How to Be God-Right

I have had a fair amount of fall-out thanks to the video that I did with my friends about Vox Day’s book on Jordan Peterson.

If you have watched the video, you know that I agree with Milo and Vox in their critique of the Good Professor. Like Milo and Vox, I do not see Jordan as on “our” side. Quite the reverse. I became wary of Professor Peterson about this time last year, after spending over a month trying to make sense of what happened in his interview with Cathy Newman. I became increasingly suspicious as I watched his interactions with Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin on their shows, and I lost all faith in him as an ally when he threw Milo under the bus rather than argue with Bari Weiss about whether Milo was “possibly [a racist].” By the time Professor Peterson made his Kavanaugh tweet, the camel was already on the ground, crippled and unable to rise.

I do not think Professor Peterson believes in God by any definition that I would recognize. (Hint: If you care more about what Professor Peterson thinks about God than about how God makes Himself visible to the world, you are worshipping an idol. Just saying.)

But that is not what this post is about. This post is about fear and how SJWs use it to silence you by making you disavow your friends.

“You know Vox is alt-right, don’t you?” one of my friends messaged me after watching our video.

Me: “I have heard my Vile Boyfriend described that way, too. Funny that.”

My friend: “Your ‘vile boyfriend’ hasn’t come out and actually stated he is alt-right.”

Me: “And yet, oddly, he is still friends with Vox. So much so that he wrote a foreword for Vox’s book. Twice. In case there is any question: Vox is no more ‘alt-right’ in the terms you mean than Milo is. They are friends.”

My friend: “Yeah. That is odd and troubling. You are clearly ignoring the large swath of Vox’s words and ideology because of your fascination with Milo.”

Me: “Why? Milo is not a white supremacist, if that is what you are worrying about. Neither is Vox. Nothing Vox says is any more ‘extreme’ than, for example, what Douglas Murray has said [about immigration]. And Douglas Murray tours with Jordan Peterson. I am not ‘fascinated’ with Milo. I love Milo.”

My friend: “You are obsessed. You are obsessed to the point that you cannot see the danger Vox presents to not only your reputation and friendships but your career. I am saying this because you are a friend, and I don’t want to see you destroyed because of this.”

My friend clearly hasn’t been paying attention. Doesn’t he know that warning me that someone is too dangerous to know is simply to make me all the more curious about what it is he has said?*

Of course I went and looked. (Take your time. Vox has been writing about Milo even longer than I have.) What did I find? Vox and Milo are friends because Vox and Milo are on the same side—God’s side. Vox has stood by Milo, again, for even longer than I have, never once feeling the temptation that Professor Peterson did, to claim that he had not “followed Milo that carefully.”

Even though Milo is gay and Vox is a devout Christian who believes sodomy is a sin.

Little did I know, but Vox has been there all along, taking the hits for Milo, when I thought that Milo was all alone before he found John.

Talk about the Voice of God:
Milo stood by me when I made a media misstep that angered people at Breitbart. I stood by Milo when the media attempted to crucify him for his Joe Rogan interview and he lost his book deal with Simon & Schuster. That’s what friends and allies do, even when the other individual is flawed, imperfect, or behaves in a suboptimal manner. And only a fool or a social reject abandons people over mere differences of opinion or the occasional moral failure. 
But what about Vox’s “words and ideology” that my friend was warning me against? Surely mere friendship should not be enough to make me lose my discretion.

Well.

Consider what has been said about Milo.

Consider how many lies are out there about him.

Consider how I have spent the past two and a half years—just like Vox—defending Milo when the whole world was coming for him and calling him names.

Names like “white supremacist.” Names like “pedophile apologist.” Names like “Nazi.”

Milo is none of these things, and yet everyone on social media seems to know that these names are true.

They aren’t. They are lies. Just like the lies spread about Vox.

Now, why would that be?

Vox knows. Vox wrote the book on it.

