Jordan Peterson on Columbine, Mass Murderers, Suffering, Nihilism

I think everyone on this site should listen/read Rule [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in Jordan Peterson's book. "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world". He is the only person to intellectually speak about why mass shootings continue to happen. I think this insight is very beneficial to anyone interested in true crime, and might save some lives. Here are some links about the topic.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I often wonder why people (even 'philosophers', sometimes) mistake nihilism with desperation and unfulfillment.

Amarantha wrote:

I often wonder why people (even 'philosophers', sometimes) mistake nihilism with desperation and unfulfillment.

Yeah.

If it turns out that a) life has no meaning, b) there is no God, and c) there are no eternal consequences for anything we do ... then we can do whatever the fuck we want.

Until we get caught...

Jordan petterson is the GOAT

Jordan Peterson is asking kids to do by themselves - to give up revenge - what adults can't even do without the help of state power, laws, courts and police. Remove all laws, courts and police in the US and see how adults will deal with offense and damage done to them... Peterson is completely unrealistic, he's daydreaming. He assumes that laws, courts and police are useless and that adults could perfectly do without it. Deep inside, he's a damn Rousseauist... Or else, he would not deny justice to the youth, he would not ask the youth to make it without justice.

And if someone defrauds him of millions by plagiarizing his works, won't he go to court? Or will he forgive the one who made him lose a few millions? We adults fight back when being wronged, we call the police, we go to court, but you kids, just be saints, swallow the offense, forgive the offender and let him go away...

Actually, Jordan Peterson did go to court:

• "Ontario's highest court has rejected an attempt by controversial psychologist Jordan Peterson to challenge a regulatory body's order that he undergo social media training or potentially lose his licence to practise." (CBC)
  

When his licence was at stake, when he thought he was wronged, he asked for justice and went to court. Suddenly, all his speech was gone:

• "If you are suffering, well, that’s the norm. People are limited and life is tragic." (12 Rules for Life)
  

Peterson didn't accept his life to be tragic and he went to court. Tragic life is good for the youth, not for adults...

And more :

• "Psychologist Jordan Peterson said Wednesday there are now no legal avenues he can take to challenge the College of Psychologists of Ontario's decision to have him undergo social media training, adding his 'war' with the college has 'barely started.'"
  

When denied justice, like those bullied kids pushed to suicide, Peterson begins to speak the words of "war" on the group that wronged him...

Bullied kids talking about "war" on their schools, we have them diagnosed for mental health issues, we see here a red flag... Therefore, should Jordan Peterson be put under watch for his talk about going at "war" on his community?

Ah yes. Jordan Peterson, the incel-herder-in-chief </sarcasm/>

Speaking seriously, when he talks hard, level-headed psychology he is usually correct. Guy actually knows the science behind it.

Now when he starts talking in fairy-tale metaphors and starts to analyze Disney movies from a psychodynamic post-Jungian perspective... that's when he falls of the rocker and starts going real loony.

Quote :

Jordan Peterson is asking kids to do by themselves - to give up revenge - what adults can't even do without the help of state power, laws, courts and police.

That's exactly why we have developped police, laws, courts and the whole shoobang. In a sufficiently large population you will end up with at least a few rejects, rotten eggs, psychopaths or just career criminals who feel like taht's the most comfortable way to make a living. That's why Hammurabi created his code. We moved greatly forward since the days of good ol'Babylon, but we are still dealing with urban crime through laws and law enforcement.

We don't have the courts and police because the look nice, we have them because it works and because we have not invented anything better.

Quote :

Or else, he would not deny justice to the youth, he would not ask the youth to make it without justice.

As you might have guessed from the wording of this post, I'm not exactly Peterson's [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] fangirl. But I do not think that he tells people never to go to court. Giving up revenge is not the same thing as giving up your rights.

Quote :

"If you are suffering, well, that’s the norm. People are limited and life is tragic." (12 Rules for Life)
Peterson didn't accept his life to be tragic and he went to court.

I think you are doing a straw man on Peterson's 12 rules.
I do not think that he means that recognizing the hardships in life should be the same as giving up your rights.

Sabratha wrote:

Speaking seriously, when he talks hard, level-headed psychology he is usually correct. Guy actually knows the science behind it.

I doubt he knows any science about persecution and social violence. Here, you can see the lack of work behind his speech:



In the last minutes, you can even hear hatred in his voice and see it on his face: he joins the majority yelling at the persecuted. Isn't it  strange that an adult psychologist speaks with the same hatred as Emma Gonzalez, a teen bully?

Sabratha wrote:

But I do not think that he tells people never to go to court. Giving up revenge is not the same thing as giving up your rights.

He repeats that the individual has to find a way to deal by himself with injustice, to give up revenge and so on. He's like the principal and supervisors telling Melissa Soward to "Deal with it" about bullying. Soward asked for justice and she was denied, then she had the idea to blow up the school. Peterson would like Soward to follow his "rules" for success. But Peterson asked for justice and he was denied, and he had the same idea to go at "war" on his community. He thought exactly the same as Soward, Harris, Kleblold and so many others.

Sabratha wrote:

I do not think that he means that recognizing the hardships in life should be the same as giving up your rights.

Isn't going to school without being harassed and pushed to suicide a right? Peterson applies double standard: what is good for him is not good for the youth... what kind of "educator" is that?

And he really abandons the victim to his fate :

• "a bullied boy can mimic his tormentors, but he can also learn from his own abuse that it is wrong to push people around an make their lives miserable"
  

Because he hopes that the "bullied boy" would "learn from his own abuse" by himself... It's again the same "Deal with it!"... of the adult abandoning the young. And school is not the place for such learning, kids have the right to learn math, history, science, literature, in peace, without being pushed to suicide. In the end, there's a comic or farcical dimension that, when having to deal with social rejection by his peers, Peterson didn't show any attempts to "learn from his own abuse" but, instead, began an exclusive red meat diet, the "Lion Diet", trying to restore his inner "predator" self... What a farce!

By the way, when saying :

• "people who wish to slaughter innocents as a form of revenge against god"
  

Peterson is not talking about the god of Christianity who always sides with the individual and never with the crowd, he is talking about the pagan god of "vox populi, vox dei"... Although intuitive, the understanding of Christianity of Seung Cho was incomparably deeper than Jordan Peterson's.

Saint George wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

Speaking seriously, when he talks hard, level-headed psychology he is usually correct. Guy actually knows the science behind it.

I doubt he knows any science about persecution and social violence. Here, you can see the lack of work behind his speech:

I tried watching the last 2 minutes, but he started to lose me at "uncorrupted soul" and lost me completely at "eternal heavens'". He obviously must be too deep and profound for me  


... Yeah, that's exactly the metaphorical loony mumbo-jumbo I meant in my last post.

Saint George wrote:

He repeats that the individual has to find a way to deal by himself with injustice, to give up revenge and so on. He's like the principal and supervisors telling Melissa Soward to "Deal with it" about bullying. Soward asked for justice and she was denied, then she had the idea to blow up the school. Peterson would like Soward to follow his "rules" for success. But Peterson asked for justice and he was denied, and he had the same idea to go at "war" on his community. He thought exactly the same as Soward, Harris, Kleblold and so many others.

I think something like 97.5% of this conversation we are having now is because Jordan failed to follow his own damn principle of "Be precise in your fuckin' speech".

He is vague enough that I am able to read his mumbo-jumbo in a bit more neutral 'meh' way than you are doing this. Anyway, serves him right for being vague.

Side note: I see what you are trying to do here. You are trying to make me defend the incel-herder-in-chief. An ecky-ecky, evil attempt!  

Saint George wrote:

In the end, there's a comic or farcical dimension that...

... that is called 4chan. FIFY!  

Saint George wrote:

And he really abandons the victim to his fate :

• "a bullied boy can mimic his tormentors, but he can also learn from his own abuse that it is wrong to push people around an make their lives miserable"
  

Because he hopes that the "bullied boy" would "learn from his own abuse" by himself... It's again the same "Deal with it!"... of the adult abandoning the young.

Now I really, REALLY hate to get into a biblical debate here... but isn't what Peterson is saying exactly the same as the "turn the other cheek" Jesus kinda thing? Cause that's the vibe I'm getting from him.

Saint George wrote:

(...) he is talking about the pagan god of "vox populi, vox dei"...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You like Sartre, right?  

Saint George wrote:

Although intuitive, the understanding of Christianity of Seung Cho was incomparably deeper than Jordan Peterson's.

Wait, wait! I think you are the sort of guy who would appreciate some poetry and I might just have a poem for you!

Blessed are the humble and the meek
Jesus said to turn the other cheek
Yet I say: 'aim well and shoot to kill'
If you won't, then the other bastard will

*bows to the sound of applause*
Thank you, thank you all, you've been wonderful!


....Just don't put my poem on a shirt that you then proceed to wear at a spree shooting.

Just don't.

Sabratha wrote:

He obviously must be too deep and profound for me  

I think he's himself a symptom of the collapse of “social studies” in our world. By comparing his speeches to the works of Durkheim, Hubert & Mauss, Lévi-Strauss, Malinowski, Boas, Hocart, even Frazer, the "old school" in general, which nevertheless had its limits, we measure the fall.

Sabratha wrote:

Side note: I see what you are trying to do here. You are trying to make me defend the incel-herder-in-chief. An ecky-ecky, evil attempt!  

Please watch that beautiful tale about constructing an erotic object:



"He became in fact the center of my interest"...

