Is it safe to speak?

semper occultus
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by semper occultus » Sun Aug 20, 2017 5:01 pm

pretty interesting state-of-the-nation post by Chris Knowles :

http://secretsun.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08 ... story.html

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by C_D » Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:21 pm

^ I had literally just had a look at that before I came here to see your link.

It's pretty heartening to see other people having their moments of realisation. Knowles is a real deep burrower, he's like a jack russell down a rabbithole. It's equally heartening to realise that as much as the control system has played a quite brilliant game on the minds of 'the left' - turning them into willing foot soldiers for the Systems' own ends - which has lead to, paradoxically, having to expose it's control mechanisms to far greater scrutiny by those that haven't succumbed to the overarching societal pressures of conformity. There are a lot of shocks in store for those with the eyes to see, as the System becomes increasingly transparent.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by C_D » Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:57 am


User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by C_D » Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:53 am


from 45s on

Some may call him brave, some may call him stoopid. There are no centrists allowed.
I particularly liked the yell from one of The Divine Wind of Antifa operatives who forgets where he is and who he is amongst and shouts "Take your fucking pants off, you transgender fucking..." as a biting quip at the size and masculinity of this guy - everyone looks around to see who said it, can't tell, so just carry on. It's ok if one of your own slips up occassionally.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by jakell » Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:41 am

The Boston protest was a piece of massive overshoot for antifa types and those in their orbit. Apparently there were only about 36 'free speechers', and one of the speakers was an Indian guy who was there to speak about abortion (I think), he still got called a 'Nazi' though. There were thousands of protesters.
A report I've heard states that, in the absence of Alt-Righters, or even assertive alt-liters. a number of protesters turned on the police. This is not inconsistent though as antifa make plain their opposition to police (when they're not setting them on fire).

semper occultus
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by semper occultus » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:19 pm

Greek cartoons rejected from EU exhibition entitled 'EU turns 60: A Cartoon Party’ slapped with a post-it note of death

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... ne-Bearder

Image

Image

Image

presumably this should show GB in a Morris Minor driving in the opposite direction with the Cabinet fighting over the road-map

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by C_D » Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:19 pm

presumably this should show GB in a Morris Minor driving in the opposite direction with the Cabinet fighting over the road-map
LOL!

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by Pauli137 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:42 pm

I didn't know where else to post this, so I placed it in this thread.

Had an interesting discussion today with my spouse about pronouns. We now have a woman in our outer social circle who insists on being referred to by "they/their/them" pronouns, which sparked the question, "where did this come from?"

I pointed out that part of this phenomenon is a generous, benevolent impulse to promote a form of "equality", even if it confuses equality-of-opportunity with equality-of-outcome and denies the reality of gender differences. If you are naively concerned that women are treated unequally in every sphere because of gender, then it may seem reasonable to try to erase gender schema entirely from social discourse. I also pointed out that recognizing obvious statistical differences in gender behavior (and consequent social roles) is very different from enforcing them, but again there is confusion, this time a conflation of recognition with enforcement. However, do men really enjoy more power than women? Perhaps, in the business sphere, but this ignores the tremendous power that women wield in the emotional and sexual spheres - spheres that we are not allowed to recognize. If men largely experience the world from a perspective of sexual scarcity, then it is because men are considered lesser creatures in thrall to sexual urges. And here we see another contradiction: feminism promotes the idea of female moral superiority (largely on the basis of this idea that men are prone to sex and violence) while simultaneously denying the value of qualities that are traditionally considered feminine (empathy, compassion, nuturing, etc.) How many times are we told that women must be strong and powerful?

This brings us to the transgender phenomenon. We are told to accept the idea that an individual can be born in a body that has the wrong sex. In other words, the "I" that is housed in a specific body is intrinsically gendered in a way that is at odds with the genetics and morphology of that body. How can this be, unless there is an aspect of mind and personality that is not embodied, i.e. nonphysical? But the people who aggressively promote transgender ideology are usually the same people who deny the reality of a nonphysical spirit. OK, maybe we can fall back on neurobiology, i.e. a transgender individual is one whose pattern of neural connectivity differs from the plumbing typically associated with that connectivity. But if we are to believe this, we have to accept a distinction (at least statistical) in neural connectivity between men and women -- an idea that the far left will not entertain. The next fall back position is one of personal freedom: whatever the ultimate cause of an individual's transgender experience, that individual, as owner of their own body, should be allowed to make whatever changes to their own body they deem necessary. But if a transgender individual is empowered to make such changes, shouldn't another individual be empowered to reject any linguistic injunction on the use of specific pronouns? And if it's choice-based, at what age is one considered sufficiently mature to make such a life-altering decision?

