Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Jordan Peterson’

Watch “Jordan Peterson: The collapse of our values is a greater threat than climate change | Off Script” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on October 14, 2021

An interesting hour of conversation. If pressed for time start at 40:00.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Dr. Robert Murphy on the Jordan Peterson Podcast | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on September 1, 2021

Tho Bishop

Over the last several years, as Jordan Peterson rose to international fame, many thoughtful individuals in the Mises Institute orbit have voiced an appreciation for how Peterson’s work may complement the Austrian tradition. Some have written on the topic, including Jonathan Newman who noted in 2018:

Jordan Peterson is not famous for his action framework, but it is central to his Maps of Meaning book and university course. He uses it on his way to demonstrating the basis for belief systems and the superiority of a morality based on the inherent value of the individual.

The differences between his action framework and that of Mises and Rothbard may be attributed to the difference between psychology and economics. But the similarities are striking, even though, to my knowledge, Peterson has not read Mises or Rothbard.

Earlier this year, Jordan Peterson began tweeting about an interest in Austrian economics, asking for suggestions for potential guests. 

What economist of the Austrian school should I interview for my YouTube channel and podcast?— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) March 27, 2021

Thankfully one name, in particular, got the attention of Dr. Peterson, Bob Murphy. Not only has Dr. Murphy long demonstrated himself to be one of the best educators of the Austrian tradition, but he has long been familiar with Peterson’s own work. His excellent book Choice Cooperation Enterprise and Human Action also offers a great introduction to Misesian thought for a new audience.

In his most recent podcast, Jordan Peterson published his interview with Dr. Murphy, offering his audience a deep dive into the Misesian tradition. 

As Dr. Peterson begins his show, “I wanted to talk to you because I wanted a two-hour lecture in Austrian economics.” 

Video can be found on YouTube. The podcast format is not currently published on his official website, can be found on most podcast platforms, such as Spotify.

Is Property Theft? | Dr Robert Murphy | The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast – S4: E43

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Father Jailed For Talking About His Teenage Daughter’s Trans Hormones

Posted by M. C. on March 28, 2021

Canada-Progressive heaven

That border can stay closed.

As previously reported, the BC Supreme Court ordered that Hoogland’s daughter should begin receiving testosterone injections when she was 14 years old, regardless of parental consent. The court further declared that if either of the girl’s parents referred to her “as a girl or with female pronouns,” that parent would be considered guilty of family violence.

Jeremiah Keenan

By Jeremiah Keenan

Last week, Robert Hoogland was arrested at the British Columbia Supreme Court in Vancouver for speaking against court-ordered testosterone injections for his teenage daughter. Hoogland was denied bail, and Justice Michael Tammen issued an oral decision last Friday confining Hoogland to prison until his case is tried on April 12, 2021.

Hoogland’s arrest has garnered significant attention, nationally and internationally, and prompted an online petition for his release. Noted psychologist and author Jordan Peterson tweeted about the case repeatedly last Thursday, pointing out that he had predicted such imprisonment was “inevitable” back when he took his stand against the “pronoun laws” in Canada’s Bill C16.

As previously reported, the BC Supreme Court ordered that Hoogland’s daughter should begin receiving testosterone injections when she was 14 years old, regardless of parental consent. The court further declared that if either of the girl’s parents referred to her “as a girl or with female pronouns,” that parent would be considered guilty of family violence.

The night of this ruling—Feb. 27, 2019—Hoogland granted an interview published in The Federalist in which he refused to obey the court’s demand he refer to his daughter as a girl, “because,” he protested, “she is a girl. Her DNA will not change through all these experiments that they do.” For this, and similar statements, in April of 2019 Rob was deemed guilty of family violence and put under threat of imminent arrest should he dare to refer to his daughter as a girl again, whether in public or in private.

Hoogland kept quiet for the rest of 2019, hoping that if he cooperated with the courts he might be able to get his daughter off testosterone on an appeal. In January 2020, his appeal failed.

Desperate to get his story heard, Hoogland began granting interviews to The Federalist and other outlets in February 2020 in which he criticized by name the doctors involved in prescribing his daughter cross-sex hormones. While Hoogland carefully avoided using his daughter’s name in interviews, he felt he could not fight the laws and rulings if he remained the nameless and faceless “CD” of court documents.

“What kind of father would I be if, let’s say in 5, 10 years my daughter is detransitioning, and she turns to me and says… ‘Why did none of you do anything to stop this? I was a child. None of you stuck your neck out for me back then. You just let me do it because I was a… immature kid, thinking this was something great,’” he said in an interview. “When my daughter asks me that question, I’ll say… ‘I did everything that I possibly could.’”