Sabratha wrote:

Now I really, REALLY hate to get into a biblical debate here... but isn't what Peterson is saying exactly the same as the "turn the other cheek" Jesus kinda thing? Cause that's the vibe I'm getting from him.

He obviously asks kids to be saints but, himself, he goes to court asking for justice and goes at "war" against his community when denied justice. Double standard, nobody can agree with double standard.

Sabratha wrote:

You like Sartre, right?  

Oh no, I do like formal diner parties, formal manners, classic architecture and old master paintings, and I flee everything that refuses essences.

Sabratha wrote:

Saint George wrote:

Although intuitive, the understanding of Christianity of Seung Cho was incomparably deeper than Jordan Peterson's.

Wait, wait! I think you are the sort of guy who would appreciate some poetry and I might just have a poem for you!

Seung Cho deeply understood that Jesus-Christ was a scapegoat and a victim of all vs one violence. He couldn't follow through but he went farther than Peterson ever went in his understanding of Christianity.

Sabratha wrote:

....Just don't put my poem on a shirt than you then proceed to wear at a spree shooting.

I never wear tee-shirts, I'm not a US citizen. And I am not a violent person, when offended I quickly forget about the offense.

Saint George wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

He obviously must be too deep and profound for me  

I think he's himself a symptom of the collapse of “social studies” in our world. By comparing his speeches to the works of Durkheim, Hubert & Mauss, Lévi-Strauss

Durkheim and Lévi-Strauss... that's a pretty low bar you are setting for Peterson. Who next, Foucault?  

Saint George wrote:

"He became in fact the center of my interest"...

Who, Jordan Peterson? Please accept my sincere, sincere condolences then. I imagine he must be like the cheezy pop song that plays on the radio while you are waiting in a queue at the grocery store and then can't get out of your head for the next 5 hours.

Saint George wrote:

He obviously asks kids to be saints but, himself, he goes to court asking for justice and goes at "war" against his community when denied justice. Double standard, nobody can agree with double standard.

That's probably where we differ. I do not really consider launching a lawsuit to be "going to war".
But then again guys, what do I know? I was raised in a middle class family in Warsaw.  

Saint George wrote:

Seung Cho deeply understood that Jesus-Christ was a scapegoat and a victim of all vs one violence. He couldn't follow through but he went farther than Peterson ever went in that understanding of Christianity.

Gee I guess he was some sort of deep religious thinker. Maybe if he wouldn't have had commited mass murder and then shoot himself in the head, he would have gone on to write a best selling religious BS book worth more than 10 Million $.
Wow, I just realized that the whole world dodged that BS bullet in April 2007. Guess that's one instance of a mental ilness doing the world a favor.

</sarcasm/>

Saint George wrote:

I never wear tee-shirts, I'm not an American. And I am not a violent person, when offended I quickly forget about the offense.

Well, at least we have the "I'm not an American" part in common!

Sabratha wrote:

Saint George wrote:

He obviously asks kids to be saints but, himself, he goes to court asking for justice and goes at "war" against his community when denied justice. Double standard, nobody can agree with double standard.

That's probably where we differ. I do not really consider launching a lawsuit to be "going to war".

Peterson said:

• "You have won the battle, minions of the deep state, faceless-for-now but not for long bureaucrat-authoritarians, but you haven’t won the war. And here is a warning, too, as is only fair: So far I have been constrained in my response to your pushing and prodding and overlord-nagging by the requirement not to compromise my efforts on the legal side. But that’s all over with, now, isn’t it? So there are no holds barred, as far as I am concerned." (here)
  

and

• "There are no other legal avenues open to me now.[...] Mark my words, however: the war has barely started.[...] So watch out. Seriously. You've been warned." (there)
  

Kids have to be saints when being wronged but he can go to war feeding himself with the "Lion Diet" of predators... Sainthood is for martyred children, not for adults like Peterson, adults like Peterson they are allowed to fight back.

Sabratha wrote:

Saint George wrote:

"He became in fact the center of my interest"...

Who, Jordan Peterson? Please accept my sincere, sincere condolences then. I imagine he must be like the cheezy pop song that plays on the radio while you are waiting in a queue at the grocery store and then can't get out of your head for the next 5 hours.

Are you an interior designer?

Saint George wrote:

Peterson said:

• "You have won the battle, minions of the deep state, faceless-for-now but not for long bureaucrat-authoritarians, but you haven’t won the war. And here is a warning, too, as is only fair: So far I have been constrained in my response to your pushing and prodding and overlord-nagging by the requirement not to compromise my efforts on the legal side. But that’s all over with, now, isn’t it?" (here)
  

You know what? Taken out of conext that statement reads exactly like something written by a person suffering from NPD with some paranoid features.


... oh wait.

Saint George wrote:

Are you an interior designer?

Nah, just antisocial and unstable.


... that question came ouf of left field. Why interior designer and not a bus driver, QA software tester or financial analyst?

Sabratha wrote:

Saint George wrote:

Peterson said:

• "You have won the battle, minions of the deep state, faceless-for-now but not for long bureaucrat-authoritarians, but you haven’t won the war. And here is a warning, too, as is only fair: So far I have been constrained in my response to your pushing and prodding and overlord-nagging by the requirement not to compromise my efforts on the legal side. But that’s all over with, now, isn’t it?" (here)
  

You know what? Taken out of context that statement reads exactly like something written by a person suffering from NPD with some paranoid features.

Really ? In my opinion, it reads more like a regular angry adult fighting for his rights like any other adult. No need to make assumptions, he just applies double standard and that's enough.

Sabratha wrote:

Saint George wrote:

Seung Cho deeply understood that Jesus-Christ was a scapegoat and a victim of all vs one violence. He couldn't follow through but he went farther than Peterson ever went in that understanding of Christianity.

Gee I guess he was some sort of deep religious thinker. Maybe if he wouldn't have had commited mass murder and then shoot himself in the head, he would have gone on to write a best selling religious BS book worth more than 10 Million $.
Wow, I just realized that the whole world dodged that BS bullet in April 2007. Guess that's one instance of a mental ilness doing the world a favor.

Seung Cho was truly a gifted and early writer, his two plays were in the Kafkaesque or Shakespearean vein but truly original. The waste is immense.

​

Saint George wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

Saint George wrote:

Peterson said:

• "You have won the battle, minions of the deep state, faceless-for-now but not for long bureaucrat-authoritarians, but you haven’t won the war. And here is a warning, too, as is only fair: So far I have been constrained in my response to your pushing and prodding and overlord-nagging by the requirement not to compromise my efforts on the legal side. But that’s all over with, now, isn’t it?" (here)
  

You know what? Taken out of context that statement reads exactly like something written by a person suffering from NPD with some paranoid features.

Really ? In my opinion, it reads more like a regular angry adult fighting for his rights like any other adult. No need to make assumptions, he just applies double standard and that's enough.

To me, his statement reads like a bombastic "The corrupt forces of great evil powers are out to get me, the lone hero" kind of rant if I ever saw one. It is not what he does, it is how he describes the mundane situation as some sort of larger-than-life fight of good and evil that reeks of NPD.

Jordan Peterson made a superficial and quite lazy reading of the story of Cain and Abel:

• "And not just murder, but fratricidal murder. Murder of somenone not only innocent but also ideal and good."
  

• "The same thing happens in the story of Cain and Abel. Cain sacrifices are rejected. He exists in suffering. He calls out God and challenges the being he created. God refuses his plea, he tells Cain that his trouble is self induced. Cain, in his rage, kills Abel, God’s favorite, and truth be known, Cain’s idol. Cain is jealous, of course, of his successful brother. But he destroys Abel primarily to spite God. This is the truest version of what happens when people take their vengeance to the ultimate extreme."
  

The main issue, here, is that Cain was the firstborn and Abel the second. Cain brought his crops as an offering to God, but Abel brought to God the firstborns of his herd to be sacrificed... and he did it in front of his firstborn brother... Peterson described Abel as someone "innocent, ideal and good"... But how can someone who invented the idea to slaughter the firstborns be "innocent, ideal and good"? And how could the firstborn brother not try to prevent his younger brother's project? Because Cain was not jealous of Abel, it was Abel, who introduced the idea to kill the firstborns, who was jealous of Cain... Abel who coveted his firstborn brother's birthright and inheritance as did Jacob covet his firstborn brother Esau's birthright. By the way Cho Seung was a better sociologist than Peterson as he perfectly understood the figure of Ishmael who was another firstborn erased by the youger who coveted the inheritance. So Cain, Ishmael, Esau, Er, Manasse, Zerah and all the firstborns in the Bible are Christ figures : "they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, just as it is written in the law of the Lord : Every firstborn male will be dedicated to the Lord" (Luke 2:22-23) Joseph and Mary brought Jesus to the Temple where to be slaughtered as a firtsborn, their first son was owed to the Temple and they had to buy him back at the fixed price of 5 silver coins. Cain, Ishamel, Esau, Er, Manasse, Zerah and Jesus : that is to say predestinated victims. And the problem is not in their reactions but in the society which decided that every firstborn had to be slaughtered; all the Jewish brothers are at war on their firstborn, they all covet his inheritance and all want to kill him:

• "The Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.” When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau. After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob." (Genesis 25:23-26)
  

It went to the point where brothers fought in the womb no to be the firstborn, given the fate awaiting him:

• "When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. As she was giving birth, one of them put out his hand; so the midwife took a scarlet thread and tied it on his wrist and said, “This one came out first.” But when he drew back his hand, his brother came out, and she said, “So this is how you have broken out!” And he was named Perez. Then his brother, who had the scarlet thread on his wrist, came out. And he was named Zerah." (Genesis 38:27-30)
  

And because :

• "So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; and I defiled them through their gifts — the sacrifice of every firstborn — that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord." (Ezekiel 20:25-26)
  

All animal victims are substitutes of human ones. The first ritual victims were human: when Abel proposed the firtsborns of his herd to be slaughtered, he didn’t inovate in any way. He just replicated an old practice, and widely spread. The Jews didn’t invent the slaughter of their firstborns, they just theorized it to a level never equaled. The slaughter of the firstborn is the answer to a very general question: how to select a victim to be sacrificed and how to ensure the supply of victims? There were many well-known candidates: orphans, widows, strangers, disabled, drawn by lots, losers at competitions, children bought from their parents, convicts kept in reserve, kidnapped neighbors, prisoners of flowery war… But the institution of firstborn slaughter corrupted the second brothers and all the society.

