"Those embattled against political correctness on university campuses will heartily endorse Peterson’s claim that 'there are whole disciplines in universities forthrightly hostile towards men.' Islamophobes will take heart from his speculation that 'feminists avoid criticizing Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance.' Libertarians will cheer Peterson’s glorification of the individual striver, and his stern message to the left-behinds ('Maybe it’s not the world that’s at fault. Maybe it’s you. You’ve failed to make the mark.'). The demagogues of our age don’t read much; but, as they ruthlessly crack down on refugees and immigrants, they can derive much philosophical backup from Peterson’s sub-chapter headings: 'Compassion as a vice' and 'Toughen up, you weasel.'... [Peterson] seems unbothered by the fact that thinking of human relations in such terms as dominance and hierarchy connects too easily with such nascent viciousness such as misogyny, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. He might argue that his maps of meaning aim at helping lost individuals rather than racists, ultra-nationalists, or imperialists. But he can’t plausibly claim, given his oft-expressed hostility to the 'murderous equity doctrine' of feminists, and other progressive ideas, that he is above the fray of our ideological and culture wars."
From "Jordan Peterson & Fascist Mysticism" by Pankaj Mishra (NYRB).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
184 comments:
I'm glad we let all those Indian Commies, like Pankaj Mishra, into the country. They can set us straight.
I read The New York Review of Books for many years, but I let my subscription lapse at the end of 2016.
I barely tolerated the magazine's politics, but my decisive dissatisfaction was the articles' excessive lengths. I would have preferred twice as many half-long articles.
Is there anything more "reactionary" than this leftist nonsense?
Pankaj Mishra: "Nowhere in his published writings does Peterson reckon with the moral fiascos of his gurus and their political ramifications ..."
Or the corrected version: Nowhere in their published writings do the SJW's reckon with the moral fiascos of their gurus and their destruction of western culture.
I like Jordan Peterson.
YouTube has hundreds videos of Jordan Peterson talking about various subjects.
Here are a few of his top view counts.
-----
Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism
8.3 million views
-----
Dr. Jordan Peterson gives up trying to reason with SJWs
3.5 million views
-----
Jordan Peterson: BEST MOMENTS
1.7 million views
-----
Jordan Peterson to Student: "You can't force me to respect you"
1.5 million views
-----
Liberal professor tries to bait Jordan Peterson, fails miserably
1.3 million views
Peterson's advice boils down to the following:
Comb your hair.
Buckle your belt.
Make up your bed
Brush your teeth.
That's pretty much it
I am glad Mr. Mishra is here to argue his case. I just don't want to take his advice.
But he can’t plausibly claim, given his oft-expressed hostility to the 'murderous equity doctrine' of feminists, and other progressive ideas, that he is above the fray of our ideological and culture wars."
Because, you see, if one eventually responds to a prolonged attack, one is a participant in "the fray" and therefore just as "guilty" as the aggressor being counter-attacked.
Right George.
Hence the notion that he can't claim to be above the fray.
Maybe it's true that each human's life is limited by circumstances of parentage, geography, ethnicity and gender. Maybe no one can control more than five percent of his/her/xir fate.
That is why you must grab the five percent you can control and make the most of it.
Call it Jordan Peterson for Dummies.
that he is above the fray of our ideological and culture wars.
No one can be allowed to be above the fray. You toe the line or pay the price.
Peterson is not going to appeal to anyone who voted for Hillary.
Is this dueling man-splaining?
Peterson exposes the left as not only politically opposed to common sense, but violently so.
It should be interesting in how this all shakes out in 50 years. No, math dictates I won't be around.
Peterson takes a contra-dogmatic stand, aiming at exposing perverse consequences of unchallenged PC. He's anti-PC owing to its consequences.
Racism isn't countered by PC but by argument.
He lacks some philosophical skills that would help him more. Claiming Derrida is a trickster suggests he doesn't realize Derrida is on his side.
"... his claim that divorce laws should not have been liberalized in the 1960s."
Click-bait troll-post designed to incense Peterson fans?
"[So, you're saying men and women can't work together.]"
I'd rather rely on Jordan Peterson to explain Jordan Petersen's ideas than have them translated for me by Pankaj Mishra. Peterson seems perfectly capable of communicating his thoughts and I don't see any benefit in having Mishra tell me what Peterson really means.
"Claiming Derrida is a trickster suggests he doesn't realize Derrida is on his side."
Did you see the Weinstein brothers on Rubin, when Bret was talking about the "Is a whale a fish?" problem?
When it looks to you like Peterson doesn't understand Derrida, is that because you know more about Derrida than Peterson does, or less?
Where's the nexus? Just read Mishra's character assassination by proxy:
Peterson, however, seems to have modelled his public persona on Jung rather than Campbell. The Swiss sage sported a ring ornamented with the effigy of a snake—the symbol of light in a pre-Christian Gnostic cult. Peterson claims that he has been inducted into “the coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe”; he is clearly proud of the Native American longhouse he has built in his Toronto home.
Peterson may seem the latest in a long line of eggheads pretentiously but harmlessly romancing the noble savage. But it is worth remembering that Jung recklessly generalized about the superior “Aryan soul” and the inferior “Jewish psyche” and was initially sympathetic to the Nazis. Mircea Eliade was a devotee of Romania’s fascistic Iron Guard. Campbell’s loathing of “Marxist” academics at his college concealed a virulent loathing of Jews and blacks. Solzhenitsyn, Peterson’s revered mentor, was a zealous Russian expansionist, who denounced Ukraine’s independence and hailed Vladimir Putin as the right man to lead Russia’s overdue regeneration.
Nowhere in his published writings does Peterson reckon with the moral fiascos of his gurus and their political ramifications; he seems unbothered by the fact that thinking of human relations in such terms as dominance and hierarchy connects too easily with such nascent viciousness such as misogyny, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. He might argue that his maps of meaning aim at helping lost individuals rather than racists, ultra-nationalists, or imperialists. But he can’t plausibly claim, given his oft-expressed hostility to the “murderous equity doctrine” of feminists, and other progressive ideas, that he is above the fray of our ideological and culture wars.
@Rh,
Claiming Derrida is a trickster suggests he doesn't realize Derrida is on his side.
Early Derrida, yes. Mid Derrida, maybe. Late Derrida, I doubt it.
I think you underestimate Derrida's late "political turn", RH.
'Reactionary white men will surely be thrilled by Peterson’s loathing for “social justice warriors” and his claim that divorce laws should not have been liberalized in the 1960s. '
Where is the evidence that supports this?
The demagogues of our age don’t read much; but, as they ruthlessly crack down on refugees and immigrants …
If you don’t favor accepting “refugees,” most of whom are fleeing the ultimate failures of inherently unstable, repressive social systems (Islamic-flavored totalitarianism) and who then try their best to install the same unstable social systems in their new digs, coupled with a tendency to occasionally go off on jihad and murder a few innocent victims in the name of Allah … well, then … YOU are a TERRIBLE person.
[Peterson] seems unbothered by the fact that thinking of human relations in such terms as dominance and hierarchy connects too easily with such nascent viciousness such as misogyny, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
That societies are comprised of hierarchies and that those at the top of those hierarchies are dominant in those societies is indisputable and recognized universally, so I don’t see the author’s point in implying that it is a rightwing belief.
