, or simply that he is a sexist, a racist, and/or a homophobe.

Incidents on university campuses have demonstrated this over and over again, from students hunting Bret Weinstein with baseball bats to students swaying and chanting in unison to drown out Charles Murray. In fact, this very thing happened to Lindsay Shepherd, whom Wells holds up as a model for critical thinking. She has been protested, she has been condemned by fellow students, and she has been met with accusations of “white fragility,” “white tears” and “white women tears.” When she objected to this racially-charged language, she was called a racist. (Apparently objecting to the use of such terms is racist if you’re white.)

I suspect that very few people outside universities would view this whole episode to be anything other than disgraceful. Perhaps the fact that many regular people support Peterson is not because they’re far-right bigots, but because universities–and humanities departments, in particular–have come to resemble religious cults. Instead of painting Peterson as the enemy the humanities must rise up to defeat, I suggest that Wells listens more carefully to Peterson’s criticisms and takes a look inward. He might even find that Peterson has a point.

Uri Harris is a freelance writer with a Masters in Science (Business and Economics). He can be followed on Twitter @safeortrue


An Ode and a Request

George Orwell’s in his novel of a world of 1984 a future overrun by Doublethink, Thoughtcrimes and Newspeak. A total war waged on many fronts.

Fast forward to present day. In business, Politics and in universities Cultural Marxism infects all aspects of society. Its fundamental doctrine today as always total control. Where once the Marxists fought their battles for the most part on political and economic fields it is now Academia that has been made to suffer the most.

It is the Universities that have become the most blatant cesspits of Marxist Political Indoctrination. It should surprise no one that this has happened. Long ago with Marxism in terminal decline the left threw aside their losing hand of class warfare and moved their chips all in with Identity Politics and the Progressive Stack.

It is in this world that inconvenient truths are shoved aside on a whim by these Priests now disguised as academics. These men, women and those somewhere between were once hidden away. Not so now. These days, safe in their tenure, they carry out their plan to enslave the youth in an Ideological Gulag tailored to fit the whim of every victim who subscribes.  Trolls and Hobbits that have till now lived unimpeded in the undergrowth, rot and decay of these so-called institutions of higher learning.

Enter to the stage Lindsay Shephard, a 22 year Masters Student at Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario. Ms. Shephard was teaching First Year Communication Students grammar and had the audacity to include in a lesson plan a short 5 minute video which sliced part of a debate on the use of pronouns in the English language.

One of participants was, horror of horrors Jordan Peterson. A man who has become the fly in the ointment and on the wall of the echo chambers of Marxist Academia. This man so reviled has had the gall to rise to prominence by pointing out the insanity the improper use of proper pronouns.

He for they,
Zhe for Zir.

The fateful day came and the Intrepid TA proceeded to include in discussion in a class that much maligned video. Not surprisingly snowflakes as is the case these days proceeded to melt away. Later after class finished the inevitable complaints were anonymously sent. First to higher ups in the school. Then to those in control of content of curriculum in the department where Ms. Shephard worked. Retribution for wrongthink would be then close at hand.

Predictably and citing a need for safe spaces and understanding as grounds for censure the Administration at this School of Indoctrination forced to Lindsay Shephard to submit to an interrogation by the professor in charge Ms. Shepherd’s class. A beard masquerading as a man by the name of Nathan Rambukkana. Joining him in the rebuke would be Herbert Pimlott a program co-coordinator and fellow in communication department. Soon followed by Adria Joel. A woman who has the job title of Manager of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support.

What followed was, contrary to what is advertised on that sign above, not at all inspiring.

These past few weeks haven’t been a great stretch in public relations for Wilfred Laurier University. The stench from that campus made all the more repugnant because all involved worked in the Communications Department at this University.

Christie Blatchford, an columnist at the National Post, did an excellent opinion piece that laid it all out in inglorious detail.

From article she wrote:

Wilfrid Laurier University teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd is undoubtedly a better human being than I am — and at 22, probably a more mature one — and may well accept the raft of apologies now coming her way, but I would tell them all to blow the mea culpas out their various bums.

Link Below

Christie Blatchford: Here’s where Laurier can stick their apology to Lindsay Shepherd

A couple of things struck me listening to recording.

What is most surprising is how unprepared they all were in confronting the wayward TA. And yet thru it all it was the student that was the one who sounded the most wise and the most mature.