“Whatever happens to me pales in comparison to what’s already happened to my daughter,” he said then.

Hoogland’s urgent belief that people needed to know what happened to his daughter was certainly not shared by the attorney general of British Columbia, Daniel J. Pruim, or Justice Tammen in court last week. Pruim argued that Hoogland should be denied bail while he awaited trial on the criminal contempt charges brought against him last year.

The Vancouver Cybercrime Unit compiled a lengthy police report documenting when Hoogland referred to his daughter “as his ‘daughter’” and noting that he “[used] female pronouns numerous times.” The cybercrime report also underscored numerous interviews in which Hoogland criticized by name the doctors involved in giving his daughter testosterone.

While the names of those doctors—Brenden Hursh and Wallace Wong—had originally been published by the courts in public documents as public legal records, they were hastily anonymized as negative publicity arose for the case. Wong, a child psychologist who referred Rob’s daughter for testosterone when she was 13, came under particularly heavy fire.

Pro-family activists complained that, according to Wong’s own statements, the youngest client in his children-only “gender therapy” practice was not yet three years old. It also seemed Wong may have hinted to potential clients that by making fake suicide threats (“Pull a stunt. Suicide, every time, [then] they will give you what you need”) they could get the Canadian health-care system to fund their “treatments.” Nevertheless, the court bought the idea that Hoogland’s daughter had to immediately begin taking testosterone in order to avoid suicide.

Tuesday morning before his arrest, Hoogland told me in a phone interview that he did not regret his choice to speak out publicly under his own name. When asked whether he regretted saying Wong and Hursh’s names, he was emphatic: “No.” Hoogland views the doctors as “criminals” who were “doing something wrong,” harming healthy children with cross-sex hormones that render them sterile.

Hoogland’s point of view was not acceptable to Justice Tammen last Friday in court. Noting that Hoogland broke the anonymity bans on doctors’ names deliberately, Tammen concluded that he must be strictly punished.

Tammen pointed out that even after a warrant was issued on March 4 for Hoogland’s arrest, Hoogland still provided an interview to pro-family organization Mass Resistance. Tammen asserted that the anonymity orders and publication ban were “intended to provide privacy and security of the person to [Hoogland’s daughter] and [her] healthcare providers.”

“CD’s detention is necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice,” Tammen declared. Towards the end of the hearing, Hoogland raised his hand to speak. “I do love my child. That’s why I did this,” he said. “I did what I thought was right.”

In an interview shortly before his arrest, Hoogland said what others can do about his case is: “pray—anybody can pray.” And “Educate people. Tell people what’s going on… talk to your neighbor and say, ‘Hey, this is what’s going on in the world’…. To even do a simple thing like that… that’s commendable; that’s courage to me. To even do a simple thing like that.”

Hoogland sits in jail today in the North Fraser Remand Centre in Port Coquitlam, east of Vancouver, until the conclusion of his trial in April.Canadian Father Robert Hoogland Jailed For Speaking Out Against Court Ordered Cross-Sex Hormones for His Own Daughter


On March 26, this author received an update from a close friend of Robert Hoogland’s who has been able to speak with him on the phone a couple of times over the past week. She wrote that “due to covid protocols” Rob is being kept in an individual cell and not being allowed any in-person visits. “He can only [take exercise] for a couple hours a day so the living conditions are not ideal, akin to solitary confinement.”

She expressed concern for Hoogland’s mental health, noting that he has been under “extreme stress for the past 2.5 years” since doctors informed him that they would begin treatments on his daughter on the sole basis of her own consent.

Hoogland’s trial for breaking gag orders is scheduled to begin before Justice Michael Tammen on April 12. If sentenced, he could face up to five years in jail. Jeremiah Keenan is a pro-life activist and freelance writer. He recently graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, where he argued with leftists and wrote for The Daily Pennsylvanian. He also earned a bachelors in mathematics and assisted the sociology department researching religious opinion trends on eugenics, race, birth control, and homosexuality. Jeremiah grew up in China and lives, at the moment, in Ohio. He can be contacted at

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Advice to Young Men in Their 20’s | Jordan and Mikhaila Peterson” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on March 3, 2021

Jordan Peterson gives advice to men in their 20’s on The @Mikhaila Peterson​ Podcast. Full episode:…

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

‘Unseen Enemy’: Coronavirus as an archetype of perception. – OffGuardian

Posted by M. C. on February 12, 2021

While, in the case of the War on Terror, those vowing to take revenge on the hidden enemy that was threatening to undermine freedom and liberal values oversaw the gradual and ongoing erosion of the tradition of civil liberty in the West.

