Category Archives: Jordan Peterson

Jordan Peterson: Descensus ad inferos

Jordan Peterson's goal is to strengthen the individual. Life contains tragedy and evil. The hero's journey justifies the burden of being by pursuing truth, making order out of chaos. The alternative is deceiving yourself with ideology and nihilism. So, take yourself seriously, know the monster within you, and become a responsible person with an integrated character.

r/JordanPetersonis an open forum where controversial topics can be discussed in good faith. Free speech, despite risking offense, is necessary to conduct civil discourse between opposing ideologies. Bans will be given to users who post excessively abusive material.

Follow Jordan Peterson on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Youtube, and JBP Daily

OfficialWebsite |Youtube |Blog |Events |Merchandise Store |Contact

Applicationsthinkspot |JBP Daily |Search Engine |Transcripts

Social MediaFacebook |Twitter |Quora |Instagram |Soundcloud |Spotify

SupportDonate

BooksMaps of Meaning |12 Rules for Life

ScholarshipResearch |Google Scholar |

StudiesJordan Peterson's Claims Reference List |List of Studies From James Damore's Google Memo

ResourcesAll Videos | Q&A Catalog | FAQ |Reading List |Great Books |Writing Guide |42 Things Everyone Should Know |Art Collection | Psychology as a Career

Fan Made ContentWikiQuote | School of Peterson|Land of Meaning |12 Rules for Life Infographic | Lobster Writer - Essay Writing App

Related New Real Peer Review |Postmodernism Generator |OpenMind |HumanProgress

Subreddit Starter Pack |Surveys |Analysis

JBP Ask Me Anything! 2017 | Responses 2018 | Responses

See the original post here:
Jordan Peterson: Descensus ad inferos

Anti-Jordan Peterson professor accused of abuse of power by former colleague, students – The Post Millennial

You have 10 free articles left today, enjoy reading.

On January 7th, The Post Millennial reported that a Professor at the University of Calgary tweeted about failing students if they cited Jordan Peterson. Ted McCoy, chair of the Law and Society program at the UoC, apologized shortly after his tweet went viral, asserting that the flippant comment was a joke and insisting that he did take seriously students right to free expression.

In wake of the social media fallout, sources from within the University of Calgary have come forward to The Post Millennial to assert that McCoys comments were anything but a joke. The identities of those who spoke out are being protected for their safety due to their proximity to McCoy.

He absolutely was not kidding. He absolutely does penalize students for holding divergent views. Said one source, a former professor at the University of Calgary and current professor at another institution.

He literally tells students to not read Quillette, the source revealed, drawing from discussions had with McCoys students, Hes walked into class and expressed how disappointed he was in the amount of conservative ideas being expressed.

The source noted that students often came to her with complaints about McCoys in-class political proselytizing, fearing poor grades because of their ideological differences.

Students have just learned to shut-up and parrot whatever he wants to hear. The source revealed that McCoy was the only professor teaching a mandatory capstone exit course required for some students successful degree completion in the Law and Society program.

Being the coordinator for the Law and Society program, McCoy is also responsible for hiring new faculty members. Noting that a great deal of faculty has abruptly ceased teaching in the program, the source claimed that all of the new hires have been people who share [McCoys] ideological perspective and have no qualifications whatsoever to teach Law and Society.

A student who took McCoys class corroborated the faculty members comments.

I have actually told other students to not enroll in the Law and Society program because of McCoy, he said, noting a number of distressing interactions with his former Professor.

The first day of class, within the first fifteen minutes, he explicitly states the goal of this course is to radicalize you. Before you leave University, I want to radicalize you. The former student, who identifies as left-wing politically, says McCoy immediately introduced the class to a bizarre coding system by which participation was noted for grades.

[McCoy told students] that he will make a mark beside your name when you contribute to the class discussion. He told us he has a symbol system for if a student made an insightful comment, all the way up to what you said was batshit crazy. The former student says the class was immediately politicized, with students fearing to vocalize their opinions if it contradicted McCoys ideological perspective.

The former student also revealed that McCoy assigned his own writings as well as books written by his Ph.D. supervisor as mandatory readings for the class, leaving students fearful to express criticism. When one student did, noting the lack of objectivity in one of the readings, McCoy berated him.

Recalling another class, the former student says that McCoy blasted Jordan Peterson to the class.

He came into class with his head in his hands and looked upset. He was shaking his head and sighing. When a student asked what was bothering the Professor, McCoy went on to complain about Jordan Peterson. He said he had been reading a lot of Jordan Peterson, and said he cannot believe how Peterson thinks he knows everything.

After a student defended Peterson, McCoy reportedly went on a tangent.

He said Peterson is basically espousing hate speech and he ought to be deplatformed in the strongest sense. the former student said.

I was distressed that a Professor would take such an obvious political stance in his teaching, the former student said, going on to reveal he felt unsafe with McCoys control over his grade. Because of this students concerns about entering graduate school, he said he learned to stop challenging McCoy.

I basically kowtowed in my papers. I would just tell him what he wanted to hear. Going on to note that conservative students never spoke in class out of fear of angering McCoy.

Since graduating, the former student says his friends who have entered McCoys class have texted him for help navigating the Professors extreme ideology.