SJWs always lie—because that is the only way that they can win. They can’t win with arguments, not logical ones. So they win, as Vox has shown, with rhetoric, that is, by playing on their opponents’ emotions. Above all, they win with fear—making friends afraid to stand with friends lest they get labeled as beyond the pale. They win by making people so afraid that they won’t even go look at the arguments people like Vox and Milo are making. They win, as they have since Robespierre inspired the Mountain, with terror—because they cannot win with truth.

In Vox’s words:
Rhetoric is all about what emotions you trigger in the other person; when SJWs talk to each other, they try to inflate themselves at the other’s expense in order to sort out their position in the SJW hierarchy....  The basic idea is that if you can make the other person feel small or angry, you are winning at SJW rhetoric. This is why SJWs are constantly accusing other people of being mad or upset; it’s just another way of them claiming to be winning the conversation.
Vox and Milo drive SJWs mad because they refuse to succumb to such tactics. Vox, because he will not back down no matter what names they call him. Milo, because he turns their attacks into a joke. Meanwhile, the cuckservatives are cowering in fear, begging Milo and Vox to stop drawing enemy fire or, alternatively, throwing them under the bus for being “extreme.” Are Milo and Vox “extreme”? Extremely effective, yes. Extreme in political terms, no, unless you think believing in human nature, families, nations, and Our Lord Jesus Christ is “extreme.”

I was originally taken with Professor Peterson because he defended Milo when Milo was down and he, Professor Peterson, was first coming under fire. But once the world had embraced him, Professor Peterson seemed to forget what he had said, instead nodding along as Ben and Dave declared Milo “irrelevant,” eventually succumbing to Bari Weiss’s efforts to make Milo untouchable by labeling him a racist. As Milo noted, at that moment, Professor Peterson was speaking “in front of what must have been the wealthiest audience he’d ever addressed.” How many of us would not cave at the prospect of winning the world, if only we were willing to distance ourselves from someone whom otherwise we might call friend?

“If the world hates you,” someone once said,
know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you... If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.
As an antidote to Professor Peterson’s “12 Rules for Being Really Mediocre,” Vox has offered his own “12 Real Rules for Life.” I am still somewhat angry at my friend for suggesting that Vox was anything other than a good friend to Milo—especially now that I know how good a friend Vox actually has been—but I am chastened, as I should be, by Vox’s Rule No. 3:
Be the friend that you want to have. Smiles are contagious. Loyalty inspires loyalty. Stand by those who stand by you. Give every friend who fails you a second chance. Only abandon those who have repeatedly proven they cannot be trusted and do not wish you well. 
SJWs always lie—but real friends are the ones who stand firm when everyone else runs away.


By the by, Vox’s family would appreciate prayers for their dog.

For my defense of Milo, go here. For my reservations about Professor Peterson, go here.

[*UPDATE: My friend insists he urged me to go look at Vox’s blog so that I would see that all the things he was telling me about Vox were true. The problem is, I don’t see what he sees when I read Vox’s own words—much as I don’t see the things that people say about Milo in what Milo says.]

Comments

  1. I hope you don't take offense at a little bit of self-promotion, but I think you might enjoy this video I recently recorded: https://www.bitchute.com/video/FLyiNprjHk4/

    It seems to fit well with your conclusion here.

    God be with you, Prof. Brown

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You cite exactly the same verses from John that I did! Nicely argued. I wonder how they would answer.

      Delete
    2. I feel greatly honored to have met with your approval, which reminds me. I also do a poetry series on that channel as well as discussions on various poems I've performed. I occasionally have special guests on to talk about those poems. Would you be at all interested in joining us for one of those talks sometime?

      (As to how they would answer, I engaged for a while in an argument in the comments with one guy on that video on YouTube. I eventually gave up in exhaustion. If you're genuinely curious, you could drop over there, but I wouldn't exactly call it enlightening.)

      Delete
    3. Done. I hope you get to join us sometime.

      Delete
  2. Your friend sounds like a right wing NPC. I hope he doesn't take your defense of VD as proof that you are waycist too. I would watch my back around him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think he thinks I am racist, but I am sorry he wasn't able to hear what I said about Vox. It is evidence of the power of such name-calling, that even friends succumb to the fear when it gets close.