The second brother’s interest was to perpetuate the sacrifice of every firstborn so that he can usurp the birthright, it was so systematic the whole Nation received its name from the second brother taking advantage of his older brother’s death : Israel. The deep meaning of "Israel" is "Those who successfully grabbed the firstborn’s birthright and inheritance", in short "Those who were jealous and took over", "Those who coveted and were rewarded".

So Jordan Peterson's reading of the story of Cain and Abel is childish and wrong. It is not correct to say "Cain is jealous, of course, of his successful brother." because in the Bible, all the younger brothers covet the birthright of the firstborn, because firstborns were sacrificed and the birthright fell to the second brother. The story repeated again and again: Cain, Ishmael, Esau, Er, Manasse, Zerah and Jesus. The Bible is the long history of the social consensus to ritually slaughter firstborns and of the revolt of the firstborns.

Jordan Peterson didn't read the story of Cain and Abel like should a scholar, with dedication and hard work. He is barely different from the wokist academics who go after him.

Saint George wrote:

Jordan Peterson made a superficial and quite lazy reading of the story of Cain and Abel :

• "And not just murder, but fratricidal murder. Murder of somenone not only innocent but also ideal and good."
  

• "The same thing happens in the story of Cain and Abel. Cain sacrifices are rejected. He exists in suffering. He calls out God and challenges the being he created. God refuses his plea, he tells Cain that his trouble is self induced. Cain, in his rage, kills Abel, God’s favorite, and truth be known, Cain’s idol. Cain is jealous, of course, of his successful brother. But he destroys Abel primarily to spite God. This is the truest version of what happens when people take their vengeance to the ultimate extreme."
  

The main issue, here, is that Cain was the firstborn and Abel the second. Cain brought his crops as an offering to God, but Abel brought to God the firstborns of his herd to be sacrificed... and he did it in front of his firstborn brother... Peterson described Abel as someone "innocent, ideal and good"... But how can someone who invented the idea to slaughter the firstborns be "innocent, ideal and good"? And how could the firstborn brother not try to prevent his younger brother's project? Because Cain was not jealous of Abel, it was Abel, who introduced the idea to kill the firstborns, who was jealous of Cain... Abel who coveted his firstborn brother's birthright and inheritance as did Jacob covet his firstborn brother Esau's birthright. By the way Cho Seung was a better sociologist than Peterson as he perfectly understood the figure of Ishmael who was another firstborn erased by the youger who coveted the inheritance. So Cain, Ishmael, Esau, Er, Manasse, Zerah and all the firstborns in the Bible are Christ figures : "they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, just as it is written in the law of the Lord : Every firstborn male will be dedicated to the Lord" (Luke 2:22-23) Joseph and Mary brought Jesus to the Temple where to be slaughtered as a firtsborn, their first son was owed to the Temple and they had to buy him back at the fixed price of 5 silver coins. Cain, Ishamel, Esau, Er, Manasse, Zerah and Jesus : that is to say predestinated victims. And the problem is not in their reactions but in the society which decided that every firstborn had to be slaughtered; all the Jewish brothers are at war on their firstborn, they all covet his inheritance and all want to kill him:

• "The Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.” When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau. After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob." (Genesis 25:23-26)
  

It went to the point where brothers fought in the womb no to be the firstborn, given the fate awaiting him:

• "When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. As she was giving birth, one of them put out his hand; so the midwife took a scarlet thread and tied it on his wrist and said, “This one came out first.” But when he drew back his hand, his brother came out, and she said, “So this is how you have broken out!” And he was named Perez. Then his brother, who had the scarlet thread on his wrist, came out. And he was named Zerah." (Genesis 38:27-30)
  

And because :

• "So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; and I defiled them through their gifts — the sacrifice of every firstborn — that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord." (Ezekiel 20:25-26)
  

All animal victims are substitutes of human ones. The first ritual victims were human: when Abel proposed the firtsborns of his herd to be slaughtered, he didn’t inovate in any way. He just replicated an old practice, and widely spread. The Jews didn’t invent the slaughter of their firstborns, they just theorized it to a level never equaled. The slaughter of the firstborn is the answer to a very general question: how to select a victim to be sacrificed and how to ensure the supply of victims? There were many well-known candidates: orphans, widows, strangers, disabled, drawn by lots, losers at competitions, children bought from their parents, convicts kept in reserve, kidnapped neighbors, prisoners of flowery war… But the institution of firstborn slaughter corrupted the second brothers and all the society.

The second brother’s interest was to perpetuate the sacrifice of every firstborn so that he can usurp the birthright, it was so systematic the whole Nation received its name from the second brother taking advantage of his older brother’s death : Israel. The deep meaning of "Israel" is "Those who successfully grabbed the firstborn’s birthright and inheritance", in short "Those who were jealous and took over", "Those who coveted and were rewarded".

So Jordan Peterson's reading of the story of Cain and Abel is childish and wrong. It is not correct to say "Cain is jealous, of course, of his successful brother." because in the Bible, all the younger brothers covet the birthright of the firstborn, because firstborns were sacrificed and the birthright fell to the second brother. The story repeated again and again: Cain, Ishmael, Esau, Er, Manasse, Zerah and Jesus. The Bible is the long history of the social consensus to ritually slaughter firstborns and of the revolt of the firstborns.

Jordan Peterson didn't read the story of Cain and Abel like should a scholar, with dedication and hard work. He is barely different from the wokist academics who go after him.

That was almost interesting.




But isn't the big takeaway from that story the fact that God accepted Abel's sacrifice, because Abel was a nomadic shepherd and God valued a blood sacrifice more? All the while God took a dump on Cain's sacrifice of vegetables, because he was a farmer?
It all is framed as a prelude to God choosing Israel, the nomadic shepherd people as his chosen nation over settled famring nations such as Egypt or Assyria etc.

... that's how they explained it to us in Catholic religion class anyway.


Isn't all this bronze age middle eastern religious nonsense getting us seriously off-topic tho?

Sabratha wrote:

But isn't the big takeaway from that story the fact that God accepted Abel's sacrifice, because Abel was a nomadic shepherd and God valued a blood sacrifice more? All the while God took a dump on Cain's sacrifice of vegetables, because he was a farmer?
It all is framed as a prelude to God choosing Israel, the nomadic shepherd people as his chosen nation over settled famring nations such as Egypt or Assyria etc.

... that's how they explained it to us in Catholic religion class anyway.

Yes they explained that but they were wrong. Jews didn't invent sacrifice and all sacrifices have a meaning from human sacrifice: animal sacrifice has a meaning only because the animal is a substitute for the human... the ram as a substitute for Isaac. It's the same story in all cultures. Abel could sacrifice the firstborn lambs of his herd only because they previously sacrificed their human firstborns.

In the Bible, there is a specific emphasis on the relation between the firstborn and the second brother who benefits from the slaughter of the firstborn, by collecting the birthright and inheritance owed to the firstborn.

This hypothesis about sheperds and farmers is not grounded, and even refuted by archeology and ethnography, early farmers had bloody sacrifices, human sacrifices, archeologists find the humain remains of the sacrificed inside grain silos... in Mexico they beheaded and buried hundreds of victims in the fields to help the rain fall... and in India, during modern era, farmers still cut the human victim of sacrifice and buried a piece of his flesh in their fields to help the crops grow abundant...

The story of Cain and Abel is about the sacrifice of the firstborn, Abel slaughtered the firstborns of his herd in front of his firstborn brother... and we know the end of the story.

Sabratha wrote:

Isn't all this bronze age middle eastern religious nonsense getting us seriously off-topic tho?

First of all, it's not nonsense. In school harassment, the selection of the victim most often obeys to the same criteria as in archaic cultures: lame, stutterer, red head, etc. And even sometimes the outcome of harassment obey to the same practices as in social execution, the type where the victim is cornered and has no other choice than to fall from a cliff or a tree... killed by everybody and nobody. And second, it's not off-topic: Jordan Peterson himself had the idea to tell his version of the story of Cain and Abel in his "Message to the school shooters: past, present and future".

​

SpeciesTraitor wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Well, a few posts above I wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

Durkheim and Lévi-Strauss... that's a pretty low bar you are setting for Peterson. Who next, Foucault?  

I should have added Zerzan and Slavoi f-ing Zizek there as well. Plus also Kropotkin for good measure just to be safe.

Geez.

