RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/10/jordan-peterson-matters/

The Canadian professor’s entire moral enterprise arose from his horror at the ease with which murderous ideologies came to possess ordinary people. Most of us look only briefly at that matter and others, unsettling as they are, but Peterson explores the very bases of such thought and being.

The cultural world changed after the UK Channel 4 interview which took place on January 16 this year, in which Cathy Newman “interviewed” the Canadian psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson.

The interview, or rather attempted harangue by Newman, became an instant phenomenon, mainly because Peterson’s demeanour, intelligence and patience with Newman’s rudeness, and real or assumed stupidity, were so impressive. The interview, contrary no doubt to the plan of Newman and Channel 4, greatly raised Peterson’s already high public profile, ensured best-seller status for his second book (12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos), and consigned Newman and Channel 4 to the ridicule of millions of viewers around the world. Whether either will recover is yet to be seen. (online editor: that video is embedded below)

While numerous profiles and interviews of Peterson have, over the last year, appeared in news and opinion outlets, most have been along the lines of: “Look at this wacky Canadian professor who seems to have millions of fans for some reason.” Few have attempted to come to grips with what are arguably his most important and original contributions to the ideas of the day. (A notable exception is the excellent hour-long interview by Dutch commentator Timon Dias, on the Geenstijl website and YouTube.) For me, writing as I have done for ten years about the importance of personal morality, in particular a return to a virtue framework, the most exciting thing about Peterson is that he is bringing talk about virtue and morality back to thousands of people in a West which has shunned and indeed ridiculed those ideas for fifty years.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/10/24/a-stark-raving

It’s bad enough that our politics have now become so polarized that there seems to be no way to escape either a split or an apocalypse. Left and Right no longer huddle near a squishy but relatively amicable middle, the nation’s rudder tilted slightly to the left and the ship of state steadily drifting to port. The postwar consensus, which by and large accepted the Roosevelt-Truman domestic agenda in the interest of winning the war, is now breaking up as a result of the conservative reaction (1980-present) against it. Even the brief interregnum of Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton/Barack Obama only served to heighten the distinctions between the two sides, while the Trump counterrevolution has effectively ended all thoughts of a reversion to the mean.

For his part, President Trump took the high road Wednesday. “Those engaged in the political arena must stop treating political opponents as being morally defective,” he said. “The language of moral condemnation . . . these are arguments and disagreements that have to stop. No one should carelessly compare political opponents to historical villains. It’s got to stop. We should not mob people in public spaces or destroy public property.”

“There is one way to settle our disagreements: It’s called peacefully, at the ballot box,” he said.

That’s quite right. Conflicts need be neither violent nor bloody. The Cold War was fought between the Soviets and the Americans without a clash of armies or an exchange of nuclear weapons. Similarly, the Cold Civil War (as I termed the current struggle back in 2010) has been largely nonviolent, however heated. But with the reports Wednesday of explosive devices and suspicious packages mailed to prominent figures on the Left—coming on top of some startling attacks against the Right (Steve Scalise and Rand Paul), we find ourselves moving into terra incognita, politically speaking.

It’s true that America has seen domestic violence before—the wave of anarchism and labor unrest around the turn of the century, the Mad Bomber in New York, the “Days of Rage” in the late 1960s—some of it politically motivated. But not since the Civil War—which was essentially a conflict between the Southern Democrats and the Northern Republicans (if you don’t believe me, read Grant’s Memoirs)—have the two main parties edged this close to direct action against each other.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/the_unstate.html

For the rationale of this newfound nation, order of some kind was present despite the diversity of backgrounds. Old-country habits had to adjust to new-world conditions.

For most of American history, a consensus was established that allowed for flexibility, despite highs and lows in orderliness. As I see it, the Brett Kavanaugh deliberations converted America to a new stance. Out of the Burkean world that sought stability and civility, there emerged a wholesale business in tearing the state, or, in this case, the nation, apart.

From relative calm, an UnState erupted. The space between rage and order disappeared, leaving in its wake a breakdown of constitutional principle. For many, American rage is the answer with Hillary Clinton’s comment about her inability to get along with Republicans and Michelle Obama’s belief that when they go low, we go high. This is reminiscent of Sartre’s yearning for and commitment to some vague and unattainable goal. This is the era beyond partisanship; it is all-out war. The stage is set for civil war. The innocent girl in denims is to become a recruit in all-out UnState battle, where Joan of Arc knows no limits. When rationality has retreated before commitment, it is conceivable for blood to flood the streets even for the new Robespierres. This is surely not the America I embrace, but she is here. Perhaps there is no way at this stage to avoid her, but we have to hope the principles for which this nation stands can be restored.

It would seem the UnState supports the radicals, whether they know it or not. For what has led to a country divided with many that believing the ends – namely, the defeat of Trump – justifies the means? We are a different land today, but not a better land. The remarkable founders of America are turning over in their graves, all wondering whether this nation can recover.

Twenty twenty is over the horizon, and Trump looms as the party who must be defeated. These harridans are out to get Donald.