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>

Tragic Life Story of the Real ‘Beauty & The Beast’ Couple

The Fate of Real Couple That Inspired’ Beauty And The Beast’.

They lived happily ever after — this is not the ideal ending in real life. Love stories, mostly meet with tragic endings. European authorities treated real life’s beauty and the beast with utmost disgust.

You might have read several thousands of stories regarding P.T. Barnum, who was fond of finding the oddity in human beings. Similar to his fascination, 16th-Century European royal courts held an interest in finding the strangest human being — just a piece for their own amusement.

Their amusement was fed when Petrus Gonsalvus was brought to the French royal court and kept there for years. Born with a condition of a face covered in hair, Gonsalvus was treated like a freak.

The French royal court even arranged for Gonsalvus, the “beast”, to marry just for the sake of joking and tormenting his children. Let’s dive into not a fairy tale ending but a tragic story that will move many.

Not a fairy tale happy ending

Belle’s character painted in the movie shows her as an intelligent and strong-willed individual, who develops feelings for a person cursed to resemble a beast.

Ignoring his fearful exterior, Belle fell for those caring eyes which reflected devotion for her. The outcome of crooning with dishes, snowball fights, and whirling through candlelit ballrooms was meant to be a strong love attachment between the two.

The curse breaks when their love blooms, and they live happily ever after. But then what? Well, in real life, Gonsalvus had to live with the strange condition for his entire life. There was no way of breaking the curse.

The real beast was caged & shipped Off as a gift

Gonsalvus was born in 1537 with excessive hair. The Canary Islands, approved Gonsalvus existence as a “wild man, giving him the title of the beast.

Appearing more like animals than humans, wild men were supposed to live on the edges of civilization. Like any other “wild men”, people treat him as a vicious being, assuming that he was not fully human because of his condition.

At the age of ten, Gonsalvus was locked into an iron cage. It was when he began to be properly treated like an animal — given animal feed and raw meat.

Getting shipped off was the last thing that Gonsalvus might have thought. In 1547, he was gifted to King Henry 2, a french king, for his coronation.

Petrus being treated like a human pet at France’s Royal Court

France treated him like a joke. Upon his arrival, Gonsalvus was seen as a wild animal and locked up in a dungeon for inspection.

After prodding and poking, the doctors concluded Gonsalvus not being from the animals. A ten-year boy with proper senses and feelings had to endure even his name transformation — French changed his name from Pedro Gonzales to Petrus Gonsalvus.

King Henry did one humanitarian act and ensured Gonsalvus received an education, though, deep in his heart, he never expected Gonsaluvs to succeed. After all, King deemed him a savage incapable of excelling in any learning.

Gonsalvus became fluent in Latin, shocking the entire court. His learning success extended, and he mastered noble etiquette, becoming an important court guest. Gonsalvus disproved the stereotypes about “beasts”.

Gonsalvus proved himself

Gonsalvus’s treatment in the court improved as education followed respect. Mastering three languages allowed him to get dressed as a nobleman and eat cooked food.

He was finally free from the dungeon as the King took a liking to him, but despite that improved status, one thing never changed — people’s gaze. Court visitors viewed him as a freak meant to dazzle them. Gonsalvus covered a journey from being a wild man to a human pet.

Later, Artist Agostino Carracci painted a portrait where Petrus was depicted naked, having only a small fur. The portrait titled Hairy Harry, Mad Peter, and Tiny Amon reflected Gonsalvus’s inferior status.

Queen Catherine de’ Medici's evil idea of marrying a beautiful lady with Gonsalvus

King Henry soon departed from the world, leaving the throne for his wife, Catherine de Medici.

She became the queen of France and performed several devious actions — the acts which required a wicked mind and a spare plotting time. Once she contrived an act against her rivals, she invited them for a marriage celebration and slaughtered them all in the streets.

No wonder such a woman could have thought to arrange Gonsalvus’s marriage and that too for quenching her awful fascination. It was a well-crafted hilarious idea for her.

Catherine de’ Medici dove into that horrible mission and found a young maiden also named Catherine for Beast’s bride.

By keeping Gonsalvus’s rare condition a secret, the queen, who did not deserve the title, ordered Catherine, the daughter of one of the royal court servants, for marriage.

Back then, kings and queen’s held the power of dictating the marriages of court followers — a strange, unfair advantage which the queen of France exploited.

What would have Catherine gotten? Her curiosity suppressed. She needed an experimental result — the lady wanted to see what kind of children the beauty might have produced with the beast.

Several burning questions ran across Queen Catherine’s mind. She wondered whether the children would be covered in hair like their father or not? She was all set for a mission of manufacturing the royal pets from such an unconventional arranged marriage.

The ‘beauty’ met ‘beast’ on their wedding day

When young Catherine encountered the sight of a guy covered with hair on the aisle, she was met with a huge shock. She was unhappy with the union, initially. But interestingly, with time, she began to care for Petrus.

After a few years of their marriage, they had two children. Both of them did not inherit any of Gunsalvus’ conditions.

Queen Catherine’s experiment went down in the dumps. Her disappointment did not last long as the next two offspring of the couple were covered in hair, proving to the queen beauty could not always conquer the beasts.

With seven children in total, Catherine and Petrus gave the royal court crazy fascination. Four of the children, born with the Gonsalvus’s condition, were taken for a tour around Europe so nobles could gawk.

Being sent on a European tour meant Catherine, Petrus, and their children were exposed to constant marvel. Naturalists further studied the children for making interesting analyses. One of the children of Catherine and Petrus, the eight-year daughter, was examined by a well-renowned naturalist Ulisse Aldrovandi in the 1590s.

The “Wild Children” were gifted as pets to Royal families

Settling in Parma, Italy, seemed a new beginning for the “wild children, “ but Gonsalvus’ family did not know a tragic turn awaited.

Aristocrats further treated Gonsalvus as property and exploited his conditions. Duke sent the four hairy children as gifts to noble friends, deeming them as pet animals.

The poor Gonsalvus’s family was neither captured nor freed but trapped in a vicious cycle of misery. How miserable is it to experience the pain of having one’s children snatched? The real-life story of beauty and the beast proves life is not about happy endings.

If we talk about Catherine, she died in 1623, as the town’s registrar had the record. But as far as Gonsalvus was concerned, no such data was found. Why? Perhaps because he was not even considered a human to have the last rites recorded. He was more of a curiosity than a man, something which the movie intentionally did not depict.

9 Freakiest Miracles & Coincidences that Helped Hitler’s Rise to Power

Bizarre miracles point towards Hitler’s supernatural protection.

medium.com

She Poisoned “Makeup” To Kill Over 600 Husbands

Giulia Tofana’s friendly side hustle of being a husband killer.

medium.com

Blind Mystic’s Chilling Prediction of the Date “World Will End”

85% of Baba Vanga’s predictions were accurate.

medium.com

Reference:

https://www.genevievecarlton.com/articles/2018/7/12/the-real-couple-that-inspired-beauty-and-the-beast-led-remarkably-tragic-lives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrus_Gonsalvus