Jordan Peterson Is Right!

…and other things you didn’t know, so pay close attention

Before we begin, we must make a distinction between her face and her body. And here, of course, I’m speaking of Yumi Nu, the latest Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover model…

Peterson broke one of his rules: he wasn’t very precise with his speech, but in his defense he only had a few characters to work with, and he was hoping his point would be obvious.

But in an insane world filled with cynical performers and deluded narcissists and virtue-signalling cunts the obvious will not only fail to land, it will actually stir even more hatred amongst the trained seals. They will round on you like the Smith’s from the ‘Matrix’, like the subconscious of those dreaming in ‘Inception’, and like, like…like some other elusive metaphor that’s failing to stir my dendrites and synapses at the moment, or whatever the fuck they’re called…

(note: I was going to include the phrase “insufferable phonies” in that description above but it seemed redundant. And the use of the word “fuck” there was inspired by our very own Frank T Bird).

There is a war on the obvious. Remember I said that. This Peterson fiasco has very little to do with bloated women in bikinis and men that find them unsightly and much more to do with said war on the obvious.

I think this is obvious. If it’s not obvious to you then you are likely a willing or unwilling victim of the war on obvious, and there may not be much that can be done for you. But with some effort on your end, and perhaps a beer, some weed, or whatever mind sludge-loosening drug you prefer, we may just succeed in resurrecting your inner obvious detection mechanisms and reach you in some profound way. It’s unlikely, but it’s the only good fight there is. So just play along. And for those of you who are counting (none of you), I’ve used the word “cunt” once in this piece, and I’m hoping to meet the 6 “cunt” goal I set for myself before I started out.

Okay, I was saying something about making a distinction between her face and her body. So let’s do a little exercise here, shall we? I’m not asking. It was a rhetorical question, ya cunt (2 cunts down, 4 more to go).

The woman is fat. She’s not curvy, shapely, pleasantly plump or whatever silly word or phrase your corrupted but doggedly determined mind is trying so desperately to reach for when defending her. So just stop. That’s an order. Da Nile isn’t just a river in Egypt, it’s also a disease that hideously shrieking social justice freaks are largely succeeding at spreading amongst a population of mostly sleep-walking, brain dead automatons. I’m pretty sure that’s how the old adage goes.

Here’s a little game the wokesters play: they will present something shocking or controversial (like putting an arguably obese woman on the cover of an iconic swimsuit magazine)and then sit on their chubby, green hair dye-stained hands and wait for the wrong people to notice — and by “wrong people” I mean those of us that are still sane — and then, with a ferocious gusto endlessly perform their squawking, wretched rituals in the hopes that it eliminates their target(s) through some mechanism or other, i.e. “cancelling”.

In short: they set a trap, pretend it’s not a trap, and then get mad when people fall for the trap. Or pretend to get mad. It’s all performance. This is obvious…obvious to those of us who still have the functional chip in our brain that detects the obvious, that is.

In shorter short: They dare you to state the obvious. And when you do, they pounce.

Enter Jordan Peterson, obvious-stater extraordinaire. The man has made a living out of stating the obvious, but in an upside down world where the self-evident is heretical, he’s become something of a controversial figure. This always surprises me a little, even now. Enter a space where 8000 people are ranting and raving against him and calmly dispute a thing or two, and they will accuse you of being the unhinged, emotionally obsessed one with your panties in a bunch. Gaslighting, I believe it’s called. Or is it projection? Both?

His haters hate him far more than his fans love him, because the haters are almost unfailingly responding to him emotionally, whereas his fans and supporters relate to him in a mostly intellectual way.

So I don’t expect to win any converts here, no matter how logical and rational I am, but some things require explaining nonetheless. Because I’ve seen so many people — here and on social media and on long form chat forums and in my daily life— not only get this wrong, but profoundly and preposterously and embarrassingly wrong.

I promised myself when I started here that I wouldn’t write much about culture war stuff (Do we really need another article about racism?). But when I butted up against the 856,743,876th Peterson-bashing article recently, I felt maybe it was time to add my voice to the fray, for better or worse.

Were he following his own bloody rules (be precise with your speech)he would have stated that her face is indeed beautiful. And he might have saved himself a lot of grief. Faces like that are universally recognized for their beauty, because beauty at that level is a largely objective phenomenon. It’s no coincidence that every man I know wants to desperately fuck Halle Berry and not a single one wants to fuck, say, Whoopi Goldberg. And it has very little to do with misogyny or the arbitrary whims of patriarchal controllers.