Regardless of whether the unseen enemy in its various forms exists or has existed, I find it hard to imagine an enemy so dangerous that it permits a relinquishing of basic civil liberties and totalitarian control, not even a hidden totalitarian government itself.

Ludovic Noble

My conjecture is that ‘perception of an enemy’ could be a Jungian archetype or a category of perception that represents a certain dynamic between groups of humans in societies or between humans and aspects of the world.

Humans are on one level tribal and it could be that tribal creatures have benefitted from being able to unify against a collective perception of an enemy, whether that be a pack of lions, another tribe or an individual within the tribe that must be exterminated or resolved at all costs for the tribe’s survival.

It could be argued that this archetype, if it has some physical expression, underwent a process of natural selection, where prehistoric human societies in which it was activated could be provoked into a destructive frenzy that would ensure their survival, in the face of an enemy.

Jordan Peterson explains how swearing uses the same neural system as alarm cries in apes. If this is true, there are neural systems that are representational. The ‘enemy’ archetype could feasibly be said to be a biological neural system in the brain that has evolved in humans and other social species.

To push this idea further, I hypothesise that there could be a subtype of this ‘enemy’ archetype, where the enemy is ‘unseen.’

History is full of examples of societies that have behaved in a way that suggests that they had collectively activated some primal archetype that fills them with fear and disgust of an ‘unseen enemy’. Crucial to the concept, is that the enemy can be (or be in) any member of the group at any one time, making any member of the group potentially a suspect.

An evolutionary argument as to why this archetype might exist could be as follows:

a tribe that decided that there was an ‘unseen enemy’ in their midsts might kill a minority group within the tribe for some arbitrary reason. Whether or not the minority group is guilty, the remaining members tribe would then have a greater share of the resources than they did previously. The archetype, then, would have served an evolutionarily advantageous cause.

The devil, evil in general, witches, radical muslim terrorists, Jews, communists and coronavirus are all examples of phenomenon that have become, in some groups of peoples’ eyes, in some time in history, an unseen enemy.

Cases in point:

I should say at this point, it is beside the point whether the unseen enemy exists or not. Ultimately this archetype reduces to Descartes’ evil demon hypothesis: the idea that there may at any moment be an evil demon manipulating your reality and perceptions.

Deception is an aspect of reality that is employed in daily life by spiders, lovers, conspirators and criminals. Deception and perception manipulation are facets of human experience, as are theft, parties and commerce.

The power of the ‘unseen enemy’ archetype is that it doesn’t depend on the actual existence of the perceived threat in order to be active. It is possible that:

  1. there may be an evil demon and
  2. one may perceive there to be an evil demon where there isn’t any.

This makes the ‘unseen enemy’ archetype tremendously powerful and I conjecture that propagandists and governments are well aware of its potential as a tool for directing human behaviour.

When the ‘unseen enemy’ is defined it usually becomes illegal or taboo to be a member or in any way a part of it. In the case of modern society, one of the manifestations of the ‘unseen enemy’ archetype at work is the outlawing of Neo-Nazis, ‘the far right’, racism and ‘hate’. Hate speech laws in Europe and a zero tolerance approach to ‘hate’ in certain institutions in the USA have made it either illegal or extremely taboo to be ‘racist.’

Thus the usual open signals of being racist are replaced by alleged covert signs of being racist, and the ‘unseen enemy’ can now be any member of the society.

This is reflected in popular culture (“just because you have an <insert racial group> friend, it doesn’t mean you’re not racist”) and in political language (she / he was accused of ‘harbouring hate’ in their thoughts or hearts, i.e. it is hidden due to being taboo and so potentially omnipresent).

When something unprovable (in this case, being secretly racist and, in the Middle Ages, being ‘inspired by the devil’) becomes illegal or
extremely taboo, denial is no longer a defence because it is meaningless. A denial is ‘exactly what the unseen enemy [a racist or the devil] would do’, both because being one of the unseen enemy is taboo and because by its nature the enemy tries to remain undetected.

Paradoxically, then, denial becomes proof of guilt or at least not nearly enough to prove innocence.

The criteria for what can be considered proof can then be extended to the point of absurdity and to where, more importantly, all members of the public can be suspected of being a part of the ‘unseen enemy’, unless they ‘prove’ their innocence.