[McCoy] was unequivocally one of the worst professors Ive ever had, and it was because the class was more about politics than it was critical thinking.

On January 9th, McCoy tweeted and quickly deleted a post suggesting he had only apologized at the advice of administration.

The Post Millennial has reached out to Dr. Ted McCoy, the Law and Society program, and Sociology department head Dr. Fiona Nelson at the University of Calgary, but have not received a response by the time of publication.

Read the original post:
Anti-Jordan Peterson professor accused of abuse of power by former colleague, students - The Post Millennial

Jordan Peterson and the Cult of Genius – The Good Men Project

Over the past year and a half, Peterson has gained notoriety through his open hostility toward trans rights and feminism as well as his characterization of universities as tools for indoctrinating students into what he terms neo-Marxism.

January 10, 2020 by Evidence Network Leave a Comment

By Jennifer Garrison

Like it or not, University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson is a cultural sensation. Over the past year and a half, Peterson has gained notoriety through his open hostility toward trans rights and feminism as well as his characterization of universities as tools for indoctrinating students into what he terms neo-Marxism.

He has throngs of online followers. A column in the New York Times noted hes been called the most influential public intellectual in the Western world, and academics regularly write columns seeking to discredit him.

I am an academic, but this is not one of those columns. Instead, I think we need to question our incessant need to talk about Peterson in the first place. Our obsession with Peterson reveals a larger cultural problem that threatens to cripple our universities: our adoration of the individual masculine genius.

This cult of genius comes at the expense of a vibrant intellectual life and thriving democracies in North America.

Petersons success is built on the fact that he was deemed to be a part of that special and highly nebulous category of genius a term (much like expert) that is almost exclusively reserved for men. In a recent interview, Petersons former colleague explains that Peterson was hired and promoted precisely on these grounds: he sometimes appeared to be in the thrall of his ideas and would not, or could not, constrain himself and self-monitor what he was saying. That was OK. He was eccentric.

In universities, we often take eccentric along with bad behaviour as a mark of genius: we ignore complaints about intolerance or sexual harassment because geniuses are above the rules. We really like geniuses. We hire and promote them and students want to study under them.

One problem with genius is that it is something one is rather than something one does. The concept implies that academic work is not, in fact, a form of work. When we only care if a university has its fair share of geniuses, we devalue and label as more feminine other forms of academic labour from teaching to administration to less trendy research.

In fact, the majority of teaching in North American universities is now done by contract faculty (the majority of whom tend to be women): PhD-holding subject experts who are paid per-course. If they are lucky enough to be teaching a full course load every semester, they might earn around $28,000 for working in excess of 40 hours a week.

Permanent faculty, on the other hand, are often overloaded with administrative work, such as curriculum planning and advising students. A recent study has shown that this work, too, falls largely to female faculty members keeping them from engaging in innovative teaching and ground-breaking research.

This emphasis on genius also threatens to destroy entire fields of study, particularly the softer disciplines in the Humanities (e.g., Art, English, History, etc.) since genius is typically reserved primarily for the more male-dominated STEM fields. Politicians, administrators, many members of the public, and Jordan Peterson himself regularly deride the Humanities as frivolous. (Ever heard a joke about an English major being a barista-in-training?)

On the contrary, the Humanities are vitally important in an increasingly polarized society because they help us to understand, analyze, and critique differences in human communication and culture. And (for the practical-minded) Humanities majors do get satisfying jobs. Their skills are in demand in the corporate world and they may actually have more career success than Business majors.

We need to reject this cult of the masculine genius. If we want a thriving intellectual culture, we need to start valuing all academic labor and forms of inquiry. Its not just better for universities themselves; its better for building a more tolerant and democratic society.

In order to shift this culture, we need to demand that politicians and administrators value and economically support a diversity of voices inside universities.

If we want a strong democracy and intellectual culture, lets forget genius. Instead, lets build stronger universities.

This post was previously published on Evidencenetwork.ca and is republished here under a Creative Commons license CC BY-ND 4.0.

Have you read the original anthology that was the catalyst for The Good Men Project? Buy here: The Good Men Project: Real Stories from the Front Lines of Modern Manhood

All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.

Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.

Photo credit: Istockphoto.com

See the rest here:
Jordan Peterson and the Cult of Genius - The Good Men Project

‘No Safe Spaces’ ignores the attacks on free speech from the right – INSIDER

A true commitment to free speech requires defending the right to express the most vile, transgressive, and unpopular ideas. And the truest demonstration of that commitment is to hold one's own political tribe to account when it fails to walk the walk on the principle.

You won't find such introspection in "No Safe Spaces," a new documentary that exemplifies the growing "free-speech tourism" on the right.

The film's protagonists and executive producers are Adam Carolla, the comedian and host of the most downloaded podcast in the world, and Dennis Prager, the conservative talk-radio host and founder of the hugely popular YouTube channel PragerU.

The doc lays out an assemblage of the most publicized "politically correct social-justice warrior college-campus snowflakes out of control" stories of the past five years, which the film frames as harbingers of a free speech apocalypse.

While the movie provides solid cases against the logical fallacies made by left-wing activists, it fails to address free-speech violations on the political right and takes the safest route possible by preaching to the choir.