Although the woke would have you believe there is no difference between the two women, and that beauty as currently recognized was universally defined by the preferences of white, western men and is therefore “socially constructed” and needs “reimagining” and means virtually nothing, I’m gonna go out on a limb here (not really) and say it has much more to do with things like evolutionary biology, hip to waist ratio, basic symetry, and something undefinable in each and every one of us — that was likely bestowed upon us by our creator — that distinguishes between what we think of as beautiful and what we think of as less than beautiful, and what we think of as everything in between.

Let’s try a little intellectual exercise here. It may be helpful…

For the sake of argument, I’m going to construct a hierarchy of attractiveness. At the top of the pyramid we have transcendent beauty. Occupying this space are the likes of Angelina Jolie, Sophia Loren, and others of that ilk.

Below that we have swimsuit models, and not just any swimsuit models, but the ones that appear on iconic magazine covers such as Sports Illustrated. In my era we had Kathy Ireland, and currently we have people like Kate Upton and others.

One rung below them we have the very good-looking. I’m thinking of Jennifer Aniston here, Jessica Alba, Kate Beckinsdale, so forth.

Not too far behind that crowd are the good-looking and the mildly good-looking, which are very pleasant to look at but are quite common and can be seen in small and large cities all over the country, pumping gas or jogging or doing whatever sort of mundane things those in this category do.

Then the cute: No one is coming to mind but we all know cute when we see it. (Oh, Sally Field!)

Then there are the average. Quite a few of those around. No shame in being average. This describes most of us.

Below the average we have the unpleasant looking. Sorry, I know it feels unfair, but it’s not my fault. Take it up with God.

And then the flat out ugly, of course. There’s very little hope for you, and I feel bad about it, but we all have our cross to bear and this happens to be yours, it seems.

And of course there are various hybrids. My personal preference is cute/pretty. Preferences are subjective, but they don’t give one license to ignore the objective reality of beauty and ugliness at the extremes. I will state here flatly that I’m not that attracted to Angelina Jolie, but I also recognize that her beauty is otherworldly and undeniable. She belongs on the top of the pyramid. That’s just self-evident.

So yes, I would argue that the extremes I’ve presented here — transcendent beauty and flat out ugliness — are objective. What I mean is, nearly everyone on the planet regard a certain lucky few as transcendently beautiful and a certain unlucky few as downright ugly. There’s very little room, if any, for debate. We just know.

To recap: Objective at the top, and as you venture down the scale of attractiveness subjectivism enters the picture. There’s more room for opinion in the middle. More room for debate. But then as you approach the bottom of the pyramid, which represents flat-out ugliness, objectivity resurfaces.

And just as a quick aside, I make a distinction between attractiveness and desirability. I was in love once, and that woman was not conventionally beautiful — not even close. So personally I’m not too heavily invested in appearance, so put your spears down and wipe that foam from your mouth already, ya cunts(3 down, 3 to go).

You may possess otherworldly beauty and be undesirable for one reason or another — you may be obnoxious, thick, or just plain silly. Or, you may be average looking and be incredibly desirable, due to qualities like confidence, sense of humor, wit, and so on.

But that type of desirability doesn’t translate to magazine covers. Only sheer beauty does.

Yumi Nu presents us with a bit of a conundrum because her face is objectively beautiful but her body is objectively obese. She may just belong on some kind of magazine cover, but she does not belong on the Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover. Why? Because she’s fat, that’s why. Her body is not only not universally recognized as physically attractive, it’s nearly universally recognized for being the exact opposite. I wouldn’t go so far as to say her body occupies the bottom rung of the hierarchy I’ve presented; it’s not flat out ugly. But it’s well below average, and does not belong on a swimsuit cover that traditionally celebrates the trancendently beautiful.

That’s obvious. And that’s what Jordan Peterson was saying. But his point is actually a much larger one. He didn’t necessarily select Nu to make that larger point; instead she was presented to him. Or, he would argue, forced on him.

***

The Yumi Nu Sports Illustrated cover represents just one tentacle of the woke beast, one manifestation of the postmodern cult that is “social justice”. Peterson’s tweet was only peripherally about Nu and her appearance on the cover. What it was really about was standing his ground in the current culture wars; it was about resisting the war on the obvious…the war on reality. And lots of other wars we’ll discuss as we move forward.

