Some blather about duty and internet drama

I made a bet with Sir Hamster that a Jordan Peterson lookalike would be among the pedophile antagonists of Alt-Q within the first five comics. Regarding this, some (heavily edited) copypasta of sperging from the Discord.

Vox seems dead-set on destroying Peterson for whatever reason.

The reasoning is pretty straightforward. I only disagree with Vox on two major points: 1) that Peterson is a pedophile, and 2) that Peterson is an evil manipulator with well-defined motivations comparable to George Soros. If I also agreed that Peterson is a pedophile and a malevolent influence, then I would have no disagreement with Vox’s mission or methods whatsoever. But in terms of influence, I believe Peterson is a well-intentioned mixed bag with huge weaknesses in key areas (you might recall it was this quote that originally triggered me). And I don’t believe he’s a pedophile or a supporter of pedophiles, and would be surprised if he’s a willfully blind denier or codependent enabler.

The main problem, as I was discussing with Patrick earlier, is that he’s bridging Jungian paganism and neoliberal ideology to create a viable civil religion for a legitimately post-materialist Western population. He conceives of himself as a genius for doing this, but this is due to mistaking the shift to an endogenous personality with genius proper, and likely also due to the Winner Effect producing a megalomania which he’s never had to manage before (unlike e.g. Vox or Sam Vaknin, who are familiar with the symptoms and how to manage them).

Luckily, a recent post provides good pullquotes to illustrate the reasoning behind Vox’s campaign.

I believe that if one knows someone is committing fraud, then one has a moral responsibility to alert those being defrauded.

-Vox Day
A failure to finish

It’s a good post and not very long, so I’d recommend clicking through and reading it. (I think there’s a subtle distinction which renders the criticism of William Lane Craig’s civility moot, but that’s another topic.) Vox uses the analogy of destroying Bernie Madoff and his institution to protect the innocent and avenge the victims. If a similar campaign had been executed against L. Ron Hubbard thousands of vulnerable people could have been saved from misery and enslavement.

Jordan Peterson actually explains this concept quite well in the video below. The obligation of vengeance for victims falls on those who are responsible for them:

The example he uses is a husband whose wife has been raped—because the man’s Christian duty is to love his wife, he is responsible to exact vengeance for wrongs done against her (similar to a king’s duty to avenge his subjects who have been wronged).

Christian morality gives me the right to offer mercy to those who have wronged me. It gives me no right to offer mercy to those who have wronged innocents I’m responsible for protecting.”

-Resident Moron

This is a very concise expression of the concept I was alluding to when I said “For my next trick, I will demonstrate how Christians set clear boundaries,” which is just another post that never graduated from my drafts folder. But I’ve illustrated the underlying logic with the example of screening out pedophiles as potential babysitters as part of an attack on radical nonjudgmentalism in liberal protestantism.

Peterson distinguishes between justice and vengeance as outsourcing the obligation to an abstract authority, because people enjoy the carte blanche to hurt each other in righteous anger and will take any excuse to escalate. This tends to mitigate the damage of feuds, gang wars, etc. But since there is no legal sanction against what Peterson is doing, and Vox sees real harm in it, Vox concludes he is obligated to take vengeance for the people Peterson has influenced and destroy Peterson’s reputation to protect those he might influence in the future.

The best way to mitigate fraud, absent legal avenues, is to publicly reveal the nature of the scam, shame the fraudster, and destroy the credibility of their institution.

I think William Lane Craig performs a real disservice to the followers of his opponents by failing to fully expose the arguments of his opponents or complete the unmasking of the charlatans he encounters.

Now, I think Vox’s motives are far from noble but this is his moral sanction to give reign to his natural sadism. And I expect he would agree with this assessment. This leads to the reasoning behind his methods. As Vox has made us aware, rhetoric is a far better persuasion tool than dialectic for as close to all audiences as makes no difference. Since the beginning of Vox’s campaign, Peterson’s credibility among the Alt-West and Alt-White has gone from significant acceptance to this meme:


So you can’t criticize Vox for ineffective rhetoric. Adding to this, painting someone as a pedophile is excellent ad hominem, and I believe Vox also genuinely believes Peterson is a pedophile (due to that damned heuristic which, in combination with Cville, caused me to fall out with Vox Popoli). This belief both allows and compels him to prosecute this accusation in the court of public opinion (the West now being a land of men and not laws).

This ties directly into my prediction about Alt-Q, which comes down to massive consilience. Given what Vox believes, and his moral imperative to use the best possible rhetoric to destroy Jordan Peterson, the fact that Alt-Q will almost certainly be about pedophilia, and the opportunity to get some free controversy out of it, it would be more surprising to me if Peterson does not appear in it. I expect this would only happen if someone else involved in the production opposed it strongly.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Some blather about duty and internet drama

  1. Mycroft Jones says:

    Without speaking as to Jordan Peterson being a pedophile himself, the nature of his dreams is consistent with someone who was sexually abused as a boy by the women in his life. For those who think this doesn’t happen, I found this link yesterday:

    Read the whole thing, if you can, without vomiting. The whole field of anthropology needs to be cleansed with fire. One brief quote, in which one of psychohistorian tries to set the record straight. This quote is just about the cannibalism, but the relevant bits about older women victimizing younger males is right after it.