There aren't any consistent answers to these questions. Most people won't ask them, and well-meaning people will go along with it all in the name of compassion. The problem is that the erasure of gender is tied to the more insidious phenomenon of erasing intimacy. When we erase intimacy, we erase the social glue that holds us together, creating isolated individuals and an atomized society. Qui bono?

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by jakell » Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:43 pm

As this thread started with Jordan Peterson it seems apt to continue with him.

I thought by now that he was out of the woods regarding direct harrassment, but it seems he is still being targeted by some people who appear to be local (to Toronto). This poster includes similar allegations and guilt-by-associations as the piece he describes at the start of the 'Not Charlottesville' thread, but the anonymity here means he will not have the same recourse, no matter how dogged he is.
From the quality of the poster** it seems that funds and resources are available to the harrasers that surpass that of a casual 'whip-around', and the usual suspects of antifa et al come to mind. There was also sustained and successful campaign by SJW busybodies concerning a Canadian conference he would have been attending this summer, so I will use the hybrid term that I have coined.. 'antifa-lite'.



Whether this becomes a sustained campaign remains to be seen but I suspect that Peterson's continuing popularity and influence makes him a priority target to 'antifascists', especially now they've made a start with this.

** TBH, I'm not sure of the ease with which such posters are produced but the 70's/80's 'punk fanzine' style actually appears contrived to me ie, it's trying to appear low rent.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by jakell » Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:31 am

Pauli137 wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:42 pm
I didn't know where else to post this, so I placed it in this thread.

Had an interesting discussion today with my spouse about pronouns. We now have a woman in our outer social circle who insists on being referred to by "they/their/them" pronouns, which sparked the question, "where did this come from?"

I pointed out that part of this phenomenon is a generous, benevolent impulse to promote a form of "equality", even if it confuses equality-of-opportunity with equality-of-outcome and denies the reality of gender differences. If you are naively concerned that women are treated unequally in every sphere because of gender, then it may seem reasonable to try to erase gender schema entirely from social discourse. I also pointed out that recognizing obvious statistical differences in gender behavior (and consequent social roles) is very different from enforcing them, but again there is confusion, this time a conflation of recognition with enforcement. However, do men really enjoy more power than women? Perhaps, in the business sphere, but this ignores the tremendous power that women wield in the emotional and sexual spheres - spheres that we are not allowed to recognize. If men largely experience the world from a perspective of sexual scarcity, then it is because men are considered lesser creatures in thrall to sexual urges. And here we see another contradiction: feminism promotes the idea of female moral superiority (largely on the basis of this idea that men are prone to sex and violence) while simultaneously denying the value of qualities that are traditionally considered feminine (empathy, compassion, nuturing, etc.) How many times are we told that women must be strong and powerful?

This brings us to the transgender phenomenon. We are told to accept the idea that an individual can be born in a body that has the wrong sex. In other words, the "I" that is housed in a specific body is intrinsically gendered in a way that is at odds with the genetics and morphology of that body. How can this be, unless there is an aspect of mind and personality that is not embodied, i.e. nonphysical? But the people who aggressively promote transgender ideology are usually the same people who deny the reality of a nonphysical spirit. OK, maybe we can fall back on neurobiology, i.e. a transgender individual is one whose pattern of neural connectivity differs from the plumbing typically associated with that connectivity. But if we are to believe this, we have to accept a distinction (at least statistical) in neural connectivity between men and women -- an idea that the far left will not entertain. The next fall back position is one of personal freedom: whatever the ultimate cause of an individual's transgender experience, that individual, as owner of their own body, should be allowed to make whatever changes to their own body they deem necessary. But if a transgender individual is empowered to make such changes, shouldn't another individual be empowered to reject any linguistic injunction on the use of specific pronouns? And if it's choice-based, at what age is one considered sufficiently mature to make such a life-altering decision?

There aren't any consistent answers to these questions. Most people won't ask them, and well-meaning people will go along with it all in the name of compassion. The problem is that the erasure of gender is tied to the more insidious phenomenon of erasing intimacy. When we erase intimacy, we erase the social glue that holds us together, creating isolated individuals and an atomized society. Qui bono?
Your post here intersects with my mentioning of Jordan Peterson above (pronoun insistence is the source of his present popularity and notoriety), and the topic of (neuro)biology intersects with my mention of James Damore earlier in this thread. Damore didn't enter transgender territory though, it seems that discussing the male/female dynamic was enough to bring the roof down upon his head.