The film's interview subjects include members of the "Intellectual Dark Web" and right-wing YouTubers who are positioned as free-speech warriors. But many of these subjects take an la carte view of free expression seeking government or legal intervention against speech that offends them.

They're not free-speech absolutists. They seem to defend the idea only when they have easy targets, like college students. They're free-speech tourists.

Adam Carolla at the premiere of "No Safe Spaces" at the TCL Chinese Theatre on November 11, 2019, in Hollywood. Michael Tullberg/Getty Images

In a December interview with Insider, Adam Carolla said that while he's never been overtly censored, he has had some indirect experience with it.

"Hollywood has its own version of that ... the version where they don't hire you or they don't let your film into film festivals or they give you horrible reviews on your films," Carolla said. "There's an adult working version of what's going on on the college campuses in Hollywood."

Carolla contends that part of why he's been able to avoid being directly muzzled is that he doesn't work for anyone.

"I write books, I do stand-up, I do a podcast," he said. "I don't have a boss. I don't work for a corporation. I don't work within the Hollywood system. I'm not on a network. If it wasn't for podcasting and stand-up and touring and live shows, I'm sure I would be censored."

When asked why there's no mention of threats to free speech that don't come from college campuses but directly from the government, Carolla said he was unaware of them.

Some of these include the Trump administration order to two universities to amend their jointly run Middle East studies programs to include more positive depictions of Christianity and Judaism or the dozens of state bans that forbid public institutions (such as colleges) from boycotting Israel, and the Texas state policy that actually compels speech from government employees namely, a pledge that they won't boycott Israel.

To his credit, Carolla essentially pleaded ignorance on the topic and expressed his support for the right to boycott: "I'm pro-Israel just because I'm sane. But if you want to protest Israel, you certainly have the right in my world otherwise I'd be a hypocrite."

This is clearly a missed opportunity, as "No Safe Spaces" free-speech street credibility could only be bolstered by having the protagonists of the documentary forcefully defend the rights of people whose politics run pointedly counter to their own.

The self-styled "professor against political correctness" Jordan Peterson at the Cambridge Union. Photo by Chris Williamson/Getty Image

"No Safe Spaces" is indicative of a frustrating trend in an era where the freedom of speech is regularly under attack from both sides. Instead of soberly addressing threats to free speech, the movie relies on some dubious "free-speech warriors" who often don't practice what they preach.

Among them are Jordan Peterson, the professor who rose to fame opposing (and some have argued misconstruing) a Canadian law that he said would "require people under the threat of legal punishment to employ certain words," specifically gender-neutral pronouns for trans persons. But as is noted near the end of the film, Peterson is engaged in two lawsuits against university officials who called him mean names.

Also featured is YouTube host Dave Rubin, who offers such insights as his belief that words like bigot, racist, and homophobe are "nonsensical buzzwords." He has also hinted at lawsuits against people who refer to him by labels he doesn't like, and supports "mass lawsuits" against news organizations for libel.

A third "expert" on free speech presented in the film is PragerU host Candace Owens, who has called for people who burn the US flag to lose their citizenship, a decidedly anti-free-speech notion.

The film repeatedly decries the concept of de-platforming a practice of removing controversial figures from social media and other platforms on the idea that bad ideas will go away if they are not provided oxygen. But in an ironic twist, Prager's own company de-platformed the disgraced alt-right friendly comic Owen Benjamin.

Benjamin's "anti-PC" comedy repertoire previously praised by the conservative free-speech crowd despite being replete with racist and homophobic slurs started to feature overt anti-Semitism in 2018. Not too long after, his PragerU videos disappeared without explanation from YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.

As a private nonprofit, PragerU has the right to remove videos and de-platform whomever it chooses. But if the idea of de-platforming is truly anathema, a bit of transparency about why they erased Benjamin's videos from the archives would be expected. An explanation of why Benjamin's jokes featuring racism and homophobia made him a free-speech comedy beacon, but anti-Semitism placed him beyond the pale, would also be expected. (PragerU did not respond to Insider's requests for comment.)

It's no surprise that free-speech devotees have genuine concerns about the growing climate on the left of zero-tolerance word-policing, cancel culture, and an unwillingness to engage in good-faith contentious debate. But it's hard to believe anyone watching this film is unaware of any of that.

The doc's inability to grapple with growing animosity toward free speech on both sides of the political aisle shows just how hollow these concerns among conservative "free-speech tourists" are.

For instance, "No Safe Spaces" doesn't find time to address the seven states with bans on positive portrayals of homosexuality in public schools. Or the Republican lawmakers who use the force of their government bully pulpits to intimidate and silence people who offend their delicate sensibilities. And of course, there's no mention of President Donald Trump's consistent hostility to free speech.

There's a documentary film to be made that thoughtfully examines the perpetual cycles of outrage and cancellation in modern discourse. One that skewers performative hypersensitivity and mindless tribalism. One that takes both sides of the aisle to task for their censorious instincts, and for petitioning authority figures to protect their sensibilities from discomfort. That movie is not "No Safe Spaces."

If you don't call out your own side or loudly defend the First Amendment rights of your political enemies, you're not a free-speech warrior. You're a free-speech tourist.