SpeciesTraitor wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What's your point?

Saint George wrote:

Yes they explained that but they were wrong. Jews didn't invent sacrifice and all sacrifices have a meaning from human sacrifice

I never claimed that the jews invented sacrifice. I claimed that God in the bible really liked that Abel killed his animals as sacrifice and accepted this offering. In turn he didn't like that Cain offered vegetables and rejected that sacrifice.
The god of the Jews and Christians really likes live sacrifices, isn't that why the ultimate Christian sacrifice (Jesus dying on the cross) is so amazing, because it is a live human sacrifice of a holy person (son of God)?

Saint George wrote:

This hypothesis about sheperds and farmers is not grounded, and even refuted by archeology and ethnography, early farmers had bloody sacrifices, human sacrifices, archeologists find the humain remains of the sacrificed inside grain silos... in Mexico they beheaded and buried hundreds of victims in the fields to help the rain fall... and in India, during modern era, farmers still cut the human victim of sacrifice and buried a piece of his flesh in their fields to help the crops grow abundant...

I'm not sure what are you referring to here and who you are arguing with. I never claimed that jews invented sacrifice, nor did I claim that agrarian cultures never practiced live sacrifice - human or otherwise.

What I claimed was that by the time the Genesis was being compiled, the Jews saw themselves as a chosen people and descendants of nomadic shephers, surrounded by and fighting against much larger settled empires such as Egypt, Assyria and Babylon. Hence in the story they glorify Abel the shepherd (one chosen by God whose sacrifice is acceped), while they vilify Cain who is a farmer and whose sacrifice is not accepted. The Able vs Cain conflict is thus paralel to the Israel vs Egypt&Babylon conflict.

Saint George wrote:

The story of Cain and Abel is about the sacrifice of the firstborn, Abel slaughtered the firstborns of his herd in front of his firstborn brother... and we know the end of the story.

Yeah but the point is that God really liked the way Able killed the firstborn. I think you are trying to say that somehow Judaism/Christianity makes Cain the hero and Abel the villain. But the opposite is true- Abel is the hero because God makes him the hero. He does it, because God likes the way Abel kills the animals, while he dislikes Cain for offering a non-blood sacrifice.

The sin of Cain is manifoldfold:

1. He does not offer a blood sacrifice.
2. He is unhappy with God when God reveals that he likes blood sacrifice, but shuns his vegetable/fruit sacrifice.
3 He is jeleaous of Abel getting the glory and God's favor.
4. He attacks Abel and kills him without remorse, rather than change something in the way he himself did the sacrifice.
5. He does not accept responsibility for the murder and lies about it.

So Cain is the ultimate Christian villain. He is angry with God, angry with his fellow man and does not repent.

Saint George wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

Isn't all this bronze age middle eastern religious nonsense getting us seriously off-topic tho?

First of all, it's not nonsense.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Saint George wrote:

In school harassment, the selection of the victim most often obeys to the same criteria as in archaic cultures: lame, stutterer, red head, etc.

That's not so much because there's a connection to the bible. It is simply because those people make easy targets. Because if they are physically weak and have no powerful friends, then they won't be able to defend themselves and thus won't be able to retaliate in an effective way. Or at least that's how the assilant perceives them. Noboddy is gonna try to bully a kid 3 times their size who has 20+ friends - because they know they will be the ones who get their teeth bashed in.

Saint George wrote:

And second, it's not off-topic: Jordan Peterson himself had the idea to tell his version of the story of Cain and Abel in his "Message to the school shooters: past, present and future".

Point taken. Maybe I'm biased because to me the biblical story has the same impact as teh Arapaho stories about old man coyote. But you are right taht for millions of Christians and Jews, such as Peterson and most of his followers, the biblical story is more important, hence we have to pay attention. Even if it isn't personally meaningful to us.

In his "Message to the school shooters: past, present and future", Jordan Peterson also stated:

• "The ancient Jews always blamed themselves when things fell appart, they acted as if God’s goodness, the goodness of reality, was axiomatic, and took responsibility for their own failure. That’s insanely responsible."
  

But Jews had a special rite where they put the blame for all their wrongdoings on an innocent victim: scapegoating.

And "when things fell appart", when they refused to take "responsibility for their own failure", they cast lots until they selected a victim to blame:

• "Meanwhile, Joshua had sent some soldiers from Jericho to Ai, which was near Beth-aven, east of Bethel. He ordered them, “Go up and scout the land.” So the soldiers went up and scouted Ai and returned to Joshua.
  
  “Not all of the people need to go up,” they reported. “Only about two or three thousand men should attack Ai. Since they are so few, don’t make all of the army work hard up there.”
  
  So about three thousand went up there, but they ran away from the men of Ai. The men of Ai killed about 36 of them, pursuing them outside the city gates as far as Shebarim, killing them as they descended. As a result, the army became terrified and lost their confidence. At this, Joshua tore his clothes, fell down to the ground on his face before the ark of the Lord until evening—he and the leaders of Israel—and they covered their heads with dust. “Lord God,” Joshua asked, “Why have you brought this people across the Jordan River? To hand us over to the Amorites so we’ll be destroyed? Wouldn’t it have been better for us to be content to settle on the other side of the Jordan? Lord, what am I to say, now that Israel has run away from its enemies? The Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear of this, will surround us, and eliminate us from the earth! Then what will you do about your great reputation?”
  
  “Get up!” the Lord replied to Joshua. “Why have you fallen on your face? Israel has sinned. They broke my covenant that I commanded them by taking some of the things that had been turned over to destruction. They have stolen, have been deceitful, and have stored what they stole among their own belongings. The Israelis have been unable to stand before their enemies. They’re turning their backs and running from their enemies because they themselves have been turned over to destruction. I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy these things that have been turned over to destruction. So get up and sanctify the people. Tell them, ‘Sanctify yourselves in preparation for tomorrow, because this is what the Lord God of Israel, says: “There are things turned over to destruction among you, Israel. You won’t be able to defeat your enemies until you remove what has been turned over to destruction. Tomorrow morning you are to come forward tribe by tribe. The tribe that the Lord selects is to come forward by tribes, the tribe that the Lord selects is to come forward by households, and the household that the Lord selects is to come forward one by one. The one selected as having taken what has been turned over to destruction is to be incinerated, along with everything that pertains to him, because he has transgressed against the covenant of the Lord and committed an outrageous thing in Israel.”’”
  
  So Joshua got up early that morning, brought Israel near tribe by tribe, and the tribe of Judah was selected. He brought near the tribes of Judah, and the Zerahite tribe was selected. Then he brought near the Zerahite tribe family by family, and the household of Zabdi was selected. Next, he brought near his household one by one, and Carmi’s son Achan, grandson of Zabdi and great-grandson of Zerah, was selected from the tribe of Judah.
  
  Joshua then spoke to Achan, “My son, give glory and praise to the Lord God of Israel. Tell me right now what you did. Don’t hide anything.”
  
  Achan answered Joshua, “It’s true. I’m the one who sinned against the Lord God of Israel. I noticed among the war spoils a beautiful mantle from Shinar, 200 shekels of silver, and a bar of gold weighing 50 shekels. Because I wanted them, I took them, and they’re buried in the ground inside my tent. The silver is underneath.”
  
  So Joshua sent some messengers, who ran to the tent. And there it was, hidden in the tent with the silver underneath. They took the things from the tent that had been turned over to destruction, brought them to Joshua and all of the Israelis, and laid them out in the presence of the Lord. Then Joshua, with all Israel accompanying him, took Zerah’s son Achan, along with the silver, the mantle, the gold, his sons, his daughters, his oxen, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and everything that belonged to him to the Valley of Achor.
  
  Joshua announced, “Why did you bring trouble to us? Today the Lord is bringing trouble to you!” So all Israel stoned him to death, incinerated them, and buried them with stones, piling up a large mound of boulders that remains to this day. After this, the Lord turned his burning anger away, and that is why that place is called “the Valley of Achor” to this day." (Book of Joshua 7)
  

"Not all of the people need to go up", "don’t make all of the army work hard up there": they were lazy and as a result, they were defeated and "the army became terrified and lost their confidence"... So what did they do? Did they take "responsibility for their own failure" as suggested Peterson? No, they cast lots and selected Achan, and Achan took the blame for the lazy Jews: they "stoned him to death, incinerated them, and buried them with stones, piling up a large mound of boulders"!

Why did Peterson have to invent that stupid fable of "insanely responsible" Jews? Scapegoating was at the core of Jewish political and religious life:

• "Then he is to take the two male goats and present them in the Lord’s presence at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Aaron is to cast lots over the two male goats—one lot for the Lord and the other one for the scapegoat. Aaron is then to bring the male goat on which the lot fell for the Lord and offer it as a sin offering.The male goat on which the lot fell for the scapegoat is to be brought alive into the Lord’s presence to make atonement for himself. Then he is to send it into the wilderness.”
  
  “When he has completed making atonement at the sacred place, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, then he is to present the live male goat. Aaron is to lay his two hands upon the head of the male goat and confess over it the sins of Israel, all their transgressions, and all their sins, thus placing them on the head of the male goat that he’ll then send out to the wilderness by the hand of a man capable of carrying out this task. The male goat will bear on itself all their sins to a solitary land as Aaron sends the goat out to the wilderness." (Leviticus 16:7-22)
  

Why invent that "The ancient Jews always blamed themselves when things fell appart, they acted as if God’s goodness, the goodness of reality, was axiomatic, and took responsibility for their own failure."? They slaughtered and ostracized both human and animal scapegoats. They were no different from their neighbors, from Greeks who practiced a similar ritual of scapegoating on human “pharmakos”. The "God" of Joshua's Book spoke to the Jews like Apollonius to the Ephesians during the plague: "what you need is a scapegoat"... the universal remedy to all social crisis.

