Important though the things swirling about him may be, and they may well be significant indeed, they pale in comparison, in my opinion, to the ice melting at our poles. The fact that we have a certifiably disturbed person occupying our highest office of government. That we have a clearly toxic, and absolutely obsolete economic operating system, still in place; a system that creates most of the very dangerous competitions all of the nations of the world are currently engaged in, even as it also thwarts any ability to do anything useful about virtually any big problem. Competitions I would remind you that threaten war. Right when we need to be thinking about how we're going to cooperate in saving the planet from killing us off anyway. These things. These are far more important. So I haven't given him much attention.
That being said, I will limit any further comment to this:
At first impression he strikes me as another version of Ann Coulter, only with more sophistication, perhaps, and from a different set of angles of approach. And I make that comment not so much to criticize the content of his message, for I have little input on that in any case, but to point out that it seems to work around the same methodology as Coulter's version of "Controversial Branding." That process of commoditizing "Controversial" so as to be able to stay in the public eye and work both the book, and speaking tour markets. And from the little I can gather he seems to be doing quite well at that.
Now. Is that, in and of itself bad? No. He's playing the game in a way that the game allows him to play it. He presents his product and people can either buy into it or not. And it certainly seems like his message resonates with a good number of people, both for and against, but that's exactly the idea.
In a sense Bill Maher is something quite similar, though perhaps a bit more encouraging of engaging each other in respectful dialogue. As a good Liberal, or Progressive, should be. And of course, Bill Maher is both funny, and honest about being a satirist first, and social commentator something after that. But make no mistake, Maher is making a goodly amount of money doing what he does, which is a form of "Controversial Branding."
There may well be some elements of Dr. Peterson's message that have value. There may be some that don't.
I certainly do not agree, for instance, with Dr. Peterson's assessment that the Left is only about structureless anarchy. If he knew anything about labor history, or the development of Socialism, he would know that anarchists have been swirling about more than just the left; as evidenced by the Spanish civil war in the late 1930's. You had Fascists, Socialists, and Anarchists, boiling in the mix. And let us not forget that it was Dutch workers, a long time ago, who threw wooden shoes into the works, to agitate for labor's interests. And we know what that's called today. But to say all Socialists are for anarchy is absurd. Marx was a process guy to the max. Appreciated structure. Understood structure, and was out to set what he felt was incorrect structure right. You might not agree with his analysis, but you have to respect his understanding of what he was trying to analyze.
You could say that I am trying to do something similar for understandable reasons. That is why I have made it quite clear that I will never work for money again. That is why I have made it clear that I live on my SSI income alone now, and will continue to do so. And more to a personal point: I not only loath excessive notoriety, I fear it. I fear it the same way any alcoholic would fear going back to an environment of flash, and dash, and too many tempting temptations.
I fear it as well for what this nation has made of it. Of what we tend to do with putting not only too much emotion into our adulation, envy and hatred sometimes, but actual belief. Actual, tremendous, emotionally powered belief. You put that together with one idea or another and you have potential recipes for unbelievable disasters.
This is also a part of why I will never go on any speaking circuit. I don't want to become a celebrity talking head for a radical cause. I am an analyst. I analyze things. I provide descriptions of what I have analyzed, and possible solutions to the problems thus identified. I will be up for the Q and A that the press demands, but it will be in a limited amount, and it will be without live video.
I am doing this for one reason, and one reason only. I was quite literally made to understand why things aren't right. Made to be able to figure out how to articulate that, and provide a possible path to a solution. I have done that. Now it's up to you dear reader to decide what will be done with it. Your choice. I can only hope that, even being biased as I am as a Humanist and Progressive, I have made this be as informed a choice as it was in my power to do so.
There is a lot on the line for our survival here. Nothing else as a commitment towards addressing that will do.
RECONSIDERING THE LOBSTER
I Was Jordan Peterson's Strongest Supporter. Now I Think He's Dangerous
When he soared into the stratosphere he became peculiarly unknowable. There is something about the dazzle of the limelight that makes it hard to see him clearly. But people continue to be who they are even in the blinding overexposure of success. I have known Jordan Peterson for 20 years, and people had better know more about who he is.
No comments:
Post a Comment