More:
'No Safe Spaces' ignores the attacks on free speech from the right - INSIDER

Jordan Peterson in Rehab After ‘Horrific’ Withdrawal

Famed Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson is in rehab after enduring horrific withdrawal symptoms when he stopped taking an anti-anxiety medication, according to his daughter.

Petersons daughter, Mikhaila Peterson, made the announcement Thursday on her YouTube channel.

After his wifes crushing terminal cancer diagnosis, Peterson was prescribed Clonazepam to help control the anxiety and stress that came with his spouses illness and her subsequent treatment.

The cancer diagnosis hit the Canadian psychologist hard, causing Peterson to halt his speaking tour and delay the publication of his upcoming book, Newsweek reported.

Despite the terminal diagnosis, Petersons wife made a recovery, so Peterson opted to stop taking Clonazepam, and quit cold turkey, his daughter said.

TRENDING: Rep. Cheney: 'Speaker Pelosi Is an Embarrassment & Unfit for Office'

According to the American Addiction Centers, quitting Clonazepam suddenly can be deadly.

The horrible withdrawal symptoms can include nausea, seizures, hallucinations and even thoughts of suicide.

Acute withdrawal symptoms peak two weeks after stopping use of Clonazepam, the AAC says, but subtle signs can last anywhere from a week to a month.

Mikhaila described the horrific withdrawal that led him to eventually check into a rehabilitation institute in an attempt to get professional help quitting the anti-anxiety medication.

He stopped cold turkey in the summer after talking with a psychiatrist, Mikhaila said, and experienced horrific physical withdrawal and anxiety.

74% (394 Votes)

26% (137 Votes)

Turns out this is more than common with Clonazepam. Did you know they put suicide warnings on the bottle in the states? Would have been nice to know prior to the prescription.

Mikhaila revealed the family is in New York for Petersons recovery.

At the medical facility, Peterson is being weaned off Clonazepam using other medications. Weaker concoctions are used as a sort of substitute for the powerful anti-anxiety drug.

RELATED: Health Care Company Worker Claims To Let Trump Supporters Die, Employer Responds

Mikhaila also warned viewers, claiming it only takes six weeks of Clonazepam use before it becomes physically difficult to quit.

She said her father and the rest of the family are in high spirits after initial success. With any luck, the psychologist will soon be back to aggravating liberals by speaking the truth.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

More here:
Jordan Peterson in Rehab After 'Horrific' Withdrawal

Writing about Jordan Peterson for the First Time – Merion West

(Rick Madonik/Toronto Star)

Nevertheless, The Rise of Jordan Peterson comes to me as a relief. Prior to Peterson, the position of the hip professor loved by college students (with all sorts of memes and merchandises using his image), was occupied by Slavoj iek.

Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist and global thought leader, is a frequent topic of exploration for authors at Merion West. Petersons work is often discussed, both by his supporters and critics at this outlet. Thus far, I have remained on the sidelines of these debates. But, given the degree to which Peterson has become a cultural icon, I suppose the time has come for me to weigh-in. And, as intellectual apprentices usually do when it comes to engaging with a topic they do not already know much about, I began by watching an introductory film.

The Rise of Jordan Peterson, directed by Patricia Marcoccia, is very useful in this regard: for serving as an introduction for a Jordan Peterson neophyte like me. Needless to say, in just ninety minutes, the film cannot address all the complexities of Petersons thought. However, it does an effective job in presenting Petersons main views. The film is never dull, andlike any good good intellectual portraitit also offers a glimpse into Petersons personality and private life. And, true to Petersons own intellectual spirit, the film is fully open to dialogue, avoiding a one-sided portrait. Both enthusiasts and adversaries are given their due in the film.

As the film tells it, Peterson rose to fame when he announced he would not comply with the Canadian governments requirement to address someone by their preferred pronoun; predictably the transgender community in Toronto was not happy about this, and some tried to silence Peterson. The first half of the film focuses on this controversy. While watching it, I could not help being reminded of the 1967 Muhammad Ali vs. Ernie Terrell fight, in which Aliresentful that his adversary called him Cassius Claycontinuously yells, Whats my name, fool? I suppose that many of us have felt like Muhammad Ali at some point in our lives: some of us hold dear an identity, but society refuses to acknowledge who we are. Yet, as the case of Rachel Dolezal proves, our culture isat bestinconsistent andat worsthypocritical. If you are biologically male but feel like a woman, you are entitled to being acknowledged as such. However, if you look white but feel like an African American, somehow you are a monster. If one even dares to point out the obvious parallelisms between transracial and transgender identities, one assumes the risk of being on the receiving end of bullying from the Social Justice wing of the Left, as Rebecca Tuvel learned the hard way.

Now, Ali was a tough guy, and he fought hard to receive the identity recognition he desired. Sadly, the transgender community seeks the easy way: they want the State to punish those whoeven without intent to cause harmfail to address them with the pronouns they choose for themselves. And this is the crux of Petersons crusade: it is not so much a transgender issue but, rather, a free speech issue. The State must not be in the business of regulating silly little words; to do so would, indeed, bring us closer to totalitarianism. I think Muhammad Ali would have agreed.