And what about the "axiomatic" of "God's goodness":

• "So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; and I defiled them through their gifts — the sacrifice of every firstborn — that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord." (Ezekiel 20:25-26)?
  

Why invent out of nowhere things that are well known to be false? It looks like there is such a desire in Jordan Peterson to join Emma Gonzalez's howls of hatred that he completely lost his mind... Or was "insanely responsible" ironic?

Sabratha wrote:

What I claimed was that by the time the Genesis was being compiled, the Jews saw themselves as a chosen people and descendants of nomadic shephers, surrounded by and fighting against much larger settled empires such as Egypt, Assyria and Babylon. Hence in the story they glorify Abel the shepherd (one chosen by God whose sacrifice is acceped), while they vilify Cain who is a farmer and whose sacrifice is not accepted. The Able vs Cain conflict is thus paralel to the Israel vs Egypt&Babylon conflict.

You cling to your schoolgirl knowledge but it's an obsolete explanation.

Sabratha wrote:

Yeah but the point is that God really liked the way Able killed the firstborn.

Yes, God is also the name a mob of anxious peasants give to themselves... they like to kill. Vox populi, vox dei is always true when the voice claims a victim to kill.

Sabratha wrote:

So Cain is the ultimate Christian villain.

Cain is a Christ figure, a firstborn offering the fruit of the earth and work of human hands.

Saint George wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

So Cain is the ultimate Christian villain.

Cain is a Christ figure, a firstborn offering the fruit of the earth and work of human hands.

Cain as  a Christ figure? The same Cain of whom God "did not approve of"? Man, I ain't sticking to my interpretation just because I learned it a long time ago. I'm sticking to it cause it matches the written text:

• "Later Cain brought some crops from the land as an offering to the Lord. Abel also brought some choice parts of the firstborn animals from his flock. The Lord approved of Abel and his offering, but he didn’t approve of Cain and his offering."
  

  ---

  
  
  

source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



<preacher-man Alabama accent>

Listen boy, these ain't my words, that is THE LORD GOD ALLMIGHTY talkin' to ya! You better cut that Cain-fanboy shit out, or the LORD will send a big ol' can of whoop-ass yer way!
Repent sinner, for the day of judgement be at hand!

Praise the LORD and halleluja to y'all queer-affirimin', sin-lovin', degenerate reprobates!


</preacher-man Alabama accent>

Sabratha wrote:

Saint George wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

So Cain is the ultimate Christian villain.

Cain is a Christ figure, a firstborn offering the fruit of the earth and work of human hands.

Cain as  a Christ figure? The same Cain of whom God "did not approve of"? Man, I ain't sticking to my interpretation just because I learned it a long time ago. I'm sticking to it cause it matches the written text:

• "Later Cain brought some crops from the land as an offering to the Lord. Abel also brought some choice parts of the firstborn animals from his flock. The Lord approved of Abel and his offering, but he didn’t approve of Cain and his offering."
  

  ---

  
  
  

Obviously, there is not only one "God" in the Bible... There is this one:

• "Abel also brought some choice parts of the firstborn animals from his flock. The Lord approved of Abel and his offering"
  

and this other one:

• “The multitude of your sacrifices—what are they to me?” says the Lord. I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats." (Ishaia 1:11)
  

There is this one:

• "So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; and I defiled them through their gifts — the sacrifice of every firstborn — that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord." (Ezekiel 20:25-26)?
  

and this other one:

• "They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter." (Jeremiah 19:5-6)
  

Do you really think it is the same "God"? Obviously it is not. Marcionism was an antique ideology which strictly separated Judaism and Christianity, seeing that the two religions were irreconcilable. But there was an early Marcionism at work inside Judaism, a separation inside the Old Testament itself. It is not the same "Lord" who "approved of Abel and his offering" and who had "no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats"... It is not the same who ordered "the sacrifice of every firstborn" and later said "I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind"... there is a fault line that goes back a long way.

And yes, Cain who was a firstborn and who sided by the "lamb of god", by the firstborn lamb that Abel wanted to slaughter, is a Christ figure, not "the Christ", but a prefiguration, yes, of that Christ with a whip who dispersed the merchants of lambs in front of the Temple, a prefiguration of that apocalyptic Christ of the Book of Revelation: "With justice he judges and wages war. [...] Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty." (19:11-15)

All this is anthropological material about persecution, about all vs one violence, and it is a valuable help in thinking about the phenomena of harassment and bullying.

Quote :

Do you really think it is the same "God"?

Those are different clowns putting their words into the mouth of their chosen divine-tooth-fairy-monkey.
Now whether that is the same monkey or two different monkeys, or even more monkeys or wheter there even is a monkey to begin with...

....meh who cares.

Maybe some people care about this brone age nonsense.

But it ain't my circus, and those ain't my monkeys anyhow.
I just know a clown when I see one.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Lost my post

Sabratha wrote:

....meh who cares.

Maybe some people care about this bronze age nonsense.

If you don't care about victims of social violence, why are you posting comments here?

Saint George wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

....meh who cares.

Maybe some people care about this bronze age nonsense.

If you don't care about victims of social violence, why are you posting comments here?

Wait... is that a rule now? You have to care for social justice in order to post?    Hey [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], when did being an SJW become an obligatory requirement for participating in this illustrious forum?      


For the record: By "this bronze age nonsense" I meant the 'priest&rabbi' organized temple spiritual religion type thing. You know: God, Abraham, firstborn sons, camels, sheep, clowns, monkeys, dogs, ponies and the whole big tent circus shoobang.


As for victims... funny you mention those. I was getting the impression that you care more about the perpetrators than the victims. But now that you mentioned Sedwick, I realized I was wrong.
You care about targets of bullying - whether real or perceived, whether victim or perpetrator. That is not really my thing, but hey - I repsect the differences. Diversity and inclusion makes this forum stronger. Right?

As for what is my thing here? Well, some people care about just the bottom line, some people care about the consumer, some only about the final product. But some us don't care much for all of that, we just care about the process itself.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Addendum:
Oh my pearls! That last image sure took on some indeliberate Dylanesque lost highway vibes. Gaze into the abyss and all that grimdark jazz I guess.

Sabratha wrote:

I was getting the impression that you care more about the perpetrators than the victims. But now that you mentioned Sedwick, I realized I was wrong.
You care about targets of bullying - whether real or perceived, whether victim or perpetrator.

These "perpetrators" were victims, both Sedwick and Klebold were pushed to suicide, Sedwick was a 12 years old girl who died alone, Klebold took a heavy toll before to die. But your “whether real or perceived” is typical talk of people trying to avoid responsibility. For a long time, some replied the same nonsense to women who reported sexual harassment: "aren't you exaggerating? don't you take it too seriously? don't you imagine things?" And today there are psychologists who sincerely believe that the bullied can be held responsible for their ordeal. I have already read that. As if a redhead could be held responsible for his hair or a stutterer for his pronunciation. Your “whether real or perceived” is not honorable, it smacks of denial of responsibility... and ultimately it smacks of consent and complicity. Many people agree with the perpetuation of harassment, not only they agree with the suicide of bullied student, but also with the death of other students when the bullied takes revenge. They are hypocrites, they can accept the death of a few bullies with their victim as a fair price for not changing and for perpetuating the same blindness and same practices: all these deaths are just collateral damage and acceptable, they do not justify any change in social practices. And so “whether real or perceived” goes with mental health, gun control, nihilism, whatever, anything but addressing the collective responsibility in the suicide of harassed students:



Tucker Carslon asked the good questions but Peterson failed to answer any of them. One of his biggest fails is "nihilism". Because, for example, Cho Seung was not a nihilist, he believed in happiness, he valued relationships:

• "Oh the happiness I could have had mingling among you hedonists, being counted as one of you, only if you didn’t fuck the living shit out of me."
  

The same with other bullied and ostracized kids who turned into school shooters. Dr Peterson imagines that "nihilism" appears suddenly in the mind of students out of nowhere. But if these kids were "nihilists" they wouldn't even care about being bullied, it wouldn't make any difference to them... and no need to take revenge, because revenge for what? What was the damage, what was the loss?

In reality, the more intelligent are the kids and the more they value life, the more they suffer being harassed and ostracized. They precisely amount the loss.

The interview with Carlson was a complete failure, Peterson improvised cheap answers (but didn't forget to sell his book)... The truth is that Peterson had nothing to say, he didn't work on the issue of bullying, he didn't care, and he just tried to recycle his book material to keep up appearances, to save face.

And it's even worse, because Peterson probably found his idea of "nihilism" in the most extreme statements of the school shooters, the ones where they pretend to despise anything they didn't have access to, like Aesop's fox. But Peterson behaved exactly the same: he went to court for his licence, lost the first trial, went on appeal, and having lost the appeal trial, he began to say that finally the licence was not so precious... So what should we think about Peterson's despise of his own licence? Nihilism? And the licence being lost, Peterson warned that he'd go at war on the other psychologists who ostracized him. Despising his own licence once lost and then going at war for revenge on his peers? And he was a psychology professor at the University of Toronto?