This proof usually takes the form of ridiculous or pointless displays of total obedience and conformity to whatever demands some authority is making in order to manipulate the public at the time.

This opens up a space where literally anything can be taken as a signal that the person is a member of the unseen enemy and denying it. When this happens a terrifying relationship can emerge between the arbiters of justice (the authorities) and the public.

In such a situations, the authorities are permitted by the public to do ‘whatever it takes’ to exterminate the dreaded unseen enemy and to exact punishment for lack of conformity. Then, people are not only behaving in certain ways to avoid aiding or encouraging the unseen enemy but they are now behaving in certain ways to avoid punishment from authority:

the fear of the unseen enemy becomes subconsciously translated to the fear of what the authorities or society in general might do to you if they identify you as ‘one of them’.

People who don’t conform to the last detail are scorned and punished by society, sometimes out of fear that they may legitimately be a member of the unseen enemy but sometimes out of fear of what the authorities and society in general might do if they suspect association.

The enemy becomes those who don’t conform, whether or not they actually belong to the original unseen-enemy category.

Coronavirus has given governments a new opportunity to expand the category of the ‘unseen enemy’ to possibly include every member of the whole public.

This is reflected in the NHS propaganda campaign, where the slogan is a blunt order to ‘act like you’ve got it’ (or ‘conform to our demands for new behaviours in order to prove that you are not infected or at least that you are doing your best not to be infected, lest you want to become suspect’).

We are repeatedly told that any one of us may have it, which, if it exists, is true. However, whether this possibility justifies the totalitarian measures in response to it is the real question, regardless of whether anyone could have it or how many people it could kill.

What should we be more wary of, the possibility of being infected by a deadly virus or the possibility of permitting a totalitarian government takeover through unquestioning compliance to rules that violate long- held civil liberties?

A similar situation was achieved after 9/11, where any member of the public using public transport could be a radical Islamic terrorist and therefore the gradual redesign of airports to resemble total surveillance prisons was justified.

The Catholic Church brutalised medieval Europe for about a thousand years using ‘the devil’ as a kind of spiritual virus that could exist in anyone at any one time. In classic unseen-enemy fashion, those mandating conformity and obedience against evil were the agents of evil themselves.

While, in the case of the War on Terror, those vowing to take revenge on the hidden enemy that was threatening to undermine freedom and liberal values oversaw the gradual and ongoing erosion of the tradition of civil liberty in the West.

Regardless of whether the unseen enemy in its various forms exists or has existed, I find it hard to imagine an enemy so dangerous that it permits a relinquishing of basic civil liberties and totalitarian control, not even a hidden totalitarian government itself.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Dr. Jordan Peterson | Is Neo-Marxism on the rise?” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on September 11, 2020

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Dr. Jordan Peterson | Is Neo-Marxism on the rise?

Posted by M. C. on August 6, 2020

One gets the impression the answer is YES!


Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

bionic mosquito: The Ideal of Humility

Posted by M. C. on July 2, 2020

…in the West we have traded the Christian religion for the bastardized religion witnessed on the streets in the last month.

The whole secret of the practical success of Christendom lies in the Christian humility, however imperfectly fulfilled.

Heretics, Gilbert K. Chesterton (eBook)

In this chapter, Chesterton is examining H.G. Wells and his book, A Modern Utopia.

When one rids himself of the idea of merit – merit in the Christian sense – one frees himself for all possibilities: “…the soul is suddenly released for incredible voyages,” as Chesterton puts it. This humility – taking ourselves lightly, while seeing the possibility of unmerited triumphs – is taken by many as something sinister:

Humility is so practical a virtue that men think it must be a vice. Humility is so successful that it is mistaken for pride.

Humility is lost on the modern man – the man immersed in the scientism that has afflicted all of the globe. This causes him to look in all the wrong places:

He is still slightly affected with the great scientific fallacy; I mean the habit of beginning not with the human soul, which is the first thing a man learns about, but with some such thing as protoplasm, which is about the last.

There is so much in this one sentence. I will only summarize one aspect: we live in a story, not in the details of facts too trivial for the concern of most. People live in and act on a narrative, not in an idea – and for sure not in the most obscure and hidden reaches of an idea. If this isn’t obvious today – with the narrative of destruction and evil that turns ordinary men into sycophants demanding mask wearing and abnormal men into burning and looting everything in sight – then it will never be obvious.