As the film goes on, this concern with totalitarianism comes up as a constant in Petersons thought. He appears obsessed with the Soviet Union, to the point of having his house replete with Soviet propaganda paintingsperhaps as a reminder of where the West might be headed if the culture of political correctness continues its expansion. This, however, is where Peterson looses steam and becomes harder to take seriously.

For example, in one scene, Peterson mocks a portrait of Marx, and then there are the occasions when he speaks about the threat of Cultural Marxism. Marx may have been wrong on many things, but he never proposed any totalitarian scheme. Furthermore, Peterson speaks a lot about Cultural Marxism, but it is never clear exactly what he means by itother than a sort of suggestion that there exists a secret cabal that is using some hidden agenda to rule the world. The professor does appear to dip into the conspiratorial every once in a while. In the film, one twelve-year-old child approaches him to express admiration and begins to rant about how his teachers are all Cultural Marxists and how his classmates do all they can to keep the teacher in check. Peterson does nothing to tone down the childs paranoia, and I would suspect that, actually, the childs teacher is the one who would be afraid to speak his mind in class. It seemed to me this particular child was not unlike those activists thatin the first half of the filmhad sought to deplatform Peterson.

In the film, one of Petersons friends and colleagues at the University of Toronto, cleverly says that Peterson ultimately becomes very similar to what he so vehemently criticizes. Indeed, Peterson has proposed scrutinizing college courses about their level of political correctnessso as to warn students not to take them. This is very concerning. The overzealous opposition to Stalinism can lead to McCarthyism, its mirror image. And, it seems to me that Peterson is falling into this trap.

He is certainly right in criticizing the Soviet Union as a totalitarian State. But, tellingly, he has little to say about post-Soviet Russia. Now, any reasonable person would agree that Putins Russia is almost as authoritarian as the Soviet Union. But, somehow, many conservatives do have a soft spot for Putinon account, perhaps, of his muscular approach to politics, views on sexuality, relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church, and, of course, his relationship with Trump. My guess is that Peterson would also have some degree of sympathy for Putin (although Peterson acknowledges that he is not so certain about Putins honesty), precisely because Putin seems to embody the anti-political correctness that the West desperately needs.

Peterson has great admiration for Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn certainly can be admired for many things, but he was not exactly a great representative of anti-totalitarian liberalism. Solzhenitsyn was a victim of Soviet totalitarianism, but he still wanted a Russian society that would go back to Czarist traditions (not exactly the apex of an open society). I suspect that, were he alive today,Solzhenitsyn would not be too dissatisfied with Putins approach (Solzhenitsyns widow is a big fan).

So, as the film itself portrays it, it is not entirely clear that Peterson is wholly removed from the kind of authoritarianism he abhors. Take, for example, Petersons constant plea to youngsters to clean up their room. Now, of course, hygiene and tidiness are important. But interestingly, obsession with these things does have an association with authoritarian personalities, which as Adorno famously claimed, can lead to totalitarian politics.

Nevertheless, The Rise of Jordan Peterson comes to me as a relief. Prior to Peterson, the position of the hip professor loved by college students (with all sorts of memes and merchandises using his image), was occupied by Slavoj iek. A film about him was also made. I would say Zizek!is one of the worst films I have ever seen; for two hours, iek spouts incomprehensible and ridiculous claims, and, of course, his books are not any better. By contrast, Peterson is a straight-forward, no-nonsense type of guy who does say many reasonable things. But, the beast must be tamed. This is where The Rise of Jordan Peterson excels: it presents a mans courageous fight to put an end to all the campus craziness overtaking North America; yet at the same time, it provides useful hints about the limits that must constrain this new crusade against political correctness.

Dr. Gabriel Andrade is a university professor. He has previously contributed to Areo Magazine and DePauw Universitys The Prindle Post. His twitter is@gandrade80

Go here to see the original:
Writing about Jordan Peterson for the First Time - Merion West

America Remains the Land of Opportunity. For Everything Else, Theres Gold. – Forbes

pixabay

In 1967, a woman then known as Svetlana Alliuyeva arrived by plane in New York. Moments after landing, she held a press conference during which she renounced her native Soviet Russia, describing it as profoundly corrupt. She burned her Soviet passport and called her fatherwho had died in Russia a decade earliera moral and spiritual monster.

Her father was Joseph Stalin, the former dictator of the USSR.

In case you werent around at the time, Svetlanas defection to the U.S. was a very huge deal. Having changed her name after remarrying, Lana Peters became a U.S. citizen in 1978. She made millions from her autobiographysomething that was categorically unachievable in her communist homeland.

In 1991, she got to see the fall of the government her father once had ultimate authority over. Almost exactly 20 years later, Lana Peters passed away in Wisconsin.

Although Lanas story is a lot more complicated than I make it out to be, I think its one that many Americans should remind themselves of and take to heart. She fled her fathers communist regime to seek a better life, and she found it in the U.S.

I share this with you now because here we are nearly 30 years out from the collapse of the USSR, and the lessons of the past appear not to be resonating with some young Americans.