      Delete
  3. This person is lying to you. They don't want to warn you about a drastic mistake you are about to make. They aren't concerned about your good at all. They are trying to control you through the use of malicious gossip.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You inspire me Fencing Bear. I pray I am as good a friend as you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Me: “And yet, oddly, he is still friends with Vox. So much so that he wrote a foreword for Vox’s book. Twice. In case there is any question: Vox is no more ‘alt-right’ in the terms you mean than Milo is. They are friends.”

    Whoa whoa whoa whoa... WHAT?

    "No more alt-right"? The man wrote "the 16 points of the alt-right."

    Here is the archive link. In fact notice on the right hand side bar in that link it has "ALTERNATIVE RIGHT: THE 16 POINTS" but if you go to the blog right now, the sidebar reads "NATIONALIST RIGHT: THE 16 POINTS" although clicking on it still goes to a link with "what-alt-right-is.html". Arguing that Vox isn't alt-right is like arguing that the Pope isn't Catholic. (Although I hear that is a debate right now...)

    Or is the key escape clause "in the terms you mean"? Not to mention the philosophical debates over group boundaries and when is a scotsman a fallacy.

    Man now we know why JBP spends half an hour defining terms for people. Man the postmoderns have done a lot of damage to communication with their Humpty Dumpty* philosophy.



    *“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” -Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahaha! Fair enough. It is in the “escape clause”: “alt-right” in the sense of “all the poisonous things we aren’t supposed to be.” I knew at that point that Vox is not and has never been a white supremacist, which was the sense my friend seemed to be suggesting. Vox is much more precise with his nomenclature!

      Delete
    2. You probably know, but Vox has also described himself and his fellow travelers as “the Unauthorized Right.”

      Delete
    3. The term "alt-right" was around for a long time before it became synonymous with "nazi" in the popular consciousness. It was initially used to describe anyone who had rejected the left and had also rejected conservatism as a dismal failure. It was far from a monolithic movement (you might even say it was diverse), although it did, due to the broad definition, include some unsavory types.

      Vox attempted to describe positions broadly agreed upon by some of the more influential thinkers of the alt-right in the 16 points. I wonder if it is a rhetorical mistake to persist with the term now that the average person has been indoctrinated into believing it simply means white supremacist, racist, puppy kicking poopy-head.

      Delete
    4. I recall a certain Breitbart article that argued exactly that, that there were different elements in the not-movement, which was not at all monolithic.

      I have read Vox’s 16 points and I understand better now what he means by them. It is a problem with all creeds: they are condensations of much larger arguments, so no matter how precise you make them, people still won’t understand if they don’t have the fuller exegesis. I don’t know how to get around this—it is my day job in describing Christianity, and a full time job that is!

      Delete
    5. I recall a certain Breitbart article that argued exactly that, that there were different elements in the not-movement, which was not at all monolithic.

      Written by Milo, wasn't it? ;)

      I have read Vox’s 16 points and I understand better now what he means by them. It is a problem with all creeds: they are condensations of much larger arguments, so no matter how precise you make them, people still won’t understand if they don’t have the fuller exegesis. I don’t know how to get around this—it is my day job in describing Christianity, and a full time job that is!

      Yet it's amazing how many folks criticize Peterson for doing that. ;) lol Brings to mind this excellent article Shamus Young wrote - which is about game critiques specifically, but I'm sure you'll find it quite apt to your world as well. There's something humorous about the crossover there.

      Oh hey some new 3 kraters vids are up! Time to add to my queue.

      Delete
  6. Interesting! I think that Prof. Peterson is downstream from Hegel and Kant....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. I talked about how he is downstream from Feuerbach in the video (and the blogpost I wrote this past summer). Feuerbach was downstream from Hegel and Kant, definitely. I need to learn more about them, but Feuerbach was a direct influence on Marx and Nietzsche, whom Peterson cites constantly.

      Delete
  7. Bookmarked! Pro-Christian, atheist, lurker.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As usual I'm confused by the conflict. I like Milo a lot. Vox does good work but I don't connect to it. I'm happy to see him doing well because I know he inspires good people. I like Owen Benjamin. I don't listen much anymore just because I think I understand everything he's said. I often go by Whis Bear for those who might know that name. Watching him digest everything on live stream was a real hoot.

    But I like Peterson even more than those guys. JBP is not "my guy" but he has helped me a lot. I see nothing damaging or dangerous in him. I've read all the complaints but they seem silly. JBP carefully curates his image. That makes sense -- he is a top tier Professor and has existed in a rabid PC climate for decades. 12 Rules is powerfully good. It is not alt-right. The people who hate the alt-right hate him with a white hot intensity. I can see why- he is their enemy. And he brings atheists to church. I do not understand the hate. I've read Vox's complaints but I still do not understand. Are we so loaded with quality spokesmen that we can reject Peterson?

    Is this part of the Purity Fetish syndrome? What a crippling disease that is. IMO we should take the good and leave the bad for everyone. I don't like Ben Shapiro, but his debate tips are pure gold. Ben is dangerous in a way, but not THAT dangerous. He makes a useful example as we can describe how he shills and is controlled by his investors, pushing for wars, discouraging Trump, etc. I like his "facts don't care about your feelings" and a few other things. But I would never outright reject people who like him. I'd join them in celebrating the things I like about Ben, and softly ask them questions about the things I don't like. Those guys are open to reason, unlike the NPC Left. I can work with them... so... I work with them. There is a growing army of Leftists who will do us physical harm if they get the chance. And there are people who want to stop them. I can work with everyone in that second group.

    The Milo/Peterson interview and dialogue was FANTASTIC. Milo hit JBP in ways no one else ever did. And JBP took it. Milo grew in stature as the interview went on, and JBP shrank to a normal life-sized person. There is room on my ship for all these guys... but Shapiro is going to have to swab the decks. Lol. I know he is no kind of Christian... he's got the J. But I can still work with him, even though he makes me nervous. Gays make me nervous also. But I don't automatically reject people, not in this social mission to preserve Western Values.

    Anyway, every personality should provide opportunities to dive into the details of precisely what they do right, and wrong. With Peterson... those same opportunities exist... but I just have not found Vox's complaints to be both correct and serious.

    But then, I am not looking for a leader. Those guys are not fit to be my guru. I reject all of them -- in that sense. I'm looking for insight and data and perspective. In that way, I can use them all. The dog whistle I listen for is free speech. Those who support it are on our side. I can salute Dave Ruben, Sargon, even Sam Harris. Because without enough of these fellows we will see the bricks and the riots and real violence. Do you even free speech Bro? That is the dividing line, for me.

    So if anyone can explain the passionate rejections of the celebs who are not alt-right but who are accused of being alt-right, that would help me. In my view we need them, and, they are useful. Finding the alt-right requires rethinking a series of "facts" we learned from Progressive in school and Hollywood. It takes time. So the alt-light people can be seen as stepping stones on the good path. That's my perspective. Change my mind.

    Cheers-

    ReplyDelete
  9. I found Peterson to be what my stepson needed. I heard Peterson talk about how young men were desperate for someone to tell them they were doing the right things. My stepson has struggled since his mom's death in 2008. He's been angry and done some stupid things. He was getting involved with the wrong women and disrespecting his dad. So I got the 12 rules book and sent it to him. We haven't talked about it, but I do think it helped. He's dad to a one year old baby boy. The mom is just the type of woman I hoped he'd find, one that loves him and wants to make this work. While he hasn't cleared up all the problems caused by his bad choices, he's making progress.

    I don't know if Peterson is an ally or not, but I do think there is a place for his opinions. I also think he can reach people in a positive way and make a difference.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my blog post. I look forward to hearing what you think!

F.B.

Popular posts from this blog

The Forge of Tolkien

Marian Double Feature

On Tyranny: Alone of All Her Sex

Talking Points: Three Cheers for White Men

The Gen Z Guide to Becoming a Christian