The issue where Peterson parts ways with the SJWs is what all this means morally. The SWJs say the hierarchies are solely the result of white male privilege and as such are corrupt beyond redemption.
Peterson points out correctly that the factors that lead to dominance in these hierarchies are multi-variable and include such factors as competence, intelligence, working very hard 24/7, willingness to be disagreeable, aggressive and assertive, career choices, educational choices, etc., stuff that has zilch to do with gender.
This naturally drives SJWs like the author out of their minds. There can be only one explanation for them: the cherished White Male Privilege myth – which seems to function as a kind of cognitive dissonance dildo for the feminists and their alpha males.
Nowhere in his published writings does Peterson reckon with the moral fiascos of his gurus and their political ramifications; he seems unbothered by the fact that thinking of human relations in such terms as dominance and hierarchy connects too easily with such nascent viciousness such as misogyny, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
Don't ya just love stuff like that out of the mouth of some lefty?
What? Like there's been some moral reckoning with those on the Left who publicly sucked dick for regimes that murdered millions of their own citizens in peacetime? Quite the contrary, I think the post-Marxist turn in modern Leftism was done to explicitly allow the Left to move on & claim that they had absolutely nothing to do with all those nasty folks who murdered those tens of millions. "You don't understand -- we're not the People's Front for the Liberation of Judea! We're the Popular People's Front for the Liberation of Judea!"**
**Obligatory Monty Python reference.
"which seems to function as a kind of cognitive dissonance dildo for the feminists and their alpha males."
Instant classic.
As a lifelong imperialist, I find this fellows comments sadly uninformed.
As for fascist mysticism, he really hasn't a clue.
Its a complex and fascinating subject.
The NYRB has been on the wrong side in every ideological and ciluture war for fifty years. Trump has never stated hostility towards immigrants as such. Two of his wives have been immigrants, and of course his children are the children of an immigrant and Trump's mother and grandfather were immigrants.
Mishra has no expertise in any field other than literature. Why is he writing about politics? Why would anyone read Mishra on politics?
@buwaya,
As for fascist mysticism, he really hasn't a clue.
None of them have a clue about fascism. If they did, they'd see how close identity politics leftism is to fascism, & they'd be too scared to point it out.
Pankaj Mishra - what kind of a name is that?
It sounds like a Jew from India.
LOL!
Fascist ideologies are a wildly diverse universe of ideas, every single case with unique roots. The Indian BJP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narendra_Modi
are different from the Argentine Peronists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronism
are different from the Spanish Falange
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falangism
Kidding aside,the true reactionaries are those at the NYRB. Any disagreement with their political ideology or beliefs is met with insult labels and name calling. There must be no debate of ideas, no questioning of the true faith.
Peterson is engaging in counter-revolutionary "Bad think" and must be shut down!
At least Mishra is smarter than the female TV interviewer who kept paraphrasing Peterson.with stuff like:
"So, what you're saying is Hitler was right"
The problem with the USA is we have three groups of people:
1) A bunch of asshole leftists who control the Press, the universities, and the media - and want no real discussion or debate.
2) The great mass of Americans who don't think or know anything - and like it that way.
3) A small minority of people who want a free debate of ideas; free of the cant of Left-wing ideology.
You can pretty much fit group (3) in a phone booth.
"Fascists were/are a barely different flavor from Communists"
Not true. Many were descended from socialists, and in most cases there was an explicit element of socialism, and in others it was an explicit "third way" founding, but in yet others it is most accurate to see it as sui generis.
For instance, the extreme ideologies of Sabino Arana, and that of the Irish Fianna Fáil can be said to derive from Rerum Novarum, the founding document, perhaps, of the "third way", are not directly drawn from socialism, in spite of their use to justify objectively socialist policies.
All of them, however, have a powerful element of mysticism, none identical, or even related.
Peterson is part of the emerging group of academics and scientists that are willing to discuss unpleasant truths that the left is determined to silence. A perfect example is IQ. Honest experts will tell you that IQ is an accurate reflection of a person's intelligence and ability to succeed in our complex modern world. Peterson brings up the fact that 10% of the population is basically unemployable. The U.S. military refuses to accept anyone with an IQ of 83 or less (10% of population) because they can't be trained to do even the simplest tasks correctly and consistently. They are a net negative contribution.
No an implication that not even Peterson discusses is to view this fact in the light of another unpleasant truth, that IQ varies by race. Black IQ (worldwide, controlling for culture) is significantly lower than White or Asian. This means that Peterson's lowest 10% will be significantly skewed racially. It will be much more Black than White or Asian.
Throw in the destruction of the Black family and faith, and the rise of thug culture; and things really look dire.
The unpleasant demographic truth is that not only do we have a large Black unemployable underclass, it appears that there is very little that can be done to "fix' the problem. Certainly the last sixty years have proven that throwing money at the problem won't work.
The solution to the black problem is stop identifying as black.
These leftists are so dogmatic and stereotyped you can write their crap yourself.
"Fascists were/are a barely different flavor from Communists"
Not true. Fascists direct their violence outward, outside of the nation. Communists direct it inward & make war upon their own people. In the 1930s, before WW2, Stalin killed millions. Hitler killed hundreds. The wrath of the Nazis was expressed in Eastern Europe.
Communism sees the concept of the nation as part of the capitalist system that must be destroyed before the golden future can arrive; to fascists the nation is the essential organizational unit of mankind.
" thrilled by Peterson’s loathing for “social justice warriors” and his claim that divorce laws should not have been liberalized in the 1960s. "
Well, this I agree with. Divorce is nearly always a disaster and should be made as difficult as possible. It does not serve the family or community, and destroys both.
And "social justice" is, unless one holds to an actual ideological definition, such as the original Catholic one, entirely meaningless rhetoric.
This attack on Peterson uses the same line of thought as the discussions of "populism" and Donald Trump. The author goes back to the late nineteenth or early twentieth century and isolates out the trends which led to the fascism of the Thirties. This is easy to do since there are dozens of books on the subject. And then the author isolates out - as well as he can - the same trends in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century. Amazing - after all that time the SAME trends!!! And then this kind of author argues that Brexit or Trump or Peterson represent the first steps in the re-rise of fascism. OHHHH, Danger!!! The Deplorables, the Backwards are slinking out again.!!!! YIKES!!! Send in the Sixth Fleet or, anyhow, the children to stop them. Milk and cookies afterward for the sons and daughters of Democratic operatives and a gold star to take home and show to Mom. "That's wonderful, sweetie, and later you can join Antifa and block free speech and smear and beat up "backwards" people. Then, a job euthanizing on old people who are deplorable. Or run an abortion clinic and kill minority babies. So many fun ways to be compassionate when you are a Democrat." Isn't it amazing that little snowflake children can take on the people called fascists today when governments and police couldn't handle fascists in the Thirties? Or maybe the people called deplorables, backwards and fascists are not fascists. Maybe they something else which is unknowable to the elite because the elite cannot imagine making major mistakes, such as selling out America's manufacturing capacity and America's culture - mistakes made by no other country of our time - mistakes which the American citizens aka "deplorables" are attempting to rectify.
Mike Sylwester said...
my decisive dissatisfaction was the articles' excessive lengths. I would have preferred twice as many half-long articles.
---
I'm often called a troll around here, so let me extend this olive branch: this is exactly right. Mike, political disagreement notwithstanding, you've got my vote for insurrectionist member of the editorial board of the NYRB.