To her credit as well she didn’t back down even while being forced to listen to the outrageous and insufferable Nathan Rambukkana. A man who claims to be a teacher yet is quick to use words like problematic and credibility where he is all that and none respectively.

Never missing a beat or a straw man Rambukkana then dismisses a fellow academic Jordan Peterson out of hand by using the pejorative alt-right. Doing so he did what all the great leftist thinkers of this age have done. He accused Peterson and by extension Shephard of white nationalist tendencies and being advocates of Hitler’s Ideals. Doing so he able to safely in his view put aside for another day any serious debate about direction of the Post Modern World.

Then enters Herbert Pimlott pissing and moaning about the tyranny of the Majority. Oh the irony! He even managed to interject somehow Global Warming and Richard Spencer into his dressing down of Ms. Shephard. Not happy with just that he then proceeded to lecture on her and everyone else present on the tyranny of the majority when the discussion was Three against One. The irony and double standards of his position somehow lost on him as he breathlessly puts aside any concerns at how unfair and unbalanced the conversation had become.

Not to be outdone Adria Joel eventually up-talks her way into the conversation by reducing the problem once and for all. Accusing  the erstwhile Ms. Shephard of Trans-phobia of all things.

It ended up being nothing more than a Dog Pile of Post Modern Marxist horseshit. Made worse by fact that these three people work as academics. Though deeply angered that this brought Ms. Shephard to tears it does bring joy to my heart.

One can only hope that this young millennial from this experience was red-pilled.

The first instinct of a decent person shouldbe to reach out and protect this woman from these odious people. However violence shouldn’t solve anything. Instead might this world need a divine intervention. I think yes…

A quick cast of the net and I came up with my plan.

And so it is to you Lord Odin that I pray.
Though I am but one man would I be able to make a simple wish.
Could you shake the rust off that staff.
Take a cue from that last smack down of those now banished Ice Giants.
This world needs you now!
Us followers have come to count on you int he past.
These twats deserve what is now coming their way.
If you would be so kind to do this I make this solemn promise.
You can be first star at centre ice for this latest Fourth Turning

And this world would again be forever in your debt.

In the mean time those who believe will ready themselves for the fight.

Warmly Yours in Odin,



Marking Daze

Yesterday there was a QOTD about Teachers and late in game HardScrabble offers his solution. And what would that be..

Shoot them in the head…

Geeze might the Gentle Farmer be a tad out of character on that one.

At first I thought this was all crazy talk and a bit surprising comin’ from the Farmer. But on reflection and realizing that he did jump out of perfectly good airplanes for a livin’ it might not be so offside.

Then I thought of how he might he write some prose on the teaching profession.

Let us all picture the scene he would paint. A bit of Little House on the Prairie with a dash of Waltons that HSF is are known to do so well. It would still be a wee bit harsh by his usual standards but as always poignant all the same.

Scrabble sans paw as result of a tragic maple syrup accident a few years back.

So I gave it some further thought. Using the Farmer as inspiration I figured what the hell I might as well take some liberties with somethin’ he wrote. Imitation being the best form of flattery I would hope it might go something like this…

Option 1

The drip drip

In the days after I put down Midnight,

(that’s another story.. picture Walking dead meets the Kardashians)

…anyhoo I gave the useless herd of some space, checking on them from a distance as they grazed at another end of the year gorge of their ill gotten gains. Soon though I tired of the spectacle and a sent a couple of the most useless mouth-breathers to a School Board over on other side of ragged mountain from the dales where my kin, kindred and kind happily and blissfully reside. This was in part inspired by the fact that it is 2017. In the here and now of these days everything is out of sight and out of mind. All one need do to fix a problem is put them aside and let Gawd figure it out.

But will he?

Looking at the shitty track record so far the prospects don’t seem good as those loafer Teachers always seem to land on their feet. Still being a nice guy deep down I thought why spare worry when those fat fucks always get a reprieve.

Much has been written about the dynamics of the Teaching herd before so there is no need to go into excruciating detail again. Theirs is a matriarchal system where one Cow often dominates the others. Known as the Principal moar often than not her immediate Cortège is populated by the most useless then followed by the herd mates from her generation. She leads them to pastures when let out of confinement and of course chooses the direction during the day. Always leading them back when not busy, which is of course all the time, to the Teachers lounge to ruminate. This pattern repeats before, during and at end of each day. Of course interrupted by convenient Friday snowstorms and mental health days.