I think you are being too kind in connecting the manic insistence on radically new gender pronouns to a benevolent impulse, this connection has been used in the past and now I think it is being taken advantage of. A great deal of liberal values are being taken advantage of to breaking point and the standard impulse is to capitulate to every single one in the hope that people will eventually be sated and leave one alone. This has been going fine until someone like Jordan Peterson stands up to it, or Bret Weinstein and then we see the sustained howls of rage and disbelief. Damore's experience was less visceral due to being a back-room guy who wrote a 'memo' and that his termination didn't affect anyone but himself.

When the (radical) transgender issue first surfaced, which was not long ago as far as I can see, I saw it as something new and not as a continuation of the basket of issues that uses the advances made by Third Wave Feminism (plus intersectionality) as its base. It pretends to be from the same stable, but I see it as something that is not trying to extend/test the boundaries, but to break them, in the same way that transhumanism is hoping to break boundaries.. a proposed leap away from human physical and cognitive limitations that, in the conscious/material realm rests upon science fiction and, in the more spiritual realm taps into age old religiosity.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by jakell » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:54 pm

A drawn-out smackdown from the halls of academia, and this was literally 'out in the hall'. I expect that most students buckle under this sort of pressure, which probably gives these PC bullies their confidence/arrogance, but this one stood his ground as much as possible..maybe he'll be another Damore when he gets older. He recorded the conversation so an accurate transcript is available.
I especially like how this student holds the philosophy professor to the rigour of her own discipline, and finds her wanting.

There's an article about this that includes the transcript but here's 'The Britisher' relaying it beautifully in the first part of this video:



(It seems it was not safe for him to speak)

User avatar
deep state
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:38 pm

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by deep state » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:57 am

Pauli137 wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:42 pm
I didn't know where else to post this, so I placed it in this thread.

Had an interesting discussion today with my spouse about pronouns. We now have a woman in our outer social circle who insists on being referred to by "they/their/them" pronouns, which sparked the question, "where did this come from?"

I pointed out that part of this phenomenon is a generous, benevolent impulse to promote a form of "equality", even if it confuses equality-of-opportunity with equality-of-outcome and denies the reality of gender differences. If you are naively concerned that women are treated unequally in every sphere because of gender, then it may seem reasonable to try to erase gender schema entirely from social discourse. I also pointed out that recognizing obvious statistical differences in gender behavior (and consequent social roles) is very different from enforcing them, but again there is confusion, this time a conflation of recognition with enforcement. However, do men really enjoy more power than women? Perhaps, in the business sphere, but this ignores the tremendous power that women wield in the emotional and sexual spheres - spheres that we are not allowed to recognize. If men largely experience the world from a perspective of sexual scarcity, then it is because men are considered lesser creatures in thrall to sexual urges. And here we see another contradiction: feminism promotes the idea of female moral superiority (largely on the basis of this idea that men are prone to sex and violence) while simultaneously denying the value of qualities that are traditionally considered feminine (empathy, compassion, nuturing, etc.) How many times are we told that women must be strong and powerful?

This brings us to the transgender phenomenon. We are told to accept the idea that an individual can be born in a body that has the wrong sex. In other words, the "I" that is housed in a specific body is intrinsically gendered in a way that is at odds with the genetics and morphology of that body. How can this be, unless there is an aspect of mind and personality that is not embodied, i.e. nonphysical? But the people who aggressively promote transgender ideology are usually the same people who deny the reality of a nonphysical spirit. OK, maybe we can fall back on neurobiology, i.e. a transgender individual is one whose pattern of neural connectivity differs from the plumbing typically associated with that connectivity. But if we are to believe this, we have to accept a distinction (at least statistical) in neural connectivity between men and women -- an idea that the far left will not entertain. The next fall back position is one of personal freedom: whatever the ultimate cause of an individual's transgender experience, that individual, as owner of their own body, should be allowed to make whatever changes to their own body they deem necessary. But if a transgender individual is empowered to make such changes, shouldn't another individual be empowered to reject any linguistic injunction on the use of specific pronouns? And if it's choice-based, at what age is one considered sufficiently mature to make such a life-altering decision?

