Quote: (04-03-2019 05:10 PM)Sooth Wrote:
No one is perfect but we can still listen for that ring of truth.
Vox, Owen, E. Michael Jones - Speech is very clear. There is no ambiguity to what they mean when they speak.
JBP - Word salad that makes little logical sense. Fine sounding arguments that hit emotional triggers.
I usually find that JBP has a very clear and logical point if you are patient and pay attention. Vox is often clearer only because he has over-simplified the issue or has picked a very simple angle to hammer on. While it's nearly impossible to communicate without at least some generalizations (in JBP's case the most common is probably his use of "postmodern neo-marxist"), in general, JBP does a much better job of being thorough and rigorous.
In the case of the video, Vox sums up JBP as "someone who is afraid of nuclear war, is obsessed with pain and suffering, and wants to spare the world from pain and suffering." Then, he proceeds to point out that attempts to "spare the world from pain and suffering" never end well, and you have your clear, logical syllogism. The problem is the premise. Vox has failed to adequately assess Peterson or describe his intent and motivation. Vox then proceeds into a critique of utopia. As JBP also critiques utopia, this is a clue that the conclusion is invalid so something must have gone wrong somewhere in the logic.
Peterson's way of "sparing the world from pain and suffering" is to try and give each individual the conceptual tools deal with their own pain and suffering, because it can't be generalized beyond that. This approach is very obviously influenced from Peterson's background in clinical psychology, where his job is literally to help individual people who were suffering. He's not trying to "save people from themselves" he's trying to help people save themselves. Which is exactly what every single Game blogger (
including Vox) did during the manosphere era. Day mistakes this for some kind of Utopian ideal.
Meanwhile Owen claims that JBP views himself as a god who can stop genocide. Again, no: JBP believes the way to stop genocide is logos and commitment to truth. Society and its institutions (particularly universities) must be oriented toward truth and free discourse. Peterson doesn't promise anything utopian. He claims that FAILING to at LEAST maintain these basic values leads to tyranny and oppression. Also that these basic values are under direct assault and it's important to protect them and restore the universities that have been corrupted by ideologues.
So yes, Vox and Owen make clear, logical points. Which would be fine if the premises were factually sound, but they aren't. The points appear simple due to lazy, inaccurate generalizations about Peterson and then hammering on (sometimes trite) points that Peterson probably wouldn't even disagree with, such as utopian idealism as a path to lies, deception, and ultimately more suffering.
Peterson is opposed to nationalism, yes. But that is a huge rabbit hole at this point because definitions of nationalism are starting to fluctuate. You have a tiny number of actual white supremacists, you have alt-right nationalists that want a racially pure ethno-states, you have moderates like Heartiste who think that a stable 80% would be fine, and you have people who just want to at least fucking close the floodgates and ease off on blatant racemixing propaganda before letting the chips fall where they may, and finally you just have people who don't give a shit at all about politics but just want to be able to talk about human genetics without tiptoeing around the subject of race. Those are all alt-right nationalists depending on who you talk to.
And importantly, most of those definitions aren't incompatible with individualism. You can argue (simplified) that only whites are capable of maintaining an individualistic society. Well fine, but being white doesn't guarantee a free and individualistic society, so you still need those values articulated and promoted, which is what JBP does. Very little of what Peterson promotes comes into direct conflict with Nationalism, except to the extent that some Nationalists really are fascist assholes who don't believe in freedom or western values and need to be kept far away from political power. And while Peterson tends to avoids addressing race directly, he doesn't avoid issues like the heritable IQ and the importance of IQ to success.
The problem with considering JBP "Controlled opposition" is that he's not controlled. He's just not direct opposition to globalism and never was nor did he pretend to be. He comments on it, tries to explain what he thinks he can explain, articulates what he thinks problems might be and leaves the rest up to you.
Richard Spencer is controlled opposition. The Daily Stormer is controlled opposition, in fact their tactic of libeling other conservatives to spread their extreme views has played directly into the hands of the left and insane anti-racists and makes life harder for everyone on the right even other nationalists. Those guys are useful idiots who are given prominence specifically because they play into leftist narratives and fear-mongering. The left and globalists are betting (probably accurately) that Spencer and Daily Stormer, like David Duke before them, will never appeal to more than a minority who will always be easily beatable when the chips are down.