Certainly for the new atheists – those like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett – the game is up. Religion (a narrative) is a permanent condition for humans – in the West we have traded the Christian religion for the bastardized religion witnessed on the streets in the last month.

What is left to us, therefore, is just one question: which, or what type, of religion. One that aims at peace – albeit, always moving in fits and starts – or one that aims to destroy. There will be no inventing a “religion that is not a religion” of peace. It is a hopeless and even futile quest. Why?

Ephesians 6: 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

I have been seeing this verse pop up a lot lately in the dialogue. I have been using it more often myself. If the last 125 years of history didn’t convince you that the powers we battle are both dark and spiritual, then hopefully the last 125 days finally has. If this doesn’t humble you – knowing where and what the battle is – nothing will. If it doesn’t cause you to understand where and how this fight must be fought, you deserve your fate.

Returning to Chesterton and those afflicted with the scientific fallacy:

In his new Utopia [Wells] says, for instance, that a chief point of the Utopia will be a disbelief in original sin.

Oh my. What a controversial term: “original sin.” I am fine if you choose a different term and a different way to describe the fallen nature of man – all men and all women. Pick any standard of “good” that you want, and then start explaining why no one meets it perfectly. In other words, whether one takes the concept to mean we are all damned because of Adam and Eve, or whether one believes we all, inherent in our nature, will fall short of a standard of good, you end up in the same place.

If he had begun with the human soul—that is, if he had begun on himself—he would have found original sin almost the first thing to be believed in.

Again, get past what you think you know about the term. We all fall short of the “good.” By focusing on protoplasm, we lose sight of the nature of man. This exposes completely the utopia of Progressivism based on scientism. They tell us that man is perfectible, and his perfection will be brought on by…man. Both parts of that sentence lead us to hell.

This utopian vision, Chesterton points out, is universal – therefore fully cosmopolitan. It is borderless and boundaryless in every sense of these words. All must be included; none may be excluded. Not excluded from your country, not excluded from your income and wealth, not excluded from your values, not excluded from your home, not excluded from your private life, not excluded from your body.

The only thing to be excluded is exclusion – in other words, no borders and no boundaries. (Watch this 18-minute video by Jonathan Pageau – it will be the best 18 minutes you spend on understanding the religiosity and symbolism and new world religion of inclusivity as demonstrated in the last four months of insanity.)

Which brings us back to the utopian vision of Wells. From the Wikipedia description of this utopia:

The world shares the same language, coinage, customs, and laws, and freedom of movement is general. Some personal property is allowed, but “all natural sources of force, and indeed all strictly natural products” are “inalienably vested in the local authorities” occupying “areas as large sometimes as half England.” The World State is “the sole landowner of the earth.” Units of currency are based on units of energy, so that “employment would constantly shift into the areas where energy was cheap.” Humanity has been almost entirely liberated from the need for physical labor: “There appears to be no limit to the invasion of life by the machine.”

The abolition of man. No boundaries, no borders. No one or no thing or no value or no idea may be excluded…except exclusion. As Chesterton describes it:

But I think the main mistake of Mr. Wells’s philosophy is a somewhat deeper one, one that he expresses in a very entertaining manner in the introductory part of the new Utopia. His philosophy in some sense amounts to a denial of the possibility of philosophy itself. At least, he maintains that there are no secure and reliable ideas upon which we can rest with a final mental satisfaction.

Then, citing Wells:

“Nothing endures, nothing is precise and certain (except the mind of a pedant) …. Being indeed! —there is no being, but a universal becoming of individualities, and Plato turned his back on truth when he turned towards his museum of specific ideals.”

“There is no abiding thing in what we know.”

Except, as Chesterton notes, the abiding thing we know that nothing is…abiding. It is true, Chesterton says, that the North Pole may be unattainable; but this doesn’t mean that the North Pole does not exist. (At the time of Chesterton’s writing, the physical North Pole had not been achieved, but I believe the metaphorical understanding of these words is more meaningful.)

Plato turns his back on Wells. It is true that manifest and material things change; what does not change is the abstract quality, the invisible idea. Plato’s Form of the Good.


Returning to humility…with this humility – a recognition of the unmerited, gaining merit only through the perfect sacrifice – comes the greatest courage:

It is only the last and wildest kind of courage that can stand on a tower before ten thousand people and tell them that twice two is four.

We need many such humble men and women today. Instead, the primary response when presented with evidence that contradicts the prevailing narrative is either a blank stare or a scream: “everybody’s doing it.”