"The solution to the black problem is stop identifying as black."
Not a bad approach.
Another is a propaganda direction to give, to serve, and not demand.
“but, as they ruthlessly crack down on refugees and immigrants,”
I guess that is a reference to Trump. How is enforcing existing law ruthless? How was Trump’s lawful and constitutional use of an Executive Order ruthless?
AA,
Maybe, just maybe Mishra isn't really bothering to listen to what Peterson is trying to say, as in the case of the BBC interview you posted a couple of weeks back.
Unknown said:
"To call someone as strictly individualistic as Peterson a fascist is to completely destroy the meaning of all words. Why bother talking any more?"
That seems to be the objective: The end of actual discourse.
I haven't seen much of Peterson, but enough to know that he is not the person that Mishra says he is.
Fascists were/are a barely different flavor from Communists--both being totalitarians. Antifa and SJWs are totalitarians with a nice sugar coating ("equality!!!").
Blood-and-soil nationalists who fixate on the master race and biological hierarchy are really just the same as open borders zealots who insist race and gender are arbitrary social constructs.
Jonah Goldberg-tier stupidity.
NYRB? That's rich. Sort of like what happened to Commentary.
Blogger rhhardin said... Claiming Derrida is a trickster suggests he doesn't realize Derrida is on his side.
I knew you'd say something like this... I really need to read Derrida.
Lewis Wetzel said:
"In the 1930s, before WW2, Stalin killed millions. Hitler killed hundreds.
Stalin also made the invasion of Poland and the start of WW2 possible by signing the non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939.
"To call someone as strictly individualistic as Peterson a fascist "
Fascism is full of individualists. Some very extreme ones.
D'Annunzio for instance, was very much his own sort of nut.
Millan Astray also. And Mussolini. And etc.
All wild men, each had his own eccentricity.
Ann, regardless of your agreement or disagreement with Peterson, I’m curious what you think of Mishra’s reasoning. To my truncated reading, it seems shoddy argumentaion at best, relying instead on a range of logical fallacies and asserted “looks-kinda-like” analogies. Not discursive, but demagogic. Anything to get the hate flowing in the right direction.
"Blood-and-soil nationalists who fixate on the master race and biological hierarchy"
But they aren't all like that. Biology is completely out of the picture in many if not most cases of fascist ideologies. And the ones that do have a strong element of that are vastly different in their conceptions. Other than the Nazis very few fascists were scientific racists, even some of the most "blood" obsessed.
The Indian Hindu-supremacist BJP for instance, has very little in common with Heinrich Himmler. But you certainly cannot just join up, as you have to be born a Hindu.
" it seems shoddy argumentaion at best"\
It is simply propaganda, a calling of names. Flinging poo.
One of the most extreme "blood" fascists was the Basque Sabino Arana, whose racial purity standards went way beyond the Nuremberg laws.
Why care about this guy?
Because unlike the Nazis, his political descendants actually run a semi-independent state.
“it seems shoddy argumentaion at best"
Some might say reactionary.
Actual reactionaries were often the most rigorous thinkers.
Nobody really reads them. Missing a lot.
Nicolas Gomez Davila
Buwaya, why do you keep calling the (Indian) BJP a fascist party beyond not liking their nationalism? Yes, people who can’t keep more than one thought in their head at a time might certainly make the association, but, for example, the Congress party’s state-controlled industrial policy had much more in common with Italian Fascism.
Wasn't reactionary New York the last state to allow no-fault divorce?
Notice the author doesn't actually advance arguments to counter Peterson's. He just puts forth supposed associations. Same old same old from the left.
"Not true. Many were descended from socialists, and in most cases there was an explicit element of socialism, and in others it was an explicit "third way" founding, but in yet others it is most accurate to see it as sui generis."
Nazism is National *socialism* and Mussolini started out as a socialist.
Fascism is against capitalism AND international socialism.
Joke in Nazi Germany. How is a Nazi like a Steak?
They're both brown on the outside - but Red inside.
Certain medications, when taken under physician's orders can help moderate social media dementia.
I recommend a red pill, though.
One might try Thorazine if one takes the blue pill instead.
2) The great mass of Americans who don't think or know anything - and like it that way.
Oh, bullshit, they're just living their lives. The lefties are just jerking off.
"Nazism is National *socialism* and Mussolini started out as a socialist."
True, but both were "third way" systems.
So also is Pope Leo XIII 's Rerum Novarum
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html
Hitlers old political tendency in his Vienna days was Karl Lueger, who was a Catholic Social Justice sort, though often called a proto-fascist because of his antisemitism. Hitler liked the antisemitism part of course, but had no sympathy for Catholicism, and he missed the better part of Luegers positions. In his Munich days he hung with more traditional socialists.
Guy doesn't like Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell either. Dollars to donuts there are many, many thinkers more accomplished and smarter than him that he detests.
I've just finished his book. I've been watching/listening to his presence on YouTube since the Cathy Newman interview. And I am the better for it.
"but, for example, the Congress party’s state-controlled industrial policy had much more in common with Italian Fascism."
The BJP also has a state-controlled industrial policy, its just a matter of degree. The difference was that Congress was a coalition of the diverse, and the BJP is not, it has that necessary element of essentialist extremism, which was what D'Annunzio gave Italian Fascism.
Which approach is better for India? If people want to focus on simplistic thinking they can play with labels. Me, I am not scared of the word "fascism". The BJP can be "fascist", in an Indian/Hindu way, and yet be a good thing.
Lets consider Lueger and Hitler.
Their "third way" systems had different routes of transmission and different justifications, but both produced a not-dissimilar economic policy - or we must guess what Luegers was to be of course. I think it would have been something akin to that of De Valeras Ireland.
Both had the required mysticism, they all need it, as the justification for policies.
In this they diverged profoundly, in spite of similar mystical outcomes like antisemitism.
Blogger Hari said...
Peterson is not going to appeal to anyone who voted for Hillary.
I sen a copy to a leftist daughter who had probably voted for Bernie.
I wondered if she would even read it.
She called me two days after it arrived to tell me how much she loves it.
I think the NYRB misses the whole story.
In Mussolini's version of fascism -- and he wrote the book, along with Grasci -- the fascist state was the best way to deal with the dominant political issue of the time, which was class conflict.
Mussolini began his political career as a labor organizer & internationalist communist. In that capacity he found that the attachemnt of the people to family, nation, religion, and social class was stronger than their attraction to international socialist utopianism. So he changed his tactics.
Hitler embraced fascism for an entirely different reason. Conflict between races was the fundamental gasis of human history, said Herr Hitler, and in the modern world (meaning post WWI), a political state organized along national socialist lines best served the German people for their war against the other races. Jews were singled out for special prosecution because they were a nation without borders -- they could not be invaded in a war of conquest like the Slavs. The Jewish nation survived & even prospered by having its members live in within another nation and corrupting them, living off of the host nation like a parasite & sapping its strength.
I get this, BTW, from Yale historian Timothy Snyder's several books on 20th century European totalitarianism. He has read Mein Kampf so you don't have to.
As soon as I saw the word "fascist," I knew Pankaj Mishra was full of shit.
I'm reading Jordan Peterson's "12 Rules For Life." I'm up to rule 10. He is one damn smart guy.
The "dialectic of history" is just the Marxist version of fascist mysticism.
Fascism is a very broad category. It has hundreds of flavors, an extreme range.
