Yesterday I watched a video by Prof Jordan Peterson talking about his recent attempt to talk at a meeting arranged by some university students at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It was disrupted by other students of the Social Justice Warrior bent. They shouted him down, used air horns and wouldn't allow him to be heard by the people who had invited him and wanted to hear what he had to say. You could not get a clearer denial of the right to free speech.
These SJW's were encouraged, at least, if not organised by, members of various University bodies, the status quo, at the University. These University people then sent an unsigned letter to Prof Peterson maligning him. This prompted Jordan Peterson to make the video below.
The letter is a long stream of unsubstantiated, value laden statements and logical fallacies. There is no attempt at constructing an argument: no facts, no logic; just bad rhetoric. And by bad rhetoric, I mean sophistry as in lack of coherence in an apparent attempt to deceive.
I had intended to deconstruct the narrative within the University letter but this morning I saw that Sargon of Akkad has saved me the trouble and had done a masterful job of doing this already, exposing it's nonsense line by line. His video is embedded below, as well.
Jordan Peterson exposes it for the basic contradictions within the letter and also within the philosophy of these types of people (having had much to do with them in his own university). Sargon takes apart the logical fallacies in a detailed manner and is instructive in the use and misuse of logic; a skill not taught in school nor in universities any more, it seems.
I'll include some of my own thoughts after the videos which are basically extensions of the critiques of universities by Jordan Peterson and Sargon. I'll also include thoughts on Social Justice Warriors in general and how we can make some sense of, and begin to deal with, these expensively educated idiots.
"Go ahead, make my day...."
(the beginning and ending is a little cheesey )
"The Social Justice War against Jordan Peterson"
(It seems that I am unable to embed the videos at this time but they can be viewed by clicking the live links immediately above.)
Centuries ago, Universities were instituted to give the sons of the ruling class a Classic Education. This was an “Arts” education. This is the traditional core of universities. The education of the professions from law to engineering to accounting were the province of the professions themselves and were not traditionally part of the university.
The Classic Education consisted of the study of the classic languages and literature of Greek and Latin and focused more broadly on philosophy, literature and mathematics. There are various categories of philosophy and various schools of philosophy within those categories. But before they can meaningfully understand and discuss them, the student needs to know how to think; how to employ logic. Even in my day as a young man, say 40 years ago, an Arts degree majoring in philosophy was seen by many employers as a very valuable asset because the graduate would be seen as someone who could think logically and analytically and would therefore be an excellent problem solver. The fundamental business of business is solving problems.
Today, if I was an employer, I would avoid an Arts graduate like the plague itself because today's Arts graduates demonstrably cannot think and it is because the universities have become Cultural Marxist/Postmodernist indoctrination camps just as Prof. Jordan Peterson claims. The evidence is in the videos above.
Cultural Marxists and Postmodernists are diametrically opposed to the use of logic because their philosophies are illogical. They fly in the face of Natural Law. The ability to think logically is natural to human beings. Some people are naturally better at it than others, as with any skill. All benefit, though, from some instruction and training in the mechanics and use of logic.
Why do we as humans have this ability to think logically? Because it is critical to determine the truth of the environment around us whether that is physical or social. Why do we need to know the truth of our environment? To survive.
You cannot, as an individual or as an ethnicity or as a species, survive for long in an environment that you do not understand. How else are you going to avoid fatal mistakes?
Tribal societies have not only been the norm for 99% of human history, they have survived in often hostile environments. They have been very successful and we know this because we as a species would not exist today if these tribal societies were not supremely successful and endured.
They employed inductive logic in observing their environment, recognising patterns and conceptualising what they were witnessing. Concepts were formed and these concepts were tested for verity, cause and effect, and if found durable and did not contradict previous tried and tested concepts were incorporated into the collective knowledge and wisdom of the tribe. If there were contradictions with the existing knowledge, then those contradictions would be investigated until they were resolved.
We recognise this same process today as the classic scientific method and its purpose is to lead to truth. The English Classic (Arts) Education mirrored this process by teaching "The Trivium" of Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric. Grammar was where you collected your facts using discrimination for patterns, relevance and consistency. Logic is where you made sense of these facts and patterns by arranging them and testing them for causality and consistency. This process results in concepts being formed. Concepts could be built upon one another to form an hierarchy of concepts. A body of Law, a particular philosophy and a motorcar are all examples of hierarchies of concepts.