Charles

Saint George wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

I was getting the impression that you care more about the perpetrators than the victims. But now that you mentioned Sedwick, I realized I was wrong.
You care about targets of bullying - whether real or perceived, whether victim or perpetrator.

These "perpetrators" were victims, both Sedwick and Klebold were pushed to suicide, Sedwick was a 12 years old girl who died alone, Klebold took a heavy toll before to die. But your “whether real or perceived” is typical talk of people trying to avoid responsibility.

Nah, I'm just stating facts. Whenever a school shooting happens there are always people who will crawl out of the woodwork to cry: "It was bullying!", even before they know any of the facts.

Sometimes bullying did have something to do with it. But many times there is no proof for it. Columbine is at least debatable, because we do know that there was bullying in the 97/98 school year by people like Hoffschneider etc.

But a  lot of time, there's no facts that would point to bullying. Who bullied Randy Stair at the store? Give me one name at least. Who bullied Cho at V-tech, do you have at least 1 name?

Nope, you don't cause there ain't any.

Saint George wrote:

And so “whether real or perceived” goes with mental health, gun control, nihilism, whatever, anything but addressing the collective responsibility in the suicide of harassed students

Mental helath plays a big role in many shootings. You may not agree with it, but Adam Lanza was mentally ill. So was Randy Stair, just like Michael Carneal and your favorite example - Cho Seung Hui.

Yeah thre's people who engage in mass murder without having any psychotic mental ilness... or any ilness at all save maybe depression. Auvinen, Breivik, perhaps Weise etc. But they are the outliers in many ways. Easily half of the shooters have serious mental conditions that prevented their effective functioning in society in the first place.

So rant and rave against psychiatry all you want, but it has to be part of the solution. That''s the numbers.

Undermedication, lack of fundi9ng for mental health, the stigma attached to people who seek treatement and finally sloppy work by actual psychologists... all these things contribute greatly to the rising number of spree killings.

All it took to prevent Columbine was that one lousy psychologist to identify Harris's state correctly instead of misdiagnosing him with OCD. Cho should have been diagnosed andd institutionalized long before he got to V-Tech. His own parents tried to have him correctly diagnosed several times before. Heck, V-tech itself wanted to have him treated, but dragged their heels to its own detriment.
Yeah, society failed Cho. But not in the way you meant it - it failed him by not providing him with psychiatric care.

Sabratha wrote:

Saint George wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

I was getting the impression that you care more about the perpetrators than the victims. But now that you mentioned Sedwick, I realized I was wrong.
You care about targets of bullying - whether real or perceived, whether victim or perpetrator.

These "perpetrators" were victims, both Sedwick and Klebold were pushed to suicide, Sedwick was a 12 years old girl who died alone, Klebold took a heavy toll before to die. But your “whether real or perceived” is typical talk of people trying to avoid responsibility.

Nah, I'm just stating facts. Whenever a school shooting happens there are always people who will crawl out of the woodwork to cry: "It was bullying!", even before they know any of the facts.

You obviously don't have any idea about what is a "fact".

Sabratha wrote:

Sometimes bullying did have something to do with it. But many times there is no proof for it. Columbine is at least debatable, because we do know that there was bullying in the 97/98 school year by people like Hoffschneider etc.

It's not debatable, you are not de bona fide.

Sabratha wrote:

But a lot of time, there's no facts that would point to bullying. Who bullied Randy Stair at the store? Give me one name at least. Who bullied Cho at V-tech,

I am not interested in cases other than school shootings. But Cho was bullied, for years, and he was able to produce conceptual models of bullying. His two brilliant plays, genuine works of art, are such models. You can't reach that level of literature without having experimented the depicted reality from the inside.

And by the way, in the case of social violence, of all vs one violence, there is no neutral position where could sit a neutral observer/witness. Either you side by the one, or you side by the all... But knowledge about the phenomenon is only by the side of the one: the all is certain that the persecution is justified (like you), only the one knows it is arbitrary.

Sabratha wrote:

do you have at least 1 name? Nope, you don't cause there ain't any.

And that's why you come to these excuses: you hide in the mass, like bullies do, they torment in a group, in a pack, in a mob. You cite the name of "Hoffschneider" but what if you had no name to cite? Would it mean there was no bullying? Hoffschneider was just the tip of the iceberg, it's even an accident if his name came out. When a group harasses an individual, when a majority persecutes a minority, most of the times, no names come out, or else all the names in the group should be cited. And if they really can't avoid responsibility, they push forward any Hoffschneider and they bury the case.

And like in many revenges, there is a delay between the offense and the revenge. Time does not automatically heal the wounds, in the contrary, delay allows wrath to grow. The sooner you apply justice, the easier, but late revenges are the most violent. The offender completely forgot the offense, but the offended didn't... and what a "surprise": the little boy we used to have fun torturing grew up and here's a man handling a gun.

Sabratha wrote:

Saint George wrote:

And so “whether real or perceived” goes with mental health, gun control, nihilism, whatever, anything but addressing the collective responsibility in the suicide of harassed students

Mental helath plays a big role in many shootings. You may not agree with it, but Adam Lanza was mentally ill. So was Randy Stair, just like Michael Carneal and your favorite example - Cho Seung Hui.

But you can't differentiate what illness was not related to harassment and what illness was caused by harassment... Psychologist Gregory Bateson showed how schizophrenia was related to social pressure applied on the individual. Anthropologist Jean Rouch showed how possession was related to social pressure and humiliation... How are you going to differentiate the part caused by harassment from the rest? You can't... Anyway taking revenge on offenders cannot be labeled as mental health issue, right?

And what about Thomas Ferebee who pushed the button to drop a nuclear bomb on the city of Hiroshima, killing from 70,000 to 140,000 persons, did anybody question his mental health?

You are too happy to accuse the bullied taking revenge of mental health issues (because it's an accusation, mental health is another well known criteria for selecting victims), you still put the blame on him, but you can't face the basic reality that if you slap someone's face, you will be slapped in return... you like "happy slapping", you want the offended never be able to make you pay for the offense.

So, you try any means, any sophistic arguments, not to face the responsibility of the bullies: you don't want school shootings to end, you want the persecution to go on.

Saint George wrote:

It's not debatable, you are not de bona fide.

Yes I am.

Are not!
Am too!
Are not!
Am too!
Are not!
Am too!
Are not!
Am too!

... ah, I feel younger already!  

Saint George wrote:

I am not interested in cases other than school shootings. But Cho was bullied, for years, and he was able to produce conceptual models of bullying. His two brilliant plays, genuine works of art, are such models. You can't reach that level of literature without having experimented the depicted reality from the inside.

So... you believe that he was bullied because he wrote two plays which you believe he could have written in that way because he was bullied?

That is circular reasoning. Sorry.

Saint George wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

do you have at least 1 name? Nope, you don't cause there ain't any.

And that's why you come to these excuses: you hide in the mass, like bullies do, they torment in a group, in a pack, a mob.

Quite the opposite. You are hiding in 'the mass', by continuously trying to talk in broadstroke generalities of 'vox populi' and 'social violence', rather than about specifric individuals.

I'm the one taking things out of the mass. Focusing on the individual. Focusing on individual shooters and individual bullies who have a first and last name.

Sabratha wrote:

You cite the name of "Hoffschneider" but what if you had no name to cite? Would it mean there was no bullying?

If I had not a single name of a single bully and not a single shred of evidence that X was bullied, I'd have the balls to admit that.  

We know Hoffschneider existed, we have reports of him bullying all sorts of people. We have reasons to assume that at some point he bullied Eric or Dylan too. But he graduated ayear before the shooting and wasn't even in CHS anymore. So it is highly debatable if  bullies were E&D's targets or if bullying was even a major motivation for them to plan and execute mass murder.

So let's go back to Cho. Was there a single person in V-tech that was reported to have bullied him? If so, do you have a single name of that single bully?

You do not. There's no name because there's no evidence him being bullied at V-tech.

There's reports of girls turning down his sexual advances, with him proceeding to stalk and harass those girls. But that is not bullyin on their part.

Saint George wrote:

And like in many revenges, there is a delay between the offense and the revenge.

That's not the issue with Cho.

• If Cho was bullied in high school buy a guy named Joe Shmoe and 14 days later he would attack Joe Shmoe, that could be called a revenge with a delay.
  
• But if  was bullied in high school buy a guy named Joe Shmoe and 4 years later he graduates to V-Tech where he shoots 19 year old Reema Samaha and 31 people (none of whom are Joe Shmoe), then it isn't revenge.
  

It could be an act of rage against society or humanity as a whole. It can be an act of deliberate political or religious terrorism. But it ain't revenge.

Its not a case of delay or time, it is a case of taking it out on different people than the offender/bully/abuser

Revenge is an act against a specific group or individual that is to blame for some former abusive act.

Do you believe that Cho killing these 32 students and staff at V-tech was any sort of 'social justice'?

Saint George wrote:

And by the way, in the case of social violence, of all vs one violence, there is no neutral position where could sit a neutral observer/witness. Either you side by the one, or you side by the all...

Going back to specific individuals. Did any of the 32 people killed by Cho at V-tech took anything other than 'a neutral position' when it came to Cho being bullied years ago at a different school? None of them were even there.

Do you believe that any of these 32 people were to blame for what Cho felt? Do you think even one of these 32 people deserved to have Cho kill them?