Need proof? For four years now, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundationa Washington, D.C.-based nonprofithas been polling Americans on their attitudes toward communism and socialism. What the group found in itsmost recent pollis that, between 2018 and 2019, millennials favorability of communism increased a whopping 36 percent.

U.S. Global Investors

Whats more, almost three quarters of millennialsthose aged 23 to 38said they were likely to vote for a socialist-minded politician in upcoming elections. Half of those surveyed said they were somewhat likely, while as much as 20 percent said they were extremely likely to support a socialist candidate in the mold of Vermont senator Bernie Sanders or New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC).

We should all be alarmed about this.

It means, number one, that young Americans dont feel as if capitalism is working in their favor. And number two, it means were not doing enough as a society to educate our citizens of the slippery slope that is collectivist thinking, which includes communism and socialism.

In addition, there are some who try to explain away the USSRs failure (or Cubas or Venezuelas) by laying the blame not at the altar of communism, where it belongs, but at the feet of corrupt leaderssuch as Stalin, Fidel Castro, Nicolas Maduro and others. Its not real socialism, some like to say when confronted with the ugly reality of Venezuelas failed economy.

But such thinking is a fallacy, says famed psychologist and political commentator Jordan Peterson.

Its the most arrogant possible statement anyone could ever make, he commentedduring a 2017 lecture.People who believe they have higher moral standards than Stalin, and who think they would have done a better job than him in his position, simply dont understand how the system operates, according to Dr. Peterson.

And even if they did know the system backwards and forwards, there would have been someone else right behind you waiting to shoot you the first time you actually tried to do anything goodwhich is precisely what Stalin did.

So even if you do happen to be that avatar of moral purity that you claim implicitly, Dr. Peterson said, the probability that you could get to act out your goodness in relationship to those possessed by your ideology is zero.

Im optimistic that the U.S. will stand as a beacon of freedom and opportunity in the 2020s and beyond, but with more and more younger Americans supporting socialism over capitalism, I believe it prudent to proceed with caution. That means making sure youre following the10 Percent Golden Rule,which states that you should have 10 percent of your portfolio in goldsplit between physical gold such as coins and jewelry, and gold mining stocks and ETFs.

Ive always believed that if you love your family, and if you seek to protect their wealth against potentially disastrous government policies, its wise to hold gold.

U.S. Global Investors

The yellow metal had an excellent year, closing out 2019 on solid footing for 2020. While the per-ounce price of gold bullion increased more than 15 percentits best year since 2010gold mining stocks returned an impressive 40 percent for the year. That was enough to beat the S&P 500, which was up about 29 percent in 2019.

For full disclosures pertaining to this post click here.

The rest is here:
America Remains the Land of Opportunity. For Everything Else, Theres Gold. - Forbes

Make 2020 the year of your programming side hustle – Coffee Talk: Java, News, Stories and Opinions – TheServerSide.com

GoDaddy just sent me a notice to renew the domain names I registered right around this time last year. This micro-aggression was an unwanted reality-check and reminded me that the passion project I worked diligently on for two days during last years holiday season has sat untouched ever since. Ive promised the same thing to myself every year for the past 10 years, but since 2020 marks the start of a new decade, this year Im going to get serious about finally getting my programming side hustle off the ground.

Pretty much every passionate programmer I know has a personal pet project. These side hustles range from authoring a book, writing a software program that will have positive social impacts or developing some slick mobile applet that just might pocket them a handsome retirement nest-egg. But at the same time, every programmer I know is too busy with work, family and life to allocate time to it.

Family. Religion. Friendship. These are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed, said Montgomery Burns from The Simpsons. Its sound advice, although perhaps just a little too harsh.

But the fact is, if there is a personal software project that you feel called upon to complete, youll need to make some sacrifices elsewhere that will inevitably take time away from both loved ones and lifes leisurely pursuits.

Jordan Peterson, in one of his 12 Rules for Life lectures, talked about overcoming this time allocation challenge. Although he addressed the topic in the context of authoring his first book, it still rings true for programmers. You can always not write. Its not that important that day, said Peterson in his Being a Victim podcast. And there might be more pressing concerns. And there probably is. Including people who would just like to have something to do with you for a while or do something nice.

Often times, success in your personal pursuits often means putting up a proverbial barbed wire fence between you and the people who will vie for your time. And, that means turning away people who have no ulterior motive other than wanting to enjoy your company.

One key Ive found to find the fortitude to invest your free time into your programming side hustle is to know why youre pursuing it in the first place. Ive written down the reasons why my own personal pet project is so important to me, along with the types of regrets Id feel if it never made it to fruition. Clear objectives are easier to aim at.

Its human nature to regret the thing we do less than the things we dont do. A written reminder that articulates why your programming side hustle is worth pursuing invaluable. As Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, He who has a why can bear almost any how.

I know Im not alone in putting a personal project or two on the backburner. But for this new decade, Im going to do my best to steal some time away from some other leisurely pursuits and instead work towards the goal of making my ephemeral programming side hustle a reality. And I wish for all my fellow programmers out there to care out enough time to do the same. Life is best lived without regrets.