And in spite of this diversity it is as category the opposite of all the modern homogenizing ideologies.
"The "dialectic of history" is just the Marxist version of fascist mysticism."
That is the old version of Marxist mysticism. The new one has been modified, but it shares the historical inevitability thing. What has not changed is the homogenization. All must be the same.
The NYRB calling someone a fascist?
Well. I never.
Jordan Petersen 1, Pancake Mishra 0
I didn't really find it necessary to read beyond the title of that article. Jordan Peterson fascist. That was her point right
State marriages are clearly unconstitutional, as they violate the 14th Amendment.
The Equal Protection clause requires that all members of society be treated the same, as they all pay the same tax, and are all equal citizens.
Single people pay for marriage institutions (courts, police, social workers), and get no relief from the damages to their wages. Why should single people pay to erect a court house and populate it with state workers, if they will never participate.
Assuming that everyone will eventually get married, and thus should pre-pay, is not a proper basis for marriage laws.
If a state marriage is nothing more than a discounted civil contract, then only the parties involved in providing for these contracts should pay for them. They should not be discounted. You should not be able to get married for free, or for $5.
The only constitutional correct thing to do, is end state marriages, and force the people to use other forms of contracts, at their non-discounted costs.
Hitler’s biggest problem was that the best Germans came to the US long before Hitler even became a German citizen in 1932. He was Austrian. Like Freud.
Mussolini had the same problem. Same with Da Velara.
We drank Europe’s milkshake. There was nothing left but a bunch of crazy fucks with bad teeth and silly mystical ruminations. We grabbed Einstein and Oppenheimer.
Europe’s best natural resources walked out on them. WW2 was inevitable. And US dominate was inevitable.
He thinks he’s so smart, that Jordan Peterson. Millions of viewers! Best seller book! Ha! What does that prove!?!? That there are millions of gullible idiots? I could’ve told you that. I already did tell you that.
There he is - He thinks he’s above the fray. “You think you’re above the fray don’t you Mr. JorDAN! You think you are so smart! - that you are above the fray! But you know what? You aren’t above anything. “
“Did you hear that, JorDAN? You’re not above the fray - you’re in the fray. You’re right here in the fray with the rest of us!”
jorDAN Friggin Perterson. Such a Jerk. Yeah? Come down to my U.S. faculty lounge and I’ll fray you.
Mishra's thing really is the flinging of the poo.
"The “tradition” he promotes stretches no further back than the late nineteenth century, when there first emerged a sinister correlation between intellectual exhortations to toughen up and strongmen politics. This was a period during which intellectual quacks flourished by hawking creeds of redemption and purification while political and economic crises deepened and faith in democracy and capitalism faltered."
And so on. Wow. Not a hint of the ancient roots and continuous existence of all this.
Toughen up - no Xenophon and his Spartans, no Marcus Aurelius, no martyrs, no heroes of a thousand legends, or countless more Victoria crosses and Iron crosses and Legions d'honneur and basic training in the hot sun and professional football workouts. No, it has to be obscure scribblers - Klages, Roerich, Ghosh?
My goodness.
It is all a triumph of miseducation. I'm not a man to discount learning, at all, but this poor fellow Mishra probably should have been made to actually suffer, at some point, to gt a grip on reality. Go back to the land and learn from the peasants. Chairman Mao was not always wrong.
mccullough said...WW2 was inevitable.
WW2 was merely a continuation of the Great War. The French, Belgians, and the British wanted to impoverish and cripple Germany. They required Germans to starve and freeze, while sending their coal to France as reparations.
Finally in 1923 the French invaded Germany and stole the coal, and Britain said amen.
Hitler was in jail, and fuming about the invasion, while the German government squated. He wrote a famous book, and while it is difficult to read because the story is not told well, Hitler knew that the war had to be continued.
Hitler's goal was to gain power, and after that, to squish the French and British.
Hitler was going to keep the coal, and warm his and his dogs feet. Even if the French and British were having to resort to their colonies for their communism.
Film at 11...
I do not believe that fascism has necessarily anything to do with race. Nazism is a variant of fascism, that's all. Mussolini was not, so far as I can tell, a racist, until Hitler got his mitts on him. It's practically comic, given all the Nazis had said over the years about the slovenly Southerners. You're allying with Italy? Go on!
What fascism means is that the state and private industries are to be united. Hence, of course, the fasces. (Remember HRC's "Stronger together"? That is the definition of fascism.) The idea is that a government/industry combine will be impossible to break. And it very nearly was. Hitler developed his government/industry combine singlemindedly into an expression of his Judenhass, but, as I said, Mussolini wasn't particularly interested.
Oppenheimer was a dab hand at silly mystical ruminations.
In Panjaz a guy or a girl?
She? describes males as "frenzied". So she/he is a leftist and probably a Nazi.
mccuckullough: Hitler's biggest problem was Hitler. They invented the first ballistic missile, the first cruise missle and the first jet fighter. They rolled across Europe like hot butter through a plastic picnic knife. It took 5 Shermans to kill one Tiger and they were at their peak ball bearing output at the end of the war. All this from a medium sized power blockaded and bombed into the stone age who caused their most educated citizens to flee, then murdered 17 million potential workers.
Also, it took Stalin and the death of 9 million Soviet troops to break Hitlers back. I don't know where your people came from, but that place is better for it.
I haven't read Patterson, but for an interview or two, but I think Pankaj Mishra has heartily offered him yet more grist for his mill. And he her. They each have a readership that revels in the exposing of the other. It's symbiotic, the pair of them. Like a lichen.
Pankaj Mishra is a man.
Thank B. I was just looking that up and was about to retype.
'And he him'
Nicolás Gómez Dávila: "The mob only believes it is thinking freely when its reason surrenders itself into the hands of collective enthusiasms."
He - thanks.
"It took 5 Shermans to kill one Tiger"
Most Tigers were killed by gas shortages after the Thunderbolts shot up the fuel trucks, or technical faults where no spares were to hand - because ditto. Most Shermans were destroyed by antitank guns, very few by Tigers. Modern war is complex, and the value of any tactic or weapon is contingent.
Tactics, tactical systems, and their outcomes very often look more important than they are.
It was way smarter to have control of global trade and nearly all the worlds petroleum, than it was to make some rockets.
Europe. An old bitch gone in the teeth. That was 100 years ago.
Seconding what @Crimso said about @Grackle’s remark: white privilege “seems to function as a kind of cognitive dissonance dildo for the feminists and their alpha males” and what @TommyDuncan said. And thanks to @wildswan for explaining why Peterson dismisses “compassion” (sometimes called “inclusiveness”) as a rationale for Canada’s transgender (forced speech) laws and other post-modernist goals (namely, the elimination of all discourse, as @Tommy Duncan pointed out). Hence, Peterson rightly focuses exclusively on the results the policy will bring about, not the so-called reasons for it.
Bravo to the blogging Althouse, who never disappoints me; I come for the content and stay for the comments.
Hitler made the same mistake we made in Afghanistan. When he invaded France and drove the British off the continent, he should have declared victory and brought the troops home, after confiscating or destroying the French war machine.
If the French tried to re-arm, he could use special forces to take care of the problem.
By occupying the countries they defeated militarily, only resulted in a loss of national wealth, and as a rule, occupation armies always tend to build forts and are thus targeted and plinked to death by rebels in the countries.