Or a bullet. Jesus Christ, Plato’s Form of the Good made manifest as Aristotle demanded, showed the way – what was necessary. It’s scary, I know.

Jordan Peterson would respond when asked why he is speaking out on issues in a manner that offers him nothing but abuse in reply: Yes, there is a cost to speaking out; there is, at times, a greater cost not to speak out.

Now is most definitely one of those times.

Posted by

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rolling Stone: Men Who Abstain From Porn Are Dangerous Alt-Righters – The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on November 16, 2019

There’s a scene in The Big Lebowski in which The Dude bitterly objects that the pornographer Jackie Treehorn, viewed by the local sheriff as an upstanding citizen who “draws a lot of water” in Malibu, “treats objects like women, man.” Lazy, inarticulate stoner though The Dude may be, even he understands that porn is a shady business and that those who produce it are a detriment to society.

To read Rolling Stone, though, you’d think these people were providing a valuable public service. In a recent piece by EJ Dickson, the expert witness is Dr. David Ley, a “clinical psychologist and sex therapist” who “has partnered with the [pornographic] cam website Stripchat” to spread the word about “sexual health.” The story also includes interviews with the vice presidents of two different porn sites, an embedded tweet about the supposed health benefits of chronic masturbation, and—to wrap it up—a “comforting message” from an “adult performer and director.” They all want you to know that porn won’t hurt you or anyone else. After all, everyone is watching it.

A segment on Trevor Noah’s Daily Show takes it a step further, trotting out the same psychologist from the Rolling Stone piece to explain that porn and masturbation make “a lot of really good things happen in your body and your brain” and that “people who watch more pornography…are more feminist” and have “more egalitarian values.” The correspondent responds with a joke—delivered without a trace of self-awareness—about how watching a 95-on-1 gang bang made him realize that “women have it so hard.”

To the millions of Americans who struggle with porn addiction, to those raped and murdered by sexual sadists who cut their teeth on violent porn, to the sex trafficking victims coerced into porn, have no fear! Your sacrifice is not in vain; it will usher in a golden age of sex-positive emancipation!

But if the producers and consumers of pornography are so clearly dedicated to spreading sweetness and light in the world, what kind of monsters would oppose them?

According to Dickson, the enemy is anyone currently participating in #NoNutNovember, a viral internet challenge that encourages men to go 30 days without watching porn or masturbating. In what’s become a tell-tale sign that the hip vanguard of the cultural left’s late-stage sexual revolution feels threatened, Dickson lets us know, in no uncertain terms, that those who dare abstain from porn have embraced “the ideology…of the far right”: “anti-Semitism,” “homophobia,” “racism,” and “misogyny.” He even includes Ley’s “You know who else hated porn? Hitler!” argument and goes out of his way (and I mean waaaaaaay out of his way) to name drop Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos.

Both Rolling Stone and The Daily Show focus on debunking the supposed boost in virility that comes from semen retention (which, granted, is bunk) that motivates some #NoNutNovember-ers. But the extent to which both outlets ignore the obvious reality that most participants are driven primarily by a desire for self-control is staggering.

Ley actually criticizes Jordan Peterson (whom he calls “a leader in the alt-right movement in Canada”) for telling young men that “there is nothing noble about masturbating to pornography.”

“That’s noble! That’s healthy!” Ley insists. Dickson, meanwhile, reacts indignantly to the “Coomer” meme, an image used by #NoNutNovember participants to mock those who compulsively watch porn.

Really? Noble? If that’s the case, it’s a recent discovery. Throughout the ages, Christians and pagans, Easterners and Westerners, philosophers and poets—and yes, even the hedonists, most of whom had some standards and would have sought out heartier fare than the low-hanging junk food of smartphone porn—have agreed that the uninhibited indulgence of sexual desire makes one not only weak but contemptible…

Fortunately, this attempt to create a society in which self-discipline is vilified is doomed to failure. Aristotle understood this when he insisted that the well-ordered, virtuous individual of the Ethics must precede the well-ordered state of the Politics. Self-control makes strong men. Self-indulgence makes weak men. Strong men make good citizens. Weak men make good slaves. Strong men are capable of doing harm. Weak men are incapable of doing anything else.

Be seeing you


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment » Are Marxists Motivated By Love Or Hate?

Posted by M. C. on November 24, 2018

Great comment: Capitalism makes people richer, communism makes people dead. Exactly the opposite of what the Marxists promise.

Jordan Peterson

This tells you why the state media and educational system hate this guy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »