Free AI web copilot to create summaries, insights and extended knowledge, download it at here

Abstract

ing the media world in a fairly unique and trusting way for months now. Most public figures in his position have people advising them on media strategy, what to say, and what not to say — how to frame things so you are not misquoted. Which interviews to take on and which to refuse. Moreover, probably not to allow two solid days behind the scenes to someone who you think may have an agenda.As far as I can tell, he doesn’t have this and has embraced and is fully living out his own dictum — “speak the truth and let the pieces fall where they may”.So far speaking the truth has worked out well for him — he was lucky that Channel 4 News put up the Cathy Newman interview unedited — a decision I’m sure that they quickly regretted. This New York Times piece feels different — that it will solidify impressions of him on either side.“Bad faith changes everything”As Eric Weinstein, Bret’s brother, and another member of the unofficial ‘intellectual dark web’ said — “bad faith changes everything”. It’s possible to have any kind of discussion with people you disagree with so long as they are approaching it in good faith — as soon as they are not, they’re just looking to boost their position, look good in front of others or advance their career within their tribe — as Peterson alleged Cathy Newman was — then true exchange of ideas is impossible.I would argue that this journalist is indeed acting in bad faith. Some of the misrepresentations cannot be put down to simple misunderstanding.The piece of the interview that has been seized upon is this:<blockquote id="f129">“Recently, a young man named Alek Minassian drove through Toronto trying to kill people with his van. Ten were killed, and he has been charged with first-degree murder for their deaths, and with attempted murder for 16 people who were injured. Mr. Minassian declared himself to be part of a misogynist group whose members call themselves incels. The term is short for “involuntary celibates,” though the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people — some celibate, some not — who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights. Some believe in forced “sexual redistribution,” in which a governing body would intervene in women’s lives to force them into sexual relationships.</blockquote><blockquote id="8111">Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.</blockquote><blockquote id="005a">“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”</blockquote><blockquote id="f00b">Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.”</blockquote>The framing of it makes it sound like he’s advocating for some kind of “government/state enforced” monogamy — which is malicious. He — as anyone who has been listening to his lectures will tell you — is making a more subtle point.That monogamy is an evolved trait to stabilise societies — it’s “enforced” only as a social rule. Many societies in the past have had polygamy or other situations where a small number of men had access to many women (as do many animal societies), and that proved to be unstable and a bad long term solution to social harmony.So in this argument, the reason that monogamy evolves (and is socially enforced) is to avoid the kind of situation where you end up with too many bitter young men wanting to tear things down. Which — whether you agree with his reading or not — seems to be happening.And he also argues — that one of the consequences of the sexual revolution of the 60s is that it has loosened sexual behaviour. When that happens, and there are less social and physiological downsides (pregnancy is not inevitable) — and more sex is being had — the spoils go disproportionately to the most attractive men.He is arguing that there are deeper reasons for the morality that we evolved over our history, and that there are consequences to the kinds of lifestyle experiments that we saw start to accelerate in the 1960s. This is what the essence of Peterson’s message is about.You can disagree with Peterson, but many people are recognising that this fits their experience of the world — hence his popularity. That the increasingly boundary-less world we’ve created is not working and we need a reintegration of these traditional values.Ideological fixationPersonally I agree with Peterson that much of our culture and media is in the grip of an ideology that styles itself as open, inclusive and tolerant, but actually has a shadow side of intolerance towards those that don’t share their values. <figure id="3404"> <div> <div> <img class="ratio" src="http://placehold.it/16x9"> <iframe class="" src="https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FaMcjxSThD54%3Fstart%3D1511%26feature%3Doembed%26start%3D1511&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaMcjxSThD54&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FaMcjxSThD54%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=a19fcc184b9711e1b4764040d3dc5c07&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="480" width="854"> </div> </div> </figure></iframe></div></div></figure>One of the sacred cows in this is the belief that the only reason that men and women don’t have equal representation in many industries and top jobs is because of discrimination, not differing choices. This was famously the subject of the clash with Cathy Newman.If these activists (and the liberal left generally) has to accept that there are measurable differences in temperament, values and life choices made by men and women, and that some of them are likely tied to biology and evolutionary history — then the entire edifice of this ‘gender ideology’ movement starts to shake. We would realise that it would be irrational to expect 50/50 representation in many jobs, for example.And realise that this is not just a social movement — this ideological framing — it’s a big industry. There are charities, organisations and groups that are funded on the basis of this that have huge impact on the media conversation, and business practice.So left-wingers who are usually concerned about the impact of money on ideology and political decisions from corporate interests, might wish to look at the fact that these are major financial interests as well. It is not possible for this entire industry to look at the data accurately.I would also frame it in this way that might resonate

Options

with left-wing thinkers. Why are you using capitalist metrics like pay to decide on whether women have achieved equality? Isn’t that just another version of the ‘patriarchy’ controlling your minds? How has “the man” persuaded you that equal pay is the right metric to look for equal respect and value?What makes women actually fulfilled and gives genuine meaning in life? Is it the same as for men? I doubt it, and I personally know many women who made that realisation too late in life to easily have a balanced life that included children.But anything that argues against leftist ideology is attacked and smeared. For example the infamous ‘Google memo’ was a case in point, being described as an ‘anti-diversity screed’ throughout the media despite the author, James Damore, specifically making suggestions that would increase the representation of women in tech. This article from the Atlantic — from a writer who doesn’t agree with Damore’s conclusions — gives good context to its misrepresentation: “To me, the Google memo is an outlier — I cannot remember the last time so many outlets and observers mischaracterized so many aspects of a text everyone possessed.”Liberalism as an ideology, with those inside and outside the tribe. Those outside the tribe, like Peterson — deserve scorn, derision, and even misrepresentation.Another hard to explain mischaracterisation, if the journalist had any familiarity with Peterson’s work is this:<blockquote id="33b8">“Mr. Peterson illustrates his arguments with copious references to ancient myths — bringing up stories of witches, biblical allegories and ancient traditions. I ask why these old stories should guide us today.</blockquote><blockquote id="f195">“It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says. “Why?”</blockquote><blockquote id="69ec">It’s a hard one.</blockquote><blockquote id="0ac8">“Right. That’s right. You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.”</blockquote><blockquote id="fc08">But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.</blockquote><blockquote id="e8f8">“Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, ‘Well, there’s no such thing as witches.’ Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn’t what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can’t help but fall into these categories. There’s no escape from them.”</blockquote>He is deliberately framed here as an old crank, an eccentric who believes in dragons and witches. Yet throughout his lectures he has made clear he is talking psychologically, archetypally and mythologically.In this view they exist in our mythology in a very real way as representations of psychological realities, for example that the dragon is the mythological representation of the ‘unknown’. Throughout our history if you ventured out into the unknown you could die — but there was no other way to discover new information or new rewards.So the dragon is a composite predator of all the animals that used to prey on humans — a cat/snake/bird — and of course in mythology dragons have gold (or virginal women in captivity). The deep psychological story is that by confronting the unknown, you can achieve riches. He’s made that abundantly clear in every lecture.What is becoming ever clearer (and again is something Peterson points out) — the death spiral of the print media is speeding up polarisation — in even the most reputable organisations such as the New York Times start to produce clickbait such as the Jordan Peterson article.Perhaps the New York Times have decided to take a leaf out of the book of the 4chan culture, and provocateurs like Milo Yiannopolous who made whole careers out of provoking the left into overreaction. In this case — the NYT have placed this article behind a paywall (I’m told) — so to read it, outraged Peterson fans will have to subscribe to the paper.Then to unsubscribe — I know because I just checked — you cannot unsubscribe online, you have to call them. This seems at least unethical.The most dangerous part of this whole enterprise is that Peterson has now become pretty much the singular focus of the ramping up of the culture wars — the lightning rod, if you will. Articles like this add hugely to the polarisation he warns about.On one side you have literally tens of thousands of people (mainly, but not all men) who have had their lives changed, and many claiming actually saved, by listening to Jordan Peterson’s words. On the other side you have a mix of hard core ideological opponents to him, and a vast middle ground who don’t know him well — but are almost certainly thinking that there is no smoke without fire.He has argued frequently that we are in an increasingly polarised world and that individual actions can have serious consequences, if we don’t act with integrity, or we sacrifice our morality and conscience in any way.This journalist spent two days with Peterson in his house, she seemingly has some familiarity with his work, and yet chooses to characterise him in this way.The treatment of Jordan Peterson is speeding up the irrelevance of the mainstream media at an increasing rate. Too many people are aware of his work and who he is and what he believes for the hit pieces to stick.In the language of the internet subculture — the treatment of Jordan Peterson by the mainstream media is showing up their ideology, and Red Pilling an entire generation. <figure id="41f6"> <div> <div> <img class="ratio" src="http://placehold.it/16x9"> <iframe class="" src="https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FYDxl1stMTCU%3Fstart%3D193%26feature%3Doembed%26start%3D193&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DYDxl1stMTCU&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FYDxl1stMTCU%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=a19fcc184b9711e1b4764040d3dc5c07&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="480" width="854"> </div> </div> </figure></iframe></div></div></figure>For more documentaries and interviews, check out the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFQ6Gptuq-sLflbJ4YY3Umw?view_as=subscriber">Rebel Wisdom Youtube channel</a>.My personal website: <a href="http://davidfuller.tv/">http://davidfuller.tv/</a>And please consider <a href="https://www.patreon.com/rebelwisdom">supporting us on Patreon</a>.</article></body>

How This Diet Will Benefit Both Your Health And The Planet

Even if you eat meat.

Most people aren’t aware that they can enjoy animal protein and still have a sustainable and healthy diet.

It’s not only possible but also recommended.

The planetary health diet was developed by leading scientists and nutritionists. They say a diet with fewer animal source foods and more plants benefits both people’s health and the environment.

You don’t have to cut meat and dairy products out of your life if you want to be sustainable. You just need to reduce the amount you eat.