Patton Rule #7: Don't build forts.
The Equal Protection clause requires that all members of society be treated the same.
Complete and utter nonsense. The government treats us all differently depending on our behavior. I drive a lot in rural California, so the government charges me more in gas taxes than a non-driver living in the city. Some people have been convicted of crimes, so the government limits their freedom while I may go where I wish. I’m married with children, and the government subsidizes this behavior because research shows nothing is more important to the development of children and our future society. Feel free to dispute any of that — just not on Constitutional grounds.
Most Tigers were killed by gas shortages...
It's been a long time since I read nuts-and-bolts military history, but I recall that Tigers had a lot of mechanical problems.
Comes from a country where your education, job opportunities, and marriageability is based on your last name. Highly qualified to bless us with his insights on Western civilization
“Fascism is a very broad category. It has hundreds of flavors, an extreme range. ”
When you broaden the category too much, the term becomes meaningless. The international socialists and “anti-fa” do it for propaganda reasons, to manufacture a enemy category to beat up. Why would you do so?
Henry said......but I recall that Tigers had a lot of mechanical problems.
"Always with the negative waves, Moriarty."
Nicholas Farrell's "Mussolini" is an excellent biography of the Italian and a very good insight into the third way brand of fascism which kept him in power for over twenty years without firing a shot.
Here's one possible response
I knew you'd say something like this... I really need to read Derrida.
Start with _Spurs_. Skip the preface written by somebody else.
I thank God for Peterson. He's saying what others would but no one would listen. I'm very close to his view point. He is a needed gadfly to challenge the PC utter lunacy. Badly educated activists are pushing society into madness and he's demonstrating it with sound reason and thinking.
I consider the letters ass embled in rea thus-replicated actionary form art i.e. pictures ergo this is my cafe.
This is my cafe.
Left a v.m. re rain guarantee.
Reactionary is not even the past, it wasn't ever even.
I am smarter and better than you all, and you ought all just oughtly do the right thing and pay Althouse a few billion: she'll know what to do to same as when you see your buddy with his head blown off.
Patton knew according to the closest I'll ever come, and it was free, G. Scott.
"Reactionary white men ..." Actually, his videos, lectures, and dialogues have many women in the audience, obviously enjoying themselves, I.e. The first three words start the BS.
"By occupying the countries they defeated militarily, only resulted in a loss of national wealth"
The German strategy was to make war pay for war, as Caesar and Napoleon did. They didn't quite manage it, but their cost of maintaining internal security in most of Europe was much lower than the value they extracted from it. Nowhere near as much as they hoped, mainly because the British blockade was continental in scope and the conquered just weren't trying too hard.
The "resistance" was a very small problem in most places, until the very end. Big exceptions were Yugoslavia and parts of the Soviet Union.
Most garrisons and the very expensive coastal fortifications, etc. were for preventing external attack, not internal security.
"which kept him in power for over twenty years without firing a shot."
Just a few shots, but a lot of castor oil.
"When you broaden the category too much, the term becomes meaningless. The international socialists and “anti-fa” do it for propaganda reasons, to manufacture a enemy category to beat up. Why would you do so?"
Because "socialism" is similarly broad. So is "capitalism", or any "ism" really.
And if you broaden a category enough such that you can include countries like Kirchners Argentina (justly), when Nestor Kirchner was celebrated as a Hugo Chavez crony, then it subverts the rhetoric.
Tommy Duncan said...
Lewis Wetzel said:
"In the 1930s, before WW2, Stalin killed millions. Hitler killed hundreds.
Stalin also made the invasion of Poland and the start of WW2 possible by signing the non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939.
3/19/18, 7:09 PM
This cannot be repeated often enough. To my mind this is very nearly the central fact of history.
Blogger Henry said...
Most Tigers were killed by gas shortages...
"It's been a long time since I read nuts-and-bolts military history, but I recall that Tigers had a lot of mechanical problems."
Yes and many of the problems were fixable. The German war machine made no provision to recover broken tanks. So most of them were simply abandoned by their crews. Whereas if an American tank could be repaired it was removed from the field and repaired. The Germans sometimes shot the same tank 3 or 4 times.
"Most Shermans were destroyed by antitank guns, very few by Tigers. Modern war is complex, and the value of any tactic or weapon is contingent.
Tactics, tactical systems, and their outcomes very often look more important than they are.
The Sherman was equal to the German Type I and II but by Normandy, the Sherman was not equal.
In "Death Traps" it was pointed out that armored division casualties in Normandy were 600%. By the end of the campaign, they were taking infantry soldiers and assigning them to tanks.
A bad mistake was made in 1943 to delay the M26 Pershing tank.
It is interesting that the usual lefty suspects have little to offer on the (Running with Scissors Psychologist) Dr. Jordan Peterson.
In my mind, he speaks to empirical facts combined with reasonable suppositions with the facts at hand.
He is not ideological, just honest.
He needs to be burned at the stake.
If ya got it better flaunt it,
Another warrant.
Ain't nothing but a gangsta party,
Up in that darn D.A. office.
Nothing but a gangster party,
It ain't nothing but a gangsta party.
(ain't nothing but a gangsta party)
Tupac/Snoop
The great thing, is the Truth reflects light upon so many different inconceivable factions no mere human or AI could possibly ever compare.
Not compete, lol, but even to merely compare is to distort reality.
I’m so glad, I’m so glad, I’m glad, I’m glad, I’m glad that Jordan Peterson exists and is willing to fight the nonsense.
If you read the article in the NYR scroll to the bottom and link to the article by umberto Ecco on fascism. An excellent synopsis.
Best I've ever felt in my life, writing, is when the thought of Buckley might intercedes.
I'll be the one to lead our next generation of leaders, unless fucks are too cheap.
Cripes this is a lazy critique. Use the search engine or your friends' reviews to find the controversial context-free claims. Summarize maliciously as necessary. This is the tic-comb version of writing. Tedious stuff.
Shit I just realized I only came back to Althouse to tell Mike Sylwester the whole Dirty Dancing thing was ultra-prrescient.
I hope you receive positive feedback, and I say that as a man who once created the email nofeedbackfrank in order to let the I-consider-great chip ahoy know his writing is wit personified.
Franknofeedback
Blogger Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
I do not believe that fascism has necessarily anything to do with race.
The nazis knew nothing of DNA, but they believed race was passed on from parents to children. They believed in biology as much as much as we do. The thing that makes a nation is something shared between its members that is bigger than they are, something that no foreigner can share with them. The individual has no ability to accept or decline this characteristic. The individual is smaller than his or her race.
Why would anyone read Mishra on politics?
Why would anyone read Mishra on literature? Criticism is the fallback position of the failed intellectual just prior to barista.
Has any people, other than white people, claimed that all races are made equal by nature? Doesn't this prove that white people are superior to non-white people? ;)
Be careful about "Death Traps." It is very controversial. I have no opinion either pro or con but I do acknowledge the controversy it has generated. Robert Forczyk hates the book. Read the comment in the reader review section on Amazon. Forczyk takes part in the discussion, and he has published, elsewhere online, other exceedingly harsh commentaries. But there are those who agree with Belton Cooper's analysis and they make good arguments for doing so. The Sherman was superior to the PzKw III and at least the equal of the PzKw IV, even the late-war variant with the upgraded long-barrel 75mm HV gun. In terms of mobility, firepower, and frontal/turret protection -- the holy trinity of tank design and armored warfare -- the PzKw V Panther totally outclassed the M4. The other "big cat," the PzKw VI Tiger, was not something you wanted to meet up with head-on in an M4. The truth is the M4 too often could be and was, as Belton Cooper asserts, a death trap, and Forczyk is wrong to downplay its deficiencies and to disparage Cooper for focusing on them.