More here:
Make 2020 the year of your programming side hustle - Coffee Talk: Java, News, Stories and Opinions - TheServerSide.com

The End of Pseudo-Liberalism | John Waters – First Things

The self-styled intellectual class is growing excitable. Under the onslaught of Trump, Brexit, Europe-wide populism, and Jordan Peterson, can we be certain, they ask, that the open society will continue? The only way on from liberalism, they believe, is backward into the darkness whence we allegedly emerged. Even those who are not enthusiastic about liberalisms tender mercies are required to moderate their hopes for its demise, lest the new nurse turn out to be worse than the serving one. A lot of people, including people who call themselves conservatives, appear to be concerned about the future of liberalism, and this concern is causing the age to be misread.

For the discussion is bogus to begin with. What is called liberalism here is not liberalism at all, but its direct opposite. It is liberalism only in name, and therefore offers no guarantee of an open society at all. By corrupting the meanings of terms like equality, tolerance, and human rights, the liberal ascendancy of the past three decades has overburdened the skeleton of our civilization, leaving it weakened and susceptible to collapse.

We should stop using words like liberalism as though they were not already subsumed in irony, as though the sense of virtue and good intention that they are supposed to connote remained valid. I believe it has become necessary to prefix certain words in our political lexicon to alert bystanders to their hidden corruption. For three decades I have referred to pseudo-liberalism. What we call liberalism is no longer to be thought upright. If it dies, it will be a cause of celebration, not dismay.

This pseudo-liberalism is founded on a lie: the idea that freedom resides in getting whatever you demand and doing whatever you desire. In the words of the diabolical occultist Aleister Crowley: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. A moments thought reveals such ideas as civilization-threatening. By definition, what one person demands must be taken from someplace where it already benefits others, and doing exactly what you want will invariably be a cost to someone else or, ultimatelybecause of the complexity of the human instrumentto yourself. There are libraries of philosophy and theology on these topics, but as far as contemporary conversations are concerned, it is as though not a word of this is relevant.

The Sixties generation, which introduced these incoherencies into the bloodstream of modern societies, has not been honest about its own experience of these much-vaunted freedoms, which have left a trail of devastation behind them. One symptom of this is that there is virtually no lucid witness to the errors of pseudo-liberalism, not just in the intimate areas of human relations, but in relation to economics and the movements of people in the modern world. For half a century, these converging strands of insipid thinking have dominated Western societies, steamrolling everything and everyone with the help of corporate money and devious propaganda, their incoherencies protected from scrutiny by the influence and dollars of Big This and Big That, by corrupted media and the force field of political correctness. Self-styled liberals have hijacked the idealism of the young, enlisting them for a project that has the outward appearance of virtue but is rotten to the core. They have convinced even our own children that globalism is an unequivocal good and that human safety and well-being can be maintained without the assistance of the civilization that made all these qualities possible in the first place.

Thus, pseudo-liberalism seeks to turn upside-down the value system of the civilization that once was Christendom, attacking its core institutions and mocking and censoring its history. It justifies genocide in the form of abortion and is clearly intentsometimes unwittinglyupon engineering the cultural and moral demolition of the West itself, by dint of godless relativism, induced migration, the elimination of distinct nations, and the destruction of the nuclear family.

And although this is quite clearly the most intolerant ideology to have emerged in the West since World War II, signs of the demise of this liberalism are met with handwringing from people who ought to know better. All right-thinking people must agree that populism is a bad thing. We must, while admitting its minor blemishes, still accept that what is called liberalism offers the one best way forward for Western societies.

Liberal-progressivismto give it its most informative nameis actually an advanced form of colonialism, imposing itself not just on territories but also claiming dominion over all future time, brooking no dissent and remorselessly punishing recalcitrant doubters. In this sense it is deeply totalitarian, insisting on one best way that cannot be questioned.

In his 1987 essayStories and Totalitarianism, Vclav Havel defined the mechanism of totalitarianism as the assassination of history to achieve both nihilisation of the past and mastery over the future. The instrument of this process he identified as the removal from history of the possibilities of human choice, mystery, and autonomy: History becomes a fixed sequence of unfolding inevitabilities, and the role of human beings is merely to acquiesce and embrace what is pressed upon them.

To put this another way, under the new colonialism the future is a city already constructed, waiting to be moved into. There is no space for human discussion or disagreement. It is already decidedand not, we are archly informed, by some arbitrary human authority but by the mechanistic mind of time, which ordains the course of history according to immutable and unchallengeable laws.

We are now, it is certain, seeing the early stages of the disintegration of this pseudo-liberalism. This liberalism has promised untrammeled economic growth, itself an example of its incoherence: Increasing growth never delivers increasing happiness. Moreover, in ignoring the inevitability of boom-bust, this promise provides an example of pseudo-liberal dishonesty.There is no final glorious destination.

This pseudo-liberalism also promises free speech, while curtailing it in the name of civilityemploying sophisticated abuses of language to impose censorship so as to protect its own incoherence, and arrogating to itself the right to stifle anything that offers a significant threat to itself.It also promises increasingly purer forms of democracy but in reality is pushing us ever closer to mob rule.

Pseudo-liberalism lays claim to the universalization of human rights, but it requires just a moments reflection to realize that what is meant by this is not universal in the least, but a highly ideological recalibration of the balance of power between establishments and minorities, which provide human shields for the prosecution of an undeclared war on what is.