Number of snow day school closures mounting in Nova Scotia

None of it is done with force, reason being that the overgrazed are too lazy to get a real job. Why should they anyways when the Union motto is….

If it don’t work it ain’t broken.

Meanwhile the rest of the herd follow along with her cues. Occasionally when something especially threatening rears its ugly head to cut off of the water to their trough they have been known to shamelessly send kids to the streets to fight their so deemed righteous protest. Leading to only further proof that they are incapable of any shame.

They have a congenital tendency to piss and moan which is, of course, something innate and natural. They are Ruminants after all who would rather chew cud than think deeply. So as long as the food is brought to them with regularity they will saunter happily feeding in the sprouts of seeds planted by others.

Why worry anyways about teaching when instead they can brag to friends about how many days, weeks, months and years they have left to their bloated retirements. And as long as everyone, Keeps on Keeping on, the whinge stays a drone with Skool Boards dutifully bringing them their treats with regularity every once in a while.


The gift that keeps giving.

Teachers are great at never being able to quit sucking on the government teat. Lest not the spigots of money gets turned off and everyone gets their fill, the loyal lieutenants on either flank will wait in line with the rest of the them, shitting on everything in sight and eating until they fall over. All the while pleading with the public for one moar dime.

Because isn’t it all just about the kids.


Option 2

Short and Sweet.

Maybe option 2 might just be a tad extreme. Though at the end of the day every farmer needs to cull the herd. It might then end up after all being humane but that would be a question for another day.


Yours in Odin,





Just do It!

It is reassuring to my ongoing battle with sanity to hear that others have same conversations. Curse aloud at things beyond one’s control.

Indifference is the workshop of the Oppressors which manufactures fools who run errands for Hope and Change to Make America Great Again

I have over the past five years done much reflecting on a life lived. Come to realize that I have been waiting for a train that has always and always will be running one hour late. The only solution for the individual to survive what is coming is to change tact and plot a different course.

My Son just finished building a woodshed for his Mom. He helped me finish interior of my garage last fall and decided that if the old man could do it then so could he. I went up to help him last weekend with the roof. Returned the favour by helping to build something for him.

It was amazing and humbling as it made clear that my role in life is to raise my children to be good adults.

Actions speak louder than words.
and the example leads the way.

What can be done?

If you build it.
They will come

and most important of all


Why just sit eating donuts.
Better to make them instead


Villas by the Sea


Weather changes. It always has. Just 20000 years ago the place where I live was buried under several thousand feet of ice. And yet without help of cars or factories it all melted. None of that climate change was driven by man. Could other factors be at play.

The problem with all this alarmist talk is the lack of solutions. The greenies like DiCaprio and Gore will blather about reducing this and taxing that. Yet when curtain falls they turn tail, scamper back to private jets to get home to their gated 10000 sq ft mansions.


If Leonardo wuz so worried about Mutha Earf he’d sell his hovel in Malibu, donate the proceeds to Uncle Sam and move to the Hood in Compton. But everybody knows that ain’t gonna happen. Nope instead he gets to keep his fucken money and the rest of us scraping by get to pay a carbon tax for the right to breathe the same air as him.

The warmers can either put up or shut up.

They need to

1) Quit thinking that EV’s alone will solve emissions.

An Electric Car is the ultimate NIMBY vehicle. Those cars can only drive around toney neighbourhoods by shitting in someone elses backyard.

2) Get an agreement to get India, China and Russia on board.

What is the point leaving them out of binding agreements. It is just one moar reason for Capital to move to those less restrictive environs. But maybe that is the plan.

3) Forget about the Carbon Credits/Taxes

How does it help poverty in places like Sub-Saharan Africa to be trading carbon credits with some tin pot dictator that doesn’t give a fuck about the people he supposedly represents. All that money will then just flow right back to City of London or a Bank in Switzerland.

There needs to be real solutions that don’t involve starving and freezing the middle class into poverty to reduce a gas that isn’t even a pollutant.

But it doesn’t fucken matter anyways. Most of cars being built for roads today will still be on them 20 years from now. The economy cannot just pull a 180 and go in completely different direction. If a decree was issued tomorrow banning coal, diesel and Nat Gas for Electtical generation what would happen to the Just in Time Economy that provides me will Oranges on a Tuesday from South Africa.

Carbon Dioxide will increase one way or the other.

You can..


Book that Danno!

But maaaaybe that is the underlying plan.