    In some parts of New Guinea and Australia, mothers are both child murderers and cannibals, who commonly kill both their own and others’ children and feed them to their siblings.127 The most complete description of the practice comes from Roheim:

    It had been the custom for every second child to be eaten by the preceding child…When the Yumu, Pindupi, Ngali, or Nambutji were hungry, they ate small children with neither ceremonial nor animistic motives. Among the southern tribes, the Matuntara, Mularatara, or Pitjentara, every second child was eaten in the belief that the strength of the first child would be doubled…[My informants] had, each of them, eaten one of their brothers….They eat the head first, then the arms, feet, and finally the body. Jankitji, Uluru and Aldinga have all eaten their siblings….Daisy Bates writes: ‘Baby cannibalism was rife among these central-western people…In one group…every woman who had a baby had killed and eaten it, dividing it with her sisters, who in turn killed their children at birth and returned the gift of food, so that the group had not preserved a single living child for some years. When the frightful hunger for baby meat overcame the mother before or at the birth of the baby, it was killed and cooked regardless of sex.’”128

    Roheim states with great conviction though providing no evidence that the children who were forced to eat their siblings “are the favored ones who started life with no oral trauma,”129 that eating one’s siblings “doesn’t seem to have affected the personality development” of these children,130 and that “these are good mothers who eat their own children.”131 When I suggested in Foundations of Psychohistory132 that it was doubtful that children remained unaffected by being forced to join in their mother’s killing and eating of their siblings, a reviewer, Robert Paul, editor of Ethos, the journal of psychological anthropology, was adamant that no one may question Roheim’s rosy conclusions:

    Remember that the anthropologist in question here is Roheim himself, who can hardly be accused of being psychoanalytically unsophisticated, or of denying or resisting. Indeed, deMause readily accepts his reportage about the facts. Why does he question his conclusion? Roheim was nobody’s fool. If deMause, sitting in New York, knows better than Roheim what is “aboriginal reality,” then once again we are back in never-never land and not in the realm of empirical science.133

    Most ethnologists avoid describing how these children feel about participating in the killing or eating of their siblings. Lindenbaum simply says of the Fore tribe that “cannibalism was largely limited to adult women [and] to children of both sexes”134 but doesn’t mention that the mothers force the children to eat human flesh and doesn’t say how they reacted to this. Gillison reports that Gimi mothers feed the flesh to their older children and say it is “the sweetest thing…’You are still a small boy,’ my mother said to me, ‘so let me give you this.’ And she gave me some meat….A woman might have partaken of her own son, some women allowed, but she left the cutting to her co-wives, daughters, or daughters of her co-wives. ‘His mother ate the penis,’ one woman said…”135 Only Poole actually reported the reaction of one group of New Guinea children to their witnessing of their parents eating some children:

    Having witnessed their parents’ mortuary anthropophagy, many of these children suddenly avoided their parents, shrieked in their presence, or expressed unusual fear of them. After such experiences, several children recounted dreams or constructed fantasies about animal-man beings with the faces or other features of particular parents who were smeared with blood and organs.136

    Since Poole’s children had only witnessed their parents’ cannibalism, those children who are forced to actually join in and help kill and then eat their siblings can be expected to show even more internalization of murderous monsters and life-long fears of devouring witches fears which, unsurprisingly, are common to most New Guinea cultures. These infanticidal societies are in fact identical to contemporary cults that force children to murder and even eat the flesh of babies, with profound life-long traumatic effects upon their psyches-cult rituals which in a series of articles in The Journal of Psychohistory have been demonstrated to be well-documented, eyewitnessed, brought to court and criminal convictions obtained from skeptical juries in a majority of the cases studied.137



    Anthropologists often state that orally and anally raping boys is both chosen by and beneficial to them. Although occasionally they reveal that the boys “fear punishment”270 and that their “first response to doing fellatio was fear that is how most boys respond,” they nevertheless conclude that the boys “do not just accept fellatio: they want it.”271 Like most pederasty defenders, they depict the boys as “enthusiastically anticipating” their rape,272 and as “eager to suck” mens’ penises and “enjoying” the rape with “fine erotic enthusiasm.”273 Oral and anal rapes are said to be “grounded in personal affection rather than obligation”274 and “have a positive effect on the boy’s development.”275 Some of the anthropologists are open pedophile supporters, who praise the “positive tradition of paedophilia over the last hundred years” and term pederasty an “enormously nurturant relationship” in interviews in Paedika: The Journal of Paedophilia,276 one even having been prosecuted for bringing New Guinea boys back to the U.S. and sexually abusing them.277 Of the several hundred anthropologists whose work I have researched, I found none who said pederasty was detrimental, agreeing instead with the New Guinea natives that it was both desired by and beneficial to the victims.


  2. Very off topic says:

    I had finished reading your 3 or 4 last posts when this interrogative jutted forth: what does normal minds not know they do not understand when they do not understand, and some very rare others understand that they didn’t understand?

  3. Very off topic says:

    [Note: after posting I realized it was very likely to appear as a ln irony-flad sideswipe at you. Not at all. Actually I read something I can’t recall, suddenly told myself I was not getting it, and the rest followed.]

  4. kapy53 says:

    While Peterson may be modeling himself as some modern profit of a new religion, there is a truth in the fact that the West is in dire need of a new religious outlook.
    I still believe that Christ’s Grace can, should, and will be at the center of this new faith, but we are living in a new testament right now, and need to establish a new covenant with God. Jung, Peterson, Kierkegaard, and even Nietzsche all have something to say about how to re-orient our civilization on a righteous path back to glory.

  5. So we have a moral duty to call out all the times Vox has been a fraud?

  6. SirHamster says:

    > So we have a moral duty to call out all the times Vox has been a fraud?

    You do. Go ahead.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s