Moreover, it is precisely the pseudo-liberal insistence on a selective understanding of human rights that lies at the heart of the current threat to Europes future. For if universal rights are to trump rights of culture, history, place, locality, home and hearth, the outcome will be the destruction of all culture, loyalty, and trust, creating an intercontinental incontinence that will sweep all order and coherence before it.

What is called liberalism attacks what is most precious in our tradition of community solidarity, opposing those values we have held dearestlove of God, nation, and familyin favor of an empty and faithless materialism and the pseudo-laws of the new ideologies. The flaws of this pseudo-liberalism amount to an indictment that far outweighs even the sum of the promised benefits, for it amounts, in truth, to the negation of democracy, free speech, and meaningful liberty.

It is true that there are actors waiting in the wings who represent something even more illiberal than the present dispensation. But we should not cling to a nurse for fear of something worse.Perhaps somewhere about the precincts of this paradox lies the explanation of why liberals have so far supported the influx of Muslims into Europe: This is part of the liberal program of disintegrating the culture, traditions, and civilization of the West. Often one is forced to wonder if liberals know anything about the nature of Islam and its ambitions, whether they are aware that the Islamic concept of the infidel disqualifies all such peoples from what they think their entitlements. No sane person could ever have accused these pseudo-liberals of being far-sighted. Still, here they have surely surpassed themselves with their willful myopia and stupidity. If they wish to imagine how it will end, I recommend they have a quiet read of Michel HouellebecqsSubmission, which tells of the capitulation of a future French establishment to the blandishments of Islam.

But the problem does not lie merely with pseudo-liberalism. Paradoxically, a dangerous tendency of thought has arisen in late times among conservatives: the idea that any flaws of liberalismsuch as, one presumes, its blind utopian globalism and politically correct excessespale compared to the barbarism to be observed elsewhere in the world. They take this to mean that we should not raise a fuss about what is happening in the West, but rather express gratitude for the openness we enjoy and the tolerance liberals extend to their opponents. This, too, is bogus. Tolerance here, like equality, means something different than it used to. Once, tolerance meant not interfering with, or attempting to suppress, beliefs that contradicted ones own, but this response has given way to a dictatorship of intolerance wherein everything is tolerated except the views of those who do not subscribe to the tenets of pseudo-liberalism.

Liberals speak of what they call the liberal order as though its virtues were self-evident. This allows them to adopt a tone of moral sanctimony. Those who disagree, therefore, mustipso factosuffer from some kind of pathological perverseness: They oppose the good out of fear, vexatiousness, or worse. But the pseudo-liberal sense of the good is selective and self-serving, and has no good plans for those who dissent from it. We have seen this, again and again, and what we have seenat the hands of social justice warriors, LGBT activists, #MeTooers, and the likeprovides evidence of what the liberal end of history would actually look like.

So let us not be frightened into shoring up that which is finally disintegrating. Pseudo-liberalism is finally disintegrating under belated retaliation from those it treats with contempt, as well as the weight of its own senselessness. The liberal state of affairs is a bit like the current state of rock n roll: Though on its last legs, no one can imagine what, if anything, comes next.This for a time appeared to be the strongest card of the self-proclaimed liberals: that they did indeed represent the end of history.Now, what is (often pejoratively) calledpopulismhas arisen to put paid to that idea.

This populism may represent the future, in one form or another, or simply the precursor to something we are not yet able to imagine.Butwhatever it is, it seems our only hope. The choice we face is not between left and right, orstill lessliberal and far right. Certainly, the choice is not between a continuation of the present pseudo-liberalism or a descent into Islamismthe first willinevitably give way to the second. Rather, the choice is between civilization and its antithesis. It could hardly be more serious.The time has come tolet the delusions of the Sixties finally die in their dilapidated beds.

John Watersis an Irish writer and commentator, the author of ten books, and a playwright.

Read this article:
The End of Pseudo-Liberalism | John Waters - First Things

Jordan Peterson Destroys Q&A | 25 February 2019

Monday, 25 February 2019

Jordan Peterson join the live Q&A Panel with Alex Hawke, Terri Butler, Cathryn McGregor and Van Badham.

For more from Q&A, click here: http://www.abc.net.au/qanda

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/QandALike us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/abcqanda/Subscribe to us on YouTube: https://ab.co/2E3pCZ9

Q&A is a television discussion program that focuses mostly on politics but ranges across all of the big issues that set Australians thinking, talking and debating.

It is driven by interaction: Q&A provides a rare opportunity for Australian citizens to directly question and hold to account politicians and key opinion leaders in a national public forum and Q&A is broadcast live so that not only the studio audience but also the wider audience can get involved.

We aim to create a discussion that is constructive, that reflects a diverse range of views and that provides a safe environment where people can respectfully discuss their differences.

Its impossible to represent every view on a single panel or in one audience but were committed to giving participants a fair go.

In order to be as inclusive and diverse as possible, the program is presented from a range of locations around the country and all Australians are encouraged to get involved through social media as well as by joining the audience.

This is an official Australian Broadcasting Corporation YouTube channel.

See more here:
Jordan Peterson Destroys Q&A | 25 February 2019