And when the police has to side by the one persecuted, and save him from the bullies, they come with automatic guns:



Were these policemen depressed, did they have mental health issues, to show up with assault rifles?

The bonfire where to burn alive that poor lady was already lit, and good luck if you want to collect names... the mob lit the fire, they stopped to behave like individuals, they behaved as a herd, they melted in a mob, they became a pack, and went witch hunting, all on the hunt on the last individual, whose only name is remembered because he was the last to be "a one".

So it is not easy to really understand what's happening with school shootings. There are comfortable explanations, many easy ones, all having in common to avoid taking responsibility for social violence and bullying. But this avoidance speaks about consent and complicity. At first, the structure of social violence offers some comfort to the persecutors, but later, they can't escape: the more they try to put the blame on the bullied, the more they incriminate themselves.

And what if the Kenyan policemen had to use their automatic guns against the crowd trying to burn alive that poor lady, would you mourn the "innocent" killed, and add a line to your hypocrite, self-indulging and quite miserable "Bullet time"?

And that policewoman handling an assault rifle, confronting the bullies to save their victim, she was a modern Saint George, and a genuine leader, in the highest meaning of the word, political leader, she had the courage to do what had to to be done (I like her, she's admirable), to do what DeAngelis was too lazy to do, and what Peterson is too corrupt to imagine. And at the end of that day, nobody died.

The agreement about persecution in US society is really noxious when it comes to school. Not only because of suicided victims and because of victims of the suicided when then take revenge, but also because it undermines the core mission of school. The most gifted students (Klebold, Cho, etc.) are most likely to become victims of harassment due to their academic performances (Washington Post), and not only the most gifted students :

• "First, her younger sister entered Columbine last year and went from a straight "A" student to failing. No one from the school called to let her parents know for several months until finally a physics teacher called. The sister reported being unhappy. They pulled her from Columbine and enrolled her in Dakota Ridge. Her sister is again flourishing. Her sister told her that everyone at Dakota Ridge is friendly no matter which clique they are part of."
  

There are schools where the principal and the supervisors give up their mission of educators, they don't care if the school becomes a jungle where social violence pushes students to suicide and sometimes blows back at the whole school. Dr Jordan Peterson should address these issues instead of talking about "capitalism", "nihilism", "God", "toxic masculinity" and his book. The problem is the lack of adult authority, the failure of adults to embody authority and to apply justice and peace inside the school community. Maybe it's related to the American defiance towards State authority, Americans prefer to rely on their guns to defend themselves rather than on the courts and the police, it seems that they apply the same principles to school life... but prohibiting students from arming themselves. Anyway, at Columbine, students did arm themselves:

• SK: Kids bring pistols to school, knives, you name it. There were kids - not all of them, small groups - five or six who carried guns to school. They would carry pistols with them at all times. Knives were beyons common. I had a butterfly knife. Everyone carried knives with them.
  
  RL: Why did they do that?
  
  SK: Just in case. RH came after a friend of mine with a bat... he's never gonna get me (Recorded April 30, 2004 - Ralph Larkin, Comprehending Columbine, chapter 5, page 86)
  

But the principal and supervisors' speech was a double bind: do defend yourself and do not take any means to defend yourself.. They say simultaneously "Deal with it" to the victim of bullying and "Don't deal with it". We have seen how Peterson applied double standard, but there it's more than a simple double standard: it's a double bind... That is to say: psychological destruction at its highest...

The level of bullying and violence at Columbine, the abandonment of children by adults, were such that "They would carry pistols with them at all times. Knives were beyond common". And Dr Jordan Peterson, with his "nihilism", "revenge against God" and "capitalism" speech, he prefers to see the collapse of the educational mission of school rather than to address adults' responsibility in school violence, "Dr Peterson" is a fraud.

• "people who do terrible things, like the Columbine shooter, that's exactly what, for lack of a better word, they are possessed by: it's sheer malevolence" (2:44)
  

Thus, Canadian science concludes on "possession"... and the professor of psychology at the University of Toronto finally transformed himself into that prosecutor of ancient times, this type of accuser pointing the finger at any individual and shouting: “A witch!”.

But why doesn't Dr Peterson say a single word about the "sheer malevolence" of bullies who push students to suicide?

• "Rebecca Ann Sedwick (2000–2013), age 12, was an American middle school student who died of suicide by jumping from a concrete silo tower on September 9, 2013, due to bullying. Sedwick was a seventh grader at Crystal Lake Middle School in Lakeland, Florida. Sedwick was cyberbullied and bullied in person for one and a half years. Two girls, ages 14 and 12, encouraged others to fight Sedwick, and sent her electronic messages encouraging her to commit suicide. In November 2012, her mother Tricia said that, "she came home near tears every day"." (Wiki)
  
  
• "A 17-year-old student committed suicide after a bully said, "Why don't you go home and shoot yourself? No one would miss you," in front of other students and the teacher, the boy's parents claim in a federal lawsuit." (Eric Mohat's suicide)
  

Can't he understand reciprocity in human relationships? and that most often, a personal offense triggers a retaliation? The cases of Rebecca Sedwick and Eric Mohat are different from Columbine only in the fact that Harris and Klebold had enough force to take revenge before to commit suicide. But Dr Jordan Peterson launches into an accusatory rampage: you are "possessed"! What sickness drives you to defend yourself?

Peterson and Langman, with their accusations of "possession" and of "enemy of god", they regress to the level of lynching mobs. They are disgraces to psychology as a modern science.

The "science" of Jordan Peterson and Peter Langman summarized in less than 4 minutes:



With Peterson as Bedevere and Langman as Arthur (or vice versa).

Saint George wrote:

The "science" of Jordan Peterson and Peter Langman summarized in less than 4 minutes:



With Langman as Bedevere and Peterson as Arthur (or vice versa).

Langman and Peterson are dumbfucks, like all other coaches and psychoanalysts. They try to find something in the mind of the perpetrators and then blame these psychological factors for their shootings.

I can't believe it's so hard to understand that some people are objectively treated like shit by other people and modern society; no, it's better to look for the perpetrators' alleged mental defects in their minds, and then tell others (read: bullies): ''Look, he was mentally ill, it's not your fault he did it!''

xDarkRazoR wrote:

Saint George wrote:

The "science" of Jordan Peterson and Peter Langman summarized in less than 4 minutes:



With Langman as Bedevere and Peterson as Arthur (or vice versa).

Langman and Peterson are dumbfucks, like all other coaches and psychoanalysts. They try to find something in the mind of the perpetrators and then blame these psychological factors for their shootings.

I can't believe it's so hard to understand that some people are objectively treated like shit by other people and modern society; no, it's better to look for the perpetrators' alleged mental defects in their minds, and then tell others (read: bullies): ''Look, he was mentally ill, it's not your fault he did it!''

Like it or not, a huge proportion of shooters had been diagnosed before the shootings ever happened, or self-reported psychotic episodes like Lanza. Or have been referred for evaluation like Cho.

So... the 'dumbfucks' often already find 'something in the mind' before these people become perpetrators. I'd say that is good argument against the calim that such a diagnosis is politically/socially motivated.

Sure, psychologists are people too and they can make mistakes. Working with an uncooperative patient who hides facts from you is hard and makes misdiagnosis more likely.
The woman that prescribed Luvox to Eric to treat his nonexistant OCD? That was a misdiagnosis. But I have no reason to believe that Eric was open and cooperative with her to begin with. If he fed her lies, that could have a huge impact.

Are there shooters who were not mentally ill and who were motivated purley by revenge? Sure. Asa Coon is one, a better example is Gang Lu.
But those are the minority of shooters.


Bullying seems to be a much more important phenomenon to various columbine fanboys and other space monkeys than to most shooters themselves. A lot of people suffer bullying and do not have the tools to process that in a healthy way. Many engage in revenge fantasies and then move on to project their experiences onto famous spree killers, mythologizing them into 'revenge-superheroes'.

Sabratha wrote:

Bullying seems to be a much more important phenomenon to various columbine fanboys and other space monkeys than to most shooters themselves.

Maybe it "seems" to you but actually it is not. Ralph Larkin seriously analyzed the Columbine tragedy in his Comprehending Columbine - Chapter 9 - Give peace a chance:

• "The most serious problem in attempting to reduce violence in the school like Columbine is misdiagnosis. To this day, Principal DeAngelis has no viable explanation of the rampage shootings in his high school. He essentially accepted the Manichean explanation of the evangelical community that Klebold and Harris were instruments of Satan, committing evil against the good people of Columbine High School. As late as spring 2004, he insisted that bullying had nothing to do with the rampage shooting at Columbine, but rather, blamed the incident on the characteristics of the shooters. Most rampage shootings, including the ones at Columbine, have been retaliatory (Magee and DeBernardo 1999). As long as DeAngelis denies that the attack in his school was retaliatory, he will be unable to develop a viable antiviolence program."
  

• "The vast majority of rampage shootings, including those at Columbine, are retaliatory violence by the victims of such physical and psychological violence. If educators wish to stop the cycle of violence in American high schools, they have to begin at the top of the student status structure and provide students with the political, human, and physical resources to participate actively in the solution to the problem of violence. Because a substantial proportion of high school violence is perpetrated by student elites associated with sports, the problem has been kept invisible. One of the major purposes of this study is to make the violence that is perpetrated by student elites visible. The first step in solving a problem is an accurate diagnosis."
  

• "The greatest problem with profiling is that it ignores entirely the context that generates the retaliation. DeAngelis and the profilers are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. However, the profiler perspective fits in with the dominant view of the problems at Columbine High School; they primarily reside in the persons of a small minority of disaffected students who bear watching. The dominant elites are absolved of any responsibility. Issues related to ostracism, defense of social privilege, homophobia, harassment, humiliation, and violence directed at lesser status peers are defined out of existence."
  

• "Perhaps one of the most successful antiviolence programs is the Bully Prevention Program, created by Olweus and Associates (Olweus 1993; Olweus et al. 1999) in response to a growing awareness of widespread bullying in Norway. The program was implemented countrywide and focused on reducing opportunities for bullying behavior and social rewards for engaging in bullying by creating a normative environment in the school that discourages bullying. The program begins by establishing a committee that plans to change school conditions and monitors those changes. Bullies and their parents are targeted for intervention. Firm limits are established for unacceptable behavior, and adults act as authority figures and positive role models."
  

Ralph Larkin worked seriously, but Jordan Peterson only expressed personal feelings, and quite vulgar feelings, more related to mob mentality than to academic culture.

Sabratha wrote:

A lot of people suffer bullying and do not have the tools to process that in a healthy way. Many engage in revenge fantasies and then move on to project their experiences onto famous spree killers, mythologizing them into 'revenge-superheroes'.

What do you mean by "tools to process that in a healthy way"?  I fear it would once again be utter nonsense if the idea was "Now that you have "tools", head back into the arena and deal with it!". Because an individual confronted with social violence cannot escape alone. Why do you think the police showed up with assault rifles to save this poor woman from the mob that wanted to lynch her? Children who are victims of bullying and who survive are lucky: unless adults get involved and protect the child, it's a matter of luck. Because of the nature of social violence and its outcome which is death, like in the cases of Eric Mohat and Rebecca Sedwick, and many other cases. In social violence that occurs among adults, nothing can prevent a crowd to go for the kill once they have selected a victim, only the crowd can lose appetite for the kill, the same with social social violence among children. But the difference is that children are placed under the authority and care of adults. It's not extravagant for adults to take care of children, is it? But it's cruelty to abandon them to violence, despair and destruction when it's so easy to guarantee them peace, and it's ugly to stay in denial.

Saint George wrote:

Ralph Larkin seriously analyzed the Columbine tragedy in his Comprehending Columbine - Chapter 9 - Give peace a chance

Indeed. Larkin is the one who has masterfully analyzed the retaliation phenomenon related to largely social context of school shooters (and other rampage shooters) motivations. He is incomparably better than Fagman or Peterson.

"The devil attacked this poor innocent school," is an excuse that will be around for a long time.
Some people can't understand that they are complaining about problems that are because of their very own behavior.

Yes and we could question the difference between Larkin and Peterson: why such a huge gap? how did it happen?

According to Larkin's biography, he taught elementary school in the 1970s. That could explain the difference between Larkin's deep wisdom and Peterson's superficial ideology: Larkin observed in vivo the life of a community of children. But many teachers are also there and they don't care at all: it was not only a question to be part of school life, Larkin had to care, and obviously he did.

But probably that's not enough. And the answer could be on Peterson's side. I watched his many videos about art and the conclusion is brutal: he doesn't understand anything about art, absolutely nothing. That is to say: Dr Jordan Peterson is absolutely unable to understand anything about feelings, emotions, passions, imagination, creativity, desires... he doesn't get anything. And the reason why is that Dr Jordan Peterson is the most average man. He's a basic bro who was parachuted at the University of Toronto Psychology department, but he doesn't have any understanding whatsoever of what is the life of a ψυχή. He's a basic bro, average, normal, a perfect normal North American. So when Peterson talks about art, it's a catalog of platitudes, trivialities, caricatures, naiveties, absurdities, stupidities, vulgarities: a caricature of "the American", the one who hunted to death Edgar Allan Poe.

Here we can see Peterson's practical conclusions about creativity:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What we can see behind that poor man is what Dr Peterson believes to be the genuine fruit of genuine creativity. Peterson deeply and sincerely believes that the crap he bought on ebay and hung at his walls is genuine art, the genuine fruit of human creative potential... What we see behind him, Peterson produces the same in his "work" as an academic, as a psychology professor. His own "research" has the same level of achievement... and obviously if engineers had the same criteria of professionalism nobody would ever board a plane or even ride a car.

All this to say that Peterson is absolutely unable of reading the texts of bullied teenagers who turned into mass shooters: he can't sniff the trail like a hound, the trail of suffering, humiliation, shame, despair, tears, of horrible mornings when you have to go to school like to slaughterhouse... a trail which is right there, underneath the manifestos of triumphant payback. And more, Dr Peterson does not have access to the texts of the great authors who have written on the same questions: Dostoyevsky, Stendhal, Proust, Flaubert, Balzac, Hölderlin, Saint Paul, Gombrowicz, Musil, Mishima, Brontë, etc. Dr Peterson is a perfect stranger to what Stendhal wrote: "I hate her because of a her beauty", and Mishima: "Beauty is now my enemy", he will take it at face value, accusing the authors of being "nihilists", "possessed" and "enemies of god", because he's just incapable of sensing the wound at the soul behind the provocative statement.

Peterson is much too average to perceive anything happening at the fringes, at the extremes, of his world. He's a basic bro, all what he can understand is basicness. Bearing a difference, he never experienced, and when it finally came, when his peers finally ostracized him, he answered with eating a diet of red meat and now wearing an arlequin suit: he immediately collapsed...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Dr. Jordan Peterson was such a conformist that when his peers told him he was a buffoon, he started dressing like a buffoon.

In his novel Joy (1929), French writer Georges Bernanos described a young aristocratic woman, Chantal de Clergerie, experiencing deep religious feelings. The girl is an elite soul, far from the crowd, a kind of diamond. Around her is a circle of her family friends: physicists, psychologists, sociologists, mediocre academics driven by ambition. They look at her like as a guinea pig and they are absolutely incapable of understanding anything about her life. It's the same thing with Peterson and Langman: they cannot identify with the experience of individuals bearing the burden of a significant difference, they are simply too mainstream, too basic, it goes beyond all their habits and their principles.

Psychologists circle around Chantal de Clergerie with their big hands, to find her a mental disorder and a comforting definition (they would open her head and put slices of her brain under the microscope to obtain a diagnosis if they could), they'd like to measure her, to count her in statistics, to reduce her to equations, and they can't, they are defeated by her uniqueness as an individual.

Peterson and Langman are absolutely unable to deliver any "Message to the school shooters: past, present and future", because a meaningful message probably had to be: You don't have to kill yourself and make a bloodbath in the process, just survive, just survive two or three years and your survival will be the actual defeat of the crowd, just wait a few years, the bullies will go to college and there everything will be will be reversed, they will be considered as the brutes they actually are, and anyway your life is not worth less than those morons. In other words, to survive is to ruin the false justice of the crowd. Bullies think they are enforcing justice and a legitimate death sentence, thus committing suicide is still applying their justice. There is no way to deal with the issue without including justice. The majority of the students actually want to see any outcast dead, and the majority truly believes it's only justice. Survive and you'll defeat the majority and their sentence.

But again, such a message would lack generosity, because it would always be the same "Deal with it". Above all, the bullied teenager needs help. And so the only message should be: "Here is my number, call me, I'll come and help you".

I wrote above: "Dr. Jordan Peterson was such a conformist that when his peers told him he was a buffoon, he started dressing like a buffoon.", it was funny but not so precise. To be precise, I should have written: "Dr. Jordan was so afraid to become a victim of the crowd that he began to melt with the crowd." Only that second statement is fully correct:


From:


It was more than an individual collapse, it was a desperate attempt to join the crowd by melting and blending with the crowd. Dr Peterson's arlequin suit means:

"I am still a part of the satanic crowd hungry for a victim, looking forward to swallow a victim, don't expel me, don't sacrifice me, I'm one of yours, I belong to the persecutors, not to the persecuted. I want to swallow with you (hence the exclusive diet of red meat), not to be swallowed. I'm still at the top of the food chain, am I not?"

It means: "I am the multiple (my name is Legion), I am not the one; I am the crowd, I am not the individual; I am the pack of predators, I am not the prey." And where today could he find persecutors to join against a persecuted ?

Peterson didn't make any mistake: in Gaza, and he hastily joined the persecutors: Pro-Hamas protesters are sanctimonious psychopaths.

The poor man is so predictable it's not funny anymore... Like a chameleon, he's mimicking the persecutors, he's identifying with the lynching mob. Always on the right side, always on the side of the persecutors, always accusing the persecuted victims who try to defend themselves of being "psychopaths"... Really, despite all his claims and moral postures, the man is mud at the bottom of the harbor at low tide.


NOTE: when I write "satanic", it's in the precise anthropological meaning given at:

"And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth" (Book of Revelation 12:1-4)

"And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world" (Book of Revelation 12:9)

What is called "dragon", "serpent", "Devil", "Satan" is the same: a particular state into which a human group sometimes falls. It is the name of a crisis and a crisis finding an exit with the election and death of a human victim. We could translate "dragon" in "the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth" with "the angry crowd stood before the woman"... A "dragon appears" means "society is disturbed, awakened and looking for a victim"... And as that state of crisis is also the sacred itself, the same metonymy applies : often "dragon" is the name of both the crisis and its victim. Dragons that burn their victims end up being burned, those that drown end up drowning, etc.

​