Jordan Peterson intentionally provoked left-wing feminists with a playful tongue-in-cheek question on his Facebook page:
"# 2 of questions to get crucified for asking: Do feminists avoid criticizing Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance?
https://www.facebook.com/drjordanpeterson/posts/1546167995447330
Compare Peterson's question with Mishra's twisted description of same:
NYRB: Jordan Peterson & Fascist Mysticism
'...Islamophobes will take heart from his speculation that “feminists avoid criticizing Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance.”'
It is not surprising that whatever mushy metaphysical pablum Pankaj Mishra spits out gets gobbled up by a broad spectrum of left-wing media.
As academically "imaginative" viral-status-friendly moral scolds dispensing bromides & rationales for racists go, Aimee Semple McPherson did it much better much earlier.
> I do not believe that fascism has necessarily anything to do with race.
Not explicitly, perhaps, but I believe the romantic concept of nations based on ethnicity played a big role. The communists also paid lip service to that idea, all those ethnic dance troupes the Soviets were so proud of weren't created in a vacuum. The idea persists to the present, see Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution, Serbia after Tito, and Cuba for that matter. The romantic roots of Socialism will tell.
I'm listening to his audio book now (bought through the Althouse Portal). I'm taking it easy, a rule at a time. Through 4. It's just common sense for people who haven't lost their minds, men and women, but it probably does resonate more with those of us who didn't allow the culture to emasculate them.
Misogynists, anti-Semites and Islamophobics, racists, ultra-nationalists, imperialists, impure gurus, flawed historical psychiatrists - bad bad bad very bad anti-progressive crime think.
I have "Death Traps", its a very interesting book and a must-have if you have an interest in WWII. There are all sorts of things in it that are background for what actually went on, what it took to make it happen, when a military history says that battalion x advanced to position y.
And Cooper writes with an air of honesty and humanity. He saw what he saw.
I don't think we should hate any book.
As for the idea of having better tanks, yes, heavier tanks with heavier armor would certainly have reduced casualties, against all sorts of enemy attacks. The British specialized, with heavy and medium tanks, for particular situations, or tried to, in order to retain the benefits of each. The British heavy tanks were in fact even better armored than the US M-26.
But the original point remains, the German technology option was irrelevant in the big picture. German technical superiority in a limited area like this got them only an very occasional tactical advantage, at great cost.
Social justice warriors who favor elective wars, CAIR (catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform), anti-native policies, trail of tears, occupation, redistributive and retributive change.
A common theme in all left-wing ideologies, including fascism, is the existence of mortal gods, and the consolidation of capital and control under minority rule.
Also, diversity, including denial of individual dignity, selective or one-child, including denial of lives deemed unworthy, and congruence ("=") or establishment of politically favorable classes and exclusion, are progressive liberal (i.e. monotonically divergent) ideas.
his arguments are quite nuanced, so one wonders if this is a strawman argument rather than a critque of his actual ideas.
As for women, drop the chauvinism, warlock hunts, and abortion rites. They are unbecoming at least, and wicked solutions at most. Men and women are equal in rights and complementary in Nature throughout evolution from conception.
California adopted no fault divorce in the mid 1960s. It wasn't all that hard to get a divorce before--particularly if one party or the other was willing to lie about something as in "yes I committed adultery" or "he beat me" etc. And it was usually the husband who either was at fault or accepted the fault. And his assets got trimmed very nicely--the wife who cold prove fault reallly took hubby's wallet to the schnauzer.
Enter no fault divorce and irreconcilable differences (the new standard) and divorce got very easy. Taking the husband's wallet to the cleaners got harder. I'm not certain that no fault divorce was really a help to women.
Also, diversity, including denial of individual dignity, selective or one-child, including denial of lives deemed unworthy, and congruence ("=") or establishment of politically favorable classes and exclusion, are progressive liberal (i.e. monotonically divergent) ideas.
Say that sentence out loud, and you will suck all the air out of the room and faint dead away from lack of oxygen.
A couple of weeks ago there was an article on Peterson in The New Yorker. The gist of the article was that Peterson wasn't worthy of your attention. Now this article in the NYRB. Somebody's noticing him.....I've only see a few of his lectures and interviews, but he's poised and unflappable. He can play their game with their ball on their field and win. He's going to be a nettle in their sides for a long time.
Nothing but a gangsta party, it ain't nothing but a gangsta party.
Ain't nothing but a gangsta party.
It ain't nothing but a gangsta party.
Nothing but a gangsta party.
It ain't nothing but a gangsta party.
Nothing but a gangsta party.
-Tupac
Wish I woulda started over,
Thanked Him for getting older: not made promises unsober.
Dusty pictures on the wall,
Frameless memories all,
Surely soon some will fall,
And no more standing tall.
Wish I woulda started over.
Lewis Wetzel,
I'm not actually a blogger, though I'm glad that you think so. Just a lowly commenter.
Re: "race," I think the category as such is boundlessly silly. But there is such a thing as nationality; it's what makes a nation, it and nothing else. That's why the Poles and the Irish were national when neither actually had a nation.
chuck,
Not explicitly, perhaps, but I believe the romantic concept of nations based on ethnicity played a big role. The communists also paid lip service to that idea, all those ethnic dance troupes the Soviets were so proud of weren't created in a vacuum. The idea persists to the present, see Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution, Serbia after Tito, and Cuba for that matter. The romantic roots of Socialism will tell.
Well, see above. With a few exceptions (we being one of the biggest ones), nations tend to be smallish and homogeneous, at least until someone like Merkel decides to open the floodgates and let anyone/everyone in. Again, this is as it ought to be, and a reason (among others) that we ought to leave more stuff to our own states. Because, well, states ought to be as much like themselves as possible. Which means as much unlike other states as they like.
Sorry Ann, this is one of those pages with moving parts (I hate it too!) I felt this article was related:
“Even when children grow up next to each other with parents who earn similar incomes, black boys fare worse than white boys in 99 percent of America. And the gaps only worsen in the kind of neighborhoods that promise low poverty and good schools.”
“Previous research suggests some reasons there may be a large income gap between black and white men, but not between women, even though women of color face both sexism and racism”
“While black women also face negative effects of racism, black men often experience racial discrimination differently. As early as preschool, they are more likely to be disciplined in school. They are pulled over or detained and searched by police officers more often.
“It’s not just being black but being male that has been hyper-stereotyped in this negative way, in which we’ve made black men scary, intimidating, with a propensity toward violence,” said Noelle Hurd, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.”
“Some of the widest black-white income gaps in this study appear in wealthy communities. This fits with previous research that has shown that the effects of racial discrimination cross class lines. Although all children benefit from growing up in places with higher incomes and more resources, black children do not benefit nearly as much as white children do. Moving black boys to opportunity is no guarantee they can tap into it.”
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html
I’d like to know your thoughts on this matter. We seem to be in a society right now that is dealing with some sort of down fall of white male privilege while simultaneously dealing with racial discrimination of black men. Need a professor.