With a thorough understanding of these concepts, comes the challenge of passing on this knowledge in an efficient and understandable way so that the recipient, be it an individual or a generation, does not have to labour through the whole process themselves; so they do not have to continually 're-invent the wheel'. This is then called Rhetoric. It is the art of passing on a complex truth or wisdom in a non-contradictory and condensed yet comprehensive and actionable way.
This teaching or truth, the philosophy of truth, so crucial to our survival is no longer done.
Professor Jordan Peterson has said that he thinks that the universities do more harm than good in this day and age. I would agree. They not only teach nonsense but they inhibit the teaching and advancement of logic and truth. They are a menace to society and have become cuckolds, the cuckoos in the nest of learning.
So that's the universities. What to make of these Social Justice Warriors (SJW's)? What I have noticed is their uncanny resemblance to the behaviour of psychopaths and narcissists.
Vox Day has written a book entitled “Social Justice Warriors Always Lie”. I have not read this book, though, from the reviews, it is very instructive and valuable book. What is of note to me is the title; it is a truism.
Why do they lie? They are narcissists and narcissists always lie, one way or another.
They are also advancing a political agenda which they seem unaware of. How is that? Well, they are useful idiots and that is plainly evident. Who are they useful for? The Psychopaths. These are the people organising, indoctrinating and using them and then hiding behind these idiots. Psychopaths are cowards and like to stay unidentified in the background. Note the unsigned letter to Jordan Peterson which obviously also had the unstated imprimatur of the university administration.
So how can we use this knowledge of the fact that they always lie?
I am reminded of a riddle. A man goes to a resort island and is advised not to wander off beyond the resort's perimeter. He is told only that the island is home to two native tribes, one of which always tells the truth and the other always tells lies.
Anyway, the man can't contain his curiosity and goes exploring. Pretty soon he gets lost and is wandering along a trail when he comes to a fork in the path. At the fork is a man who is obviously a native of the island. But which tribe does he belong to? How can the man tell?
The riddle is that the man is allowed to ask one question to identify the fork that leads back to the resort. What is that question?
I'll include the answer at the bottom of the post for those who would like to take up the challenge and ponder the riddle.
So we know that SJW's always lie but can we make this knowledge useful and actionable? The key comes from the study of psychopaths and narcissists. If you know how to listen to them, these liars will always tell you the truth about themselves.
If a psychopath or narcissist is talking about themselves then they are lying, of course. So reverse everything they say about themselves 180 degrees and you will have the truth 99 times out of 100.
When they are talking about others they are telling the truth but not about the others; they are telling the truth about themselves. They project themselves onto others and so are actually describing themselves. They do this because they have no connection to other people and so cannot imagine what it is like for someone else. They cannot imagine what it is like to feel connected to other people; they cannot imagine what it is like to feel empathy or shame. They can only project themselves onto the other person who is not doing what they want and they can only project their own limited consciousness. SJW's exhibit exactly the same behaviour. They always project themselves onto others.
So if you re-read the letter that Jordan Peterson received from the SJW's at McMaster University (by watching either one or both of the videos or from the link to the text pdf), you can read/hear the truth about the authors of that letter directly from themselves because they can only talk about themselves.
Nearly forgot! The answer to the riddle is, "Which fork would a member of the other tribe tell me to take to get back to the resort?" Either way, whether the man was asking a truth teller or a liar, the answer would be the wrong way. So the man would take the opposite fork to the answer he was given.
Correct solutions need to be correct at every step of the chain of logic or calculation. An incorrect solution need only to be incorrect at one of many the steps to be wrong. One broken link makes for a broken chain. Either the man was talking to a liar who would lie about what the truth teller would say or he was talking to a truth teller accurately describing the answer of a liar. Either way, the man, by the way he has framed his question, has included a lie as a factor in the calculation of the answer and therefore the answer must be wrong.
Any ideology that is based on a false premise, such as there is no difference between the sexes or that human relationships are all reducible to power relationships (as Cultural or Neo-Marxism and Postmodernism do), will only give you false answers.
Enough false answers will get you killed in this objective reality of ours.
Once you identify a liar, never take their word for anything and stop engaging with or dealing with them. They will always betray their word and/or betray you.