There aren't any consistent answers to these questions. Most people won't ask them, and well-meaning people will go along with it all in the name of compassion. The problem is that the erasure of gender is tied to the more insidious phenomenon of erasing intimacy. When we erase intimacy, we erase the social glue that holds us together, creating isolated individuals and an atomized society. Qui bono?
This was a pleasure to read; I don't have anything particular to add to it, having written a long piece on these and other questions some time back, but just wanted to say that. The piece I wrote had its genesis over at The Other Place, because of course, over there, the practice of doublethink, newspeak, and thought-stoppage has become quite prolific, and that forced me to come up with questions and arguments to expose the social machinery of (let's say) "psychic colonization via ideological narratives that lack internal cohesion" (aka, crazy-making). The trouble over here may be the reverse of what it is over there, being that we all more or less agree that the Trans-A-Gender has some damn sinister roots to it, so there's little or no friction to spark (that sort of fiery) debate....

Actually, I am not sure even how to play devil's advocate with this question if i wanted to. But I have former friends (cough cough diet soap cough) who are now firmly on the other side of a divide than the side I find myself on, without ever wanting to pick a side, at all. This divide has opened so rapidly that it can only have already been there, like an unseen tunnel being dug beneath the surface of social relations, just waiting to open up under our feet.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by jakell » Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:11 pm

deep state wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:57 am
This was a pleasure to read; I don't have anything particular to add to it, having written a long piece on these and other questions some time back, but just wanted to say that. The piece I wrote had its genesis over at The Other Place, because of course, over there, the practice of doublethink, newspeak, and thought-stoppage has become quite prolific, and that forced me to come up with questions and arguments to expose the social machinery of (let's say) "psychic colonization via ideological narratives that lack internal cohesion" (aka, crazy-making). The trouble over here may be the reverse of what it is over there, being that we all more or less agree that the Trans-A-Gender has some damn sinister roots to it, so there's little or no friction to spark (that sort of fiery) debate....
More importantly than being prolific (taking a wider view than just one forum) which could be put down to intellectual fads, I would say they have become ingrained, most conspiracy theory tends to take the old top-down view where control is exerted from a particular location but, allowing that those top-down folks had some intelligence, they will have developed ways of encouraging people to police each other in a way that is not so noticeable (because it seems to be everywhere), and getting into education and higher institutions one method of doing that if one has patience.
Patience is a key word here because most people take the short view (we live short lives) and one way to appreciate the longer view is to tap into feelings of religiosity. Of course, in these modern times, religions are regarded by a lot of thinkers as moribund, but ideologies can be a back door to religiosity if played right.
Actually, I am not sure even how to play devil's advocate with this question if i wanted to. But I have former friends (cough cough diet soap cough) who are now firmly on the other side of a divide than the side I find myself on, without ever wanting to pick a side, at all. This divide has opened so rapidly that it can only have already been there, like an unseen tunnel being dug beneath the surface of social relations, just waiting to open up under our feet.
I don't think this can be picked apart at present, it's in the early stages and IMO the best option is to let it play out some more** Like yourself I regarded the sudden prominence of transgender issues as very suspect and a break from the already destructive ideas of intersectionality .. Third-Wave feminism being the top-dog, it seems on the surface that Marxism is eating itself but I 'm wondering if this is the case because we've seen this manouevre before: Marxism was pretty solid (and simpler) when it restricted itself to the idea of class conflict, so when intersectionality moved the ideology into some very new areas some will have thought this self-destructive, whereas in fact it has metastasised into many more arenas, most importantly the academic one.
Here again we see something that seems to undermine some of the recently established power bases of Leftist identity politics, but it might be worth considering that this is another move from behind the scenes to keep things fluid as power bases can become problematic.

I still consider the possibility that these Trans issues are simply overshoot, a testing of the boundaries of the possible by incautious minds. In traditional boundary-testing though there has always been something capable of pushing back but I believe that nowadays that thing has been compromised, so we may be on the verge of something unpredictable in the short term.