Peterson is right over the target and the more hysterical and over wrought the flack, the more it confirms everything he writes and says.
Few of you fucks reckonkniz Dwight Yoaham, and fuck ya formit.
He sang Things Change.
Mary
There is a ton of question-begging in that NYTimes handwringer ...
Who says it HAS TO BE 'racism' that keeps black boys down? They not only have the freedom to take advantage of their privileged station, universities & colleges beat a path to their doors to recruit.
Maybe that sense of entitlement is getting in their way.
There was just an article about "how come college basketball walk-ons are mostly white?" and the further you read in the article, it becomes clear it is because the black players CHOOSE not to pursue walk ons...which the white boys look at it as a long term investment and hustle for the spots more.
I recall an article in the LATimes in the 1980s that tried to examine why Hispanics weren't going to college, even when individuals had the grades & SATs
Racism? Poverty?
No, family influence about choice -- families raised their kids with the expectations of going to work right out of high school.
So, what values, principles, work ethic, expectations are being taught to these black kids by their families?
Darleen
I guess you didn’t read the article or read what I quoted, because you’re making a distinction between black and white people, while the article points out the distinction between black men and… everybody else, including black women who don’t experience the drop in income the same way. Read the article and then come back and tell us your thoughts.
Oh Mary look here
**“Even when children grow up next to each other with parents who earn similar incomes, black boys fare worse than white boys in 99 percent of America. And the gaps only worsen in the kind of neighborhoods that promise low poverty and good schools.**
Hmmmm... I guess you DID quote about "black boys" v "white boys"
and not just once
which is the part I was addressing.
But hey, I guess since you assume "down fall of white male privilege while simultaneously dealing with racial discrimination of black men" as fact, no possible challenge will be entertained, eh?
I bet you believe the 77cents/1 dollar wage gap is due to sexism, too.
@Mary/Darleen,
Some of the widest black-white income gaps in this study appear in wealthy communities. This fits with previous research that has shown that the effects of racial discrimination cross class lines. Although all children benefit from growing up in places with higher incomes and more resources, black children do not benefit nearly as much as white children do. Moving black boys to opportunity is no guarantee they can tap into it.”
In terms of academic performance by income quintile, black students do not outperform the poorest of white/Asian students (i.e. family income $20K or less) until they are in the wealthiest quintile (i.e. $200K or more).
To speak of the effects of racism on a family that has an income of more than $200K & lives in a community (like mine) where incredible effort is expended from kindergarten onward by the school district to reach out & aid minority students, takes the term "racism" & moves it out of its use in common speech & makes of it an implacable, history-shaping force akin to Hegel's Geist. We have moved beyond sociological explanations & are now in the realm of metaphysics.
you will suck all the air out of the room and faint dead away from lack of oxygen
The air in the room is already rarefied. Hopefully, I will deflate the philosophy and supporting euphemisms.
So, do you agree or disagree with the logical implications of their concepts and practices?
In terms of academic performance by income quintile, black students do not outperform the poorest of white/Asian students
You speak heresy, YoungHegelian.
Darleen
Again, I'm pointing out that this does not apply to black women
"Previous research suggests some reasons there may be a large income gap between black and white men, but not between women, even though women of color face both sexism and racism."
Do you get this?
you will suck all the air out of the room and faint dead away from lack of oxygen
Note, get out before they start hyperventilating.
Bay Area Guy said...
Jordan Petersen 1, Pancake Mishra
*******************
Way I see it:
Jordan Petersen: Infinity
Pankaj Mishra: Dick
“It’s not just being black but being male that has been hyper-stereotyped in this negative way, in which we’ve made black men ***growing up without fathers*** scary, intimidating, with a propensity toward violence,” said Noelle Hurd, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.”
********************
FIFY
@LW,
You speak heresy, YoungHegelian.
Sadly, I speak sociological fact, one that the educational establishment knows & deals with on a daily basis. Here's a link with slightly different numbers, but along the same principle.
I really wish that we as a country could figure this out.
Jay Elink said...
***growing up without fathers***
That's very much what the article discussed, and how important that factor is, they found that young black men that grew up with fathers "around the neighborhood" made a huge difference, even if they didn't have their own dad there. Don't we all want for a better society? A better way to communicate? Even here on this blog? I'm a white woman, far away from being a black man, but I want to better understand our society as a whole, and not for us to live in caves of us versus them. R's or D's.. It gets us nowhere. Can we get there? Can we talk?
‘Because "socialism" is similarly broad. So is "capitalism", or any "ism" really.’
No, not similarly broad. Both are definitionally ecoomic categories, and specifically so. They may have wide implications, and there may be wide dispute in those implications, but that doesn’t make either broad categories in themselves.
Instead, you seem to have defined fascism as a vague synonym for nationalism, where originally and traditionally it has always combined a identitarian social consciousness with an at least corporatist or more avowedly socialist economic system. Of course, no one can keep you from having your own idiosyncratic definition of this or any other word, but that renders pointless any discussion with you on associated matters.
Every once in awhile I make a bone-headed mistake. Coming back to this thread I see that part of my last comment was the opposite of what I intended, to wit:
“ … the cherished White Male Privilege myth – which seems to function as a kind of cognitive dissonance dildo for the feminists and their alpha males.”
It should read, “… and their beta males.”
There you have it – a zinger poorly done loses most of its sting. I apologize to the readers for the lack of editorial discipline and will try to do better …
Some of the widest black-white income gaps in this study appear in wealthy communities.
I’ve tried to make sense of this statement but have not succeeded. How many “wealthy communities” does America have? Answer: Not many. I would guess it is about the same proportion as the number of wealthy individuals in America – which is also just a few, percentage-wise. So why would “income gaps” in these few “communities” peopled mostly by wealthy individuals be relevant to the general population? I do not know and am hoping the commentor will explain.
Also, explain the statement or not but don’t tell me to go read a long, sure-to-be-incoherent, boring article probably (considering the source) fueled by Post-Modernist assumptions. That’s your job, not ours.
Don't we all want for a better society? A better way to communicate? Even here on this blog?
Translation: Questioning the credibility of a NYT article means the questioner doesn’t want a “better society.” Speaking of “better” communication … coy implications such as the above aren’t likely to change many minds.
I’d like to know your thoughts on this matter. We seem to be in a society right now that is dealing with some sort of down fall of white male privilege while simultaneously dealing with racial discrimination of black men. Need a professor.
The last thing the commentor needs is a “professor.” My version:
We seem to be in a society right now that is attempting to peddle the idiotic concept of white male privilege while simultaneously using the feigned concern of racial discrimination of black men as an excuse to enact Leftwing agendas and control the narrative.
I like mine better.
Growing up without a Fatherland is a bad experience, but not as bad as losing the Motherland.
Doesn't sound like he read the book. Petersen is more Aristotle than anything else. Fix yourself, then work on making the world a better place.
Listening to heavily-credentialed tenured academics denounce the concept of hierarchy is rich.
Noticing that animals and people have hierarchies isn't the same as endorsing any particular political system.
It's a self help book. Admitting to yourself that your appearance and how you carry yourself matters is not fascism. Petersen is writing for people, primarily young men, who haven't "gotten it" yet. You can't get ahead if you are the butt monkey of the office. You can rail about the unfairness of it all and make bitter posts on the internet, or you can dress well and stand up straight.
