Jordan was recently interviewed by Bret Weinstein.
So much for Jordan's supposed weaving towards Christendom. I only listened to the first hour, but it was all about evolutionary biology and Jordan's ideas of how human's evolved to create religions over thousands of years.
Jordan and Bret may have evolved from apes, but I didn't.
Clean mirror:
https://tube.connect.cafe/watch?v=O55mvoZbz4Y
First. I don't believe Jordan and Bret are controlled opposition. Most of the population are some sort of normie. It's not surprising that people in the public arena are also normies. There is not a magic transition that happens after you can clock up more than 10,000 video views, in which you know everything and then go about deceiving people. Jordan and Bret just have different ideas.
As mentioned, at least the first hour of this is a discussion of evolutionary biology (evobio). It is very easy to misconstrue Bret and Jordan by either not listening to them enough or being willingly or unwillingly deceitful. Fake news propagandists take their discussion on evobio and cast it as them promoting Darwinism and other things you can imagine.
I met a guy who he said he'd watched every one of JP's videos and he asked me what I thought of JP promoting Darwinist ideas. I went on to explain that JP outlines evobio and goes on to say repeatedly, profusely – implied and unimplied – how this should not be the basis of society and they we need (essentially) philosophy to save us from evolutionary impuses. If I was to sum up his work and ideas it would be as that. This guy refused to digest that, despite having watched all of his videos. Another guy interjected with the same critique. They repeated the assertion and I went over it several times specifically, citing examples, of why that is not the case. They kept asking the same question. For the left there is no come back for talking about evobio. It hits too close to things they want to ingore.
You can see such behaviour in JP's interview on Norwegian evening time thought program Skavlan. On which a woman brought up the gender wage gap. JP was quite specific as to why there may be other factors as to why there is a wage gap other than the inferred and inherent terrorist nature of men. In response she asked, “But what about the gender pay gap?” There is no benefit from them in considering what he says and there is no opposition who make it impossible for them to do otherwise. Liberals have sown their own crop with this phenomena.
For some time they discuss the reality of evobio, before moving on to why we can't let evolutionary impulses run rampant in society. But their ideas of what to do about it are admittedly thin. Bret talks about the mystery of consciousness and how it can transcend biology. How a creature can be wired to do something, but come up with ideas that leads them to doing something else.
At the heart of their quandary is the exact same ammunition used by the left, who cover up all the things that JP and Bret might mention. The quandary is – biology leads to unequal outcomes. This is a wholly materialist position. But it is one of reality in a materialist world. While the left chooses to ignore biology and says unequal outcomes are derived from evil right-wingers.
If you ever engage in either of those arguments, then you are stuck in an endless and and unpeaceable loop of materialist gripes and grievances.
This is maybe the primary reason why liberals (who are no longer a force of influence worth mentioning) let the doors open to the left who now control all global and most Western institutions. Liberals began looking at the material word in scientific terms and desired material improvement. When they turned that method to society they began to measure how things were unequal and could point to their origins. This
may not be fundamentally wrong, but it is almost definitely an inevitable pit-stop before endless leftward drift.
The liberals usurped institutions from the old ecclesiastical order. Oxford and Cambridge, for example, were formerly little more than seminaries. They then sat idly by as these institutions started to fill up with open Maoists. Liberals preferred to be around an increasing number of all manner of intersectionalists rather than Bill Buckley or Dr Pasta Martin Ssempa. And when did we start to hear any discontent from any liberal about the left?
At absolutely no point in time in which they were scrubbing institutions of conservative, traditional or right-wing individuals. It was the point at which anyone with half an empirical brain had found out that universities are heavily on the road to becoming radical left indoctrination camps and the liberals could not hide they were now being purged. This alone is reason why you should never ally yourself with liberals. And by that I mean real liberals, which is people who believe the most important organising factor in society is the individual. This is a small minority.
Liberals are by definition quite free and easy; and the ideology is itself fundamentally incapable of enforcing itself. A dictatorship of man-made and ever-changing liberal values is not liberal. Such a dictatorship would also have to deal with every person in their jurisdiction being a font of morality, self-professed wisdom, truth, authority etc. They don't enforce their ideas because they can't. So in the wake of them destroying everything good from the past we have been doing all a liberal society can yield, which is move left endlessly.
Peterson and Brett are just dealing with a materialist issue from another angle. One that sounds much more reasonable and given to a cohesive society. But they are just throw backs from the 19th century, who want another crack at their ideas not going off the rails, as they have for the last 100 years.
I have seen numerous examples of counters to the materialist solutions put forward by leftists, liberals and the right-wing. Most of them are from the past. Recently I listened to an old interview (
https://invidious.zapashcanon.fr/watch?v=pRh_mXsXEp4) with a simple village man, born in the late 1800s. He lived in a time when the primary basis for life was not a materialist outlook. It was a spiritual one, where what was more important did not physically exist. This is now completely unknown to the vast majority of modern people. This man and his compatriots could be said to have been oppressed by industrialists and landlordism. Yet they did not hate or harbour ill will to their overlords. They took it as their cross to bear and continued their simple lives on human connection and communion. As the 20th century rolled through his church was invaded by Marxist, sent in by the church hierarchy. The Marxists told them to turn everything upside down, hate your oppressor and get what you are owed on this earth. He knew it was wrong, even though he and those in his community could be said to have been wronged. He did not look at the world through the lens in which the material is the most important and that is the only lens through which Jordan Peterson, the Weinsteins, Joe Rogan, Sam Harris and other fellow travelers can see this.
How would JP analyse this village man's outlook? More egg-heading, playing God.
Peterson and Weinstein are just playing a more elegant and dressed up version of fighting over scraps in the bush. And that's no joke.
Last post in this thread unless Peterson repents.