** There's that patience again.

User avatar
deep state
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:38 pm

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by deep state » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:36 pm

jakell wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:11 pm
More importantly than being prolific (taking a wider view than just one forum) which could be put down to intellectual fads, I would say they have become ingrained
I almost used the word endemic.
jakell wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:11 pm
most conspiracy theory tends to take the old top-down view where control is exerted from a particular location but, allowing that those top-down folks had some intelligence, they will have developed ways of encouraging people to police each other in a way that is not so noticeable (because it seems to be everywhere), and getting into education and higher institutions one method of doing that if one has patience.
This is something I've been trying to get at and speaks again to the idea of ideologies being manufactured as a way to create (false) narratives that force perceptions and insights to conform to them, and so become distorted and impractical. It's similar to how I imagine irrigation works: creating grooves that guarantee water will flow in certain patterns. In this case the water = people's feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. The grooves = ideological narratives. As to what's being irrigated, presumably the Garden of Earthly Delights that's open only to the Elite.
jakell wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:11 pm
Patience is a key word here because most people take the short view (we live short lives) and one way to appreciate the longer view is to tap into feelings of religiosity. Of course, in these modern times, religions are regarded by a lot of thinkers as moribund, but ideologies can be a back door to religiosity if played right.
And feelings of religiosity (i.e, that pertain to the long view) are unequaled as motivational tools. People's thoughts, feeling, and behaviors will be massively more charged when they are triggered by fears and hopes around the eternal. Or to put it differently, these feelings are always going to be sourced in primal, preverbal modes of being - unconscious/archetypal /infantile perceptual (and affective) realms. Hence "fragmented mythologies."
jakell wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:11 pm
Like yourself I regarded the sudden prominence of transgender issues as very suspect and a break from the already destructive ideas of intersectionality ..
I had to look that word up. For those, like me, who remain unversed in the lingo of neolib:
Intersectionality is the idea that social identities, related systems of oppression, domination, or discrimination, and multiple group identities intersect to create a whole that is different from the component identities. These aspects of identity are not "unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but rather ... reciprocally constructing phenomena".[1] The theory proposes that individuals think of each element or trait of a person as inextricably linked with all of the other elements in order to fully understand one's identity.[2] The term was coined by the American feminist legal scholar, critical race theorist, and civil rights advocate Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw.

This framework, it is argued by its proponents, can be used to understand systemic injustice and social inequality in many ways.[3] Proponents claim that racism, sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and religious or other belief-based bigotry and persecution—do not act independently of each other. Instead, these forms of oppression interrelate, creating a system of oppression that reflects the "intersection" of multiple forms of discrimination.[4]

Under this hypothesis, identities usually are not addressed or mapped out in normal social discourses and often come with their own set of oppression, domination, and discrimination. Laws and policies usually only address one form of marginalized identity. The overlapping of multiple oppressed identities often go overlooked. Since these identities are ignored, there is a lack of resources needed to combat the discrimination, and the oppression is cyclically perpetuated.[5]
jakell wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:11 pm
I still consider the possibility that these Trans issues are simply overshoot, a testing of the boundaries of the possible by incautious minds. In traditional boundary-testing though there has always been something capable of pushing back but I believe that nowadays that thing has been compromised, so we may be on the verge of something unpredictable in the short term.
Divide & conquer seems to be the principal at work. That part at least is fairly predictable. What I see is people who have a prior investment in an ideological narrative that goes so far back and so deep that their sense of identity depends on sticking to it. They/we are like the protagonists of a movie, a hero on a revenge mission, for example, who in any other context would be just another psycho. Then, over time, like turning up the heat in a lobster pot, the plotline ( ideological narrative) becomes increasingly outre and irrational, until it eventually jumps the shark altogether, taken all those previously invested identities along for the ride.
*madtroll*

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by jakell » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:03 pm

"Intersectionality" as a dry concept seems pretty harmless and even interesting, out in the wild though it has been the engine behind a potentially limitless amount of imaginary microagressions that has resulted in the SJW phenomena and up to the present experiment with trans-issues possibly being the one that trumps the previous ones.

Ironically it was third wave feminism that started using the concept with gusto and now feminism is being undermined by trans-men wanting to be included in their women-only spaces (sometimes involving violent confrontation).

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by Pauli137 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:05 pm

I still think this is mostly being adopted (though not necessarily promoted) by generous and compassionate people that want to do the "right thing".

And, really, I think it's helpful to distinguish between fighting people from fighting messages. I don't have anything against transgendered individuals. I don't claim to understand the phenomenon -- I tend to think that the self-mutilation entailed by gender reassignment leads to poorer integration into society and hence greater unhappiness -- but then there are aspects of my life that evade some others' understanding and could be open to those others' judgment and scorn.