This is a pretty easy thing to understand, so I can't explain why the reviewer doesn't.
I re-read most of this thread this morning. It is an enlightening exchange without name calling and self pity by the participants.
I am so glad that while we paid little attention, over the last 30-40 years, we allowed millions of 3rd world libruls [like this book review] into America which they can't wait to change into the shithole they fled.
Of course, even if we had been paying attention, our immigration system is such a big secretive, complicated system, we'd probably not figured it out anyway. Thanks to Ted Kennedy.
Always good to see WW2 re-fought. I feel I am among my own people.
Pankaj Mishra says white men are bad because he is creative.
"Thank you, come again!"
Gahrie said...
The U.S. military refuses to accept anyone with an IQ of 83 or less (10% of population) because they can't be trained to do even the simplest tasks correctly and consistently.
It's more like 14% to 17%, depending how you count, not 10%.
About 13% of the white population and 45% of the black population have IQs below 83.
"Social Security will assess disability for someone with borderline intellectual functioning, which is diagnosed for someone with IQ scores between 71 and 84, under the listing for neurodevelopmental disorders."
The social sciences abound in problems that are unintelligible by their very nature to both the American professor and the Marxist intellectual. - Nicolás GĂłmez Dávila (“Don Colacho”)
Rigelsen: Ann, regardless of your agreement or disagreement with Peterson, I’m curious what you think of Mishra’s reasoning. To my truncated reading, it seems shoddy argumentaion at best, relying instead on a range of logical fallacies and asserted “looks-kinda-like” analogies. Not discursive, but demagogic. Anything to get the hate flowing in the right direction.
The article itself is of no interest as a think-piece. Intellectually, it's crap, as you and others point out. Wouldn't merit a "C" as a paper in a rigorous high-school. As you suggest, it's of sociological interest.
The NYRB (and similar "high-brow for the aspiring middle-brow") publications used to field a much better class of writers, even if they were as fundamentally woolly-minded as our friend here. Maybe they still put out reasonably intelligent articles and well-written articles now and again - I wouldn't know; I dropped my subscription back in the early nineties. My loss of interest was partly due to my getting older and wiser and developing a sharper eye for (and less tolerance of) bullshit, and partly to the beginnings of the real decline in quality in these publications. But they were still a long way off from the unintelligent, thuddingly crude propaganda (like this piece) that they're churning out now.
Mary: I'm a white woman, far away from being a black man, but I want to better understand our society as a whole, and not for us to live in caves of us versus them. R's or D's.. It gets us nowhere. Can we get there? Can we talk?
We probably could, if you'd make an effort to make your point clear. As it stands, I can't figure out what you're trying to say. The article in question assumes that the difference in outcome between black men/other groups is the result of "racism", in this case a special kind of racism directed specifically at black men.
So, what's your point? You seem to be agreeing with that assumption, despite there being other explanations other than "racism toward black men" for the outcomes reported in the article. You also seem to be assuming that anybody who disputes the assumption that you accept hasn't read the article, or missed something in the article, though there is nothing anybody has said here that indicates that that is the case. (No, that the outcomes for black women relative to white women are different from the outcomes for black men relative to white men is not proof of the "racism" assumption.)
Am I misreading you?
Interesting critique:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=faeT4fIFAcg
Jordan Peterson has a response:
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975941048550572034
I come for the content and stay for the comments.
Ditto.
Shri Mishra asks, "How can we explain the origins of the great wave of paranoid hatreds that seem inescapable in our close-knit world – from American ‘shooters’ and ISIS to Trump, from a rise in vengeful nationalism across the world to racism and misogyny on social media?"
He goes back to the nineteenth century? Why the fuck does he not go back to the fourth century of the Common Era when The Laws Of Manu were written down and gave the Enlightened Reality of the Caste System that plagues over one fifth of the world's population. The variation of income, education, and hatred/violence of Mother India is without peer in the world. If one wants to speak out against paranoid hatred, there is no better place to begin than Village India. The Harijans be damned, the elite, especially Shri Mishra's Jaati, will NEVER yield their REAL social and political riches for an egalitarian society.
Peterson is not ABOVE the FRAY; he is in the vanguard fighting reactionary elitist forces like an Arjuna of Mahabharata fame. Lounging in Yale's faculty spaces (or whatever elitist university setting he would like), his talk is paradigmatic of Upper Caste British Indian Gentlemen everywhere.
Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard:
It is beyond racism, I get that. Then is this classism or what? Thought to discuss this because I think it ties into white male insecurity somehow.
The London Review of Books, as cluelessly left wing as its New York manifestation, just published an amazingly identical article, especially considering how different the words are.
One person puts up a detailed critique of the piece.
Observe the spittle flecked leftist responses.
seems unbothered by the fact that thinking of human relations in such terms as dominance and hierarchy connects too easily with such nascent viciousness such as misogyny, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia
"You can't think like this because wrongthinkers might approve", straight up.
And people wonder why self-described intellectuals are losing respect, wot?
(I mean, by all means, make substantive criticisms of his model of human relations; quite possibly he overstates dominance and hierarchy relations. But this is not that critique, and it almost reads as a denial of any dominance or hierarchy patterns in human relations, which seems bafflingly ahistoric and unconnected with observable reality.
Equally, his choice of betes noir is too facile.)
"It is interesting that the usual lefty suspects have little to offer on the (Running with Scissors Psychologist) Dr. Jordan Peterson."
I don't know if you consider me a "usual lefty suspect,", but I have nothing to say about Peterson as I had never heard of him until I read this blog entry.
Googled for other Peterson crucifixion questions. Seems there's only one more and he's taking his time asking them:
3:31 PM - 28 Sep 2017
Part 1 in a series of questions to get crucified for asking:
@jordanbpeterson
Is it possible that young women are so outraged because they are craving infant contact in a society that makes that very difficult?
https://www.facebook.com/drjordanpeterson/posts/1546163912114405
Dude has a fixation on women.
Here is a surprisingly good five minute intro to the meaning of the word "fascism" in the history of ideas:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccu91wcovedefH6WbdWaEz6F_uzvy8tab7GHoZBv1BQ/edit?usp=sharing
At least I found it highly informative, having never even heard of that Italian intellectual Giovanni Gentile.
Actually, Derrida could be on everybody's side. Here's how Rodger Scruton describes him: "He is difficult to summarize because it's nonsense. He argues that the meaning of a sign is never revealed in the sign but deferred indefinitely, and that a sign only means something by virtue of its difference from something else. For Derrida, there is no such thing as meaning-it always eludes us and therefore anything goes."
Thought to discuss this because I think it ties into white male insecurity somehow. - Mary
I wish you folks would sent out memos, or at least let me know the latest.
Am I supposed to be privileged? Or insecure?
I can't keep up.
Mishra's an erudite Cathy Newman with tenure. Same out of context straw men, same complete inability to step outside his ideological box.
I am not reactionary, except if you ask my 21 yr old daughter. Neither am I possibly white — but paraphrasing the comic Russell Peters — given that the Brits were in India, for a long time,they might have effed one or two of us, so who knows/ I am for sure male but do not ask my dad who always urged me to “be a man”.
What struck me was Mishra’s first name — which means the Lotus flower. An elegant metaphor for the exortations of Peterson — creation of something beautiful even in a cesspool. But then sometimes the cesspool wins, just to prove the rule, and gives us Mishra.
Post a Comment