Crush the trade.
Crush the will. And
Crush the population.

Agenda 21 might not be so far fetched after all if Gore and DiCaprio have their way. They wont be worried though. When the Barbarians are at the Gates, as with Rome they will slip away. And like the Nobles of so long ago they will ride out the coming dark age in their Villas by the Sea.



Scribbling s from Burning Platform

I am a regular on a blog called burning platform.

I am posting some comments I made there here. For the record and maybe for future use in book.



Sons of vengeance, can you rescue me
They got me tied up to an old oak tree
They had me screamin’ and alone in the night
I’m beginning to see what’s wrong and what is right
What is wrong and what is right, oh, what is wrong and what is right

The gates was gettin’ rusty, as we sailed into the dark
The stars were out and shinin’ against the moonlit hour
The wolves were out and howlin’, most of the time
And I was cold and shiverin’ and bleedin’ in the night
Bleedin’ in the night, oh, bleedin’ in the night

Screaming in the night, fighting for my life, I’d die for you
I knew it all along, headed for the sun, our love was true (our love was true)
Screaming in the night, fighting for my life, I’d die for you
I knew it all along, headed for the sun, our love was true, oh

In the corner of the valley, we took him by surprise
The sound of steel rang loud, above the battle cries
I found her lying lifeless, dagger through her heart
I picked her up, and held her high, and I swore to be avenged
Swore to the best, oh swore to be avenged, oh


Like many will no doubt add in comments this is a great place to vent and hear honesty. For all the logical fallacies this place is the antidote. It provides me the rails to keep me on the road.

As for the “boob ads” all I can ad is that I do my part lookin’ at the G’s

This particular thread was involved with free speech, the decay of America. It devolved into religion and Jews as it often does.


As for nationality, pay attention.. much…. you. Everybody around here should know by now that I am an American… with Benefits.

As for my edjamacation. I got one. Plenty of it. 7 years of post secondary and a lifetime of hard knocks. Gotta say that I am so glad that you have everything figured out. Me not so much but I am with the help of this blog and others finding my way.

Anyways keep reading your book. I have found it makes a great door stopper at the outhouse but by the guidance of Odin please don’t get hung up on Leviticus. It tends to make folks who take things too serious uptight cunts. That would be you if you haven’t figured it out.

But other than that hope you have a great day!

Cheers from right coast..

Yours in Odin,



I asked this question after reading the banter.



I have a question for you since you have made it clear many times that you don’t like the direction of TBP. I get where you are coming from but as distastful as some of topics might be I think they should be discussed.

I was wondering what you would propose as parameters for suitable content. How much anti-semitism is enough for you.

None or just some.

What if one day a week was devoted to an anti-semitic dog pile.

Does it really matter anymore seeing as this place and most of the regulars were tarred with alt-right label by the Marxists a long time ago. I could list plenty of examples of this IRL where toning it down or apologizing did not make any difference. There is plenty of proof that the minds of the Social Justice Warriors lurking in comments on Buzzfeed or CuNNt news have hardened to concrete so tough that even Jesus and Disciples wouldn’t be able to find a way through.

Serious though. What should be done?


He responded


Rob – anything where Jews are tarred with a wide brush is despicable to me. Want to discuss specifically what Israel does, not an issue. When folks make ridiculous claims about great Jewish conspiracies, and put the ((())) bullshit around comments, and then claim they are not anti-Semites, I object. Play the facts. And simply because Jews are successful does not make them evil. It makes them smart, with high IQs, well-educated, well-organized, dedicated to what helps them, and with a proclivity towards certain indistry owing, largely, to the anti-Semitism they faced over the millennia.

Combine that with the Holocaust denial, the slavering endorsement of all things Hitlerian, the swastikas, the images of Jews with hooked noses, the ((())), etc., and it all adds up to a concerted anti-Semitic narrative, don’t you think? And just how does that, ever, contribute to Admin’s vision? It is a steady bombardment from a cerain faction around here, and I object to it. All of it.


I get where you are coming lloph but is it better to ban or to confront. On a Family trip to Cape Breton I ended up in an argument at dinner with several In-Laws about “fighting Nazis” Please forgive the air quotes but I have to use them. Why? Well that is simple. Nobody I was breaking bread with that night wanted to define what being a Nazi actually means. Instead they pointed to Charlottesville and evoked pictures of a man carrying “the” flag.

