Predictions for 2018

The Stones at Callanish, Isle of Lewis, Scotland

“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.” –Nils Bohr

I was reading Admin’s breakdown of where he when wrong in his predictions for the year past and thought, hey maybe I can take one for the team and give it a try…
A while back on a trip to the Isle of Lewis in Scotland I happened upon a megalithic structure built 5000 years ago. There are varying theories about purpose. Many think that it was built to mark time, predict lunar eclipses, equinoxes and the solstice. It may be all those things and it may be none. All I know is that it is there.

So let’s get down to the nitty gritty of my predictions for 2018.


  • What is a couple hundred billion between friends. Governments are broke everywhere, can’t balance the books, and solution is to write even moar cheques. But seeing as folks need a number here it is. 22.6 Trillion, though it hardly matters what the digits are on the roads of infinity.
  • The CPI is bullshit! I bought a hamburger at A&W during the Festivus season and it cost me 6 bucks without the drink and fries.. That number will be whatever the Fed Chairman/woman pulls out of their ass.
  • As for interest rates they are right now in a fight to the death with the long end of curve. They will rise 25 basis points and das ist alles. They should rise moar but if they did it would crush bond prices and the FED portfolio. Besides the Fed has found a better ways to mooch. These days they screw Granny out of interest on GIC’s.
  • Oil prices will be up and down like a whores drawers on Bourbon Street. But they will go up. Even with Saudi Arabia waterboarding Billionaires it still broke. They will to fix their holes in budget, eliminating competition one way or the other and thereby raising the price. Predicktion some flux and $65 dollars at end of year.
  • As for store closings, bankruptcy filings in the retail sector are sure to increase. How many? Does it even matter anymore. The Malls too are going to have another shitty year though analysts should know by now that it is in best interests of everyone to roll over their debt despite negative cash flow. In this world of Dire Straits the song being played anyways is Money for nuthin’ and the chicks are free.
  • Spending is going to go through the roof and personal debt into the stratosphere. And why the fuck not! When yer drunk ya might as well dance. Besides, it is two o’clock in the morning, the beer goggles are on, and there are no ugly girls! Even a pig will do..
  • Jobs are hypothetical. If you want one then the Government will think you have it.
  • The DOW is going to go up again this year. Around 10% but only because Trump and Wall Street now realize that they have no choice but see eye to eye. To anyone with clue about balance sheets it does not add up but these days reality and common sense have blinded by eyes that no longer see.

Civic Decay

  • Relations between the U.S. and Russia are going to deteriorate. With recent moves to provide the Ukes with more weapons it seems likely that moves are a foot. Count on some sort of provocation while World Cup is underway in Moscow.
  • Obama will continue to poke sticks in the eyes of Trump and his supporters by dispensing with tradition and involving himself in the fuckery of the election season.. Sure it will inflame but he is a one trick pony with an ego the size of Mt. Rushmore. In other news water is wet.
  • Trump will do everything in his power to investigate the Clinton foundation and still manage to not sent anyone to jail.
  • Well-funded (by Soros) domestic agitators, including BLM and various femi-nazi groups are going to continue with the violence, conflicts with Trump supporters, and police confrontations. The divide, already a chasm, is going to just get deeper. Expect another fat lesbian with a bad heart to stumble at a parade and be turned into a martyr.
  • The Mainstream media are going to double down on stupid. The blathering idiots will carry on shitting on white people and anyone productive. They have no choice.
  • Count on Trump to continue using twatter as a flamethrower with CNN and MSNBC taking it in the ass and singled out for special measures. Lemon and Cooper will be sure to approve.
  • There will be no beautiful wall. Though bits and ribbons will be cut in lead up to mid term elections. DACA will be passed in some form and the Muslim invasion will begin anew. Yojimbo will have mental health crisis of some sort once he fully realizes that Trump has sold his soul to the company store…
  • Obama is going to refuse to fade into the sunset. Mike and Barry realizing that their legacy is fading will break with tradition and, using their combined experience, go balls deep into this coming election season.
  • Through there will be some rumblings, ole Cankles Clinton will end the year free. Still signing books and lining up more targets for Bill to play with.
  • Not so for Debbie Wasserman Shultz. She is headed to crowbar motel thanks to a deal cut by Sessions with the Arwan Brothers.
  • Jullian Assange will be pardoned in March or April. Just in time the the next election silly season. Then count on many critters pleading the fifth at the inevitable congressional hearings.
  • The Fusion GPS story line will linger then fade. Those behind will slink off to which they came and John McCain will avoid jail by doing everyone a favour and take a dirt nap.

