Jordan Peterson

Russell has been interviewing Jordan Peterson. To begin with I was wondering why Russell was talking with this man but even though there is stuff I dislike in him he is not the devil the alt-right promote him as.

Quite simply he is the bete noir of PC-Authoritarianism and armchair Marxists, but he is not a fascist. To begin to understand him you need a context - he is in a liberal establishment, a university prof. I hate such liberals and always fought against them, many probably thought of me as they do him. I am an anti-liberal but I am a deeply-committed anarcho-socialist. Because of this liberal environment, I understand why he reacted to the imposition of a transgender language policy. This censoring liberal establishment in the supposed left of education need to be hammered. It is the selling-out of these supposed leftists that enables neoliberal imposition, promotes Obama, promotes Hillary because she is a woman - irrespective of how many wars she wants to start in the name of these reformist feminists. On all of this I understand where Peterson has come from.

He is also a clinical psychologist focussing on the individual, his work shows him individuals being oppressed by a system, so he defends the individuals against the system. He goes too far. But in principle I have no problem with this, in fact I support it; the rights of the individual must be defended if a system is being oppressive ... if that individual is compassionate. He talks about the highest good - excellent, but doesn't understand that highest good is compassion. His intellectual ego is blocking connection with the fundamental compassion inherent in us all.

But on capitalism he is way off base. I listen to his arguments and his understanding of the impact of capitalism appears so limited. Russell's questioning concerning the power of capitalism was limited, and Peterson had answers for these. Armchair capitalism is some vague form of inequality based on some bad guys having a bit too much money and misusing it a bit too much. Peterson answered this by saying there is natural inequality and greed, and that's all that capitalism is. This might answer liberal Marxists but has nothing to do with the way capitalism works - and what is the real problem. This is an answer to armchair Marxists who vaguely connect capitalism to trade, and say the way trade happens is a bit unfair. This is further why I just see him as an egotist who is a bete noir to liberalism.

This shallow understanding of the way capital works is part of the brickwork of neoliberalism, and is why these snowflakes are such a problem. They are ignorant of the real forces that Marxism analyses, they are ignorant of how they work within a neoliberal system, they are just ignorant. I hope this move to the right makes them understand neoliberalism and what socialism is, and why we need anarcho-socialism and not PC-authoritarian censorship. Let's hope this alt-right crap makes these people wake up. If they continue to value their minimal possession more than the compassion that drives gennuine socialism, then we will only lurch further to the right.

I very rarely use the word capitalism because of the way it is misunderstood and misused. We live through trade, trade as barter is genuine socialism, equitable trade is how the world needs to function - how socialism could function. When you want to see how a socialist state might function you could examine the regulations that Trump-puppet has removed. These are regulations that try to stop big business from exploiting, regulations left in place benefit big business - benefitting the 1% puppet masters.

I don't use the word capitalism, I use accumulation. People who are rich comparative to Marx's times are not now rich - they have middle-class wealth; I of course exclude the Rothschilds. I have a friend who was critical of his father for owning more than a million Aus$ and having a boat and a house. This is the shallow thinking that does not understand accumulation - the sort of thinking that supports Peterson and is the level of minimal dialectic of the armchair Marxists.

Those who accumulate control the world through the power of financial ownership. Instead of the natural inequality of birth, these people use their accumulation to control and manipulate. Whilst they promote the words Free Trade, in practice free trade has become trading through market mechanisms that further enable 1%-wealth. These are the regulations, the market mechanisms that Trump-puppet leaves untouched. It is these regulations that turn natural inequality and inherited wealth into exploitation that needs to be fought.

Why do we have money buying elections - Citizens United? As people we are all subject to conditioning, so if money is allowed to influence then that conditioning will be manipulated. It is conditioned people who are reacting to "Russiagate", it is conditioned people who accept neoliberalism, it is conditioned people who accept the alt-right vs snowflake dichotomy instead of seeing beyond into the power of neoliberalism, and the control by accumulation that ensures free trade is dominated by market mechanisms. And means Trump supporters don't have jobs.

What is worse about this accumulation is the heartlessness that creates wars. Accumulation demands a drive for profits, and from war there is huge profit. This is an inequality that is not natural, we are compassionate people if we don't allow our egos to block it. Jordan why are the West always involved with war? Is it a coincidence or is it integral to the accumulation?

And what about fiat money? What is happening to that money? It is being accumulated, where? Into offshore accounts that help no-one. And if there is a run, whose money is reclaimed first? The offshore accounts because the 1% can afford weaponry.

These are the integral issues of accumulation that have nothing to do with a liberal understanding of armchair Marxism, and have nothing to do with liberalism in education that has become PC-authoritarianism. Jordan you are a spokesperson of neoliberalism because your ego accepts conditioning and has not moved beyond into a human understanding of compassion -* that higher consciousness is compassion. These are the dangers of the intellectual ego that block off compassion and insight. You promote the third aspect of pathtivism that promotes creativity, but the greatest creativity comes from compassion.

There is a second talk with Russell, and this looks more into Peterson's psychology work - it is interesting. In terms of Unity, Russell's talks with Peterson are a definite move in the correct direction.

More on Peterson, I might even read his 12 book.