When he wrote, “sorry, not beautiful” he was talking about her body. Not because her body is hideous or revolting or because he’s a dick and wanted to take a silly cheap shot, but because when compared to the near transcendently beautiful ones that occupy the objective rung of beauty at the top of the pyramid, she compares unfavorably…in a very profound way.

S.I. represents the pinnacle of swimsuit beauty. It’s an objective space, and we are all clearly aware of who belongs there and who doesn’t. We’re clear because it’s self-evident. The EPL is the pinnacle of European football, and the NBA is the pinnacle of world basketball; there are reasons why obese men aren’t in those leagues, and that reason is also self-evident. The S.I. cover is no different.

And for all you white knights out there doing the hero act, would you have minded if Peterson had said the same thing about a fat man on some iconic magazine that traditionally featured fit, muscular men? Nope, you woulda laughed. And I would have too, most likely. Because it woulda been ridiculous. I’d feel the same way about it as I do about Nu being on S.I., and I’m certain Peterson would as well.

This isn’t a misogynistic thing. It’s a reality thing.

In a world where we’re relentlessly presented with blatant untruths and are not only expected to believe but embrace them — i.e.men can be women and women can be men; the word “woman” is undefinable; there are 100 different pronouns; 2+2=5; math is racist; hormone blockers and genital mutilation is appropriate for 12 year olds; empiricism is “colonial” poison; multiculturalism is preferable to pluralism; morality is relative; the west is irredeemably racist, patriarchal, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic; there is no objective reality or objective standards; fat women are every bit as attractive as fit women, etc— you have to stop somewhere and draw a line in the sand and say “No more”. And that’s precisely what Peterson did. It was brave, and we should all be applauding him.

Speaking of brave: Those that are calling Nu “brave” and “beautiful” all at once are, without even realizing it, acknowledging her lack of beauty. It’s not terribly brave to put on a bikini when you’re beautiful; it’s only brave when you are not beautiful.

Peterson wasn’t trying to embarrass Nu. She embarrassed herself. And by foolishly putting herself in company that she clearly didn’t belong in, she — along with S.I. and the woke ethos that inspired them — presented us with a lie.

There is a war on truth. And lies — both big and small — can no longer be tolerated if we wish to live in a sane, coherent world. Authoritarianism (political and cultural) begins with small lies, and then through a series of acceptances and mental grooming techniques the lies become larger and more expansive; that’s how it works folks. It’s called “social engineering”. But the lies are typically cloaked in a phony morality, making them hard to dispute without being labeled bigot, racist, homophobic, transphobic, fatphobic, fascist, and so forth. That’s another part of the game.

There are many genuinely good, compassionate people who care deeply about injustice, particularly towards minority groups and those who have been historically marginalized, and I consider myself one of them. But their innate kindness is being weaponized for largely political ends and they are — sadly and unknowingly — directing their anger and rage at the wrong people. Peterson is one of those people.

But let’s get to these wars I’ve been talking about…

War on Language/Free Speech:

Thought and speech are the same thing essentially. Control and manipulate speech and you control and manipulate thought. This is the most crucial war, maybe, because this is how the woke cult make their make-believe land seem palatable. They are fully aware it makes little sense, so they attempt to bypass the intellect and exploit emotion instead. And they’re very effective, sadly.

There is no greater example of language manipulation perhaps than the woke mantra of “diversity, equity, and inclusion”. Sounds nice but it’s actually quite sinister. Like most of these woke buzz words they mean the exact opposite of what they purport to mean.

Equity has nothing to do with true equality, and merely means forced outcomes. If you know even a fleck about 20th century history, you know how dangerous this can be.

Diversity as they practice it is really just ideological homogeneity. The people that espouse it may look different, but there is nothing diverse about their ideas or values. In this way it’s very much a cult. “Diversity” just serves to reinforce the tenets of the woke cult— and it is a cult at the end of the day, relying mostly on emotion and weaponizing of said emotion, and very little on common sense, rationality and objective reality. You must think a certain way, and that way involves wholeheartedly embracing gender ideology, racial grifts like Black Lives Matter and the 1619 Project, postmodern Neo-Marxism, and so on. Their so-called “diversity” won’t allow any intellectual movement past those borders.

Inclusion really means exclusion, exclusion of everyone and everything who is at odds with the postmodern, woke cult. Which means the exclusion of anyone who questions gender ideology, racial grifts, issues like abortion, Critical Race Theory, and the duplicity of all the cynical actors and holier than thou “activists” espousing all this nonsense. It means the exclusion of anyone who is even vaguely patriotic, anyone who holds different political views than they do, anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the notion that the country is an irredeemable cesspool of racist, transphobic, homophobic, fatphobic, ableist, misogynistic “oppressors” (Critical Race Theory in a nutshell) or anyone who acknowledges the empirical evidence which largely disproves notions of “rape culture”, “patriarchy”, and “systemic racism”. And it also means the exclusion of white people in many instances (which, ironically, is considered “anti-racist” by the more radical activists).

Other examples of language manipulation:

Anti-racism: This is, by Ibram X Kendi’s own words, no more than reverse discrimination. It’s all about evening the historical score, if you will. In other words, it’s about revenge, not true equality.

Trauma: trauma is defined as a deeply distressing or disturbing experience. Or a physical injury. Now, according to the woke, it just means anything that makes one vaguely uncomfortable. People, particularly our youth, are now being brainwashed into thinking they’re entitled to perfect emotional and physical comfort all the time, and anything that intrudes upon this delusion is “oppressive”. It’s a real problem. We are creating generations of weak, tyrannical toddlers. And that’s what the woke are essentially — weak, tyrannical toddlers.

Violence/Speech: Up until 5 minutes ago everyone knew speech was one thing and violence was another. But that’s suddenly changed. Now, according to some activist lunatics, speech is violence. It makes no sense whatsoever, but things don’t really need to make sense in this increasingly postmodern world. Language, like gender, is fluid and can mean whatever someone says it means in the moment. It’s like that idiot Harvard professor declaring that 2+2 can equal 5.

Like most of these language manipulations, there is a strategy behind it. If language does indeed equal violence, then: 1) You can get arrested for your speech. 2) People that don’t like what you’re saying can attack you violently and call it “self defense”.

Hate speech/Misinformation: Both — the way they are used now — are a Trojan horse for censorship of ideological and political adversaries. Biden’s recent attempt at a kind of Ministry of Truth is the perfect example of that. Oh, and our inability in the past couple years to have any dissenting opinions whatsoever on covid, vaccines, election tampering and so forth. Of course it was perfectly okay for Hillary Clinton and the Dems to accuse Trump of stealing the election with the help of the Russians; they droned on about that for all 4 years of his term. But once the tables were turned it was unacceptable. “Misinformation” it was called, and anyone spewing it was unwelcome in most social media spaces…and, well, just spaces in general.

Whiteness: A meaningless, tofu word that means whatever one wants it to mean in the moment, but typically used pejoratively to refer to colonial, European influence on the rest of the world. It’s basically an acceptable way of demonizing an entire group of people while simultaneously claiming it’s “anti-racist”.

White supremacy: We used to know exactly who the white supremacists were; they made their intentions obvious by their egregious ideas and actions and speech, but now this word has expanded to mean anything that is white, western, and male. If you meet any of those criteria, you are looking at a “white supremacist” every time you see yourself in the mirror, according to these woke fools.

Systemic racism: a very vague, muddy, non-specific way of accusing western culture of being all the shitty things they love to accuse it of being (racist, homophobic, patriarchal etc) while offering very little evidence to prove said accusations. And if you protest the notion of systemic racism, and offer sound and grounded reasons why based on facts and numbers? It will matter not. In fact, according to the woke cult, resisting their accusations is only further proof of their validity. Woke ideology is loaded with similar such double binds and Kafka traps. Just ask Robin D’Angelo. She even has a cute little cult phrase for your resistance: “white fragility”. The woke are incapable of imagining a world in which those who disagree with them aren’t “white supremacists”. It’s just one more example of their authoritarianism, even as they squawk and bray against what they imagine is authoritarianism.

And if you’re a black objector? Forget it. You’re monstered in all sorts of ways, ways which involve reputation destruction, innuendo, and vicious name-calling (“Oreo”, “Uncle Tom”, etc) just to name a few.

Oh yes, there’s a long list of black intellectuals/influencers (Thomas Sowell, Glen Loury, John McWhorter, Larry Elder, Candace Owens, Brandon Tatum, Coleman Hughes etc) who echo many of the ideas I’ve presented here. Hell, they’ve inspired them! These folks are very inconvenient to the woke activists, of course. So the new linguistic trick is to assert that being black no longer matters; being “politically black” is what truly counts. Which is why the Washington Post can get away with writing things like, “Larry Elder is the black face of white supremacy” and still maintain their woke credibility.

War On Sex/”Gender”/Biology

The National Science Teachers Association just banned a bunch of words recently, including “mother”, “father”, “man”, and “woman”, because they are too “oppressive”. That’s not a joke. And this is just one example among dozens I could offer here.

I once watched Jordan Peterson engage in a debate with two fellow professors from the University of Toronto. He’d just arrived on the scene, having come out strongly against bill C-16, which was put forth by the Canadian Parliament to mandate preferred pronouns. For Peterson the debate was only peripherally about the pronouns; being a student of history, his objection was mainly to do with legislating compelled speech. Until then, never-ever had a common law jurisdiction, in the entire world, compelled speech for any reason. He was quite horrified by all this, and justifiably so.

At one point, one of the other profs on the panel, a Transgender Studies prof/History of Medicine prof declared that “there is no such thing as biological sex.”

Not a joke. And Peterson was the one in the hot seat!

Gender ideology is a social engineering project. It’s so loaded with nonsensical contradictions that it paralyzes the mind. And it changes with the wind, or whenever it’s convenient. They are currently asserting that so called “gender identity” is destiny and biology is a “social construct.” Please read that again.

These people are mentally ill.

All this shit is sinister beyond belief. Spend 20 minutes reading about it and it will become obvious. Read about John Money. That’s a good place to start.

War On Truth

Everything I’ve written under the previous wars could easily go here as well. There’s quite a bit of overlap amongst this stuff.

The culture war lies have been endless, but one that I find particularly egregious in the wake of George Floyd is that “black men are being hunted in the streets.” LeBron James said it, and it became yet another idiotic mantra being bleated out incessantly by the brain-dead woke cultists.

Ask any one of these lunatics how many unarmed black men are shot annually by the police here in the U.S., and the numbers will range anywhere from the hundreds to the thousands.

The real answer? Ten. Roughly 10 unarmed black men are shot a year by the police.

Oh I know! Those pesky statistics!

In a perfect world it would be zero, but we don’t live in a perfect world. And with over 50 million police/civilian interactions daily in the United States it’s a number that more accurately represents a miracle than it does “police brutality”.

War On Personal Responsibility

You are not an individual, we are now told. You are just an avatar of your group identity — whatever that happens to be — and what you can and can’t do and what you can and can’t say all depends on where you fall on the “Oppressor/Oppressed” scale. This is called “Intersectionality”. Or in layman’s terms, “insanity”. Look it up. I’m not gonna do all the work for you.

You are merely a node in a network, you have no autonomy and are powerless to do anything about your life with the exception of demonizing your alleged “oppressors” and attempting to destroy them and all they hold dear. If this sort of thing appeals to you then, well, good luck in the insane asylum…but I’m afraid I won’t be joining you there.

Part of Peterson’s crime — in many people’s eyes — was that he committed several intersectional sins at once. He’s white — strike one; he’s male and he’s straight and he’s successful — strike 2,3, and 4. And he dared to use his “white privilege” to “harm” an individual who happened to have at least 3 victimhood titles on her resume: Asian, fat, and female. Ut-oh! That’s a major no-no!

War On The West/Enlightenment Values

Wikipedia tells me this: “The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the value of human happiness, the pursuit of knowledge obtained by means of reason and the evidence of the senses, and ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.”

I’d also throw in hard work and an emphasis on the sanctity of the individual.

It wasn’t long ago that those values — universal values that predict success for everyone, no matter what race,color or creed — were labeled tools of “whiteness” by the National Museum Of African American history. They also added “objectivity”, the “nuclear family” “progress”, “respect for authority” and “delayed gratification”.

Progress?

If you subscribe to any of these notions you are complicit in “white supremacy”, says the museum…which should really be renamed “National Museum Of Woke History”. The woke don’t help minorities, they exploit them for political purposes. This is merely one example. The Yumi Nu thing is another. Open your eyes.

War On Health

We shouldn’t ridicule obesity but we shouldn’t celebrate it either. The body positivity movement is a sinister lie dressed up as a compassionate truth. The only pandemic we should really be worried about here in the states, as far I’m concerned, is the obesity pandemic.

At university they teach something called “Fat Studies” now, which has nothing to do with normalizing blood pressure or other harmful blood markers; nor does it instruct on proper diet and exercise techniques. It seeks to normalize fatness. Fatness being harmful, they say, is merely one narrative, forced upon on us by the same group of “oppressors” who wish to marginalize all minorities and historically marginalized groups. These people reject the harmful health implications of obesity and have arrived at a new “narrative”, which goes something like this: fat is normal, and suggesting someone should lose weight is nothing more than “fat shaming”.