However, I do think the wider message is harmful: that any cognitive or behavioral variance from the collective gender schema requires surgical intervention. This actually reverses the gains made by gay or gender non-conforming individuals over the past few decades. What I particularly find insidious and disturbing is the push to encourage adolescents and even young children to adopt the label of transgender. If a child is unable to consent to sex or other potentially harmful behavior (alcohol and tobacco use) then how could a child possibly consent to life-altering and more-or-less irreversible medical treatment?

On Reddit, I see people suggesting that this may be the point, or rather its contrapositive: if children can choose their gender, then maybe they can consent to sex? I.e., a backdoor to normalizing pedophilia. And then I also see a suggestion that the transgender phenomenon is liked with transhumanism. I assume you've seen the young guy who is gradually altering himself to become an "alien"?

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by jakell » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:30 am

Following on from my above post concerning Jordan Peterson's current harrassment (a poster campaign this time, not just verbal or online stuff) , calling him a nazi philosopher and associating him with the Alt-Right, he seems to be concerned about this becoming physical. In the following podcast, when asked about security at an upcoming Free Speech event on Nov 11, he seems to indicate that this might be a bit more grave** than his standard demeanour suggests. It's a fairly brief moment, but it's there (@3:16:45)
(can't get link here to go to correct time, so go manually to it)



This is a long podcast and ranges from some humdrum stuff to pretty heavy musings, the early ones concerning good/evil and our personal relationship to it would be good basic material for the Light and Dark thread here.
Relating to the recent material here, it's notable how Peterson's relatively recent prominence is related to hysteria surrounding the pushing of trans-issues, possibly this recent poster campaign is a rerun of that. I'd put the visceral hatred of someone like Peterson in the same basket as those who want to hurt Tim Pool, I wonder how many will look away if this comes about, thinking that they probably 'had it coming'.

** If Jocko and co are on Peterson's side, that would be a crumb of comfort.

ETA: He's speaking of the upcoming event here

User avatar
deep state
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:38 pm

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by deep state » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:28 pm

Like all propagandists, the apostles of tolerance, truth to tell, are very often the most intolerant of men. This is in fact what happened, and it is strangely ironical: those who wished to overthrow all dogma have created for their own use, we will not say a new dogma, but a caricature of a dogma, which they have succeeded in imposing [on the western world in general]; in this way there have been established, under the pretext of “freedom of thought”, the most chimerical beliefs that have ever been seen at any time, under the form of [ . . . ] different idols.
René Guénon, East & West.
Front piece to Ideology of Tyranny by Guido Preparata.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by jakell » Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:38 pm

A great many people by now will be familiar with Lindsay Shepherd's travails triggered by her using a clip of Jordan Peterson in a grammar class.

The whole subsequent dressing down** of her by her 'superiors' is available here, and a lot of comments about this seem shocked as if it's pretty dramatic. What strikes me though is how low-energy (considering the responses) the whole thing is and, to my mind, this demonstrates how multi-layered the invasion of academic institutions is.
This reminds me of observations I used to make concerning the Left's attitude to the far right, how they repeatedly regarded them as low-brow knuckledraggers, something that has backfired on them somewhat. There's probably a danger of doing this in reverse by regarding the Marxist occupation of academia as one-dimensional, something that is reinforced by the loud and emotional SJW's who are usually in the forefront. This interview is a peek behind those frontlines.
I suspect that the 'superiors' here are used to (eventually) submissive students but it seems they have a procedure for those who dig their feet in somewhat, and that is to do a 'slow-burn' where they repeatedly go over the material from several angles, reassuring the victim (and each other - very important I believe) that they are rational and compassionate. I find this scarier than the screaming swarming SJW approach and it seems designed to produce capitulation through a combination of fatigue and persuasion. I get the feeling that the 'superiors' here could have gone on for much longer than this if they had anticipated that Lindsay would be a tough nut to crack.

Sargon has done a decent breakdown of the interview but he does jump around in it a bit and to appreciate that 'slow-burn' it pays to listen to the original in real-time. The latter part of his video (25m onwards) is a recap of the more strident side of the 'social justice' movement going back to 2015, plus its links to academic 'elders'.



** not dissimilar to that received by the student in my previous post

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Is it safe to speak?

Post by C_D » Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:47 pm

^
There's no reasoning with this 'superior' mind-set. They are shut off from any criticism or non-compliance - and even find discussion about these matters distasteful. There is no discussion - it's just do as we say. They are persistant, I'll give them that.
I've become increasingly convinced that sooner or later, everyone will have to decide what kind of existence they wish to live - and then have to fight for it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jakell and 2 guests