Anyways they used the logical fallacy that because that man was there at rally that everyone who protested with him fought for his ideology. The same logic flows here. Isn’t it dangerous obviously for anyone to subscribe to that view. Equally dangerous is someone somewhere deciding that a Nazi should be de-platformed.

Who knows for sure what his his intentions were that day.

Maybe he was exercising deep held white supremacist beliefs.
Maybe he was a plant sent by Anitfa.
Maybe he was just testing the waters to see how safe the first Amendment really is.

At the dinner I spoke of above, one young Lady, who went to of all places Liberty University, launched into me with absolute rage at my audacity to say that is wrong to tear down Statues. Why? Well because in her mind if you are not with her then you are with the Nazis and White Supremacists.


Say we let them do that. What happens next..Will others decide. Or will decent folk who rather not offend self censor. Does that then lead to the safe spaces we have all come here to deplore.

I get it about stereotypes. Hook noses and Jew Conspiracies are not great entrance to an intelligent debate. But exist they do to be confronted not run away from. Besides like I said before this place has alt right label from Marxists anyways. That horse left barn long time ago. Making nice with them now will only result in a new list of demands.

That is why TBP is so great!

Folks around here will listen, respond in kind and most important of all have a sense of humour.


It was a Jew that figured out E=mc2. Score one for the Joos. It helped end the Second World War by nukin’ the Japs twice.

I’d write moar but I am building a step. Since it is afternoon I might even now have a beer. Might have something else to add later…..The terms were unconditional surrender. Nothing else.

The war criminal Hirohito sez right in his acceptance speech at his retirement party from Deity to household pet….

from his speech..


someone wrote in response. Not a surprise seeing as I was being intentionally inflammatory.

Surprised this myth still persists on TBP. The japs were already trying to surrender before we dropped those bombs on them. The US demanded the ‘unconditional surrender’ of Japan. Their ‘condition’ of surrender was that we allow their silly little Emperor to retain his throne rather than be prosecuted for war crimes. In the end, we allowed this, after needlessly frying two cities full of civilians with zero military significance. In fact, we purposely didn’t bomb those two cities like we did many others to conduct these little science experiments on them.


to which I said.

The terms were unconditional surrender. Nothing else.

The war criminal Hirohito sez right in his acceptance speech at his retirement party from Deity to household pet….

from his speech..

“To strive for the common prosperity and happiness of all nations as well as the security and well-being of Our subjects is the solemn obligation which has been handed down by Our Imperial Ancestors, and which We lay close to heart. Indeed, We declared war on America and Britain out of Our sincere desire to secure Japan’s self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from Our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandisement. But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by every one — the gallant fighting of military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people, the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb,[2] the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects; or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? ”

and here is the money shot…

“This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.”


I started on project for day thinking this some more.


A good project for my somewhat flawed mind. A person learns a lot about existential ideas laying random rock hoping to find a pattern. It is easy to start out with a plan and yet it all changes once the first rock is laid.

Eventually after a few bloody knuckles things start falling into place. Patterns appear. The different colours meld. The gaps between each stone get filled with gravel. Occasionally to make things fit there is no choice but to pick up a hammer. Knock off a few corners to make the rocks fit.

The closer to the end the more difficult the task. The hardest rock being the last. Finding that keystone the completes the picture and end the day.

The crux for me is whether there is a need for a Diety. Why is there this strong urge among so many to share belief with others. Is it good enough to have just a household pet.

As to the question of the day. The Jews lie square at the heart of competing Theologies. Most who adhere blinded by their dogma. Rather than fitting the stones the best they can most appear willing to stand, fight and sometimes die on a hill to protect something that should be shared by all.

As for Japan that silly little Emperor was the God King of the Japanese Nation. The reason for insisting on Unconditional surrender was because the Allies had to kill their God to save their country.

This song has been playing today. Looping. On its surface it is a fluffy dance club love song from 1982. But listen more closer and a darker meaning appears.

I will end by saying the premise being presented here is likely far off base from what Stucky is trolling for. But these are my thoughts today.

Now finished for day. Tomorrow I might start the step to road.
Done with rock. On to the wood… time for a beer.

In a perfect world where all rocks conform I suppose one can start with cornerstone. However the real world in which I live is much like my stone path. Random shapes that have to be cobbled together into something that works. I think you have read me wrong. I am not framing my life to my liking. Rather I am using the bits I am given to make the best way possible.