Sunday, March 27, 2022

Property Rights and Malevolence vs. Jordan Peterson

It's impressive that JBP can study malevolence so much and not realize that Caino hypocriens is malevolent by default. 

"Gee why can't the left and right get along." If they don't have an enemy they will invent one. Their highest desire is to start a fight. 

Demand for propaganda is itself a bit of a distraction. There is demand for conflict. There is demand for violence. Aside from a rarefied 5% (or less?) the only demand for cooperation is due to the fact it can be used to win fights.

Is it weird that the folk who call for 'unity' all the time descend into infighting the instant they run out of e.g. Russians? It's not even slightly weird; on the contrary it would be weird if they could keep it in their pants for five seconds. If they don't have an enemy they will antagonize someone until they do. 

Most of the time calling for 'unity' is itself intended to be antagonistic, but if you submit they'll happily use you against the next person they antagonize, and they'll throw you under the bus the instant they run out of bigger fish to fry. Demand for violence.

The solution to violence is violence. Defectors must be suppressed, or ideally eliminated.

"You have to be extremely careful when defining self-defence," no, by the time you're arguing about what is and isn't self-defence, you already dun fukt up. Obviously defectors and deviants are going to socially define their treachery as self-defence, and no amount of cogent arguments will defeat this "conviction" because they're only pretending to be asleep. Again, the only weird thing is how incompetent they are; occasionally, genuine self-defence is legitimized. Crime never ends up supported across the board. (Likewise, codices like the bible never end up wall-to-wall lies.)

Secure your shit. Then, assert what is and isn't self-defence. If you can defend it, you were right. If not, it doesn't matter if you were right. Hence, defend it. With guns, not words. With artillery, not youtube videos. 

Clear and responsible property rights make it clear what is and isn't aggression, by decree. JBP is carrying water for the deviants, because it's real hard to make a man understand a principle that says he ought to be fired.

If he were genuinely pro-order he would never have become a professor in the first place. You don't need to understand it in words, you can feel it with your gut. JBP felt it too, but went ahead anyway.

If you understand that inherently rightism is unpopular responsibility and leftism is popular irresponsibility, it is not some weird surprise that they mix like fire and ice. 

The DNC and RNC are more like diseases than ideology. They attack vulnerabilities. The correct way to say it is that high O low C is vulnerable to the DNC disease, and high C low O is vulnerable to the RNC disease. The diseases are highly adapted to their niches. Immunity is intentionally suppressed by the State, just in case the diseases can't handle it on their own. 

High O low C isn't inherently "left" wing, because in an anti-crime regime, there is no left wing to be on. The left isn't pro-change, that's just a wig they put on because it helps them wiggle into the chink in your armour. Much the same way antifa is now apparently pro-Nazi as long as the Nazis make sure Bidens get paid. It really is kto kogo all the way down.


BSRK Aditya said...

> The solution to violence is violence. Defectors must be suppressed, or ideally eliminated.

What prevents defectors from joining your side?

Alrenous said...

Traitors can't join sides even if they want to.

JBPguy said...

As JBPguy I'm obligated to comment.

I agree with you for the most part, however, I think your categorisation of people as malevolent by default is a little off.

Humans are self interested by default.

What JBP misses is - he's empathetic. He doesnt like the idea of people suffering.
He's also capable of guilt - ie, if he does something he thinks is wrong it eats him up.
Finally, he has a low time preference. He can't inhabit the mindset of not feeling guilt or not considering long term gains.

As I've mentioned before, a lot of politics/ law / etc revolve around managing the reward for defecting against the system.

If the rewards for defecting are greater than the rewards for cooperation, a number of people in any population are going to risk defecting.

JBP is also a psychologist and understands human motivation. Positive reinforcement is the best way of motivating someone.
I don't think that he sees that, for example, removing criminal penalties for shoplifting is literally adding positive reinforcement for petty theft. JBP's worldview is that the guilt of defecting is punishment in itself.

JBP can't imagine or stomach the idea that some people literally need to see someone's intestines publicly removed as sufficient moderation for the rewards of defecting.