War On Truth:

There is no truth, the postmodern woke say. There is only “lived experience”. If you’ve gotten this far into the article and still don’t understand why this is crazy, go ahead and stop reading now.

It’s all about “your truth” and “my truth” now; very little is ever said about THE TRUTH. Ignoring objective reality isn’t progressive or brave, it’s just another way of being cowardly and afraid.

War On Women

This situation is much bigger than men being allowed to compete against women in athletics and men having access to women’s bathrooms, although those are important issues too.

This is about mentally ill men co-opting womanhood and wearing it like a costume…reducing it to their subjective whims. It’s a fucking crime, and I can’t believe the feminists aren’t up in arms over it.

We now live in a world where asking Supreme Court Justices to define the word “woman” is considered a “gotcha” tactic. Just ask Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Men have finally found a way to cow the feminists — they’ve just called themselves women and begun shouting louder.

War On God/Religion:

Though they profess great disdain for religion, the woke cult have created one and worship at it’s alter daily; diversity, equity, and inclusion (i.e. Neo-Marxism)is their God. They have priests and priestesses, and even a concept of original sin (slavery).

Nietzsche was no fan of religion, but even he worried deeply about what would take it’s place if it was ever destroyed. I wonder what he’d say were he alive today?

War On Family

Neo-Marxists don’t believe in the nuclear family. Neither does Black Lives Matter (Whose leaders are also self-described Marxists and also blatantly anti-nuclear family. They openly declared it on their website until it was getting unwanted attention. So they tossed that bit down the memory hole).

War On Morality

The moral relativity movement, with its obsession with subjectivism and “your truth” and “my truth” is just an invitation to chaos and destruction. History tells us so. So does common sense.

We have our entire human history as a case study and thousands of years of wisdom handed down from spiritual leaders and philosophers which suggest a proper way to live, and if we desire a relatively harmonious, prosperous, peaceful society it would be wise to abide by them. We should be standing on the shoulders of these giants, not toppling their statues.

War On Beauty

If everyone is beautiful then the very concept of beauty would fail to exist, because we’d stop making distinctions between this and that. That’s the ultimate irony here with this Yumi Nu thing.

In the world of the postmodern woke a glistening turd with a lit cigarette embedded in it is every bit as valid an artistic expression as Picasso’s “Guernica”. A fat, purple-haired, sexually ambiguous looking something or other with endless piercings and tattoos is every bit as beautiful as Marion Cotillard (Oh, and if you don’t want to fuck that sexually ambiguous looking something or other, you’re a bigot!) And an obese woman in a bikini is every bit the beauty a fit woman in a bikini is.

And we’re all supposed to pretend it’s true.

The body positivity movement is a sinister lie dressed up as a compassionate truth. It’s no different than “diversity, equity and inclusion” in that way. Applauding obese women on swimsuit magazine covers may seem hip and progressive or even compassionate in some way, but it’s ultimately destructive. It encourages delusion and laziness. It’s yet another lie. It’s unhealthy mentally and physically, and it renders the idea of beauty meaningless.

Standards, we are now told, are unfair; and worse yet, “oppressive” and “triggering”. This whole attempt at equality, for many, in case you haven’t noticed, is often an attempt to bring everything — art, beauty, comedy, and basically all creative expression — down to their mediocre level so they can feel emotionally “safe”. That’s what cultural socialism is, more or less. It’s largely based on resentment, not compassion. Oh, and bitterness, unchecked narcissism, delusion, and entitlement. Wait, did I mention resentment?

***

In isolation, Peterson’s comments may seem cruel or unnecessary. But when considered against the larger picture they are absolutely necessary if we wish to live in a world where beauty, logic, common sense, coherence, language, and truth are to have any sort of meaning at all. If everything is “fluid”, as the woke often suggest, all meaning is lost.

It’s ultimately not helpful to keep people deluded with encouragement while they’re doing deluded things. Denial isn’t beautiful. Nor delusion. Honesty is, though it may sting momentarily

With his comments, Peterson was making a statement. He’s not going to cede moral or intellectual high ground to these people, no matter how hard they try to dress up their true intentions with hypothetical compassion.

The mistake his critics are making lies in the assumption that he’s aggressively coming out against something — women, fat women, fat women in bikinis — and not for something — truth.

Oh, and I came up 3 “cunts” shy from my original goal, so here they are for those of you who are still counting…

cunt

cunt

cunt

***

Please consider supporting me here. Many thanks: https://ko-fi.com/mikeknittel83646