By introducing the planetary health diet into your life, you won’t only become healthier but also more sustainable. Climate action starts with you.

Why is this important?

Our planet is on fire.

According to the latest IPCC report, countless impacts of climate change are already irreversible. 13,900 scientists are warning humanity of a climate emergency. There is a scientific consensus on this.

Climate-related disasters unprecedentedly skyrocketed in the last couple of years. There’s been flooding in South America and Southeast Asia. Heatwaves and wildfires in Australia and the Western United States. The hurricane season was devastating in the Atlantic, and cyclones have been record-shattering in Africa, South Asia, and the West Pacific.

We might have already reached a tipping point, which means the change is irreversible. We’re running out of time. The Amazon rainforest is emitting more CO2 than it absorbs. Floods and tornados are unexpectedly destroying Europe. Wildfires burn down the US.

It’s our responsibility to speak up and do our best. So that maybe decision-makers will realize and act.

Your actions don’t have to be perfect. You can still eat meat, travel by car, and fly around the world.

What’s necessary, though, is to acknowledge the crisis and take steps in those areas of your life where you can.

As food production contributes to around 37% of global greenhouse gas emissions, your plate is a perfect place to start.

Because you’re not only doing a favor to the planer, but also your health.

How to be healthy and sustainable in practice?

The planetary health diet became the global reference diet for adults.

In it, half of the plate consists of fruits and vegetables while the other half includes whole grains, plant proteins such as soy, beans, and lentils, unsaturated plant oils, modest amounts of meat and dairy, and some added sugars and starchy vegetables.

The principles of the diet:

You can include meat, fish, and dairy almost daily
You should significantly increase your fruit and vegetable intake
Consume unsaturated rather than saturated fats
Limit refined grains, highly processed foods, added sugars, and starchy vegetables.
Strive for an optimal calorie intake (2500 kcal per day, but varies depending on age, gender, and activity levels)

The most convincing part is that the diet is flexible. You can adapt to your dietary needs, personal preferences, and cultural traditions.

If you’d like to be vegan or vegetarian, you can also adopt this diet. Yet, going plant-based remains a choice, not a must.

“Transformation to healthy diets by 2050 will require substantial dietary shifts. Global consumption of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes will have to double, and consumption of foods such as red meat and sugar will have to be reduced by more than 50%.” — Prof. Walter Willett MD Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

If you’d like to follow the planetary health diet, here’s what you can eat daily:

Protein (daily amount/possible range)

Nuts (50g/0–27g)
Beans, chickpeas, lentils, etc. (75g/0–100g)
Fish (28g/0–100g)
Eggs (13g/0–25g)
Red meat, i.e., beef, lamb, pork (14g/0–28g)
Poultry (29g/0–58g)
Dairy (250g/0–500g)

Carbohydrates (daily amount/possible range)

Wholegrains, i.e., rice, wheat, oats (232g)
Starchy vegetables, i.e., potatoes (50g/0–100g)
Vegetables (300g, equivalent to 3–4 portions/200–600g)
Fruit (200g, equivalent to 2.5 portions/100–300g)
Added sugars (31g/0–31g)

Fats (daily amount/possible range)

Unsaturated (40g/20–80g)
Saturated (11.8g/0–11.8g)

“What this means in real terms is you might enjoy one beef burger and two servings of fish per week with the remainder of your protein derived from beans, pulses, and nuts. You may include a glass of milk or some cheese or butter each day and just under two eggs per week.” — Kerry Torrens, nutritionist

You’ll have to keep in mind that your body might need slightly more protein to avoid nutritional deficiencies. As an alternative, you can take supplements to increase your vitamin B12, retinol, vitamin D, and calcium intake.

Yet, it’s undoubted that the diet will help you stay healthy.

Multiple studies confirm that a mostly plant-based diet brings countless health benefits. It significantly reduces the risk of developing heart disease, cognitive decline, certain types of cancer, and Type 2 diabetes and reduces the symptoms of some chronic diseases. The diet can also help you lose weight.

Switching to the planetary health diet would highly benefit you, even if you don’t strictly stick to the reference values.

The change starts on your plate.

To win the fight against climate change, we don’t need a few hundred raw vegans who perfectly follow a plant-based diet and get angry with the world if the average person can’t do the same.

No.

We need people who care about the issue but don’t radically preach a diet that’s only plausible for a very few people. We need people who reduce their beef intake to only once per week. With time, maybe once every second week.

We need billions of imperfect solutions.

Would you like to be one of those people?

Would you like to learn how to make an impact through writing? Subscribe to my Impact Letter and create the change you wish to see in the world.

If you enjoy reading my articles and want to support my work, consider signing up to become a Medium member. It’s $5 a month, which gives you unlimited access to all stories on Medium. If you sign up using my link, I’ll earn a small commission.

Join Medium with my referral link - Eszter Brhlik

As a Medium member, a portion of your membership fee goes to writers you read, and you get full access to every story…

eszter-brhlik.medium.com