Global Disorder

  • There will be no war in Korea. Once Kim and Trump get done measuring their cocks they will get back to their desks and cigars.
  • Syria is in the demarcation phase with hostilities subsiding somewhat. It might lead to some reprieve in migrant crisis but it will the short lived. Reason being that Israel needs a shitshow somewhere to distract their locals from the realities they face. Same ole, same ole. Watch Lebanon!
  • Iran is going to teeter but it won’t break. The vast majority having seen the benefits of democracy in places like Libya, Egypt, Syria and Ukraine will say thanks but no thanks to your colour revolutions. And yeah you Yanks, colour is spelled right!
  • The U.S. dependency on Saudi oil will continue. Not because of the oil in the ground but the paper castles in the sky. Tempers will flare and prices for oil will rise. In the end the only ones getting screwed will be at the pumps.
  • Turkey should be in the Russian sphere of influence based on past U.S. meddling. But like the two timing whore that it is will continue playing both sides and hoping for the middle. Here’s hoping that country gets fucked from both ends..
  • Israel will pre-emptively take action either covertly or overtly to damage the Iranian nuclear program. Cause that is what they do and in other news the sun came up today.
  • As for relations between India and Pakistan expect more soldiers getting shot in border skirmishes though it won’t amount to much in the grand scheme. A few dead here and few bleeding there. Doesn’t make for any great mischief in a place where 1.5 billion people live.
  • As for the financial turmoil in India.. meh! They worship cows while people starve in the streets. They may be late to the party but they ain’t pikers to the game.
  • In Japan, that country has been wrote off as far as the smart people are concerned for years. They are going to continue to avoid catastrophe only because they are a homogeneous society that for the most part pull in the same direction. As for the population declines underway there nothing to see either. Yeah its going down but there are still more people living now then at the height of Imperial Japan. And back then they almost took over all of East Asia. Go long Japan..
  • China will rumble on. Why because it is China and folks in the West need their shit.
  • Things are going to cool off a bit with the potential military conflict between China and Japan/U.S. over the islands in the South China Sea. China will continue to build ’em and the US will continue to fly over them.
  • The EU will remain in tact though the edges will continue to fray.
  • Count on efforts by Globalists to bring a better democracy to Poland and Hungary.


  • There will be continued declines in ratings for NFL as the overpaid continue pissing off the fans that feed them..
  • Kapernick will work on his afro, practice “would you like fries with that” and still somehow not have a job.
  • The Cleveland Browns will still suck.
  • The Toronto Blue Jays will finish at bottom of American East.
  • Mikhal Sergachev will be rookie of the year… dammit nkit, it is Denis Savard all over.
  • and the Habs will finish out of playoffs… again.



The Coup is in the Delusion

Has cynicism overtaken outrage. Maybe…One need look no further than this argument being made in this NYT op-ed for proof. It is a masterstroke in persuasion and cognitive dissonance where the only coup executed is the shattering of one man’s Post Modern delusion. Sadly the author just hasn’t taken the time to realize what has occurred..

And likely never will…

Amazing really that someone of means and education can inhabit a place of such untenable position. Then again, him being a self described progressive voice, he must have plenty of experience being fucked over. Just look around and pity the man who just lived thru eight years of Obama and the abomination of Clinton.

Besides the coup has already taken place. It happened last year at the Democratic Convention when Hillary and her cronies defeated the progressive voices with her rigged win. And yet here we are a year later and all that is forgotten. Those voices now fallen have been let to twist on the vine of their own choosing. Willingly marching, as good Socialists do, to an execution without even the courtesy of a cigarette. The author, with this piece, takes great pains, yet thru it all he seems oblivious to that fact.

Shame that someone of misplaced intelligence has become so bogged down in this false Left-Right dichotomy. Not seeing the trap is not really surprising as this man has spent his entire working life in in a Post Modern box and echo chamber. He is by all appearances stuck in a soup brewed from his own mindfuck and it doesn’t look like he has any plans leaving anytime soon…

Mister T used to say I pity Da’ fool.

But try as I may I cannot.



Read an article today in National Review. I found the book I am reading right now by Scott Adams a great reference in explaining why otherwise smart people occupy such untenable positions.

Wow! Some serious persuasion at work.
Here I am peddling a book for a guy who doesn’t even need the money.

Which gets me to the article. The author Charles C.W. Cook does an excellent job exposing this conservative blogger as a fraud. In a master stroke of persuasion Ms. Rubin uses to full effect Cognitive Dissonance to feed her insatiable desire for Trump Derangement Syndrome.


Oh what joy it is watching folks like Rubin twist on the vine.


This Dawg is Hero

I am reading a Scott Adams book about persuasion.

Win Bigly… A must read if I do so say.


It is somethin’ different from the usual piss and moan. Book talks a whole bunch about Cognitive Dissonance, Confirmation Bias and most importantly methods and means of persuasion. Folks, whether they will admit it or not, follow the same ruts in the road, day after day. Maybe that is reason for burnout these days. People are tired of looking for the nails.


Take Karl Denninger for an example. The guy is a millionaire over several times. Yet he somehow fills his days with rants and raves. Amazing really! This is a guy who can afford a better path. However in his vain pursuit to be heard, he forces himself to drive the same roads as the people he rails against. He is a classic case in the art of self persuasion with this crusade for health care reform. It has been going on for years. These days everything he sees can be used as evidence to advance his cause…..

But it must be tough running as a hammer when everything sticking out of the ground is a screw.

Anyways sir, and I mean this in all sincerity, you should get to work on another one of your life on the farm short stories. This place could use some nice. Besides……

These days it seems
There is a shortage of Sugar.
See many needing help
To get thru the winter……

I am starting to wonder if some of shit I hold dear be is just that…


Nobody is right 100% of the time.

And that all that needs be done to make things right.
Is convince everyone else to quit putting up a fight.

A worthwhile discourse can only happen the person opposed can be swayed on facts. Both hopefully in some way cured of their delusion. Where you fall down is only seeing things your way. Yours is a world of black and white. Nothing is between. It is the place where democracy and civil society goes to die. Time and time again it is made abundantly clear that folks would rather die on a hill that doesn’t matter then admit they could be wrong..

Folks we need to own our shit..

Just once… and the world would be a whole lot better..


I might need to find some sugar. This world is going to be fine.

I found the uncensored version.
As with Trump this one is much better.
sadly there ain’t no places left for dogs named hero..
Trump will not be impeached as the bar is too high.
Cause everyone knows
If push comes to shove he will say
Fuck you it all goes away….


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,